US tensions with Iran

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Gocka
    Senior Member
    • Dec 2012
    • 2306

    US tensions with Iran

    Anyone watching what is unfolding between Iran and the USA?

    It seems the Trump administration, particularly John Bolton is hell bent on starting some kind of conflict with Iran. The situation has all the early warning signs that the US is making up precursors for war.

    Apart from Iran being the last opposing power in the region, I don't see what the angle/benefit is to the US to get involved in a potentially disastrous conflict with a fairly powerful opponent.

    Watch this space.
  • Phoenix
    Senior Member
    • Dec 2008
    • 4671

    #2
    Originally posted by Gocka View Post
    Anyone watching what is unfolding between Iran and the USA?

    It seems the Trump administration, particularly John Bolton is hell bent on starting some kind of conflict with Iran. The situation has all the early warning signs that the US is making up precursors for war.

    Apart from Iran being the last opposing power in the region, I don't see what the angle/benefit is to the US to get involved in a potentially disastrous conflict with a fairly powerful opponent.

    Watch this space.
    I saw something somewhere today that was written by a journo with contacts with someone in the Russian govt/diplomatic community...

    The Russian's are apparently very confident that the US will bite off more than they can chew on this occasion...

    I can see Israel being nuked if things turned sour and I think that is the only reason that will hold back the US from attacking.

    Comment

    • Karposh
      Member
      • Aug 2015
      • 863

      #3
      Would I be correct in suggesting that American Presidents are just token figure heads these days and that real power in America is being wielded by other, more shadowy characters behind the scenes? Iran has been part of the "Axis of Evil" narrative since 9/11. Is Trump merely implementing today what has been an inevitable foreign policy for quite some time now?

      Comment

      • Phoenix
        Senior Member
        • Dec 2008
        • 4671

        #4
        Originally posted by Karposh View Post
        Would I be correct in suggesting that American Presidents are just token figure heads these days and that real power in America is being wielded by other, more shadowy characters behind the scenes? Iran has been part of the "Axis of Evil" narrative since 9/11. Is Trump merely implementing today what has been an inevitable foreign policy for quite some time now?
        I think the State Department sets the agenda, a bit like a 5 year business plan, although their timeline maybe in the order of 25 - 50 years and their business is world domination...they are merely picking off the threats, one-by-one until the last man standing is Russia...their grand plan has been derailed virtually overnight with the exponential growth of China in the last two decades as well as the military, technological reemergence of the Russian Federation in recent years...but the journey (and US propaganda) continues...

        Comment

        • Karposh
          Member
          • Aug 2015
          • 863

          #5
          Originally posted by Phoenix View Post
          I think the State Department sets the agenda, a bit like a 5 year business plan, although their timeline maybe in the order of 25 - 50 years and their business is world domination...they are merely picking off the threats, one-by-one until the last man standing is Russia...their grand plan has been derailed virtually overnight with the exponential growth of China in the last two decades as well as the military, technological reemergence of the Russian Federation in recent years...but the journey (and US propaganda) continues...
          Thanks for the clarification. Don't forget Syria. That didn't go to plan for them either once Putin stepped in. Where's the caliphate now? It's old news thanks to the Russians. What did go according to plan was to get as many Muslim refugees into Europe as possible. There are many theories (included a Jewish conspiracy) on why the bulk of the male Syrian (mainly young) population converged on Europe but that's probably best left for another thread.

          Comment

          • Phoenix
            Senior Member
            • Dec 2008
            • 4671

            #6
            Originally posted by Karposh View Post
            Thanks for the clarification. Don't forget Syria. That didn't go to plan for them either once Putin stepped in. Where's the caliphate now? It's old news thanks to the Russians. What did go according to plan was to get as many Muslim refugees into Europe as possible. There are many theories (included a Jewish conspiracy) on why the bulk of the male Syrian (mainly young) population converged on Europe but that's probably best left for another thread.
            I think there are a couple of good analogies to describe the power of the president...one analogy would be of a new coach/manager taking over a sporting team, change rarely happens overnight, usually the coach has the same players, the same staff and is accountable to the same management, culture takes time to change...

            The second analogy is that of a very large ship, that has a very large turning circle, once the course is set, big changes are difficult...

            I guess there has never really been a true end to WWII, the war just continued on in many smaller fronts and in far flung corners of the globe but the recruitment of allies by both ideological sides continues today...

            Comment

            • Gocka
              Senior Member
              • Dec 2012
              • 2306

              #7
              I wouldn't call it a deep state action. The Obama administration seemed determined to avoid conflict at all costs. That is the main reason they pushed so hard to sign the nuclear agreement with Iran, to avoid having to take direct intervention.

