5 ms·

Iran wants this to end, which is why they didn't target areas that would cause a lot of loss of life. Iran is in no position to engage the US in protracted skir

Iran wants this to end, which is why they didn't target areas that would cause a lot of loss of life. Iran is in no position to engage the US in protracted skirmishes, if the US hits its refineries, etc, Iran is hosed. The memes of WW3 occurring are absurd even for Twitter.

excerionsforte 7y ago
Those memes were indicative of the feelings around the seriousness of the US attacking another govt. It is very rational to feel scared that a war with another country, a UN member, with backings of two other UN security council members wouldn't extend farther than Iran given their vested interests in that country and the region. I don't believe for a second that they would not intervene if their economies are affected by another Middle East war where this time it is one of their significant business partners.
- ping_pong 7y ago
  What does UN membership have anything to do with this? Iran is a terrorist state, openly funding terrorist attacks on Israel. They have a repressive, horrible government, admittedly made worse by the US themselves through the overthrow of the Shah decades ago. The idea this would cause an escalation from Russia and China is also absurd. Of course they are backing them now because it's politically convenient, but when push comes to shove, they won't fight. As long as the US doesn't try to expand its geopolitical aspirations in the Middle East, which has been a complete and utter disaster ever since George W., nothing will come of this skirmish.
  - excerionsforte 7y ago
    Iran a terrorist state? You mean the country whose twice had US intervention and you expect the leadership there to embrace the US with open arms. Right, makes sense. What in your mind makes a country a terrorist state. It sure seems like the US has a pretty darn terrorist mind set when it came down to spreading fear about communism. > The idea this would cause an escalation from Russia and China is also absurd. Of course they are backing them now because it's politically convenient, but when push comes to shove, they won't fight. The best surprises are the ones you do not see coming. You can say what you want. You don't make the decisions. Furthermore I stated my opinion that they would intervene. It was not a prediction as you take it. I strongly dissented from your opinion. > if the US hits its refineries, etc, Iran is hosed This one makes me laugh! To believe that one country would be hosed from striking at oil. There's an elephant in the room that indicates it would not be in the best interest of anyone to stifle turmoil in an OPEC state given that other countries will have to deal with the offsets and refugees. Think we've all seen the effects around the world with these wars. Very funny!
    - ping_pong 7y ago
      I suggest you google Iran and Hezbollah. Iran is 100% a terrorist state and a horrible country ruled by evil people. And I never said the US was pristine. The entire Middle East is fucked up because of the US. US fucked up Persians by helping overthrow the Shah. As far as I'm concerned, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld should be tried on crimes against humanity. Trump is a moron and a despot but he is only the second worst US president in my opinion. But they are all better than the current government of Iran.
  - mywittyname 7y ago
    What's the difference between a "terrorist state" and a state with military that attacks civilians (or finds them to be acceptable casualties)? I don't think the term even makes sense when applied to a country. Lots of countries offer support for militia groups that work to destabilize governments and terrorize the populations of different countries. At this point, calling someone a terrorist is a dog whistle, because it's so broad to be almost meaningless. The differentiating factor seems to come down to US-backing.
cheez 7y ago
This isn't a one-sided stand down. If the US attacks Iran blatantly, sleeper cells around the world would probably be activated. At least this is what it seems they signalled.
- GordonS 7y ago
  Erm... does it? Is there any substance behind this rather odd assumption?
  - cheez 7y ago
    It's interesting how history fades.
- ping_pong 7y ago
  Sorry but this is complete fiction. Sleeper cells around the world? This is Iran, a struggling government not Mission Impossible. There's nothing Iran could or would do that the US doesn't do to itself via mass shootings, wildfires, shitty government policies, etc. If Iran did anything like a terrorist attack on US soil, it would open the door for the US to completely devastate Iran through bombings, etc, and that's not what the Iranian government wants. What they did was probably the smartest thing they could do, which is show explosions on their TVs so say they attacked back, but incur no loss of life to escalate things.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    Iran has a history of retaliatory attacks of this nature. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMIA_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMIA_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_attacks_on_Israeli_diplomats https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_attacks_on_Israeli_diplom...
  - cheez 7y ago
    1) Iran isn't a small country. The cost to carpet bomb every square km of Iran would be enormous. Afghanistan is a nickel candy by comparison. 2) Iran has connections with Hezbollah and god knows who else. I would not dismiss the possibility. 3) There are enough people all over the world who would be incensed enough at the US to self radicalize.
_bxg1 7y ago
Yep. They couldn't do nothing because they had to posture themselves as strong/appease citizens upset about the general, so the best option was to make a big, splashy attack that would still leave the U.S. the option of calling everything settled. If Americans died, the U.S. would have no choice but to escalate further.
- Udik 7y ago
  True; on the other hand, Iran seems to have already benefited from Soleimani's killing: after the world's fear of a new war, the outrage, the divisions within NATO, the Iraqi resolution to expel American troops, the contradictory claims by the US government, the US position is weaker than before. So it was wise not to waste this advantage with some act that could have reunited the West against them.
  - Fjolsvith 7y ago
    With Trump's plan to pull the US out of much of the Middle East, I do not see this as making the US position weaker.
    - Udik 7y ago
      Trump's plan? What plan? Trump is saying things (America first, let's MAGA, no more ME wars, let's get the troops back) but he's doing the exact opposite: weakening the US' international standing by stirring up conflict with enemies and allies, disregarding international law, stirring more conflict in the ME (which requires more troops, +17000 in the last year), and forcing countries that relied on American tech and finance to become independent or find alternatives (China being the obvious example). The US presidency has become a global problem and a laughing stock, so the "US position" is certainly much weaker than it was before. And the killing of Soleimani is just another step in the same direction.
      - Fjolsvith 7y ago
        Front channels, back channels. Trump has a show for the spectators, and the real deals are brokered behind closed doors.

