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

Users who are viewing this thread

    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.


     
    I'd never expected you to be a neocon at heart. Really the writer seems to think force is the first and last step. Yeah, all the policy makers before Trump forgot about economic and military might dictating foreign relations. That TPP or JCPAO really are junk. What the writer seems to say at the core is everything's broken w/o attributing it to the person doing the breaking. See we're letting Russia run amok but forget the sanctions on them aren't really enforced today. Oh Iran, you're behaving badly for your nuke aspiration so we'll let u know whats what. And when they dared retaliate, it shows they cannot be reeled into the world community and exposes our weakness. Really? Trump showed that we need to use less carrot and more stick? Wasn't it us that backed down? Ah, what about China? Really? Using our military to force them to do what we say? TPP was as much a strategic policy as it is a trade policy....oh wait! You don't say! We're flexing our economic might there but someone decided to break it? Oh! And though he thinks that person is an idiot who doesn't plan out their actions, we can see clear doctrines. Some 3 year old was given paint and randomly throws it on a canvass. This writer comes along and sees clear the depravity in the human condition.

    We lucked out on a war. Let's not give the child the credit for poking the beehive and getting away with a few stings. Which reminds me. You seem to admire how this administration is balancing aggression with restraint? I'll stand corrected if I'm wrong.

    We can look at these things with an academic eye, we can take interest in analysis without directly endorsing the conclusions as being wholly adoptive of our own personal views on the matter. I mean, had I posted an article that observed that the blitzkrieg was particularly effective because the German leadership keenly anticipated that light bombers could be used in direct support of mechanized units to shock defensive positions into quick dissolution, would you say "I never expected you to be a Nazi"? Of course not.

    As someone who has in the past studied foreign policy - and one who still subscribes to and reads foreign policy analysis, I find the discussion interesting . . . and no, that doesn't mean I support/endorse whatever policies or actions are discussed. That said, I do think that Trump's Iran policy is fairly evident and that those who say he doesn't have one aren't paying attention. The policy is to break the Iranian economy through sanctions while presenting at least the appearance of an effort to contain Iran's ability to retaliate against U.S. interests in the region through application of military force - a full hot conflict is both undesirable and unnecessary, but enough of a presence and demonstrated willingness keeps Tehran on the defensive, operationally. It is a long game and calculated to bring Iran to the negotiating table with hat in hand and ready to accept the terms the U.S. demands.

    On its face, it's not incoherent policy - it calls for measures within our capability and, with the exception of unintended consequences, the identifiable risks are fairly contained. It seems reasonable to conclude that the "maximum pressure" on the Iranian economy will weaken the nation, and that may, at some point, bring them to negotiate. Trump views himself as a master negotiator but his record doesn't lend much support to that idea - except that he does have better success from a position of leverage (who doesn't?), so that's the goal. Regime change would be welcomed but I don't think it's the top line objective.

    Of course the policy is flawed. Even if the policy itself proves effective, I don't have any faith in Trump's ability to identify and deliver an effective negotiated resolution - his negotiations with Kim Jong-un have shown that, negotiation instinct notwithstanding, he lacks understanding of key concepts and is both unwilling to learn them and unable to rely on experts within the US apparatus. Those negotiations have achieved next to nothing materially positive and have confused and confounded regional allies.

    Moreover, I don't think that the Islamic Republic is ever going to genuinely abandon its nuclear program absent changes in the region that simply aren't going to happen in our lifetimes. No matter what happens with US-Iran relations, Israel is not going to make any sort of meaningful peace over Palestine, and the struggle for regional dominance with the Saudi sunnis isn't going away. Because the US backs Israel and Saudi Arabia, and possesses the capability to take Tehran down with conventional military, the Iranians have to continue to pursue a nuclear deterrent - it's a check on the one regional outcome that is existential for the regime. So how will Trump gain something that they're not going to give? If given the opportunity, he's likely going to be willing to accept something less than the policy objectives in order to present it as a success . . . so far this appears to be how the China trade deals are shaping up. And isn't that what the "problem with the JCPOA" was - an incomplete check on Iran's nuclear ambition?

