100 Marines to Baghdad (Iran conflict discussion)(Reopened & Merged) (4 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.

 

[Joe Okc]

Interesting... and definitely good news.

You know, I thought Trumps message this morning was interesting as well. It seemed it was more of a call for the Iranian people to try and work for negotiations with the USA than a call to arms...

 

[superchuck500]

Interesting... and definitely good news.

You know, I thought Trumps message this morning was interesting as well. It seemed it was more of a call for the Iranian people to try and work for negotiations with the USA than a call to arms...

Yeah, Trump's policy isn't war with Iran - it's pretty ridiculous that people keep saying that's what he wants. He thinks that sanctions and isolation are working and he's playing a long game to get them to break that way, he's never been in favor of military intervention. The most pressing risk as it appears to me has been the risk if losing control of the ability to resist war, that's where it can get very tricky, very quickly.

For example, had Iran actually made a significant missile strike on US installations that took many lives. The pressure for retaliation would have been great (even as it was, we had leaders and rhetoricians on the right calling for blood last night) . . . and that's how you can walk backwards into a war.

But the same holds true to Iran, they know a conventional conflict would be disastrous. They also welcome the chance to get back on the cold war footing - where they can continue their more diffuse projection of power. In fact, that was one point made by Kori Schake in the Atlantic piece: Soleimani was a high-profile operator, he liked to leave his calling card and proclaim his deeds . . . and that doesn't really fit with Iran's operational objectives right now. So perhaps the inner circle in Tehran aren't missing him too much.

 

[TaylorB]

I might be overthinking it, but I don't think it would be surprising if Iran told Iraqi sources with the intent that we would find out and take precautions.

I think this is exactly what happened.

 

[coldseat]

Yeah, Trump's policy isn't war with Iran - it's pretty ridiculous that people keep saying that's what he wants. He thinks that sanctions and isolation are working and he's playing a long game to get them to break that way, he's never been in favor of military intervention. The most pressing risk as it appears to me has been the risk if losing control of the ability to resist war, that's where it can get very tricky, very quickly.

For example, had Iran actually made a significant missile strike on US installations that took many lives. The pressure for retaliation would have been great (even as it was, we had leaders and rhetoricians on the right calling for blood last night) . . . and that's how you can walk backwards into a war.

But the same holds true to Iran, they know a conventional conflict would be disastrous. They also welcome the chance to get back on the cold war footing - where they can continue their more diffuse projection of power. In fact, that was one point made by Kori Schake in the Atlantic piece: Soleimani was a high-profile operator, he liked to leave his calling card and proclaim his deeds . . . and that doesn't really fit with Iran's operational objectives right now. So perhaps the inner circle in Tehran aren't missing him too much.

It's so weird to have to bank/hope on Iran being the adults in the room and hoping they show restraint for us to not walk backwards into another middle east war.

Reminds me of Uncle Ben telling Spidy, "with great power comes great recklessness".

 

[superchuck500]

But I think this Ukraine 737 is a problem - signs are increasingly pointing to a missile strike, and the source is likely Iranian soil. Admittedly, there isn't solid (public) evidence about this yet, but circumstances strongly suggest it. For now Iran is on fair footing to withhold evidence as it is the lead investigating nation but they aren't going to be able to put a lid on this.

If there is sufficient evidence to show it was an Iranian missile, this gets very challenging. Ukraine and Canada will certainly want resolution and there will be calls from various possible corners of the US political landscape for accountability. Does Iran try some kind of mea culpa, which might actually signal a new turn toward participation with the West or does it deny deny deny? And would Trump join the calls for accountability or would he work to downplay it, so as not to spoil the de-escalation?

 

[efil4]

Iran has a problem. They know our satellite capability, and in cant imagine not having a dozen or so fixated on Iran yesterday, watching every move. If our satellites picked up the launch and strike, I would imagine they open to page 1 of the Russian playbook. Claim our intelligence is doctored so the US can find a reason ( now aligned with allies ) to invade/go to war with Iran.
I seriously doubt they issue anything close to a mea culpa.

If they did, times, they be a changin'.

 

[JimEverett]

Yeah, Trump's policy isn't war with Iran - it's pretty ridiculous that people keep saying that's what he wants. He thinks that sanctions and isolation are working and he's playing a long game to get them to break that way, he's never been in favor of military intervention. The most pressing risk as it appears to me has been the risk if losing control of the ability to resist war, that's where it can get very tricky, very quickly.

For example, had Iran actually made a significant missile strike on US installations that took many lives. The pressure for retaliation would have been great (even as it was, we had leaders and rhetoricians on the right calling for blood last night) . . . and that's how you can walk backwards into a war.

But the same holds true to Iran, they know a conventional conflict would be disastrous. They also welcome the chance to get back on the cold war footing - where they can continue their more diffuse projection of power. In fact, that was one point made by Kori Schake in the Atlantic piece: Soleimani was a high-profile operator, he liked to leave his calling card and proclaim his deeds . . . and that doesn't really fit with Iran's operational objectives right now. So perhaps the inner circle in Tehran aren't missing him too much.

I think killing Soleimani has gotten Iran off-balance. That act has been widely analyzed as lacking "strategic value" and it seems likely Iran had long thought along the same lines (not specifically about Soleimani necessarily - just any one at or near his level). UTJim had a god post earlier that I am too lazy to find and quote but it was something along the lines of the action is a victory if Iran comes to the table and a huge loss if it starts a war.

