US-Iran War Has Begun! Iran launches dozens of ballistic missiles!

[Razgovory]

From one of the pool journalists:

President Trump spoke to reporters aboard Air Force One -- saying he won't leave Iraq unless they pay the U.S. billions, threatened sanctions on Iraq otherwise, while doubling down on a threat to strike cultural sites in Iran.
On Iraq: "We have a very extraordinarily expensive air base that's there. It cost billions of dollars to build. Long before my time We're not leaving unless they pay us back for it," Trump said.
More on Iraq: "If they do ask us to leave, if we don't do it in a very friendly basis. We will charge them sanctions like they've never seen before ever. It'll make Iranian sanctions look somewhat tame."
Trump also reiterated a threat to target Iranian cultural sites in retaliation for any strike.

"If they do anything there will be major retaliation," he said.
"They're allowed to kill our people. They're allowed to torture and maim our people. they're allowed to use roadside bombs and blow up our people. And we're not allowed to touch their cultural sites? It doesn't work that way," Trump said.

Jesus Christ.  I'm both horrified and ashamed.  It's like something from the 19th century...  When Trump was asked about Iranian retaliation he responded "If it happens it happens."  I imagine that would be of comfort to the people who's family members die in an attack.

I really don't know how you could alienate our allies any more than this.

[The Brain]

From one of the pool journalists:

President Trump spoke to reporters aboard Air Force One -- saying he won't leave Iraq unless they pay the U.S. billions, threatened sanctions on Iraq otherwise, while doubling down on a threat to strike cultural sites in Iran.
On Iraq: "We have a very extraordinarily expensive air base that's there. It cost billions of dollars to build. Long before my time We're not leaving unless they pay us back for it," Trump said.
More on Iraq: "If they do ask us to leave, if we don't do it in a very friendly basis. We will charge them sanctions like they've never seen before ever. It'll make Iranian sanctions look somewhat tame."
Trump also reiterated a threat to target Iranian cultural sites in retaliation for any strike.

"If they do anything there will be major retaliation," he said.
"They're allowed to kill our people. They're allowed to torture and maim our people. they're allowed to use roadside bombs and blow up our people. And we're not allowed to touch their cultural sites? It doesn't work that way," Trump said.

Jesus Christ.  I'm both horrified and ashamed.  It's like something from the 19th century...  When Trump was asked about Iranian retaliation he responded "If it happens it happens."  I imagine that would be of comfort to the people who's family members die in an attack.

I really don't know how you could alienate our allies any more than this.

Your most important ally loves this.

[Malthus]

Can't really fault the Iranians for rushing for the bomb, I guess. North Korea has it and they have The Donald groveling to their Dear Leader. Iran doesn't have it yet and they get slapped around.

It was already a bit of an issue with American foreign policy, as in NK was paid tribute to stay quiet, but at least they made this deal with Iran in '15. Now that's all fucked.

Heh, the world messed up its opportunity to fight proliferation when Ukraine was offered and took a deal to give up its nukes, which deal amounted to a heap of nothing. The Russians beat on them like a drum while the world yawned.

The smaller powers learned their lesson, which was that the big powers could not be trusted and the only protection was to have nukes.

[Barrister]

Can't really fault the Iranians for rushing for the bomb, I guess. North Korea has it and they have The Donald groveling to their Dear Leader. Iran doesn't have it yet and they get slapped around.

It was already a bit of an issue with American foreign policy, as in NK was paid tribute to stay quiet, but at least they made this deal with Iran in '15. Now that's all fucked.

Heh, the world messed up its opportunity to fight proliferation when Ukraine was offered and took a deal to give up its nukes, which deal amounted to a heap of nothing. The Russians beat on them like a drum while the world yawned.

The smaller powers learned their lesson, which was that the big powers could not be trusted and the only protection was to have nukes.

Not sure what we should have done differently, but it also didn't help when Quadaffi gave up his nuke program in exchange for lifting sanctions, but the West still took the first opportunity it had to remove him from power.

