Is this war with Iran?

[Airbrush]

According to reports from Iranian officials, it sounds like they recognize a subtle "state of war" exists between Iran and the USA.  The Iranians will retaliate somehow because of the US killing of their general Soleimani.  They already destroyed a $100M drone, attacked shipping, and attacked Saudi oil production.

Here is what Trump tweeted in 2012:

"Polls are starting to look really bad for Obama. Looks like he'll have to start a war or major conflict to win. Don't put it past him!"

https://heavy.com/news/2017/08/trump-twitter-obama-north-korea-war-poll-approval/

Is this insight into the mind of Trump?  DOES HE BELIEVE that starting a war will help him win the election?

 

Edited January 3, 2020 by Airbrush

[CharonY]

I think at this point that would be pure speculation. The current political situation could have been an added incentive, but without additional information that are obviously not open to the public I am not sure whether anything would come out of these speculations.

The other, perhaps more interesting question are the ramifications of this escalation. US allies have already indicated that they are not interested in further escalation, for example. I do not want to initiate a hijack here, but I think that a) we will not be able to figure out what Trump really is thinking (not sure whether he knows himself) and b) that this is secondary to the threat of violent destabilization throughout region.

[iNow]

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-iran-tweets-obama/

I know Trump and his administration have never been dishonest with us, but his motivations for the strike might be different than publicly stated. 

There’s always a tweet, and sometimes almost 10 of them

Edited January 3, 2020 by iNow

[rangerx]

War or not, it won't end well.

That said, it likely won't end.

[moth]

Maybe this will end when "greatness" is restored.
Or whatever "greatness" means to commander twittervent.

[J.C.MacSwell]

Let's not order our Trump campaign MIGA ball caps yet...(Make Iran grate again)

[MigL]

Not everything is about your President, guys.

 Iran has been destabilizing the region for years...

6 hours ago, Airbrush said:

They already destroyed a $100M drone, attacked shipping, and attacked Saudi oil production

yet everyone assumes it is the 'President we love to hate' who is destabilizing the region.

Iran has been in a 'proxy' war with the US for years, Using the Hezbollah ( Shia ) political parties in neighboring countries to stir up trouble against Sunni controlled governments and US interests in those countries.
Both England and Germany have sided with the US on this act, while Russia and France have condemned it ( China as usual, has been quite non-committal )

Funny how a country like Iran burns off enough natural gas ( byproduct of their oil extraction, called flaring ) to supply a small country, yet, can claim with a straight face, that it needs home-grown nuclear technology for reasons other than warfare.

[iNow]

All good points. Right now, my concern is that this will result in serious conflict and increased danger to Americans around the world and yet neither the congress nor our allies were involved.
 

Trump did this unilaterally based on a law that gave powers to the president to respond to the 9/11 attack nearly 20 years ago. This type of assassination of a foreign leader... no matter how bad of a guy he was... should have gone through the proper channels and been agreed upon by the proper powers. 

Good riddance to this one guy, but there is a coming increase in proxy war actions from Iran and they will ramp it up in the months to come... and there’s no clear diplomatic solution to any of this. More lost blood and treasure in the Middle East. Yay. Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it. 

Edited January 3, 2020 by iNow

[moth]

After years of British and American destabilizing Iran.

I just think it's strange that Bill Barr (forgiver of Iran-Contra crimes) is A.G. while the President is assasinating foriegn nationals.
I never nderstood what Trump meant when he says "great". Now I think I understand better.

[MigL]

This particular Iranian General's 'assassination' has been in the planning stages since the last administration.
( don't believe Republicans, yes, B Obama had ba*ls )

He had become quite brazen in his activities, flying in to Baghdad as he pleased, to cause trouble with impunity.
The opportunity finally presented itself.

[iNow]

10 minutes ago, MigL said:

The opportunity finally presented itself.

