U.S.-Iran Crisis

agalisgv

Well-Known Member
Messages
27,147
So the attack was a good idea? And the Trump administration can be trusted to manage this situation gracefully enough to avoid further trouble?
I think there’s no universe where there won’t be retaliation. But let’s be objective here—if a country had actionable intelligence of an imminent 7/7 style attack, you would have to act on that. And that appears to be the case here. Would people really prefer to wait until after coordinated terrorist attacks orchestrated by Suleimani took place before going after him?
I haven't seen much defense of Soleimani, but seems like it should have been a more covert operation
Again, this wasn’t done in retaliation for past attacks (where you could pick your timing). It was done to stave off an imminent series of attacks. And it appears part of a larger decapitation effort against Iranian militia throughout Iraq—perhaps elsewhere too. Covert actions aren’t appropriate in these circumstances (eg Bin Laden, al Baghdadi). You’re going for dead—not plausible deniability.
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,281
Because certain members of Congress are notorious for leaking?
Are you serious? Aside from the fact that the President has compromised human intelligence sources because he couldn't keep his mouth shut, they've told Israel before the attack, Trump told Lindsay Graham on a golf course, bragged about it to guests at Mar-a-Lago, Pompeo talked to China and Russia about it (after the attack but still before members of Congress were briefed) and you want me to believe that he disregarded standard procedure because he was concerned about leaks? :rofl:

The administration is apparently on their third legal rational since last night, so I think it's a safe bet that that's the reason for not informing Congress.


Do people really not know why Soleimani was targeted? He was masterminding a series of imminent international attacks targeting US personnel.
According to this administration. The same administration that has a President who has told more than 15,000 lies in the three years of his Presidency, that has a VP who tweeted out a lie about the Iranian's involvement in 9/11 today, and that has generally not been truthful. At all.
That aside, CNN reported earlier that a top general has said that an attack might still happen, Democrats have said they have not seen any intelligence that suggests an attack was "imminent", a UN official has said that the US has not provided anything that suggests it was "imminent" https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2020/01/03/us/politics/ap-us-united-states-iran-legal-questions.html
and DOD officials have said so, too. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/03/world/middleeast/suleimani-iran-iraq-strike.html


As I mentioned in the other thread, there has been a very clear strategy implemented with Iran for three years now.
What strategy? Trump has no strategy for anything for the simple reason that he is not capable of understanding what he's doing. He not only ordered an airstrike without a plan, he also violated Iraq's sovereignty and is risking destablizing Iraq and the Middle East even further.



And keep in mind that the catalyst for Iranian aggression was the sanctions package passed by Congress two years ago that every Dem presidential candidate voted for.
No. Iran started to act out after Trump announced the US would leave the Iran deal.
 
Last edited:

Andora

Skating season ends as baseball season begins
Messages
11,361
Because certain members of Congress are notorious for leaking?
I was remiss in not noting this in particular. Because, honestly. :rolleyes:

I think there’s no universe where there won’t be retaliation. But let’s be objective here—if a country had actionable intelligence of an imminent 7/7 style attack, you would have to act on that. And that appears to be the case here. Would people really prefer to wait until after coordinated terrorist attacks orchestrated by Suleimani took place before going after him? Again, this wasn’t done in retaliation for past attacks (where you could pick your timing). It was done to stave off an imminent series of attacks. And it appears part of a larger decapitation effort against Iranian militia throughout Iraq—perhaps elsewhere too. Covert actions aren’t appropriate in these circumstances (eg Bin Laden, al Baghdadi). You’re going for dead—not plausible deniability.
So you don't believe killing him was more akin to killing Pence, Pompeo, Mark Esper, etc.? And you don't find the timing suspect, whatsoever? And do you feel the Trump administration can be trusted to handle this situation with care?

Again, what's your aim here?
 

agalisgv

Well-Known Member
Messages
27,147
they've told Israel before the attack, Trump told Lindsay Graham on a golf course, bragged about it to guests at Mar-a-Lago, Pompeo talked to China and Russia about it (after the attack but still before members of Congress were briefed) and you want me to believe that he disregarded standard procedure because he was concerned about leaks?
None of whom leaked, did they?

