Report Backs Iraq Strike and Cites Iran Peril
By DAVID E. SANGERPublished: March 16, 2006
WASHINGTON, March 15 — An updated version of the Bush administration's national security strategy, the first in more than three years, gives no ground on the decision to order a pre-emptive attack on Iraq in 2003, and identifies Iran as the country likely to present the single greatest future challenge to the United States.
The strategy document declares that American-led diplomacy to halt Iran's program to enrich nuclear fuel "must succeed if confrontation is to be avoided," a near final draft of the document says. But it carefully avoids spelling out what steps the United States might take if diplomacy fails, and it makes no such direct threat of confrontation with North Korea, which boasts that it has already developed nuclear weapons.
When asked about the omission in an interview today, Stephen J. Hadley, President Bush's national security adviser and the principal author of the new report, said "the sentence applies to both Iran and North Korea."
The 48-page draft of the new "National Security Strategy of the United States," which was released by the White House before a formal presentation by Mr. Hadley on Thursday, is an effort to both expand on and assess the security strategy published by the administration in September 2002, a year after the terrorist attacks against New York and the Pentagon upended American foreign policy.
But in a reflection of new challenges, the document also covers territory that the first strategy sidestepped, warning China, for example, against "old ways of thinking and acting" in its competition for energy resources.
China's leaders, it says, are "expanding trade, but acting as if they can somehow 'lock up' energy supplies around the world or seek to direct markets rather than opening them up — as if they can follow a mercantilism borrowed from a discredited era."
No such discussion appears in the earlier version of the strategy, and Mr. Hadley said the warning was an effort to get China's leaders to think about "the broader constellation" of their interests.
In a reflection of growing tensions between Washington and Moscow, the administration also expresses deep worry that Russia is falling off the path to democracy that Mr. Bush spent much of his first term celebrating.
"Recent trends regrettably point toward a diminishing commitment to democratic freedoms and institutions," the document reads. In a much tougher tone than the 2002 document, it emphasizes that the future of the relationship with Russia "will depend on the policies, foreign and domestic, that Russia adopts."
Mr. Hadley, who was the deputy to Condoleezza Rice, who was the national security adviser when the 2002 document was produced, said the effort was not intended to formulate new strategy, but to "take stock of what has been accomplished and describe the new challenges we face."
He noted, for example, that dealing with economic globalization — a subject the administration rarely talked about directly until recently — constituted a new chapter, and that in other areas "we've learned something over the past four years."
But chief among the sections that remain unchanged is the most controversial section of the 2002 strategy: the elevation of pre-emptive strikes to a central part of United States strategy.
"The world is better off if tyrants know that they pursue W.M.D. at their own peril," the strategy says. It acknowledges misjudgments about Iraq's weapons program that preceded the invasion three years ago, but it is clearly unwilling to give ground on that decision. The report notes that "there will always be some uncertainty about the status of hidden programs since proliferators are often brutal regimes that go to great lengths to conceal their activities."
While the new document hews to many of the administration's familiar themes, it contains changes that seem born of bitter experience. Throughout the document there is talk of the need for "effective democracies," a code phrase, some of its drafters said, for countries that do not just hold free elections but also build democratic institutions and spread their benefits to their populations. "I don't think there was as much of an appreciation of the need for that in 2002," one senior official said.
The new document is also less ideological in tone, and far more country-specific. Syria, for example, received no mention in the older document, but it is cited as a sponsor of terrorism in this one.
Mr. Hadley and other officials said that in using the word "confrontation" the administration did not intend to signal a greater willingness to use military force against Iran's nuclear production sites. But it did indicate a willingness to step up pressure against Iranian leaders, including the threat of penalties that the United States is pressing in the United Nations Security Council.
Even as the White House edited the final drafts of the strategy, the House International Relations Committee voted 37 to 3 for legislation to end American economic aid to any country that invests in Iran's energy sector. The administration has opposed the bill out of concern that it would interfere with efforts to form a common front against Iran in the Security Council.
