Escalation in Iraq

[ngatimozart]

Really?

I suppose one could form that opinion when on the receiving end of an avalanche of woke western media outlets who look upon the likes of Hassan Rouhani and a sadistic thug like Soleimani as somehow a superior life form to a "deplorable" like Trump.

Actually I tend to avoid woke media like the plague and I also believe that Soleimani got what he deserved, but there are other ways of achieving the same object and getting the message to Tehran without inflaming the Middle East anymore than it already is. There are more than one way of killing an alley cat besides stuffing its arse full of sticky buns.

TBH the last good US president was George HW Bush, USN Retd, the 41st POTUS. Currently the US White House, Congress and political classes are dysfunctional and toxic, and until that changes the US is buggered politically. They can't even pass a federal budget having to use continuing resolutions, and IIRC that's been the new normal since 2013. They are heading into the 2020 election and Trump still hasn't filled some of the positions vacated after the 2016 election. The organisational ability is just about as bad as the lot we have running the govt in Wellington.

 

[Brucedog]

ngat, where did you learn your method of killing alley cats? I couldn't find it on the Dept of Conservation website.

 

[seaspear]

i wouldnt regard any rocket aimed as incapable of serious consequences
Remembering the V2 Attack on Cinema Rex

 

[ngatimozart]

ngat, where did you learn your method of killing alley cats? I couldn't find it on the Dept of Conservation website.

It's an old southern South Island trick and what DOC doesn't know doesn't hurt it.

 

[MrConservative]

Actually I tend to avoid woke media like the plague and I also believe that Soleimani got what he deserved, but there are other ways of achieving the same object and getting the message to Tehran without inflaming the Middle East anymore than it already is. There are more than one way of killing an alley cat besides stuffing its arse full of sticky buns.

So what other ways would you have taken out Soleimani who was in curiously in Baghdad? Yeah and Soleimani was not there as a tourist which is the duplicity not being mentioned here.

The Middle East has been inflamed by the actions of the Islamic Republic of Iran for 40 years. Their roll call of malfeasance existed long before Trump.

Actually the calculated, proportional and precise selection of sticking certain exploding sticky buns up the interior back cavities of certain selected alley cats in the Iranian regime, which the Soleimani takeout indeed was - is a blunt and effective message that will see the regime curtailing their disruptive efforts and get back into their box as an act of survival albeit with the usual puffery and rhetoric, marked by gestures of tough guyness like lobbing a few missiles into an air base for ones domestic regime propaganda.

Oh but because Trump does it, who - and lets be candid here - immediately makes all and sundry lose their objectivity when no other former US President would not have passed on the chance to take out an individual like Soleimani, the Godfather of Islamic terrorism, who represented a clear and present danger to not just US security but to those of its partners in the Gulf States plus Jordan, and the only democracy in the ME Israel.

TBH the last good US president was George HW Bush, USN Retd, the 41st POTUS. Currently the US White House, Congress and political classes are dysfunctional and toxic, and until that changes the US is buggered politically. They can't even pass a federal budget having to use continuing resolutions, and IIRC that's been the new normal since 2013. They are heading into the 2020 election and Trump still hasn't filled some of the positions vacated after the 2016 election. The organisational ability is just about as bad as the lot we have running the govt in Wellington.

What has this got to do with Rouhani and a sadistic thug like Soleimani in the context of the current US President or the House of Congress?

 

[Goknub]

Iran are saying the ballistic missile attack is the end of their retaliation.

From Zarif

"Iran took & concluded proportionate measures in self-defense under Article 51 of UN Charter targeting base from which cowardly armed attack against our citizens & senior officials were launched" "We do not seek escalation or war, but will defend ourselves against any aggression."

They also apparently warned the Iraqis beforehand, so the US would have known of the impending attack either through them or their own sources. It seems Iran were looking to demonstrate their resolve without causing casualties but are hoping to now deescalate.
Even Hezbollah has directed that US civilians are not to be targeted. The only proxies overtly looking to fight are those in Iraq.

I see the US dilemma being that of the Lesson of the Caudine Forks. If they engage only Iranian proxies the momentum and advantage will be with Iran, they have nothing to lose with these expendable groups. Their only real options are go big (targeting Iran directly) or go home.

