[Discussion] US-Iran

Any developments in the potential conflict between the United States and Iran go here, as well as discussion and reasonable good faith debate.

Mixolyde wrote:
Djinn wrote:

'We're going to war, bro': Fort Bragg's 82nd Airborne deploys to the Middle East

I think it's safe to say that even Trump isn't crazy enough to want a real war in the Middle East, so I'm going to assume -- hope -- this deployment of troops is just sabre-rattling.

Trump has said over and over he doesn't want war, and campaigned on ending the wars Obama couldn't. He probably thinks he can continue to do targeted strikes/assassinations forever and not get into a real war.

Trump got a giant f*cking boner when he got to bomb Syria. His warped mind doesn't give the slightest of f*cks about human life, if it means he gets to play kaboom.

The simple fact that Trump said he doesnt want a war makes it likely he'll start a war.

He is so incompetent that he does not realize what goes around comes around. The more he does it, he is only calling his own actions back upon himself quicker. The Republican party can protect him from repercussions in the U.S. but they cannot protect him from foreign repercussions. Kidnapping, bombing, RPG's and the like still happen overseas more often than we'd like to admit. An engaged Iran would make them far more common and successful.

fangblackbone wrote:

He is so incompetent that he does not realize what goes around comes around. The more he does it, he is only calling his own actions back upon himself quicker. The Republican party can protect him from repercussions in the U.S. but they cannot protect him from foreign repercussions. Kidnapping, bombing, RPG's and the like still happen overseas more often than we'd like to admit. An engaged Iran would make them far more common and successful.

Yet another reason you should never elect anyone over 60. He will likely be dead long before we get done paying for this sh*t.

Mixolyde wrote:

Trump has said over and over he doesn't want war, and campaigned on ending the wars Obama couldn't. He probably thinks he can continue to do targeted strikes/assassinations forever and not get into a real war.

Trump has proven over and over that what he says is meaningless noise, and he'll do the opposite at the drop of a hat.

fangblackbone wrote:

He is so incompetent that he does not realize what goes around comes around. The more he does it, he is only calling his own actions back upon himself quicker. The Republican party can protect him from repercussions in the U.S. but they cannot protect him from foreign repercussions. Kidnapping, bombing, RPG's and the like still happen overseas more often than we'd like to admit. An engaged Iran would make them far more common and successful.

I've been weirdly nervous about posting / saying it out loud but I think the smartest move for Iran is to fund US White Nationalists groups. It damages the US at home with almost no blowback for them.

Don't worry, reasonably sure Russia is already on that.

Iran's parliament approves bill designating all U.S. military forces as terrorists

CBS News wrote:

The Iranian parliament approved bill on Tuesday that designates United States military forces as terrorists, days after American airstrikes killed top Iranian military leader General Qassem Soleimani in Iraq. The bill is similar to the action the U.S. took last year when the Trump administration designated Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a foreign terrorist organization.

Members of parliament passed the bill declaring the U.S. military and the Pentagon terrorist entities, according to Iranian state media. Under the bill, the Iranian government will also provide $220 million to the IRGC to "reinforce its defense power in vengeance for General Soleimani's assassination," the news agency reported, as tensions between the U.S. and Iran rise.

Mixolyde wrote:

Trump has said over and over he doesn't want war, and campaigned on ending the wars Obama couldn't.

This is the more important part, not Trump's position on war itself. His opposition to the existing wars was mostly two parts: his transactional worldview where we simply weren't getting a good enough deal for our involvement; and his opposition to literally anything and everything Obama did or didn't do. Obama couldn't end the wars, so Trump will. That's it. It's not a coherent foreign policy or philosophy.

He'll happily start a war if he thinks he'll get something out of it. And in this case, he stands to gain quite a bit from a war.

f*ck

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran state TV says Tehran has launched “tens” of surface-to-surface missiles at Iraq’s Ain Assad air base housing U.S. troops over America’s killing of a top Iranian general.

State TV described it early Wednesday as Tehran’s revenge operation over the killing of Revolutionary Guard Gen. Qassem Soleimani.

They haven't announced any casualties have they?

So where are we going to run to? Kuwait?

SallyNasty wrote:

They haven't announced any casualties have they?

Not that I’ve seen.

The Pentagon has confirmed that more than a dozen missiles were launched at US bases, but still no details on causalities.

