News   Apr 26, 2024
Sustainability Month: ReHousing — A Multiplex How-To Guide Explores What’s Possible in the Yellowbelt
 2.3K     4 
News   Apr 26, 2024
Mattamy's Soleil and Mile & Creek Condos in Milton’s Flourishing Landscape
 531     0 
News   Apr 26, 2024
Galleria on the Park Soon to Welcome First Residents of Masterplanned Community
 1.1K     1 

Former President Donald Trump's United States of America

FWIW, I surveyed a slew of newscasts tonight, from multiple countries in the world, looking at their lead item on Iraq/Iran/the killing etc. if any.

My impression, the drums of war are beating.

Could all be nonsense, drama, clickbait etc.

But we all understand how governments manipulate a number of larger media outlets in these circumstances; and the presentations I saw were not neutral or factual; no matter which side they took.

I certainly hope what I think I saw is only an over active imagination...........but I am concerned.

While WWIII is rather unlikely, many conflicts well shy of that could cost anywhere from thousands to hundreds of thousands of lives.

Get a load of this headline:

If Iranian General-can-be-droned-for-terrorism-why-not-a-Pakistani General

timesofindia.indiatimes.com

Qassem Soleimani: 'If Iranian general can be droned for terrorism, why not a Pakistani general?' | World News - Times of India

US News: Amid widespread misgivings in the US Congress and among American analysts about the assassination of a serving general of a sovereign nation, the Trum
timesofindia.indiatimes.com timesofindia.indiatimes.com
 
The US spent trillions trying to remake the Middle East. Trump's strike may have undone it all

Analysis by Christiane Amanpour, Chief International Anchor, CNN
Updated 8:42 PM ET, Mon January 6, 2020

www.cnn.com

The US spent trillions trying to remake the Middle East. Trump's strike may have undone it all | CNN

Even before any retaliation from Iran against the US for its killing of top general Qasem Soleimani, the backlash from the Trump administration's Middle East policy is clear, present and dangerous.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com
 
Northern Light said:
My impression, the drums of war are beating.

Could all be nonsense, drama, clickbait etc.
Click to expand...

It is. The US hasn't moved substantial forces into the region. The 3000 they are flying in is peanuts compared to what it would take to fight Iran. There's no extra carrier groups moving. Reservists haven't been mobilized. Etc.

They could trade missiles and air strikes in short order. But that's as far as it will go. Anybody telling you that there's going to be an invasion of Iran is clueless.

Northern Light said:
If Iranian General-can-be-droned-for-terrorism-why-not-a-Pakistani General
Click to expand...

The take off a jingoistic Indian editorial who would love for the US to do that to Pakistan. That said Pakistan is the sort of nightmare the US is trying to avoid. They got the bomb and then used it to provide cover for a massive terrorism and insurgency campaign in India and Afghanistan. They've also become the world's foremost proliferators of nuclear weapons. North Korea traded missile know-how for nuclear tech with them. They also sold nuclear tech to Libya and Syria. And there's rumors about them providing knowledge or the tech itself or even some sort of lend-lease arrangement for a "Sunni bomb" to Saudi Arabia. See AQ Khan's network:

en.m.wikipedia.org

Abdul Qadeer Khan - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org

The US was largely impotent to stop most of that. And that is exactly why so many American hawks are absolutely adamant that Iran should not have nukes. Doing that shouldn't require invading though. And they've probably learned their lesson about occupations from Iraq.
 
kEiThZ said:
It is. The US hasn't moved substantial forces into the region. The 3000 they are flying in is peanuts compared to what it would take to fight Iran. There's no extra carrier groups moving. Reservists haven't been mobilized. Etc.

They could trade missiles and air strikes in short order. But that's as far as it will go. Anybody telling you that there's going to be an invasion of Iran is clueless.

The take off a jingoistic Indian editorial who would love for the US to do that to Pakistan. That said Pakistan is the sort of nightmare the US is trying to avoid. They got the bomb and then used it to provide cover for a massive terrorism and insurgency campaign in India and Afghanistan. They've also become the world's foremost proliferators of nuclear weapons. North Korea traded missile know-how for nuclear tech with them. They also sold nuclear tech to Libya and Syria. And there's rumors about them providing knowledge or the tech itself or even some sort of lend-lease arrangement for a "Sunni bomb" to Saudi Arabia. See AQ Khan's network:

en.m.wikipedia.org

Abdul Qadeer Khan - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org

The US was largely impotent to stop most of that. And that is exactly why so many American hawks are absolutely adamant that Iran should not have nukes. Doing that shouldn't require invading though. And they've probably learned their lesson about occupations from Iraq.
Click to expand...

Though there is another factor in the equation - Israel. Despite the current coziness between Israel and the Saudis (eptiome of the enemy of my enemy is my friend), I am not at all sure how comfortable they'd be with the latter getting the bomb either (and the US is supposedly selling them nuke tech). It's funny how they all wanted to pursue nukes in a region flooded with oil and solar for "energy" reasons.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Though there is another factor in the equation - Israel. Despite the current coziness between Israel and the Saudis (eptiome of the enemy of my enemy is my friend), I am not at all sure how comfortable they'd be with the latter getting the bomb either (and the US is supposedly selling them nuke tech). It's funny how they all wanted to pursue nukes in a region flooded with oil and solar for "energy" reasons.

