Iran v US confrontation

[Foxbatt]

Synco, you are getting me wrong. I am not looking at a westerner's eye. I know the region very well though I don't speak Farsi.
It's not only to Iran but most Islamic countries. When there is a dictatorship ( which seems to be common) to many Muslim countries, religion is the deciding factor for both the government and the opposition. The reason is it's one thing that they can't change or say anything against.
So both use it to get their legitimacy.
There is no logical reason for Iran to hate the USA if they don't get involved in their affairs. This is the same for any country.

What no newspapers or MSN have asked any American politician is what do they mean by American interests?
If other countries are not killing Americans or destroying American property then why do they have to be based in any foreign country?
USA is strong enough to destroy any country without even landing in any country. No need to use even nuclear power.
At the end of the day it's all about oil and money.

 

[nickm]

Trump is not a Politician, that's the point I am making, he doesn't see things that way!

He's not a professional politician but he is a politician. It is convenient for Trumpists to say he's not a politician because it means he doesn't have to be held to account in the same way, but the fact is, he is a politician because he is engaged in politics. The fact that he's an amateur, unable to perform his duties, lacks political skill and administrative ability is not an excuse.

He did get KJS to 'wind his neck in', if he comes back again to Trump's overtures then he knows NK want a deal, if they go straight to threats he knows they don't and can respond.

NK always wants a deal of some kind. They are always dangling something in return for suspending tests. Fact is, in three years Trump has achieved nothing substantive. The status quo remains.

Yes, of course they have numerous soft targets, but that is a 'kick-back' response, what Iran really wants is to get out from under US led sanctions that is disrupting their economy, that will only happen when a) its done on Trumps terms, or b) When Trump leaves office, either by impeachment or via next election

Possibly they want to get out from US sanctions. Perhaps they want their nukes more now. They don't need to wait for Trump for that.

Israel becomes the US buffer in the region. Israel with resource support from the US is quite capable of defending itself, it doesn't need US 'boots on the ground.' In the future it is likely any US presence in the region would be either via Saudi or Gulf States, again a limited commitment required from the US , certainly no 'boots on the ground', that scenario has got the US into all sorts of trouble in the past and Trump has vowed to avoid it.

I don't buy it. I'm not sure how Israel is an effective protector of Saudia Arabia, Kuwait etc - which are the states whose presence the US is ultimately there to guarantee.

Its called choosing your battles, the ones you can win! How much trouble has the US been in in the latter part of the 20th/early part of 21st century, by getting engaged in situations where it cannot win, either because there isn't the public support (home or abroad) or it is unable to use its massive military power to its full potential, because of massive 'overkill' dimensions.

The US isn't "choosing battles". It is getting chased out by adversaries whose positions get stronger as a result. It's seeing alliances unravel, and trust disappear. That's weakness and is clearly being interpreted by its adversaries as weakness.

 

[Carolina Red]

What's the context of US involvement in Iran?
What was the reasoning of overthrowing a government?

What 2cents says below...

In 1953 the direct cause was saving oil companies from nationalization. But Western intervention in Iranian politics dates back to the mid-19th century.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

certainly no 'boots on the ground', that scenario has got the US into all sorts of trouble in the past and Trump has vowed to avoid it.

He has an odd way of carrying out that vow, considering the deployment of thousands of new soldiers to the region this week.

 

[Synco]

@Foxbatt
Fair enough, and there's no denying that. My point was that although ideology (here: religion) is in many ways linked to material power, it also has a power of its own. That's what I tried to argue in paragraphs 1-3 of my longer reply to you.

There is no logical reason for Iran to hate the USA if they don't get involved in their affairs. This is the same for any country.

First of all, I meant to explicitly acknowledge the importance of the factor of imperialist meddling in my longer reply (especially the fourth paragraph). What I didn't agree with was what I see as the reduction of conditions inside Iran (or any other society) to that factor, and the way this obstructs the view on other important factors. In your statement above I see a wrong conclusion resulting from precisely that narrowed angle. As opposed to this, I think there are (often irrational) reasons for hatred of America (or Israel) beyond the issue of foreign rule, but they only come into view when internal and ideological factors get their due attention.

I'll see if I continue at some later point. I need a break as I spent the entire last night answering to various posters.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

To think that fecking country was once our colony.

Much more recently your nation and France signed Sykes-Picot which chopping up the middle east into its modern problematic incarnations.

Had your nation and France not been such cnuts after WWI a lot of the current conditions would never have existed to begin with.

 

[VivaObertan]

Sorry, but you're the one who's generalizing here. There is no homogeneous "Iranian people" who all do the same out of the same reasons.

