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

Inuhanyou

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,146
New Jersey
I need people screaming from the rooftops about much of a manufactured 'crisis' this is. But i dont see nearly as many as i would like to see.

This really does feel like another Iraq, and they are clearly trying to make one without any hint of irony...despite the fact that Iran literally has been attacked by terrorists not to long ago which they received support from the international community from.

We walked away from the nuclear deal, put sanctions on them...and probably all because Netanyahu wanted it...quite sick...the thought of the loss of innocent life that might occur
 

digdug2k

Member
Mar 28, 2018
214
Heh. 3 years ago I wondered if Trump would try to start a war in order to help himself get re-elected. Then I thought, "Nah. He's not that crazy. It'd just way to obvious."

Now... I think he's probably testing the waters to see just how good/bad the reaction would be if he did it.
 

jeelybeans

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,170
I need people screaming from the rooftops about much of a manufactured 'crisis' this is. But i dont see nearly as many as i would like to see.

This really does feel like another Iraq, and they are clearly trying to make one without any hint of irony...despite the fact that Iran literally has been attacked by terrorists not to long ago which they received support from the international community from.

We walked away from the nuclear deal, put sanctions on them...and probably all because Netanyahu wanted it...quite sick...the thought of the loss of innocent life that might occur
I really don't think it's happening simply because the world doesn't have appetite for the US' bull.

We're really going to lose all international credibility going forward.
 

Inuhanyou

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,146
New Jersey
I really don't think it's happening simply because the world doesn't have appetite for the US' bull.

We're really going to lose all international credibility going forward.
When has that ever stopped US unilateral action...the dudes who are running the ship right now are the same ones verbatim who did the Iraq war off the back of...nothing in particular
 

Chikor

Member
Oct 26, 2017
2,632
The US had a lot of international support for the Iraq War.
Define "a lot".
It was not supported by the UN and while a bunch of countries sent something, outside the UK, no other country was involved in a meaningful way in that stupid ass war.
The invasion itself only had forces from 5 countries, with 3 of them sending mostly symbolic number of troops (under 2000).
 

Blade Runner

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
6,010
Anecdotal but on social media I noticed military people mentioning they’re “going to the box”, which means they’re being sent to the combat training center at Fort Irwin. This is usually done in advance of a deployment.

Here’s what The Box looks like. Three guesses what countries it’s meant to simulate.

https://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/21564
 

jeelybeans

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,170
Define "a lot".
It was not supported by the UN and while a bunch of countries sent something, outside the UK, no other country was involved in a meaningful way in that stupid ass war.
The invasion itself only had forces from 5 countries, with 3 of them sending mostly symbolic number of troops (under 2000).
You are minimizing the support the US had. That's still a lot more support than they have now. Lots of countries felt duped after Iraq.
 

Riboflavin

Member
Nov 10, 2017
140
Anecdotal but on social media I noticed military people mentioning they’re “going to the box”, which means they’re being sent to the combat training center at Fort Irwin. This is usually done in advance of a deployment.

Here’s what The Box looks like. Three guesses what countries it’s meant to simulate.

https://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/21564
Lol.

Dude, every Brigade Combat Team in the US Army is supposed to go to either NTC at Fort Irwin or JRTC at Fort Polk annually.
 

HStallion

Member
Oct 25, 2017
26,406
Define "a lot".
It was not supported by the UN and while a bunch of countries sent something, outside the UK, no other country was involved in a meaningful way in that stupid ass war.
The invasion itself only had forces from 5 countries, with 3 of them sending mostly symbolic number of troops (under 2000).
Japan sent PS2s
 

Nexas

Member
Oct 25, 2017
145
I really not sure how this one is going to play out. Trump is a monster and an idiot, but he kinda already caved on Venezuela which actually does have some popular support in the international community. Don't know why he would pass up a layup like that to focus on Iran, but again he is an idiot.
 

Chikor

Member
Oct 26, 2017
2,632
You are minimizing the support the US had. That's still a lot more support than they have now. Lots of countries felt duped after Iraq.
Are you saying that I forgot about Poland?
Anyway, while it's true that less countries are likely to support an Iran adventure than the Iraq war, those 20 soldiers Estonia sent really had no bearing on the US's ability to wage that war, and was just there in a failed attempt to make it look like an international effort like the first Iraq War.

p.s.
I'll bet you Bolton manage to find a couple of countries dumb enough to join that shit, smart money on Australia, they're always happy to die in America's stupid wars, they were in Vietnam after all.
 