Still, the wording of the warning about confrontation with Iran comes just two pages after the strategy reiterates the 2002 warning that the United States reserves the right to take "anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack." The juxtaposition is unlikely to be lost on Iran's leaders.
Sections of the new document discuss at greater length the need to strengthen alliances, with specific references to supporting NATO and reforming the United Nations.
Following Mr. Bush's new push to ward off what he has called a dangerous shift toward isolationism, there is a section that refers to the need to "engage the opportunities and confront the challenges of globalization," a word that did not appear in the 2002 document.
The passage hails the "new flows of trade, investment, information and technology," which it says are transforming national security in every area from the spread of H.I.V./AIDS to avian flu to "environmental destruction, whether caused by human behavior or cataclysmic megadisasters such as flood, hurricanes, earthquakes or tsunamis." It stays away from the subject of global warming.
The definitive shift from 'if there will be an attack' to 'when will there be an attack'?
― Gerard (Gerard), Thursday, 16 March 2006 11:47 (thirteen years ago) link
― The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Thursday, 16 March 2006 11:50 (thirteen years ago) link
― Aimless (Aimless), Thursday, 16 March 2006 17:20 (thirteen years ago) link
― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 16 March 2006 17:27 (thirteen years ago) link
how is this bad?
― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 16 March 2006 17:29 (thirteen years ago) link
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.
― Mitya (mitya), Thursday, 16 March 2006 17:32 (thirteen years ago) link
― Mitya (mitya), Thursday, 16 March 2006 17:33 (thirteen years ago) link
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 16 March 2006 17:35 (thirteen years ago) link
― Mitya (mitya), Thursday, 16 March 2006 17:48 (thirteen years ago) link
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 16 March 2006 17:50 (thirteen years ago) link
― don, Thursday, 16 March 2006 22:26 (thirteen years ago) link
US general says no proof Iran behind Iraq armsTue 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..."
― kingfish da notorious teletabby (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 16 March 2006 22:33 (thirteen years ago) link
― Spink, Thursday, 16 March 2006 22:51 (thirteen years ago) link
― Mitya (mitya), Thursday, 16 March 2006 23:36 (thirteen years ago) link
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
― Abattoir Educator / Slaughterman (schlump), Wednesday, 2 November 2011 16:36 (eight years ago) link
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.
― Nigel Farage is a fucking hero (nakhchivan), Wednesday, 2 November 2011 19:09 (eight years ago) link
The Nobel Peace Prize winner lays the groundwork for his next war (or Romney's first):
― Pangborn to be Wilde (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 19 June 2012 14:40 (seven years ago) link
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
― a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 14 May 2019 22:38 (eight months ago) link
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
― mookieproof, Wednesday, 15 May 2019 20:24 (eight months ago) link
It is now confirmed: the US has killed Qassem Soleimani.— Ranj Alaaldin (@RanjAlaaldin) January 3, 2020
― bold caucasian eroticism (Simon H.), Friday, 3 January 2020 01:27 (three weeks ago) link
who is that and what does that mean?
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 3 January 2020 01:30 (three weeks ago) link
Head of Quds force of the IRGC, responsible for Iranian operations in Iraq vs ISIS and in Syria among other things. Hugely important figure
― bidenfan69420 (jim in vancouver), Friday, 3 January 2020 01:47 (three weeks ago) link
Are we now at war?
― Alba, Friday, 3 January 2020 01:48 (three weeks ago) link
i don't know, but it doesn't help that the entire republican party has been pushing for this for 25 years
― But guess what? Nobody gives a toot!😂 (Karl Malone), Friday, 3 January 2020 01:51 (three weeks ago) link
And half the Democrats.
Fingers crossed they show some spine in an election year.
― Greta Van Show Feets BB (milo z), Friday, 3 January 2020 01:57 (three weeks ago) link
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
― bidenfan69420 (jim in vancouver), Friday, 3 January 2020 01:59 (three weeks ago) link
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.
