Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-04-2020, 05:53 PM
KarlGauss's Avatar
KarlGauss is offline
Entangled
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between pole and tropic
Posts: 8,721

What is Trump's response if a missile attack is launched on the US embassy in Bagdhad


Since Soleimani was killed in an "active war zone" (Baghdad), I assume Iran may invoke the same logic and target the US embassy in Baghdad. Iran could launch missiles (via its proxies) from within Iraq and possibly Syria, too, thus not justifying a retaliatory US strike directly on Iran territory. Or would it?

Would this be the excuse Trump was looking for to flat out destroy the Iranian military and leave Iran impotent for a generation? (I am not advocating anything of the sort, of course. Not only is not a long term solution, but it would guaranty fanatic, insatiable, violent anti-Americanism for generations.)
  #2  
Old 01-04-2020, 05:56 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 16,586
I wouldn't expect all-out war, but Trump would probably declare open season on all known Iranian military assets within Iraq itself.
  #3  
Old 01-04-2020, 06:13 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,872
Who knows? I don't think there's any way to predict what an inherently irrational and incompetent actor will do.
  #4  
Old 01-04-2020, 07:15 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Who knows? I don't think there's any way to predict what an inherently irrational and incompetent actor will do.
That inherently irrational and incompetent actor is, it's increasingly clear, on his own on this one when it comes to the reactions of our allies:

Quote:
The United States' main allies are abandoning Trump over his 'dangerous escalation' with Iran
  • The US's European allies on Friday warned against further escalation with Iran after President Donald Trump ordered the assassination of Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani.
  • The UK said that further conflict "is in none of our interests."
  • Germany also warned of a "dangerous escalation."
  • The US government decided to go ahead with the airstrike late Thursday without informing its European partners, which angered some allies, BuzzFeed News reported.
  • "The purpose of having allies is that we can surprise our enemies and not each other," Tom Tugendhat, the chairman of the UK Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee, told the BBC.
...
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-a...e-world-2020-1

More likely to stay Trump's impulses: the fact that FoxNews hosts are actually divided on this topic:

Quote:
Fox's Tucker Carlson breaks with colleagues and criticizes Trump's strike on Iranian general
CNN Digital Expansion 2018, BRIAN STELTER
By Brian Stelter, CNN Business
Updated 1:50 PM ET, Sat January 4, 2020

On Friday afternoon President Trump praised Tucker Carlson along with other conservative Fox News stars. "We have great people," Trump said.

A few hours later Carlson tore into Trump's decision to authorize the US airstrike that killed Iran's top general Qasem Soleimani.
While he mostly refrained from criticized Trump directly, Carlson condemned "chest-beaters" who advocate for foreign interventions. He asked four questions that made clear his anti-war point of view: "Is Iran really the greatest threat we face? And who's actually benefiting from this? ...
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/04/media...ani/index.html

This is bound to confuse Trump---which, we can hope, may slow down any escalation ideas he might want to put into action.
  #5  
Old 01-04-2020, 07:17 PM
pool is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Inside
Posts: 4,830
Straight from the horse's ass:

Well if you believe Trump, he claims that the U.S. Has 52 Iranian targets already selected for attack if the Iranians attack the U.S. or any of its assets.

https://www.foxnews.com/world/iran-t...-iranian-sites

Last edited by pool; 01-04-2020 at 07:19 PM.
  #6  
Old 01-04-2020, 07:49 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 12,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
That inherently irrational and incompetent actor is, it's increasingly clear, on his own on this one when it comes to the reactions of our allies:

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-a...e-world-2020-1

More likely to stay Trump's impulses: the fact that FoxNews hosts are actually divided on this topic:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/04/media...ani/index.html

This is bound to confuse Trump---which, we can hope, may slow down any escalation ideas he might want to put into action.
We've already established that the airstrikes have been pretty poorly received in Iraq, a place where the US still has 6000 or so troops and regularly exercises influence. We can assume that Iran's militias may well decide to attack personnel there.

But since you mentioned our other allies in Europe and elsewhere, it's worth pointing out that Iran could employ the tactics they were known for in the 1980s: attacks on Americans in Europe, which would inevitably kill Europeans. Wonder how popular the idea of hosting US military personnel would be then.
  #7  
Old 01-04-2020, 08:03 PM
KarlGauss's Avatar
KarlGauss is offline
Entangled
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between pole and tropic
Posts: 8,721
Quote:
Originally Posted by pool View Post
Straight from the horse's ass:

Well if you believe Trump, he claims that the U.S. Has 52 Iranian targets already selected for attack if the Iranians attack the U.S. or any of its assets.

https://www.foxnews.com/world/iran-t...-iranian-sites
Well, that does seem to answer my OP. Yikes!

