Scrutable

Ah. Nine years after suggesting Obama was cynical enough to start a war with Iran in order to get re-elected, Trump appears to have started a war with Iran in order to get re-elected.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... s-tensions

plodder wrote: Fri Jan 03, 2020 1:02 pm Ah. Nine years after suggesting Obama was cynical enough to start a war with Iran in order to get re-elected, Trump appears to have started a war with Iran in order to get re-elected.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... s-tensions

Or at least to try to avoid getting impeached.

This is fairly normal for US presidents. I'd say the important thing is what should the UK do ?

Stay the hell out of this one.

Try to avoid getting sucked in.

Who are the thousands of Americans Trump says he's killed?

Trinucleus wrote: Fri Jan 03, 2020 10:09 pm Who are the thousands of Americans Trump says he's killed?

Were they all just walking down 5th Avenue? Oh, wait, you mean people Soulimani killed, not Trump, right?

No idea.

Solemaini never killed any Americans

Yamamoto never killed any Americans.

And his strategy and planning killed thousands of Americans.

Obviously this is a pointless discussion. What matters is whether killing the head of a complex organisation which is part of many interconnecting agencies actually makes any difference. This was not some single mastermind controlling every string of a web. If attacks on the US were indeed imminent, it seems implausible that this strike would prevent them.

Did the Yamamoto killing in 1943 make any difference? Perhaps it denied Japan some great strategian and shortened the war. Perhaps it spurred fanaticism and made Japanese soldiers and leaders more dangerous, not less.

could iran be any more fanatical? telly tells me they routinely chant “death to the usa” at daily prayers.

Soleimani was evidently a person of great ability who found himself in the right place at the right time and had a bit of luck along the way. It is possible that his removal might cause the network he presided over to disintegrate into in-fighting before a successor emerges. But that might mean the situation that results is just as bad in a different way.

plodder wrote: Sat Jan 04, 2020 9:38 am could iran be any more fanatical? telly tells me they routinely chant “death to the usa” at daily prayers.

How many US generals have Iran killed recently? Did Iran overthrow a US government in the last century and install a puppet regime?

The Iranian regime are a bunch of arses, and they do rile up the crowds, but they do have some reason to dislike the USA.

bjn wrote: Sat Jan 04, 2020 2:18 pm

plodder wrote: Sat Jan 04, 2020 9:38 am could iran be any more fanatical? telly tells me they routinely chant “death to the usa” at daily prayers.

How many US generals have Iran killed recently? Did Iran overthrow a US government in the last century and install a puppet regime?

The Iranian regime are a bunch of arses, and they do rile up the crowds, but they do have some reason to dislike the USA.

Incredible how some people view decades of ultraviolent US interference in the Middle East as a neutral fact of nature, and any reaction to it as some form of inexplicable extremism. Protesters burn American flags in developing countries all around the world. Because they know who their enemy is.

secret squirrel wrote: Sat Jan 04, 2020 2:34 pm

bjn wrote: Sat Jan 04, 2020 2:18 pm

plodder wrote: Sat Jan 04, 2020 9:38 am could iran be any more fanatical? telly tells me they routinely chant “death to the usa” at daily prayers.

How many US generals have Iran killed recently? Did Iran overthrow a US government in the last century and install a puppet regime?

The Iranian regime are a bunch of arses, and they do rile up the crowds, but they do have some reason to dislike the USA.

Incredible how some people view decades of ultraviolent US interference in the Middle East as a neutral fact of nature, and any reaction to it as some form of inexplicable extremism. Protesters burn American flags in developing countries all around the world. Because they know who their enemy is.

The current Iranian regime is vile, and Suliemani had blood on his hands. I’m not going to mourn him, nor use the West’s actions to give them a pass on what they do. However Trumps actions will only solidify their hold on power.

greyspoke wrote: Sat Jan 04, 2020 11:27 amBut that might mean the situation that results is just as bad in a different way.

Trump will be happy with that. It isn't his objective to make things better for anyone except himself.

lpm wrote: Sat Jan 04, 2020 12:29 am Yamamoto never killed any Americans.

And his strategy and planning killed thousands of Americans.

Obviously this is a pointless discussion. What matters is whether killing the head of a complex organisation which is part of many interconnecting agencies actually makes any difference. This was not some single mastermind controlling every string of a web. If attacks on the US were indeed imminent, it seems implausible that this strike would prevent them.

Did the Yamamoto killing in 1943 make any difference? Perhaps it denied Japan some great strategian and shortened the war. Perhaps it spurred fanaticism and made Japanese soldiers and leaders more dangerous, not less.

Solemaini was probably less important to his regime than Yamamoto was to his. Solemaini had already selected a successor.

I'm no expert in Middle East affairs, but I can't imagine that bombing the airport of an ally to kill an Iranian who is supporting factions in that country which also have links to the Iraqi government is going to increase US influence or reduce Iranian influence.

greyspoke wrote: Sat Jan 04, 2020 11:27 am Soleimani was evidently a person of great ability who found himself in the right place at the right time and had a bit of luck along the way. It is possible that his removal might cause the network he presided over to disintegrate into in-fighting before a successor emerges. But that might mean the situation that results is just as bad in a different way.

