Underground Knowledge — A discussion group discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
FALSE FLAG OPERATIONS
>
Another false flag with Iran?
In US wars are bipartisan. Even the language used by many Dem leaders straight up sound like the act itself wasn't wrong but the manner in which it was executed. This extends further to the media coverage; from TV commentators to newspaper articles, the killing of the general is reported as a necessary thing to do. What can Iran do in such circumstances? The killing of its top general warrants a response but it is also a bait. It seemed to me that the authorities in US have once again failed to garner consent for the war. First the coup in Venezuela failed and the public anger over Libya and Iraq refuses to lessen. Wars no longer generate the patriotic buzz of the gone times. However baiting Iran into retaliation, the US can manufacture consent for a full blown war. But can Iran afford to do it? It a country inferior to US both economically and militaristically.
Ricky wrote: "In US wars are bipartisan. ..."Totally.
Ricky wrote: "In US wars are bipartisan. Even the language used by many Dem leaders straight up sound like the act itself wasn't wrong but the manner in which it was executed. This extends further to the media c..."
The Iranians are limited in the conventional sense vis-a-vis the U.S., but The Yanks are also limited in what they can do too here too.
Sure, Trump can mobilize troops and access trillions of dollars in U.S. equipment, but the geographical layout and vastness of Iran, not to mention their vast experience of guerrilla warfare, discounts 'boots on the ground' unless he wants a Middle-Eastern Vietnam.
He would also risk creating a civil war in the country, which could spread and have ramifications for years to come in the form of blow-back.
Punitive air or missile strikes(which I think will be the more realistic course of action) risk unsavory media coverage if collateral gets out of hand or there's any major disruption to the global economy if trade in the Straits are disrupted due to war, which in addition would damage the American economy.
This isn't Iraq.
The Iranians are limited in the conventional sense vis-a-vis the U.S., but The Yanks are also limited in what they can do too here too.
Sure, Trump can mobilize troops and access trillions of dollars in U.S. equipment, but the geographical layout and vastness of Iran, not to mention their vast experience of guerrilla warfare, discounts 'boots on the ground' unless he wants a Middle-Eastern Vietnam.
He would also risk creating a civil war in the country, which could spread and have ramifications for years to come in the form of blow-back.
Punitive air or missile strikes(which I think will be the more realistic course of action) risk unsavory media coverage if collateral gets out of hand or there's any major disruption to the global economy if trade in the Straits are disrupted due to war, which in addition would damage the American economy.
This isn't Iraq.
Make no mistake: any war with Iran will not look like the 1990 Gulf war or the 2003 Iraq wars. It will be fought throughout the region w a wide range of tools vs a wide range of civilian, economic, & military targets. The region (and possibly the world) will be the battlefield.
Richard Hass
https://twitter.com/RichardHaass/stat...
Richard Hass
https://twitter.com/RichardHaass/stat...
Iain wrote: "Ricky wrote: "In US wars are bipartisan. Even the language used by many Dem leaders straight up sound like the act itself wasn't wrong but the manner in which it was executed. This extends further ..."The Middle East has been at war since at least 2003. The US' objective is for Saudi to become the dominant Muslim power in the region, to lend legitimacy to and protect their real foothold there, Israel. Iraq has been destroyed, then Libya and Syria. The only remaining barrier is the most difficult of all - Iran.
But Iran is now surrounded, Trump reversed the deal that potentially could have changed Iran from within. What next? As has been said, direct conflict would be very costly for the US. But the US can destroy Iran without direct conflict - its economy is already on the ropes, its military have lost key personnel, and if they do carry out retaliatory strikes, Trump will have the excuse he needs to bomb. No boots on the ground.
Go Iran! Support the underdog being bullied! :)
I would argue the M.E. has been at war since Sykes-Picot and when it got carved upon along foreign interests rather than tribal boundaries, but here we are.
If the U.S. go to the extent to 'destroy' Iran, the path on offer will encompass civilian casualties at which point you risk further radicalization and 'blow-back' with unknown consequences.
The tide may turn.
That development is also near-on the periphery of Russia at the juncture and I doubt they would relish a terrorist incubator of that magnitude on their door-step.
If the U.S. go to the extent to 'destroy' Iran, the path on offer will encompass civilian casualties at which point you risk further radicalization and 'blow-back' with unknown consequences.
The tide may turn.
That development is also near-on the periphery of Russia at the juncture and I doubt they would relish a terrorist incubator of that magnitude on their door-step.
Iain wrote: "This isn't Iraq. ..."You could very well be right, but I would caution against saying that as if it's a fact.
Iran could also be steamrolled like Iraq...And nobody could come to it's defence...Russia could easily decide to stay out of it.
Have to remember before both of the US invasions of Iraq there were various commentators talking about a huge resistance ahead and something that could turn out worse than Vietnam for the US - some even mentioned the possibility of a world war breaking out from it. These included some of the greatest military and geopolitical analysts of that era commentating on it.
Is Iran a very different scenario to Iraq?
Yup.
But that doesn't guarantee a different outcome to the US in Iraq.
And note, I'm not saying your prediction is wrong - but it's just a prediction.
James wrote: "Iain wrote: "This isn't Iraq. ..."
You could very well be right, but I would caution against saying that as if it's a fact.
Iran could also be steamrolled like Iraq...And nobody could come to it'..."
