Author Topic: Iran  (Read 502220 times)

ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1693
    • View Profile
Re: Iran
« Reply #1050 on: January 02, 2020, 05:58:01 PM »
Iran's Top Military Commander, Qasem Suleimani, Reportedly Assassinated In US Airstrike per ZH.

But what was he doing in Baghdad (Iraq) along with the head of KATAIB HEZBOLLAH ABU MEHDI MUHANDIS, the militant group that we just bombed in Iraq.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Iran
« Reply #1051 on: January 02, 2020, 05:59:14 PM »
Commanding the attack on the US Embassy.


Iran's Top Military Commander, Qasem Suleimani, Reportedly Assassinated In US Airstrike per ZH.

But what was he doing in Baghdad (Iraq) along with the head of KATAIB HEZBOLLAH ABU MEHDI MUHANDIS, the militant group that we just bombed in Iraq.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19441
    • View Profile
Re: Iran
« Reply #1052 on: January 02, 2020, 06:47:34 PM »
Iran's Top Military Commander, Qasem Suleimani, Reportedly Assassinated In US Airstrike per ZH.

But what was he doing in Baghdad (Iraq) along with the head of KATAIB HEZBOLLAH ABU MEHDI MUHANDIS, the militant group that we just bombed in Iraq.

Trump accomplishment.  Now that's what I call retaliation.  Next we go for 'disproportionate response', meaning deterrent.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72243
    • View Profile

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72243
    • View Profile
Stratfor: Iranian Options
« Reply #1055 on: January 02, 2020, 10:19:09 PM »
 

The U.S. Assassination of a Key Iranian General Throws Fuel on the Fire

The Big Picture
________________________________________
In response to the latest round of escalation between Washington and Iran, in which protesters in Iraq breached the compound perimeter of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad earlier this week — likely at the behest of Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force Cmdr. Qassem Soleimani — the United States has taken the opportunity to eliminate the Iranian military leader and other key architects of Tehran's strategy in Iraq. But the question is, at what cost? Iran will retaliate in a significant fashion, increasing the risk of further escalation that could lead to a direct military confrontation between the two countries.
________________________________________

Iran's Arc of Influence

It's the spark to ignite a major conflagration: Late on Jan. 2, the Pentagon said it launched an overnight strike in Baghdad killing several officials linked with Iran, including Qassem Soleimani, the powerful commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' Quds Force. In addition to Soleimani, the head of the Iraqi Kataib Hezbollah militia, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, and the deputy head of Hezbollah in Lebanon, Naim Qassem were reportedly killed — although the latter's death has yet to be confirmed. The Pentagon explicitly noted that among other reasons, the United States conducted the strike in retaliation for the attempt by supporters of Kataib Hezbollah to overrun the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad's Green Zone on Dec. 31, but the decision to target one of Iran's most important military figures is sure to raise tensions between Iran and the United States in the Middle East to new heights.

Soleimani's death, which had followed a stark warning by U.S. Secretary of Defense Mark Esper that the United States was willing to preemptively strike Iranian-backed militias in Iraq to protect U.S. forces, will reverberate throughout the Middle East. As the head of the Quds Force, Soleimani was, more or less, the peer of generals leading the U.S. military's actions in Afghanistan or Iraq. Naturally, his killing opens the way for a significant escalation, as Iran could well target high-ranking U.S. military personnel in the Middle East in response. Ultimately, Iran will absolutely seek to retaliate against the United States — the only question is at what level, what scale and when.

Here's how Soleimani's death might affect a number of areas around the Middle East — and the wider world:

Iraq

The risk that Iraqi militias backed by Iran would attack U.S. and Western forces, assets and, potentially, commercial interests was already high, but it's just increased precipitously. Although Iranian-backed militias led by leaders like al-Muhandis were not popular among many Iraqis, the U.S. move to stoke a conflict with Iran on Iraqi soil will inject serious diplomatic tension into Baghdad's relationship with Washington and fuel nascent efforts in the Iraqi parliament to reevaluate Iraq's security cooperation with the United States. It will also complicate the Iraqi security force's efforts to continue to work closely with Washington against the Islamic State.

Israel

Israel reportedly had come close to assassinating Soleimani a handful of times in recent years. And based on the missile threat that it perceives from the Quds Force and the Iraqi militias led by al-Muhandis and others, Israel will no doubt support this decision by Washington. But potential Hezbollah retaliation against U.S. interests in Lebanon could also turn into attacks on Israel, given the widespread perception in Lebanon — and throughout the region — that U.S. and Israeli interests against Iran and its allies are one and the same. In the worst-case scenario, that could touch off a separate fight between Israel and Iran.

Lebanon

Iran's strong presence in Lebanon through Hezbollah makes the possibility of retaliation against U.S. targets there a distinct possibility. Hezbollah exercises influence in large swaths of Lebanon, including parts of Beirut, and has the capability to launch attacks against U.S. targets in the country. That risk will be even more pronounced if the death of Qassem, Hezbollah's second in command, is confirmed.

