• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

U.S. Sizing Up Iran?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sorry, to clarify: I meant that if the narrative proposed by the US at this time is true, then he deserves praise - that last bit of my post bit didn't relate to the initial speculation.
 
...Israel, who are notorious for sneak attacks on countries the are not at war with, and who are in the possession of nuclear weapons they are not supposed to have, do not receive the same opprobrium.

One could ask why.

Perhaps it’s because they’re a liberal, secular democracy? Or perhaps it’s because their neighbours keep trying to annihilate them?

As for “sneak attacks”, 1956 and 1967 were to open (1956) the Straits of Tiran, then to conduct a pre-emptive strike (1967) to prevent Egypt from cutting off the route of 90% of Israel’s oil supplies by blockading the Straits again; and Operation Opera prevented Iraq from completing preparations to build a nuclear weapon.

maximus otter
 
Yes, Operation Opera.

I arrived in Baghdad just three week after that.

And the Iraq/Iran war was ongoing.

You are aware that the whole thing was watched by US AWACs ? so even then they were sticking their nose in.

As for people wanting to annihilate Israel ! Is it any surprise, really.

If you go around stealing people's land and claiming it as your own then you are going to upset folk.

Anyway, I understand that is a no-go area here. So best we don't mention it again.

One does have to wonder why, with an American battle fleet just off the coast, Iran would choose to shoot down a drone belonging to that same country. Seems like the height of folly.

Even Kim wouldn't do anything so silly.

INT21.
 
Is it feasible that the US abandoned retaliatory attack didn't happen at all, fake news, & that it's an invention for scare tactics & bluster - a bluff or warning shot across the bow, or is that a non-starter which would be found out easily & debunked?

One way or the other it's a good job it didn't happen over something relatively trivial in current circumstances. If it was as reported, credit to Trump for changing his mind, though why he originally gave the go ahead is a worry.
 
One way or the other it's a good job it didn't happen over something relatively trivial in current circumstances. If it was as reported, credit to Trump for changing his mind, though why he originally gave the go ahead is a worry.

Indeed it as as well that it didn't happen.

Maybe he ordered it just so he could cancel it.

INT21.
 
As for people wanting to annihilate Israel ! Is it any surprise, really.

If you go around stealing people's land and claiming it as your own then you are going to upset folk.

Anyway, I understand that is a no-go area here. So best we don't mention it again.

This I have read more than once now from you. Please stop doing it.

If the topic is off-limits, don't flirt with it by dropping a stink bomb and then raising your hands:

"Your mum's a big fat cow, but my dad says that I shouldn't mention it, so I can't say that. You'll hear no more about it from me--though you can't be surprised with all the cake she shovels away."
 
This I have read more than once now from you. Please stop doing it.

If the topic is off-limits, don't flirt with it by dropping a stink bomb and then raising your hands:

"Your mum's a big fat cow, but my dad says that I shouldn't mention it, so I can't say that. You'll hear no more about it from me--though you can't be surprised with all the cake she shovels away."

What's the point of this thread Yith?
No Fortean conspiracies to talk of. Just heated geopolitics and a descent into bigotry.
 
What's the point of this thread Yith?
No Fortean conspiracies to talk of. Just heated geopolitics and a descent into bigotry.

Originally, the focus was the various theories that 'deep state' hawks, neo-conservatives and the military industrial complex were attempting to orchestrate a war in Iran for money/oil/evangelical Christian eschatology (delete according to taste).

It was started at the same time as the Venezuela Next? thread (I think, would have to check), when Afghanistan and Iraq were still boiling over, before the prohibition on political point-scoring.

You're right, however, that there is too much non-conspiracy, non-Fortean material, but I have no appetite to purge an eighty-five page thread.

Members post what members post and (despite what some claim) the hurdle for removal is quite high.

Bigotry I will keep an eye out for.
 
Bigotry I will keep an eye out for.
Is this big enough?
big-tree.jpg
 
Sometimes, Conspiracy threads (especially) morph into Mainstream. Example - if Watergate were to happen now, the first, tiniest inklings would easily be in Conspiracy, but the aftermath, when all was laid bare in forensic detail could equally be classed as both Conspiracy and Mainstream: the former as it was.. erm... a conspiracy, the latter because we then knew the details.