The Iranian mil / political organisational structure is a lot more formidable and penetrating than the one Saddam had under the Baathist regime. Iranians identify wholly as Persians for the most part, they're religious, the vast majority of population is Shia, have a good standard of education and experienced in warfare.
There's a lot more unifying forces there than what was seen in Iraq. Iraq was more secular, more tribal and any allegiance to Saddam came in the form of fear or need(money, food, etc).
I doubt that strike on Soleimani would have happened if he had been on home soil.
The Americans understand the difference, after all they helped to fund the Iraqi side against the Iranians during the Iran / Iraq war which ended in a stale-mate of sorts.
Russia doesn't have to come to their aid directly, they could help them covertly( as could the Chinese) by improving their military capability via arms sales in an offensive or defensive capacity. It could help them logistically if they were to plan an asymmetric attack.
There's more than one way to provide aid without it being in a direct conventional military capacity.
You could very well be right, but I would caution against saying that as if it's a fact.
Iran could also be steamrolled like Iraq...And nobody could come to it'..."
The Iranian mil / political organisational structure is a lot more formidable and penetrating than the one Saddam had under the Baathist regime. Iranians identify wholly as Persians for the most part, they're religious, the vast majority of population is Shia, have a good standard of education and experienced in warfare.
There's a lot more unifying forces there than what was seen in Iraq. Iraq was more secular, more tribal and any allegiance to Saddam came in the form of fear or need(money, food, etc).
I doubt that strike on Soleimani would have happened if he had been on home soil.
The Americans understand the difference, after all they helped to fund the Iraqi side against the Iranians during the Iran / Iraq war which ended in a stale-mate of sorts.
Russia doesn't have to come to their aid directly, they could help them covertly( as could the Chinese) by improving their military capability via arms sales in an offensive or defensive capacity. It could help them logistically if they were to plan an asymmetric attack.
There's more than one way to provide aid without it being in a direct conventional military capacity.
Iain wrote: "James wrote: "Iain wrote: "This isn't Iraq. ..."
You could very well be right, but I would caution against saying that as if it's a fact.
Iran could also be steamrolled like Iraq...And nobody cou..."
There's also the question of the U.S. having to 'clean up shop' afterwards and the dealing with Iranian 'stay behind operations', if it ever got to that stage.
I think Iraq proved how messy that can be.
You could very well be right, but I would caution against saying that as if it's a fact.
Iran could also be steamrolled like Iraq...And nobody cou..."
There's also the question of the U.S. having to 'clean up shop' afterwards and the dealing with Iranian 'stay behind operations', if it ever got to that stage.
I think Iraq proved how messy that can be.
Iain wrote: "Iain wrote: "James wrote: "Iain wrote: "This isn't Iraq. ..."
You could very well be right, but I would caution against saying that as if it's a fact.
Iran could also be steamrolled like Iraq...A..."
And note, I'm not saying your prediction is wrong - but it's just a prediction.
Anyway mate, I am not talking in absolutes: more so talking in supposition or opinion derived from facts.
I take an objective slant and am on the fence with it all to be honest.
Anyway, I'll check back in on this thread next weekend and see where my predictions at. :)
You could very well be right, but I would caution against saying that as if it's a fact.
Iran could also be steamrolled like Iraq...A..."
And note, I'm not saying your prediction is wrong - but it's just a prediction.
Anyway mate, I am not talking in absolutes: more so talking in supposition or opinion derived from facts.
I take an objective slant and am on the fence with it all to be honest.
Anyway, I'll check back in on this thread next weekend and see where my predictions at. :)
One question is, if the Iraqi parliament requests the US to leave, will they? If they do, they have no real land mass adjacent to Iran; if they don't, that will ignite Iraqi militias.Bush's victory in Iraq is meaningless; Iraq is unfortunately flat, and the guys with the superior tanks simply roll over the opposition. The commentators who predicted difficulties were wrong because they assumed the Iraqi army would fight - instead they decided to abandon Saddam (wise choice) and live to fight another day if things went south. Iran is a dreadful country for tank warfare, and more resembles Afghanistan, and you can see the difficulties the US had there. Twenty years on, and their troops are still sitting in enclosures, and really controlling very little, while the Taliban is not really an army at all. I would pick a lot of US body bags would be required if they attack Iran on the ground, and if they bomb, the question then is, are Russian and Chinese SAMs any good? If so, the US will be in a worse dilemma if they elect to merely bomb because there is little the US population dislike more than prisoners held publicly by the opposition. If they simply resort to cruise missiles, are they accurate enough to take out enough of significance, always assuming they know where things are? The evidence from Syria is probably not, especially if Iran puts the important stuff underground.
I am picking this gets a lot messier
Ian wrote: "Iran is a dreadful country for tank warfare, and more resembles Afghanistan, and you can see the difficulties the US had there. ..."And don't forget waging war against Iran's powerful Revolutionary Guard, Ian.
There's a strong precedent for that too...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eqP1...
I think what mainstream commentators potentially miss is that the US military industrial complex probably wanted to stay in wars like Afghanistan for long periods (I mean those orchestrating things, not soldiers or generals). It wasn't necessarily about "winning" as the ludicrous "War on Terror" (whatever that means!) was reported to be about in BS mainstream media outlets...but rather occupying certain warzones long term for various reasons e.g. oil, mining other mineral resources, controlling drug supply routes like poppy fields for heroin in Afghanistan and strategic geographical reasons AND because lengthy/extended wars make vast amounts of money for arms dealers, the military and private contractors like Lockheed Martin. If the US wanted to blitz the bejesus outta any of these rogue states, they could do that in a heartbeat (especially if prepared to use really dirty, immoral tactics).