Saudi Arabia and Gulf Oil Producers

It has been nearly four months since Iran attacked the Abqaiq and Khurais oil-processing facilities, taking half of Saudi Arabia's oil production down. If the United States and Iran continue their escalation with direct strikes on one another, Iran could certainly retaliate against countries like Saudi Arabia, one of the closest U.S. allies in the region, and their economic interests. Each of the Gulf Cooperation Council states — particularly Bahrain and Qatar — hosts a significant U.S. military presence that Iran could target.

Persian Gulf

In addition to direct attacks on GCC member states, Iran could launch more attacks against the U.S. naval presence in the Persian Gulf. For most of U.S. President Donald Trump's term in office, Iran has hesitated to use its naval assets to harass U.S. ships in the Persian Gulf, Strait of Hormuz and Gulf of Oman despite its aggressive strategy to counter U.S. sanctions pressure. That, however, could change: As it is, the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group reported last month that Iranian naval ships had harassed it as it was leaving its deployment in the Gulf of Oman and Arabian Sea.

Syria

Soleimani's death is a blow, but likely not a crippling one, to Iran's ability to conduct its extensive operations in Syria. The United States does not have a significant presence in Syria compared to what it has in Iraq and the Persian Gulf, but the remaining U.S. forces in Syria are near Iranian-allied militia forces, meaning they could become a target.

Afghanistan

Iran could decide to strike the United States in Afghanistan, given the target-rich environment of U.S. soldiers and military assets in the country, as well as Iran's history of support for the Taliban. Iran is better positioned to strike elsewhere — since it does not directly control or direct the Taliban as it does other proxy forces — but the possibility of retaliation in the war-torn country cannot be ruled out.

Yemen

Iran could push the Houthi rebels in Yemen to launch retaliatory attacks against U.S. allies as well, even though Iran does not directly control that group, either. The Houthis maintain a robust arsenal of drones as well as ballistic and cruise missiles, which they have used to carry out attacks in Yemen, Saudi Arabia and surrounding waters such as the Bab el-Mandeb strait. Potential targets include, but are not limited to, airports, critical infrastructure, energy infrastructure, military targets and vessels transiting the Red Sea.

Beyond the Middle East

The threat of retaliation is not limited to the Middle East, given Iran's history of conducting attacks against targets ranging from Latin America to Eastern Europe and South Asia, among others. Iran has also been linked to numerous plots in Western countries, including in Belgium, Denmark, France, the United States and the United Kingdom in recent years.


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Stratfor: Iranian Options
« Reply #1056 on: January 02, 2020, 11:52:52 PM »

Make Iran a sheet of radioactive glass.





The U.S. Assassination of a Key Iranian General Throws Fuel on the Fire

The Big Picture
________________________________________
In response to the latest round of escalation between Washington and Iran, in which protesters in Iraq breached the compound perimeter of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad earlier this week — likely at the behest of Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force Cmdr. Qassem Soleimani — the United States has taken the opportunity to eliminate the Iranian military leader and other key architects of Tehran's strategy in Iraq. But the question is, at what cost? Iran will retaliate in a significant fashion, increasing the risk of further escalation that could lead to a direct military confrontation between the two countries.
________________________________________

Iran's Arc of Influence

It's the spark to ignite a major conflagration: Late on Jan. 2, the Pentagon said it launched an overnight strike in Baghdad killing several officials linked with Iran, including Qassem Soleimani, the powerful commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' Quds Force. In addition to Soleimani, the head of the Iraqi Kataib Hezbollah militia, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, and the deputy head of Hezbollah in Lebanon, Naim Qassem were reportedly killed — although the latter's death has yet to be confirmed. The Pentagon explicitly noted that among other reasons, the United States conducted the strike in retaliation for the attempt by supporters of Kataib Hezbollah to overrun the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad's Green Zone on Dec. 31, but the decision to target one of Iran's most important military figures is sure to raise tensions between Iran and the United States in the Middle East to new heights.

Soleimani's death, which had followed a stark warning by U.S. Secretary of Defense Mark Esper that the United States was willing to preemptively strike Iranian-backed militias in Iraq to protect U.S. forces, will reverberate throughout the Middle East. As the head of the Quds Force, Soleimani was, more or less, the peer of generals leading the U.S. military's actions in Afghanistan or Iraq. Naturally, his killing opens the way for a significant escalation, as Iran could well target high-ranking U.S. military personnel in the Middle East in response. Ultimately, Iran will absolutely seek to retaliate against the United States — the only question is at what level, what scale and when.

