US-Iran standoff 2019- #2

It is very likely that several countries, including Russia and Saudi Arabia calmed the situation down before it got serious. Iran quite obviously proved capability to hit American bases with their cruise/ballistic missiles and Iraqi politicians will further push for the United States to leave. China will likely take their place as it's a very important strategic region for them as they get a lot of oil from the Saudi's and Russia will sell Iran quite a fair bit of military equipment when the UNSC sanctions end in October.

And you think China instead US will be better ?

China is building carriers and missile destroyerd for a reason, to use them just like US uses them.

Stop seeing China as a savior. They are the same as US if not worse.

Considering how effective was Patriot again, after its big success defending Saudi rafinery in Abqaiq, I wonder if US will also buy some S-400 to defend their bases? Or maybe at least some Pantsirs...

nomadski wrote:@ ISOS

Better for whom? For starving Iranian people? The sell out liberals don't want  war against yank. No nukes. No ICBM. No real offensive. But they want war against Iranian people. They want sanctions. Street demos. Lack of political freedom. And I bet they love this news too.

Iran can win war now. No doubt. Even if not, better try to die on your feet than die on your knees.......the situation changed now. Clear now that traitor liberals must be removed from power. The fatwa is wrong. Iran needs war to win.

While I agree with you on most things nomadski, I don't agree here. Going to war for Iran won't help the people, it may make things worse. Iran has Russian and Chinese business investing money into Iran, if Iran went to a full war, the investments would stop.

I don't think Iran can win a war with the US, no country can win a war against the US. Iran should get ICBM and Nukes, there is no nuclear deal, there won't be any nuclear deal, the liberals in Iran are holding onto false hope.

What I am sure of if someone from the IRGC was in charge, the response would have been tougher but the liberals in charge are doing the minimum strike because they have the false hope of the nuclear deal. And another reason I think could be that the Saudis want out of Yemen and Iran wants to end that war.

I think that the liberals have too much control and I also think that if it was total 100% liberal control, they would have not even launched those missiles.

If this response was the correct(I personally don't think it was but I maybe wrong here), we will find out in the future.

@ ISOS

China never started sanctions. Neither did rest of world. Just the Yanks. If sanctions and war lifted, then everyone benefit.

https://en.mehrnews.com/news/154378/Missile-attacks-to-continue-on-US-bases-throughout-region-Hajizadeh

Now at last someone who explains things better than foreign ministry. About tactics, I would agree about successive operations to remove yank bases. But I like to add :

( 1 )  The priority should be land route to China. So Afghanistan must be cleared first, together with road north to
        Russia and road to Syria must be cleaned from yank. This must happen together in same operation. By Army.
       To take advantage of 20 million army. Difficult to oppose this force, even by multiple opponent. Also if yank
       enemy planes  break through air defence. The sheer spread, will make difficult to destroy in short time. But time
enough to attack in South and cut oil.

( 2) They can pause here for a day or two to allow yank to remove blockade.

( 3) If yank not remove primary sanctions. Then attack bases to South. And liberate Yemen by land route.

( 4) If still not remove blockade. Cut oil to closest ally of yank the UK and then France.

I think at this time, they will go........

nomadski wrote:@ ISOS

China never started sanctions. Neither did rest of world. Just the Yanks. If sanctions and war lifted, then everyone benefit.

https://en.mehrnews.com/news/154378/Missile-attacks-to-continue-on-US-bases-throughout-region-Hajizadeh

Now at last someone who explains things better than foreign ministry. About tactics, I would agree about successive operations to remove yank bases. But I like to add :

( 1 )  The priority should be land route to China. So Afghanistan must be cleared first, together with road north to
        Russia and road to Syria must be cleaned from yank. This must happen together in same operation. By Army.
       To take advantage of 20 million army. Difficult to oppose this force, even by multiple opponent. Also if yank
       enemy planes  break through air defence. The sheer spread, will make difficult to destroy in short time.


( 2) They can pause here for a day or two to allow yank to remove blockade.

( 3) If yank not remove primary sanctions. Then attack bases to South. And liberate Yemen by land route.

( 4) If still not remove blockade. Cut oil to closest ally of yank the UK and then France.

I think at this time, they will go........

If that happens than it is WW3, than it does not matter how many troops you have, what kind of weapons you have, how big your Army or Navy is, Nukes are going to start flying.

Does it matter how we die? Yes it does. The best way is on our feet. Like Martyr General Soliemani. RIP.

nomadski wrote:
Does it matter how we die?  Yes it does. The best way is on our feet. Like Martyr General Soliemani. RIP.

I fully agree with this statement nomadski but I don't think the leaders of Russia, China, France, Germany, Japan, the liberals in Iran and some others will agree. The US, I don't think cares how many people die.

Iran said many times, they are ready to face multiple opponents.................

