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

[Omega21]

Trumps remarks appear to indicate that the liberal’s desired “Iranian War of 2020“ is already over. More sanctions, a future plan for further Iranian “aggression” (I beg to differ but whatever), public vocal support for protesters, etc. But the United States isn’t going open up a two fronted shooting war with Iran and there is still room for negotiations according to Trump.

I’d call this a win for the world.

Liberals didn't want a war with Iran.  We've never wanted a war with Iran.  We've criticized Bolton for 20 years because he wanted war with Iran.  Not a single elected Democrat has advocated for war with Iran.  Liberals negotiated the JCPOA, which Trump lies about on a daily basis so he can pretend pulling out was a victory, so we could avoid war with Iran.

I watched Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham last night because I was curious what your side was seeing.  They both insisted, without any evidence, that the liberals and the establishment wanted war with Iran.  So I can see where you're getting these talking points.  But take it from the most liberal establishment poster on this board: we don't want war with Iran.

But they didn't seem to care much about bombing Lybia or Syria while Obama was in power. You got what you wanted in Libya, and it was never before a bigger sh*thole than it is today.

If I was an American I wouldn't even vote in 2016, I didn't like either of 'em, but we all need to remember Obama has blood on his hands as well.

It's spelled Libya, not Lybia. If you are going to attack someone at least use proper spelling.

Excuse me for making a grammatical error in a language not my own. How about we argue in German or Hungarian, I assume you'll manage to do better than me.

I still don't understand why your whole response was about my grammar, instead of my actual statement, which you obviously still understood.

Won’t those sanctions be useless as long as Iran has Russia and China in its corner?

Mostly. Iran is already under a massive amount of sanctions, so anything more probably won't make much of a difference.

They are already hurting quite a bit though, but nowhere near enough for the regime to collapse, I imagine anti-American sentiment and unity is probably at a long-time high right now.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Trumps remarks appear to indicate that the liberal’s desired “Iranian War of 2020“ is already over. More sanctions, a future plan for further Iranian “aggression” (I beg to differ but whatever), public vocal support for protesters, etc. But the United States isn’t going open up a two fronted shooting war with Iran and there is still room for negotiations according to Trump.

I’d call this a win for the world.

Liberals didn't want a war with Iran.  We've never wanted a war with Iran.  We've criticized Bolton for 20 years because he wanted war with Iran.  Not a single elected Democrat has advocated for war with Iran.  Liberals negotiated the JCPOA, which Trump lies about on a daily basis so he can pretend pulling out was a victory, so we could avoid war with Iran.

I watched Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham last night because I was curious what your side was seeing.  They both insisted, without any evidence, that the liberals and the establishment wanted war with Iran.  So I can see where you're getting these talking points.  But take it from the most liberal establishment poster on this board: we don't want war with Iran.

But they didn't seem to care much about bombing Lybia or Syria while Obama was in power. You got what you wanted in Lybia, and it was never before a bigger sh*thole than it is today.

If I was an American I wouldn't even vote in 2016, I didn't like either of 'em, but we all need to remember Obama has blood on his hands as well.

Libya is completely different from war with Iran.  What an absurd comparison.

War	Libya	Iran
Length	<8 months	Years if not decades
American involvement	Zero boots on the ground	Full military might
American casualties	Virtually zero	Tens if not hundreds of thousands
Post-war outcome	Transitional government-in-waiting took power	Long, bloody American occupation
International community	Firmly behind USA	Firmly against USA
Justification	Gaddafi mass-murdering civilians	Small attacks + terrorism

Also the idea that the war in Libya was a failure is a myth.  The idea that we didn't know what to do afterwards is a myth.  There was a transitional government-in-waiting, a legislature, and they tried to write a new constitution.  The problem was that groups inside the country couldn't stop fighting each other.  It took a whole three years to descend into another civil war.

[Crumpets]

Trumps remarks appear to indicate that the liberal’s desired “Iranian War of 2020“ is already over. More sanctions, a future plan for further Iranian “aggression” (I beg to differ but whatever), public vocal support for protesters, etc. But the United States isn’t going open up a two fronted shooting war with Iran and there is still room for negotiations according to Trump.

I’d call this a win for the world.

