Iraq/Iran Megathread - Latest: U.S. to close Baghdad embassy

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

All in all, I support the action.  Solemani wasn't in Iran when he was killed; he was in a foreign country where we had an embassy, where he was acting illegally according to Iraqi law and International Law.  I have no problem with killing people who launch attacks on civilians.  I also have no problem with a policy that results in the Solemanis of the World have real fear of being taken out.  On a personal, I'm happy that Solemani is dead, and not some anonymous grunt who was just a dupe or a mercenary.

Trump has said he is not for "Regime Change" and has re-emphasized that.  Of course, after he says this, the de-frocked John Bolton takes to Twitter, when he should have just shut up.  Bolton was the most cringeworthy appointment Trump made, and the one I was happy to see leave.  But Bolton is a symptom of what I find in Trump's Administration that needs to be corrected.

The Foreign Policy realm of the Trump Administration has been infiltrated by neocons, in part because they professed loyalty to Trump.  They have sought to flavor Trump's policy with Neocon Spice, and they've been somewhat successful.  Somewhat.  Trump needs to systematically replace the neocons in his Foreign Policy apparatus with people that adhere to HIS philosophy and not let anymore Bolton's creep back in.

Can't say I disagree with much of this. This hits nail on head.

Nor can I, with the one caveat that it implies Trump HAS anything approaching an actual foreign policy.

At best, it is ad hoc decisions based on whomever last had Trump's ear and explain how following their agenda would make Trump look better. At worst, despite his having occasionally talked on the campaign Trail about the need to bring troops home not engage in Endless Wars, etcetera, Trump has continuously demonstrated that he will gladly engage in unrestrained military action for any perceived personal slight, and Iran's perceived lack of personal affection for Trump makes them number one on that list.

In short, at best Trump's foriegn policy is like daily spinning a roulette wheel, and at worst that of a modern day Caligula desperate for a triumphal procession to satisfy his vainglory.

Yes, I compared him to Caligula. And if one looks at the historical record of "Little Boots", it is all too apt a comparison.

I do have to take issue with the use of Caligula as an analogy to Trump because that image we all have of him was crafted by classist elites who he humiliatated and defeated beyond the limits of what they thought possible at the time.
Your overall point is inarguably true though.

You know, you're right and I almost added a caveat to that effect in my post. There is some Modern historical analysis that says , while not a good Emperor, Caligula may have been far better than the monster he was posthumously depicted as by those contemporary historians who were in the camp of his political enemies.

My God! Has it really come to the point that we may have a president of the United States who arguably is WORSE then Caligula?!?

My go-to analogy re: Trump has always been that he wishes he got an opportunity to look resolute and strong and courageous, like the president in Independence Day or some other 80s and 90s film. But he cant walk the walk and due to his own personal flaws he has to resort to acting like this in order to convince only a portion of the population he fits the part.

[KaiserDave]

The chortles of glee coming from some blue avatars on a war and war crimes here is disgusting, appalling, and put simply, deplorable.

[Badger]

All in all, I support the action.  Solemani wasn't in Iran when he was killed; he was in a foreign country where we had an embassy, where he was acting illegally according to Iraqi law and International Law.  I have no problem with killing people who launch attacks on civilians.  I also have no problem with a policy that results in the Solemanis of the World have real fear of being taken out.  On a personal, I'm happy that Solemani is dead, and not some anonymous grunt who was just a dupe or a mercenary.

Trump has said he is not for "Regime Change" and has re-emphasized that.  Of course, after he says this, the de-frocked John Bolton takes to Twitter, when he should have just shut up.  Bolton was the most cringeworthy appointment Trump made, and the one I was happy to see leave.  But Bolton is a symptom of what I find in Trump's Administration that needs to be corrected.

The Foreign Policy realm of the Trump Administration has been infiltrated by neocons, in part because they professed loyalty to Trump.  They have sought to flavor Trump's policy with Neocon Spice, and they've been somewhat successful.  Somewhat.  Trump needs to systematically replace the neocons in his Foreign Policy apparatus with people that adhere to HIS philosophy and not let anymore Bolton's creep back in.

Can't say I disagree with much of this. This hits nail on head.

Nor can I, with the one caveat that it implies Trump HAS anything approaching an actual foreign policy.

At best, it is ad hoc decisions based on whomever last had Trump's ear and explain how following their agenda would make Trump look better. At worst, despite his having occasionally talked on the campaign Trail about the need to bring troops home not engage in Endless Wars, etcetera, Trump has continuously demonstrated that he will gladly engage in unrestrained military action for any perceived personal slight, and Iran's perceived lack of personal affection for Trump makes them number one on that list.

