US and Iran Relations (News and Discussion)

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[visionary]

 

 

 

Edited January 10, 2020 by visionary

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bang]

So much for sovereignty.
Maybe they should build a wall. i hear they work pretty well in keeping out foreigners.

 

~Bang

[tshile]

2 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Yea, @Riggo-toni, thought the same thing, because, after all, begging the US not to retaliate for launching missiles which struck nothing, then shooting down a plane full of your own people is a good look.  Competence shown.

Being played is not the same as being in on it. 
 

it’s possible they played trump but we’re still guessing at what the response would be and were still forced to hedge their bet by being on high alert for a response, which lead to mistaking a commercial airliner for a war plane. 
 

im not a subscriber to the theory that this was all orchestrated by Iran (or on their behalf) to remove a high profile person they perceived as a threat. 
 

but I also realize my understanding of what goes on behind the scene in Iran is about zero, and the theory is based on a very compelling argument. 

Edited January 10, 2020 by tshile

[NoCalMike]

It's a safe bet to assume Trump got played, and likely not just by Iran.

[Skintime]

19 minutes ago, Bang said:

So much for sovereignty.
Maybe they should build a wall. i hear they work pretty well in keeping out foreigners.

 

~Bang

Maybe Mexico will pay for it...

[StillUnknown]

 

[mistertim]

1 hour ago, visionary said:

 

 

 

"So um can you, like, get your military out of our country please?"

"No, because we're awesome."

"How so? You're causing us nothing but misery."

"Because we said so. Now stop your whining and be grateful to us you worthless pieces of ****. You should be happy that we allow you to exist."

 

14 minutes ago, StillUnknown said:

 

 

What a **** ass ****.

[tshile]

11 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

"So um can you, like, get your military out of our country please?"

"No, because we're awesome."

"How so? You're causing us nothing but misery."

"Because we said so. Now stop your whining and be grateful to us you worthless pieces of ****. You should be happy that we allow you to exist."

honestly... yeah. 
 

I mean I’m happy to pull everything and let all the dominos of the Middle East fall as they will without us being involved.
 

I don’t think they’ll like what that means for them but I’m happy to support it. im sick enough of the lost lives, the lifelong injuries, and the immense expense of it all. But I’m willing to understand how it’s to protect a bunch of people we otherwise have nothing to do with. But not if they’re going to be ungrateful about it. 
 

careful what you wish for. 

 

 

[NoCalMike]

So it's Bush all over again.  Put your empty-headed figure head into the office, then tell him what he is going to do. 

[Skintime]

5 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

So it's Bush all over again.  Put your empty-headed figure head into the office, then tell him what he is going to do. 

That's been the GOP way for many many years, and it won't change till we get rid of them.

[Dan T.]

Washington Post -

On the day U.S. forces killed Soleimani,

they launched another secret operation targeting a senior Iranian official in Yemen

John Hudson, 

Missy Ryan and 

Josh Dawsey 

Jan. 10, 2020 at 1:52 p.m. EST

 

On the day the U.S. military killed a top Iranian commander in Baghdad, U.S. forces carried out another top secret mission against a senior Iranian military official in Yemen, according to U.S. officials.

 

The strike targeting Abdul Reza Shahlai, a financier and key commander of Iran’s elite Quds Force who has been active in Yemen, did not result in his death, according to four U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

 

The unsuccessful operation may indicate that the Trump administration’s killing of Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani last week was part of a broader operation than previously explained, raising questions about whether the mission was designed to cripple the leadership of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps or solely to prevent an imminent attack on Americans as originally stated.

 

U.S. military operations in Yemen, where a civil war has created the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, are shrouded in secrecy. U.S. officials said the operation against Shahlai remains highly classified, and many declined to offer details other than to say it was not successful.

 

Officials at the Pentagon and in Florida were monitoring both strikes and had discussed announcing them together, had they gone well, officials said.