This’ll be a sh*t show...

The White House is making plans for President Trump to address the nation tonight
From CNN's Jeff Zeleny
As President Trump confers with his top advisers tonight at the White House, aides are making urgent preparations at this hour for him to address the nation after Iran fired missiles at US forces in Iraq.

The specific timing of the address is still to be determined — and could be delayed, as information is being gathered — but two officials tell CNN that a speech is being prepared and plans are being made for Trump to speak tonight from the Oval Office.

JC wrote:

This’ll be a sh*t show...

The White House is making plans for President Trump to address the nation tonight
From CNN's Jeff Zeleny
As President Trump confers with his top advisers tonight at the White House, aides are making urgent preparations at this hour for him to address the nation after Iran fired missiles at US forces in Iraq.

The specific timing of the address is still to be determined — and could be delayed, as information is being gathered — but two officials tell CNN that a speech is being prepared and plans are being made for Trump to speak tonight from the Oval Office.

He'll either capitulate and pull everyone out of the mideast... or he'll nuke Tehran.

So apparently as of now there will be no Oval Office address. And so far no tweets.

Edit: A tweet claiming "All's well" and apparently both Lindsey Graham and Sean Hannity are advocating blowing up Iran's major oil refineries, so I guess that's what's going to happen next.

Trump tweeted this:

IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ENug2idU0AAvp1K?format=png&name=small)

While Iran's Foreign Minister Javad Zarif tweeted:

"Iran took & concluded proportionate measures in self-defense under Article 51 of UN Charter targeting base from which cowardly armed attack against our citizens & senior officials were launched.

We do not seek escalation or war, but will defend ourselves against any aggression."

EDIT: And now it's being reported that a Boeing 737 bound for Ukraine crashed after taking off from Iran's Imam Khomeini International Airport due to technical issues. There were 180 people aboard.

A Ukrainian 737. Can't make this sh*t up.

It's starting to feel like the last season of Game of Thrones, with the writers obviously getting desperate to throw together all the old favourites from previous seasons no matter how little sense it makes or how many ridiculous coincidences it requires.

Historically, starting a war was a sure-fire way to boost approval ratings as people rallied around the President. At least in the first few months. But we've seen so many historical trends buckled in this Trump era regarding the effects of news on polls that it remains to be seen this time.

First of all, what is the effect of a potential escalation of conflict on your 100% polarized voters? And one difference with the Iraq war was that the Bush administration massaged public opinion for over a year with their lies about WMD's and 'spreading democracy'. While it's not news that Trump hates Iran because Obama struck a deal with them, the assasination was very much an ad hoc thing.

I know it's a big no-no to say positive things about Trump here but removing Soleimani is potentially a very good thing.

People can downplay Soleimani's role or play with definitions around him being a terrorist but in fact he was one of the most dangerous people in the Middle East and one of the biggest exporters of Jihad, Islamic Revolution and terrorism in the region. Funding, training and commanding terror groups was all Soleimani. Iranian made rockets are really shot on civilians in Saudi Arabia by the Houtis from Yemen and by Islamic Jihad from Gaza into Israel. Hezbollah is being trained by Iran and Iranian weapons actually kill people in Syria. Peaceful protesters in Iraq (and in Iran) are being shot by Iranian snipers. It's not "ink being spilled", it's terrible things, actual terrorism that this man was responsible for.

I believe his removal wasn't a reckless move without any thought behind it, like some people claim. Trump's end goal is to bring Iran to the negotiation table and get a better nuclear deal. I don't know if it will work but the fact of the matter is that the Iranian response has been minimal so far (compared to what they could have done). Iraq (and probably the US) were warned of the attack and so far I haven't heard of any American casualties. It's hard for me to believe that we're heading into war. At the same time Khamenei can use the attack for internal public opinion in his own evil way.

sonny615 wrote:

I know it's a big no-no to say positive things about Trump here but removing Soleimani is potentially a very good thing.

People can downplay Soleimani's role or play with definitions around him being a terrorist but in fact he was one of the most dangerous people in the Middle East and one of the biggest exporters of Jihad, Islamic Revolution and terrorism in the region. Funding, training and commanding terror groups was all Soleimani. Iranian made rockets are really shot on civilians in Saudi Arabia by the Houtis from Yemen and by Islamic Jihad from Gaza into Israel. Hezbollah is being trained by Iran and Iranian weapons actually kill people in Syria. Peaceful protesters in Iraq (and in Iran) are being shot by Iranian snipers. It's not "ink being spilled", it's terrible things, actual terrorism that this man was responsible for.

