Here Comes the BOOM

https://heavy.com/news/2020/01/qassem-soleimani/

"The New Yorker article says that Soleimani has the blood of American soldiers on his hands; he was known for “assassinating rivals, arming allies, and, for most of a decade, directing a network of militant groups that killed hundreds of Americans in Iraq.” The U.S. Department of the Treasury sanctioned Suleimani.

Tensions were already escalating with the Iran-backed militia attacks on the U.S. embassy in Iraq. Those attacks followed U.S. air raids “against Kataib Hezbollah militia bases” to avenge the death of a U.S. contractor in missile attacks in northern Iraq, according to Jerusalem Post. In contrast, the Obama administration had signed a nuclear deal with Iran."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

https://heavy.com/news/2020/01/qassem-soleimani/

"The New Yorker article says that Soleimani has the blood of American soldiers on his hands; he was known for “assassinating rivals, arming allies, and, for most of a decade, directing a network of militant groups that killed hundreds of Americans in Iraq.” The U.S. Department of the Treasury sanctioned Suleimani.

Tensions were already escalating with the Iran-backed militia attacks on the U.S. embassy in Iraq. Those attacks followed U.S. air raids “against Kataib Hezbollah militia bases” to avenge the death of a U.S. contractor in missile attacks in northern Iraq, according to Jerusalem Post. In contrast, the Obama administration had signed a nuclear deal with Iran."

---

I guess it is satisfying to lash out. I'm not certain it's the smartest thing to do if you are not looking for an all out war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

I guess it is satisfying to lash out. I'm not certain it's the smartest thing to do if you are not looking for an all out war.

---

Twitter trending WWIII like... do people think that would actually happen? If Iran really wants to continue to escalate they'll be guaranteeing their leadership will face the fate of Saddam and Gaddafi.

Wow, you really are such a fucking boomer, and at such a young age too

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Twitter trending WWIII like... do people think that would actually happen? If Iran really wants to continue to escalate they'll be guaranteeing their leadership will face the fate of Saddam and Gaddafi.

---

The US screwed itself and the world, in Iraq. Absolutely bizarre to applaud an opportunity for the US to screw itself and the world even harder. Both monetary, human and geopolitical costs would be immense. Civilians—including American ones—are going to be in the line of fire. And for what? So tiny-dicked weaklings can feel a little vicarious machoness? Lmao, dudes really are the dumbest.

That being said, I don't think this in of itself will lead to a war. Iran has been carefully and strategically escalating for a year, and the US response to recent actions in Iraq has been reasonably well calibrated. This latest move can help deter escalation for the time being. In addition to removing a capable military leader and undermining morale, it gives Iran much to consider wrt just how deeply US intelligence agencies may have penetrated their military & its affiliates.

Trump's wagging the dog.

What a weak move.

Thought this thread was going to be about some right wing fantasy about tax cuts stimulating economic growth, but instead it was a right wing fantasy about how a bunch people are going to get killed.

Like, at least an economic boom is a good thing to aim for. Lewk you never fail to disappoint.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

Like, at least an economic boom is a good thing to aim for. Lewk you never fail to disappoint.

---

His God Emperor fucked that up too

Twitter Link

I have to concede that the president does have one notable talent: that of projection. It's just the best projection. Trump's projection is so good it's like 4K HDR at 5120 x 3200, with surround sound, 3D and those things that make the seats shake or whatever.

It's cosmically good that Soleimani is dead, but this seems like an unnecessary escalation and I'm not sure why it had to happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

I'm not sure why it had to happen.

---

They're trying to provoke Iran into doing something that they can then use to justify a war. Has been right from the start. We've been out of Iraq all of five minutes and Republicans are jonesing for another war in the middle east.

Well, BOOM! THEN!
Talk about tactical political failure/ or expectations fulfilled.

Not that anything will change. :/
Maybe it even was the required respone, but f*.

I'm so damn tired of this human crap. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

They're trying to provoke Iran into doing something that they can then use to justify a war. Has been right from the start. We've been out of Iraq all of five minutes and Republicans are jonesing for another war in the middle east.

