They have both managed to save face Iran won't start a war it has no chance of winning and the Americans know a war with Iran would be messy with a lot of unintended consequences.
US kills Iran's General Soleimani
- Thread starter Malevolence
- Start date
Yes. Providing each side can frame the events as a victory, the stalemate holds.
It's an uneasy and delicate stalemate but that's better than all-out war.
Diplomacy is a strange creature.
Caporegime
All out war just isn’t on the cards, look at it this way, Iran & Iraq had a bitterly fought and bloody contest over 8 years which bar the shouting ended in a draw.
The U.S. military effectively rolled over the Iraqi army in less than a month, Iran watched and knows this only too well.
They seem the masters of pushing the U.S. to the brink without getting a full retaliation, I do fear though that there will be a follow up attack by an Iranian backed 3rd party which will get an extreme response from Trump, for his many many many flaws I don’t think any plausible deniability such attacks in the past have held will wash with him, and that’s something I really don’t want to see.
For now, it’s calming down, but I don’t think we’ve seen the last of this by any stretch.
I just pray Iran don’t think they can carry on as before with Trump as the commander in chief, I suspect they might but pray they don’t.
The U.S. military effectively rolled over the Iraqi army in less than a month, Iran watched and knows this only too well.
They seem the masters of pushing the U.S. to the brink without getting a full retaliation, I do fear though that there will be a follow up attack by an Iranian backed 3rd party which will get an extreme response from Trump, for his many many many flaws I don’t think any plausible deniability such attacks in the past have held will wash with him, and that’s something I really don’t want to see.
For now, it’s calming down, but I don’t think we’ve seen the last of this by any stretch.
I just pray Iran don’t think they can carry on as before with Trump as the commander in chief, I suspect they might but pray they don’t.
Well because they didn’t believe it was dealing with that issue. Regardless of your view on that it wasn’t dealing with this issue re: the attacks on US forces.
Soldato
The US was able to get *all* the sanctions reimposed? I missed those news stories.
Again, lifting sanctions and making the terms temporary just allows Iran to have more money for when they restart their nuclear program. Counterproductive in my view.
Who the **** changed my thread title, and why? It was factually correct and broke no rules. Or are the rules on here now just made up by whichever moderator is on duty at the time?
If the US had suffered casualties last night then there probably would be all-out war. Some very knowledgeable people were looking quite concerned when interviewed in the early hours right up until they knew there were no US casualties.
Alternatively they were trying to undo Obama’s legacy, they were trying to ostracize Iran for political purposes or a significant other number of options.
Europe didn’t have a problem with the way the deal went and have been fighting to keep it going against significant US headwind for the last two years.
Yeah that definitely would have changed the picture dramatically.
Perhaps not internationally no, but that’s in part because of the partisan nature of the way the US backtracked on the deal.
Either way, the US breaking the deal is likely to speed up the nuclear ambitions of Iran... The fact that trump keeps talking about a new “Trump” deal is telling IMO.
In all likelihood, if Trump loses in November one of the first things an incoming Democrat president will do is try an reinstate the deal. That’s assuming Iran trust them enough to believe this time the US will abide by the terms.
You were on here last night and following live too, right Rroff? It was very tense for a while, wasn't it?
Soldato
They hit several targets, mainly installations, hangars and equipment, no deaths. I suspect the Americans had forewarning from them anyway.
As for Soleimani, I genuinely would not be surprised if the Iranians purposefully leaked his movements to the Americans knowing they'd strike him. He was getting pretty powerful. You never know, I've heard more whacky theories in the past.
Huge amount of uncertainty as to what Iran's intent was and how far they'd go last night.
Don't forget the parking lot - huge inconvenience with the parking lot out of action!
Soldato
Well, they do like their automobiles
While I don't really know how nationally inclined Iranian soldiers are, I'd imagine they'd be a bit more willing to put up a fight, especially when they have the benefit of Iran's geography. But the Iraqi army didn't get rolled over, they scattered and became insurgents basically turning the short five days-five months war into a nearly permanent state of conflict (ending up with the creation of ISIS and it's ill-effect regionally). Though that was partly due to Iran's influence in a situation where it would have been dumb of them not to involve themselves.
It was a huge relief when Michael Pregent (US advisor) speculated that the attack may have been a token retaliation, deliberately avoiding the US sections of the bases, and again when it was confirmed that nothing had hit anything American by accident.
Soldato
They destroyed a US helicopter and damaged an MQ1C?
But you're right, it was a token retaliation, politically to be seen to be doing.
Yes, we know that now, but in the small hours last night nobody knew their intention or exactly what had been hit. It was nearly "letter for home time" for the lads.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 28,886
Edit - wrong thread.
Last edited: