100 Marines to Baghdad (Iran conflict discussion)(Reopened & Merged) (3 Viewers)

[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.

 

[coldseat]

I think 40 years of avoiding provoking the US into a serious war is all the proof anyone with any objectivity needs to know that the mullahs do not want to fight the US in a traditional military conflict.

You have contorted yourself into a pretzel here.

How exactly?

You do realize that both the US and Iran have avoided provoking each other into war for those 40 years, don't you? Until now that is. The reason is because it's in neither states interest. But that doesn't mean Iran won't go to war if that is the only option they feel they have. Which is exactly the way we're setting everything up right now.

We may take out their government, kill their leaders and completely destabilize that country with a war, be we will not win. It will be 20 more years of the same crap as now. All another war will do it divert trillions of dollars to war efforts and away from infrastructure, fighting climate change, other domestic needs (what we've been ignoring for the last 20 years) and kill many more American soldiers. I'm honestly not sure we could survive that war economically, especially if another recession hits our economy. We've done a horrible job of preparing for the next downturn during this latest economic expansion and are in terrible debit.

 

[JimEverett]

Who is W? Bush?

So, what are the US objectives with respect to Iran? Was assassinating Soleimani the best method to achieve those objectives?

There was growing sentiment against Iran growing in Iraq prior to this, and more protests in Iran against the regime. Do you think this action helps or hurts?

Meant to be "We" not "W"

I think Archie's Ghost and Chuck's comments about our objective with Iran is roughly what I think.
I don't know if killing Soleimani will help or hurt in achieving those objectives. I think we needed to do something, although that doesn't mean we picked the best option of those presented: I don't know either way.

Same with the second question. I had posted about the growing sentiment against Iran and sort of wondering if this was taken into account in our latest acts.

I think Iran is feeling boxed in and wants to put pressure on us in some way or another. I don;t know if I would go as far as aRchie in saying that it is about hurting Trump's chances for re-election, but that seems plausible.


I also don't know if Iran truly wants us out of Iraq. I mean clearly they say they do. But I have doubts simply because us being there provides them with certain benefits - like being able to use our presence as propaganda, being able to hurt troops for whatever purpose, and also our shared fight against ISIS. I mean its not as if our presence there is having much effect on the hearts and minds of the population - we are basically just holed up in the Green Zone with little-to-no interaction with Iraqis.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Meant to be "We" not "W"

I think Archie's Ghost and Chuck's comments about our objective with Iran is roughly what I think.
I don't know if killing Soleimani will help or hurt in achieving those objectives. I think we needed to do something, although that doesn't mean we picked the best option of those presented: I don't know either way.

But isn't that the main question on whether this was a good action or not? Is this the most efficient method to achieve our objectives?

Same with the second question. I had posted about the growing sentiment against Iran and sort of wondering if this was taken into account in our latest acts.

It doesn't appear to have been taken into account, or at least, it appears that their goal was not to further that along.

I think Iran is feeling boxed in and wants to put pressure on us in some way or another. I don;t know if I would go as far as aRchie in saying that it is about hurting Trump's chances for re-election, but that seems plausible.

I think it's highly likely that part of Iran's objective is to make Trump look bad and hurt his re-election chances.

I also don't know if Iran truly wants us out of Iraq. I mean clearly they say they do. But I have doubts simply because us being there provides them with certain benefits - like being able to use our presence as propaganda, being able to hurt troops for whatever purpose, and also our shared fight against ISIS. I mean its not as if our presence there is having much effect on the hearts and minds of the population - we are basically just holed up in the Green Zone with little-to-no interaction with Iraqis.

They can still use Israel as their boogeyman. The benefit of having the US out of Iraq probably outweigh domestic consumption benefits.

 

[samiam5211]

I think we should all keep in mind that this is largely the consequence of our pulling out of the Iran deal. Things between the US and Iran have been escalating ever since.

We’ve been dealing with the proxy wars through Saudi Arabia for 10 years and would have eventually run them out of the will and wealth to fight that war, and would have been seriously weakened by the time to renegotiate the nuclear deal came up.

Now they are in a race with us to build a nuke before we launch strikes on their sites.

That is the only way this ends now. We either have to take out their nuclear facilities or live in a world where Iran is a nuclear power. We liberals need to accept that.

 

[Archies Ghost]

Meant to be "We" not "W"

I think Archie's Ghost and Chuck's comments about our objective with Iran is roughly what I think.
I don't know if killing Soleimani will help or hurt in achieving those objectives. I think we needed to do something, although that doesn't mean we picked the best option of those presented: I don't know either way.

Same with the second question. I had posted about the growing sentiment against Iran and sort of wondering if this was taken into account in our latest acts.

I think Iran is feeling boxed in and wants to put pressure on us in some way or another. I don;t know if I would go as far as aRchie in saying that it is about hurting Trump's chances for re-election, but that seems plausible.