    Finally, I think the manner through which they're executing this policy has real risk of a miscalculation or error in the part that relies military pressure. Trump clearly doesn't want to commit to an actual campaign but exchanges calculated to be limited can easily slip out of control - and I think Trump's idiosyncrasies and the structure has created (or lack thereof really) amplify this risk. And that's bad for everybody (including our military, the economy, civilians in the region and perhaps beyond, etc.), so I think that's why I may appear to be "admiring" where the administration is able to avoid a turn of the screw that tightens the spring of war.

    In other words, I think I understand the approach and in recognition that it is what it is, I'm appreciative when I see that restraint exercised - it's critical to the strategy but it's dangerous and this particular president makes me extra nervous. I don't agree with you that we "lucked out on a war", I think it's reasonably widely accepted that Tehran doesn't want to invite more comprehensive US strikes - opting in favor of its usual tactics. The US calculated that taking out Soleimani wouldn't lead to a broader military conflict and it didn't (and it didn't in the past when we killed similar Iranian operational leaders).

    But I'm not giving anybody credit for anything except choosing not to elect broader military action. Capicé?
     
    Last edited:
    We can look at these things with an academic eye, we can take interest in analysis without directly endorsing the conclusions as being wholly adoptive of our own personal views on the matter. I mean, had I posted an article that observed that the blitzkrieg was particularly effective because the German leadership keenly anticipated that light bombers could be used in direct support of mechanized units to shock defensive positions into quick dissolution, would you say "I never expected you to be a Nazi"? Of course not.

    As someone who has in the past studied foreign policy - and one who still subscribes to and reads foreign policy analysis, I find the discussion interesting . . . and no, that doesn't mean I support/endorse whatever policies or actions are discussed. That said, I do think that Trump's Iran policy is fairly evident and that those who say he doesn't have one aren't paying attention. The policy is to break the Iranian economy through sanctions while presenting at least the appearance of an effort to contain Iran's ability to retaliate against U.S. interests in the region through application of military force - a full hot conflict is both undesirable and unnecessary, but enough of a presence and demonstrated willingness keeps Tehran on the defensive, operationally. It is a long game and calculated to bring Iran to the negotiating table with hat in hand and ready to accept the terms the U.S. demands.

    On its face, it's not incoherent policy - it calls for measures within our capability and, with the exception of unintended consequences, the identifiable risks are fairly contained. It seems reasonable to conclude that the "maximum pressure" on the Iranian economy will weaken the nation, and that may, at some point, bring them to negotiate. Trump views himself as a master negotiator but his record doesn't lend much support to that idea - except that he does have better success from a position of leverage (who doesn't?), so that's the goal. Regime change would be welcomed but I don't think it's the top line objective.

    Of course the policy is flawed. Even if the policy itself proves effective, I don't have any faith in Trump's ability to identify and deliver an effective negotiated resolution - his negotiations with Kim Jong-un have shown that, negotiation instinct notwithstanding, he lacks understanding of key concepts and is both unwilling to learn them and unable to rely on experts within the US apparatus. Those negotiations have achieved next to nothing materially positive and have confused and confounded regional allies.

    Moreover, I don't think that the Islamic Republic is ever going to genuinely abandon its nuclear program absent changes in the region that simply aren't going to happen in our lifetimes. No matter what happens with US-Iran relations, Israel is not going to make any sort of meaningful peace over Palestine, and the struggle for regional dominance with the Saudi sunnis isn't going away. Because the US backs Israel and Saudi Arabia, and possesses the capability to take Tehran down with conventional military, the Iranians have to continue to pursue a nuclear deterrent - it's a check on the one regional outcome that is existential for the regime. So how will Trump gain something that they're not going to give? If given the opportunity, he's likely going to be willing to accept something less than the policy objectives in order to present it as a success . . . so far this appears to be how the China trade deals are shaping up. And isn't that what the "problem with the JCPOA" was - an incomplete check on Iran's nuclear ambition?