Liberals didn't want a war with Iran.  We've never wanted a war with Iran.  We've criticized Bolton for 20 years because he wanted war with Iran.  Not a single elected Democrat has advocated for war with Iran.  Liberals negotiated the JCPOA, which Trump lies about on a daily basis so he can pretend pulling out was a victory, so we could avoid war with Iran.

I watched Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham last night because I was curious what your side was seeing.  They both insisted, without any evidence, that the liberals and the establishment wanted war with Iran.  So I can see where you're getting these talking points.  But take it from the most liberal establishment poster on this board: we don't want war with Iran.

But they didn't seem to care much about bombing Lybia or Syria while Obama was in power. You got what you wanted in Lybia, and it was never before a bigger sh*thole than it is today.

If I was an American I wouldn't even vote in 2016, I didn't like either of 'em, but we all need to remember Obama has blood on his hands as well.

Okay, lots of historical revisionism unpack here and I'm on my phone so I don't really want to type it all out. Suffice to say:

There's a difference between a UN-backed intervention in an ongoing civil war as part of an international coalition and starting a unilateral war with a sovereign power. There's a difference between partnering with a local force three years into an ongoing civil war - again as part of a global coalition - to fight against a terrorist organization that had declared war on the US and attacked to US homeland and starting a unilateral war against a sovereign power. You can have your gripes and criticisms with the US response to Libya and Syria - believe me i do. But this is a completely different league of conflict here, and it is a tremendous wrong to try to conflate all three as one and the same.

[The Dowager Mod]

That speech was strange to say the least...

We have hypersonic missiles under construction?

The looks on the Generals faces when he blabbed the top secret info was priceless.

[Omega21]

Trumps remarks appear to indicate that the liberal’s desired “Iranian War of 2020“ is already over. More sanctions, a future plan for further Iranian “aggression” (I beg to differ but whatever), public vocal support for protesters, etc. But the United States isn’t going open up a two fronted shooting war with Iran and there is still room for negotiations according to Trump.

I’d call this a win for the world.

Liberals didn't want a war with Iran.  We've never wanted a war with Iran.  We've criticized Bolton for 20 years because he wanted war with Iran.  Not a single elected Democrat has advocated for war with Iran.  Liberals negotiated the JCPOA, which Trump lies about on a daily basis so he can pretend pulling out was a victory, so we could avoid war with Iran.

I watched Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham last night because I was curious what your side was seeing.  They both insisted, without any evidence, that the liberals and the establishment wanted war with Iran.  So I can see where you're getting these talking points.  But take it from the most liberal establishment poster on this board: we don't want war with Iran.

But they didn't seem to care much about bombing Lybia or Syria while Obama was in power. You got what you wanted in Lybia, and it was never before a bigger sh*thole than it is today.

If I was an American I wouldn't even vote in 2016, I didn't like either of 'em, but we all need to remember Obama has blood on his hands as well.

Libya is completely different from war with Iran.  What an absurd comparison.

War	Libya	Iran
Length	<8 months	Years if not decades
American involvement	Zero boots on the ground	Full military might
American casualties	Virtually zero	Tens if not hundreds of thousands
Post-war outcome	Transitional government-in-waiting took power	Long, bloody American occupation
International community	Firmly behind USA	Firmly against USA
Justification	Gaddafi mass-murdering civilians	Small attacks + terrorism

Also the idea that the war in Libya was a failure is a myth.  The idea that we didn't know what to do afterwards is a myth.  There was a transitional government-in-waiting, a legislature, and they tried to write a new constitution.  The problem was that groups inside the country couldn't stop fighting each other.  It took a whole three years to descend into another civil war.

https://www.collective-evolution.com/2018/06/15/chilling-libya-before-and-after-photos-go-viral/

Obviously prospering under the new rule.

[Still Nervous]

Remember when he called NATO "obselete" and now he wants them to have a greater presence in Iran?

[ProudModerate2]

Remember when he called NATO "obselete" and now he wants them to have a greater presence in Iran?

LOL.
I was thinking the same thing when I heard him talking about NATO.
trump talking out of his ass .... again. What a moron.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Before/after pics

Oh I'm sorry, I was wrong when I said Libya was a prosperous and thriving nation that had experienced zero effects of war.

Obviously if NATO and the United States had let Gaddafi bomb the hundreds of thousands of military defectors into oblivion, massacre protesting civilians, and continue his nightmarish regime of rape, torture and murder indefinitely, those lampposts would still be standing, so things would be much better.

Of course, the guy in the pictures would probably be dead.