excerionsforte 7y ago

Those memes were indicative of the feelings around the seriousness of the US attacking another govt. It is very rational to feel scared that a war with another country, a UN member, with backings of two other UN security council members wouldn't extend farther than Iran given their vested interests in that country and the region. I don't believe for a second that they would not intervene if their economies are affected by another Middle East war where this time it is one of their significant business partners.

ping_pong 7y ago
What does UN membership have anything to do with this? Iran is a terrorist state, openly funding terrorist attacks on Israel. They have a repressive, horrible government, admittedly made worse by the US themselves through the overthrow of the Shah decades ago. The idea this would cause an escalation from Russia and China is also absurd. Of course they are backing them now because it's politically convenient, but when push comes to shove, they won't fight. As long as the US doesn't try to expand its geopolitical aspirations in the Middle East, which has been a complete and utter disaster ever since George W., nothing will come of this skirmish.
- excerionsforte 7y ago
  Iran a terrorist state? You mean the country whose twice had US intervention and you expect the leadership there to embrace the US with open arms. Right, makes sense. What in your mind makes a country a terrorist state. It sure seems like the US has a pretty darn terrorist mind set when it came down to spreading fear about communism. > The idea this would cause an escalation from Russia and China is also absurd. Of course they are backing them now because it's politically convenient, but when push comes to shove, they won't fight. The best surprises are the ones you do not see coming. You can say what you want. You don't make the decisions. Furthermore I stated my opinion that they would intervene. It was not a prediction as you take it. I strongly dissented from your opinion. > if the US hits its refineries, etc, Iran is hosed This one makes me laugh! To believe that one country would be hosed from striking at oil. There's an elephant in the room that indicates it would not be in the best interest of anyone to stifle turmoil in an OPEC state given that other countries will have to deal with the offsets and refugees. Think we've all seen the effects around the world with these wars. Very funny!
  - ping_pong 7y ago
    I suggest you google Iran and Hezbollah. Iran is 100% a terrorist state and a horrible country ruled by evil people. And I never said the US was pristine. The entire Middle East is fucked up because of the US. US fucked up Persians by helping overthrow the Shah. As far as I'm concerned, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld should be tried on crimes against humanity. Trump is a moron and a despot but he is only the second worst US president in my opinion. But they are all better than the current government of Iran.
- mywittyname 7y ago
  What's the difference between a "terrorist state" and a state with military that attacks civilians (or finds them to be acceptable casualties)? I don't think the term even makes sense when applied to a country. Lots of countries offer support for militia groups that work to destabilize governments and terrorize the populations of different countries. At this point, calling someone a terrorist is a dog whistle, because it's so broad to be almost meaningless. The differentiating factor seems to come down to US-backing.

cheez 7y ago

This isn't a one-sided stand down. If the US attacks Iran blatantly, sleeper cells around the world would probably be activated. At least this is what it seems they signalled.

GordonS 7y ago
Erm... does it? Is there any substance behind this rather odd assumption?
- cheez 7y ago
  It's interesting how history fades.
ping_pong 7y ago
Sorry but this is complete fiction. Sleeper cells around the world? This is Iran, a struggling government not Mission Impossible. There's nothing Iran could or would do that the US doesn't do to itself via mass shootings, wildfires, shitty government policies, etc. If Iran did anything like a terrorist attack on US soil, it would open the door for the US to completely devastate Iran through bombings, etc, and that's not what the Iranian government wants. What they did was probably the smartest thing they could do, which is show explosions on their TVs so say they attacked back, but incur no loss of life to escalate things.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  Iran has a history of retaliatory attacks of this nature. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMIA_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMIA_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_attacks_on_Israeli_diplomats https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_attacks_on_Israeli_diplom...
- cheez 7y ago
  1) Iran isn't a small country. The cost to carpet bomb every square km of Iran would be enormous. Afghanistan is a nickel candy by comparison. 2) Iran has connections with Hezbollah and god knows who else. I would not dismiss the possibility. 3) There are enough people all over the world who would be incensed enough at the US to self radicalize.

_bxg1 7y ago

Yep. They couldn't do nothing because they had to posture themselves as strong/appease citizens upset about the general, so the best option was to make a big, splashy attack that would still leave the U.S. the option of calling everything settled. If Americans died, the U.S. would have no choice but to escalate further.

Udik 7y ago
True; on the other hand, Iran seems to have already benefited from Soleimani's killing: after the world's fear of a new war, the outrage, the divisions within NATO, the Iraqi resolution to expel American troops, the contradictory claims by the US government, the US position is weaker than before. So it was wise not to waste this advantage with some act that could have reunited the West against them.
- Fjolsvith 7y ago
  With Trump's plan to pull the US out of much of the Middle East, I do not see this as making the US position weaker.
  - Udik 7y ago
    Trump's plan? What plan? Trump is saying things (America first, let's MAGA, no more ME wars, let's get the troops back) but he's doing the exact opposite: weakening the US' international standing by stirring up conflict with enemies and allies, disregarding international law, stirring more conflict in the ME (which requires more troops, +17000 in the last year), and forcing countries that relied on American tech and finance to become independent or find alternatives (China being the obvious example). The US presidency has become a global problem and a laughing stock, so the "US position" is certainly much weaker than it was before. And the killing of Soleimani is just another step in the same direction.
    - Fjolsvith 7y ago
      Front channels, back channels. Trump has a show for the spectators, and the real deals are brokered behind closed doors.