Iran

[Grifman]

Agreed. Trump causes mess. Trump makes mess worse. Then he doesn't make it even worse and that is restraint and strength?

I'm a liberal, and I didn't vote for him. I won't be voting for him in the upcoming election. Still, there's no reason I can't be honest about what I see here:

Iran has been bluffing all along. They claim to be able to unleash hell against anyone who attacks them. Okay, I can believe that. I'm not an expert on what various countries can or can't do.

Then Trump has one of their top people, and they themselves say he was highly important, killed. If Iran is ever going to do something big, now is the time. They have been directly provoked. They were punched right on the nose, for all the world to see. What do they do? A token retaliation. An 'attack' that pointedly does minimal damage. What does that tell you? It tells me that that's all they can do. All this time everyone has been scared of fearsome Iran and what they can do and they can't do shiat.

Is it possible that the military and/or intelligence people told Trump this? I think so. I think there's a good chance they explained what Iran would do in retaliation, because they knew that's all Iran could do. Everyone wants to believe this action was not thought out, because everyone dislikes Trump so much. What if it was thought out? The resolution, no war, is pure random luck? Really?

All the talk about it setting relations with Iran back, and pushing them to acquire nuclear weapons, come on! It would be naive to think the US is getting along with Iran any time soon or that Iran is giving up on acquiring those weapons, with or without a deal. That's what I mean by 'business as usual'. The same games will be played as before.

Iran truly hits back when the circumstances are in their favor. This "strike" was just a face saving exercise so that Iranians can say that they retaliated. I read an article the other day that described several Israeli "attacks" against Iran, how Iran waited, several years sometimes, and then struck, all in circumstances where they had plausible deniability. This is what we can expect - an Iranian assassination or terrorist attack against a US soft target overseas most likely carried out by enthusiastic proxies that cannot be traced directly to Iran. This is how they work, they are not going to directly challenge the US military, but they do not forget. They will extract deadly revenge at some point of their choosing.

[YellowKing]

Trump didn't issue the hit on Soleimani because the military and intelligence community told him it would be the prudent and wise thing to do. He told them he was going to do it, and then they scrambled to come up with reasons to justify it. To date we still haven't had a single shred of evidence from the White House why this hit was justified. And their story keeps changing every time they're pressed.

[malchior]

The 'justification' was weak enough that *this* happened. He'd likely spin it as not targeted at the administration but instead the briefers but notable for rare GOP dissent reasons.

[El Guapo]

Agreed. Trump causes mess. Trump makes mess worse. Then he doesn't make it even worse and that is restraint and strength?

I'm a liberal, and I didn't vote for him. I won't be voting for him in the upcoming election. Still, there's no reason I can't be honest about what I see here:

Iran has been bluffing all along. They claim to be able to unleash hell against anyone who attacks them. Okay, I can believe that. I'm not an expert on what various countries can or can't do.

Then Trump has one of their top people, and they themselves say he was highly important, killed. If Iran is ever going to do something big, now is the time. They have been directly provoked. They were punched right on the nose, for all the world to see. What do they do? A token retaliation. An 'attack' that pointedly does minimal damage. What does that tell you? It tells me that that's all they can do. All this time everyone has been scared of fearsome Iran and what they can do and they can't do shiat.

Is it possible that the military and/or intelligence people told Trump this? I think so. I think there's a good chance they explained what Iran would do in retaliation, because they knew that's all Iran could do. Everyone wants to believe this action was not thought out, because everyone dislikes Trump so much. What if it was thought out? The resolution, no war, is pure random luck? Really?

All the talk about it setting relations with Iran back, and pushing them to acquire nuclear weapons, come on! It would be naive to think the US is getting along with Iran any time soon or that Iran is giving up on acquiring those weapons, with or without a deal. That's what I mean by 'business as usual'. The same games will be played as before.

Iran truly hits back when the circumstances are in their favor. This "strike" was just a face saving exercise so that Iranians can say that they retaliated. I read an article the other day that described several Israeli "attacks" against Iran, how Iran waited, several years sometimes, and then struck, all in circumstances where they had plausible deniability. This is what we can expect - an Iranian assassination or terrorist attack against a US soft target overseas most likely carried out by enthusiastic proxies that cannot be traced directly to Iran. This is how they work, they are not going to directly challenge the US military, but they do not forget. They will extract deadly revenge at some point of their choosing.

So, it's true that we don't know everything that the military and intelligence people know here. But then, the reporting indicates that the military / intelligence people didn't think this was a great idea, but that they included it as an "extreme" answer to make the sensible answers look more, well, sensible. Hopefully they've learned their lesson on that, incidentally.

It's also true that Iran is clearly weaker militarily, and so has to avoid options that might plausibly lead to a conventional war. I also imagine that Trump might well earn a wider bearth in this regard insofar as they may worry more about how crazy he is.

Ultimately the main opportunities for Iran here are more diplomatic and covert. Seems like there still may be a real prospect of sidelining the U.S. in Iraq. That would be a huge victory for Iran - if they can push U.S. forces out, that leaves Iraq as even more of an Iranian client state than it already is. May well be worth delaying the real retalation while they make a push on that.

[Daehawk]

Iran is one of those shit countries that have to have the last word in stuff. They will attack something then when they get attacked its whaaa whaaa poor us we shall destroy you. Most countries let them have their way and they keep doing it for decades and decades. All that time they kill a few people here and there and get away with it. The only other option though is full war. Take out their power grid and government facilities. Then of course they just start swatting giants again one day.

[Combustible Lemur]

Iran is one of those shit countries that have to have the last word in stuff. They will attack something then when they get attacked its whaaa whaaa poor us we shall destroy you. Most countries let them have their way and they keep doing it for decades and decades. All that time they kill a few people here and there and get away with it. The only other option though is full war. Take out their power grid and government facilities. Then of course they just start swatting giants again one day.

Sooooo...... America?

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

[Alefroth]

Iran is one of those shit countries that have to have the last word in stuff. They will attack something then when they get attacked its whaaa whaaa poor us we shall destroy you. Most countries let them have their way and they keep doing it for decades and decades. All that time they kill a few people here and there and get away with it. The only other option though is full war. Take out their power grid and government facilities. Then of course they just start swatting giants again one day.

You said that already and it doesn't sound less asinine the second time.

[Paingod]

To date we still haven't had a single shred of evidence from the White House why this hit was justified. And their story keeps changing every time they're pressed.

When I think about it, I keep drifiting towards thinking it was done so Trump could say "When I was president, I had a man killed. In front of the world. And I got away with it."

Imagine the power trip.

We'll be lucky if he doesn't do it again.

[Isgrimnur]

[pr0ner]

So I fully expect Trump to announce nuclear retaliation this morning.

I think all we need to do is change the channel to Fox News to see what he's being told to do. If they're preaching fire and brimstone and hellacious bombings, then grab your pants and hold on tight.

Now only a swift and resolute U.S. response to Wednesday’s attack and Iran’s continued state-sponsored terrorism will save Iraq and U.S. interests from Iranian fanatics lashing out to deflect tension from Iran’s economic free-fall caused by corrupt and unreasonable leadership.
...
We now have an administration that does not acquiesce and draw imaginary “red lines.” President Trump’s message is clear that if any American or U.S. interests are targeted by terrorists, we will respond swiftly and appropriately.

Translation: They slapped our collective faces. Blow them back to hell.

Tucker Carlson is saying the exact opposite thing on Fox News.

Oh, look.

[El Guapo]

I hate to say it, but in this instance we all owe Tucker Carlson a debt of gratitude.

[Smoove_B]

We owe him a debut of gratitude for cementing the fact that our President is moron over listening to talking heads on Fox vs surrounding himself with trusted experts and advisors. F Tucker and the idea that the fate of a nation is in any way connected to what comes out of his stupid face.

[Holman]

[Sepiche]

There's footage out there that appears to be the plane on fire as it's going down, and it went down soon after the Iranian missile strike when they would have been on high alert for an American counter attack. Seems entirely plausible this was an accidental shoot down.

[Holman]

There's footage out there that appears to be the plane on fire as it's going down, and it went down soon after the Iranian missile strike when they would have been on high alert for an American counter attack. Seems entirely plausible this was an accidental shoot down.

Part of the story is that the US detected a SAM radar coming on and going off with timing that tracks with the plane's destruction.

[hepcat]

Iran is one of those shit countries that have to have the last word in stuff. They will attack something then when they get attacked its whaaa whaaa poor us we shall destroy you. Most countries let them have their way and they keep doing it for decades and decades. All that time they kill a few people here and there and get away with it. The only other option though is full war. Take out their power grid and government facilities. Then of course they just start swatting giants again one day.

You said that already and it doesn't sound less asinine the second time.

Sadly, they are the way they are primarily because of the United States. We basically created modern day Iran.

[Kraken]

Iran is one of those shit countries that have to have the last word in stuff. They will attack something then when they get attacked its whaaa whaaa poor us we shall destroy you. Most countries let them have their way and they keep doing it for decades and decades. All that time they kill a few people here and there and get away with it. The only other option though is full war. Take out their power grid and government facilities. Then of course they just start swatting giants again one day.

You said that already and it doesn't sound less asinine the second time.

Sadly, they are the way they are primarily because of the United States. We basically created modern day Iran.

I'm going to charitably assume that Dae doesn't know Iran's history vis-a-vis the US. Leaving aside Persia's long history in the cradle of civilization, Americans only need to know what's happened since 1953.

[Holman]

what's happened since 1953.

...the events of which were quite directly and explicitly in defense of Western oil-company profits.

[Alefroth]

Iran is one of those shit countries that have to have the last word in stuff. They will attack something then when they get attacked its whaaa whaaa poor us we shall destroy you. Most countries let them have their way and they keep doing it for decades and decades. All that time they kill a few people here and there and get away with it. The only other option though is full war. Take out their power grid and government facilities. Then of course they just start swatting giants again one day.

You said that already and it doesn't sound less asinine the second time.

Sadly, they are the way they are primarily because of the United States. We basically created modern day Iran.

I'm going to charitably assume that Dae doesn't know Iran's history vis-a-vis the US. Leaving aside Persia's long history in the cradle of civilization, Americans only need to know what's happened since 1953.

I assumed the same thing and I should try to be more charitable.

[GungHo]

Agreed. Trump causes mess. Trump makes mess worse. Then he doesn't make it even worse and that is restraint and strength?

I'm a liberal, and I didn't vote for him. I won't be voting for him in the upcoming election. Still, there's no reason I can't be honest about what I see here:

Iran has been bluffing all along. They claim to be able to unleash hell against anyone who attacks them. Okay, I can believe that. I'm not an expert on what various countries can or can't do.

Then Trump has one of their top people, and they themselves say he was highly important, killed. If Iran is ever going to do something big, now is the time. They have been directly provoked. They were punched right on the nose, for all the world to see. What do they do? A token retaliation. An 'attack' that pointedly does minimal damage. What does that tell you? It tells me that that's all they can do. All this time everyone has been scared of fearsome Iran and what they can do and they can't do shiat.

Is it possible that the military and/or intelligence people told Trump this? I think so. I think there's a good chance they explained what Iran would do in retaliation, because they knew that's all Iran could do. Everyone wants to believe this action was not thought out, because everyone dislikes Trump so much. What if it was thought out? The resolution, no war, is pure random luck? Really?

All the talk about it setting relations with Iran back, and pushing them to acquire nuclear weapons, come on! It would be naive to think the US is getting along with Iran any time soon or that Iran is giving up on acquiring those weapons, with or without a deal. That's what I mean by 'business as usual'. The same games will be played as before.

As others have said, this is Iran's 'official' retaliation to save face (not to mention the oil markets). They will absolutely hit us or our allies again. Now I agree with you that that is a 'business as usual' stance for Iran; they have tons of proxies thru which they have been hitting us and our allies for decades. I also agree with you that Iran would have continued to work towards the acquisition of nuclear weapons, even with the Iran Deal intact. The difference is in the speed with which they acquire those weapons. Months to years vs decades to never.

But I can't believe you really believe that trump could have thought any of this through. There hasn't been a consistent answer on anything from the administration since this started.
And even in the Bizarro world of MAGA. being told to get out of Iraq, by Iraq, can't be considered 'winning'.

[El Guapo]

I wonder how the airline downing is going to impact the situation. I don't *think* it should impact our / Trump's response, especially since my understanding is that no Americans were killed. Domestically this has to be a disaster for Iran - they killed a lot of Iranian nationals because they made a mistake. Wonder whether this is likely to make them do something else reckless to try to get a 'win'.

[malchior]

I wonder how the airline downing is going to impact the situation. I don't *think* it should impact our / Trump's response, especially since my understanding is that no Americans were killed. Domestically this has to be a disaster for Iran - they killed a lot of Iranian nationals because they made a mistake. Wonder whether this is likely to make them do something else reckless to try to get a 'win'.

It could though the domestic audience in Iran may never hear a clear story about this there. That said, they may and the Iranian government may spread lies or start rumors about a reason for downing the plane. For example, it was filled with spies to cover their tracks. It was intentional but we needed to keep it secret. Whatever 'works'. I don't know what they'd do to get a win here though. Most of their asymmetric capability is by its nature secret.

Still anything is possible since the Iranian government isn't exactly populated with good guys. Of course, this is why war is always a risk and there is a chance people in the middle east are going to blame the US for this. We did start the chain of events - near term speaking - here.

[Isgrimnur]

NYT is saying that they have video of the missile strike.

[malchior]

NYT is saying that they have video of the missile strike.