Here's how Soleimani's death might affect a number of areas around the Middle East — and the wider world:

Iraq

The risk that Iraqi militias backed by Iran would attack U.S. and Western forces, assets and, potentially, commercial interests was already high, but it's just increased precipitously. Although Iranian-backed militias led by leaders like al-Muhandis were not popular among many Iraqis, the U.S. move to stoke a conflict with Iran on Iraqi soil will inject serious diplomatic tension into Baghdad's relationship with Washington and fuel nascent efforts in the Iraqi parliament to reevaluate Iraq's security cooperation with the United States. It will also complicate the Iraqi security force's efforts to continue to work closely with Washington against the Islamic State.

Israel

Israel reportedly had come close to assassinating Soleimani a handful of times in recent years. And based on the missile threat that it perceives from the Quds Force and the Iraqi militias led by al-Muhandis and others, Israel will no doubt support this decision by Washington. But potential Hezbollah retaliation against U.S. interests in Lebanon could also turn into attacks on Israel, given the widespread perception in Lebanon — and throughout the region — that U.S. and Israeli interests against Iran and its allies are one and the same. In the worst-case scenario, that could touch off a separate fight between Israel and Iran.

Lebanon

Iran's strong presence in Lebanon through Hezbollah makes the possibility of retaliation against U.S. targets there a distinct possibility. Hezbollah exercises influence in large swaths of Lebanon, including parts of Beirut, and has the capability to launch attacks against U.S. targets in the country. That risk will be even more pronounced if the death of Qassem, Hezbollah's second in command, is confirmed.

Saudi Arabia and Gulf Oil Producers

It has been nearly four months since Iran attacked the Abqaiq and Khurais oil-processing facilities, taking half of Saudi Arabia's oil production down. If the United States and Iran continue their escalation with direct strikes on one another, Iran could certainly retaliate against countries like Saudi Arabia, one of the closest U.S. allies in the region, and their economic interests. Each of the Gulf Cooperation Council states — particularly Bahrain and Qatar — hosts a significant U.S. military presence that Iran could target.

Persian Gulf

In addition to direct attacks on GCC member states, Iran could launch more attacks against the U.S. naval presence in the Persian Gulf. For most of U.S. President Donald Trump's term in office, Iran has hesitated to use its naval assets to harass U.S. ships in the Persian Gulf, Strait of Hormuz and Gulf of Oman despite its aggressive strategy to counter U.S. sanctions pressure. That, however, could change: As it is, the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group reported last month that Iranian naval ships had harassed it as it was leaving its deployment in the Gulf of Oman and Arabian Sea.

Syria

Soleimani's death is a blow, but likely not a crippling one, to Iran's ability to conduct its extensive operations in Syria. The United States does not have a significant presence in Syria compared to what it has in Iraq and the Persian Gulf, but the remaining U.S. forces in Syria are near Iranian-allied militia forces, meaning they could become a target.

Afghanistan

Iran could decide to strike the United States in Afghanistan, given the target-rich environment of U.S. soldiers and military assets in the country, as well as Iran's history of support for the Taliban. Iran is better positioned to strike elsewhere — since it does not directly control or direct the Taliban as it does other proxy forces — but the possibility of retaliation in the war-torn country cannot be ruled out.

Yemen

Iran could push the Houthi rebels in Yemen to launch retaliatory attacks against U.S. allies as well, even though Iran does not directly control that group, either. The Houthis maintain a robust arsenal of drones as well as ballistic and cruise missiles, which they have used to carry out attacks in Yemen, Saudi Arabia and surrounding waters such as the Bab el-Mandeb strait. Potential targets include, but are not limited to, airports, critical infrastructure, energy infrastructure, military targets and vessels transiting the Red Sea.

Beyond the Middle East

The threat of retaliation is not limited to the Middle East, given Iran's history of conducting attacks against targets ranging from Latin America to Eastern Europe and South Asia, among others. Iran has also been linked to numerous plots in Western countries, including in Belgium, Denmark, France, the United States and the United Kingdom in recent years.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72243
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72243
    • View Profile
GPF:
« Reply #1058 on: January 03, 2020, 10:18:32 AM »
   