 

[John Fedup]

Actually I tend to avoid woke media like the plague and I also believe that Soleimani got what he deserved, but there are other ways of achieving the same object and getting the message to Tehran without inflaming the Middle East anymore than it already is. There are more than one way of killing an alley cat besides stuffing its arse full of sticky buns.

TBH the last good US president was George HW Bush, USN Retd, the 41st POTUS. Currently the US White House, Congress and political classes are dysfunctional and toxic, and until that changes the US is buggered politically. They can't even pass a federal budget having to use continuing resolutions, and IIRC that's been the new normal since 2013. They are heading into the 2020 election and Trump still hasn't filled some of the positions vacated after the 2016 election. The organisational ability is just about as bad as the lot we have running the govt in Wellington.

US government dysfunction is indeed the problem. Even if Trump loses the election this will continue but the dysfunction will perhaps be a little less obnoxious.

 

[Feanor]

So what other ways would you have taken out Soleimani who was in curiously in Baghdad? Yeah and Soleimani was not there as a tourist which is the duplicity not being mentioned here.

I've come across claims that he was there to negotiate a de-escalation of tensions with the Saudis. He was traveling with Iraqi officials, some of whom were killed in the attacks. So he was not there as a tourist, if the claims are correct then he was there on a diplomatic mission, making the strike more deplorable, not less.

The Middle East has been inflamed by the actions of the Islamic Republic of Iran for 40 years. Their roll call of malfeasance existed long before Trump.

It's a little odd to compare the "roll call of malfeasance" of a country with that of a person. What happens if we take the "roll call of malfeasance" for the USA in the Middle East, starting with supporting the Shah?

Actually the calculated, proportional and precise selection of sticking certain exploding sticky buns up the interior back cavities of certain selected alley cats in the Iranian regime, which the Soleimani takeout indeed was - is a blunt and effective message that will see the regime curtailing their disruptive efforts and get back into their box as an act of survival albeit with the usual puffery and rhetoric, marked by gestures of tough guyness like lobbing a few missiles into an air base for ones domestic regime propaganda.

It remains to be seen where this ultimately leads. I've encountered a theory on multiple Russian sites that Trump intended for Iraq to kick the US out, as a way of withdrawing from the Middle East against domestic opposition. I've also seen several Russian sites claim that the US communicated to Iran that Iran should strike back, but in a limited fashion, to save face, allowing for de-escalation afterwards. Neither is reliable, but both seem plausible.

Oh but because Trump does it, who - and lets be candid here - immediately makes all and sundry lose their objectivity when no other former US President would not have passed on the chance to take out an individual like Soleimani, the Godfather of Islamic terrorism, who represented a clear and present danger to not just US security but to those of its partners in the Gulf States plus Jordan, and the only democracy in the ME Israel.

It's a killing of a foreign official, on foreign soil, against a state that the US is not at war with. It poses serious questions for the future, and is being regarded in a deeply negative light by many outside the US. And I suspect that the US has had plenty of previous chances to kill him. Soleimani has traveled all over the Middle East many times.

 

[John Fedup]

Iran are saying the ballistic missile attack is the end of their retaliation.

From Zarif

"Iran took & concluded proportionate measures in self-defense under Article 51 of UN Charter targeting base from which cowardly armed attack against our citizens & senior officials were launched" "We do not seek escalation or war, but will defend ourselves against any aggression."

They also apparently warned the Iraqis beforehand, so the US would have known of the impending attack either through them or their own sources. It seems Iran were looking to demonstrate their resolve without causing casualties but are hoping to now deescalate.
Even Hezbollah has directed that US civilians are not to be targeted. The only proxies overtly looking to fight are those in Iraq.

I see the US dilemma being that of the Lesson of the Caudine Forks. If they engage only Iranian proxies the momentum and advantage will be with Iran, they have nothing to lose with these expendable groups. Their only real options are go big (targeting Iran directly) or go home.

Yes, CNN is also repotting the Iranians gave the Iraqis advance warning. They are also reporting the missiles may have been targeted to avoid casualties. Trump is to speak this morning.

 

[John Fedup]

Yeah, on that point, a Ukrainian 737 went down in Iran, near Tehran, just now, apparently killing all on board.

