• Introducing Image Options for ResetEra 2.0! Check the left side navigation bar to show or hide images, avatars, covers, and embedded media. More details at the link.
  • Community Spotlight sign-ups are open once again for both Gaming and EtcetEra Hangout threads! If you want to shine a spotlight on your community, please register now.

Uhhh... I think John Bolton is trying to start his Iran war...

Jun 28, 2018
1,443
Trump's top intelligence and military advisers held unusual meeting at CIA on Iran, officials say
In a highly unusual move, National Security Adviser John Bolton convened a meeting at CIA headquarters last week with the Trump administration's top intelligence, diplomatic and military advisers to discuss Iran, according to six current U.S. officials.

The meeting was held at 7:00 a.m. on Monday, April 29, and included CIA Director Gina Haspel, Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Joe Dunford, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, five of the officials said.

National security meetings are typically held in the White House Situation Room. The six current officials, as well as multiple former officials, said it is extremely rare for senior White House officials or cabinet members to attend a meeting at CIA headquarters.
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,295
They're totally going to start something aren't they....

Especially with the heat still coming after the Mueller Report and the subpoenas, etc...
 
Oct 25, 2017
10,005
New Jersey
They are attempting to destroy Iran yes...all you need to know is that its clearly fabricated.

Iran are not to blame, and if we had any sense at all, someone would act for the millions of lives that could be lost in Iran unjustly after WE as is usually the case, started the fire
 
Oct 25, 2017
7,209
Can the US have the presidential elections if we are in a war?
Yes.

Do you mind if I ask where you got this question / inquiry from? Another poster asked the same thing in another thread a couple days ago, and to see the same question a couple days in a row makes me think there's a disinformation meme going around.
 
Oct 25, 2017
10,005
New Jersey
For what, this crisis? The IRI is most certainly to blame for their shit.
You can't claim Iran trying to follow procedure and do everything they are supposed to do(even things they arent bound to) while having the US walk away from the deal and then impose crippling sanctions on them would not lead to this result. Its exactly what the war mongers in the biggest imperial military in the world would do.

This is the exact same shit people talk about in regards to Israeli crimes. Oh wow Israel is a clear human rights abuser and has essentially destroyed countless Palestinian lives unjustly and dont even consider Palestinians people? Of course when there is sectarian violence we can just point at the other side and go "see? they are attacking us, that's why what we're doing is completely fine")

Dont gimme that, Bolten and the rest have been clear that they think making up any excuses for war would be a great political strategy and make them money. And the media play great pawns in that.
 
Apr 23, 2019
40
You can't claim Iran trying to follow procedure and do everything they are supposed to do(even things they arent bound to) while having the US walk away from the deal and then impose crippling sanctions on them would not lead to this result. Its exactly what the war mongers in the biggest imperial military in the world would do.
What result? Trying to blackmail the EU, Russia and China? Because that's what it is, the levels Iran now wants to stockpile it's uranium is unnecessary and the recent threat that they would send their Afghan refugees to Europe if they don't protect them from US sanctions is classic extortion.

This is the exact same shit people talk about in regards to Israeli crimes. Oh wow Israel is a clear human rights abuser and has essentially destroyed countless Palestinian lives unjustly and dont even consider Palestinians people? Of course when there is sectarian violence we can just point at the other side and go "see? they are attacking us, that's why what we're doing is completely fine")

Dont gimme that, Bolten and the rest have been clear that they think making up any excuses for war would be a great political strategy and make them money. And the media play great pawns in that.
Except it isn't. You cannot dismiss IRI's role in the current crisis. Zarif and Rouhani promised the deal would lead to positive political change, no warmongering from Iranian officials and other reforms. It didn't. I hate John Bolton as much as everyone, but there's no need to whitewash the actions of the Islamic Republic. Its a vile terroristic regime.
 
Jun 4, 2018
91
I don't think a war is starting anytime soon honestly. The USA has enough problems with the trade talks in China, and the situation in Venezuela and North Korea, Starting a war now is not going to end well. Plus since Putin and Trump are "good Buddies" I don't think Trump is going to wanna piss Putin off considering Russia and Iran are friends.

This is just Bolton and Trump wanting to establish Iran as the Bitch in the relationship.
 

Mjolnir

Alt account
Member
May 2, 2019
95
the US has sent marines, vehicles, a warship and a patriot missile defence system to join the nuclear capable bombers it has heading toward Iran.


Feel free to make a new thread.
 

