Soleimani Death

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Members do not see this ad.
jw3600 said:
I’m curious to your thoughts about the not unreasonable theory that this was a political move more than anything? Based off prior tweets and reasonable deductions.
Click to expand...
Maybe? It's hard to know what he's thinking or will do at any given moment. He's certainly unpredictable, impulsive, prone to making unforced errors (granted they never seem to hurt him as much as you'd expect).

I'm just not sure what political purpose this would serve though right now. Distract from impeachment? Why would he want that? The impeachment has arguably been a significant boost to his re-election prospects. Speaker Pelosi won't send it to the Senate. If/when it actually gets there, the Senate trial will be run by his allies and there's zero chance he'll be removed from office. He's poised for a victory lap after the Senate "exonerates" him.

He LOVES a good fight where he can be the victorious victim. I don't think he really wants to divert attention from that circus. It's outrage fuel for his base. Trump and the RNC raised half a billion dollars in 2019 ... his re-election campaign seems to be going his way.

He had to know that any whispering of war in the middle east would cause the stock market to drop. Given that the strong economy and strong stock market are a crucial cornerstone of his re-election campaign, wouldn't the selfish political move have been to NOT act?

And if it was politically motivated, why now? There were any number of times in just the last 6 months when it would have been expedient for him to seize the headlines.

Why not after Iran attacked shipping in June?
Why not after Iran shot down our drone in international airspace in June?
Why not after Iranian proxies staged rocket attacks on US facilities in Iraq throughout the fall?
Why not after Iran attacked Saudi oil refineries in September?
It wasn't until Dec 29th that we responded with military force, killing some Shia/Iranian militia in Iraq, after they killed one and wounded several Americans.
It wasn't until now that we killed Soleimani, after they attacked our embassy.

Why not this July during the Democratic National Convention?
 
Mikkel said:
You could be sure that if Trump didn't decapitate Mani, Democrats would be criticizing Trump for "appeasing dictatorships" if Mani followed through on his bigger and bigger terrorist attacks.
Click to expand...

I don't often agree with you, but you're absolutely right about the Democrats' response.

hpkvyk09rh841.jpg


I guess next up we'll have to wait and see how the Democratic presidential candidates will compete with each other to see who can most help Trump get re-elected over this.
 
the entire Middle East is just one large gas station. As with a gas station, the whole point is to fill up your car and drive on. Not a big deal if you leave the bathroom a little messy....
 
pgg said:
Maybe? It's hard to know what he's thinking or will do at any given moment. He's certainly unpredictable, impulsive, prone to making unforced errors (granted they never seem to hurt him as much as you'd expect).

I'm just not sure what political purpose this would serve though right now. Distract from impeachment? Why would he want that? The impeachment has arguably been a significant boost to his re-election prospects. Speaker Pelosi won't send it to the Senate. If/when it actually gets there, the Senate trial will be run by his allies and there's zero chance he'll be removed from office. He's poised for a victory lap after the Senate "exonerates" him.

He LOVES a good fight where he can be the victorious victim. I don't think he really wants to divert attention from that circus. It's outrage fuel for his base. Trump and the RNC raised half a billion dollars in 2019 ... his re-election campaign seems to be going his way.

He had to know that any whispering of war in the middle east would cause the stock market to drop. Given that the strong economy and strong stock market are a crucial cornerstone of his re-election campaign, wouldn't the selfish political move have been to NOT act?

And if it was politically motivated, why now? There were any number of times in just the last 6 months when it would have been expedient for him to seize the headlines.

Why not after Iran attacked shipping in June?
Why not after Iran shot down our drone in international airspace in June?
Why not after Iranian proxies staged rocket attacks on US facilities in Iraq throughout the fall?
Why not after Iran attacked Saudi oil refineries in September?
It wasn't until Dec 29th that we responded with military force, killing some Shia/Iranian militia in Iraq, after they killed one and wounded several Americans.
It wasn't until now that we killed Soleimani, after they attacked our embassy.

Why not this July during the Democratic National Convention?
Click to expand...

It was about 48 hours after the Ayatollah said “Trump can’t do a damn thing” I don’t find it impossible to believe that the personal insult didn’t play some role in the decision to move forward.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
 
Shimmy8 said:
Honestly, it’s just a shame we (at least I) can’t trust that this action was taken in the best interest of the country rather than best interest of politics.
Click to expand...

