Straight Dope Message Board

Straight Dope Message Board (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/index.php)
-   Elections (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/forumdisplay.php?f=34)
-   -   Iran declines invitation to call Trump about Trump's concerns: Trump the statesman, part 2? (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=875343)

Snowboarder Bo 05-10-2019 12:28 PM

Iran declines invitation to call Trump about Trump's concerns: Trump the statesman, part 2?
 
Or maybe that should be "Trump the statesman? (Part 2)".

Anyway, here's the sitch:
Quote:

A top commander in Iran’s powerful Revolutionary Guard said Friday that Tehran will not talk with the United States, an Iranian news agency reported — a day after President Donald Trump said he’d like Iranian leaders to “call me.”

The semi-official Tasnim news agency quoted Gen. Yadollah Javani as saying that “there will be no negotiations with America.”

The Iranian commander also claimed the U.S. would not dare take military action against Iran but did not elaborate.
It all started last week, with the US announcing that it was moving naval resources to the area in response to a claimed missile shipment that supposedly threatened American interests.

Then on Wednesday, Iran made noise about resuming nuclear enrichment operations.
Quote:

And on Wednesday, Iran threatened to renew some nuclear enrichment that had been halted under the 2015 nuclear deal with world powers — a year after Trump pulled America from the accord, saying it does nothing to stop Iran from developing missiles or destabilizing the Middle East.

But in a softer approach, Trump told reporters on Thursday at the White House: “What I would like to see with Iran, I would like to see them call me.”
The whole "call me" thing is a serious mis-step, IMO. It is a position that conveys both the attitude of superiority and a weakness of will. It's just not how things work: if you want to talk to them, you call them. They don't want to talk to you, or they'd have called already, IMO.

Also, Trump enabled the whole thing by pulling the US from the Iran nuclear accord (INA).

I've got a bad feeling about this.

guizot 05-10-2019 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo (Post 21635315)
The whole "call me" thing is a serious mis-step, IMO.

It's the same bullshit he tried to pull off with North Korea. He thinks that suddenly Iran is going to be so honored by his invitation that it will submit to his demands, because he's such a great "deal maker." He's a self-deluded one-trick pony. Or maybe just an old dog that can't learn anything.

iiandyiiii 05-10-2019 12:51 PM

Abandoning the Iran nuclear deal was IMO the most catastrophic foreign policy blunder since the invasion of Iraq, and with the potential to be even worse. Just incredibly stupid policy.

XT 05-10-2019 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo (Post 21635315)
Or maybe that should be "Trump the statesman? (Part 2)".

Anyway, here's the sitch:
It all started last week, with the US announcing that it was moving naval resources to the area in response to a claimed missile shipment that supposedly threatened American interests.

Then on Wednesday, Iran made noise about resuming nuclear enrichment operations.The whole "call me" thing is a serious mis-step, IMO. It is a position that conveys both the attitude of superiority and a weakness of will. It's just not how things work: if you want to talk to them, you call them. They don't want to talk to you, or they'd have called already, IMO.

Also, Trump enabled the whole thing by pulling the US from the Iran nuclear accord (INA).

I've got a bad feeling about this.

Why do you have a bad feeling about it? The other signatories are fighting the US on this, and are still honoring the commitments by and large. If Iran breaches the 300 KG limit they signed on to honor then that will change, and everyone will reimpose sanctions back to where they were. So, it's in Iran's hands at this point. I think the benefits, even with the US reimposing our own sanctions outweigh the cons for them to continue to honor the thing. I also think it would be smart for them to talk to the US, even if I agree Trump saying to call him is idiotic. But I think there were valid reasons for the US to reassess our stance wrt Iran (their continued support of terrorist groups in the region being the primary one) on this, though I disagreed at the time that this was the best way to do this.

ETA: Of course, what's really going on in all of this is it's a struggle between the 'moderates' (for Iran) and the hardliners, and we've undercut the 'moderates'.

Grrr! 05-10-2019 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21635361)
Abandoning the Iran nuclear deal was IMO the most catastrophic foreign policy blunder since the invasion of Iraq, and with the potential to be even worse. Just incredibly stupid policy.

Yep. The fact that we even got them to agree to that deal was nothing short of a miracle.

KarlGauss 05-10-2019 01:55 PM

I don't disagree with anything you're saying or (what I think) you're implying. The nuclear deal was a good thing and Trump and the Republicans are idiots for putting politics over peace.

