[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.

Djinn wrote:

A lion is an unthinking animal that reacts on instinct. Iranians are people like you or me capable of complex thought. That's a terrible comparison.

Yeah, clearly the comparison is backward. Iranians are people capable of complex thought. The unthinking animal that reacts on instinct is the President of the United States.

Edit: okay...

Only Trump could do something this idiotic and the *other* side comes out if it looking like a bad guy. I'm surprised they didn't find Hillary's server in the wreckage. We don't need their oil, we just need to figure out how to turn Trump's luck into energy and we could power half the country.

Reaper81 wrote:

Iraqi parliment votes to expel US forces.

Checkmate, Iran!

I was watching the talking heads this morning and a conservative Trump head stated that there was no way Iraq would vote out Americans. No way, you guys!

We're occupiers with who *really* care!

IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EN7jVrKXUAAwgRS?format=jpg&name=medium)

OG_slinger wrote:
Reaper81 wrote:

Iraqi parliment votes to expel US forces.

Checkmate, Iran!

I was watching the talking heads this morning and a conservative Trump head stated that there was no way Iraq would vote out Americans. No way, you guys!

We're occupiers with who *really* care!

IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EN7jVrKXUAAwgRS?format=jpg&name=medium)

"There does, however, need to be a coversation between the U.S. and Iraqi governments not just regarding security, but about our financial, economic, and diplomatic partnership."

"Nice country yous guys got here. It would be a shame if something were to happen to it..."

JeffreyLSmith wrote:
"There does, however, need to be a coversation between the U.S. and Iraqi governments not just regarding security, but about our financial, economic, and diplomatic partnership."

"Nice country yous guys got here. It would be a shame if something were to happen to it..."

Or it has something to do with Trump saying last weekend :"We've spent a lot of money in Iraq. We have a very extraordinarily expensive air base that’s there. It cost billions of dollars to build. ... We’re not leaving unless they pay us back for it."

Trump never specifically said which airbase he's referring to, but most experts say it was the Ayn al Asad Airbase. The Iraqis built it in the 80s...

When I see crap like this, it makes me think the Iranians might be onto something with calling Israel a "crusader state".

https://twitter.com/neoliberal_dad/s...

JeffreyLSmith wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
Reaper81 wrote:

Iraqi parliment votes to expel US forces.

Checkmate, Iran!

I was watching the talking heads this morning and a conservative Trump head stated that there was no way Iraq would vote out Americans. No way, you guys!

We're occupiers with who *really* care!

IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EN7jVrKXUAAwgRS?format=jpg&name=medium)

"There does, however, need to be a coversation between the U.S. and Iraqi governments not just regarding security, but about our financial, economic, and diplomatic partnership."

"Nice country yous guys got here. It would be a shame if something were to happen to it..."

I am sorry if I missed this in thread but this was released because the Iraqi PM specifically reached out to the US government and Pompeo to discuss the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq.

We said no.

Shorter that letter:

I will say that we do a lot for [Iraq]. We spend a lot of effort and a lot of time. Much more than the European countries are doing and they should be helping you more than they are. Germany does almost nothing for you. When I was speaking with Angela Merkel she talks [Iraq], but she doesn't do anything. A lot of European countries are the same way so I think it's something you want to look at but the United States has been very very good to [Iraq]. I wouldn't say it's reciprocal necessarily because things are happening that are not good but the United States has been very very good to [Iraq].

Buried in last night's Wall Street Journal article about how Trump's new national security team are basically toady yes-men...

Trump’s New National Security Team Made Fast Work of Iran Strike

WSJ wrote:

President Trump and his senior national-security advisers waited anxiously in the White House Situation Room Tuesday night after intelligence warnings that Iranian missiles would hit two bases the U.S. military uses in Iraq.

When it became clear Iran had inflicted no casualties, there was relief, according to administration officials.

At a press conference the following morning, the president spoke of new sanctions on Iran but no new military strike, moving the two longtime antagonists, for the moment, back from the brink of war.

Days earlier, the U.S. had killed the leader of the foreign wing of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

The speed at which events unfolded shows the influence of the new team of senior national-security and military advisers now surrounding the president.

The group, including new Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley and new national security adviser Robert O’Brien, along with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, backed the president’s decision to kill the top Iranian military commander and moved swiftly to carry it out.

The new team was cohesive and less inclined than its predecessors to push back against the president’s wishes, according to administration officials and others consulted by the White House. They also were less likely to consult in advance with other administration, Pentagon or State Department officials, congressional leaders or foreign allies, some of these officials said.

The targeted killing of Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani is the most decisive military action of Mr. Trump’s first term, and removes a longtime enemy of the U.S.

Now the national-security team must manage the consequences. Those include the disruption of the U.S.-led campaign against Islamic State militants in Iraq and demands by Shiite politicians that the 5,300 U.S. troops leave the country altogether. Still another challenge is Iran’s decision to lift limits on uranium enrichment and take yet another step back from the 2015 Iran nuclear accord, which Europe, Russia and China want to preserve but the Trump administration has disowned.