Why must they be mutually exclusive? It would seem logical that the vast majority of executive actions that are good for the country will also be politically advantageous.
 
I file this under “who cares.” We’ve been blowing people up for decades. This is no different. If Iran wants to hurt the U.S. then they should commit one of those cyber attacks everyone is scared of and erase all student debt...Mr. Robot style. That would be more crippling than any dumb embassy bombing they might try.
 
dr doze said:
It was about 48 hours after the Ayatollah said “Trump can’t do a damn thing” I don’t find it impossible to believe that the personal insult didn’t play some role in the decision to move forward.
Click to expand...

Plenty of foreign actions are tests of what other foreign leaders will respond with, whether direct or indirect.

Assad gassed his own people, Trump blew up their air force.

Iran shot down $300,000,000 drone, Trump held back a strike.

They all test each other.
 
Mikkel said:
Plenty of foreign actions are tests of what other foreign leaders will respond with, whether direct or indirect.

Assad gassed his own people, Trump blew up their air force.

Iran shot down $300,000,000 drone, Trump held back a strike.

They all test each other.
Click to expand...

I don’t find this action unreasonable. I just seriously question whether Trump’s decision making was deliberative, well reasoned and thoughtful as opposed to the result of a childish tantrum at being personally insulted.

There is a reason that the balloon baby trump is so poignant.

Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
 
dr doze said:
I don’t find this action unreasonable. I just seriously question whether Trump’s decision making was deliberative, well reasoned and thoughtful as opposed to the result of a childish tantrum at being personally insulted.

There is a reason that the balloon baby trump is so poignant.
Click to expand...

Your comment perfectly illustrates the divide between Trump supporters and Trump haters. If you support Trump, you think the action was carefully deliberated and part of a strategy, or geniusly spontaneous. If you hate Trump, you think the action was carefully deliberated as part of an illegal reelection scheme, or it was negligently and irrationally spontaneous.

All the controversial actions of the president can be analysed via this litmus test.
 
What's more difficult for the Democrats is distancing themselves from the insane fringes of their party who decry the "outrageous" killing of an Iranian terrorist leader, yet underplay the effects these terrorists have had on American civilians and American soldiers.


The fact that Mani facilitated passage of the 9/11 terrorists through Iran just about made the heads explode of Democrats (who are opposed to targeted killing of foreign terrorist leaders but supportive of Obama killing American citizens in drone strikes).

As one leftist commentator recently said, "right action, wrong Commander in Chief."


Unfortunately for the Democrats, they'll have to explain why killing a terrorist leader who killed 18% of American soldiers from 2003-2011 is an outrage but the September 11 attacks were just "some people did something". Ilhan Omar is a cherished leader of the Democrat party right now, and apparently she's in charge of DNC middle eastern policy.

It's an easy campaign slogan for Trump "the Democrats were outraged that I annihilated a guy who killed hundreds of American servicemen. Whose side are these crazy people on, am I right?"
 
Mikkel said:
Your comment perfectly illustrates the divide between Trump supporters and Trump haters. If you support Trump, you think the action was carefully deliberated and part of a strategy, or geniusly spontaneous. If you hate Trump, you think the action was carefully deliberated as part of an illegal reelection scheme, or it was negligently and irrationally spontaneous.

All the controversial actions of the president can be analysed via this litmus test.
Click to expand...

I think that there is more than a little evidence that Trump is temperamentally an outlier from any of the occupants of the Oval Office in living memory.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
 
Peterluger said:
The **** is that supposed to mean?
Click to expand...
It means I don’t give a fu(k what goes on in the Middle East so long as the oil keeps flowing. This “crisis” is not a problem for us. The region has been problematic since the dawn of time and the people there are not becoming civilized anytime soon. Both republican and Democratic presidents have enjoyed bombing the Middle East every now and again. If memory serves Clinton carried out missle strikes against Iraq during his own impeachment. Same old story......
 
dannyboy1 said:
It means I don’t give a fu(k what goes on in the Middle East so long as the oil keeps flowing. This “crisis” is not a problem for us. The region has been problematic since the dawn of time and the people there are not becoming civilized anytime soon. Both republican and Democratic presidents have enjoyed bombing the Middle East every now and again. If memory serves Clinton carried out missle strikes against Iraq during his own impeachment. Same old story......
Click to expand...
Not civilized? Who attacked Iraq and displaced and/or killed millions of people? I’d call that pretty uncivilized, buddy
 
sees
Mikkel said:
Your comment perfectly illustrates the divide between Trump supporters and Trump haters. If you support Trump, you think the action was carefully deliberated and part of a strategy, or geniusly spontaneous. If you hate Trump, you think the action was carefully deliberated as part of an illegal reelection scheme, or it was negligently and irrationally spontaneous.

