Trump is escalating the situation in Iraq and I don't really see that he has a strategy to end things. There's been lots of civil conflict there in the last six months between the shia and sunni, and the government has been killing tons of people and Trump and co haven't done anything to try and calm things down there. Of course, now that the embassy was attacked, he's reacting, but it's without forethought. Assassinating some guys like this and sending over the 82nd airborne is not going to stop the country from boiling over.
https://twitter.com/AlSuraEnglish/status/1212875885520379905
Quote#BREAKING - #Iraqi Popular Mobilization Units leadership hit in #US strikes on #Baghdad International Airport. 4 missiles hit multiple targets around Baghdad Airport, 2 SUVs carrying Iraqi PMU leadership were struck while leaving the Airport.
https://twitter.com/Intel_Sky/status/1212876295928975362
Quote#BREAKING: PMU 🇮🇶 relations director, Muhammad Reda Aljabery with a delegation of the 🇮🇷 Iranian Revolutionary Guards who were in 2 cars on the Baghdad Int'l airport road was assassinated in the last air strike.
https://www.militarytimes.com/flashpoints/2020/01/01/750-soldiers-with-82nd-airborne-headed-for-centcom-additional-4000-troops-expected-to-deploy-as-iran-tensions-mount/
Quote750 soldiers with 82nd Airborne headed for CENTCOM, additional 4,000 troops expected to deploy as Iran tensions mount
Reuters has this:
QuoteRockets hit Baghdad airport, killing five Iraqi paramilitary members, two 'guests'
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Three rockets hit Baghdad International Airport killing five members of Iraqi paramilitary groups and two "guests", Iraqi paramilitary groups said on Friday.
The Katyusha rockets landed near the air cargo terminal, burning two vehicles, killing and injuring several people.
Iraqi paramilitary groups said five of their members and two "guests" were killed in the airstrike on their vehicles inside Baghdad International Airport, militia sources reported on early Friday.
Two militia sources said the two guests were also killed in the attack but declined to identify them.
Police and health sources said that at least five people were killed and nine wounded.
Shi'ite Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) said in a post on Facebook that its director of public relations was killed in what it described as "cowardly U.S. bombing."
There was no immediate claim of responsibility.
.
Full item here:
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-iraq-security-blast/rockets-hit-baghdad-airport-killing-five-iraqi-paramilitary-members-two-guests-idUKKBN1Z11KC?il=0 (https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-iraq-security-blast/rockets-hit-baghdad-airport-killing-five-iraqi-paramilitary-members-two-guests-idUKKBN1Z11KC?il=0)
I don't think Trump is escalating, but protecting the embassy. Those "mourners" as the media and the Iranian govt like to call them are Iranian militia being handled by Iranian government. The Iranians have a lot of operatives, militia and control in Iraq which is not wanted by most Iraqis. Iran would probably like to escalate things to make things messy for Trump but I really don't think Pres Trump has any strong notion to getting into another major conflict there except for what was done with Isis. So I hope Trump doesn't take the bait and make airstrikes on Iran or something, which I'm sure some of the hawks and neo-cons in government are pushing for.
Quote from: KRonn on January 02, 2020, 08:10:34 PM
I don't think Trump is escalating, but protecting the embassy. Those "mourners" as the media and the Iranian govt like to call them are Iranian militia being handled by Iranian government. The Iranians have a lot of operatives, militia and control in Iraq which is not wanted by most Iraqis. Iran would probably like to escalate things to make things messy for Trump but I really don't think Pres Trump has any strong notion to getting into another major conflict there except for what was done with Isis. So I hope Trump doesn't take the bait and make airstrikes on Iran or something, which I'm sure some of the hawks and neo-cons in government are pushing for.
Reinforcing the embassy with a company of marines or what have you is fine. Sending in a brigade of the 82nd airborne and assassinating IRG officers at the international airport is not going to solve anything.
One of those guests was Qassem Sueimani! Good lord I hope that's not true.
https://twitter.com/Joyce_Karam/status/1212902693221650439
QuoteBREAKING: #IRAQ OFFICIAL TV ANNOUNCES #IRAN IRGC LEADER QASSEM SULEIMANI IS ASSASSINATED.
Timmy, have you considered the possibility that Intel_Sky is not the most believable of sources, and that in fact the US didn't assassinate anyone?
Reuters update:
Quote
JANUARY 3, 2020 / 1:22 AM /
UPDATED 17 MINUTES AGO
Iran's Soleimani and Iraq's Muhandis killed in air strike - militia spokesman
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iranian Major-General Qassem Soleimani, head of the elite Quds Force, and Iraqi militia commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis were killed late on Thursday in an air strike on their convoy in Baghdad airport, an Iraqi militia spokesman told Reuters.
Full article here:
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-iraq-security-blast-soleimani/irans-soleimani-and-iraqs-muhandis-killed-in-air-strike-militia-spokesman-idUKKBN1Z201G?il=0 (https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-iraq-security-blast-soleimani/irans-soleimani-and-iraqs-muhandis-killed-in-air-strike-militia-spokesman-idUKKBN1Z201G?il=0)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 02, 2020, 08:47:12 PM
Timmy, have you considered the possibility that Intel_Sky is not the most believable of sources, and that in fact the US didn't assassinate anyone?
Well this guy did/does have nine lives, so maybe in the morning he'll have miraculously escaped death?
Quote from: mongers on January 02, 2020, 08:48:50 PM
Well this guy did/does have nine lives, so maybe in the morning he'll have miraculously escaped death?
Or maybe he's deader than disco and someone else did it.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 02, 2020, 08:15:44 PM
Quote from: KRonn on January 02, 2020, 08:10:34 PM
I don't think Trump is escalating, but protecting the embassy. Those "mourners" as the media and the Iranian govt like to call them are Iranian militia being handled by Iranian government. The Iranians have a lot of operatives, militia and control in Iraq which is not wanted by most Iraqis. Iran would probably like to escalate things to make things messy for Trump but I really don't think Pres Trump has any strong notion to getting into another major conflict there except for what was done with Isis. So I hope Trump doesn't take the bait and make airstrikes on Iran or something, which I'm sure some of the hawks and neo-cons in government are pushing for.
Reinforcing the embassy with a company of marines or what have you is fine. Sending in a brigade of the 82nd airborne and assassinating IRG officers at the international airport is not going to solve anything.
Readying or sending in the brigade is a sensible precaution, as Iran has a large militia presence in Iraq and lots of government control. US should be prepared if things escalate at the embassy. Iranians have been involved in killing US/Allied soldiers in Iraq for years and little was said or done about it. Maybe some of these Iranians killed there were part of that in the past, don't know, or if this is additional show of force.
We'll see how things progress or escalate, but I still say that Trump doesn't want to be involved in any major war as he's often said. He has been putting lots of pressure on Iran and they have lots of internal problems and unrest. I'm sure Iran would like an escalation to take some off some of that pressure, so as I said, I hope Trump doesn't take it too far.
Also:
Quote
Reports US Marines seizes #Iraq militia leaders Qais Khazali of Iraqi Hezbollah and Hadi Al Ameri in Jadriah district of Baghdad (Al Arabiya)
The general killed was the leader of the Quds force. He and his units have some responsibility for killing US/Allied personnel and lots of other nasty stuff in the region. A very bold and risky move by the US and Trump, and doesn't mean the next step is a ground war with Iran but on considering it more, it is a bit worrying as to how things may escalate.
Why do I feel like we're living through Clear and Present Danger?
John Clark : "Reciprocity." That's a clever name for it. Revenge is a very, very, very dangerous motivation.
Robert Ritter : Are you able to handle this operation or not? What I'm looking for here is a simple yes or no.
John Clark : What you're looking for is a political mess.
Robert Ritter : Yes or no?
John Clark : Is that what they want? Because that's what this is.
Robert Ritter : They want what every first-term administration wants - a second term.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 02, 2020, 08:49:43 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 02, 2020, 08:48:50 PM
Well this guy did/does have nine lives, so maybe in the morning he'll have miraculously escaped death?
Or maybe he's deader than disco and someone else did it.
I don't think we have a habit of taking credit for what others did, and I sure hope others don't have the capability to deliver targeted air strikes.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 02, 2020, 08:49:43 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 02, 2020, 08:48:50 PM
Well this guy did/does have nine lives, so maybe in the morning he'll have miraculously escaped death?
Or maybe he's deader than disco and someone else did it.
The Pentagon's issued a statement confirming. And the President has tweeted a picture of an American flag.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 02, 2020, 10:42:30 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 02, 2020, 08:49:43 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 02, 2020, 08:48:50 PM
Well this guy did/does have nine lives, so maybe in the morning he'll have miraculously escaped death?
Or maybe he's deader than disco and someone else did it.
The Pentagon's issued a statement confirming. And the President has tweeted a picture of an American flag.
Presumably for the coffins coming back from the Middle East, which he won't meet or acknowledge?
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 02, 2020, 10:42:30 PM
The Pentagon's issued a statement confirming. And the President has tweeted a picture of an American flag.
Okey dokey
Quote from: KRonn on January 02, 2020, 08:10:34 PM
I don't think Trump is escalating, but protecting the embassy. Those "mourners" as the media and the Iranian govt like to call them are Iranian militia being handled by Iranian government. The Iranians have a lot of operatives, militia and control in Iraq which is not wanted by most Iraqis. Iran would probably like to escalate things to make things messy for Trump but I really don't think Pres Trump has any strong notion to getting into another major conflict there except for what was done with Isis. So I hope Trump doesn't take the bait and make airstrikes on Iran or something, which I'm sure some of the hawks and neo-cons in government are pushing for.
Mr. Hannity, please put KRonn back on the line.
What is the strategic purpose of the strike?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 02, 2020, 11:33:38 PM
What is the strategic purpose of the strike?
Reciprocity/revenge for the US embassy attack.
Quote from: Barrister on January 03, 2020, 12:18:15 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 02, 2020, 11:33:38 PM
What is the strategic purpose of the strike?
Reciprocity/revenge for the US embassy attack.
That's a motive, not a strategy
Seems like the answer to thread title is yes
https://twitter.com/khamenei_ir/status/1212989051093028864
QuoteDear Iranian Nation!
Years of sincere, brave efforts fighting against the devils& villainous in the world & yrs of wishing for martyrdom on the path of God finally took the dear Commander of Islam, Soleimani, to this lofty status. His blood was shed by the most barbaric of men
We congratulate Imam Mahdi ('a.j.) & Soleimani's pure soul& condole the Iranian nation on this great martyrdom. He was an eminent example of a person trained in Islam. He spent all his life in struggling for God. Martyrdom was the reward for his tireless efforts over the years.
His efforts & path won't be stopped by his martyrdom, by God's Power, rather a #SevereRevenge awaits the criminals who have stained their hands with his & the other martyrs' blood last night. Martyr Soleimani is an Intl figure of Resistance & all such people will seek revenge.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 02, 2020, 11:33:38 PM
What is the strategic purpose of the strike?
Getting attention away from impeachment/trial?
Ayatollah contiued his post. Looks grim
https://mobile.twitter.com/khamenei_ir/status/1212998634264027136
Tim, let's be honest, your main opposition to this is due to the fact that it was okayed by Trump.
I don't mind they killed that guy, my worry is that as usual they are starting something in Iraq with no thought given to how they are going to end it.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 02, 2020, 11:33:38 PM
What is the strategic purpose of the strike?
I fear it's just Trump lashing out. The embassy thing scared him. I have no problem with shows of force, even lethal shows of force that designed to dissuade an enemy. The US hit Iranian backed militias in Syria. Cool. The Iranians respond by staging violent protests outside our embassy in Baghdad. US helicopters fly overhead and drop flares and the protesters disperse. We won. We blasted some Syrian militias at the cost of some windows and gates at the Green Zone. Awesome. Then we use military assets to assassinate one of the most popular and most influential leaders in Iran on the streets of the capital of an ally who really doesn't like us that well. Not at some bunker, or training camp or whatever, but in a major metropolitan area. With an airstrike. If Trump is telling the truth and really doesn't war (and I believe he doesn't really want war), then this is possibly one of the stupidest moves he could possibly make.
If only we had some part of the government that handled foreign policy.
Now would be really bad time to be on a US, Saudi, or Emerati flight.
Quote from: Tamas on January 03, 2020, 02:59:39 AM
Tim, let's be honest, your main opposition to this is due to the fact that it was okayed by Trump.
Quote from: Tamas on January 03, 2020, 03:01:01 AM
I don't mind they killed that guy, my worry is that as usual they are starting something in Iraq with no thought given to how they are going to end it.
Is this really how you feel about this?
Is EUOT OK? :o
Quote from: Razgovory on January 03, 2020, 03:05:41 AM
Now would be really bad time to be on a US, Saudi, or Emerati flight.
And an even worse time to be working at a US embassy. Trump may get his own Benghazi soon.
Garbon, am I supposed to feel sorry for a guy who orchestrated a lot of suffering and killing via Iran's proxy wars in the region?
So Hillary was supposed to be the warmonger...
Quote from: The Larch on January 03, 2020, 05:31:18 AM
So Hillary was supposed to be the warmonger...
Well if this one will go wrong I am sure they will find a way to blame her for it, so it's a win-win
Quote from: Tamas on January 03, 2020, 05:15:27 AM
Garbon, am I supposed to feel sorry for a guy who orchestrated a lot of suffering and killing via Iran's proxy wars in the region?
Feel sorry for him? No, not at all. Worry about the impact this might have? Well, your call.
I think also unfair what you said to Tim.
Quote from: The Larch on January 03, 2020, 05:31:18 AM
So Hillary was supposed to be the warmonger...
Indeed, Trump was the one who supposedly did not want us embroiled in another war.
Quote from: garbon on January 03, 2020, 05:56:48 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 03, 2020, 05:15:27 AM
Garbon, am I supposed to feel sorry for a guy who orchestrated a lot of suffering and killing via Iran's proxy wars in the region?
Feel sorry for him? No, not at all. Worry about the impact this might have? Well, your call.
Then why did you quote the second Tampax post?
Quote from: Tamas on January 03, 2020, 02:59:39 AM
Tim, let's be honest, your main opposition to this is due to the fact that it was okayed by Trump.
If anyone else ordered such an escalation with no clear plan for the region, I would condemn them as well.
Quote from: The Brain on January 03, 2020, 04:45:03 AM
Is EUOT OK? :o
On first glance it appears to be in fine form.
QuoteIran is no saint. But the bad guy in this, or indeed in most of the ME quagmires is the USA-KSA-Israel blob.
QuoteThe US carries out a terrorist attack on foreign soil to illegally murder someone and the western propaganda outlets calls it an attack and there isnt even a war declaration against Iran.
I want to see how the puppets will react when the resistance against the US carries on a bombing attack on US soil/embassies.
"This is terrorism!", "the US did nothing to deserve this!!" "We are the victims!!!" , it will be 2001 all over again.
Why even bother.
Quoteusa openly assassinated a general. i guess this is the first time of such a thing.
QuoteFor all your bluster, the USA is a big snowflake.
QuoteConsidering that the US helped create ISIS and that they created beneficial (for some) instability, killing that guy makes sense.
Quote from: The Brain on January 03, 2020, 05:59:10 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 03, 2020, 05:56:48 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 03, 2020, 05:15:27 AM
Garbon, am I supposed to feel sorry for a guy who orchestrated a lot of suffering and killing via Iran's proxy wars in the region?
Feel sorry for him? No, not at all. Worry about the impact this might have? Well, your call.
Then why did you quote the second Tampax post?
Because I think it would be a shitty call not to worry.
Quote from: garbon on January 03, 2020, 06:27:36 AM
Quote from: The Brain on January 03, 2020, 05:59:10 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 03, 2020, 05:56:48 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 03, 2020, 05:15:27 AM
Garbon, am I supposed to feel sorry for a guy who orchestrated a lot of suffering and killing via Iran's proxy wars in the region?
Feel sorry for him? No, not at all. Worry about the impact this might have? Well, your call.
Then why did you quote the second Tampax post?
Because I think it would be a shitty call not to worry.
Which Tampax said he did in the post you quoted. I don't follow your line of reasoning.
Quote from: Maladict on January 03, 2020, 05:02:42 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 03, 2020, 03:05:41 AM
Now would be really bad time to be on a US, Saudi, or Emerati flight.
And an even worse time to be working at a US embassy. Trump may get his own Benghazi soon.
Just imagine Trump having to react with a cool head to something like the Saigon embassy evacuation in 1975 or the Teheran embassy hostage crisis in 1979.
Quote from: The Brain on January 03, 2020, 06:48:46 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 03, 2020, 06:27:36 AM
Quote from: The Brain on January 03, 2020, 05:59:10 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 03, 2020, 05:56:48 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 03, 2020, 05:15:27 AM
Garbon, am I supposed to feel sorry for a guy who orchestrated a lot of suffering and killing via Iran's proxy wars in the region?
Feel sorry for him? No, not at all. Worry about the impact this might have? Well, your call.
Then why did you quote the second Tampax post?
Because I think it would be a shitty call not to worry.
Which Tampax said he did in the post you quoted. I don't follow your line of reasoning.
From his post it could be inferred, he'd be happy or not worried if the US had a thought about 'how they are going to end it'.
Quote from: garbon on January 03, 2020, 06:54:44 AM
Quote from: The Brain on January 03, 2020, 06:48:46 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 03, 2020, 06:27:36 AM
Quote from: The Brain on January 03, 2020, 05:59:10 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 03, 2020, 05:56:48 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 03, 2020, 05:15:27 AM
Garbon, am I supposed to feel sorry for a guy who orchestrated a lot of suffering and killing via Iran's proxy wars in the region?
Feel sorry for him? No, not at all. Worry about the impact this might have? Well, your call.
Then why did you quote the second Tampax post?
Because I think it would be a shitty call not to worry.
Which Tampax said he did in the post you quoted. I don't follow your line of reasoning.
From his post it could be inferred, he'd be happy or not worried if the US had a thought about 'how they are going to end it'.
I don't see a significant difference between what he wrote and worrying about the impact this might have. :)
This was a straight up assassination and very bad.
Quote from: The Brain on January 03, 2020, 07:02:02 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 03, 2020, 06:54:44 AM
Quote from: The Brain on January 03, 2020, 06:48:46 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 03, 2020, 06:27:36 AM
Quote from: The Brain on January 03, 2020, 05:59:10 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 03, 2020, 05:56:48 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 03, 2020, 05:15:27 AM
Garbon, am I supposed to feel sorry for a guy who orchestrated a lot of suffering and killing via Iran's proxy wars in the region?
Feel sorry for him? No, not at all. Worry about the impact this might have? Well, your call.
Then why did you quote the second Tampax post?
Because I think it would be a shitty call not to worry.