    Finally, I think the manner through which they're executing this policy has real risk of a miscalculation or error in the part that relies military pressure. Trump clearly doesn't want to commit to an actual campaign but exchanges calculated to be limited can easily slip out of control - and I think Trump's idiosyncrasies and the structure has created (or lack thereof really) amplify this risk. And that's bad for everybody (including our military, the economy, civilians in the region and perhaps beyond, etc.), so I think that's why I may appear to be "admiring" where the administration is able to avoid a turn of the screw that tightens the spring of war.

    In other words, I think I understand the approach and in recognition that it is what it is, I'm appreciative when I see that restraint exercised - it's critical to the strategy but it's dangerous and this particular president makes me extra nervous. I don't agree with you that we "lucked out on a war", I think it's reasonably widely accepted that Tehran doesn't want to invite more comprehensive US strikes - opting in favor of its usual tactics. The US calculated that taking out Soleimani wouldn't lead to a broader military conflict and it didn't (and it didn't in the past when we killed similar Iranian operational leaders).

    But I'm not giving anybody credit for anything except choosing not to elect broader military action. Capicé?

    Fair enough on the academic interest in the article.

    However, I believe the source of our disagreement is in Iran's motivation for nuclear weapons. We both recognize that it is Iran's only real deterrent against a US invasion. However, acquiring nukes present problems for Iran as well. After all, that was the reason why Clinton was able to convince Russia and China to join the sanctions. Unlike North Korea, Iran wants to rejoin the world community. Deep economic problems forced this regime to embrace the moderate movement. And this is why I disagree with you that Iran truly wants nukes. They may recognize that it will provide security but the economic sanctions brought serious societal instability that may prove to topple that regime. In addition, the lessons of Iraq showed both the US and Iran that invasion of Iran isn't feasible. Surely the US can decimate Iran, but then what? We both know the US will not stomach another Iraq magnified by 3. This understanding provides the calculation that they truly don't need nukes. There were reports of numerous instances where they were ready to centrifuge weapons grade nuclear material. Not within years, but a few months. And at every instance, they stopped. And why else were they so hell bent on holding on to the JCPAO if they truly want nukes? Sure they may never genuinely stop the program, but they may not genuinely complete it either. But this is where the US belligerence comes into play. It's almost self-prophetic really. Poke them till they stop but really, all it does is reinforce that we intend to invade. Therefore, they will get the nukes whether we like it or not. The lesson of North Korea is that if a country truly wants nukes, they will get it. That is, provided they are willing to sacrifice their economy and remain outside the international community. Iran shows that isn't the path that they want to take.

    And I don't believe Israel nor SA are factors for nukes. That is unless SA gets their own. Israel's military capability is completely defensive, save for a few aerial assaults. No real invasion threat. SA's military capability proves rather impotent. And simultaneously, a deterrent without the same anathema are ballistic missiles. They can retaliate against Israel anytime they bomb Iran.

    And concerning the JCPAO, it may not be the best for us, but it's the best we can get. Sure it's time gated and sure it's a risk. But given Iran's behaviors and the calculus stated above, it's a safe bet and was proven to be. Really, how long of an agreement must it be to satisfy the US? obviously a decade isn't enough. 15? 20? a lifetime? Simply this, a conservative policy maker was on NPR the other day. He's proposing the exact same deal but with further restrictions on ballistic missiles and some time extension. Why go through this past year's antagonism to come back for the same deal? And what of this administration's goals? The writer and yourself proposes maximum pressure with a delicate balancing act. But what is the point of it? A promise not to develop nukes? for how long? We had that AND they fulfilled that obligation. Regime change? We were on the verge of a more moderate force influencing their regime. What is the goal?

