100 Marines to Baghdad (Iran conflict discussion)(Reopened & Merged) (1 Viewer)

[superchuck500]

We’re gonna try to stay on point in this one - .

After the Iranian admission of shooting down the Ukrainian 737, which was carrying 82 Iranian passengers, protests against the Supreme Leader have broken out.

The UK ambassador to Iran has been arrested for talking photos of the protests. President Trump has tweeted support for the protesters in English and Farsi.

 

[SystemShock]

Yeah, it is really crazy that the Iranians and Hezbollah are able to look like the adults in the room at this point By simply playing off Trump’s insane posturing.

And I agree, I was saying the other day that you have to imagine other adversaries are looking at this situation and concluding it makes no sense to trust America as an honest broker and that you are better off being North Korea than Libya or Iran.

The reality is, no one trusts the U.S. outside the U.S. Especially now. And I am not saying that to be edgy or to troll, it actually saddens me to say it. It is the potential financial gain from 300+ million consumers and huge corporations that proves to be just too tempting not to get in bed with the American devil.

 

[MT15]

Well back in '43... We didn't have people holding up photos sympathetic to a General that the US killed that had planned an attack against us. For US citizens to be sympathetic towards someone that plans harm against them is just beyond me.

you know, there were some of us who made assumptions about a group of kids on a trip to Washington a while ago, I was one who made an assumption about a kid based on my reading of his facial expression. When it turned out to be more nuanced, and my assumption proved incorrect, you guys were justifiably upset. It was just brought up again a few days ago, so I know this caused some outrage that still hasn’t been resolved.

Now we see you guys eagerly following down the same road - assuming from a picture and the look on her face that you know what she is thinking. And you have even posted a doctored photo, without making clear that it is doctored. We don’t even know this woman’s identity, but that hasn’t stopped people from assuming they know stuff about her. Or even speculating irresponsibly about who she is.

When we see a statement from her saying she sympathized with the general, then your and other‘s remarks are justified. Until then it’s reckless and inflammatory. In these divisive times, we need to be careful about ascribing motives to people without proof.

You and your conservative friends could at least try to learn from the mistakes of others, don’t you think? Why would you repeat the same mistakes you (collective you) castigate others for?

 

[Archies Ghost]

Operation Vengeance was conducted during a declared war and Yamamoto was a uniformed combatant in a combat zone.

Soleimani was a uniformed combatant in a combat zone where US troops are operating under AUMF.

I wouldn’t mind seeing the AUMF repealed but that isn’t going to stop Iranian efforts bait the US and certainly won’t happen before November.

 

[efil4]

The problem with escalating is that you need to have a clear objective of what you're trying to achieve and how far you're willing to go. I think Trump has been pretty consistent with not getting into a ground war in the Middle East, a stance I mostly support. That is the Iranian's assumption, they probably believe that while actions they take will provoke things like air strikes and so on, they probably believe that the US will not invade Iran unless they attack US territorial sites.

So, Iran is more likely going to have stronger political will in this conflict -- after all they can't actually leave Iran. They have no where else to go. The US has little political will for another long and expensive occupation, so Iran's calculus that the US won't invade is probably correct.

So, what does the strike on Soleimani give us? He was a major figure in planning attacks against Americans and American interests. It's not a bad thing to let Iranian leaders know that they can personally face US consequence instead of just their citizens. However, we also pissed off the Iraqis and it looks like we could lose access to Iraqi bases, and possibly airspace. That would make any future attacks against Iran a bit more difficult, and gives Iran more access to influence Iraq.

If it plays out that way - Iran continues to develop nuclear weapons, and we lose Iraqi bases, then Trump's strategy to escalate the situation with Iran would be a clear failure. If Iran eventually provides more access to UN inspectors than they had under the previous deal, and Iranian influence in Iraq is diminished, then it would be a success.

Thats the whole issue here...what is the end game? was it simply a show of force to rattle them? Objective completed if so.

But now you have galvanized a country that was pretty split before this strike. I cannot fathom that not one person in the WH sat down with anyone to say " ok....if we do this, it will cause _______". Thats what you are supposed to do.

Yet once again, Trump exhibits the "Ready. Fire. Aim" strategy. He is so impetuous and NO ONE inside that WH seems to care as well.