Which would indicate the leaks are coming not from the above sources.
The administration is apparently on their third legal rational since last night
The administration doesn’t need a rationale because the President had already received full congressional authorization to carry out military activities throughout Iraq. Suleimani is the head of a US designated terrorist organization. Thus Suleimani was a legitimate military target according to US law, full-stop. But Pompeo has been clear from the beginning that Suleimani was targeted due to pending terrorist attacks he was coordinating, and that has been confirmed by Iraqi leadership.
Iran started to act out after Trump announced the US would leave the Iran deal.
Incorrect. Trump ran on leaving the Iran deal, but Iran didn’t take action until after Congress passed sanctions against Iran in summer of 2017. From wiki:

“The Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, CAATSA[1] (H.R. 3364, Pub.L. 115–44), is a United States federal law that imposed sanctions on Iran, North Korea, and Russia. The bill was passed on July 27, 2017, 98–2 in the Senate.”

It was the sanctions that Iran protested:
“The main goal of America in approving these sanctions against Iran is to destroy the nuclear deal and we will show a very intelligent reaction to this action,” Araqchi said.

Iran believed the congressional sanctions undermined the nuclear deal, and thus pledged retaliation. That retaliation escalated as sanctions gradually came into force and were strengthened. That’s why the Iranian economy is in the toilet and there’s so much civil unrest in Iran today.
 

agalisgv

Well-Known Member
Messages
27,147
Last I heard, news outlets were not able to confirm it independently yet.
Thank you. Reuters is saying it didn’t occur:
The U.S.-led coalition fighting Islamic State said on Saturday it did not conduct any air strikes near Camp Taji north of Baghdad.


Earlier on Saturday, Iraq's Popular Mobilisation Forces umbrella grouping of paramilitary groups said air strikes near camp Taji had killed six people and critically wounded three.


Iraqi state television had said they were U.S. air strikes.
 

agalisgv

Well-Known Member
Messages
27,147
So you don't believe killing him was more akin to killing Pence, Pompeo, Mark Esper, etc.?
Absolutely not. Soleimani was the head of the Iranian Quds Force—a designated terrorist organization.
And you don't find the timing suspect, whatsoever?
This followed a clear timeline of Iranian escalating aggression. Also, Iran has elections in a couple months iirc, so politics is likely an issue here. Right now there is considerable popular backlash to the current Iranian leadership, so trying to stoke nationalist sentiment prior to their election is likely a factor imo.

But if you’re saying did Trump orchestrate this for personal gain, I would say no. This tends to be a common refrain by Dems whenever foreign conflicts arise (eg. Dems accused Bush I of staging the invasion of Kuwait for political reasons back in the day). But the wag the dog narrative I think only exists in Hollywood.

And do you feel the Trump administration can be trusted to handle this situation with care?
It’s not really a matter of trust—he’s the President and thus the only person who has authority to handle it.

No leader should be blindly followed, so how Trump responds is subject to scrutiny as it should be. But it should be honest scrutiny, and not just being dismissive without full account of facts.

My standard is would I find these actions objectionable if done by a leader I liked? So by that standard, if Obama did a successful targeted strike against Soleimani, would I applaud that? Well, I certainly applauded getting bin Laden, and that was without an imminent attack present. I would be a hypocrite to object to this simply because it’s Trump.
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,281
None of whom leaked, did they?

Which would indicate the leaks are coming not from the above sources.
It's not about whether or not any of them leaked, it's about believing that the man who is a walking leak himself and conducts sensitive business at his unsecure resort was concerned about leaks. And I don't. But I do believe that if Trump had had the information he claims he has and he would have gone to Congress with that, there wouldn't have been leaks.

Trump has proven time and again that he considers himself above the law, thinks he has absolute power and that the checks and balances don't apply to him and has shown a never-ending contempt for Congress. That's the only reason he needs not to inform Congress.


The administration doesn’t need a rationale because the President had already received full congressional authorization to carry out military activities throughout Iraq.
Which is one of their rationals. And since they have also come up with two other rationals, I'm inclined to believe those who say that they didn't have authorization. It makes little sense to first provide two other rationals when you only need one. Normally, you lead with the one you need and stick with it and don't come up with it some time on the next day.