There is also the possibility that Iran does not come to the negotiating table but backs off some of the attacks that have been engaged in ever since the nuke deal came into being, and have ramped up to some degree since Trump broke our end of the bargain.
And there is also the possibility that we return to the status quo - but that could be unlikely now given that Iran sees Trump as too unpredictable.

 

[Archies Ghost]

It's so weird to have to bank/hope on Iran being the adults in the room and hoping they show restraint for us to not walk backwards into another middle east war.

Reminds me of Uncle Ben telling Spidy, "with great power comes great recklessness".

Given Trump's pattern of measured response with regard to Iran, your post is a bit ridiculous.

 

[coldseat]

Given Trump's pattern of measured response with regard to Iran, your post is a bit ridiculous.

Yeah, okay. Lol.

 

[dtc]

I want to throw this out... (I can;t figure out how to copy a tweet)

Omar said this: "Rep. Ilhan Omar tweeted Monday that President Trump could draw the U.S. into war with Iran if it seek to harm properties owned by the Trump Organization around the world. "

I had never thought of this.. Iranian targeting personally owned properties own by Trump... Is that not giving the enemy ideas?

What if terrorist attacks start happening at Trump owned properties... Is this not treason her giving our enemies ideas and information?

Are you serious?

Do you have any idea what the word "treason" means?

And, do you now want to consider why a president who refuses to divest his holdings leads to an appearance of potential conflict?

 

[samiam5211]

We shouldn’t forget that Iran has fully restarted their nuclear program.

We were hyperventilating about them being 6 months from a nuke a few years ago, well they are going full steam ahead right now.

We have an Iran nuclear problem that we did not have two weeks ago.

 

[dtc]

Maybe so and true... but there may be some there may be Trump hater out there building a bomb that had not thought of it either, and he just needs a place to explode it...

So are you saying her comments were ok.?

What if Trump had mentioned what if people target Nancy Pelosis' proprty? Would it still be ok in your eyes?

Trump and elected Republicans talk about doing harm to Pelosi all the time. Facebook is filled with right wing screeds against her. Is that the same thing?

 

[JimEverett]

We shouldn’t forget that Iran has fully restarted their nuclear program.

We were hyperventilating about them being 6 months from a nuke a few years ago, well they are going full steam ahead right now.

We have an Iran nuclear problem that we did not have two weeks ago.

I am not sure if "fully restarted" is the corect term, but its a good point.

Here is a good article on it.

Is Iran Abandoning the 2015 Nuclear Agreement?

Not quite. But by saying it’s no longer bound by any nuclear restrictions, Tehran has come one big step closer to scrapping the deal.

foreignpolicy.com

 

[coldseat]

Doesn't sound like the classified briefing on the Soleimani assassination went over well today. A lot of questions left unanswered.

Republican Sen. Mike Lee, speaking to reporters today, called today’s briefing the “worst briefing I’ve had on a military issue in my nine years” in the Senate.

‪The Utah lawmaker called the way this played out as “un-American” and “completely unacceptable” given that the administration suggested that Congress shouldn’t have a role in debating Iran military action. He said the administration would not commit to new AUMF ("authorization for use of military force") or a cite a reason for coming to Congress before taking military action.

Asked if President Trump should have authorized the attack against Qasem Soleimani, Lee said he’s “agnostic” on that because the briefers didn’t give specific details ‬on the attacks planned by Soleimani.

Iran attacks bases housing US troops | CNN

Iran attacked two Iraqi military bases housing US troops with more than a dozen ballistic missiles, in retaliation for the US killing of Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani. Follow here for the latest updates.

www.cnn.com

 

[BobE]

Kinzinger on Soleimani intel: 'Most revealing classified brief'




I'll just stay confused.

 

[Archies Ghost]

Kinzinger on Soleimani intel: 'Most revealing classified brief'




I'll just stay confused.

Mike Lee is upset (rightfully) that the briefer was directing Congress not to debate further military action. I don't think the classified portions of the briefing upset him.

Lee wants to get Congress back into the business of authorizing military force, which would be a good thing as it would get out out of a lot of places we should not be.

The AUMF needs to be canceled.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I'm going to choose to be optimistic, I think Iran signaled they wanted to deescalate after their chest thumping and the Trump administration appears to want to do so as well. If this does jump start negotiations and we can redo a nuclear deal and moderate Iranian behavior I'll be happy.

I obviously have my doubts, b/c I think this was not the best way to achieve these results, but if the results are achieved, I'll be happy.

 

[NoPartyMike]

Agreed. I think this is the best outcome we could've hoped for at this stage of everything. I had an idea it might go this way when, last night, Iran's foreign minister basically said that the missile attack was their retaliation, that was it, and they wanted no further escalation. I was even more pleased to see that, after today, there were no casualties and we're game to playing along. Good job to the Trump admin for acting reasonably.

War is an atrocious thing. It's not funny, cool, or a time for bro-fisting. The civilians, middle and lower class families are the ones who suffer fighting rich men's wars. Make no doubt, that this was a pivotal time in our history and combined with this downed airliner (if related) it could've been the match strike to the powder keg.

Again, very glad that as 2 nations we're choosing peace at this time. +1 for Humanity!