Iain wrote: "The Iranian mil / political organisational structure is a lot more formidable and penetrating than the one Saddam had under the Baathist regime. Iranians identify wholly as Persians for the most part, they're religious, the vast majority of population is Shia, have a good standard of education and experienced in warfare...."True but then again the likes of the CIA, MI6 and Mossad can easily spread propaganda internally within Iran and make it look organic - to increase factionalism before any warfare starts. And in my assessment, Iran is not as cohesive or unified as you're making out (especially with younger generations). The intel agencies can create a revolutionary Persian Spring before a bullet is fired, so by the time troops arrive the Iranian population would've been mostly divided and conquered anyhow.
James wrote: "Ian wrote: "Iran is a dreadful country for tank warfare, and more resembles Afghanistan, and you can see the difficulties the US had there. ..."
And don't forget waging war against Iran's powerful..."
"And don't forget waging war against Iran's powerful Revolutionary Guard, Ian."
And don't forget waging war against Iran's powerful Revolutionary Guard, Ian.
What facet of the Guards? Check the power structure(see below):
https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/i...
The difference I am making here is that Saddam wielded absolute power even more so than Hitler or Stalin did in their respective rule. Under Hussein it was even more monolithic than Nazi Germany under Hitler who himself answered to elites to fund his war machine or the Soviets who had to navigate bureaucracy and factions from within.
Hussein employed family members or on the basis of tribal connections and regularly replaced those under him. His allegiance derived from fear of him or family loyalty(to an extent).
His brand of absolutism was the weak chain here, the minute cracks appeared the House of Cards fell.
Iran is a much more structured and organised entity in this regard, and has no doubt had ample time and learned from its neighbors to anticipate various encroachment on its territory and the consequences to be had.
And don't forget waging war against Iran's powerful..."
"And don't forget waging war against Iran's powerful Revolutionary Guard, Ian."
And don't forget waging war against Iran's powerful Revolutionary Guard, Ian.
What facet of the Guards? Check the power structure(see below):
https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/i...
The difference I am making here is that Saddam wielded absolute power even more so than Hitler or Stalin did in their respective rule. Under Hussein it was even more monolithic than Nazi Germany under Hitler who himself answered to elites to fund his war machine or the Soviets who had to navigate bureaucracy and factions from within.
Hussein employed family members or on the basis of tribal connections and regularly replaced those under him. His allegiance derived from fear of him or family loyalty(to an extent).
His brand of absolutism was the weak chain here, the minute cracks appeared the House of Cards fell.
Iran is a much more structured and organised entity in this regard, and has no doubt had ample time and learned from its neighbors to anticipate various encroachment on its territory and the consequences to be had.
James wrote: "Iain wrote: "The Iranian mil / political organisational structure is a lot more formidable and penetrating than the one Saddam had under the Baathist regime. Iranians identify wholly as Persians fo..."
If you check that organisational structure, the Basij's job is to penetrate society and to act as a counter for internal dissent or foreign subversive meddling.
The West can't spread propaganda or exercise 'soft power' as easily as you suggest in Iran and in the face of organisations like that. And in order to form a successful coup d'tat or putsch you need the ability to galvanize and organise 'the mob' at a grass-roots level. If you can put the spark out before it starts, then it's game over.
What sorta factionalism would you suggest? Playing off Shia vs Sunni won't work as the majority are Shia? Persians( compromise 60% of population) vs what (Baluchis 1%)?
What's not clear is how much of the footage we receive about internal unrest is organic? It's not clear if the so called 'televised' uprising(s) is/are coming from Baluchistan or areas less submissive to Tehran, and the real extent?
Remember the Green Revolution under a more belligerent and bellicose Ahmadinejad? How far did that get? Twitter and angry millennials only get you so far.
By the time the troops arrive??? If the U.S. overcome massive obstacles enroute, do you think the Iranians will be waving U.S. flags and throwing a party in honor of their self-designated liberators, after being bombed, manipulated and starved into submission?
If you check that organisational structure, the Basij's job is to penetrate society and to act as a counter for internal dissent or foreign subversive meddling.
The West can't spread propaganda or exercise 'soft power' as easily as you suggest in Iran and in the face of organisations like that. And in order to form a successful coup d'tat or putsch you need the ability to galvanize and organise 'the mob' at a grass-roots level. If you can put the spark out before it starts, then it's game over.
What sorta factionalism would you suggest? Playing off Shia vs Sunni won't work as the majority are Shia? Persians( compromise 60% of population) vs what (Baluchis 1%)?
What's not clear is how much of the footage we receive about internal unrest is organic? It's not clear if the so called 'televised' uprising(s) is/are coming from Baluchistan or areas less submissive to Tehran, and the real extent?
Remember the Green Revolution under a more belligerent and bellicose Ahmadinejad? How far did that get? Twitter and angry millennials only get you so far.
By the time the troops arrive??? If the U.S. overcome massive obstacles enroute, do you think the Iranians will be waving U.S. flags and throwing a party in honor of their self-designated liberators, after being bombed, manipulated and starved into submission?