I also don't know if Iran truly wants us out of Iraq. I mean clearly they say they do. But I have doubts simply because us being there provides them with certain benefits - like being able to use our presence as propaganda, being able to hurt troops for whatever purpose, and also our shared fight against ISIS. I mean its not as if our presence there is having much effect on the hearts and minds of the population - we are basically just holed up in the Green Zone with little-to-no interaction with Iraqis.

Its only about Trump in that Iran needs sanctions to go away. They aren't going to be best buddies with any American president.

I agree on your assessment of Iran's intentions with regard to US presence in Iraq.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I think we should all keep in mind that this is largely the consequence of our pulling out of the Iran deal. Things between the US and Iran have been escalating ever since.

We’ve been dealing with the proxy wars through Saudi Arabia for 10 years and would have eventually run them out of the will and wealth to fight that war, and would have been seriously weakened by the time to renegotiate the nuclear deal came up.

Now they are in a race with us to build a nuke before we launch strikes on their sites.

Thars the only way this ends now. We either have to take out their nuclear facilities or live in a world where Iran is a nuclear power.

Yes, I think something like this was a predictable outcome of pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal. That deal also had its flaws, and its success was largely based on the idea that given enough incentives Iran would become a more responsible member of the international community.

 

[Archies Ghost]

But isn't that the main question on whether this was a good action or not? Is this the most efficient method to achieve our objectives?

Killing Soleimani is a tremendous blow to Iran.

If they do not or cannot demonstrate a major retaliation, the idea of a powerful Iran is shattered.

Now Iran has to calibrate a response that somehow maintains their desired image in the region while only angering half of the United States and virtually no one else.

 

[brandon]

It appears the Democrats are worried that the Trump strategy will be both effective and politically favorable.

I can absolutely assure you this is not what Democrats are even remotely worried about.

They aren't going to be best buddies with any American president.

We don’t have to be best buds, but we did have a nuclear agreement in place that by all international standards was working. Trump is the sole reason we don’t have that any more and the sole reason for the escalation of tensions. And for what? Because he promised the base he would stick it to the libs.

Again: literally every part of what you’re seeing now is a result of Trump trolling the libs. How sad.

 

[Beach Friends]

General Petraeaus says that killing Salmanella (not bothering with spelling) was more important than killing OBL or the austere religious scholar.

Dude needed killing and we had to respond. I'm good with it.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Killing Soleimani is a tremendous blow to Iran.

If they do not or cannot demonstrate a major retaliation, the idea of a powerful Iran is shattered.

Now Iran has to calibrate a response that somehow maintains their desired image in the region while only angering half of the United States and virtually no one else.

I'm not sure I agree that it was a major blow. At least not in a technical way. His deputy was more of the actual planner of operations. It definitely does serve as notification to Iranian leadership that they can be targeted directly, which certainly can benefit us, since it can act as a deterrent but at the same time it also acts as an incentive to attack us. Their leadership has been extremely unpopular for a couple of decades now, and their massive youth unemployment and drug problems has been a source of major discontent. Doing something like assassinating one of their leaders can be used to unify their nation if they spin it properly, and I'm afraid Trump's threat to target cultural sites plays into that -- if he kept the threat to their leadership, it would have been more helpful, IMO.

So, this seems to be a high risk, low reward scenario -- we risk strengthening the Iranian regime, losing access to Iraqi bases (there can be some debate on the usefulness of that), and providing cover for Iran to develop nuclear weapons.

 

[Zardnok]

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?

I have a feeling this is the result of mixed messaging both from the White House, the DoD, and Trump. This guy is just trying to do his job and follow orders, unfortunately those orders conflicted with what Dear Leader said so he was forced to scramble and announce this was a mistake?? Not a mistake, it was what he was told to do. Then someone higher up informed him Trump was saying different now.

 

[samiam5211]

I have a feeling this is the result of mixed messaging both from the White House, the DoD, and Trump. This guy is just trying to do his job and follow orders, unfortunately those orders conflicted with what Dear Leader said so he was forced to scramble and announce this was a mistake?? Not a mistake, it was what he was told to do. Then someone higher up informed him Trump was saying different now.

It happens when the guy giving the orders waits to see how the news reacts before making them final orders.

 

[TheRealTruth]

I can absolutely assure you this is not what Democrats are even remotely worried about.

As somebody who has a relative that is pretty high up in one of the democratic candidates' campaigns, this is not true. Did you just say this because you believe it personally, or do you have something to back it up. Because I spoke with her earlier today and she told me they are worried about the political capital Trump is going to gain if this works out in his favor.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

That is my original post in this thread.

Iran doesn’t want a US invasion of Iran but they desperately need to provoke the sort of ground response that would be widely unpopular in the Middle East.

Trump has dealt a wildcard to the Iranians by killing a high profile Iranian. They have to respond dramatically or look like their threats are empty.

Trump has to remain judicious in response.

Personally, I much prefer the targeted strikes against high ranking targets whose names we already know versus killing low level foot soldiers. I think it is more effective.

This is poor analysis based upon a flawed reading of the Trump voter.