Which Tampax said he did in the post you quoted. I don't follow your line of reasoning.
From his post it could be inferred, he'd be happy or not worried if the US had a thought about 'how they are going to end it'.
I don't see a significant difference between what he wrote and worrying about the impact this might have. :)
Understood.
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.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 03, 2020, 07:12:55 AM
This was a straight up assassination and very bad.
This.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on January 03, 2020, 09:12:15 AM
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.
:lol:
And this.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ENXT2pBXsAAPjx7.jpg:small)
I mean this guy is someone who it's great to see dead because he was a huge piece of shit.
But the chief concerns I have:
1. The Trump Administration has no logical or effective decision making apparatus, so is prone to making bad decisions. We don't know the deliberations that went on here, but they probably weren't intelligent, coherent, or "ordinary." Since Trump has made sure most of the people who have deliberations like that no longer serve in the administration. This also means that our response to the next Iranian action is going to run through this same defective decision making apparatus.
2. This could just be "needless" escalation. To me needless escalation that leads to more deaths on both sides, but in which there is no strategic shift behind it, is just Trump getting people killed and killing people for emotional, stupid reasons.
Concerns I don't necessarily have:
1. This leading to a War in Iraq (with the U.S.) Iraq has basically been at war since we toppled Saddam, but we have mostly not been fighting it since 2011, other than what was a very limited ground force commitment to the war against ISIS. We only have around 5,000-7,500 boots on the ground in Iraq, who are mostly in advisory, base protection etc roles. For us to have an Iraq War 3.0 we'd have to deploy a major force to Iraq. I think Trump is extremely anti-deployment of any large forces, so I suspect there is really no chance this happens. Our enemies in the region can't bring a conventional war to us, we'd have to choose to engage in one with them which I don't think Trump will do.
2. This leading to a split in Iraqi/U.S. relations. This has been a fear a lot of the think tank people have been spreading. The reason I don't fear this is I think Iran had basically politically outmaneuvered us in Iraq a long time ago. Iranian backed militias had been integrated into the Iraqi military. A large portion of Iraq's Parliament are Iranian sympathetic. Iraq's top end political leadership likes the advanced military support we give them, but because of the nature of Iraq's Shiite population, its Shiite religious leaders, its Shiite militias, for better or worse Iran has largely been out positioning us in terms of influence with Iraq's government for years. Killing this guy on Iraqi soil (and also taking out one of the Iranian back militia leaders, himself now an Iraqi military member due to the aforementioned integration of these groups into the government) certainly might "skip forward" a few steps, but I think we'd largely "lost" the "soft power" influence battle in Iraq a long time ago to Iran. I mean these Shiite militias are basically the "insurgents" we fought for years under Dubya's Presidency, and they are basically part of the Iraqi political establishment now.
3. This exacerbating popular dislike of America in Iran. Again this is like #2, most Iranians hate us and have for 40+ years. This doesn't help, but I saw no real evidence the Iranian public had ever been moving toward or was particularly open to positive vibes towards America.
To the extent Trump had a strategy in the region, it was to reduce commitment and entanglement. That's a legit strategy to have - in fact it was Obama's, although Obama never pulled off a move quite as stupid as ditching the Kurds without warning (the Syria not line in the sand was close). Problem is this move doesn't fit the Trump strategy. Dropping bombs on a nominally allied nation and assassinating a high-ranking Iranian leader doesn't facilitate disengagement. Obviously Iran will respond and will do so in way that either sucks the US further in or causes the US to back down from escalating violence. If the former, Trump just blew up his entire regional strategy to kill one guy. If the latter, it was totally counterproductive and will further the slide in US credibility.
Well it's like I said:
QuoteThe Trump Administration has no logical or effective decision making apparatus, so is prone to making bad decisions. We don't know the deliberations that went on here, but they probably weren't intelligent, coherent, or "ordinary."
When that's how decisions are made, poor decisions are the norm.
I'd say more broadly the thing that someone in the administration should probably consider is if all we were willing to do is kill this guy, and we aren't actually shifting to some sort of genuinely bellicose strategy towards Iran, we're going to get all the negatives with no real positives. Like as shitty as this guy was, he wasn't Osama bin Laden or al-Baghdadi etc. Iran is a big country with a big military, Suleimani had multiple younger aides he had already been grooming to replace him. It's like if Iran killed an American general, does that change one iota our capacities? No, and killing this guy doesn't for Iran either. All it really does is say we're spoiling for a fight, but if we don't actually have some strategic willingness to fight Iran then what's the benefit in looking that way.
I don't really know the right strategy for dealing with countries like Iran fwiw. If you look at the middle east you have four major-ish powers in Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. We've tried:
Iran - Isolation, sanctions, proxy wars
Turkey - Formal alliance
Egypt - Bribes
Saudi Arabia - More or less formal alliance built around money and oil
While we're obviously in worst shape with our relationships with Iran, arguably all four of these relationships have had lots of bad outcomes for the United States, either directly or indirectly. Like Saudi Arabia is still a pretty stalwart ally, but is doing all kinds of shit that probably aren't in our long term interests in the region.
I honestly don't know what we identify as successes in our post-WWII involvement in the Middle East, other than maybe our support for Israel.
When Trump has his third term secured I'm sure he will chart a stable course in the Middle East.
This is so fucking stupid.
At least American kids are safe from being drafted. The US military needs their Roombas more.
QuoteSaudi Arabia is still a pretty stalwart ally, but is doing all kinds of shit that probably aren't in our long term interests in the region.
I guess they are selling oil, but in what other aspect are they of any benefit to the US? Al Qaeda was mostly Saudis, they are financing Wahabbism around the globe, killing WP journalists, and financing ISIS... what does the US get out of that alliance? Defence exports?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 03, 2020, 10:35:57 AM
To the extent Trump had a strategy in the region, it was to reduce commitment and entanglement. That's a legit strategy to have - in fact it was Obama's, although Obama never pulled off a move quite as stupid as ditching the Kurds without warning (the Syria not line in the sand was close). Problem is this move doesn't fit the Trump strategy. Dropping bombs on a nominally allied nation and assassinating a high-ranking Iranian leader doesn't facilitate disengagement. Obviously Iran will respond and will do so in way that either sucks the US further in or causes the US to back down from escalating violence. If the former, Trump just blew up his entire regional strategy to kill one guy. If the latter, it was totally counterproductive and will further the slide in US credibility.
Well, Iraq will probably expel American military forces as a result of this, which is disengagement.
They don't really mess with Israel, they intelligence share and have given us military access to their country at times. I mean we basically staged our invasion of Iraq in Saudi Arabia, something Turkey for example wouldn't have allowed. Saudi Arabia contributed a lot to the war against ISIS, there were rich individual Saudis who made financial contributions to ISIS, which isn't that easy to control. Wealthy American Irish were the major funders of the IRA fwiw and we remained good allies with Britain during the Troubles.
I'm not really trying to defend or advocate for the Saudi relationship, just explaining the answer to your question. I don't think the middle east would be better if we had a Saudi like relationship with Iran and an antagonistic relationship with Saudi, or an antagonistic relationship with Saudi and Iran etc. That's specifically why I said the different tacts we've taken with different Middle Eastern countries have all combined to suggest at least to me, there aren't really any wins here that I've seen.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 03, 2020, 12:25:38 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 03, 2020, 10:35:57 AM
To the extent Trump had a strategy in the region, it was to reduce commitment and entanglement. That's a legit strategy to have - in fact it was Obama's, although Obama never pulled off a move quite as stupid as ditching the Kurds without warning (the Syria not line in the sand was close). Problem is this move doesn't fit the Trump strategy. Dropping bombs on a nominally allied nation and assassinating a high-ranking Iranian leader doesn't facilitate disengagement. Obviously Iran will respond and will do so in way that either sucks the US further in or causes the US to back down from escalating violence. If the former, Trump just blew up his entire regional strategy to kill one guy. If the latter, it was totally counterproductive and will further the slide in US credibility.
Well, Iraq will probably expel American military forces as a result of this, which is disengagement.
Which is fine tbh, those forces were only there as a remnant of the ISIS campaign. We left Iraq in 2011 and it wasn't really ever intended that we go back. Whether it was wise that we left, wise that we went back, I'm honestly not sure of at this point. But it never really changed the overarching situation that most Shiite Iraqis are pro-Iranian and anti-American, and having 5000 troops there didn't make that situation better or worse.
Probably should move the embassy as well then.
Eh, the Embassy has mostly been defended by a few hundred-strong contingent of marines, with rapid response forces available as nearby as Qatar. Probably doesn't need to be moved.
Also, am I the only one who thinks of Traveler when I see the name Soleimani?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 03, 2020, 10:51:02 AM
Well it's like I said:
QuoteThe Trump Administration has no logical or effective decision making apparatus, so is prone to making bad decisions. We don't know the deliberations that went on here, but they probably weren't intelligent, coherent, or "ordinary."
When that's how decisions are made, poor decisions are the norm.
I'd say more broadly the thing that someone in the administration should probably consider is if all we were willing to do is kill this guy, and we aren't actually shifting to some sort of genuinely bellicose strategy towards Iran, we're going to get all the negatives with no real positives. Like as shitty as this guy was, he wasn't Osama bin Laden or al-Baghdadi etc. Iran is a big country with a big military, Suleimani had multiple younger aides he had already been grooming to replace him. It's like if Iran killed an American general, does that change one iota our capacities? No, and killing this guy doesn't for Iran either. All it really does is say we're spoiling for a fight, but if we don't actually have some strategic willingness to fight Iran then what's the benefit in looking that way.
I don't really know the right strategy for dealing with countries like Iran fwiw. If you look at the middle east you have four major-ish powers in Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. We've tried:
Iran - Isolation, sanctions, proxy wars
Turkey - Formal alliance
Egypt - Bribes
Saudi Arabia - More or less formal alliance built around money and oil
While we're obviously in worst shape with our relationships with Iran, arguably all four of these relationships have had lots of bad outcomes for the United States, either directly or indirectly. Like Saudi Arabia is still a pretty stalwart ally, but is doing all kinds of shit that probably aren't in our long term interests in the region.
I honestly don't know what we identify as successes in our post-WWII involvement in the Middle East, other than maybe our support for Israel.
What is interesting to me is how this action affects matters internally within the US and Iran.
To my mind, this move was intended to boost Trump (naturally) but it may have the (presumably) unintended consequences of boosting Iranian hard-liners.
Iran has seen signifocant turmoil recently, with strikes and rioting, with the current leadership openly being compared with the Shah of hated memory:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/01/world/middleeast/iran-protests-deaths.html
Of course the US is undergoing turmoil as well - not riots, but an intense partisan division of the country, the whole impeachment thing, and an election looming.
Warlike actions are a traditional distraction away from internal problems - and that works for both nations: the average Iranian is less likely to riot over higher gas prices, if his or her mind is distracted by a possible war with the US.
In short, in helping to distract his own public, Trump may also be helping to distract the public of Iran - helping the very hardliners in government we ought to be undermining. Not that he cares I am sure.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 03, 2020, 10:22:00 AM
But the chief concerns I have:
1. The Trump Administration has no logical or effective decision making apparatus, so is prone to making bad decisions. We don't know the deliberations that went on here, but they probably weren't intelligent, coherent, or "ordinary." Since Trump has made sure most of the people who have deliberations like that no longer serve in the administration. This also means that our response to the next Iranian action is going to run through this same defective decision making apparatus.
2. This could just be "needless" escalation. To me needless escalation that leads to more deaths on both sides, but in which there is no strategic shift behind it, is just Trump getting people killed and killing people for emotional, stupid reasons.
Yep. I would not be surprised if this was an impulse and if people who should have been involved in the planning stage may not have been looped in. This could be a test of actually - to use a Trump phrase - "deep state" resilience.
Also from a UK perspective it (unsurprisingly) doesn't look like any allies, who have forces in the region, were informed so they are likely soft targets.
Also think some of Lawrence Freedman's points on Twitter are interesting:
Quote
Some speculative thoughts. Following the assassinations in Baghdad we can expect protests and violence against US assets and individuals in areas of Iranian influence. At some point, somewhere (not necessarily an obvious place) Iran will try to take its revenge.1/
There is no straightforward tit-for-tat response for Iran, for example taking out senior member of US Administration. They will still have to assume that their actions will lead to further US response. They may try revenge assassination but they have other options.2/
The underlying issue is the Iranian determination to reduce US influence in the region (and the US's to reduce Iran's). Over the past year they have been putting pressure on the Saudis and UAE, encouraging doubts about the value of the US as an ally. 3/
The most obvious and immediate focus however will be to try to make the US position in Iraq untenable (all US citizens have already been advised to leave). In this respect killing the Iraqi militia leader Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis is also a big deal. 4/
Given that there are many in Iraq hostile to Iran the push to expel US forces from Iraq could further destabilise the country. Tensions are also bound to grow in Lebanon. 5/
A lot also will also depend on the impact of Soleimani's murder on the decision-making and power struggles in Teheran. A huge vacuum has been created in the local power structure and it is not clear how it will be filled. Who will now develop and implement Iran's responses? 6/
US-Iranian negotiations to find a way through the current impasse always seemed unlikely. Talk about diplomacy briefly surfaced last year. That will not be revived.7/
Trump likes to be seen to be 'winning', which is why he took badly to the attacks on the US embassy in Baghdad but his notion of victory is very short-term. The US has no obvious end game for the moment. end/
Quote from: Malthus on January 03, 2020, 01:47:22 PM
What is interesting to me is how this action affects matters internally within the US and Iran.
To my mind, this move was intended to boost Trump (naturally) but it may have the (presumably) unintended consequences of boosting Iranian hard-liners.
Iran has seen signifocant turmoil recently, with strikes and rioting, with the current leadership openly being compared with the Shah of hated memory:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/01/world/middleeast/iran-protests-deaths.html
Of course the US is undergoing turmoil as well - not riots, but an intense partisan division of the country, the whole impeachment thing, and an election looming.
Warlike actions are a traditional distraction away from internal problems - and that works for both nations: the average Iranian is less likely to riot over higher gas prices, if his or her mind is distracted by a possible war with the US.
In short, in helping to distract his own public, Trump may also be helping to distract the public of Iran - helping the very hardliners in government we ought to be undermining. Not that he cares I am sure.
Yeah, from the domestic politics perspective I 100% believe this is part of Trump's "need to look strong", which he believes = support/votes. If I had to imagine the decision making process, Suleimani's activities probably have been semi-regularly covered in Presidential intelligence briefs for 15+ years. We know both W and Obama apparently passed on taking him out. He didn't really move covertly, he moved mostly openly because he thought he was untouchable.
Trump with the same information realized he had a chance to look "strong" where Obama looked "weak", easy choice and in his mind it = votes.
The unfortunate thing is if we did end up in a shooting war with Iran, it probably
does significantly boost Trump's reelection chances.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 03, 2020, 01:52:13 PM
Quote
Some speculative thoughts. Following the assassinations in Baghdad we can expect protests and violence against US assets and individuals in areas of Iranian influence. At some point, somewhere (not necessarily an obvious place) Iran will try to take its revenge.1/
There is no straightforward tit-for-tat response for Iran, for example taking out senior member of US Administration. They will still have to assume that their actions will lead to further US response. They may try revenge assassination but they have other options.2/
The underlying issue is the Iranian determination to reduce US influence in the region (and the US's to reduce Iran's). Over the past year they have been putting pressure on the Saudis and UAE, encouraging doubts about the value of the US as an ally. 3/
The most obvious and immediate focus however will be to try to make the US position in Iraq untenable (all US citizens have already been advised to leave). In this respect killing the Iraqi militia leader Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis is also a big deal. 4/
Given that there are many in Iraq hostile to Iran the push to expel US forces from Iraq could further destabilise the country. Tensions are also bound to grow in Lebanon. 5/
A lot also will also depend on the impact of Soleimani's murder on the decision-making and power struggles in Teheran. A huge vacuum has been created in the local power structure and it is not clear how it will be filled. Who will now develop and implement Iran's responses? 6/
US-Iranian negotiations to find a way through the current impasse always seemed unlikely. Talk about diplomacy briefly surfaced last year. That will not be revived.7/
Trump likes to be seen to be 'winning', which is why he took badly to the attacks on the US embassy in Baghdad but his notion of victory is very short-term. The US has no obvious end game for the moment. end/
This guy's analysis is interesting but it's worth reminding: Trump doesn't run the United States in the conventional sense. For all their faults Obama and Bush and almost all conventional Presidents genuinely cared about the interests of the United States. They all had very divergent opinions on those interests and how to implement them. Trump almost definitely doesn't see
any of the issues this guy raised.
Trump doesn't care about losing influence in Iraq or in the Middle East. In fact he has demonstrated he doesn't even understand what influence means. He just sees an outflow of dollars to the Middle East, and he doesn't see a direct inflow of dollars > the outflow. To Trump's mind, that is losing. Much of Trump's understanding of winning is to reverse or "fix" the many ways "losers" before him ran things. Trump thinks it's stupid we even have soldiers in the Middle East. The only reason he probably hasn't fully withdrawn all of them is because he probably gets intel that our presence there helps us stave off terrorist attacks at home, and he would fear one of those because he believes if you get attacked at home you're "weak."
Trump's relationship with Iran has nothing to do with America's long term interests. It's about doing better than Obama, who was a "weakling" on Iran. Trump tore up the nuclear accord because it was "weak" and Trump is "strong." Trump now killed this General Obama was too "weak" to kill. To Trump that's the end game, there is no next level. And he doesn't care about any consequence that doesn't affect him personally. Since consequences for America's long term foreign policy don't impact him personally, he doesn't care about them.
Yeah. It's why his last point especially struck me. If Iran retaliates, as it probably will, what does Trump do to "win" again? Or as you say to avoid appearing weak?
Edit: Similarly on the deal - seeing how easily that was torn up after one election and the situation now, there's no reason for North Korea to actually seriously engage. Again Trump doesn't care about the substance but I think all of this probably does marginally increase the risk in Korea too.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 03, 2020, 01:38:10 PM
Eh, the Embassy has mostly been defended by a few hundred-strong contingent of marines, with rapid response forces available as nearby as Qatar. Probably doesn't need to be moved.
1983.
I mean that was a bombing, they could ostensibly bomb any of our embassies anywhere in the world, we can't flee them all nor would/should we.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 03, 2020, 02:55:24 PM
I mean that was a bombing, they could ostensibly bomb any of our embassies anywhere in the world, we can't flee them all nor would/should we.
Okay, so after the bombing and murder of another 200 marines what do we do?
We sit and watch bud, we're just passengers on this train.