Suleimani is the head of a US designated terrorist organization. Thus Suleimani was a legitimate military target according to US law, full-stop.
The US may have designated it a terrorist organization but that doesn't change the fact that it was part of the Iranian military. And, consequently, Soleimani was a member of the Iranian military and the 2nd most powerful man in Iran.


But Pompeo has been clear from the beginning that Suleimani was targeted due to pending terrorist attacks he was coordinating, and that has been confirmed by Iraqi leadership.
Pompeo also said that Americans are much safer in the region while the US is telling Americans in the region to get out and has put their embassies on security alerts. ...

As I said, this administration has lied for the past three years, so I find them anything but credible. There were conflicting reports right after the attack, DOD said one thing, State said another thing and the WH didn't even have a statement prepared. They were saying Soleimani was "actively" involved in planning first (which, according to officials would have been what he was normally doing) then they changed the story and said there was an imminent attack. (Thought: if the attack was imminent, what was taking out Soleimani supposed to accomplish? He was planning, not executing. And an imminent attack would have been fully planned already, so it could easily be executed without Soleimani (who has reportedly already been replaced, by the way)).

Bolton even claims that taking Soleimani out was long in the making. That and other things that I've been reading make it hard for me to believe that they're telling the truth.

And this does not sound like this was about an imminent threat either.

Why Trump chose this moment to explore an operation against the leader of Iran’s Quds Force, after tolerating Iranian aggression in the Persian Gulf for months, was a matter of debate within his own administration. Officials gave differing and incomplete accounts of the intelligence they said prompted Trump to act. Some said they were stunned by his decision, which could lead to war with one of America’s oldest adversaries in the Middle East.

“It was tremendously bold and even surprised many of us,” said a senior administration official with knowledge of high-level discussions among Trump and his advisers, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

...

Some analysts were skeptical about the need to kill Soleimani.
“There may well have been an ongoing plot as Pompeo claims, but Soleimani was a decision-maker, not an operational asset himself,” said Jon Bateman, who served as a senior intelligence analyst on Iran at the Defense Intelligence Agency.

...

Officials reminded Trump that after the Iranians mined ships, downed the U.S. drone and allegedly attacked a Saudi oil facility, he hadn’t responded. Acting now, they said, would send a message: “The argument is, if you don’t ever respond to them, they think they can get by with anything,” one White House official said.

Trump was also motivated to act by what he felt was negative coverage after his 2019 decision to call off the airstrike after Iran downed the U.S. surveillance drone, officials said. Trump was also frustrated that the details of his internal deliberations had leaked out and felt he looked weak, the officials said.

...

Trump also had history on his mind. The president has long fixated on Benghazi and the Obama administration’s response to it, say lawmakers and aides who have spoken to him, and felt the response to this week’s attack on the embassy and the killing of an American contractor would make him look stronger compared with his predecessor.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/how-trump-decided-to-kill-a-top-iranian-general/2020/01/03/77ce3cc4-2e62-11ea-bcd4-24597950008f_story.html


Incorrect. Trump ran on leaving the Iran deal,
There's a difference between running on something and doing it. (Although, the moment he announced it during the campaign, it was clear that more likely than not the US and Iran would end up in a conflict. Trump and Iranian leadership are both bullies and provocative and obsessed with showing how powerful they are. It was a matter of when, not if).


but Iran didn’t take action until after Congress passed sanctions against Iran in summer of 2017.
Things were tense after the sanctions (well, they were tense since Trump was sworn in, really) but Iran didn't act out until after Trump tore up the deal. Then things escalated quickly. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/06/iran-standoff-timeline-key-events-190622063937627.html


No leader should be blindly followed, so how Trump responds is subject to scrutiny as it should be. But it should be honest scrutiny, and not just being dismissive without full account of facts.

My standard is would I find these actions objectionable if done by a leader I liked?
This is not a matter of liking or not liking Trump or anyone, really. It's about being able to trust that he was aware of the risks, understood the risks and made a well-informed decision after careful deliberation. Trump has done nothing that would warrant that trust and everything to warrant the opposite.


