Trump decides war with Iran?

[orathaic]

Trump's latest tweet, claiming 'Iran has never won a war. Never lost a negotiation' seems like an effective declaration of war.

And distraction of from his impeachment and other domestic issues.

NB I suspect it is also factually wrong, as Iran won the 1980s Iran-Iraqi war against US backed Saddam Hussain, a war which the US promoted as a reaction to the Islamic revolution which ended the rule of the US sponsored Shah of Iran.

This is the reason Iran Co tinues to a) exist and b) oppose US imperialism.

[orathaic]

https://www.theonion.com/this-war-will- ... 594296/amp

The Onion seems to continue to be relevant today.

[flash2015]

The US has painted themselves into a corner...they had two chances to help reformers win over the hardliners but Bush first threw Khatami under a bus and now they have done the same to Rouhani. So at least for now there is little hope of reform in Iran as we have shown to them that this will get them nowhere.

I guess the US either needs to hope for revolution or they are going to have go in and bomb Iran into submission...I mean into freedom.

[orathaic]

I think that US policy has helped the hardliners since the revolution. Which is a pity, because I doubt a majority of student revolutionaries would have wanted to swap US political puppet monarchy for a theocracy.

[Octavious]

Trump's latest tweet, claiming 'Iran has never won a war. Never lost a negotiation' seems like an effective declaration of war.

In what sense?

And distraction of from his impeachment

I've not noticed Trump trying to distract from his impeachment before. If anything he's using it as a tool to hit Democrats with.

[Randomizer]

Trump appearing to be tough when the wimp has always backed down from a real fight. No one is talking about how this is Trump's Benghazi moment where he hasn't in 3 years upgraded security at the Iraqi embassy knowing that the area is a war zone with him upping the danger with Iran. If the Iranian back mob had killed people inside the embassy would there have been a call from Republicans to investigate Trump's lapses?

As for the US helping reformers, there have never been true reformers in Iran because the theocracy controls who gets to run. There have been slight changes in policy, but no true reform. They jail or kill anyone out to remove the theocrats and make the country more democratic.

The reason Iran is in facing any revolt is oil prices fell and they no longer can run the country and export terrorism when it dropped from $100 per barrel. People aren't getting subsidized basic necessities anymore.

[TrPrado]

I think that US policy has helped the hardliners since the revolution. Which is a pity, because I doubt a majority of student revolutionaries would have wanted to swap US political puppet monarchy for a theocracy.

Wait, all the way back in 79? Since the recent bout of protests I might agree with, but we have certainly pursued policy since the Revolution that has hurt or displayed illegitimacy of the current regime. Khamenei’s supporters losing seats in the latest elections in 2016 and the protests themselves are both clearly tied to US policy, specifically the trade deal pursued by Obama. The 2016 elections were a show of support for the deal, which Khamenei and his supporters were firmly against, and the protests were a result of food prices increasing in spite of a trade deal that should realistically make those prices drop, indicating some level of corruption on the government’s end. (I could probably have explained the corruption thing better at the time, but from the beginning my wager was on that being the genuine intent of US policy, it just didn’t escalate as far as Obama wanted.)


On the topic of the very public killing of the leader of the Quds Force, there are a dozen ways this could go. Iran’s allies only Moscow and Beijing, in their public scolding of the US, kind of also indicated they don’t want Iran to retaliate. But the thing is Khamenei is kind of a wild card. We’re talking about a guy who used his own military to attempt to sabotage trade deals his own country was negotiating. We’re also a month and a half away from parliamentary elections in Iran. Does he do nothing and look weak and embarrass himself in front of his supporters just before an election, or does he retaliate, look strong, but also look stupid in front of his allies who are urging the contrary?

[flash2015]

As for the US helping reformers, there have never been true reformers in Iran because the theocracy controls who gets to run. There have been slight changes in policy, but no true reform. They jail or kill anyone out to remove the theocrats and make the country more democratic.

Seriously? Are you arguing that Khatami/Rouhani were/are the same as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Khatami was clearly trying to throw out the olive branch...there was a genuine opportunity for reproachment there but then the door closed with the "Axis Of Evil" rubbish. The nuclear deal led by Rouhani showed moderates that there was benefit to making deals with the US...but of course we have now shown the US can't be trusted.

I am not sure what you expect. We aren't going to convert Iran into a liberal democracy in one step. And Iran is not Islamic State. They are rational actors, not crazies. If we continue to treat them as all evil, don't expect anything to change.

[TrPrado]

Every country with elections has some level of ballot restrictions. Iran is a bit more restrictive than most, but they've relaxed quite a bit lately and are more open to competitive elections than PRC or Russia. The biggest issue is just wresting power away from the Supreme Leader.

[orathaic]

I think that US policy has helped the hardliners since the revolution. Which is a pity, because I doubt a majority of student revolutionaries would have wanted to swap US political puppet monarchy for a theocracy.