Iain wrote: "James wrote: "Iain wrote: "The Iranian mil / political organisational structure is a lot more formidable and penetrating than the one Saddam had under the Baathist regime. Iranians identify wholly ..."
Here's another angle. If they get 'The Bomb' (or maybe they already have it?) then it changes the dynamic on both sides.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-midd...
Here's another angle. If they get 'The Bomb' (or maybe they already have it?) then it changes the dynamic on both sides.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-midd...
Iain wrote: "Iain wrote: "James wrote: "Iain wrote: "The Iranian mil / political organisational structure is a lot more formidable and penetrating than the one Saddam had under the Baathist regime. Iranians ide..."
Anyway mate, each to their own.
When I check back in a weeks time I dare say we'll have an idea of where this is gonna go.
Anyway mate, each to their own.
When I check back in a weeks time I dare say we'll have an idea of where this is gonna go.
Iain wrote: "The West can't spread propaganda or exercise 'soft power' as easily as you suggest. ..."The true history of the post-WW2 history debunks that in my opinion. The CIA in particular have proven themselves to be absolute masters of it. Even sometimes so-called enemies of the West appear to have been useful enemies our guys created to engineer wars.
And MI6 and Mossad are not far behind either.
James wrote: "Iain wrote: "The West can't spread propaganda or exercise 'soft power' as easily as you suggest. ..."
The true history of the post-WW2 history debunks that in my opinion. The CIA in particular hav..."
So if CIA or MI6 created these enemies at the level of Russia, China and Iran(not Banana Republics and satellites), in order to justify their existence, and that of other 'dodgy' enterprise, how do you explain Philby and the rest of the Cambridge 5? Would be a bloody big risk to 'keep the "shop" in order', not to mention all that and those sacrificed in its cause.
Or were they part of that conspiracy and Philby and co were triples working under this auspice?
Sounds far fetched to me.
Empires rise and fall, ebb and flow and their respective security services are not as impervious to that historical antecedent as you make out.
The true history of the post-WW2 history debunks that in my opinion. The CIA in particular hav..."
So if CIA or MI6 created these enemies at the level of Russia, China and Iran(not Banana Republics and satellites), in order to justify their existence, and that of other 'dodgy' enterprise, how do you explain Philby and the rest of the Cambridge 5? Would be a bloody big risk to 'keep the "shop" in order', not to mention all that and those sacrificed in its cause.
Or were they part of that conspiracy and Philby and co were triples working under this auspice?
Sounds far fetched to me.
Empires rise and fall, ebb and flow and their respective security services are not as impervious to that historical antecedent as you make out.
Iain wrote: "What sorta factionalism would you suggest? Playing off Shia vs Sunni won't work? Persians( compromise 60% of population) vs what (Baluchis 1%)?..."Factionalism can come in many shades tho.
It can be less tribal and more political.
For example, younger generations wanting a completely new regime in power or a more democratic nation. Social activism is actually growing in Iran.
Plus, the way the likes of the CIA work is to support (e.g. financing and supply of arms etc) small groups in the minority who want a regime change...a change that will be in America's best interests.
I'll give an extreme example for the sake of argument.
Australia is not a divided country. No major political differences in the population, it's mostly a white Christian population, no geographical or tribal differences either.
And yet I'd bet my life if the world's power players really wanted to create chaos in Australia they could do it even here over time...It'd be a very complex intelligence task that'd have to be done on multiple fronts and spreading various propaganda, I'd say...But one way off the top of my head could be there is a tiny minority in Western Australia (WA) who want to become independent from Australia. I bet you they could quietly fund and support such a group and engineer a genuine independence movement that would create major conflict (not necessarily armed) in Australia...Especially as WA has most of Australia's mineral wealth...and it'd change the whole dynamic of a country.
That's an extreme example tho...In Iran it'd be much simpler
Iain wrote: "So if CIA or MI6 created these enemies at the level of Russia, China and Iran ..."You're putting words in my mouth there as I never said they created enemies of the level of Russia and China. That's a gigantic leap above the likes of Saddam and Osama (both who were formerly closely aligned with the Reagan/Bush administrations and the CIA) and also a big leap beyond whatever level of threat Iran actually is.
But in terms of Russia, the US appears to have exaggerated some things about the Soviets during the Cold War -- especially late in the Cold War under Reagan. Likewise, with China, there may be some spin going on in certain areas...If not yet, then I'm sure we'll get a lot of propaganda about China soon. (And that's not to say China and Russia are not genuine threats however, although I still think both nations have a LOT of catching up to do)
The Military Industrial Complex of the West always needs new enemies to keep justifying its bloated, over-the-top existence -- if enemies can't be found, you can be damn sure they'll be created. Up until WW2 most enemies were genuine. But post WW2, every reported enemy in the media appears to be contestable at best and fabricated at worst.
James, I think you are a little optimistic. I doubt an outside force could persuade WA to secede, and I rather suspect once the identity of the major player was uncovered, that player would be the scourge of Australia. Iran might be a little easier, but not once the US starts dropping bombs. Bombing ends up uniting the country.
James wrote: "Iain wrote: "What sorta factionalism would you suggest? Playing off Shia vs Sunni won't work? Persians( compromise 60% of population) vs what (Baluchis 1%)?..."
Factionalism can come in many shade..."
"For example, younger generations wanting a completely new regime in power or a more democratic nation. Social activism is actually growing in Iran."
