What is the US up to with regard to Iran?
- Thread starter AmazonQueen
- Start date
Socrates99
Bottoms up!
I'd credit Kissinger more. They also made some pretty controversial moves. I also believe some of his better choices were forced on him by public pressure.
Trump's just missing the counterpart to pull it off. Overall I wasn't a Tillerson fan but at the very least he did work as the calming factor in diplomatic relations.
Berzerker
Deity
Trump is the definition of chaos, just about anyone would have a calming effect
Zkribbler
Deity
Nixon could have been one of out greatest presidents if only he'd have listened to his own speeches.
Would you say Bolton and Pompeo have a calming effect on him?
That drone was shot down very early in the morning of Thursday June 20 (local Iranian time):
According to this article, the US launched Thursday already cyber attacks on Iranian weapon systems, missile, rocket launchers (unfortunately no precise time stamp in that article, and other articles in other newsmedia):
This cyber attack was on the shelf, ready to deploy, because it had been prepared for since weeks.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ttack-on-iranian-rockets-and-missiles-reports
Trump stated that he stopped a retalliation attack (avoiding that 150 casualties) on Thursday. But this was late at the day and US time (12 hours or so later than Iran time). => Friday Iranian time.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ry-iran-airstrike-cancelled-10-minutes-before
Was that cyber attack effective ?
(effective enough to protect US aircraft missions)
Was that attack on the drone "used" to only test that cyber attack ?
Or was that cyber attack the first step of an already planned military action, which was aborted for non-technical reasons after being succesful ?
(non-technical reasons could include a warning of for example Russia, based on the emergency of downing the weapon systems of Iran).
According to this article, the US launched Thursday already cyber attacks on Iranian weapon systems, missile, rocket launchers (unfortunately no precise time stamp in that article, and other articles in other newsmedia):
This cyber attack was on the shelf, ready to deploy, because it had been prepared for since weeks.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ttack-on-iranian-rockets-and-missiles-reports
Trump stated that he stopped a retalliation attack (avoiding that 150 casualties) on Thursday. But this was late at the day and US time (12 hours or so later than Iran time). => Friday Iranian time.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ry-iran-airstrike-cancelled-10-minutes-before
Was that cyber attack effective ?
(effective enough to protect US aircraft missions)
Was that attack on the drone "used" to only test that cyber attack ?
Or was that cyber attack the first step of an already planned military action, which was aborted for non-technical reasons after being succesful ?
(non-technical reasons could include a warning of for example Russia, based on the emergency of downing the weapon systems of Iran).
Last edited:
EnglishEdward
Deity
Use of cyber attacks may isolate the Iranian weapons systems personnel from the Iranian command structure.
The consequences of that are unpredictable; it may result in them doing nothing or acting under their own initiative.
While the US can protect thenselves from uncoordinated ad hoc actions, other ships etc may get hit by crossfire.
The consequences of that are unpredictable; it may result in them doing nothing or acting under their own initiative.
While the US can protect thenselves from uncoordinated ad hoc actions, other ships etc may get hit by crossfire.
EnglishEdward
Deity
That entirely depends how foolish the systems designers of those missile systems and launch rockets were.
There should be "human" links in the chain of execution.
I have no idea how well those can be misleaded by fake info of electronic nature.
FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
That ship already sailed, Rumsfield was the captain
No one has any more appeitites for any more Middle eastern adventures, Trump and Bolton are on their own
Estebonrober
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2017
- Messages
- 6,062
Remember when the US could pull together dozens of allies around the world to get together and support our cause in foreign policies and could even get the UN security council to sign off on our military moves? Pepperidge Farms remembers.
Tristan_C
Emperor
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2006
- Messages
- 1,730
The cable networks were pushing this line pretty hard on Thursday. His decisions, namely getting out of the Iran deal, led to this precarious situation. It seemed like they were trying to make the case without drawing attention to any specifics about the Iran deal. So since you are doing this, too, what exactly is your reasoning? i.e. did you think the Iran deal was any good? Why?