“If we had killed him, we’d be bragging about it that same night,” a senior U.S. official said, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a classified military operation.

 

More:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/on-the-day-us-forces-killed-soleimani-they-launched-another-secret-operation-targeting-a-senior-iranian-official-in-yemen/2020/01/10/60f86dbc-3245-11ea-898f-eb846b7e9feb_story.html

[CousinsCowgirl84]

1 hour ago, tshile said:

Being played is not the same as being in on it. 
 

it’s possible they played trump but we’re still guessing at what the response would be and were still forced to hedge their bet by being on high alert for a response, which lead to mistaking a commercial airliner for a war plane. 
 

im not a subscriber to the theory that this was all orchestrated by Iran (or on their behalf) to remove a high profile person they perceived as a threat. 
 

but I also realize my understanding of what goes on behind the scene in Iran is about zero, and the theory is based on a very compelling argument. 

what is the compelling argument? Russia orchestrating this was a better conspiracy theory, they have more to gain, less to loose, and are probably competent enough to pull it off.

Edited January 10, 2020 by CousinsCowgirl84

[CousinsCowgirl84]

1 hour ago, NoCalMike said:

It's a safe bet to assume Trump got played, and likely not just by Iran.

It’s a safe bet trump got played. Just not by Iran.

[visionary]

Let’s not forget we talked to Saudi Arabia before launching these operations by the way.  It would be interesting to know what was discussed.

Edited January 10, 2020 by visionary

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[tshile]

1 hour ago, NoCalMike said:

So it's Bush all over again.  Put your empty-headed figure head into the office, then tell him what he is going to do. 

I would argue context was different. The years immediately following 9/11 had fear as a larger component of how everyone felt about things than it ever should. Not an excuse, just a reality (in my opinion)

 

the situation with Iran is a long, complicated foreign policy issue. 
 

im willing to extend an understanding to bush. Not all the people that influenced him, but him. 
 

not the same for trump. 

[visionary]

 

 

Trump also said he was referring to the Baghdad embassy attack that already  happened. (After his initial Mara lago  discussion on possible actions against Iran) 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 10, 2020 by visionary

[mistertim]

They're using the exact same playbook for dissent as Bush now, though. "We don't have to justify or explain anything to you, no matter what we do. And if you question it, then you're with the terrorists and emboldening our enemies. Why do you love terrorists?"

 

3 minutes ago, visionary said:

 

 

 

 

By next week it will be 12 embassies. The guy just can't help himself; lying is absolutely a compulsion for him. 

Edited January 10, 2020 by mistertim

[tshile]

42 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

what is the compelling argument? Russia orchestrating this was a better conspiracy theory, they have more to gain, less to loose, and are probably competent enough to pull it off.

that it doesn’t in any way fit the long pattern of how Iran behaves. 
 

sometimes people break character unexpectedly. Somethings it’s a permanent break. But normally people stay in character, especially when emotions are high and have a larger influence than normal. 
 

To believe the alternative theory, that they didn’t have a hand in any of it and were just trying to navigate the situation to appease people but not instigate us, you’d have to believe Iran has broken from character; character established over decades. 
 

it’s not impossible in fact it’s very possible. But it’s not a strong enough rebuttal. Which is why the other argument remains compelling - absent proof were forced to discard a theory based on a long history for a theory based on... what? A change of heart in Iran about how to deal with our involvement in the Middle East? I suppose you could just say they’re terrified of how trump may further escalate if they actually killed people. But even with that argument I think we’re basing the argument on Iran not behaving as Iran has a long history of behaving....

 

Yes. Maybe Iran has changed. Or maybe in this one case they’re willing to behave differently. 
 

but accepting that, with current public knowledge, requires discarding a long history. That’s a big ask at the moment. 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

Iran was already instigating us. I don’t see how dangling two leaders of the Iranian military as bait to pull us into direct conflict with them is in their interest. 
 

having Iraq ask is to leave helps Iran a little bit, but if they knew they were going to launch ballistic missiles at our bases as a pseudo response to us killing their generals like they wanted, they would be playing a very risky game, with a binary result.