― Mordy, Friday, 3 January 2020 02:01 (three weeks ago) link
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
― But guess what? Nobody gives a toot!😂 (Karl Malone), Friday, 3 January 2020 02:03 (three weeks ago) link
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
― Banáná hÉireann (darraghmac), Friday, 3 January 2020 02:16 (three weeks ago) link
Jack Ryan S2, just replace Venezuela with Iran
― Greta Van Show Feets BB (milo z), Friday, 3 January 2020 02:24 (three weeks ago) link
― ingredience (map), Friday, 3 January 2020 02:28 (three weeks ago) link
this isn’t great
― k3vin k., Friday, 3 January 2020 02:44 (three weeks ago) link
pic.twitter.com/VXeKiVzpTf— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 3, 2020
― But guess what? Nobody gives a toot!😂 (Karl Malone), Friday, 3 January 2020 02:44 (three weeks ago) link
The defensive actions the U.S. has taken against #Iran & its proxies are consistent with clear warnings they have receivedThey chose to ignore these warnings because they believed @POTUS was constrained from acting by our domestic political divisionsThey badly miscalculated— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) January 3, 2020
― Jersey Al (Albert R. Broccoli), Friday, 3 January 2020 03:05 (three weeks ago) link
"defensive actions"... lol. I guess the GOP line is that our drones are defending the Baghdad Airport from its own generals?
― Jersey Al (Albert R. Broccoli), Friday, 3 January 2020 03:06 (three weeks ago) link
― brownie, Friday, 3 January 2020 03:06 (three weeks ago) link
what political leader on earth would think that POTUS is constrained by anything
― j., Friday, 3 January 2020 03:10 (three weeks ago) link
― (•̪●) (carne asada), Friday, 3 January 2020 03:12 (three weeks ago) link
In order to get elected, @BarackObama will start a war with Iran.— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 29, 2011
― (•̪●) (carne asada), Friday, 3 January 2020 03:14 (three weeks ago) link
i didn't even think about that. why did obama do this? why today?
― But guess what? Nobody gives a toot!😂 (Karl Malone), Friday, 3 January 2020 03:15 (three weeks ago) link
oh wait - in order to get elected for an illegal 3rd term!!
my dad was right
it's been nice knowing y'all
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Friday, 3 January 2020 03:29 (three weeks ago) link
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.
― A is for (Aimless), Friday, 3 January 2020 04:27 (three weeks ago) link
thank you for clearing that up
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Friday, 3 January 2020 05:20 (three weeks ago) link
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
― Jersey Al (Albert R. Broccoli), Friday, 3 January 2020 06:06 (three weeks ago) link
― a bevy of supermodels, musicians and Lena Dunham (C. Grisso/McCain), Friday, 3 January 2020 06:09 (three weeks ago) link
In case you want to know who the US just killed: The Shadow Commander https://t.co/lE3RPOeSUs— Jane Mayer (@JaneMayerNYer) January 3, 2020
― ... (Eazy), Friday, 3 January 2020 07:06 (three weeks ago) link
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.
― Le Bateau Ivre, Friday, 3 January 2020 08:46 (three weeks ago) link
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”.
― ShariVari, Friday, 3 January 2020 09:05 (three weeks ago) link
they need to investigate Burisma first before we give them the deets
― 💠 (crüt), Friday, 10 January 2020 13:12 (two weeks ago) link
Sounds like somebody owes Zelensky a phone call.
― Yeets don't fail me now (Ye Mad Puffin), Friday, 10 January 2020 13:16 (two weeks ago) link
more clarification from pompeo on the imminent threat from soleimani. we now know that the threat was "real":
During an interview with Fox News host Laura Ingraham, Pompeo defended President Donald Trump’s drone strike on Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani after Democrats and even two Republicans said the administration’s briefing to Congress on the strike did not sufficiently explain the reason for Soleimani’s assassination.Pompeo accused the dissenting lawmakers of “using this as a political axe to grind.”“There is no doubt that there were a series of imminent attacks that were being plotted by Qasem Soleimani,” he said. “And we don’t know precisely when and we don’t know precisely where, but it was real.”