So by that standard, if Obama did a successful targeted strike against Soleimani, would I applaud that? Well, I certainly applauded getting bin Laden, and that was without an imminent attack present. I would be a hypocrite to object to this simply because it’s Trump.
Since you just mentioned a full account of facts, what evidence do you have that there was the threat of an imminent attack other than the word of officials who have lied to the American people for the past three years? And on what grounds should we believe that these known liars are telling the truth this time around? (Especially since Mike Pence told a lie about Soleimani today https://twitter.com/asifintoronto/status/1213196559141130241 https://twitter.com/BradMossEsq/status/1213320070740553730 and we all know that there already was an administration (that was generally a lot more truthful and trustworthy) that provided falsified evidence to Congress to justify a war).

One can think that the death of Soleimani is no loss but still condemn the reckless manner with which it was done and doubt that officials are telling the truth.

(And to be clear, I'm not saying there was no imminent threat. I'm saying I need more than the administration's word to believe what they say).
 
Last edited:

snoopy

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,673
I want to jump in and say I agree with this. (Well aside from the fact that I’m a paleo con on foreign policy.)

Ignoring that, in the the world were in now, I don’t think killing Suleiman is a hyperventilating triggering event. And I don’t think we’re headed towards a ground war. And I don’t think covert action was the best choice of action even if it were an option. Sometimes a bold line in the sand is the right move.

I think there’s no universe where there won’t be retaliation. But let’s be objective here—if a country had actionable intelligence of an imminent 7/7 style attack, you would have to act on that. And that appears to be the case here. Would people really prefer to wait until after coordinated terrorist attacks orchestrated by Suleimani took place before going after him? Again, this wasn’t done in retaliation for past attacks (where you could pick your timing). It was done to stave off an imminent series of attacks. And it appears part of a larger decapitation effort against Iranian militia throughout Iraq—perhaps elsewhere too. Covert actions aren’t appropriate in these circumstances (eg Bin Laden, al Baghdadi). You’re going for dead—not plausible deniability.
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
54,908
I definitely don't think we are headed toward a ground war. I don't think we will see a full-scale war at all between Iran and the U.S., unless some Bolton-protégé gets hold of Trump's mind which seems unlikely. But you just don't know where these things will end up from where they start.

Remember this: the Islamic State did not come to prominence until 10 years after the US invasion of Iraq. Osama Bin Laden was set on his way toward 9/11 by the US deploying troops to Saudi Arabia in 1990.

The consequences of military intervention in other countries play out over many, many years. There's little evidence that using military force as a policy tool makes the world safer for anyone.

OTOH, if Trump had not dithered with dealing with Iran's increasing support of violence in the Middle East the situation might not be so dire now. Clearly Iran was emboldened and a very dangerous situation was brewing.

Has that been halted? Will Iran simply back off, or will it bide its time and foment more violence over time? And then what? How entrapped is the US? Are we more entrapped because of this latest action? Its likely. We are sending more troops, which means more targets, more people and assets we have to defend.

What is the way out? Will Iran now respond to diplomacy? Is the Trump administration capable of making that happen with its depleted staff of people and Trump's erratic leadership?

Nothing about this is an easy situation. It is made more dangerous for the US by Trump's internal divisiveness which I believe is why he won't involve Congress--its not Congress itself, it is the Democrats he believes are his adversary and he doesn't see them as representatives of the American people, only himself. So once again he tramples on the governing processes that we have developed as a part of our democracy. Obama faced a lot of similar situations and he did not shut Congress out of the process.

ETA: I want to add this. Quoting a NY Times editorial:

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told CNN that President Trump’s decision to “remove” General Suleimani pre-empted a “big action” Iran was plotting that would have put American lives at risk. But neither Mr. Pompeo nor the Pentagon offered any details on the threat, or on how General Suleimani’s death would resolve it.
Have we forgotten the lead-up to the Iraq War and the hyped up ultimately false case for weapons of mass destruction? The Washington Post recently had a long series of articles detailing how three administrations, Bush, Obama, and Trump, misled the public about the war in Afghanistan. This is not about partisan politics, we can go back to LBJ in Vietnam. Governments are very often not truthful when it comes to war situations.