    Daily Memo: Soleimani's Assassination, Ending Spain's Political Gridlock, Russia-Belarus Oil Tiff
By: GPF Staff
All eyes on Tehran. The United States assassinated Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the longtime chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and a singular figure in the Middle East over the past two decades, with an airstrike at the Baghdad airport early on Friday morning. Soleimani had just arrived on a flight from Lebanon. Also killed were a senior commander of Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, and (reportedly) deputy Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem. The Pentagon said the strikes were intended to deter future Iranian aggression in the region, while the State Department said they were motivated by an “imminent” attack on U.S. facilities in the region by Iran or Iran-backed militias in Iraq. This is, to put it mildly, a dramatic escalation in the U.S.-Iran confrontation, pushing what’s largely been a shadow war waged by proxies for more than a decade out into the open. As chief of the IRGC’s notorious Quds Force, Soleimani had been instrumental in a range of efforts that ran counter to U.S. interests, including countless insurgent attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq in the 2000s, Baghdad's subsequent expulsion of U.S. forces from the country, Iran’s successful campaign to turn the tide of the Syrian civil war back in favor of Syrian President Bashar Assad and the surge in Hezbollah’s capabilities on Israel’s border. He was also spearheading Iran’s recent resurgence of influence in Iraq and presumably played some role in last week’s attack on the U.S. Embassy in Iraq by pro-Iran militiamen. But his death will hardly deal a death blow to Iran’s expansion in the region or its ability to attack U.S. interests. Given the popularity of Soleimani at home and Iran’s need to deter future assassinations, Tehran will almost certainly be compelled to respond in one form or another. For now, a cycle of tit-for-tat retaliation is more likely than a spiral toward all-out war, given the correlation of forces and Tehran’s limited capacity for escalation.
Soleimani’s assassination could have wide-ranging implications beyond the direct confrontation between the United States and Iran. In Iraq, where the U.S. Embassy is already urging Americans to evacuate immediately, Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi condemned the attack, and Iraq’s parliament is reportedly planning to hold an emergency meeting to “discuss decisive decisions to put an end to the U.S. presence in Iraq.” Notably, though, the response from influential cleric Muqtada al-Sadr was more muted. In a statement, he called on Iran to avoid escalation, obliquely criticized pro-Iran militias, pledged to revive his own militia, the Mahdi Army, and didn’t mention the United States by name. Elsewhere, Israel has put its embassies and the military on high alert amid calls by Hezbollah for revenge attacks. Curiously, Germany cast blame for the escalation solely on Iran. One other thing to watch is whether more distant powers like Japan that had been planning on dispatching naval forces to the region to protect open sea lanes will remain willing to do so if war between the United States and Iran appears to be a real possibility.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
The quiet dignity of the Iranian people
« Reply #1059 on: January 03, 2020, 02:49:14 PM »


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19441
    • View Profile
Re: The quiet dignity of the Iranian people
« Reply #1061 on: January 03, 2020, 04:14:14 PM »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k7mpnPJWDo

Never go to a gathering of 2 million.  Trampled to death is a lousy way to go.

That was 1989 I presume.  I wonder how popular the Mullahs are now.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: The quiet dignity of the Iranian people
« Reply #1062 on: January 03, 2020, 04:40:38 PM »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k7mpnPJWDo

Never go to a gathering of 2 million.  Trampled to death is a lousy way to go.

That was 1989 I presume.  I wonder how popular the Mullahs are now.

It appears to have declined a bit.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72243
    • View Profile
Petraeus on the Soleiman hit; JSOC vs. Quds
« Reply #1064 on: January 04, 2020, 07:02:02 AM »
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/01/03/petraeus-on-qassem-suleimani-killing-says-trump-helped-reestablish-deterrence/

=============================

https://connectingvets.radio.com/articles/news/the-shadow-war-between-jsoc-and-quds-force

=============================

Opinion
Trump’s Ground Game Against Iran
The assassination of Qassim Suleimani is a seismic event in the Middle East.

By Michael Doran
Mr. Doran is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and served in the departments of State and Defense, and on the National Security Council.
   • Jan. 3, 2020


More than any other American military operation since the invasion of Iraq, the assassination yesterday of Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, the head of Iran’s Qods Force of its Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, is a seismic event. The killings of Osama bin Laden and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leaders of al-Qaeda and the Islamic State, were certainly meaningful, but they were also largely symbolic, because their organizations had been mostly destroyed. Taking out the architect of the Islamic Republic’s decades-long active campaign of violence against the United States and its allies, especially Israel, represents a tectonic shift in Middle Eastern politics.

To see just how significant Mr. Suleimani’s death truly is, it helps to understand the geopolitical game he’d devoted his life to playing. In Lebanon, Mr. Suleimani built Lebanese Hezbollah into the powerful state within a state that we know today. A terrorist organization receiving its funds, arms and marching orders from Tehran, Hezbollah has a missile arsenal larger than that of most countries in the region. The group’s success has been astounding, helping to cement Iran’s influence not just in Lebanon but farther around the Arab world.

Building up on this successful experience, Mr. Suleimani spent the last decade replicating the Hezbollah model in Iraq, Syria and Yemen, propping up local militias with precision weapons and tactical know-how. In Syria, his forces have allied with Russia to prop up the  regime of Bashar al-Assad, a project that, in practice, has meant driving over 10 million people from their homes and killing well over half a million. In Iraq, as we have seen in recent days, Mr. Suleimani’s militias ride roughshod over the legitimate state institutions. They rose to power, of course, after participating in an insurgency, of which he was the architect, against American and coalition forces. Hundreds of American soldiers lost their lives to the weapons that the Qods Force provided to its Iraqi proxies.

