Exactly.
Ideally the powers then need to set up another deal, dealing with the never ending proxy battles going on in the region.l. Instead the Trump administration broke the existing deal, blaming Iran.
US kills Iran's General Soleimani
- Thread starter Malevolence
- Start date
Exactly.
Ideally the powers then need to set up another deal, dealing with the never ending proxy battles going on in the region.l. Instead the Trump administration broke the existing deal, blaming Iran.
Does seem that way and sensible if the attack yesterday was a token one etc.. and for Iranian domestic consumption. Either way, the message was sent to Iran, rules of the game have changed - proxy attacks can be responded to with direct attacks now so they'd best re-think their strategy for getting the US out of the region.
well to be fair Obama did just that but Trump decided it was a bad deal even when he was told numerous times by us and other allies to leave it alone.
Iran won’t bother negotiating again after Trump and I honestly don’t blame them.
America’s word is no longer taken seriously and won’t be for quite some time after Trump has gone.
Although I do hope they can somehow find a way to re-negotiate the Iran deal with a president who is far more competent than Trump.
They're saying Iran deliberately missed targets during it' strike.
I’d hope that Iran are sensible and realize that at the very least they should go back to the table when Trump is gone. Yes, the US may renegade on another deal, but historically they are generally reasonably good at keeping to their word.
That’s obviously depending on who gets in next.
Probably too late for the US though, If Iran has enough control of Iraqi governance.
Not all that simple - I mean if it were then while you're at it why not just "set up another deal" to tackle the Israeli/Palestinian crisis. There are way too many overlapping and directly conflicting interests within the region between the US and its allies and Iran and its allies/funded groups among Shia populations.
The US wanted Iran to stop attacking its troops/facilities in Iraq, it seems (for now) Iran might have gotten the message.
Never is a very strong word...
so glad everyone is walking back from this for now, the regions and the world does not need another senseless war and i don't believe trump or the Iranians want war.
But iran sent a very important message back that most missed. Its missile are VERY accurate and operating any airbase or military facility within its missile ranges will be next to impossible. Iran effectively has a massive first strike and counter strike force with its large amount of accurate ballistic missiles. If you hit Iran they will hit back just as hard. The implications are for any future war, all these military facilities surrounding Iran are next to useless. A plane needs a runway to land on and maintenance facility to perform operational requirements, without those they are useless.
https://twitter.com/divert_thruster/status/1214952888386117634
Then it was pointless.
Either they are incompetent and missed, or they are scared of what the US would do so minced around a bit. Neither are are a good message to send.
Well Iran can't hit back just as hard, or it wouldn't be playing this game. Iran knows that it needs a temporary reprieve to regroup on tactics and the US doesn't actually want a war, so it works for both sides, essentially in Iran's favour as their designs for the Middle east continue.
As long as they can successfully control Iraq or at least have it as an ally, then Iran has so far won more than the West has. If the West wanted to stop Iran, then it can and always could. As long as Iran's current establishment and aims exist, they will continue to slowly win the long-term situation in the region, before conflicts begin with the Saudi's or Turk's in earnest though I imagine the West will no longer care by then.
But iran can just develop nuclear weapons and ICBM and how would you stop that? Could not stop north korea.
But it can hit back, just look at the pictures. What do you think that is?
Think its time to just leave these people alone.
Well they'd never use it for one, if they're sane anyway, but that just makes preemptively erasing Iran politically all the more likely.
Bomb proof bunkers do exist and they aren't incompetent. Only a full-scale invasion or revolution will stop them from getting there eventually.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 35,711
Some of the 15 failed to reach their targets, they're not all that reliable but yes they do seem to be accurate, see also the Saudi oil facility attacks by Iran a few months ago - they're capable of hitting targets - still it doesn't make things impossible. Also this stuff takes time to coordinate... there are logistical considerations too if they wanted to launch anything sustained and frankly with what they'd be sent back in return is going to make things ridiculously hard for them. I'd not envy anyone being on the receiving end of the amount of firepower the US has available.
Also the US is hardly going to tell all with regards to battle damage assessment, let some of the locals Iran has on their payroll attempt to do that for them with a smart phone etc.. (and hopefully get caught). We don't know how many missiles failed upon reaching the target etc...
Runways can be fixed surprisingly quickly - I don't know about the US but the UK has Royal Engineer units that specifically deal with runway repair and the RAF certainly used to train to make use of short, ad hoc runways with the likes of harrier etc... back in the day. I'd assume the US has quite a large capability in this area with the likes of the F35. Also the use of Carriers, rather more remote bases for larger aircraft - you make a fair point but that is the reason the likes of B52s and B1s etc.. will fly from Diego Garcia well out of the way of Iranian missiles. B2s can fly from California and back if needed.
Right and wrong have nothing to do with this unfortunately, they're perspectives. As you say, we seem to be discussing different points.
What I'm arguing is not my personal view of what is right and wrong, but the justification each country is using to attack the other. Both the US and Iran obviously think they are in the right, for example, and are justifying their actions based on the actions of the other. Or more precisely the hardliners on both sides are doing it. The moderates are trying to calm the whole thing down.
Again, perception. The US were the ones that withdrew from the nuclear deal. Iran were (by international accounts) adhering to the deal. Trump tried to change the deal to encompass far more than it originally did. The US has subsequently been the first of the two to directly target the others "assets".
The west have "done stuff too". That's one of my other points. Neither side is innocent in all this. One side may be "worse" than the other but as this is not a court of law it's heavily reliant on the side you stand as to who is "worse". In this situation we can't ignore the fact that Iran have been backing proxy attacks on western "assets", but we also can't ignore that the US has been backing proxy attacks on Iranian "assets" and have been instrumental in hardships and deaths in Iran over the last 30+ years due to sanctions, and have been implicated in several attempts at regime change in Iran.
TL
R: It's politics, right and wrong don't come into it.Agreed, but equally what Trump has done has not helped the situation. It's given the hardliners more power over the last few years.
Iran have (rightfully) worries about the US being it's next door neighbour. They have (rightfully) worries about Saudi influence growing. To ignore these worries is to ignore the cause of the problems in the first place. Hence why there needs to be a concerted effort by moderates on both sides to actually try and deal with those issues diplomatically, rather than claim one side is part of the "axis of evil" and the other side is the "great Satan".
All we're going to get with the current situation is more death. The US need to reign in their proxies and allies like Saudi and Israel and Iran need to reign in their proxies.
Very different situation - you can't just go and bomb nuclear facilities in North Korea, with Iran you'll find Israel would be very keen to do exactly that and has done so in the past too.