              As soon as Trump got into office he essentially canceled the Nuclear deal and imposed sanctions, backing Iran into the corner yet again that the Obama administration slowly brought Iran out of. Ever since John Bolton took for Mattis, the US has gotten extremely confrontational with Iran.

              They are trying to blame Iran for some drone attacks on Saudi oil infrastructure, the US also made some bogus claims that Iran was about to attack the US in the region. They are clearly goaded Iran into a conflict and I fear one wrong move on Iran's part and the US will send its military.

              I suppose you could take the view that Obama thwarted the deep state in relation to Iran, but if anything Trump seems more against the establishment than Obama ever did.

              I honestly think its all John Bolton. That dude has been screaming for war with basically everyone for his entire career, and he found a president in Trump who is easy to manipulate, similar to how some of the people around Bush junior wanted war and found Bush easy to manipulate.

              I also wouldn't put it past Trump to want a conflict in order to draw attention away from his legal woes. Regardless this is heating up fast and its terrifying to watch.

              Comment

              • Carlin
                Senior Member
                • Dec 2011
                • 3332

                #8
                Originally posted by Gocka View Post
                I wouldn't call it a deep state action. The Obama administration seemed determined to avoid conflict at all costs. That is the main reason they pushed so hard to sign the nuclear agreement with Iran, to avoid having to take direct intervention.

                As soon as Trump got into office he essentially canceled the Nuclear deal and imposed sanctions, backing Iran into the corner yet again that the Obama administration slowly brought Iran out of. Ever since John Bolton took for Mattis, the US has gotten extremely confrontational with Iran
                I feel like this is all some sort of "posturing" considering the U.S. already "attacked" Iran using Stuxnet many years ago. Stuxnet is a malicious computer worm and a Cyberweapon, first uncovered in 2010. On 1 June 2012, an article in The New York Times said that Stuxnet is part of a US and Israeli intelligence operation called "Operation Olympic Games", started under President George W. Bush and expanded under President Barack Obama.

                Stuxnet destroyed centrifuges inside Iran's Natanz uranium enrichment site but it may have been only one element of a much larger US-prepared cyberattack plan that targeted Iran's air defenses, communications systems, and key parts of its power grid.

                McAfee - What is Stuxnet?

                Stuxnet is a computer worm that was originally aimed at Iran’s nuclear facilities and has since mutated and spread to other industrial and energy-producing facilities. The original Stuxnet malware attack targeted the programmable logic controllers (PLCs) used to automate machine processes. It generated a flurry of media attention after it was discovered in 2010 because it was the first known virus to be capable of crippling hardware and because it appeared to have been created by the U.S. National Security Agency, the CIA, and Israeli intelligence.



                More links/videos below.

                STUXNET Video: The Virus that Almost Started WW3
                Subscribe for more Hungry Beast: http://bit.ly/HungryBeastIn June last year, a computer virus called Stuxnet was discovered lurking in the data banks of powe...


                Stuxnet Worm Attack on Iranian Nuclear Facilities


                Massive US-planned cyberattack against Iran went well beyond Stuxnet


                Wikipedia entry on Stuxnet
                Last edited by Carlin; 05-15-2019, 09:00 PM.

                Comment

                • Soldier of Macedon
                  Senior Member
                  • Sep 2008
                  • 13670

                  #9
                  Originally posted by Gocka View Post
                  I honestly think its all John Bolton.
                  So do I. Trump never should’ve let that guy back in a position like the one he currently holds.
                  In the name of the blood and the sun, the dagger and the gun, Christ protect this soldier, a lion and a Macedonian.

                  Comment

                  • Gocka
                    Senior Member
                    • Dec 2012
                    • 2306

                    #10
                    Originally posted by Soldier of Macedon View Post
                    So do I. Trump never should’ve let that guy back in a position like the one he currently holds.
                    Trump must be reading our forum! Just saw on the news that the NY times is reporting that Trump has been lashing out privately that Bolton and Pompeo are getting ahead of themselves and leading the US down the warpath which is not what Trump wants.

                    It further went on to say that Trump wants to speak with Iran and make some kind of deal with them, not go to war. Yet Bolton and Pompeo ordered 120,00 troops be sent to the region. Mind you these are 2 people that Trump appointed. Bolton is fucking crazy, his solution to everything is war.

