Iran vs the US Megathread

[Rahimistan]

Honestly, this entire situation is stupid, I'm glad Donald Trump realized how much of a dumb-ass he was being and now everyone is resorting back to peaceful measures. I really thought this whole situation was a joke, until Iran actually went out and bombed some of our US bases. I'm insanely thankful Iraq gave the U.S. a heads up, because Iraq knows war would definitely be devastating for them anyways.

Also, anyone who thinks "Oh, the U.S. will just destroy Iran" here's what I have to say about that

1. First off, the U.S. has already fucked all of the Middle East, the Middle East gave us numbers, algebra, and so much more. Now the average IQ there is around 80 to 90. After we fucked their cities, their economy went to shit, the average worker makes about $500 USD a year, which is barely enough to feed a family and if we want to include education (Which has scientifically been proven to affect brain development and IQ at a young age) they definitely can't afford that. We've already killed as much as we've helped, we're basically a terrorist organization ourselves at this point. If your family gets fucked in an air-strike and you are uneducated, then you will probably join the local terrorist group in an attempt to fight back, without realizing the true mission of said groups.

2. There are many other factors besides Iran, though this is highly unlikely, both China and Russia could get involved in the mix, meaning the U.S. would have a serious fight and would probably need a lot of allied NATO forces from other countries to win.


Basically my point is that this seriously could've caused WW3 and we should all, and I mean all, be VERY happy that both nations have calmed down and are now peaceful. FYI if you weren't aware Iran's citizens want US soldiers on their soil, but the Parliament voted against them being there. Honestly, I feel as if Iran should overtake their government and start anew, even though that'd be seriously hard.

The propaganda is strong with you

Yes, definitely propaganda when the U.S. gave ISIS weapons to fight "communism", not saying the US are indirectly terrorists, but they basically are.
Trump, you promised us, but you didn't deliver on your word

[Tarsonis]

The propaganda is strong with you

Yes, definitely propaganda when the U.S. gave ISIS weapons to fight "communism", not saying the US are indirectly terrorists, but they basically are.
Trump, you promised us, but you didn't deliver on your word

Thanks for proving my point.

[Rahimistan]

Yes, definitely propaganda when the U.S. gave ISIS weapons to fight "communism", not saying the US are indirectly terrorists, but they basically are.
Trump, you promised us, but you didn't deliver on your word

Thanks for proving my point.

"definitely" = sarcasm, how can you be so blatantly unaware that that was sarcastic

[Alien Space Bats]

The bold marked part is well said... well simply wrong. As even if the US military presence in South Korea would be reduced, it wouldn mean that it can easily fall to the north. South Korea has a very powerful military on its own and can easily defend itself alone, same goes to varying degrees for Japan.

Given your proper analysis of iranian geography and topography thats all the more astounding.

For years, my greatest concern on the Korean peninsula has been the possibility that the DPRK will develop and then use tactical nuclear weapons as a battlefield weapon to break the back of the South Korean army and then roll down the length of the peninsula before the U.S. can stabilize the situation. I agree that the ROK could easily repel any North Korean attack in a purely conventional struggle, even if there were no U.S. forces available to assist them; but no army in history has ever had to fight after suffering through a nuclear barrage aimed at destroying its forces on the battlefield through strikes at front line positions, reserves, headquarters units, depots, and the like — and it's unlikely than any really could, given the tremendous psychological impact on any force receiving such an attack.

Of course, the ultimate deterrent against any tactical use of nuclear weapons would be America's willingness to reply to such an attack with a nuclear strike of its own (ideally through a tactical counterstrike combined with a counterforce attack on North Korean nuclear assets to forestall any further use, whether on the battlefield or on a strategic level). The thing is, it's always been a little bit questionable as to whether an American President would actually be willing to risk losing one or more American cities to any North Korean response in the event that the counterforce aspect of the operation failed to successful disarm the DPRK w/re to any potential strategic response; and with Donald Trump as President, that possibility has always been magnified, due to his general antipathy towards our allies due to his absurd fixation on trade surplusses and his corresponding view that our allies have been taking advantage of us for decades, both by competing with American businesses in the global marketplace and by "not paying their fair share" of the costs of our being allies. Throw in his "America First" rhetoric (which, among the many things he claims to stand for, is probably the one thing he actually DOES believe in), and one has to wonder openly if the man who abandoned the Kurds to possible genocide would really run the risk of losing even a single American city in the defense of a nation that he basically considers a bunch of ingrates who've been exploiting their alliance with America for decades.

