Sure, what did you have in mind
Thanks for this consice yet detailed summary of the history. I knew of the arbitrary boundries drawn up after WWI and the difficulties that caused and the Sunni/Shite conflicts, did not know this went all the way back to Persia.
But I think you last line there is the key -* multiple competing interests and unreconcilable problems
*
The Sunnis and Shites are not going to sit down over a cup of coffee and agree to get along. And the US is sure as hell not going to help in any way. Our government, certainly the current one but past ones as well, don’t understand the region and the people and the history.
So I propose another thread - what should our policy in the Middle East be? Not specifically in regards to this particular incident, but in general. Now and for the next ten years.
I wonder if you would want to create such a thread, outlining the possibilities in broad strokes as you have a more extensive knowledge of the region.
BTW I love your line about Europe being a forest and that the Americas may as well have been on another planet. Reminds me of a line in Lawrence of Arabia - "We had lighting in the streets when London was a village. "
Don’t want to start a whole thread so I hope you all don’t mind a minor digression - can anyone point me to a recent white paper or in-depth article that summarizes the current political/social situation in Iraq in particular and/or the ME in general? Thanks.
There is absolutely ZERO reason the U.S. would invade Iran. It would be 10x the quagmire of post-2003 Iraq. It would give Elizabeth Warren a 500-electoral vote victory over Trump in November.
You can’t blame it soley on Trump, the hawks in the military I’m sure had a lot to do with this. The last people in the room with him.
But I am now a bit reassured, I just read that in Mar-A-Lago, Trump was spotted with his advisors the day of the attack. One was Jared Kushner, his advisor on the Middle East.
We’ll be OK! Nobody knows more about the Middle East than Kushner, other than, of course, Donald Trump.
Jared Kushner couldn’t give competant advice about the mid-eastern side of Manhattan.
Except that Loser Donald has surrounded himself with the same cabal of neocon hawks who’ve been champing at the bit for an excuse to invade Iran for decades, and they know how to manipulate him into doing it.
All they have to do is fill his head with “Wars like this are easy to win” and “Obama never had the courage to invade Iran”.
Having plans–even well-thought-out plans–is one thing. Competently executing them is an entirely different kettle of fish.
I strongly suspect that Quds does not have anybody of sufficient caliber to execute those plans as well as Soleimani could have done. If so, then taking him out makes as least tactical sense, because the damage under anybody else would not be as severe as under Soleimani himself.
Just because it’s stupid doesn’t mean Trump won’t do it.
Retire now!
No.
It’s more like “Suul lah mah nee“.
What I suspect is that he is trying to make it rhyme with “Khomeini”.
When has that ever stopped the last umpteen Presidents?
How exactly is this not terrorism?
It’s just as bad as if the Iran government planted a bomb in Heathrow airport, to kill Mike Pompeo and his entourage during a state visit to the UK.
I boggle at how anyone can justify a military strike on a foreign leader, in a civilian setting, in a country that neither the attacker not the victim belongs to.
It fits so many of the markers of international terrorism?
Not the point. Somebody talks raw uncut bollocks, I’m going to call him on it, there’s nothing more to it than that.
Spit-balling here like the rest.
I see major miscalculations on all sides.
Iran looking to extend its influence in Iraq/Middle East by ousting US personnel thru an escalating campaign against installations throughout the country. Demonstrated by attacks on US/allied bases recently resulting in the death of a US contractor and multiple severe injuries to military personnel. Followed by an orchestrated attack/demonstration at the US Embassy. Anyone thinking this incident wasn’t planned is sadly naive. Their thought was probably that Trump is all hair - no cattle [to coin a phrase] [See North Korea negotiations]. And weakened by impeachment rumblings.
Iraq needed/still needs both US troops/personnel and Iranian forces against ISIS and other insurgents. Different factions in the government dealt with the respective allies/clients with little coordination. Very weak central government being pushed/pulled by external nation states and an ongoing terror campaign. Plan for the future? What?
We (US) are really touchy about embassies; Iran hawks in Trump’s ear were dropping Benghazi Benghazi warnings and we must do something. Maybe we got the wrong guy? Doesn’t matter, no time stone in real life. I just don’t see any planning going on based on our actions. Human life doesn’t figure into responses from many of the actors in the region. It’s going to get bloody and last for another decade at least [yes, yes, wildly optimistic].
Kurds are still screwed.
These two Frontline programs from early in the post are a good start.
After thinking about it, my sense is that while there will be a series of reprisals and counter-reprisals, full-scale war is unlikely. Why? Simply because of the incentives for both parties.
The Iranian regime is in a tight spot both economically and with domestic protests. They don’t need a full-scale war with a superpower though they probably don’t mind a cycle of limited attacks which will help them rally domestic opinion.
In the US I think Trump’s instincts are, correctly IMO, that a full-scale war will not help him politically. He would prefer to go into the election with a decent economy and a country at peace. Of course he will still try to claim credit for this operation as a great triumph, his version of the OBL operation.
Ultimately for both sides are best served by a limited confrontation well short of full-scale war. Of course things might spiral out of control but my bet is that limited confrontation is what happens.
Well, yeah, I’d say it looks an awful lot like that, except the US nationalists will never believe that they themselves could be terrorists because in their minds they’re the good guys no matter what.
This sort of assassination is something that we’d be roundly condemning if done by any other nation.
It’s one of those irregular verbs - I’m a patriot, you’re a resistant/freedom fighter, he’s a terrorist… we’re mass murderers.
It has been argued that WWI and WWII were one single conflict interrupted by a 21 year truce.