The thing is Trump will do about anything to avoid looking weak, what that means his response will be, I don't know. But he also fears, at least from what I've seen, getting put into situations where he could end up having to eat a true "loss." He does have a playbook when that happens though--when he ultimately lost in court over the Census citizenship question, he claimed he would find a way to implement the question anyway, and that he had really "won." Then quietly nothing ever came of that, because Trump had no actual play. But he got a soundbyte out there to keep his thralls happy.
"BREAKING from DOD: "At the direction of the President, the US military has taken decisive defensive action to protect US personnel abroad by killing Qasem Soleimani, the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force, a US-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization.""
This reeks of the DOD covering their own ass and pinning all blame for this on Trump. He wanted this. He demanded this. He unilaterally ordered it seemingly without the support of his advisers and most assuredly without consulting Congress. In addition to the afore mentioned mindset of getting the talk away from impeachment, more likely to get him a second term if there's a war, and trying to outdo Obama, any chance of it being a play for Bolton's silence? Seems like a Trump mindset strategy. "I gave you this killing, so now you owe me. Big time!"
It doesn't make a lot of sense. Even if there was a palpable immediate threat (possible) it wouldn't have involved Soleimani personally carrying out an attack Rambo-style. Whatever threat existed then still exists now. The IRGC and its Quds arm are powerful and very well-resourced institutions of the Iranian state. Arguably they *are* the Iranian state. Shooting one guy doesn't dissolve the organization any more then killing a CIA director or the head of a US service branch would paralyze US intelligence or military.
But see, in Trump's mind he *is* the state, and thus any other organization is also personified in its leader. So to him it completely makes sense that striking at the leader will paralyze the organization.
Maybe this guy is a "Load bearing boss", like Sauron. If you kill him Mount Doom explodes and all the bad guys die.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 03, 2020, 01:39:23 PM
Also, am I the only one who thinks of Traveler when I see the name Soleimani?
I didn't before, but now I can't unsee it. :nerd: :thumbsup:
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51xQ3YB0r3L.jpg)
Damn that's next level nerdery.
If this ramps up, as I expect it to, it's going to present real problems for the impeachment managers as well as the Democratic candidates. The public might not respond well to their president being bogged down in a trial during a shooting war.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 03, 2020, 07:12:32 PM
If this ramps up, as I expect it to, it's going to present real problems for the impeachment managers as well as the Democratic candidates. The public might not respond well to their president being bogged down in a trial during a shooting war.
Ah, so there was a sort of strategy involved in this.
So Pence seems to be claiming the guy they murdered was connected to 9/11...
Quote from: Razgovory on January 03, 2020, 08:29:07 PM
So Pence seems to be claiming the guy they murdered was connected to 9/11...
He has it on good authority, the Russians told Trump that.
I'd be surprised if this led to significant escalation. Trump is merely pushing boundaries to try and look strong and shore up domestic support among his base, in a very similar style of brinkmanship to when Kim Jong Un shelled that South Korean island a few years ago.
Trump has very few coherent ideas or themes in his policy-making, but one recurrent theme that does stand out is his aversion to entanglements in foreign affairs that he perceives as costly, especially ground wars. I do not believe his base would want that in the slightest either. Similarly, any conflict with the United States would be so asymmetrical that it's hard to believe that the Iranian leadership would risk taking things to that level either, unless the hardliners are completely out of touch with reality, but there doesn't seem to be much evidence to suggest that's the case.
The US just blasted a Iranian backed-militia convoy in Baghdad. This is beginning to look like a war.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9q8iPJK_lvo
3 thoughtful responses from Bernie, Mayor Pete, and Tulsi.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 04, 2020, 12:39:40 AM
The US just blasted a Iranian backed-militia convoy in Baghdad. This is beginning to look like a war.
Fake news. US said it wasn't them.
Quote from: Camerus on January 03, 2020, 10:32:02 PM
I'd be surprised if this led to significant escalation. Trump is merely pushing boundaries to try and look strong and shore up domestic support among his base, in a very similar style of brinkmanship to when Kim Jong Un shelled that South Korean island a few years ago.
Trump has very few coherent ideas or themes in his policy-making, but one recurrent theme that does stand out is his aversion to entanglements in foreign affairs that he perceives as costly, especially ground wars. I do not believe his base would want that in the slightest either. Similarly, any conflict with the United States would be so asymmetrical that it's hard to believe that the Iranian leadership would risk taking things to that level either, unless the hardliners are completely out of touch with reality, but there doesn't seem to be much evidence to suggest that's the case.
I agree that that is probably Trump's intent, however he has shown himself to be so incompetent at foreign affairs and out of touch on what is an appropriate response that I think it'll be very easy to blunder into a serious conflict.
Trump doesn't know the difference between Iran and Iraq. To my mind this puts him at a disadvantage in the region.
Quote from: The Brain on January 04, 2020, 11:58:05 AM
Trump doesn't know the difference between Iran and Iraq. To my mind this puts him at a disadvantage in the region.
And lest we forget the pre-Presidency interview that touched on Suleimani:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ENXkfxOX0AErIRR?format=jpg&name=small)
Sheilbh, what is important is that Trump has corrected the horrible mistreatment of the Kurds.
So what do we think the actual odds are that Trump had never heard of Soleimani prior to deciding to have him killed?
Does anyone have a link to a good analysis on how far away Iran is from a nuclear weapon assuming they remove all constraints on enrichment right now?
Quote from: Hamilcar on January 04, 2020, 03:04:40 PM
Does anyone have a link to a good analysis on how far away Iran is from a nuclear weapon assuming they remove all constraints on enrichment right now?
QuoteA good couple of years to make a rather crude device, which wouldn't fit on their IRMBs.
*Me.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 04, 2020, 02:39:34 PM
So what do we think the actual odds are that Trump had never heard of Soleimani prior to deciding to have him killed?
I actually would not at all be surprised to find out that there was a standing order to take him out if given the chance, possibly dating back to the Obama admin.
Lets not kid ourselves here. It's not like this guy was some kind of legit military representative of Iran on some kind of actual and acknowledged mission to Iraq.
Will be interesting to see what the Iranian response will be.
Since so far it has been nothing, I think it will be... nothing. Denting the side of an oil tanker would just make them look weaker than doing nothing and it's not like they can afford anything bigger.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 04, 2020, 02:39:34 PM
So what do we think the actual odds are that Trump had never heard of Soleimani prior to deciding to have him killed?
Heard, probably.
Remember? No way. His brain is in the process of dissolving.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/476760-pompeo-after-soleimani-strike-the-europeans-havent-been-as-helpful-as
QuotePompeo after Soleimani strike: 'The Europeans haven't been as helpful as I wish that they could be'
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said that the United States's European allies "haven't been as helpful as I wish that they could be" following the U.S. strike in Iraq on Thursday that killed Iran's top military commander, Gen. Qassem Soleimani.
"Frankly, the Europeans haven't been as helpful as I wish that they could be," Pompeo told Fox News's Sean Hannity during an interview Friday night.
"The Brits, the French, the Germans all need to understand that what we did, what the Americans did, saved lives in Europe as well," he added.
The top U.S. diplomat reiterated in the interview his assertion from earlier Friday that Soleimani, a powerful Iranian military figure and leader of the country's elite Quds Force, was planning an "imminent" attack before he was killed.
"There was an attack that was imminent that could have killed dozens or hundreds of Americans," he said, referencing Trump's remarks on the topic earlier in the day.
Pompeo said Soleimani was laying the groundwork for "what they were referring to as the 'big attack,'" saying it was "aiming to take down significant amounts of Americans" and would have "undoubtedly killed locals too."
"This was a good thing for the entire world, and we're urging everyone in the world to get behind what the United States is trying to do, to get the Islamic Republic of Iran to simply behave like a normal nation," Pompeo said.
A number of other global leaders voiced concern this week following the U.S. strike that killed Soleimani and others as their convoy left Baghdad International Airport.
"Peace in the Middle East and the Gulf region should be preserved," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said. "We urge all parties concerned, especially the United States, to maintain calm and restraint and avoid further escalation of tensions."
In a statement, the Russian Foreign Ministry said "such actions don't help resolve complicated problems in the Middle East, but instead lead to a new round of escalating tensions."
German government spokeswoman Ulrike Demme described the strike as "a reaction to a whole series of military provocations for which Iran bears responsibility" but urged caution moving forward.
"We are at a dangerous escalation point and what matters now is contributing with prudence and restraint to de-escalation," she added.
Quote"The Brits, the French, the Germans all need to understand that what we did, what the Americans did, saved lives in Europe as well," he added.
Go fuck yourself. :lol:
Quote from: Tamas on January 04, 2020, 03:43:01 PM
Will be interesting to see what the Iranian response will be.
Since so far it has been nothing, I think it will be... nothing. Denting the side of an oil tanker would just make them look weaker than doing nothing and it's not like they can afford anything bigger.
We'll see. In part it probably depends on how actually important Suleimani was to their network. But I did see lots of Iran experts saying not to expect anything immediately (maybe because there'll be a power-struggle now there's a big gap).
Obviously they'll be doing everything they can to ramp up their nuclear program - looking at North Korea it's clear that from their perspective making a deal with the international community was a mistake. And now their vulnerability to conventional attacks is clear.
But you're right and it sort of links to Camerus' point. It's weird and difficult to predict because both sides will want to escalate/respond, but neither actually wants an out and out conflict. Given that I wouldn't be surprised if there was a lot of free-lancing in the response because that's more deniable.
Quote from: Hamilcar on January 04, 2020, 04:06:14 PM
Quote"The Brits, the French, the Germans all need to understand that what we did, what the Americans did, saved lives in Europe as well," he added.
Go fuck yourself. :lol:
:lol: Also the UK government have confirmed they had no advance warning. How could they have been more helpful? :blink: :lol:
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 04, 2020, 04:09:13 PM
Quote from: Hamilcar on January 04, 2020, 04:06:14 PM
Quote"The Brits, the French, the Germans all need to understand that what we did, what the Americans did, saved lives in Europe as well," he added.
Go fuck yourself. :lol:
:lol: Also the UK government have confirmed they had no advance warning. How could they have been more helpful? :blink: :lol:
To be a bit more serious: the brazenness with which the US government now routinely lies has eroded its credibility for a generation. I now simply assume what top US officials say is not true until proven otherwise.
Quote from: Tamas on January 04, 2020, 03:43:01 PM
Will be interesting to see what the Iranian response will be.
Since so far it has been nothing, I think it will be... nothing. Denting the side of an oil tanker would just make them look weaker than doing nothing and it's not like they can afford anything bigger.
It's been what, two days? Unless they were already planning something or expected the attack, it would take time to prepare and take action. They're not Trump. They have a goal and strategy and retaliate in a way that works to achieve that goal. Like normal countries.
Quote from: Hamilcar on January 04, 2020, 04:12:12 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 04, 2020, 04:09:13 PM
Quote from: Hamilcar on January 04, 2020, 04:06:14 PM
Quote"The Brits, the French, the Germans all need to understand that what we did, what the Americans did, saved lives in Europe as well," he added.
Go fuck yourself. :lol:
:lol: Also the UK government have confirmed they had no advance warning. How could they have been more helpful? :blink: :lol:
To be a bit more serious: the brazenness with which the US government now routinely lies has eroded its credibility for a generation. I now simply assume what top US officials say is not true until proven otherwise.
Yes, the US is destroyed as a credible partner for at least a generation.
I bet we will never hear any details on the supposed imminent attack that was thwarted by this assassination.
Quote from: Zanza on January 04, 2020, 04:39:29 PM
I bet we will never hear any details on the supposed imminent attack that was thwarted by this assassination.
What do you mean? Those details will be released ASAP, with Trump's tax returns, as soon as the audit is over.
The idea that there was an imminent attack makes literally no sense at all. He's a General, that sort of operational activity didn't require his direct involvement. Is it likely that he worked at a higher level, approving such attacks, and probably helping plan the more important ones? Sure. But the mission plan, the operatives, that would all have been commanded by lower level officers, who if the attack was imminent, would have already been given their orders and detailed mission plans that they'd be able to execute without any input from higher up other than the "go" order.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 04, 2020, 04:08:31 PM
We'll see. In part it probably depends on how actually important Suleimani was to their network. But I did see lots of Iran experts saying not to expect anything immediately (maybe because there'll be a power-struggle now there's a big gap).
I think he was important 20 years ago when he got into his position, Iran was and is faced with a few stark realities. It is weak in terms of its conventional military, a conventional war even against a peer country would be disastrous (as the long 1980s war with Iraq was.) Iran also wants to influence the rest of the Middle East in various ways. Given its limitations as a conventional power, it saw value in developing a force able and capable of basically creating "leverage." You have elite soldiers who are good at training irregulars, and seed them around the middle east and then funnel money through these guys to irregular forces. They had been doing this for ages in Lebanon, and it spread to Iraq after Saddam's fall, and it spread to Syria after the Arab Spring, and it's been in Gaza for a long time as well (Hamas.)
From all accounts, Suleiman was really good at architecting and setting up the Quds Force, and other elements of the Iranian defense state towards getting this stuff done. But in terms of 2020, him being alive or dead is probably no longer that important. The important work he did was building out the structure of his organization and the mechanisms of action, and it's possible if he had been killed a couple decades ago he may have been irreplaceable to a degree, in that another man may have done a worse job. But he's been grooming successors and building out a trained group of underlings for ages. He wasn't running a terrorist cell like al-Qaeda, he was a General in a State actor's military force. Now, he certainly ordered and helped orchestrate what we would call terrorist actions, and was a piece of shit, but in the same way that in any other military, if a leader makes a lot of structural improvements and designs, those tend to live on after him. He wasn't out there conducting this stuff with his bare hands.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 04, 2020, 04:08:31 PM
Quote from: Tamas on January 04, 2020, 03:43:01 PM
Will be interesting to see what the Iranian response will be.
Since so far it has been nothing, I think it will be... nothing. Denting the side of an oil tanker would just make them look weaker than doing nothing and it's not like they can afford anything bigger.
We'll see. In part it probably depends on how actually important Suleimani was to their network. But I did see lots of Iran experts saying not to expect anything immediately (maybe because there'll be a power-struggle now there's a big gap).
Obviously they'll be doing everything they can to ramp up their nuclear program - looking at North Korea it's clear that from their perspective making a deal with the international community was a mistake. And now their vulnerability to conventional attacks is clear.
But you're right and it sort of links to Camerus' point. It's weird and difficult to predict because both sides will want to escalate/respond, but neither actually wants an out and out conflict. Given that I wouldn't be surprised if there was a lot of free-lancing in the response because that's more deniable.
I think this is different. They didn't kill some nobodies out in the desert, they killed senior leadership in the government. Trump just sent a message to the leaders of the country that their lives are at stake. The US can and will kill them. They also know that if they do what the US wants the US could still kill them, like Qadafi. They know that any deal with the US is useless. The Iranian leadership needs to strike back to scare Trump. Obvious answer: attack an embassy. They removed one US president and forced his replacement into submission, and there is reason to think they could do so again.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 04, 2020, 06:43:37 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 04, 2020, 04:08:31 PM
Quote from: Tamas on January 04, 2020, 03:43:01 PM
Will be interesting to see what the Iranian response will be.
Since so far it has been nothing, I think it will be... nothing. Denting the side of an oil tanker would just make them look weaker than doing nothing and it's not like they can afford anything bigger.
We'll see. In part it probably depends on how actually important Suleimani was to their network. But I did see lots of Iran experts saying not to expect anything immediately (maybe because there'll be a power-struggle now there's a big gap).
Obviously they'll be doing everything they can to ramp up their nuclear program - looking at North Korea it's clear that from their perspective making a deal with the international community was a mistake. And now their vulnerability to conventional attacks is clear.
But you're right and it sort of links to Camerus' point. It's weird and difficult to predict because both sides will want to escalate/respond, but neither actually wants an out and out conflict. Given that I wouldn't be surprised if there was a lot of free-lancing in the response because that's more deniable.
I think this is different. They didn't kill some nobodies out in the desert, they killed senior leadership in the government. Trump just sent a message to the leaders of the country that their lives are at stake. The US can and will kill them. They also know that if they do what the US wants the US could still kill them, like Qadafi. They know that any deal with the US is useless. The Iranian leadership needs to strike back to scare Trump. Obvious answer: attack an embassy. They removed one US president and forced his replacement into submission, and there is reason to think they could do so again.
It is different.
I mean if I was an advisor to the Iranians I would say they absolutely do not need to scare Trump. Trump made a decision that was very likely very poorly thought out, and like I said unless we are really advancing a coherent strategy it's a bad decision. But, Iran retaliating is also an unequivocal bad decision.
Trump now openly threatens to bomb cultural (!) sites in Iran.
One site for each of the 52 embassy hostages. That's some twisted shit. Like Vlad the impaler or Mexican narco lord twisted.
Full twitter thread:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1213593965838163968?s=20
QuoteDonald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
·
7h
Iran is talking very boldly about targeting certain USA assets as revenge for our ridding the world of their terrorist leader who had just killed an American, & badly wounded many others, not to mention all of the people he had killed over his lifetime, including recently....
....hundreds of Iranian protesters. He was already attacking our Embassy, and preparing for additional hits in other locations. Iran has been nothing but problems for many years. Let this serve as a WARNING that if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets, we have.....
....targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!
:wacko:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 05, 2020, 01:28:41 AM
One site for each of the 52 embassy hostages. That's some twisted shit. Like Vlad the impaler or Mexican narco lord twisted.
He should do one a week.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 04, 2020, 05:01:19 PM
The idea that there was an imminent attack makes literally no sense at all. He's a General, that sort of operational activity didn't require his direct involvement. Is it likely that he worked at a higher level, approving such attacks, and probably helping plan the more important ones? Sure. But the mission plan, the operatives, that would all have been commanded by lower level officers, who if the attack was imminent, would have already been given their orders and detailed mission plans that they'd be able to execute without any input from higher up other than the "go" order.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 04, 2020, 04:08:31 PM
We'll see. In part it probably depends on how actually important Suleimani was to their network. But I did see lots of Iran experts saying not to expect anything immediately (maybe because there'll be a power-struggle now there's a big gap).
I think he was important 20 years ago when he got into his position, Iran was and is faced with a few stark realities. It is weak in terms of its conventional military, a conventional war even against a peer country would be disastrous (as the long 1980s war with Iraq was.) Iran also wants to influence the rest of the Middle East in various ways. Given its limitations as a conventional power, it saw value in developing a force able and capable of basically creating "leverage." You have elite soldiers who are good at training irregulars, and seed them around the middle east and then funnel money through these guys to irregular forces. They had been doing this for ages in Lebanon, and it spread to Iraq after Saddam's fall, and it spread to Syria after the Arab Spring, and it's been in Gaza for a long time as well (Hamas.)