ETA: I guess it depends on he defines "Iranian", though. They might have plausible deniability. I suppose it's even possible that a third party could attack US assets in a hope to encourage Trump to obliterate Iran's military.

Last edited by KarlGauss; 01-04-2020 at 08:05 PM.
  #8  
Old 01-04-2020, 08:15 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
...But since you mentioned our other allies in Europe and elsewhere, it's worth pointing out that Iran could employ the tactics they were known for in the 1980s: attacks on Americans in Europe, which would inevitably kill Europeans. Wonder how popular the idea of hosting US military personnel would be then.
You may be sure that a certain Mr. Putin has considered that scenario.

My theory is that Vlad has been counting on Donald's dimwitted certainty that Vlad 'cares about him,' and therefore would give him only helpful-to-Donald advice. And, exploiting Donald's dimness, recently Vlad has been telling him to Be Decisive! Attack a major Iranian target! Everyone will admire you and respect you!

Of course the reality is that if world opinion coalesces around the notion that the "imminent danger" excuse for executing Soleimani is bullshit, and calls for sanctioning the USA begin to gain traction, that will be a delicious development in Vlad's eyes. 'How can you keep sanctions on Russia in place when you're in danger of being declared a rogue state yourselves!?!?!'

If the USA had to withdraw forces from those European bases, that would be an extra bonus.
  #9  
Old 01-04-2020, 09:16 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Who knows? I don't think there's any way to predict what an inherently irrational and incompetent actor will do.
But be honest, would you dare to predict the response of even a reasonable President in such a scenario? I mean, ok, nukes are off the table for a sane President. Otherwise?
  #10  
Old 01-04-2020, 09:31 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
But be honest, would you dare to predict the response of even a reasonable President in such a scenario? I mean, ok, nukes are off the table for a sane President. Otherwise?
I think it'd be a bit more likely to be accurate. If we got a Bush type (i.e. neocon), then we can expect escalation, or at the very least an "in kind" military strike response. If it's Obama, then I'd expect an international coalition of stronger sanctions, and maybe some drone strikes on Iranian agents in Iraq and elsewhere.
  #11  
Old 01-04-2020, 09:35 PM
KarlGauss's Avatar
KarlGauss is offline
Entangled
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between pole and tropic
Posts: 8,721
Could the response (to any further "Iranian" attack and not just against the embassy), include the participation of Saudi Arabia? Or Israel? Both? And if so, to try to once and for all utterly devastate Iran's military and its economy, and likely (at least a lot of) its potential to develop/deploy nuclear weapons?

ETA: The Saudi and Israeli populace hate Iran as much as anyone so politically I think it could be done by both.

There are some unsettling scenarios playing out in my mind.

Last edited by KarlGauss; 01-04-2020 at 09:40 PM.
  #12  
Old 01-04-2020, 09:36 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,628
What is Trump's response if a missile attack is launched on the US embassy in Bagdhad

He'll probably take a moment between flushes to historically tweet that the impeachment is a hoax run by someone with a childishly insulting nickname.
  #13  
Old 01-04-2020, 09:41 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 12,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by KarlGauss View Post
Could the response (to any further "Iranian" attack and not just against the embassy), include the participation of Saudi Arabia? Or Israel? Both? And if so, to try to once and for all utterly devastate Iran's military and its economy, and likely (at least a lot of) its potential to develop/deploy nuclear weapons?

ETA: The Saudi and Israeli populace hate Iran as much as anyone so politically I think it could be done by both.

There are some unsettling scenarios playing out in my mind.
Sure, but Iran has already gamed this out and the Israelis and Saudis - civilians - would likely pay a very heavy price. The Saudis in particular would have one hell of a shit storm on their hands as the Southeastern region of the country is known for Shiite anti-government activism (and terrorism).
  #14  
Old 01-05-2020, 12:41 AM
RioRico is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 1,664
The modern US has no allies, only clients and enemies, quickly changeable as needed.

This POTUS is wagging the dog, not his wee weenie. He fears his financials will soon become public, unarguably showing his treasons. Thus this diversion to avoid dying in prison. As combat ensues, the Senate trial for his removal will be shuffled off-stage. Expect the State of Emergency and Martial Law proclamations by or at the SOTU show. Look for troops surrounding Capitol Hill then. Dems and other dissidents will be rounded up right afterward. Are your affairs in order?