@ nomadski

I don't believe either in that number of 80 dead and more than 200 wounded, it's exaggeration. But I also don't believe in American story. I wouldn't be surprised that dozen or so American soldiers are actually dead or wounded, but they don't want to publicize that information, because that means instant retaliation...and they might don't have a stomach for that, at the moment.  

littlerabbit wrote:@ nomadski

I don't believe either in that number of 80 dead and more than 200 wounded, it's exaggeration. But I also don't believe in American story. I wouldn't be surprised that dozen or so American soldiers are actually dead or wounded, but they don't want to publicize that information, because that means instant retaliation...and they might don't have a stomach for that, at the moment.  

I also think that there are dead American soldiers, not 80 dead or 200 wounded, like you said littlerabbit but I think some US troops have died in this attack.

The Iranians did not tell the Americans directly but they told the Iraqi's to steer clear of the areas they were going to hit(some sources that I read are saying this but it is the internet, so I don't know if it is true or not), the Iranians probably thought that the Iraqi's would tell the Americans(who the hell knows, if they did or not).

nomadski wrote:
Iran said many times, they are ready to face multiple opponents.................

This begs another question, was Iran expecting a US attack after the missile launch? And if yes, were the Iranians ready for it?

Some inside information.


"The Deeper Story Behind the Assassination of Soleimani. Washington Threats to Engage in False flag Sniper Shootings. Iraq Prime Minister."


"Days after the assassination of General Qasem Soleimani, new and important information is coming to light from a speech given by the Iraqi prime minister. The story behind Soleimani’s assassination seems to go much deeper than what has thus far been reported, involving Saudi Arabia and China as well the U.S. dollar’s role as the global reserve currency."




"The Iraqi prime minister, Adil Abdul-Mahdi, has revealed details of his interactions with Trump in the weeks leading up to Soleimani’s assassination in a speech to the Iraqi parliament. He tried to explain several times on live television how Washington had been browbeating him and other Iraqi members of parliament to toe the American line, even threatening to engage in false-flag sniper shootings of both protesters and security personnel in order to inflame the situation, recalling similar modi operandi seen in Cairo in 2009, Libya in 2011, and Maidan in 2014. The purpose of such cynicism was to throw Iraq into chaos."



Here is the reconstruction of the story:

"[Speaker of the Council of Representatives of Iraq] Halbousi attended the parliamentary session while almost none of the Sunni members did. This was because the Americans had learned that Abdul-Mehdi was planning to reveal sensitive secrets in the session and sent Halbousi to prevent this. Halbousi cut Abdul-Mehdi off at the commencement of his speech and then asked for the live airing of the session to be stopped. After this, Halbousi together with other members, sat next to Abdul-Mehdi, speaking openly with him but without it being recorded. This is what was discussed in that session that was not broadcast:

Abdul-Mehdi spoke angrily about how the Americans had ruined the country and now refused to complete infrastructure and electricity grid projects unless they were promised 50% of oil revenues, which Abdul-Mehdi refused.

The complete (translated) words of Abdul-Mahdi’s speech to parliament:

This is why I visited China and signed an important agreement with them to undertake the construction instead. Upon my return, Trump called me to ask me to reject this agreement. When I refused, he threatened to unleash huge demonstrations against me that would end my premiership.

Huge demonstrations against me duly materialized and Trump called again to threaten that if I did not comply with his demands, then he would have Marine snipers on tall buildings target protesters and security personnel alike in order to pressure me.

I refused again and handed in my resignation. To this day the Americans insist on us rescinding our deal with the Chinese.

After this, when our Minister of Defense publicly stated that a third party was targeting both protestors and security personnel alike (just as Trump had threatened he would do), I received a new call from Trump threatening to kill both me and the Minister of Defense if we kept on talking about this “third party”.

Nobody imagined that the threat was to be applied to General Soleimani, but it was difficult for Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi to reveal the weekslong backstory behind the terrorist attack.

I was supposed to meet him [Soleimani] later in the morning when he was killed. He came to deliver a message from Iran in response to the message we had delivered to the Iranians from the Saudis.

We can surmise, judging by Saudi Arabia’s reaction, that some kind of negotiation was going on between Tehran and Riyadh:

The Kingdom’s statement regarding the events in Iraq stresses the Kingdom’s view of the importance of de-escalation to save the countries of the region and their people from the risks of any escalation.

Above all, the Saudi Royal family wanted to let people know immediately that they had not been informed of the U.S. operation:

The kingdom of Saudi Arabia was not consulted regarding the U.S. strike. In light of the rapid developments, the Kingdom stresses the importance of exercising restraint to guard against all acts that may lead to escalation, with severe consequences.

And to emphasize his reluctance for war, Mohammad bin Salman sent a delegation to the United States. Liz Sly, the Washington Post Beirut bureau chief, tweated:

Saudi Arabia is sending a delegation to Washington to urge restraint with Iran on behalf of [Persian] Gulf states. The message will be: ‘Please spare us the pain of going through another war’.