Mr. Suleimani built this empire of militias while betting that America would steer clear of an outright confrontation. This gambit certainly paid off under President Barack Obama, but it even seemed to be a safe bet under President Trump, despite his stated policy of “maximum pressure.” Mr. Trump was putting an economic squeeze on Iran, and popular protests in Iran, Iraq and Lebanon were adding to the pressure, but Mr. Suleimani assumed that, in the end, control of military assets would win the day. Mr. Trump, it seemed, feared getting sucked into a war. Washington, in short, lacked a ground game.

In September, Mr. Suleimani and his colleagues reportedly pressed their advantage by attacking a Saudi Arabian oil field, an act of war that went unanswered. He followed this up  by orchestrating attacks by Iranian proxies on Americans. The Trump administration had said clearly that attacking Americans was a red line, but Mr. Suleimani had heard threats in the past from American leaders. He thought he could erase Mr. Trump’s red line.

His departure will make Iran much weaker. It will embolden the country’s regional rivals —primarily Israel and Saudi Arabia— to pursue their strategic interests more resolutely. It will also instill in the protesters in Iran, Lebanon and, especially, Iraq, the hope that they will one day wrest control of their governments from the talons of the Islamic Republic.


In Washington, the decision to kill Mr. Suleimani represents the final demise of Mr. Obama’s Middle East strategy, which sought to realign American interests with those of Iran. Mr. Obama’s search for a modus vivendi with Tehran never comported with the reality of the Islamic Republic’s fundamental character and regional ambitions. President Trump, by contrast, realized that Tehran’s goal was to replace America as the key player in the Middle East.

The United States has no choice, if it seeks to stay in the Middle East, but to check Iran’s military power on the ground. For a president elected on a platform of peace and prosperity, confronting Iran was not an easy decision to make. Mr. Trump would undoubtedly prefer to be negotiating with Iran over its nuclear program rather than ordering the assassination of its most famous general. But the president realized that securing America’s regional position required a strong and visible response to Mr. Suleimani’s escalations.

In fact, such a response was long overdue. I know from my own experience, as a former senior official in the White House and the Defense Department, that the United States had several past opportunities to kill Mr. Suleimani but each time decided against it. This restraint did not make the world safer. It only gave Mr. Suleimani more time to build his empire, and, moreover, it enhanced his mystique as a man with an almost superhuman ability to evade detection.


To no one’s surprise, Mr. Trump’s critics immediately accused him of needlessly provoking Iran, arguing that Mr. Suleimani’s assassination could lead to war. This is an analysis that ignores the fact that Mr. Suleimani has been waging war on America and its allies for years and was directly engaged in the planning of attacks.

The world to which we wake up today, rid of its most accomplished and deadly terrorist, is a better place. Nowhere is this insight more evident than throughout the Middle East, where individuals are posting joyous videos to social media, celebrating the death of the author of so much of their misery. We should all — even those among us who don’t particularly care for Mr. Trump — join them in their good cheer, and continue to repeal Mr. Suleimani’s murderous anti-American legacy.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2020, 07:59:45 AM by Crafty_Dog »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72243
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72243
    • View Profile
Thomas Friedman: Trump kills Iran's most overrated warrior
« Reply #1066 on: January 04, 2020, 11:11:07 AM »
Third post

Trump Kills Iran’s Most Overrated Warrior Suleimani pushed his country to build an empire, but drove it into the ground instead. By Thomas L. Friedman Opinion Columnist • Jan. 3, 2020

 A portrait of Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani carried during a demonstration in Baghdad in 2015.Credit...Thaier Al-Sudani/Reuters One day they may name a street after President Trump in Tehran. Why? Because Trump just ordered the assassination of possibly the dumbest man in Iran and the most overrated strategist in the Middle East: Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani.



Think of the miscalculations this guy made. In 2015, the United States and the major European powers agreed to lift virtually all their sanctions on Iran, many dating back to 1979, in return for Iran halting its nuclear weapons program for a mere 15 years, but still maintaining the right to have a peaceful nuclear program. It was a great deal for Iran. Its economy grew by over 12 percent the next year. And what did Suleimani do with that windfall? He and Iran’s supreme leader launched an aggressive regional imperial project that made Iran and its proxies the de facto controlling power in Beirut, Damascus, Baghdad and Sana.



This freaked out U.S. allies in the Sunni Arab world and Israel — and they pressed the Trump administration to respond. Trump himself was eager to tear up any treaty forged by President Obama, so he exited the nuclear deal and imposed oil sanctions on Iran that have now shrunk the Iranian economy by almost 10 percent and sent unemployment over 16 percent.

All that for the pleasure of saying that Tehran can call the shots in Beirut, Damascus, Baghdad and Sana. What exactly was second prize?



