Iraqi protesters storm U.S. embassy in Baghdad

[Ludicus]

Fresh news. America's Idiot in Chief is doing a great job.

Iraqi Parliament Passes Resolution to End Foreign Troop in Iraq ...
Iraq Complains to U.N. Over U.S. Attacks: Foreign Ministry ...

a dangerous breach of Iraqi sovereignty and of the terms of U.S. presence in Iraq

[Sar1n]

According to the statements of the Iraqi Prime-Minister himself, Qasem Soleimani was literally invited to the country by the Iraqi authorities, in order to participate in the diplomatic negotiations with Saudi Arabia, in a conciliatory effort marked by the neutral mediating role of Iraq. That sounds as a much more plausible explanation than the Trump's administration propaganda claims of the Iranian officer publicly arriving in the international airport to orchestrate the assassination of innocent Americans.

Iran's presence in Iraq is perfectly justified on the same grounds that the 5.000 American troops are legally tolerated. Baghdad accepted Tehran's military and financial aid, in order to combat ISIL back in 2014. Meanwhile, in Syria, the sovereign government in Damascus has also welcomed Iranian assistance, with the common objective of defeating the Islamist insurgents. You can morally criticise Iran's involvement, but the reality is that Iranian activities in both Syria and Iraq are impeccable, from the perspective of the international law, something that cannot be easily said for the United States.

TBH, I wasn't aware he's been back and forth, last time I remembered him in Iraq were some reports about him working with Kataib Hezbollah.

Speaking of which, they've been invited to combat ISIS, not American civilians, yet that's what they participated in. Not so impeccable.

[Abdülmecid I]

To my knowledge, no civilian target has been attacked. If you're referring to the killed contractor, even if he was not an armed mercenary, he was still the collateral casualty of a rocket attack, committed by Iraqis, not Iranians, against a military base in Kirkuk. To be clear, I'm not denying that Iran has not meddled in Iraqi domestic affairs or that she has not conspired against American interests, but that's hardly different to the activities of any other foreign actor in the country, including the United States, which intentionally and directly assassinated an Iranian officer of the regular army, in his capacity as a diplomatic envoy and host of the Iraqi government, thus violating the agreement they had signed with Baghdad. Given the popular pressure, the verdict of the Parliament and the statements of government officials, the prospects of the presence of American troops in Iraq seem rather dim. Ironically, Qasem Soleimani may have achieved in his death what he so desperately tried while alive and head of the Quds force.

[Heathen Hammer]

Like the fact that protesters forced out the pro-Iranian PM? Keep it up. Its fun to shoot down your points.

IRGC who operate in Iraq are foreigners. I never once said the PMF were foreigners.

Um, the militias you are talking about aren't de-jure foreigners. The troops Iraqi parliament is talking about are American troops. Not Iranian paramilitaries, who are in Shia militias which are part of Iraqi military and commanded by Iraqi government.

https://iraq.liveuamap.com/en/2020/5...ghdad-shouting

Iranians too it seems.

So basically your whole narrative relies on a post made by some guy on twitter and a blurry video with no explanation or context? Is that the "shooting down of points" that we should all be aware of?

[Vanoi]

Um, the militias you are talking about aren't de-jure foreigners. The troops Iraqi parliament is talking about are American troops. Not Iranian paramilitaries, who are in Shia militias which are part of Iraqi military and commanded by Iraqi government.

The IRGC are not in any way Iraqi troops or part of the PMF.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isla...ry_Guard_Corps

The IRGC are a branch of the Iranian Armed Forces. This means the resolution does in fact apply to them.

So basically your whole narrative relies on a post made by some guy on twitter and a blurry video with no explanation or context? Is that the "shooting down of points" that we should all be aware of?

This along with the ousting of the pro-Iranian PM and burning down of the Iranian consulate supports my point just fine. Where's your counter evidence?

[Sar1n]

To my knowledge, no civilian target has been attacked. If you're referring to the killed contractor, even if he was not an armed mercenary, he was still the collateral casualty of a rocket attack, committed by Iraqis, not Iranians, against a military base in Kirkuk. To be clear, I'm not denying that Iran has not meddled in Iraqi domestic affairs or that she has not conspired against American interests, but that's hardly different to the activities of any other foreign actor in the country, including the United States, which intentionally and directly assassinated an Iranian officer of the regular army, in his capacity as a diplomatic envoy and host of the Iraqi government, thus violating the agreement they had signed with Baghdad. Given the popular pressure, the verdict of the Parliament and the statements of government officials, the prospects of the presence of American troops in Iraq seem rather dim. Ironically, Qasem Soleimani may have achieved in his death what he so desperately tried while alive and head of the Quds force.

And rather hilariously, this strike might result in Trump fulfilling his promises regarding foreign policy by greater degree than Obama administration before him. Despite all those panicking "OMG WWIII IS COMING", the actual war with Iran is farther than before. Because Trump effectively said that if Iranian government gives him trouble, he'll take it out on them personally, not Iranian people, with no regard to any treaty. And nobody at the top of Iranian government is suicidal enough. And if Iraqi kicks US out, that will effectively be another promise fulfilled.

