Middle east.

[Dallas Tex]

By threatening epic sanctions POTUS is ginning up anti-american sentiment to maneuver the Iraqis into asking the US to leave, thus full filling his campaign pledge.
POTUS can be subtle.

This may be quite accurate. I wouldn't doubt your premise a bit.

[colker]

This may be quite accurate. I wouldn't doubt your premise a bit.

There are less tortuous ways to do this while not leveraging the banking system and not wearing it out. Dollar is the money anchor of the global economy. The chinese are pressuring against it.

[bigbill]

I would be far more inclined to believe the administration of they didn't shittily lie about everything under the sun that is completely inconsequential. And given the President's campaign plank he's going to be exiting the Middle East, this largest escalation in the last 40 years with Iran deserves a more public case than "trust me."

And this isn't some nonstate actor terror group. I suspect our response would be a tad different if Iran killed the head of US CENTCOM.

We sank their navy in 1988. The Iranians don't want a war with the US. They know it will destroy their economy, topple their leadership, and result in a new government. If they attacked a major US target such as a US city or aircraft carrier, Iran's ability to fight a war would be eliminated within an hour. I did too many deployments in that region.

[colker]

We sank their navy in 1988. The Iranians don't want a war with the US. They know it will destroy their economy, topple their leadership, and result in a new government. If they attacked a major US target such as a US city or aircraft carrier, Iran's ability to fight a war would be eliminated within an hour. I did too many deployments in that region.

The US would destroy their ability in one hour but then you have to occupy Iran for ten years.

[theflashunc]

We sank their navy in 1988. The Iranians don't want a war with the US. They know it will destroy their economy, topple their leadership, and result in a new government. If they attacked a major US target such as a US city or aircraft carrier, Iran's ability to fight a war would be eliminated within an hour. I did too many deployments in that region.

Sure, but this is assuming Iran wants to fight a conventional war. They just spent 40 years fighting an unconventional one. The reprisals are going to be, to use the words of our President, the Cyber and these proxy groups they've accumulated across the region. All while spinning up as many centrifuges as they can to get that nuclear weapons program back on track.

The administration can't even get it's story straight on whether there was an imminent attack or not, and how this imminent attack was averted by killing one guy in a chain of command (I'm assuming this still nebulous imminent attack might have been written down or discussed by more than one member of the Quds who could still execute the plan.)

Meanwhile our chief diplomat -- the guy who's job it is to go out and do things that prevent wars -- is openly stumping for said war.

To quote John Mulaney, this administration is a horse loose in a hospital. Got to hand it to them, I thought the British would continue to hold the crown for how to make a complete mess of involvement in Middle Eastern affairs, but we're dead set on taking that title away.

[bigbill]

Sure, but this is assuming Iran wants to fight a conventional war. They just spent 40 years fighting an unconventional one. The reprisals are going to be, to use the words of our President, the Cyber and these proxy groups they've accumulated across the region. All while spinning up as many centrifuges as they can to get that nuclear weapons program back on track.

The administration can't even get it's story straight on whether there was an imminent attack or not, and how this imminent attack was averted by killing one guy in a chain of command (I'm assuming this still nebulous imminent attack might have been written down or discussed by more than one member of the Quds who could still execute the plan.)

Meanwhile our chief diplomat -- the guy who's job it is to go out and do things that prevent wars -- is openly stumping for said war.

To quote John Mulaney, this administration is a horse loose in a hospital. Got to hand it to them, I thought the British would continue to hold the crown for how to make a complete mess of involvement in Middle Eastern affairs, but we're dead set on taking that title away.

But nations with the ability to wage large scale conventional war will do that in response to unconventional attacks. A cyber attack that cripples a vital system like a power grid will be met with the destruction of oil refineries or government buildings. Iran's leaders have always backed down in the face of determined US effort. They have nothing to gain and everything to lose. That whole region was jacked up by the British Empire, there never should have been a unified Iraq, there should have been three regions; Kurds, Sunni, and Shia with the Shia on the eastern portion facing Shia Iran.

[theflashunc]

But nations with the ability to wage large scale conventional war will do that in response to unconventional attacks. A cyber attack that cripples a vital system like a power grid will be met with the destruction of oil refineries or government buildings. Iran's leaders have always backed down in the face of determined US effort. They have nothing to gain and everything to lose. That whole region was jacked up by the British Empire, there never should have been a unified Iraq, there should have been three regions; Kurds, Sunni, and Shia with the Shia on the eastern portion facing Shia Iran.

I guess in an era with this CinC you throw any sense of just war out the window, which is why he's suddenly raving about bombing cultural sites. In another time I'd disagree that the administration would have sense enough to the proportionality and understand long term no one wins from a war between the two countries. To your point, just as Iran loses in a conventional war, so does the US with occupation of yet another Middle Eastern country with no clear endgame.

While I agree the British Empire made a mess of things, the original sin for the US and Iran continues to be the 1953 Western-backed coup. God we've made a mess of it with them.