I think anyone who takes at face value what the administration claims about the situation with Iran is abdicating their responsibilities as a citizen.
 
Last edited:

PrincessLeppard

Holding Alex Johnson's Pineapple
Messages
26,489
Also, the acting secretary of homeland security (Chad Wolf) said this in his statement: "While there are currently no specific, credible threats against our homeland, DHS continues to monitor the situation and work with our Federal, State and local partners to ensure the safety of every American."

Weird, huh?
 

Vagabond

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,498
I definitely don't think we are headed toward a ground war. I don't think we will see a full-scale war at all between Iran and the U.S....
It isn't just a question of the U.S. and Iran, though. Iraq is a potential tinderbox. There is an ongoing revolution against the Iranian-backed government on top of the longstanding division between the main Shiite and Sunni Arab and Kurdish groups and their respective foreign allies.

😟
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
54,908
It isn't just a question of the U.S. and Iran, though. Iraq is a potential tinderbox. There is an ongoing revolution against the Iranian-backed government on top of the longstanding division between the main Shiite and Sunni Arab and Kurdish groups and their respective foreign allies.

😟
Oh yes, that's true. :(

I don't have a sense that the decision-making in the Trump administration is taking into account the Iraq situation at all. We have 5000 troops there, in a deteriorating situation, what happens to them?
 

Sparks

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,501
Here is a thread worth reading.
I’ve had a chance to check in with sources, including two US officials who had intelligence briefings after the strike on Suleimani. Here is what I’ve learned. According to them, the evidence suggesting there was to be an imminent attack on American targets is “razor thin”.
 

caseyedwards

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,485
Here is a thread worth reading.
I’ve had a chance to check in with sources, including two US officials who had intelligence briefings after the strike on Suleimani. Here is what I’ve learned. According to them, the evidence suggesting there was to be an imminent attack on American targets is “razor thin”.
Her conclusion is that this was all done to distract from impeachment which would be impeachable!
 

jeffisjeff

Well-Known Member
Messages
15,961
Have we forgotten the lead-up to the Iraq War and the hyped up ultimately false case for weapons of mass destruction? The Washington Post recently had a long series of articles detailing how three administrations, Bush, Obama, and Trump, misled the public about the war in Afghanistan. This is not about partisan politics, we can go back to LBJ in Vietnam. Governments are very often not truthful when it comes to war situations.

I think anyone who takes at face value what the administration claims about the situation with Iran is abdicating their responsibilities as a citizen.
Like the Bush administration attempted to do with the Iraq War (and was ultimately unsuccessful), the Trump administration is attempting to link Soleimani to the September 11 attacks. To me, that signals a clear desire on the part of this administration to use the killing of Soleimani for political gain. The surest way to inspire patriotic support for this attack is to link it to the September 11 attacks, no matter how tenuous (or non-existent) that link.

In the thread, Mr Pence claimed Soleimani had “assisted in the clandestine travel to Afghanistan of 10 of the 12 terrorists who carried out the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States”.

However, his accusation is undermined by the conclusions of the official government report on the attacks.

The 9/11 commission report found “no evidence that Iran or Hezbollah was aware of the planning for what later became the 9/11 attack.”

The report added: “At the time of their travel through Iran, the al-Qaeda operatives themselves were probably not aware of the specific details of their future operation.”
 

Reuven

Official FSU Alte Kacher
Messages
15,580
Meanwhile, in the deja vu category, apparently VP Pence put out a tweet that included linking Soleimani to 9/11.
He also said that there were 12 hijackers. Dear Mike, it was 19.
The Regime needs to link Iran to 9/11 because that’s how the Authorisation to Use Military Force (AUMF) was set up. It applies only if the force is used on elements involved in the 9/11 attack.

Description
The Authorization for Use of Military Force, Pub. L. 107-40, codified at 115 Stat. 224 and passed as S.J.Res. 23 by the United States Congress on September 14, 2001, authorizes the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001 and any "associated forces".
 