But then, all those "Trump is dragging us into war" alarmists don't want to see that.

[Heathen Hammer]

The IRGC are not in any way Iraqi troops or part of the PMF.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isla...ry_Guard_Corps

The IRGC are a branch of the Iranian Armed Forces. This means the resolution does in fact apply to them.

No, IRGC units in Iraq still obey orders from Baghdad. They are de-facto controlled by Iraq's government. The resolution is about American troops, not Iranian volunteers that are officially sanctioned by Iraqi government. Iranian forces aren't even mentioned in the resolution. You are grasping at straws,

This along with the ousting of the pro-Iranian PM and burning down of the Iranian consulate supports my point just fine.

A statement made by some rando on twitter is not evidence, neither are you assertions. The counter-evidence that we have is Iraqi parliament telling US troops to GTFO, as well as Iraqis themselves attempting to lynch Americans in their own embassy.

[Cookiegod]

Speaking of which, they've been invited to combat ISIS, not American civilians, yet that's what they participated in. Not so impeccable.

Alas, we have no evidence of that, only unfounded claims such as yours.

Soleimani did not travel in secret. Apart of what the Iraqi PM said, he also planned to attend the funeral of the Iraqi soldiers killed by the earlier US strikes. He isn't the second most popular man in Iran without reason. He goes where he's to be seen.

It is not implausible to assume the US might have carried the earlier attacks with the very intention to bait him into coming where they were able to assassinate him. Either that or Trump got so desperate after the earlier series of attacks blew up in his face that with Benghazi in his mind he said yes to everything the hawks wanted him to.

[Ludicus]

Iran to confirm next steps in withdrawal from nuclear deal

... in retaliation for the US withdrawing from the multilateral accord and reimposing sanctions.
Since May, Iran has been reducing its nuclear commitments with a series of steps every 60 days.
...but considering the current situation, some changes will be made in an important meeting tonight,” foreign ministry spokesman Abbas Mousavi said in televised remarks two days after the US killed a top Iranian general in a drone strike.

“In the world of politics, all things affect each other,” he was quoted as saying by state news agency IRNA. Mousavi gave no indication as to what the next step would be nor when it would be announced.

The EU, France, Germany, Russia and China called on Iran to preserve the nuclear deal.
Trump's Iran war has begun - Vox

The US assassination of Qassem Soleimani means that the United States and Iran are at war.
This is just a simple analytic truth, one obvious to experts... The question now is not whether the two countries are at war. It’s what kind of war they’re about to wage — and how many people are going to die as a result.

“Iran, for my money, will certainly try to assassinate a US-backed head of state or major figure,” Hussein Banai, an Iran expert at Indiana University, tells me.
When the Iranian response comes — and it will come, though it may not be immediate — there will be intense pressure on the Trump administration to respond in kind.
This is how you get a full-scale war that neither side wants.

I'm not so sure about that, American Neocons want military confrontation with Iran.

[Sar1n]

No, IRGC units in Iraq still obey orders from Baghdad. They are de-facto controlled by Iraq's government. The resolution is about American troops, not Iranian volunteers that are officially sanctioned by Iraqi government. Iranian forces aren't even mentioned in the resolution. You are grasping at straws,

A statement made by some rando on twitter is not evidence, neither are you assertions. The counter-evidence that we have is Iraqi parliament telling US troops to GTFO, as well as Iraqis themselves attempting to lynch Americans in their own embassy.

It doesn't mention US either.

Whom it does mention are foreign troops invited to provide assistance against ISIS. Which include IRGC.

[Vanoi]

No, IRGC units in Iraq still obey orders from Baghdad.

Source that the IRGC follows Baghdad's orders? My own source i just posted directly says the IRGC are part of the Iranian Armed Forces, not Iraq.

They are de-facto controlled by Iraq's government. The resolution is about American troops, not Iranian volunteers that are officially sanctioned by Iraqi government. Iranian forces aren't even mentioned in the resolution. You are grasping at straws,

You are confusing two different groups. The Iraqi PMF is a seperate group from the IRGC.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popu...ization_Forces

A statement made by some rando on twitter is not evidence, neither are you assertions. The counter-evidence that we have is Iraqi parliament telling US troops to GTFO, as well as Iraqis themselves attempting to lynch Americans in their own embassy.

Its not an assertion that Iraqi protesters forced out the Iraqi PM who was pro-Iran or that they burnt down the Iranian consulate twice. The Iraqi Parliment itself was missing almost half of its MPs who did not vote out the Americans.

I know these facts get in the way of your bias but you can't ignore them.

[Heathen Hammer]

It doesn't mention US either.

Whom it does mention are foreign troops invited to provide assistance against ISIS. Which include IRGC.