This is why I see a danger in the U.S. getting bogged down in a major Middle Eastern war: It creates simply far too great an opportunity for Kim Jong Un to grab South Korea through a quick tactical nuclear strike and subsequent invasion, and then extort Japan into paying him "protection" money while abandoning its alliance and trade ties with America, resulting in a catastrophic diplomatic and economic debacle for America. Whether Donald Trump survived such a disaster would be quite irrelevant: The damage would be done, and the consequences for the U.S. and the world would reverberate onwards for decades.

P.S. We should probably temper this discussion if it continues with the knowledge that it could easily turn into a threadjack, and focus more going forward on how this affects U.S. strategic options within the Middle East and particularly vis-à-vis Iran.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

The bold marked part is well said... well simply wrong. As even if the US military presence in South Korea would be reduced, it wouldn mean that it can easily fall to the north. South Korea has a very powerful military on its own and can easily defend itself alone, same goes to varying degrees for Japan.

Given your proper analysis of iranian geography and topography thats all the more astounding.

For years, my greatest concern on the Korean peninsula has been the possibility that the DPRK will develop and then use tactical nuclear weapons as a battlefield weapon to break the back of the South Korean army and then roll down the length of the peninsula before the U.S. can stabilize the situation. I agree that the ROK could easily repel any North Korean attack in a purely conventional struggle, even if there were no U.S. forces available to assist them; but no army in history has ever had to fight after suffering through a nuclear barrage aimed at destroying its forces on the battlefield through strikes at front line positions, reserves, headquarters units, depots, and the like — and it's unlikely than any really could, given the tremendous psychological impact on any force receiving such an attack.

Of course, the ultimate deterrent against any tactical use of nuclear weapons would be America's willingness to reply to such an attack with a nuclear strike of its own (ideally through a tactical counterstrike combined with a counterforce attack on North Korean nuclear assets to forestall any further use, whether on the battlefield or on a strategic level). The thing is, it's always been a little bit questionable as to whether an American President would actually be willing to risk losing one or more American cities to any North Korean response in the event that the counterforce aspect of the operation failed to successful disarm the DPRK w/re to any potential strategic response; and with Donald Trump as President, that possibility has always been magnified, due to his general antipathy towards our allies due to his absurd fixation on trade surplusses and his corresponding view that our allies have been taking advantage of us for decades, both by competing with American businesses in the global marketplace and by "not paying their fair share" of the costs of our being allies. Throw in his "America First" rhetoric (which, among the many things he claims to stand for, is probably the one thing he actually DOES believe in), and one has to wonder openly if the man who abandoned the Kurds to possible genocide would really run the risk of losing even a single American city in the defense of a nation that he basically considers a bunch of ingrates who've been exploiting their alliance with America for decades.

This is why I see a danger in the U.S. getting bogged down in a major Middle Eastern war: It creates simply far too great an opportunity for Kim Jong Un to grab South Korea through a quick tactical nuclear strike and subsequent invasion, and then extort Japan into paying him "protection" money while abandoning its alliance and trade ties with America, resulting in a catastrophic diplomatic and economic debacle for America. Whether Donald Trump survived such a disaster would be quite irrelevant: The damage would be done, and the consequences for the U.S. and the world would reverberate onwards for decades.

P.S. We should probably temper this discussion if it continues with the knowledge that it could easily turn into a threadjack, and focus more going forward on how this affects U.S. strategic options within the Middle East and particularly vis-à-vis Iran.

Did you just, like, forget radiation exists and that trudging through miles of radioactive fallout isn't a sound tactical strategy or...?

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Thanks for proving my point.

"definitely" = sarcasm, how can you be so blatantly unaware that that was sarcastic

Bro you said Congress gave guns to ISIS to fight Communism.

Considering you've clearly mixed up DAESH with the Mujahideen, I'd say it's pretty obvious you have no idea wtf you're talking about.

[Satuga]

Did you just, like, forget radiation exists and that trudging through miles of radioactive fallout isn't a sound tactical strategy or...?

What's funny is that the US's original plan to use the nuke against japan, was to nuke their shore line installments and then rush troops through it. Imagine being a commander and having your soldiers rush the shore to just see hundreds of soldiers slowing down and then dropping without a sound due to the radiation poisoning.

