Iran shoots down U.S. aircraft over international waters.

As I understand it, the United States claims that the drone was 17 miles outside Iranian airspace. That’s not particularly close, and it certainly precludes the idea that the drone was inside Iranian airspace when the missile that downed it was fired.

The President, so far, is treating the downing as if it was a mistake made by someone relatively lower on the rungs of Iranian military hierarchy. I’m sure there will be some sort of response, and sadly I expect it will involve the military. I am quite certain that Iran is doing this to try and provoke responses from us. They will probably keep putting on the pressure, if for no other reason than to make it clear that we WON’T go to war with them…

What makes you so sure it’s not *us *trying to provoke responses from them?

Well, at least there weren’t 290 people on board the drone, 66 of whom were children.

The U.S. and Iran do not agree on the exact location of where the drone was shot down.

U.S. version

Iranian version

Everyone can relax. Putin has said a war with Iran would be bad, and since he is where the buck stops with Trump, that should be the end of it.

To those saying don’t fly in international air space how about don’t fire missiles at the property of militaries that can eradicate yours? That’s just common sense.

Who said the U.S. shouldn’t fly a drone in international airspace?

And if it was in Iranian airspace, they had every right to shoot it down, regardless of the size of our military.

Does anyone know what the two lines in the Persian Gulf/Gulf of Oman are in the Iranian infographic map? The drone’s alleged flight path approximately follows one of these lines and then deviates towards the line closer to Iran before being shot down.

Airspace is defined by Wikipedia as:

I thought one line might be airspace, but it doesn’t appear to match this definition.

I remember that there was a documentary from 1982 called War where Gwynne Dyer pointed out that even if if seen as inefficient, the UN is still the body where nations can look to defuse situations like the one we have or even serve as mediators that can end conflicts sooner than what happened before. That can benefit both nations because war is really a waste.

Unfortunately, we do have a stupid and dangerous crew in power* that also burns bridges to the UN now.

  • We know that Iran has a dangerous crew, ours is also stupid.

Iranian Foreign Minister:

And they said this administration lacks voices of reason.

No “BUT IT WAS LEEEEEEEGAL!!!” argument should make us forget that governments should not try to engineer situations wherein a lot of people get killed.

That goes for Iran too.

So what is the foreign policy goal for the US? The two pillars strategy is antiquated, the Shah isn’t coming back, we don’t need the oil, and we have bases in Afghanistan. Can’t we just let Iran be?

That’s an easy one…regime change has been the goal of certain segments of the US since the Iranian Revolution. There is no goal of bringing the Shah back and probably hasn’t been since the early 80’s at most, but no one really wants a theocratic fundamentalist government in control of Iran…hell, even a lot of Iranian’s aren’t that thrilled anymore with that notion. Basically, the US’s goal has been regional stability because of how vital the oil was to the US in the past, and how vital it is still to many of our allies. And the region basically won’t be stable with a fundamentalist Iran doing the sorts of things Iran has been and continues to do in the region.

Could we just let Iran be? Hard to say. My WAG is…no. Not really. No one, on either side, wants to just let them be. At best, we want to try and control them in a way to lessen their destabilization of the region and avoid them getting nukes. At worst we want to destabilize THEM so that a new regime comes to power that, perhaps, we can have a better relation with and who will be less destabilizing. Leaving them alone, however, is not going to be in the cards as long as the region is so vital, especially with where Iran is and how big it is.

Iran is not real good at the “live and let live” thing. See also: nukes.

Regards,
Shodan

Iran is definitely more stable than it’s neighbors Iraq and Afghanistan. I don’t see how creating further stability problems helps anyone. Does Germany need more refugees?

Other than “We’ve always been at war with Iran.” I don’t get it. It would be cheaper and more effective to send Iran free Netflix accounts, than to continue this stupid provocation.

Countries that have nukes are immune to regime change at the hands of the US. How well did it work out for Iraq and Libya to stop pursuing nukes? Qaddafi was a bad ruler, but Libyans under his rule did stand on the shores of the sea weighing whether it was better to drown than live in Libya one more day.

Iran should pursue nukes, then they’ll be as safe as North Korea and Pakistan. Remember Pakistan, it’s where Bin Laden was living when we invaded Afghanistan.

They are more stable than two war torn countries and that’s a good thing? :stuck_out_tongue: Sorry, but that’s just funny. Also, Iran actively destabilizes the region by it’s actions. It supports several proxy wars and terrorist groups in the region with not only funds but training and weapons. Getting them a Netflix account isn’t going to really solve that or the fundamental disconnect between what Iran wants and what the US wants wrt the region.

I didn’t agree with Trump’s backing the US out of the nuclear deal, but thinking that because Trump is an idiot that means Iran is a good guy or a good player is equally wrong. The US has and continues to have major issues with Iran and it’s policies in the region. And the US isn’t alone in this. I, personally think it was a mistake to take the US out of the deal but I also think that other things Iran was doing would have brought the US into conflict no matter who the president was, eventually, because the two countries have very different goals and stances in the region that are in conflict.

That’s what we used to do- up until very recently. Trump, supergenius, wasn’t a big fan. I believe he was muttering something about Obama as his justification.

My point is that it’s more stable than two war torn countries. Creating a third war torn country isn’t helping if your goal is regional stability.

And I guess I’m more sympathetic to Iran’s regional goals, since they live in the region. Whatever they have done to fund war and terrorism, it has had less of a global impact than our actions in its neighborhood. I can’t think of any action taken by Iran that flooded Europe with so many refugees.