I really, really hope I'm wrong.
  #15  
Old 01-05-2020, 01:10 AM
D'Anconia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,790
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
The modern US has no allies, only clients and enemies, quickly changeable as needed.

This POTUS is wagging the dog, not his wee weenie. He fears his financials will soon become public, unarguably showing his treasons. Thus this diversion to avoid dying in prison. As combat ensues, the Senate trial for his removal will be shuffled off-stage. Expect the State of Emergency and Martial Law proclamations by or at the SOTU show. Look for troops surrounding Capitol Hill then. Dems and other dissidents will be rounded up right afterward. Are your affairs in order?

I really, really hope I'm wrong.
This whole post is nonsense.
  #16  
Old 01-05-2020, 06:29 AM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 775
Quote:
Originally Posted by KarlGauss View Post
Since Soleimani was killed in an "active war zone" (Baghdad), I assume Iran may invoke the same logic and target the US embassy in Baghdad. Iran could launch missiles (via its proxies) from within Iraq and possibly Syria, too, thus not justifying a retaliatory US strike directly on Iran territory. Or would it?
I doubt that a missile attack from Iraqi, much less Syrian, soil would be the Iranian response. They'd have to worry about the missiles' reliability and accuracy as well as air defence. That would also be a pretty big signal that Iran is seeking escalate the situation rather than having tit-for-tat exchanges.

My expectation is that Iran will retaliate, but they'll go against a smaller target, possibly a logistical base containing US troops or contractors. The most likely attack will be a rocket attack, and it will ostensibly be done by Iraqi militia forces loyal to Iran. These attacks, of course, would be directed and supported by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. After the attack, they'll issue a press release saying revenge has been achieved, and then quietly accept a US, or US-directed attack against an Iranian supported militia base, thus returning the situation to the prior status quo.

If the attack was against the US Embassy, or rather the Green Zone, I'd expect it to be mortars, or suicide bombers against a checkpoint. Again, conducted through Iraqi militia and I'd expect enough damage that Iran could claim revenge, but not enough to escalate the conflict.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KarlGauss View Post
Would this be the excuse Trump was looking for to flat out destroy the Iranian military and leave Iran impotent for a generation? (I am not advocating anything of the sort, of course. Not only is not a long term solution, but it would guaranty fanatic, insatiable, violent anti-Americanism for generations.)
My guess is that Trump is on the fence on whether he wants to start Gulf War III. I'm sure he'd like to give a Iran a good swift ass-kicking. But he's also probably scared of getting the blame if the US has massive casualties, or if something the US can't control goes wrong. My speculation is that Trump probably thinks he's in a winning position at the moment, and can wait for Iran's move. Trump will probably be happy with small scale tit-for-tat exchanges. If Iran escalates, so will he. The US's priority target will be the Iranian navy and naval bases, as well as any military installations close to the border with Iraq. The US's biggest fear? An Iranian-backed Sunni revolution in Iraq's southeast, led by Sunni militias but effectively run by Iran - and with a strong Iranian "peacekeeping" force to "protect our Islamic brothers".
  #17  
Old 01-05-2020, 07:21 AM
Steken is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 2,332
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
An Iranian-backed Sunni revolution in Iraq's southeast, led by Sunni militias but effectively run by Iran - and with a strong Iranian "peacekeeping" force to "protect our Islamic brothers".
Did you mean to write "Shiite"? Or do you really mean "Sunni"?
  #18  
Old 01-05-2020, 08:05 AM
AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 16,710
There have been several attacks on the US "Embassy" in Iraq. There was a rocket attack in May 2019 as I recall.
No, if they do retaliate it will likely be against a base,probably a smaller less defended outpost. They might try and kill a US General officer, if they want to go tit for tat.
  #19  
Old 01-05-2020, 08:09 AM
AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 16,710
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post

