Iraqi protesters storm U.S. embassy in Baghdad

[Heathen Hammer]

Iran is indeed authoritarian (although not as bad by Middle Eastern standards), but it played key role in defeating ISIS and other Islamists in Syria(much against the efforts of USA and its allies in the region) and helped Yemen deal with Saudi invasion. Honestly, I'd prefer a Zoroastrian or even secular Iran to Shia theocratic one, but even in its current form it is still a lesser evil compared to US-Saudi-Israel Axis in terms of influence and consequence of actions.
Ironically, murder of this commander pretty much spells the end of anti-government movement within Iran.
Essential, this is the first major blunder of Trump's administration. It would be smart to quit while ahead and just leave Middle East and let Iran handle things there, as it has proven to be far better at calming things down then US and its allies.

Man, are you trying to give Exarch a run for his money in the realm of inane fantasies that reality's set to spoil? The Iranians are lucky you don't have the Ayatollah's ear BTW, since the course of action you're proposing is suicidal for them and such arrogant delusions of grandeur have literally just gotten their #3 after Khamenei & Rouhani killed. Fact is, between their inherent lack of raw strength compared to us, the loss of the main brain trust behind their regional strategy, their crumbling economy, roiling internal turmoil and exploding dissent against them & their proxies in Iraq and Lebanon, they're the in this situation with limited means to respond and I think they know it, despite all their face-saving tough talk and threats.

The irrational hatred of Iran and its people in your posts isn't exactly something I'd correlate with reality. US just de-facto shot itself in the foot and the best outcome for US foreign-policy wise is to just leave the region altogether and let Iranians actually start stabilizing it.

[Papay]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/09/middl...ntl/index.html

The protests in Iraq are the biggest protests they have ever had since Saddam. Over 300 killed and 15,000 injured. These are popular protests. So popular they have caused the resignation of the current Iraqi PM.

Meanwhile the current President of Iraq threatened to quit than nominate the PM from the Iranian bloc of parties.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/...132315483.html

The President refuses to nominate the PM because the protesters will reject him.

The president is pro-western but the majority of shias are not. They support pro-Iranian candidates. And its easy to understand why. Every year you have millions of Iranians going to Iraq for religious reasons. The protests have been labelled as anti-Iranisn by the majority of the media but their target is more the government of Baghdad than the Iranian influence.

[Barry Goldwater]

The irrational hatred of Iran and its people in your posts isn't exactly something I'd correlate with reality. US just de-facto shot itself in the foot and the best outcome for US foreign-policy wise is to just leave the region altogether and let Iranians actually start stabilizing it.

Yeah you'd like that wouldn't you, too bad 1) you've got less than zero pull with anyone running the country and 2) even the Shiite Iraqis themselves don't want their country to be reduced to an Iranian puppet. Enjoy watching your fantasies disintegrate as badly as Exarch's.

[The spartan]

Yes, generally.

To my mind, there is a self-evident difference between poorly planned, illegally executed, full scale invasions which destabilize entire global regions and the precision termination of a murderous kingpin. In case you were wondering, I didn't shed a tear for Bin Laden or Al Baghdadi either.

Well sure, but these kinds of actions can escalate into a poorly planned, illegally executed, full scale invasions which destabilize the entire global region. It's fine if you think it is worth that risk, it's impossible to tell how likely it could be, but to think killing a "murderous kingpin" is worth the risk of escalation in the area, that's being an interventionist.

[Heathen Hammer]

Yeah you'd like that wouldn't you, too bad 1) you've got less than zero pull with anyone running the country and 2) even the Shiite Iraqis themselves don't want their country to be reduced to an Iranian puppet. Enjoy watching your fantasies disintegrate as badly as Exarch's.

1) I don't think many people on a video-game forum have political pull in Iran. I doubt you do either.
2) Iraqis probably want the nightmare that started in 2003 to end and befriending Iran was the shortest path towards that. Clearly the fact that they almost lynched American invaders at their own embassy speaks for what exactly they want far more then some neocon propaganda claim that Iraqis are celebrating death of a man that liberated them from ISIS.
3) Truth is, even Americans don't want another middle-eastern war. If neocons and other warhawks are so battle-ready, they can always travel overseas and join Israeli or Saudi armies themselves. Oh wait, American warhawks want others to fight their wars for them..