 

[superchuck500]

Thats the whole issue here...what is the end game? was it simply a show of force to rattle them? Objective completed if so.

But now you have galvanized a country that was pretty split before this strike. I cannot fathom that not one person in the WH sat down with anyone to say " ok....if we do this, it will cause _______". Thats what you are supposed to do.

Yet once again, Trump exhibits the "Ready. Fire. Aim" strategy. He is so impetuous and NO ONE inside that WH seems to care as well.

Trump doesn't need exit strategies - which is a corollary to end-game strategy so I don't think he has any need for end-game strategy either. His end game appears to be capitulation by Iran.

This threatening of "cultural sites" is gross and un-American. It's totally unnecessary to project US capability - and it certainly isn't going to scare anyone in Iran. But it abandons a long-held US tradition of avoiding intentional damage to cultural sites. It used to be something that made us different from authoritarian regimes. So it gains nothing and loses much . . . great job CIC.

 

[efil4]

Trump doesn't need exit strategies - which is a corollary to end-game strategy so I don't think he has any need for end-game strategy either. His end game appears to be capitulation by Iran.

This threatening of "cultural sites" is gross and un-American. It's totally unnecessary to project US capability - and it certainly isn't going to scare anyone in Iran. But it abandons a long-held US tradition of avoiding intentional damage to cultural sites. It used to be something that made us different from authoritarian regimes. So it gains nothing and loses much . . . great job CIC.

Its "bravado". Its a verbal sparring match with someone who has zero wit and intelligence so he resorts to over-the-top threats to make you think "omg he means business"

The problem with that bluff is that when you get called on it. If Iran does something in retaliation, he has two options...1 - carry out a war crime or 2. show the leaders of the rest of the world that your words and threats are meaningless and the power you project isnt as strong as you make it out to be.

Neither of which is good.

But this is where we are today. We elected a small child ( mental capacity ) to POTUS and our global relations are catching the brunt of his impetuous style.

 

[superchuck500]

This is a pretty fair piece here - yes, Trump acts primarily in his own political interest and his mid-East policy has been and will likely remain ineffective, but condemnation of US action as imperialist ignores the harm brought upon the region by Iran and its proxies, as well as intervention by Russia and China.

Soleimani is no anti-imperialist hero

And Trump’s reckless decision to assassinate him will not result in ‘World War III’.

www.aljazeera.com

 

[coldseat]

Trump turned that scumbag into a genuine martyr that now has the Iranian people galvanized and willing to go along with whatever their leaders decide to do. And now he's only digging a deeper hole with his threatening of cultural sights.

These "strategic" moves by the administration are stupid, but it's only going to get worse. They have no plan or purpose other than to continue on along a road of failed policies, if we can even call it that, and moves.

Every fear that those of use who voted against Trump had, has and is coming to fruition.

 

[efil4]

This is a pretty fair piece here - yes, Trump acts primarily in his own political interest and his mid-East policy has been and will likely remain ineffective, but condemnation of US action as imperialist ignores the harm brought upon the region by Iran and its proxies, as well as intervention by Russia and China.

Soleimani is no anti-imperialist hero

And Trump’s reckless decision to assassinate him will not result in ‘World War III’.

www.aljazeera.com

I think everyone is well aware of Irans influence and actions in the region. ( and proxies and allies ). But when you are basically the lone actor in the ME, it requires much more "heady" moves. A missile strike on an Iranian General does nothing but embolden the region and capitulation is now further back in the rear view mirror. Brute strength no longer moves the needle.

 

[superchuck500]

I think everyone is well aware of Irans influence and actions in the region. ( and proxies and allies ). But when you are basically the lone actor in the ME, it requires much more "heady" moves. A missile strike on an Iranian General does nothing but embolden the region and capitulation is now further back in the rear view mirror. Brute strength no longer moves the needle.

Of course, we must view all of this in the context of the US/Iran conflict. With Trump's withdrawal from the nuclear agreement and return to a war footing - with 'maximum pressure' and heavy sanctions - it was well anticipated that Iran would respond where it has capability to do so. We have seen some Iranian mischief in Hormuz but that's not really an option for Iran to retaliate in any ongoing fashion. We have seen Saudi oil facilities attacked - but Iranian activity in Iraq has been an ongoing mission for Tehran both in its objective of securing its greater influence in the region and in pulling Iraq away from the US.