[Malthus]

Can't really fault the Iranians for rushing for the bomb, I guess. North Korea has it and they have The Donald groveling to their Dear Leader. Iran doesn't have it yet and they get slapped around.

It was already a bit of an issue with American foreign policy, as in NK was paid tribute to stay quiet, but at least they made this deal with Iran in '15. Now that's all fucked.

Heh, the world messed up its opportunity to fight proliferation when Ukraine was offered and took a deal to give up its nukes, which deal amounted to a heap of nothing. The Russians beat on them like a drum while the world yawned.

The smaller powers learned their lesson, which was that the big powers could not be trusted and the only protection was to have nukes.

Not sure what we should have done differently, but it also didn't help when Quadaffi gave up his nuke program in exchange for lifting sanctions, but the West still took the first opportunity it had to remove him from power.

Should have offered binding guarantees of their security, both from the Russians and from NATO, or let them keep the nukes. Not merely a useless guarantee against being nuked.

Offering them less is a perfect example of a short-term move. Obviously it is a benefit to us to have less nukes about, and getting that cheap was good - in the short term. In the long term, as noted, it simply reinforces the idea that co-operating, being a good global citizen, and handing over (or not obtaining) nukes is for suckers who can then be preyed on with impunity.

[Barrister]

Should have offered binding guarantees of their security, both from the Russians and from NATO, or let them keep the nukes. Not merely a useless guarantee against being nuked.

Offering them less is a perfect example of a short-term move. Obviously it is a benefit to us to have less nukes about, and getting that cheap was good - in the short term. In the long term, as noted, it simply reinforces the idea that co-operating, being a good global citizen, and handing over (or not obtaining) nukes is for suckers who can then be preyed on with impunity.

I meant specifically what we should have done differently with Quadaffi.  I mean he really put the "dick" in dictator and the world is better off without him, but I know Kim Jong-Un has mentioned his example in the past as one that North Korea wants to avoid.

[Malthus]

Should have offered binding guarantees of their security, both from the Russians and from NATO, or let them keep the nukes. Not merely a useless guarantee against being nuked.

Offering them less is a perfect example of a short-term move. Obviously it is a benefit to us to have less nukes about, and getting that cheap was good - in the short term. In the long term, as noted, it simply reinforces the idea that co-operating, being a good global citizen, and handing over (or not obtaining) nukes is for suckers who can then be preyed on with impunity.

I meant specifically what we should have done differently with Quadaffi.  I mean he really put the "dick" in dictator and the world is better off without him, but I know Kim Jong-Un has mentioned his example in the past as one that North Korea wants to avoid.

I agree, that was a screw-up of the same sort. Though as you say, it is hard to see what the West ought to have done differently, it reinforces the unfortunate lesson: it is better to have nukes.

[viper37]

While this is a major escalation, I am confident that our level headed president, aided by a robust and well funded foreign service, have a comprehensive strategy and will lead us to a great diplomatic victory with minimal bloodshed.

You need a new avatar  

[Razgovory]

Earlier, I said the Iranians would attack an embassy.  Thinking about it, they might be better off if they attacked one of Trump's properties such as his tower in Indonesia.  Much less security, and it would cause Trump severe problems politically.  Asking soldiers to risk their lives for Trump's bottom line would be... awkward.

[Sheilbh]

Not clear what's going on with US forces in Iraq:

Confusion surrounds memo indicating potential withdrawal of US troops from Iraq

The future of the US presence in Iraq is in question after a military memo seemed to indicate a potential withdrawal of American troops from the country.

The memo stated troops would begin "onward movement" from Iraq. However, secretary of defense Mark Esper said the memo was inaccurate "There's been no decision whatsoever to leave Iraq."

The chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General Mark Milley, said the letter had been sent in error.

The back-and-forth began as the Trump administration scrambled to respond to Iraqi demands for the troops to leave after last week's assassination in Baghdad of Iran's top general, Qassem Suleimani.

