Oh? Which benign M.E. leadership should they emulate? War criminals like Syria’s Bashar al-Assad? Benjamin Netanyahu? Mohammed bin Salman the murderer?
The murderers of Saudi and the U.S.A. are currently engaged in a hot war in Yemen which has killed tens of thousands and … ‘In 2018, the United Nations warned that 13 million Yemeni civilians face starvation in what it says could become “the worst famine in the world in 100 years.”’
But the Iranis are the assholes because they shot down a spy plane. Got it.
I’m amazed that anyone would take Trump’s excuse at face value. He needed to give some acceptable public reason for calling off the strike, and that’s what he came up with.
Probably the real reason is that the Saudis called urgently and told him not to do it. They don’t want a shooting war on their doorstep and the Strait of Hormuz closed.
This has the hallmark of Trump’s “deal making”. He peddles some bullshit which makes him look like a hero. Usually it’s the advisers are hired to guide a president and occasionally restrain him from his worst impulses; in Trump’s WH, it’s an unhinged president who plays the role of adviser and restrainer to even more unhinged aides. “Look, Iran and North Korea, my guys wanna nuke you people - I’m the only one who can save you. So let’s talk. Let’s put together a fake deal and you agree not to disrupt anything while I’m in office so I can look good.”
The situation is quite clear.
Iran should send a bill to the US for the missile used to shoot down the invading drone, which was NOT in international airspace.
I want to take a moment to commend fellow Dopers for mature forbearance in refusing to exploit “cocked and loaded” for purposes of juvenile and puerile sniggering.
Lots of assumptions, as I said. And now you’ve added in some intent that you perceive others to have which is unsupported by the posts in this thread IMO.
Your post exhibits a lot of biases and assumptions, IMO.
Like here:
Weird language. Iran isn’t “suspected of being involved, at some level”. They ARE involved. They were on-site first and helped the crew evacuate, IIRC. So why write “suspected of being involved”? Did you leave off some qualifier phrase(s) or something? Or did you forget that they had been to the ship, evacuated the crew, etc.? They are involved at least as much as the US is involved, IMO. Do you disagree? If you don’t, then why use that choice of words?
Then this:
You’ve already decided that Iran attacked these 2 tankers, it seems. Yet I know you don’t have any more evidence than I do. How do you know it wasn’t a covert Saudi operation meant to stoke things into a confrontation so that the US would do what SA wants without even knowing it (or without being able to publicly disentangle; the effect would bet he same).
You “think folks are bending over backwards” which seems to mean that you glean some nefarious intention not explicitly stated; could you elaborate on that?
I’d also be interested in all the posts where people have characterized Iran “as fully the good guy in all of this, to totally wronged party.” I haven’t seen them. It’s possible, IMO, to wait until there’s real evidence before formulating a solid opinion.
I’m not inclined to give the US government or US business/industry a lot of slack with regards to the Middle East. I’m not inclined to give even that much slack to the current administration regarding the Middle East and even less regarding Iran; I’ve read what many of them have written and said about the subjects for years and they are not disinterested observers.
I don’t recall saying Iranis were the only assholes. Do you require a disclaimer for all such strongly stated opinions, or will context of conversation be sufficient going forward?
This right here. I imagine right now Trump lives most of his hours with Bolton yelling in one ear that we need to go to war with Iran, while Saudi Arabia is yelling in the other ear telling him not to, and Twitter yelling at him not to be a pansy. Tough position, but it’s 100% his fault.
I think you’re actually correct: the hardliners probably do want a confrontation – a minimal one in the short-term in hopes of avoiding a disastrous one down the road. They want to put pressure on the US now because they assume that the US might not be in a position to go full-on into a real hot war. Sure, they know the US is always ready for a conflict, but not as ready as they could be in another month or two. So from their vantage point, it makes sense to start disrupting the global economy now. They’ve obviously exposed ambivalence within the administration in terms of how broadly they support attacking Iran. Who knows maybe they can expose even more rifts and cause even more embarrassment to Trump by knocking a drone out of the sky and having him dither over what to do. Yes, this approach is fraught with risk, but from their POV doing nothing and letting the US put Iran into an even deeper economic hole is even worse. Iran wants to hit the sweet spot between not waiting for their economy (and possibly their regime) to collapse on one hand, and not rushing into a disastrous long, drawn-out conflict if one can be avoided. If Iran is lucky, Trump chickens out and offers to meet one on one with Iranian officials and they work something out that allows both sides to save some face.
Saudi Arabia would love nothing more than to have an excuse for the US to nuke Iran and eliminate a mortal enemy. I seriously doubt MBS is standing in Trump’s way on this one.
Given the state of Iraq and Syria, I would not be surprised if SA were to want to put the brakes on wholesale chaos with a hot war on Iran by the US. They may want the ultimate destruction of Iran, but not with the ensuing uncertainty. Iran may be significantly handicapped to SA’s liking by current sanctions and existential threat by US and Israel. Sometimes, better the status quo you know.