In short, at best Trump's foriegn policy is like daily spinning a roulette wheel, and at worst that of a modern day Caligula desperate for a triumphal procession to satisfy his vainglory.

Yes, I compared him to Caligula. And if one looks at the historical record of "Little Boots", it is all too apt a comparison.

I do have to take issue with the use of Caligula as an analogy to Trump because that image we all have of him was crafted by classist elites who he humiliatated and defeated beyond the limits of what they thought possible at the time.
Your overall point is inarguably true though.

You know, you're right and I almost added a caveat to that effect in my post. There is some Modern historical analysis that says , while not a good Emperor, Caligula may have been far better than the monster he was posthumously depicted as by those contemporary historians who were in the camp of his political enemies.

My God! Has it really come to the point that we may have a president of the United States who arguably is WORSE then Caligula?!?

My go-to analogy re: Trump has always been that he wishes he got an opportunity to look resolute and strong and courageous, like the president in Independence Day or some other 80s and 90s film. But he cant walk the walk and due to his own personal flaws he has to resort to acting like this in order to convince only a portion of the population he fits the part.

I don't know if this counts as worse, or merely the icing on the cake, but Trump's record of sexual assault and incest, right down to his unabashed drooling over ivanka's body, is at LEAST as well documented and arguably as extensive as Caligula's was.

But has I will say numerous times again, yet forty to 45% of our population still Die Hard supports him, because they would rather have a chronic sexual batterer in the white house then a liberal.

[Almost Anyone But Biden Or Trump (ABBoT but not Greg Abbott)]

https://twitter.com/tparsi/status/1213839002366861317

[Omega21]

https://twitter.com/tparsi/status/1213839002366861317

What the actual .

How likely is this to be true?

[Almost Anyone But Biden Or Trump (ABBoT but not Greg Abbott)]

I do have to take issue with the use of Caligula as an analogy to Trump because that image we all have of him was crafted by classist elites who he humiliatated and defeated beyond the limits of what they thought possible at the time.
Your overall point is inarguably true though.

There is somewhat of a difference also because Caligula reportedly was relatively ok for the first part of his reign, until he had some sort of uknown illness/poisoning ("brain fever"). What exactly the "brain fever" was is unknown/debated by historians, but obviously it may have been something that set off some sort of mental illness, which may have caused/contributed to Caligula's more crazy actions after that.

By comparison, consider Trump.

Trump did NOT have a first part of his term which was relatively ok/normal. Right out of the gate it was immediately the inauguration crowd size lies and shortly after that round 1 of the Muslim ban etc.

So in this respect, Trump is apparently worse than Caligula.

[Badger]

https://twitter.com/tparsi/status/1213839002366861317

What the actual .

How likely is this to be true?

Frankly, 50/50 at best, and probably less. Needless to say the killing of sulemani is extremely unpopular in Iraq. Ergo fabricating the supposed peaceful nature of his activities in Iraq is the equivalent of throwing red meat to the political base.

Likewise, this story gives the Iraqi PM at least an obstensible basis for opposing the strike without saying it's okay that sulemani was about to conduct attacks on Americans. After all, he'll still need our government's diplomatic and economic support, not to mention the inevitable behind the scenes Military Support such as reconnaissance (and probably some special forces discreetly left on Iraqi soil, as was the case in Syria), if and when most of our troops are forced to withdraw.

[Badger]

I do have to take issue with the use of Caligula as an analogy to Trump because that image we all have of him was crafted by classist elites who he humiliatated and defeated beyond the limits of what they thought possible at the time.
Your overall point is inarguably true though.

There is somewhat of a difference also because Caligula reportedly was relatively ok for the first part of his reign, until he had some sort of uknown illness/poisoning ("brain fever"). What exactly the "brain fever" was is unknown/debated by historians, but obviously it may have been something that set off some sort of mental illness, which may have caused/contributed to Caligula's more crazy actions after that.

By comparison, consider Trump.

Trump did NOT have a first part of his term which was relatively ok/normal. Right out of the gate it was immediately the inauguration crowd size lies and shortly after that round 1 of the Muslim ban etc.

So in this respect, Trump is apparently worse than Caligula.

We are totally hijacking This Thread, but this is one of most interesting discussions I've engaged in here 4 months.

Could we give Trump somewhat the benefit of the doubt and say he was only as bad in Caligula in terms of descending into dementia, by incorporating his mental state in the year or so he was a candidate for president question mark it may not strictly count for the time that he was our actual president, but in the function of American democracy it's certainly relevant. Also, as has been pointed out in other threads here, even by that point he unquestionably invisibly had degenerated mentally from even a decade or so earlier.