Ania

Well-Known Member
Messages
482
But if you’re saying did Trump orchestrate this for personal gain, I would say no. This tends to be a common refrain by Dems whenever foreign conflicts arise (eg. Dems accused Bush I of staging the invasion of Kuwait for political reasons back in the day). But the wag the dog narrative I think only exists in Hollywood.
Based on Trump's tweets predicting that Obama would attack Iran to get re-elected (here is one but he tweeted multiple times), I would say it is highly improbable that this motivation has not at least crossed Trump's mind. Coupled with the fact that Trump is notorious for prioritizing personal gain in his decision making, I don't see how one can in all seriousness rule out decision making based on personal gain in this case.
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
54,908
Based on Trump's tweets predicting that Obama would attack Iran to get re-elected (here is one but he tweeted multiple times), I would say it is highly improbable that this motivation has not at least crossed Trump's mind. Coupled with the fact that Trump is notorious for prioritizing personal gain in his decision making, I don't see how one can in all seriousness rule out decision making based on personal gain in this case.
This article in the Post is a good look at Trump's decision-making process.

How Trump decided to kill a top Iranian general (Washintgon Post)

Officials reminded Trump that after the Iranians mined ships, downed the U.S. drone and allegedly attacked a Saudi oil facility, he had not responded. Acting now, they said, would send a message: “The argument is, if you don’t ever respond to them, they think they can get by with anything,” one White House official said.

Trump was also motivated to act by what he felt was negative coverage after his 2019 decision to call off the airstrike after Iran downed the U.S. surveillance drone, officials said. Trump was also frustrated that the details of his internal deliberations had leaked out and felt he looked weak, the officials said. ...

Trump also had history on his mind. The president has long fixated on 2012 attacks on U.S. compounds in Benghazi, Libya, and the Obama administration’s response to them, said lawmakers and aides who have spoken to him, and he felt the response to this week’s attack on the embassy and the killing of an American contractor would make him look stronger compared with his predecessor.

“Benghazi has loomed large in his mind,” said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) in an interview, explaining the response this week.
I don't think he made the calculation that it would help him get re-elected. He was concerned with how he looked, as has often been the case comparing himself to Obama. That is not unrelated to being re-elected but it is not a direct connection. Whether impeachment figured in, I don't think this was any wag-the-dog situation, even though more indirectly he may be concerned the impeachment makes him look weak.

I read that he was presented with multiple options by the military as is the process and assassinating Suleimani was presented as one of the "farthest out" options. They really didn't expect Trump to choose that option but he felt the need to appear really "strong" or "tough."

But he also does not have the normal national security processes functioning in his White House, so he did not receive the advice Bush and Obama did when they considered killing Suleimani in the past. As this opinion piece details:

American Foreign Policy Is Broken. Suleimani’s Killing Proves It. A properly functioning National Security Council would never have let it happen, for good reason. (NY Times-- really )

Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama had considered taking out General Suleimani but rejected it — not for lack of nerve, but for fear of undue escalation and an unnecessary war with Iran. The fundamental facts on the ground have not changed, and in the kind of robust interagency, national security decision-making process that the National Security Council staff is supposed to supervise, such concerns would have been systematically raised, dissected and discussed, and a consensus reached to inform presidential action. No such process seems to have occurred here.
The situation we are in is very dangerous because Trump has largely dismantled the infrastructure needed for a president to make responsible decisions.
 

DORISPULASKI

Watching submarine races
Messages
11,610
He also said that there were 12 hijackers. Dear Mike, it was 19.
Mike, Mike, Mike, it was 12 apostles, 12 lords a-leaping, and 19 hijackers.

...

And keep in mind that the catalyst for Iranian aggression was the sanctions package passed by Congress two years ago that every Dem presidential candidate voted for.
All? Of those still seriously competing for the nomination, Biden, Yang, Steyer, Bloomberg, and Mayor Pete were not even members of Congress two years ago.

If Trump had not opted out of the Iran Nuclear treaty, would the sanctions package have even been needed? I think the point is debatable.

My expectation is that Iran will go for a terrorist attack that assassinates a target of similar value to the US as Soleimani was to Iran, or that kills a large number of Americans. The equivalent might be Pompeo, Pence, or Moscow Mitch.