It takes 5 minutes to consult with congressional leaders 

[moth]

I have no love for authoritarians and won't grieve at their passing.
That is why I don't feel comfortable with the President unilaterally ordering assainations

Edited January 4, 2020 by moth

[J.C.MacSwell]

6 minutes ago, iNow said:

It takes 5 minutes to consult with congressional leaders 

I wouldn't take Trump's reasons for not consulting them at face value, but I really doubt that. If in fact that could be true though, it's as much an argument not to consult them as an argument to consult them.

[iNow]

He only has authority to do this if the threat is imminent. Otherwise, it was illegal. I look forward to seeing the evidence that there was an imminent threat that could only be stopped by assassinating this guy with a drone. 

I support that he needed to be taken out. I don’t support our president acting like a dictator. 

Edited January 4, 2020 by iNow

[J.C.MacSwell]

10 minutes ago, iNow said:

He only has authority to do this if the threat is imminent. Otherwise, it was illegal. I look forward to seeing the evidence that there was an imminent threat that could only be stopped by assassinating this guy with a drone. 

I support that he needed to be taken out. I don’t support our president acting like a dictator. 

I would agree with that. I'm sure that will be the way it will be spun by Trump and the Republicans, and opposed and counter-spun by the Dems, leaving us to decide what to believe. I've already heard it both ways...but no evidence given.

[Curious layman]

Sky news- Is the US attack a 'wag the dog scenario? 

Trump saying Obama will start a war with Iran at 1:25.  

 

Edited January 4, 2020 by Curious layman

[iNow]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

This particular Iranian General's 'assassination' has been in the planning stages since the last administration.
( don't believe Republicans, yes, B Obama had ba*ls

They debated whether or not to kill him, but always decided the potential benefit of doing so couldn’t outweigh the clear costs. They realized that you don’t have to kill a general to disrupt military operations. 

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

yet everyone assumes it is the 'President we love to hate' who is destabilizing the region.

While Iran has not been a stabilizing factor (especially due to their ongoing coflict with Arab nations), there was an improvement in bilateral relationships and moderate forces seemed to have gained power. The issue with this particular attack is that it is represents a new escalation, which some already classified as an act of war. This is quite a different level than the tensions (which, btw. were increased by unilateral retreat of the US from the Iran deal). While I do not know enough to make any kind of analysis on the situation, the rather muted or even negative response of US allies, indicates to me that folks more knowledgeable see the move at minimum as problematic (to put it mildly). In other words, the US has created a situation where there is a likelihood that the conflict will turn hot.

One could easily see that as an ongoing tit-for-tat between Iran and US, where the US has continuously escalated force. The big issue I see in this policy is that the State Department appears to be far weaker than in previous administrations leaving fewer paths open than perhaps under a different administration. Though to be fair, if one takes a look at Bush Jr., the result was ultimately a series of endless wars. In that light one could perhaps accuse the current administration may not have learned any lessons. What is possible is that the Trump administration believes that a sufficient show of force would force an Iranian retreat. Even if that happens, however, it would at minimum boost the hardliners within Iran. In the long-term further conflicts could therefore be more and not less likely. But of course that is pure speculation.

What has already happened is that the US-Iraq relationship have (further) deteriorated.

[rangerx]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

Funny how a country like Iran burns off enough natural gas ( byproduct of their oil extraction, called flaring ) to supply a small country, yet, can claim with a straight face, that it needs home-grown nuclear technology for reasons other than warfare.

I agree flaring gas is isn't a good thing (no less in Alberta wink wink) Nuclear power isn't a good option if it doesn't supplant carbon.Skeptical or not and irrespective of any outcome, at least they had a deal where Iran claimed it wouldn't build bombs, but IMPOTUS tore up that deal to spite Obama and little else. A lot of legal authority (such as it is) was lost there. All the while with no discernible diplomatic plan in place. Still none. When pieces are missing or things are not otherwise "perfectly" upright, it's probably a good idea to get an okay from congress. If the target was a determined as his belligerence, I'm sure they'd have approved in a heart beat. But no, he's got be a dick tater.