I get your point and I think some of what you say has merit, but in this case there's a couple of things to point out with your reply and what could / is developing post assassination that negates or renders some of it void:
1) Trump's made clear his intention that he will hit Iran 'hard' and already taken out a much celebrated figure(by their accounts) in the region. That won't win him hearts and minds, and has given the Iranians blatant evidence and a better platform for his critics to cite USA causation of all the woes that has and is coming their way.
(He would be better served to address the Iranian Elite specifically, if he wanted to gain a little more trust of the avg Iranian more in order to set the firmament for regime change)
2) The Iranians now will have greater justification to step-up Internal Security due to this, which will make it harder to operate and exercise any soft-power goals or objectives such as regime change via protests or political disruption.
3) The assassination might have stirred up a greater sense of patriotism, depleting any resource pool that could have been accessed to orchestrate insurrection. (already thousands are protesting and there's more sense of unity being shown by Iranian MPs which will also influence protestation)
Factionalism can come in many shade..."
"For example, younger generations wanting a completely new regime in power or a more democratic nation. Social activism is actually growing in Iran."
I get your point and I think some of what you say has merit, but in this case there's a couple of things to point out with your reply and what could / is developing post assassination that negates or renders some of it void:
1) Trump's made clear his intention that he will hit Iran 'hard' and already taken out a much celebrated figure(by their accounts) in the region. That won't win him hearts and minds, and has given the Iranians blatant evidence and a better platform for his critics to cite USA causation of all the woes that has and is coming their way.
(He would be better served to address the Iranian Elite specifically, if he wanted to gain a little more trust of the avg Iranian more in order to set the firmament for regime change)
2) The Iranians now will have greater justification to step-up Internal Security due to this, which will make it harder to operate and exercise any soft-power goals or objectives such as regime change via protests or political disruption.
3) The assassination might have stirred up a greater sense of patriotism, depleting any resource pool that could have been accessed to orchestrate insurrection. (already thousands are protesting and there's more sense of unity being shown by Iranian MPs which will also influence protestation)
As for China, I understand the US has now paid as much in subsidies t0o its farmers to compensate for the market loss in China as it paid out to the banks in 2008. The difference is the banks eventually paid it back, but the farmers will not be in a position to. Sooner or later, this financial issue must strike the US - especially if they spend another few trillion on a war with Iran.
Ian wrote: "James, I think you are a little optimistic. I doubt an outside force could persuade WA to secede, and I rather suspect once the identity of the major player was uncovered, that player would be the scourge of Australia. ..."I was trying to think of the most extreme example I could think of, Ian. As Australia seems among the most united nations on the planet. But recent history and declassified documents reveal that the key with the best intelligence agency work is that you never suspect it's them -- they are so creative that it always appears organic and germinated wholly within the borders of that nation...Plus, most people within nations are just not conspiratorial enough to ever suspect foreign intel agencies (the conspiratorial mindset is almost impossible for those who only watch "news reporting" via mainstream media - hence why the military and interrelated power structures invest so heavily into that type of news media)... So in that parallel world of the WA independence movement growing, the best intelligence strategies would ensure the identity of the major (foreign) player wouldn't be uncovered...
Anyway, yes, dividing or splintering Iran would be infinitely easier than that. And the US may not be viewed as dropping bombs on Iranians by then, it might be more that they are rescuing freedom fighters from within Iran. For example, many historians now believe Saddam did not kill Kurds with gas (it's now more commonly believed that was Turks doing that across the border into Iraq's Kurdistan region). So, whether the US engineered that gassing or else took advantage of that development, it was then heavily spun in worldwide media that Saddam did that to his own people...That sort of thing makes soldiers less willing to die for their leaders...
Buckle up.
Expect business as usual with various false flags ahead if any news wars are started.
James wrote: "Iain wrote: "So if CIA or MI6 created these enemies at the level of Russia, China and Iran ..."
You're putting words in my mouth there as I never said they created enemies of the level of Russia a..."
Sure, there some stuff out there asking questions why the Bolsheviks weren't destroyed when the U.S. had the capability to stop the Russian Revolution or why Chiang Kai-shek never got more support. There's also other intrigue surrounding the beginning of both Red Empires when it comes to players and funding. There's also the sale of oil from Uncle Joe to Uncle Sam and transfer of weapon blueprints and so on, during The Cold War.
But that aside, Iran has a history behind it that warrants being considered above the level of banana republic or mere satellite state.
(And that's not to say China and Russia are not genuine threats however, although I still think both nations have a LOT of catching up to do)
In a conventional military sense, you could argue that. But the domain of warfare is changing and the attack foot-print widening(cyber, financial, info), and the Chinese have proved capable and formidable in tech catch-up.
You're putting words in my mouth there as I never said they created enemies of the level of Russia a..."
Sure, there some stuff out there asking questions why the Bolsheviks weren't destroyed when the U.S. had the capability to stop the Russian Revolution or why Chiang Kai-shek never got more support. There's also other intrigue surrounding the beginning of both Red Empires when it comes to players and funding. There's also the sale of oil from Uncle Joe to Uncle Sam and transfer of weapon blueprints and so on, during The Cold War.
But that aside, Iran has a history behind it that warrants being considered above the level of banana republic or mere satellite state.
(And that's not to say China and Russia are not genuine threats however, although I still think both nations have a LOT of catching up to do)
In a conventional military sense, you could argue that. But the domain of warfare is changing and the attack foot-print widening(cyber, financial, info), and the Chinese have proved capable and formidable in tech catch-up.