By severely depriving the Tehran regime of funds, the ayatollahs had to raise gasoline prices at home, triggering massive domestic protests. That required a harsh crackdown by the Iran’s clerics against their own people that left thousands jailed and killed, further weakening the legitimacy of the regime. Then Mr. “Military Genius” Suleimani decided that, having propped up the regime of President Bashar al-Assad in Syria, and helping to kill 500,000 Syrians in the process, he would overreach again and try to put direct pressure on Israel. He would do this by trying to transfer precision-guided rockets from Iran to Iranian proxy forces in Lebanon and Syria.    •



 Suleimani discovered that fighting Israel — specifically, its combined air force, special forces, intelligence and cyber — is not like fighting the Nusra front or the Islamic State. The Israelis hit back hard, sending a whole bunch of Iranians home from Syria in caskets and hammering their proxies as far away as Western Iraq. Indeed, Israeli intelligence had so penetrated Suleimani’s Quds Force and its proxies that Suleimani would land a plane with precision munitions in Syria at 5 p.m., and the Israeli air force would blow it up by 5:30 p.m.



Suleimani’s men were like fish in a barrel. If Iran had a free press and a real parliament, he would have been fired for colossal mismanagement. But it gets better, or actually worse, for Suleimani. Many of his obituaries say that he led the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq, in tacit alliance with America. Well, that’s true. But what they omit is that Suleimani’s, and Iran’s, overreaching in Iraq helped to produce the Islamic State in the first place.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72243
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72243
    • View Profile

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72243
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: January 04, 2020, 03:07:42 PM by Crafty_Dog »

ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1693
    • View Profile
Re: Iran
« Reply #1071 on: January 05, 2020, 06:05:54 AM »
Interesting to see what their response will be. From the relatively cosmetic (lob a few rockets at the green zone), to kill a few more Americans here and there to taking down a ship in the Hormuz. They have raised the red flag of war at their holy mosque (see video). Once their emotions settle, it will depend on how suicidal they feel. My guess is not very much.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1213537154854350848

« Last Edit: January 05, 2020, 06:43:50 AM by ya »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19754
    • View Profile
Re: Iran
« Reply #1072 on: January 05, 2020, 07:10:37 AM »
The Left is already
trying to scare all  Americans that Trump is going to bring back the draft.

If Orange Man wins 2020 all our children will have to join the military

is the obvious ploy and invention to scare people not to vote for him ....

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72243
    • View Profile
VDH: Iranian Analytics
« Reply #1073 on: January 05, 2020, 08:47:00 AM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72243
    • View Profile
Re: Iran
« Reply #1074 on: January 05, 2020, 08:54:31 AM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72243
    • View Profile



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72243
    • View Profile
Re: Iran
« Reply #1078 on: January 05, 2020, 06:51:38 PM »
Unnecessary though, nothing gained but yet something lost.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72243
    • View Profile

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Iran
« Reply #1081 on: January 05, 2020, 08:02:55 PM »
Unnecessary though, nothing gained but yet something lost.

The only war crime is losing.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Good News: Qasim Soleimani, Dead as Dead can be
« Reply #1082 on: January 05, 2020, 08:15:45 PM »
https://www.thediplomad.com/2020/01/good-news-qasim-soleimani-dead-as-dead.html

Saturday, January 4, 2020
Good News: Qasim Soleimani, Dead as Dead can be

I was delighted to hear that Iranian scumbag and General Qasim Soleimani met his end in a ball of fire thanks to a missile from a US Reaper drone. This is good news; this is very good news. We should all be very grateful that we have a President with the courage and patriotism to order the death of QS. I have long bemoaned the fact, and I stress fact, that we in the West have not been at war with the Islamist crazies--be they Shia or Sunni--but we have been under attack. In other words, they have been at war with us, while we have allowed ourselves--as a rule--to suffer attacks and outrages; we have crippled our ability to respond thanks to the goodness of our societies, our kindness towards strangers, our tendency to paralysis through analysis, by trying to anticipate every outcome, every consequence of what we might do--a hopeless task.

There at times when you must just act.

Before we get ourselves into a Bastiat-style discussion of the possible ramifications and unintended consequences of killing QS, let's remind ourselves of some basics. Soleimani deserved to die for the terrorist horrors he has inflicted on the world for the past 25 or so years. He was a prolific mass and serial murderer. There are times when such people just have to be removed, damn the consequences. Would we have desisted from killing Hitler out of concern for the power vacuum his death might leave at the top of the Reich? For fear that his death might energize the Nazi war machine even further? No, no way. Hitler deserved to die, and in a horrible manner. Soleimani, and his evil companions, deserved to become ropa vieja on that Baghdad highway.

Now, some "niceties."

I have been angered, though not surprised, by some of the idiotic negative commentary on Trump's order to shoot. Trump did not need to consult with the Congress or anybody else before giving that order. Soleimani was a uniformed enemy combatant active on a foreign battlefield, directing and implementing operations against US personnel and institutions, e.g., the Embassy. QS had a LONG, LONG history of conducting lethal operations against US and other Western targets, using largely proxy forces. At the time of death, he was in Iraq meeting the leader of one of those proxy militias, the one which had just attacked the US Embassy in Baghdad, and preparing further actions against us. He was not some random civilian Iranian government official whom we assassinated in his home in Tehran. He was a military man, conducting a covert military mission against us outside of Iran's territory. His killing is no more an illegitimate act than say that of Japanese Admiral Yamamoto or of US General Simon Bolivar Bruckner, Jr.