    As a tangent, I'll say that I agree with the writer that I don't believe Trump to have the policy knowledge or strategic thought process to develop our current strategy. He is of the knee jerk reaction and then reacts to the consequences.
     
    I take a dim view of opposition senators conducting foreign diplomacy with adversaries such as Iran without presidential approval, regardless of which party is in the White House. Not cool.

    Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) met with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif on the sidelines of this weekend’s Munich Security Conference, the senator confirmed Tuesday.

    In a post on Medium, Murphy said he wanted to discuss Iranian-backed forces in Iraq, the war in Yemen and U.S. prisoners being held in Iran.

    “I have no delusions about Iran — they are our adversary, responsible for the killing of thousands of Americans and unacceptable levels of support for terrorist organizations throughout the Middle East,” Murphy wrote. “But I think it’s dangerous to not talk to your enemies. Discussions and negotiations are a way to ease tensions and reduce the chances for crisis.”



    “Sen. Murphy met with the Iranians; is that a fact? I just saw that on the way over. Is there anything that I should know? Because that sounds like, to me, a violation of the Logan Act,” Trump said.
     
    I take a dim view of opposition senators conducting foreign diplomacy with adversaries such as Iran without presidential approval, regardless of which party is in the White House. Not cool.

    Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) met with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif on the sidelines of this weekend’s Munich Security Conference, the senator confirmed Tuesday.

    In a post on Medium, Murphy said he wanted to discuss Iranian-backed forces in Iraq, the war in Yemen and U.S. prisoners being held in Iran.

    “I have no delusions about Iran — they are our adversary, responsible for the killing of thousands of Americans and unacceptable levels of support for terrorist organizations throughout the Middle East,” Murphy wrote. “But I think it’s dangerous to not talk to your enemies. Discussions and negotiations are a way to ease tensions and reduce the chances for crisis.”



    “Sen. Murphy met with the Iranians; is that a fact? I just saw that on the way over. Is there anything that I should know? Because that sounds like, to me, a violation of the Logan Act,” Trump said.

    I agree.

    Just because Trump ignores traditions and will destroy norms, doesn’t justify doing it to oppose him.

    The traditions and norms of our government are more valuable than any policy being pitched by any candidate.

    It’s hard to birch about Trump’s legal abuse of our government and it’s authority, while doing the same thing.
     
    I take a dim view of opposition senators conducting foreign diplomacy with adversaries such as Iran without presidential approval, regardless of which party is in the White House. Not cool.

    Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) met with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif on the sidelines of this weekend’s Munich Security Conference, the senator confirmed Tuesday.

    In a post on Medium, Murphy said he wanted to discuss Iranian-backed forces in Iraq, the war in Yemen and U.S. prisoners being held in Iran.

    “I have no delusions about Iran — they are our adversary, responsible for the killing of thousands of Americans and unacceptable levels of support for terrorist organizations throughout the Middle East,” Murphy wrote. “But I think it’s dangerous to not talk to your enemies. Discussions and negotiations are a way to ease tensions and reduce the chances for crisis.”



    “Sen. Murphy met with the Iranians; is that a fact? I just saw that on the way over. Is there anything that I should know? Because that sounds like, to me, a violation of the Logan Act,” Trump said.
    Pfft.

    I'm old enough to remember when Congress invited Netanyahu to speak on the floor against the wishes of the President.

    Anywho, here's Sen. Murphy's account of his Congressional Delegation visit.

    An Important Meeting

    As the sun sets in Munich, I have one more mission. For years, I have met on occasion with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, during both the Obama and Trump Administrations. I have no delusions about Iran — they are our adversary, responsible for the killing of thousands of Americans and unacceptable levels of support for terrorist organizations throughout the Middle East. But I think it’s dangerous to not talk to your enemies. Discussions and negotiations are a way to ease tensions and reduce the chances for crisis. But Trump, of course, has no such interests. For the last three years, there has been no diplomatic channel between America and Iran, and not coincidentally, tensions have escalated, most recently resulting in over 100 American soldiers being injured in an Iranian rocket attack on a U.S. base in Iraq.

