Well, Trump wasn’t kidding when he sent this tweet two days ago.

….Iran will be held fully responsible for lives lost, or damage incurred, at any of our facilities. They will pay a very BIG PRICE! This is not a Warning, it is a Threat. Happy New Year!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 31, 2019

Now we’ve gotten news that we retaliated against Iran in a way no one thought possible, namely killing Qassem Soleimani, their top military leader. If you know anything about Soleimani’s history, he was a brutal, evil man who stoked war all over the Middle East for decades. He tortured people, killed Americans, and most recently sought to install an Iranian puppet government in Iraq. The recent attack on the U.S. Embassy was directly propagated by Soleimani and his militias.

He was in Baghdad after the attack assuming he was untouchable because every prior U.S. President who dealt with him was too scared to take him out. Trump showed the world he’s not to be screwed with, and now it’s Iran’s move.

You’d think this would be a time of celebration for all Americans, but nah, liberals are losing their minds as per usual.

By what legal authority can US forces kill the head of Iran's Quds Force?
Does @realDonaldTrump realize the import of this?

— Barbara Slavin (@barbaraslavin1) January 3, 2020

The legal authority is that Soleimani was leading an attack on a U.S. interest from a foreign country. Further, the IRGC was designated a terrorist organization, meaning we have every legal right to kill members of said group. Trump certainly realizes the import of this and made the decision that it was time to stop Iran’s continued aggression.

Others claimed that Trump committed an act of war.

https://twitter.com/dylanmatt/status/1212905890766053377

Iran is free to respond however they like, but this was not a technical “act of war.” Soleimani was a member of a terrorist organization, was in a foreign country, and tried to kill Americans as recently as Tuesday of this week. The U.S. would have been remiss to not respond and respond we did.

Matthews also falls on his face attempting to compare Gen. Petraeus to Soleimani. Last I checked, Petraeus wasn’t leading terrorist militias and chopping people’s heads off for show. There’s also the fact that Iran is not the United States. The rules are simply different when you are the most powerful nation on earth. Soleimani should have thought about that before pitching his tent in Bahgdad and trying to destroy an American embassy.

Other takes revolve around the idea that Trump can’t handle the coming Iranian response.

One option: pic.twitter.com/JjcgNCmtH0

— Seth Mandel (@SethAMandel) January 3, 2020

If the United States is meant to cower before Iran, allowing someone like Soleimani to attack us without repercussions, then we might as well just pack things up now. I suspect any “backlash” is overblown, though should certainly be taken seriously. Iran is bankrupt and their people have turned against the regime. They don’t have the resources to wage a full-scale war with the United States. My guess is that they’ll rattle their sabers, try to hit us with some more isolated attacks, and then we’ll smash them again.

Meanwhile, The Washington Post got a head start on stupid descriptions of Soleimani.

Breaking news: Airstrike at Baghdad airport kills Iran’s most revered military leader, Qasem Soleimani, Iraqi state television reports https://t.co/NbZW4DaWvD

— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) January 3, 2020

It’s not quite “austere religious scholar,” but it’s still pretty bad. Normal people wouldn’t describe a murderous maniac as “revered,” but our media does because they have to figure out a way to spin this as a negative. In reality, they are just mad Obama never had the stones to do this himself.

https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1212914787836977152

Good riddance, indeed.