Search results

Personally I agree with those who say an outright invasion in unlikely. That said this bombing wouldn't be casualty free for the US. Aside from any potential retaliation (and the US cannot bring carriers into the gulf), Iran has been preparing for this sort of war for decades, it has anti-air...

Impeachment, Ukraine revelations, ironically probably not the economy.

I don't need to be a fucking psychic, they put Solemani's face on tv with a bunch of prayers in the background and then started swearing vengeance.

Give Iran an excuse to not make a big show of retaliating and getting more people killed. Kinda like they're doing now. Of course this DOES assume that Trump didn't want a big kerfuffle in the first place, which considering he was talking to some friends about something "big" coming up in...

Its done neither of those things. It hasn't dettered so much as enraged Iran and the message of "we kill ur doods" would be a lot better if it was plausibly deniable (i.e, claiming Sulemani died in a tragic accident and the target was one of the people he was with). ATM The US just look like...

For once the US actually has a reason to do it, but then Trump didn't even have the foresight to make it deniable. So Irans going to retaliate and it won't be pretty.

Some sort of doctor, then his brother died and his dad called him back to take up the kingship presidency.

Iran's meddling in the SCW is complex. On the one hand, their propping up the government probably helped keep ISIL from overruning it when it started too go a conquering, on the other hand Assad is well, Assad.

For a parody their efforts against Castro are better. (because exploding seashells)

... I think you may have biases on the matter at hand. Suffice to say, the general opinion of the USA has certainly not gone up.

*looks at trade wars, concentration camps, tensions with neighbours, tensions with eu, the greenland fiasco, that time he managed to get the entire UN laughing at him* You do you man.

Depends on the POV, from a non-american his foreign policy wasn't spectacular but it had no glaring faults and kept the US from directly getting into spats with the other powers like Russia and China. Compared to say the current occupant.... yeah it was okay.

See opposing Iran nuclearly is understandable. Why exactly is it wrong for Iran to be doing what US allies like Saudi Arabia and Turkey are doing?

Whereas the lack of a treaty.... allows Iran to do whatevever they want with more internal support and limited international justification? Sounds like an own goal to me.

Nothing has changed except all those hardliners in Iran who were against the treaty? They got proved right. And the moderate faction is now severely jaded with US promises, and that poses a problem for any descalation in the future. Some of Trumps foreign policy measures have had negative...

That wasn't the treaties point, Trump destruction of it essentially means that Iran is now A: Going to be even more hostile to the US than before (didn't even think that was doable) B: Going to actually get nukes instead of having potential for nukes. - Seriously, a lot of countries CAN make...

Frankly we wouldn't have an Iran problem if Trump had stuck to the deal. Or said problem would be more clearly Iran's fault at any rate.