    ...I don’t know whether my visit with Zarif will make a difference. I’m not the President or the Secretary of State — I’m just a rank and file U.S. Senator. I cannot conduct diplomacy on behalf of the whole of the U.S. government, and I don’t pretend to be in a position to do so. But if Trump isn’t going to talk to Iran, then someone should. And Congress is a co-equal branch of government, responsible along with the Executive for setting foreign policy. A lack of dialogue leaves nations guessing about their enemy’s intentions, and guessing wrong can lead to catastrophic mistakes.



    Seems to me Murphy was conducting business on the behalf of his country and not his own.
     
    The Logan Act requires that the American involved intend to influence the conduct of the foreign government with respect to a controversy with the US. That’s a tricky standard and why there are so few Logan Act prosecutions.

    Murphy is on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Middle East subcommittee. If he is at a conference in Zurich and has an informational meeting/talk with an Iranian delegate at the same the conference - and provides full disclosure and notes of the meeting (apparently he has), I don’t think it’s that problematic. That said, his own characterization of it being “negotiations” is dumb - he’s not authorized to be conducting negotiations and has no business thinking he’s doing that.

    Also, I think it’s hilarious when Trump accuses people of violating federal law.
     
    You have to wonder who briefed Trump on the Logan Act and how many illustrations there were in the brief.
     
    ...Murphy is on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Middle East subcommittee... That said, his own characterization of it being “negotiations” is dumb - he’s not authorized to be conducting negotiations and has no business thinking he’s doing that.
    To be fair to Murphy, his characterizations was him speaking generally.

    "I have no delusions about Iran — they are our adversary, responsible for the killing of thousands of Americans and unacceptable levels of support for terrorist organizations throughout the Middle East. But I think it’s dangerous to not talk to your enemies. Discussions and negotiations are a way to ease tensions and reduce the chances for crisis. But Trump, of course, has no such interests. For the last three years, there has been no diplomatic channel between America and Iran, and not coincidentally, tensions have escalated, most recently resulting in over 100 American soldiers being injured in an Iranian rocket attack on a U.S. base in Iraq."

    He then went on to say the following:

    "I’m not the President or the Secretary of State — I’m just a rank and file U.S. Senator. I cannot conduct diplomacy on behalf of the whole of the U.S. government, and I don’t pretend to be in a position to do so. "
     
    You were shown to have misrepresented the facts of the case you brought to the board. That wasn’t meant to be a drive by, it was an acknowledgment of good work by DJ for placing the whole incident in the proper context and posting the actual facts of the case rather than partisan spin. So there’s your content.

    And you don't get to tell other posters where or how to post. 🤷‍♀️
     
    You were shown to have misrepresented the facts of the case you brought to the board. That wasn’t meant to be a drive by, it was an acknowledgment of good work by DJ for placing the whole incident in the proper context and posting the actual facts of the case rather than partisan spin. So there’s your content.

    And you don't get to tell other posters where or how to post. 🤷‍♀️
    No, I was not shown to have misrepresented the facts I brought to the board. I presented my opinion and the link from The Hill and let the readers decide and have a discussion rather than post the entire article.

    I took your post to be a snotty, drive-by retort which belongs on the smack board. It contained no discussion of the topic, no facts, just a snide, backhanded remark.

    I didn't order you to take it to the smack board. I asked. Politely. I said "please."
     
    The more troubling thing from Sen Murphy's notes was the part where it is implied the US is using its propaganda machine against Zelenski.

    "But on this day, Zelensky has a new beef with the United States, and he doesn’t waste any time expressing it. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, a U.S.-funded news outlet in Europe, Asia and the Middle East, aired a story reporting that Zelensky had secretly met with a Russian official during his recent trip to the Middle East. He says this is not true, and he worried that since the outlet is funded by the U.S. government, there will be an impression that the U.S. government is trying to find another way to undermine his government. "
     
    No, I was not shown to have misrepresented the facts I brought to the board. I presented my opinion and the link from The Hill and let the readers decide and have a discussion rather than post the entire article.
    O'rly
    I take a dim view of opposition senators conducting foreign diplomacy with adversaries such as Iran without presidential approval, regardless of which party is in the White House. Not cool.
    So, Congressional Delegations performing their duties are not cool?

