Fox News ran a piece on this, as did CNN, who oddly enough, reported this accurately. In fact, CNN's piece actually hit it out of the park, at least with this section of their piece:
Trump's own dilemma was met by a near unanimous national security team who felt the US should retaliate for a downed drone by striking Iranian targets. For the President, though, the answer was far from obvious - ultimately he pulled the plug on military strikes, minutes before the point of no return.Fox News' piece got into some more of the details (emphasis added):
But a senior US official said throughout the process, Trump was very invested and very serious. He very much understood that the military could not predict for him what the Iranian response to a US strike might be and it remains a significant administration concern not to start a wider war.
Military officials are pleased Trump didn't order the strike because of this uncertainty. At the end of the day, many said they believe these Iranian attacks on tankers and the drone are basically a message that Iran wants to talk and they have been telling the President this.
President Trump revealed a remarkable level of detail Friday about the tense moments leading up to his split-second decision to call off a retaliatory strike on Iran for the downing of a U.S. drone - saying he was worried about the casualties and "didn't think it was proportionate."
"I didn't like it," he said in an interview with NBC.
The president said he quizzed his generals before the planes would have taken off on how many people would be killed, and was told approximately 150 Iranians could die.
"I thought about it for a second and said: You know what? They shot down an unmanned drone...and here we are sitting with 150 dead people that would have taken place probably within half an hour after I said go ahead," he said.
The interview came hours after he tweeted at length about Thursday's decision-making, saying the U.S. was "cocked & loaded to retaliate" with plans to hit three sites, but he reversed course after asking military leaders about how many would be killed.
"... I asked, how many will die. 150 people, sir, was the answer from a General. 10 minutes before the strike I stopped it, not ... proportionate to shooting down an unmanned drone. I am in no hurry, our Military is rebuilt, new, and ready to go, by far the best in the world," Trump said.
Of course, the usual hawks in Congress were unable to get past their own programming, for want of a better word, insisting that a response like this would make America appear indecisive or weak. From Fox:
Trump's strike nix generated mixed reaction on the Hill, with hawkish Republicans expressing concern that a lack of response could make the U.S. look weak.However, this is simply the same point of view that got the US forces mired down in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria, fighting wars with one hand or both hands tied behind their backs, unable to win, and with no clear objective about why we would fight in the first place. President Trump used his brain. What could have been was not important. The drone was unmanned. Maybe an appropriate response would be to send the Iranians a bill for the cost of the drone, but not much more.
"To shoot down a $200 million plane the size of an airliner that could have easily had 35 people on it, there needs to be a response. Am I disappointed today? Yes," Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., told Fox News.
"Ultimately it will be 'is there a reaction?' And if there is I think that's fine. But if there's not a reaction and we think we can negotiate then I think it will be a bad move," he said.
Asked if he feared the president could look weak, he said: "I think there's certainly a risk, yes."
Further, the whole scope of Iran's recent bellicose rhetoric is to try to force some sort of change in the bind that country is in.
Iran is apparently feeling the brunt of very tough sanctions, brought about by the US because of the behavior of the Iranian government even when the flawed JCPoA was in force. The US withdrew from this agreement, claiming that it gives Iran everything it wants, just a bit more slowly, and is no real vehicle to peace. Iran's reaction to this was bellicose rhetoric, which is seen in some circles as proof that the US point of view was actually correct. After all, a nation truly interested in peace would not make threats under such a circumstance.
While there is no express sign the Iranians are interested in talking, there are signs that indirectly show that something may be getting ready to dislodge:
- Iran tried to threaten all of the other signatories of its JCPoA to pressure the US to back off the sanctions, by saying it will exceed its nuclear feel allowance in just a few days from now
- Iran conducted a strike on the unmanned US drone, but Al-Jazeera notes that they also admitted to deciding not to strike a manned aircraft in the vicinity of the drone.