So though I am hardly convinced of it, Playing devil's advocate I'm wondering if it could be said Trump's descent into dementia and arguable Madness is simply comprable to Caligula's rather than tangibly worse?

[Convicted Felon Donald Trump]

Ultimately Trump made an uneasy situation 100x worse. The action was an unnecessary escalation.

Trump campaigned on decreasing involvement in the region and said he was not in favor of regime changing. This strike is in direct contrast to what he campaigned on. Trump voters response is also in contrast to the position they took when Trump was running.

We’ve spent too long at war in the region, we’ve lost too many lives, and we have absolutely nothing to show for it. War with Iran will be 100x worse than the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Also, let’s not kid ourselves, war with Iran is Trump’s goal and the reason is SOLELY to deflect from his impeachment and scandals at home.

[Almost Anyone But Biden Or Trump (ABBoT but not Greg Abbott)]

We are totally hijacking This Thread, but this is one of most interesting discussions I've engaged in here 4 months.

Could we give Trump somewhat the benefit of the doubt and say he was only as bad in Caligula in terms of descending into dementia, by incorporating his mental state in the year or so he was a candidate for president question mark it may not strictly count for the time that he was our actual president, but in the function of American democracy it's certainly relevant. Also, as has been pointed out in other threads here, even by that point he unquestionably invisibly had degenerated mentally from even a decade or so earlier.

So though I am hardly convinced of it, Playing devil's advocate I'm wondering if it could be said Trump's descent into dementia and arguable Madness is simply comprable to Caligula's rather than tangibly worse?

Another way to look at it is that Caligula was about 24-25 years old when he became Emperor and about 28 when he was assassinated. Dementia/mental illness/etc is not really normal for that age. However, Trump was inaugurated at age 70. At that point in life, some sort of cognitive decline is more common.

Supposing that Trump had become President at age 24, I doubt he would have been a good President then, but he would have been more similar to those old videos of Trump 10-20-30 years ago in which he was apparently able to formulate coherent thoughts.

So in this respect it is a bit unfair to Trump to compare a 70 year old Trump to a 24 year old Caligula.

On the other hand though, to some degree Caligula had more of an excuse of impetuousness/rashness/inexperience of youth.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

https://twitter.com/tparsi/status/1213839002366861317

What the actual .

How likely is this to be true?

This better not be ing true.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

https://twitter.com/michaelh992/status/1213883615236567040

[Almost Anyone But Biden Or Trump (ABBoT but not Greg Abbott)]

Iran hadn't actually left the nuclear deal back when Trump pulled out of it. They stayed in it and tried to continue cooperating with the Europeans (maybe hoping that the US might re-join if Trump were not re-elected, who knows). But now...:

https://twitter.com/farnazfassihi/status/1213883623449006083

So what exactly is the ETA for Iran getting nukes if they start enriching uranium ASAP?

[lfromnj]

Wasn't the idea of Caligula that he just had sh**tty historians covering him from the point of the Senate which he hated?Incitatus was basically stating that even a horse can do your job. Tbh I believe this theory even if it isn't the only theory behind Caligulas insanity.

[BP🌹]

This! This is what I wanted in 2016. This is why I wanted a conservative President! Y'all can complain all you want, but I love it! I've always hated international law. I hate the UN. I hate how sensitive we are -- as if foreign monuments matter more than American lives? If Trump sends those 52 sites to high heaven, I'll cheer him all the way along: I can't wait to vote for him in 2020!!!

I don't suppose you'd also be okay if, say, Hezbollah launched a missile at the Wailing Wall and destroyed it?

[KaiserDave]

This! This is what I wanted in 2016. This is why I wanted a conservative President! Y'all can complain all you want, but I love it! I've always hated international law. I hate the UN. I hate how sensitive we are -- as if foreign monuments matter more than American lives? If Trump sends those 52 sites to high heaven, I'll cheer him all the way along: I can't wait to vote for him in 2020!!!

Ideas like this border on sociopathic.

[ProudModerate2]

[GeorgiaModerate]

The Foreign Policy realm of the Trump Administration has been infiltrated by neocons, in part because they professed loyalty to Trump.  They have sought to flavor Trump's policy with Neocon Spice, and they've been somewhat successful.  Somewhat.  Trump needs to systematically replace the neocons in his Foreign Policy apparatus with people that adhere to HIS philosophy and not let anymore Bolton's creep back in.

There is no "HIS" philosophy. Donald Trump doesn't know or care enough about anything to have a consistent worldview. Everything he does is just following whatever the last person who had his ear suggested.

I'm pretty convinced that most of Donald Trump's questions in the Oval Office to his advisors and cabinet start with "why can't we just...?"