[Reaganfan Democrat]

Remember when he called NATO "obselete" and now he wants them to have a greater presence in Iran?

LOL.
I was thinking the same thing when I heard him talking about NATO.
trump talking out of his ass .... again. What a moron.

Say what you will about Trump, but someone needed to come along and shake the tree regarding NATO. It was an organization that was becoming obsolete, with many members contributing little to collective security. NATO is in need of refocusing and reorganizing itself to protect its members' security interests in ways appropriate for the times we live in, not for the Cold War era.

The problem with Trump is that he has no plans beyond simply shaking the tree, and his erratic behavior diminishes allies' confidence in the US. It's not all been bad, though.

[GeneralMacArthur]

As a side note, I've seen a lot of these "before and after US intervention" pictures floating around social media these last few days, with the implication that the US is a force of destruction.

Worth remembering that the United States has been trying to build schools, roads, hospitals, bridges, and infrastructure for electricity, clean water, and telecommunications in Iraq and Afghanistan.  It is militia groups and terrorist organizations that keep knocking them down.  Those buildings you see destroyed were probably blown up by suicide bombers.

I want to tell you a story.  For hundreds of years, an indigenous peoples known as the Marsh Arabs lived in the marshes between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in Iraq.  After a failed rebellion against Saddam, he believed the rebels were using the marshes to hide.  So he re-routed both rivers and destroyed the marshes, poisoned their water and burned their villages.  Hundreds of thousands died or fled to refugee campus.  There's your "before" for those before/after Iraq pictures.

After the US took over, we put together a huge, expensive engineering effort to restore the marshes, as well as giving them clean water, sanitation, schools and hospitals.  Many of the Marsh Arabs still living have returned to revitalize their old lands.  By the way, these Marsh Arabs are applied with Hezbollah and Iran.  But we helped them.  There's your "after".

You won't see that around social media because it doesn't easily promote an anti-american narrative to low-info Facebook users.  But it's the reality of US occupation.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

My friend from Ukraine is working in Iran and I got really scared for her after hearing about the plane. Fortunately she's safe, but lost two of her own colleagues in the whole incident. Also, she's been usually taking the very same plane.

It's only proper to remember many of us know people that are being directly affected by the events we tend to think as just some distant news story.

[Bojack Horseman]

This is yet another reason why I think Trump will be worshipped as the next Reagan whether he's defeated or not. He's been a clueless tool for every right wing special interest and now he's delivered on the GOP's wet dream of the last couple decades: war with Iran.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

The President deserves praise when he does the right thing. He took out Qassem Solemaini and he brought the region to the brink of war but brought off the whole thing well when he signaled restraint and extended an olive branch and implying the US would not retaliate further due to the attacks on our bases. Another President (Hillary) might not have been so sanguine and willing to not retaliate with hits on Iran. 

Hillary wouldn't be dealing with this situation to begin with because she would've sustained Obama's deal.

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

I give you, the American swing voter:

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

I give you, the American swing voter:

To be fair, most Americans don't even know that Iran was ancient Persia.

Most Americans also think that Iran is a "another Middle Eastern sandpit". Iran is very mountainous, has varied geography and very little sand.

[Middle-aged Europe]

I give you, the American swing voter:

What's the business with that region that encompasses Lousiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Kansas?  

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

The President deserves praise when he does the right thing. He took out Qassem Solemaini and he brought the region to the brink of war but brought off the whole thing well when he signaled restraint and extended an olive branch and implying the US would not retaliate further due to the attacks on our bases. Another President (Hillary) might not have been so sanguine and willing to not retaliate with hits on Iran. 

I'm going to call this tentatively a strategic win for the United States. Good on the Donald. I'll be sure to yell about him another time but today, he's got credit from me.

If the Donald can do a hat trick and rebrand the Iran deal as the MAGA IRAN DEAL I will call his non-Russia foreign policy a success.

So the best case scenario here is that tomorrow Trump suddenly starts tweeting and talking about how he is going to have a summit with Ayatolloh Khamenei, how Trump is a great negotiator who is going to make a fabulous deal, and how he has a great relationship with Ayatollah Khamenei, and the Iranian threat has now been dealt with, and there is now no more threat from Iran, and how he has achieved so much more than Obama ever did in improving relations with Iran and defusing the threat of war with Iran.

