Assassinations in Iran (3 Viewers)

[superchuck500]

Two weeks ago, Al Qaeda’s Muhammad al-Masri was assassinated in a “brazen” drive-by shooting in Tehran. Analysts believed the incident had all the marks of an operation by Israel’s Mossad. Those suspicions were confirmed by a senior US official speaking to the NYT and Washington Post. (See below).

Analysts believe that the Trump administration may be requesting/demanding a late push for transactional rewards for its pro-Israel policy that has resulted in various benefits including US recognition of Israel settlements as legitimate and the recent “normalization” with UAE.

After the al-Masri assassination, Trump signaled a tough posture on Iran and stories broke that he was considering an attack. As recently as two days ago, the US had repositioned Mid East assets.

And now today, Iran’s top nuclear scientist was assassinated in Iran. Will Iran respond? Will there be more assassinations? What is Trump’s objective?




Reporting on al-Masri killing:

 

[brandon]

Cute, "the more you know" gif, but it was Rouhani who issued the warning.

Although, my bad for not linking the piece in which "supreme leader" was used, and didn't even mention Rouhani's name. It was Fox News, of course.

You implied that the president of Iran and the supreme leader of Iran were one and the same. I was simply pointing out that that is incorrect.

 

[SystemShock]

You implied that the president of Iran and the supreme leader of Iran were one and the same. I was simply pointing out that that is incorrect.

No, I didn't, but anyway ...

 

[zztop]

Every time I read about Iran I can't help but think that the US is to blame for the situation. Going back to the 1950s, the US and the UK overthrew the democratic government there all because of oil. As a result, a hardline theocracy emerged, and it is what you see today. I think that if none of that happened, things would be very different today. Iran could have been an ally vs whatever they are today. I don't even know WHY the US considers them some big threat, other than Israel doesn't like them.

 

[Saintman2884]

A message board I used to frequent coined a little axiom that when done correctly, it was impossible to distinguish between a troll and a hyper-conservative. Funnily enough that message board eventually turned into the kind of racism filled place that churns out people like our ex-friend here.



How is this any different than saying one less Jew or one less black person or one less anyone? And you should care because this is exactly the sort of thing that leads to chants of, "Death to America."

Believe it or not, Iran was actually adhering to the nuclear deal before a new US administration decided we were going to back out of it. Now we have to hope they decide on a relatively minor retaliation. Is this Jared's Peace in the Middle East plan?

The nuclear deal the Obama administration negotiated with Iran in 2015 was seen by some as a bit one-sided and not exactly completely solid. It really didn't make Iranians give up their nuclear programme, it just put it on pause for decade and if further, future negotiations couldn't ease up tensions between West and Iran, they could start it up all over again.
I've read articles that Obama knew, at the time, it wasn't even close to perfect and wouldn't be received favorably by Republicans and anti-Iranian dissident groups in the USA, but the State Dept. to get some deal done, something that maybe looked "decent" or a framework for future progress. Our EU Western allies were pushing for a compromised agreement.

The Iranian delegation knew this and played hardball and IMHO, got maybe too many concessions they didn't deserve and a lot of Republicans, even some centrist Democrats thought Obama went too easy on them.

Iranians did adhere to the terms of the nuclear freeze, but a more fundamental question that was posed then but shoved away and never really answered: Was it a good one or one that would last? There was a Iranian-American NYT reporter and journalist, who was unlawfully detained and imprisoned for "spying" and his family was pushing for Obama's negotiators to get off their arses and push a little harder to demand his release from prison as part of any nuclear freeze deal?

Well, he forking wasn't and when he was released, months later, it was completely unrelated to the nuclear freeze deal we signed. forking bullshirt. He was an innocent, hard-working, patriotic American reporter working for better relations with USA and his native home country and Iran's secret police trumps up bullshirt, baloney charges of spying and espionage and he rots in an Iranian prison for a couple years.

It was a deeply-flawed deal that was only going to last if a Democratic administration took office after Obama left in 2016 and IMHO, I think most types of any Republican presidential administration likely pulls out or considers pulling out, Trump or not, from that deal because it could've been more mutually beneficial.

Obama made a few agreements during his second term like with Cuba that were perceived as being too one-sided and conceding too much for too little in attempting to normalize relations.

Obama meant well, I don't and have never doubted that and wanted to leave a good, lasting legacy in foreign relations but that doesn't mean or prevent good-faith negotiations meant to relieve tensions gets taken advantage of and you put yourself and your party in a perceived negative position as mediocre negotiators who sign a deal they instrincally know won't last long if Reps take power.

