What would the Russian role be in the event of this conflict? Purely 'moolah making' by selling hardware to Iran?
Iran v US confrontation
- Thread starter 4bars
- Start date
"Never interrupt your enemy while he is making a mistake"
Well, there’s 3 active MEF. Hopefully he wins the “not deployed” lottery.
There is pro war and anti war and then there's all over the place not having a clue, i.e trump.
Hope it doesn't come to that. Have two marine buddies from Iraq and Afghanistan. They're doing well in life now but man it was so rough on them. You can still see how it has changed them if conversations go much deeper.
If it's not communism, it's laughable?
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Trying to frame Hillary as the peace candidate is laughable. And when someone even points this out to you, you still don't get it.
So when did I do that?
You're posting in thread about Trump starting a war and you said "feck all of you who didnt vote for Hillary". Anyone with the ability to think about more than one thing at a time understands the point.
A war with Iran or blowing the shit out of Iran has been on the republican agenda at the very least since the Bush years. Hilary in 06 didn't rule out attacking Iran(Although she did in the end agree and help with the Iran deal under the Obama administration).
Its been coming for a while. Trump being a complete moron(Look at failed attempted coup in Venezuela)might be our only hope.
Hillary urged Bush to declare the Iranian National Guard a terrorist group. It's bad enough to have an imperialist government starting another war of aggression, we shouldnt have to read the same reactionary bullshit by the same uniformed people every time Trump does something bad.
Well I'm specifically referring to the nuclear deal. Even a pro war politician, who is sensible enough, can do the basics as to knowing when and where to strike a deal for the greater good. Iran had stopped it's nukes as well so there wasn't any threat either. Trump is all over the place. This is why it pissed me (and still does) that people put both Hillary and Trump in the "politicians with some good and some bad category". Hillary has some good and some bad, Trump is a disaster.
As for @Eboue , I've tried battling your "logic" in the capitalism and wealth inequality threads. You're down a path I can't save you from friend so it's best we don't engage.
If Hillary was president, how likely would an Iran invasion be despite her actions in the past?
I thought you weren't engaging. The answer is no one knows but considering her culpability in the destruction of Libya, her eagerness to intervene in Syria, her support for the Iraq War, her desire to rig Palestinian elections, her unwavering support for Israel or her declaring the Iranian military a terrorist organization I'd say it's a pretty decent possibility.
Again I don't want to derail the thread but it's simply not true that Clinton had some good and some bad. It's all bad(Basically everything @Eboue said) with one glimmer of good - the Iran Deal and this what Clinton said about the deal in 2015
But if I have to guess I would say had Clinton been president she wouldn't be pushing a potential war with Iran. But with Venezuela ? I could have easily seen Clinton push a lot harder and backed the coup a lot more. And this what I think people mean why they said both Clinton and Trump are the same etc. With a choice like Clinton and Trump there is no anti war choice, your essentially asking people where in the world do they want to murder brown people. What I'm trying to get across is that american foreign policy goes beyond the presidency.
Don't agree with that at all and it's a shame media has led everyone to believe this. I'll leave it at that since my opinion on Clinton's credentials wont change.
Apparently, lessons learnt is so yesterday. Besides Trump knows more than his generals.
A strong, powerful one-two punch and victory's for Trump to grab.
This.
They just want to be in some sort of armed conflict with Iran to be robust from August through early November 2020. They will play the ‘war fighting president’ card heavily during that time & could potentially increase their base / garner more independent votes & gets Trump re-elected.
I think it may be the case that Trump is trying to do a North Korea on this by amping up the war-rhetoric in order to pressure the Iranians to “talk.” Some problems with that:
- That is probably not what brought the North Koreans to the table.
- Iran is not North Korea.
- Unlike in East Asia, there are plenty of states in the Middle East who would support a military confrontation with Iran.
- Trump has surrounded himself with Iran hawks who believe talking is pointless.
All of which means Trump May be walking into a situation he has no control over.
A key event with North Korea was the impeachment of the previous president and the election of a peacenik, he pushed for talks (via the winter Olympic games) while the Trump admin (through Pence) publicly disapproved and sabre-rattled. He had the first meetings with Kim which set up the summit with Trump.
There have been a lot of reports suggesting Trump doesn't want to get involved in a long ground war (over this or Vz) but I think you're right - he has blustered his way into a situation where there might not be the same release valve.
Are you saying many countries would align with us or with Iran?
I could see small coalitions being created quickly on both sides from just the Middle East. I would be shocked if we received any support from former coalition partners from Europe, Japan, or Australia. They depend on Iranian oil & potentially still are smarting from getting into the pointless, never ending Iraq mess.
Trump always rails about Mueller not being confirmed while it’s his unconfirmed National Security Advisor who is ratcheting up the argument for military incursion into Iran. Some dark irony there.
I don’t think many if any regional states would officially, publicly support or join whatever action is taken, but Saudi Arabia and the UAE (and by extension Bahrain) along with Israel would be fully supportive in the background, while the likes of Jordan, Egypt and Kuwait would probably be happy to facilitate without going all in. Of the states that matter Turkey and Qatar would oppose obviously (so would Syria, Lebanon and Iraq, but they’re far less important).
Iran has an Afghan border, I wonder if that will play a role. And will the Taliban see their primary enemy as the Shias or the Great Satan?
Iran has supported the Taliban over the years.
That’s how it may fall out, you are right. I, too, would be a bit surprised to see overt ME alliances created if shooting does start.
Another delightful side-effect of this would be another Israel-Hezbollah war, with missiles raining down on Israeli cities and the destruction and possibly the re-occupation of parts of south Lebanon and perhaps even Syria.
Or perhaps if some of those Chinese DF-21Ds just happened to find their way into Iranian hands..
A war with would break the US-Europe alliance.
European Capitals? What have we got to do with this? This is on Trump and his gang.
Two conflicting thoughts on the possibility of the US actually going for all out war/regime change:
1) they can't be that stupid. If the US seek confrontation, it will be in a much more limited fashion, perhaps even confined to saber rattling, and probably in order to seek a new nuclear deal as a trophy for the "dealmaker in chief". (Not saying these moves can't be reckless or foolish.)
2) there are no guarantees that they aren't that stupid. An unintended escalation is also always a possibility when practicing brinkmanship.
I still tend heavily towards 1), but, especially in light of recent history, 2) can't be excluded.
1) they can't be that stupid. If the US seek confrontation, it will be in a much more limited fashion, perhaps even confined to saber rattling, and probably in order to seek a new nuclear deal as a trophy for the "dealmaker in chief". (Not saying these moves can't be reckless or foolish.)
2) there are no guarantees that they aren't that stupid. An unintended escalation is also always a possibility when practicing brinkmanship.
I still tend heavily towards 1), but, especially in light of recent history, 2) can't be excluded.
By placing billions of dollars worth of military off Iranian waters I’m sure the U.S is expecting some kind of attack on it which will be swiftly blamed on Iran.
The US industrial complex needs constant war.
Pretty big "if" regarding nuclear tipped missiles . How is this even a remote possibility, has there been any concrete report for a possession of a nuclear device by Iran, let alone with a size adequate for mounting on a missile ?
Yeah .Looks like a UK Official as said there is no threat from Iran , which goes against the lies Trump's administration are trying to spin.
So will the Great Satan be attacking during Ramadan, or afterwards?
When Mueller or McGahn announce that they are testifying I’m expecting an increase in hostilities.