On the other hand, Iran does seem to be meddling in a most sinister way with respect to the 'Israeli-Palestinian conflict'TM. They are increasingly involved with sponsoring proxies to destabilize things and inflame that conflict as well as, more generally, in the Middle East, e.g. in Syria and Iraq.

Iran is, ultimately, the Shiite power in a region where, in its opinion, Sunnis are too often calling the shots. And that is intolerable to Iran.

The US could choose to be in a position where they commit to neither Sunni Saudi Arabia nor Shia Iran. But by unreservedly supporting the Saudis, America guarantees an aggressive Iran and makes perpetual conflict in the region inevitable.

So, it's not so much that the US should try to honor the Iran nuclear deal as it is that it should tell Saudi Arabia to get fucked.

septimus 05-10-2019 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KarlGauss (Post 21635519)
So, it's not so much that the US should try to honor the Iran nuclear deal as it is that it should tell Saudi Arabia to get fucked.

Trump tries to be very chummy with the House of Saud, especially since the Crown Prince murdered a journalist in cold blood — something Trump would like to have the guts to do. Is this why Trump is so hateful against the Saudi's strategic enemy, Iran? Despite that Iran is stategic ally of Trump's best pal, Vladimir Putin?

Snowboarder Bo 05-13-2019 03:13 PM

Pre-lims & posturing have already started!
Quote:

President Donald Trump is warning Iran, saying that if Tehran does “anything” in the form of an attack “they will suffer greatly.”

Trump was asked Monday about two Saudi oil tankers and a Norwegian-flagged vessel being damaged in what Gulf officials described as a “sabotage” attack off the coast of the United Arab Emirates.

Details of the incident remain unclear. But it raised risks for shippers in a region vital to global energy supplies at a time of increasing tensions between the U.S. and Iran over its unraveling nuclear deal with world powers.

Trump was asked about the sabotage, and responded: “It’s going to be a bad problem for Iran if something happens.”

bobot 05-13-2019 03:33 PM

Thank heaven there's a level headed genius in the oval office who can address all of the issues created by the level headed genius in the oval office!

Snowboarder Bo 05-13-2019 03:40 PM

Britain speaks up:
Quote:

Britain warned Monday that armed conflict might be sparked “by accident” amid rising tensions between the United States and Iran, as U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo held talks with officials from European powers that are racing to salvage a nuclear deal with the Islamic republic.

Britain’s foreign secretary offered the warning as Saudi Arabia said two of its oil tankers were sabotaged and received “significant damage” Sunday off the coast of the United Arab Emirates, one of the vessels as it was heading to pick up Saudi oil to take to the United States.

Washington has warned shipping companies that “Iran or its proxies” could be targeting maritime traffic in the Persian Gulf region and said it was deploying an aircraft carrier and B-52 bombers to the Persian Gulf to counter alleged threats from Tehran.

HurricaneDitka 05-13-2019 03:47 PM

This is a pretty thorough analysis of the initial shipment of missiles that sparked the increased tension.

HurricaneDitka 05-13-2019 03:49 PM

And here was some sabre-rattling by the IRGC:

Quote:

“An aircraft carrier that has at least 40 to 50 planes on it and 6,000 forces gathered within it was a serious threat for us in the past but now it is a target and the threats have switched to opportunities,” said Amirali Hajizadeh, head of the Guards’ aerospace division.

“If (the Americans) make a move, we will hit them in the head,” he added, according to ISNA.

Snowboarder Bo 05-13-2019 07:35 PM

Setting the table now:
Quote:

An American military team’s initial assessment is that Iranian or Iranian-backed proxies used explosives Sunday to blow large holes in four ships anchored off the coast of the United Arab Emirates, a U.S. official said Monday.

The official said each ship has a 5- to 10-foot hole in it, near or just below the water line, and the team’s early belief is that the holes were caused by explosive charges. The team of U.S. military experts was sent to investigate the damages at the request of the UAE, but American officials have not provided any details about what exactly happened or any proof as yet about the possible Iranian involvement in the explosions.

The official was not authorized to discuss the investigation publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.

Gulf officials have characterized the damage to the tankers as sabotage. Two Saudi oil tankers, a Norwegian-flagged vessel, and a bunkering tanker flagged in Sharjah, one of the UAE’s seven emirates, all suffered similar damage Sunday.

