The Coming War with Iran

[Nefertiti2]

Pompeo upping the stakes today. Israel and the Saudis want it too. Will it happen? Hope not...

[Bizarre Löw Triangle]

I would say the war has already started. Sanctions are as effective a weapon of civillian mass-murder as carpet bombing cities and don't run the same risk of domestic condemnation.

[ad hoc]

Not that I think the Iranian regime is made up of a nice bunch of honest chaps, but it's very telling that when I see them accused of something by the US regime (or the Saudis) I automatically assume that the Iranian explanation/understanding of how things are happening is much more likely to be the one that is closer to the truth. It's not like I've naively believed the US in times gone by, but now, my assumption is always that they are lying.

[Ginger Yellow]

I'm not as skeptical as some are that Iran would be motivated to do this, but the US "justification" for their confidence seems pretty damn weak. They're talking about the sophistication of the attacks but it's just limpet mines, isn't it? And that's before we even get to the fact that anything Iran is sophisticated enough to do, so is Saudi Arabia etc.

[tracteurgarcon]

Not that I think the Iranian regime is made up of a nice bunch of honest chaps, but it's very telling that when I see them accused of something by the US regime (or the Saudis) I automatically assume that the Iranian explanation/understanding of how things are happening is much more likely to be the one that is closer to the truth. It's not like I've naively believed the US in times gone by, but now, my assumption is always that they are lying.

Pretty much this.

On Radio 4 news yesterday they had the US ambassador for the UAE (or possibly a former ambassador) and everything she said just sounded like parroted propaganda. She was 100% sure that ONLY Iran could've blown up these ships, saying that ONLY Iran had the means to do it, which is clearly bullshit.

I'm pretty sure any country or terrorist group with a few explosives lying around and access to a boat could do it.

[Sean of the Shed]

Most of the Gulf states have the weaponry to pull off such an attack. The US know damn well that they do because they sell them this shit.
Also I'm struggling to see why any state or regime would risk an ecological disaster just to provoke Trump when they could do it far more easily by firing a couple of rockets at Israel.

[tracteurgarcon]

Also when she said that she wouldn't be surprised if cellphone footage of it being carried out turned up my bullshit meter went off the scale, especially as today the US have released video, supposedly, of Iranian's removing an unexploded mine from one of the ships.

I really don't like going all "tin foil hat" and I, generally, don't buy into conspiracy theories but with the US government being so untrustworthy, even more so than normal, it's hard not to think that this is all just a big set up.

It all seems very convenient for the Pentagon hawks and totally illogical for the Iranians, both in the timing (with the currently meetings with Japan) and the way it was carried out (is it really beyond Iranian capabilities to do it with a minisub and divers if they didn't want to be caught?).

[Wouter D]

Republicans require reelection in 2020. So the time for war is now. I don't think it's more complicated than that.

[Bizarre Löw Triangle]

Also when she said that she wouldn't be surprised if cellphone footage of it being carried out turned up my bullshit meter went off the scale, especially as today the US have released video, supposedly, of Iranian's removing an unexploded mine from one of the ships.

I really don't like going all "tin foil hat" and I, generally, don't buy into conspiracy theories but with the US government being so untrustworthy, even more so than normal, it's hard not to think that this is all just a big set up.

It all seems very convenient for the Pentagon hawks and totally illogical for the Iranians, both in the timing (with the currently meetings with Japan) and the way it was carried out (is it really beyond Iranian capabilities to do it with a minisub and divers if they didn't want to be caught?).

I don't agree. Iran doesn't want a war with the US, but the status quo - unprecedented, economically devastating economic sanctions with catastrophic humanitarian consequences - are intolerable for them. They have a very limited arsenal of weapons with which to respond in kind - one of them would be creating a global increase in oil prices through making it unsafe for other middle east oil producers to export through the Persian Gulf.

It's a risky strategy for sure (but so is doing nothing and letting hundreds of thousands of people die due to sanctions).

I'm not saying Iran definitely did it, but if they did they certainly have plausible reasons for doing so.

[Nefertiti2]

I’ve never known why people are reluctant to be conspiracy theorists about how wars begin. From the Gleiwitz incident to the gulf of Tonkin it seems standard practice when starting a war or changing the level of engagement.

[ursus arctos]

Very much so, particularly with the US (see, e.g., the Mexican War and "Remember the Maine!")

[Satchmo Distel]

I'm not sure that the US could maintain occupations in Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran simultaneously not to mention dealing with the retaliatory attacks that would be unleashed by Shia groups across the Middle East and ensuring no ISIS revival in Iraq or Syria.

