US threaten Iran with pre-emptive strike

how is this bad?

I no longer lack the capacity for the rational, dispassionate thought required to discern a different between what this suggests China is doing, and what the US does.

US general says no proof Iran behind Iraq arms
Tue Mar 14, 2006 2:41 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The top U.S. military officer said on Tuesday the United States does not have proof that Iran's government is responsible for Iranians smuggling weapons and military personnel into Iraq.

President George W. Bush said on Monday components from Iran were being used in powerful roadside bombs used in Iraq, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said last week that Iranian Revolutionary Guard personnel had been inside Iraq.

Asked whether the United States has proof that Iran's government was behind these developments, Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Pentagon briefing, "I do not, sir..."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/02/uk-military-iran-attack-nuclear

i kinda just can't see past this being the main item on the guardian front page so haven't really screened it but yknow it freaks me out irrespective

The RAF could also provide air-to-air refuelling and some surveillance capability, should they be required. British officials say any assistance would be cosmetic: the US could act on its own but would prefer not to.

The Nobel Peace Prize winner lays the groundwork for his next war (or Romney's first):

http://www.salon.com/2012/06/19/playing_for_time_on_iran/singleton/

to war we're gonna go

Same old, same old Tonkin Gulf. Assume neocon @NYTimes @Wapo etc will keep readers in ignorance. https://t.co/g1IY58tmB7 via @thedailybeast

— Andrew Cockburn (@andrewmcockburn) May 14, 2019

John Bolton: ‘An Attack On Two Saudi Oil Tankers Is An Attack On All Americans’ https://t.co/Dgny7ss6pJ pic.twitter.com/nvxyCtNCVh

— The Onion (@TheOnion) May 15, 2019

It is now confirmed: the US has killed Qassem Soleimani.

— Ranj Alaaldin (@RanjAlaaldin) January 3, 2020

who is that and what does that mean?

Head of Quds force of the IRGC, responsible for Iranian operations in Iraq vs ISIS and in Syria among other things. Hugely important figure

Are we now at war?

i don't know, but it doesn't help that the entire republican party has been pushing for this for 25 years

And half the Democrats.

Fingers crossed they show some spine in an election year.

The proxy war and economic war between Iran and US is pretty much at fever pitch rn but I cant see it blowing up into an actual straight up open war

who is that

worth reading: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/09/30/the-shadow-commander (written in 2013 so he has continued his career since then)

and what does that mean?

it means iran will feel compelled to respond. whether that response compels a response and so on leading to an invasion or some other similarly dramatic event remains to be seen.

Qassem Soleimani and Iran's Unique Regional Strategy by Ali Soufan (@Ali_H_Soufan) https://t.co/cJSJEqcVY4 pic.twitter.com/MwoXQKQX78

— CTC at West Point (@CTCWP) November 8, 2018

obv take all this shit with a grain of salt but

Iranian sources in Iran are warning that killing Gen. Qasem Sulaimani spells war.
"Official reaction will begin with a strike," one says.#Iraq

— Farnaz Fassihi (@farnazfassihi) January 3, 2020

which tom clancy spinoff would best serve as a basic primer here, thanks in advance

Jack Ryan S2, just replace Venezuela with Iran

tbbdfddbf

this isn’t great

pic.twitter.com/VXeKiVzpTf

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 3, 2020

The defensive actions the U.S. has taken against #Iran & its proxies are consistent with clear warnings they have received

They chose to ignore these warnings because they believed @POTUS was constrained from acting by our domestic political divisions

They badly miscalculated

— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) January 3, 2020

"defensive actions"... lol. I guess the GOP line is that our drones are defending the Baghdad Airport from its own generals?

Welp

what political leader on earth would think that POTUS is constrained by anything

Oh great

In order to get elected, @BarackObama will start a war with Iran.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 29, 2011

i didn't even think about that. why did obama do this? why today?

oh wait - in order to get elected for an illegal 3rd term!!

my dad was right

it's been nice knowing y'all

Iran doesn't yet have nuclear weapons. Of course, they are not much more than an insurance policy against a repetition of the Iran-Iraq War, or against a bombing attack by the Israeli Air Force. I guess they could rig up a dirty bomb on short notice to spread radioactivity where it was detonated. But Iran is not an existential threat to the US or Europe.

thank you for clearing that up

Thread displaying Eric Trump's deleted tweet & market manipulation:

1. A tweet from Eric Trump that was quickly deleted.

Note the date and time. pic.twitter.com/GFEft4x5Da

— Arianna (@_Arianna_D) January 3, 2020

These dipshits...

In case you want to know who the US just killed: The Shadow Commander https://t.co/lE3RPOeSUs

— Jane Mayer (@JaneMayerNYer) January 3, 2020

Cool cool, guess which country the US and Iran will use as a battlefield yet again to fight each other? Iraq will be fucked, again.

One of Iraq’s top commanders was killed with Suleimani and the US has apparently arrested two major Iraqi militia leaders - the Iraqi government has framed it as “an attack on Iraq as a state, a government and a people”.

Yeah, the militia leader killed is Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, whose group are Iran-backed.

Democratic members of Congress stripped these from the NDAA because they wanted to give Trump the power to start a war without their having to vote for it. This is their plan working. https://t.co/vRy1MD6RZD

— 'Weird Alex' Pareene (@pareene) January 3, 2020

This was good, BBC Two need to re-TX it ASAP to get it on iPlayer:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0003871

I think it’s pretty clear based on the timing that this was meant to get the news media off the steady trickle of incriminating Ukraine information and on to some red meat for the base to get excited about. Or maybe it’s an olive branch to Bolton to keep him quiet.

9. Iranians are more disillusioned with the regime than ever. But Soleimani’s death plays into the regime’s hands - a timely distraction to be used to rally & unite Iranians against the US

— Ramita Navai (@ramitanavai) January 3, 2020

10. What next? Who knows. But Tehran will - at some point - retaliate. The regime can’t afford a war - it is not financially or militarily equipped. It can easily step up its proxy wars in Iraq, Syria, targeting the US & hit back in Israel.

— Ramita Navai (@ramitanavai) January 3, 2020

Geraldo: Don't for a minute start cheering this on, what we have done, what we have unleashed --

Kilmeade: I will cheer it on. I am elated.

Geraldo: Then you, like Lindsey Graham, have never met a war you didn't like.

Kilmeade: That is not true, don't even say that. pic.twitter.com/1VZ3tZJPRb

— Lis Power (@LisPower1) January 3, 2020

did Geraldo support the war in 2003?

If he did, we must face the terrifying possibility that Geraldo has learned something

Geraldo is human garbage but he is occasionally on the right side

It’s been one day since Melania told the press her New Years resolution was “peace on the world.”

— Bess Kalb (@bessbell) January 3, 2020

wut a hypocrite

she was misquoted, she said "piss on the world"

#prepositionalmalfunction

Makes a change from pissing on the President.

this assassination is extremely ominous

cool

BREAKING: Iranian Security Council announces that 'criminals should expect harsh revenge at right time and place'. https://t.co/eOGMK3kTw2

— Conflict News (@Conflicts) January 3, 2020

good morning!

drone strike trump imo

It just struck me - really hit me hard - how unimaginable life would be without this board and this community.

there's always Campari!

people that are not geraldo, who have learned NOTHING

Iraqis — Iraqis — dancing in the street for freedom; thankful that General Soleimani is no more. pic.twitter.com/huFcae3ap4

— Secretary Pompeo (@SecPompeo) January 3, 2020

i agree Raymond.

It just struck me - really hit me hard - how unimaginable life would be without this board and this community.

― Lactose Shaolin Wanker (Raymond Cummings), Friday, January 3, 2020 10:35 AM (two minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

one of my resolutions for this year is to stay off Politics Twitter so this board is going to have to serve as my primary means of following The Discourse.

it's not necessarily any less stressful but there are fewer people screaming

selected discourse on the golf course:

While House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) rails against President Donald Trump for approving a fatal attack on Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani without consulting Congress, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said that he got a special early briefing while golfing with Trump in Florida.

“I was briefed about the potential operation when I was down in Florida,” Graham said Friday morning on “Fox and Friends.” “I appreciate being brought into the orbit. I really appreciate President Trump letting the world know you cannot kill an American without [sic] impunity.”

Graham was spotted golfing with Trump earlier this week at the President’s West Palm Beach golf club.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), a member of the Gang of Eight, was not briefed on the attack before it happened, according to HuffPost. Pelosi is demanding a full congressional briefing before the administration makes any more moves.

killing without impunity: us politics 2020

I appreciate being brought into the orbit.

god i can hear his tongue moving around in trump's anus

sorry

I love your emoji, Karl.

god i can hear his tongue moving around in trump's anus

― american bradass (BradNelson)

what the

I love your emoji, Karl.

― TikTok to the (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn)

i stole it from a twitter troll, via ilx

I quit twitter so I'll be on here more, sorry in advance

when did you quit?

it's probably a good idea. :-/

Brad with the bold Caucasian eroticism

This a morning where we can forgive egregious imagery, Brad,

i needed that lol

when did you quit?

yesterday, in a moment of sublime clarity

congratulations on logging out y'all

i mean that earnestly, it was the best decision i made for myself four years ago

“Due to heightened tensions in Iraq and the region, the U.S. Embassy urges American citizens to heed the January 2020 Travel Advisory and depart Iraq immediately,” the State Department said in a statement posted early Friday. “U.S. citizens should depart via airline while possible, and failing that, to other countries via land. Due to Iranian-backed militia attacks at the U.S. Embassy compound, all public consular operations are suspended until further notice. U.S. citizens should not approach the Embassy.”

thx

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ENXggsSXUAANcty?format=png&name=360x360

“I was briefed about the potential operation when I was down in Florida,” Graham said Friday morning on “Fox and Friends.” “I appreciate being brought into the orbit. I really appreciate President Trump letting the world know you cannot kill an American without [sic] impunity.”

what American was killed? what is he referring to? sorry if this is obvious

assume no particular person - just all the yankee deaths QS implicated in

for those who aren't on twitter, here's what you're missing: pointing out that this was done without congressional consent or even awareness (apart from caddies like lindsey graham) means that you don't care about who lives or dies or what the consequences of all this will be, and instead you just care about procedural bullshit and as long as the procedures are followed you'll eichmann in jerusalem all the way to the grave, you heartless bastard

ugh yeah no thanks

what American was killed? what is he referring to? sorry if this is obvious

― L'assie (Euler)

a few days ago a military contractor was killed by an iran-supported militia, which prompted a counteroffensive from the u.s., which then led to protests at the green zone in baghdad

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/29/strike-iraq-death-militia-090555

trump has let the world know that if you kill an american, we will start world war 3

what about those american deaths that were trump's fault

those deaths were perfect

trump likes the Americans who weren’t killed

READ THE DEATH CERTIFICATE

In fairness, when he made the "liberal case for Donald Trump" how could he have known that Congress would not completely defund the American military https://t.co/0q8xluLEem

— Scott Lemieux (@LemieuxLGM) January 3, 2020

lmao that his last name is bragman

btw given how many twitter embeds i encounter on ilx these days, it's like i didn't quit twitter at all

I've never had a Twitter account but ILX works like a vaccine insofar as its moderately slow drip of embeds has inoculated me against ever wondering 'but what if?'

only raw takes here

which of the Dem candidates wd have done this too?

money on Biden and Booty

I doubt Biden would have given up the Iran deal...