I think it is a fair call that Soleimani was plotting the deaths of Americans. He has been doing that every day for at least 15 years. However, he is not a bin Laden, because he is a legal part of the Iranian goverment structure, not a stateless terrorist.
 

agalisgv

Well-Known Member
Messages
27,147
For @ballettmaus, here’s an article detailing the planning of the attacks by Soleimani:


I think the reporting is sound, but judge for yourself.
I was referring to the Dem senators running for the nomination. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.
If Trump had not opted out of the Iran Nuclear treaty, would the sanctions package have even been needed? I think the point is debatable.
It’s not debatable because Trump didn’t withdraw from the deal until 2018, but Congress instituted the sanctions a year prior in 2017. And the reason Congress did that is because they were sanctioning Russia as well. Perhaps people didn’t realize this legislation existed, when it passed, and what its impacts were, but this predated Trump’s withdrawal and even his decertification. The reason Dems in Congress passed it was to primarily punish Russia for perceived election interference. But at this point Russia was coordinating with Iran in Syria, so Iran was targeted too.

But these sanctions undercut the Iranian deal, and were viewed as a provocation by the Iranians as the article I linked to demonstrated.

On a separate note, Pence was obviously wrong in the number of hijackers, but he was not wrong in that Iran was implicated in 9/11. Here’s an article explaining the extent of Iranian involvement in 9/11 as established by the 9/11 commission.

 

Sparks

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,501
The National Review is another far-right outlet. It is the same type of media that promoted the lies which led up to the invasion of Iraq.
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
54,908
My expectation is that Iran will go for a terrorist attack that assassinates a target of similar value to the US as Soleimani was to Iran, or that kills a large number of Americans. The equivalent might be Pompeo, Pence, or Moscow Mitch.
:eek:

I am not thinking they will do anything like that because wouldn't the United States respond to something that huge by striking Iran itself? I don't think they want to provoke that.

I think they are going to act through proxies over time but the Iran leadership has to respond to its public too and I don't know if that will be enough.
 

Sparks

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,501
Here is video proof that Pence is a liar. There were NO WMDs found in Iraq.
 

topaz

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,501
The secretary of defense is Mike Esper is a former defense lobbyist and a war hawk. What do people think will be consequences of people like this in charge?

Blowback from the 1953 Iranian coup lead by the US and Uk coupled with how the Shah treated the Iranian people for over 20 years. Add to that the Iran/Iraq war during much of the 1980s that the US supplied and supported Saddam's military forces. Add the US support of the Saudis and this is where we are at.

There's a reason Clinton, the Bushes and obama did not assassinate Suluimani. The fear of the consequences from this action. The trump administration has made him a martyr and united a country that has been devastated by the US sanctions. The US has orchestrated regime change in Iran for more than 60 years. Trump administration carried out what many Washington officials and lobbyists have been wanting to do for decades.

It's not the Trump administration policy, this is the USA foreign policy.

Folks need to finally accept that.
 

Sparks

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,501
It's kind of insulting to say "folks need to finally accept that".
:rolleyes:
You are not telling us anything that is new.
 

mag

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,533
My expectation is that Iran will go for a terrorist attack that assassinates a target of similar value to the US as Soleimani was to Iran, or that kills a large number of Americans. The equivalent might be Pompeo, Pence, or Moscow Mitch.
And if Iran does hit one of these targets is there any hope the US will come to their senses, call it a draw, and not retaliate again? No, I thought not.

If I didn’t think hitting one of those targets would case all out war, I would be happy for it to happen rather than some innocent civil servant, going about their daily business, getting blown up instead. May be the Esper’s, Pence’s, Kushner’s, and Ivanka’s of this world had to worry to they will be the ones suffering the consequences of their own actions, they would be more likely to think before they act. As it stands now Trump can do as he likes as no one he knows will suffer because of his decisions.
 

DORISPULASKI

Watching submarine races
Messages
11,610
Suleimani's threat, aimed at Trump, was that Iran would "destroy" all you possess

Perhaps the plan is to go after the Trump Istanbul hotel, the New York Trump Towers, Mar a Lago, and his kids?

The general referrs to Iran's expertise in asymmetrical war, which would be operations of that sort.

I fear Trump would not care if diplomats or soldiers died, but one of his properties?
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 3)

Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information