There will be followers of Khomeinist state ideology among those who participate, and others who aren't and have all other kinds of reasons to do so. I'm also fairly sure there are those who reject the "Death to America" routines on government-aligned events out of their opposition to the regime. Which doesn't mean they can't be critical of the US themselves. And so on.

That kind of angle is the only reasonable basis for a discussion in my eyes.

Iranian heritage here. Zarlak is correct, 'Death to Americans' doesn't literally mean they want Iranians to die, the whole language and culture is based off verbal over-exaggeration, read into tarof for more insight.

United sing about burning Scousers, killing City fans etc... Same thing.

 

[Maticmaker]

He's not a professional politician

Thank you, that's my point... so dealing with Trump and expecting him to act like one is a waste of time and ultimately likely to be a dangerous approach to take.

NK always wants a deal of some kind. They are always dangling something in return for suspending tests. Fact is, in three years Trump has achieved nothing substantive. The status quo remains.

Precisely, Trump has called NK's bluff, how he deals with them next time they try to up the stakes is the important one.

Possibly they want to get out from US sanctions.

Its more than being a possibility, they do want the removal of sanctions it is the most important thing for Iran otherwise internal problems will continue to arise.The threat of Iran going to a full nuclear armement situation is likely to worry Israel and the European countries more than the US. All the Iranians can hope for is for Trump to be impeached, or to lose the next election, so they can 'bully' the next administration.

I don't buy it

Buy what? Israel is not a protector of any country in the middle East, except its self. It is a 'US friendly state' (and incidentally the only country in the world that the US shares the full Patriot Missile defence information with ) Saudia Arabia and Kuwait are also 'US friendly' but not to the same extent as Israel

The US isn't "choosing battles". It is getting chased out by adversaries whose positions get stronger as a result. It's seeing alliances unravel, and trust disappear. That's weakness and is clearly being interpreted by its adversaries as weakness.

Sorry I don't think Trump sees this scenario at all.
As far as Trump is concerned, the US is pulling out of Syria, because of the failure of previous US administrations to see things through after the debacle of the Iraq war.
The US has helped (and continues to help) clear out ISIS, but the overall quagmire that involves; Shia and Sunni battling each other, across and over any number of borders (incidentally those borders introduced by non-Arabs/Persians); the 'homeland' claims put forward by the Kurds; Turkey's ambitions in the North and Iran's own meddling in the centre and south of Iraq, all mean there is nothing in it for the US.
Trump has made it clear and put everyone, friend and foe alike on notice, that the US is no longer going to be the 'World's policeman', so what's happening in the region as far as the US is concerned is a 'strategic withdrawal' and/or its own version of choosing its battles carefully... from now on!

 

[Sky1981]

Thank you, that's my point... so dealing with Trump and expecting him to act like one is a waste of time and ultimately likely to be a dangerous approach to take.



Precisely, Trump has called NK's bluff, how he deals with them next time they try to up the stakes is the important one.



Its more than being a possibility, they do want the removal of sanctions it is the most important thing for Iran otherwise internal problems will continue to arise.The threat of Iran going to a full nuclear armement situation is likely to worry Israel and the European countries more than the US. All the Iranians can hope for is for Trump to be impeached, or to lose the next election, so they can 'bully' the next administration.



Buy what? Israel is not a protector of any country in the middle East, except its self. It is a 'US friendly state' (and incidentally the only country in the world that the US shares the full Patriot Missile defence information with ) Saudia Arabia and Kuwait are also 'US friendly' but not to the same extent as Israel



Sorry I don't think Trump sees this scenario at all.
As far as Trump is concerned, the US is pulling out of Syria, because of the failure of previous US administrations to see things through after the debacle of the Iraq war.
The US has helped (and continues to help) clear out ISIS, but the overall quagmire that involves; Shia and Sunni battling each other, across and over any number of borders (incidentally those borders introduced by non-Arabs/Persians); the 'homeland' claims put forward by the Kurds; Turkey's ambitions in the North and Iran's own meddling in the centre and south of Iraq, all mean there is nothing in it for the US.
Trump has made it clear and put everyone, friend and foe alike on notice, that the US is no longer going to be the 'World's policeman', so what's happening in the region as far as the US is concerned is a 'strategic withdrawal' and/or its own version of choosing its battles carefully... from now on!

Trump isnt a politician. He's a thug with a backing of the biggest bad ass motherfecker on the yard.

He takes your lolly and says feck you.

He's right there beating up the odd kids and the other kids are too scared to help him, while his 2 goons uk and France are either cheering him up, or helping holding the poor lad.

If you think america are going to play nice from now on you're living in a dreamland.