"I really appreciate President Trump letting the world know you cannot kill an American without [sic] impunity.”

what American was killed? what is he referring to? sorry if this is obvious

― L'assie (Euler)

His name was Jamal Khashoggi, and at last we have achieved swift justice for his murder.

real worthless thought experiment xp

new board name

war is what the parties are closest on, as in the Dem House gave up even more of its 'warmaking powers' recently

I did not know about this lol

Anyone else remember when the US lost a fake war with Iran so badly they just hit restart and used a script to make sure they won?https://t.co/2iDHXwKGJQ

— Sean '[yawns]' Oscar (@hauntonaut) January 3, 2020

this is bad as wishing President Gore had started the Iraq War.

yeah the millennium challenge is hilarious and / or terrifying xp

Trump weighs in again with something that no one else has thought of:

“The United States has paid Iraq Billions of Dollars a year, for many years. That is on top of all else we have done for them.”

Why is Iraq so ungrateful for what we did for them?!!? Can anyone answer that?!

it's finally time for the dinar revaluation!!

Jesus Christ

i'd do him

this thread has gotten TMI in the last two hours

btw given how many twitter embeds i encounter on ilx these days, it's like i didn't quit twitter at all

iraq has paid iraq tens of billions of dollars in the form of munitions, delivered directly into the bodies of hundreds of thousands of disgracefully ungrateful iraqis

Lots of propaganda posters and images of Soleimani being shared around Iranian social media right now, quality pretty wildly varying, but this one from Khamenei's office stuck out: a painting, showing Soleimani being received in Heaven. pic.twitter.com/jtfTTQ1Ewu

— Séamus Malekafzali (@Seamus_Malek) January 3, 2020

the forgotten Iranian man

xp he's being greeted as a liberator

The US has been at war with Iran since the CIA overthrew Mossadegh in 1953 and replaced him with the Shah. And as always, it's been a bipartisan production.

— Dennis Perrin (@DennisThePerrin) January 3, 2020

i see that tucker carlson is against all this...because it distracts from the "invasion" of immigrants on the southern border

there should be a thread for dennis perrin tweets

auto-replace like DUMPLINGS! and redskins imo

aw, I thought they had one

one for the idiot thread repository obv

that's a spectacularly bad tweet because the Shah was in power for 26 years after Mossadegh was overthrown and he was a huge ally of the US, so, the US was specifically not at war with Iran during that time.

the US has been at war with Iran since 1979 would be more accurate

Bob Menendez immed quoted in NPR clip on rashness of the Grifter's move here

he also opposed Obama's "deal"

so as always w/ most Dems, it's HOW to fuck them over

that's a spectacularly bad tweet because the Shah was in power for 26 years after Mossadegh was overthrown and he was a huge ally of the US, so, the US was specifically not at war with Iran during that time. it is from dennis perrin

let's say we were allied with the Shah and at war with the Iranians

also stfu fuckos

Lots of propaganda posters and images of Soleimani being shared around Iranian social media right now, quality pretty wildly varying, but this one from Khamenei's office stuck out: a painting, showing Soleimani being received in Heaven. pic.twitter.com/jtfTTQ1Ewu
— Séamus Malekafzali (@Seamus_Malek) January 3, 2020
― Mordy, Friday, January 3, 2020 9:19 AM (one hour ago) bookmarkflaglink

there's some great iranian revolutionary propaganda art. a few years ago when bodies of the divers who were buried alive by the iraqis during operation karbala 4 were returned there were some great images

it would be just as true to say that the iranian regime has been at war with the iranians - these simplistic narratives are worse than value neutral for conveying information bc they suggest that you know everything you need to know already and look at that it comports with everything you already believed

I used to hateread r/thedonald and the one moment they ever stopped cheerleading trump was when he launched an airstrike in Syria, the libertarian shitposter demographic are pretty anti-war (for all the wrong reasons, but still) and hilariously see trump as an anti-interventionist.

Not sure if this means anything, they are a very small proportion of his base, and surely vastly outnumbered by floating voter war fans, but thought it worth noting anyway.

atm all he's done is assassinated soleimani - i haven't seen the administration making any kind of case for full out war or invasion. i think assassination is probably the kind of thing that libertarian shitposters approve of. all of the war talk i see is coming from the left who is concerned this will escalate into war (or are afraid that the trump WH is trying to start a war but i'm not convinced yet that is true).

'criminals should expect harsh revenge at right time and place'.

The Iranian leadership could hardly say anything else. The groundwork for this assassination was laid when the administration officially listed the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization.

The major difficulty for Iran rn is shaping a retaliation that does not sharply escalate the war that Trump effectively began when he pulled out of the nuclear accord and imposed extreme sanctions on Iran. The now-customary next US step in this war would be Trump ordering up a barrage of cruise missiles on Tehran. Presidents love this gambit. They are given a menu of targets and can dial up any intensity of barrage from a dozen to a couple of thousand, depending on how they feel that day.

What is always missing in these exercises is a sound appreciation of the intensity of the response. Iran had recently been growing restless under the imams, with the young people yearning for greater freedoms and a better life. But wound their national pride deeply enough and they will jump straight back to the intense hatred they felt in the early days of the Iranian Revolution and we've lost them for another generation or two.

the sanctions are hitting pretty hard too. read a thing that iran's economy is going to contract more than any other in the world this year bar a couple of basket-cases like venezuela. feel like if you're an iran hawk but not completely foaming at the mouth you'd be pretty happy with trump?

I liked it when the POTUS said that Soleimani was directly and indirectly responsible for the deaths of millions of people, that was funny.

The now-customary next US step in this war would be Trump ordering up a barrage of cruise missiles on Tehran. Presidents love this gambit.

you're assuming the US wants to escalate but there are very good reasons why they might assassinate soleimani that aren't "looking to start a war." nb i don't have any inside information so maybe you're right and they are trying to manufacture a war but otoh you don't know anything either

xp why was that funny?

Coming from an US prez as a justification for assassination it has a rich tinge of irony

Bush and Obama both had an opportunity to assasinate soleimani but chose not to, presumably out of fear of escalating tensions or causing a war.

Killing soleimani greatly increased the chances of starting a war. Not sure what you’re arguing here mordy

Especially given the context of much of Congress aching for a war with Iran, and trump’s posting of a pixelated American flag in the wake of the news

assassinating soleimani was an act of war

exactly

What if Iran somehow assasinates Espy? Would we think “well, Iran may have had very good reasons to do that, other than wanting to start a war”?

i think what happened is that they told trum iran was not in a position to escalate and they could get this guy with minimum consequences and it would be a strong response to the embassy bombing. trump does take bigger risks than gwb or obama but also there seems to be lots of evidence that he is not interested in opening hot wars. i'm arguing here: we shouldn't jump to conclusions. i agree that this is an escalation and increases the risk of war - but it does not necessitate it. if you believe iran is a rational actor then you might even suspect that their response will be muted.

Lame revive, lads

Yes, Trump's "plan" could simply be to assassinate his way to peace with Iran, right?

there are very good reasons why they might assassinate soleimani that aren't "looking to start a war."

I fully agree. Trump has been very shy of starting any wars, despite his fire-breathing rhetoric. Iran is not looking for a full scale war, either. But steps like this quite often develop a dynamic that drives itself. Neither leader feels capable of stepping back. Their entire political power has become staked on making the opponent back down, while not backing down oneself. So the game of chicken ends up in a violent head-on crash.

The siege on the US embassy in Baghdad was theater. The Iranians probably thought that it would be a safe play, making the US look bad, but essentially non-violent. They underestimated Trump's thin skin around looking bad on television. Now they must shed blood and make it clear who shed that blood, while putting just enough distance between themselves and the act to preserve deniability. Tricky, and very risky, but they will feel compelled to try it.

luckily for them they have many theaters from which to conduct that act without doing it themselves - they could attack UAE, Saudis, Israel, US in Iraq. unlucky for them the guy in charge of terrorist operations abroad is the guy they're avenging.

atm all he's done is assassinated soleimani - i haven't seen the administration making any kind of case for full out war or invasion.

That comes after Iranian retaliation.

Who cares if he intended to start a war with Iran by assassinating their golden boy? The point is that Trump is so willfully blind to the unintended consequences of his actions that an intentional or unintentional war with Iran and the resulting carnage would be no deterrent if Trump felt (a) he had to to save his tough-guy image, and/or (b) it would help his re-election.

trump didn't plan this operation or likely suggest it

i'd be surprised if he knew who soleimani was until the JCS or whoever proposed assassinating him

I guess my point is that if the war is started recklessly as opposed to intentionally, what is the difference? It was a terrible idea either way.

like i'm sure every ilxor i hope there is no war. my reckless speculation is that iran will either retaliate through a proxy actor or do nothing obvious at all. even if you don't trust in the rationality of the trump administration you probably have some faith in the rationality of the ayatollah, who may be as concerned about what trump is trying to do as you are.

regarding the "other reasons" to assassinate thing, this seems like a prime example:

"WASHINGTON — President Trump said on Friday that he ordered the operation that killed Iran’s top security and intelligence commander not just to retaliate for past attacks on Americans, but also to forestall an active effort “to kill many more” Americans, as the region braced for a possible escalation in violence.

In his first comments on the drone strike against Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, who led the powerful Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, Mr. Trump suggested that the Iranian commander “got caught” preparing to hit American targets. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said a planned attack on Americans had been “imminent” before the drone strike."

but here's the thing. if that's true, why not brief congressional leaders? why tell lindsey fucking graham about it on a golf course, days ahead of time, while not telling others?

https://i.imgur.com/TMNUiSz.jpg

what do we think soleimani was doing in baghdad? xp

hey Putin condemned this, thats the headline amirite? PUPPET CUTS STRINGS

there should be a thread for dennis perrin tweets

― american bradass (BradNelson), Friday, January 3, 2020 1:14 PM bookmarkflaglink

We have a special filing cabinet for those

https://i.ibb.co/YPZrnRC/lumawarm-l60-heated-toilet-seat-installed-shot-light-on-1.jpg

what do we think soleimani was doing in baghdad? xp

― Mordy, Friday, January 3, 2020 2:45 PM (fifty minutes ago)

Is there reliable info about this? Why would you assume the answer is "planning an attack on Americans"?

if you don't trust in the rationality of the trump administration you probably have some faith in the rationality of the ayatollah

butterfly_is_this_2020.jpg

bc an iran-backed militia attacked the embassy in baghdad on tuesday? xp

Iraq has a large number of popular militias, Hashd, which the Iraqi government formally condones and supports. Iraninan-backed Shi'ite groups are involved. Suleimani oversees this as head of Quds force. They have been coordinating for ages, this was not a secret meeting

— Tony (@AntonPilgram) January 3, 2020

I mean, is it normal practice for the US to assassinate someone as a prophylactic measure bc they are planning something? xp

afaiui we've been doing it for years

obviously tho no matter what the trump admin says or if he really was planning something he wasn't killed merely because he was planning an operation against americans during this particular meeting. that's just another "reason" trump admin is using to make the case for killing him.