Pompeo accused the dissenting lawmakers of “using this as a political axe to grind.”
“There is no doubt that there were a series of imminent attacks that were being plotted by Qasem Soleimani,” he said. “And we don’t know precisely when and we don’t know precisely where, but it was real.”
― But guess what? Nobody gives a toot!😂 (Karl Malone), Friday, 10 January 2020 18:23 (two weeks ago) link
at least a 1 in 10 chance that the idea of this threat came to pompeo in a vision from god
― But guess what? Nobody gives a toot!😂 (Karl Malone), Friday, 10 January 2020 18:24 (two weeks ago) link
a series of immanent attacks... We don't know precisely when
Politicians, reporters, family members, please explain the Caroline test to our appointed leaders.
― Now We Know (Sanpaku), Friday, 10 January 2020 18:34 (two weeks ago) link
I think it would be more meaningful if Americans had any interest in International Law
― Muswell Hillbilly Elegy (President Keyes), Friday, 10 January 2020 18:36 (two weeks ago) link
notification on my phone:
NYTIMES: The U.S. unsuccessfully targeted a senior Iranian official in Yemen on the same day a drone strike killed Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani.
― But guess what? Nobody gives a toot!😂 (Karl Malone), Friday, 10 January 2020 20:43 (two weeks ago) link
any other assassination attempts on that day we should know about?
― But guess what? Nobody gives a toot!😂 (Karl Malone), Friday, 10 January 2020 20:44 (two weeks ago) link
contrapoints got cancelled day prior
― Evan, Friday, 10 January 2020 20:50 (two weeks ago) link
the Iranaian Official didn't take the free Hamilton tickets so the whole thing was called off
― Robert Corwen (Sufjan Grafton), Friday, 10 January 2020 21:22 (two weeks ago) link
Iran Says It Unintentionally Shot Down Ukrainian Airliner
― nickn, Saturday, 11 January 2020 04:45 (two weeks ago) link
The Iranian govt throwing IRGC under the bus? Whatever this is, it opens for criticism: Rouhani’s senior advisor asks in a poll whether ppl believe the statement of IRGC commander Hajizadeh regarding the #UkrainePlaneCrash #PS752 #Iran https://t.co/unrNxTdGGH— Sune Engel Rasmussen (@SuneEngel) January 11, 2020
― Frederik B, Saturday, 11 January 2020 13:27 (two weeks ago) link
WSJ: U.S. Warns Iraq It Risks Losing Access to Key Bank Account if Troops Told to Leave
Iraq won't be the last to transfer its trade accounts to other venues.
― Now We Know (Sanpaku), Saturday, 11 January 2020 19:15 (two weeks ago) link
big protests today apparently?
― Mordy, Saturday, 11 January 2020 22:32 (two weeks ago) link
There is mounting anger that the retaliatory strikes launched by Iran on US military bases in Iraq were finely calibrated to ensure no US casualties, but scores of Iranian and Iranian-Canadian passengers were killed by their own forces.
― Li'l Brexit (Tracer Hand), Saturday, 11 January 2020 23:34 (two weeks ago) link
Maybe they should overthrow their government
― Mario Meatwagon (Moodles), Saturday, 11 January 2020 23:48 (two weeks ago) link
I'm sure it hasn't crossed the CIA's their mind
― Li'l Brexit (Tracer Hand), Sunday, 12 January 2020 00:28 (one week ago) link
(xp) And install one more minded to kill Americans?
― Frozen Mug (Tom D.), Sunday, 12 January 2020 01:10 (one week ago) link
There will be outlets for anger. Banners with Soleimani's image are flying from Baghdad to Sana'a. There will be Soleimani Brigades (and in Iran, probably a division). Matter of time before some clever boy deepfakes his face onto Obi Wan Kenobi's last moments. Despite some training issues in air defense, Iran has been playing this really well.