"Why can't we just build a wall? Illegal immigration is a problem.  A wall will keep people out."  

"Why can't we just cut taxes? People hate paying taxes!"

"This Soleimani guy -- he sounds like a bad guy.  Why can't we just take him out?"

Sometimes, you need someone who thinks in a very binary way -- someone who will take action instead of just dancing around and leaning towards a decision without taking one.  But not when it's arguably the most powerful man/woman in the world.  

This illustrates one of the largest problems in politics right now.  There's a quote by H. L. Mencken that's very popular in my job: "Every complex problem has a solution that is simple, obvious, ... and utterly wrong."  This is almost universally true; every once in a while, someone will come up with a brilliant insight that simply solves a complex problem with an unexpected approach, but this is a very rare event.

At the highest levels of government (or most any organization) there are few, if any, simple or easy problems.  The simple problems get solved at lower levels, and the tough problems filter upward.  As a consequence, the highest levels get the toughest problems.

However, some people don't (or choose not to) understand this, and believe that most problems can be solved simply by a "direct thinker" or something similar.  There is a natural appeal to this line of thinking; most of us don't like a messy world where some problems can't be solved easily/cheaply/practically/at all.  After all, why are we electing these people (or paying them so much, in the private sector) if they can't fix what's wrong? 

I believe this tendency has gotten worse over time; a few decades ago it seemed that more people were willing to believe that some problems were beyond their understanding or experience, and were willing to trust in experts to solve them.  But nowadays many non-expert people put less trust in experts.  These people believe that they know (with the aid of the Internet) as much as anyone else about a subject, and hey, it's obvious that problem X can be solved if we just do A, B, and C.  Tom Nichols has written a book about this called The Death of Expertise.

A candidate like Trump has a natural appeal for these people, and if such a candidate is elected the result is a government full of incompetents.  And these incompetents are then in control of an apparatus so powerful that the effects of their incompetence are dangerous.  Even worse, they manage to drive out most of the competent people that remain and who might provide some stability.

I don't see a simple answer to this (it's a complex problem!)  Maybe the disaster that is the Trump administration will wake up enough American voters to realize that they really shouldn't put their faith in a con man who promises simple solutions to their problems.  But I suspect that is too optimistic a hope.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

https://twitter.com/AmirAminiMD/status/1213828930458804224?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7...
For anybody who was under the impression that the Iranians mourning Soleimani were in the minority or being blown out of proportion by the media

It may be a majority but Iran is a country of over 80 million people so even a huge parade isn't proof of that.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Hold on, now, let's not wish death on people that disagree with us politically.  Trump voters drive me up the wall sometimes, but I certainly don't want them to be killed by a foreign power.  

The fact that you think the average Trump supporter is equal to the KKK is ignorant in every way possible and actually shows you are more intolerant than the average Trump supporter.

1960s George Wallace was far far more racist than Trump


By the way I know many Trump supporters and many of them are my friends and they are all good people and while I disagree with their opinions on Trump, voting for him doesnt make them bad people.

That's the sad thing about Trump supporters, even that share, which is frankly debatable whether or not it's a majority versus a very large minority, who aren't racist themselves. It includes members of my own family whom I love. While they may not be racist, or traitors, or corrupt individuals themselves, they're more than willing to support a President Who clearly is. When it comes to running the government of our country, they're willing to put their basic common sense and even personal integrity on the sidelines 2 support someone as president who lacks either. In short, it is heartbreaking that they will support a racist incompetent boorish vicious authoritarian corrupt anti-democratic president, because they would rather have that in the white house then a liberal Democrat.

In short, even if maybe half ish of trump supporters aren't racist, orally typical Suburban racist light, 100% of them choose party over country.

The vast majority of them do not follow politics like we do and really only vote on pocketbook issues usually and one said he would not vote to rock the boat at a time this nation is in such great shape .

My dad though has convinced afew of his friends who like Trump to support a third party instead(not all of them though ) and he is more right wing than most of my friends are and even his friends are on economic and cultural issues . It’s harder for me to do the same as his friends follow politics more than mine do so they are more likely to vote on non pocketbook issues than mine do .


It makes sense though if you look at it from a non political view that people who don’t follow politics are likely to vote based on the economy first and would not like to rock to boat at all. So the statement they are putting party over country isn’t true either

[Gass3268]

https://twitter.com/RichardEngel/status/1213853823069872128?s=20

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

This is a diplomatic catastrophe. People need to vote in record numbers to sweep him and the GOP out in November.

[KaiserDave]

https://twitter.com/RichardEngel/status/1213853823069872128?s=20

Tired of winning yet?