[j44ke]

Uhm, hmm. Which is it?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...9fb_story.html

Should I stay or should I go now......

[mjbabcock]

Uhm, hmm. Which is it?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...9fb_story.html

Should I stay or should I go now......

It's almost like the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing...and the right hand is flinging poo.

[ides1056]

Letter to the Times:


Amir
Iran2h ago
Times Pick
I was in the protests today. There were literally millions of people and there was no sponsorship from government. (I was personally waiting 2 hours in a subway station so I can get on a train).

A lot of people in Iran have many problems with our government and even our regime. But it doesn't mean that your selfish president can decide to terror one of our official Generals in an official trip with an official invitation from Iraq. What do you name this? And now he is talking about destructing our cultural and historical sites!!! Do you think we have to sit at home and smile? Iran is different from Arab nations, all politically, socially, and culturally.

Iran is a unique country and I can assure you there is no way to understand it through mass media.
I read a lot of your comments and I've gotta tell you really have a little understanding of our region. You have to know a lot more to understand what is the meaning of power in Middle East.

There are reasons reason that even this president of yours repeats again and again that we don't want regime change in Iran. The first one is they can't. Not everything is gun and equipment, specially in this region.

And as I was reading your comments I felt you need to be a little bit more humble about other human beings. It's not like everyone is here in this world to serve United States and its people.

A little respect from both sides could be a good start.

Sorry I was a bit angry reading some comments, and I made it too long ;)


War is stupid. The US is le non plus ultra of destroying countries, but we absolutely suck at living up to the point of the whole enterprise our country was founded to be.

[BBB]

We sank their navy in 1988. The Iranians don't want a war with the US. They know it will destroy their economy, topple their leadership, and result in a new government. If they attacked a major US target such as a US city or aircraft carrier, Iran's ability to fight a war would be eliminated within an hour. I did too many deployments in that region.

I guess this is a classic case of just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

If Iran responds to the recent hit in some way, shape or form and in response you eliminate their ability to fight a war within an hour (and presumably this process avoids targeting cultural sites, which would be a tragedy, if not a crime), then what? Last time around Iraq was defeated in pretty quick time and many years later that action continues to be a problem. Do you want the same scenario to play out with Iran, which is a much bigger country population and size wise?

And then the other problem, which your message raises indirectly, is in 1988 the US was siding with Iraq. This changed within a few years and two wars were fought against Iraq. Changing sides and on-going interference in the affairs of countries in the Middle East just seems to irritate the pants off the people in those countries; you bomb them, they fly planes into buildings, you bomb them some more and occupy and certain elements of the population become even more radicalised and do unpleasant things ranging from bombing check points to beheading journalists.

I dislike repressive regimes as much as the next person, but with the Middle East, with its historical, ethnic and religious background and differences reaching back hundreds and thousands of years, where does it end? There has to better ways of dealing with tricky regional issues that sabre rattling on Twitter.

[Dallas Tex]

the original sin for the US and Iran continues to be the 1953 Western-backed coup. God we've made a mess of it with them.

As most do, you are vastly overstating the import of the CIA's role in 1953. Inevitably Mossdeq was going to fail, and the Shah was going to retain power. The role the CIA played was not the most important factor. Iran wasn't going to remain a voting democracy 'if not for those darn CIA meddlers'. But that myth fits your narrative of 'everything evil starts & ends with the USA'.

Amazingly you have rarely (never) mentioned the 1979 Islamic Revolution as contributing to any problems at all. Do a little experiment. Google 'Iran 1960s' and look at the pictures of the people of Iran. Next google 'Iran 1980s' and look at the pictures of the people of Iran. Notice any differences?

Anyway, for sake of discussion , let's say Iran was an oasis of stability & love pre-1953, and we messed it all up by helping the Shah remain in power. Nearly 70 years later they haven't been able to recover and develop some self-rule other than a bloody, oppressive dictatorship?

[caleb]

But nations with the ability to wage large scale conventional war will do that in response to unconventional attacks.

Seems sort of like a case of having a hammer and everything looking like a nail.

Bombing their conventional military to smithereens isn't going to prevent them from, for example, grooming a domestic US militia organization to set off a dirty bomb in a major American city.

We're never going to bomb our way to healthy secular civil societies and diversified private economies in the middle east.

The question of "Can we blow it up?" isn't even on the top ten list of questions we should be worrying about now.

[theflashunc]

As most do, you are vastly overstating the import of the CIA's role in 1953. Inevitably Mossdeq was going to fail, and the Shah was going to retain power. The role the CIA played was not the most important factor. Iran wasn't going to remain a voting democracy 'if not for those darn CIA meddlers'. But that myth fits your narrative of 'everything evil starts & ends with the USA'.

Amazingly you have rarely (never) mentioned the 1979 Islamic Revolution as contributing to any problems at all. Do a little experiment. Google 'Iran 1960s' and look at the pictures of the people of Iran. Next google 'Iran 1980s' and look at the pictures of the people of Iran. Notice any differences?

