Middle East Running Iranian threat news and discussion thread
- Thread starter GoldRanger
- Start date
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
Yes, Trump's tweet was ambiguous in specifics.
That's much less likely to be an oversight, and much more likely to be a deliberate obfustication.
There's a lot of value, in war, in keeping your enemies guessing. Well guess what, the Iranians aren't sure what he meant, and they're sure as hell sweating trying to figure out where might or might not be hit.
It's a very effective way to sow chaos amongst the enemy for very little effort.
I'll judge whether he was aiming at war crimes, when I see what he actually does.
That's much less likely to be an oversight, and much more likely to be a deliberate obfustication.
There's a lot of value, in war, in keeping your enemies guessing. Well guess what, the Iranians aren't sure what he meant, and they're sure as hell sweating trying to figure out where might or might not be hit.
It's a very effective way to sow chaos amongst the enemy for very little effort.
I'll judge whether he was aiming at war crimes, when I see what he actually does.
Arch Dornan
Oh, lovely. They've sent me a mo-ron.
Truly the Troll in Chief.
Yokkiziikzekker
Well-known member
The big issue with this perspective is focusing on Trump at all. It could be literally any other President and despite the obvious characteristic differences and/or domestic policy that would come along with it being a different person, the foreign policy would be largely the same. Trump is just another cog in the war machine, he thinks he is a king but he is a pawn. This goes well back to at the least the Carter presidency, and I think most people knew this was the inevitable outcome of the events that transpired that year.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
...No?
The character of the president makes a huge difference. The Iranians handed over the hostages within a day of Reagan being sworn in, because they knew that unlike Carter, Reagan meant business.
Trump lacks Reagan's deft touch, but he has absolutely demonstrated that if you want to throw down with the USA while he is at the helm, he will not hesitate to swing right back at you.
Obama, on the other hand, was an utter pushover who treated his own nation like it was always the one (more) in the wrong, and it didn't take long for foreign leaders to figure that out.
This. Also the Iranians didn't make big moves toward finally tearing down the nuclear treaty because they've been waiting to see who wins the 2016 elections. If it wasn't Trump they hoped to get the US to return to the agreement, opening up the path to regional domination for them once again.
Arch Dornan
Oh, lovely. They've sent me a mo-ron.
An utter pushover sounds like a cuck.
Peter’s new book, Disunited Nations, is available for pre-Order now on IndieBound, Apple Books, Hudson Booksellers, Barnes & Noble, Amazon, Google Play, or Kobo.
In the middle of the night January 3-4 an American air strike in Baghdad killed Qassem Soleimani, senior General of Iran’s Qud’s Force, arguably the second most important man in the Iranian state. The Americans blame Soleimani for masterminding hundreds of attacks on American forces.
Soleimani was not simply a “terrorist,” but instead a very rare bird. He was a strategic mastermind who also knew enough about the nuts and bolts of military and paramilitary operations to actually direct them on the ground. The common folk in Iran getting uppity? Battlefield losses in Syria? Pro-Iran forces in Iraq facing popular uprisings? Tehran’s answer was always the same: send in Soleimani to take control and use his command of the nexus of guns and protests and RPGs and politics and culture to rework the field of competition. He has been the Iranian fixer since the early 1990s. The “spontaneous, popular” assault on the American Embassy in Baghdad this past week was exactly his sort of operation.
And with that assault, to be blunt, the Iranians went too far. The American force profile in the Middle East region has already dropped by more than 80%, and was well on its way to zero. Consider what has happened specifically during the presidency of Donald Trump:
The Iranians shot down a $200ish million dollar recon drone. The Iranians doubled down on their Syrian and Yemeni operations. The Iranians threw a bunch of ordinance at Saudi oil infrastructure, taking more daily oil supply offline than any attack at any time in history. The Iranians deployed forces to crack down on anti-Iranian protests in Iraq. The American response to all of it was the same: nothing.
But when it comes to embassies, the Americans get twitchy. In the aftermath of Iran’s 1979 Revolution, the Iranians seized control of the American embassy in Tehran and held its staff for over a year. In the American mind that singular event is what set the United States and Iran off on their half-century of mutual recrimination and loathing. (The Iranians’ “singular event” occurred somewhat earlier.) In throwing an attack at the Embassy, the Iranians resurrected a bogeyman from America’s past, all but forcing a response.