[Badger]

The Foreign Policy realm of the Trump Administration has been infiltrated by neocons, in part because they professed loyalty to Trump.  They have sought to flavor Trump's policy with Neocon Spice, and they've been somewhat successful.  Somewhat.  Trump needs to systematically replace the neocons in his Foreign Policy apparatus with people that adhere to HIS philosophy and not let anymore Bolton's creep back in.

There is no "HIS" philosophy. Donald Trump doesn't know or care enough about anything to have a consistent worldview. Everything he does is just following whatever the last person who had his ear suggested.

I'm pretty convinced that most of Donald Trump's questions in the Oval Office to his advisors and cabinet start with "why can't we just...?"

"Why can't we just build a wall? Illegal immigration is a problem.  A wall will keep people out."  

"Why can't we just cut taxes? People hate paying taxes!"

"This Soleimani guy -- he sounds like a bad guy.  Why can't take him out?"

Sometimes, you need someone who thinks in a very binary way -- someone who will take action instead of just dancing around and leaning towards a decision without taking one.  But not when it's arguably the most powerful man/woman in the world.  

This illustrates one of the largest problems in politics right now.  There's a quote by H. L. Mencken that's very popular in my job: "Every complex problem has a solution that is simple, obvious, ... and utterly wrong."  This is almost universally true; every once in a while, someone will come up with a brilliant insight that simply solves a complex problem with an unexpected approach, but this is a very rare event.

At the highest levels of government (or most any organization) there are few, if any, simple or easy problems.  The simple problems get solved at lower levels, and the tough problems filter upward.  As a consequence, the highest levels get the toughest problems.

However, some people don't (or choose not to) understand this, and believe that most problems can be solved simply by a "direct thinker" or something similar.  There is a natural appeal to this line of thinking; most of us don't like a messy world where some problems can't be solved easily/cheaply/practically/at all.  After all, why are we electing these people (or paying them so much, in the private sector) if they can't fix what's wrong?  

I believe this tendency has gotten worse over time; a few decades ago it seemed that more people were willing to believe that some problems were beyond their understanding or experience, and were willing to trust in experts to solve them.  But nowadays many non-expert people put less trust in experts.  These people believe that they know (with the aid of the Internet) as much as anyone else about a subject, and hey, it's obvious that problem X can be solved if we just do A, B, and C.  Tom Nichols has written a book about this called The Death of Expertise.

A candidate like Trump has a natural appeal for these people, and if such a candidate is elected the result is a government full of incompetents.  And these incompetents are then in control of an apparatus so powerful that the effects of their incompetence are dangerous.  Even worse, they manage to drive out most of the competent people that remain and who might provide some stability.

I don't see a simple answer to this (it's a complex problem!)  Maybe the disaster that is the Trump administration will wake up enough American voters to realize that they really shouldn't put their faith in a con man who promises simple solutions to their problems.  But I suspect that is too optimistic a hope.

Extremely well put as usual. I agree, but will add one minor caveat. It's what I do.

When you talk about this being a problem with the political system, and although you rightfully put a lot of the onus on Trump and his supporters, it would be damn near accurate to say this type of over-simplification of complex problems and imagined "common sense" Solutions is almost entirely a product of the political right, and manifested not just in Trump primarily, but the entire Republican party.

This is not just me ranting on about the Republicans out of habit. As empirical evidence just look at the Obama presidency that preceded Trump. It firmly and even proudly stood for the notion that problems in the world, particularly foreign policy ones, are complex and nuanced, and don't lend themselves to easy answers. This was a Hallmark of his presidency and foreign policy in particular, and likewise Hallmark of what Republicans most overtly and vocally despised about he and his foreign policy.

Frankly, while there are obviously liberals willing to oversimplify problems and solutions thereto, and conservatives able to think big picture complex solutions to political issues, looking at things in a more complex and nuanced way is a Hallmark of liberal political thought in general, and generally antipathetic to General conservative thought. Again, exceptions to the rules obviously exists, but simply put its this type of thinking that tends to make liberals liberal and conservative conservative.

While again, obviously exceptions to the rule abound, it's a basis of why you're more likely to find conservatives happy in the role as a football coach or a drill sergeant, and liberals more in their Lane being a diplomat. Furthermore, I submit this is something most conservatives would generally and proudly agree with.

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

https://twitter.com/AmirAminiMD/status/1213828930458804224?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7...
For anybody who was under the impression that the Iranians mourning Soleimani were in the minority or being blown out of proportion by the media

It may be a majority but Iran is a country of over 80 million people so even a huge parade isn't proof of that.

True true.  Still, that's a pretty massive turnout.