When things are still unspooling I think it's safest to remain in Conspiracy, especially where there are myriad angles that just don't add up. When it's entirely straightforward (granted there are those that will never accept straightforward) then it should be in Mainstream. If all else fails it's no hardship to shift it.

Iran, for the moment, has so much murk going on that it's placed correctly. As for the potential actors - we know about Trump, we know about Israel, we know about Saudi. In the context of this thread, we're only interested in their direct relationship to this thread. Please let us keep to that,
 
Ok, ok. I promise never to mention Israel again.

This can make it rather difficult commenting on anything that relates to that country. And I do not agree with the concept of not being able to discuss the goings on of a country that effects all of us.

Particularly if the country in question attacks Iran (again) . Iran being the subject of the thread.

So, had my say.

Back to normal service.
 
America's approach to Iran seems to me almost identical to laying siege to it.

With a touch of the Mafia thrown in for good measure. (Don Jr does look like someone that Miami Vice would want to have a word with).

The idea that one country can tell other countries that they can't trade with Iran (or anyone else) as it doesn't suite their economic plan is pretty medieval.

The rest of the world should tell the aggressor, 'go stuff yourself. It's not our fault you can't come to agreeable trade with them'.

It's highly unlikely that Iran will attack anyone. But It will make a formidable foe if pushed.

INT21.
 
Here's my tuppence.

America knows that Iran has some nukes, or at least has access to nukes.
The nukes might not be in Iran, but stored with their ally, North Korea.
Or the nukes belong to North Korea, and in the event of need, the North Koreans will lend Iran a couple of nukes.
Because Iran helps North Korea with missile technology.

So, President Obama tackled this problem by coming up with the Nuclear Deal...effectively a mixture of appeasement and bribery to keep Iran in line and in the "international community", for whatever that phrase is worth.

But Trump takes a different approach; rips up a deal that he believes is not worth the paper it is written on, and squeezes Iran by economic sanctions.

As for Israel attacking the oil tankers as a false flag, it's way off the mark.
Prime Minister Netanyahu has to take part in a general election in mid September.
It's the second inside six months, his party Likud received a number of votes too low to form a coalition earlier this year.

So if Iran attacks Israel in retaliation for a false flag attack - using Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria, the Iranian military in Syria, and Hamas in Gaza, it means hundreds of thousands of missiles and mortars launched towards Israel.
A smaller Hezbollah attack (The Second Lebanon War) took then Israeli Prime Minister Olmert 36 days to stop in 2006....and he received massive criticism from the Israeli public for taking so long.
Similar could scupper Netanyahu's chances in the imminent election.....the last thing he needs is war right now.
 
In medieval times siege was usually preferable to battle.

Exactly. And the fact that no further attacks on tankers have occurred in the last 11 days seems to support that view.
The mere threat of US retaliation, coupled with an alleged cyber attack to scramble the Iranian military computers, has proved remarkably effective and that has to be preferable to war.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ttack-on-iranian-rockets-and-missiles-reports

Of course, behind the scenes, those Iranian military grade centrifuges may be spinning faster than ever but, if Iran tries to hold the world to nuclear ransom, it certainly won't end well for the theocracy.
 
Following 6 attacks on tankers in a 3 week period, wouldn't you say this current hiatus in violent incidents is welcome and significant?

I live literally next door to North Korea.

These things come and go in fits and its seldom possible to identify the whys and wherefores until one is granted the wisdom of hindsight.

An eleven-day hiatus could mean a change of course, a period of contemplation or equally a pause for the Iranian armed forces to get its ducks in a row before a further escalation.

Edit: ignore anything out of Washington and Tehran and watch Israel and Saudi Arabia. They will both get a diplomatic heads-up from the U.S. behind the scenes before major action and may give the game away--more likely through actions than words. Equally, Israeli intelligence is the best in the region and they'll soon be aware of major steps from Iran to destablise oil supplies, which is the first step down the slope to musketry.
 
Iranian dissident Yassamine Mather analyses the current situation. She makes an interesting point:

By 2020 Trump will need an escalation of the conflict in the region - or perhaps a photo-opportunity, demonstrating he has made a ‘good deal’ with Iran, as opposed to Barack Obama’s “very bad deal”.

The June 13 attack on two oil tankers marked a serious escalation in the current conflict between Iran’s Islamic Republic and the United States.

