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.

 

[samiam5211]

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.

Trump's base isn't who you think they are then.

People like my family will happily go to war for Trump. Any war Trump gets involved in will be supported 100% by 80% of his base.

Trumps base are baby boomers.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

It’s not really on Chris Murphy though to curtail his criticism because Trump may see it, get triggered, and use it as justification to carry out extrajudicial assassinations in an escalatory back and forth he set off by unilaterally abandoning a non-proliferation agreement our own government admitted Iran was in compliance of that was predictably going to lead to this sort of tinder box situation.

Intense thinks that’s a gotcha likely because he thinks Murphy is failing to acknowledge that Trumps reckless actions somehow answered his own criticism and elevated our respect in the region and improved our safety. As if simplistically thinking that achieving that is always done through hard power and simply carrying that out in any fashion projects power, respect, and promotes safety. Which this action did none of by all accounts so far. Iran is not cowering in fear, abandoning their recent acceleration of enrichment, and running to the negotiating table to plead for whatever deal Trump will give them. It’s simply putting our troops and allies in greater harm and all but guaranteeing asymmetrical retaliation with the off chance of lighting up the regional tinder box. Rallying Iran’s allies to their aide. While further alienating us with key allies we are weakened by not having on our side.

 

[Lapaz]

It was good to see how quickly Trump reacted to this and got them the support they needed to avoid a tragedy.

It doesn’t take decisive action when you’ve been planning an attack and know what to expect in retaliation. Trump ordered the attack, and it would’ve been malpractice not to prepare for retaliation. He created the crisis, so should get no credit for preparing for a larger crisis. He didn’t brief the gang of 8 on the intelligence, so I’m Very suspicious of the rationale. Trump is a menace.

 

[bdb13]

Trump's base isn't who you think they are then.

People like my family will happily go to war for Trump. Any war Trump gets involved in will be supported 100% by 80% of his base.

Trumps base are baby boomers.

Right, I cannot imagine that a war with Iran would be the driving force in Trump's base leaving him.

 

[RobF]

How would you expect Trump to react to this

Honestly? I'd expect him to tweet insults. If you're suggesting Trump carried out an assassination in reaction to a tweet from the Senator from Connecticut, you have an even lower opinion of him than I do.

None of which changes the fact that someone making an implied call for some actions to improve America's stance in the region is very obviously not calling for any action, no matter how foolish, and it's entirely consistent for them to subsequently call out any actions that may have been taken that they view to be dangerously short-sighted.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

Trump's base isn't who you think they are then.

People like my family will happily go to war for Trump. Any war Trump gets involved in will be supported 100% by 80% of his base.

Trumps base are baby boomers.

We already quickly see the common rationalization used leading up to and in the early days of the Iraq War popping up remarkably fast.

And if your logical justification for this action can easily be substituted for “well, Soleimani Saddam was a bad guy and deserved to be killed/removed” its time to rethink your justification process for supporting American expressions of hard power.

As that lazy rationalization is available for any political figure we consider an adversary, that doesn’t make our actions toward them either justifiable or in our best strategic or security interests. But it is exactly the sort of lazy emotionallay derived rationalization that self-justified the moral case for the Iraq War for millions.

 

[coldseat]

As I said on the previous board, Iran is playing high stakes chicken. They desperately need sanctions to end, which means get Trump out of office.

An unpopular war would do that. The trick is to start a war with the that is two things, unpopular with Trump’s base and not ruinous to Iran.

Attacking the embassy was a bit of a mistake. Soleimani getting killed is a major blow to Iranian prestige but may motivate some fence sitters.

This was a bit earlier than I expected. I didn’t think Iran would start pushing hard until late spring.

Maybe they thought an embassy takeover and hostage crisis would help with impeachment.

We can’t say times aren’t interesting.

This assessment/view doesn't comport with reality. We (the USA) have been the ones that have consistently inflamed tensions with Iran and taken this to where we are right now since the election of Trump. Everything they have done has been a reaction to US aggression/inflaming tensions.

As we predicted when Trump tore up the Iran nuclear deal, tensions have steadily increased to the brink of all out war. This latest assassination is certainly a step in that direction and definitely a increased level of direct confrontation on our part.

 

[Maxp]

Historically, you don't take such an overt policy action unless that policy is an escalation of your foreign policy to war.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

It’s hard to say what sort of move this is at this point. I do know Trump was relentless about alleging that Obama would start a war to help him get re-elected, it wasn’t just one tweet, it was something he harped on.

So we know that Trump has considered this as an option to help his re-election. We also know he has a lot of difficulty separating his own goals from his official acts.

We know that the attack on the US embassy was a reaction to a US action. It’s hard for me to say this was entirely provoked by Iran at this point in time. I don’t see it.

The US says they had evidence of a imminent plot to harm US citizens. We shall see, I suppose. How history judges this action will depend a great deal on how Trump navigates the fall out. If he draws us into a costly war, he will be entering “W” category. And justifiably so.

I think it is unlikely this is our Franz Ferdinand moment, but the path Trump put us on may ultimately get us there.

And given the tea leaves are indicating these actions are being conducted incredibly haphazardly, it is really worrying that we likely have not gamed this out very well:






As this is not the response of a government that seems to have anticipated and accounted for the immediate aftermath of their decisions.

And it would seem that they took this action with no clear plan for the diplomats, soldiers or allied soldiers still in the country.