And it appears that Iran is succeeding in Iraq. If Trump's policy ends up putting the US in a position of having to effectively abandon Iraq (in lieu of committing to a whole new chapter of US boots on the ground there), it would have been a substantial failure . . . particularly if the other components of the policy don't bring Iran to the table. Right now that appears highly unlikely.

 

[samiam5211]

And it appears that Iran is succeeding in Iraq. If Trump's policy ends up putting the US in a position of having to effectively abandon Iraq (in lieu of committing to a whole new chapter of US boots on the ground there), it would have been a substantial failure . . . particularly if the other components of the policy don't bring Iran to the table. Right now that appears highly unlikely.

I worry that we are heading towards a Baghdad version of the fall of Saigon.

 

[JimEverett]

This is a pretty fair piece here - yes, Trump acts primarily in his own political interest and his mid-East policy has been and will likely remain ineffective, but condemnation of US action as imperialist ignores the harm brought upon the region by Iran and its proxies, as well as intervention by Russia and China.

Soleimani is no anti-imperialist hero

And Trump’s reckless decision to assassinate him will not result in ‘World War III’.

www.aljazeera.com

That was a decent piece. I would just add that I think similar criticism of a sort of "wishy-washy" foreign policy could be rightly leveled at Obama as well. And Trump has [yet] to preside over a debacle the likes of what we saw happen in Syria, for instance.
Not only that, but what has "decisive" and heavily end-game-driven foreign policy gotten us? That is a good description of the Bush foreign policy and it did and still does look horrible.

 

[superchuck500]

The British Royal Navy will escort UK-flagged vessels going through the world’s most vital oil choke point, the Strait of Hormuz, amid a sudden spike in tensions in the Middle East after the U.S. carried out an air strike in Baghdad that killed a high-ranking Iranian general.

“The government will take all necessary steps to protect our ships and citizens at this time,” Defence Minister Ben Wallace told media, as quoted by Reuters. To this end, the HMS Montrose and the HMS Defender will be deployed in the region again, after last year they escorted UK-flagged ships through the Strait of Hormuz following the seizing of an Iranian oil tanker by Gibraltar with the help of the UK that angered Tehran.

In retaliation, Iran captured a UK-flagged vessel in the Strait of Hormuz. The deployment of the HMS Montrose and the HMS Defender followed, with the UK and the United States urging other countries to join a coalition for the protection of vessels sailing through the vital oil chokepoint.

British Navy To Escort UK-Flagged Ships In Strait Of Hormuz | OilPrice.com

The British Royal Navy will escort UK-flagged vessels going through the world’s most vital oil choke point

oilprice.com

 

[Archies Ghost]

This is a pretty fair piece here - yes, Trump acts primarily in his own political interest and his mid-East policy has been and will likely remain ineffective, but condemnation of US action as imperialist ignores the harm brought upon the region by Iran and its proxies, as well as intervention by Russia and China.

Soleimani is no anti-imperialist hero

And Trump’s reckless decision to assassinate him will not result in ‘World War III’.

www.aljazeera.com

I disagree that Trump's Iran strategy is not coherent or clear.

It is very clear that he wants to exert maximum economic pressure on Iran to force them to capitulate and negotiate seriously or trigger an internal regime change.

Iran is reacting in various ways in an attempt to get some relief from the sanctions that are having a deep effect. So far they have been largely ineffective in getting any US allies to bypass the sanctions.

The world has adjusted to Iranian oil being off the market and the United States, under Trump, is now a net exporter or nearly so of oil.

Iran is weaker than they were 3 years ago. There is little risk of a wider Middle East war in the types of responses Trump has demonstrated. Most of the Middle East is not particularly fond of Iran. China is not going to stir the pot because they need access to ME oil. Russia, as an economy dependent on oil revenue, is certainly happy to see Iranian oil off the market and price spikes certainly are welcomed by Putin.

Whether or not Trump's strategy will be successful remains to be seen. If he loses in November and the new President reverts to previous poor choices, Iran will rejoice in its reprieve. Four more years may be enough to the eventual end game in Iran come to fruition but Trump's strategy requires discipline.

It appears the Democrats are worried that the Trump strategy will be both effective and politically favorable. Pelosi appears to be attempting to limit Trump's options with a War Powers Resolution.