All the controversial actions of the president can be analysed via this litmus test.
Click to expand...

OR you’re somewhere in between: a reasonable human with a brain who thinks Trump isn’t as bad on policy as the “haters” but also thinks he’s a little unhinged and embarrassing.

Bottom line, and I’m not speaking for anyone else, but I do not trust him. I don’t trust his actions, and obviously not his comments because he’s a flat out liar with zero respect for the public or anyone else. He’s an idiot who will say or do ANYTHING to pander to his base to win reeleaction.

But I also don’t disagree with a lot of what he’s done in office from policy perspective.
 
thinkorswim said:
...


To be honest, I think it’s comments like yours that further creates this divide. Die hard Trump supporters feel that any disagreement or question of Trump’s judgement is due to some TDS or whatever you call it. It’s unconscionable that Trump can do anything wrong and he’s held beyond reproach. I think this sort of reactionary behavior is just as ridiculous as the Democratic/leftist/socialist approach that you hate.

Everything isn’t so black and white. Try to listen to both sides, think critically about something, and then make your own informed decision.
Click to expand...
Reread what I wrote. Both sides see what they want to see regarding master/evil genius vs spontaneous/bumbling. Is Trump an evil genius or a bumbling dolt? Is Trump in Putin's/Kim's/Iran's pocket or is he going to start WW3?
 
  • Like
Reactions: dhb
Shimmy8 said:
sees


OR you’re somewhere in between: a reasonable human with a brain who thinks Trump isn’t as bad on policy as the “haters” but also thinks he’s a little unhinged and embarrassing.

Bottom line, and I’m not speaking for anyone else, but I do not trust him. I don’t trust his actions, and obviously not his comments because he’s a flat out liar with zero respect for the public or anyone else. He’s an idiot who will say or do ANYTHING to pander to his base to win reeleaction.

But I also don’t disagree with a lot of what he’s done in office from policy perspective.
Click to expand...

I think most people who voted for Trump would rather have just his policy with none of the bluster, and the other portion voted for Trump because he's politically incorrect and the exact outsider people have been clamoring for for the past few elections.

Remember when W Bush was considered an outsider because he was from Texas? Remember when McCain was an outsider/maverick? Vomit.
 
dr doze said:
I think that there is more than a little evidence that Trump is temperamentally an outlier from any of the occupants of the Oval Office in living memory.
Click to expand...
Trump is very public about his temperament. Other presidents haven't made their temperaments so public, I'll give you that.
 
pgg said:
I'm not a betting man, but I would bet the odds of Iraq's government voting to demand all US forces leave are approximately zero.


We'll see what Iran does. Open confrontation isn't their style, which makes their activity the last 6-12 months so remarkable. I suspect the situation will be de-escalated when Iran slinks back to their historic pattern of proxy support of terrorism.
Click to expand...


Iraqi parliament calls for US troops to be expelled —coalition suspends operations against ISIS
 
zero0 said:
This is definitely an act of war. It only gets worse from here. Israel is no doubt crapping their pants thinking over the worst case scenarios at this point. I'm just wondering what the possibility of Russia, China, and Pakistan getting dragged into this and setting the stage for WW3 actually is.
Click to expand...
The Russians, Chinese and Pakistanis won't care. Russia and Turkey may be nominally allied with Iran over some issues, but all three are countries trying rebuild their empires, which is not a very successful strategy. In addition, historically these nations have been long time adversaries, so their current alliances are, well, unnatural for them.

Ian will lash out asymmetrically via their proxies, because that's a tried and true Iranian strategy, along with hostage taking. Also keep in mind that the Iranian military is a mess, and has no ability to force project over long distances. However, they could easily blockade the Straits of Hormuz, and cause a massive spike in oil prices. War jitters do not play well on the stock markets, either.

Soleimani was clearly a marked man... his death was a matter of when and not if. I implore people to not take concerns about his death as being for the guy; he WAS a bad guy, and as they say in Texas, "he needed killing"

The real issue is the fact that actions have consequences....something even my 14 year old understands.

