" Addressing the British Parliament in 1982, President Ronald Reagan outlined a plan for placing the Soviet Union and Marxism-Leninism on the "ash heap of history." It is an objective President Trump might pursue against the mullahs in Iran, who are subsidizing terrorism in the Middle East and threatening to export it elsewhere.

The latest military and verbal volleys between the United States and Iran started when a branch of the Hezbollah terrorist group (called "militants" by some reporters), attacked the American Embassy in Baghdad. Unlike the 2012 terrorist assaults in Benghazi, Libya, during which U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Information Officer Sean Smith and two CIA operatives -- Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, both former Navy SEALs -- were killed while President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton did little, President Trump sent in the Marines.

The Baghdad incident followed U.S. airstrikes that killed 25 militia members, whom the U.S. had claimed were responsible for the death of an American contractor. New U.S. airstrikes near Baghdad airport killed Qassem Soleimani, leader of Iran's elite Quds Force.

This prompted a response from Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, who said, Iran and other "free nations in the region" will take revenge on the United States. The only "free nation" in the region is Israel, which Iran has promised to destroy.

In terms of a focused verbal response, it is hard to beat what Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., said: "This is very simple: General Soleimani is dead because he was an evil b*stard who murdered Americans. The President made the brave and right call, and Americans should be proud of our service members who got the job done. Tehran is on edge -- the mullahs have already slaughtered at least a thousand innocent Iranians -- and before they lash out further they should know that the U.S. military can bring any and all of these IRGC butchers to their knees."

The policy of the United States (and other truly free nations) -- whether declared or undeclared -- should be to destroy the dictatorial and murderous Iranian regime. The fiction of "moderates" embedded among Iranian leaders is just that. The West has long engaged in self-delusion, believing that somewhere within radical Islam there are flowers of freedom just waiting to bloom if only they are watered and fertilized properly, because doesn't everyone want to be free?

It depends on the definition of "freedom," which means different things to different people.

The U.S. has again demonstrated it has the power to retaliate and kill evil people, but that doesn't solve the problem. The supply of these fanatics seems unlimited. They really believe if they are killed while killing others they will immediately ascend to Heaven where their god will dispense virgins and figs.

Sanctions are helping but sanctions are not enough. An invasion will not work and would be bloody. Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons it would likely use to threaten Israel and possibly U.S. forces in the region.

President Trump is demonstrating a toughness that was mostly absent in the Obama and Clinton administrations when it came to Iran. Obama, who released $400 million plus $1.3 billion in interest payments in cash the day after U.S. hostages were released by the regime, may have had the legal right to do so under a previous agreement with Tehran, but it looked to many like ransom money and to the Muslim world like weakness.

Tyrants and bullies count on the weakness and indecisiveness of their adversaries. The Soviet Union lost its battle for worldwide domination (though China is seeking to fill that void) because the goal of Reagan was to assign it to history's ash heap. President Trump should make sure Iran's mullahs are added to the pile. "

For  " Trump's Angels  "  fans    ...... by popular request a Lil' Wednesday Afternoon Eye Candy   ...  RB  [  ' Terrifyingly Fast  '  with High IQ and fifteen typing hands   ]  :

" President Trump often talks about leaving the Middle East, getting out of "endless wars" and spending our resources here at home under a policy of "America First."

So it was quite a moment when, on Sunday night, he threatened to impose "very big sanctions" on Iraq if the Iraqi parliament follows through on its nonbinding resolution to oust American forces from its soil. "We will charge them sanctions like they've never seen before, ever," Trump said. "It'll make Iranian sanctions look somewhat tame."

If you're trying to follow along from home, this is a perfectly understandable moment to say, "Wait, what? Isn't that a complete flip?"

The key word here is "moment." That's where Trump lives: in the moment.

You wouldn't think Don from Queens could be so zen, but it is what it is. He consistently says he wants to extricate the U.S. from Mideast conflicts. Except for all the times he doesn't.

With each about-face, his defenders and detractors rush to debate the theory behind the policy change, when there is none.

We should be used to it by now. Trump has told us time and time again: He leads with his gut, listens to his instincts, keeps people guessing and goes with the flow. "I prefer to come to work each day and just see what develops," he says in his ghostwritten autobiography "The Art of the Deal."

To expect intellectual consistency from Trump is like expecting a dog to meow. It's not in his nature.

Trump has made it clear he doesn't care for extensive preparation or briefing papers. He likes to go into summits unencumbered by such things, relying instead on his ability to read the room. ("It's worse than you can imagine," former economic adviser Gary Cohn has said. "Trump won't read anything -- not one-page memos, not the brief policy papers, nothing.")

When Trump announced he was pulling U.S. troops out of Syria last fall, there was no policy development behind it, according to sources familiar with the event. He had a phone conversation with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and made the decision on the fly. Erdogan told Trump that he had to make way for Turkish troops because NATO allies cannot fight each other.

Aides and advisers were appalled but couldn't convince Trump to reverse course -- until they told him about some oil wells we'd be leaving behind. Having talked for years about "taking the oil" as recompense for Middle East military interventions, he changed course again. Had he read his briefing papers, he'd have known about the marginally significant oil wells already. He'd also have known we didn't have to do Erdogan's bidding.

But that's how Trump governs, from one moment to another, responding to stimuli from conversations, TV shows and his own mood. (In a deposition years ago, he admitted that his estimate of his net worth changes with how he feels about himself on any given day.)

It's the difference between long-term investing and day trading. Most presidents try to follow a consistent line of policy, philosophy or both. Trump is a man of dots -- scattershot moments connected only by Trump's authorship of them. He has a few core convictions ("tariffs are good," "get the oil," etc.), a love of praise and a desire to collect disparate "wins" he can use as talking points.

Thus, you can be sure he will simultaneously campaign on pulling troops out of the Middle East and sending them in, in the same way he boasts about lowering trade barriers and raising them. Consistency is in the eye of the beholder, not the man.

This leaves observers, at home and abroad, to connect the dots on their own. His fans see three-dimensional chess, or, when that won't fly, they see the "real" Trump being manipulated by sinister forces. His most ardent foes see, well ... lots of different things. The Iranians, for example, made the mistake of believing Trump's rhetoric about getting out of the Middle East and its endless wars.

Over the last six months, Iran committed one outrageous and provocative act after another, and the Trump administration did little in response, because the Magic 8-ball that is Trump's gut said, "Ask Again Later." Then, suddenly, the president changed his mind and seized a new moment, opting for a massive escalation by killing Qassem Suleimani, Iran's most important general. Trump's reasoning might have been, as the White House alleges, to avert imminent threats. Or it might have been because he wanted to change media coverage, or influence the impeachment process, or because he had bad clams for lunch.

Until we find out how Iran responds -- and how Trump responds to that response -- the wisdom of his decision depends entirely on which dots you connect from his presidency so far. But for Trump, it was just another moment. "