Well sure, but these kinds of actions can escalate into a poorly planned, illegally executed, full scale invasions which destabilize the entire global region. It's fine if you think it is worth that risk, it's impossible to tell how likely it could be, but to think killing a "murderous kingpin" is worth the risk of escalation in the area, that's being an interventionist.

I'd add that "murderous kingpin" was consistently aiding US in Afghanistan and then Iraq (where US supposedly opposed ISIS). If anything, he could have been a voice of mediation and someone who would be more inclined to broker some kind of mutually beneficial agreement then whoever is most likely to replace him. I doubt it was Trump's direct decision and it seems like he told Pentagon to "do something" and those morons did the dumbest thing possible, as usual.

[Nebaki]

Wasn´t the Shiites who opened the Gates of Iraq for the freedom distributing Americans (Neocons) ? They threat them with Revenge and on the next day they get another Taste of the Amercian Sledge. The Only thing that Iran has does was igniting a War between Sunnah and Shiites effectively - they did nothing really serious on defeating ISIS or something like that. Now they can only cry a River nothing else will happen or can even.

[Heathen Hammer]

Wasn´t the Shiites who opened the Gates of Iraq for the freedom distributing Americans (Neocons) ? They threat them with Revenge and on the next day they get another Taste of the Amercian Sledge. The Only thing that Iran has does was igniting a War between Sunnah and Shiites effectively - they did nothing really serious on defeating ISIS or something like that. Now they can only cry a River nothing else will happen or can even.

That had something to do with US causing a conflict between Sunnis and Shia muslims in Iraq. But looking objectively, it is quite clear that Iran-backed Shia militias were quite important in war effort against ISIS, while US and its allies tended to attack those that fought ISIS, clearly showing that defeating them wasn't really the primary goal for "importers of democracy" in the first place.

[Nebaki]

That had something to do with US causing a conflict between Sunnis and Shia muslims in Iraq. But looking objectively, it is quite clear that Iran-backed Shia militias were quite important in war effort against ISIS, while US and its allies tended to attack those that fought ISIS, clearly showing that defeating them wasn't really the primary goal for "importers of democracy" in the first place.

Their only goal was before and even after ISIS just spreading and gaining Influence on that place/area/geography like these "importers of democracy" in the first place.

2001 Battle of Herat and the so-called "Northern Alliance" Members:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Cope]

Well sure, but these kinds of actions can escalate into a poorly planned, illegally executed, full scale invasions which destabilize the entire global region. It's fine if you think it is worth that risk, it's impossible to tell how likely it could be, but to think killing a "murderous kingpin" is worth the risk of escalation in the area, that's being an interventionist.

I'd add that "murderous kingpin" was consistently aiding US in Afghanistan and then Iraq (where US supposedly opposed ISIS). If anything, he could have been a voice of mediation and someone who would be more inclined to broker some kind of mutually beneficial agreement then whoever is most likely to replace him. I doubt it was Trump's direct decision and it seems like he told Pentagon to "do something" and those morons did the dumbest thing possible, as usual.

Whose on whose side now Spartan?

[Love Mountain]

It’s odd that you would acknowledge the Iranian regime as “toxic” whilst also attempting to morally equivocate away her record. Such tactics inevitably lead one to engage in rhetorical obfuscations and whataboutist deflections - like stressing a distinction between financing and training terrorists with the explicit goal of spreading terrorism, versus directly engaging in terrorism, or comparing the Iran-Contra scandal to Tehran’s 40 year record of terrorism and attacks against the US and her allies, or asserting that the Ayatollah’s radical Islamist faction is “legitimate” because they won, whereas MEK’s radical Islamist faction is illegitimate because they lost, or dismissing Tehran’s record on the basis that she didn’t “pioneer” new concepts of war or terrorism.