[Alien Space Bats]

The “Iranian Revolution” took over Iran, but it does not seek to stop there. Its goal is to rule all Shia, regardless of borders. That is a key point. That is why the Guards and Supreme leader will not defend the borders of Iran, that is not their job. Their job is to rule all Shia.

I'm not at all sure that interpretation is accurate. Keep in mind that historically Shi'ites have been oppressed by Sunnis throughout most of the history of Islam. That the IRGC (or Pasdaran, if you prefer) and the Quds force (in particular) are eager to help organize and support Shi'ite militias throughout the region is not in question; that these militias are generally aggressive their behavior is also not in question. But right now the Muslim world (or at least the Middle East) is going through a major period of sectarian strife not dissimilar to what Europe went through in the late 16th and early 17th Centuries (when Protestants and Catholic tore Europe after in numerous wars of religion, culminating in the Thirty Years' War).

It's common in America to lay all the blame for this on Iran, and to see what's going on as part of a (one-sided) Iranian push for empire. Yet the truth is more nuanced than that. Both Saudi Arabia and a number of other Gulf States have been actively working to keep Shi'ites under the thumb of Sunnis in as many places as possible throughout the Middle East (or, in the case of Syria, to put them under the thumb of Sunnis where they currently are not). Nor is Saudi Arabia any less ideologically disposed towards religious empire-building than the mullahs in Iran (cf. Wahhabism and its role in building the modern Saudi Kingdom). As Americans, we need to be sensitive to these nuances: We should not let ourselves be manipulated into taking sides in ANYBODY'S reprise of the Wars of Religion, especially given our (literal) constitutional imperative to remain neutral when it comes to matters of faith.

[Satuga]

I'm not at all sure that interpretation is accurate. Keep in mind that historically Shi'ites have been oppressed by Sunnis throughout most of the history of Islam. That the IRGC (or Pasdaran, if you prefer) and the Quds force (in particular) are eager to help organize and support Shi'ite militias throughout the region is not in question; that these militias are generally aggressive their behavior is also not in question. But right now the Muslim world (or at least the Middle East) is going through a major period of sectarian strife not dissimilar to what Europe went through in the late 16th and early 17th Centuries (when Protestants and Catholic tore Europe after in numerous wars of religion, culminating in the Thirty Years' War).

It's common in America to lay all the blame for this on Iran, and to see what's going on as part of a (one-sided) Iranian push for empire. Yet the truth is more nuanced than that. Both Saudi Arabia and a number of other Gulf States have been actively working to keep Shi'ites under the thumb of Sunnis in as many places as possible throughout the Middle East (or, in the case of Syria, to put them under the thumb of Sunnis where they currently are not). Nor is Saudi Arabia any less ideologically disposed towards religious empire-building than the mullahs in Iran (cf. Wahhabism and its role in building the modern Saudi Kingdom). As Americans, we need to be sensitive to these nuances: We should not let ourselves be manipulated into taking sides in ANYBODY'S reprise of the Wars of Religion, especially given our (literal) constitutional imperative to remain neutral when it comes to matters of faith.

The US isn't in the ME for religious reasons, so the constitutional right to freedom of religion means literally nothing with this.

[Rahimistan]

"definitely" = sarcasm, how can you be so blatantly unaware that that was sarcastic

Bro you said Congress gave guns to ISIS to fight Communism.

Considering you've clearly mixed up DAESH with the Mujahideen, I'd say it's pretty obvious you have no idea wtf you're talking about.

You refuse you actually present an argument just because I made a mistake, still, very similar

[Repubblica Fascista Sociale Italiana]

Seems we’ve subverted war, the same cold war in the Gulf will continue between Iran and KSA, though, now without Iran’s strategic mastermind

[Rahimistan]

Bro you said Congress gave guns to ISIS to fight Communism.

Considering you've clearly mixed up DAESH with the Mujahideen, I'd say it's pretty obvious you have no idea wtf you're talking about.

You refuse you actually present an argument just because I made a mistake, still, very similar

I am a U.S. citizen, as you probably are too, I don't hate the U.S. and view them as horrible terrorists who should all burn in hell. I'm just saying that the state the middle east is to be blamed on the U.S., nothing is perfect, lol, this is another example.

[Union of Pepe]

Guys nothing bad is going to happen. They said that Iran wouldn’t answer back with a nuclear strike (Yet).

[Tarsonis]

You refuse you actually present an argument just because I made a mistake, still, very similar

I am a U.S. citizen, as you probably are too, I don't hate the U.S. and view them as horrible terrorists who should all burn in hell. I'm just saying that the state the middle east is to be blamed on the U.S., nothing is perfect, lol, this is another example.

