An unbiased view of the conflict with Iran. What is really happening?

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I am trying to get beyond the propaganda. I am reading as much as I can from as many perspectives as I can. This is what I believe so far...
1) It seems likely that Iran is behind the recent attacks on ships in the gulf of Oman. I don't automatically believe US government propaganda, but from everything I read Iran is the probable culprit.
2) These attacks make sense. The US is putting pretty intense economic pressure on Iran.

I agree up to this point.

maxdancona wrote:

Iran needs to push back in order to force the US to give it a reasonable chance of negotiation.

I disagree here. Iran is looking for a way to get out of this without having to negotiate.

maxdancona wrote:

4) The cost of winning a war in Iran will be very high. If you doubt this, remember our experience in Iraq.

Iraq was costly for one reason only: we stuck around and tried to do nation building.

"Create a desert and call it peace" is the proper model for us to follow.

I actually don't envision any ground war into Iran at all. I'm just picturing massive airstrikes.

But even if we did have a massive ground invasion, if we just destroy everything and then pull out leaving a wasteland behind us, I don't see how that will cost us much.

maxdancona wrote:

7) If we don't want a war, the only other option is for the US to soften its negotiating stance with the idea that Iran would do the same.

The only thing that we are asking is that Iran stop being a rogue nation. I don't think we should soften this stance.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

You represent a hard-line anti-Iran perspective Oralloy. It would be interesting if you could see things from the perspective of Iran. Iran's goal is to hold on to regional power and influence (a goal which you should be able to understand since you want the US to hold onto power an influence).

You statement that "Iran is looking for a way to get out of this without having to negotiate" is partisan (there is no point in me arguing). It does stretch the facts awfully since Iran did negotiate an agreement with the US, and the US backed out of it. I don't want to bicker over this, but let's say I don't think this is a valid point.

Quote:

"Create a desert and call it peace" is the proper model for us to follow.

This is ridiculously extreme and it goes against American values and foreign policy for over 200 years. It involves killing millions of civilians (men, women, children, grandparents), and it creates a disaster in the Middle East in a region that has our oil.

It is hard to take you seriously at all when you say things like this.

3 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

This is ridiculously extreme and it goes against American values and foreign policy for over 200 years.

Bollocks, the slaughter of the indigenous peoples and dropping agent orange and napalm on Vietnamese women and children are part of America's values and foreign policy.

You just can't be honest can you?

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

We've never targeted women and children with any kind of weapon.

Agent orange was used against plants.

I regret our nation's violation of the treaties that we made with Native American tribes. I think our courts should start enforcing those old treaties.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

You represent a hard-line anti-Iran perspective Oralloy. It would be interesting if you could see things from the perspective of Iran. Iran's goal is to hold on to regional power and influence (a goal which you should be able to understand since you want the US to hold onto power an influence).

Engaging in terrorism and attacking our allies is not a valid way for Iran to gain power and influence.

maxdancona wrote:

You statement that "Iran is looking for a way to get out of this without having to negotiate" is partisan (there is no point in me arguing). It does stretch the facts awfully since Iran did negotiate an agreement with the US, and the US backed out of it. I don't want to bicker over this, but let's say I don't think this is a valid point.

Then you are missing the entire point of this conflict.

The Trump Administration wants to force Iran back into negotiations, where Iran will have to agree to curtail their terrorism and their attacks against our allies.

Iran does not want to be forced back into negotiations and have to agree to curtail their terrorism and their attacks against our allies.

maxdancona wrote:

This is ridiculously extreme and it goes against American values and foreign policy for over 200 years. It involves killing millions of civilians (men, women, children, grandparents), and it creates a disaster in the Middle East in a region that has our oil.
It is hard to take you seriously at all when you say things like this.

It involves nothing of the sort.

How many millions of civilians did we kill in Libya?

How was Libya a disaster for us?

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

You represent a hard-line anti-Iran perspective Oralloy.

You think?.

I would think even the hardest of right wing hard-liners would run a mile from insanity like that.

It was something in similar vein (worse) that made me go after it yesterday.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

What country are you from Izzy? Boer war? Australia? Even the genocide of Native Americans was started by the United Kingdom.

Give me a break. It has taken us hundreds of years to move on from the crimes of the British Empire.

2 Replies

“Unbiased”

https://media2.giphy.com/media/B717GH4Ecnu8g/giphy.gif

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

The Houthi rebels are supported by Iran. If these attacks were done by Houthi rebels, and the Iranians didn't approve of these attacks before hand, I would think they could tell them to cut it out now.