    Nothing that Sen Murphy has done while on his mission was done in secret and all of it was on the record. He even went as far to note that he was NOT conducting diplomacy on the behalf of the United States or anyone else for that matter.
     
    To be fair to Murphy, his characterizations was him speaking generally.

    "I have no delusions about Iran — they are our adversary, responsible for the killing of thousands of Americans and unacceptable levels of support for terrorist organizations throughout the Middle East. But I think it’s dangerous to not talk to your enemies. Discussions and negotiations are a way to ease tensions and reduce the chances for crisis. But Trump, of course, has no such interests. For the last three years, there has been no diplomatic channel between America and Iran, and not coincidentally, tensions have escalated, most recently resulting in over 100 American soldiers being injured in an Iranian rocket attack on a U.S. base in Iraq."

    He then went on to say the following:

    "I’m not the President or the Secretary of State — I’m just a rank and file U.S. Senator. I cannot conduct diplomacy on behalf of the whole of the U.S. government, and I don’t pretend to be in a position to do so. "

    Fair correction - thanks.
     
    O'rly

    So, Congressional Delegations performing their duties are not cool?

    Nothing that Sen Murphy has done while on his mission was done in secret and all of it was on the record. He even went as far to note that he was NOT conducting diplomacy on the behalf of the United States or anyone else for that matter.
    I believe it's the State Department's duty to do what the senator said he doing and the State Department is in the Executive Branch under the president, who provides the approval for all executive actions.

    NOT conducting diplomacy? To me, he was. Saying he wasn't is simply a CUYA statement.

    I've always tended not to be supportive of members of Congress performing State Department functions on foreign soil with military adversaries. Even the senator conceded that Iran is an adversary. That means it definitely falls under the Chief Executive/Commander-in-Chief.

    Now, it's also entirely possible that the senator and the State Department coordinated privately prior to the meeting.
    This would allow the administration to deny ownership, while at the same time floating trial balloons.

    At best, the senator is genuinely trying to help. At worst, he's showboating. Or, perhaps a bit of both.
     
    I believe it's the State Department's duty to do what the senator said he doing and the State Department is in the Executive Branch under the president, who provides the approval for all executive actions.

    NOT conducting diplomacy? To me, he was. Saying he wasn't is simply a CUYA statement.

    I've always tended not to be supportive of members of Congress performing State Department functions on foreign soil with military adversaries. Even the senator conceded that Iran is an adversary. That means it definitely falls under the Chief Executive/Commander-in-Chief.

    Now, it's also entirely possible that the senator and the State Department coordinated privately prior to the meeting.
    This would allow the administration to deny ownership, while at the same time floating trial balloons.

    At best, the senator is genuinely trying to help. At worst, he's showboating. Or, perhaps a bit of both.
    So iyo, Congress has no role in foreign relations? Not even a Congressional Delegation composed of members of the Foreign Relations Committee on a sanctioned mission from the US Government???

    IMO, there is nothing untoward with members of Congress meeting with their foreign equals. Why else would these trips be necessary? Surely you don't believe the meeting he had with the Iranian was a one on one meeting? Undoubtedly, both Murphy and Zarif had their teams with them documenting the event so that there would be no misunderstanding by either side. Add to that, he also made it known that he has a relationship with Zarif as they have had meetings together before.

    The only subject worth questioning is the agenda of The Federalist by pushing the story that Sen Murphy is conducting rogue diplomacy in an effort to undermine US Policy. No doubt the question posed to trump about the meeting was served up by a Federalist "journalist" in order for trump to make his ill-informed Logan act comment.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom