Iran

[Grifman]

Things are heating up in Iran:

[hepcat]

Things are heating up in Iran:

I see what you did there.

[Grifman]

[Grifman]

Iranian military launches missiles against Kurdish Iraq::

[Jaymann]

Was that in reaction to the basketball team?

[Max Peck]

If I had to guess (and I do, since I haven't seen anything about it), it's in reaction to Khomeini's shrine being burned by protesters. IIRC, a lot of the protests have been in Kurdish areas.

[Blackhawk]

So now Iran is bombing Iraq. You know what this year needs? Another war in the middle east.

[Scraper]

This morning the Iranian National soccer Team did not sing along with their national anthem at the World Cup. As small as that may seem, it was a major statement by the team that the entire world would see.

[Grifman]

[Grifman]

There will be no middle ground:

[Grifman]

Iron/steelworkers protesting in Iran:

[Isgrimnur]

USA Today

Iran is apparently shutting down its "morality police" amid violent protests sweeping the nation since the death of a woman who was forcibly taken into custody after being accused of violating the theocracy’s strict Islamic dress code.

Iranian Attorney General Mohamed Jafar Montazeri, speaking Sunday at a religious conference, said the Gasht-e Ershad "had nothing to do with the judiciary and have been shut down." The Gasht-e-Ershad reported to Iran's Interior Ministry.

[Defiant]

There's been some conflicting reporting about whether it's been abolished.

[Grifman]

And you think our culture war is bad:



Thirty percent of Iranians are secular.

[Pyperkub]

And you think our culture war is bad:



Thirty percent of Iranians are secular.

Yes, because that is the direction we have been trending.

Sent from my SM-S908U1 using Tapatalk

[Carpet_pissr]

Theoretically they could decide to execute 15K (highly doubtful) but as it stands right now this is not what the tweet makes it out to be.

Shocking.

And yes, I’ve been on an anti-Twitter rampage lately (but note that it started before Musk bought it and turned it into Twitter Social. I was mad at Twitter before it was cool!)

[Isgrimnur]

CNN: Archrivals Iran and Saudia Arabia agree to end years of hostilities in deal mediated by China

Riyadh and Tehran plan to reopen their embassies within two months in an agreement mediated by China, Saudi Arabia and Iran said in a joint statement after talks in Beijing on Friday.

They also plan to reimplement a security pact signed 22 years ago under which both parties agreed to cooperate on terrorism, drug-smuggling and money-laundering, as well as reviving a trade and technology deal from 1998.

Friday’s announcement is also a diplomatic victory for China in a Gulf region that has long been considered part of the US’ domain of influence. It comes as the Biden administration tries to notch its own win in the Middle East by trying to broker a normalization pact between Israel and Saudi Arabia.

[Isgrimnur]

Americans held in Iran placed under house arrest as part of a planned prisoner swap

Five Americans imprisoned in Iran have been placed under house arrest in the first step of a planned prisoner exchange between Tehran and Washington that will include the release of roughly $6 billion in Iranian government assets blocked under U.S. sanctions, according to multiple sources with knowledge of the matter.

If the proposed agreement goes through, Iran will be allowed to access the funds only to buy food, medicine or other humanitarian purposes, in accordance with existing U.S. sanctions against the country. Under the agreement, which could take weeks to carry out, Qatar’s central bank will oversee the funds, the sources said.

Republican lawmakers harshly criticized then-President Barack Obama when he made a similar agreement in 2015. The new deal has been under negotiation for months, with Qatar and other governments acting as intermediaries.

[Isgrimnur]

Iran prisoner swap: US citizens freed in $6bn deal

The last pieces in a controversial swap mediated by Qatar fell into place when $6bn (£4.8bn) of Iranian funds held in South Korea reached banks in Doha.

It triggered the departure of the four men and one woman in Tehran, who are also Iranian citizens, on a chartered flight to Qatar's capital.

They were met by senior US officials and are now on their way to Washington.

The Americans include 51-year-old businessman Siamak Namazi, who has spent nearly eight years in Tehran's notorious Evin prison, as well as businessman Emad Shargi, 59, and environmentalist Morad Tahbaz, 67, who also holds British nationality.

The US has said its citizens were imprisoned on baseless charges for political leverage.
...
Five Iranians imprisoned in US jails, mainly on charges of violating US sanctions, are also being granted clemency as part of this swap. Not all of them are expected to return to Iran.
...
Sources told the BBC this money was not part of Iranian assets frozen by sanctions. The money in South Korea, revenue from Iranian oil sales, had been available to Tehran for bilateral and non-sanctioned aid, but was not spent for various reasons including difficulties of currency conversion.

[Kurth]

Watching what’s going on with the Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen, I wonder to what extent the U.S. and its allies are considering options aimed at going after Iran rather than simply trying to deal with its proxies.

From what I understand, Iran is directly behind the Houthis — a group whose rallying cry is “Death to America, death to Israel, a curse upon the Jews” — and the Houthis basically would not exist but for Iran’s support. Iran arms them. Iran helps train them. Iran essentially fought a proxy war against the Saudis when the Saudis tried to unseat the Houthis after they threw out the prior Yemeni government.

Just makes me wonder if there are some in the DoD currently drawing up plans for strikes on Iran if this thing with the Houthis continues to deteriorate.

[malchior]

Are they drawing up plans? Yes because they're always making plans of that sort. Is anyone seriously considering them? I sure hope not. That'd be deeply irresponsible. That has to be only in the last resort.

Edit: IMO these guys may be "annoying" but not even close to impactful enough to spark a huge regional war over.

[Kurth]

Are they drawing up plans? Yes because they're always making plans of that sort. Is anyone seriously considering them? I sure hope not. That'd be deeply irresponsible. That has to be only in the last resort.

Edit: IMO these guys may be "annoying" but not even close to impactful enough to spark a huge regional war over.

Based on the news reports I listened to on NPR this morning, the impact of these continued Houthi attacks on shipping through the Suez are significant and global. That reporting seems to be backed up by this analysis posted by the Council on Foreign Relations last week:

Since mid-November 2023, the Yemen-based, Iran-backed Houthi rebel group has attacked dozens of commercial ships in the Red Sea, with no signs of slowing down. An exodus of shipping companies from the region now threatens to scuttle supply chains and increase consumer prices just as global inflation begins to ebb . . .

The Red Sea is one of the most important arteries in the global shipping system, with one-third of all container traffic flowing through it. Any sustained disruption in trade there could send a ripple effect of higher costs throughout the world economy. This is particularly true of energy: 12 percent of seaborne oil and 8 percent of liquified natural gas (LNG) transit the Suez Canal.

[malchior]

I mean starting a huge regional war because it might impact global inflation?



But seriously I had no problem with them attempting to stop the random missile attacks on global shipping and our ships. All I'm saying is that striking Iran directly over this? No way. However, we might be heading that way anyway.

[Kurth]

I mean starting a huge regional war because it might impact global inflation?

But seriously I had no problem with them attempting to stop the random missile attacks on global shipping and our ships. All I'm saying is that striking Iran directly over this? No way. However, we might be heading that way anyway.

Just playing devil’s advocate here, but why would striking Iran necessarily set off a huge regional war? Aside from its proxies and the “axis of resistance” Iran has been building, who is really going to have Iran’s back?

[malchior]

Baseline reality is we're now involved in a low-scale regional war already after this strike. Biden was trying to avoid this but it didn't work out. For now, we'll likely keep to plinking away at the proxies and trying to do tactical things like maintain freedom of navigation. We don't want to be the fuse that lights the whole thing off.

In that vein, directly attacking Iran would dramatically escalate the conflict. Right now Iran is supposedly telling their proxies to reign it in (with limited results). A strike on Iran might have them loose their proxies on Israel. That'd be bad on it's own. Israel seems to recognize this. There is some speculation that Israel transitioned to so-called "low level operations" in Gaza to pull troops out and move them towards the north. That is because of the Hezbollah threat and the notion that Iran has a ready reserve about 5 times that of Israel.

Also in the mix we have to consider that other actors in the regions are on a razor's edge. They might not help Iran but they it seems likely they aren't going to get in the way of a fist fight. There is also the 'arab street' to consider. While many of those nations are authoritarian they still have to deal with their population and they are mad. Just as an example, Bahrain disavowed any participation in the Houthi strike after their streets exploded after being named in the press releases. In other words, all around overall tensions are very high in the region. Everyone paying close attention is worried this might turn into a major war.

[Anonymous Bosch]

WSJ's op-ed describing the significant, though unsurprisingly inevitable, escalation that took place on Sunday (in terms of significance, I heard it described on the radio that prior to this attack, "no member of the American military's ground forces had been killed by an enemy air strike in more than half a century"):

Biden, Iran and Three Dead Americans

The Commander in Chief’s weak response to attacks puts his Presidency at risk.

It was bound to happen eventually, as President Biden was warned repeatedly. A drone or missile launched by Iran’s militia proxies would elude U.S. defenses and kill American soldiers. That’s what happened Sunday as three Americans were killed and 25 wounded at a U.S. base in Jordan near the Syrian border. The question now is what will the Commander in Chief do about it?

Mr. Biden issued a statement Sunday that “America’s heart is heavy” at the death of patriots who are the “best of our nation.” That sentiment is nice, and no doubt sincere, but at this point it is inadequate and infuriating.

The sorry truth is that these casualties are the result of the President’s policy choices. Mr. Biden has tolerated more than 150 Iranian proxy attacks on U.S. forces in the Middle East since October. Only occasionally has he or the Administration registered more than rhetorical displeasure by retaliating militarily, and only then with limited airstrikes.

The President refused to change course even after U.S. troops suffered traumatic brain injuries. A Christmas Day proxy attack in Iraq left a U.S. Army pilot in a coma. Last week, more than a month later, Chief Warrant Officer 4 Garrett Illerbrunn was finally “sitting up in the chair for the first time for most of the day,” and “alert with both eyes opened and following,” his family’s medical blog says.

Mr. Biden vowed Sunday to “hold all those responsible to account at a time and in a manner our choosing,” though that stock line rings increasingly hollow. He has no choice now other than to approve strikes in retaliation, but targeting the responsible militia is insufficient. Mr. Biden and the Pentagon are playing Mideast Whac-a-Mole.

Everyone knows that the real orchestrator of these attacks is Iran. But the President has put his anxieties about upsetting Iran and risking escalation above his duty to defend U.S. soldiers abroad. It would have been more honest (if a sign of weakness) to withdraw American troops from the region, rather than consign them to catching Iranian drones for months.

The irony of Mr. Biden’s strategy—avoid escalation with Iran above all else—is that he’ll now have to strike back harder than if he had responded with devastating force the first time U.S. forces were hit, and every time since.

That probably includes hitting Iranian military or commercial assets. There are certainly risks of escalation from doing so. But Iran and its proxies are already escalating, and they have no incentive to stop unless they know their own forces are at risk. Here’s one idea: Put the Iranian spy ship that has been prowling the Red Sea on the ocean floor.

The alternative is a growing American body count. Iran’s clients in Yemen are continuing to fire at U.S. warships in the Red Sea while holding a vital shipping lane hostage. U.S. destroyers have managed to intercept Houthi volleys in a testament to American weapons technology and military professionalism. But eventually a drone or missile could elude U.S. defenses and sink a U.S. warship.

One thing to watch is whether the Administration will react to this attack by putting more pressure on Israel to stop its campaign against Hamas. This would validate the claim of the militias that they are merely targeting the U.S. because it supports Israel. And it would tell Iran that its militia drone and missile campaign has succeeded in easing pressure on Hamas. But it is how this Administration thinks.

***

Mr. Biden has spent months fretting about a broader regional war without confronting the reality that the U.S. is already in one. The result is that U.S. deterrence has collapsed in the region, and Americans are dying. Mr. Biden’s repeated displays of weakness are inviting more attacks. In the 1970s, Iran helped to ruin Jimmy Carter’s Presidency by seizing hostages. Mr. Biden should worry that it will also take down his Presidency if he won’t respond with enough force that the mullahs get the message.

[Anonymous Bosch]

#BREAKING: At-least five KC-135R tankers of the #USAF are refueling several heavy bombers which have left their bases and are headed toward Europe. They might be participants of the incoming retaliatory airstrikes at #Iran's Islamic Regime & its #IRGC.

[Isgrimnur]

[Kurth]

I don’t think Biden has any option at this point but to retaliate directly and significantly (but proportionately) against Iran. I agree with the WSJ’s take that “American deterrence” has collapsed in the region. We cannot allow Iran to continue to wage this proxy war against our allies and now against us directly.

There’s no more “avoiding a regional war.” It’s already happening.

[hepcat]

I think Iran has been testing the waters to see how far they can go. I don't think just letting it go without a response is an option, in light of that. A line in the sand has to be drawn (sorry for the historic call back).

[$iljanus]

I don’t want to necessarily say Biden is politically doomed but I’m curious to see how he’s going to shake this off along with the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the “invasion” of the southern border. I won’t even bring up the whole “Biden is responsible for the poor economy” sentiment.

Of course, if we’re really starting to see a leveling off of inflation and the price of milk and bacon starts to drop closer to the election maybe enough people won’t be as concerned about what happens, “over there”…think:

[hepcat]

I think striking back at Iran will actually help him in conservative eyes.

[$iljanus]

I think striking back at Iran will actually help him in conservative eyes.

Under normal circumstances perhaps but unfortunately all we’ll hear is how the Iranians attacked the US under Biden’s watch while Trump took out a Quds commander. Biden almost needs to nuke Iran which is ridiculous and even if he did we’d then hear about the hordes attacking the border.