 

[André Dominguez]

Buy what? Israel is not a protector of any country in the middle East, except its self. It is a 'US friendly state' (and incidentally the only country in the world that the US shares the full Patriot Missile defence information with ) Saudia Arabia and Kuwait are also 'US friendly' but not to the same extent as Israel

Probably has something to do that Saudis equally hate Israelis as Iranians do, I guess (they won't officially admit that, though).

 

[Hanks]

This is his only tweet since it happened, I wonder could @Hanks translate?

"17tth of Dey (current Persian month) is a reminder of one of the greatest advances of women rights in Iran, almost 50 years before the Islamic Revolution. In contrast, it's also a reminder of the falling women's rights under Khomeinism in where the call rape of a 9 year old, "marriage"."

So basically nothing about Soleimani. I saw Farah (Shah's wife) make a statement about importance of Iranian cultural sites yesterday.....but no mention of Soleimani there either.

 

[Giggsyking]

"17tth of Dey (current Persian month) is a reminder of one of the greatest advances of women rights in Iran, almost 50 years before the Islamic Revolution. In contrast, it's also a reminder of the falling women's rights under Khomeinism in where the call rape of a 9 year old, "marriage"."

So basically nothing about Soleimani. I saw Farah (Shah's wife) make a statement about importance of Iranian cultural sites yesterday.....but no mention of Soleimani there either.

That is wise of them to not make any statements.

 

[Synco]

Iranian heritage here. Zarlak is correct, 'Death to Americans' doesn't literally mean they want Iranians to die, the whole language and culture is based off verbal over-exaggeration, read into tarof for more insight.

United sing about burning Scousers, killing City fans etc... Same thing.

Problem is I never maintained that it was to be taken literally.

 

[The Firestarter]

Iranian heritage here. Zarlak is correct, 'Death to Americans' doesn't literally mean they want Iranians to die, the whole language and culture is based off verbal over-exaggeration, read into tarof for more insight.

United sing about burning Scousers, killing City fans etc... Same thing.

United do what ?

 

[2cents]

Iranian heritage here. Zarlak is correct, 'Death to Americans' doesn't literally mean they want Iranians to die, the whole language and culture is based off verbal over-exaggeration, read into tarof for more insight.

United sing about burning Scousers, killing City fans etc... Same thing.

I feel like some of you are missing @Synco’s point, which is quite valid IMO, by fixating on this Death to America thing, which I don’t think he raised in the first place.

 

[Sky1981]

Iranian heritage here. Zarlak is correct, 'Death to Americans' doesn't literally mean they want Iranians to die, the whole language and culture is based off verbal over-exaggeration, read into tarof for more insight.

United sing about burning Scousers, killing City fans etc... Same thing.

You really think they're not being serious about wanting to kill americans?

Not being able to and not wanting to is 2 different thing

 

[VivaObertan]

United do what ?

Build a bonfire?
Man City's gonna die, how we kill them I don't know, cut them up from head to toe?

 

[VivaObertan]

You really think they're not being serious about wanting to kill americans?

Not being able to and not wanting to is 2 different thing

Yes, I really think that they're serious about not wanting to kill Americans... Assuming by "they" you're referring to the government, because to refer to the public in this way would be lunacy.

 

[fergieisold]

Iranian heritage here. Zarlak is correct, 'Death to Americans' doesn't literally mean they want Iranians to die, the whole language and culture is based off verbal over-exaggeration, read into tarof for more insight.

United sing about burning Scousers, killing City fans etc... Same thing.

Just a friendly greeting in their country then?

 

[Sky1981]

Yes, I really think that they're serious about not wanting to kill Americans... Assuming by "they" you're referring to the government, because to refer to the public in this way would be lunacy.

That's because they're not able to

 

[The Firestarter]

Build a bonfire?
Man City's gonna die, how we kill them I don't know, cut them up from head to toe?

Was not aware of these. I presume they are no longer sung though.

 

[Drifter]

 

[Denis79]

What's the context of US involvement in Iran?
What was the reasoning of overthrowing a government?

Submission most likely.

 

[Kentonio]

Precisely, Trump has called NK's bluff, how he deals with them next time they try to up the stakes is the important one.

Except that the dumb feck doesn’t realize that international politics isn’t like negotiating in a boardroom somewhere. You can’t just make nice and if it doesn’t work out it doesn’t matter. Even by agreeing to talk to NK (let alone the fecking face to face meetings) he was re-defining US national policy and handing victories to a vicious dictator who runs a country full of concentration camps.