Tehran, as a theocratic Islamist regime, has engaged in terrorism and attacks against the US and her allies as part of her 40 year ongoing quest to export “global Islamic Revolution.” This includes terrorism and attacks launched indirectly through terrorist proxies like Hezbollah, as well as directly through Tehran’s diplomatic, military and intelligence services. Had MEK won out over Khomeini’s faction in the wake of the Revolution, the narrative you are pushing could be used to excuse anything that regime would have done as well.

Nobody is dismissing Iran's record. Pointing out that Iran's actions have an inherent cause to them aside from geopolitical ambitions. The US support of contras lasted for a decade, not to mention dozens of other actions that supported various militant groups in South America. This obvious hypocrisy makes U.S. concern with Iran's sponsorship of terrorists seem like a moot point. Or to put it bluntly, United States isn't concerned with terrorists primarily because it wants to reduce global terrorism. It's concerned with Iranian support of terrorism because it's one of the only ways in which Tehran can exert its influence over the region.

As to your other point, the Ayatollah's government is the legitimate regime of Iran because they are, by and large, an accepted authority globally and domestically. MEK is illegitimate because they have no support in Iran, not because they "lost". Quite frankly, their unpopularity in Iran is their own fault, seeing as how they are regarded as traitors by the Iranian public, having sided with Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war.

I am not making a moral or humanitarian argument. I am not claiming Tehran must be punished for her sins. I am not claiming the regime is legitimate or illegitimate. The “utility” of bringing up Tehran’s record is a) her actions are the topic of the thread, and b) it is relevant in the context of a discussion wherein people are discussing “escalation” of conflict and attempting to paint Tehran as a victim by engaging in whataboutism and apologism.

Hardly whataboutism when U.S. actions against Iran are directly related as justification for Iran's irregular warfare against United States.

Tehran has been escalating her “irregular warfare” against the US and her allies for 40 years, be it when she attacked our embassy in 1979, or when her proxies attacked another in 2019. Taking out the military commander who led the forces responsible for this latest and any number of other attacks is a response to the latter; the politics of appeasement notwithstanding. Tehran has escalated the conflict to such an extent, she has relatively few options left for further escalation. If your argument is that the US is ultimately responsible for the situation because she helped Khomeini, then you might as well take such consequentialist logic back to when a certain desert bandit decided to start a new religion.

So you're telling me that United States has done nothing, between 1950-2019 to antagonize Iran? There is no possible justification for Iranian actions?

If you can find “merit” in Tehran’s record or actions, I’m not sure why you bothered with any of the rest. If the US shouldn’t respond in kind when attacked for the umpteenth time because of allegations of moral hypocrisy, there’s no point in discussing details. I’m well aware the timing of the strike on Soleimani probably had more to do with this than a coherent long term strategy, but characterizing it as a wild and unprovoked escalation of the US-Iran staring contest deliberately negates the facts and history of the situation. It was not a humanitarian strike. It was not an attempt to reduce terrorism in the region or to convince Tehran to back off. It was a response to attacks by Tehran and her proxies, designed to knock out a key asset in Iran’s “irregular warfare” toolkit. If the Ayatollah wants to kill Americans and attack our embassy in his bid to make Iraq an Iranian satellite, he will have to fight for it.

Iran's terrorism is inherently linked to American aggression against Iran. Treating the assassination of Soleimani as if it's a mere response to Iranian wrongdoing is cutting out decades of history and context that led us to this point. If you legitimately want Tehran to stop using terrorism, stop trying to sanction them into stone-age oblivion.

[Barry Goldwater]

1) I don't think many people on a video-game forum have political pull in Iran. I doubt you do either.
2) Iraqis probably want the nightmare that started in 2003 to end and befriending Iran was the shortest path towards that. Clearly the fact that they almost lynched American invaders at their own embassy speaks for what exactly they want far more then some neocon propaganda claim that Iraqis are celebrating death of a man that liberated them from ISIS.
3) Truth is, even Americans don't want another middle-eastern war. If neocons and other warhawks are so battle-ready, they can always travel overseas and join Israeli or Saudi armies themselves. Oh wait, American warhawks want others to fight their wars for them..

