The New War with Iran

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

MDO,

Sorry. I shortened ‘IWantToTalk’ into iwtt because I’m lazy and tapping on my tablet while watching footyballz.

- Doc

[_Jersey Girl]

I’m literally counting down the posts before iwtt starts up with the Nazi stuff.

- Doc

Not knowing what iwtt stands for, I googled it. I assume you are not counting the Industrial Wastewater Treatment Technology Database as an anti-Semitic screed. Nor has the Indian Wheelchair Tennis Tour (headquartered in Bangalore) or the Iowa Walleye Tournament Trail been mentioned in any alt-right discourse.

Urban dictionary says 'I would that that', using the first 'that' as a wildcard for the verb of your choice.

There are 1496 registered users on MDB. Didn't have the heart to go through that list.

So I give up. To what does iwtt refer?

It refers to a new poster--iwanttotalk

[_MeDotOrg]

I just think when you’re the President you have to weigh the abstractions that come as a result of your actions. Will killing Soleimani now result in more carnage and will that result in foreign policy objectives, or will that action throw everything into chaos? This will probably have the latter effect, which makes this kill unwise from a geopolitical standpoint.

- Doc

That's the situation in a nutshell. Soleimani was responsible for the death of thousands of innocents He was also an Iranian Government Official. The United States has sanctioned the official of a foreign government, and used an unmanned drone to perform the deed over the skies of an ally without consulting that ally, nor any other ally.

What scares me is what reciprocity could looks like. It seems like every USA military officer has a target on their back. That the attack occurred on the soil of an ally greatly opens up the map for reciprocity. The last time the United States killed a major military leader in a foreign country was when the US shot down Admiral Isoroku Yamamato in World War II.

[_honorentheos]

it’d be akin to Iran running a suicide operation that kills our SecDef while in, say, Yemen or, I dunno, Kabul. It’s tricky, for sure.

The closest analogy I could think of probably doesn't resonate with most Americans due to time, but I have used the hypothetical of trying to imagine how it would have been recieved if Russia assassinated General MacArthur during the period of the Berlin Airlift. And they were the ones with nukes rather than the US. Pretty sure most Americans at the time would get onboard with rushing to get the bomb as almost existential to the nation at that point.

I think the thing that makes it kinda sort of justifiable was he was in Iraq and he coordinated attacks against US personnel and the embassy which makes him an enemy combatant. A terrorist, really.

Being in Iraq works against it being justifiable, in my opinion, but I think this is generally right. We've used drones to kill people who have done far less, and less proximately to their remote execution. So, we can certainly justify it. But it sets precedents that undermine national sovereignty of Iraq, and essentially declared we don't play by any rules other than might makes right. Civilization gets shaky when the powerful unrepentantly send those signals to other nations. Just as every nation began describing everyone they didn't like as terrorists after we declared a war on terror, or ever authoritarian leader around the world began to call the opposition press "fake news", our actions and words echo and get amplified into the future.

[_moksha]

Killing one of the most important military and political figures in a nation is an open act of war. It's a calculation about the US's willingness to go to war with Iran over proxy war skirmishes.

Retaliating in kind would not give sufficient provocation for the war Trump wanted. He had to take the kind of action that would brand the US as too dangerous to ignore. Needed something that would turn the world against the US while getting himself re-elected.

[_moksha]

Cam do you think the killing of Soleimani was justifiable?

Hmmm, justifiable assassinations. "Yeah, that Archduke Ferdinand is just a punk. Go on, rub him out."

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

The closest analogy I could think of probably doesn't resonate with most Americans due to time, but I have used the hypothetical of trying to imagine how it would have been recieved if Russia assassinated General MacArthur during the period of the Berlin Airlift. And they were the ones with nukes rather than the US. Pretty sure most Americans at the time would get onboard with rushing to get the bomb as almost existential to the nation at that point.

I think Iraq and the ME is definitely one of those quagmires that our forefathers warned us against. I understand, albeit cursorily, all the preceding actions that led us into Iraq starting with the Balfour declaration. A quick thought experiment:

Let's say Iran invaded Canada and Mexico due to geopolitical reasons. So, we're now bordered by a historically hostile country who has a history of meddling in our affairs. From Reddit:

[–]RagePoop

[+1] 340 points 19 hours ago*2

I find that by flipping the roles of the countries/regions involved (North America = Middle East; Iran and US switch, Mexico and Iraq switch, etc etc) sheds some light on the absurdity of the situation.