From all accounts, Suleiman was really good at architecting and setting up the Quds Force, and other elements of the Iranian defense state towards getting this stuff done. But in terms of 2020, him being alive or dead is probably no longer that important. The important work he did was building out the structure of his organization and the mechanisms of action, and it's possible if he had been killed a couple decades ago he may have been irreplaceable to a degree, in that another man may have done a worse job. But he's been grooming successors and building out a trained group of underlings for ages. He wasn't running a terrorist cell like al-Qaeda, he was a General in a State actor's military force. Now, he certainly ordered and helped orchestrate what we would call terrorist actions, and was a piece of shit, but in the same way that in any other military, if a leader makes a lot of structural improvements and designs, those tend to live on after him. He wasn't out there conducting this stuff with his bare hands.
That feeling when Iran has more robust institutions than the US.
Quote from: Berkut on January 04, 2020, 03:29:45 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 04, 2020, 02:39:34 PM
So what do we think the actual odds are that Trump had never heard of Soleimani prior to deciding to have him killed?
I actually would not at all be surprised to find out that there was a standing order to take him out if given the chance, possibly dating back to the Obama admin.
Lets not kid ourselves here. It's not like this guy was some kind of legit military representative of Iran on some kind of actual and acknowledged mission to Iraq.
I've read that he never traveled in secret and Bush and Obama both contemplated doing and decided not to due to the repercussions.
Quote from: Zanza on January 05, 2020, 12:48:41 AM
Trump now openly threatens to bomb cultural (!) sites in Iran.
That is some IS level shit.
Quote from: Maladict on January 05, 2020, 03:36:01 AM
Quote from: Zanza on January 05, 2020, 12:48:41 AM
Trump now openly threatens to bomb cultural (!) sites in Iran.
That is some IS level shit.
Let's not forget the Taliban, pioneers of the "blow up giant Buddhas" genre.
Quote from: Maladict on January 05, 2020, 03:36:01 AM
Quote from: Zanza on January 05, 2020, 12:48:41 AM
Trump now openly threatens to bomb cultural (!) sites in Iran.
That is some IS level shit.
]
It's a war crime under international law.
Yes, rogue state stuff. These cultural sites belong to all of humanity; hence our outrage over the Bamiyan Buddhas.
Quote from: Berkut on January 04, 2020, 03:29:45 PM
Lets not kid ourselves here. It's not like this guy was some kind of legit military representative of Iran on some kind of actual and acknowledged mission to Iraq.
?
He was a commissioned general officer in the armed forces of a sovereign state.
I presumed Berkut was being sarcastic there.
Quote from: Syt on January 05, 2020, 01:51:15 AM
Full twitter thread:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1213593965838163968?s=20
QuoteDonald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
·
7h
Iran is talking very boldly about targeting certain USA assets as revenge for our ridding the world of their terrorist leader who had just killed an American, & badly wounded many others, not to mention all of the people he had killed over his lifetime, including recently....
....hundreds of Iranian protesters. He was already attacking our Embassy, and preparing for additional hits in other locations. Iran has been nothing but problems for many years. Let this serve as a WARNING that if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets, we have.....
....targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!
:wacko:
The US has completely jumped the shark. Maybe it's for the best if it's removed from the world stage and goes full isolationist.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 05, 2020, 04:02:27 AM
Quote from: Maladict on January 05, 2020, 03:36:01 AM
Quote from: Zanza on January 05, 2020, 12:48:41 AM
Trump now openly threatens to bomb cultural (!) sites in Iran.
That is some IS level shit.
]
It's a war crime under international law.
In fairness to Trump, when the US decided to publicly champion the systematic use of torture a few years back they kind of hinted that the US doesn't give a flying fuck about stuff like this. There is a solid US tradition.
Why doesn't the Pentagon make a really realistic VR game where Trump can nuke hurricanes and order Seoul to be relocated.
Just go full Truman show on him.
I don't really understand why they didn't just kill him and then shut the fuck up about it.
"Ohh, these nasty secret drones that abound in the middle east, we'll be sure to assist the Iranians in finding the culprits, this is unacceptable." :ph34r:
I don't mind the US killing bastards that needs to be killed, I do mind that they are so amateurish at it.
Quote from: Threviel on January 05, 2020, 09:26:11 AM
I don't mind the US killing bastards that needs to be killed, I do mind that they are so amateurish at it.
Why do you think there was a need to kill this particular man?
I have no idea, I was speaking more in the general sense.
Although he seemed to be a nasty person OvB gave a good explanation above as to why there seems to be no point in having him killed.
This warfare on Iranian culture is trolling for domestic political reasons, aimed to get the liberals all riled up, so he can point the figure at them for siding with 'the enemy'; to feed his narrative that his democratic opponents are traitors and so reinvigorate his base.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-50998065?ns_mchannel=social&ns_linkname=news_central&ns_campaign=bbc_breaking&ns_source=twitter
*golfclap*
Well done, chaps, well done.
Quote from: mongers on January 05, 2020, 09:52:06 AM
This warfare on Iranian culture is trolling for domestic political reasons, aimed to get the liberals all riled up, so he can point the figure at them for siding with 'the enemy'; to feed his narrative that his democratic opponents are traitors and so reinvigorate his base.
The special kid doesn't eat his poop as part of some grand plan. He just eats his poop.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 05, 2020, 01:28:41 AM
One site for each of the 52 embassy hostages. That's some twisted shit. Like Vlad the impaler or Mexican narco lord twisted.
I've often thought we've been lucky that while Trump's been President there's not been a real crisis. Unfortunately he's made one.
Also it strikes me as the type of thing he'd be saying after hearing about potential Iranian retaliations.
https://twitter.com/janearraf/status/1213823941321592834?s=20
QuoteThis is stunning - #Iraq prime minister tells parliament US troops should leave. Says
@realDonaldTrump
called him to ask him to mediate with #Iran and then ordered drone strike on Soleimani. Says Soleimani carrying response to Saudi initiative to defuse tension when he was hit.
Kind of weird sitting around for the shoe to drop.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 05, 2020, 12:43:17 PM
Kind of weird sitting around for the shoe to drop.
I had to google that to see if my guess at it's meaning was in the right ball park; is it an especially American saying, as I've not heard it before.
I kind of booted it (HAHAHAHAHA get it?). Should be waiting for the other shoe to drop.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 05, 2020, 01:37:29 PM
I kind of booted it (HAHAHAHAHA get it?). Should be waiting for the other shoe to drop.
I wonder what it's origin is?
Cobblers, military, an observation on entropy?
Quote from: mongers on January 05, 2020, 01:39:12 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 05, 2020, 01:37:29 PM
I kind of booted it (HAHAHAHAHA get it?). Should be waiting for the other shoe to drop.
I wonder what it's origin is?
Cobblers, military, an observation on entropy?
horseshoes?
edit: it turns out it's much more interesting than that: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/wait_for_the_other_shoe_to_drop (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/wait_for_the_other_shoe_to_drop)
Quote from: mongers on January 05, 2020, 01:39:12 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 05, 2020, 01:37:29 PM
I kind of booted it (HAHAHAHAHA get it?). Should be waiting for the other shoe to drop.
I wonder what it's origin is?
Cobblers, military, an observation on entropy?
According to wikitionary and very closely tied to the definition from The Gothamist, "A common experience of tenement living in apartment-style housing in New York City, and other large cities, during the manufacturing boom of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Apartments were built, similar in design, with the bedrooms located directly above and underneath one another. Thus, it was normal to hear a neighbor removing their shoes in the apartment above. As one shoe made a sound hitting the floor, the expectation for the other shoe to make a similar disturbance was created."
Sounds like the Iraqi Parliament may have just passed a "show" law.
Apparently it resolves to "end any foreign presence on Iraqi soil and prevent the use of Iraqi airspace, soil and water for any reason", it provides no timetable for doing so.
Apparently it would also leave in place the 2014 Strategic Framework Agreement (which is what gave us Iraqi permission to basically fight in their country during the conflict with ISIS), I'm hearing the Iraqis are hesitant to push for anything more than a symbolic gesture since all the 5200 American troops in Iraq really do right now is help train and support the Iraqi Army in fighting ISIS remnants, so it's not really in their self interest for them to leave. But passing this legislation perhaps sates some of the popular angst among Iraqi Shiites about this.
I guess we'll see though, I wouldn't be shocked if despite all that, Donald just says "okay we'll leave" and withdraws immediately against advice of his military advisers. It would fit in with his general attitude about things.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 05, 2020, 01:50:03 PM
Sounds like the Iraqi Parliament may have just passed a "show" law.
It is a nonbinding resolution, so a show law by definition.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 05, 2020, 01:50:03 PM
Sounds like the Iraqi Parliament may have just passed a "show" law.
Apparently it resolves to "end any foreign presence on Iraqi soil and prevent the use of Iraqi airspace, soil and water for any reason", it provides no timetable for doing so.
Apparently it would also leave in place the 2014 Strategic Framework Agreement (which is what gave us Iraqi permission to basically fight in their country during the conflict with ISIS), I'm hearing the Iraqis are hesitant to push for anything more than a symbolic gesture since all the 5200 American troops in Iraq really do right now is help train and support the Iraqi Army in fighting ISIS remnants, so it's not really in their self interest for them to leave. But passing this legislation perhaps sates some of the popular angst among Iraqi Shiites about this.
I guess we'll see though, I wouldn't be shocked if despite all that, Donald just says "okay we'll leave" and withdraws immediately against advice of his military advisers. It would fit in with his general attitude about things.
He'd certainly do that if it suited Vladimir Putin's agenda.
Iran has stated that they will now stop adhering to the last bit of the nuclear agreement of 2015 and will restart unlimited uranium enrichment. They had kept the agreement for a year after Trump had decided to end it and had started some non-agreement enrichment again in May, but will now do it unlimited and with higher purity.
Trump's legacy will be a nuclear armed Iran. An utter strategic defeat of American interest in the Middle East.
Although it may also be a constitutional issue.
According to Middle East correspondent this would require a law. Laws have to be presented to Parliament by the cabinet, not the other way round so this may be as much as the Parliament can do.
And apparently as Iraq doesn't have a government at the minute (just a caretaker administration) they can't present laws.
Quote from: Zanza on January 05, 2020, 02:20:46 PM
Iran has stated that they will now stop adhering to the last bit of the nuclear agreement of 2015 and will restart unlimited uranium enrichment. They had kept the agreement for a year after Trump had decided to end it and had started some non-agreement enrichment again in May, but will now do it unlimited and with higher purity.
Trump's legacy will be a nuclear armed Iran. An utter strategic defeat of American interest in the Middle East.
And a nuclear armed Saudi Arabia, once they cash in their chit with the Pakistanis.
Quote from: Zanza on January 05, 2020, 02:20:46 PM
Iran has stated that they will now stop adhering to the last bit of the nuclear agreement of 2015 and will restart unlimited uranium enrichment. They had kept the agreement for a year after Trump had decided to end it and had started some non-agreement enrichment again in May, but will now do it unlimited and with higher purity.
Trump's legacy will be a nuclear armed Iran. An utter strategic defeat of American interest in the Middle East.
They better not have put their enrichment facility near a world heritage site.
Quote from: The Brain on January 05, 2020, 02:31:00 PM
Quote from: Zanza on January 05, 2020, 02:20:46 PM
Iran has stated that they will now stop adhering to the last bit of the nuclear agreement of 2015 and will restart unlimited uranium enrichment. They had kept the agreement for a year after Trump had decided to end it and had started some non-agreement enrichment again in May, but will now do it unlimited and with higher purity.
Trump's legacy will be a nuclear armed Iran. An utter strategic defeat of American interest in the Middle East.
They better not have put their enrichment facility near a world heritage site.
on the other hand we might very well see the creation of new world heritage sites...
Although the Iranians still went on to say they would abide by the original agreement if sanctions were lifted, and while they said they had ended their formal treaty obligations they had no immediate plans to significantly increase nuclearization, just the "right to do so" at any time they please.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 05, 2020, 12:43:17 PM
Kind of weird sitting around for the shoe to drop.
I think it'll be a while. Nothing too immediate or dramatic, not least because they're likely to be less impulsive than Trump so will try and choose things that hurt him and US interests but are unlikely to threaten the regime's survival.
QuoteTrump's legacy will be a nuclear armed Iran. An utter strategic defeat of American interest in the Middle East.
In the Middle East. In Asia it might well be a nuclear armed North Korea.
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.
Talking about fucked, so are my travel plans. Again. Thanks Obama.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-51001167
QuoteIran rolls back nuclear deal commitments
Iran has declared it will no longer abide by any of the restrictions imposed by the 2015 nuclear deal.
In a statement it said it would no longer observe limitations on its capacity for enrichment, the level of enrichment, the stock of enriched material, or research and development.
The statement came after a meeting of the Iranian cabinet in Tehran.
Tensions have been high over the killing of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani by the US in Baghdad.
Two loud blasts were heard in the Iraqi capital on Sunday evening. Initial reports quoting witnesses say rockets landed near the US embassy there.
Hundreds of thousands turned out in Iran on Sunday to give Soleimani a hero's welcome ahead of his funeral on Tuesday.
Under the 2015 accord, Iran agreed to limit its sensitive nuclear activities and allow in international inspectors in return for the lifting of crippling economic sanctions.
US President Donald Trump abandoned it in 2018, saying he wanted to force Iran to negotiate a new deal that would place indefinite curbs on its nuclear programme and also halt its development of ballistic missiles.
Iran refused and had since been gradually rolling back its commitments under the agreement.
Earlier on Sunday, Iraqi MPs passed a non-binding resolution calling for foreign troops to leave the country after the killing of Soleimani in a drone strike at Baghdad airport on Friday.
About 5,000 US soldiers are in Iraq as part of the international coalition against the Islamic State (IS) group.
The coalition paused operations against IS in Iraq just before Sunday's vote.
What did Iran say?
Iran had been expected to announce its latest stance on the nuclear agreement this weekend, before news of Soleimani's death.
A statement broadcast on state TV said the country would no longer respect any limits laid down in the 2015 deal.
"Iran will continue its nuclear enrichment with no limitations and based on its technical needs," the statement said.
Enriched uranium can be used in nuclear weapons.
The statement did not, however, say that Iran was withdrawing from the agreement and it added that Iran would continue to co-operate with the UN's nuclear watchdog, the IAEA.
The statement added that Iran was ready to return to its commitments once it enjoyed the benefits of the agreement.
Correspondents say this is a reference to its inability to sell oil and have access to its income under US sanctions.
Iran has always insisted that its nuclear programme is entirely peaceful.
Sanctions have caused Iran's oil exports to collapse and the value of its currency to plummet, and sent its inflation rate soaring.
How has the international community reacted?
The other parties to the 2015 deal - the UK, France, Germany, China and Russia - tried to keep the agreement alive after the US withdrew in 2018.
EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell has invited Iran's Foreign Minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, to visit Brussels to discuss both the nuclear deal and how to defuse the crisis over the Soleimani assassination.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel has agreed with French President Emmanuel Macron and UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson to work towards de-escalation in the Middle East, a German government spokesman was quoted as saying by AFP news agency.
Mr Johnson said "we will not lament" the death of Soleimani, describing him as "a threat to all our interests".
(https://i.postimg.cc/WzthCWLY/Dumbass.jpg)
If there are any adults left in Washington, this is the time to step in.
Keep in mind in the last 40 years, any time America has gotten riled up enough to actually threaten Iran, Iran has generally not responded at all, at least not directly.
Iran and its leadership are pretty well aware of their limitations. What's more likely to happen is they try to leverage this towards political wins, for example Iranian society has been really divided lately due to all the sanctions and terrible economy. A common question has been "why are we sending money to fight proxy wars in countries like Syria and Lebanon when Iranians in Tehran can't afford basic necessities? And why is our fuel subsidy getting cut?" By many reports the recent large scale protests, particularly due to the breadth of their support, really had the regime rattled. But the country is now rallying powerfully around the death of Suleimani.
We've also done a good job of significantly undermining our influence in Iraq. It could simply be that Khamenei will use this to solidify Iranian nationalism at home and further enhance his ties with Iraq abroad. He doesn't even need to order an "attack" which at this point almost definitely will result in Iran itself getting bombed, he has already gotten more out of Suleimani's death than he could've gotten any other way. If anything this is already a great outcome for the ruling mullahs.
Quote from: Syt on January 05, 2020, 03:46:47 PM
(https://i.postimg.cc/WzthCWLY/Dumbass.jpg)
So the war powers resolution was replaced by Twitter now?
https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/iraq/three-rockets-fall-in-baghdad-s-green-zone-police-sources-say-1.8356241
3 Kaytushas land near US embassy.
Good night, Iranian World Heritage sites. Good night, Armenian Monastic Ensembles of Iran. Good night Bam and its Cultural Landscape. Good night Bisotun. Good night Cultural Landscape of Maymand...
I guess the "is Trump willing to start a war to try and wiggle out of impeachment?" question has been answered.
From one of the pool journalists:
QuotePresident 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.
:mellow:
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 05, 2020, 09:03:01 PM
From one of the pool journalists:
QuotePresident 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.
:mellow:
Don't worry there's always people ready to step in and restrain him.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 05, 2020, 09:03:01 PM
From one of the pool journalists:
QuotePresident 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.
:mellow:
I'm sure he would give Putin a good price.
Quote from: mongers on January 05, 2020, 09:08:25 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 05, 2020, 09:03:01 PM
From one of the pool journalists:
QuotePresident 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.
:mellow:
Don't worry there's always people ready to step in and restrain him.
Like all these guys resigning in the last week? Don't think they'll do much to stop him outside the pentagon, and those that didn't leave...don't think they're going to be stopping him either.
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/475205-fifth-pentagon-official-announces-resignation-in-seven-days#.XhJCcafVhSQ.twitter
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 05, 2020, 09:03:01 PM
From one of the pool journalists:
QuotePresident 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.
:mellow:
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 06, 2020, 12:53:59 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 05, 2020, 09:03:01 PM
From one of the pool journalists:
QuotePresident 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.
:mellow:
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.
Quote from: Tamas on January 05, 2020, 03:30:46 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on January 06, 2020, 08:46:33 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 05, 2020, 03:30:46 PM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on January 06, 2020, 11:34:56 AM
Quote from: Malthus on January 06, 2020, 08:46:33 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 05, 2020, 03:30:46 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on January 06, 2020, 11:58:09 AM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on January 06, 2020, 01:16:36 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 06, 2020, 11:58:09 AM
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.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on January 03, 2020, 09:12:15 AM
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 ;) :P
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com%2Fimages%2FMSS.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
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.
Not clear what's going on with US forces in Iraq:
QuoteConfusion 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.