 

[Saintman2884]

Every time I read about Iran I can't help but think that the US is to blame for the situation. Going back to the 1950s, the US and the UK overthrew the democratic government there all because of oil. As a result, a hardline theocracy emerged, and it is what you see today. I think that if none of that happened, things would be very different today. Iran could have been an ally vs whatever they are today. I don't even know WHY the US considers them some big threat, other than Israel doesn't like them.

Thats difficult to say or even argue conclusively. First off, while Mossadegh was no Communist, he was a staunch Arab nationalist and at that point so early in the Cold War, the ME was a region both sides were trying to woo and recruit to their side, Soviets tried and failed with Israel to make a client puppet Socialist state after WWII. Like with Mao's China, it failed spectacularly so Stalin and later, Krusckshev, turned to pan-Arab nationalists like Nasser in Egypt and Assad in Syria(Bismarck of the ME, IMHO) and use them and later Palestinian and Lebanese terrorist groups as proxies against US and Isreal and they did. The British and US were concerned the Soviets might try to cozy up to Mossadegh's regime, even if he was anti Communist, as an ally against US in the region and shore up its oil interests in the Persian Gulf. Mossadegh had also made some questionable authoritarian moves like disbanding Iranian parliament and even though Khomeini later used him as a "martyr" and victim of Western imperialism and interventionism, he wrote a letter to Shah Pavlavi thanking him for removing Mossadegh from power and holding him to house arrest until he died in the late 1960s. He and his hardline Islamic clerics despised him more then they hated Pavlavi dynasty.

Iran also has a hardline Islamic theocracy that cracks down on homosexuals, women's rights, has been accused of being antisemitic, harboring radical Islamic jihadist terrorists or funding Hamas or Hezoballah, adheres to a medieval, misogynist interpretation of Islam called sharia law, one of their former presidents, called into question the Holocaust's legitimacy and hosted a international conference that invited notable, notorious Holocaust deniers, including KKK leader David Duke, to Tehran, in 2005.

Oh and BTW, Iran was found liable and guilty by a US federal judge for being responsible for being behind the 1982 US Marine barracks bombing that killed 200+ Marines and a huge, international class-action lawsuit was filed against them by families of slain US Marines.

 

[brandon]

... so, the president of Iran ( or like we like to call him, Iran's Supreme Leader;

You implied that the president of Iran and the supreme leader of Iran were one and the same. I was simply pointing out that that is incorrect.

No, I didn't, but anyway ...

What a stupid hill to die on.

Edit: Wait, were you suggesting originally that Americans confuse the president with the Supreme Leader? Because if so then this thread is kinda meta and I take back my stupid hill comment.

 

[wardorican]

Well my Watson that should be obvious.

I was wondering why anyone cares?

Needless war, for one.

 

[zztop]

Iran also has a hardline Islamic theocracy that cracks down on homosexuals, women's rights, has been accused of being antisemitic, harboring radical Islamic jihadist terrorists or funding Hamas or Hezoballah, adheres to a medieval, misogynist interpretation of Islam called sharia law, one of their former presidents, called into question the Holocaust's legitimacy and hosted a international conference that invited notable, notorious Holocaust deniers, including KKK leader David Duke, to Tehran, in 2005.

Oh and BTW, Iran was found liable and guilty by a US federal judge for being responsible for being behind the 1982 US Marine barracks bombing that killed 200+ Marines and a huge, international class-action lawsuit was filed against them by families of slain US Marines.

I know all about that, however, (perhaps) if the US and UK hadn't overthrown the government there, the past 40 or so years would have turned out much differently. Everything I've read said that the UK was panicked because the oil industry there was under threat of being nationalized, and they couldn't or wouldn't want to lose what they had been controlling for a few decades. They just made matters worse by overthrowing the government there, and what you have seen today and in the past few decades from Iran is a consequence of that.

 

[DaveXA]

I think it’s safe to say that the President of Iran is little more than a figurehead and that who really runs things is the Supreme Leader.

 

[brandon]

I think it’s safe to say that the President of Iran is little more than a figurehead and that who really runs things is the Supreme Leader.

I don’t really think that’s an accurate take, either. Certainly Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was a very powerful presence as the president of Iran, and while Rouhani hasn’t been quite as outspoken as Ahmadinejad, to say that he’s merely a figurehead is I think an oversimplification. In fact, I’d argue that Khomenei is more the figurehead. Not quite as useless as a British monarch, but certainly not the one calling all the shots.