1) Ah, but I'm not the one making sweeping declarations of knowing what's best for American foreign policy as if I were the Secretary of State or even a high-ranking analyst, despite being obviously opposed to America. To say nothing of how here, the high & mighty are doing things in line with how the pro-US and pro-intervention posters want in more so than you or Exarch, and events are clearly unfolding in a manner more to our liking than yours.

2) You mean the same 'protesters' who turned out to be militiamen belonging to the same outfit whose leader the US just whacked alongside Soleimani, and who were disavowed by the actual protesters? If you think that's a clear fact then you need to clean your monitor.

3) What war? Iran and company just retaliated today...with a handful of rockets that didn't kill or even injure any Americans (though it may or may not have hurt some Iraqis) and possibly didn't even substantially damage any buildings - IOW, as I & better-informed minds than myself expected, a weak gesture aimed at saving what face they still can. There's been no enormous US troop movements to the region, which would be the necessary prelude to a ground war with Iran. Why try to trash Iran proper when their ability to project power outside of it has just taken a devastating hit in the form of Soleimani's death? At this point Trump clearly neither needs nor wants a war to collapse Iran's regional strategy, and while the mullahs I'm sure would love a distraction to get their people to refocus on the 'Great Satan', they clearly know that they can't afford the retaliation for an even worse escalation, thus Iran will almost certainly just take its lumps and war will not erupt just as it didn't after Israel killed another IRGC general in 2015.

[The spartan]

Whose on whose side now Spartan?

Hey, he makes it clear those were his additions, I am not on board with his weird anti-US theories. I quoted it because I doubt the guy was a kingpin or killed people, but because that is obvious political language. Interventionism is interventionism; I am in favor of prudent intervention policy as well, I am just shocked you would actually come out in support of it given past statements you have made about how foolish war-hawk type policies are.

[Heathen Hammer]

1) Ah, but I'm not the one making sweeping declarations of knowing what's best for American foreign policy as if I were the Secretary of State or even a high-ranking analyst, despite being obviously opposed to America. To say nothing of how here, the high & mighty are doing things in line with how the pro-US and pro-intervention posters want in more so than you or Exarch, and events are clearly unfolding in a manner more to our liking than yours.

2) You mean the same 'protesters' who turned out to be militiamen belonging to the same outfit whose leader the US just whacked alongside Soleimani, and who were disavowed by the actual protesters? If you think that's a clear fact then you need to clean your monitor.

3) What war? Iran and company just retaliated today...with a handful of rockets that didn't kill or even injure any Americans (though it may or may not have hurt some Iraqis) and possibly didn't even substantially damage any buildings - IOW, as I & better-informed minds than myself expected, a weak gesture aimed at saving what face they still can. There's been no enormous US troop movements to the region, which would be the necessary prelude to a ground war with Iran. Why try to trash Iran proper when their ability to project power outside of it has just taken a devastating hit in the form of Soleimani's death? At this point Trump clearly neither needs nor wants a war to collapse Iran's regional strategy, and while the mullahs I'm sure would love a distraction to get their people to refocus on the 'Great Satan', they clearly know that they can't afford the retaliation for an even worse escalation, thus Iran will almost certainly just take its lumps and war will not erupt just as it didn't after Israel killed another IRGC general in 2015.

1) My opinions are based on conclusions drawn from 2 decades of endless wars in Middle East. Just because you refuse to see a pattern, doesn't mean that so does everyone else.
2) Again, if Iraqis were about to murder the crap out out of Americans in their own embassy, I don't think your sweeping declaration about them supporting US has much bearing in reality, no matter how many times you quote neocon sources.
3) The war neocons and their neoliberal counterparts in Democrat camp have been trying to start for decades now. Iran did manage to wipe out the precious terrorist groups that US helped build up against Syrian government. They also helped people of Yemen kill the crap out of Saudis. Clearly, Iran is quite capable, otherwise American warhawks wouldn't foam from their mouths about it.

[dogukan]

The Iran problem isnt limited to a “neocon” plan.
ıran is an unstable authoritarian regime with a relatively well educated population that has various social-political-economic demands.

It is a natural powder keg due to its political regime and the regional ethno-secterian complexities.
These conflicts are centuries old, going way back before USA was even a thing.
It isnt “caused by “cnn neocon illumunati evil jew liberal elites”.