BTW, has this forum become the new SPF?
 
Last edited:
Goro said:
However, they could easily blockade the Straits of Hormuz, and cause a massive spike in oil prices. War jitters do not play well on the stock markets, either.
Click to expand...

They could easily try to blockade the Strait of Hormuz.

They have silkworm missiles, they have Noor missiles, they have fast patrol boats, they have a few surface ships with limited capability, they have a few old Russian submarines. They have mines. Most of the population is in the North, few in the mountainous South by the strait.

They could try to blockade, but they'd fail so fast in the long term. If it was beneficial, they would have done it already.

Thank God they don't have nukes.
 
Mikkel said:
They could easily try to blockade the Strait of Hormuz.

They have silkworm missiles, they have Noor missiles, they have fast patrol boats, they have a few surface ships with limited capability, they have a few old Russian submarines. They have mines. Most of the population is in the North, few in the mountainous South by the strait.

They could try to blockade, but they'd fail so fast in the long term. If it was beneficial, they would have done it already.

Thank God they don't have nukes.
Click to expand...
Key phrase bolded. That Iranians are a very patient people. There has been no need yet for them to try to block the Strait. And the point was not how long that the could block the strait, but the very fact that they could try, and the economic effect that it would have.
 
BLADEMDA said:
Iraqi parliament calls for US troops to be expelled —coalition suspends operations against ISIS
Click to expand...
pgg said:
It'll be interesting to see what happens. Lot of Iran sympathizers in Iraq's parliament. Let's wait and see if anyone actually leaves.
Click to expand...

What i'm getting stuck on is prior to the current situation, there have been major protests against the sectarian government, and the protesters forced their leader to resign. The situation got worse and a lot more unstable that Iranian backed militias tried to reassert control and fuel anti US sentiment by killing US contractor and injured soldiers.

But Iraqi protesters also dislike Iran and want to reduce influence. Yet because US killed Soleimani, Iraq parliament decided to honor Iran and punish the US by wanting the troops expelled? Where did the anti Iran sentiment go? Why is the US a bad guy?

Also people don't want US to withdraw from Iraq for fears of destabilizing the region even more and messing up the oil prices and economy. So i don't know what the direction is now
 
Goro said:
Key phrase bolded. That Iranians are a very patient people. There has been no need yet for them to try to block the Strait. And the point was not how long that the could block the strait, but the very fact that they could try, and the economic effect that it would have.
Click to expand...


Volume_of_crude_oil_and_condensate_transported_through_the_Strait_of_Hormuz_in_2014_through_2018_%2848097330906%29.png


25% of oil and 33% of natural gas worldwide flows through, a month of shutdown would be very painful, but we'd know about them trying to shut it down before they even started. Would the UN pass resolutions regarding this on an emergency basis? Would China be opposed? Would Russia? Lots of stakeholders, lots of contrary interests.


We don't know what Russia/China/Iran are discussing in secret, maybe they figured out something that would benefit all the bad players.
 
Lawper said:
What i'm getting stuck on is prior to the current situation, there have been major protests against the sectarian government, and the protesters forced their leader to resign. The situation got worse and a lot more unstable that Iranian backed militias tried to reassert control and fuel anti US sentiment by killing US contractor and injured soldiers.

But Iraqi protesters also dislike Iran and want to reduce influence. Yet because US killed Soleimani, Iraq parliament decided to honor Iran and punish the US by wanting the troops expelled? Where did the anti Iran sentiment go? Why is the US a bad guy?

Also people don't want US to withdraw from Iraq for fears of destabilizing the region even more and messing up the oil prices and economy. So i don't know what the direction is now
Click to expand...
Trump wants the US out of Iraq, it was a campaign promise. I Ihink the presence could be decreased so much that it would seem like they're gone.
But, the USA has a presence in almost every country, however it's definitely below the radar enough that American citizens don't realize it.

I think protests don't really say much about the overall mood in the middle east. You would have thought that all the protests early in the Trump admin were indicative of something, but no they were just orchestrated by some political groups. Iraq has a complicated demographic breakdown though, it's hard to know what is real.
 
Mikkel said:
Trump wants the US out of Iraq, it was a campaign promise. I Ihink the presence could be decreased so much that it would seem like they're gone.
But, the USA has a presence in almost every country, however it's definitely below the radar enough that American citizens don't realize it.