Iran's messaging through action has been pretty interesting. May: 4 tankers disabled at Fujairah, no casualties.June: shoots down a US RQ-4A, no casualties.September: halts Saudi exports through drone attack on Abqaiq, no casualties.January: airbases at Al Assad and Irbil attacked by medium range ballistic missiles with terminal guidance, no US casualties.
Clearly the message in all of these is, "If we wanted to, we could kill hundreds, we could sink ships at sea and in ports, we could shut down Hormuz, step back and start thinking." I think the Gulf states get the message, I suspect the US intelligence community does too. I don't think the dullards at top US elected/appointed positions, who made the cardinal mistake of believing their own propaganda, understand.
― Now We Know (Sanpaku), Sunday, 12 January 2020 01:18 (one week ago) link
or they just don’t care
nice summary, Sanpaku
― never have i been a blue calm sea (collardio gelatinous), Sunday, 12 January 2020 03:05 (one week ago) link
It's obvious they're deliberately avoiding casualties, though I'm not sure that's a sign of strength that would scare the US military. It seems to me it's more a sign that these attacks are intended mostly for domestic (Iranian) consumption.
― o. nate, Sunday, 12 January 2020 03:12 (one week ago) link
Despite some training issues in air defense, Iran has been playing this really well.
― 💠 (crüt), Sunday, 12 January 2020 03:13 (one week ago) link
Yeah that comment was pretty wtf !
― AlXTC from Paris, Sunday, 12 January 2020 04:19 (one week ago) link
xp: No, the attacks are very much responses to Iran's security situation.
Iran's whole deterrence against foreign aggression relies upon the belief by other parties that when facing existential threats, Iran can shut down 20% of the world's oil supply. The Fujairah attacks demonstrated that even ports on the Gulf of Oman (south of Hormuz) wouldn't operate if Iran (and perhaps local allies) chose. The RQ-4A shootdown demonstrated that air defenses were alert and capable of defending territorial waters. The drone attack on Abqaiq demonstrated that Iran could do pinpoint attacks, had local aid within Aramco and Eastern Saudi Arabia, and Saudi air defense of critical infrastructure was pitiful.
War Nerd describes Saudi Arabia as being resilient as a moon colony, and in Eastern/central Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, where there's no water, it really is; the desalination plants are particularly vulnerable. The US might bring in Patriot batteries to pretend to defend a few point targets, but US forces have relied on air superiority for air defense for 80 years, I have doubts we're good at ground based anti-air/missile defense. Consider the Saudis have defended the airport at Riyadh (also an airbase) against dumb Scud type ballistic missiles launched by the Houthi from Yemen for years, using the same Patriot system. They've had hits against the launch vehicles (which also arc in the the same ballistic trajectory), but never the warhead.
The Al Assad airbase attack demonstrated to anyone watching closely that at least some Iranian ballistic missiles had terminal guidance (perhaps using Russian, Chinese, or even US GPS system). This last bit of news should be a huge wakeup call. Iran in the Iraq-Iran war, and Israel during its confrontations with Hezbollah or Hamas, have both been spared many lives because the ballistic missiles they faced were as dumb as WWII V-2s. Playing darts with a board 50 m away. At longer distances, they might hit within a km of their aimpoint, but most impact relatively harmlessly on empty hillsides. At Al Assad, Iranian ballistic missiles appeared to be hitting aimpoints within 10 m. This could have been a simple as a tailfin kit for warheads (this is how the US retrofits its bombs designed in 1946 into smart weapons).
For Iranian true believers, and for millions outside Iran who viewed Soleimani as a heroic figure in the struggle against Salafi extremism, I'm sure that a more "eye for eye" death would have been more satisfying. That may still come as blowback unfolds over the next several decades.