[Victoria Raverna]

From what the comments on facebook and youtube, they are also opposed to be involved in the conflict in middle east and want US to pay more attention to stop invasion at the southern border.

So they'll find way to blame Biden. No retalation -> Biden is weak. Retalation -> Biden should pay more attention to the border with Mexico instead of starting war in middle east.

[LordMortis]

From what the comments on facebook and youtube, they are also opposed to be involved in the conflict in middle east and want US to pay more attention to stop invasion at the southern border.

So they'll find way to blame Biden. No retalation -> Biden is weak. Retalation -> Biden should pay more attention to the border with Mexico instead of starting war in middle east.

I agree with this assessment. They are already blaming Biden for Iran escalation and Houthi rebels and state that with TFG the death of Americans was his red line and Biden is too slow to stop... Checks the Internet... the Iranian funded rebel pirates established recognition in 1994 and then expanded power in 2014... (though this is I am sure emboldened by Israel, whom Biden has failed to reel in. Though, you know sovereign nation and all. He's also failed reel in Russia, for whom the GOP want to be impregnated by Putin)

[hepcat]

How can Biden "reel in" Russia if his attempts to support the Ukrainian people is met with resistance at every turn by a GOP who has fixated on one thing to the exclusion of all else? I don't see that as a failure on Biden's part.

[LordMortis]

That's what I mean by sovereign nation and the expectation that we reel in Israel, even if we can reduce aid and then I look at how the GOP looks at each of these nation's wars and sets expectations on the presidency (under both TFG and Biden).

[hepcat]

Ah, got it. I misunderstood your post.

[Kurth]

This morning’s newsletter from the NYT, “What Iran Wants,” provides some analysis on the motivations and results of Iran’s proxy wars: Spoiler - Iran is winning.

Iran has emerged as the chief architect in multiple conflicts strafing the Middle East, from the Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf.

It trained and helped arm the Iraqi militias that killed three U.S. service members with a drone in Jordan this weekend. It supplied Hamas and Hezbollah in their clashes with Israel. It launched missiles at anti-Iranian militants inside Pakistan in response to the bombing of a local police station in December. And it has helped Houthi warriors in Yemen attack container ships in the Red Sea to protest the war in Gaza. All of which, taken together, threaten a wider war . . .

To achieve regional hegemony and safeguard its theocracy, Iran has responded on three fronts: military, diplomatic and economic. Those efforts have become more assertive in the past year, especially since the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas.

Militarily, Iran’s government wants to project strength without drawing fire on its own territory, which could jeopardize its already tenuous popular support. Its strategy has been to build up regional proxy forces so that it rarely launches attacks from its own soil.

Those forces include Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, Hamas in Gaza and a handful of Shiite militias in Iraq. Each has its own goals, but all are in agreement with Iran about combating Western troops in the region and diminishing Israel’s standing. The United States designates each of them as a foreign terrorist organization. Since the October attack on Israel, these groups have targeted Israel’s northern front, U.S. positions in Iraq and Syria, U.S. warships and international cargo ships in the Red Sea . . .

Iran’s foreign policy is designed to try to reverse its image as an isolated nation — particularly after the U.S. intensified sanctions in 2018. Even before Oct. 7, it was cultivating its Arab neighbors as well as Russia and China. Early in 2023, for the first time in decades, Iran normalized relations with Saudi Arabia, repairing a rift between the two countries in a deal brokered by China . . .

Economically, Iran has had far more limited success dodging U.S. sanctions, leaving many Iranians poorer and more resentful of the government. The regime faced widespread protests in 2022 and 2023 over hijab mandates, and the nation’s supreme leader has been urging women to vote in upcoming elections, signaling his concern that the government has antagonized them . . .

“There’s a good case to be made that Iran is a major winner from this conflict,” said Dalia Dassa Kaye, a political scientist at the Burkle Center for International Relations at the University of California, Los Angeles. “The war is in many ways boosting Iranians’ domestic, regional and global situation.”

She added, “So far, Iran has been able to gain all these benefits without paying direct costs.”

The Biden administration needs to find a way to end this. Iran cannot be allowed to sit back and direct its proxies to wreak havoc in the Middle East and threaten U.S. interests and regional stability. We need to act decisively to send a message to Tehran that it’s going to start paying some “direct costs” and that those costs will increase significantly the longer Iran continues to play this proxy game.

[YellowKing]

I don’t want to necessarily say Biden is politically doomed but I’m curious to see how he’s going to shake this off along with the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the “invasion” of the southern border. I won’t even bring up the whole “Biden is responsible for the poor economy” sentiment.

Easy, he just runs against someone even less popular than he is.

That said, I don't think Afghanistan means a hill of beans to voters now, much less months from now. That's long forgotten.