Syagrius

Member
Apr 23, 2019
45
Again Bullshit, the deal wasn't even in place long enough for economic reforms,
Nonsense. What economic reforms? Name one. The IRI had 2,5 years to make a noticeable improvement to ordinary Iranians. They didn't. Rouhani doesn't even deny it, his state budgets in recent years increased the funding for religious institutions and the IRGC while they were cutting in the social welfare system, loans, subsidies and inflation was soaring.

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,
Those are proliferation-related sanctions. Cut the excuses.

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.
They had sufficient time to make a tangible positive change to the economy. They didn't because they refused to do so. So, Iranians don't have the right to be angry because it wasn't written in the deal?

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.
Seriously? You are seriously putting some amount of spindoctoring here to whitewash the Islamic Republic. Every party involved said clearly this deal was the first step in reconciliation. I know the EU put some serious effort in the next step, Rouhani said yesterday Obama proposed it 19(!) times. Khamenei refused. They showed their domestic and foreign policy are irreformable, but keep blaming everyone else for their actions.

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.
Oh, I blame Trump. As I said. And I blame the Islamic Republic. With good reason.

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.
You said JCPOA gave them the opportunity to intervene in Iraq. It's clear it didn't. And, Daesh doesn't even has it's main base in Africa, but those countries had more soldiers killed?

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,
EU, Russia and China are still in the deal. They are still in joint projects from technical cooperation projects, joint R&D, establishing a medical centre, personnel training etc. All economic sanctions are still lifted, but companies prefer their trade with the US, not with Iran. Cut the excuses.

at this point what does Iran gain from staying in the deal? nothing.
Then pull out and stop threatening countries who are observing their part of the deal.

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.
Enlighten me of time when the EU send suicide bombers to gatherings in Iran. No, really.
 

Alzarius23

Member
Oct 30, 2017
326
Nonsense. What economic reforms? Name one. The IRI had 2,5 years to make a noticeable improvement to ordinary Iranians. They didn't. Rouhani doesn't even deny it, his state budgets in recent years increased the funding for religious institutions and the IRGC while they were cutting in the social welfare system, loans, subsidies and inflation was soaring.



Those are proliferation-related sanctions. Cut the excuses.



They had sufficient time to make a tangible positive change to the economy. They didn't because they refused to do so. So, Iranians don't have the right to be angry because it wasn't written in the deal?



Seriously? You are seriously putting some amount of spindoctoring here to whitewash the Islamic Republic. Every party involved said clearly this deal was the first step in reconciliation. I know the EU put some serious effort in the next step, Rouhani said yesterday Obama proposed it 19(!) times. Khamenei refused. They showed their domestic and foreign policy are irreformable, but keep blaming everyone else for their actions.



Oh, I blame Trump. As I said. And I blame the Islamic Republic. With good reason.



You said JCPOA gave them the opportunity to intervene in Iraq. It's clear it didn't. And, Daesh doesn't even has it's main base in Africa, but those countries had more soldiers killed?



EU, Russia and China are still in the deal. They are still in joint projects from technical cooperation projects, joint R&D, establishing a medical centre, personnel training etc. All economic sanctions are still lifted, but companies prefer their trade with the US, not with Iran. Cut the excuses.



Then pull out and stop threatening countries who are observing their part of the deal.



Enlighten me of time when the EU send suicide bombers to gatherings in Iran. No, really.
Anybody who says things were not getting better in Iran is simply delusional. The inflation, for the first time after the revolution, was sustainably in single digits, the economy was growing at close to 10 percent, public healthcare was lunched and 3G and 4G were rolled out in 2 years. For the first time government started unblocking websites, for example Neogaf was unblocked countrywide. Youtube, Quora and Reddit were unblocked on our campus and morality police was removed from our university's gate and some girls started not wearing headscarves in some labs. Also, fasting and hijab laws were enforced much more lightly throughout the country.

As for military build up, what IR did was completely rational. When senators wrote a letter and suggested that Iran not negotiate with US because they will shoot down the deal as soon as they can no matter how Iran acts, it makes total sense to build deterrence. Actually, the only country still doing business with Iran is Iraq which has big Iranian military presence.

If the nuclear deal had worked out, there was a big chance that Rouhani would be the next supreme leader. Now a hardliner is going to be the next supreme leader. Like you said Khamenei vetod further negotiation and now somebody like Khamenei will replace him. No negotiations are probably in US interest as it builds pretext for war and I think you see your interest in war.

I don't know where you are from but you sound awfully similar to MEK.
 

Bliman

Member
Jan 21, 2019
928
Under what pretense would the USA attack? In other words, what would Trump say to the people to justify this?
I see zero chance that America would attack or go to war? I think this is very weird. Why the military build up?
I would understand it a little if they pressurize them to sit on the table to negotiate a new Iran deal. But Trump doesn't even talk about that.
It is super weird to me.
 