While the US certainly had a role in the Middle East, to say its completely their fault is to be ignorant of history. The Middle East has been a shit show for the last 1400 seasons. This is just the most recent story arc in a show long past due cancellation.

[Aureumterra]

Guys nothing bad is going to happen. They said that Iran wouldn’t answer back with a nuclear strike (Yet).

The missile strike was the end of it, America seems to have avoided war for now, and Trump seems intent on avoiding war.

I’m glad Bolton was kicked out before this started

[Rahimistan]

I am a U.S. citizen, as you probably are too, I don't hate the U.S. and view them as horrible terrorists who should all burn in hell. I'm just saying that the state the middle east is to be blamed on the U.S., nothing is perfect, lol, this is another example.

While the US certainly had a role in the Middle East, to say its completely their fault is to be ignorant of history. The Middle East has been a shit show for the last 1400 seasons. This is just the most recent story arc in a show long past due cancellation.

I understand that, the Middle East's leaders are to blame aswell, they've turned their countries into shirt.
There's no propaganda involved, just the truth, look:
https://youtu.be/VL3iY38eInA

https://youtu.be/BulR6MgPwC0

I don't believe it's entirely the US's fault, but a lot of it is!

[Rahimistan]

Guys nothing bad is going to happen. They said that Iran wouldn’t answer back with a nuclear strike (Yet).

The missile strike was the end of it, America seems to have avoided war for now, and Trump seems intent on avoiding war.

I’m glad Bolton was kicked out before this started

LOL, I agree.
Bolton is a huge warmonger.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

You refuse you actually present an argument just because I made a mistake, still, very similar

I am a U.S. citizen, as you probably are too, I don't hate the U.S. and view them as horrible terrorists who should all burn in hell. I'm just saying that the state the middle east is to be blamed on the U.S., nothing is perfect, lol, this is another example.

The state of the Middle East is to be blamed on many, many things. Not just America. You're completely delusional if you think before the U.S. stepped in that the MidEast was somehow a peaceful, prosperous place where everybody loved each other and co-existed in tolerance and understanding.

The British & French Empires, the rise & fall of Ba'athism and other secular dictatorships, Soviet meddling, hardcore anti-Semitism coupled with the very existence of Israel, the centuries old conflict between Sunnis and Shi'ites, Bedouin warlords, wealthy oil barons, the death of the Ottoman Empire, the overthrow of the Shah, existing fundamentalist radicalism, ethnic & religious conflict brought about by bigotry and notions of superiority, Axis meddling, and yes, American meddling too, all had a hand in turning the Middle East into the fucked up place it is now. No one source is to blame. It's a myriad of problems that one could arguably say date all the way back to the Mongolian sack of Baghdad if you really want to stretch it.

Not that we're making the situation any better, but it's not like if we hadn't gotten involved that everything would be hunky-dory.

[Rahimistan]

I am a U.S. citizen, as you probably are too, I don't hate the U.S. and view them as horrible terrorists who should all burn in hell. I'm just saying that the state the middle east is to be blamed on the U.S., nothing is perfect, lol, this is another example.

The state of the Middle East is to be blamed on many, many things. Not just America. You're completely delusional if you think before the U.S. stepped in that the MidEast was somehow a peaceful, prosperous place where everybody loved each other and co-existed in tolerance and understanding.

The British & French Empires, the rise & fall of Ba'athism and other secular dictatorships, Soviet meddling, hardcore anti-Semitism coupled with the very existence of Israel, the centuries old conflict between Sunnis and Shi'ites, Bedouin warlords, wealthy oil barons, the death of the Ottoman Empire, the overthrow of the Shah, existing fundamentalist radicalism, ethnic & religious conflict brought about by bigotry and notions of superiority, Axis meddling, and yes, American meddling too, all had a hand in turning the Middle East into the fucked up place it is now. No one source is to blame. It's a myriad of problems that one could arguably say date all the way back to the Mongolian sack of Baghdad if you really want to stretch it.

Not that we're making the situation any better, but it's not like if we hadn't gotten involved that everything would be hunky-dory.

I actually appreciate the fact that you took the time to create an actual meaningful result, unlike some people, hah!
On a serious note though, I'm repeating myself here, I said that I don't believe it is all on the US, but a fairly large portion can be blamed on the US. I support the US, but not what they're doing to the Middle East, while it may not be the US's fault for all of the Middle East, I can definitely blame them for what they did to Syria, lol.