The idea that David Sanger, or anyone really, thinks he or she knows why Trump decided to do this—and, moreover, knows it’s because of some conception of the national interest—is laughable. https://t.co/WfwRd0dONt pic.twitter.com/FVsQ8FIqv4

— Isaac Chotiner (@IChotiner) January 3, 2020

American Contractor: A Film By Clint Eastwood

"the calculus was straightforward"

not a sentence anyone should ever write about the thought processes of donald j trump

i think trump did it to show that he can do it. the iranian answer won't be nice, that's for sure. chances for a new war in the region are 50:50, i'd guess.

Mordy the US has been openly assassinating military chiefs in the middle east as part of the GWOT but hasn't it always been non-state actors until now?

Yep.

Here's the thing, the IRGC is an institution, and Suleimani wasn't an extremist within it. The US would have been routed out of Iraq in 2005-6 if it wasn't for Iranians moderating Iraq Shia militia.

I don't think the assassination of Suleimani will lead to immediate escalation. But the IRGC will kill some US leaders of comparable rank in Afghanistan or visiting Saudi Arabia etc. in the next year. That's the way Persian foreign policy has worked for millennia, acting via proxy, often covertly, exploiting factionalism in neighbors. The Iranian leadership already knows they've won, their main regional adversary is now a puppet, the US isn't viewed as a reliable ally in the region, the House of Saud is known by all as a paper tiger. They can afford to wait this tempest out.

the House of Saud is known by all as a paper tiger

the Yemen conflict has hardly been a demonstration of their inability to inflict deaths and casualties on their chosen enemies, but it has demonstrated their inability to decisively assist their Yemeni allies to victory.

"The Brits, the French, the Germans all need to understand that what we did, what the Americans did, saved lives in Europe as well," [Pompeo] said. "This was a good thing for the entire world, and we are urging everyone in the world to get behind what the United States is trying to do to get the Islamic Republic of Iran to simply behave like a normal nation.”

a "normal nation" like the usa? because...

Warren's reaction to this is the first thing that's made me reconsider my support for her over Sanders.

Love being called Brits btw.

Just imagining a British Defence Minister referring to the USA as 'the Yanks'.

looking forward to freedom fries part 2

English muffins to be renamed MAGA Muffins

What reaction from Warren is it people are talking about? She's been pretty empathetic on no more middle east wars on twitter?

lol Tom how are those things comparable

where does "Yank" appear anywhere in the name of the united states? "Brit" may not be prefereable (I don't use it) but why do you consider it a perjorative?

pejorative

Jerries for Germans then?

not to mention the J-words and P-words. It is fair to say there are millions in the UK who don't identify (nor ever fucking want to) as British.

I don't think it's especially pejorative, context though.

(xp) Yeah, I'd say, in the UK, 'Brits' is associated with Irish Republicanism.

Gotcha—that's not the understanding here. it's not common but I think ppl sometimes use it for lack of a plural ending in -s consistent with e.g. swedes, germans

calz if I may then what is the appropriate term to identify a UK resident

The British.

... in the context of Mike Pompeo's statement.

I like Les Tosseurs de l'ouest

UK is a relatively new name (it didn't enter common usage till after WW2 i think), so Britain I suppose it is. But there are people in family who would react like you have spat in their face if you called them a Brit!

in my family.. I meant

I'm Britlish and think 'Brits' was the least objectionable part of Pompeo's statement but y'all do y'all (as we always say round these here parts).

anyway seems like before very long you'll all be liberated from these clumsy catch-alls

I'm Britlish and think 'Brits' was the least objectionable part of Pompeo's statement

Get away.

I think it was when Not so Great Britain was running out of Empire when UK became more commonly used was what I meant to say. Fuck it anyway, we're all going to die!

oh for the day when I can insist on Coastal American

not to mention the J-words and P-words.

Wait, "Brit" is a slur anywhere near par with these??

oh no, I just meant the abbreviation of country names is dodgy territory to get into.

I can well imagine Trump or Pompeo using the J-word btw.

no doubt as citizens of the Peripheral United States we'll one day be known as Pussies

actually I think they already call us that

I have no idea what the j or p word refer to

Citizens of Japan and Pakistan respectively.

I can recall Bush doing the ethnic slur p-word once.

Not that a British Prime Minister would ever do such a thing.

I think Bush did use the latter once, unaware of its connotations. Americans often seem unfamiliar with it, although it certainly at least used to be common in Canada.2xp!

Pretty sure the same is true of British people and the J-word.

Tbh, I thought of "Brit" as sort of like "Canuck" - weirdly informal for an official statement by a Cabinet member but not actually pejorative or insulting.

xp Oh, I heard both of them a lot as a kid. Lucky us.

Didn't know there was some Irish Republicanism connotation.

I only found out in recent years about the J-Word being a slur. But you could probably count on your hand the population of the Japanese diaspora of northern England.

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/640/media/images/79426000/jpg/_79426070_martinbbc.jpg

I always find it jarring coming from the mouths of US politicians, though plenty of them have flirted with Irish Republicanism in order to win some Irish American votes.

... back in the day that is, during the Troubles.

oh ok on the slurs

tried searching for a Churchill rant about "the frogs" but couldn't find a speech (as opposed to private conversation)

Haberman, of course, shares the byline on a story w/the following headline: "For Trump, a Risky Decision Other Presidents Had Avoided."

that's one way of putting it I guess

For MIlosevic, a Bold Project Other Presidents Shied Away From

Intention matters. I don't know anyone in North America who thinks 'Brit' is a slur or who is even remotely aware of its Irish Republican connotations. See also: 'cunt'.

xps

Britpop soon to be renamed albionboogie

1. 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”.

— Rukmini Callimachi (@rcallimachi) January 4, 2020

Repeated strongly worded assertions are more important in the public mind than evidence.

on the other bit of the statement i think it was stephen bush or possibly alex harrowell pointing out that even within the context of Brexit the military/defence alignment has been more and more an Anglo-French one, but that the Brexit rhetoric has increasingly been about US/UK alignment without any real substance behind it.

seems this will be one of a number of areas where UK gov rhetoric comes up against practicality.

a number of people understandably saying that UK will throw their lot in with the US no matter what for a trade deal, but these org arrangements are not so easily unwound.

One of the interesting subplots of the UK post-June 2016 is the rhetorical "immediate visit to Trump/state visit for Trump/we are so close with Trump" and the reality of continuing and deepening UK-FR defence co-operation and that G7 summit.

— Stephen Bush (@stephenkb) January 3, 2020

I can't think of a time when the political posture in FP and the policy reality have been quite so far apart which is one reason I was v anxious about us ending up being dragged into a disaster during the election.

— Stephen Bush (@stephenkb) January 3, 2020

Got to love this 'an attack is being planned but if we kill an individual person it won't happen' reasoning.

he had all the logistics memorised you see, and only he knew them. the fatal flaw in his plan, every evildoer has one.

What's the nature of the relationship between Russia and Iran at the moment?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbvxP08FlMs

xp

Good question!

https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2019/12/china-russia-iran-joint-naval-drills-191227183505159.html

And like how does the Russia - Syria - Turkey - Iran deal work? I need to read a book or two about this. My current understanding is Putin does deals with all these to keep them sweet but they don't all get on together?

.64/ BREAKING: #Iraqi parliament votes to expel #US forces from #Iraq.

— Hala Jaber (@HalaJaber) January 5, 2020

That was on the cards.

Guess we should pack up and go

It’s the government, rather than Parliament, that decides but it’s certainly on the cards.

Abdul-Mahdi has said Suleimani was in Iraq to discuss a Saudi offer to de-escalate - which potentially leaves open the idea that he was lured into a trap by KSA.

They are good at luring people into death traps.

BAGHDAD — Lawmakers in Iraq voted on Sunday to require the government to end the presence of American troops in the country after the United States ordered the killing of the Iranian leader of the elite Quds Force, Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, on Iraqi soil.

The decision to heed the demands of angry Shiite factions and politicians came as hundreds of thousands of mourners poured into the streets of Iran to pay their respects to General Suleimani, the most powerful figure in the country after the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

The vote is not final until Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi of Iraq signs the bill. But since he drafted the language and submitted the bill to Parliament, there was little doubt he would sign it.

Although the vote was 170-0 in Parliament, many of its 328 members, primarily Kurds and Sunnis, did not attend the session and did not vote, showing the division in Parliament on the demands to oust American troops. While groups that grew out of Shiite militia organizations have pushed hard for the expulsion, Sunni Muslim factions and the Kurds wanted the United States to stay.

Good work, USA.

Congratulations, Mr. President, with one reckless move, you have ceded Iraq to Iran, put our soldiers and our allies at greater risk, given ISIS a reprieve, united a divided Iran which will now revive its nuclear weapons program. Well done, Sir.
https://t.co/SlA9NQEPYf

— Richard Stengel (@stengel) January 5, 2020

Vista aérea del multitudinario funeral de Qassem #Soleimani. Realmente impresiona la magnitud del mismo. pic.twitter.com/3fWF5avhuU

— Radio Jai (@fmjai) January 5, 2020

what is going on here I thought they hated this guy. I thought he was Harvey Weinstein times 100

i said we're getting out of iraq, and we are. after this "thing", which lying democrats want to call war, we'll have both iraq and iran. we'll bottle the oil, and leave both. this is how business really gets done. your negativity is just quitter talk, stengel. xp

it seems Iran's got some very long bridges

i don’t understand why we’re still talking about isis when president donald j. trump has announced their total defeat six or seven times already at this point

why won’t these guys take a fuckin’ hint

Art and cultural artifacts that have stood the test of time like this should never be destroyed intentionally. They are some of our last connections with the past and are edifying for all humanity.

— A Flock of Seagals (@ASegals) January 5, 2020

luv2see the potus threatening war crimes on twitter

He's probably going to email surveys to his supporters to choose the next strike target

i've always had trouble resolving my thoughts about pulling troops out of iraq.

like many people (most here?) my first thought is that i would like to see a minimum US presence in Iraq, for reasons so obvious and familiar they don't bear repeating.

but when that possibility becomes real, like right now, the repercussions are also clear. the stengel tweet above outlines the problem. a susan rice op-ed published yesterday (before the parliamentary vote) concurs:

"The government in Baghdad has declared the killing a violation of the terms of the American military presence in Iraq. We will face mounting pressure to withdraw our military and diplomatic personnel from the country. If we leave, the United States will suffer a major strategic defeat: Iran will justifiably claim victory, and the gains of the fight against ISIS will be lost as the terrorist group rebuilds."

but there will always be strong reasons not to leave - it's called a forever war for a good reason. what is the scenario which leads to the united states pulling out troops without instigating some chaos? a gradual, measured pull-out that is predicated on "stability" in the middle east? that sounds like the obama plan from 2009-2016 (which, admittedly, seems a hell of a lot better than whatever the "plan" is now). and of course, it would be much better to have the support of allies through all this.

in the end, i always end up just thinking of bullshit like "War muddies the river / And getting out we're dirtier than getting in", but yeah, that doesn't clarify things much either.

