Select Page

HORIST: Iran has “concluded” its retaliation. NOT!

HORIST: Iran has “concluded” its retaliation.  NOT!

The panicked Chicken Littles on the left are breathing a cautious sigh of relief when Iran’s retaliation for the killing of their number one terrorist leader has been a sort of bottle rocket attack on two of our military bases.  In an eye-for-an-eye world, Americans gouged out an eye and Iran responded by clipping a couple of toenails.

Whether Iran was using the firing of 15 ballistic missiles at our military basis was meant to be a symbolic gesture – designed to avoid further escalation – or whether their military is not very competent is the subject of political debate on Capitol Hill.  Some question how Iran, could fire so many deadly missiles and not kill anyone unless it was intentional – and on the other side people wonder how they could fire so many deadly  missiles and  not kill people even unintentionally.  In either case, it was far from a proportionate response.

For hometown consumption, Iran’s propaganda agency claimed the attack killed 35 Americans.  They obviously had to lie to make the attack look better than it was.  In these days of Internet and satellite communications, the people of Iran will not be fooled.

Of course, the attack and the false reports weres only the official response – something to warm the hearts of the radical elements on the home front.  This was not the proportionate response about which the folks in Tehran indignantly blustered.  In all likelihood, the real response will be seen in the weeks and months ahead – and it will come by way of one or more of Iran’s proxy terrorist groups.

As an official response, Iran uncharacteristically struck an American base from Irani soil, with Irani weapons – and they took credit for it.  They made sure that the official response was temperate so as not to force an even bigger retaliation from the United States. That probably means that President Trump scared the hell out of them.

Iran’s wimpy response was also designed to indicate to the world that they are really not so bad after all – and of course, Democrats and the American media took the bait.  The left-wingers were offering  up thanks and praise for the restrained response to Trump’s aggressive and provocative behavior – as they put it.  (Whose side are these folks on?  Oh, we know.)

Democrat Congressman Jason Crow, of Colorado, went so far as to declare that Qasem Soleimani was NOT a terrorist, but a state-based general of a foreign military.  He even objected to the designation of the Irani Republican Guard as a terrorist organization – seeing them as simply the military force of a foreign nation.

Someone needs to explain to Crow that the Republican Guard is NOT a functioning unit of the Irani government, but a quasi-independent paramilitary organization under the authority of the clerics – not the government.  It should also be noted that Soleimani – as head of the Guard – has created a network of terrorist organizations and cells throughout the world, making the Guard an integral part of that network.  Soleimani’s sole purpose was to mount terrorist attacks on western civilization.  That makes the Guard and Soleimani terrorists by any definition.

Future retaliation against the United States by Iran will be conflated with the normal program of terrorist attacks on the United States.  We have had thousands of little ones and a number of big ones – the Marine barracks in Lebanon, the torpedoing of the USS Cole and 9/11, to name a few.  Soleimani has been the organizer and implementor of thousands of terrorist attacks in the past decades.  That is not the role of a military leader of a specific nation.  Iran has spent years sponsoring and exporting terrorism and Soleimani has been the primary exporter.

When a big one happens, Iran will deny all responsibility, Democrats will blame Trump and …  Well, the “and” is the question.  If Democrats are in charge, there will only be the call for more diplomacy.  If Trump is in charge, the air raid sirens might be heard in Tehran.

The killing of Soleimani will not entice Iran into bolder and more aggressive action.  They have been the number one state sponsor of terrorism since President Carter handed Iran over to the radical jihadist clerics.   Since 1979, “death to America” has been the national motto of Iran’s leaders.

Irani leaders say they do not want war, but they have been waging a jihadist war on America, Israel and western civilization for more than thirty years.  In all those 30 years, there has hardly been a day when America was not attacked in one way or another – including here in the United States.

We have become so accustomed to this simmering conflict that we actually delight that our bases in Iraq were hit with only 15 missiles and no one was killed.  But a lot of good soldiers have died in this ridiculously protracted terrorist war in the Middle East. In any rational time, the attack on our bases would have been a declaration of war and we should have responded with America’s terrible swift sword.

No one wants war, but it takes fools to believe that we must avoid war AT ANY COST.  No.  There are times that our national security and the freedom of the world are at stake.  Surrendering all that to avoid war with those who see their mission as controlling the world and eradicating their enemies is too high a cost.  We understood that in World War II – and the same principles should apply today.

One way to avoid a war is decisive responses to aggression.  President Reagan bombed the presidential palace in Libya when it was proven that they were responsible for the terrorist attack on the Olympics and the Lockerbie plane bombing.  After that, there was a measurable decline in international terrorism.