The US doesn't condone the Saudi and Yemeni government actions in Yemen (and did not under the previous administration) and we told them to cut it out. That didn't work so well. The Iranians do not control the Houthi rebels any more than we control the Saudis (or the Israelis or any other group we arm.)

1 Reply

@engineer,

Are the Houthi rebels your top suspects? I am not sure there is a sufficient motive for them to attack international ships, do you have one?

I assume that in this scenario, the fact that one of the ships attacked was Japanese (while Abe was in Iran) was a coincidence, or what is your explanation for this?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Give me a break. It has taken us hundreds of years to move on from the crimes of the British Empire.

We suck, but we recognise we suck.

The fact that we suck doesn’t make your **** any less ****.

Whataboutism at its finest.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Yes, they are my top suspect. The Saudis have been using their air power to inflict massive casualties on Houthi controlled areas and the Houthi's have been trying to directly strike Saudi targets using home made drones. They've attacked airports and shipping before; this doesn't look all that different.

1 Reply

It appears to me that an alliance between the US, SA, and Israel are trying to create a casus belli.

0 Replies

@TheSubliminalKid,

When Max takes a swipe at the British Empire it's one of the rare times he's being honest.

Even then he's caught between condemning it and using it to justify American war crimes.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

...even the genocide of Native Americans indigenous peoples was started by...

It matters not who started it. The facts (something you shrink away from), remains that long after the United States became a nation of its own right and standing, the U.S. government conjured up reasons galore to continue the killings.

Sometimes they did outright slaughtering, in other cases they took arable lands, and other lands and streams and lakes where the indigenous communities were living. But hey, you probably think it wasn't that bad, after all, they were "relocated" . Yeah, after forced walks of hundreds of miles and into parched parcels. Sometime later the fickle governmental agencies realized that they'd ceded lands which were rich in various ores and minerals. They then took that land too. Many thousands have died from the indirect killings by the U.S. Government.

1 Reply

@Sturgis,

This is an odd tangent.

Oralloy: "The US should create a desert [out of Iran] and call it peace".

Max: Destroying Iran, killing millions of people, and then leaving without careing about the damage would be against American values.

Oralloy: No it wouldn't.

Izzy: No it wouldn't.

IzzyKid: No it wouldn't.

Sturgis: No it wouldn't.

There we have it. I guess that means the US should commence bombing now. As Oralloy pointed out, this plan solves the problem of getting bogged down again as we did in Iraq.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Did you miss the part of my post that disputed your contention that we would be killing millions of people?

How many millions of people did we kill in Libya?

Wrecking Iran without killing millions of people, then leaving without caring about the damage, would be perfectly in line with American values.

0 Replies

We’ll obviously be tricking Iranians into a surprise unanimously attended state holiday in Italy whilst we flatten and pave their 🌵 desert 🐫 . Ciao, baby.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

You just can't help yourself. Honesty is just not in your nature.

There's that monochrome view again, if we can't accept your rose tinted view it's nuke time.

0 Replies

... back to the topic. It seems like there are three theories as far as who is responsible for the attacks.

1) I believe that these were either done by Iran, or done with Iran's blessing.

2) Engineer (and other's) believe that the attacks were done by Houthi rebels without the knowledge or blessing of Iran. No one has specified a motive for the Houthi rebels attacking international shipping (from unrelated countries).

3) Lash believes the attacks are part of a US/Israel conspiracy to justify US aggression.

My interest in this thread is to understand the strategy; what moves are open to the US and Iran in their conflict, and what would be the best next step for each given their strategic interests.

If Lash is correct, I assume the US is already on the path for an open war (you don't create a casus belli without then moving on to belli).

Otherwise...

The US and Iran can choose to negotiate. Each side needs to show that they are able and willing to damage the other. I think that is why my theory that Iran is behind these attacks makes sense in the face of what they are calling "economic warfare" from the US.

If Engineer's theory is correct, I don't know how this changes the game. The US can still ask for Iran's help in reigning in their clients.

The Trump administration seems a bit stimied, to be honest. I am pretty sure that Bush 44 (and his father too) had a set plan toward war, and at least they were decisive.

I don't know what strategic moves are open to the Trump administrations. We might see cruise missiles (which won't do much overall), but he hasn't even been talking about that.

1 Reply

An unbiased view of the conflict with Iran. What is really happening?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know