10 Rockets hit US Air Base in Iraq

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

I bet Boeing are seriously pissed off with Iraqi officials saying it was engine failure that caused the crash, when clearly it wasn’t.

as if they haven’t got enough to worry about!

[TomTom + 183]

https://oilprice.com/Geopolitics/Middle-East/Video-US-Embassy-Under-Attack-From-Iran-Backed-Iraqi-Militias.html 

Looks like the next rocket attack has just happened. I think Iran will once again continue the provocation through proxies... it's too risky too attack the US directly through official channels.

[remake it + 288]

3 minutes ago, TomTom said:

Looks like the next rocket attack has just happened. I think Iran will once again continue the provocation through proxies... it's too risky too attack the US directly through official channels.

It's a very deliberate strategy as the US has the option of again invading Iraqi airspace or for all intents and purposes declaring war on Iran via a direct attack.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

11 minutes ago, TomTom said:

https://oilprice.com/Geopolitics/Middle-East/Video-US-Embassy-Under-Attack-From-Iran-Backed-Iraqi-Militias.html 

Looks like the next rocket attack has just happened. I think Iran will once again continue the provocation through proxies... it's too risky too attack the US directly through official channels.

 

5 minutes ago, remake it said:

It's a very deliberate strategy as the US has the option of again invading Iraqi airspace or for all intents and purposes declaring war on Iran via a direct attack.

 

Popcorn. 

Remake it, are you aware of who you are replying to?

[ronwagn + 6,290]

20 hours ago, Zhong Lu said:

The attacks are only the beginning.  Khameini has in effect just declared a religious war to drive the infidel Americans out of the Middle East.  

Something new in that?!

[TomTom + 183]

8 minutes ago, remake it said:

It's a very deliberate strategy as the US has the option of again invading Iraqi airspace or for all intents and purposes declaring war on Iran via a direct attack.

All the options were always on the table, but I continue to think that neither Iran not Trump are willing to officially declare war on each other. Trump's speech earlier today and the target and intensity of the Iranian missile attacks on the Ain Al-Assad military base all point at that

[ronwagn + 6,290]

2 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

I bet Boeing are seriously pissed off with Iraqi officials saying it was engine failure that caused the crash, when clearly it wasn’t.

as if they haven’t got enough to worry about!

And not giving up the flight recorder. 

[remake it + 288]

It seems Trump is now in a "no win" situation as to "win" means defeating Iran which of course means there must first be a war.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

1 minute ago, remake it said:

It seems Trump is now in a "no win" situation as to "win" means defeating Iran which of course means there must first be a war.

Dead wrong.  There does not need to be a shooting war.

Look at how Trump is beating the heck out of China economically without firing a shot.  Read up on The Art of War.

[TomTom + 183]

3 minutes ago, remake it said:

It seems Trump is now in a "no win" situation as to "win" means defeating Iran which of course means there must first be a war.

Trump won't defeat Iran, and that's not his objective either.  

The first, and most important goal is to keep Iran small, and constrain its influence in the region. 

Economic sanctions and a booming U.S. oil production have suffocated Iran's economy and paralyzed its financial system. The Pentagon still believes it can induce regime change by soft economic power rather than by direct military conflict.

[Zhong Lu + 845]

11 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Something new in that?!

Before it was Iran vs US.  Now it's Shia vs US.  He declared Solimani as a Shia martyr. Not as an Iranian one.  

[remake it + 288]

1 minute ago, TomTom said:

Trump won't defeat Iran, and that's not his objective either.  

The first, and most important goal is to keep Iran small, and constrain its influence in the region. 

Economic sanctions and a booming U.S. oil production have suffocated Iran's economy and paralyzed its financial system. The Pentagon still believes it can induce regime change by soft economic power rather than by direct military conflict.

Trump has fomented a new hatred for Americans in the Middle East and your idea about "sanctions" has a history of failures.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

2 minutes ago, TomTom said:

The first, and most important goal is to keep Iran small, and constrain its influence in the region. 