Oil hits $70. So far the winner is (huge surprise) Russia.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 06, 2020, 06:26:07 PM
Not clear what's going on with US forces in Iraq:
QuoteConfusion 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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 06, 2020, 06:35:03 PM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 06, 2020, 07:11:27 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 06, 2020, 06:26:07 PM
Not clear what's going on with US forces in Iraq:
QuoteConfusion 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?
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 06, 2020, 06:21:35 PM
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.
Wouldn't it bankrupt him as well? People wouldn't go and the buildings wouldn't be able to be insured.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 06, 2020, 07:11:27 PM
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.
Didn't Obama do the same thing in 2014?
Quote from: Agelastus on January 07, 2020, 09:43:30 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 06, 2020, 07:11:27 PM
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.
Didn't Obama do the same thing in 2014?
Do what? Deny somebody a visa? Violate a treaty?
Quote from: Valmy on January 07, 2020, 09:56:27 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on January 07, 2020, 09:43:30 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 06, 2020, 07:11:27 PM
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.
Didn't Obama do the same thing in 2014?
Do what? Deny somebody a visa? Violate a treaty?
In 2014 Obama denied Hamid Abutaleibi, whom Iran had appointed as their UN ambassador, a visa after Congress passed a bill specifically saying the USA had the right to deny visas in such cases.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 07, 2020, 08:26:44 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 06, 2020, 06:21:35 PM
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.
Wouldn't it bankrupt him as well? People wouldn't go and the buildings wouldn't be able to be insured.
Trump doesn't own those buildings. He just rents the use of his name.
Was Zarif found to have engaged in espionage or terrorist activities? I'm not aware of any such credible allegations against him.
Quote from: Agelastus on January 07, 2020, 10:12:02 AM
Quote from: Valmy on January 07, 2020, 09:56:27 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on January 07, 2020, 09:43:30 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 06, 2020, 07:11:27 PM
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.
Didn't Obama do the same thing in 2014?
Do what? Deny somebody a visa? Violate a treaty?
In 2014 Obama denied Hamid Abutaleibi, whom Iran had appointed as their UN ambassador, a visa after Congress passed a bill specifically saying the USA had the right to deny visas in such cases.
In what sort of cases?
Espionage or terrorism - i.e. the same sorts of things that can get a diplomat expelled under international law. Not applicable to Zarif as far as I know.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 07, 2020, 11:18:12 AM
Was Zarif found to have engaged in espionage or terrorist activities? I'm not aware of any such credible allegations against him.
Does it matter; a strict interpretation of the wording of the 1947 hosting agreement would suggest both visa denials are in violation of the Treaty.
Whereas recent American actions to limit the access of Iranian diplomats visiting the UN to other parts of New York are not in violation of the Treaty.
It's interesting that the USA felt it had to pass a specific law to allow this in 2014 rather than relying on international norms of diplomacy concerning the expulsion of, or denial of visas to, diplomats as you mention in a subsequent post.
Quote from: Agelastus on January 07, 2020, 11:43:52 AM
It's interesting that the USA felt it had to pass a specific law to allow this in 2014
To allow what specifically? Does the law have any provisions for what the United States considers reasonable exceptions to the treaty? Or is it just asserting a blanket right?
Quote from: Tamas on January 07, 2020, 04:07:14 AM
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.
I don't think he has a formal agent contract, but if it walks like a duck, thinks like a duck...
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 07, 2020, 11:18:12 AM
Was Zarif found to have engaged in espionage or terrorist activities? I'm not aware of any such credible allegations against him.
He is guilty of the worst crime imaginable: hurting Trump's feelings.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 06, 2020, 06:26:07 PM
Not clear what's going on with US forces in Iraq:
QuoteConfusion 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 smartest retaliation for the Iranians is doing nothing and show they are not Trump.
Quote from: The Brain on January 07, 2020, 12:24:41 PM
Quote from: Tamas on January 07, 2020, 04:07:14 AM
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.
I don't think he has a formal agent contract, but if it walks like a duck, thinks like a duck...
He is an asset, no question. He can be manipulated and controlled in predictable ways.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 06, 2020, 06:21:35 PM
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.
At this point I just hope they have the clarity of mind to not attack a Blue State.
Quote from: Valmy on January 07, 2020, 11:51:06 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on January 07, 2020, 11:43:52 AM
It's interesting that the USA felt it had to pass a specific law to allow this in 2014
To allow what specifically? Does the law have any provisions for what the United States considers reasonable exceptions to the treaty? Or is it just asserting a blanket right?
Quoting Wikipedia, but where the page states that the summary is based on that provided by the Congressional Research Service -
The law amends the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 to direct the President of the United States to deny U.S. admission to any representative of the United Nations (U.N.) who: (1) has been found to have been engaged in espionage activities or a terrorist activity against the United States or its allies, and (2) may pose a threat to U.S. national security interests.I would not say that Trump is "covered" by this as Zarif is not a representative "of the United Nations"; on the other hand a strict reading of article IV section 11's wording would suggest that banning Zarif does not breach the Treaty unless he was invited by "...the United Nations or by such specialized agency..." He's not actually one of the "representatives of members" if I read the intent of point (1) correctly.
According to Wikipedia it was passed the Senate by unanimous consent, and the article implies the same was true in the House of Representatives. So nobody present at the time opposed it enough to call a vote, although perhaps one of our American colleagues can confirm if this is true or not.
[I'll be honest, I had completely forgotten about Abutaleibi until his name came up when I was googling for the Housing Agreement to read the exact text.]
It was passed into law; it's on the statute books.
It is drafted in a way that the President is obligated to bar entry of a person who meets the criteria unless the President grants waiver.
The Iranians have struck back! :(
https://twitter.com/JonLemire/status/1214691102185443335
QuoteTEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran state TV says Tehran launches "tens" of surface-to-surface missiles at Iraq's Ain Assad air base housing US troops
Oops, that's bad, real bad; both for the soldiers and the inevitable civilian casualties and because of the likely march to war.
Stupid overt move by Iran
Quote from: 11B4V on January 07, 2020, 06:57:20 PM
Stupid overt move by Iran
Certainly because an unknown known, Trump is involved.
Otherwise it might be a seen as a considered similar level attack/retaliationv to the original assassination.
Quote from: mongers on January 07, 2020, 07:05:06 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 07, 2020, 06:57:20 PM
Stupid overt move by Iran
Certainly because an unknown known, Trump is involved.
Otherwise it might be a seen as a considered similar level attack/retaliationv to the original assassination.
Until some tomahawks, more than "tens", start landing in Iran.
I don't see how war can be avoided now.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2020, 07:14:28 PM
I don't see how war can be avoided now.
It can always be avioded. Remember Trump is a bully at heart.
My worry if it does continue, is Iran targeting Israel. Trump's administration is incompetent to restrain the israeli's.
Balloon's going up.
It's been an honor posting with y'all. Heading to my fallout shelter now and no internet 100 feet underground.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 07, 2020, 07:26:18 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2020, 07:14:28 PM
I don't see how war can be avoided now.
It can always be avioded. Remember Trump is a bully at heart.
My worry if it does continue, is Iran targeting Israel. Trump's administration is incompetent to restrain the israeli's.
My guess is the Iranians are trying to give Trump a bloody nose (dead american servicemen) and as you say stand up to the bully.
But I think this has been a miscalculation because Trump has several too easy retaliation options, given the panoply of military assets in the regions.
My hope now is that it was a unsophisticated attack using Saddam era scud type missiles and they didn't get too lucky and hit a dinner hall like in the gulf war, so lots of sound a fury but very limited military damage on the ground, after all this An Al Asad airbase is a massive complex sitting in a lot of desert. So it's a damp squid that Trump doesn't feel bound to flatten Iran in response.
Just to clarify, the Pentagon has said a base in Irbil has also been attacked.
This thread's title is really fucking stupid.
Quote from: Habbaku on January 07, 2020, 07:48:52 PM
This thread's title is really fucking stupid.
Yes I was just thinking that, a better option would be 'The Unfolding US-Iran War'
For Tim:
The Iran-Iraq war - Saddam's Iraq vs the revolutionary Islamic Iran.
The Gulf War - Saddam's Iraq vs The US, most of the West and the Gulf countries. Also including Egypt and Syria.
The Iraq War and Occupation - GWB's USA and UK vs Saddam's Iraq.
This looming war - Iraq doesn't want to be involved this time, so whilst some fighting might take place there, I doubt there'll be any Iraqi state involvement, unlike in the previous three wars.
Fine
There you go. :hug:
Now all we have to do is getting rid of / survive this impending war. :(
Change it to "The 14th US War is Coming."
It is so weird how disconnected and apathetic I feel about all of this. I am so alienated from the current President that I react emotionally like this is some foreign country doing this shit instead of mine.
Well here is hoping all of our service people get through this alright.
Quote from: FunkMonk on January 07, 2020, 07:37:43 PM
Balloon's going up.
It's been an honor posting with y'all. Heading to my fallout shelter now and no internet 100 feet underground.
Do your duty!
There are local unconfirmed reports that a third US base, Taji just north of Baghdad has been targeted.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 07, 2020, 06:57:20 PM
Stupid overt move by Iran
It is a messed up world when we are depending on the Iranians to be the sane ones.
Fuckin' yikes!
https://twitter.com/ShimonPro/status/1214716625674522624
QuoteIn its Telegram channel The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps says that in the event that Iranian soil is bombed, Iran will target the cities of Dubai, UAE and Haifa, Israel in the third wave of operations.
Those are some odd choices.
I can imagine some screaming matches going on between the White House and Pentagon about bombing 52 cultural sites.
If the President did that he would succeed in making much of the world sympathetic to Iran and make us appear like barbarians.
That takes some work.
Quote from: Valmy on January 07, 2020, 08:37:27 PM
If the President did that he would succeed in making much of the world sympathetic to Iran and make us appear like barbarians.
That takes some work.
You guys are pretty far along that road already under this President.
Watching Al Jazeera, their correspondent outside the White House said unconfirmed reports say aircraft have left Diego Garcia. :hmm:
Given no civilian lives there or anywhere near, til a bomber overflies the Iranian coast, that report is just wild rumours or a significantly leak from someone in the know. If true, isn't that likely to mean it's B2 bombers or a ''package' that's similarly powerful?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 07, 2020, 08:36:23 PM
I can imagine some screaming matches going on between the White House and Pentagon about bombing 52 cultural sites.
Isn't that a war crime?
It must be serious, as the BBC now has a live news page set up here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-middle-east-51029181 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-middle-east-51029181)
Not saying who useful this will be.
Pres Trump needs now to begin to de-escalate this. Yes, the Iranian General was a nasty dude, responsible for killing US and allied troops and running campaigns around the region. That said, I feel Trump was hasty in going after that guy as it would only cause escalations that can't be controlled. What's the end game if there's a major escalation? Now what is needed is some backing off and some intermediaries to try and cool things a bit. There's no way that I nor most Americans want to have a larger confrontation with Iran, and obviously a major war is out of the question. Pres Trump doesn't want it as he's been trying to get out of these entanglements. I fear that the war mongers in DC have been pushing for this, people like John Bolton and others. I've always wondered if they thought things out as to what the end game would be, even for a limited confrontation?
Targeting Israel is dumb, they will retaliate with Nukes.
Quote from: KRonn on January 07, 2020, 09:09:36 PM
Yes, the Iranian General was a nasty dude, responsible for killing US and allied troops and running campaigns around the region. That said, I feel Trump was hasty in going after that guy as it would only cause escalations that can't be controlled.
And more to the point killing him does us no good. This isn't like killing some nutty charismatic cult leader like that ISIS guy or Osama bin Laden. He is just an office holder, a cog in the wheel of a state. Easily replaceable.
Photos have been posted of scud sized missile stages having landed in iraq, by the looks of it those are photos taken in the Iraq countryside, rather from within a US base, so might suggest these are simple inaccurate short range or IRBM strikes.
Maybe we're going to get lucky and no US personel were it? though reports have circulated that some Iraqis have been injured/
Quote from: Valmy on January 07, 2020, 09:14:55 PM
Quote from: KRonn on January 07, 2020, 09:09:36 PM
Yes, the Iranian General was a nasty dude, responsible for killing US and allied troops and running campaigns around the region. That said, I feel Trump was hasty in going after that guy as it would only cause escalations that can't be controlled.
And more to the point killing him does us no good. This isn't like killing some nutty charismatic cult leader like that ISIS guy or Osama bin Laden. He is just an office holder, a cog in the wheel of a state. Easily replaceable.
He was more than that though. He controlled a lot of Iran's terrorism groups in the region and around the world. Iran has been attacking US and western targets for years and he had some input into those events. He was under sanction by the UN with further sanctions by the US.
That said, I tend to agree more so that killing him wasn't worth the escalation and where it leads to, keeping us in more of the quagmire of the Mid East. Better to do things like add more sanctions on Iran and especially these top leaders.
Quote from: mongers on January 07, 2020, 09:29:16 PM
Photos have been posted of scud sized missile stages having landed in iraq, by the looks of it those are photos taken in the Iraq countryside, rather from within a US base, so might suggest these are simple inaccurate short range or IRBM strikes.
Maybe we're going to get lucky and no US personel were it? though reports have circulated that some Iraqis have been injured/
We'll see, it's early yet to really have good info, I think. A large US base wasn't targeted, not yet anyway. These attacks may continue, which could force the US to respond. As I said, this all needs to be de-escalated IMO.
Quote from: mongers on January 07, 2020, 09:29:16 PM
Photos have been posted of scud sized missile stages having landed in iraq, by the looks of it those are photos taken in the Iraq countryside, rather from within a US base, so might suggest these are simple inaccurate short range or IRBM strikes.
Maybe we're going to get lucky and no US personel were it? though reports have circulated that some Iraqis have been injured/
This should heat up Iraqi politics. People are already on the streets protesting Iranian influence and now they're being hit by Scuds.
This is an administration full of people hung up on 1979. I expect they will not squander this chance to enact a very cold dish of revenge.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 07, 2020, 08:36:23 PM
Those are some odd choices.
I can imagine some screaming matches going on between the White House and Pentagon about bombing 52 cultural sites.
The only thing odd about it is they didn't include Riyadh. They are framing the war. On one side is Iran (and probably Syria and Iraq), and on the other side is the US, Israel, and the decadent Gulf states.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 07, 2020, 07:26:18 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2020, 07:14:28 PM
I don't see how war can be avoided now.
It can always be avioded. Remember Trump is a bully at heart.
My worry if it does continue, is Iran targeting Israel. Trump's administration is incompetent to restrain the israeli's.
I really think that this has to do with the election and the impeachment. I'm not big on conspiracy theories, but Trump has stated that Obama would attack Iran and keep interest rates down to help his reelection. Trump has been screaming about the need to keep interest rates low for years now. It's not hard to make the jump to believing that Trump is doing the other thing that he accused Obama of doing. That's how he believes the world works. We will see if he's right.
Seems like a rather calm response for Trump (so far, we'll see how he feels in the morning).
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1214739853025394693
QuoteAll is well! Missiles launched from Iran at two military bases located in Iraq. Assessment of casualties & damages taking place now. So far, so good! We have the most powerful and well equipped military anywhere in the world, by far! I will be making a statement tomorrow morning.
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 07, 2020, 09:38:05 PM
This is an administration full of people hung up on 1979. I expect they will not squander this chance to enact a very cold dish of revenge.
Trump campaigned on and has often said he wanted to stop those old style entanglements, but he will be tough in responding which obviously can be a two edged sword as I feel we see with Iran now. He got rid of Bolton a while ago, and he was a big hawk type, wanted to be a lot more aggressive everywhere. I never really liked him in the administration. I don't think Trump is in that war hawk camp but there are many people in the DC swamp who push to continue these endless wars and occupations.
I could see the involvement against ISIS in Syria and Iraq mainly for fighting ISIS. But I'm wondering why we still need to be so heavily involved in Iraq with ISIS gone. Iran has nearly turned it into a colony or something similar, they have so much influence, so the Iraqis have to deal with that. And as Yi says, many Iraqis aren't happy about it. I guess the US still wants to have influence there but it seems a nebulous goal more and more.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 07, 2020, 09:57:16 PM
Seems like a rather calm response for Trump (so far, we'll see how he feels in the morning).
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1214739853025394693
QuoteAll is well! Missiles launched from Iran at two military bases located in Iraq. Assessment of casualties & damages taking place now. So far, so good! We have the most powerful and well equipped military anywhere in the world, by far! I will be making a statement tomorrow morning.
Esper and Pompeo screamed louder and longer than Donald.
Iranian foreign minister tweets:
Quote
Javad Zarif
✔
@JZarif
Iran took & concluded proportionate measures in self-defense under Article 51 of UN Charter targeting base from which cowardly armed attack against our citizens & senior officials were launched.
We do not seek escalation or war, but will defend ourselves against any aggression.
02:32* - 8 Jan 2020
*GMT
No tags backs!
Quote from: KRonn on January 07, 2020, 09:58:00 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 07, 2020, 09:38:05 PM
This is an administration full of people hung up on 1979. I expect they will not squander this chance to enact a very cold dish of revenge.
Trump campaigned on and has often said he wanted to stop those old style entanglements, but he will be tough in responding which obviously can be a two edged sword as I feel we see with Iran now. He got rid of Bolton a while ago, and he was a big hawk type, wanted to be a lot more aggressive everywhere. I never really liked him in the administration. I don't think Trump is in that war hawk camp but there are many people in the DC swamp who push to continue these endless wars and occupations.
I could see the involvement against ISIS in Syria and Iraq mainly for fighting ISIS. But I'm wondering why we still need to be so heavily involved in Iraq with ISIS gone. Iran has nearly turned it into a colony or something similar, they have so much influence, so the Iraqis have to deal with that. And as Yi says, many Iraqis aren't happy about it. I guess the US still wants to have influence there but it seems a nebulous goal more and more.
I don't think what Trump campaigned on matters when Iran is concerned.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 07, 2020, 10:15:31 PM
No tags backs!
It's telling that the Iranians launched their missiles at around the same time as the US launched the missiles on Soleimani's car.
Also following on from Trumps simple post of the US flag after the attack, the Iranians have responded with a un-commented post of the Iranian flag.
Of course all of these attempts at a calibrated response go out of the window if Trump has a problematic season on the shitter tomorrow morning.
Is Lindsey Graham for real:
Quote
Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said on Fox News this evening that Iran's attack on Iraqi bases housing US troops was "an act of war".
"The president has all the authority he needs under Article II to respond," the Trump loyalist said to host Sean Hannity, referring to Article II of the US Constitution which delineates presidential power.
"How he responds is yet to be determined, but he has that authority to respond."
Graham concluded by saying he had just spoken to President Trump, and appeared to threaten Iranian oil targets.