The U.S. has warned ships that “Iran or its proxies” could be targeting maritime traffic in the region, and America has moved additional ships and aircraft into the region.

iiandyiiii 05-13-2019 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo (Post 21640716)

I hope this will be thoroughly investigated by both journalists and hopefully third party investigators. The Iranian government can't be trusted, and unfortunately, neither can the current administration, for the most part.

HurricaneDitka 05-13-2019 07:43 PM

UAE asked the Americans for help investigating. Do you think they're interested in a war breaking out between the USA and Iran? Do you think if the USA was trying to frame Iran for it, they'd say something, or help?

tomndebb 05-13-2019 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka (Post 21640735)
UAE asked the Americans for help investigating. Do you think they're interested in a war breaking out between the USA and Iran? Do you think if the USA was trying to frame Iran for it, they'd say something, or help?

At this point, there is not enough information, to know. Asking the U.S. to assist investigations just means that the U.S. has the most resources to conduct investigations and anyone not directly allied to Iran wants to keep favorable relations with the U.S. regardless of what ultimate goal they desire. How many experts in sabotage investigations does the UAE have to keep an eye on the U.S. And, as GWB demonstrated with his Office of Special Plans, the U.S. cannot be trusted to provide objective analysis. (Bolton strikes me as the sort who would create his own OSP if he felt he could gt away with it.)
North Korea, Iran, and the U.S. are all currently being led by excitable leaders of limited control or sanity and whether it is "the other guys" or the Trump/Bolton team, there are too many torches being juggled near piles of munitions.

HurricaneDitka 05-14-2019 12:20 AM

Quote:

NEW: Iran or Iranian-backed proxies used explosives to blow holes in four ships -- two Saudi oil tankers and two others -- near the Strait of Hormuz, according to an initial assessment of the U.S. team sent to investigate, @CBSDavidMartin confirms.
source

Walken After Midnight 05-14-2019 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka (Post 21641107)

Could so easily be a false flag, and I don't think it's possible to draw any conclusions about who the perpetrators were.

HurricaneDitka 05-14-2019 01:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walken After Midnight (Post 21641129)
Could so easily be a false flag, and I don't think it's possible to draw any conclusions about who the perpetrators were.

I agree that some rumored attribution, without compelling evidence provided, leaves a lot to be desired in terms of confidence in the initial conclusion.

Gyrate 05-14-2019 09:15 AM

"Iran or Iranian-backed proxies". So - it was either Iran or someone else. And we don't know who the someone else is, but despite not knowing who they are or even whether they're from Iran or somewhere else we somehow know that they were doing it in on behalf of Iran. Sorry - I mean "could be" doing it on behalf of Iran.

It probably was Iran but given our other various recent screw-ups in the region based on lies, false intelligence, nefarious political machinations and general incompetence, perhaps some more solid intel would be good before doing anything precipitous.

bobot 05-14-2019 09:59 AM

And it was a piece of cake to get to this point. All we had to do was cancel the nuclear agreement, and then send in our navy! MAGA!

Ravenman 05-14-2019 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walken After Midnight (Post 21641129)
Could so easily be a false flag, and I don't think it's possible to draw any conclusions about who the perpetrators were.

While it is of course necessary to determine who exactly did the attack, especially before lives are risked, let's not kid ourselves that a 9/11 Truther-type thermite inside job conspiracy is plausible.

Gyrate 05-14-2019 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ravenman (Post 21641614)
While it is of course necessary to determine who exactly did the attack, especially before lives are risked, let's not kid ourselves that a 9/11 Truther-type thermite inside job conspiracy is plausible.

It seems unlikely, certainly. That said, it's not like Iran is the only party in the region who would like to blow a few holes in US warships.

Ravenman 05-14-2019 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gyrate (Post 21641779)
It seems unlikely, certainly. That said, it's not like Iran is the only party in the region who would like to blow a few holes in US warships.

Well, now I question whether you're following the news. US warships were not involved.

Walken After Midnight 05-14-2019 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ravenman (Post 21641614)
...let's not kid ourselves that a 9/11 Truther-type thermite inside job conspiracy is plausible.

You trust Saudi Arabia that much to rule them out completely?

WillFarnaby 05-14-2019 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ravenman (Post 21641614)
While it is of course necessary to determine who exactly did the attack, especially before lives are risked, let's not kid ourselves that a 9/11 Truther-type thermite inside job conspiracy is plausible.

He didn’t say anything about a conspiracy theory. He said it could be a false flag. These have occurred several times. There is no reason to associate them with a conspiracy theory.

