US threaten Iran with pre-emptive strike

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?