Middle east.

[Dallas Tex]

Are you saying they did it to crush Carter´s re election?

No, I was directly answering your question as posted, see below:

Huh? Which good job affecting american politics did Iran (ever do) ?

[ides1056]

The Ongoing War on Iran, by Patrick Cockburn - The Unz Review

Iraq’s worst fears have come true – a proxy war is on its doorstep, by Patrick Cockburn - The Unz Review

And W ginned up a war, not gunned up.

[colker]

No, I was directly answering your question as posted, see below:

Jorn said: "So political revenge is what I think is going to happen. The one thing that Trump wants more than anything else is to get re-elected. So the Iranians will try to prevent it. They've done a pretty good job affecting American politics in the past, and that was without the Internet. "

So i asked when the iranians did anything directly focused on hurting a candidate during elections.... something like the good job done by russians to elect Trump.

[ides1056]

Trump Will Ignite a War With Iran, Which Will be Great News for ISIS - CounterPunch.org

"Of the three US presidents badly or terminally damaged by crisis in the Middle East, Jimmy Carter was the most unlucky, as there was nothing much he could do to stop the Iranian Revolution in 1979 or the seizure of diplomats in the US embassy in Tehran as hostages.

This administration is so heavily loaded with crackpots, fanatics and amateurs, that it would be optimistic to imagine that they will pass safely through the political swamplands of the Middle East without detonating a crisis with which they cannot cope."

I will defer to those who know more about this than I do.

[Dallas Tex]

This administration is so heavily loaded with crackpots, fanatics and amateurs, that it would be optimistic to imagine that they will pass safely through the political swamplands of the Middle East without detonating a crisis with which they cannot cope." .

The well mannered professionals got us to the place we’re at today. I’d like to see if a more unconventional approach produces better results.

[zachateseverything]

the craven warmongers looking to make a profit got us to the place we’re at today. I’d like to see if a more craven approach produces better results.

ftfy

[ides1056]

The well mannered professionals got us to the place we’re at today. I’d like to see if a more unconventional approach produces better results.

I am not sure that W was well mannered. And what this president is doing is altogether conventional. Start a war to distract from other issues. Nothing new here.

Again, consider the loss of innocent lives.

[bigbill]

Sorry to keep asking questions, but don't you think that those kinds of equivocation & logistical issues are possible - perhaps even probable - in a conflict with Iran? I wonder if the kind of overwhelming force required is nearly impossible to bring to bear by a democracy. Especially in a post-WWII, post-Vietnam democracy nearly split down the middle politically. Already there is noise - even from a few Republicans - about Trump's twitted list of 52 sites in Iran.

I think the only way the United States produces the kind of unilateral overwhelming force against another country is if the executive branch is given absolute authority to wage war as it sees fit.

And then there is Russia. Unless Trump has some sort of deal trading Syria for Iran - which I highly doubt, because Putin didn't need to make a deal, he already has Syria - Russia isn't just going to sit back and watch the show. They are going to demand rules of engagement, just like they did in Syria. And possibly take the rest of Georgia.



I think Bill is right.

Iran is different than Vietnam. Iran has a uniformed military, identified military assets, and bases. All are targets in the event of an attack. With guided munitions, one bomb per target. Even B-52's which I heard we had moved several to Diego Garcia, can hit individual targets from 30K feet. In Afghanistan, I saw one lay a line of guided 500# bombs in a meandering creek bed. The US operates guided missile subs in the Indian Ocean, each carrying 150+ tomahawk missiles. It doesn't take that much is the way of assets or logistics to devastate a country like Iran. But again, no one wants to do it.

For Russia, they'll never give up on Syria. Syria is their warm water port, the Russians don't have any on their own coasts. For rules of engagement, Russia has never been one to follow them.

[vertical_doug]

Iran is different than Vietnam. Iran has a uniformed military, identified military assets, and bases. All are targets in the event of an attack. With guided munitions, one bomb per target. Even B-52's which I heard we had moved several to Diego Garcia, can hit individual targets from 30K feet. In Afghanistan, I saw one lay a line of guided 500# bombs in a meandering creek bed. The US operates guided missile subs in the Indian Ocean, each carrying 150+ tomahawk missiles. It doesn't take that much is the way of assets or logistics to devastate a country like Iran. But again, no one wants to do it.

For Russia, they'll never give up on Syria. Syria is their warm water port, the Russians don't have any on their own coasts. For rules of engagement, Russia has never been one to follow them.

The same thing was said of Iraq. Okay, we beat the military but the country has been a mess since. Now, why do you expect a different result with Iran? I do not think you can say all the problems in Iraq are the result of the Iranians, so if you get rid of Iran, all of a sudden both Iraq and Iran settle down. It's just a bigger piece of the same sh!t show.

I say let Trump nuke the place. Bring us full nightmare.