Mjolnir

Alt account
Member
May 2, 2019
95
I think it's also incredibly dangerous to think this is only exclusive to the person John Bolton, when lots of people with political, economic, and military power wants to invade Iran ever since the revolution in the 70's. It's like an American tradition that's been going on for 40+ years.
 
Jun 7, 2018
804
What result? Trying to blackmail the EU, Russia and China? Because that's what it is, the levels Iran now wants to stockpile it's uranium is unnecessary and the recent threat that they would send their Afghan refugees to Europe if they don't protect them from US sanctions is classic extortion.



Except it isn't. You cannot dismiss IRI's role in the current crisis. Zarif and Rouhani promised the deal would lead to positive political change, no warmongering from Iranian officials and other reforms. It didn't. I hate John Bolton as much as everyone, but there's no need to whitewash the actions of the Islamic Republic. Its a vile terroristic regime.

Bullfuckingshit, the JCPOA was never about anything other than the Nuclear program and that's it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action#Sanctions

Not about Iran's political, regional, military or economic ambitions, just about the nuclear program, not more and not less.

Iran abides by every single fucking thing they had to commit to for JCPOA until the US betrayed their part and the Europeans turned out to be useless. Nowhere does the JCPOA states that Iran has to change politically or otherwise.

As for the blackmail part that's called blowback, you don't like Iran firing back? Well boohoo guess you shouldn't have walked out of the deal you fucking signed on in the first place.

This is typical Trump apologist tactic, Iran should've stopped supporting it's militias, Iran should've changed regime, wha wha wha, guess what? That was never part of the signed deal.
 
Apr 23, 2019
40
Bullfuckingshit, the JCPOA was never about anything other than the Nuclear program and that's it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action#Sanctions

Not about Iran's political, regional, military or economic ambitions, just about the nuclear program, not more and not less.

Iran abides by every single fucking thing they had to commit to for JCPOA until the US betrayed their part and the Europeans turned out to be useless. Nowhere does the JCPOA states that Iran has to change politically or otherwise.
Yes, Iran abided. That's why I wan't my country to remain in the deal(they are). But it does not exempt them from broken promises. As your own article states, every country, including IRI, said this would lead to 'peace', stability, a new chapter, change etc. It didn't. And that makes them part of this shitty mess.

As for the blackmail part that's called blowback, you don't like Iran firing back? Well boohoo guess you shouldn't have walked out of the deal you fucking signed on in the first place.
Firing back at whom? Russia, China, EU is still in the deal, but why is IRI threatening to send refugees over here, why is the IRI holding European citizens hostage, why is the IRI commiting terror attacks on European soil?
https://euobserver.com/foreign/143854

But yeah, not wanting terrorism, that's all apologistic tactic's, sure.

This is typical Trump apologist tactic, Iran should've stopped supporting it's militias, Iran should've changed regime, wha wha wha, guess what? That was never part of the signed deal.
You're forgetting terrorism. And yes, this makes the IRI partly responsible for the current situation.
 
Oct 27, 2017
436
Firing back at whom? Russia, China, EU is still in the deal, but why is IRI threatening to send refugees over here, why is the IRI holding European citizens hostage, why is the IRI commiting terror attacks on European soil?
https://euobserver.com/foreign/143854

But yeah, not wanting terrorism, that's all apologistic tactic's, sure.
You know that's BS, don't you? Yes, the EU, Russia and China are still in it, but the USA did not just withdraw from the agreement. They also put up sanctions in a way that others, in particular the EU, can't properly keep their part of the nuclear deal anymore.
 
Jun 7, 2018
804
Yes, Iran abided. That's why I wan't my country to remain in the deal(they are). But it does not exempt them from broken promises. As your own article states, every country, including IRI, said this would lead to 'peace', stability, a new chapter, change etc. It didn't. And that makes them part of this shitty mess.
Excuse me? But what is exactly your definition of change here? Peace? JCPOA being in effect guaranteed no confrontation between the US their allies and Iran, there's your peace and stability, nowhere was JCPOA about Iran changing its regional behavior and agenda.

That's some bullshit goalpost moving from anyone detracting the JCPOA. FYI Iran lost more soldiers fighting against ISIS than any other country in the middle east after Iraq and Syria, while the Saudis were bombing and slaughtering the Yemenis, the Iranians were rolling back ISIS, they actually were able to that since JCPOA let them focus on that.