Now, the consequences.

Sure, the Iranians are angry and humiliated. They were convinced that we would not do anything directly to them and that we would be content with killing a few lowly proxy militiamen. They were wrong. Trump is not Obama; he is not going to ship them $1.5 billion in cash and gold in the dead of night in the vain hope of appeasing the Persian Moloch, getting a worthless piece of paper promising that Tehran will cease and desist with (fill in the blank). He is not the sort to put up with another Benghazi massacre. So, yes, the Iranians have a problem on their hands. They have to decide what to do, knowing that it will in all likelihood provoke another terrifying US response. The whole proxy thing is now a bit threadbare, but they could, out of habit, go back to that and have a proxy conduct some sort of operation against US forces, civilians, diplomats, etc. They could launch an attack in London, or Paris, or New York using the "sleeper cells" made possible by idiotic Western immigration policies. They could try some sort of cyber attack. They could launch ship-killing missiles in the Gulf aimed at shutting down marine transit through Hormuz. There are lots of things they might do, many of those were ones they were already doing.

All that, well, is for them to decide: weigh the pros and the cons of an action.

As far as we are concerned, however, we should not wait. We need to be preemptive, and I don't mean just issuing warnings or stepping up security at Embassies and airports. I would hope that the President is being handed a list of options for further action as needed. Now is the time for the President or the Secretary of State to go on the air and tell the Iranians the sorts of things we are considering. Sometimes being secretive is not useful.

Now is the time openly to tell the Iranians that we do not want war, but they should want it much less. We should openly tell them that we will dismantle their oil production, their ability to generate electricity, to distribute water, to conduct financial operations, etc. We should tell them that their navy and air force are forfeit in the case of an action against us, and that we will degrade their ability to conduct all types of military operations. We will smash their proxy forces without mercy. On the other hand, we are open to talks with Tehran and stand ready to discuss all topics without preconditions. Meet us.

We also should quietly, once the current cloud of dust settles, tell the clowns in Baghdad that we are leaving. They are not worth the life a single American.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72243
    • View Profile
Re: Iran
« Reply #1083 on: January 06, 2020, 04:37:22 AM »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Iran
« Reply #1084 on: January 06, 2020, 05:08:08 AM »
« Last Edit: January 06, 2020, 05:15:53 AM by G M »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19441
    • View Profile
"Martyr' flies coach back to Iran
« Reply #1085 on: January 06, 2020, 08:20:35 AM »
https://nypost.com/2020/01/06/qassem-soleimanis-dead-body-flies-coach-back-to-iran/

Nothing says dignity like draping the body across the passenger seats.  These are times of tight budgets in Iran.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: "Martyr' flies coach back to Iran
« Reply #1086 on: January 06, 2020, 09:11:48 AM »
https://nypost.com/2020/01/06/qassem-soleimanis-dead-body-flies-coach-back-to-iran/

Nothing says dignity like draping the body across the passenger seats.  These are times of tight budgets in Iran.

That is more hysterical than the best memes! Awesome!


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72243
    • View Profile
Re: Iran
« Reply #1088 on: January 06, 2020, 10:15:16 AM »
GM:  Love your wit, but that is not quite a cultural heritage site  :-D

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72243
    • View Profile
George Friedman : Iran-- what now?
« Reply #1089 on: January 06, 2020, 02:37:28 PM »
January 6, 2020   Open as PDF


Iranian and American Strategies After Soleimani
By: George Friedman

Iran has expressed outrage at the killing of Qassem Soleimani, the head of Iran’s Quds Force, and has announced a resumption of its nuclear enrichment program, but little in the way of reprisals has actually taken place.

For the United States, the goal of killing Soleimani was to break the Iranian sphere of influence. Its method for doing so has been partly political and partly military. Politically, it has tried to influence some groups with looser ties to Iran. Militarily, it has sought to use air power to destroy key installations. The air campaign is likely to continue in Iraq as Israel attacks in Syria. The U.S. is likely unprepared to act in Lebanon but may continue to support Saudi and Emirati forces in Yemen. In other words, the U.S. was in the process of initiating its offensive against Iran, and that has a long way to go before achieving desired ends. The killing of Soleimani is a step, not closure.

For Iran, the killing opens the door to political maneuver at a time when it badly needs some room. Many U.S. allies, some involved in the nuclear talks that spawned sanctions, have condemned the American action. Resuming the nuclear program is designed to create further opposition to U.S. action, since the U.S. will be blamed for the restart. Iran's goal will be to create a divide between the U.S. and countries like Germany and France, and use that to isolate the U.S. and create an opening that could lead to the collapse of sanctions. A terrorist action against civilian targets cuts against this strategy.