I believe his removal wasn't a reckless move without any thought behind it, like some people claim. Trump's end goal is to bring Iran to the negotiation table and get a better nuclear deal. I don't know if it will work but the fact of the matter is that the Iranian response has been minimal so far (compared to what they could have done). Iraq (and probably the US) were warned of the attack and so far I haven't heard of any American casualties. It's hard for me to believe that we're heading into war. At the same time Khamenei can use the attack for internal public opinion in his own evil way.

I agree with you and don't. Let's assume everything above what I bolded is correct.

Trump only does things that benefit him and his interests. So it was another crazy smart move. Oil is up (frackers, Saudis and Russia are not sad about this). He said he would get out of Iraq. He just did by getting the US kicked out. Also who is even really talking about impeachment right now. Absolute distraction tactic.

Trump could give a f*ck about a nuclear deal. He just flirted with starting a war for all the other reasons that benefit him.

sonny615 wrote:

Trump's end goal is to bring Iran to the negotiation table and get a better nuclear deal.

You know full well that it's not.

What advocates of this aggressive posture with Iran either ignore or are ignorant to is that for better or worse, the Iranians are the ones providing both stability to Iraq and a countervailing force to Saudi Arabia's support for ISIS in the region as a whole. The fact that we (and Israel) have made our bed with the Saudis whose exportation of terrorism really DOES kill Americans is precisely the reason why we will never win this "war on terror".

dejanzie wrote:

Historically, starting a war was a sure-fire way to boost approval ratings as people rallied around the President. At least in the first few months. But we've seen so many historical trends buckled in this Trump era regarding the effects of news on polls that it remains to be seen this time.

First of all, what is the effect of a potential escalation of concflict on your 100% polarized voters? And one difference with the Iraq war was that the Bush administration massaged public opinion for over a year with their lies about WMD's and 'spreading democracy'. While it's not news that Trump hates Iran because Obama struck a deal with them, the assasination was very much an ad hoc thing.

Yeah, from what I've read, Trump's ratings should be WAY higher than they are when the public are as optimistic about the future of the economy as they are.

I know I know--I don't get it either about confidence in the economy, but every poll I read comes out that way.

Like you said, Trump bucks so many historical trends, and an incumbent president with approval ratings that low in a good economy is unheard of. There is of course the irredeemable deplorable part of his base, but the other part of his solid poll numbers are the people who haven't yet reached the point where they'll disapprove of a president in an economy this good.

I can't imagine those people think a war in the part of the world where the oil comes from is a good idea. Like you said, this hasn't been sold to the public, which ties into some other research I've seen. The reason the Democrats won so big in the midterms is because so many people were so scared of Trump. They were apathetic in 2016, but seeing him actually win freaked them all out. Something like Trump lashing out and possibly provoking a major war with no plan seems exactly like the kind of thing that will motivate voters fearful of Trump.

jowner wrote:
sonny615 wrote:

I know it's a big no-no to say positive things about Trump here but removing Soleimani is potentially a very good thing.

People can downplay Soleimani's role or play with definitions around him being a terrorist but in fact he was one of the most dangerous people in the Middle East and one of the biggest exporters of Jihad, Islamic Revolution and terrorism in the region. Funding, training and commanding terror groups was all Soleimani. Iranian made rockets are really shot on civilians in Saudi Arabia by the Houtis from Yemen and by Islamic Jihad from Gaza into Israel. Hezbollah is being trained by Iran and Iranian weapons actually kill people in Syria. Peaceful protesters in Iraq (and in Iran) are being shot by Iranian snipers. It's not "ink being spilled", it's terrible things, actual terrorism that this man was responsible for.

I believe his removal wasn't a reckless move without any thought behind it, like some people claim. Trump's end goal is to bring Iran to the negotiation table and get a better nuclear deal. I don't know if it will work but the fact of the matter is that the Iranian response has been minimal so far (compared to what they could have done). Iraq (and probably the US) were warned of the attack and so far I haven't heard of any American casualties. It's hard for me to believe that we're heading into war. At the same time Khamenei can use the attack for internal public opinion in his own evil way.