If the goal was to force the Americans to the negotiating table or speed their pullout, this move was seeped in unfettered stupidity. The Americans have proven that they’ve had active tabs on someone who really mattered. Now the Iranians have to wonder who else the Americans have eyes on. The “smart” Iranian play at this point would be to suck up the loss of Soleimani and wait for the Americans to resume their drawdown. It is not clear ego will allow that. Iran’s near-immediate pledge of “severe revenge” would certainly argue that Tehran isn’t going to quit while they’re ahead.
Should Iran wish to engage in a “constructive” conflict, there really are not good options.
US forces are mostly out of Syria, so there’s no vulnerability for the Americans there. America’s Qatar deployment is their regional HQ, making it the very definition of a hard target. The only place US forces remain in a meaningful concentration is Saudi Arabia, where the Americans have put in a few thousand extra troops to protect Saudi oil fields. But if the Iranians attack those assets, the Americans are more than capable of using their naval forces in the Persian Gulf to return the favor, something that US Senator Lindsey Graham has opined is the likely next step. Specifically, Graham fingered Iranian refineries. (No one speaks for Trump but Trump, but Graham is the closest thing humanity has to a Trump whisperer.) And while Saudi Arabia has the cash and staff necessary to rebuild quickly, Iran does not. That just leaves Iraq, where attacking what’s left of the American garrisons is a great way to invite more firepower in – firepower that will all be aimed at you – rather than escorting it out.
None of which means the US can “win” either. That would take more troops. A LOT more. Keep in mind the American attempt at just Iraq took 100,000 soldiers and ultimately ended in failure. Troops in-country are now only about 5000.
America’s withdrawal from the region means the Iranians can make the Americans bleed, but only at the edges. The Americans can’t win, but between satellites and drones and naval forces they’d have no problems making the Iranians lose, even if that loss would be far shy of regime change. And at the end of the day, the Americans are leaving anyway. (Which based on your point of view might be kind of a win?)
Two thoughts from this:
First, if the Iranians refuse to just let this go and strike out with the intent of killing US troops, this all goes in a direction pretty horrible for most of the region. The United States no longer has an interest in regional stability. It already has one foot out the door. In any broad anti-Iranian action the US would become the region’s primary cause of instability. Similarly, the Iranians (being an island of Shia in a sea of Sunni) see themselves as the odd men out and have no problem smashing anything that is not theirs. Most everyone would be in the crossfire with Yemen, Lebanon, Syria, and especially Iraq suffering the most.
Second, so long as the Americans are gallivanting around sledgehammering all things Iranian, Saudi Arabia is pleased as punch because it means they don’t have to do as much. It would enable Saudi to build up their regional terror networks under the cover of American power. That would get ugly fast, and much uglier later. Never forget that groups like ISIS are de facto Saudi creations designed to first and foremost counter Iranian power. We just got that chapter closed, and we may be about to open another one.
Best guess? Odds are that’s not how this will go. Iran lacks immediate retaliation options and so will have a chance to cool off a bit. Add in the clerical elites’ newfound concerns for their personal hides and most factors point to Iran not egregiously poking the Americans soon. And the Americans still. Want. Out. With every month that passes with no sticks in eyes, more US forces will have redeployed to less sandy pastures.
But if we were talking about a perfect world, we wouldn’t be talking about this region. You don’t have to be an outsider to miscalculate in the Middle East.
peter Zeihan
In the middle of the night January 3-4 an American air strike in Baghdad killed Qassem Soleimani, senior General of Iran’s Qud’s Force, arguably the second most important man in the Iranian state. The Americans blame Soleimani for masterminding hundreds of attacks on American forces.
Soleimani was not simply a “terrorist,” but instead a very rare bird. He was a strategic mastermind who also knew enough about the nuts and bolts of military and paramilitary operations to actually direct them on the ground. The common folk in Iran getting uppity? Battlefield losses in Syria? Pro-Iran forces in Iraq facing popular uprisings? Tehran’s answer was always the same: send in Soleimani to take control and use his command of the nexus of guns and protests and RPGs and politics and culture to rework the field of competition. He has been the Iranian fixer since the early 1990s. The “spontaneous, popular” assault on the American Embassy in Baghdad this past week was exactly his sort of operation.