Even in Iran attacked the Saudis, it would be foolish for the US to continue its provocations against Iran and its nuclear-armed allies.

Snowboarder Bo 05-14-2019 01:26 PM

Well, I'm sure this is reassuring: Trump says US not ramping up for military conflict with Iran
Quote:

Trump was responding to Tuesday’s report in The New York Times that the White House is reviewing military plans against Iran that could result in sending 120,000 U.S. troops to the Middle East if Iran attacks American forces or steps up work on nuclear weapons.

Trump says it’s “fake news.” He says he would “absolutely” be willing to send troops, but that he’s not planned for that and hopefully won’t have to plan for that.

He says if the U.S. was going to get into a military conflict with Iran, “we’d send a hell of a lot more” troops.

Ravenman 05-14-2019 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walken After Midnight (Post 21641923)
You trust Saudi Arabia that much to rule them out completely?

This isn't about trust. It's about tin-foil hats that some people want to wear when the topic of war comes up.

Walken After Midnight 05-14-2019 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ravenman (Post 21641978)
This isn't about trust. It's about tin-foil hats that some people want to wear when the topic of war comes up.

I suggest you write to news outlets, like the BBC, and ask them to remove the inverted commas around the word "sabotaged" and other words and phrases.

WillFarnaby 05-14-2019 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ravenman (Post 21641978)
This isn't about trust. It's about tin-foil hats that some people want to wear when the topic of war comes up.

It is more so about embarrassing credulity amongst the public that has led to real consequences for the victims of the US military.

Ravenman 05-14-2019 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walken After Midnight (Post 21642069)
I suggest you write to news outlets, like the BBC, and ask them to remove the inverted commas around the word "sabotaged" and other words and phrases.

They use a ton of odd quotes in that article. I'm not fixated on one use more than any other. if you want to be the punctuation-marm, have a "blast."

Walken After Midnight 05-14-2019 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ravenman (Post 21642187)
They use a ton of odd quotes in that article. I'm not fixated on one use more than any other. if you want to be the punctuation-marm, have a "blast."

Wikipedia provides several examples of false flag operations used as pretexts to start wars, so it really is a thing.

Saudi Arabia's bin Salman would love to go to war with Iran with the active participation of the United States, and possibly Israel. Bin Salman has already shown boldness and recklessness in his foreign adventures, such as the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, and the kidnapping and forced resignation of the Lebanese Prime Minister. These Saudi actions were so outrageous and brazen that they were described in commentary as "dumb" and "crazy".

So I have an open mind about who perpetrated whatever happened, until presented with some evidence one way or the other. I would be inclined to put the Iranians as the prime suspects, at this early stage, but would not rule out any of the principal regional actors who have vested interests in provoking conflict.

You, however, are proposing a closed-mind analysis, ruling out one possibility for reasons you have not yet outlined, before even seeing any evidence. Why do you rule out the possibility that this could be a false flag operation?

Ravenman 05-14-2019 04:02 PM

I said the cause should be investigated. I'm not in favor of throwing out conspiracy theories in the absence of facts, as you have done.

Walken After Midnight 05-14-2019 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ravenman (Post 21642342)
I said the cause should be investigated. I'm not in favor of throwing out conspiracy theories in the absence of facts, as you have done.

The Iranians have been accused of sabotaging the ships, and they have denied it and called for an independent investigation, while hinting that "a third country" could be to blame. How can that be a conspiracy theory to present their version of events?

My post raising the possibility of a false flag operation was in response to a post reporting of news that a U.S. team had concluded that "Iran or Iranian-backed proxies used explosives to blow holes in four ships." Surely both sides in a conflict situation should be heard, and one side's argument should not be ignored?

Each side should then present the evidence of their claims for us to pass judgement on.

Ravenman 05-14-2019 04:35 PM

Oh, well if Iran denied it, then we've got a stone cold whodunnit on our hands.

Maybe Trump can make a call to Rouhani and then tell the media that Rouhani swears it wasn't him.

naita 05-14-2019 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XT (Post 21635381)
Why do you have a bad feeling about it? The other signatories are fighting the US on this, and are still honoring the commitments by and large. If Iran breaches the 300 KG limit they signed on to honor then that will change, and everyone will reimpose sanctions back to where they were. So, it's in Iran's hands at this point. I think the benefits, even with the US reimposing our own sanctions outweigh the cons for them to continue to honor the thing. I also think it would be smart for them to talk to the US, even if I agree Trump saying to call him is idiotic. But I think there were valid reasons for the US to reassess our stance wrt Iran (their continued support of terrorist groups in the region being the primary one) on this, though I disagreed at the time that this was the best way to do this.

