US threaten Iran with pre-emptive strike

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!