And Saudi Arabia, and more.
No we’re not having an Iraq war debate, we’re having a credibility debate between the US and a terrorist country that has previously threatened to close the Straight of Hormuz.
Which one do we believe is responsible for ships being attacked in the Straight of Hormuz? A country with a religious sub-army that does the bidding of a religious ruler or country defended by an army of free citizens who couldn’t keep the pie-hole shut on a dare.
There are far, far more possibilities than just these two.
I’m perfectly willing to accept that Iran bombed those ships. President Clown Shoes and Pompeo, however, were more than willing to believe it before there was any examination of anything. And by the way, “credibility” is not something that the US has on its side anymore.
Ah yes, the model of human rights achievements. Have they threatened to close the Straight of Hormuz?
Has Iran lately? AFAIK, the last time any language like that was used was a few months ago, when the US threatened to block Iran from using the strait. Do you have Iran issuing an un-provoked threat in the last few months?
You’re convinced – fine. I see no reason why anyone would be convinced about who is behind the attacks, but you are free to be convinced by the virtually-nil evidence presented so far, if that’s what you like. It’s probably not reasonable to expect others to be convinced by this lack of evidence so far, though.
Normally it’s a tough choice to make. A bunch of learned internet posters or someone with the intel of the most powerful nation on earth. In this case the two are in agreement.
Setting aside the issue of who actually did it, I get the unsettling impression that a significant number of people actually ***want ***the U.S. (or an American ally) to be the true culprit behind all of this.
I wouldn’t call a video of them pulling an unexploded mine off a vessel from another country a lack of evidence. Or an attempt to shoot down a drone. Or surrounding a ship with military vessels and demanding the crew come with them.
Sounds like evidence (possibly, depending on the specifics of the video) that Iranians tried to pull an unexploded mine off a vessel from another country. Which actually sounds like a pretty nice thing to do – I hope that countries will take mines off of ships when they have the capability and opportunity.
If there is video of this, then that’s indeed evidence of Iranians trying to shoot down a drone.
If there’s video of this, then that’s indeed evidence of Iranians directing a ship’s crew to do something (which US ships have done as well, off and on, for decades, in the region).
None of this sounds like actual evidence Iran is behind this attack, any more than Saudi Arabia’s support for terrorism, or murder of a journalist and then lying about it, is support for Saudi involvement.
Not nearly enough information publicly available at this point to make a conclusion, and I’m not inclined to take the word of proven liars like the Saudis, Trump, Pompeo, and similar (including Iranian officials).
So it must have been that other regime threatening to close the Straight of Hormuz and removing mines from stricken ships.
If you think so, perhaps you could present some evidence. Some of us are reserving judgement for a solid trail of evidence that doesn’t rely on the word of proven liars. The consequences for getting this wrong could be utterly catastrophic, to put it mildly.
I doubt the Saudis are behind this. They’re not competent enough to pull this kind of thing off.
Yes, the consequences of Iran starting a war will be utterly catastrophic. Given Iran’s past calls for the destruction of the US this is a real concern.
As will the consequences of the US starting a war. Funny how things can be phrased, eh?
As would the consequences of the US starting a war. But the propaganda arm of the Trump WH thanks you for your unquestioning confidence in their honesty and accuracy.
Versus a country that repeatedly threatens to sink ships and shut down the Straight of Hormuz?
You’re barking.
Yes, war with a country that’s much larger, more unified, organized, competent, and technologically advanced than Iraq would go even more disastrously then the Iraq war did. Thousands of Americans would be killed, likely for nothing, along with tens or hundreds of thousands of civilians. There’s no winning such a war – it’d do catastrophic damage to American lives, wealth, and prestige, with no gain at all, in addition to all the men, women, and children who would be killed, with their survivors rightly blaming America and carrying that hatred and blame forward for generations. Just dumb death and destruction. Even if we ousted the current Iranian regime, it’d be disastrous. It’s extremely unlikely that whoever followed (if they even managed to hold onto power for more than a matter of a few years) would be more friendly to the US and international way of doing things than the current regime.
No, I’ve just actually learned the lessons of history. This Cheney-esque thought process of wars of choice and “regime change” having benefits is, thankfully, largely discredited and extremely unpopular in the US, but unfortunately, there are still powerful adherents to this idiocy, like John Bolton, and apparently there are still Americans who have refused to learn from their disastrous mistakes.
A hard choice, like trying to choose between trusting Loki and Satan.
I would go with the one who didn’t start a war under false pretexts in the las 20 years.
Sorry but after Iraq the US credibility is bust.