ETA: Of course, what's really going on in all of this is it's a struggle between the 'moderates' (for Iran) and the hardliners, and we've undercut the 'moderates'.

US sanctions affect more than US trade. The US is threatening to go after any company and country that is continuing business with Iran, refusing to extend waivers to countries that have, up unto now, continued buying Iranian oil, with the declared intent to "shut down Iranian oil exports completely".

The EU is trying countermeasures to this, but US sanctions are still continuing to severely reduce the activity of EU companies in Iran, so the situation is already fast moving towards a state where the deal might as well be completely dead as far as the Iranians are concerned.

Snowboarder Bo 05-14-2019 05:32 PM

Marco Rubio eggs it on:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Marco Rubio
It’s all on them, and it’s a grave risk. I don’t want a war, we don’t want a war, but that’s up to them.

Sure, Marco. <slap> I ain't looking' for a fight here, Marco. <slap> It's up to you if this is a fight or not. <slap> Entirely up to you. <slap>

Buck Godot 05-14-2019 05:45 PM

Remember the Maine!

HurricaneDitka 05-14-2019 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo (Post 21642529)
Marco Rubio eggs it on:

Sure, Marco. <slap> I ain't looking' for a fight here, Marco. <slap> It's up to you if this is a fight or not. <slap> Entirely up to you. <slap>

What do you think Senator Rubio is doing that is the geopolitical equivalent of slapping Iran in the face?

bobot 05-14-2019 07:48 PM

"They made me do it!"
Party of personal responsibility, my ass.

Horatius 05-14-2019 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ravenman (Post 21642342)
I said the cause should be investigated. I'm not in favor of throwing out conspiracy theories in the absence of facts, as you have done.



You do realize that at this point, any speculation about who did it could be considered a "conspiracy theory", right? No matter who did it, they would have had to conspire in some way to pull it off, and that includes the "Iran did it" theory.

Planing minor sabotage against a small number of civilian vessels is well within the capabilities of any state-level actor, and quite a few non-state actors. Calling one supposition that State A did it a "conspiracy theory" while accepting the supposition that State B did it as being a reasonable speculation is just plain bias.

iiandyiiii 05-15-2019 09:56 AM

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/14/w...gtype=Homepage

Quote:

One American official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss confidential internal planning, said the new intelligence of an increased Iranian threat was “small stuff” and did not merit the military planning being driven by Mr. Bolton. The official also said the ultimate goal of the yearlong economic sanctions campaign by the Trump administration was to draw Iran into an armed conflict with the United States.
Uggh. And not a little uggh -- this is stomach churning stuff. War with Iran would be the dumbest of all the dumb decisions Trump has made, and likely result in hundreds or even thousands of dead Americans for no good reason at all.

Ravenman 05-15-2019 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horatius (Post 21643042)
You do realize that at this point, any speculation about who did it could be considered a "conspiracy theory", right? No matter who did it, they would have had to conspire in some way to pull it off, and that includes the "Iran did it" theory.

Planing minor sabotage against a small number of civilian vessels is well within the capabilities of any state-level actor, and quite a few non-state actors. Calling one supposition that State A did it a "conspiracy theory" while accepting the supposition that State B did it as being a reasonable speculation is just plain bias.

Oh no, I don't have a bias. If Norway finds out that Saudi Arabia bombed its tanker, I'd fully support a Norwegian airstrike on Saudi Arabia.

Snowboarder Bo 05-15-2019 02:31 PM

Prep work continues:
Quote:

The U.S. on Wednesday ordered all nonessential government staff to leave Iraq, and Germany and the Netherlands both suspended their military assistance programs in the country in the latest sign of tensions sweeping the Persian Gulf region over still-unspecified threats that the Trump administration says are linked to Iran.
Quote:

The movement of diplomatic personnel is often done in times of conflict, but what is driving the decisions from the White House remains unclear. A high-ranking British general said there was no new threat from Iran or its regional proxies, something immediately rebutted by the U.S. military’s Central Command, which said its troops were on high alert, without elaborating.

Last week, U.S. officials said they had detected signs of Iranian preparations for potential attacks on U.S. forces and interests in the Middle East, but Washington has not spelled out that threat, and an alert on the website of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad said that all nonessential, nonemergency U.S. government staff were ordered to leave Iraq right away under State Department orders.