Sectorseven

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,757

sphagnum

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,840
Under what pretense would the USA attack? In other words, what would Trump say to the people to justify this?
I see zero chance that America would attack or go to war? I think this is very weird. Why the military build up?
I would understand it a little if they pressurize them to sit on the table to negotiate a new Iran deal. But Trump doesn't even talk about that.
It is super weird to me.
This is all Bolton. He's a neoconservative and wants to spread little American puppet states throughout the Middle East.
 

GodofWine

Member
Oct 26, 2017
2,361
All I gotta say is good f'n luck if anyone tries to actually puts boots on the ground there. 120,000 US troops won't even make it to the foot hills of the mountains. The only way to invade Iran is to work from the inside out. The country is a mountain fortress, it cannot be invaded, nor can the invade anyone else (supply lines out of the mountains is just as tough.)
 

thefit

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,550
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/16/world/middleeast/iran-trump.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

WASHINGTON — President Trump has told his acting defense secretary, Patrick Shanahan, that he does not want to go to war with Iran, according to several administration officials, in a message to his hawkish aides that an intensifying American pressure campaign against the clerical-led government in Tehran must not escalate into open conflict.
What an idiot. The neocon hawks and FOX news walked him right into this position by convincing him the Iran deal was “the worst deal ever” and systematically having him do everything the Saudis and Israelis want heading into this point. Fucking moron.
 

Syagrius

Member
Apr 23, 2019
45
Anybody who says things were not getting better in Iran is simply delusional. The inflation, for the first time after the revolution, was sustainably in single digits, the economy was growing at close to 10 percent,
Could be, people in Iran were even much kinder then I had expected, and I know a lot of people from the Iranian diaspora here. I stayed with a family who were disappointed/frustrated with the economic outcomes of the deal. Cutting cash handouts, continued unemployment and corruption, lack of foreign investment etc.

public healthcare was lunched and 3G and 4G were rolled out in 2 years.
Wasn't that more of a continuation/restart of the reforms from the Khatami period? At least, that's what I was told.

For the first time government started unblocking websites, for example Neogaf was unblocked countrywide. Youtube, Quora and Reddit were unblocked on our campus and morality police was removed from our university's gate and some girls started not wearing headscarves in some labs. Also, fasting and hijab laws were enforced much more lightly throughout the country.
I admit, I wasn't aware of this.

As for military build up, what IR did was completely rational. When senators wrote a letter and suggested that Iran not negotiate with US because they will shoot down the deal as soon as they can no matter how Iran acts, it makes total sense to build deterrence. Actually, the only country still doing business with Iran is Iraq which has big Iranian military presence.
But why the lack of reforming/investment in it's own country and economy?

If the nuclear deal had worked out, there was a big chance that Rouhani would be the next supreme leader. Now a hardliner is going to be the next supreme leader. Like you said Khamenei vetod further negotiation and now somebody like Khamenei will replace him.
I know there are quite some Iranians who believe this and I find it astonishing. The guardian council is dominated by hard-liners, Rouhani was never popular with clerics and Khamenei opposed further negotiation. So why would they want to be replaced with someone who does?

No negotiations are probably in US interest as it builds pretext for war and I think you see your interest in war.

I don't know where you are from but you sound awfully similar to MEK.
I already said multiple times I'm opposed to these sanctions and war. Is being heavily critical of the IRI now something to be associated with a terror cult? C'mon.
 
Last edited:

Mr Swine

The Fallen
Oct 26, 2017
1,867
Sweden
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/16/world/middleeast/iran-trump.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

WASHINGTON — President Trump has told his acting defense secretary, Patrick Shanahan, that he does not want to go to war with Iran, according to several administration officials, in a message to his hawkish aides that an intensifying American pressure campaign against the clerical-led government in Tehran must not escalate into open conflict.
Bolton and the other war hawks must be tearing their hair and mustaches of in frustration
 

Alzarius23

Member
Oct 30, 2017
326
Isn't that more of a continuation/restart of the reforms from the Khatami period? At least, that's what I was told.
There was almost universal health insurance meaning that you could get medical care at a low price but in the new system, everybody's medical record was saved and doctors were assigned to monitor these records.


there are quite some Iranians who believe this and I find it astonishing. The guardian council is dominated by hard-liners, Rouhani was never popular with clerics and Khamenei opposed further negotiation. So why would they want to be replaced with someone who does?
The hard line clerics are not nice people but they are not dumb. They know that being enemy with the world doesn't end well. Rouhani offered a way to amend the ties gradually so they could save face and their dignity. Now they are cornered so they can't both improve the relations and keep their dignity what Trump want is complete surrender.