I think protests don't really say much about the overall mood in the middle east. You would have thought that all the protests early in the Trump admin were indicative of something, but no they were just orchestrated by some political groups. Iraq has a complicated demographic breakdown though, it's hard to know what is real.
Click to expand...

Really? Because protests had clear regime changes in Algeria and Sudan, and Lebanon is currently in a political mess. I'm just thinking if US withdrawal happens, will Iraq really be an Iran proxy?

And also will US withdrawal really lead to soaring oil prices and a global recession?
 
Lawper said:
Really? Because protests had clear regime changes in Algeria and Sudan, and Lebanon is currently in a political mess. I'm just thinking if US withdrawal happens, will Iraq really be an Iran proxy?

And also will US withdrawal really lead to soaring oil prices and a global recession?
Click to expand...

US can withdraw, but they will probably be allowed to keep intelligence assets within the borders, and they'll likely be allowed to keep air assets.

I don't think Iraq in totality wants to be an Iranian puppet, but certainly the pro-Iran factions would but they're a small fraction.

I could see Iran and Iraq in peace if Iran quits its destabilizing efforts (maybe the death of Mani is a good start) and the US symbolically leaves Iraq's borders.
 
Goro said:
The Russians, Chinese and Pakistanis won't care. Russia and Turkey may be nominally allied with Iran over some issues, but all three are countries trying rebuild their empires, which is not a very successful strategy. In addition, historically these nations have been long time adversaries, so their current alliances are, well, unnatural for them.

Ian will lash out asymmetrically via their proxies, because that's a tried and true Iranian strategy, along with hostage taking. Also keep in mind that the Iranian military is a mess, and has no ability to force project over long distances. However, they could easily blockade the Straits of Hormuz, and cause a massive spike in oil prices. War jitters do not play well on the stock markets, either.

Soleimani was clearly a marked man... his death was a matter of when and not if. I implore people to not take concerns about his death as being for the guy; he WAS a bad guy, and as they say in Texas, "he needed killing"

The real issue is the fact that actions have consequences....something even my 14 year old understands.

BTW, has this forum become the new SPF?
Click to expand...
Consequences indeed. The Iranian propaganda machine is strong, they had Soleimani painted as a hero and military genius. The Iranian people are in an outrage and the gov't has their support to to go war. They've been wanting war since they first started attacking world oil supplies with drones in Saudi Arabia last year. Things have escalated since.

The Strait of Hormuz seems to be the inevitable climax of this conflict. When China, Russia, and Iran are suddenly launching joint military drills in the Gulf of Oman, involvement of the Strait of Hormuz becomes a real possibility. Russia and China obviously want no part of a US-Iranian conflict, but they are at the very least saying "we're tired of US overseas exploits to preserve the petrodollar." They may be willing to set up part of their fleets in the area and just wait and see if the US is stupid enough to attack.

All of the pieces are in place for an unprecedented and tense global conflict. I'm not willing to just brush this one off just yet, but maybe cooler heads will prevail.
 
dannyboy1 said:
It means I don’t give a fu(k what goes on in the Middle East so long as the oil keeps flowing. This “crisis” is not a problem for us. The region has been problematic since the dawn of time and the people there are not becoming civilized anytime soon. Both republican and Democratic presidents have enjoyed bombing the Middle East every now and again. If memory serves Clinton carried out missle strikes against Iraq during his own impeachment. Same old story......
Click to expand...
Oh, I thought maybe you meant it was just as much a waste of time wondering what the group think here is as it is wondering what the Mensa members in Hollywood think.....
 
zero0 said:
Consequences indeed. The Iranian propaganda machine is strong, they had Soleimani painted as a hero and military genius. The Iranian people are in an outrage and the gov't has their support to to go war. They've been wanting war since they first started attacking world oil supplies with drones in Saudi Arabia last year. Things have escalated since.

The Strait of Hormuz seems to be the inevitable climax of this conflict. When China, Russia, and Iran are suddenly launching joint military drills in the Gulf of Oman, involvement of the Strait of Hormuz becomes a real possibility. Russia and China obviously want no part of a US-Iranian conflict, but they are at the very least saying "we're tired of US overseas exploits to preserve the petrodollar." They may be willing to set up part of their fleets in the area and just wait and see if the US is stupid enough to attack.

