Just one 'patriotic anti-nationalist's' two bits on a sunny winter morning:

Every roach-hotel & shithole resort around the world that's branded "tRUMP" is in the IRGC's crosshairs now ... The Fatwa Cometh!

Good job, Covfefe! (aka "Very Stable Genius") Good.
Job. :clap:

Sigh

I'm not so sure. People have been burning American flags in the street. A common enemy usually unites rather than divides.

Things that go Trump in the night at the White House haunted by insane policy

Vegas odds of both Netanyahu and Trump being in power by this time next year are less than 25%. If Israel is going to get its long-held wish of castrating its greatest enemy in the region, its best chance is now. And conflict with Iran could be particularly useful to Netanyahu who's got yet another crucial election coming up in March. What I'm not really seeing is the strategic upside for the US in starting yet another hopeless war in the Middle East. And the electoral payoff for Trump personally is questionable at best. But Netanyahu is the only leader in the region (and beyond) offering unequivocal vocal support for the attack. Because he's the one who stands to gain most from what could follow. Hence the "look to Israel" comment. I guess more will emerge in the coming days about the US's specific motivations here, but I don't expect solid evidence of any imminent threat that would make it legal under international law and more likely to garner support from other American allies.

Which leads me to question what role you think the USA would play if Israel is attacked? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

It depends on the specifics of the attack. But if it gets to Israel being directly attacked, you can be sure the US will already be embroiled in a wider conflict with Iran.

Nature has a way of ending beefs. The strongest wins.

It puts the Ayatollah in a tough sport. Fight back and be demolished. Or do nothing and lose your credibility. — NOS4A2

Lol. The one's in a tough spot are the Americans. Already Americans are fleeing Iraq. We'll see if they can still hang on to Iraq, or if we see them being kicked out. Might happen, might not, let's see later today.

Iraq’s Speaker of Parliament Mohammed al-Halbousi condemned on Friday a U.S. air strike in Baghdad that killed Iran’s most powerful general and a top Iraqi Shi’ite militia commander as a breach of sovereignty.

“Yesterday’s targeting of a military commander in Iraq’s armed forces near Baghdad international airport is a flagrant breach of sovereignty and violation of international agreements,” he said in a statement.

“Iraq must avoid becoming a battlefield or a side in any regional or international conflict,” he added. Halbousi, who as speaker is Iraq’s top Sunni Arab politician, called on the government to take all steps needed to stop such attacks.

Iraq’s parliament will hold an extraordinary session on Sunday to discuss the U.S. air strike in Baghdad which killed Iran’s Quds Force leader Qassem Soleimani and Iraqi militia commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, it said on Friday.

Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi called on lawmakers to hold an emergency session and address the attack, which he called a violation of sovereignty.

Furthermore, I seriously suspect that Trump was informed about the operation only after the facts. This is quite a victory for "incorruptible" Benjamin, of course. He must have had a big late-night party with his friends in Tel Aviv after this. — alcontali

Sadly I must agree with you. Trump's been captured by the neocon warmongers. He got rid of Bolton but Bolton is still running US foreign policy. Trump's a fool to get sucked into this. Some Iraqis attacked the Green Zone? Why do we have a fortress embassy in Iraq in the first place? We should have left years ago. We never should have gone in. I'm in total despair about what passes for US foreign policy.

If Trump gets involved in a shooting war w/Iran he won't be reelected. His supporters believed him when he said he'd get us out of the stupid Middle East wars, not get us into more of them. And Iran's no military pushover like Iraq was. I'm hoping for the best here, that's all anyone can do.

Gary Kasparov had an interesting series of tweets:

What is happening between the US and Iran is a consequence of what I describe in Winter Is Coming: an aggressive dictatorship's sense of impunity leading to the crossing of one line too far. Deterrence is based on standing up against small aggressions in order to prevent big ones, when the price will be much higher. Many years of success led Iran & Soleimani to feel invincible, to attack a US embassy, when of course a US president had to respond. This is how appeasement kills. This is why inaction can be a deadly choice. It raises the stakes, postpones the inevitable, and encourages aggressors to assume they can act with impunity until the eventual response is massive and destabilizing. Action has clear costs because it is the reality of the road taken, making it politically unattractive. Inaction hopes to pass the dire consequences and blame to a successor, as has happened with Syria and Iran. I wish Trump had a competent team capable of strategic planning and of inspiring the trust of allies and the fear of enemies. That is far from the case. But I can't criticize the killing of a mass-murdering terrorist mastermind & reminding his ilk that they are not safe. We'll never know how many more innocents Qasem Soleimani would have murdered or how many hundreds of thousands more refugees he'd have helped create. But don't pretend you know that what is to come is worse than the world with such a person in it.

END

Unlike killing a non-state actor, this one targeted a senior officer of a recognized state.
So, it is an act of war. Not only by whatever other nations may think of it but by our own rules set up to distinguish conflict by proxies versus the governments who show up to the UN and stuff.

The first question should not be whether this was a good tactical decision but whether we gave up something for this pound of flesh that cannot be recovered.

Like the outcome of the Iraqi Wars, it will take some time to see the results.

Oh wait. This is one of the results.

Why do we have a fortress embassy in Iraq in the first place? We should have left years ago. We never should have gone in. I'm in total despair about what passes for US foreign policy. — fishfry

I've come to the conclusion the US foreign policy doesn't exist anymore.