 

[wardorican]

Where am I wrong... I never said I had heard reports from Iran... They were just talking heads on the news... How am I to link to that? This is what I said.



Had I simply added the word "TOO" like this.

Heard a bunch or reports about the Iranian people being happy about it too...

But one thing is for sure.. I did link to a story where Irainian people are happy about it... Also other Middle Easterners happy about it too... and one thing I do believe is certain... You WON'T have any media from Iran reporting that the people are happy about the killing... And it won't be due to the fact that people arn't happy about it either, but more like afraid to report the truth.

Now if You and Ward are dead set on trying to find where I was wrong in this statement where I said that "I Heard reports"... I did just provide a link proving my claim... so there.

Joe, this is pretty petty man.

You said you heard reports of the Iranian people being happy and posted a link about Iraqis. Any rational human would link those two ideas together. All you had to say was, " I meant also or too". Like you had two separate thoughts and didn't clarify.

And when you say "the Iranian people" it infers the citizens of that country. Not folks living in the US, who may have an Iranian background, but are likely US citizens.. maybe 1st gen, 2nd gen citizens.

And lastly, the discussion was about how the country would respond. Thus, people of Iranian descent living here likely aren't the concern. It's the ones there.

 

[superchuck500]

I disagree that Trump's Iran strategy is not coherent or clear.

It is very clear that he wants to exert maximum economic pressure on Iran to force them to capitulate and negotiate seriously or trigger an internal regime change.

Iran is reacting in various ways in an attempt to get some relief from the sanctions that are having a deep effect. So far they have been largely ineffective in getting any US allies to bypass the sanctions.

The world has adjusted to Iranian oil being off the market and the United States, under Trump, is now a net exporter or nearly so of oil.

Iran is weaker than they were 3 years ago. There is little risk of a wider Middle East war in the types of responses Trump has demonstrated. Most of the Middle East is not particularly fond of Iran. China is not going to stir the pot because they need access to ME oil. Russia, as an economy dependent on oil revenue, is certainly happy to see Iranian oil off the market and price spikes certainly are welcomed by Putin.

Whether or not Trump's strategy will be successful remains to be seen. If he loses in November and the new President reverts to previous poor choices, Iran will rejoice in its reprieve. Four more years may be enough to the eventual end game in Iran come to fruition but Trump's strategy requires discipline.

It appears the Democrats are worried that the Trump strategy will be both effective and politically favorable. Pelosi appears to be attempting to limit Trump's options with a War Powers Resolution.

I agree that Trump does have an Iran policy and it is coherent - it is based on economic and other pressure to bring capitulation (i.e. coming to the negotiation table from a position of extreme weakness). Trump doesn't actually want hot war, nor do I think that Iran is trying to bait the US into a hot war. But it's also true that Trump's resistance to hot conflict can be used against him - and the desire to prevent this may bring about that very result.

It bears mentioning that Iranian oil isn't off the market. The US sanctions have hurt Iran deeply, for sure - but Iran is still selling oil. Mainly to China . . . though there are signs that the Chinese are tapering their Iran oil-buys. But Iranian exports have gone from a peak of 2.5M bpd to around 400K or 500K depending on estimates. The most recent Iranian budget was based on 500K to 1M bpd.

Defying U.S. Sanctions, China and Others Take Oil From 12 Iranian Tankers (Published 2019)

The U.S. has been unable to halt Iranian oil exports.

www.nytimes.com

Iran outlines budget to resist U.S. sanctions as oil exports plunge

Iran's president presented a draft state budget of about $39 billion to parliament on Sunday, saying it was designed to resist U.S. sanctions by limiting dependence on oil exports.

www.reuters.com

China Wants To Save Iran Nuclear Deal As It Leaves Their Oil Market Behind

China criticized Trump for killing Kassam Soleimani, Iran's top military general. But it has one thing in common with Washington that is key to Beijing's support.

www.forbes.com

 

[Beach Friends]

I just can't believe President Trump was dining on meatloaf and ice cream when the strike was confirmed. Many thanks to the media for bringing this to light for the American public. And they say journalism is dead.

 

[superchuck500]

This appears to be legit. US forces "repositioning" out of Iraq. I think the play here is "okay Iraq, be careful what you wish for!" - but is it the right strategic move?