US threaten Iran with pre-emptive strike

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