Dozens of crew members were rescued when they had to abandon ship, and both Iran and the US claimed they were involved in the rescue operation.There were also two versions of the incident itself. According to the US navy, mines from small boats caused the blasts in the Gulf of Oman, one of the world’s busiest oil routes. The US central command later released a grainy video showing what they claimed is a small Iranian boat, removing an “unexploded limpet mine” from the hull of one of the tankers. However, Yutaka Katada of Kokuka Sangyo, owner of the oil tanker, contradicted the American version: “The vessel was struck by a projectile and not by a mine. We received reports that something flew towards the ship.” Both tankers were on their way to Japan and this was certainly an interesting development, given the presence of Japanese premier Shinzo Abe in Tehran for a meeting with Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei. ...

Before looking at some of the reasons why the Trump administration is threatening war one day and promising negotiations the next, we should remember that punitive sanctions are crippling Iran’s economy. Medical staff in Iran have raised concerns about infant mortality, as well as the rate of growth of infants born since the imposition of new sanctions. Iranians complain of the shortage of basic food items and the economy is in freefall - inflation is running at around 40%.

However, in a clear sign that the elite made up of the various factions of the regime does not have a clue about the suffering of ordinary people, last week the country’s information minister made the bizarre claim that Iranians are now suffering from sanctions because they usually “consume too much”.

https://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1256/threats-must-be-taken-seriously/
 
Iranian dissident Yassamine Mather analyses the current situation. She makes an interesting point:

By 2020 Trump will need an escalation of the conflict in the region - or perhaps a photo-opportunity, demonstrating he has made a ‘good deal’ with Iran, as opposed to Barack Obama’s “very bad deal”.

Trump will not neccesarily need an event to show he has made the correct decision on the Iran deal.
He can already point to history and 40 years of tension between Iran and the USA.
He fights an election in 2020, and won the last one largely on his promise of job creation and economic improvement.
He won the crucial Rust Belt states on this premise.
I would argue therefore that showing he has improved the American economy is by far his strongest electoral need.
 
Trump will not neccesarily need an event to show he has made the correct decision on the Iran deal.
He can already point to history and 40 years of tension between Iran and the USA.
He fights an election in 2020, and won the last one largely on his promise of job creation and economic improvement.
He won the crucial Rust Belt states on this premise.
I would argue therefore that showing he has improved the American economy is by far his strongest electoral need.

I don't believe he has improved the US economy but we're slipping into straightforward politics here. Best to stick to the conspiracy/war analysis and how that influences Trump's thinking.
 
As for the potential actors - we know about Trump, we know about Israel, we know about Saudi. In the context of this thread, we're only interested in their direct relationship to this thread. Please let us keep to that,
 
A related question, why would you attack someone with mines? Isn't the point of a mine to stay put and the ships approach it, not the other way around?
 
Reference is made above to Iran's link to North Korea.

Maybe it needs to be pointed out that they also have links with Russia and China.

As for Iran wishing to hold people to nuclear ransom, surely America already does that.

Their whole aim is to be the only country with these weapons.

Only a worldwide collection of idiots would allow this to happen.

NEVER give up your big stick.

(Mine is just behind the front door, along with the replica battle axe)

INT21.
 
I would argue therefore that showing he has improved the American economy is by far his strongest electoral need.

If you look at the underlying figures, you will find this isn't so.

Ignore the stock market. That is just a shell game.

INT21.
 
A related question, why would you attack someone with mines? Isn't the point of a mine to stay put and the ships approach it, not the other way around?

A mine is basically an explosive device designed primarily to be deployed sub surface (be that surface earth or water). Beyond that basic definition there is some variation. (Those big naval mines with the horns - which is what I think you might be thinking of - are just one variation.)
 
Last edited:
I think one of my points on Trump has been misinterpreted.

Whether he has improved the US economy can be debated at length.
But in order to get re-elected in 2020, he has to be able to make a strong case to the electorate that he has improved the economy.

He also promised that he would withdraw US troops from overseas conflicts.
That does not in itself prevent him from entering into conflicts if he feels he has to defend American interests, but it reduces the chance of his committing large numbers of ground troops to actual combat.
Once the election is over, he may or may not feel less committed to that.
 
I think one of my points on Trump has been misinterpreted.

Whether he has improved the US economy can be debated at length.
But in order to get re-elected in 2020, he has to be able to make a strong case to the electorate that he has improved the economy.
It will not be debated at length here, as has been said already please keep on topic. Thank you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top