- Iran has not done anything since the drone strike except posture
In this regard, certainly, many people can debate about whether or not the sanctions and the US overall treatment of Iran is right or wrong in the first place. But there is a point where reality comes ahead of anybody's notions of justice, because those notions sometimes cause more problems than they fix.
It would appear that both Iran's leaders and the US president see this, because both sides have exercised restraint.
President Trump's attitude and response is probably about the best any American president's could be in such a situation. Sure, we can strike if we have to, and if we do, look out - you will lose. But we know that, you know that, so let's not do it. This seems to be the message that President Trump is offering to the Iranians.
Many media outlets are still trying to play up the "tension" between the two countries, but the reality may actually be quite different. Tensions? Sure. But there is nothing worth going to war over, and it appears at this time like both sides see this.
This may be overly optimistic, but perhaps the real news is not how close we are to a war, but how close we are to a real breakthrough. The significance of President Trump's decision not to strike back is major news, and it is probable that it may in fact be one of the biggest stories regarding US foreign policy in recent history.
Could it be because the US withdrew from the UN approved Iran Nuclear Deal all sides say Iran is following, and unilaterally imposed illegal US Economic Sanctions/Economic War on Iran designed to destroy the Iranian Economy supporting it's 80 MILLION people before having to resort to bombs?
Could it be because the US organized an anti-Iran Foreign Ministers meeting in Poland in February, and Israel's Netanyahu was the only head of government to attend, leading the charge for War with Iran?
Could it be because the US, at the request of Israel's Netanyahu, designated Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization?
Could it be because the so called Intelligence Iran was planning to attack US forces in Iran's part of the world, so far from the US Homeland, came from Israel?
The US takes all these aggressive actions against Iran, and the US Military wonders why Iran is reacting to the increasingly hostile US stance?
Is the US Military that stupid and clueless? The US is so deluded in it's self-proclaimed exceptionalism.
Curious the Americans chose the biggest drone in it's inventory, having a wingspan as big as a Boeing Airliner. There would be no doubt Iran would see it on the way to their territorial Waters and airspace. I believe the Pentagon is lying in this situation and the Iranians shot it down after entering Sovereign Iranian territory. The Iranians didn't know if it was armed or not and destroyed it in a legitimate Defensive measure.
I think the US sent it's biggest drone to bait the Iranians to see how far they would go if push came to shove. The Iranians showed the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia Axis if it comes to shove, be prepared for the unexpected consequences of the War they're pushing for with Iran.
With the US rhetoric and actions, the Iranians know Trump is following the same 2001 US WAR PLAN to re-make the Middle East in Israeli-US interests.
That US WAR PLAN called for regime change in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and at THE END, Iran. Iran has had a long Time to prepare for the 2001 US WAR PLAN.
Republican Bush did Iraq in 2003, a year after Israel;s Netanyahu appealed to the US Congress with these words September 12, 2002, " If YOU take out Saddam, Saddam's regime, I GUARANTEE YOU that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region, The reverberations of what will happen with the collapse of Saddam's regime, could very well cause an implosion in a neighbor regime like Iran"
[Link]
Iran didn't implode. It increased influence in it's own part of the World with the illegal 2003 US invasion of Iraq.
God didn't listen to Netanyahu but Americans do.
Netanyahu spoke to a Joint Session of the US Congress in 2015, getting standing ovations by delirious, non-partisan, Republicans and Democrats, calling for the US to reject the Iran Nuclear deal.
Trump withdrew from the Iran Nuclear Deal on May 8 last year.
What will be the consequences for the US Economic War Trump announced against Iran designed to destroy the Iranian Economy supporting it's 80 MILLION people before having to resort to bombs? Designating Iran's Military as a terrorist Organization at Netanyahu's request brings dropping the bombs closer
Netanyahu is meddling in US internal affairs in Public, that can be seen.
Netanyahu was the only head of government to attend the US organized anti-Iran Foreign Ministers meeting in Warsaw, leading the charge for War with Iran.
Wasn't Iraq enough? Will Americans be stupid enough to be fooled by Netanyahu a 2nd Time, leading the US to War with Iran?