The New War with Iran

[_iwanttotalk]

What I don't understand is why Trump is suddenly trusting government intelligence agencies.

He could have simply asked Iran what their part was in the protests and I'm sure he'd come back with "They said they didn't do it."

Putin is Trump's buddy. So no matter what the intelligence people say, what Putin says goes.

That whatsisname general from Irania - when has he ever done Trump a favor? So if Trump needs to distract attention from the latest embarrassing emails, he gets droned to divert the news cycle.

Are you trying to insinuate that russia wants the US to go to war with their ally iran?

Because if we are playing the proxy war game there is a very obvious middle eastern ally who wants iran and their nuclear weapon nutralized.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

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

- Doc

[_honorentheos]

Because if we are playing the proxy war game there is a very obvious middle eastern ally who wants iran and their nuclear weapon nutralized.

Saudi Arabia? Oh...

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

Not yet I guess. Anti-Israel sentiment is hot among people on both sides of the political spectrum, so he gets a mulligan on this one.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

From CNN:

Here is how General Joseph Votel, the then-commander of US Central Command that oversees American military operations in the Middle East, explained Soleimani's role in 2018:

"Wherever you see Iranian activity, you see Qasem Soleimani, whether it is in Syria, whether it is in Iraq, whether it is in Yemen, he is there and it is the Quds Force, the organization which he leads, that I think is the principal threat as we look at this and the principal ones that are stoking this destabilizing activity."

During the past decade Iran has conducted proxy wars across the Middle East in Iraq, Syria and Yemen and it also controls much of Lebanon through its proxy force there, Hezbollah. Soleimani was in charge of all these operations.

Soleimani also oversaw operations against US servicemen in Iraq by Shia militias in which hundreds of American servicemen were killed following the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. While eager to wind down US wars in the Middle East, President Trump has proven willing to respond militarily when American lives are at risk. He authorized five airstrikes on Sunday against targets in Iraq and Syria that were associated with an Iran-backed militia that the US blamed for a recent attack on an American military base in Iraq that resulted in the death of a US contractor and in which several American servicemen were wounded.

————————————————————-

Gen. Votel, it should be noted, was a JSOC, USASOC, & CENTCOM Commander, was well aware of Iran’s role in the ME, and was vocally critical of Trump’s Syria “policy.”

So. Again. Soleimani finally getting his comeuppance isn’t a terrible thing, and Iran has been poking the bear. I just think this think can scale up pretty quickly because Trump views Iran as a weak regional power he can safely bully. Guess we’ll see!

- Doc

[Guest]

Given the US was asked for a favor after British attempts to stop Iranian nationalization of their oil reserves, and the CIA operation that led to Mossadegh being overthrown and replaced with the Shah wasn't the idea of the CIA but the British, it seemed like a fairly big gap in your presentation.

Given my link to the long and detailed Wikipedia piece on the topic, in which all that is set out at length, it did not occur to me that you would think I was trying to gloss over that point. Next time, I'll post the whole piece.

[_Chap]

Are you trying to insinuate that russia wants the US to go to war with their ally iran?

Nope. The point is that Trump believed Putin's denials when no-one else did much, while there is not a hope in hell that he would believe an Iranian denial. As anybody reading the relevant posts would have understood.

But you seem to be operating in keywords chatbot mode. Figures.

[_honorentheos]

Given the US was asked for a favor after British attempts to stop Iranian nationalization of their oil reserves, and the CIA operation that led to Mossadegh being overthrown and replaced with the Shah wasn't the idea of the CIA but the British, it seemed like a fairly big gap in your presentation.

Given my link to the long and detailed Wikipedia piece on the topic, in which all that is set out at length, it did not occur to me that you would think I was trying to gloss over that point. Next time, I'll post the whole piece.

Or, more simply, just note it. If you could go to the trouble of stating the 1953 coup was backed by the CIA (though it's more accurate to say it was instigated), you could go to the trouble of noting it was done at the bequest of BP and the British government.

[_honorentheos]

Soleimani finally getting his comeuppance isn’t a terrible thing, and Iran has been poking the bear. I just think this can scale up pretty quickly because Trump views Iran as a weak regional power he can safely bully. Guess we’ll see!