And with that assault, to be blunt, the Iranians went too far. The American force profile in the Middle East region has already dropped by more than 80%, and was well on its way to zero. Consider what has happened specifically during the presidency of Donald Trump:
The Iranians shot down a $200ish million dollar recon drone. The Iranians doubled down on their Syrian and Yemeni operations. The Iranians threw a bunch of ordinance at Saudi oil infrastructure, taking more daily oil supply offline than any attack at any time in history. The Iranians deployed forces to crack down on anti-Iranian protests in Iraq. The American response to all of it was the same: nothing.
But when it comes to embassies, the Americans get twitchy. In the aftermath of Iran’s 1979 Revolution, the Iranians seized control of the American embassy in Tehran and held its staff for over a year. In the American mind that singular event is what set the United States and Iran off on their half-century of mutual recrimination and loathing. (The Iranians’ “singular event” occurred somewhat earlier.) In throwing an attack at the Embassy, the Iranians resurrected a bogeyman from America’s past, all but forcing a response.
If the goal was to force the Americans to the negotiating table or speed their pullout, this move was seeped in unfettered stupidity. The Americans have proven that they’ve had active tabs on someone who really mattered. Now the Iranians have to wonder who else the Americans have eyes on. The “smart” Iranian play at this point would be to suck up the loss of Soleimani and wait for the Americans to resume their drawdown. It is not clear ego will allow that. Iran’s near-immediate pledge of “severe revenge” would certainly argue that Tehran isn’t going to quit while they’re ahead.
Should Iran wish to engage in a “constructive” conflict, there really are not good options.
US forces are mostly out of Syria, so there’s no vulnerability for the Americans there. America’s Qatar deployment is their regional HQ, making it the very definition of a hard target. The only place US forces remain in a meaningful concentration is Saudi Arabia, where the Americans have put in a few thousand extra troops to protect Saudi oil fields. But if the Iranians attack those assets, the Americans are more than capable of using their naval forces in the Persian Gulf to return the favor, something that US Senator Lindsey Graham has opined is the likely next step. Specifically, Graham fingered Iranian refineries. (No one speaks for Trump but Trump, but Graham is the closest thing humanity has to a Trump whisperer.) And while Saudi Arabia has the cash and staff necessary to rebuild quickly, Iran does not. That just leaves Iraq, where attacking what’s left of the American garrisons is a great way to invite more firepower in – firepower that will all be aimed at you – rather than escorting it out.
None of which means the US can “win” either. That would take more troops. A LOT more. Keep in mind the American attempt at just Iraq took 100,000 soldiers and ultimately ended in failure. Troops in-country are now only about 5000.
America’s withdrawal from the region means the Iranians can make the Americans bleed, but only at the edges. The Americans can’t win, but between satellites and drones and naval forces they’d have no problems making the Iranians lose, even if that loss would be far shy of regime change. And at the end of the day, the Americans are leaving anyway. (Which based on your point of view might be kind of a win?)
Two thoughts from this:
First, if the Iranians refuse to just let this go and strike out with the intent of killing US troops, this all goes in a direction pretty horrible for most of the region. The United States no longer has an interest in regional stability. It already has one foot out the door. In any broad anti-Iranian action the US would become the region’s primary cause of instability. Similarly, the Iranians (being an island of Shia in a sea of Sunni) see themselves as the odd men out and have no problem smashing anything that is not theirs. Most everyone would be in the crossfire with Yemen, Lebanon, Syria, and especially Iraq suffering the most.
Second, so long as the Americans are gallivanting around sledgehammering all things Iranian, Saudi Arabia is pleased as punch because it means they don’t have to do as much. It would enable Saudi to build up their regional terror networks under the cover of American power. That would get ugly fast, and much uglier later. Never forget that groups like ISIS are de facto Saudi creations designed to first and foremost counter Iranian power. We just got that chapter closed, and we may be about to open another one.