Iain wrote: "But that aside, Iran has a history behind it that warrants being considered above the level of banana republic or mere satellite state...."I think the history of the Persian people alone elevates it above just another rogue state. I think many forget the Persians of Iran have been much more united than most Arab states for centuries.
Anyway, I really hope we never find out and war can be avoided!
James wrote: "Expect business as usual with various false flags ahead if any news wars are started...."I just realized I wrote a typo "news wars"
Then I thought, maybe that's a Freudian slip...
As maybe news wars are often what we are dealing with.
He who controls the media...
James wrote: "Iain wrote: "But that aside, Iran has a history behind it that warrants being considered above the level of banana republic or mere satellite state...."
I think the history of the Persian people a..."
Anyway, I really hope we never find out and war can be avoided!
I hope so too.
I think the history of the Persian people a..."
Anyway, I really hope we never find out and war can be avoided!
I hope so too.
“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”George Orwell
Iain wrote: "I hope so too...."What odds you give it?
50/50? Or more likely?
James wrote: "Ian wrote: "James, I think you are a little optimistic. I doubt an outside force could persuade WA to secede, and I rather suspect once the identity of the major player was uncovered, that player w..."
"it might be more that they are rescuing freedom fighters from within Iran."
The problem is Trump is now using the wrong language post-assassination for it to appear that he is aiding the avg Iranian protester. For example, check this recent Tweet:
....targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!"
Iranian culture? That term to me is ambiguous as to what he means? And on first approximation might be misconstrued as important to society in general? Why would you want to attack what is important to the avg Iranian on the ground?
Unless he's deliberately put that term(or been coached/advised to?) due to the way it might be translated into Farsi; the idea being that a local interpretation might differ from the English one?
"it might be more that they are rescuing freedom fighters from within Iran."
The problem is Trump is now using the wrong language post-assassination for it to appear that he is aiding the avg Iranian protester. For example, check this recent Tweet:
....targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!"
Iranian culture? That term to me is ambiguous as to what he means? And on first approximation might be misconstrued as important to society in general? Why would you want to attack what is important to the avg Iranian on the ground?
Unless he's deliberately put that term(or been coached/advised to?) due to the way it might be translated into Farsi; the idea being that a local interpretation might differ from the English one?
James wrote: "Iain wrote: "I hope so too...."
What odds you give it?
50/50? Or more likely?"
Depends on reciprocation and cycle now. And on that note isn't looking good.
The Iranians(via proxy) are responding by looking to expel the U.S. from Iraq and have restarted their nuclear program, and have yet to make a commensurate reprisal for Soleimani's death. Unless the former two recent events is the response?
Trump will have to respond to these new nuclear developments(if not him then the Isrealis) and possibly any future revenge for the general being deep-sixed.
The situation is now in a spiraling free-fall.
What odds you give it?
50/50? Or more likely?"
Depends on reciprocation and cycle now. And on that note isn't looking good.
The Iranians(via proxy) are responding by looking to expel the U.S. from Iraq and have restarted their nuclear program, and have yet to make a commensurate reprisal for Soleimani's death. Unless the former two recent events is the response?
Trump will have to respond to these new nuclear developments(if not him then the Isrealis) and possibly any future revenge for the general being deep-sixed.
The situation is now in a spiraling free-fall.
Iain wrote: "James wrote: "Iain wrote: "I hope so too...."
What odds you give it?
50/50? Or more likely?"
Depends on reciprocation and cycle now. And on that note isn't looking good.
The Iranians(via proxy)..."
I don't see WW3, but we could see a possible skirmish in the Straits and major disruption to the global economy, and possibly a few stand-offs harboring milder Iranian versions of the Cuban Missile crisis, i.e. threats of escalation that could bring global war due to that.
What odds you give it?
50/50? Or more likely?"
Depends on reciprocation and cycle now. And on that note isn't looking good.
The Iranians(via proxy)..."
I don't see WW3, but we could see a possible skirmish in the Straits and major disruption to the global economy, and possibly a few stand-offs harboring milder Iranian versions of the Cuban Missile crisis, i.e. threats of escalation that could bring global war due to that.
Iain wrote: "Iain wrote: "James wrote: "Iain wrote: "I hope so too...."
What odds you give it?
50/50? Or more likely?"
Depends on reciprocation and cycle now. And on that note isn't looking good.
The Irania..."
Anyway mate, that's my 'Doomer Fix' done for the weekend. lol
What odds you give it?
50/50? Or more likely?"
Depends on reciprocation and cycle now. And on that note isn't looking good.
The Irania..."
Anyway mate, that's my 'Doomer Fix' done for the weekend. lol
I posted this in another thread, but just in case some miss that, I think it is worth repeating:Three pieces of information from al Jazeera:
1 The Iraqi prime minister was quoted as saying that Qassem Soleimani had come to Baghdad International Airport and was driving into Baghdad to keep an appointment with him, to receive information and a proposal he had negotiated with the Saudis and some Gulf States to reduce tension between them and Iran, in other words some sort of start towards peace. You now have to choose between believing the Iraqi PM (and presumably there would be evidence of the booking of the meeting) and Trump's assertion that Qassem was planning the deaths of Americans. If the Iraqi PM is correct, Trump just destroyed some hope for peace, or at least negotiations for peace, which Nik has been insisting should take place.