- Doc

It's a tough situation to grapple with and not feel completely inadequate, which I think should apply to almost everyone if not everyone, period. As you note, Gen. Soleimani was as bad a player in the middle east as they come. He was also apparently a brilliant strategist and tactician, and behind Iran's spawning violent, active militia groups throughout the region as a means of projecting their power in unconventional, asymmetrical actions. You don't take someone out like that and not change the trajectory of history. On first blush, it suggests Iran isn't likely to have someone as capable step into those shoes and the results could be positive for US interests in the region once we get out of the shadow of direct retaliation that is almost inevitable. But what does that actually mean in terms of results? Does this make open war between Iran and the US more likely or less likely at some point down the road because the B-team steps in and they aren't as capable of dancing on the line? I mean, WE just kinda did that ourselves when you think about it...so...

[_Gunnar]

Given the US was asked for a favor after British attempts to stop Iranian nationalization of their oil reserves, and the CIA operation that led to Mossadegh being overthrown and replaced with the Shah wasn't the idea of the CIA but the British, it seemed like a fairly big gap in your presentation.

Given my link to the long and detailed Wikipedia piece on the topic, in which all that is set out at length, it did not occur to me that you would think I was trying to gloss over that point. Next time, I'll post the whole piece.

Or, more simply, just note it. If you could go to the trouble of stating the 1953 coup was backed by the CIA (though it's more accurate to say it was instigated), you could go to the trouble of noting it was done at the bequest of BP and the British government.

I'm not sure what you two are arguing about. There doesn't seem to be much disagreement between you on the facts. I read what I presume was the same Wikipedia article about Iran and the Shah that Chap referred to.

It seems that the Shah was very much of mixed bag. He did some great things for Iran like instituting women's suffrage and equality, encouraging religious tolerance and equality (both of which were bitterly opposed by the Shiite majority and clergy), and he did a lot to encourage Iranian literacy and educational levels and bring Iran up to modern economic standards of science and industry. Yet he was also an uncompromising and brutal autocrat and increasingly erratic and irrational during his later years, due in large part to the cancer that ravaged his health and mind.

But there seems little doubt that American and British (among other Western nations') machinations and interference with Iran (and other countries) to further their own selfish, economic and political interests did much to help create the deplorable situation that now exists in the Middle East.

It is really no wonder why there is so much resentment of the USA in much of the Middle East.

[_Icarus]

From CNN:

Here is how General Joseph Votel, the then-commander of US Central Command that oversees American military operations in the Middle East, explained Soleimani's role in 2018:

"Wherever you see Iranian activity, you see Qasem Soleimani, whether it is in Syria, whether it is in Iraq, whether it is in Yemen, he is there and it is the Quds Force, the organization which he leads, that I think is the principal threat as we look at this and the principal ones that are stoking this destabilizing activity."

During the past decade Iran has conducted proxy wars across the Middle East in Iraq, Syria and Yemen and it also controls much of Lebanon through its proxy force there, Hezbollah. Soleimani was in charge of all these operations.

Soleimani also oversaw operations against US servicemen in Iraq by Shia militias in which hundreds of American servicemen were killed following the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. While eager to wind down US wars in the Middle East, President Trump has proven willing to respond militarily when American lives are at risk. He authorized five airstrikes on Sunday against targets in Iraq and Syria that were associated with an Iran-backed militia that the US blamed for a recent attack on an American military base in Iraq that resulted in the death of a US contractor and in which several American servicemen were wounded.

————————————————————-

Gen. Votel, it should be noted, was a JSOC, USASOC, & CENTCOM Commander, was well aware of Iran’s role in the ME, and was vocally critical of Trump’s Syria “policy.”

So. Again. Soleimani finally getting his comeuppance isn’t a terrible thing, and Iran has been poking the bear. I just think this think can scale up pretty quickly because Trump views Iran as a weak regional power he can safely bully. Guess we’ll see!

- Doc

That's the purpose of proxy wars. Imagine if every time the USA engaged in a proxy war, one of our heads of state got assassinated.