Trump has to avoid starting a war, especially a war viewed as unnecessary, in order to hold on to his base.

A ground war with Iran is not in Trump's interest politically. It also happens to be in our national interest.

Iran is trying to provoke the United States into the sort of mess that will get Trump out of office. Iran cannot survive 5 more years of the present sanctions.

I think 40 years of avoiding provoking the US into a serious war is all the proof anyone with any objectivity needs to know that the mullahs do not want to fight the US in a traditional military conflict.

You have contorted yourself into a pretzel here.

Obviously, Iran knows provoking a US ground invasion would be suicidal.

I think you need to clarify some things here Archie.

I was looking to respond to you so I wanted to try and understand the full context of your argument so as to not misrepresent you, but in doing so I was getting confused over and over again, and I have racked my brain for the last twenty minutes because your collective postings are pretty contradictory with one another as the thread has gone on.

First you stated that Iran is looking to provoke the US into taking extreme measures that will invite a ground conflict in order to turn the Trump base, which is seemingly skeptical of unnecessary adventures(I would contest that). I would be skeptical of that but it’s cohesive. However, fast forward to today and you are proclaiming Trump’s wisdom in a massively reactionary and escalatory strike because Iran is scared shirtless of a ground war?

You also say that Trump himself doesn’t want a ground war. Which I think is a fair assessment, while now saying Iran is scared shirtless of one. However, Iran knows that as well. America has also avoided open ground conflict with Iran for 40 years despite military superiority. Which means Iran also has a bit of cushion knowing the average American appetite for another war is low(and this is also why escalation can lead to both sides backing themselves into the war neither wants, especially when signals are unclear and it raises the chance of miscalculation).

You go on today to mention Trump’s strategy as very clear and concise in either being to force the Iranians to the negotiating table or incite regime change. But simultaneously say Trump has been entirely reactive(I think that is accurate). That is not a clear or concise strategy at all then. In fact, it is heavily contradictory, haphazard, and as you say, reactionary. If the goal is regime change through internal overthrow(a risky game conservatives used to understand when Obama was president) than you wouldn’t be taking controversial escalatory steps that martyr a controversial figure and unify the Iranian people against you as the external threat, you wouldn’t be blatantly threatening cultural sites, you wouldn’t be deliberately trying to inflict harm on the Iranian people through many of the ways they have imposed sanctions. In that context you simply look cruel and evil....That is without even touching on the entirely at odds rationales for why we assassinated Soleimani in the first place

If your goal was to get them to the negotiating table, it obviously first begs the question what you thought you were gaining by pushing them away when you had them there locked into an agreement? To which the results so far have only pushed them further away from capitulating. Then you raise the stakes and make it impossible for Iran to capitulate by assassinating a critical head of state.


There is a lot more I am struggling with but just unraveling the primary contradictions has probably pushed me to the word limit.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

Dude needed killing and we had to respond. I'm good with it.

 

[samiam5211]

As somebody who has a relative that is pretty high up in one of the democratic candidates' campaigns, this is not true. Did you just say this because you believe it personally, or do you have something to back it up. Because I spoke with her earlier today and she told me they are worried about the political capital Trump is going to gain if this works out in his favor.

Could you elaborate on what you mean by “pretty high up”?

I could see a concern that the outcome of this decision could be at least spun as not as bad as expected on the day people vote in 11 months. That should be a concern for democrats.

That does not mean they are worried that this is the best decision the country. They know this is a terrible decision made on a whim by an erratic man. Any amount of success would be entirely accidental.

Expecting failure is not the same thing as hoping for failure.

 

[Joe Okc]

I just hope that Iran lives up to its promise to expose all US Politicians that took bribes in the US-iran deal...

 

[N.O.Bronco]

Could you elaborate on what you mean by “pretty high up”?

I could see a concern that the outcome of this decision could be at least spun as not as bad as expected on the day people vote in 11 months. That should be a concern for democrats.

That does not mean they are worried that this is the best decision the country. They know this is a terrible decision made on a whim by an erratic man. Any amount of success would be entirely accidental.

Expecting failure is not the same thing as hoping for failure.

You know in between how utterly pissed off I am at Trump’s reckless behavior, I hadn’t thought about this through an electoral prism.

To me, the only way this becomes a major benefit for Trump is if Iran bends over backwards and basically tells Trump to go in raw and they will sign it....Which is not happening by November.

At one point I thought Trump was angling to try and get Iran to basically just give him a mulligan and offer the same Iranian deal with like a few more years on it, declare victory, let Fox News spin it for 4 months and then throw it in Democrats face. That or just keep in a holding pattern. Knowing most people aren’t going to care one way or another.

This enormous escalation really takes that off the table. No way Iran wants to hand Trump an election victory anymore and even if he decided to invade tomorrow, 10 months wouldn’t be enough to get in, overthrow the regime, neocon it up and get out without a sour taste In the public’s mouth.

Really the only most cynical opportunity would be Machiavellian provocation of Iran that hits too hard and forces us into a war Americans are manipulated into seeing us as the victims in.