I don't think there's a good way to get out, nor is there a justification for staying.

Iran just announced they’re ending all commitments to the 2015 nuclear deal

nukes are the ultimate defensive weapon, so it make perfect sense to seek them when you are endlessly threatened by a very powerful country. once you have that defensive strength, it opens up strategic possibilities on offense, too.

"the gains of the fight against ISIS will be lost as the terrorist group rebuilds"

this^^^ is an argument that needs some elements fills in pretty urgently: iran is not only extremely hostile to isis politically and religiously, wasn't it at the forefront of its military defeat on the ground?

Yep, but the US will go back to funding them.

xp

nuclear weapons are the ultimate strategic advantage canceler. if you have one, either as a nation or a non-state actor, you put yourself on the same level as the elite group of crazy asshole nations. why are they crazy assholes? because that's the cost of membership - in order for nukes to be a functional deterrent, you have to have at least one crazy asshole working at a high level in your government who will legitimately frighten the other countries. what kind of person would even think of launching a nuke in any direction? if you connected with a city you'd obliterate tens of thousands of civilians immediately, many more in the years afterward. what if they start hiding underground, in other cities? the crazy asshole nations have a solution - bunker buster nukes. "what if we could increase our total civ kills by expanding the playing field, as it were? in the past we have been limited by the ground. but in this nuclear world war, we're taking the battle underground." *drone army audio output: "Hoo-Ra-a-a-a-a-y" in perfect synchronization*

there's a big incentive for every other country to join the nuclear ranks, and there's a big incentive for nuclear countries to feature crazy assholes who might just do it.

In order for nukes to be a functional deterrent, you have to have at least one crazy asshole working at a high level in your government who will legitimately frighten the other countries.

Nixon agreed!

thanks donald, very cool!

Isis is a fascist death cult that sought to genocide Shias. The group was an existential threat to the region. Soleimani is viewed as a superhero for leading the fight against the Middle East version of Nazis. That’s who Trump assassinated. https://t.co/AEy2lsvj7z

— Rania Khalek (@RaniaKhalek) January 5, 2020

off the charts bs propaganda going on there love the "thank you soleimani for keeping us safe" comments in the thread

also wtf

Yep, but the US will go back to funding them.

― ShariVari, Sunday, January 5, 2020 1:39 PM (nineteen minutes ago)

That was a joke

However, I wouldn’t be surprised if Qatar and KSA upped their covert support if there are no US soldiers in the firing line.

i see no reason to believe that ISIS is going to mount a comeback bc soleimani is dead and i think you can file predictions like that along with ones saying WW3 is imminent - i won't speculate about the psychological conditions that convince otherwise intelligent ppl to make predictions that are prima facie overstated + unlikely. re: divided iran suddenly being united no - the conditions that make iran weak (many minority populations bristling under regime rule, very weak economy, authoritarian autocracy and historical urban liberal population) continue to persist even if the regime does get a minor popularity bump. more importantly the regime continues to be willing to kill hundreds of protestors to keep rule - the true source of their strength, not overwhelming mandate or approval.

Twitterverse needs to remind Trump at every opportunity that Soleimani's funeral was better attended than his inauguration.

"the conditions that make iran weak (many minority populations bristling under regime rule, very weak economy, authoritarian autocracy and historical urban liberal population) continue to persist"

You forgot sanctions.

I assumed that was covered by 'very weak economy'.

Assume nothing is my one new year's resolution.

"Rice serves on the boards of several organizations, including the advisory board of Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University,[81] the board of directors of the Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (Bloomberg BNA),[82] and the board of directors of Partnership for Public Service.[83] She is a past member of the boards of directors of the National Democratic Institute, the U.S. Fund for UNICEF,[28] the Atlantic Council[84] and Internews Network.[85][86] She is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Aspen Strategy Group.[87][88]"

ok so she shouldn't be talking weird confused nonsense then (also NYT's editors shd pick up and challenge the nonsense ffs)

(giving her the benefit of the doubt as an obama-era diplomat i was wondering if she meant that the defeat of isis was a consequence of iran being brought somewhat more onside by the jcpoa, allowing for better co-operation between everyone whose interests it was in for it to be defeated -- if so she needed to make it a LOT clearer) (lol i went thru to the NYT to read the whole opinion, which was a waste of time obviously)

susan rice deserves doubt, and not the benefit kind

These Media Posts will serve as notification to the United States Congress that should Iran strike any U.S. person or target, the United States will quickly & fully strike back, & perhaps in a disproportionate manner. Such legal notice is not required, but is given nevertheless!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 5, 2020

Just reminding us that he can still legally say things.

Abandoning nuclear deal, Iran will no longer comply with enrichment restrictionshttps://t.co/edi10x2Zxi

— Rudaw English (@RudawEnglish) January 5, 2020

Related -

There seems to be some confusion over Iran's announcement re: the JCPOA.

An Iranian official has confirmed to me that they're not leaving the nuclear deal. With this latest move, there no longer will be a limit on the # of centrifuges. IAEA cooperation & access will continue.

— Suzanne DiMaggio (@suzannedimaggio) January 5, 2020

I reckon, over the coming weeks, we'll be seeing a lot of the Iranian Foreign Minister, Peter Gabriel.

https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/11/25/1385403959776/Mohammad-Javad-Zarif-006.jpg?width=300&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=a50494dba284cf5f1b7602252de07956

big time!

SLEDGE

On the illegal detention of 60 people at the US/Canada border https://t.co/skMKsi6fxV

— Autonomy Tucson (@autonomytucson) January 5, 2020

if only you Americans were so slow with your unrestricted assassination programs on foreign soil as you were with your peter gabriel japes.. ho ho ho!

umm... how did border patrol know their ancestry if most are us citizens?? 🤔

if I may then what is the appropriate term to identify a UK resident

More like a Shit 'un amirite

THREAD: Over the past few days, I've spoken extensively with career U.S. government officials as they've worked around the clock to try and mitigate the damage from Trump's ineptitude on Iran. With their permission, I'm sharing a small taste from our lengthy conversations. Enjoy.

— Reza Marashi (@rezamarashi) January 6, 2020

lol we're all gonna die

keep it to the uk thread bizarro

You’d think a country as big and diverse as the US would have no trouble understanding the logic of external attacks on a country often bringing internal enemies together, but only the US is real according to headbangers.

"When I used your points about Soleimani's murder being a catalyst for Iranians to rally around the flag, they said that was 'Obama apologist bullshit,' and the Soviet Union forced people against their will into public displays of support. So apparently Iran is a superpower now."

— Reza Marashi (@rezamarashi) January 6, 2020

everyone dies but we're not all going to die because some career U.S. government officials are freaked out about Iran

most telling tweet tho:

"They've been pushing to kill Soleimani for years, and they finally baited Trump into it."

i did wonder about that tweet xp bc you hardly need to be a superpower to have superpower like control over your populace - you just need to be an autocracy.

xpost Deep State!

I don't know, that display looks a lot more like opposition demos in Venezuela, rather than supporter dems. And Venezuela is an autocracy as well.

I don't know if Iran forces people to march (using either state security or just normal social pressure) and I don't know if I should be impressed by the video showing lots of people marching. Iran is a huge country. I just disagree that you need to be a superpower like the USSR to force people to march in solidarity. Iran has enough tight control over segments of its society that if you told me that they were using coercive methods to drum up fake support I wouldn't feel confident arguing otherwise. I certainly don't think the idea that Soleimani assassination has united the disparate elements of Iranian society is a credible one if you know even the smallest amount about those divisions - and I'm also a little confused by people critical of the move using "well now look you've gone and unified the Iranians" as an argument for why. It just seems like a very silly take.

I don't think it's that silly if you know just the tiniest amount about the relations between Iran and Iraq the last, say forty years. And what ISIS thought should be done to Shia muslims.

It's really kinda crazy just how many Iranians has been killed by the US and US-backed allies. It's not really unreasonable for middle / upper class Iranians to be concerned about what would happen if Iran was considered weak.

which bits of iranian society are okay with soleimani being executed by a reaper drone do you reckon, mordy?

xp I should've been clearer that I think the silly bit is that people who were in favor of the JCPOA and bringing Iran into the community of nations, etc, arguing that this was a tactically bad move because it united the Iranians. It's not consistent with their preferred methodological of engagement. It makes sense on one level as a critique of Trump according to his own goals (you say you want to undermine the regime but this will only strengthen it) but it doesn't make sense according to their own goals which don't include fostering unrest and generating a revolution.

I suspect anyone who views Soleimani as a representative of a violent regime that murders protestors, or even more accurately as a symbol of the regime's willingness to spend treasure and blood on foreign adventures in Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, might be less than distraught over his passing. tbc this is a country where internet and communications are still being manipulated by the gov in many places to crackdown on protestors and had to kill 200 people only a few weeks ago to tamp down protests. If you think all those protestors are suddenly pro-Iranian because the guy who represented some of the worst excesses of the regime was killed by the US... I mean maybe! I'm just a little cynical of twitter authorities claiming otherwise based on a funeral procession.

It's a bit tautological, though. Sure, people who think what Soleimani and the rest has been up to in the region is just 'foreign adventures' and 'worst excesses' won't be that sad about his death. But Iranians kinda have a reason to be against Sunni extremism, whether from ISIS or Saudi Arabia, so I'm not really sure that's the main complaint against the regime.

Past protests have been about foreign adventurism and military ambitions as well as economic + political/religious concerns but in fact they are all related. If you're spending money on wars abroad, you're not spending that money on citizens (we know all about this in the US) - moreover, Iran has suffered from sanctions in part because of blowback from support for aggressive anti-Western and anti-Saudi + anti-Israeli proxies. Even fear over Sunni radicalism is not unrelated to questions of religious fundamentalism at home as well - so I think this is a bit more complex than "well we're afraid of ISIS therefore Soleimani is a hero."

Sure, if you think the Iranian regime is to blame for everything, then killing Soleimani was no big deal. I don't think most Iranians feel that way, though. It's also not the truth, btw.

Like, the sanctions was Trump getting mad because he shat himself and wanted to blame Obama. Who in Iran blames the regime for that?

Congratulations, Mr. President, with one reckless move, you have ceded Iraq to Iran, put our soldiers and our allies at greater risk, given ISIS a reprieve, united a divided Iran which will now revive its nuclear weapons program. Well done, Sir.

If in the extremely unlikely event Trump were to read this, I am pretty sure he would only see

Congratulations, Mr. President, blah blah blah. Well done, Sir.