Great to see you de-lurking and commenting here again.

[Zhong Lu + 845]

1 minute ago, remake it said:

Trump has fomented a new hatred for Americans in the Middle East and your idea about "sanctions" has a history of failures.

There will be more attacks.  If Trump's goal was to "prevent attacks on Americans" it's already an abject failure.  Because of his death, there has already been multiple missile attacks on American bases.  

Edited January 8, 2020 by Zhong Lu

[Zhong Lu + 845]

9 minutes ago, TomTom said:

Trump won't defeat Iran, and that's not his objective either.  

The first, and most important goal is to keep Iran small, and constrain its influence in the region. 

Economic sanctions and a booming U.S. oil production have suffocated Iran's economy and paralyzed its financial system. The Pentagon still believes it can induce regime change by soft economic power rather than by direct military conflict.

If that's the goal, then you DON'T kill Solimani.  Killing him reduces the chances of change through economic methods.  Before Iranians may have complained about the economy.  Now? No.  The war will continue.  

One of Trump's major problems is he doesn't know when to stop bullying.  

Edited January 8, 2020 by Zhong Lu

[TomTom + 183]

1 minute ago, Zhong Lu said:

There will be more attacks.  If Trump's goal was to "prevent attacks on Americans" it's already an abject failure.  Because of his death, there has already been multiple missile attacks on American bases.  

 

Just now, Zhong Lu said:

If that's the goal, then you DON'T kill Solimani.  Killing him reduces the chances of change through economic methods.  

There's always multiple goals - as I stated, the long-term goal of the Pentagon and the U.S. in general is regime change through soft power rather than hard military power. 

Trump's short term goal was to move the attention away from internal affairs (impeachment etc) and show that after Baghdadi, he could also take down Iran's no.2 without starting a full-blown war.  

From the U.S./Saudi/Israeli reaction on the attacks on Saudi oil infrastructure it was already more than clear that the U.S. doesn't want a shooting war...

[Zhong Lu + 845]

Let's look at Trump's stated foreign policy goals.  These were, at least during his campaign:

1. Denuclearize Korea.

2.  Denuclearize Iran.

3.  Get out of the Middle East.  

Which of these has he accomplished? I don't care about methods or propaganda or his intentions, positive or negative, or whatever.  I only care about results, and his foreign policy results so far have been an abject failure.  

Edited January 9, 2020 by Zhong Lu

[TomTom + 183]

2 minutes ago, Zhong Lu said:

Let's look at Trump's stated foreign policy goals.  These were, at least during his campaign:

1. Denuclearize Korea.

2.  Denuclearize Iran.

3.  Get out of the Middle East.  

Which of these has he accomplished? I don't care about methods.  I only care about results, and his foreign policy results so far have been an abject failure.  

Lol - these 3 foreign policy goals are just a politician's promise.  Even Trump knows he can't keep North Korea and Iran from achieving certain strategic objectives in the long term (nuclear arms) - and getting out of the Middle East is clearly a joke... some of his followers will buy into this, but reality is different. 

I agree that these 'goals' have not been reached, but that's not the point. The point is that Trump scored a quick victory for his voters by taking out Soleimani without starting a war. 

A very very risky play in my opinion, and perhaps not one that makes the world a better place to live in, although Soleimani wasn't making this world a better place either...

[Zhong Lu + 845]

What victory? Prepare for truck bombings.  IEDs, etc. In the meantime Iran is going to go full tilt into making nuclear weapons.  If you think those missile strikes are the extent of Iran's response, I've got a bridge to sell you in California.   

Again, results.  Otherwise all of this is just typical propaganda, [Oh look at how we're winning so many 'victories'] and I get enough of that reading Stocktwits.  

Edited January 9, 2020 by Zhong Lu

[Zhong Lu + 845]

Also, you do know that one of the biggest tendencies of Maoist and Communist regimes is to declare victory, right? 

Oh look: we accomplished the Five Year Plan. Victory!

Industrial output increased.  Victory!