The U.S. in recent days has ordered the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier strike group to the Gulf region, plus four B-52 bombers.

HurricaneDitka 05-15-2019 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ravenman (Post 21643880)
Oh no, I don't have a bias. If Norway finds out that Saudi Arabia bombed its tanker, I'd fully support a Norwegian airstrike on Saudi Arabia.

This piqued my curiousity: Is Norway capable of launching airstrikes on Saudi Arabia by themselves? Wikipedia says the Royal Norwegian Air Force operates a few dozen F-16s, 16 F-35s, 6 P-3s, and 4 C-130s. I don't think any of those have the range to hit Saudi Arabia, at least if they're flying from Norway.

septimus 05-16-2019 03:14 AM

A big danger now was foreseen in the parable about the shepherd boy brat named Donald who cried 'Wolf.' I, for one, won't believe anything the oaf says — and he's surrounded himself with sycophants who are all also liars.

This doesn't just go for me and a majority of rational Americans. Our traditional allies have no faith in the veracity of tweets and farts from this Administration. (Our new "ally," Russia, is of course delighted with most disinformation.)
Quote:

European foreign ministers did not offer Pompeo a group meeting during his sudden visit to Brussels this week, perhaps fearing a photo-op would be seen as an endorsement of the US approach.
This was always the big danger of a Trump Presidency: the possibility of a foreign crisis requiring an adult leader. With Trump and Bolton in charge, the correct default assumption is that everything they think or say is stupid, mistaken or a deliberate lie (despite that even broken clocks can show the correct time by chance).

Snowboarder Bo 05-16-2019 02:59 PM

Saudi Arabia eggs us on now too:
Quote:

Saudi Arabia on Thursday blamed Tehran for a drone attack by Yemen’s rebels that knocked out a key oil pipeline and a newspaper close to the palace called for the U.S. to carry out “surgical” strikes on Iran, adding a new layer of tension to the standoff in the Persian Gulf.
Quote:

Saudi Arabia’s deputy defense minister, Prince Khalid bin Salman, tweeted that the drone attack on two Saudi Aramco pumping stations “proves that these militias are merely a tool that Iran’s regime uses to implement its expansionist agenda in the region.”

A state-aligned Saudi newspaper went further, running an editorial calling for “surgical” U.S. strikes on Iran in retaliation. Iran has been accused by the U.S. and the U.N. of supplying ballistic missile technology and arms to the Houthis, which Tehran denies.

The Arab News editorial, published in English, said it’s “clear that (U.S.) sanctions are not sending the right message” and that “they must be hit hard,” without elaborating on what specific targets should be struck.
ETA: Hey, how's Kushner's Middle East Peace plan working out?

septimus 05-16-2019 04:03 PM

Quote:

Saudi Arabia’s deputy defense minister, Prince Khalid bin Salman, tweeted that the drone attack on two Saudi Aramco pumping stations “proves that these militias are merely a tool that Iran’s regime uses to implement its expansionist agenda in the region.”
How much are those pumping stations worth? A pittance for the House of Saud, right?

I won't rule out that Saudi might be the False Flag operator. They're certainly evil enough. I think they may be watching Putin and feeling jealous: "Hey, we saw Trump the Chump first. Let us have some of that!"

Snowboarder Bo 05-16-2019 04:59 PM

I just realized that i have not read or heard of even one Republican saying that "we shouldn't be the world's policeman" about this. In fact, I can't find anyone saying it, from either side of the aisle.

HurricaneDitka 05-16-2019 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo (Post 21646505)
I just realized that i have not read or heard of even one Republican saying that "we shouldn't be the world's policeman" about this. In fact, I can't find anyone saying it, from either side of the aisle.

President Trump said it last year. That wasn't "about this" Iranian escalation, but it does serve to highlight his generally non-interventionist / isolationist / anti-globalist attitude.

This opinion piece by James Carafano is now ten days old, but said (about Iran):

Quote:

The U.S. is not the world’s policeman or its babysitter, but it doesn’t want to be blindsided by bad actors who think Washington is so preoccupied elsewhere that they can take advantage of the situation. Thus, the U.S. has to demonstrate it is present and capable of acting where it needs to.
Tucker Carlson didn't use the "world policeman" phrase, but he was forcefully advocating against a military intervention against Iran. The Young Turks host tweeted:



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:49 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.