It was only for their own population, i see they're claiming they killed 80 US solders :/
US kills Iran's General Soleimani
- Thread starter Malevolence
- Start date
It was only for their own population, i see they're claiming they killed 80 US solders :/
I think he needs more justification for a military response and doesn't currently have it or international support for it. We'll see whether Iran take the opportunity to draw a line under it now as any loss of US / coalition service personnel I think will see a different response.
Nah, Iran will just bomb someone in Brazil or Indonesia or somewhere discreet and not claim any knowledge. They've done this in the past anyway, but maybe Iran might decide that it's more beneficial to just slowly let it simmer.
It did seem earlier that BJ's comments about Qasem Soleimani having blood on his hands was possibly a public primmer for possible US retaliation or us being drawn further into it.
Of course it's not that simple. It's a complex issue that needs a lot more work than just throwing missiles at each other.
On the other hand why scrap a deal that was actually dealing with one of those issues?
These latest incidents are unrelated to the nuclear deal and the deal would still be in place if Trump hadn't scrapped it.
Supposedly the US was tracking the missiles well in advance of them hitting and didn't bother with counter-measures - these multi-stage type medium range ballistic missiles are a fairly hittable target for anti-ballistic missile systems.
Pretty much this. His allies, while saying they were not against the death of Soleimani, have made it very clear they the US shouldn't start a war over Iran's retaliation and the US house are pretty clear that they don't support a war either.
Under that pressure the White House can't really do much more unless Iran decide to continue retaliation, which they don't seem interested in.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 7,175
I must have missed where I said one was acceptable and one wasnt.
That "deal" allowed Iran to resume enrichment after some time frame. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Iran followed the terms of the deal, I would say it was delaying an issue rather than dealing with it.
Misinformation for the Iranian populace, doesn't really matter what we think of it.
When asked Iranian state TV couldn't provide any details on how they came by the information, so it's made up.
Problem for Iran is their citizens aren't stupid and have access to the internet. So they are going to find out.
From what I can make out I don't think a lot of the Iranian population actually care - it is more the zealots and militias, etc.
A lot of that will depend on how deeply they trust their own government vs 'the West'.
If they're told "the US are lying to save face and avoid fighting us, we've scared them off" I can imagine a good portion of the population would be happy to accept that.
It's not just western media. Al Jazeera etc. are calling BS as well.
Al Jazeera is not Iranian.
He didn't say they were...
Yes, but just because Al Jazeera is a Middle-East news source, doesn't make them anymore relevant than European or American sources to Iran, even if Iran isn't a completely cut off country, Iranian leaders aren't going to be annoyed that outside (enemy) sources are saying something different to domestic ones. It can all be washed away as misinformation for Iranian citizens, and the more sceptical aren't going to raise their head up over it for it to be shot off.
Ultimately it just doesn't really matter, accuracy is irrelevant to Iran, don't see why this is that important.