When Libya claimed the Gulf of Sidra in the Mediterranean Sea and sent jets out to harass US military ships in open waters, the fleet commander asked Reagan what he should do.  It is reported that Reagan answered, “You have guns, don’t you?”  Two Russian-made Libyan jets were shot down and there was no further claim to the open waters of the Mediterranean.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, the new Russian ambassador told me that Reagan’s action shook the folks in Moscow because there was no way of knowing if Russian pilots were flying those jets. It also taught the Russian leaders that they could not be belligerent with the new American President.

We do not have to enter into a full-blown world conflict.  Direct and firm responses can do the job.  It seems to have worked with Iran.  Killing Soleimani was not only a humanitarian act of justice, but it appears to have caused a lot of fear in Tehran.  Now we must make sure that they cannot hide behind those proxy groups.  America – and our allies – need to hit and hit hard whenever and wherever the terrorists attack.  And we have to hold Iran accountable when they are the behind-the-scenes perpetrator.

The way of the Washington diplomatic establishment is to ignore provocation and peddle the failed policy of endless and meaningless negotiations that have led to prolonged conflict.  They favorably compare the Bush and Obama decisions to not take out Soleimani to Trump’s decisive action.

They would rather prolong the simmering war – letting a tolerable number of soldiers and innocent civilians die along the way – rather than end it through demonstrable strength and determination.  As long as that is the policy, we will be engaged in this simmering warfare for the foreseeable future – and a lot more people will die needlessly.

So, there ‘tis.

About The Author

Larry Horist

So,there‘tis… The opinions, perspectives and analyses of Larry Horist Larry Horist is a businessman, conservative writer and political strategist with an extensive background in economics and public policy. Clients of his consulting firm have included such conservative icons as Steve Forbes and Milton Friedman. He has served as a consultant to the Nixon White House and travelled the country as a spokesman for President Reagan’s economic reforms. He has testified as an expert witness before numerous legislative bodies, including the U. S. Congress. Horist has lectured and taught courses at numerous colleges and universities, including Harvard, Northwestern, DePaul universities, Hope College and his alma mater, Knox College. He has been a guest on hundreds of public affairs talk shows, and hosted his own program, “Chicago In Sight,” on WIND radio. Horist was a one-time candidate for mayor of Chicago and served as Executive Director of the City Club of Chicago, where he led a successful two-year campaign to save the historic Chicago Theatre from the wrecking ball. An award-winning debater, his insightful and sometimes controversial commentaries appear frequently on the editorial pages of newspapers across the nation. He is praised by readers for his style, substance and sense of humor. According to one reader, Horist is the “new Charles Krauthammer.” He is actively semi-retired in Boca Raton, Florida where he devotes his time to writing. So, there ‘tis is Horist’s signature sign off.


  1. William Hardin

    One of the most insightful articles that I’ve read in a long time. America must show its might at all times to keep the savage dogs out of the yard. Reagan knew this and now we have a real leader that does as well.

    • bren n texas



    Democrats, like Muslims encourage lying to advance their agenda.
    Democrats are Democrats, Über Alles. Lying, Ignorance, Hate, Inappropriate sexual relationship, Deceiving, Obfuscating, attacking women, Jews, Muslims, Asian-Americans and African Americans, Prevaricators, Racism, Bribery, Hypocrisy, Antisemitism, misleading, Plagiarism, Perjurers, Communists, all Democrat résumé enhancements.

  3. Wow

    Grizz Mann has described the Democrats exactly what they really are anti-American always stick with the worst of humanity!!!!

  4. Tom Oakley

    Irans lucky they didn’t kill anyone at those bases,it would have been the reason for wiping them off the face of the earth.

  5. Rawhide

    Muslims are notorious for being poor shots with missiles or any other weapon. Look at the Iraq-Iran war, neither side could hit their targets, even if it were only a few feet away. I’m not sure if it were faulty equipment or a mental problem, neither side could fire missiles and hit their targets. The targeting of our airbases in Iraq is an example of their failing to be effective in their targeting. When they shoot rifles, they use the spray and pray method, they shoot a lot of bullets and pray they his something. Whereas we use the aimed method and use less ammo.

    • Joe Gilbertson

      In Lebanon, the soldiers would stick their guns up above their cover barrier and fire without looking. It was much more dangerous to be a civilian than to be the actual target in a running battle.

  6. Laura Wagner

    From what read, the Swiss ambassador carried a message from the POTUS to the leaders of Iran and let them know that Trump doesn’t want a war, but that if Tehran even twitched wrong… I’m wondering if the Ukranian jet that they shot down was deliberate.

  7. Dan Tyree

    I noticed that the commiecrats seem to like the rag heads better than American people