Best guess? Odds are that’s not how this will go. Iran lacks immediate retaliation options and so will have a chance to cool off a bit. Add in the clerical elites’ newfound concerns for their personal hides and most factors point to Iran not egregiously poking the Americans soon. And the Americans still. Want. Out. With every month that passes with no sticks in eyes, more US forces will have redeployed to less sandy pastures.
But if we were talking about a perfect world, we wouldn’t be talking about this region. You don’t have to be an outsider to miscalculate in the Middle East.
peter Zeihan
Arch Dornan
Oh, lovely. They've sent me a mo-ron.
Artillery: Love And Rockets
While Israel wages a major air campaign against Iranian efforts to move longer range rockets and missiles into Syria and Lebanon, it still has a problem with shorter range unguided rockets There are also a growing number of longer range rockets already
www.strategypage.com
@GoldRanger
What do you think of this?
It's becoming clear that thanks to Isis and Syria, the balance has changed for Hezbollah who along with Assad and other Iranians fucked the Sunni Syrians over which explains the celebration of the general's death.
Arch Dornan
Oh, lovely. They've sent me a mo-ron.
Secret Iranian Spy Cables Show How Qassim Suleimani Wielded His Enormous Power in Iraq
A nuanced portrait of Qassim Suleimani emerges from a leaked archive of secret Iranian spy cables obtained by The Intercept.
theintercept.com
TLDR
Suleimani was noted by some of his intel colleagues to be getting too full of himself self promoting his Islamic warrior image and the brutal tactics used since by saying he led many of the Iraqi Shia militia groups to liberate areas, the problem is when the overjoyed Iraqi Sunni get slaughtered in turn and worry about the ironic blowback.
It's war with Iran then.
www.nytimes.com
Khamenei Wants to Put Iran’s Stamp on Reprisal for U.S. Killing of Top General (Published 2020)
In a departure from Iran’s usual tactics of hiding behind proxies, the country’s supreme leader wants any retaliation for the killing of a top military commander to be carried out openly by Iranian forces.
Arch Dornan
Oh, lovely. They've sent me a mo-ron.
Their behavior is starting to remind me of something when I saw the general's face plastered in the funeral and Death to America chants were uttered.It's war with Iran then.
Khamenei Wants to Put Iran’s Stamp on Reprisal for U.S. Killing of Top General (Published 2020)
In a departure from Iran’s usual tactics of hiding behind proxies, the country’s supreme leader wants any retaliation for the killing of a top military commander to be carried out openly by Iranian forces.
It's war with Iran then.
Khamenei Wants to Put Iran’s Stamp on Reprisal for U.S. Killing of Top General (Published 2020)
In a departure from Iran’s usual tactics of hiding behind proxies, the country’s supreme leader wants any retaliation for the killing of a top military commander to be carried out openly by Iranian forces.
So there goes Irans Navy and Airforce.
D
Deleted member 88
Guest
The Iranian leadership I think is smart enough to know that attacking the US full throttle means they lose. But they also can't afford to lose face.
So its sort of a hard dilemma to be caught in.
So its sort of a hard dilemma to be caught in.
Maybe they thought Trump will play nice since it's an election year in America?
The donald has a megathread with links to news about the current events. Apparently the Iranian airforce is being scrambled and they're threatening to have Hezbollah attack Isreal if the US retaliates.
D
Deleted member 88
Guest
Trump is going to address the country it appears on TV.
The hounds of mars may not be restrainable now.
The hounds of mars may not be restrainable now.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm pretty sure that one died the minute Iran didn't even try to hide behind proxies but just chucked missiles and tried to threaten everyone who had US bases in them along with Isreal.
D
Deleted member
Guest
Indeed, @Lord Invictus , I am preparing myself for War at this point. This attack on our airbases in Iraq is definitely an act of War to which we must retaliate. The hammer hangs on the edge of falling.
LifeisTiresome
Well-known member
This is unfortunate. I was honestly tired of more wars.
Trump may well lose reelection cause of this. He did promise no more wars and yet here he goes.
Trump may well lose reelection cause of this. He did promise no more wars and yet here he goes.