Wait, all the way back in 79? Since the recent bout of protests I might agree with, but we have certainly pursued policy since the Revolution that has hurt or displayed illegitimacy of the current regime. Khamenei’s supporters losing seats in the latest elections in 2016 and the protests themselves are both clearly tied to US policy, specifically the trade deal pursued by Obama. The 2016 elections were a show of support for the deal, which Khamenei and his supporters were firmly against, and the protests were a result of food prices increasing in spite of a trade deal that should realistically make those prices drop, indicating some level of corruption on the government’s end. (I could probably have explained the corruption thing better at the time, but from the beginning my wager was on that being the genuine intent of US policy, it just didn’t escalate as far as Obama wanted.)

Fair comment. US policy has, at times, all the way back to '79 helped hardliners.

And yes, it is not about having a Liberal democracy, because as Liberal and americanised as Iran is/was the US pre-revolution puppeted the Shah. They could have pushed for Liberal democracy then with a lot more success, but didn't want to.

[Jamiet99uk]

Trump's latest tweet, claiming 'Iran has never won a war. Never lost a negotiation' seems like an effective declaration of war.

In what sense?

It doesn't matter if a particular tweet is a declaration of war. Murdering a senior officer of a foreign power (on the soil of a third country and without that country's approval, for good measure) is most certainly a warlike act.

[stefanodangello]

'They could have pushed for Liberal democracy then with a lot more success, but didn't want to.'

Indeed, but I'm pretty confident not overthrowing Mossadegh could have been way more effective in terms of ensuring Iran would be a democracy/constitutional monarchy, and definitely would have denied Iranians consistent reasons to hate the US.

[Octavious]

It doesn't matter if a particular tweet is a declaration of war. Murdering a senior officer of a foreign power (on the soil of a third country and without that country's approval, for good measure) is most certainly a warlike act.

It matters rather a lot, in fact. Warlike acts very rarely lead to war, otherwise we'd go to war with Moscow on a regular basis. Declarations of war, by way of contrast, almost always lead to war.

[Randomizer]

Trump following game plan he accused that Obama would do:
https://news.yahoo.com/trump-tweets-oba ... 30066.html

Start a war with Iran to get re-elected. Another instance of Trump doing what he claimed other person would do or did.

[orathaic]

It doesn't matter if a particular tweet is a declaration of war. Murdering a senior officer of a foreign power (on the soil of a third country and without that country's approval, for good measure) is most certainly a warlike act.

It matters rather a lot, in fact. Warlike acts very rarely lead to war, otherwise we'd go to war with Moscow on a regular basis. Declarations of war, by way of contrast, almost always lead to war.

From his tweet, he seems to be saying, "if we fight them we can win. But if we negotiate, I big brained Donald, author of the art of the deal, will get screwed over..."

Not a declaration, but an admission that he thinks war is the better option.

See also: https://twitter.com/rcallimachi/status/ ... 09761?s=19

[Octavious]

From his tweet, he seems to be saying, "if we fight them we can win. But if we negotiate, I big brained Donald, author of the art of the deal, will get screwed over..."

Not a declaration, but an admission that he thinks war is the better option.

Not my read of it at all. To me the tweet is saying that the days of Iran getting sweet deals for the sake of Western convenience are over, but also underlining the fact that there are no military alternatives to negotiation that will achieve anything other than a world of pain for Iran.

[orathaic]

What sweet deals has Iran been receiving?

I mean, Saudi Arabia, they get a sweet deal, billions in 'military aid' (ie US tax payers money going to US weapons exporters, while the Saudis just get weapons...) Iran, not so much. Currently suffering from US economic sanctions, which likely harms the poorest the most (ie those who don't decide Iranian nuclear policy).

[Octavious]

The US view is that the now defunct nuclear deal gave the Iranians many benefits in exchange for sweet fa. Whether the benefits did Iran much good or not at the end of the day are a matter of some debate, but it's fair to say that the West benefitted not at all from the deal. Trump is saying that this will not be repeated.

The war comment is simply a reminder to Iran that a military conflict will go badly for them, and an attempt to give the impression that the US has the stomach for a fight if necessary. That's why the Yanks are so miffed by their European allies underlining the fact that they have no stomach for anything.

[orathaic]

@Oct.the West/Nuclear powers said, we want to limit nuclear proliferation, so let's create a treaty to guarantee this.

Then they discussed how they would incentive others to sign this treaty.
What they came up with was what Iran agreed to sign up to for this nuclear deal (with ramped up and more effective regime of monitoring and enforcement, since it didn't work for India or Pakistan).

So what 'the west' gets out of the deal is everything they wanted (apart from India and Pakistan still having nuclear weapons).

[orathaic]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-51003159

Latest bullying by the US/Trump. "oh no, this free and democratic society we created is now acting freely and voted for our troops to leave... Let's punish them."