Firing back at whom? Russia, China, EU is still in the deal, but why is IRI threatening to send refugees over here, why is the IRI holding European citizens hostage, why is the IRI commiting terror attacks on European soil?
https://euobserver.com/foreign/143854

But yeah, not wanting terrorism, that's all apologistic tactic's, sure.
Firing back at the EU, they are cosignatories on the deal, they are responsible for guaranteeing lifting economic sanctions, they chickened out in face of US pressure and sanctions, so hell yes Iran is entitled to put pressure on them to keep their end of the deal, if they don't then might as well cancel JCPOA because as it stands it's a useless piece of paper, unless the EU grow some balls and help Iran against the US sanctions to salvage the deal.

why is the IRI commiting terror attacks on European soil?
https://euobserver.com/foreign/143854

But yeah, not wanting terrorism, that's all apologistic tactic's, sure.
Yes, because even those are unrelated to JCPOA. The deal is about nuclear program, not the external activities of Iranian intelligence services.

You want to negotiate on those? Stop Mossad and CIA activities in Iran and stop supporting Iranian opposition, make a new deal simples.

You're forgetting terrorism. And yes, this makes the IRI partly responsible for the current situation.
Nothing to do with the nuclear deal, sorry, at the negotiating table, Iran refused to talk about Quds force or IRGC activity or Missile program, the deal went ahead regardless. So nope, using "terrorism" as an argument is null and void.
 
Apr 23, 2019
40
Excuse me? But what is exactly your definition of change here? Peace? JCPOA being in effect guaranteed no confrontation between the US their allies and Iran, there's your peace and stability, nowhere was JCPOA about Iran changing its regional behavior and agenda.
Shall we take the definition of IRI's officials here?

https://geopoliticalfutures.com/iran-broken-promises-fix-broken-economy-1/
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/20/opinion/mohammad-javad-zarif-a-message-from-iran.html

Both Zarif and Rouhani were very clear. This deal was not only about nuclear negotiations, but about engagement, improving relations with the region and the west, and improving the economic and social situation for Iranians. Did this happen? Not at all. You think Iranians accept the fact that economic growth from lifting of the sanctions did not trickle down? 'Sorry, nowhere was written that JCPOA was about improving social conditions'. Who cares that it wasn't written down, they promised again and again that after JPCPOA more positive steps would follow. They broke that promise, instead they showed IRI is unwilling to any tangible positive reform and are accountable for this misery they brought on Iranians. Do they care? Not one bit.

That's some bullshit goalpost moving from anyone detracting the JCPOA. FYI Iran lost more soldiers fighting against ISIS than any other country in the middle east after Iraq and Syria, while the Saudis were bombing and slaughtering the Yemenis, the Iranians were rolling back ISIS, they actually were able to that since JCPOA let them focus on that.
They were already in Iraq before JCPOA, nothing to do with that. And no, Nigeria, Chad, Libya, Syrian and Iraqi Kurds lost more people than the IRI.

Firing back at the EU, they are cosignatories on the deal, they are responsible for guaranteeing lifting economic sanctions, they chickened out in face of US pressure and sanctions, so hell yes Iran is entitled to put pressure on them to keep their end of the deal, if they don't then might as well cancel JCPOA because as it stands it's a useless piece of paper, unless the EU grow some balls and help Iran against the US sanctions to salvage the deal.
Great, whitewashing terrorism and extortion. The EU didn't fire a shot, they remained in the deal, did their part, Russia, China and the EU are not responsible for the IRI's or America's behaviour.

Yes, because even those are unrelated to JCPOA. The deal is about nuclear program, not the external activities of Iranian intelligence services.

You want to negotiate on those? Stop Mossad and CIA activities in Iran and stop supporting Iranian opposition, make a new deal simples.
Sure, giving asylum and basic rights to Iranian opposition is totally comparable with launching suicide bombers on European territory.
 
Jun 7, 2018
804
Shall we take the definition of IRI's officials here?

https://geopoliticalfutures.com/iran-broken-promises-fix-broken-economy-1/
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/20/opinion/mohammad-javad-zarif-a-message-from-iran.html

Both Zarif and Rouhani were very clear. This deal was not only about nuclear negotiations, but about engagement, improving relations with the region and the west, and improving the economic and social situation for Iranians. Did this happen? Not at all. You think Iranians accept the fact that economic growth from lifting of the sanctions did not trickle down?
Again Bullshit, the deal wasn't even in place long enough for economic reforms, the deal was supposed to be in place for 15 years for the Iranian economy to recover, some of the major sanctions aren't going to be lifted until 8 years after the deal went into effect, you expect an economy that suffered over 40 years of isolation and international sanctions to recover over the course of two years? What kind of logic is that, the deal isn't some magic fucking wand that turns shit into gold.