AoD
Click to expand...

Iran learned from Israel's strike on the Osirak (which ended Iraq's nuclear program) and they distributed their facilities across the country, making it very difficult for Israel take definitive action. It's why they need the US to do it.

Should be noted there's been a lot of debate in American security circles whether this is in the US national interest. I'd argue that the hawks are winning the argument because of the damage that Iran's proxies are wreaking across the Middle East and the impotency the US and the rest of the West felt dealing with Pakistan in Afghanistan. A decade ago if you asked most of these officials, they would have told you that it's mostly Israel's problem.

The newfound assertiveness of Saudi Arabia is an added complication. They clearly don't feel comfortable with the idea with a nuclear armed Iran 200km away across the Gulf. Their program is probably a hedge and a threat to get the US to intervene in Iran.

For all these reasons, I see a strike as inevitable. And if Iran ever really reached a threshold on their development, I expect Obama would have made that same call. I think the Obama nuclear deal was an effort to buy time. And an act of hope that Iran would change sufficiently internally that they would give up nukes on their own. It's looking like they'd get the bomb before they change politically. And time is running out, given that the clock has one third of the way and Iran is actually at a point where there aren't significant barriers to producing weapons grade (90% enrichment) uranium.
 
kEiThZ said:
The newfound assertiveness of Saudi Arabia is an added complication. They clearly don't feel comfortable with the idea with a nuclear armed Iran 200km away across the Gulf. Their program is probably a hedge and a threat to get the US to intervene in Iran.

For all these reasons, I see a strike as inevitable. And if Iran ever really reached a threshold on their development, I expect Obama would have made that same call. I think the Obama nuclear deal was an effort to buy time. And an act of hope that Iran would change sufficiently internally that they would give up nukes on their own.
Click to expand...

Though a strike will probably further harden attitudes against regime change in Iran, perhaps generationally. Another unknown is how Russia will involve itself given Iran is bit of a customer/ally of convenience (though I am not sure how wholehearted that is), and the former is clearly of the mind to assert itself in the region.

As to the Saudis - they clearly have design of their own in the region - and I am not sure if it is necessarily congruent with what the US wants. And lord forbid, should the House of Saud falls.

AoD
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
I wonder how much of this is driven by the Saudis.
Click to expand...
A lot I bet. For a supposed oil independent state, the USA seems to care a lot about what the Saudis think.

I imagine there are many in the top leadership in Iran raising a sharbat to Trump. Soleimani had leadership aspirations and a growing popularity with the military and radicals who could get it for him. Now those same Iranian leaders need to ignite outrage even as they thank their stars for the removal of a troublesome rival.
 
Northern Light said:
If Iranian General-can-be-droned-for-terrorism-why-not-a-Pakistani General
Click to expand...
I think that's the point. Trump is telling everyone that no matter irregular terror leader or uniformed official, the USA can kill you. If I was SecDef or any US military leader I'd be watching out for my security. It's clear that you'd be the obvious target.
 
The Dems (minus Sanders) are completely screwing themselves with their "we don't support Iran strike, but..." narrative. This wishy washy approach is exactly what screwed over the Dems and Kerry in 2004.

Unlike 2004, mere years after 9/11, there is no appetite for war. Public polling for military intervention in the Middle East has never been so low. Hell, even Trump was able to ride the non-interventionist wave in 2016, ironically having a less hawkish foreign policy than Clinton.
 
mjl08 said:
The Dems (minus Sanders) are completely screwing themselves with their "we don't support Iran strike, but..." narrative. This wishy washy approach is exactly what screwed over the Dems and Kerry in 2004.
Click to expand...
Trump's going to stomp the Dems in November. If we thought Scheer missed an open net with Trudeau, the Dems will fail when facing the least popular president of modern times.
 
mjl08 said:
The Dems (minus Sanders) are completely screwing themselves with their "we don't support Iran strike, but..." narrative. This wishy washy approach is exactly what screwed over the Dems and Kerry in 2004.

Unlike 2004, mere years after 9/11, there is no appetite for war. Public polling for military intervention in the Middle East has never been so low. Hell, even Trump was able to ride the non-interventionist wave in 2016, ironically having a less hawkish foreign policy than Clinton.
Click to expand...

I wish more Canadians actually got a chance to live in the US, so they'd understand Americans as opposed to projecting. It was an eye-opener for me.

While Americans are decidedly against long military commitments, they most certainly aren't against the use of military force, in my experience. That makes the Democratic position far less tenuous. They are starting to look more sympathetic to the Iranian killed than to the Americans killed by his long insurgency.

Would add that Canadians need to stop projecting less, if they really want to understand Americans. There's definite differences in the political culture of the two countries. Being a superpower does impose a certain burden on the average citizen, who now has to consider global geopolitics when voting. Compare the relative importance of our Defence Minister vs. their Secretary of Defense, in the respective societies and governments. Most Canadians probably place the Finance Minister higher than MND in importance. This would not be true in the US.

Would also add that while Trump said some anti-interventionist things, this was the same candidate who suggested committing war crimes ("go after their families") and received an enthusiastic response. As long as he doesn't commit to tens of thousands of boots on the ground, he'll have plenty of support for war on Iran.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top