― Now We Know (Sanpaku), Sunday, 12 January 2020 04:25 (one week ago) link
It really isn't WTF. Imagine you're a 20-something junior officer in an air-defence unit armed with the short-medium range Tor system, tasked with defending the two military facilities a few km NNW of Parand, Iran (one being a missile research facility). Perhaps your CO has gone to bed, leaving you on the night shift. You've received a message to be vigilant for US bombers, following the assassination of a national hero, and a symbolic retaliatory strike. Unfortunately, the two military facilities you're tasked with guarding lie directly under the flight path from Khomeni Intl airport to destinations NW. Also unfortunately, your training emphasized autonomous action, as centers for air-defense coordination were expected to be among the first targets. Scheduled traffic flying over your location went barely noticed earlier in the evening, but here comes a new blip (PS752 took off an hour late). Its tracking directly towards the facilities you guard. Because the Tor is a short range system, and aircraft launching guided bombs rise into a climb before releasing and turning away, you have maybe 2 minutes to determine that this radar blip is not a threat. You have no means of directly contacting the plane. Assuming that there's a hotline to Tehran regional ATC, you could call them to deconflict, but what if you don't have a hotline, have never called ATC, or Tehran ATC doesn't answer in time, or Tehran ATC can't confirm that this incoming plane is a civil flight in time. Sweat is beating on your brow.
This sort of shit happens all the time in wartime. Returning WWII bombers were commonly fired upon by jumpy flak batteries when they flew unexpected paths etc. The speed of modern aircraft radically shortens decision times, guided air defense missiles makes mistakes far more lethal. It takes a lot of coordination and experience to prevent friendly or collateral fire incidents.
― Now We Know (Sanpaku), Sunday, 12 January 2020 04:56 (one week ago) link
Well, whatever the technical reasons I don’t think one can say they managed all this « really well » after such a disaster...
― AlXTC from Paris, Sunday, 12 January 2020 06:21 (one week ago) link
Imagine you're a 20-something junior officer in an air-defence unit armed with the short-medium range Tor system, tasked with defending the two military facilities a few km NNW of Parand, Iran
mmmm, what am I wearing
― Suggest Banshee (Hadrian VIII), Sunday, 12 January 2020 15:09 (one week ago) link
― k3vin k., Sunday, 12 January 2020 15:21 (one week ago) link
― Frozen Mug (Tom D.), Sunday, 12 January 2020 15:24 (one week ago) link
― terminators of endearment (VegemiteGrrl), Sunday, 12 January 2020 16:27 (one week ago) link
It takes a lot of coordination and experience to prevent friendly or collateral fire incidents.
The Iranian authorities should simply have closed Iranian air space to commercial flights for 24 hours after their missile strike at Iraq, to assess the US response. This is, ofc, hindsight.
― A is for (Aimless), Sunday, 12 January 2020 19:14 (one week ago) link
@Sanpaku what's a good source for this kind of information?
― Never changed username before (cardamon), Sunday, 12 January 2020 23:05 (one week ago) link
do you have “war nerd” in an unfilled square on your bingo card or something
― El Tomboto, Sunday, 12 January 2020 23:18 (one week ago) link
Only a glaring lack of knowledge about contemporary surface to air missile systems
― Never changed username before (cardamon), Sunday, 12 January 2020 23:45 (one week ago) link
cardamon: with respect to the shootdown site, in satellite imagery there's two fenced military sites directly underneath the PS752's intended flight path, just 7 km NW of the impact location determined from the cell-phone video. On the @bellingcat twitter thread this was identified as a missile research facility but I don't have independent knowledge. Munitions bunkers are visible in the northern of the two fenced areas.
As for the life of a SAM operator, I'd direct you to SAM Simulator, developed by a Hungarian. It doesn't include SA-15/Tor, but presumably the experience is comparable. Public data for the Tor missile system is available at a Wiki page. It's very short range point defense as vehicle mounted SAMs go, only 12 km.
As for a timeline of Iranian actions, you could do worse than this Al Jaz English timeline. Probably more reliable than Al Jaz Arabic, where calls for all Shia to be massacred have gone out from on air commentators.