I disagree about the reason for the sanctions. I mean yes there is a psychological component here involving Trump and Obama but there is more going on - in exchange for the JCPOA Obama essentially gave Iran free reign in places like Syria where Soleimani was active and helped keep the Assad regime in power, and Iran continued its sponsorship of groups like Hezbollah and the Houthis despite the nuclear deal. Iranian behavior abroad was supposed to be tackled after the JCPOA but it became clear that the Obama administration basically spent its will + ability to influence Iran on those issues by agreeing to the JCPOA. There is logic to this decision - Obama decided (and at least in part because of Bibi & MBS overselling the threat) that it was worth trading Iran this permissiveness in exchange for stopping the nuclear program which was seen as a greater threat. The irony (or possible flaw in this analysis) is that the problems Iran posed to the region were not nuclear before the deal and continued to not be nuclear after the deal. They were able to wrought all kinds of destruction through more conventional means. From this perspective the purpose of the sanctions was to address these pressing issues by hamstringing the regime's ability to exercise such a free hand.

Come on

Like clearly that's not what Trump thought when he wrote that tweet

+ the idea that Iran should stop doing what the Sauds are doing because of the nuclear deal has never been realistic.

If this is gonna be the Freddie B show, I will ask the usher to throw me out

So, if Trump ordered the drone assassination while Soleimani was visiting Mesopotamia for US-initiated talks to deescalate, and just 50 miles from where Husayn ibn Ali was betrayed and martyred near Karbala in 680, am I wrong to think that this all plays into the martyrdom cult 200 million Shia Muslims fervently believe in?

I mean, if you think such a significant swatch of people is an amorphous blob that all thinks the exact same, sure.

I don't think of Shia as undifferentiated any more than I think that Protestant Christians are. But Iran has been a fairly stalwart ally of Shia groups throughout the Mideast, and I'm not sure I've seen any practicing Shia critics of Iran.

As an interested observer of religion I'm more curious how this will play out historically. I wish I knew more about Shia than the their origin story in the early caliphates, and that there's a whole martyrdom cult with self flagellation sect that reminds me only of Filipino Catholicism among modern Christian sects.

My guess (for the time capsule) is that Soleimani will increasingly be treated as a saint/wali. As stupid as past American foreign policy mistakes in the Mid-east have been, this one has the potential to be irreversible due to its cultural import, and effectively permanent.

I mean, possibly? It’s just I’ve been thinking to myself of fellow citizens I wouldn’t have a problem with Donald Trump reducing to a greasy spot on a whim outside an airport, and I have to tell you, even the worst of us? Not America’s to kill. That’s the principle, not sectarianism.

*i did hesitate over this, but not for very long

"I don't know if Iran forces people to march (using either state security or just normal social pressure) and I don't know if I should be impressed by the video showing lots of people marching. Iran is a huge country."

I don't know and I don't know...not that will stop me, an ilx authority, talking over twitter authorities. Just another day in this internet life I lead.

juty juty juty

We're really doing this, huh? pic.twitter.com/KR5u2Q8wew

— Justin Baragona (@justinbaragona) January 6, 2020

Lol her eyes

I don't know and I don't know...not that will stop me, an ilx authority, talking over twitter authorities. Just another day in this internet life I lead.

The assassination of Soleimani is yet another proof of Trump's complete disregard of all lawful constraints. This open murder of an Iranian high official was an undeniable act of war under any definition of international law. The fact that the United States unilaterally declared the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a "terrorist organization" may give this action some slight color of legality under US law, but according to the constitution treaties which have been ratified by Congress are the supreme law of the land** and the USA is signatory to the United Nations Charter.

**From Article Six:

"...all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land"

I don't know if Iran forces people to march (using either state security or just normal social pressure) and I don't know if I should be impressed by the video showing lots of people marching. Iran is a huge country. I just disagree that you need to be a superpower like the USSR to force people to march in solidarity. Iran has enough tight control over segments of its society that if you told me that they were using coercive methods to drum up fake support I wouldn't feel confident arguing otherwise. I certainly don't think the idea that Soleimani assassination has united the disparate elements of Iranian society is a credible one if you know even the smallest amount about those divisions - and I'm also a little confused by people critical of the move using "well now look you've gone and unified the Iranians" as an argument for why. It just seems like a very silly take.

― Mordy, Monday, January 6, 2020 8:37 AM (three hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

i can remember what US political culture was like in 2002. forms of public and private coercion and genuine sense of unity in the face of threat aren't mutually exclusive at all.

it doesn't make sense according to their own goals which don't include fostering unrest and generating a revolution.

You... don't think people who support JCPOA have transition to a democratic and free Iran as a goal??!?

Lol her eyes

http://www.thebigshadow.com/home/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/IMG_8436-e1458519284393.jpg

If that is their goal it's through a long process of Westernization - not a revolution to depose the ayatollah. A unified Iran should presumably make no difference if you're trying to win them over with kindness + Western cultural products and prosperity etc.

Re Iranian unity and support (or lack thereof) for Soleimani all I'd caution is skepticism about what Western journalists claim online. Iran is a notoriously hard country to report from because of how repressive it is and its crackdowns on free speech and media. Maybe there's a big rally around the flag effect because Soleimani died and he is beloved for defeating ISIS and Iranians care about ISIS over all. Or maybe there will be another outbreak of protests a week from now and everyone will be caught blindslided. Or maybe both. Most of these people claiming one thing or another don't actually know - and like I said I don't either but at least I'm not pretending that I know.

yet another proof of Trump's complete disregard of all lawful constraints.

It barely bears stating, but if Meatloaf is doing these things then he is not constrained, and if there are no legal repercussions then the laws are worthless. So what is there to regard or disregard? The country is being run by impotent incompetents.

Must be frustrating to want to provide a full throated defense of the Iranian regime and have to satisfy yourself with nitpicking my posts.
― Mordy, Monday, 6 January 2020 bookmarkflaglink

Beats doing this bullshit hybrid of armchair psychology and middle Eastern expertise just because you can't shout fake news @ a footage of crowds. Any day, friend.

I imagine a US President threatening to destroy Iranian cultural sites isn't too popular with Iranians, no matter what their opinion of Soleimani or the current regime. But then again, I don't know either.

A unified Iran should presumably make no difference if you're trying to win them over with kindness + Western cultural products and prosperity etc.

It would presumably make a big difference if Iran were unified in a spirit of enmity to the United States!

I am certainly in agreement with you that we don't have a clear sense of what's going on. Just saying, I don't think there's anything hypocritical about Iran Deal supporters worrying that Trump is locking in anti-Americanism and pro-regimism among young Iranians who might otherwise be the vanguard of reform.

http://english.almanar.com.lb/framework/includes/uploads/2020/01/manar-06173380015783324011.jpg

I imagine a US President threatening to destroy Iranian cultural sites isn't too popular with Iranians, no matter what their opinion of Soleimani or the current regime. But then again, I don't know either.

― Frozen Mug (Tom D.), Monday, January 6, 2020 11:03 AM (two minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

yeah it would fully piss off lots of iranians who live abroad and hate the regime

What was that other Trump quote? About how Iran had never won a war? That'd warm the cockles of anti-regime Iranians, for sure.

Some of those cultural sites

I'd like to visit Isfahan in a free Iran pic.twitter.com/jIA2ntwBQ1

— David Frum (@davidfrum) January 4, 2020

i need to look this up again, but i think the iraqis killed alongside soleimani were some of the shia militia leaders responsible for retaking mosul from ISIS. the past several weeks had seen iraqis protesting -- and getting killed by! -- their own government and the influence of iran for the rotten state of life, and now that dynamic has completely changed

xp you could have picked a better person to link from lol

I know who I linked it from

seems bad!

پاسخ کاربران ایرانی به انتشار تصویر پرچم آمریکا توسط ترامپ. pic.twitter.com/fWU2jVkSxL

— روزنامه ایران (@IranNewspaper) January 6, 2020

About how Iran had never won a war?

Idle curiosity with be the death of my free time:

Iraqi Civil War (2014–2017), Syrian Civil War (2011–present), Iraq War (2003–2011), Dhofar Rebellion (1963–1976), Iran-Azerbaijan Crisis (1945–1946), Persian invasion of Georgia (1795), Nadir Shah's invasion of India (1738–1739), Afsharid–Ottoman War of 1730, Russo-Persian War of 1651, Mughal–Safavid War of 1649, Mughal–Safavid War of 1622, Ottoman–Safavid War of 1603, Persian-Uzbek Wars (1502–1510), Campaigns of Timur (1380–1402), Byzantine–Seljuq wars (1048–1308), Second Perso-Turkic War (588–589), First Perso-Turkic War (588–589), Ethiopian–Persian Wars (570–578), Seleucid–Parthian Wars (238 BC–129 BC), Battle of Pelusium (343 BC), Revolt of the Satraps (372–362 BC), Corinthian War (395–387 BC), Peloponnesian War (431–404 BC), Conquest of Egypt (525 BC), Conquest of Babylonia (540–539 BC), Conquest of Lydia (547 BC).

They punch about their weight class.

Well do I remember that Ken Burns documentary about the 4th century Battle of Pelusium

To answer my question (mostly to myself) above:

Juan Cole:

What Trump did was give the pious Shiites of Iran and Iraq a martyr, and folk artists are already depicting Soleimani at Karbala

ZenPundit:
The martyr Soleimani embraced by Imam Hussein
https://zenpundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Soleimani-embraced-by-Imam-Husein-731x1024.jpg

i think for the iranians there is only one adequate answer to the murder but i doubt they will be able to give it.

Claims that the funeral crowds in #Iran are forced into the streets betray a basic lack of understanding of Iran. I lived in Iran for 3 yrs, and I did see the state occasionally corral ppl into rallies, but not on this level. That’s impossible. The grief/anger is real

— Sune Engel Rasmussen (@SuneEngel) January 6, 2020

a Persian friend of mine told me today that lots of people he knows who have been protesting or totally opposed to the Iranian regime have also been outraged by the killing of Soleimani, even with Soleimani's record of shutting down protests

in short, Soleimani was a man of contrasts

in short, Iran is not, like so many others, a synthetic nation cobbled together by colonialist powers, but a proud people with a long history and complex culture, and when they are attacked, they unite.

Not to mention mocked and goaded by possibly the biggest moron to lead a nation since some inbred Hapsburg from back in the day.

Iranians, please don't assassinate Trump until he is out of office and disgraced. Then be discrete. The last thing we need is a moron martyr cult.

They should blow up Petraeus

New Yorker, 2013:

In a report to the White House, Petraeus wrote that Suleimani was “truly evil.” Yet at times the two men were all but negotiating. According to diplomatic cables revealed by WikiLeaks, Petraeus sent messages through Iraqi officials to Suleimani, asking him to call off rocket attacks on the American Embassy and on U.S. bases. In 2008, the Americans and the Iraqi Army were pressing an offensive against the Mahdi Army—Moqtada al-Sadr’s Shiite militia—and, in retribution, the militia was bombarding the Green Zone regularly. Suleimani, who sensed a political opening, sent Petraeus a message lamenting the situation and saying that he had assigned men to apprehend the attackers. Petraeus replied, “I was born on a Sunday, but it wasn’t last Sunday.” Eventually, Suleimani brokered a ceasefire between Sadr and the government.