"Let me say tonight, if you are watching television in Iran, I just got off the phone to the president - your fate is in your own hands in terms of the regime's economic viability. You continue this crap, you're going to wake up one day out of the oil business."
If he is, then he's just given the 'enemy' forewarning of attack; I wonder if that might endanger any US personnel?
Back from the fallout shelter. Looks like we won this one. Congrats everyone!
Will the title change tomorrow when it turns out to not be true?
Quote from: mongers on January 07, 2020, 09:29:16 PM
Photos have been posted of scud sized missile stages having landed in iraq, by the looks of it those are photos taken in the Iraq countryside, rather from within a US base, so might suggest these are simple inaccurate short range or IRBM strikes.
Maybe we're going to get lucky and no US personel were it? though reports have circulated that some Iraqis have been injured/
I think Iran's got more sophisticated military options than that - I seem to remember when they attacked that oil facility in Saudi that one of the really striking things was how accurate they were. So if there are minimal casualties I don't think it would be an accident.
Also looks like Zarif is trying to give Trump a way out: this is their "proportionate response" to Soleimani's assasination. But it's a one off for that action, not a wider escalation so it's over the US. Edit: And apparently Iranian TV is basically saying if the US doesn't respond, this is over.
And I don't think Trump will do anything more. His latest statement is the most peaceful it's been all week:
QuoteAll is well! Missiles launched from Iran at two military bases located in Iraq. Assessment of casualties & damages taking place now. So far, so good! We have the most powerful and well equipped military anywhere in the world, by far! I will be making a statement tomorrow morning.
Of course that's almost certainly not it by Iran and I'd expect at some point in the next few years that there'll be some bombs somewhere in the world, planted by people at an arm's length distance from Iran that kills American diplomats, soldiers, civilians.
Edit: Also reports of a Ukrainian Airways plane carrying 180 people crashing shortly after take-off from Tehran airport. Technical issues apparently? So maybe means nothing in relation to this whole situation? But given the timing this is a stressful time for an accidental tragedy :(
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 07, 2020, 10:55:25 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 07, 2020, 09:29:16 PM
Photos have been posted of scud sized missile stages having landed in iraq, by the looks of it those are photos taken in the Iraq countryside, rather from within a US base, so might suggest these are simple inaccurate short range or IRBM strikes.
Maybe we're going to get lucky and no US personel were it? though reports have circulated that some Iraqis have been injured/
I think Iran's got more sophisticated military options than that - I seem to remember when they attacked that oil facility in Saudi that one of the really striking things was how accurate they were. So if there are minimal casualties I don't think it would be an accident.
Also looks like Zarif is trying to give Trump a way out: this is their "proportionate response" to Soleimani's assasination. But it's a one off for that action, not a wider escalation so it's over the US. Edit: And apparently Iranian TV is basically saying if the US doesn't respond, this is over.
And I don't think Trump will do anything more. His latest statement is the most peaceful it's been all week:
QuoteAll is well! Missiles launched from Iran at two military bases located in Iraq. Assessment of casualties & damages taking place now. So far, so good! We have the most powerful and well equipped military anywhere in the world, by far! I will be making a statement tomorrow morning.
Of course that's almost certainly not it by Iran and I'd expect at some point in the next few years that there'll be some bombs somewhere in the world, planted by people at an arm's length distance from Iran that kills American diplomats, soldiers, civilians.
Edit: Also reports of a Ukrainian Airways plane carrying 180 people crashing shortly after take-off from Tehran airport. Technical issues apparently? So maybe means nothing in relation to this whole situation? But given the timing this is a stressful time for an accidental tragedy :(
Yes I was aware of the 'Houthi' drone attack capability and agree they'd be keeping something like that in their hand rather than playing it straight away, but given the nature of these scud like missiles it's in the lap of the gods if they hit anything at all or say a dining hall as in the Gulf war.
They aren't guided, instead relying on inertial navigation and probably have CEP in the regions of kms rather than metres. Unless of course the Iran 'versions' have some active homing/terminal guidance which I think would be unlikely.
And I'd go with my initial assessment that the intention was to draw blood and do some damage, but only just enough to satisfy the leadership in Iran.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 07, 2020, 10:55:25 PM
I think Iran's got more sophisticated military options than that - I seem to remember when they attacked that oil facility in Saudi that one of the really striking things was how accurate they were. So if there are minimal casualties I don't think it would be an accident.
Also looks like Zarif is trying to give Trump a way out: this is their "proportionate response" to Soleimani's assasination. But it's a one off for that action, not a wider escalation so it's over the US. Edit: And apparently Iranian TV is basically saying if the US doesn't respond, this is over.
And I don't think Trump will do anything more. His latest statement is the most peaceful it's been all week:
Of course that's almost certainly not it by Iran and I'd expect at some point in the next few years that there'll be some bombs somewhere in the world, planted by people at an arm's length distance from Iran that kills American diplomats, soldiers, civilians.
I'd expect some embassy bombings or assassinations in the next couple of months. They're not going to just lob a few missiles over the border with zero casualties and accept that as enough.
Quote from: Habbaku on January 07, 2020, 10:43:08 PM
Will the title change tomorrow when it turns out to not be true?
Let's hope...that it turns out not to be true that is. I don't care if Tim changes the thread title :P
Quote from: Habbaku on January 07, 2020, 10:43:08 PM
Will the title change tomorrow when it turns out to not be true?
It is already true
737 went down in Tehran.
State media reports it was to a mechanical failure, but rumors are flying around that Iranian AA shot it down by mistake.
Seemed everything was going well until it reached 8,000 feet
We will all learn tomorrow. It would be uncharacteristic if Trump allowed the Iranians the last word or attack.
Lots of Iranians on that flight of course, but also 63 Canadians :
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-51029994
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 08, 2020, 04:41:09 AM
Lots of Iranians on that flight of course, but also 63 Canadians :
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-51029994
Iran has refused to hand over the black box to Boeing. Might be just a "we hate America so no" thing but this plus the coincidence of when the crash happened seem to indicate it WAS Iranian AAA bringing it down.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 07, 2020, 11:45:26 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on January 07, 2020, 10:43:08 PM
Will the title change tomorrow when it turns out to not be true?
It is already true
A few missiles lobbed and a general killed does not a war make.
Hopefully no Americans got hurt, Iran can claim they responded, and we can ignore it. Things will go back to normal, with Iranians oppressed at home, crippled by sanctions, supporting low level terrorism in the middle east plus a few active insurgencies, and some harassment of US interests in the Persian Gulf, while Trump remains on track to win reelection.
I wonder if Iran very carefully targeted their Scuds to miss.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2020, 10:38:23 AM
I wonder if Iran very carefully targeted their Scuds to miss.
Nope these things aren't nearly accurate enough, indeed reports out of Iraq show pictures of a probably missile strike all of over 100km away from Erbil.
Though maybe that was shot-down in some fashion, though the photos appear to show an impact crater, rather than debrie having just fallen to earth.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 08, 2020, 11:22:55 AM
Contradiction in terms.
Precisely targeted would be a contradiction in terms. Carefully is not.
Quote from: Habbaku on January 08, 2020, 10:16:35 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 07, 2020, 11:45:26 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on January 07, 2020, 10:43:08 PM
Will the title change tomorrow when it turns out to not be true?
It is already true
A few missiles lobbed and a general killed does not a war make.
In a narrow sense you are correct. But the US and Iran have been in a proxy war off and on for years. The relationship with Iran looked to be headed for more moderation after the nuclear deal was made under the Obama administration but that tensions have escalated since Trump cancelled the agreement and the latest act of assassinating their top general is not going to end in the lobbing of a few missiles at US bases.
Iran can't win a conventional war. But what they do best and what has been happening for a while now (and will intensify) is asymmetrical warfare.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2020, 11:31:21 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 08, 2020, 11:22:55 AM
Contradiction in terms.
Precisely targeted would be a contradiction in terms. Carefully is not.
If the missiles landed anywhere near the target they were not careful enough given the inaccuracy of those weapons - ie could easily have killed US troops.
You guys are talking 2005 era stuff, Iran has much more accurate ballistic weapons now than the old scuds. It's reported they used fin-stabilized Qiam missiles in this strike, which the most recent variants of this scud-derived missile line allows controllers to adjust trajectory mid flight. U.S. Defense Department officials say they're accurate within 10 meters.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 07, 2020, 09:57:16 PM
Seems like a rather calm response for Trump (so far, we'll see how he feels in the morning).
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1214739853025394693
QuoteAll is well! Missiles launched from Iran at two military bases located in Iraq. Assessment of casualties & damages taking place now. So far, so good! We have the most powerful and well equipped military anywhere in the world, by far! I will be making a statement tomorrow morning.
Trump is going cruise.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 08, 2020, 11:49:24 AM
You guys are talking 2005 era stuff, Iran has much more accurate ballistic weapons now than the old scuds. It's reported they used fin-stabilized Qiam missiles in this strike, which the most recent variants of this scud-derived missile line allows controllers to adjust trajectory mid flight. U.S. Defense Department officials say they're accurate within 10 meters.
Thanks, then Yi's comment stands :)
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2020/jan/08/iran-trump-news-today-live-latest-updates-attack-us-base-iraq?page=with:block-5e1608718f08c39722647096#block-5e1608718f08c39722647096
QuoteTrump talks of "shared priorities" with Iran, in apparent de-escalation
Donald Trump rounded off his short TV address to the public with what might normally be considered some small-talk or waffle but in the current context and with this president counts as actual diplomatic outreach.
It may be no more than lip service. But given that Trump often opts for bellicose and extremely simplistic rhetoric in denouncing or threatening anyone he regards as a foe, his closing sentences were noteworthy.
In fact, all the signals from the last 19 or so hours are that both Iran and the US have embarked on a hasty de-escalation of their sudden crisis.
As he wound down his speech moments ago, Trump referred to the battle against Islamic State, and American forces' assassination of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi last October.
But then he swiftly pivoted.
"ISIS is a natural enemy of Iran," Trump said at the White House. "We should work together on this and other shared priorities. To the people and leaders of Iran, we want you to have a future, and a great future, one that you deserve, of prosperity and harmony."
He concluded that the US is "ready to embrace peace with all who seek it."
This might be meaningless chat from the US president but indicates an unusual level-headedness, however brief, communicated via Trump by those advising him and is a clear de-escalation of the rhetoric.
:yeah: "War" over.
This result likely seals Trump's reelection.
4 more years of this bullshit, Jesus Christ.
Quote from: Habbaku on January 08, 2020, 12:10:40 PM
:yeah: "War" over.
Just like N. Korea has disarmed. :P
Quote from: FunkMonk on January 08, 2020, 12:14:44 PM
This result likely seals Trump's reelection.
4 more years of this bullshit, Jesus Christ.
People won't remember this. His reelection will hinge on perception of the economy, as usual.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on January 08, 2020, 12:34:35 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on January 08, 2020, 12:14:44 PM
This result likely seals Trump's reelection.
4 more years of this bullshit, Jesus Christ.
People won't remember this. His reelection will hinge on perception of the economy, as usual.
This is 'wrapping up' a little soon for that aim.
Adderall is trending on Twitter *sniff* *sniff* :lol:
What are the odds that a plane would crash in Iran exactly on a day that Iran might expect aerial attacks? I think the odds are overwhelming we have another MH17 situation.
Quote from: DGuller on January 08, 2020, 01:18:15 PM
What are the odds that a plane would crash in Iran exactly on a day that Iran might expect aerial attacks? I think the odds are overwhelming we have another MH17 situation.
It's a weird world full of weird coincidences.
However, the timing is rather astounding, and the description of the crash sounds very much unlike any other plane crash I've ever heard of happening shortly after takeoff. Everything seemed perfectly fine with a almost brand new plane and experienced pilots. Then it went from normal ascent at 8000 feet to an immediate crash into the ground without any calls from the pilots indicating a problem. What could cause that? Even total engine failure would allow the plane to glide for some time, and communicate.
I think the timing is coincidental, but the circumstances of the crash itself seem much more bizarre.
I'm very cautious with language like "the odds are overwhelming we have another MH17 situation".
I've mentioned before the story about visiting New York for the Remembrance Day/Veterans Day long weekend in 2001 - two months after 9/11. The day I went to leave a plane went down after takeoff in NYC. People went nuts assuming the worst - but it really just was a random accident.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_587
But absolutely I would investigate whether Iranian AA defences had some role, and would not just accept the Iranian's word on the topic.
In-flight breakup could definitely do it without warning or time to communicate, e.g. TWA 800 or MH17. Structural failure, fuel explosion, missile explosion, etc.
What is astounding is that the Iranians were able to determine the cause of the crash almost immediately. Normally it takes months of work to determine what caused a plane to go down.
Quote from: Barrister on January 08, 2020, 01:29:38 PM
I'm very cautious with language like "the odds are overwhelming we have another MH17 situation".
I've mentioned before the story about visiting New York for the Remembrance Day/Veterans Day long weekend in 2001 - two months after 9/11. The day I went to leave a plane went down after takeoff in NYC. People went nuts assuming the worst - but it really just was a random accident.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_587
But absolutely I would investigate whether Iranian AA defences had some role, and would not just accept the Iranian's word on the topic.
I am cautious with the language, I just think that alternative explanations are already rapidly falling away, except for maybe a bomb. The behavior of Iranians also adds to the suspicion, it just screams of instinctive CYA measures without thinking things through. I predict that in a day or two it the cause of the crash will be known without a doubt, even though the official report may take years.
Quote from: DGuller on January 08, 2020, 02:35:43 PM
I am cautious with the language, I just think that alternative explanations are already rapidly falling away, except for maybe a bomb. The behavior of Iranians also adds to the suspicion, it just screams of instinctive CYA measures without thinking things through. I predict that in a day or two it the cause of the crash will be known without a doubt, even though the official report may take years.
That may be. Bug remember I work in criminal prosecutions. One of the things drilled into us through training is to beware of "tunnel vision" - to grow so convinced of the most likely suspect that you start to ignore any other possibility.
Your President doesn't look healthy.
Quote from: Barrister on January 08, 2020, 02:40:40 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 08, 2020, 02:35:43 PM
I am cautious with the language, I just think that alternative explanations are already rapidly falling away, except for maybe a bomb. The behavior of Iranians also adds to the suspicion, it just screams of instinctive CYA measures without thinking things through. I predict that in a day or two it the cause of the crash will be known without a doubt, even though the official report may take years.
That may be. Bug remember I work in criminal prosecutions. One of the things drilled into us through training is to beware of "tunnel vision" - to grow so convinced of the most likely suspect that you start to ignore any other possibility.
That's a good point, but I think that's more of an issue for active investigators rather than passive observers. Me coming to my own conclusion does not affect the facts being gathered or analyzed, so I can afford to be less biased towards conservatism.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2020, 10:38:23 AM
I wonder if Iran very carefully targeted their Scuds to miss.
They did apparently inform the Iraqis where they were targeting. The Iraqis passed it on. So yeah it does look like yesterday was theatre to show a response now. I have no doubt it isn't the end of the Iranian response but the rest, I imagine, will be arms-length bombs targeting Americans abroad.
On the coincidences there was also a big earthquake by one of Iran's nucelar sites yesterday :blink:
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 08, 2020, 02:47:53 PM
They did apparently inform the Iraqis where they were targeting. The Iraqis passed it on. So yeah it does look like yesterday was theatre to show a response now. I have no doubt it isn't the end of the Iranian response but the rest, I imagine, will be arms-length bombs targeting Americans abroad.
Arms length bombs? :unsure:
Do you mean bombs delivered by arms length proxy groups?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2020, 02:52:42 PM
Arms length bombs? :unsure:
Do you mean bombs delivered by arms length proxy groups?
Yeah.
Well and apparently it's being widely reported in Iran dozens to 80 U.S. service members were killed. And a lot of Iranian social media is saying Western press just won't report on it. So in a regime/country of low information people this probably works to assuage domestic bloodlust too.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 08, 2020, 02:56:11 PM
Yeah.
I don't necessarily agree. Proxy attacks on US targets is exactly what the drone hit was a response to.
As much as I hate to say, this whole train of events is turning out quite well for Trump.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2020, 03:04:51 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 08, 2020, 02:56:11 PM
Yeah.
I don't necessarily agree. Proxy attacks on US targets is exactly what the drone hit was a response to.
As much as I hate to say, this whole train of events is turning out quite well for Trump.
Even assuming this doesn't escalate into wider conflicts with Iran, I don't know this is true.
Perhaps understandable, but the Trump administration didn't consult with anyone about this strike. Not it's NATO partners, not the Iraqi government, nobody. This move is going to increasing limit the US ability to conduct similar strike within Iraq in future even if troops aren't kicked out of the country, and may well result in other nations (like Canada) pulling out their troops.
It may well end up being justified in the end (no tears for Soleimani here!), but the jury is still out on this one.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2020, 03:04:51 PM
I don't necessarily agree. Proxy attacks on US targets is exactly what the drone hit was a response to.
You could be right, but I mean more things like this:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jun/17/iran-bomb-plot-israel-nuclear-talks
Or even the Buenos Aires bombing which take a lot longer and require investigation before you can really say it was Iran.
Quote from: Barrister on January 08, 2020, 03:10:33 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2020, 03:04:51 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 08, 2020, 02:56:11 PM
Yeah.
I don't necessarily agree. Proxy attacks on US targets is exactly what the drone hit was a response to.
As much as I hate to say, this whole train of events is turning out quite well for Trump.
Even assuming this doesn't escalate into wider conflicts with Iran, I don't know this is true.
Perhaps understandable, but the Trump administration didn't consult with anyone about this strike. Not it's NATO partners, not the Iraqi government, nobody. This move is going to increasing limit the US ability to conduct similar strike within Iraq in future even if troops aren't kicked out of the country, and may well result in other nations (like Canada) pulling out their troops.
This sounds like a problem for the US, not for Trump.
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 08, 2020, 02:40:47 PM
Your President doesn't look healthy.
Physically, mentally, spiritually, morally...anything I'm leaving out?
Quote from: Barrister on January 08, 2020, 03:10:33 PM
Perhaps understandable, but the Trump administration didn't consult with anyone about this strike. Not it's NATO partners, not the Iraqi government, nobody. This move is going to increasing limit the US ability to conduct similar strike within Iraq in future even if troops aren't kicked out of the country, and may well result in other nations (like Canada) pulling out their troops.
Yeah. I still feel like some form of attack on US allies is probably likely. Hurts the US, but isn't something Trump would care about.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 08, 2020, 04:10:48 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 08, 2020, 03:10:33 PM
Perhaps understandable, but the Trump administration didn't consult with anyone about this strike. Not it's NATO partners, not the Iraqi government, nobody. This move is going to increasing limit the US ability to conduct similar strike within Iraq in future even if troops aren't kicked out of the country, and may well result in other nations (like Canada) pulling out their troops.