Also,don't get me started on Saddam, lol, at least he died like a bad ass.

[Rahimistan]

I am a U.S. citizen, as you probably are too, I don't hate the U.S. and view them as horrible terrorists who should all burn in hell. I'm just saying that the state the middle east is to be blamed on the U.S., nothing is perfect, lol, this is another example.

The state of the Middle East is to be blamed on many, many things. Not just America. You're completely delusional if you think before the U.S. stepped in that the MidEast was somehow a peaceful, prosperous place where everybody loved each other and co-existed in tolerance and understanding.

The British & French Empires, the rise & fall of Ba'athism and other secular dictatorships, Soviet meddling, hardcore anti-Semitism coupled with the very existence of Israel, the centuries old conflict between Sunnis and Shi'ites, Bedouin warlords, wealthy oil barons, the death of the Ottoman Empire, the overthrow of the Shah, existing fundamentalist radicalism, ethnic & religious conflict brought about by bigotry and notions of superiority, Axis meddling, and yes, American meddling too, all had a hand in turning the Middle East into the fucked up place it is now. No one source is to blame. It's a myriad of problems that one could arguably say date all the way back to the Mongolian sack of Baghdad if you really want to stretch it.

Not that we're making the situation any better, but it's not like if we hadn't gotten involved that everything would be hunky-dory.

No, but seriously, kudos for you for actually providing a decent answer, unlike some of the neanderthals on this site! I hope more people follow in your footsteps, as you definitely set a great example.

[Novus America]

So you kill him and then you deny it. You don't blast it all over twitter.

Disagree, this was a mob hit you let then know who reached out and touched them. Hopefully it deters them from doing it again.

Although it seems not

https://mobile.twitter.com/ragipsoylu/s ... gr%5Etweet

Actually for a lot of mob hits they just make the person disappear. They do not deny it though. If they do not deny it.

[Greed and Death]

A plane in Iran crashed under suspect circumstances.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/08/boeing- ... eport.html

Seems pretty straight forward.

I feel like outside news agencies are now just going to report every single incident that occurs in Iran for a week in some attempt to make it seem suspicious and tension ridden.

Considering Iran declared it Mechanical failure before they could have even started the investigation I would say not at all.

Also since then Iran has walked back the mechanical failure claim.

Data recording on the ground shows the plane rising to 8,000 feet and than transmission of data to the ground stops.

Witnesses on the ground reported the plane exploded in a fireball. Not many mechanical failures cause that.

The most likely scenario is Iran was expecting a US counter attack after their rocket attack on US bases in Iraq. So they were on a state of heightened alert and a nervous SAM operator shot down this plane.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/07/middleea ... index.html

[The New California Republic]

Guys nothing bad is going to happen. They said that Iran wouldn’t answer back with a nuclear strike (Yet).

The missile strike was the end of it, America seems to have avoided war for now, and Trump seems intent on avoiding war.

I’m glad Bolton was kicked out before this started

The only way it is going to escalate is if Iran launches another volley of missiles at American assets in Iraq. But I don't think they will, as Iran right now likely thinks that they have already saved face, so launching another volley would be pointless; unless of course they do intend to keep launching until they kill American soldiers, but I doubt it.

[Alien Space Bats]

Well making them know we just laughed at it is a response.
The response need not be kinetic necessarily.

A spicy meme might do, but we need them to know, otherwise they will just do it some more.

I'm thinking a good response might be to point at the missile attack and say, "This is why we want a new agreement curtailing Iran's ballistic missile program," and then to push for sanctions aimed at pressuring Iran into accepting limits on missile development. That would turn what Iran has done into a political win and make the Administration look a little less petulant for having scrapped the nuclear deal to begin with.

[Cisairse]

Well making them know we just laughed at it is a response.
The response need not be kinetic necessarily.

A spicy meme might do, but we need them to know, otherwise they will just do it some more.

I'm thinking a good response might be to point at the missile attack and say, "This is why we want a new agreement curtailing Iran's ballistic missile program," and then to push for sanctions aimed at pressuring Iran into accepting limits on missile development. That would turn what Iran has done into a political win and make the Administration look a little less petulant for having scrapped the nuclear deal to begin with.

Why on earth would Iran accept a deal with the U.S. now? We can no longer negotiate with good faith, we've forfeited that possibility.