Bibi's response to the assassination is really interesting. I wonder if Pompeo and Pence kinda know that they fucked up.

well, yeah

Urgent law for designation of the US army as a terror organization has just approved by the Islamic Consultative Assembly (Iranian parliament)

Translation to follow.. pic.twitter.com/gbqXLYKt6j

— Aleph ᴼⁿ ᴴⁱᵍʰ ᴬˡᵉʳᵗ 🕯️ א (@no_itsmyturn) January 7, 2020

#BREAKING Iraq PM confirms received US 'withdrawal' draft letter Monday pic.twitter.com/yfr4UqCpgo

— AFP news agency (@AFP) January 7, 2020

We evaluated the relevant risks and the opportunity that we thought might present itself at some point,” he said Tuesday, naming the massacre in Syria and violence in Lebanon and Iraq as Soleimani’s handiwork.

“We know what happened at the end of last year in December, ultimately leading to the death of an American,” he continued. “So if you’re looking for imminence, you need look no further than the days that led up to the strike that was taken against Soleimani and then you, in addition to that which we could clearly see, have continuing efforts on behalf of this terrorist to build out a network of campaign activities that were going to lead potentially to the death of many more Americans.”

Sorry. “He” is Pompeo, describing the imminent threat that led to the assasination.

Pompeo should start slipping “...you fucking dumbasses...” into his official statements

Is there still a debate happening regarding whether Iranians are faking their outrage about all this? The people who got trampled to death at his funeral were very convincing actors

crisis actors

what do you think it proves that 50 ppl were trampled to death????

Pompeo is really fucking hard to watch, that condescending smirk just begs to be punched.

50 people trampled to death as a result of millions of people trying to crowd their way closer to the funeral procession. Um, it proves to me that popular Iranian outrage about the assasination is not a state-sponsored propaganda campaign.

Makes sense. If Iran assasinates Espy I’m pretty sure a lot of Americans would be viscerally angry.

It’s barely a whole decade since the green revolution protests and people turned out en masse despite state violence against them...I don’t understand the logic of thinking Iranians need to be paid to protest, and as I said yesterday it’s the principle. I’d probably want to protest myself if the US did that to a fellow citizen, and they’re not threatening to bomb Ireland anytime soon!

there are some key American figures I wouldn't mind testing this hypothesis out with, just to be sure

I don't know, real or no, decades of "Death to America!" has kind of inured me to Iranian outrage. The fact that (reportedly) anti-American billboards were put up after the assassination shows that the Iranian government is not exactly letting this play out on a strictly grassroots level. I do assume a good portion of that country does not see themselves in these protests/riots/funerals, etc., but I have no idea what they're thinking right now or how they would show it.

Secretary of Defense Mark Esper to @camanpour: “We are not looking to start a war with Iran, but we are prepared to finish one" pic.twitter.com/16tlfOX4fS

— Oliver Darcy (@oliverdarcy) January 7, 2020

Just like we finished the hell out of that war in Afghanistan!

when we the last time we even actually finished a war?

was

I don't know, real or no, decades of "Death to America!" has kind of inured me to Iranian outrage.

whenever i get inured to the outrage i try to remember that they had a democratically elected leader who was overthrown in a CIA/MI6 coup in 1953 so that we could instead install a stooge who would ensure the profits of BP for another 25 years. trying to imagine the US would react to that kind of event, seems like we'd be pretty angry about it for a while

when by chance the VERY SAME COUNTRY murders one of the leaders of the country, 67 years later, it's not hard for me to imagine people being angry. i'm sure someone will find an article indicating that a portion of the crowd is deeply connected to the deep state of iran or whatever, but it is very, very easy to imagine the real outrage among the rest of the country, and i don't feel that i need to "prove" something that is very obvious

Mark Esper looks like a guy trampled on many times in high school.

An old saw, I know, but I highly promote the notion of airdropping these telephone tough guys right on to the front lines of whatever conflict their words help foment. Let's see how macho you can be when your jaw gets ripped off by shrapnel, dickhole.

xxp sure but you can’t effectively leverage what’s not there! Pretty sure decades of American policy towards Iran did that job already. You don’t have to be a hard liner to think the actions of the US wrt flight 655 were despicable.

“We are not looking to start a war with Iran, but we are prepared to finish one"

When people imitate Hollywood characters in the belief that this is how real people are supposed to talk.

Like that’s going to be in living memory for lots more people than the overthrow of the Shah, and the captain was awarded medals ffs. 290 civilians dead, 66 of whom children, nothing amounting to an outright apology. It’s not abstract.

xp

some real people do talk like that (or at least hold views that align with that)! i guess i'm just thinking of people like macarthur.

reading a history of the Korean War right now, and it's interesting how often, on all sides of the conflict, everyone thought it would be a very quick and easy war

xp:
Its a slogan for domestic consumption. Slogans work, whether they're Deutchland uber alles or al-mawt li-ʾamrīkā or make America great again. Repeated often enough, they remodel default mode networks.

Before the Soleimani assassination, Iran was beset with domestic unrest over reductions in fuel subsidies (yes, that's just the proximate cause), with riot and political police killing hundreds. Iran's rulers don't have to worry about that for some time now that the U.S. has gifted them with an external locus for their anger.

reading a history of the Korean War right now, and it's interesting how often, on all sides of the conflict, everyone thought it would be a very quick and easy war

― But guess what? Nobody gives a toot!😂 (Karl Malone), Tuesday, January 7, 2020 1:27 PM (seven minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

See also: every war ever, conducted by people who apparently failed to read up on every prior war.

i wonder if Judith Miller read any of her old shit

Yeah, flight 655 matters a lot. The west was pretty clearly on the side of Iraq as well in the eighties, which was pretty despicable as well.

Whether it was 'despicable' depends on the measurements you are using. From the POV of western morality, there was no side to favor in the Iran-Iraq War, but in terms of pragmatic politics, it was obvious that the west would favor Iraq and would do so no matter how many times you ran that scenario.

the west was just happy for it to keep going, with most major western countries supplying both sides at some stage

The fact that (reportedly) anti-American billboards were put up after the assassination shows that the Iranian government is not exactly letting this play out on a strictly grassroots level.

Gosh, hard to imagine a state trying to influence public opinion.

xp. (the soviets also played both sides despite being closer to iraq, and china was a major supplier of both sides, it should be mentioned)

prolonging the war was the primary western strategy, but an eventual Iranian victory was never an acceptable outcome in the view of the major western powers.

I think morally - and long term strategically - supporting the side that invaded to begin with, and that really did use weapons of mass destruction, including against civilians, was very wrong.

Sir, if you're suggesting that the US has ever been an immoral actor in any global conflict...well, there simply are no words. Good day!

hey man we corrected that mistake by invading them a few times

x-post: Lol, indeed. But it's like Bob Marley once said: 'It was worse than a crime. It was a mistake.'

I think morally - and long term strategically - supporting the side that invaded to begin with, and that really did use weapons of mass destruction, including against civilians, was very wrong.

― Frederik B, Tuesday, January 7, 2020 12:09 PM (twelve minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

iran also used wmd including against civilians. they also deployed chid soldiers on a massive scale. and although iraq was initially the aggressor, iran had pushed iraq out of iran by the spring of 1982, but continued an aggressive war against the iraqis, with the aim of regime change in iraq, despite the unlikelihood of this outcome and the military stalemate, for the majority of the war.

so the right wing talking point I'm seeing on FB is that this is actually okay since Iran kills homosexuals and women …?

iran also used wmd including against civilians.

This was never proven, though?

And, yeah, by 82 Iran was driving the war, but is that so surprising? If a neighboring country invades, and starts gassing border towns, you want to punish that country? Had the world done something before Iran pushed out Iraq on their own, perhaps the Iranians wouldn't have been so vindictive?

I'm not saying the Iranians were heroes here. But they were definitely the victims.

so the right wing talking point I'm seeing on FB is that this is actually okay since Iran kills homosexuals and women …?

― frogbs, Tuesday, January 7, 2020 2:29 PM (three minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

It's not inconceivable that I'll live long enough to see the right espousing, say, overtly socialist talking points in the course of defending actions which might be of some benefit to them. No one said tribalism ever had to be coherent.

President Donald Trump on Tuesday reversed his threats to target Iranian sites of cultural importance following allegations that such measures would violate international law and constitute a war crime.

"If that's what the law is, I like to obey the law," Trump said.

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-reverses-threats-targeting-iran-cultural-sites-obey-law-2020-1

4 Pinocchios

It's not inconceivable that I'll live long enough to see the right espousing, say, overtly socialist talking points

You already have! Or have you not noticed the last 30 years of GOP rhetoric is about the pampered, overprivileged elite which dominates our culture and exploits the labor value of Joe the Plumber and other large-bicepped proletarians like him?

lol this dude rules

One Iranian attending Soleimani's funeral ruthlessly mocked western media coverage of the events

"Why did you come here today?"

"We're not here, we've been photoshopped...

This crowd is made up of ten cops, six revolutionary guardsmen, & two guys they bribed with juice packs" pic.twitter.com/eudg9UOHNU

— Wyatt Reed (@wyattreed13) January 7, 2020

here we go (that an NYT journalist, so this is real afaict)

BREAKING: STATEMENT FROM IRGC:
"The brave soldiers of IRGC's aerospace unit have launched a successful attack with tens of ballistic missiles on Al Assad military base in the name of martyr Gen.Qasem Soleimani."#Iraq #Iran #AlAssadBase

— Farnaz Fassihi (@farnazfassihi) January 7, 2020

BREAKING: Footage of Iran attack on US base Al Assad in Iraq.#AlAssad #Iraq pic.twitter.com/8CtLpgnsw6

— Farnaz Fassihi (@farnazfassihi) January 7, 2020

Reports say Iran is firing dozens of missiles into Iraq, hitting U.S. forces at Al Asad Airbase. Early reports say 20 U.S. troops have died, amid 60+ missile strikes so far. If true, then we are at the precipice of another horrible war in the Middle East.

— Mark Hughes (@markhughesfilms) January 7, 2020

oh shit

shit

that "reports of 20 dead" post is from a screenwriter and "quora contributor", not a journalist

Thank God

Since when has the truth stopped the asshole? No doubt we're on the cusp of an "I hereby declare we are at war" tweet, fuck everything about him and his enablers forever.

Thanks.

so ashamed of this actual shithole country

Sick to my stomach. I've been sick to my stomach for years now.

CNN’s Barbara Starr reports that Pentagon officials have been hard to reach “because they were sent home early for what was supposed to be a major snowstorm.”

— Josh Kraushaar (@HotlineJosh) January 7, 2020

Shitstorm, more like it

Video above looks like $3 M Patriot missiles being launched against $50k ballistic warheads.