More likely to stay Trump's impulses: the fact that FoxNews hosts are actually divided on this topic:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/04/media...ani/index.html
Never thought I would see the day that Tucker Carlson would be the voice of fucking reason.
  #20  
Old 01-05-2020, 09:41 AM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 775
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steken View Post
Did you mean to write "Shiite"? Or do you really mean "Sunni"?
Would you believe I actually double-checked and still got it wrong?
Shia Islam is the predominant religion in Iran encompassing around 89% of the population.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Iran
Shia Islam in Iraq is most predominant in the southeast, which borders Iran and includes the city of Basra and Iraq's access to the Persian Gulf.
http://origins.osu.edu/article/secul...temporary-iraq (scroll down for map)
All that and I still typed in Sunni. There's obviously a problem with my chair-to-keyboard interface.
  #21  
Old 01-05-2020, 09:45 AM
Steken is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 2,332
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
Would you believe I actually double-checked and still got it wrong?
Shia Islam is the predominant religion in Iran encompassing around 89% of the population.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Iran
Shia Islam in Iraq is most predominant in the southeast, which borders Iran and includes the city of Basra and Iraq's access to the Persian Gulf.
http://origins.osu.edu/article/secul...temporary-iraq (scroll down for map)
All that and I still typed in Sunni. There's obviously a problem with my chair-to-keyboard interface.
Haha no worries mate, happens to the best of us.
  #22  
Old 01-05-2020, 10:40 AM
Superdude's Avatar
Superdude is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Fortress of Solidude
Posts: 10,859
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
This whole post is nonsense.
So is this one, since you refuse to add to the conversation.

On-topic: I can't find a cite now, but I read somewhere that Trump has said that the USA would target cultural centers if Iran retaliated.

Surely I'm not the only one who is disturbed by this. That's not an act of military might, or even an act of war; that's terrorism, plain and simple.
__________________
It's chaos. Be kind.
  #23  
Old 01-05-2020, 01:03 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 10,750
He'll do what his buddy Vlad tells him to do.
  #24  
Old 01-05-2020, 01:35 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I think it'd be a bit more likely to be accurate. If we got a Bush type (i.e. neocon), then we can expect escalation, or at the very least an "in kind" military strike response. If it's Obama, then I'd expect an international coalition of stronger sanctions, and maybe some drone strikes on Iranian agents in Iraq and elsewhere.
Some violence would happen, even under Saint Obama, no "maybe" about it. Surely you know Obama didn't shrink away from using drone strikes
  #25  
Old 01-05-2020, 01:35 PM
Kolak of Twilo's Avatar
Kolak of Twilo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Edgewater/Chicago
Posts: 4,007
Quote:
Originally Posted by KarlGauss View Post
Since Soleimani was killed in an "active war zone" (Baghdad), I assume Iran may invoke the same logic and target the US embassy in Baghdad. Iran could launch missiles (via its proxies) from within Iraq and possibly Syria, too, thus not justifying a retaliatory US strike directly on Iran territory. Or would it?

Would this be the excuse Trump was looking for to flat out destroy the Iranian military and leave Iran impotent for a generation? (I am not advocating anything of the sort, of course. Not only is not a long term solution, but it would guaranty fanatic, insatiable, violent anti-Americanism for generations.)
Something straightforward such as a rocket attack on the US embassy is not as likely as cyberattacks on banking, military and the power grid. Iran likely already has the plans in place. Soleimani was also known for having proxies such as militias throughout the Middle East engage in attacks, whether using heavily armed speedboats to attack frigates or planting IEDs to kill troops. Heavy use of these tactics are much more likely than directly attacking an embassy. There is even concern about sleeper cells already in place in Western Europe and the US.

Soleimani was a master at asymmetrical warfare. Any attacks will almost certainly follow this strategy because the plans have already been prepared and are in place even with Soleimani dead.

Last edited by Kolak of Twilo; 01-05-2020 at 01:38 PM.
  #26  
Old 01-05-2020, 01:40 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,344
There's been concern about sleeper cells for 20 years. Sure, they probably exist but since 9/11 the US has mostly only seen "lone wolf" type incidents. These sleepers were waiting for this?
  #27  
Old 01-05-2020, 01:51 PM
OttoDaFe's Avatar
OttoDaFe is offline
Sluice Gate Tender, FCD #3
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Soviet of Washington
Posts: 2,901
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
He'll do what his buddy Vlad tells him to do.
I can't help but wonder whether Godfather Vlad might have been concerned about Iran getting too big for its britches. So he tells King Cannot that he must be decisive toward them ayatollahs, with predictable results: Iran gets taken down a peg, and US credibility takes yet another gut punch.