A few outlets have the video that is on the front page of the NY Times. It could be the shoot down but it doesn't show much more than something getting hit in the sky. If you told me it was the Iron Shield taking down a Hezbollah rocket it'd be just as plausible.

[Holman]

We surely have satellites watching Iranian airspace around the clock. Several NATO nations seem to agree that this was a missile strike, so I'm inclined to accept it.

EDIT: And it's notable that AFAIK no allies have come out to support the claim that intelligence showed an imminent attack from Soleimani.

(Republicans haven't yet called them terrorist-lovers, but there's still time.)

[malchior]

The 'justification' was weak enough that *this* happened. He'd likely spin it as not targeted at the administration but instead the briefers but notable for rare GOP dissent reasons.

Yup - he is already walking it back as an attack on the people briefing him. Trump is still the shining light. The great leader has been very 'deferential' to the american people and restrained in his use of his 'commander-in-chief' powers. Another spineless piece of human garbage.

[Max Peck]

Iran plane crash: 'Evidence' that missile downed jet

US media have speculated that the timing of the crash suggests the plane may have been mistaken for a US warplane as Iran prepared for possible US retaliation for the strikes.

CBS News quoted US intelligence sources as saying a satellite detected infrared "blips" of two missile launches, followed by another blip of an explosion.

Meanwhile, Newsweek quoted a Pentagon and senior US intelligence officials, as well as an Iraqi intelligence official, as saying they believed Ukraine International Airlines flight PS752 was hit by a Russian-made Tor missile.

[Isgrimnur]

The Hill

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told Laura Ingraham in a sit-down interview Thursday night that while the U.S. did not know where or when Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani was planning to attack, it was a "real" threat to U.S. assets in the Middle East.
...
"There is no doubt that there were a series of imminent attacks being plotted by Qassem Soleimani," Pompeo told the Fox News host. "We don't know precisely when and we don't know precisely where, but it was real."

[malchior]

Reports are that Pompeo was advocating for taking him out for years. It seems that he finally got Trump on the right day with the right backing from Pence and neocons in the administration to get the President to get what he wanted. The story that has floated out there that he just picked the wackiest option put in front of him and surprised everyone misses this element. He was worked on to get to the point. That it was offered wasn't a bracketing error - it was part of a concerted effort to get the guy.

[Holman]

[Smoove_B]

Is there a phrase that describes that kind of arrangement? Maybe something in Latin? Maybe if I went to The Wharton School I'd know it.

[malchior]

Cool - if I hear more about how this was just blind recklessness I'll puke. This was chosen recklessness via a concerted effort to tie up the United States in endless war. This is why we are the bad guys. This system is rotten to the very core and susceptible to this type of gamesmanship and all of us are for the most part helplessly along for the ride.

[Holman]

News is coming out now that, on the day of the Soleimani hit, we also attempted and failed to kill a top Iranian in Yemen.

Note that we are officially not involved in the Saudi-Iran proxy war there, and none of the post-9/11 authorizations for military force cover action in it.

[malchior]

Trump has an exclusive interview with Ingraham and said Soleimani had 4 embassies lined up for an 'imminent attack'. If you are going to lie, might as well lie big. Isn't it incredibly sad that not only do we know he is lying but that people are just used to it.

Edit: They can't even keep their bullshit stories straight. A bunch of straight up criminals.

[gameoverman]

To date we still haven't had a single shred of evidence from the White House why this hit was justified. And their story keeps changing every time they're pressed.

When I think about it, I keep drifiting towards thinking it was done so Trump could say "When I was president, I had a man killed. In front of the world. And I got away with it."

Imagine the power trip.

We'll be lucky if he doesn't do it again.

Yeah, this is exactly what I was getting at. People forget that Trump was elected by voters who wanted him to do different things from what the establishment does. His voters rejected the Republican establishment nominees. They wanted a strongman type. They wanted a guy who would stand up to anyone bucking what the US was trying to do.

That's why in my first posts on this I gave the opinion that if Iran didn't make him pay for this killing it would only help Trump look good. To those voters he DID get away with it. To those voters he proved Iran was a toothless tiger. That's also why Iran's initial response needed to be a big one, not a lame one. Those voters will not care 6 months from now if Iran makes a big move. They will just chalk it up to Iran doing something that they were going to do anyways.

Also, all the anger about him starting WWIII destroys the credibility of criticism on his actions. WWIII did not in fact break out. So everyone who complained about that now sounds like Chicken Little saying the sky is falling. So when the election rolls around it's going to be tough for Democrats to get any mileage from criticizing his actions in the Middle East. He can point to something everyone can see, the death of an enemy, and his critics can only point to theoretical future problems that might happen.