2. Trump has said that if Iraq proceeds to request the US to leave Iraq, he will impose the most stringent sanctions on Iraq. I guess once you have finished blowing the place up, you might as well do what you can to stop them rebuilding.
3. Trump has stated that if Iran retaliates, the US will bomb Iran severely, including cultural sites. That is a threat to carry out a war crime under the Hague convention, to which the US is a signatory. It also shows what a Vandal Trump is at heart.
Iain wrote: "Ricky wrote: "In US wars are bipartisan. Even the language used by many Dem leaders straight up sound like the act itself wasn't wrong but the manner in which it was executed. This extends further ..."I hope you are right and a war could be averted. I am mostly worried about the destruction of an ancient civilisation. Keeping my fingers crossed.
Speaking of destruction, I am looking for a thread on Aussie bushfire to get the magnitude of what's going on in Australia. I can't believe some of the devastation that I have been reading about. About 500 million animals died? Every state except Tasmania is up the flames? And just yesterday I learned that Australia has taken a turn towards authoritarianism with a proposed anti-protest bill in Tasmania that could sentence environmental activists to jail upto 21 years. I think we need a thread about this.
Ricky, if you need a thread, start one :-) But yes, the fires there are quite horrible, and worse, they have started remarkably early.
Retired US Army lieutenant colonel and military commentator Robert L. Maginnis, on the situ:Lots of smoke but where might be the fire in the wake of the hit on the Iranian general?
We are still waiting for the smoke to settle in order to see what might be the true consequences of President Trump’s decision to kill Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani, a man with the blood of thousands, and that of many Americans on his hand.
In the immediate aftermath of the hit that took place Friday at Baghdad international from an American missile fired from a drone, the consequences are beginning to emerge. Here are a few.
Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, said any response would involve U.S. military targets.” The U.S. has more than 5,000 military personnel in Iraq.
On Sunday the U.S. military in Iraq and Syria announced it was suspending anti-ISIS efforts for the time being.
Mr. Trump cautioned Iran about targeting “USA assets” in revenge for Soleimani’s death. Trump said the U.S. has “targeted 52 Iranian sites” and that some were “at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD.” Evidently the 52 number is significant because in November 1979 Iranian radicals took hostage 52 Americans at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and held them for 444 days.
Over the weekend there was a public funeral for the terror leader in Baghdad where his picture was plastered on walls and the side of armored vehicles and chants were heard: “Death to America” and “No, No Israel.” Also, Saturday evening a rocket fell inside Baghdad’s fortified Green Zone near the U.S. Embassy.
Friday evening an Iranian general said that Iran will punish Americans wherever they are within reach of the Islamic Republic. He continued, “The Strait of Hormuz is a vital point for the West and a large number of American destroyers and warships cross there … Some 35 U.S. targets in the region as well as Tel Aviv are within our reach.”
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security issued a new terrorism alert Saturday evening but DHS acting secretary Chad Wolf said there are no “specific, credible threats” against the U.S. homeland.
On Sunday Tehran announced regarding the 2015 nuclear agreement that it “will have no limitations in production, including enrichment capacity.” This appears to be the most significant consequence of the killing to date. However, the U.S. withdrew from that agreement in May 2018 because of Tehran’s failure to abide by the intent of the agreement. Besides, according to the Israelis, Iran continued to work on the program after the agreement took effect.
On Sunday the Iraqi parliament voted to expel U.S. troops from the country. Evidently that vote was along “party lines,” in that all 167 votes were cast by Shia while the balance of the parliamentarians – Sunnis and Kurds – were absent. Also, the measure is non-binding. However, exiting Iraq ought to be our goal.
Israelis welcomed news of the assassination of Soleimani, someone that government considered assassinating in the past. Israel will closely monitor Hezbollah, an Iranian proxy in Lebanon as well as Hamas and Islamic Jidhad in Gaza. Those proxies could easily touch off a fight between Iran and Israel.
Four months ago Iran attacked the Abqaiq and Khurais oil-processing facilities in Saudi Arabia. The current tension could well escalate to include direct strikes on Saudi Arabia, a close U.S. ally in the region. The U.S. has many hundreds of military personnel in Saudi Arabia.
Iran could strike U.S. forces in Afghanistan where we have 12,000 military personnel.
Iran could enlist its proxy Houthis in Yemen to retaliate against U.S. allies as well, either Saudi Arabia or in the surrounding waters such as the Bab el-Mandeb strait.
Oil prices are expected to rise sharply this week thanks to the threat of retaliation. Those prices rose 3.6 percent on Friday.
Analysis: Our (U.S. and Iran) mutual problem is neither party understands the other’s red lines. That creates a dangerous situation for us and the entire region.
So far, everyone is just yelling at each other, but that could change very quickly.As for the US withdrawing from the agreement, the UN inspectors stated that Iran had kept strictly to it. That Israel disagrees is meaningless because they are hardly neutral observers. Even if Iran did "work on the program", without details that is meaningless. Doing theoretical or design work was not against the agreement, and that cannot lead to nukes unless the uranium is enriched. You will note at present we are only talking about them going to 5% - weapons-grade is 90% so they are nowhere near going there.
It is the analysis paragraph which is the worrying one. I think he is right, although the US has almost certainly crossed the Iranian red line with the assassination.