Dear Leader showed [antagonistic foreign power] who's boss! Victory!

Victory! Victory! Victory! Look at how much we're winning! Victory! Victory!

In the meantime nothing has changed and everything's as shitty as before.  

Edited January 9, 2020 by Zhong Lu

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

26 minutes ago, TomTom said:

Lol - these 3 foreign policy goals are just a politician's promise.  Even Trump knows he can't keep North Korea and Iran from achieving certain strategic objectives in the long term (nuclear arms) - and getting out of the Middle East is clearly a joke... some of his followers will buy into this, but reality is different. 

I agree that these 'goals' have not been reached, but that's not the point. The point is that Trump scored a quick victory for his voters by taking out Soleimani without starting a war. 

A very very risky play in my opinion, and perhaps not one that makes the world a better place to live in, although Soleimani wasn't making this world a better place either...

 

24 minutes ago, Zhong Lu said:

What victory? Prepare for truck bombings.  IEDs, etc. In the meantime Iran is going to go full tilt into making nuclear weapons.  If you think those missile strikes are the extent of Iran's response, I've got a bridge to sell you in California.   

Again, results.  Otherwise all of this is just typical propaganda, [Oh look at how we're winning so many 'victories'] and I get enough of that reading Stocktwits.  

 

Trump has already succeeded.

(Jeez, I feel like my endless assertions that Trump has already won the trade war with China are falling on deaf ears.)

 

Iran DELIBERATELY failed to hit US bases in Iraq with most of its missiles for fear of escalating conflict, intelligence sources reveal, as satellite images show minor damage

• Iran fired 22 ballistic missiles at two Iraqi bases housing American troops early Wednesday local time
• Strikes are not thought to have killed any US or Iraqi personnel, though extent of damage is being assessed
• Intelligence sources claimed Iran deliberately avoided directly hitting two bases in Iraq to avoid escalation
• Ayatollah said US was given a 'slap' but strikes alone are 'not enough' and called for troops to be kicked out 
• But foreign minister said 'proportionate' attack had 'concluded' and that Iran wanted no further escalation

...

 

Trump has already succeeded. 

Iran government blusters and then backs down after putting on a false show of bravado for mollifying their populace about military action taken against the Great Satan.

 

[remake it + 288]

20 minutes ago, TomTom said:

The point is that Trump scored a quick victory for his voters by taking out Soleimani without starting a war. 

Is this a new meaning for "victory or just the numeracy of Americans?"

[remake it + 288]

24 minutes ago, TomTom said:

A very very risky play in my opinion, and perhaps not one that makes the world a better place to live in, although Soleimani wasn't making this world a better place either...

True because Trump gave him Abrams tanks to attack the Kurds when he was not fighting to rid Iraq of ISIS.

[Zhong Lu + 845]

"Dear Leader has already succeeded."  Etc. etc. 

The reason their response was limited was because they want time to continue their nuclear program.  They don't want to give Trump a causus belli.  Also, when they respond, like, really respond, it won't be through Iran directly but through their proxies when they can claim plausible deniability. If you think that's the extent of the Iranian response, I have a bridge to sell in California.  

Also, even if this is the extent of Iran's response, what have we gained? Solimani is dead, good, but he'll be replaced and Iran continues their nuclear program and continues to fund proxies across the ME.  There has been no change in Iran's behavior.  The government can now sell the event as part of an existential struggle against America, diminishing whatever we've gained through economic sanctions.  People may have grumbled before, but now they'll sacrifice because they'll see the conflict as part of an existential religious struggle against a permanently hostile enemy that wants to eliminate them and their religion.   If anything Iran's become even more stubborn and belligerent towards the US.  

Edited January 9, 2020 by Zhong Lu

[James Regan + 1,776]

4 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

Well it was a Boeing. They aren't having much luck lately, with anything.

I met a captain in Heathrow years ago and he was having an off duty pint, we got talking about types of planes ✈️ I asked him what he flew he replied proudly “if it ain’t Boeing in aint going” - Changed Days Indeed.