As far as military command and command structure goes, now is prolly the weakest the US has ever been, at least since before the Civil War. We have no Secretary of Defense, just a recently-promoted Acting Secretary. Our C-in-C is a buffoon with absolutely no experience in military affairs AND who’s too stupid to realize that. Even if the US did decide to wage war, it would/will be fraught with poor planning, logistics and strategy, not to mention poor execution because of the poor planning & logistics. The US would likely win the war but would/will almost certainly lose the peace.
I think that whoever first draws blood will lose a lot of the moral high ground and will be seen as the party that starts the war. So far, the damage done has been to metal and machinery, but, if or when human lives are lost, then it will no longer be economic warfare.
So there is a sense that this is a dangerous game of chicken by both sides to see who will start the war. If so, Iran will likely push as hard as they can without causing loss of life. While doing so, they would be, in their eyes, fighting back and having an effect in the economic war. If the U.S. responds in a way that causes loss of life, then the U.S. will have started the war, and will be seen as the aggressor, which will not go down well with the international community, and, probably also parts of the U.S. domestic audience.
Trump said he didn’t think the loss of 150 Iranians would be “proportionate”. Some have suggested this might show that Trump has a compassionate side, although all other evidence would suggest otherwise. I suspect it more likely that even he realised that a death-toll from these incidents of U.S. and allies: 0, Iran: 150 is not a good look, and would likely lead to the commencement of a broader military war.
I’m not sure about this. The Saudi Arabia vs Iran rivalry is the dominant feature of Middle Eastern geopolitics. A short war in which the U.S. destroys the Iranian air force and navy, and degrades the Iranian military, until the point at which Iran is prepared to sign a new deal on U.S. terms, may not be that painful for Saudi Arabia.
I’ve still not ruled out the possibility that the Saudis may be responsible for the tanker incidents, carried out in order to start a war.
I don’t agree with this - the second part, anyway - as the Khashoggi murder attests. There was absolutely zero chance of the Saudis getting away with that - none whatsoever - and it’s been a disaster for them on the international stage. Kidnapping the Lebanese prime minister and forcing him to resign on TV is another example.
Let the record note that I’ve asked the simple question several times, and you won’t provide a clear answer whether a country under sanctions is justified to use violence to resist them. Why can’t you answer it clearly? Seems like a yes, no, usually, or sometimes are all clear answers that you could provide.
Here’s an example of answering questions: I think it’s reasonable for the US to take very seriously attacks against Saudi, Emirati, Norwegian, and Japanese tankers. I don’t think that those attacks warrant war.
If you’ll ever take a moment to read all of my posts, I’ve weighed in against war as a resolution to this crisis several times now. You have made statements that equivocate on whether it is acceptable for Iran to conduct war in the face of your version of a US-led “war,” which everyone else on the planet would call sanctions.
If we were talking about Saud’s older guard (Abdullah) I’d be absolutely inclined to agree with you. But MBS seems like a reckless little prick, much like Donny himself.
If you felt your life was under threat, and it could be saved by smashing - committing violence against - some machinery that doesn’t belong to you, would you do it?
If you felt your life was under threat, and it could be saved by killing - committing violence against - an innocent person, would you do it?
FFS it’s not a “yes, no” question and since you stubbornly refuse to understand why, I’ll try to make a little clearer for you:
This is why I’m not interested in answering your question because you’re not really framing the discussion accurately. John Bolton and Mike Pompeo have been arguing that the United States should violate Iran’s sovereignty and change its regime for years. These aren’t just Fox News commentators; these are people who are influencing the president directly and who color his judgment and how to apply American power in Iran’s direction. May I remind you, then, that a country – any country - has the right to defend its sovereignty and self-determination. When a country is being threatened with sanctions that cripple its economy and with the express purpose of regime change, those are not simply sanctions; those are violations of a country’s sovereignty. What we’ve been witnessing for the past year is the realization of a desire for regime change, so let’s cut the fake jus ad bellum and jus in bello arguments. It goes without saying that Iran doesn’t have the power to retaliate with sanctions in kind. They don’t have the power to retaliate militarily. They either have to continue accepting and withstanding unjustified attacks on their sovereignty, or they have to fight back any way they can.
That’s not Asahi saying that Iran should fight back any way that they can; that’s Asahi saying that regardless of whatever I or you believe, they most likely will. As has been pointed out to you over and over again, it is we who ratcheted up tensions. Moreover, it is we who have the power, and with that power, we have the responsibility to use it wisely. We can’t always make Iran behave the way we want to, but we can control ourselves. We can decide not to make regime change a policy. We can decide to stop using economic sanctions as a way to destabilize Iran and threaten their regime. If we begin doing these things, then we likely don’t have to answer your question because you’re not asking it in the first place.