Apparently the Ukrainian airline first reported engine failure and then retracted this. There was also a vague reference on CBC that Jordan suspected it was shot down (sorry no links). Probably a lot of BS speculation will be happening for a while, especially if Iran declines to send the black boxes to Europe, a move which will be seen as suspicious. Given Boeing's recent problems, I would think Iran wouldn't mind seeing the black box info casting further negativity on a US aerospace firm.

 

[Ranger25]

Trump has spoken to the press and taken no questions.

Despite a large portion of posters here touting the American President’s bellicose nature and perceived penchant for war with Iran, he has done the opposite.

The Iranian strike could have been used as an excuse for American retaliation against IRGC assets etc but instead there has been none. The US has considerable assists in the region capable of conducting strikes if ordered

I still find it irregular the type of strike conducted and apparent lack of precision and effectiveness. The recent attacks on the ARAMCO facilities showed a higher level of precision, coordination and sophistication. This was curiously quite the opposite.



Some exerps

The president touted the military under his administration but added: "The fact that we have this great military and equipment, however, does not mean we need to use it. ... We do not want to use it."

Trump said: "The U.S. is ready to embrace peace with all who seek it."

The president’s address comes after Iran fired as many as 15 ballistic missiles into Iraq. Ten missiles hit the Ain al-Asad Air Base, which houses U.S. troops, one missile hit a U.S. military base in Erbil, and four missiles failed to hit their targets, according to a U.S. military spokesman for Central Command, responsible for American forces in the Middle East.





Editorials

Trump says Iran ‘appears to be standing down,’ missile strikes resulted in no casualties

 

[DouglasLees]

@Ranger25
I wonder how wise it was of Trump to say that Iran seems to be ‘standing down’. For a culture that (whatever you or I might think of its dominant political discourse) is characterised by pride and a dislike of losing face, such words might inflame the situation.

 

[the concerned]

Right this is just my own opinion but this whole episode seems too staged for my liking. This larger than life general turns up in Iraq and is assassinated by the US military. Now my over active mind says who told him he was going to be there and my fingers would point more to the Iraqis. He was touted as being a future president of Iran whose popularity would have made him bigger than the ayatollah. He could have United many arabs across many countries making actually a threat. Then Iran gets to launch a save face ballistic missile attack on the US and no reaction despite airstikes for retaliation of 1 contractor being killed. All seems to convenient.

 

[Feanor]

Updates.

Iraqi and US sources are differing on the details of the numbers of missiles Iran launched. Iraq is saying a total of 22 missiles, with 17 at ayn-Asad, and 5 at Erbil, out of which 2 didn't explode. The US is saying "over a dozen" at ayn-Asad, and 1 at Erbil, with 4 failing to reach their target. Meanwhile there's information that at least one missile was shot down by the US.

Иран нанес ракетный удар по двум базам США в Ираке

Some satellite images of damage from the Iranian strike.

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/5551325.html

A map of Patriot radar sites in Saudi Arabia. Those that were active recently are marked green.

Поле битвы - Ближний Восток: ПВО, ракетные базы, цели и задачи

Trump has made his speech and it seems fairly conciliatory, though he does promise more sanctions against Iran.

Война с Ираном откладывается

 

[John Fedup]

Right this is just my own opinion but this whole episode seems too staged for my liking. This larger than life general turns up in Iraq and is assassinated by the US military. Now my over active mind says who told him he was going to be there and my fingers would point more to the Iraqis. He was touted as being a future president of Iran whose popularity would have made him bigger than the ayatollah. He could have United many arabs across many countries making actually a threat. Then Iran gets to launch a save face ballistic missile attack on the US and no reaction despite airstikes for retaliation of 1 contractor being killed. All seems to convenient.

The general was Iranian and I assume a Shia Muslim, hardly credentials for Sunni Arabs to embrace. I guess Sunni Iraqis may have seen him as a threat and even more so had he become president of Iran down the road. As for why the US took him out this week, WTF know? Payback for numerous Iranian provocations or an impeachment diversion, take your pick.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

I so want to speak my mind but in my typical way I would be completely politically incorrect. Good on the POTUS to show restraint as had it of been me having to make the decision Coca Cola and Pepsi would never run out of material for their beverage containers.

I am so tired of the ME and its never ending battles of religion, power and corruption. This will never end unfortunately. At least POTUS made the right decision.