 

 

the upside for Iran vs the risk doesn’t make a lot of sense.

 

 

 

I guess what you are really saying s their response seems a little light. That’s not really evidence of a conspiracy. Russia probably wants us out of Iraq and Syria and direct conflict with Iran doesn’t do that. So they are trying to thread the needle and have a lot of influence with Iran. Also, Iran knows it will loose a lot in a direct conflict with the United States, so they are being careful. And. their may be more responses later we haven’t seen yet.  Also, Trump changed the rules of engagement with Iran and I’m sure they noticed.

Edited January 10, 2020 by CousinsCowgirl84

[NoCalMike]

Well Iran deserves this, they started it by bombing Pearl Harbor after all. 

51 minutes ago, tshile said:

im willing to extend an understanding to bush. Not all the people that influenced him, but him. 
 

not the same for trump. 

 

Well that is sort of my point with Bush. I think he was suckered into the foreign policy by Cheney/Rumsfield/Wolfowitz etc etc.....now that doesn't mean that Bush didn't sincerely believe at the time he was doing the correct thing, but in hindsight it definitely seemed like he was presented with cherry picked information over and over in order to create an "Iraq-9/11" narrative.

 

With Trump, I think he truly doesn't have the stomach for an actual war, but he is just too idiotic to understand that moves like these are what can easily start the domino effect towards war.  He was probably talked into how much of a "tough guy" he would seem and all that nonsense.  I don't think Trump really has any clue about what he is doing on foreign policy,  even by Dubya standards, and it shows how susceptible he is to the hawks around him.  I think he was sold a bill of goods that taking this guy out would be just like taking Osama Bin Laden out.  And he jumped at the chance to check off another "I am better than Obama" box. 

Edited January 10, 2020 by NoCalMike

[tshile]

30 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

I guess what you are really saying s their response seems a little light.

kind of. What I’m saying is it doesn’t fit their long pattern of behavior at all.

 

They chose to launch older missiles than what they actually have, from bases further away that was necessary, all of which helped us make sure we got people out of harms way. 
 

they then declared that the end of it. 
 

none of that lines up with a long history of how Iran does things. 
 

if it was a show of force then it was a poor one because basic media pundits were able to see through it pretty easily. 
 

if it was a real attack it doesn’t in any way align with how they do reals attacks. 
 

and the problem here is I think you need to understand the history of how Iran does things. I have a basic grasp, but through conversation I don’t think you have much knowledge on it at all. If you were aware of it you wouldn’t have to ask what it is the CiA has done over the last 70 year like you did. Well you didn’t ask, you said you didn’t know what PeterMp was talking about. So I don’t think I’m going very far out on a limb to assume you don’t have any real knowledge of Iran’s history either. 
 

iran doesn’t launch 12 missiles in a harmless way and then declare their retaliation is over after a very powerful government official was assassinated. And we did more than that we took out quite a few people apparently. 
 

the narrative that Iran backed down this way just doesn’t make a lot of sense. Unless you believe Iran has had a serious change of heart despite no real change in their government 

Edited January 10, 2020 by tshile

[bearrock]

3 minutes ago, tshile said:

kind of. What I’m saying is it doesn’t fit their long pattern of behavior at all.

 

They chose to launch older missiles than what they actually have, from bases further away that was necessary, all of which helped us make sure we got people out of harms way. 
 

they then declared that the end of it. 
 

none of that lines up with a long history of how Iran does things. 

 

Yeah.  I certainly would prefer that Iran was backing down this time, but lot of people have been speculating (including some tweets posted by visionary) that Iran's real revenge may come far down the road in some clandestine way where they disavow responsibility with a wink.  I don't want that to be the case, but that would be more consistent with how Iran has done things in the past.