Except that he'd been preparing for martyrdom and his successor was named within 12 hours

I hadn't heard of Soleimani before he was killed. I suspect the majority of "hot takes" I've read so far are from people for whom that is also true. So I'm inclined to read the views of people who had.

This article is a good primer:

https://www.newstatesman.com/world/midd ... d-far-over

This Twitter thread is good too:

https://twitter.com/MaajidNawaz/status/ ... 9928872960

Pedantica wrote: Sat Jan 04, 2020 9:58 pm I hadn't heard of Soleimani before he was killed. I suspect the majority of "hot takes" I've read so far are from people for whom that is also true. So I'm inclined to read the views of people who had.

This article is a good primer:

https://www.newstatesman.com/world/midd ... d-far-over

This Twitter thread is good too:

https://twitter.com/MaajidNawaz/status/ ... 9928872960

I don't think he was anything other than a monster, but there are good reasons why Bush snd Obama didn't kill him.

jimbob wrote: Sat Jan 04, 2020 10:05 pmI don't think he was anything other than a monster, but there are good reasons why Bush snd Obama didn't kill him.

I don't think Trump is a deep strategic thinker. So there are good reasons to doubt his judgement on this issue. It's plausible that the cost benefit of that decision has changed in the 3 years since Obama left office. Not least because of the defeat of IS. Whether that means it was a good idea or not I have no idea. It's also plausible that a decision taken for stupid reasons might end up having a benefit compared to the previous more diplomatic approach.

But most of the reactions to the news seem to come from a very Western perspective. Apparently written by people completely unaware (or just refusing to acknowledge) that Iran is already prosecuting a significant number of proxy wars across the region.

I don't think it's helpful to think about the situation between the US and Iran being at risk of going from "not at war" to "at war" as if those are a sort of binary situation. They are already involved in a large number of proxy conflicts. This action may provoke Iran further but may also degrade it's ability or political will to prosecute them. I think it's not helped by the fact that there seems to be almost no way of reacting to Iran that can't be seen as either provocation or appeasement. It's not as though the status quo is working out that well for people in Iraq, Syria, Yemen or indeed Iran itself.

jimbob wrote: Sat Jan 04, 2020 9:37 pm

greyspoke wrote: Sat Jan 04, 2020 11:27 am Soleimani was evidently a person of great ability who found himself in the right place at the right time and had a bit of luck along the way. It is possible that his removal might cause the network he presided over to disintegrate into in-fighting before a successor emerges. But that might mean the situation that results is just as bad in a different way.

Except that he'd been preparing for martyrdom and his successor was named within 12 hours

The capabilities of the successor remain to be seen. I don't think his power came from his rank, as it were.

Pedantica wrote: Sat Jan 04, 2020 10:32 pmBut most of the reactions to the news seem to come from a very Western perspective. Apparently written by people completely unaware (or just refusing to acknowledge) that Iran is already prosecuting a significant number of proxy wars across the region.

I don't think it's helpful to think about the situation between the US and Iran being at risk of going from "not at war" to "at war" as if those are a sort of binary situation. They are already involved in a large number of proxy conflicts. This action may provoke Iran further but may also degrade it's ability or political will to prosecute them. I think it's not helped by the fact that there seems to be almost no way of reacting to Iran that can't be seen as either provocation or appeasement. It's not as though the status quo is working out that well for people in Iraq, Syria, Yemen or indeed Iran itself.

However, the reason Iran is assisting in multiple wars in the area is that most countries in the Arabian peninsula are Sunni dominated and minority Shiite populations are being oppressed. Iran is one of the few countries which are majority Shiite (and oppressing their Sunni minority, although arguably less oppressive than Sunni oppression of Shiites in the peninsula).

In general, the Shiite interpretation of the Koran (or Qu'ran, if you prefer) is closer to Western sensibilities than the Sunni interpretation, which tends more towards hard-line. America *should* be supportive of Iran and against Saudi Arabia; if only those Saudis didn't have so much damn oil!

You can tell Trump doesn't have a plan. Two days in, and he's already threatening to commit war crimes. Via Twitter, obv.

Dupe.

bjn wrote: Sat Jan 04, 2020 7:48 pm The current Iranian regime is vile, and Suliemani had blood on his hands. I’m not going to mourn him, nor use the West’s actions to give them a pass on what they do. However Trumps actions will only solidify their hold on power.

The Iranian regime is terrible. But Western intervention has always made the situation in the region worse, and has never been done in the interests of the people there anyway. Of course, the good thing about failed* interventions in the past is you can use the chaos they cause to justify the failed interventions of the future.

* Failed if you believe the official goals, though, for example, the 2nd Iraq war was a resounding success from other perspectives (e.g. that of the arms manufacturers with which the Bush administration was heavily involved).