It would be a mistake to think that Iran doesn’t have serious allies.
China might take Iran’s side in a war with US
It’s also worth noting that China, Russia, and Iran held joint naval exercises in the Gulf of Oman just over a week ago.
I don’t expect Trump’s boot lickers to back down one bit. They will dig in. They will take what is now a foreign policy crisis and they will double down on every decision they make, regardless of the consequences. This can, and I suspect will, become a domestic crisis that will intensify the polarization we now face. The Republicans will rally around Trump whatever he does, whatever the consequences and they will label his critics as enemies. I have not a single doubt that some of his supporters will advocate declaring a national emergency when the circumstances create such an opportunity, and they will advocate going after their domestic enemies using whatever means necessary. We’re entering the abyss.
Yes, not surprising to find a Parliamentary resolution non-binding in a government which is a “republic” in form only. It’s also not surprising to see a rubber-stamp parliament change its mind overwhelmingly once the needs of the leaders change. Congrats on the ‘non-binding’ catch, I’m sure it changes everything.
I doubt either would get involved directly in a hot war confrontation with the US but I could absolutely see them selling them weapons and offering more economic aid. I also wonder how much longer the EU and other countries are going to support Iranian sanctions against them when it’s clear that the US’ only stance toward Iran is regime change.
You’re on a roll today, JT - what did you eat for breakfast?
That’s me openly conceding that the US will win a direct military engagement, as it usually does, and it’s my preface to saying that this is never enough to win a war and never has been enough to win a war. My unstated position, to be clear, is that the win condition is a years-long physical occupation with nation-rebuilding and a friendly government, and the US no longer has the economic, political, or military power to pull that off. So there’s no win condition here at all.
This is what you wrote in post #170:
That’s your proposed goal and that’s what I’m responding to. My responses to you have been an attempt to prove that this goal (1) isn’t the actual goal that pro-war people want, and (2) isn’t sufficient to achieve that actual goal.
What the pro-war people want, but do not want to admit, is for the US to conduct a punitive strike primarily as a show of American superiority, and secondarily to deter Iranian terror by virtue of severe punishment.
This is a straightforward and even a logical goal that’s worked in other occasions in the past. But people don’t want to admit this goal because they know it’s unlikely to work here. We smash the Iranian army and navy. Iran’s fully operational terror network starts striking worldwide in the next few weeks. Then we have to admit (once again) that the American military lacks the superiority to affect its stated political goals, and that the punitive, no-boots air/military strikes were ineffective, costly, and counterproductive to our interests.
In short, don’t do the bang-bang.
Well, I don’t blame you for not “catching” that in the one sentence tweet you read on the subject. Congrats on posting it first though.
Iran pulls out of nuclear deal:
And it will be hard for any of our allies who’ve pleaded with Iran to argue with them.
It puts the pressure back on the US and Israel.
There are reports that Border Patrol is stopping ethnic Iranians at the border for questioning and detention, without regard for their citizenship.
Unless they hold an Iranian passport, how would anyone know that they’re “ethnic Iranians”?
“I’m from Iran.”
“Right this way, ma’am, for questioning and debriefing.”
“… and you sir? What country are you from.”
… gulps… “P-Persia?”
“Oh. They’re not on the list. You may proceed.”
If in fact
- Iraq insists the USA get out, and
- The US complies instead of just taking the Iraqi government over and shooting a few politicians,
Trump will just shift the troops to Saudi Arabia and then tell the Trumpists that he brought the troops “Home.” They will believe it.
Perhaps their names.
How would that work? My last name is of English origin, but I’m of Polish and Slovak extraction.
So, in the instance of a man like Soleimanei - who was responsible for hundreds of American deaths - what exactly *should *be the U.S. response?
Some might say, “Bush should never have invaded Iraq in 2003 and then none of this would have happened,” but that’s besides the point. Should someone like Soleimani get immunity just because he is a member of a formal national government/military?
I agree.
If this guy was really as bad as it has been described then is there really a proper/good time to remove him?
If the killing of this guy leads to the explusion of US troops from Iraq, that’s a huge setback to counter-ISIS operations in Iraq and Syria. Our ability to support the Kurds will be thrown into total disarray.
It seems quite possible that Iran will start enriching uranium again, to what level we don’t know.
European allies are not interested in supporting Trump’s bellicose policies.
Iran is surely going to reconstitute it’s ability to carry out anti-US operations in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, the Gulf, and perhaps elsewhere. The loss of this general does not lead Iran to capitulation.
I’m not really seeing how the killing of this one person moves US interests forward in any actual way.
Not assassinate him? I mean, it’s really easy to turn that around – in the instance of <insert 5 star general or head of the DoD or head of the joint chiefs of staff> who was responsible for hundreds of Iranian/Iraqi/Afghani/Syrian deaths - what exactly should Iran/Iraq/Afghanistan/Syria do?
We’re not at war with Iran – why are we assassinating their generals?
My god, you’re right, CBP would never detain people for random/stupid/illogical reasons.