That would be more or less the precedent from how he suddenly U-turned with North Korea, so it is possible.

And if it happens, all the Trump supporters and GOP members of Congress and Senators will follow right along with him, without batting an eyelid. Except Lindsay Graham may still grumble a bit about wanting a war.

^ so it looks like this is more or less what has happened, complete with the blue avatars following right along without batting an eyelid.

[Annatar]

I know this is a political thread and not a technical one but photos have come out of the damage to Al Asad airbase and what they show is the Iranian missiles hit with a high level of accuracy, destroying several structures, mostly aircraft hangars.

https://twitter.com/AuroraIntel/status/1214932289265786884

https://twitter.com/nktpnd/status/1214936309254512641

It seems Iran's missiles are pretty accurate and from the photos it seems that 8 of the 10 missiles fired at Al Asad base at least hit their intended targets, it looks like they deliberately aimed to hit aircraft facilities and miss housing so as to minimise casualties.

If this level of accuracy is representative of Iran's medium range missiles than in a war I would expect them to be able to do severe damage, their missiles are certainly much more accurate than the infamous medium range Scud missiles.


Jeffrey Lewis who is a professor at Middlebury Institute is doing impact point comparisons before and after of all the targets that were hit.

https://twitter.com/ArmsControlWonk/status/1214968798614130689

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

I know this is a political thread and not a technical one but

This is very much the sort of good substantive post that I would like to see more of, thanks for posting! No "but" needed.

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1214939111565484036

[GeneralMacArthur]

https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1214939111565484036

Seems pretty accurate to me.  Trump dramatically escalated by killing Soleimani.  Iran decided not to escalate further and instead responded while giving Trump an easy way to de-escalate.

Crazy that we're relying on the un-hawkishness of the Iranian mullahs to keep us out of war but here we are.

[ProudModerate2]

CNN has obtained satellite images from Planet Labs, Inc. that appear to show damage from Iranian missile strikes at al Asad Air Base in Iraq.
Four buildings on the base appear damaged. It also appears a missile hit one of the runways at the airbase.








Iran intended to due damage and kill Americans.
Their missiles just did not have the strength and extreme accuracy to do so.
They did not "intentionally miss" Americans or any other personnel on the bases.
Our early warning system allowed all personnel to hide in safety (thank goodness).

[Annatar]

CNN has obtained satellite images from Planet Labs, Inc. that appear to show damage from Iranian missile strikes at al Asad Air Base in Iraq.
Four buildings on the base appear damaged. It also appears a missile hit one of the runways at the airbase.








Iran intended to due damage and kill Americans.
Their missiles just did not have the strength and extreme accuracy to do so.
They did not "intentionally" miss Americans or any other personnel on the bases.
Our early warning system allowed all personnel to hide in safety (thank goodness).

If they wanted to, they could have aimed the missiles at the housing facilities and fortified bunkers but they chose not to, I think they did that deliberately.

[Crumpets]

I give you, the American swing voter:

https://twitter.com/thekarami/status/1214947978265280512

What's the business with that region that encompasses Lousiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Kansas?  

Texirankana?

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

CNN has obtained satellite images from Planet Labs, Inc. that appear to show damage from Iranian missile strikes at al Asad Air Base in Iraq.
Four buildings on the base appear damaged. It also appears a missile hit one of the runways at the airbase.

Iran intended to due damage and kill Americans.
Their missiles just did not have the strength and extreme accuracy to do so.
They did not "intentionally miss" Americans or any other personnel on the bases.
Our early warning system allowed all personnel to hide in safety (thank goodness).

If anything, what it looks like is that Iran deliberately targeted aircraft hangers and runways, i.e. places that had military value, but where troops would not be. One would think it would be unlikely that they would hit all of those by sheer chance if the missiles were not fairly accurate. At least in the pictures shown, there are no missiles landing in the middle of nowhere, which is what one would expect if the missiles were not accurate. If that is the case, it means that the Iranians likely hit more or less what they wanted to hit.

The Iranians would have been aware that by using ballistic missiles, that gave the US warning time to get troops into bunkers (which either were deliberately not targeted - it sounds like that may be the case - or else were not hit). Indeed, that may have been one of the reasons for using ballistic missiles. There were reportedly also messages going back and forth via the Swiss, so who knows, maybe they warned the US explicitly via that back-channel (though that is obviously unknown/speculative). But they were talking and saying something.