Allies to the US are responding in kind, with British officials are now pointing to Esper's clarification, describing the original letter from the US-led coalition circulating in Iraq as "very unclear" and "not what it seems" without giving further details.

Trump has blocked Zarif from attending the UN next week by denying him a visa. Which feels rare.

Separately I saw the Japanese are deploying more escorts to Persian Gulf. It strikes me this may be the smartest retaliation for the Iranians. Hit American allies - they're probably less protected and it won't provoke retaliation by Trump because he doesn't care about alliances, but it will hurt America's relationships/alliances.

[The Minsky Moment]

Oil hits $70.  So far the winner is (huge surprise) Russia.

[Razgovory]

Not clear what's going on with US forces in Iraq:

Confusion surrounds memo indicating potential withdrawal of US troops from Iraq

The future of the US presence in Iraq is in question after a military memo seemed to indicate a potential withdrawal of American troops from the country.

The memo stated troops would begin "onward movement" from Iraq. However, secretary of defense Mark Esper said the memo was inaccurate "There's been no decision whatsoever to leave Iraq."

The chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General Mark Milley, said the letter had been sent in error.

The back-and-forth began as the Trump administration scrambled to respond to Iraqi demands for the troops to leave after last week's assassination in Baghdad of Iran's top general, Qassem Suleimani.

Allies to the US are responding in kind, with British officials are now pointing to Esper's clarification, describing the original letter from the US-led coalition circulating in Iraq as "very unclear" and "not what it seems" without giving further details.

Trump has blocked Zarif from attending the UN next week by denying him a visa. Which feels rare.

Separately I saw the Japanese are deploying more escorts to Persian Gulf. It strikes me this may be the smartest retaliation for the Iranians. Hit American allies - they're probably less protected and it won't provoke retaliation by Trump because he doesn't care about alliances, but it will hurt America's relationships/alliances.

I have no idea what the fuck is going on or what is going to happen.  The reason that deny Zarif a visa feels rare is because it violates a treaty.

[Malthus]

Oil hits $70.  So far the winner is (huge surprise) Russia.

Don't forget the Iranian government - it was facing a widespread popular street rioting, now it has the country solidly united behind it.

Trump selflessly helping others in trouble again.

[11B4V]

Not clear what's going on with US forces in Iraq:

Confusion surrounds memo indicating potential withdrawal of US troops from Iraq

The future of the US presence in Iraq is in question after a military memo seemed to indicate a potential withdrawal of American troops from the country.

The memo stated troops would begin "onward movement" from Iraq. However, secretary of defense Mark Esper said the memo was inaccurate "There's been no decision whatsoever to leave Iraq."

The chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General Mark Milley, said the letter had been sent in error.

The back-and-forth began as the Trump administration scrambled to respond to Iraqi demands for the troops to leave after last week's assassination in Baghdad of Iran's top general, Qassem Suleimani.

Allies to the US are responding in kind, with British officials are now pointing to Esper's clarification, describing the original letter from the US-led coalition circulating in Iraq as "very unclear" and "not what it seems" without giving further details.

Trump has blocked Zarif from attending the UN next week by denying him a visa. Which feels rare.

Separately I saw the Japanese are deploying more escorts to Persian Gulf. It strikes me this may be the smartest retaliation for the Iranians. Hit American allies - they're probably less protected and it won't provoke retaliation by Trump because he doesn't care about alliances, but it will hurt America's relationships/alliances.

I have no idea what the fuck is going on or what is going to happen.  The reason that deny Zarif a visa feels rare is because it violates a treaty.

To get the U.N. to move? And Trump wins again?

[Tamas]

Would be interesting to know if the rumour about the dead guy travelling to negotiate wit the Saudis is true. I would imagine the only great power with interests in keeping the sunni-shiite proxy wars going is Russia.

I still don't think Trump is a Russian agent/asset but it is becoming remarkable how the only consistent pattern in his presidency is a serving of Russian interests.