Again, presence of Iranian volunteers in Shia militias doesn't make units themselves foreign. What matter sis that IRGC obeys orders from Baghdad and de-jure functions as part of Iraqi military. They are kinda like the Irish regiments in USCW.

[Odenat]

And Iran ends its nuclear deal commitments. As there is no way USA would reverse the sanctions, this means Iran can safely built nukes as long as it is not invaded. And if Iran builds nukes, the only way for Turkey and Saudi Arabia to be safe is to build its own nukes. (especially since Turkey saw how NATO is useless.) If Turkey&Saudi Arabia builds nukes, the only way for Greece&Egypt to be safe is to build their own nukes. Good job USA. On one strike, they made everyone at the region wants nukes.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ment-us-troops

[Heathen Hammer]

Source that the IRGC follows Baghdad's orders? My own source i just posted directly says the IRGC are part of the Iranian Armed Forces, not Iraq.

Plenty of examples of countries sending volunteer units to other nations that functioned as part of those nation's military. There is no evidence that IRGC activity was ever not sanctioned by Baghdad's government.

You are confusing two different groups. The Iraqi PMF is a seperate group from the IRGC.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popu...ization_Forces

Functionally they perform the same role.

Its not an assertion that Iraqi protesters forced out the Iraqi PM who was pro-Iran or that they burnt down the Iranian consulate twice. The Iraqi Parliment itself was missing almost half of its MPs who did not vote out the Americans.

I know these facts get in the way of your bias but ypu can't ignore them.

It was already explained to you that ousting Iraqi PM had very little to do with him being pro-Iran. All evidence points to the fact that American occupation of Iraq is incredibly unpopular among Iraqis, and you have failed to provide cohesive evidence that Iran is unpopular there, as ironically you actually confirmed that only sectarian groups oppose Iranian presence.

[Vanoi]

Lol its not America's fault you Turks and everyone else in the Middle East want to start a nuclear arms race. No one is forcing you to develop nukes. Take some responsibility for yourselves.

[Ludicus]

.. American Neocons want military confrontation with Iran.

...and Netanyahu, of course, he has decided to seek parliamentary immunity in his three criminal cases. He lauded the killing of the Iranian commander.The Haaretz knows what is at stake. Netanyahu should not be allowed to start a war with Iran to save himself.
According to the Jerusalem Post, "It's either the Kingdom of Netanyahu or the State of Israel"

[Cookiegod]

Actually if Trumps twitter feed is anything to go by any country unwilling to bend over backwards for the cowboys ought to develop first and second strike capabilities.

[Vanoi]

Plenty of examples of countries sending volunteer units to other nations that functioned as part of those nation's military. There is no evidence that IRGC activity was ever not sanctioned by Baghdad's government.

Do you have a source or not? You claimed the IRGC follow orders from Iraq. Waiting on that citation.

Functionally they perform the same role.

My source says the IRGC was formed in 1979 to defend the Islamic Revolution in Iran, not to defend Iraq. Try again.

It was already explained to you that ousting Iraqi PM had very little to do with him being pro-Iran.

No you didn't. You just said i was wrong and provided no counter evidence. You definitely haven't explained why Iraqi protesters burnt down the Iranian consulate twice.

All evidence points to the fact that American occupation of Iraq is incredibly unpopular among Iraqis, and you have failed to provide cohesive evidence that Iran is unpopular there, as ironically you actually confirmed that only sectarian groups oppose Iranian presence.

I've provided evidence you just keep ignoring it. If Iran is so popular them why did protesters burn down the Iranian consulate twice?

[Ludicus]

American occupation of Iraq is incredibly unpopular among Iraqis.

Objectively speaking, Iraq's parliament passed on Sunday a resolution telling the government to end the presence of foreign troops in Iraq and ensure they not use its land, air, and waters for any reason.That's all that matters.Unless the United States takes steps to change the government...let's keep in mind that The US tried to change other countries' governments 72 times - The Washington Post.

[Sar1n]

And Iran ends its nuclear deal commitments. As there is no way USA would reverse the sanctions, this means Iran can safely built nukes as long as it is not invaded. And if Iran builds nukes, the only way for Turkey and Saudi Arabia to be safe is to build its own nukes. (especially since Turkey saw how NATO is useless.) If Turkey&Saudi Arabia builds nukes, the only way for Greece&Egypt to be safe is to build their own nukes. Good job USA. On one strike, they made everyone at the region wants nukes.

Odds are, Iran will attempt to negotiate a side deal with EU, Russia and China, putting everyone into awkward situation where US won't be able to enforce the sanctions without alienating its allies, or confronting China or Russia directly. This is a stalling game, trying to save face without forcing Trump's hand into full retaliation.
The problem is, if that fails, the moment Iran gets close to actually deploying nuclear weaponry, it will become casus belli, and everyone WILL let Iran fall. Theocracies are ultimately not reliable allies or puppets if you don't share their religion, and it will not be worth the trouble. In the end, everyone around will be better off with US spending lives and money breaking Iran then putting it back together than with Iran being potential source of nuclear material for terrorists.