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,482
Nixon was a paranoid weirdo who during one of the greatest international crisis of the Cold War, the Yom Kippur War, was in an alcohol and drug fueled haze and Kissinger was running US policy on his own.
Nixon and Kissinger's 'good policies' were either because "Only Nixon can go to China or because neither of them thought the treaties (such as arms control) were worth the paper they were printed on and thus cost nothing to sign.
All of which is pretty hard to square to Kissinger being a war criminal and Nixon ordering secret bombings of a foreign country without Congressional approval - or even knowledge.
The JCPOA was doing its job - providing sanctions relief and a framework for IAEA inspection to satisfy the P5+1 that Iran was not stockpiling materials for nuclear weapons and their nuclear program was consistent with a civilian nuclear program. The US security services and the security services of the other members of the P5+1 were in agreement that Iran was not pursuing a military nuclear program and were cooperating with the IAEA. Even now, Iran has stated -and the IAEA has not stated contrary- that they are still in compliance with the agreement but should sanctions not be lifted they would be in breach of the limits of the amount/enrichment level of uranium under the JCPOA. (Please note that even if Iran breaches the level, they would still be well away from 'rush capacity' for a nuclear weapon. That was one of the big sticking points in the JCPOA - where exactly the 'rush capacity' for a nuclear weapon was.)
The JCPOA was not designed to -and was never intended to- address Iran's ballistic missile program or the proxy war shenanigans they've been up to in the Middle East.
The JCPOA was doing its job fairly well until His Trumpiness decided he didn't like it and ripped it up on fairly spurious grounds. The JCPOA was far from perfect and had flaws, but rather than working to improve it, His Trumpiness decided to blow it up and replace it with "MOAR SANCTIONS", an approach notable for its complete lack of success when tried before.
Socrates99
Bottoms up!
So, Iran is actually a democracy even though we don't like to admit that here in the US. Like any democracy they have extremists and moderates vying for power. They haven't been in a war since the Iraq Iran war decades ago. There are factions in the Iranian government that might be happy with a war but there are factions that just want normalized relations.
The Iran deal wasn't particularly strong but it did bolster the non-aggressive factions in their government. They were able to go back to their people and say, "see? The West can be worked with. We can now rebuild our economy."
The deal was working, their weapons program was slowed, it didn't actually cost the U.S. money. The money they got from the deal was assets we seized years ago. It bolstered the democratic (little d) side of their government and undermined the more theocratic hawkish side.
Now Trump tears up the deal. Their weapons development isn't throttled at all. The more fascistic factions in the government can now say "see, we were right, you can't trust any deal of treaty made with the U.S. Make sure we're in power so we can protect you." We now have bases, ships, troops etc surrounding their country skirting so close to their airspace that it's apparently hard to tell whether we're violating it or not. Trump's actions have led to this brinksmanship. Trying to take credit for avoiding a situation he's built up is pretty absurd.
This reminds me of what a lot of Trump voters said about Clinton. We made a deal with Gaddafi, he stepped down from his place in the African Union and gave up weapons, then Hillary apparently played a hand in orchestrating his death. After seeing that why on earth should NK give up their weapons? Trump voters said that in a lot of conversations on why she was bad. It was the truth.
The deal was made. Doesn't matter what we think about it retroactively. Tearing it up makes a pact with the U.S. as fickle as our elections. It doesn't matter if some people think it was weak, it was better than what we have now. What we have now is a situation where we're very likely to waste trillions and thousands upon thousands of lives on another war that even if we win won't benefit the American people and won't make them one iota safer.
Berzerker
Deity
Sure, before they arrived on the scene Trump had to play both the good cop and the bad cop, they took over the bad cop role allowing Trump to be the voice of moderation.
I presume he hasn't started on that yet.
Berzerker
Deity
he didn't use the drone as an excuse to bomb Iran
Avoiding being plain stupid does not mean at all that you are moderate.
Similar threads