Wow look at that, politicians making extravagant promises to help secure a multinational deal to save their country, will you look at that.... And guess what none of this shit is in the deal and irrelevant to it, see the response above.

'Sorry, nowhere was written that JCPOA was about improving social conditions'. Who cares that it wasn't written down, they promised again and again that after JPCPOA more positive steps would follow. They broke that promise, instead they showed IRI is unwilling to any tangible positive reform and are accountable for this misery they brought on Iranians. Do they care? Not one bit.
Who cares? Then don't fucking blame Iran from backing away from the deal if no one cares what was written down on the deal, it's called a fucking deal for a reason, it means both parties agreed on the conditions written down not anything else outside the deal, the blame would be on the fucking idiot that pulled away from said deal not the country retaliating.

They were already in Iraq before JCPOA, nothing to do with that. And no, Nigeria, Chad, Libya, Syrian and Iraqi Kurds lost more people than the IRI.
No fucking shit, Iran was in Iraq before JCPOA, what does that have to do with anything? And I already pointed out Iraq and Syria lost more soldiers that Iran against ISIS, Chad, Nigeria and Libya are in Africa not ME, lol. Iran managed to turn the tide of the Iraqi government against ISIS, was the first responding aiding the Iraqi government while the US was calling for Maliki to resign in the meantime ISIS was slaughtering cadets in Tikrit. Please I live here, don't tell me what and what did not happen.


Great, whitewashing terrorism and extortion. The EU didn't fire a shot, they remained in the deal, did their part, Russia, China and the EU are not responsible for the IRI's or America's behaviour.
No the EU are not observing their part of the deal, their companies are not operating in Iran, they've withdrawn, the EU are cowering away from business with Iran due to US sanctions, it's a bullshit handwave to say the EU is maintaining their end while the sanctions that were supposed to be lifted are back in place and worse and crippling Iranian economy, at this point what does Iran gain from staying in the deal? nothing.

Sure, giving asylum and basic rights to Iranian opposition is totally comparable with launching suicide bombers on European territory.
And this is something irrelevant to the nuclear deal, and the sanctions that were placed on Iran because of it. And welcome to geopolitics, guess what the EU and the US also negotiate with "terrorists" and give weapons to them all the time, what a shock I know.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,177
the Netherlands
Via the NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/13/world/middleeast/us-military-plans-iran.html

At a meeting of President Trump’s top national security aides last Thursday, Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan presented an updated military plan that envisions sending as many as 120,000 troops to the Middle East should Iran attack American forces or accelerate work on nuclear weapons, administration officials said.

The revisions were ordered by hard-liners led by John R. Bolton, Mr. Trump’s national security adviser. It does not call for a land invasion of Iran, which would require vastly more troops, officials said.
 
Jun 28, 2018
1,443
So... Bolton will fake an Iranian attack, making U.S. use of force appear justified, and we'll have a brand new giant middle east war on our hands, and Dumb Donald as commander in chief, going into an election year.
 
Apr 27, 2019
330
trump doesn't have the guts for this. bolton is a warmongering psychopath but I think theres a good chance he gets shitcanned before he can really make things irretrievable
 
Jun 28, 2018
1,443
trump doesn't have the guts for this. bolton is a warmongering psychopath but I think theres a good chance he gets shitcanned before he can really make things irretrievable
Does he know enough to know he doesn't have the guts for it? Or what's actually happening?
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,098
i'm fully expecting a false flag operation soon. it may not be us but it will be an enemy country of iran and we will happily involve ourselves in an altercation with them. perhaps the warhawks feel that trump might not win his reelection and if they want to start their war it has to be now.
 
Apr 27, 2019
330
Does he know enough to know he doesn't have the guts for it? Or what's actually happening?
probably not but if the media starts calling him the power behind the throne like they did with bannon he might get the axe. they'll almost inevitably come into conflict (i hope)
 
Apr 27, 2019
330
then again the media, including the Maddows of the world are perenially thirsty for dead midddle easterners whereas they like to pretend that people like bannon are too distasteful for them
 
Oct 26, 2017
4,215
i'm fully expecting a false flag operation soon. it may not be us but it will be an enemy country of iran and we will happily involve ourselves in an altercation with them. perhaps the warhawks feel that trump might not win his reelection and if they want to start their war it has to be now.
The Saudi alliance is now claiming Saudi oil tankers were attacked in the Persian Gulf by Iranian-backed forces. Israeli TV recently ran a report stating that Iran was targeting Saudi oil production for a military attack.