 

[seaspear]

If there was to be any diplomatic discussions between Saudi Arabia and Iran it would not be stopped by this action, talks could easily be conducted by other officials , so we should if this claim was true expect these discussions to commence early this year or consider the claim as bogus

 

[Feanor]

If there was to be any diplomatic discussions between Saudi Arabia and Iran it would not be stopped by this action, talks could easily be conducted by other officials , so we should if this claim was true expect these discussions to commence early this year or consider the claim as bogus

There are several possibilities. One is that the talks were real, and this worsens relations enough that Iran breaks them off. Another is that the talks were misinformation directed at making the US look worse in this situation. Another is that the talks were fake, and were used as a pretext to get Soleimani into Iraq for the strike. Another is that the talks do continue, but are kept under wraps, or come to nothing. i.e. we simply wouldn't find out about this.

 

[OPSSG]

The US strike against Major General Soleimani is a reaction to the Dec 2019 attack of the US Baghdad embassy by protesters (aka an Iranian Shia militia proxy) angry at US airstrikes that targeted the shia militia group Kataeb Hezbollah, which were in turn a response to the death of a US contractor following a rocket attack against a military base near Kirkuk. In reality, the killing of Major General Soleimani needs to be seen in a wider context to fully understand the reason for the strike:

On the one hand, the US quest to reclaim influence has led the Trump Administration to make a strategic error. Far from undermining the Iranian authorities and the Iranian led militia system in Iraq, the latest step taken by the US to assassinate Major General Soleimani has strengthened hardliners in Iran. Iran is regional power and its leaders want to weigh in on the future of the Middle East. Brigadier General Ismail Qa'-ani has been named as the new IRGC-Quds Force commander and the Iranian reaction will certainly involve the continuation of war by proxy, cyber warfare, and hybrid warfare. The blow inflicted by the death of Major General Soleimani has acted as a reminder to Iran’s population that there is currently no viable alternative to its current regime.

On the other hand, Trump Administration’s killing of Major General Soleimani may have made US deterrence credible in the region, but it doesn’t solve Saudi Arabia’s or UAE’s power imbalance with Iran, as Riyadh or Abu Dhabi wishes. Nor does this deterrence of Iran help Israel with its security dilemma. The nature, geographic scope, and scale of Iran’s response to the killing of its general will also determine whether Iran’s proxies will continue to be a top priority on the US.

The Americans killed the most powerful man in Tehran short of Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Hosseini Khamenei. This was not an act of revenge for what the General had done in the past. This was a preemptive, defensive strike planned to take out the organizer of attacks yet to come. The Iranian regime’s credibility has been badly hit in 2019/2020. It has to abandon past practice of using proxies and retaliate openly, if Iran’s credibility and ultimately its legitimacy — already under stress from poor economic performance — is not to be further undermined. Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who earlier promised "revenge" for Soleimani, called the missiles a "slap in the face" against the US.

The Middle East has been inflamed by the actions of the Islamic Republic of Iran for 40 years. Their roll call of malfeasance existed long before Trump.

Actually the calculated, proportional and precise selection of sticking certain exploding sticky buns up the interior back cavities of certain selected alley cats in the Iranian regime, which the Soleimani takeout indeed was - is a blunt and effective message that will see the regime curtailing their disruptive efforts and get back into their box as an act of survival albeit with the usual puffery and rhetoric, marked by gestures of tough guyness like lobbing a few missiles into an air base for ones domestic regime propaganda.

Oh but because Trump does it, who - and lets be candid here - immediately makes all and sundry lose their objectivity when no other former US President would not have passed on the chance to take out an individual like Soleimani, the Godfather of Islamic terrorism, who represented a clear and present danger to not just US security but to those of its partners in the Gulf States plus Jordan, and the only democracy in the ME Israel.

What has this got to do with Rouhani and a sadistic thug like Soleimani in the context of the current US President or the House of Congress?

I agree.

The assassination of Major General Soleimani adds to the complexities and risks of the Middle East. But the Middle East is never free of complexities and risks in the first place. Was he a friend of the US, Australia, NZ or other countries in Asia? There is no course of action anywhere that is free of risk. Sometimes the biggest risk is to try and avoid any risk and let Iran choose to escalate its attacks in Iraq, in Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf, at a time of their choosing, without imposing a cost to them.