Then there's North Korea hoping to capitalize on a distracted US.

But most of all, there's the moral repugnance of bombing Iranian civilians to make Trump look tough in his re-election campaign, adding to the disgusting starvation policy already taking place.

EDIT: Trying to find polling on likely public opinion, but that seems rather pointless because opinion will be manipulated by a barrage of lies prior to any military action. Almost certainly a "we were attacked first" lie will be concocted.

[Nefertiti2]

“Moral repugnance” -run that by me again

[linus]

I don't agree. Iran doesn't want a war with the US, but the status quo - unprecedented, economically devastating economic sanctions with catastrophic humanitarian consequences - are intolerable for them. They have a very limited arsenal of weapons with which to respond in kind - one of them would be creating a global increase in oil prices through making it unsafe for other middle east oil producers to export through the Persian Gulf.

It's a risky strategy for sure (but so is doing nothing and letting hundreds of thousands of people die due to sanctions).

I'm not saying Iran definitely did it, but if they did they certainly have plausible reasons for doing so.

I'm not sure how effective economic sanctions will be in the long term given that Iran shares long borders with Russia, Turkey and Pakistan (a conduit to China), a group of countries with large economies that aggressive US policies have brought tightly together.

Sanctions only are truly devastating when accompanied with bombings of infrastructure, as the US did in Iraq through the 90s. Sanctions on Russia for instance actually stimulated their domestic economy, their agricultural sector is booming. The sanctions have had the same effect as a protectionist policy. Iran could actually thrive in the Shanghai Pact economic zone, which includes a large share of the global GDP and some of the fastest growing economies.

The neocon alliance is itching to demolish Iran's infrastructure and are trying to stage their false flag event here. Iran is going out of its way to avoid giving them an excuse to bomb, particularly when the US public (and a substantial part of Trump's own base) is extremely weary of endless war in the middle east. They don't want a land war, just a massive bombing of Iran's infrastructure (ports, powerplants, water treatment plant, factories, bridges, military installations etc) and are waiting for the excuse to go through it.

This series of tanker attacks is pretty reminiscent of the staged gas attack events in Syria, which typically materialized just when the Syrian government was in the final stages of successful military campaigns. The last one was particularly funny, gas cannister goes through concrete roof and lands unscathed on a bed, which stays in pristine condition, and a stack of glasses and jugs on top of the armoire at the 9 second mark is magically undisturbed:

https://youtu.be/9JmAOWmkFvk

[Satchmo Distel]

“Moral repugnance” -run that by me again

My bad grammar - "morally repugnant nature of bombing..."

[Nefertiti2]

My bad grammar - "morally repugnant nature of bombing..."

I fear those days are long gone. The only people who find bombing repugnant are the victims.

[Satchmo Distel]

True, and that's why I added my polling paragraph, to show how the objectively repugnant (to a fully informed person) will be made palatable by pushing the usual patriotic buttons and stereotypes.

[Lang Spoon]

And it's the staged gas attacks again. Assad has clean hands, his enemies are making it all up. FFS man.

[Bizarre Löw Triangle]

I’ve never known why people are reluctant to be conspiracy theorists about how wars begin. From the Gleiwitz incident to the gulf of Tonkin it seems standard practice when starting a war or changing the level of engagement.

I'm reluctant cos a) i think iran has a right to self-defence against aggression and b) conspiracy theorising buys into the logics that'll be used to justify any military action.

If you say "the US did this to create a pretext for war not Iran" you may be correct, but if you're wrong and it's subsequently proven you're wrong, you've pretty much already ceded the argument that justifies a war.

[DCI Harry Batt]

Christ this linus arsehole is at it again isn't he? Fucking lying racist piece of shit that he is

[linus]

Racist? this combination of complete British insularity and unhinged aggressiveness is something to behold. You're completely ignorant when it comes to Syria, have you even travelled there? stick to your domestic issues bro.

[Lang Spoon]

He's just a mirror of the horrible wee Spectator column shites that justified Pinochet/Milosevic and the lads back in the day. A one man Canadian Spiked Online. Brendan O'Neill without the intellectual heft and gravitas.

[Eggchaser]

War! Huh! Good God, y'all! What is it good for?

Reelection.

[Femme Folle]

War! Huh! Good God, y'all! What is it good for?

Reelection.

That's it in a nutshell. Well, and also helping defense contractors make more money. Most of those are owned by Republican donors and or politicians.

[Lang Spoon]

Posts keep disappearing from here at a rate of knots. Maybes a good thing.