Ian wrote: "As for the US withdrawing from the agreement, the UN inspectors stated that Iran had kept strictly to it...."UN...Weapons inspectors...Middle East...USA...uranium enrichment...zzzzzzzzzzzz...Haven't we been here before...Replace IraQ with IraN and we have Groundhog Day!
Is there anyone monitoring Israel? If they suddenly do a so-called pre-emptive strike on Iran, will anyone hold Israel accountable? Or are they in with the "Good Guys" so are allowed to do anything, even unjustified acts of war?For Israel, Iran strike could be back on the table https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-isr...
Officials in Jerusalem are keeping a wary eye on developments as Tehran steps even further away from restrictions of 2015 nuclear deal, amid its escalating face-off with the US
If Israel is concerned about Hezbollah in Lebanon, it might reflect on the fact it created it. There was an anti-Israeli demonstration going on somewhere in Lebanon following the Israeli invasion. A tank (or maybe an APC fighting vehicle) got lost, and when the demonstration started throwing stones and insults, instead of backing out (stones have no effect on armour) they opened fire with live machine gun rounds. The anger at the bodies was such that Hezbollah was born.Israel will consider it has the divine right to do what it likes, and if it decides to fly aircraft, it will. I guess that will sort out whether Iran has an effective anti-aircraft defence.
Ricky wrote: "Iain wrote: "Ricky wrote: "In US wars are bipartisan. Even the language used by many Dem leaders straight up sound like the act itself wasn't wrong but the manner in which it was executed. This ext..."Maybe in our Climate change/Global warming thread Ricky?
In Iran, we try to be hopeful. But we’re stalked by the fear of warhttps://www.theguardian.com/commentis...
Waking up to news of the Suleimani assassination was chilling. We know only too well how conflict can break bodies and souls
In the eyes of many, a new war with the US would be a continuation of that conflict. People have not forgotten how the US armed and supported Saddam Hussein.
James wrote: "In Iran, we try to be hopeful. But we’re stalked by the fear of war
https://www.theguardian.com/commentis...
Waking up to news of the Suleimani..."
And war can turn ordinary and fearful humans into monsters.
Bombing and starving people tends to radicalize them, especially if they get to watch their community, friends, kids and loved ones blown to bits.
And on that note: Iran has tentacles to Hizbollah and other external networks(Palestine, Yemen, etc) who are all to willing to fight or even prove martyrdom, having been through or grew up among victims of the aforementioned.
Saddam Hussein never had that 'surrounding' support base to call upon.
But, I reckon, you need to look at this from a number of angles:
Trump has recently stepped down with the war rhetoric and threats, while various sources point to the Iranian's citing a commensurate response for Suleimani's death was found in their recent attack on U.S. bases.
This could either be a ploy, i.e. the idea being not to incite the situation further due to media attention and to provide the Iranians a 'bit of slack' to plan another attack(s) which might be spread out and when there's less media attention?
The other, is that Suleimani might have been an 'inside threat' or was gaining too much power and needed removed by some means and by one that wouldn't point to them(Iranian Elite) facilitating his death, due to the general's popularity?
Maybe now the Iranians are looking to find an 'out' as the job has been done(albeit by the U.S.)?
Apparently The General's own security was lax to the point he was "showing off?" If true, you have to ask if the Iranian elite were happy for him to go about his duties in that manner, knowing fine well the risk and opportunities that would afford the opposition?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentis...
Waking up to news of the Suleimani..."
And war can turn ordinary and fearful humans into monsters.
Bombing and starving people tends to radicalize them, especially if they get to watch their community, friends, kids and loved ones blown to bits.
And on that note: Iran has tentacles to Hizbollah and other external networks(Palestine, Yemen, etc) who are all to willing to fight or even prove martyrdom, having been through or grew up among victims of the aforementioned.
Saddam Hussein never had that 'surrounding' support base to call upon.
But, I reckon, you need to look at this from a number of angles:
Trump has recently stepped down with the war rhetoric and threats, while various sources point to the Iranian's citing a commensurate response for Suleimani's death was found in their recent attack on U.S. bases.
This could either be a ploy, i.e. the idea being not to incite the situation further due to media attention and to provide the Iranians a 'bit of slack' to plan another attack(s) which might be spread out and when there's less media attention?
The other, is that Suleimani might have been an 'inside threat' or was gaining too much power and needed removed by some means and by one that wouldn't point to them(Iranian Elite) facilitating his death, due to the general's popularity?
Maybe now the Iranians are looking to find an 'out' as the job has been done(albeit by the U.S.)?
Apparently The General's own security was lax to the point he was "showing off?" If true, you have to ask if the Iranian elite were happy for him to go about his duties in that manner, knowing fine well the risk and opportunities that would afford the opposition?
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
https://www.sharecast.com/news/intern......"
The problem as I see it, is that whatever Iran does, Trump, in an election year, is likely to retaliate even more strongly.
Yeah, but his(Trump's) retaliation will have to be commensurate or thereabouts. over-reacting could also hurt his campaign. Say the Iranians activate regionally focused retaliation in the form of isolated kidnap operations, assassinations or sabotage American interests and Trump were to respond with mass air-strikes on Tehran - the ensuing and televised collateral damage wouldn't bode well and the Dems might cease upon it.
He would be susceptible to an infowar too at that juncture. The modern news and social media Wurlitzer can cause people to become more fickle than we sometimes expect.
And when it comes to Trump, the majority of the media have shown who they will more than likely side with.