― Now We Know (Sanpaku), Monday, 13 January 2020 00:18 (one week ago) link
― Never changed username before (cardamon), Tuesday, 14 January 2020 21:20 (one week ago) link
Does anyone have a take on what's the future of this Shia crescent idea - are the Iranian government still trying to create a land link with Hizbollah? Were they in fact doing so as per the BBC doc on Soleimani?
― Never changed username before (cardamon), Tuesday, 14 January 2020 21:22 (one week ago) link
The US government certainly fears this. Some US spec ops that remain in Syria are astride Hwy 2 through Syria's Eastern desert, presumably to interdict this land route from Iran through Iraq and Syria to Lebanon. The area is uninhabited (as in 200 mi to the next gas station uninhabited), has no oil, no surface water, there's literally nothing else of strategic interest in the area. Iran certainly has good practical cause to want this land connection, to facilitate logistics and trade with Syria and Lebanon.
Last night I listened to a podcast with Armin Navabi in which he said even secularist Iranians are fond of the idea of such a Shia crescent, as it would match the contours of the Sasanian Empire. According to Navabi, Iranian secularists have a romantic affection with pre-Muslim Persia, collecting Zoroastrian, Ancient Persian, Parthian, and Sasanian artifacts (all empires that encompassed a current Shia crescent). Also Trump's tweet about bombing 52 cultural sites was the absolute worst thing he's said or done with respect to these natural opponents of the mullahs.
― Now We Know (Sanpaku), Tuesday, 14 January 2020 21:58 (one week ago) link
so maybe it wasn't a strike carefully calibrated not to hurt any americans
BREAKING: Eleven US Troops Were Injured in Jan. 8 Iran Missile Strike https://t.co/ffcpz4AuUh via @defenseone— Kevin Baron (@DefenseBaron) January 17, 2020
― Mordy, Friday, 17 January 2020 06:25 (one week ago) link
Loud blasts followed by sirens were heard in the Iraqi capital. The Iraqi military told Reuters that two rockets had fallen inside Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone, which houses government buildings and foreign missions, causing a fire but no casualties. At least one fell 100 meters from the US embassy.
― calzino, Monday, 20 January 2020 21:48 (five days ago) link
― Never changed username before (cardamon), Monday, 20 January 2020 22:27 (five days ago) link
― Mordy, Wednesday, 22 January 2020 19:05 (three days ago) link
Power moves in a power vacuum I reckon?
― Li'l Brexit (Tracer Hand), Wednesday, 22 January 2020 20:40 (three days ago) link
the arab minority in south-western iran is a bit restive, there's been attacks on military etc. last few years. there was a massacre of troops in maybe 2018 for instance.
― bidenfan69420 (jim in vancouver), Wednesday, 22 January 2020 20:56 (three days ago) link
it's such a closed society if you took the regime's word for it there are no problems their grip is total etc
― Mordy, Wednesday, 22 January 2020 21:03 (three days ago) link
'Sanctions' is a polite way of describing a brutal form of collective punishment that intentionally decimate entire societies. https://t.co/qKMzHCXzi0— Louis Allday (@Louis_Allday) January 15, 2020
― xyzzzz__, Thursday, 23 January 2020 10:28 (two days ago) link
The Defense Department said Friday that 34 American service members have traumatic brain injuries from Iranian airstrikes on Al Asad Air Base in Iraq, contradicting President Trump’s dismissal of injuries among American troops this week.
― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Friday, 24 January 2020 23:23 (yesterday) link
Well, they were only injured in the brain, which he assumes to be a nonessential body part
― Okay, you're an ambulance (Ye Mad Puffin), Saturday, 25 January 2020 05:48 (two hours ago) link
brains are what bored people came up with to explain instinct
― But guess what? Nobody gives a toot!😂 (Karl Malone), Saturday, 25 January 2020 05:50 (two hours ago) link
The brain is the most important organ - according to the brain
― Okay, you're an ambulance (Ye Mad Puffin), Saturday, 25 January 2020 05:55 (two hours ago) link