 

[wardorican]

Yes, let's have all the Americans there all gather in one area the day after an attack.

 

[coldseat]

Nobody's asking what an Iranian general was doing in Iraq, at the Baghdad airport, so I guess the answer to that is obvious.
The Russians are being highly critical of the attack, so that's one positive.
Of all the Democratic candidates, at least Joe Biden tempered his criticism, prefacing his remarks by saying no American would morn this man's death, that's another positive.

That's an interesting question, but apparently not that mysterious. We had been tracking him for a long time and knew he traveled in and out of different Iranian camps in different countries (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, etc.)

Which makes you wonder why we (the US) decided to carry out this assassination now, when we've known this for some time and have been able to track him?

 

[Archies Ghost]

Trump's base isn't who you think they are then.

People like my family will happily go to war for Trump. Any war Trump gets involved in will be supported 100% by 80% of his base.

Trumps base are baby boomers.

I stand by what I posted. Trump is going to avoid any sort of ground operation against Iran and Iran is going to continue to try to escalate and force his hand.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

Not exactly shocked that the administrations actions continue to have the opposite effect of their stated intentions.

I stand by what I posted. Trump is going to avoid any sort of ground operation against Iran and Iran is going to continue to try to escalate and force his hand.

America has consistently been the aggressor here.

- Unilaterally tearing up a multilateral nonproliferation agreement without just cause and reimposing harsh sanctions, including denying medical imports to citizens of the country.

- Responding to rocket attacks by bombing 25 people

- Responding to a protest by assassinating a head of state on foreign soil without permission who was on official state duties okayed by the Iraqi government.

Why don’t you get your facts straight before lecturing others?

 

[N.O.Bronco]

That's an interesting question, but apparently not that mysterious. We had been tracking him for a long time and knew he traveled in and out of different Iranian camps in different countries (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, etc.)

Which makes you wonder why we (the US) decided to carry out this assassination now, when we've known this for some time and have been able to track him?

It’s already been reported he was acting in official capacity with the blessing of the Iraqi government to be there.

It is the equivalent of claiming self defense in bombing the sec-def’s convoy on foreign soil because of the despicable statecraft we are conducting via proxy in Yemen.

But we are so insulated in our own sense of exceptionalism that we are oblivious to the obvious hypocrisies of our actions to the broader world when conducting our foreign policy. Even the Democrats are being careful to sugar coat and pay homage to this American exceptionalism in their statements. And certain hawks find it unconscionable if we don’t do so.

 

[superchuck500]

I stand by what I posted. Trump is going to avoid any sort of ground operation against Iran and Iran is going to continue to try to escalate and force his hand.

I agree that Trump has demonstrated a consistent reluctance to commit to a significant ground operation. But as history demonstrates, trying to exchange rounds of aggression with limitations on total commitment can often bring about a perceived need to abandon those limitations.

But the idea that Iran is going try to "force" Trump into a ground commitment is nonsensical - Iran doesn't want that either. Both Tehran and Washington are trying to determine ways of ongoing response that doesn't lead to full conflict because it is in neither nation's interest.

The baseline still remains Iran's interest in projecting power in the region and the Trump-defined objective of bringing Iran to the negotiation table deeply weakened to the point of breaking so that the US can effectively dictate terms. Both nations are, as a matter of policy, on a war footing.

 

[wardorican]

I agree that Trump has demonstrated a consistent reluctance to commit to a significant ground operation. But as history demonstrates, trying to exchange rounds of aggression with limitations on total commitment can often bring about a perceived need to abandon those limitations.

But the idea that Iran is going try to "force" Trump into a ground commitment is nonsensical - Iran doesn't want that either. Both Tehran and Washington are trying to determine ways of ongoing response that doesn't lead to full conflict because it is in neither nation's interest.

The baseline still remains Iran's interest in projecting power in the region and the Trump-defined objective of bringing Iran to the negotiation table deeply weakened to the point of breaking so that the US can effectively dictate terms. Both nations are, as a matter of policy, on a war footing.

Yes, Iran is more likely to launch cyber attacks and terrorist activities.

Pay attention to your computers and finances folks.

 

[dtc]

It’s hard to say what sort of move this is at this point. I do know Trump was relentless about alleging that Obama would start a war to help him get re-elected, it wasn’t just one tweet, it was something he harped on.

So we know that Trump has considered this as an option to help his re-election. We also know he has a lot of difficulty separating his own goals from his official acts.

We know that the attack on the US embassy was a reaction to a US action. It’s hard for me to say this was entirely provoked by Iran at this point in time. I don’t see it.

The US says they had evidence of a imminent plot to harm US citizens. We shall see, I suppose. How history judges this action will depend a great deal on how Trump navigates the fall out. If he draws us into a costly war, he will be entering “W” category. And justifiably so.

Didn't you hear?

Rudy has a film about the plan and is prepared to present it to Congress and the UN!

 

[N.O.Bronco]

Whole thread is worth reading, but a good summary of the means, pathways, and inflection points that an Iranian retaliation could manifest through. And a good reminder as to why Iran is not Iraq, and why Iran is unlikely to respond to provocations by capitulating.

This is one of the more fatalist takes so far, as there does seem to be disagreement amongst experts/journalists toward how strong the retaliation will be based on perceived strategies of the Iranian regime, however there is pretty strong consensus in that many of these proxies are essentially autonomous, so the chance of one of them ratcheting up their response is very real. And the US response escalating further also very real.