                    Comment

                    • Soldier of Macedon
                      Senior Member
                      • Sep 2008
                      • 13670

                      #11
                      Originally posted by Gocka View Post
                      Mind you these are 2 people that Trump appointed.
                      Both of them mistakes (especially Bolton). They were probably chosen at the behest of others within his party that have their own interests. Hopefully he gives both of them the boot soon, like he has with certain others.
                      In the name of the blood and the sun, the dagger and the gun, Christ protect this soldier, a lion and a Macedonian.

                      Comment

                      • Carlin
                        Senior Member
                        • Dec 2011
                        • 3332

                        #12


                        Top Ten Differences Between the Iraq War and Trump’s Proposed Iran War

                        URL:


                        By Juan Cole
                        Global Research, May 17, 2019
                        Informed Comment 15 May 2019

                        1. Iraq is 168,754 mi² and Iran is 636,400 mi²; that is, Iran is geographically 3.77 times bigger than Iraq, almost 4 times as big.

                        2. Iraq’s population when invaded was 26 million. Iran’s population today is 81 million.

                        3. General Eric Shinseki testified before Congress prior to Bush’s invasion that based on the US military’s experience in the Balkans, 800,000 troops would be needed to provide security to Iraq. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld insisted on 100,000 troops, wrongly believing he could pull them out in 6 months. Bush’s viceroy in Iraq, Paul Bremer, later admitted that “we never had enough troops” in Iraq.

                        4. Since Iran is 3 times as populous as Iraq, by Shinseki’s correct calculation, the US would need 2.4 million troops to occupy Iran.

                        5. The US total military personnel count is about 2,141,900, of whom 1,281,900 are active duty and the rest reservists.

                        6. Iraq’s army was a conventional military force with four powerful tank divisions, which the US Air Force turned to black carbon dust. The US only ran into trouble when Iraqis opposed to the invasion turned to guerrilla tactics, which the US never was able to deal with effectively.

                        7. Iran can already mobilize at least 1.5 million paramilitary “Basij” forces for guerrilla warfare. This is in addition to over 500,000 active duty military personnel.

                        8. Iraq was largely ruled by a small Sunni minority of perhaps 17% of the population. Iran is ruled by the Shiite majority that makes up 90% of the population. That Iraq had a minority government allowed the Bush administration to make friends in the majority Shiite community by putting them in power. This step alienated and angered the Sunnis, but they were a minority and so could not do much about it. In Iran, the Shiite majority would mount a massive struggle against the US invaders.

                        9. Bush found international allies for his war on Iraq, including Britain and Spain. No one in Western Europe would join Trump in a war with Iran, making the US isolated and causing it to look like a unilateralist bully.

                        10. Whereas Iraq’s neighbors– Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia in particular– had been mauled by Saddam and so did not strongly oppose Bush’s invasion, Shiite Iraqis, many Syrians, the Hazaras of Afghanistan, and the some 40 million Shiites of Pakistan would support Iran.
                        Last edited by Carlin; 05-19-2019, 12:06 AM.

                        Comment

                        • Pelagonija
                          Member
                          • Mar 2017
                          • 533

                          #13
                          War is good for business, US is approving 8 billion dollars of weapon sales to Saudi due to “rising tensions”

                          The president uses a legal loophole to push through the arms deal without Congressional approval.

                          Comment

                          • Carlin
                            Senior Member
                            • Dec 2011
                            • 3332

                            #14
                            Things are in motion on several "fronts", i.e. Huawei ban.

                            Earlier this week, Trump described the Chinese firm as “very dangerous” when it comes to security.

                            URL:
                            The reality of Huawei's uphill struggle is becoming clear, the implications of the US ban on American companies working with the Chinese telecoms firm exposing…

                            Comment

                            • Gocka
                              Senior Member
                              • Dec 2012
                              • 2306

                              #15
                              Originally posted by Carlin15 View Post
                              Things are in motion on several "fronts", i.e. Huawei ban.

                              Earlier this week, Trump described the Chinese firm as “very dangerous” when it comes to security.

                              URL:
                              https://www.slashgear.com/the-realit...ding-24577932/
                              China is not a liberal democracy. Huawei is a future threat to everyone. How can anyone feel assured that there aren't going to be back doors implemented into their 5g networks that they will be installing potentially all over the world. In the western world our companies function independently from the government. Look at how Apple refused to allow access to its phones to the FBI, CIA, and NSA. Even if it wanted to do we really believe that Huawei could reject the Chinese government should it make such a request of them.

                              It is exactly a scenario like this that highlights the importance of promoting democracy around the world. In an ideal world there wouldn't be a need to be so apprehensive towards Huawei. What a loos not only for Huawei as a company who obviously has a technological advantage, but its also a loss for the world that will lag behind because they can't trust Chinese companies with their security.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X