I don’t want to give hits to shitty far right sites, so here’s the WaPo report which is a little lighter on accusations:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...907108-755e-11e9-bd25-c989555e7766_story.html

then again the media, including the Maddows of the world are perenially thirsty for dead midddle easterners whereas they like to pretend that people like bannon are too distasteful for them
Yup. And Dem presidential candidates, too. Buttigieg is practically salivating at the prospect of war with Iran.
 
Jun 28, 2018
1,443
As the article mentions, Germany and Netherlands have also suspended their training missions in Iraq
Yup, allies don't want to get involved in a potential U.S.-Iran conflict in the region.
But allies have publicly expressed caution, challenging claims of a rising threat level and, in some cases, distancing military assets from those that Washington has framed as being under threat.

European Union foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini said Monday that Europe wanted to avoid “escalation on the military side” after Secretary of State Mike Pompeo crashed a summit in Brussels in an attempt to bring foreign ministers there on board. Playing off Pompeo’s comments regarding “maximum pressure,” Mogherini called instead for “maximum restraint.”

Another Western diplomat said they had yet to see “anything convincing” in intelligence terms. The diplomat was not authorized to discuss the issue with the media and spoke on the condition of anonymity.
As tensions rose this week, several U.S. allies appeared to distance themselves from U.S. missions in the region. On Tuesday it was Spain, announcing that it had pulled a frigate from a U.S.-led naval group that is headed for the Persian Gulf.

On Wednesday, both Germany and the Netherlands said that they had suspended participation in a training mission for Iraqi troops. They cited increased friction between the United States and Iran, although officials said there was no concrete threat against their troops.
 
Dec 12, 2017
118
Some crazy shit is going down and there's, like, no allies with the Trump people right now.

This article in the NYTimes was making me crazy with all its not-so-oblique references to the Iraq war buildup.

The anti-Iran push has proved difficult even among the allies, which remember a similar campaign against Iraq that was led in part by Mr. Bolton and was fueled by false claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s efforts this week to recruit European countries to back the administration’s steely posture on Iran are being received coolly.

Federica Mogherini, the European Union’s foreign affairs chief, called for “maximum restraint” after meeting on Monday in Brussels with Mr. Pompeo, a proponent of the “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran.

Iraqi officials said they were skeptical of the American intelligence that Mr. Pompeo presented last week on a surprise trip to Baghdad. Mr. Pompeo said the threat was to American “facilities” and military personnel in Iraq.
 
Jun 28, 2018
1,443
How do people decide to blame the EU in this thread? This isn't on us.

Sigh. This is about fucking up the election next week, isn't it?
I can't speak for the European perspective. From the U.S. perspective, this looks a lot like the run up to the Iraq War, with the intent of fucking up the 2020 Presidential election. The same manufactured threat, the same old "don't change horses midstream" argument will be trotted out (the idea that choosing a new leader during wartime is somehow more dangerous), the same empty rhetoric about the strongman president protecting us from the scary foreigners on the other side of the world.
 
Oct 26, 2017
5,250
I can't speak for the European perspective. From the U.S. perspective, this looks a lot like the run up to the Iraq War, with the intent of fucking up the 2020 Presidential election. The same manufactured threat, the same old "don't change horses midstream" argument will be trotted out (the idea that choosing a new leader during wartime is somehow more dangerous), the same empty rhetoric about the strongman president protecting us from the scary foreigners on the other side of the world.
The big time discrepancy here though is that there is no catalyzing event to build any popular support for this like 9/11 was for Iraq.
If this is the endgame, it's going to backfire. Little domestic support, little international support. It will be an attack on a nation with far more landmass, personnel, and resources than any recent theater, and it will be a god damned disaster.

Don't blame the EU for wanting no part of this whatsoever.
 
Jun 28, 2018
1,443
The big time discrepancy here though is that there is no catalyzing event to build any popular support for this like 9/11 was for Iraq.
If this is the endgame, it's going to backfire. Little domestic support, little international support. It will be a near unilateral (US + who else, maybe just Saudi Ariabia, a couple of other Emirates) attack on a nation with far more landmass, personnel, and resources than any recent theater, and it will be a god damned disaster.
Yes, despite the parallels, it is quite a different situation politically. Add to that, Iran 2019 is not Iraq 2003. A conflict with Iran would not be like the Iraq War. It would be worse.