---

No, mostly showing off capacity (technological/tactical precision - only a few nations on earth could do this right now) and eliminating the assumed next step in Iran Command structure.
As well as showing of the capacity to act in relation to 2020 and brainwash. 3500 men, poorly trained, cannon foddder, doesn't mean much in the 2100 century.

*sigh*

Twitter Link

Someone needs to have a word with the writers, this is a bit on the nose even by the standard set by 2019

BEST conspiracy theory

Twitter Link

...then again, maybe this is just about a mad man having tactical access to things he need in order to not get forgotten in the political arena. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

His God Emperor fucked that up too

---

Predicable too, and I've been consistently down on Trump for his trade war bull shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

It's cosmically good that Soleimani is dead, but this seems like an unnecessary escalation and I'm not sure why it had to happen.

---

He was a terrorist who planned events that lead to American deaths. Terrorists don't get to live simply because killing them is inconvenient.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

He was a terrorist who planned events that lead to American deaths. Terrorists don't get to live simply because killing them is inconvenient.

---

And this is a great example of how transparently inept his camp is. The "imminent attack" excuse barely lasted a day before they realized it a stunk worse than Iraq's WMD. So now it's your standard foreign guy was bad guy response.

This guy is such a fucking dumbass:

Twitter Link

Unless he's talking about Iranian movie theaters, I think part of that is illegal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

This guy is such a fucking dumbass:

Twitter Link

Unless he's talking about Iranian movie theaters, I think part of that is illegal.

---

Pfft. Iran has proven that they don't act in good faith. Fear of our retaliation is the only thing that will keep them in check.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Pfft. Iran has proven that they don't act in good faith. Fear of our retaliation is the only thing that will keep them in check.

---

You've proven that you have your head stuck up your ass. What you're saying has no relevance to the legality of deliberately targeting sites & structures of great cultural significance due to their cultural significance. In addition, the stupid threat against such structures has close to zero impact on any trepidation Iran may feel, and will have zero success in keeping them in check. If you're gonna threaten to do illegal things to make an enemy afraid, you should threaten genocide, torture, mass rape and other atrocities—like Jesus and CS Lewis would've done.

There is a long list of reasons why killing Soleimani was legitimate. The only question is whether it was a wise thing to do. Hosseini was the driving force of Iranian empire building at the expense of its Arab neighbors. His responsibility for the death of thousands of innocent people is beyond dispute. He organized the state terrorism of Iran. His death will also not be mourned by those Iranians who suffer under the totalitarian regime he and his revultionary regime propped up.

Iranian Americans of all ages and backgrounds being detained and interrogated—or turned back—when trying to return to the US eg. from a concert. Actual numbers as yet unconfirmed. Pretty disgusting. Pretty pathetic.

Twitter Link

Twitter Link

Here comes the boomer:

Twitter Link

Twitter Link

I think Iranians have had trouble entering the US for quite some time due to the travel ban.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

I think Iranians have had trouble entering the US for quite some time due to the travel ban.

---

These reports and others suggest it suddenly got much worse after this order was given. Even for Iranian AMERICANS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

And this is a great example of how transparently inept his camp is. The "imminent attack" excuse barely lasted a day before they realized it a stunk worse than Iraq's WMD. So now it's your standard foreign guy was bad guy response.

---

Killing this bad guy won't make Iran change its ways, let alone "make Americans safe". Trump touts it that way on Twitter, and at campaign rallies, but it's delusional. He's escalated tensions in the ME, deployed more US troops, and created a martyr to boot. Happy fucking New Year. :sour:

Popular Opinion in Syrian circles in Istanbul is that there very well might be a big war in the Middle East. Sort of unwanted but unavoidable now.

Trevor Noah put it best, when confronted with the information that Trump was given a menu of option, with the assassination of Soleimani being the most extreme (and thus the one intended to make the others more reasonable):

"This is where I don't blame Trump. Pentagon officials gave Trump a menu of options but then they were shocked when he chose the most extreme one? ... Get The Fuck Outta Here, Man! They were shocked - have you seen Trump's appartment? What part of his life makes you think he's ever gonna pick middle of the road options, huh? If you don't want Trump to pick something why have you given him the option in the first place?!?"