There's somebody playing four-dimensional chess here, and it ain't Trump.
  #28  
Old 01-05-2020, 01:57 PM
Kolak of Twilo's Avatar
Kolak of Twilo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Edgewater/Chicago
Posts: 4,007
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
There's been concern about sleeper cells for 20 years. Sure, they probably exist but since 9/11 the US has mostly only seen "lone wolf" type incidents. These sleepers were waiting for this?
Cyberattacks and extremist militias attacking Westerners or military bases overseas are the likely way Iran will respond. Sleeper cell attacks are remote at best but that doesn't make them impossible.
  #29  
Old 01-05-2020, 02:17 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,344
Not impossible but the problem is that "concern about sleeper cells" is blatant code for "let's crack down on the local Muslim population" when the concern is "remote at best".
  #30  
Old 01-05-2020, 03:41 PM
D'Anconia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,790
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superdude View Post
So is this one, since you refuse to add to the conversation.
"...Unarguably showing his treasons."

That's not a conversation.

Martial Law in the next few weeks? Troops surrounding Capitol Hill? Dems being rounded up?

There is nothing there worth discussing.
  #31  
Old 01-05-2020, 03:53 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,344
Thing is, all you ever do is post "Wrong!" without anything else. And you're often, well, wrong.
  #32  
Old 01-05-2020, 04:35 PM
Jonathan Chance is online now
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 23,396

The Moderator Speaks


Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
"...Unarguably showing his treasons."

That's not a conversation.

Martial Law in the next few weeks? Troops surrounding Capitol Hill? Dems being rounded up?

There is nothing there worth discussing.
That may be your feeling but, obviously others disagree.

DíAnconia, per the new rules you are forthwith banned from this thread.
  #33  
Old 01-05-2020, 04:50 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 12,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
The modern US has no allies, only clients and enemies, quickly changeable as needed.

This POTUS is wagging the dog, not his wee weenie. He fears his financials will soon become public, unarguably showing his treasons. Thus this diversion to avoid dying in prison. As combat ensues, the Senate trial for his removal will be shuffled off-stage. Expect the State of Emergency and Martial Law proclamations by or at the SOTU show. Look for troops surrounding Capitol Hill then. Dems and other dissidents will be rounded up right afterward. Are your affairs in order?

I really, really hope I'm wrong.
I don't know if Trump is necessarily wagging the dog; I think the problem is, he simply has no idea what he's doing. This might have been partly motivated by his desire to tear up Obama's legacy. He might also be partly motivated because he knows he ran on a campaign of being anti-Muslim (and he probably truly is anti-Muslim himself). But I really think bigger problem is that he is so clueless about the decisions he's being asked to make that he just acts on a whim without any idea of the consequences. His extreme ignorance leaves him in a position of being taken advantage of by Pompeo and others of a like mind. Just to remind everyone, Trump has absolutely nobody acting in the traditional diplomatic capacity. He has only yes men who take his orders and he has right wing ideologues who advise him.

Unfortunately, with each escalation, Trump paints himself into a corner. If he ends up getting us entangled in a war, he will likely feel compelled to go all the way -- his presidency, the survival of his criminal business empire, and his personal survival and that of his family depend on his waging all out war against his enemies foreign and domestic. It is inevitable that Iran will respond, and they will do so in ways that weaken not only the US but America's perception of its leadership. This is something he and his defenders will refuse to acknowledge and they will wage a vicious holy war to preserve the "real" America.

We've all been talking for the past 3 years about how bad this administration is, and how it will ultimately inflict untold irreparable damage on the republic. That damage has been occurring but not in ways that the average person can necessarily appreciate and observe. But I think that's about to change. We're approaching the day when this is going to be China's world. And we will be the ones taking orders, if we even have a country left.
  #34  
Old 01-05-2020, 05:38 PM
RioRico is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 1,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I don't know if Trump is necessarily wagging the dog; I think the problem is, he simply has no idea what he's doing.
Much that's attributed to evildoing is really incompetence, sure. But Tramp has VERY vigorously resisted release of his financials. Available reports indicate he's owned by Putin. A diversion, whether wag-the-dog or false-flag or whatever, may SEEM to him like the only was to avoid VERY unpleasant consequences when we indisputably learn that he has done the bidding of an enemy waging war on the US, as his UN ambassador and Putin's defense minister have declared. Note the constitutional definition of treason.

Follow Tramp's self-interest.
  #35  
Old 01-05-2020, 06:03 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 12,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
Much that's attributed to evildoing is really incompetence, sure. But Tramp has VERY vigorously resisted release of his financials. Available reports indicate he's owned by Putin. A diversion, whether wag-the-dog or false-flag or whatever, may SEEM to him like the only was to avoid VERY unpleasant consequences when we indisputably learn that he has done the bidding of an enemy waging war on the US, as his UN ambassador and Putin's defense minister have declared. Note the constitutional definition of treason.

