42
votes
IRGC: Missile attack on US base in Iraq is revenge for Soleimani killing
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- Multiple rockets hit Iraqi base hosting US soldiers: report
- Authors
- Word count
- 460 words
Wasn't Nixon a prolific consumer of Johnny Walker Blue? And Trump a prolific tee totaler? More like pathologically deranged, mentally declining Nixon....
I know I was just musing that "drunk Nixon" is kinda funny considering baseline Nixon was drunk. So Trump is like... drunk drunk Nixon.
The Associated Press article about this also includes that a stampede broke out as Soleimani's coffin was being transported through his hometown, with state TV saying that at least 56 people were killed and over 200 injured.
The stampede was caused by huge crowds
Does anyone have any idea of at what point in a hypothetical escalation would Russia or China come to the aid of Iran? As in e.g. sending their own air support over.
It looks like Iran has accepted the USA's invitation to a lovely little war. Quelle surprise.
Please tell me that briefing includes someone saying to him "Look what a mess you got us into with your stupidity and your arrogance." I know it won't happen, but someone needs to tell him to his face that he started this war.
Why? Trump likely started the conflict deliberately, to assist with his reelection later this year.
I'm no fan of Trump, but I disagree with that. Soleimani has been a thorn in America's side for a while now. I'm more inclined to believe that Trump saw the Embassy attacks and killing of the US contractor as an opportunity to make an example of Soleimani. Misguided politically, but not at all out of character for Trump. I have a harder time seeing how this would help his odds of re-election at all. He's still very popular with his base and amongst republicans in general, the sort of people who would approve of this sort of thing. The swing voters probably won't all be swayed in his support, and of course, those who disapprove of Trump won't approve of this move either.
Furthermore, it's been clear that neither the US nor Iran want to escalate this conflict. Iran very well understands the MASSIVE power asymmetries between them and the US. They now know that this administration, unlike previous ones, are more willing to take action when Iran crosses a line, even if it is a detriment to US objectives in the long run. Even their retaliation, the missile attacks against US bases, caused little to no US casualties- a perfect chance to de-escalate while still saving face. I am doubtful this will expand into a major conflict between US and Iran unless the US responds by attacking Iranian soil or something nuts like that.
How is that clear?
Someone attacked an Iraqi base, killing a US contractor. The US bombed the shit out of an Iranian backed militant group.
The militant group then attacked a US embassy in Iraq. The US then killed Soleimani.
Iran is now openly attacking US troops in Iraq.
I don't know how likely it is, or how true but:
There are some signs that this latest Iranian strike was designed to both a) satisfy hardliners at home and b) not be worth further retaliation by the US. Reports now indicate that there were no US casualties, and that the missiles largely landed in unoccupied portions of the bases (which I understand to be very large). Furthermore, there were reports in Iranian media leading up to this about missiles being mobilized and deployed, something that definitely would have been known to US intelligence - this indicates that Iran was more or less telegraphing the strike. The language post-strike has also been largely final from the Iranian side, saying they have "carried out and concluded" their retaliation. All of this is enough to make me think it is possible that Iran does not want escalation, and that the ball is in the US's court .
Does your opinion on the matter fluctuate at all when presented with this?
You were right (I think. I hope.)
There is still a power struggle in Iraq and Syria, US is still exerting economic sanctions on Iran, Soleimani's dead, Iran has restarted it's nuclear program...
So... Trump considers this a win and moves on?
That's all the more reason for people to call him out on this matter.
If Reza Marashi is to be believed, they most certainly didn't.
Reza is the Research Director for the National Iranian American Council, worked for four years in the Office of Iranian Affairs for the US State Department, spent time as an analyst for the Institute of National Strategic Studies covering China and Middle East affairs, and has worked as a private strategic consultant on Iranian political and economic risk. (Info pulled from his bio page on the NIAC's website, here.)
Sadly, it wouldn't make any difference I'm afraid.
I'll wager tomorrow morning's presidential address constitutes mostly either "killing Solomani wasn't bad because _____" and/or "the situation isn't that bad, MSM is making me look bad again".
This is not an accepted invitation to war. It was a very careful message that to Iranians says "we, the IRGC, bombed the Great Satan for their killing of Soleimani" and to America says "we didn't kill any Americans, we aren't escalating this but we need to save face"
Aramco attacks show how precise Iran can be if they choose. If they wanted to escalate this to war there would be a dozen American dead now.
If Iran were accepting an invitation of war, they would have killed American troops in retaliation.
Sounds like a wrestling promo. That's how I'm imagining all briefings with D-Tramp now.
I really hope conflict can be avoided, it will offer us no benefit and only lead to more death. Even if we were to conquer Iran, it's foolish to think we'd be able to enact friendly regime change. And that's a big if.
Unfortunately I think this means we need to grow comfortable with a nuclear Iran.
It's small point in this context, but we shouldn't grow or be "comfortable" with a nuclear anyone. nuclear weapons are horrid, and we need to be moving towards global disarmament.
But we (the US,UK, and France) are nuclear powers? I think the problem is that, unfortunately, nukes are the only thing that really stops global (and especially authoritarian powers who would gladly choose to make enemies burn than have their own citizens be happy) from just declaring war on eachother. Most of the world is not a democracy and the parts that are are being intensely swayed the other way and we will have to deal with that somehow.
Welp, I have a friend coming back from Iran on the 10th.
With missiles flying around, I'm starting to highly doubt her plane won't end up grounded.
#FAA Statement: #NOTAMs issued outlining flight restrictions that prohibit U.S. civil aviation operators from operating in the airspace over Iraq, Iran, and the waters of the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman.
Great... Any news about Europe bound flights?
Both nations are militarily aligned with each other, and already provide military aid. I would not be surprised to see additional assistance being provided, however I doubt we will see Russian or Chinese combatants entering the fray unless things end up looking really bad for Iran a la the Korean war. Even then I'm not sure if we'd see that.
I think you meant to reply to a comment rather than create a new one?
Yeah, probably to @jakethedog's comment:
https://tildes.net/~news/kpp/irgc_missile_attack_on_us_base_in_iraq_is_revenge_for_soleimani_killing#comment-4eky
Yes. cfabbro is correct
Yeah I agree. The original article on Soleimani 's killing is from AL Jazeera, a Qatari government publication, for God's sake!