 

[Markus Hanke]

I consider myself an external observer to this, since I am not a citizen of either the US nor Iran, and have little interest or emotional investment in politics.
It is striking to me that no one mentions the ethical dimension of this. This person - regardless of what he may or may not have done - was a human being, and as such has the basic right to life, and to a fair trial, as we all do. How can it possibly be ethically acceptable that anyone - regardless of his rank or position - can order the blatant killing of another human being, just like that? What Trump has done is akin to me hiring a contract killer to get rid of someone I don’t like; if I did that, I would be brought before a judge, and locked away for life, quite regardless of who the deceased person was or what he/she has done. And quite rightly so. Why do these same standards of law, justice, and human rights not apply to the President of the US? Why do they not apply to other heads of states, who commit similar crimes against humanity? At the very least, this Iranian general would have been entitled to a fair trial before an impartial judge. What happened here was premeditated murder, plain and simple. If this act was illegal under US law, then Trump needs to be held accountable for his action to the full extent of the law, like any other citizen would; if it was legal under US law, then that means the US has deteriorated to a point were human rights count for nothing, and lives are expendable for political gain and leverage. If someone is in the way, just have him killed, no need to bother with fair trials.

Just to be clear, this is not exclusive to the US, it applies to anyone who acts with impunity in the face of basic human rights. If politics have become more important than life, then humanity is in a bad state indeed.

[John Cuthber]

18 hours ago, Airbrush said:

Is this insight into the mind of Trump?  DOES HE BELIEVE that starting a war will help him win the election?

Hard to say what he believes (honesty isn't his strong point).
But he seems to think it's a credible idea.
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1212975913232715776/pu/vid/480x480/1MiELhLQD-ddfKu_.mp4?tag=10&fbclid=IwAR1Do_eqTfWa80RRlD1Gp09ToRiHUXV-tc3tyQ42jD58lBgHQwNU40ojB98

[MigL]

You might not be a citizen of either the US or Iran, Markus.
And although currently in Ireland, I'm not sure of your citizenship.
However, I'm sure your country has an Armed Forces, and yes, military personnel are usually ordered to kill enemy combatants.

I can't speak to D trump's motives for doing this. As other have mentioned, he is not responsible, trustworthy or honest.
But to argue that the US was not already in a state of limited war with Iran ( after the many proxy and direct attacks since 1979 ), and that it was only the latest American action which will result in war, is, at best, foolish.

It takes two sides to escalate; you can't look at the actions of one side without considering the actions of the other.

[dimreepr]

6 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

Just to be clear, this is not exclusive to the US, it applies to anyone who acts with impunity in the face of basic human rights. If politics have become more important than life, then humanity is in a bad state indeed.

politics is more important than life, if we get it wrong, then humanity is in a bad state, if we get it right, then humanity is in a good state, then we forget how and repeat the wrong. 

[iNow]

There’s been another attack, this time killing 5 Iranians in Iraq and injuring several more. Details are still unknown, but anyone hoping to see this situation de-escalated will surely be disappointed by this news. 
 

https://www.vox.com/2020/1/3/21048986/airstrike-us-iran-iraq-day-after-soleimani

Quote

What we know

*Several people were killed when a two-car convoy containing members of the Popular Mobilization Forces, the overarching group for Iranian-backed militias in Iraq, was struck early Saturday morning local time, multiple international media outlets reported. 

*The PMF confirmed the attack, saying one of its medical convoys had been targeted while traveling in Taji in the north of Baghdad, the AP reports. 

*Iraqi officials told the AP five people were killed; Reuters reported one additional person was killed, and three people were injured.

 

[StringJunky]

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

There’s been another attack, this time killing 5 Iranians in Iraq and injuring several more. Details are still unknown, but anyone hoping to see this situation de-escalated will surely be disappointed by this news. 
 

https://www.vox.com/2020/1/3/21048986/airstrike-us-iran-iraq-day-after-soleimani

 

Only yesterday, in the BBC's live feed, Pence was quoted as saying they were looking to "de-escalate".  He's obviously redefined the word.