And various regional and global powers are naturally involved. We do not live in an isolated world.

Furthermore, I seriously doubt Americans have “united” all Iranians. In a couple months that spirit even if it exists would be gone as peoples daily life concerns in iran will not be solved. And next time people are on the street, they will know that the regime is a lot weaker than it looks since even soleimani and his charisma is out of the picture. In fact, various factions might even fight over the power vacuum soleimani has left, further distrupting the regime s power.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Nobody is dismissing Iran's record.

Then why is the vast majority of your commentary on the issue comprised of whataboutist finger-pointing at the US? The latter is especially hollow given your total condemnation of MEK, which, for all anyone knows, could have been the faction to come out ahead during the Revolution had circumstances gone differently. I guess they were too busy getting purged by the “legitimate” government of Iran to worry about the PR implications of turning to Saddam for help. The “legitimate” government of Iran also spent the 80s slaughtering and imprisoning her own people to preserve her “legitimacy,” just like she’s done periodically since, and recently as well. If you’re going to suggest the US has no right to respond in kind to Tehran’s attacks based on the latter’s “legitimacy,” all you’re going to accomplish is to render the term meaningless.

Hardly whataboutism when U.S. actions against Iran are directly related as justification for Iran's irregular warfare against United States.

What actions are those?

So you're telling me that United States has done nothing, between 1950-2019 to antagonize Iran? There is no possible justification for Iranian actions?

You’re telling me the Ayatollah was in charge in 1950? Khomeini didn’t seem too antagonized by the US when he was courting American assistance, promising development contracts, oceans of cheap oil, and moderate Islam galore - just months before celebrating the attack and seizure of the “Great Satan’s” embassy.

Iran's terrorism is inherently linked to American aggression against Iran.

Well, at least now you’re being straightforward about your belief that Tehran’s terrorism is the fault of the US. Could have just said so from the start.

Treating the assassination of Soleimani as if it's a mere response to Iranian wrongdoing is cutting out decades of history and context that led us to this point. If you legitimately want Tehran to stop using terrorism, stop trying to sanction them into stone-age oblivion.

Yet you questioned the “utility” of my bringing decades of history and context into the discussion to begin with. Tehran can terrorize her own people all she wants. Blaming internationally enforced sanctions designed to blunt Tehran’s ability to export “global Islamic revolution” for the aggression which prompted those sanctions is merely a political position which favors appeasement over the decades-old standing US policy of containment.

[Ludicus]

I doubt it was Trump's direct decision and it seems like he told Pentagon to "do something" and those morons did the dumbest thing possible, as usual.

The best joke of the year.
Trump exposes the flaws of the US Presidential system.Any fool can start a war, the executive power is becoming unchecked in contemporary America.
----
Trump, 2011,

"Our president will start a war with Iran because he has absolutely no ability to negotiate. He’s weak and he’s ineffective. So the only way he figures that he’s going to get re-elected, and as sure as you're sitting there, is to start a war with Iran.

--
Trump, the Idiot in Chief, started a war. A non-conventional war, there is an enormous disproportion between the two forces.
Iran's ambassador to the United Nations:"In fact, it was an act of war on the part of the United States".
Obviously.
Pompeo: European response to Suleimani killing 'not helpful Guardian ...

Mike Pompeo has expressed disappointment with European reaction...The US secretary of state compared the European response unfavourably with US “partners in the region”, a likely reference to Israel, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates

Thanks for the compliment,Pompeo. What's going with you, America?

[The Gurkhan]

Iran is indeed authoritarian (although not as bad by Middle Eastern standards), but it played key role in defeating ISIS and other Islamists in Syria(much against the efforts of USA and its allies in the region) and helped Yemen deal with Saudi invasion. Honestly, I'd prefer a Zoroastrian or even secular Iran to Shia theocratic one, but even in its current form it is still a lesser evil compared to US-Saudi-Israel Axis in terms of influence and consequence of actions.
Ironically, murder of this commander pretty much spells the end of anti-government movement within Iran.
Essential, this is the first major blunder of Trump's administration. It would be smart to quit while ahead and just leave Middle East and let Iran handle things there, as it has proven to be far better at calming things down then US and its allies.