The test will be whether the anti-Iran alliance will hold, and whether the sanctions can be eased in this way. If they can, the U.S. has to reconsider its actions, because the economic isolation of Iran is the key to U.S. strategy. So now the battle turns to countries participating in the sanction program, particularly the larger European ones. The threat of violence is there, but for the moment the Iranians will use this event as a lever for ending sanctions.   






G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Iran
« Reply #1092 on: January 07, 2020, 07:23:27 AM »
GM:  Love your wit, but that is not quite a cultural heritage site  :-D

What would be? The giant blood fountains?



DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19441
    • View Profile
Re: Iran
« Reply #1094 on: January 07, 2020, 12:26:20 PM »
Hundreds of thousands grieve - out of 80 million. 

My two cents on the question of cultural sites as targets: 

It was a comment by Trump, not an action.  What we did was exactly the opposite.  We are far more careful than any adversary at avoiding collateral damage of all kinds.

At issue is the wisdom of Trump using those words, not to judge actions that never happened.

Assuming triple digit intelligence on both sides, game theory projections are going on right now.  The US will not strike first against anyone right now.  This ball is in Iran's court. 

Prior to the US strike on Soleimani, their calculation was what?  Hit, hit, hit with no consequence. What were they trying to accomplish?  Weaken us, weaken our resolve, make themselves more important?

Now the (war) 'game' they play has changed to one of greater uncertainty and likely disproportional response.  If Iran strikes, the strike could fail and make them look weak, make us look strong and expose their cells and methods.  It could succeed and they do major damage to us, something like 9/11 but probably on a much smaller scale.  If so, then what?

Trump just said he isn't seeking regime policy.  That would change instantly.  He doesn't have bipartisan support or Congressional authorization to declare war on the regime of Iran.  That could change.  Most visually in their mind as they hide themselves and their weapons behind cultural sites, they could see their most valued treasures go up in smoke.

Trump wouldn't do it?  Probably not but he just said he would and according to everything they read he breaks the law all the time and gets away with it.

As they think this new scenario through and if they are rational, they could go a lot further with the rest of their missions in the world if they do not incite war with the United States under this administration.  Their best path right now is to talk big perhaps but lay low and wait for future American weakness.  We will see.

If their calculation has changed, this is a much bigger Trump accomplishment than just killing one bad guy.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72243
    • View Profile
Re: Iran
« Reply #1095 on: January 07, 2020, 12:49:26 PM »
Several of our military folks have explicitly stated that they will respect the laws that prohibit going after cultural/historical targets. 
Trump is being an ass here, just like he was when he called for waterboarding (and torture).  Remember when he had to back down after Mattis said he "Never had much use for it"?

There is no military purpose to this, and such bombastic nonsense only makes it easier to put doubt about America in the minds of the many, many Iranians who hope for better from America.  Remember them chanting in the streets ten years ago "Obama, are you with us?"

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19441
    • View Profile
Re: Iran
« Reply #1096 on: January 07, 2020, 02:05:19 PM »
Several of our military folks have explicitly stated that they will respect the laws that prohibit going after cultural/historical targets. 
Trump is being an ass here, just like he was when he called for waterboarding (and torture).  Remember when he had to back down after Mattis said he "Never had much use for it"?

There is no military purpose to this, and such bombastic nonsense only makes it easier to put doubt about America in the minds of the many, many Iranians who hope for better from America.  Remember them chanting in the streets ten years ago "Obama, are you with us?"

"Trump is being an ass here..."

Yes.  It was Trump being loose with his words.  He has now walked this back.  Maybe he was being stupid and maybe he wanted to get that out there.  You never know with him.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72243
    • View Profile

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Iran
« Reply #1098 on: January 07, 2020, 08:09:15 PM »
Several of our military folks have explicitly stated that they will respect the laws that prohibit going after cultural/historical targets. 
Trump is being an ass here, just like he was when he called for waterboarding (and torture).  Remember when he had to back down after Mattis said he "Never had much use for it"?

There is no military purpose to this, and such bombastic nonsense only makes it easier to put doubt about America in the minds of the many, many Iranians who hope for better from America.  Remember them chanting in the streets ten years ago "Obama, are you with us?"

Are these the same military professionals that have given us 18 consecutive years of Victory in Afghanistan?


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72243
    • View Profile
Re: Iran
« Reply #1099 on: January 07, 2020, 08:22:14 PM »
If memory serves they were given increasingly stupid ROE during those years on a mission with no definable victory so I would not blame them.

On the other hand, what gain is there by blowing up historical stuff?  None that I can see, yet OTOH it allows others to put us in the same category as ISIS and the Taliban in this regard.  Sorry, but it's stupid.