US threaten Iran with pre-emptive strike

*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.