All of the pieces are in place for an unprecedented and tense global conflict. I'm not willing to just brush this one off just yet, but maybe cooler heads will prevail.
Click to expand...
As an aside Russia benefits from high oil prices.
 
zero0 said:
. Russia and China obviously want no part of a US-Iranian conflict, but they are at the very least saying "we're tired of US overseas exploits to preserve the petrodollar." They may be willing to set up part of their fleets in the area and just wait and see if the US is stupid enough to attack.
Click to expand...

High oil prices: China loses, Russia/Iran/USA/SA/UAE all "win"

Strait of Hormuz blockade: China/Iran/UAE/SA lose, USA/Russia "win"

Anti-Iran sanctions: Iran loses, everyone else wins


I think Trump is figuring Iran might try to blockade the Strait, but if Iran did then the USA wouldn't do anything militarily (unless directly attacked, but that would be limited to self defense).

Iran gets the smackdown from Iraq/SA/UAE/China in the UN.

Iran theocracy implodes when their only last step alienates the entire world against them and the economy completely collapsed.



In summary: Trump wants Iran to try to blockade because that turns the entire world against the Ayatollah and his regime, and the USA doesn't have to engage in war.
 
We removed saddam in 2 weeks. Iran couldn’t do it in 8 years (1980-88). Iran knows Americans have no appetite to get involved in an escalating conflict in the Middle East, but they know they will lose if they continue to provoke the US and attack US territories/embassies. Keep sanctioning, keep hacking and foiling their plots, let them continue to react. This will blow over in a couple weeks.
 
SoProudofYou said:
We removed saddam in 2 weeks. Iran couldn’t do it in 8 years (1980-88). Iran knows Americans have no appetite to get involved in an escalating conflict in the Middle East, but they know they will lose if they continue to provoke the US and attack US territories/embassies. Keep sanctioning, keep hacking and foiling their plots, let them continue to react. This will blow over in a couple weeks.
Click to expand...

As long as Iran doesn't develop nuclear weapons....... We know from the Obama deal that they had all the carrots and none of the stick. So far with Trump, Iran is getting nothing but stick. At least with a stick-only policy, Iran will have less and less money to develop nukes or interfere with its neighbors.
 
Israel? Ok:laugh:. They have enough problems of their own to deal with
 
Mikkel said:
High oil prices: China loses, Russia/Iran/USA/SA/UAE all "win"

Strait of Hormuz blockade: China/Iran/UAE/SA lose, USA/Russia "win"

Anti-Iran sanctions: Iran loses, everyone else wins


I think Trump is figuring Iran might try to blockade the Strait, but if Iran did then the USA wouldn't do anything militarily (unless directly attacked, but that would be limited to self defense).

Iran gets the smackdown from Iraq/SA/UAE/China in the UN.

Iran theocracy implodes when their only last step alienates the entire world against them and the economy completely collapsed.



In summary: Trump wants Iran to try to blockade because that turns the entire world against the Ayatollah and his regime, and the USA doesn't have to engage in war.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure Iran will blockade. The US is now an oil exporter. When we had big dependence on middle east oil, just Iran saying Death to America would.cause oil prices to spike upwards to $100/ barrel. Now when they act up, prices dont go up nearly as much, so we have somewhat neutralized this part of Iran's playbook. If prices do spike, we make money too. They dont want a war any more than Trump does.
 
Angus Avagadro said:
I'm not sure Iran will blockade. The US is now an oil exporter. When we had big dependence on middle east oil, just Iran saying Death to America would.cause oil prices to spike upwards to $100/ barrel. Now when they act up, prices dont go up nearly as much, so we have somewhat neutralized this part of Iran's playbook. If prices do spike, we make money too. They dont want a war any more than Trump does.
Click to expand...
Shocking how energy independence could be a lynch pin in getting us out of the Middle East...
 
Angus Avagadro said:
I'm not sure Iran will blockade. The US is now an oil exporter. When we had big dependence on middle east oil, just Iran saying Death to America would.cause oil prices to spike upwards to $100/ barrel. Now when they act up, prices dont go up nearly as much, so we have somewhat neutralized this part of Iran's playbook. If prices do spike, we make money too. They dont want a war any more than Trump does.
Click to expand...
Agree 100%.

I'm just saying that the USA wins no matter what. Higher oil prices are good for American producers, and difficult energy trade for SA/Iraq/UAE/China makes everyone hate Iran.
 