I already said multiple times I'm opposed to these sanctions and war. Is being heavily critical of the IRI now something to be associated with a terror cult? C'mon.
Sorry I thought you were advocating for sanctions and war. Should've read better. MEK people usually say the regime is not reformable in order to paint themselves as the only alternative.


BTW, one thing I noticed about the diaspora is that once they have lived outside Iran for significant amount of time, their calculations change because they are not the ones who have to pay the price.
 
Last edited:

Rocket Man

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,175
Bolton is not only an evil piece of dog shit but also a complete dumb fuck. Sanctions are unlikely to get rid of the current regime in Iran and war is the best way to unite the country. It'll make Iraq look like a warm up, the entire Middle East will be burning. Crazy how this dipshit didn't learn a single thing from his adventure in Iraq.
 

Syagrius

Member
Apr 23, 2019
45
There was almost universal health insurance meaning that you could get medical care at a low price but in the new system, everybody's medical record was saved and doctors were assigned to monitor these records.
I know that's a huge improvement, but is that actually impressive when you think about the fact that these reforms started two decades ago, Iran is a huge oil producer and economic sanctions from the west were lifted over three years ago?

The hard line clerics are not nice people but they are not dumb. They know that being enemy with the world doesn't end well. Rouhani offered a way to amend the ties gradually so they could save face and their dignity. Now they are cornered so they can't both improve the relations and keep their dignity what Trump want is complete surrender.
I can't look into the heads of the clergy, so I base my opinion mostly on what I read in books/papers/analyses, see in practice, and hear from Iranians. They can do it with India and China, why not with rest? The fact is that European countries and the US, (not counting Trump and Bush Jr) have done some serious effort in improving relations, esp. Obama. It didn't pay off, especially with the U.S. I'm pretty much convinced that what may have been genuine resentment has now become pure ideology and/or legitimezing rule. It may sound radical, but I don't have another explanation. It's not that suprising if you look at the government structure, it seems designed around keeping hardliners in power.

Sorry I thought you were advocating for sanctions and war. Should've read better. MEK people usually say the regime is not reformable in order to paint themselves as the only alternative.
Nah. It's a vile cult which we should have pressed to disband instead of taking it off the terror list. Huge mistake.

BTW, one thing I noticed about the diaspora is that once they have lived outside Iran for significant amount of time, their calculations change because they are not the ones who have to pay the price of regime change if shit goes down here.
You're talking about revolution or war? Because nobody I from the diaspora here wants a war.
 

poklane

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,235
the Netherlands
Whoops https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-told-aides-he-doesnt-want-war-with-iran-11558036762
Intelligence collected by the U.S. government shows Iran’s leaders believe the U.S. planned to attack them, prompting preparation by Tehran for possible counterstrikes, according to one interpretation of the information, people familiar with the matter said.

That view of the intelligence could help explain why Iranian forces and their allies took action that was seen as threatening to U.S. forces in Iraq and elsewhere, prompting a U.S. military buildup in the Persian Gulf region and a drawdown of U.S. diplomats in Iraq.
Bolton is trying to trick Iran into firing the first shot, and he almost did it.
 

poklane

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,235
the Netherlands
On the sabotage against the tankers in the Gulf: Insurer says Iran's Guards likely to have organised tanker attacks
Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) are “highly likely” to have facilitated attacks last Sunday on four tankers including two Saudi ships off Fujairah in the United Arab Emirates, according to a Norwegian insurers’ report seen by Reuters.

The UAE, Saudi Arabia and Norway are investigating the attacks, which also hit a UAE- and a Norwegian-flagged vessel.

A confidential assessment issued this week by the Norwegian Shipowners’ Mutual War Risks Insurance Association (DNK) concluded that the attack was likely to have been carried out by a surface vessel operating close by that despatched underwater drones carrying 30-50 kg (65-110 lb) of high-grade explosives to detonate on impact.

The DNK based its assessment that the IRGC was likely to have orchestrated the attacks on a number of factors, including:

- A high likelihood that the IRGC had previously supplied its allies, the Houthi militia fighting a Saudi-backed government in Yemen, with explosive-laden surface drone boats capable of homing in on GPS navigational positions for accuracy.

- The similarity of shrapnel found on the Norwegian tanker to shrapnel from drone boats used off Yemen by Houthis, even though the craft previously used by the Houthis were surface boats rather than the underwater drones likely to have been deployed in Fujairah.

- The fact that Iran and particularly the IRGC had recently threatened to use military force and that, against a militarily stronger foe, they were highly likely to choose “asymmetric measures with plausible deniability”. DNK noted that the Fujairah attack had caused “relatively limited damage” and had been carried out at a time when U.S. Navy ships were still en route to the Gulf.
Full article: https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-iran-oil-tankers-exclusive-idUKKCN1SN1OS