It's been replaced by Presidential tweets, that the US officials have to then respond to. And missile strikes ordered during meals in the "Winter Whitehouse".

Vegas odds of both Netanyahu and Trump being in power by this time next year are less than 25% — Baden

Trump is favored to win.

Trump has about a 50% chance of winning (slightly less according to predictit.org). Equally so for Netanyahu. I'll leave you to do the rest of the maths yourself.

https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/3698/Who-will-win-the-2020-US-presidential-election
https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/6238/Will-Benjamin-Netanyahu-be-prime-minister-of-Israel-on-Dec-31,-2020

You said Vegas odds, which is -120 right now.

-120 right now. — frank

OK, let's use that figure, which is 55% x Netanyahu's 45% = 24.75%, which is less than 25%. Which is what I said.

If/when it happens; Saudi ruling class might gain from destabilised Iranian economy, Israeli ruling class might gain as Iran and Israel have been proxy fighting and economic competitors for various reasons for ages, American ruling class might gain due to its ruling classes's interests being aligned with the Saudis' and Israelis'. Turkey and Syria are in there too probably (Kurdish conflict and Syrian proxy conflicts). If it happens it's not particularly out of the blue, it's more proxy wars and economic conflict between coalitions of nations realising into overt armed conflict between two coalition members.

Considering how much of a staging ground the middle east is for global conflict who the fuck knows what the strategic aims of the conflict would be and exactly what interests in America it would serve.

No idea why we had to go through that btw @frank. The point stands whether the odds vary slightly or not.

American ruling class might gain due to its ruling classes's interests being aligned with the Saudis and Israelis. — fdrake

Not perfectly though. I can't plot a positive economic or strategic outcome to this for the US ruling classes that beats sticking with the Iran deal and encouraging progressive forces in the country. Maybe I lack a sufficiently Machiavellian imagination or something. Anyone here see a war being good for the US?

I can't plot a positive economic or strategic outcome to this for the US ruling classes that beats sticking with the Iran deal and encouraging progressive forces in the country. — Baden

If it happens, it's probably imagined as being to the benefit of some of them and not others? Can't say to who though. Weakening Iran through military conflict probably has the same strategic goals as weakening them through economic sanctions, says the largely uninformed me. I have no idea what goes on in the boardrooms.

It's not just about them being weak or strong though, it's also about the extent to which they are likely to facilitate or oppose your interests. It wasn't long ago that Iran was helping America to fight ISIS in Syria and Soleimani, specifically, aided the Americans in their initial attacks against the Taliban after 9/11. Enemies can become friends when faced with greater enemies. That option is out the window re Iran right now.

It's not just about them being weak or strong though, it's also about the extent to which they are likely to facilitate or oppose your interests. — Baden

Yes, that's well put. Weak/strong is a silly way of saying nothing relevant.

Whose interests would be facilitated by an armed conflict between America and Iran? And would they be facilitated better through this than through other means? Those are much better question framings.

idea why we had to go through that btw frank. The point stands whether the odds vary slightly or not. — Baden

Your point was that Israel wouldn't take on Iran without both Netanyahu and Trump in power, so this would be the best time for a war that would likely escalate to thermonuclear.

That's a great point. Thanks!

You do sarcasm better than you do maths. Not much better though. Moving on...

I think it has nothing to do with politics of the Middle East and everything to do with Trump wanting impeachment off the front pages.

Also, Soleimani posted anti-Trump memes on the internet and Trump has the thin skin of any stupid bully.

Two birds with one stone.

Pluuuuus, reelection always works better when you have a new war to wage. Worked for Bush.

You do sarcasm better than you do maths. Not much better though. Moving on... — Baden

I just misread your post. Moving on...

Absolutely. I'd need some time to come up with a coherent theory on that though.



I doubt it's that simple.



Ok.

So somebody explain this to me: Iran declares war on the US. What does it do next?

What are your thoughts @god must be atheist ?

I doubt it's that simple. — Baden

Hasn't it all been so far with Trump?

Consider that Soleimani was totally replaceable to begin with. They are currently deciding on a new general to take his place, and there's no reason to believe that the next one will be any more sympathetic to US interests, and every reason to believe he will be less so.

There is no obvious tactical advantage to starting a war with Iran, it just makes a huge mess with Iraq.

Sure, the MIC loves continuing wars and starting new ones cause that's literally their business, but Trump had personal reasons to do this exact thing at this exact moment in time.

I can't plot a positive economic or strategic outcome to this for the US ruling classes that beats sticking with the Iran deal and encouraging progressive forces in the country. Maybe I lack a sufficiently Machiavellian imagination or something. Anyone here see a war being good for the US?

No one wants a war, but given these facts:

-The general was behind hundreds of american deaths in iraq.
-He was behind the recent embassy attack.
-Was very likely to be planning more attacks, and never even really attempted to hide his involvement.

What is your solution here? To my understanding, the attacks in recent years have gotten worse and we really haven't responded to iran directly so that just emboldened them. Don't tell me the solution is empowering progressive movements because the regime just opened fire on unarmed protesters last month and killed hundreds. If it was as easy as getting a nicer iranian leadership into power that would be the obvious solution but I don't think that's really plausible.

Not impossible but he has support on this from folks he doesn't normally get much support from, e.g. John Bolton and US intelligence chiefs. It seems to me his Syria withdrawal was much purer Trump i.e. knee-jerk.

Fellow supporters of the forever wars in favor of a trillion dollar war industry.