Yeah. I still feel like some form of attack on US allies is probably likely. Hurts the US, but isn't something Trump would care about.
It crossed my mind when the targeting of Dubai was mentioned--a lot of Trump voters would probably see that as a positive.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 08, 2020, 04:26:09 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 08, 2020, 04:10:48 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 08, 2020, 03:10:33 PM
Perhaps understandable, but the Trump administration didn't consult with anyone about this strike. Not it's NATO partners, not the Iraqi government, nobody. This move is going to increasing limit the US ability to conduct similar strike within Iraq in future even if troops aren't kicked out of the country, and may well result in other nations (like Canada) pulling out their troops.
Yeah. I still feel like some form of attack on US allies is probably likely. Hurts the US, but isn't something Trump would care about.
It crossed my mind when the targeting of Dubai was mentioned--a lot of Trump voters would probably see that as a positive.
I assume the reference was to the American troops stationed there.
Make of this what you will:
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/142B6/production/_110441628_al_asad_damage_sat_640-nc.png)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-51042156 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-51042156)
Well I am not sure what to make of it. Were these known to be uninhabited buildings the Iranians specifically targeted?
Quote from: FunkMonk on January 08, 2020, 12:14:44 PM
This result likely seals Trump's reelection.
4 more years of this bullshit, Jesus Christ.
Maybe, but I would prefer not to beat him because he put us into a disastrous war or tanked the economy. I am still hopeful he can be beaten before those things occur.
I saw those pictures earlier. So it seems like the public theater did not involve targeting nearby empty fields, but rather warning everyone at the airbases to take shelter before the strikes. I heard a commentator mentioning the Iranians were sending a message by demonstrating the accuracy of their missiles.
Quote from: Valmy on January 08, 2020, 04:40:56 PM
Well I am not sure what to make of it. Were these known to be uninhabited buildings the Iranians specifically targeted?
Most of them look like those open sided metal roof structures commonly used on airbases there to shelter aircraft/crew from the sun; in some of the pictures you can see where the 'tin' metal sheets have been blown up or out of position on nearby similar shelters.
Anyone else think the grey objects in the bottom right corner of image 5 look quite a bit like predator drones?
Quote from: alfred russel on January 08, 2020, 03:45:05 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 08, 2020, 02:40:47 PM
Your President doesn't look healthy.
Physically, mentally, spiritually, morally...anything I'm leaving out?
Bad feng shui.
This whole "Light a fire, extinguish it, demand applause" routine is getting annoying.
In conclusion, the Middle East is a land of contrasts
https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1215028542813220864
Quote
@SenMikeLee
: "It is not acceptable for officials within the executive branch of government...to come in and tell us that we can't debate and discuss the appropriateness of military intervention against Iran. It's un-American. It's unconstitutional and it's wrong."
Congress has been demoted from the only branch who can declare war to not being allowed to even have an opinion.
I'm still trying to wrap my head the idea that shooting missiles at US forces is "backing down".
Quote from: Razgovory on January 08, 2020, 10:54:50 PM
I'm still trying to wrap my head the idea that shooting missiles at US forces is "backing down".
If you shoot missiles at US forces while making it obvious that you really, really hope they don't actually do anything to piss off said US forces, you're kind of negating the point of shooting missiles at US forces, and then some.
:lol:
They aren't backing down, they are fucking up!
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/08/politics/iran-briefing-senators/index.html
Quote'The worst briefing I've had': Senate Iran briefing gets heated
(CNN)Senate Democrats -- and two key GOP senators -- slammed a classified briefing Wednesday on the strike that killed Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani, charging that administration officials failed to provide evidence to show the attack was imminent and dismissed the role Congress should play in deciding to take military action.
The sharpest of the criticism came from two of President Donald Trump's Senate allies: Republican Sens. Mike Lee of Utah and Rand Paul of Kentucky. Lee said after the briefing that it was the "worst briefing I've had on a military issue" during his nine years in the Senate.
In an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer on "The Situation Room" on Wednesday, Paul said the briefing was "an insult to the Constitution."
"In the briefing and in public, this administration has argued that the vote to topple Saddam Hussein in 2002 applies to military action in Iraq. That is absurd," Paul told Blitzer. "Nobody in their right mind -- with a straight face, with an ounce of honesty -- can argue when Congress voted to go after Saddam Hussein in 2002 that (they) authorized military force against an Iranian general 18 years later."
Paul later added, "There was no specific information given to us of a specific attack. Generality -- stuff that you read in the newspaper. I didn't learn anything in the hearing that I hadn't seen in a newspaper already."
Lee called the way the briefing played out "un-American" and "completely unacceptable," given that the administration suggested that Congress shouldn't have a role in approving Iran military action. He said the administration would not commit to a new Authorization for Use of Military Force or a cite a reason for coming to Congress before taking military action.
"At one point one of the briefers said something like, 'Don't worry, we'll consult you,'" Lee said. "Consultation isn't a constitutional declaration of war. Drive-by notification or after the fact lame briefings like the one we just received are inadequate."
Paul and Lee also announced they would support the War Powers resolution sponsored by Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, which would limit the President's ability to use military force in Iran.
Four senators in the room said the briefing became tense and heated amid repeated questions from senators about the intelligence regarding how imminent a future attack would be and the legal justification for striking Iran.
The administration representatives ended up leaving before all questions were asked -- departing after the allotted time of 90 minutes. Several senators, including Lee, said the briefing itself lasted 75 minutes.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Defense Secretary Mark Esper, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley, CIA Director Gina Haspel and acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire briefed senators and House members on Wednesday.
Esper pushed back at lawmakers who slammed the briefing Wednesday, saying, "Most members of Congress do not have access to the intelligence that I think was the most compelling."
On Tuesday, Esper had said that the "exquisite intelligence" on the threat posed by Soleimani that drove the US military to target him in a drone strike would be shared only with the Gang of Eight -- a group of eight lawmakers made up of congressional leaders from both parties as well as the Intelligence Committee chairs -- saying "most Members (of Congress) will not have access to that."
Senate Democrats pressed for specifics of the targets and timeline, and while senators said the timeline was described as within "days," the information provided in Wednesday's briefing did not explicitly back that up, according to Democrats.
At one point, Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, pressed on the imminence of the attack. Several senators said they came away with the sense her specific question remained unanswered.
Administration officials were pressed about whether the attacks would be carried out especially since Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei apparently had not signed off on what Soleimani was plotting, sources said.
"I walk away unsatisfied on the key questions that I went into this briefing with," said Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "It makes me concerned that we cannot have clarity on those key questions -- imminency, target, all of those things."
House Democrats expressed similar concerns that the administration officials failed to justify claims of an imminent attack, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that the House would vote Thursday on its Iran War Powers resolution.
The administration officials said the strike was justified under Article II and the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force, or AUMF. That resolution authorized the Iraq War, and the officials said the strike was justified under it because it took place in Iraq. But the officials said the AUMF would not cover any military action inside Iran.
Republicans expressed frustration over the Democratic posture during the briefing, with Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina saying they were "out of their minds" for how they approached the strikes.
"They don't want specifics. I was really disappointed in their behavior in there because it was clear to me that this guy was up to no good in the moment," Graham said.
Following the briefing, a group of Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, came to the cameras to voice their concerns. Shortly after, Pompeo walked out behind them, and appeared to be waiting to speak at the cameras as well. After a few minutes of listening to the Democrats, however, Pompeo departed the Senate basement without making a comment.
https://spectator.us/give-tucker-carlson-nobel-prize/amp/
QuoteGive Tucker Carlson a Nobel prize!
Thank goodness the president listens more to Fox News than he does to his advisers
Freddy Gray
20 June 2019 8:49 AM
tucker carlson
The strong favorite for the Nobel Peace Prize this year is Greta Thunberg, a girl who lectures grownups about climate change. In a sane world, the award would go to somebody who stops wars. In 2019, that somebody should be Tucker Swanson McNear Carlson.
Carlson is a Fox News host, which means the smart people who give out awards will never take him seriously. In the last few weeks, however, he may have done more to advance the cause of peace than any other human on the planet.
Anyone with half a brain can tell that some of President Trump's cabinet and his advisers are itching to bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran — as the late, hawk Saint John McCain so delicately put it, to the tune of the Beach Boys' Barbara Ann. There has been a concerted PR-effort to escalate hostilities with Tehran, one that we all know (we aren't stupid) is being pushed by national security adviser John Bolton. Iran, foolishly, seems to be taking the bait, having shot down a US drone that may or may not have been in international airspace last night.
If you listen to the hawks, the only thing stopping the president from intervening militarily in Iran is domestic politics. Trump needs to win the election next year. He understands that his base does not want war, so he's reluctant to 'punish' Tehran for its misbehavior. The heavy implication is that, after success in 2020, Trump will 'show leadership' by turning fire and fury on the Iranian regime.
No doubt there is truth in that assessment. Perhaps, however, Donald Trump is not quite as convinced of the merits of attacking Iran as his inner circle are. The reason for that, it seems, is Tucker Carlson.
The president is, we're often told, a Fox News junkie. As the Daily Beast reports, he likes Tucker's show and sometimes telephones the host afterwards to talk about world affairs. One of Trump's strengths is that he appears to be able to entertain opposing ideas at the same time, a sign of intelligence. Or maybe he just pretends to hear differing points of view: maybe he just goes with the last opinion he hears, like a mental cushion that bears the imprint of the last bottom that sat on him.
Carlson is intelligent. Rare among famous right-wing pundits, he regards the Bolton worldview — the worldview that brought us the Iraq war — as dangerous and foolish. He says that he is 'enraged' by the way the way America is being pushed towards another conflict. He regularly argues that another Middle East war is not 'in anyone's interest'. The Daily Beast reveals that, in a series of private conversations, he has repeatedly advised the president not to listen to his more bellicose aides. When Donald Trump told reporters that the alleged Iranian attack on tankers in the Gulf of Oman was 'a minor incident', he may well have been parroting Carlson. His response on Twitter to yesterday's drone incident 'Iran made a very big mistake!' sounds more like the impulsive, Tweeter-in-Chief we've all come to know.
Trump's recklessness is encouraged by figures such as Bolton. It is moderated by voices such as Carlson's. It's often said that Trump is a 'reality TV' president who takes his cue from Fox News. This is widely thought to make him a maniac in charge. In this instance, however, Trump's affinity for Fox has made him less dangerous than he might otherwise have been. Credit for that should go to Carlson.
It's hard to criticize the case for war without being accused of 'siding with' the Iranian regime. So let's be clear: the government in Tehran is a ghastly, corrupt, theocracy. Iran is, as the Israelis always tells us, a malevolent actor – though it is far from the only force for ill in the region.
It would be good if Iran became a more tolerant place, or if its liberal middle-classes had more stake in their country's future. But look at Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya: forced regime change doesn't cause democracy to flower. It tends to have the opposite effect. The fall of the mullahs in Tehran would be good news — in the short term, at least, for US allies such as Israel and Saudi Arabia. But American-led wars almost always backfire spectacularly — and another war could further destabilize the Muslim world, bad news for anyone who wants peace. Let's hope Donald Trump keeps listening to Tucker Carlson. And give the TV anchor the Nobel!
CBS reporting the Iranians did shoot down the Ukrainian jet with all the Canadians on board.
https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/1215315032684343298
Kind of a no brainer. Will be interesting to see if the Iranians try to spin it or fake it up.
The interesting question is if the Iranians did shoot down the airliner... then what? Iran would seem to have zero motive to do so, and thus was presumably an accident. And the US did accidentally shoot down an Iranian airlines just over 30 years ago.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 09, 2020, 12:52:11 PM
Kind of a no brainer. Will be interesting to see if the Iranians try to spin it or fake it up.
Indeed. I quick reminder to myself: the Americans in the Iranian airlines admitted it was an accident and eventually paid restitution (though never accepted any fault). Soviets initially denied shooting down the Korean airlines, then admitted and claimed it was a spy plane.
More recently, the Russians continue to deny responsibility for shooting down MH17, and blame the Ukrainians.
Related will be whether the Iranians co-operate with any investigation or not.
Quote from: Barrister on January 09, 2020, 12:54:33 PM
The interesting question is if the Iranians did shoot down the airliner... then what? Iran would seem to have zero motive to do so, and thus was presumably an accident. And the US did accidentally shoot down an Iranian airlines just over 30 years ago.
Is the interesting question what then or what if the US did it?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 09, 2020, 01:06:01 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 09, 2020, 12:54:33 PM
The interesting question is if the Iranians did shoot down the airliner... then what? Iran would seem to have zero motive to do so, and thus was presumably an accident. And the US did accidentally shoot down an Iranian airlines just over 30 years ago.
Is the interesting question what then or what if the US did it?
If we accept that the Iranians shot down the plane by accident (they misidentified it or something)... then what should the international reaction be?
Quote from: Barrister on January 09, 2020, 01:07:40 PM
If we accept that the Iranians shot down the plane by accident (they misidentified it or something)... then what should the international reaction be?
Sympathy for the dead, contempt for the Iranian air defense decision makers, and maybe a little doubt about the judgement of the airlines to continue flying in that context.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 09, 2020, 01:12:47 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 09, 2020, 01:07:40 PM
If we accept that the Iranians shot down the plane by accident (they misidentified it or something)... then what should the international reaction be?
Sympathy for the dead, contempt for the Iranian air defense decision makers, and maybe a little doubt about the judgement of the airlines to continue flying in that context.
So apparently the reason there were so many Canadians on that flight is due to US sanctions on Iran. Which means a lot of western airlines can not or will not fly into that country, which is why those people were stuck routing through Kiyev on a third-rate Ukrainian airline.
Quote from: Barrister on January 09, 2020, 01:15:22 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 09, 2020, 01:12:47 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 09, 2020, 01:07:40 PM
If we accept that the Iranians shot down the plane by accident (they misidentified it or something)... then what should the international reaction be?
Sympathy for the dead, contempt for the Iranian air defense decision makers, and maybe a little doubt about the judgement of the airlines to continue flying in that context.
So apparently the reason there were so many Canadians on that flight is due to US sanctions on Iran. Which means a lot of western airlines can not or will not fly into that country, which is why those people were stuck routing through Kiyev on a third-rate Ukrainian airline.
Why is it third rate?
Quote from: mongers on January 09, 2020, 01:16:55 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 09, 2020, 01:15:22 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 09, 2020, 01:12:47 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 09, 2020, 01:07:40 PM
If we accept that the Iranians shot down the plane by accident (they misidentified it or something)... then what should the international reaction be?
Sympathy for the dead, contempt for the Iranian air defense decision makers, and maybe a little doubt about the judgement of the airlines to continue flying in that context.
So apparently the reason there were so many Canadians on that flight is due to US sanctions on Iran. Which means a lot of western airlines can not or will not fly into that country, which is why those people were stuck routing through Kiyev on a third-rate Ukrainian airline.
Why is it third rate?
Because it's Ukrainian.
:mad:
Quote from: Barrister on January 09, 2020, 01:15:22 PM
So apparently the reason there were so many Canadians on that flight is due to US sanctions on Iran. Which means a lot of western airlines can not or will not fly into that country, which is why those people were stuck routing through Kiyev on a third-rate Ukrainian airline.
Eh, what's your point? If it had been an Air Canada flight it wouldn't have been shot down?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 09, 2020, 01:41:49 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 09, 2020, 01:15:22 PM
So apparently the reason there were so many Canadians on that flight is due to US sanctions on Iran. Which means a lot of western airlines can not or will not fly into that country, which is why those people were stuck routing through Kiyev on a third-rate Ukrainian airline.
Eh, what's your point? If it had been an Air Canada flight it wouldn't have been shot down?
Depends on why this one was shot down. It's possible for the flight crew to make some errors that would make it easier for the AA crew to fuck up.
Quote from: DGuller on January 09, 2020, 01:40:53 PM
:mad:
Dude. You know that no one cheer leads more for Ukraine and her people than me.
But a Ukraine-based company does not scream quality and reliability.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 09, 2020, 01:41:49 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 09, 2020, 01:15:22 PM
So apparently the reason there were so many Canadians on that flight is due to US sanctions on Iran. Which means a lot of western airlines can not or will not fly into that country, which is why those people were stuck routing through Kiyev on a third-rate Ukrainian airline.
Eh, what's your point? If it had been an Air Canada flight it wouldn't have been shot down?
That Air Canada wouldn't fly into Tehran to begin with.
"Air Canada does not fly to Tehran because of US sanctions" is a nice, helpful piece of information, but I still don't see how it relates to anything.
Quote from: Barrister on January 09, 2020, 02:00:33 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 09, 2020, 01:40:53 PM
:mad:
Dude. You know that no one cheer leads more for Ukraine and her people than me.
But a Ukraine-based company does not scream quality and reliability.
Yet, they've never had a plane crash. (and this particular jet was just three years old)
Quote from: Tonitrus on January 09, 2020, 02:20:22 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 09, 2020, 02:00:33 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 09, 2020, 01:40:53 PM
:mad:
Dude. You know that no one cheer leads more for Ukraine and her people than me.
But a Ukraine-based company does not scream quality and reliability.
Yet, they've never had a plane crash. (and this particular jet was just three years old)
And I'll give them props (heh) for flying Boeings, not some ancient Tupolevs.
But there's a reason Kiyev isn't a major international air hub.
You mean beside the fact that nobody wants to go there?
How did this turn into a discussion about the quality of the airline?
If the plane was shot down, it almost certainly has zero to do with anything the airline or pilots did or did not do. Everything I've heard so far as it that the takeoff was completely routine.
Quote from: Berkut on January 09, 2020, 02:29:59 PM
How did this turn into a discussion about the quality of the airline?
If the plane was shot down, it almost certainly has zero to do with anything the airline or pilots did or did not do. Everything I've heard so far as it that the takeoff was completely routine.
This almost certainly is true.
I don't know about anyone else, but I was surprised initially why a Ukrainian flight out of Tehran would be full of Canadians. That is all.
Quote from: Berkut on January 09, 2020, 02:29:59 PM
How did this turn into a discussion about the quality of the airline?
If the plane was shot down, it almost certainly has zero to do with anything the airline or pilots did or did not do. Everything I've heard so far as it that the takeoff was completely routine.
First world airlines perform more routine maintenance on radar jammers and chaff dispensers.
Because Tehran-Kiev-Toronto is relatively cheap.
The airlines IFF may not have been working which caused some likely nervous SAM operators to hit the button, or their missile system was automated and did not get a friend response from the plane.
