What is the US up to with regard to Iran?

[Berzerker]

mines can be attached below or above the water line, above is easier and you dont risk sinking the ship

 

[Hrothbern]

It doesn't have to be "near" the coastline to be within territorial waters. Usually those extend to (at least) 12 nautical miles.

He means the coastline during the ice age.

And one of the Garden of Eden theories is that it was around there as well.

 

[Commodore]

Just because I disbelieve the US government doesn't mean I believe the Iranians.

That response doesn't really work in this particular scenario. This is an either/or situation. Either that drone was in international waters (US claim), or it was in Iranian territorial waters (Iranian claim). So if you say you don't believe the US claim, you are implicitly saying you believe the Iranian claim.

With that said, I want to punch Bolton in the face. That fool wants full-scale war and he wants us to start it. Such a course of action will guarantee our isolation from our allies and make Iran look like the victim. Instead, we need to do to Iran what we did to Japan in WW2: Ratchet up the economic pressure on them so much that they attack us first, making them the aggressors and giving us free reign to unleash everything on them.

That's why I'm glad Trump called off the strike. The world still doesn't see Iran as the bad guy yet so attacking them would have united the world against us.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Mines and drones who the hell knows... welcome to the Arabian Gulf.

But the whole story about wise peace-loving Trump overriding an immanent military action at the last moment is nothing but a crusty wal-mart bag full of cat piss and diarrhea.

It's straight out of JFK's biography, just as his North Korean dictator cuddling is meant to recall Reagan and Gorbachev. Its literally White House glurge.

 

[Commodore]

But the whole story about wise peace-loving Trump overriding an immanent military action at the last moment is nothing but a crusty wal-mart bag full of cat piss and diarrhea.

It's a good thing literally no one is pushing that story then. He ordered the strike and then changed his mind, that's it.

 

[Bugfatty300]

It's a good thing literally no one is pushing that story then. He ordered the strike and then changed his mind, that's it.

Well Trump's own words: "We were cocked & loaded to retaliate last night on 3 different sights (sic) when I asked, how many will die. 150 people, sir, was the answer from a General...10 minutes before the strike I stopped it, not proportionate to shooting down an unmanned drone. I am in no hurry, our Military is rebuilt, new, and ready to go, by far the best in the world."

And yeah no one likes pushing these Trump turds because they are too dry and jagged but the WH press will grit their teeth... and all of the true believers will gather around like like it's golden goose eggs.

 

[Estebonrober]

That response doesn't really work in this particular scenario. This is an either/or situation. Either that drone was in international waters (US claim), or it was in Iranian territorial waters (Iranian claim). So if you say you don't believe the US claim, you are implicitly saying you believe the Iranian claim.

With that said, I want to punch Bolton in the face. That fool wants full-scale war and he wants us to start it. Such a course of action will guarantee our isolation from our allies and make Iran look like the victim. Instead, we need to do to Iran what we did to Japan in WW2: Ratchet up the economic pressure on them so much that they attack us first, making them the aggressors and giving us free reign to unleash everything on them.

That's why I'm glad Trump called off the strike. The world still doesn't see Iran as the bad guy yet so attacking them would have united the world against us.

There is no scenario here we we are not viewed as the bad guy. You might get it to less bad guy, but that would literally take Iran attacking us over here or sinking multiple freighters and really blowing up the global economy. The US has no political capital on the world stage anymore for this kind of thing. Its used up and the alienation and arm twisting of our allies takes away the normal level of it we had before Trump. If you voted for Trump you knowingly and intentionally voted for our isolation, reap your crop.

 

[Kyriakos]

There is no scenario here we we are not viewed as the bad guy.

You could, you know, just don't go to war. Iran hasn't gone to war since the Iran/Iraq war, where Iraq was just the US proxy anyway. It isn't likely it will just start invading countries now.
Unlike democratic Saudi monarchy, which is currently in a brutal war as the invader of one of its neighbors.

 

[Estebonrober]

You could, you know, just don't go to war. Iran hasn't gone to war since the Iran/Iraq war, where Iraq was just the US proxy anyway. It isn't likely it will just start invading countries now.

Yea, but that is not realistically an option, this is 'Murica we are talking about and Lockheed needs some easy money.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

That response doesn't really work in this particular scenario. This is an either/or situation.

No, it's not because the story of what happened may be much more complicated than this:

Either that drone was in international waters (US claim), or it was in Iranian territorial waters (Iranian claim).

For all we know the drone could have been criss-crossing the border. Or, it's possible the Americans genuinely thought it was on one side of the border and the Iranians genuinely thought it was on the other side of the border. It's also possible one side or the other was doing everything they could to provoke a response which makes the border issue a secondary consideration. It could be a whole lot of different scenarios with different mitigating or aggravating circumstances.