Follow Tramp's self-interest.
I honestly don't think he really games things out like that -- I could be wrong.

Trump is brilliant - truly, terrifyingly brilliant - in one sense: he knows how to work a crowd, knows how to put on a show -- he knows that people like a gladiator show. He understands people on an instinctive level. He knows what whets someone's emotional appetite. He also understands - again on an instinctive level - how to attack his enemies, and he can sniff weakness. He knows how to manipulate people. But all of that is at a very instinctive level and we would probably need a true psychologist (which I am not) to explain how it all works.

But actually learning how to use a foreign policy event as a chess move? I may be wrong, but I don't think his brain works like that. Mike Pompeo's brain might work like that. Jared Kushner's brain probably works like that. Stephen Miller's brain absolutely works like that. But Trump's? Nah, I don't see it.

Does it matter whether it does or doesn't? Maybe not.
  #36  
Old 01-05-2020, 06:20 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by KarlGauss View Post
Would this be the excuse Trump was looking for to flat out destroy the Iranian military and leave Iran impotent for a generation? (I am not advocating anything of the sort, of course. Not only is not a long term solution, but it would guaranty fanatic, insatiable, violent anti-Americanism for generations.)
If you're asking about Trump's military objectives, you're asking the wrong question. Everything Trump does is for his own political benefit, mainly as determined by watching coverage of him on Fox News.

If I'm Trump then I'm desperate to take control of the impeachment news cycle right now, and I'm desperate not to look weak, but I also want to hold fire until I really need it in the May/June timeframe. I don't know that he's capable of that kind of restraint, but if someone smart is advising him, and Hannity gives his blessing, it may happen that way.

I expect we go back to incremental escalations for a few months.
  #37  
Old 01-05-2020, 06:30 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
Never thought I would see the day that Tucker Carlson would be the voice of fucking reason.
I know. I found that development almost more shocking than the inciting action (the execution of the Iranian general).
  #38  
Old 01-05-2020, 06:40 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Not impossible but the problem is that "concern about sleeper cells" is blatant code for "let's crack down on the local Muslim population" when the concern is "remote at best".
There are unconfirmed reports of Iranian-Americans--citizens--being detained at a US border, namely the Canada/Washington state border:

Quote:
Washington state officials are investigating claims that Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is detaining Iranian Americans at the Washington-Canada border.

The Washington chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) reported in a press release that they were helping more than 60 Iranians and Iranian-Americans, many of whom were U.S. citizens. The organization alleged that the people were being detained and questioned at the Peace Arch Border Crossing in Blaine.

They also said that CBP was refusing Iranian-Americans entry due to a lack of capacity for them to be detained.

These residents were reportedly returning across the border from an Iranian pop concert in Vancouver, Canada. According to CAIR, people who were detained said that their passports were confiscated and they were questioned about their political views.

Customs and Border Protection is disputing these allegations ...
https://www.kxly.com/washington-offi...ans-in-blaine/

Whether or not these reports prove to be accurate, it's not unlikely that both Iranian-Americans and Muslim-Americans in general might be targeted by the Trump Administration---if there's not enough of a public outcry against such treatment.
  #39  
Old 01-05-2020, 06:49 PM
Steken is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 2,332
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
the execution of the Iranian general
"Execution"?
  #40  
Old 01-05-2020, 07:01 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steken View Post
"Execution"?
Is "extra-judicial killing" more to your liking?

No, I'm not saying Soleimani was a good guy. I'm saying that the rationale for killing him given by the Trump Administration appears to require an extraordinary degree of faith in Trump's honesty, and that many people will be unable to summon up that faith---given three years of experience of Trump.

Two previous administrations were aware that Soleimani's activities were, shall we say, not pro-USA. But they chose not to kill him*---though there were plenty of opportunities---because the cost-benefit analysis said that killing him would harm Americans more than letting him live.

Remember, this wasn't a stateless terrorist. This was an accredited official of a sovereign state. Killing him was a serious matter. It appears that Trump did not take the likely consequences of the decision particularly seriously.