[malchior]

[malchior]

To date we still haven't had a single shred of evidence from the White House why this hit was justified. And their story keeps changing every time they're pressed.

When I think about it, I keep drifiting towards thinking it was done so Trump could say "When I was president, I had a man killed. In front of the world. And I got away with it."

Imagine the power trip.

We'll be lucky if he doesn't do it again.

Yeah, this is exactly what I was getting at. People forget that Trump was elected by voters who wanted him to do different things from what the establishment does. His voters rejected the Republican establishment nominees. They wanted a strongman type. They wanted a guy who would stand up to anyone bucking what the US was trying to do.

That's why in my first posts on this I gave the opinion that if Iran didn't make him pay for this killing it would only help Trump look good. To those voters he DID get away with it. To those voters he proved Iran was a toothless tiger. That's also why Iran's initial response needed to be a big one, not a lame one. Those voters will not care 6 months from now if Iran makes a big move. They will just chalk it up to Iran doing something that they were going to do anyways.

I don't think anyone paying attention is unaware of their motivations or that they wanted a strong man. To be blunt, this is why I wonder why Iran or anyone who isn't Trump should care about what those voters think when deciding on a course of action? They can't be won over.

Also, all the anger about him starting WWIII destroys the credibility of criticism on his actions. WWIII did not in fact break out. So everyone who complained about that now sounds like Chicken Little saying the sky is falling. So when the election rolls around it's going to be tough for Democrats to get any mileage from criticizing his actions in the Middle East. He can point to something everyone can see, the death of an enemy, and his critics can only point to theoretical future problems that might happen.

The chicken little bit is a bit weird to me because it was not a widespread belief. It certainly doesn't destroy credibility of criticism. That doesn't even really compute.

Anyway, there was a chance of a regional conflict if someone made a mistake or got unlucky. It didn't happen. Great. However I think people will be able to point out that his justification for this attack was all over the place. It is especially undercut by the story of the 2nd strike that was unsuccessful. There is a lot to criticize here without talking about near WWIII or even theoretical future problems.

The more important question is will criticism change anyone's view? Who knows. It really feels like the problem is people aren't paying attention anymore. Whether that is because it is clear that our politics are consequence free or because there is too much noise to process is probably a question to be answered in hindsight but we'll get a sense of the damage over the next 10 months.

[gameoverman]

In my opinion, the only point to criticizing his actions in this incident is in how it'll impact the elections. In terms of just policy, if you didn't like this assassination it's doubtful you like ANY of his policies, so who cares? Neither he nor his voters do.

In terms of the upcoming election, these kinds of actions can win or lose the election for him. For it to be a winner, he needs to score points without alienating his voters. Voters go for clear and obvious things, not abstract things. That the second mission failed won't matter to anyone because the failed second mission cost the US nothing. There was no negative outcome there, there simply was the lack of a positive one. It's like going shopping and coming home empty handed because they were out of stock on what you wanted. You just try again later.

I want someone else as President and it disturbs me that Democrats seemed to be focused on the wrong things. Winning the election should be the focus. Making a fuss over him almost starting a war won't win the election. This entire incident is going to be a distant memory in not too long for most people. No one is going to be in a voting booth changing their mind about voting for Trump because of what happened this last week.

[El Guapo]

In my opinion, the only point to criticizing his actions in this incident is in how it'll impact the elections. In terms of just policy, if you didn't like this assassination it's doubtful you like ANY of his policies, so who cares? Neither he nor his voters do.

In terms of the upcoming election, these kinds of actions can win or lose the election for him. For it to be a winner, he needs to score points without alienating his voters. Voters go for clear and obvious things, not abstract things. That the second mission failed won't matter to anyone because the failed second mission cost the US nothing. There was no negative outcome there, there simply was the lack of a positive one. It's like going shopping and coming home empty handed because they were out of stock on what you wanted. You just try again later.

I want someone else as President and it disturbs me that Democrats seemed to be focused on the wrong things. Winning the election should be the focus. Making a fuss over him almost starting a war won't win the election. This entire incident is going to be a distant memory in not too long for most people. No one is going to be in a voting booth changing their mind about voting for Trump because of what happened this last week.

Any one thing is only going to be one drop in the 2020 election, barring huge consequences. If nothing else happens on Iran, this will probably fade by November. But that's true for 99% of all issues. But that doesn't mean that Democrats shouldn't discourage Trump from starting a new conflict, or hammer Trump for being reckless abroad. Both of those things are fairly unpopular.

[Kraken]

Iran is still in the "hold my beer" phase of their response. They will be careful not to do anything that will definitely bring the hammer down, but that doesn't mean they won't do anything.