Sorry I don't think Trump sees this scenario at all.
As far as Trump is concerned, the US is pulling out of Syria, because of the failure of previous US administrations to see things through after the debacle of the Iraq war.
The US has helped (and continues to help) clear out ISIS, but the overall quagmire that involves; Shia and Sunni battling each other, across and over any number of borders (incidentally those borders introduced by non-Arabs/Persians); the 'homeland' claims put forward by the Kurds; Turkey's ambitions in the North and Iran's own meddling in the centre and south of Iraq, all mean there is nothing in it for the US.
Trump has made it clear and put everyone, friend and foe alike on notice, that the US is no longer going to be the 'World's policeman', so what's happening in the region as far as the US is concerned is a 'strategic withdrawal' and/or its own version of choosing its battles carefully... from now on!

Yes, basically he sees geo-politics in the same way that any Fox News watching couch potato understands it. I.E. incredibly simplistically and in the kind of idiotic way that starts wars and gets lots of innocent people killed.

 

[Carolina Red]

Trump has made it clear and put everyone, friend and foe alike on notice, that the US is no longer going to be the 'World's policeman', so what's happening in the region as far as the US is concerned is a 'strategic withdrawal' and/or its own version of choosing its battles carefully... from now on!

You really believe that?

 

[Zarlak]

I feel like some of you are missing @Synco’s point, which is quite valid IMO, by fixating on this Death to America thing, which I don’t think he raised in the first place.

Then he worded it poorly, given that that's how multiple people interpreted his message. His original message came across as 'come on, do you really believe that the Iranian people don't hate America/Americans with their Death to America? It's not just limited to the administration'. He literally replied to a post where the only content of that post was explaining that Death to America was aimed at the administration and not the American people - by saying 'do you really believe this is the attitude of Shia Islam (90% of Iranian people) towards America/The West?'

 

[Hanks]

Putin had a surprise trip to Damascus today to meet Assad.

Almost certainly about the current situation. I don't think Assad would want Iran to use Syria as a base if retaliation is to launch missiles to Israel.

 

[Beachryan]

Not sure he understands how time flows linearly, at least for most our perceptions.

Maybe it's a treatise on time not actually having a direction, so imminence can work forward or backward. Dude's deep.

 

[2cents]

Then he worded it poorly, given that that's how multiple people interpreted his message. His original message came across as 'come on, do you really believe that the Iranian people don't hate America/Americans with their Death to America? It's not just limited to the administration'. He literally replied to a post where the only content of that post was explaining that Death to America was aimed at the administration and not the American people - by saying 'do you really believe this is the attitude of Shia Islam (90% of Iranian people) towards America/The West?'

He wrote Shia Islamism - not Islam - which today is completely dominated by Khomeinism, which in turn is the guiding doctrine of the Iranian regime (but not the Iranian people). If you missed the distinction I can understand the confusion. For me there’s really very little controversy regarding the idea that adherents of Khomeini’s thought maintain a critique of America and the West that transcends specific questions of policy.

 

[Zarlak]

Was not aware of these. I presume they are no longer sung though.

They are definitely still sung. One of the songs literally is 'build a bonfire, build a bonfire, put the scousers at the top, then put City in the middle and burn the fecking lot'

 

[iluvoursolskjær]

 

[Grinner]

I bet Bolton is gutted that he's missing being in on all this.

 

[2cents]

This is strange:

 

[Revan]

Putin had a surprise trip to Damascus today to meet Assad.

Almost certainly about the current situation. I don't think Assad would want Iran to use Syria as a base if retaliation is to launch missiles to Israel.

I don't think Iran is that dumb to attack Israel (like real attack them, not throw a few shitty missiles from Lebanon that don't do any damage). Israel doesn't like being attacked and doesn't mind retaliating.

 

[nimic]

This is strange:

The US talking about destabilizing behaviour is honestly quite disgusting.

 

[Organic Potatoes]

If there was ever a time for the ‘what is this? I don’t even’ meme, this is it.

 

[Eboue]

i hope iran drone strikes meghan mccain

 

[JPRouve]

i hope iran drone strikes meghan mccain

Careful, she is seemingly fitted with anti-aircraft guns.

 

[Synco]

Then he worded it poorly, given that that's how multiple people interpreted his message. His original message came across as 'come on, do you really believe that the Iranian people don't hate America/Americans with their Death to America? It's not just limited to the administration'. He literally replied to a post where the only content of that post was explaining that Death to America was aimed at the administration and not the American people - by saying 'do you really believe this is the attitude of Shia Islam (90% of Iranian people) towards America/The West?'

Sorry, but these are strawmen. I never said either. You're also confusing my first and second post, misquoting the latter as bad as it gets.

 

[langster]

Massive walk back from Trump. I wonder how many crayons were used (and eaten) trying to explain to him what he said wrong. And I also wonder how many world leaders and military advisors spoke to him about winding back the rhetoric?

 

[Fredo]

This is a strong opinion... Wow.

What do you mean?