What the truth of the situation almost certainly isn't is a simple, black and white scenario.


I agree with punching Bolton in the face but I don't think we should aggravate the situation with the intent to start a war.


I also feel more and more like the 'attack' that Trump called off was a fiction.

 

[Mouthwash]

I also feel more and more like the 'attack' that Trump called off was a fiction.

It's obviously a fiction. Trump's MO is acting aggressively and not following through (which is a good strategy in the right circumstances).

EDIT: I'm sorry, but I'm surprised that people aren't getting this. It's a well-trodden foreign policy move - either intimidating an enemy, making them less confident in making demands, and offering them political brownie points if they look like they defused the situation. Even if you think it's the wrong move here, it's still miles ahead of Obama's approach in which it was perfectly clear that he had a huge political stake in making the Iran deal.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I have not yet seen enough evidence supporting the fiction argument to be sure. I lean that way and have since I first read about it but I try to keep an open mind and not lean on strong language until I'm certain one way or the other.

 

[Mouthwash]

I have not yet seen enough evidence supporting the fiction argument to be sure. I lean that way and have since I first read about it but I try to keep an open mind and not lean on strong language until I'm certain one way or the other.

What do you think would constitute strong evidence one way or another (short of Trump deciding to go ahead with a bombing)?

 

[AmazonQueen]

Something interesting about Trump's claim to have called off an impending attack is that he says he was only told about potential casualties when he asked 10 minutes before the attack was due to take place.
From what I've read the president is usually told about possible casualties and other consequences when his options are outlined.

 

[Tristan_C]

Something interesting about Trump's claim to have called off an impending attack is that he says he was only told about potential casualties when he asked 10 minutes before the attack was due to take place.
From what I've read the president is usually told about possible casualties and other consequences when his options are outlined.

I think if we had a more conventional president they'd have just gone ahead with the strike and killed 150 people over a drone. That would fit the paradigm for US foreign policy. Hmm. I wonder if the Iran deal, with the huge pile of money and the cursory inspection schedule, was purposefully tuned to streamline their nuclear program to "necessitate" a war.

 

[EnglishEdward]

I suspect that there is a distinction somewhere there about being briefed about
likely casualties, and being briefed about about likely American casualties.

 

[Kyriakos]

Isn't a considerable (libertarian and other) part of Trump's base specifically anti-war? He sort of was elected on a no-war pledge as well. That he is a bad president isn't in question, yet he seems to be less of a warmonger than the typical republican.

 

[Tristan_C]

Isn't a considerable (libertarian and other) part of Trump's base specifically anti-war? He sort of was elected on a no-war pledge as well. That he is a bad president isn't in question, yet he seems to be less of a warmonger than the typical republican.

There is relatively new, and now almost ubiquitous contempt for state department / establishment doctrine that did not exist among Republican voters before Bush and the Iraq war. But "specifically anti-war" would not be an accurate characterization. Foreign policy did not drive turnout; the main issues were immigration, the Supreme Court, DC corruption, and (in sensitive midwest places that flipped to Trump) economic boilerplate stuff.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

What do you think would constitute strong evidence one way or another (short of Trump deciding to go ahead with a bombing)?

I honestly don't know but it would have to come from a completely independent source, not from the White House, DoD or intelligence agencies.

 

[Socrates99]

It's obviously a fiction. Trump's MO is acting aggressively and not following through (which is a good strategy in the right circumstances).

EDIT: I'm sorry, but I'm surprised that people aren't getting this. It's a well-trodden foreign policy move - either intimidating an enemy, making them less confident in making demands, and offering them political brownie points if they look like they defused the situation. Even if you think it's the wrong move here, it's still miles ahead of Obama's approach in which it was perfectly clear that he had a huge political stake in making the Iran deal.

He got it from Stone. That was a Nixon/Kissinger move where Nixon would act crazy and bellicose (easy for Nixon) and Kissinger would go in and play "good cop" in diplomatic negotiations. He'd play that schtick where he'd act like Nixon was on the edge and only a favorable deal would placate him or Tricky Dick might do something crazy.

Unfortunately I think Pompeo is the nutjob and Trump's playing both sides, ordering a strike then pretending to have second thoughts due to casualties. Maybe this was a better tactic back when Tillerson was in there to play the "adult in the room." Trump is still trying the tactic even though he's no longer set up for it. Pompeo and Bolton encourage it and leave Trump hanging with his "madman with the button" act. Then when things start to progress too far Trump has to pull back and looks foolish.

It's sad when the current admin makes Nixon look like he had it more together. Trump's acting like the prudent CiC who cares about human life when it's all been his decisions and appointments that have led us into this precarious situation.