 

[Ratchet]

Needless war, for one.

LOL squishing Iranian brains is not needless.

Are you aware that the US government put a bounty of 15 million dollars on the Iranian revolutionary guard in the USA the day after a scuba boat was torched killing all below deck in California? Shhhhh keep this quiet

 

[TaylorB]

Two weeks ago, Al Qaeda’s Muhammad al-Masri was assassinated in a “brazen” drive-by shooting in Tehran. Analysts believed the incident had all the marks of an operation by Israel’s Mossad. Those suspicions were confirmed by a senior US official speaking to the NYT and Washington Post. (See below).

Analysts believe that the Trump administration may be requesting/demanding a late push for transactional rewards for its pro-Israel policy that has resulted in various benefits including US recognition of Israel settlements as legitimate and the recent “normalization” with UAE.

After the al-Masri assassination, Trump signaled a tough posture on Iran and stories broke that he was considering an attack. As recently as two days ago, the US had repositioned Mid East assets.

And now today, Iran’s top nuclear scientist was assassinated in Iran. Will Iran respond? Will there be more assassinations? What is Trump’s objective?




Reporting on al-Masri killing:

Trump’s objective is to continue the foreign policy gift his entire presidency has been for Israel, UAE, and Saudi Arabia. Since the benefit to the US of his transactional foreign policy with these countries has been rather hard to pinpoint — and since Trump’s entire foreign policy apparatus was always used for his personal benefit — it’s highly likely he expects some benefit from it, whether financial or political. Netanyahu has been telegraphing for years that he plans to escalate the conflict with Iran, and Trump has always signaled back that he would help when he does.

Trump has hotels and golf courses on the Arabian peninsula, gets $ elsewhere for hotels, condos, and golf courses from Saudis and Emiratis, etc. Most of the evangelical right wants to do whatever Israel does. Trump has gone to great lengths to appease all these people. It wasn’t ever about whether Iran was actually complying with the deal (they were), which is why we were the only signatory country that chose to abandon it. Trump is going to continue to give those countries policy wins until he leaves office.

 

[Maxp]

LOL squishing Iranian brains is not needless.

Are you aware that the US government put a bounty of 15 million dollars on the Iranian revolutionary guard in the USA the day after a scuba boat was torched killing all below deck in California? Shhhhh keep this quiet

Yeah, that had absolutely nothing to do with Iran and everything to do with shameful safety practices by the dive company.

 

[MT15]

Great, a conspiracy theorist. Two events happen one day apart, they must be cause and effect right? LOL.

 

[DaveXA]

I don’t really think that’s an accurate take, either. Certainly Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was a very powerful presence as the president of Iran, and while Rouhani hasn’t been quite as outspoken as Ahmadinejad, to say that he’s merely a figurehead is I think an oversimplification. In fact, I’d argue that Khomenei is more the figurehead. Not quite as useless as a British monarch, but certainly not the one calling all the shots.

I think my comment is more accurate than maybe you're giving credit for. The suggestion that both Ahmadinejad and Rouhani are/were both figureheads comes from my Persian friends who live here and in Iran. It once was actually a rather secular country until the Shah was overthrown. Pretty much everything in that country change then.

Now these friends were supportive of the Shah, so that point of view probably explains at least in part why they hate the current government, including and especially the Ayatollah.

That said, not that Wiki is the end all be all on the subject, but this quote i think is accurate.

The president is the highest-ranking official of Iran (however, the president is still required to gain the Supreme Leader's official approval before being sworn in before the Parliament and the Leader also has the power to dismiss the elected president at any time).[3] The president carries out the decrees, and answers to the Supreme Leader of Iran, who functions as the country's head of state.[4][5]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Iran#cite_note-servat.unibe.ch-5

Further:

The current longtime officeholder, Ali Khamenei, has been issuing decrees and making the final decisions on economy, environment, foreign policy, education, national planning, and other aspects of governance in Iran.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] Khamenei also makes the final decisions on the amount of transparency in elections,[12] and has dismissed and reinstated presidential cabinet appointees.[13]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Leader_of_Iran#cite_note-news.bbc.co.uk-13

 

[Ratchet]

Yeah, that had absolutely nothing to do with Iran and everything to do with shameful safety practices by the dive company.

So what charges against the dive company are pending

 

[Ratchet]

Great, a conspiracy theorist. Two events happen one day apart, they must be cause and effect right? LOL.

Yawn

 

[efil4]

Yawn

touche