*
Quote:
... "what always kept both Democratic and Republican presidents from targeting Soleimani himself was the simple question: Was the strike worth the likely retaliation, and the potential to pull us into protracted conflict?" ...
https://www.businessinsider.com/why-...leimani-2020-1
  #41  
Old 01-05-2020, 08:30 PM
Jonathan Chance is online now
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 23,396

The Moderator Speaks


Iím also thinking thisíll do better in Great Debates. Itís not about the horse race
  #42  
Old 01-05-2020, 08:35 PM
KarlGauss's Avatar
KarlGauss is offline
Entangled
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between pole and tropic
Posts: 8,721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
Iím also thinking thisíll do better in Great Debates. Itís not about the horse race
Sure. I wasn't sure where to put it myself.
  #43  
Old 01-05-2020, 08:55 PM
FoieGrasIsEvil's Avatar
FoieGrasIsEvil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Land of Cheese Coneys
Posts: 18,220
Quote:
Originally Posted by pool View Post
Straight from the horse's ass:

Well if you believe Trump, he claims that the U.S. Has 52 Iranian targets already selected for attack if the Iranians attack the U.S. or any of its assets.

https://www.foxnews.com/world/iran-t...-iranian-sites
I hate Trump and I definitely believe that 100%
__________________
Posting From Above The Browns
  #44  
Old 01-05-2020, 09:01 PM
FoieGrasIsEvil's Avatar
FoieGrasIsEvil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Land of Cheese Coneys
Posts: 18,220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
Is "extra-judicial killing" more to your liking?

No, I'm not saying Soleimani was a good guy. I'm saying that the rationale for killing him given by the Trump Administration appears to require an extraordinary degree of faith in Trump's honesty, and that many people will be unable to summon up that faith---given three years of experience of Trump.

Two previous administrations were aware that Soleimani's activities were, shall we say, not pro-USA. But they chose not to kill him*---though there were plenty of opportunities---because the cost-benefit analysis said that killing him would harm Americans more than letting him live.

Remember, this wasn't a stateless terrorist. This was an accredited official of a sovereign state. Killing him was a serious matter. It appears that Trump did not take the likely consequences of the decision particularly seriously.



*

https://www.businessinsider.com/why-...leimani-2020-1
Was direct open warfare with Iran an inevitability?
__________________
Posting From Above The Browns
  #45  
Old 01-05-2020, 09:38 PM
RioRico is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 1,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoieGrasIsEvil View Post
Was direct open warfare with Iran an inevitability?
The US has been openly waging war on Iran for a long time, at least since deposing Mosaddegh and installing Reza Pahlavi, more openly since that shah's ouster. As with all our undeclared wars, it's unconstitutional; but as Dubya said, the US constitution is only a scrap of paper. I can't argue that Gen Soleimani was NOT a legitimate military target. I will argue that this is a diversion from Tramp's domestic woes.

Is more-obvious open warfare inevitable? Probably. Neither side is inclined to back down. The Iranian leadership and this POTUS both face existential crises. It will not end well.
  #46  
Old 01-05-2020, 09:49 PM
FoieGrasIsEvil's Avatar
FoieGrasIsEvil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Land of Cheese Coneys
Posts: 18,220
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
The US has been openly waging war on Iran for a long time, at least since deposing Mosaddegh and installing Reza Pahlavi, more openly since that shah's ouster. As with all our undeclared wars, it's unconstitutional; but as Dubya said, the US constitution is only a scrap of paper. I can't argue that Gen Soleimani was NOT a legitimate military target. I will argue that this is a diversion from Tramp's domestic woes.

Is more-obvious open warfare inevitable? Probably. Neither side is inclined to back down. The Iranian leadership and this POTUS both face existential crises. It will not end well.
I (hopefully obviously) meant direct as in, two militaries squaring off. All this CIA stuff yeah...forever and a day. With EVERY country we conduct intel on. Probably ALL countries at this point.

Anyway, I do agree that it won't end well, especially since our escalation I don't think has been seen before, and Iran would like to save face here, preserve it's assets, etc but it doesn't look like there's a way out for them.

You declare our "open" operations against an EXTREMELY hostile, theocratic nation like they don't deserve what they get. Like they aren't trying their level best to de-throne America "The Great Satan"in every way possible. Like they haven't already committed acts that we could have retaliated for before (limpet mines on cargo ships, drone attack on Saudi oil facility.....ringing a bell?).