4:27 for the relevant part.

Multiple missile attacks on bases all over Iraq, by IRGC. Uncharacteristically foolish. War, I guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Multiple missile attacks on bases all over Iraq, by IRGC. Uncharacteristically foolish. War, I guess.

---

Very possible.

Guess they are banking on getting political cover from Trump's escalation and rhetoric, and on being able to climb down before full-blown war. Someone needs to find and pimpslap the fuckwit that included QS's assassination in those PowerPoint slides.

If Trump doesn't hit back hard he'll ensure he's a 1 term president. You can't hit a target (a terrorist) and then threaten Iran with overwhelming response if they retaliate and then let them launch attacks on American military forces without responding. If he blinks like he did when Iran took down the drone at the last second we'll have truly become a paper tiger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Multiple missile attacks on bases all over Iraq, by IRGC. Uncharacteristically foolish. War, I guess.

---

Unfortunate. I'd really hoped they'd limit their retaliation to striking at and/or through proxies. Hitting Iraqi facilities, striking in Syria, etc. I can guarantee that the minimum response we're going to get from this administration is counter-retaliation via missile/drone/air-strikes against Iranian military assets and bases in turn which they're going to reply in kind to. It used to be that Russia would start getting pissed about that kind of action but I don't know how their relations with Iran are doing these days. I hear conflicting things about cooperation and rivalry in their shared defense of Assad's regime in Syria. If Russia doesn't take an overt or tacit pro-Iran stance here, they'll certainly still take advantage of our committing assets there to push harder with Ukraine. And Trump will let them because he's decided to blame Ukraine for his problems here at home and tried to make them a scapegoat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

Unfortunate. I'd really hoped they'd limit their retaliation to striking at and/or through proxies. Hitting Iraqi facilities, striking in Syria, etc. I can guarantee that the minimum response we're going to get from this administration is counter-retaliation via missile/drone/air-strikes against Iranian military assets and bases in turn which they're going to reply in kind to. It used to be that Russia would start getting pissed about that kind of action but I don't know how their relations with Iran are doing these days. I hear conflicting things about cooperation and rivalry in their shared defense of Assad's regime in Syria. If Russia doesn't take an overt or tacit pro-Iran stance here, they'll certainly still take advantage of our committing assets there to push harder with Ukraine. And Trump will let them because he's decided to blame Ukraine for his problems here at home and tried to make them a scapegoat.

---

I've honestly given up trying to predict this administration's likely actions on Iran. In a normal administration, it's likely this kind of attack would result in reciprocal standoff strikes against Iranian missile, radar, and air defense installations. The risk of escalation would be high, but the strikes would likely be calibrated in intensity to send a message without necessitating a massive response (or putting, say, a US pilot in danger of being shot down). Then again, I would have said the same thing after Iranian attacks that downed a large intelligence drone and seriously damaged Saudi oil infrastructure, and the administration's response was... crickets.

Frankly I have no idea what they'll do and I doubt it'll appear to be part of a coherent strategy to confront Iran and/or de-escalate the situation. I think Trump is winging it.

Realistically I still rate the chances of an all-out war with Iran as fairly low (albeit much higher than it was a week and a half ago), but I wouldn't rule out an extended period of standoff strikes and proxy fighting in Iraq. Sort of a war-lite, since no one actually wants to deal with a real war.

Just to remind everyone: if the US actually was planning on, say, toppling the Iranian regime or defeating the Iranian military in detail, they'd need at a minimum several hundred thousand troops, half a dozen carrier battle groups, and a few hundred other aircraft. Whatever they have in mind, there's no indication that the US military is in any way positioned to engage Iran in anything more than a limited set of strikes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

I've honestly given up trying to predict this administration's likely actions on Iran. In a normal administration, it's likely this kind of attack would result in reciprocal standoff strikes against Iranian missile, radar, and air defense installations. The risk of escalation would be high, but the strikes would likely be calibrated in intensity to send a message without necessitating a massive response (or putting, say, a US pilot in danger of being shot down). Then again, I would have said the same thing after Iranian attacks that downed a large intelligence drone and seriously damaged Saudi oil infrastructure, and the administration's response was... crickets.