Iran invades Mexico in 2003, topples the government, and destabilizes the region, directly leading to the deaths of roughly 8% of the Mexican population (Note: Iran invades Mexico based off of a complete fabrication concerning a cache of WMDs, however terrible the leader of Mexico is he is almost objectively not as bad as the shitstorm that follows. It should also be noted that the leader of Mexico was emplaced by Iran to fight the US a couple decades prior). Iran then becomes embroiled in battling the local cartels in and out of major city-centers; this sort of urban warfare obviously takes an enormous toll on the civilian population (break down of social order, and the resulting poverty, famine, and lack of education/opportunities only serves to push more and more of the civilian population to join the cartels). A decade passes and a literal terrorist state emerges and takes power leading to a new holocaust of death and destruction across the continent. Would you not expect the US to have a military presence engaged in the area at this point?

To take the analogy further we could say that the US (Led by Mike Pompeo) fights off the new terrorist state (ISIS), with help from other forces in Guatemala and Honduras, as well as from Iran. However, throughout this time Iran keeps an imposing military presence in and around Mexico for decades, periodically (read: almost constantly) bombing Costa Rica, Canada, and Guatemala; in fact Iran sets up large swaths of area in these countries labeled "No Go Zones" wherein they will drone strike any males of fighting-age found within (read: any male who appears to be between the age of 18-70 through the telescopic lens of a drone) Iran admits that the number of civilians killed in these drone strikes number in the thousands, though independent watchdog groups suggest the numbers are much higher. A new administration elected in Iran in 2016 ends the policy of reporting these numbers.

Throughout this time there are groups of American terrorists in Mexico murdering Iranian soldiers. At some point Mexicans protest at the Iranian embassy in Mexico City, causing some property damage, and in response Iran claims that the protests were organized by Americans and they drone strike Mike Pompeo at a Mexican airport in retaliation.

EDIT: grammar, clarity, lil tidbit on Saddam Sanchez-Hussein.

One would think that at $21T of federal debt our federal government wouldn't want to scale up hostilities in the region, especially when we have serious infrastructure issues within our own border. Couple that with the rogue nature of our action this will have serious diplomatic consequences for years to come. Who would trust us? What kind of precedent is this setting? We have no moral basis to hold others responsible for militaries taking out officials and perceived enemies anywhere at anytime in the world. Israel smokes a Syrian diplomat here? Oh well. Argentina smokes a Chilean official in Japan? Oh well. China murders the Dalai Lama in Germany? Oh well. Whatareyagonnado?

- Doc

[_moksha]

BAGHDAD (AP) — Iraq's Parliament called for the expulsion of U.S. troops from the country Sunday in reaction to the American drone attack that killed a top Iranian general.

A pullout of the estimated 5,200 U.S. troops could cripple the fight against ISIS and allow its resurgence.

I imagine Trump and Putin will be celebrating this development later today.

[_iwanttotalk]

I’m literally counting down the posts before iwtt starts up with the Nazi stuff.

- Doc

Are you seriously suggesting im a nazi because i don't think that russia is ordering Trump to attack Iran?

For reals?

I have another fun word as long as we are playing with epithets to short circuit critical thinking.

Baizuo.

[_honorentheos]

Who would trust us? What kind of precedent is this setting? We have no moral basis to hold others responsible for militaries taking out officials and perceived enemies anywhere at anytime in the world. Israel smokes a Syrian diplomat here? Oh well. Argentina smokes a Chilean official in Japan? Oh well. China murders the Dalai Lama in Germany? Oh well. Whatareyagonnado?

- Doc

Good analogy. Thanks for sharing it. Of all the potential consequences the part I clipped out above seems the most likely. It's also the most chaotic and a genie we may never put back into the bottle no matter how committed future administrations are to the rule of international law. We have shown we are an election away from full reversal on treaties, policy positions, and general commitment to the good of the international community.