I expected the next step to be the Iraqi government shutting off all grid water/electricity to US bases, and Iraqi militia setting up perimeters (at some distance) and checkpoints to prevent land supply. I still ~40% expect this to escalate to Iraqis levelling the US embassy compound with howitzer fire.

Long term, I've no doubt: the assassination of Soleimani means the US will be forced out of Iraq. Some $3 trillion and 4k+ American lives, not to mention 200k Iraqi lives and millions of displaced civilians, just so Iraq can become a puppet of Tehran. Its arguably the most stupid act by a major power in our lifetimes, alongside how the Russia seized Crimea and the Donbass.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/01/03/petraeus-on-qassem-suleimani-killing-says-trump-helped-reestablish-deterrence/

one of the smart ones

UGGGGGGGGGGGGGGH

Sick to my stomach. I've been sick to my stomach for years now.

― Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, January 7, 2020 5:48 PM (seven minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

ugh

the hell with this miserable country

US fighters have been scrambled from multiple locations, including the UAE.

Unsure if this is a defensive posture or we’re retaliating.

— Angry Staffer (@AngrierWHStaff) January 7, 2020

It goes without saying, and wargamers both professional and amateur have worked this out, Iran will lead with cheap disposable ballistics against American installations and ships. This depletes the finite number of Patriot missiles (land) and SM-2s (naval). Second and third waves will have the better, more recent, more expensive, guided stuff.

And when America launches reprisals from Gulf states, desalination plants will be among the first targets. A bunch of Bangladeshi and Punjabi workers who don't have a stake in this will be the first to die of thirst.

It’s not really a great time for your “smartest guy in the room” schtick

skacritics both professional and amateur have worked it out: third wave to have might mighty bossmissles

Can we lower the predicting the future with certainty by 30-50% please

xxxp no that doesn't go w/o saying, these points are appreciated

*bossmissiles portmanteau-proof autocorrect needed now more than ever

Tombot OTM

El Tomboto: I don't care. Iran has been preparing for this day for at least 20 years. Trump chose to stick his dick in a wasp's nest. A lot of people who don't deserve it are going to suffer.

i get you guys but if sanpaku's gonna sanpaku, why not now, this isn't long-term speculation

Saeed Jalili, Iran's former top nuclear negotiator, posts a picture of the Iranian flag after the attack on Al Asad Airbase, just as Trump did with the American flag after Soleimani's assassination.https://t.co/QHgJAFt7vZ

— Séamus Malekafzali (@Seamus_Malek) January 7, 2020

My flag's bigger than your flag.

Reports say Iran is firing dozens of missiles into Iraq, hitting U.S. forces at Al Asad Airbase. Early reports say 20 U.S. troops have died, amid 60+ missile strikes so far. If true, then we are at the precipice of another horrible war in the Middle East.
— Mark Hughes (@markhughesfilms) January 7, 2020
― xyzzzz__, Tuesday, January 7, 2020 3:38 PM (thirty-one minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

imagine being this much of a dickhead that you make up a body count for twitter clout. arsehole

Omg Kennedy on fox right now speaking absolute fucking nonsense Jesus Christ

One American official said six rockets had landed at Al Asad air base, but could not confirm that they were missiles.

Iraq’s Joint Military Command said seven rockets had hit the base. Iranian officials said the attack began at 1:20 a.m., the time that General Suleimani was killed by an American drone at the Baghdad airport on Friday.

Recommend the War Nerd podcast. Jon Dolan now puts most of his work behind a paywall, but his 2018 speculation on how a US-Iran conflict would play out is public. I don't disagree with him, though I think he didn't give enough attention to how Iran can shut down Hormuz for the better part of a year with sea mines. Fill your tanks. Buy fossil co options. And rice and beans.

%#%*^$^%$^

should probably go ahead and buy rice and bean options, too

Feels like a pretty sane retaliation by the Iranians. Now we’ll see if Trump lets it end here.

Not so important in N. America. It's East Asia that really gets screwed by Hormuz closing.

If there's any reason for hope in this situation, its in talk from the Iranian foreign ministry, like this from foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif:

This is an act of aggression against Iran, and it amounts to an armed attack against Iran, and we will respond. But we will respond proportionately - not disproportionately ... We are not lawless like President Trump

I gather from this that Iran plans to escalate, step by step. If we had sane people in the Oval Office or NSC, that would be an opportunity to pause and reassess. Sucks to be a sane person hoping for sanity from long term national adversaries.

Erin Burnett just now to Eliot Engel: “doesn’t the President have to do something?”

Reports that aides are making preparations for trump to give a televised address to the nation.

not good

It’s 4 am or so in Tehran right now but I don’t think anyone is sleeping

Iran just launched some missiles? Shits officialy Popin Off… Wow! Smh

— ICE T (@FINALLEVEL) January 8, 2020

Just a reminder, the actual Secretary of State, back in March

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has said it is "possible" that President Donald Trump was sent by God to save Israel from Iran.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47670717

God remember when State was the Enron Exxon guy

Steve Schmidt on MSNBC delivering doom-laden pronouncements using polysyllabic words.

xp Enron Exxon Gazprom

And saying Trump has to escalate , even while castigating him

Don't wanna know about any doom-laden pronouncements. It's hard enough engaging with what's real without trying to engage with whatever might be possible.

god can this shit just fuckin stop

Pompous white dudes getting lots of air time tonight

Can we fire them at Iran?

Fuck everything about this.

Ok finally a decent commentator: Cal Perry reporting from Doha (on Chris Hayes a few minutes ago)

But yeah fuck everything about this

This sucks.

It’s not the law that you have to watch tv

Iran is saying that if there is no retaliation from America for these latest attacks then they will stop attacking. But if America attacks then their response will be crushing and wide spread. #iran #soleimani #war

— Ali Arouzi (@aliarouzi) January 8, 2020

On the plus side, Trump is a coward, so maybe he will back down. On the other hand, Trump is an ignorant asshole, so probably he won't.

Not everyone on TV sucks. Some better, more meaningfully critical voices on Hayes now

Trump has an opportunity to walk away and claim to have killed "America's greatest enemy" or whatever with no loss of American lives. It could be a huge PR coup for him, most likely, and we would all hate to see that, but it's the "best" outcome we can hope for at this point.

"Iran is saying"

who is saying?

Hayes is often the only atoll of sanity on MSNBC.

Reminder that as this crisis escalates, we have no Director of National Intelligence, no Dep Dir, no Homeland Security Secretary, no Dep Sec, no head of CBP or ICE, no State Dept Under Sec of Arms Control, no Asst Sec for Europe, and no Navy Sec.

— Garrett M. Graff (@vermontgmg) January 8, 2020

“atoll “... nice. I will borrow that

Venmo me the residuals.

btw I’d like to start learning Farsi. Anyone here know some good resources for this?

twitter

everyone is an expert on everything there, it's amazing

Trump has an opportunity to walk away and claim to have killed "America's greatest enemy" or whatever with no loss of American lives. It could be a huge PR coup for him, most likely, and we would all hate to see that, but it's the "best" outcome we can hope for at this point.

― bold caucasian eroticism (Simon H.), Tuesday, January 7, 2020 7:04 PM (seven minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

i hope that he, as a coward who loves praise, lives up to this

I've rarely seen Rachel Maddow this PISSED.

Is that a songbird from courtly Persian poetry?

Xxxp

Maddow's drunk?

okay, "ANGRY".

Conference of the twits iirc.

2xp

They got Farsi on Duolingo.

i hope that he, as a coward who loves praise, lives up to this

It would be maddeningly difficult for a Dem opponent to counter without seeming like a pussy who's not willing to make the GUTSY moves to keep America safe, too.

phew - good sign

Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham says a minute ago that POTUS will NOT address nation tonight. https://t.co/yGsOwXziTu

— Josh Dawsey (@jdawsey1) January 8, 2020

I’ll start there , then xp

lol i'm gonna stop paying attention to this fucking thread xp

He will address the nation at 5 am from the toilet instead

I am absolutely checked out, outside of trying to attend an anti-war march tomorrow, but allow me to give you: the trump hotels in iraq

If something happens to the Trump hotels in Iraq then she should resign.

— Ryan Patrick Casey (@realryancasey) January 8, 2020

It’s like.

Even the “good” TV journalists are working under a model where the whole objective is to make you anxious to the point of nausea so you’ll leave the TV on. What can it profit you to watch people not know what’s going to happen when you can find out tomorrow what has happened

Richard Engel is saying that it’s likely the attacks haven’t resulted in as much damage as originally feared. maybe the US won’t respond

if you're reading replies to fox and friends tweets then it's time to log out, sorry mh it's just the truth

Idk if people are just nostalgic bc of Good Night and Good Luck or Frost/Nixon or something, the only thing cable news has ever been good for was Anderson Cooper playing with a magic pie chart

The postponement of the address to the nation opens a window for Ivanka to change the course of world history

lol, i got "dude come on" twice in 10 minutes, time for me to log off twitter for the night

I'm watching Unsolved Mysteries on Amazon, y'all should do the same.

btw if any of you ever want me to log off ilx for the night, those are my trigger words. you must not type anything else

xp

it does have perhaps the greatest theme song of all time...it's tempting!

Remembering that for later. Go touch your dog, Karl

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwAG-DnWhiY

I started studying Farsi already , so please do not disturb

just watched The Blood of a Poet and started Amarcord

I would say chances are very slim Trump doesn't retaliate.

well with the talk of the damage/casualties it does suddenly seem rather plausible that he would just lie his ass off about how ineffectual their missiles were and then do some other kind of bullshit

90% sure the “trump hotels in Iraq” tweet was meant as parody by the tweeter and I appreciated it

if not, still appreciate

SCI-MED
LOST HEIRS

fwiw the diplomatic corps, including embassy staff and state department, is the most ravaged under the “uh we can’t hire people” plague and is probably worse than the upper offices not being filled. there may be no one to make calls or coordinate with anyone else in the world at a high level, but the complete lack of desk jockeys to make the calls and do the footwork is just as bad

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
·
5m
All is well! Missiles launched from Iran at two military bases located in Iraq. Assessment of casualties & damages taking place now. So far, so good! We have the most powerful and well equipped military anywhere in the world, by far! I will be making a statement tomorrow morning.

"Bases destroyed! All good!"

Trump's been offered an out. I do wonder if a handful of hits, hurting a few Iraqi airmen but (reportedly) no US service members at an Iraqi airbase, will sate anger of Iranian leadership or public.

90% sure the “trump hotels in Iraq” tweet was meant as parody by the tweeter and I appreciated it

if not, still appreciate

― babu frik fan account (mh), Tuesday, January 7, 2020 7:45 PM (six minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

oh lol yeah sorry mh, the world is so screwy i no longer know a joke when i see one

I hate reading his tweets but that doesn't sound too ominous

So far, so good!

what the ever loving fuck

someone should have explained to Trump that he was targeting the most beautiful Iranian general, maybe then he’d understand the level of loss and the stakes

Everyone is dunking on a tweet that says

“#BREAKING: Iranian missile attack resulted in casualties among Iraqis only — Pentagon”

as if the tweet were directly from the pentagon. Seriously, I must log off

was that the spectator index one? afaik that account should be banned, because no one has figured out who posts that shit or who runs the site, it’s pure professional-looking bullshit that has absolutely no bio or info on who they are

No, it was some Israeli journalist

excited to see how many casualties = 'so far, so good!'