Regardless of our fault, they stormed our embassy in Tehran in 1979 and took hostages. Fuck them.
__________________
Posting From Above The Browns
  #47  
Old 01-05-2020, 10:00 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 16,586
Another factor that might induce Iranian retaliation is dislike of Trump. It's one thing to have Obama kill your guy, it's another thing to have a grinning, tweeting Trump killing your guy and talking trash about you.
  #48  
Old 01-07-2020, 02:31 AM
RioRico is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 1,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoieGrasIsEvil View Post
...I do agree that it won't end well, especially since our escalation I don't think has been seen before, and Iran would like to save face here, preserve it's assets, etc but it doesn't look like there's a way out for them.
No escape from forcible regime change means their leadership has nothing to lose. If you're going to die anyway, might as well take out as many of the enemy as possible. No, it doesn't end well.

Quote:
You declare our "open" operations against an EXTREMELY hostile, theocratic nation like they don't deserve what they get...
Don't expect me to ever call religious regimes "nice guys". Theocracies suck, some with US support. (Cf. Saudis.) MidEast conflicts likely won't much bother the rest of the world when cheap fusion power comes online. Till then, we're stuck with murderous thugs as enemies and frenemies. Hmmm, if Iran announces discovery of the world's MOST YUGE! oil reserves, will the US swap Arabia for Persia?

Quote:
Regardless of our fault, they stormed our embassy in Tehran in 1979 and took hostages. Fuck them.
A "balanced" response would have the US storm and take hostages at an Iranian embassy somewhere. Right. I seem to recall that many Iranians had reason to dislike the US then - like for installing the Shah and training his vicious secret police, SAVAK. With the rise of the Ayatollahs, the US created new enemies, provoking more US military spending. Funny about that.

All-out war will fuck more than just the Iranian leadership and armed forces. The Doomsday Clock is now tied for its shortest setting, two minutes to Midnight (kablooey). Tramp's little game of escalŠtio won't improve that. Have you prepared a Last Will And Testament? No, wait, it won't matter. "There will be no more misery / When the world is a rotisserie / Nearly ten billion chunks of well-done steak."

This attack was a diversion from Tramp's domestic woes. Will it work?
  #49  
Old 01-07-2020, 04:23 AM
Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoieGrasIsEvil View Post
Regardless of our fault, they stormed our embassy in Tehran in 1979 and took hostages. Fuck them.
We blew up their democracy. Tit, meet tat.


As for the rest of it:

Mahdi said Soleimani was supposed to carry a message from Iran ďin response to the Saudi message that we brought to Iran in order to reach important agreements and situations regarding Iraq and the region.Ē

Iran and Saudi Arabia are working (and have been for months) to ease tensions. We just blew up peace in the Middle East, and you're defending it, based on unsubstantiated rumors.
  #50  
Old 01-10-2020, 05:55 PM
Chief Pedant is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,001
Quote:
Originally Posted by KarlGauss View Post
Since Soleimani was killed in an "active war zone" (Baghdad), I assume Iran may invoke the same logic and target the US embassy in Baghdad. Iran could launch missiles (via its proxies) from within Iraq and possibly Syria, too, thus not justifying a retaliatory US strike directly on Iran territory. Or would it?

Would this be the excuse Trump was looking for to flat out destroy the Iranian military and leave Iran impotent for a generation? (I am not advocating anything of the sort, of course. Not only is not a long term solution, but it would guaranty fanatic, insatiable, violent anti-Americanism for generations.)
Hunh...seems like everything turned out good, so far. It does not seem to me that Mr. Trump is the brightest candle on the altar, so maybe he just got lucky with plinking a bad guy without consequence.

OTOH maybe Mr. Trump and the Ayatollah Khamenei are cut from the same nutty cloth: Blusterers anxious to persuade their public, but at some level bullies who understand they don't want to actually get beat up. If that's true, then deliberate or not, taking out Suleimani didn't risk a missile attack on the US embassy because Iran doesn't want war any more than we do, and Iran is persuaded that Mr. Trump might be crazy enough to go to war with Iran.

The thing we never see in these sorts of exchanges is what happens behind the scenes. "Hey Ali, I realize you gotta do something, but it better not hurt us. And if it does, say goodbye to your ...X... installations." One crazy-ass guy threatening another crazy-ass guy...he might actually have more leverage than a soft-spoken intellectual trying to defuse a situation.

Longer term, nothing changes in this region based on assassinating Suleimani. Nothing improves; nothing is worse. Any future actions on either side may or may not recall this event and may or may not cite it as instigation. But for now its over, and Mr. Trump totally got by with it. Prolly pissed off a lot of Democrats to boot, b/c their dire predictions of Iranian Consequences were so badly mistaken.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:09 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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.

 
Copyright © 2017