Frankly I have no idea what they'll do and I doubt it'll appear to be part of a coherent strategy to confront Iran and/or de-escalate the situation. I think Trump is winging it.

Realistically I still rate the chances of an all-out war with Iran as fairly low (albeit much higher than it was a week and a half ago), but I wouldn't rule out an extended period of standoff strikes and proxy fighting in Iraq. Sort of a war-lite, since no one actually wants to deal with a real war.

Just to remind everyone: if the US actually was planning on, say, toppling the Iranian regime or defeating the Iranian military in detail, they'd need at a minimum several hundred thousand troops, half a dozen carrier battle groups, and a few hundred other aircraft. Whatever they have in mind, there's no indication that the US military is in any way positioned to engage Iran in anything more than a limited set of strikes.

---

Or the power of the sun. (TikTok meme reference)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

I've honestly given up trying to predict this administration's likely actions on Iran. In a normal administration, it's likely this kind of attack would result in reciprocal standoff strikes against Iranian missile, radar, and air defense installations. The risk of escalation would be high, but the strikes would likely be calibrated in intensity to send a message without necessitating a massive response (or putting, say, a US pilot in danger of being shot down). Then again, I would have said the same thing after Iranian attacks that downed a large intelligence drone and seriously damaged Saudi oil infrastructure, and the administration's response was... crickets.

Frankly I have no idea what they'll do and I doubt it'll appear to be part of a coherent strategy to confront Iran and/or de-escalate the situation. I think Trump is winging it.

---

Oh, it certainly wouldn't be part of a coherent strategy, and it would not be to de-escalate things. The administration's response was crickets before because Trump's ego was never engaged on the topic and consequently he didn't care at all about what the Iranians did/were doing. Now his ego is engaged and it's going to be motivating his selection of responses. At this point what I'm hoping is that we're going to be making stand-off strikes and that while Iran may do some of its own as well they'll quickly switch to proxy fighting (and maybe low-scale harassment like getting mortar strike teams and such in position to do some shelling on US facilities, also with help from local proxies). Trump will give himself a pat on the back for his tough response and things will peter out.

Quote:

---

Just to remind everyone: if the US actually was planning on, say, toppling the Iranian regime or defeating the Iranian military in detail, they'd need at a minimum several hundred thousand troops, half a dozen carrier battle groups, and a few hundred other aircraft.

---

It would also be absolutely pointless. The significant Iranian military isn't all that important for their activities across the broader Middle East, we could maybe topple the current regime but we'd never manage to either facilitate or install and keep installed a friendly one. We could maybe give rise to a bunch of bickering factions and tribal interests but if we did plenty of them would be perfectly willing and able to continue the same kind of policies in the Middle East and against our interests as the current regime. We could make life worse and more unstable for a bunch of Iranians but we can't change much vis a vis Iran and the Middle East or Iran and us, with or subsequent to our use of military force.

If you were talking about any country in the Gulf region other than Iran I would agree with you. However it is Iran we are talking about and that country is not likely to fall apart in case of a regime change, not even a violent one.

I think the smartest the US can do now is lash out at specific Iranian facilities. Try to limit casualties but strike hard enough and decisive enough for the clique in Tehran to get the message. I'm sure our friends in Jerusalem have some sensible suggestions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

If you were talking about any country in the Gulf region other than Iran I would agree with you. However it is Iran we are talking about and that country is not likely to fall apart in case of a regime change, not even a violent one.

I think the smartest the US can do now is lash out at specific Iranian facilities. Try to limit casualties but strike hard enough and decisive enough for the clique in Tehran to get the message. I'm sure our friends in Jerusalem have some sensible suggestions.

---

To me the primary goal would be to eliminate their ability to fight back. Hit airfields, locations of where they are firing ballistics, power grid etc. It shouldn't be tit for tat it should be sustained around the clock bombing for a few days.