Anyway, for sake of discussion , let's say Iran was an oasis of stability & love pre-1953, and we messed it all up by helping the Shah remain in power. Nearly 70 years later they haven't been able to recover and develop some self-rule other than a bloody, oppressive dictatorship?

The Revolution happened in no small part because we continued to prop up a dictator the people increasingly did not support. The Revolution did not happen in some vacuum devoid of American ham-fisted policy choices that have irrevocably altered the country's political history. Whatever scale you think the CIAs role was, we aided in deposing a democratically elected leader for a dictator for our own ends.

I don't see how anyone can credibly argue we've made any good choice in relation to Iran foreign policy over the last 70 years, save for the nuclear deal that was promptly scapped by The Best People. Or that Americans need to die in the desert some more as the result of those choices.

[bigbill]

Seems sort of like a case of having a hammer and everything looking like a nail.

Bombing their conventional military to smithereens isn't going to prevent them from, for example, grooming a domestic US militia organization to set off a dirty bomb in a major American city.

We're never going to bomb our way to healthy secular civil societies and diversified private economies in the middle east.

The question of "Can we blow it up?" isn't even on the top ten list of questions we should be worrying about now.

That is not what I said. I pointed out that nations respond with what they have. But for the point of discussion, I'll point out that no response should ever be proportional. You don't want to fight a proportional battle so both sides suffer similarly. The idea of responding is to do it in an overwhelming way so the other side loses the will to counter.

[caleb]

That is not what I said. I pointed out that nations respond with what they have. But for the point of discussion, I'll point out that no response should ever be proportional. You don't want to fight a proportional battle so both sides suffer similarly. The idea of responding is to do it in an overwhelming way so the other side loses the will to counter.

It's unclear to me what it would even mean to cause the Iranians to "lose the will to counter."

We've spent 15-30 years (depending on how you want to count) grinding Iraq into the dust. Insurgencies continue to counter. Same in Afghanistan. Why would Iran be any different?

It's also worth noting that the terrain here isn't even close to level. Iran "wins" if the regime stays in power regardless of the other costs. The US loses by incurring any significant loss of life, especially to civilians. Seems like an awfully easy conflict for the US to lose and perhaps a little less easy for Iran to win. Heads Iran wins, tails the US loses.

[Bob Ross]

In another time I'd disagree that the administration would have sense enough to the proportionality and understand long term no one wins from a war between the two countries.

Sorry, that just reminded me of this:




Ah, if only...

[theflashunc]

That is not what I said. I pointed out that nations respond with what they have. But for the point of discussion, I'll point out that no response should ever be proportional. You don't want to fight a proportional battle so both sides suffer similarly. The idea of responding is to do it in an overwhelming way so the other side loses the will to counter.

Bah gawd, that's Curtis LeMay's music.

Even in a conventional shooting war against nation states, you end up with troubling moral questions on the backside of such a strategy. But again, I don't think the President's ever even heard of the firebombing of Tokyo, nor much cared about the implications of that kind of Total War.

[j44ke]

That is not what I said. I pointed out that nations respond with what they have. But for the point of discussion, I'll point out that no response should ever be proportional. You don't want to fight a proportional battle so both sides suffer similarly. The idea of responding is to do it in an overwhelming way so the other side loses the will to counter.

But wouldn't you agree that the jury is out on what response is overwhelming enough to eliminate the will to counter attack by a force that has no way of winning based on total destructive capacity and knows it.

And the corollary in disproportionate warfare seems to be how little does the little guy have to do to demoralize the population of a larger country - specifically perhaps a representative democracy - to the point where they effect a change in the government that changes/reduces/removes the tactics of overwhelming response.

[vertical_doug]

As most do, you are vastly overstating the import of the CIA's role in 1953. Inevitably Mossdeq was going to fail, and the Shah was going to retain power. The role the CIA played was not the most important factor. Iran wasn't going to remain a voting democracy 'if not for those darn CIA meddlers'. But that myth fits your narrative of 'everything evil starts & ends with the USA'.

Amazingly you have rarely (never) mentioned the 1979 Islamic Revolution as contributing to any problems at all. Do a little experiment. Google 'Iran 1960s' and look at the pictures of the people of Iran. Next google 'Iran 1980s' and look at the pictures of the people of Iran. Notice any differences?

Anyway, for sake of discussion , let's say Iran was an oasis of stability & love pre-1953, and we messed it all up by helping the Shah remain in power. Nearly 70 years later they haven't been able to recover and develop some self-rule other than a bloody, oppressive dictatorship?

Yeah, the role was really MI6. It was about Anglo-Oil.

You are right about Iran 60's and Iran 80's. Iran was obviously secular in the 60's but the Shah's brutal reign is what help the 'cause' of the radical islamist. On whether, Mosaddegh Gov would have remained a democracy or if it would have shifted more socialist, we will never know.