The irrational hatred of Iran and its people in your posts isn't exactly something I'd correlate with reality. US just de-facto shot itself in the foot and the best outcome for US foreign-policy wise is to just leave the region altogether and let Iranians actually start stabilizing it.

I think this is entirely in keeping with an American reality. This is what they actually ultimately believe as a collective from the very lowest all the way up to their leaders. Not just towards Iran.

The main reason I like Trump is that he is the perfect elephant in a china shop. Decades of slick propaganda and cunning are undone in moments. The mask slips easily with this fellow.

Behold the Eternal Ugly American.

Mr Trump wrote on Twitter that Iran "is talking very boldly about targeting certain USA assets" in response to the general's death.He said the US has identified 52 Iranian sites, some "at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD" if Tehran strikes the US.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-50996602

I honestly don't think US global thuggery is just about material gains, geopolitics etc. They salivate at this sort of cultural vandalism both in literal and less tangible ways.

Much of their policies can be interpreted as being a means to achieve this end.

[Ludicus]

52 Iranian sites, some "at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture

Intentional destruction of cultural heritage is an unthinkable act of cultural terrorism."The destruction of a work of art of any nation must be regarded as acts of vandalism against world culture". Raphael Lemkin
A pedratory emulation of Daesh's cultural vandalism.I wasn't expecting that.

[Love Mountain]

Then why is the vast majority of your commentary on the issue comprised of whataboutist finger-pointing at the US? The latter is especially hollow given your total condemnation of MEK, which, for all anyone knows, could have been the faction to come out ahead during the Revolution had circumstances gone differently. I guess they were too busy getting purged by the “legitimate” government of Iran to worry about the PR implications of turning to Saddam for help. The “legitimate” government of Iran also spent the 80s slaughtering and imprisoning her own people to preserve her “legitimacy,” just like she’s done periodically since, and recently as well. If you’re going to suggest the US has no right to respond in kind to Tehran’s attacks based on the latter’s “legitimacy,” all you’re going to accomplish is to render the term meaningless.

Indeed, if it was the MEK in power and a bunch of Islamists blowing stuff up, my condemnation would be "reversed." My issue isn't that United States doesn't have legitimacy to do whatever it wants. We have a prerogative to do whatever we want if we consider it to be in the national interests. I just think crying about how evil Tehran's support of terrorism is, is a hollow criticism. Tehran and Washington are doing what they are because they're pursuing their national interest. Tehran's foreign policy is no more nefarious than ours.

What actions are those?

On-going economic sanctions against Iran and direct support for Iran's geopolitical adversaries in the middle east.

You’re telling me the Ayatollah was in charge in 1950? Khomeini didn’t seem too antagonized by the US when he was courting American assistance, promising development contracts, oceans of cheap oil, and moderate Islam galore - just months before celebrating the attack and seizure of the “Great Satan’s” embassy.

United States granted asylum to a dictator the Iranians just deposed, and the very next year they sent massive amounts of assistance to a country that invaded them.

Well, at least now you’re being straightforward about your belief that Tehran’s terrorism is the fault of the US. Could have just said so from the start.

United States bears responsibility for the state of affairs in the middle east. Do they get all of the blame? No, but refusing responsibility for making things worse is just naive.

Yet you questioned the “utility” of my bringing decades of history and context into the discussion to begin with. Tehran can terrorize her own people all she wants. Blaming internationally enforced sanctions designed to blunt Tehran’s ability to export “global Islamic revolution” for the aggression which prompted those sanctions is merely a political position which favors appeasement over the decades-old standing US policy of containment.

Are you really going to tell me that the sanctions are there to stop a Jihad that the Ayatollah is planning? Really?

[Exarch]

The Red Flag of War has been unfurled in Iran:

Spear shall be shaken, shield be splintered,
a sword-day, a red day, ere the sun rises!

Americans in the middle east better start pretending they're Canadians or something; already the coward american embassy is turning away their own citizens knowing full well they cannot protect them.