SoProudofYou said:
We removed saddam in 2 weeks. Iran couldn’t do it in 8 years (1980-88). Iran knows Americans have no appetite to get involved in an escalating conflict in the Middle East, but they know they will lose if they continue to provoke the US and attack US territories/embassies. Keep sanctioning, keep hacking and foiling their plots, let them continue to react. This will blow over in a couple weeks.
Click to expand...

Once the statute of Saddam was pulled down in Iraq the USA should have left the country. The problem was and remains "nation building" not defeating our enemies. This desire to build nations out of our own image is a disaster in the middle east. Instead, kill your enemy and send a message to the rest that they too will be killed or defeated. The USA lost thousands of lives and spent trillions of dollars trying to build a democracy rather than appoint the next dictator and leave the country. Bush the elder simply reinstated the Kuwaiti King and left the middle east. Bush the junior tried to re-make Iraq into something it will never be.

Let's hope this country has learned her lessons from Vietnam and Iraq.
 
BLADEMDA said:
Once the statute of Saddam was pulled down in Iraq the USA should have left the country. The problem was and remains "nation building" not defeating our enemies. This desire to build nations out of our own image is a disaster in the middle east. Instead, kill your enemy and send a message to the rest that they too will be killed or defeated. The USA lost thousands of lives and spent trillions of dollars trying to build a democracy rather than appoint the next dictator and leave the country. Bush the elder simply reinstated the Kuwaiti King and left the middle east. Bush the junior tried to re-make Iraq into something it will never be.

Let's hope this country has learned her lessons from Vietnam and Iraq.
Click to expand...

There needs to be a massive shift in American foreign policy for your suggestion to happen. Maybe Trump will implement it since he's pretty insistent in getting the US out of middle east no matter what, even when critics from both parties slam him (see Syria withdrawal for example).
 
BLADEMDA said:
Once the statute of Saddam was pulled down in Iraq the USA should have left the country. The problem was and remains "nation building" not defeating our enemies. This desire to build nations out of our own image is a disaster in the middle east. Instead, kill your enemy and send a message to the rest that they too will be killed or defeated. The USA lost thousands of lives and spent trillions of dollars trying to build a democracy rather than appoint the next dictator and leave the country. Bush the elder simply reinstated the Kuwaiti King and left the middle east. Bush the junior tried to re-make Iraq into something it will never be.

Let's hope this country has learned her lessons from Vietnam and Iraq.
Click to expand...
Agree with this. Gorbachev told Reagan years ago, and I'm paraphrasing, that " The problem with you Americans is that you think everyone wants to be like you". The Middle East clearly, wants to stay the Middle East.
 
What if we just get out? What then?
Honest tree of probabilities?
Worst off ?
 
sevoflurane said:
What if we just get out? What then?
Honest tree of probabilities?
Worst off ?
Click to expand...
IDK. A great question. Trump could say, vote us out? See ya. I'm not sure there are enough Sunnis in Iraq to take on Iran again. But I think there is enough bad blood that Iraq wont publically ally with Iran. China and Russia might ooze into the void left by us. So I dont think Trump will pull us out. Should Iran engage in any major conflict, I think their global terror network will diminish, so I dont think they will engage anywhere on a major scale. I think Irans responses in the ME are limited. I would expect a terror attack on a diplomat or govt employee in the west as Irans answer.
 
Sorry if this is late, and take this with a grain of salt, but I am fortunate to be friends with many service members actively serving deployments in certain locations who have given me their thoughts about the Soleimani strike.

Strikes on targets of interest (unnamed or otherwise) happen quite frequently. The often-cited statistic, X strikes under the Obama administration, is true. Under Obama, and currently, under Trump, there are strikes on targets of interest just about every day, although we do not heart about them in the news. Think of a bunch of militants in a truck riding around Iraq. That is essentially the target.

Now when you have intel that a high-priority target (Soleimani) is rolling around in a country he is not supposed to be in (Iraq), which is protected by another country he is actively plotting against (the U.S.), you would almost certainly expect a strike against him. Considering the recent attack on the Embassy, that even more justifies the strike on Soleimani. He probably would've been targeted regardless of the Embassy attack. That is just how things are. He was a justifiable military target who was at-the-time engaged in warfare against the United States.

The strike was not intended to be political (although I see how it can be seen that way), it was going to happen someday regardless, target just happened to be the No. 2 dude in charge of Iranian shenanigans.

TLDR - these strikes happen just about every day on no-name targets, this dude just happened to be important enough, and in the wrong place at the wrong time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top