I agree with you and don't. Let's assume everything above what I bolded is correct.

Trump only does things that benefit him and his interests. So it was another crazy smart move. Oil is up (frackers, Saudis and Russia are not sad about this). He said he world get out of Iraq. He just did by getting the US kicked out. Also who is even really talking about impeachment right now. Absolute distraction tactic.

Trump could give a f*ck about a nuclear deal. He just flirted with starting a war for all the other reasons that benefit him.

I get what you're saying but it's really hard to tell.

People who oppose Trump will claim that all he does is trying to avoid impeachment, even at the cost of war.
This reminds me of the situation when Israel gets involved in a military operation and Netanyahu's opposition starts accusing him of dragging the country into war for his own personal benefit.

I'm not a supporter of Bibi but I really try to see the full weight and meaning of these things and understand that it's not always about internal politics. Sometimes tough decisions need to be made and military action is what it is - to eventually ensure the security of your people.

Surely Trump has done things and manipulations for his own benefit. In this particular case, however, I believe the greater good and the rightfulness of the action far outweighs any personal considerations Trump might have had.

Stengah wrote:
sonny615 wrote:

Trump's end goal is to bring Iran to the negotiation table and get a better nuclear deal.

You know full well that it's not.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

This wan't done just to distract from impeachment, it is hugely beneficial to Russia to have the US effectively kicked out of the Middle East. Even if we somehow avoid getting dragged into a war, we've lost any and all influence we had left. While Soleimani was unquestionably a "bad guy" to us, killing him, particularly in this way, was probably one of the worst things we could have done for our goals in the region.

sonny615 wrote:

I know it's a big no-no to say positive things about Trump here but removing Soleimani is potentially a very good thing.

I believe his removal wasn't a reckless move without any thought behind it, like some people claim. Trump's end goal is to bring Iran to the negotiation table and get a better nuclear deal. I don't know if it will work but the fact of the matter is that the Iranian response has been minimal so far (compared to what they could have done). Iraq (and probably the US) were warned of the attack and so far I haven't heard of any American casualties. It's hard for me to believe that we're heading into war. At the same time Khamenei can use the attack for internal public opinion in his own evil way.

So are you suggesting that the US assassinating this individual, apparently on a whim because they have yet to provide any details on the clear and present threats he exhibited to US interests, not to mention the collateral damage of killing the Iraqis that were in the car with him is ok?

Extrapolating this out, it's ok for the US to murder people rather than use diplomacy in order to achieve a "better deal?"

When in his lifetime has Trump exhibited ANY sort of strategic plan for ANYTHING? He's a walking manifestation of id and ego and, in the past, has been able to use his money to get himself out of whatever problem he may have caused.

How much longer are people going to perpetuate this idea that: Trump is a genius, we're just too stupid to see it?

Stengah wrote:

This wan't done just to distract from impeachment, it is hugely beneficial to Russia to have the US effectively kicked out of the Middle East. Even if we somehow avoid getting dragged into a war, we've lost any and all influence we had left. While Soleimani was unquestionably a "bad guy" to us, killing him, particularly in this way, was probably one of the worst things we could have done for our goals in the region.

Yup.

I am often surprised by how obtuse Americans can be regarding the cultural/political conflict that defines Iraq and the wider Middle East given how much we have invested and lost in it. The fact that the average American (and its political leadership) seems either uninterested or simply ignorant of the near existential conflict between the Sunnis and Shiites and what it means for Iraq, Yemen, Syria, and Lebanon goes a long way to explaining why we seem incapable of formulating coherent policies that move toward achievable and desirable outcomes.

2/3 of the Iraqi population are Shiites. They tolerated us because we deposed Saddam Hussein whose Sunni authoritarians controlled them with an iron fist. They love Iran because the Iranians supported them in their fight for liberation for 50+ years and have been instrumental in the reconstruction of their country in ways more effective than our own efforts to do so. They also despise the Saudis who continue to support ISIS and other forms of Sunni/wahabbist terrorism in their country and out of it.

Previous administrations have been very careful to respect a balance of power with an eye to maintaining influence in the region. That all ended last week. We have now made an enemy of the Shiites and with it have lost Iraq.