Quote from: Tonitrus on January 09, 2020, 02:20:22 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 09, 2020, 02:00:33 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 09, 2020, 01:40:53 PM
:mad:
Dude. You know that no one cheer leads more for Ukraine and her people than me.
But a Ukraine-based company does not scream quality and reliability.
Yet, they've never had a plane crash. (and this particular jet was just three years old)
The one time I flew Ukrainian was a mixed bag. The international flight was just like any other airline. The domestic leg was fine too, except for the part where they used duct tape to keep the door closed.
I've had no problems the times I've flown Ukrainian.
Quote from: Barrister on January 09, 2020, 02:34:03 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 09, 2020, 02:29:59 PM
How did this turn into a discussion about the quality of the airline?
If the plane was shot down, it almost certainly has zero to do with anything the airline or pilots did or did not do. Everything I've heard so far as it that the takeoff was completely routine.
This almost certainly is true.
I don't know about anyone else, but I was surprised initially why a Ukrainian flight out of Tehran would be full of Canadians. That is all.
It is apparently a fairly cheap way to fly to Iran from Canada (or from Iran) to Canada.
Quote from: PRC on January 09, 2020, 02:46:01 PM
The airlines IFF may not have been working which caused some likely nervous SAM operators to hit the button, or their missile system was automated and did not get a friend response from the plane.
Yes, that's what I had in mind. Some minor errors relating to communication or squawk codes could be the first link in a chain of events leading to disaster.
Quote from: Barrister on January 09, 2020, 01:15:22 PM
So apparently the reason there were so many Canadians on that flight is due to US sanctions on Iran. Which means a lot of western airlines can not or will not fly into that country, which is why those people were stuck routing through Kiyev on a third-rate Ukrainian airline.
It's their national carrier and it's fairly decent.
Also I don't think it's just sanctions. Kyiv airport is very interesting as they do a lot of connections from all of the Middle East to the rest of Europe (and maybe North America too). So you have loads and loads of Iranians and Arabs and all types of Israelis transferring in Kyiv. It's quite striking.
Quote from: Maladict on January 09, 2020, 02:56:27 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on January 09, 2020, 02:20:22 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 09, 2020, 02:00:33 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 09, 2020, 01:40:53 PM
:mad:
Dude. You know that no one cheer leads more for Ukraine and her people than me.
But a Ukraine-based company does not scream quality and reliability.
Yet, they've never had a plane crash. (and this particular jet was just three years old)
The one time I flew Ukrainian was a mixed bag. The international flight was just like any other airline. The domestic leg was fine too, except for the part where they used duct tape to keep the door closed.
:yeahright: I have a hard time believing that a domestic Ukrainian airline would have access to duct tape.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 09, 2020, 03:34:21 PM
It's their national carrier and it's fairly decent.
Also I don't think it's just sanctions. Kyiv airport is very interesting as they do a lot of connections from all of the Middle East to the rest of Europe (and maybe North America too). So you have loads and loads of Iranians and Arabs and all types of Israelis transferring in Kyiv. It's quite striking.
I can imagine some sex trade opportunities around the airport.
When I went to Ukraine I was asked more than once if I was a journalist, which I'm not.
I mentioned this to my Ukrainian friend and he said: "So they probably thought if you're not a journalist, you're a sex tourist" :(
What's wrong with being a sexy tourist?
Some tourists are too sexy.
Iran says it is impossible that a missle brought down the flight.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ukraine-missile-iran-1.5420736
Quote from: Barrister on January 09, 2020, 05:28:14 PM
Iran says it is impossible that a missle brought down the flight.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ukraine-missile-iran-1.5420736
Back to the drawing board, I guess.
Uggh, there is a video purporting to show a missile hitting the plane. Its dark so it just looks like a speck of light in the dark, but damn, if that is for real....
Quote from: DGuller on January 09, 2020, 06:04:35 PM
Back to the drawing board, I guess.
Golly, and it seemed like such a reasonable explanation too.
Planes don't usually blow up in mid air because of a mechanical failure. I think the last was TWA 800?
Being hit by a missile certainly seems a strong possibility.
Quote from: Barrister on January 09, 2020, 05:28:14 PM
Iran says it is impossible that a missle brought down the flight.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ukraine-missile-iran-1.5420736 (https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ukraine-missile-iran-1.5420736)
So the missiles were purchased in 2007. Trump has claimed that the missiles were bought with money furnished from Obama. This leads us to one terrifying conclusion: President Obama has the ability to move backwards in time.
A simpler explanation would be that Obama furnished the funds before he was President. :sleep:
It's likely Iran shot down the plane, but it was probably not intentional (they could gain nothing from this).
Quote from: Razgovory on January 09, 2020, 08:10:18 PM
Trump has claimed that the missiles were bought with money furnished from Obama.
I think he was referring to the ballistic missiles launched at US bases in Iraq, not the one that shot down the plane.
So it seems the Iranian response to the killing of Soleimani was to fire a bunch of missiles into the desert and a single missile into a civilian jetliner...
Quote from: Ancient Demon on January 09, 2020, 09:26:27 PM
It's likely Iran shot down the plane, but it was probably not intentional (they could gain nothing from this).
Well yeah. I don't think anybody thought they wanted to send us a message by shooting down a Ukrainian plane full of Canadians.
Iran fessed up. Only smart move left for them.
Quote from: DGuller on January 10, 2020, 11:26:55 PM
Iran fessed up. Only smart move left for them.
I dunno - Russia still doesn't admit involvement over MH17.
Quote from: Barrister on January 11, 2020, 12:18:44 AM
Quote from: DGuller on January 10, 2020, 11:26:55 PM
Iran fessed up. Only smart move left for them.
I dunno - Russia still doesn't admit involvement over MH17.
Different situation, the Ukrainian airliner went down just outside the capital, hundreds of miles from the Iraqi border/ the Gulf, the only possible active military forces were Iranian.
Whereas MH17 happened right over a zone of conflict involving two if not three warring sides, so the Russians will fall back on 'plausible denial'
Quote from: mongers on January 11, 2020, 12:26:20 AM
Different situation, the Ukrainian airliner went down just outside the capital, hundreds of miles from the Iraqi border/ the Gulf, the only possible active military forces were Iranian.
Whereas MH17 happened right over a zone of conflict involving two if not three warring sides, so the Russians will fall back on 'plausible denial'
That was my first thought as well, but it's a pretty thin defense. Nobody thinks the rebels ordered a mobile SAM battery from Amazon.
I agree that fessing up is the smart move. It tells Canada and Ukraine that Iran cares enough to embarrass itself.
Noteworthy that Iran has now admitted that they fucked up with the airliner. That makes them more mature than the Russians who still lie about MH 17.
Plus, it may help de-escalate tension. That's the only good thing that may come out of this.
Quote from: Hamilcar on January 11, 2020, 02:52:03 AM
Noteworthy that Iran has now admitted that they fucked up with the airliner. That makes them more mature than the Russians who still lie about MH 17.
I think it was more a result of their position being completely untenable rather than maturity. You can deny things that are 99.9% obvious, Russia and Trump keep showing that it's a viable strategy, but there still comes a point where you're got no choice but to concede to reality.
Quote from: Hamilcar on January 11, 2020, 02:52:03 AM
Noteworthy that Iran has now admitted that they fucked up with the airliner. That makes them more mature than the Russians who still lie about MH 17.
The president of the us has never admitted he was wrong about anything.
Iran: now with a better government than the US and Russia?
Iranian domestic response to the admission:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/11/iran-plane-crash-admission-sparks-unrest-in-tehran
I thought I heard on NPR that Iran was offering 176k (?) per passenger, but can't find a link.
I suspect Iran's fairly restrained behavior in the whole incident is coming from a position of not wanting to rock the boat too much and biding their time while they get their nuclear bombs, which they will probably get by the end of the year. Once they get to that, they will become a lot more belligerent.
Quote from: PJL on January 12, 2020, 07:07:36 AM
I suspect Iran's fairly restrained behavior in the whole incident is coming from a position of not wanting to rock the boat too much and biding their time while they get their nuclear bombs, which they will probably get by the end of the year. Once they get to that, they will become a lot more belligerent.
What's not to love about a world with more nuclear armed states?
After all it's the only way to deter/impress the current/last US president; I wonder how the Danish nuclear programme is doing?
Quote from: mongers on January 12, 2020, 09:36:55 AM
Quote from: PJL on January 12, 2020, 07:07:36 AM
I suspect Iran's fairly restrained behavior in the whole incident is coming from a position of not wanting to rock the boat too much and biding their time while they get their nuclear bombs, which they will probably get by the end of the year. Once they get to that, they will become a lot more belligerent.
What's not to love about a world with more nuclear armed states?
After all it's the only way to deter/impress the current/last US president; I wonder how the Danish nuclear programme is doing?
Now, now, that's not a fair charge against Obama.
Iraqi base hosting US forces has been attacked with mortar bombs, according to Reuters.
Quote from: garbon on January 12, 2020, 11:44:05 AM
Iraqi base hosting US forces has been attacked with mortar bombs, according to Reuters.
Yeah, there is going to be a lot of that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiPtiQL5KyQ
Trump to Iran: DO NOT KILL YOUR PROTESTORS
Interestingly honest comment by Johnson on Iran: "The problem with the JCPOA as far as the Americans are concerned is that it was negotiated by President Obama... we need a Trump deal."
It's now pretty clear that the Soleimani hit was unlawful. I understand that the rule of law is now some quaint concept that lame liberal dweebs whine about to ruin the fun of murdering turbaned bad guys, but shouldn't there be some consequence to government officials breaking the law?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 14, 2020, 12:04:26 PM
It's now pretty clear that the Soleimani hit was unlawful. I understand that the rule of law is now some quaint concept that lame liberal dweebs whine about to ruin the fun of murdering turbaned bad guys, but shouldn't there be some consequence to government officials breaking the law?
Was it unlawful because Soleimani was a state actor, and therefor not covered by whatever legal provisions cover drone strikes on other towel heads? Honest question.
He is definitely not covered by the AUMF under even the broadest possible interpretation. The AUMF authorizes "necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons." Iran and Soleimani had nothing to do with the September 11 attacks.
Since Soleimani is a state official, an attack on him is an attack on a foreign state, which would require Congressional authorization absent emergency (imminence) which it is now clear did not exist.
The attack on Soleimani also runs afoul of the standing Executive Orders prohibiting assassination.
What do you want? A slap on the wrist, Calley-style?
The Congress has been doing their best to absolve themselves of all war powers since 1941. It would be nice if they took that responsibility again, but I don't really believe they want it.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 14, 2020, 12:04:26 PM
but shouldn't there be some consequence to government officials breaking the law?
Only for Democrats and trivial violations, like using a modern cellphone instead of one that was already outdated in 1995.
Joan, am I right in thinking your argument is based on the yet untested War Powers Act?
Just thinking back to Trump's Batman villain moment - are there rules on when US troops are allowed to disobey orders? :mellow:
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 14, 2020, 11:33:28 PM
Just thinking back to Trump's Batman villain moment - are there rules on when US troops are allowed to disobey orders? :mellow:
IIRC, you're not only allowed to, but required to disobey unlawful orders.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 14, 2020, 08:32:43 PM
Joan, am I right in thinking your argument is based on the yet untested War Powers Act?
No.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 15, 2020, 12:21:26 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 14, 2020, 11:33:28 PM
Just thinking back to Trump's Batman villain moment - are there rules on when US troops are allowed to disobey orders? :mellow:
IIRC, you're not only allowed to, but required to disobey unlawful orders.
Asking a soldier to shoot an unarmed civilian or execute a war prisoner is clearly an unlawful order and any soldier with more than two working brain cells would know that.
But if you're asked to target an ennemy officer whom you're told is plotting an imminent attack against the US, it ain't exactly clear you are following an unlawful order. Or if you're sent abroad to invade a country to dismantle their non existent WMD program, it's not clear in the first place that there is no such program in place and the reason for the invasion might have been made up or clearly exagerated. It's not like every soldier is trained as a lawyer either. I doubt the White House ordered the hit by saying "look, he's a bad guy, he deserves to die, trust me on this, we'll figure out something later to make it look like it's legit".
Quote from: viper37 on January 15, 2020, 04:44:13 AM
I doubt the White House ordered the hit by saying "look, he's a bad guy, he deserves to die, trust me on this, we'll figure out something later to make it look like it's legit".
You really should know better by now. :P
What makes this situation unique and different from the usual "let's bomb Libya" type of action that pretty much every President does, is that it was a targeted assassination of a foreign official. Assassinations are barred under US law unless otherwise specifically authorized.
We have gotten used to the idea of the US targeting individual jihadists for strikes. However, so far those have involved al-Qaeda militants or jihadists associated with ISIL, which originated as an al-Qaeda branch. Thus, the theory is that these strikes are covered by the 2001 AUMF authorizing force to be used against persons, organizations or states who planned, assisted, etc. the 9-11 attacks. It is a stretch to apply that to ISIL but a fig leaf nonetheless.
Problem is that: (1) the AUMF can't be reasonably stretched to include Soleimani, (2) there is no other available justification under customary or international law or "emergency" authority.
Quote from: viper37 on January 15, 2020, 04:44:13 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 15, 2020, 12:21:26 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 14, 2020, 11:33:28 PM
Just thinking back to Trump's Batman villain moment - are there rules on when US troops are allowed to disobey orders? :mellow:
IIRC, you're not only allowed to, but required to disobey unlawful orders.
Asking a soldier to shoot an unarmed civilian or execute a war prisoner is clearly an unlawful order and any soldier with more than two working brain cells would know that.
But if you're asked to target an ennemy officer whom you're told is plotting an imminent attack against the US, it ain't exactly clear you are following an unlawful order. Or if you're sent abroad to invade a country to dismantle their non existent WMD program, it's not clear in the first place that there is no such program in place and the reason for the invasion might have been made up or clearly exagerated. It's not like every soldier is trained as a lawyer either. I doubt the White House ordered the hit by saying "look, he's a bad guy, he deserves to die, trust me on this, we'll figure out something later to make it look like it's legit".
Yes, IIRC in Sweden an order has to be obviously unlawful, merely unlawful isn't enough. My guess is that the US would have something similar.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 15, 2020, 10:44:55 AM
What makes this situation unique and different from the usual "let's bomb Libya" type of action that pretty much every President does, is that it was a targeted assassination of a foreign official. Assassinations are barred under US law unless otherwise specifically authorized.
We have gotten used to the idea of the US targeting individual jihadists for strikes. However, so far those have involved al-Qaeda militants or jihadists associated with ISIL, which originated as an al-Qaeda branch. Thus, the theory is that these strikes are covered by the 2001 AUMF authorizing force to be used against persons, organizations or states who planned, assisted, etc. the 9-11 attacks. It is a stretch to apply that to ISIL but a fig leaf nonetheless.
Problem is that: (1) the AUMF can't be reasonably stretched to include Soleimani, (2) there is no other available justification under customary or international law or "emergency" authority.
But the Quds Force is a designated terrorist organization (Hell even Canada recognizes it as such). Which makes it somewhat unique as the only state agency designated as such, but also puts it more on par with AQ or ISIS.
Quote from: Barrister on January 15, 2020, 11:22:57 AM
But the Quds Force is a designated terrorist organization (Hell even Canada recognizes it as such). Which makes it somewhat unique as the only state agency designated as such, but also puts it more on par with AQ or ISIS.
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. The POTS doesn't gain the authority to assassinate anyone at will be simply by designating them as terrorists beforehand.
Correct (grumbler). AUMF does not cover all terrorists orgs but only those that planned, assisted etc 9/11 attacks.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 15, 2020, 06:02:36 PM
Correct (grumbler). AUMF does not cover all terrorists orgs but only those that planned, assisted etc 9/11 attacks.
ISIS had nothing to do with 9/11.
Quote from: Barrister on January 15, 2020, 06:12:53 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 15, 2020, 06:02:36 PM
Correct (grumbler). AUMF does not cover all terrorists orgs but only those that planned, assisted etc 9/11 attacks.
ISIS had nothing to do with 9/11.
ISIS used to be a branch of al-Qaeda. So in 2014, Obama's lawyers argued that ISIS was an al-Qaeda successor entity and therefore covered by the AUMF. It was a pretty questionable argument especially given that earlier in the year there was a very public split between ISIS leadership and what was left of al-Qaeda but it was at least a fig leaf of legality. Obama proposed a new ISIS specific AUMF draft in 2015 and a few proposals rattled around Congress but IIRC none of them passed.
What's concerning about the Soleimani situation is that now the WH doesn't seems to think it even needs to bother with an explanation or to seek additional legal authority. It's a step beyond Executive mandate stretching into total lack of interest in lawfulness.
40 years from now US Presidents will use the 2001 AUMF to justify targeted assassinations of, say, Chinese warlords.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on January 15, 2020, 08:26:09 PM
40 years from now US Presidents will use the 2001 AUMF to justify targeted assassinations of, say, Chinese warlords.
If current US leadership trends continue, in 40 years we won't be in a position to target Chinese warlords, though the Chinese may be targeting warlords in the US.
AFAICT there was no authorization of military force for Libya.
Is there a law that governs when an AUMF is required and when it's not?
Quote from: The Brain on January 15, 2020, 11:15:59 AM
Yes, IIRC in Sweden an order has to be obviously unlawful, merely unlawful isn't enough. My guess is that the US would have something similar.
Yeah - I didn't mean the assasination, more the targeting of cultural sites etc. So for example, ifTrump said level Persepolis or target another civilian site, could/should the military refuse to follow that order.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 15, 2020, 09:01:03 PM
AFAICT there was no authorization of military force for Libya.
Is there a law that governs when an AUMF is required and when it's not?
There is a law prohibiting assassinations.
Quote from: Maladict on January 15, 2020, 06:20:31 AM
Quote from: viper37 on January 15, 2020, 04:44:13 AM
I doubt the White House ordered the hit by saying "look, he's a bad guy, he deserves to die, trust me on this, we'll figure out something later to make it look like it's legit".
You really should know better by now. :P
well, uhm, ok, never mind. :D
Iran is now planning to quit the NPT. *golfclap*
When does the breathless title get changed again? Did Tim wake up from his attack of the vapors?
He'll get to it right after he figures out a way to sex up Syt's Chinese virus thread title.
A dozen or more rockets have hit the Iraqi Taj military base this evening, killing two Americans and possibly a Brit.
I think Trump will react.
Pretty quiet war.
It gets better in season 2.
Quote from: Habbaku on March 11, 2020, 07:42:40 PM
Pretty quiet war.
Not for the two guys who just got whacked.
Id speculate that a serious class of arms or even war between Iran and the USA will be in the interests of both leaderships.
To distract Iranians from the disastrous handling of the virus response and draw Americans attentions away from Trumps piss poor leadership over the coronavirus.