Mr. Trump’s supporters say the Soleimani killing resulted in a weaker adversary that has so far made only a token response, and gives the U.S. potentially greater diplomatic leverage with Tehran to roll back Iranian power in the region, curtail its missile program and halt Tehran’s nuclear program.

The move has stoked some dissent on Capitol Hill. The White House’s failure to consult more broadly with members of Congress has strengthened support for measures that would limit further military action against Iran without congressional authorization. The Democratic-controlled House passed a largely symbolic resolution Thursday that would require Congress’s authorization for such action except to defend the U.S.

More broadly, the strike on Gen. Soleimani has changed U.S. posture in the Mideast, with consequences likely to unfold over years.

In the past, Pentagon officials have highlighted the risks of taking military action they feared might spiral out of control and lead to retaliation against its troops in the Middle East. Mr. Trump himself has been conflicted about using force in a region where he has sought to shrink the American military footprint and avoid what he has called “endless wars.”

Though the Trump administration has previously included Iran hawks such as former national security adviser John Bolton, relations between the president’s senior advisers were frequently discordant, according to officials.

This time, senior advisers were more like-minded about directly confronting Iran after months of skirmishes with Iranian proxies, administration officials said. The drawback, some administration critics say, is that the team appears less willing to challenge Mr. Trump.

...

The way the strike was handled has drawn scrutiny from Democrats and some Republicans. Critics say the decision was hasty, considering the risk of all-out war. They also question whether the intelligence that prompted the action was as clear-cut and alarming as the White House has said, and see the move as doing little to further U.S. interests in the region.

Mr. Trump, after the strike, told associates he was under pressure to deal with Gen. Soleimani from GOP senators he views as important supporters in his coming impeachment trial in the Senate, associates said.

At first, White House officials said, there wasn’t unanimity among advisers over the wisdom of targeting Gen. Soleimani. Intelligence, however, pointed to the prospect—initially described as “imminent” by administration officials—of more Iranian-backed attacks on U.S. military personnel in the region, the officials said.

U.S. intelligence showed Gen. Soleimani would be visiting Baghdad on Jan. 2. Some officials had cautioned against targeting him there for fear of damaging relations with Iraq, where the U.S. and Iran are vying for influence.

The advisers argued for a strike when Gen. Soleimani was traveling near Baghdad International Airport and could be targeted without hitting Iraqi civilians and in a place where the U.S. largely controls the airspace.

That was one of “a few options” presented to Mr. Trump over the weekend after Christmas, all of which were all backed by the team, a senior defense official said. Other options may have been less provocative but would have resulted in more casualties, the official said. The final go-ahead was given to the Pentagon on Monday, Dec. 30, officials said. “The operation was planned very quickly,” said another U.S. official.

The planners didn’t follow the same consultation process used in previous strikes, according to officials.

Evidence of collusion right in the WSJ. Trump clearly assassinated a foreign dignitary to benefit himself during his impeachment.

And it still won't move the needle for a sizable number of Americans.

Well, glad to see that I was wrong in believing Iran’s pride and anger would require them to make some kind of dramatic, more serious attack. Unless of course the missile strike was just so they could get something done quickly to give them time for the real response to come.

What are the odds Suleimani was assassinated if Iran had nuclear weapons? I wonder if one of the main consequences is that Iranian leadership is now firmly resolved to develop them no matter the cost and how long it takes.

gewy wrote:

Well, glad to see that I was wrong in believing Iran’s pride and anger would require them to make some kind of dramatic, more serious attack. Unless of course the missile strike was just so they could get something done quickly to give them time for the real response to come.

It's probably going to be the "unless of course" option with one US official saying "If I were a U.S. ambassador, I wouldn’t be starting my own car for the foreseeable future."

I assume yall saw that Iran admitted to accidentally shooting down the plane? Surprising!

It's making the best of a bad situation. Now Iran doesn't have to visibly retaliate right away. Iran delaying their response doesn't look like weakness now. It looks like caution and decorum; you know--everything Trump's behavior does not.

It's a tragedy, but maybe one that has averted even greater losses of life in souring everyone on death and destruction long enough for this moment to pass.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

It's making the best of a bad situation.

It's more than that because everyone is going to compare it to America's shameful response to Iran Air Flight 655 where we never took responsibility.

That and it'll keep folks from trying to gain access to the area. This way it all goes away, more or less, and they've saved face.

OG_slinger wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

It's making the best of a bad situation.

It's more than that because everyone is going to compare it to America's shameful response to Iran Air Flight 655 where we never took responsibility.

Or Russia shooting down an airliner over Ukraine where they put out 14 competing disinformation theories.

Protests against the Ayatollahs are taking place in Iran right now

Students refuse to step on US & Israel flags at the Beheshti University entrance in Tehran
Pretty amazing footage all things considered.

It probably won't be long until they send the Revolutionary Guard.

When will the Iranian protests foment into something real? This has been going on for years and they keep suppressing it. The leadership blames America, Saudi Arabia and others for this stuff but will they ever make concessions to their people?