Go touch your dog, Karl

otm

My dog is currently howling an upbeat version of the christian classic “he touched me”

No sweat, dudes: Amy Klobuchar is giving a statement.

hotdish aunt?

she's going over there with a fork

Hotdish is served with a spoon

swore it was a comb

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/07/middleeast/plane-crash-iran-intl-hnk/index.html

seems bad

A Boeing 737 plane carrying 180 passengers and crew crashed shortly after takeoff...

This is the same model of plane that has been widely grounded after two horrible crashes shortly after takeoff about a year ago and Boeing has suspended production bcz it hasn't been certified as safe to fly even after months of trying to fix it.

iirc those were just the MAX planes, not all boeing 737s

still seems bad

boeing 737: america's most formidable killing machine

still actually bad, though sure I'm overcooking it vav the current hostilities

If there were systematic problems with the 737-800 of the sort that the Max has there’d be a lot more crashes, there’s many thousands of 737s in service.

right. it is not the same model.

The connection of Ukraine (their plane) and Iran is going to blow some tiny conspiratorial minds.

Also an minor earthquake near the nuclear enrichment facility. No evidence that either of these events have any connection with current events but the most feverish of minds are bubbling.

Among the plane’s passengers were 82 Iranians, 63 Canadians, 11 Ukrainians (two passengers and nine crew), 10 Swedish people, four people from Afghanistan, three from Germany and three from the United Kingdom.

(agreed it's not likely it's to do w/ this in any way, but thought I'd share since it was mentioned)

hmmm makes u think

Just a few years ago, CNN was praising Qassem #Soleimani for being the driving force behind the defeat of ISIS.

Today they call him a “terrorist” and expect you to believe them. pic.twitter.com/dfzlMktYdj

— Sarah Abdallah (@sahouraxo) January 7, 2020

good thing we stopped that imminent attack on americans, right guys?

Turns out even when you kill the Mastermind someone else can come up with the idea to fire rockets at stuff

https://www.anarchistcommunism.org/2020/01/07/neither-washington-nor-tehran/

"Liberal" MSNBC guest Gen. McCaffery: "Our only good response at this point is an overwhelming dominance of air and naval power that can be employed against the Iranian homeland" pic.twitter.com/SMDZ9SRm2n

— Andrew Lawrence (@ndrew_lawrence) January 8, 2020

If this is the same Gen. McCaffrey who ordered the “turkey shoot” massacre of retreating Iraqi troops at the close of the Gulf War then I’m not surprised.

Still...

This is the kind of person that gets a hard-on looking at Picasso’s Guernica

sorry folks, the ratings are in. in terms of the general internet's reaction to the bombings last night, we all received a score of F-. We're all going to die now. not because of iran, but because of our bad score

if you dig into the splits you can see that ILX actually performed quite well, receiving a median B+ rating from the panel, with most deductions related to me whining about twitter and sanpaku inciting panic under the guise of certainty about the near future. but ILX did much better than most other sectors of the internet. regardless, because of the total score, we are all going to die now

fuckface to address nation in a few minutes

i've been on record about this for some time tbf xp

he can't come to the podium right now, has to flush 15 times

BREAKING: The Pentagon has deployed a small team of emotional support golden retrievers to patrol the building this morning. God Bless America.

— Meghann Myers (@Meghann_MT) January 8, 2020

*distant eagle cry*

whatever Trump says, I'm sure the gist will be "I'm a great leader who has done a brilliant job".

I tried watching his statement but he is spacing his words out so weirdly and sounds out of breath, gist before I switched off is that they’re not pursuing further action at this time?

yes, sounds like no escalation at this time. good news.

fuckin phew

'Last week we eliminated the world’s top terrorist'

If you say so, Donny.

he's not wrong but whatever

god he is so zonked out

this bullshit fucking talking point that we "gave" them money is so untrue and pathetic

how is it untrue? bc we "owed" it to them? we still "gave" it to them.

it was their money

we were holding their money ,we gave it back

there it is, the news. he wants NATO to step in

he also, in passing, repeated the lie that "100% of ISIS" was destroyed, which immediately led to darting eyes on the military officials behind him

this was like a Vic Berger edit in real time

he is wrong, actually

but mena mena mena

I didn't hear Trump's statement, but if there will be no further US escalation, then we can all thank the Iranian leadership for devising a face-saving escape hatch that both sides could make use of to wriggle out of what has been shaping up as a catastrophic disaster. The announcement by the Revolutionary Guard that if the USA did not retaliate against yesterday's missile strike they would also refrain from further escalation was the equivalent of issuing clear and simple instructions to a six year old, but it worked.

clear and simple instructions have never been our six year old in chief's strong point; worried he's gonna push the issue once impeachment starts grinding

yes, sounds like no escalation at this time. good news.

Don't tell me Sanpaku was wrong :(

btw i also really love the War Nerd, I think he's smart, funny, good writer and often gets perspectives and ideas you can't find in the mainstream press. but he's not a level-headed somber thinker - i wouldn't rely on him for predictions about what is going to happen next.

Indeed.

the perspectives and ideas were fine. their presentation chafed a bit. tugging on our heart strings before suggesting we buy oil options felt like bad form.

Cute dogpile, but everything I said above has been said by smarter Iraq observers than myself.

US can't win an escalation with Iran, because it can't occupy much of it. Iran can't "win" an engagement with the US, but they can block Hormuz for months at low cost. They certainly haven't forgotten the skills used in Lebanon 2006 or during the 2011 RQ-170 capture.

At any rate, provided Trump's ego has been stroked and there's no further military escalation, this episode has been a huge win for Iran. Iraq's government is on a path towards evicting US forces; Iran gets a reprieve from its domestic fuel price riots, its ramping up uranium enrichment, and it looks like the sane/prudent ones in the international community.

They may succeed in evicting US forces from Iraq but it's far from a clear victory for them. For one, sanctions remain (and are being increased), and they've lost their most talented general and the most popular member of their regime. They may have a temporary reprieve from rioting, but the conditions that caused the riots remain.

It’s a relief to hear you were right all along Sanpaku

How does the past week change Europe's INSTEX plans? Germany, France, Britain, Finland, Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden are all onboard as of November 30. US diplomacy has been a failure here.

The proximate cause for the riots were reductions in fuel subsidies. Its something Iran needed to do decades ago.

Also, though I'm not as immersed in Shia culture as say Juan Cole is, losing a talented general and gaining a martyr may not be a poor trade.

I gathered from what sanpaku wrote yesterday that he was speculating (or reporting others' speculations) as to how what happens *in the event of escalation*

iow what the already-banked measures are should neither side stand down

It seems to me that if indeed this week leads to eviction of US troops from Iraq, that is in fact a clear victory for Iran’s regime, and a major shift in the balance of power -and direction of sympathies- in the region. Neither continued sanctions nor the loss of Suleimani diminish that fundamental shift (were that shift to happen... I have my doubts).

Also, though I'm not as immersed in Shia culture as say Juan Cole is, losing a talented general and gaining a martyr may not be a poor trade.

The very fact that Soleimani rose to the top of the IRGC officer corps says a lot about the IRGC: that its a meritocracy. That's far from the situation in most Arab armies. He picked his own subordinates (and successors), and after years of activity in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, had a lot of seasoned options. We're not looking at a army that relies on luck in developing officers, Iran has its own post graduate staff colleges just like the big boys.

I'm not saying their talent pool is dry, I'm saying Soleimani was a remarkable general and organizer whose talents Iran will miss. If you read about his accomplishments it's hard not to be impressed by his experience, skills, connections and accomplishments. Humans, especially exceptionally gifted and experienced ones, are not just replaceable cogs.

It just bothers me to set a precedent that the President can unilaterally assassinate members of foreign governments we don’t like absent Congressional approval.

like Obama did?

Obama unilaterally assassinated American citizens, let's be clear. (I'm not sure about members of foreign governments)

point taken! and I guess Bin laden doesn't count either since we are formally at war with Afghanistan (iirc)

i don't think obama droned any high-ranking officials in countries we weren't at war with. i think the obama drone policy (which trump has continued and in some ways made worse) was fucked up and entirely deserving of the criticism it received, but the potential precedent trump has set here is pretty horrifying, basically gives any president carte blanche to start shit with other countries whenever they feel like it.

Bin Laden also not a member of a foreign government. More like a wanted criminal.

Bin Laden also not an Afghan, or a member of the Afghani government, or even killed in Afghanistan - he was killed in Pakistan.

gah yes sorry, just thinking out loud (badly)

I retract my skepticism, this is a bad precedent

At least his friends Putin and the Saudis stick to killing their own citizens abroad.

which is also what Obama did

Obama didn't drone strike any US citizens on US soil afaik

I think the bumbling assassins Putin sent after Skripal killed two British citizens instead

One unfortunate woman. It should be pointed out that the UK has killed a few of its own citizens in Syria - or got the Americans to do it for them.

Surely the only difference is that Trump is the only one to have been so crass and public about it?

No, going after a general is pretty different. As is going after a journalist like the Sauds did. Actually, most assassinations are different from one another.

^^^otm

conflating all these things is stupid

Oh sorry - I meant the US & members of foreign governments, cos the idea this guy was a precedent is hilarious.

US has typically been more clandestine/covert about it

Well yeah but that doesn’t change the reality of the situation, like Trump is a disgrace but it’s just screaming the quiet part loud. It’s not something completely out of the blue.

Performing a military strike to assassinate the general of a nation-state is new afaik. If that's not an act of war, I really don't know what is. Prez should not have sole authority to order that.

William Blum, the author of Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II, points to a litany of American sins from invasions, bombings, overthrowing of governments, assassinations to torture and death squads. “It’s not a pretty picture” is his blunt conclusion.

The CIA was deemed to have run so amok in the 1960s and 70s that in 1975 the Church committee investigated a numerous attempted assassinations on foreign leaders including Lumumba, Rafael Trujillo of the Dominican Republic, Vietnam’s Ngo Dinh Diem and, of course, Castro. In the fallout, Gerald Ford banned US involvement in foreign political assassinations.

The ban didn’t last long. Since 1976 the US has continued to be engaged in, or accused of, efforts to eradicate foreign leaders.

Ronald Reagan launched bombing raids in 1986 targeting Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi. As recently as two years ago North Korea alleged that the CIA tried to assassinate its leader, Kim Jong-un.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/04/us-political-assassinations-history-iran-suleimani

https://i.imgur.com/Y8hfJ8y.jpg

The target is unusual, but the overall context and specific actions are not new. Presidents have had and used the authority to unilaterally engage in military shenanigans for over 50 years, including violating the sovereignty of foreign governments, making targeted strikes, deploying troops etc.

xp

Trump is a disgrace but it’s just screaming the quiet part loud

^^^this