[mzilliox]

I'd imagine the convos on the Iranian cycling site are not so cavalier. I preferred when our issue was impeachment, it was a much more worthy cause with a lot less life at stake

[Matthew Strongin]

Iran is different than Vietnam. Iran has a uniformed military, identified military assets, and bases. All are targets in the event of an attack. With guided munitions, one bomb per target. Even B-52's which I heard we had moved several to Diego Garcia, can hit individual targets from 30K feet. In Afghanistan, I saw one lay a line of guided 500# bombs in a meandering creek bed. The US operates guided missile subs in the Indian Ocean, each carrying 150+ tomahawk missiles. It doesn't take that much is the way of assets or logistics to devastate a country like Iran. But again, no one wants to do it.

For Russia, they'll never give up on Syria. Syria is their warm water port, the Russians don't have any on their own coasts. For rules of engagement, Russia has never been one to follow them.

Bill, honest question given your experience in this area, what are your thoughts on Trump's comments about targeting 52 sites, some of cultural significance? It seems the Pentagon is trying to walk back the statements, but Trump (last I read) was still pushing the approach.

Trump Threatens Iranian Cultural Sites, and Warns of Sanctions on Iraq - The New York Times

[caleb]

The same thing was said of Iraq. Okay, we beat the military but the country has been a mess since. Now, why do you expect a different result with Iran? I do not think you can say all the problems in Iraq are the result of the Iranians, so if you get rid of Iran, all of a sudden both Iraq and Iran settle down. It's just a bigger piece of the same sh!t show.

I say let Trump nuke the place. Bring us full nightmare.

I won't go that far (and I assume you meant it tongue in cheek), but I do cynically wonder if there isn't at least a plan on the table to topple the regime and then immediately turn it over to the Saudis to impose military rule with an iron fist while they loot the country.

[theflashunc]

The same people who stumped for the Iraq War are now stumping for this.

That fact alone should let any sane person know this is a terrible idea.

The American ability to drop absurd amounts of munitions from great heights is undisputed. It's everything after that we've been horrible at since, say, the Marshall Plan.

[vertical_doug]

I won't go that far (and I assume you meant it tongue in cheek), but I do cynically wonder if there isn't at least a plan on the table to topple the regime and then immediately turn it over to the Saudis to impose military rule with an iron fist while they loot the country.

Of course it is tongue in cheek, but the absurdity is discussing dropping 500lb bombs on targets with 'precision' to make endless war acceptable. Civilians have been dying as collateral damage for a long time.

If you want to read an interesting book, buy Martin Amis 1987 'Einstein Monsters' read the short story 'Bujak and the strong force'. There may be a plan for after regime change, but why expect it to be anything other than the same old same old local bad actors selling the US a fairy tale of liberated locals welcoming with rose petals.

That's why there is some logic to dropping a bomb and showing both sides where this nightmare goes. This is what happened in Japan. Hirohito saw the horror and chose peace. (and don't forget, he was a god). Make the outcome of war unacceptable and see what happens.

[colker]

I don´t see any sign of conventional war going on. It´s the israeli MO of selected targets. Morally justified one could say: instead of making millions of civillian nationals pay like done in Iraq take the head of a militia. Problem is this guy had a double rank: official military AND head of Hzbollah. That´s why the hit is questionable. Who knows how Iran thinks to payback .. if it is within the horrors of terrorism against civillian or go for military targets. If the latter then there is scenario Bill describes. Otherwise the US cannot flatten them from the air. I am not an expert and i am just using logic.

[bigbill]

I won't go that far (and I assume you meant it tongue in cheek), but I do cynically wonder if there isn't at least a plan on the table to topple the regime and then immediately turn it over to the Saudis to impose military rule with an iron fist while they loot the country.

Saudi = Sunni, Iran = Shia.

[bigbill]

Bill, honest question given your experience in this area, what are your thoughts on Trump's comments about targeting 52 sites, some of cultural significance? It seems the Pentagon is trying to walk back the statements, but Trump (last I read) was still pushing the approach.

Trump Threatens Iranian Cultural Sites, and Warns of Sanctions on Iraq - The New York Times

The laws of armed conflict prohibit it. Unless of course, a nation is using it as a fire platform or for ammo storage, but you better be sure. See Monte Casino. OT, I rode from Gaeta to Monte Casino in 2007.

[Cookietruck]

I've seen this comment in multiple news articles. how ironic that we are fearing war with Iran because the trump admin assassinated a General while he was in an effort to cool down a war in Yemen.

Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi also made a surprising revelation during the hearing in parliament on Sunday evening. “I was supposed to meet Soleimani on the morning of the day he was killed. He came to deliver me a message from Iran responding to the message we delivered from Saudi to Iran.”

The revelation that Riyadh and Tehran, bitter rivals, together with the United Arab Emirates, were in the early stages of mediation would have been a surprise to many. The killing of Soleimani may have ruined any chance those talks had of succeeding.

[caleb]

Saudi = Sunni, Iran = Shia.

Yes, hence the military rule and national looting.

[vertical_doug]

Saudi = Sunni, Iran = Shia.

except it's really Arab versus Persian.
or Arabic versus Farsi.