In this case, Iran launched a retaliation — significant enough that it could move on but limited enough that the US avoid a response. With no loss of life, civilian or military by the US and Iraq, the action-reaction cycle can stop. In a televised address to the nation from the White House, Trump emphasised that there were "no Americans harmed" in the salvo of missiles aimed at two bases. He added: "Iran appears to be standing down, which is a good thing for all parties concerned and a very good thing for the world." While he promised to immediately impose "punishing" new economic sanctions on Tehran, Trump welcomed signs the Islamic republic "appears to be standing down" in the tit-for-tat confrontation.

Anyway, the response of the Democratic Party nay-sayers is much more about American domestic politics in an election year than international relations and I would bet that it could backfire for the Democrats electorally. This is a national issue not a partisan issue, or ought to be!

 

[ngatimozart]

So what other ways would you have taken out Soleimani who was in curiously in Baghdad? Yeah and Soleimani was not there as a tourist which is the duplicity not being mentioned here.

The Middle East has been inflamed by the actions of the Islamic Republic of Iran for 40 years. Their roll call of malfeasance existed long before Trump.

Actually the calculated, proportional and precise selection of sticking certain exploding sticky buns up the interior back cavities of certain selected alley cats in the Iranian regime, which the Soleimani takeout indeed was - is a blunt and effective message that will see the regime curtailing their disruptive efforts and get back into their box as an act of survival albeit with the usual puffery and rhetoric, marked by gestures of tough guyness like lobbing a few missiles into an air base for ones domestic regime propaganda.

Oh but because Trump does it, who - and lets be candid here - immediately makes all and sundry lose their objectivity when no other former US President would not have passed on the chance to take out an individual like Soleimani, the Godfather of Islamic terrorism, who represented a clear and present danger to not just US security but to those of its partners in the Gulf States plus Jordan, and the only democracy in the ME Israel.

What has this got to do with Rouhani and a sadistic thug like Soleimani in the context of the current US President or the House of Congress?

I am not and never have been a Trumpian apologist or acolyte who places him on a pedastal and thinks that he can do no wrong. I am quite dispassionate about him and all other pollies and I believe that he along with others has made errors of judgement, that not only impact upon the US but other nations as well.

You mentioned Israel. Interesting that Israel quickly distanced itself from this sitution stating that it wanted nothing to do with it. It said that it would punish severely anyone who attacked it. Israel is quite capable of defending itself and is a nuclear power.

You and others on here are well aware of my thoughts about all pollies, regardless of their political persuasion. I am very ecunumical about my feelings towards pollies - I have a very strong dislike of them all.

I have never said that Soleimani should not have been eliminated, but like I said earlier he could've been eliminated in a way that was not so public and left the US with public plausible deniability, whilst behind the scenes, in private, sheeting home the message to Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Hosseini Khamenei, the one person in Iran who really counts, his cohorts, plus Putin and Xi. It could've even been finessed by sending a message within the message, such as doing the hit in Tehran.

I also think that people need to take a step back and reflect upon the whole Middle East and look at the history from WW1 onwards and decide where the problems today have their root causes, rather than diving head long into the current media / political memes about the problems. Yes I know it's like telling people to suck eggs, but I think it may help us to have a refresh of the history of the past 100 years of the region, to hopefully gain a better understanding.

Is Iran the fount of all Islamic terrorism in the Middle East? Last time I looked it was not proselytizing Wahhabism around the globe, which is the sect from which sprung Al Quaeda and Daesh, plus a few other unsavoury terrorist groups. Wahhabism happens to be proselytized by Saudi Arabia. Don't get me wrong, the theocracy in Iran has a helluva lot to answer for, but then I would argue so does the Saudi govt and monarchy, but of course we turn a blind eye to the Saudis because the US and Euros make a lot of money from Saudi armament purchases; the Euros and us needing their oil, and it suits us at the moment. The point of this is before people go demonising Iran, do some checking first because the discourse about Iran being totally evil, may not be absolutely correct. It may possibly be that Iran is only 75 - 85% evil, and also remember that the US invaded Iraq in 2003 on the pretext of what later proved to be incorrect / false intelligence about WMDs, so be careful when reading / listening / watching items on Iran, because said items may only be telling one side of the story. Don't forget all govts lie: US, UK, CAN, Australia, NZ, France, Germany, Iran, Iraq, Russia, China etc., with some more allergic to the truth than others.