What clearly emerges is that the success of the operation against Soleimani had nothing to do with the intelligence gathering of the U.S. or Israel. It was known to all and sundry that Soleimani was heading to Baghdad in a diplomatic capacity that acknowledged Iraq’s efforts to mediate a solution to the regional crisis with Saudi Arabia.

It would seem that the Saudis, Iranians and Iraqis were well on the way towards averting a regional conflict involving Syria, Iraq and Yemen. Riyadh’s reaction to the American strike evinced no public joy or celebration. Qatar, while not seeing eye to eye with Riyadh on many issues, also immediately expressed solidarity with Tehran, hosting a meeting at a senior government level with Mohammad Zarif Jarif, the Iranian foreign minister. Even Turkey and Egypt, when commenting on the asassination, employed moderating language.

This could reflect a fear of being on the receiving end of Iran’s retaliation. Qatar, the country from which the drone that killed Soleimani took off, is only a stone’s throw away from Iran, situated on the other side of the Strait of Hormuz. Riyadh and Tel Aviv, Tehran’s regional enemies, both know that a military conflict with Iran would mean the end of the Saudi royal family.

When the words of the Iraqi prime minister are linked back to the geopolitical and energy agreements in the region, then the worrying picture starts to emerge of a desperate U.S. lashing out at a world turning its back on a unipolar world order in favor of the emerging multipolar about which I have long written."



...



"Washington would like to prevent any Eurasian integration by unleashing chaos and destruction in the region, and killing Soleimani served this purpose. The U.S. cannot contemplate the idea of the dollar losing its status as the global reserve currency. Trump is engaging in a desperate gamble that could have disastrous consequences.

The region, in a worst-case scenario, could be engulfed in a devastating war involving multiple countries. Oil refineries could be destroyed all across the region, a quarter of the world’s oil transit could be blocked, oil prices would skyrocket ($200-$300 a barrel) and dozens of countries would be plunged into a global financial crisis. The blame would be laid squarely at Trump’s feet, ending his chances for re-election.

To try and keep everyone in line, Washington is left to resort to terrorism, lies and unspecified threats of visiting destruction on friends and enemies alike."



...



"Soleimani’s death is the result of a convergence of U.S. and Israeli interests. With no other way of halting Eurasian integration, Washington can only throw the region into chaos by targeting countries like Iran, Iraq and Syria that are central to the Eurasian project. While Israel has never had the ability or audacity to carry out such an assassination itself, the importance of the Israel Lobby to Trump’s electoral success would have influenced his decision, all the more so in an election year .

Trump believed his drone attack could solve all his problems by frightening his opponents, winning the support of his voters (by equating Soleimani’s assassination to Osama bin Laden’s), and sending a warning to Arab countries of the dangers of deepening their ties with China.

The assassination of Soleimani is the U.S. lashing out at its steady loss of influence in the region. The Iraqi attempt to mediate a lasting peace between Iran and Saudi Arabia has been scuppered by the U.S. and Israel’s determination to prevent peace in the region and instead increase chaos and instability."


...






https://www.globalresearch.ca/deeper-story-behind-assassination-soleimani/5700117

Isos wrote:

It is very likely that several countries, including Russia and Saudi Arabia calmed the situation down before it got serious. Iran quite obviously proved capability to hit American bases with their cruise/ballistic missiles and Iraqi politicians will further push for the United States to leave. China will likely take their place as it's a very important strategic region for them as they get a lot of oil from the Saudi's and Russia will sell Iran quite a fair bit of military equipment when the UNSC sanctions end in October.

And you think China instead US will be better ?

China is building carriers and missile destroyerd for a reason, to use them just like US uses them.

Stop seeing China as a savior. They are the same as US if not worse.

I'd rather not judge a nation for what it hasn't done, on the presumption that it will do the same thing if given the chance.

China has a foreign policy of non-interference. That means respect for other country's sovereignties. No wars since 1979, no coups, no NGOs organizing protestors, no Nazis and Islamists getting funds or media sympathy, no drone strikes in sovereign nations w/o even their permission, no targetted assasinations against foreign officials or generals, no aggressive spreading of ideology, no mass-media propaganda in every world language, no world-wide surveillance network, no destabilizing construction of ABM systems, no arm bending against supposed allies and equals over foreign pipeline plans and investments, no drumming up of hatred against foreign enemies, no bankrupting and shock therapy against the industries of other countries to de-industrialize them and remove competition, no interference into others' elections and parliaments, no attempts to cripple economies with economic sanctions, no bellicose rhetoric or threats to destroy cultural sites, no demands against other countries about how to build their society, economy and political system, no aggressive social engineering broadcast abroad and incessant Hollywood propaganda.

About how they build their own country, laws, system - that's their business.

No they most definately are not the same as the US, despite now having a larger economy than the US. And it's definately a good thing they're building up carriers and missile destroyers to balance against Uncle Scumbag's fleet.

China has a foreign policy of non-interference.

Just like the US until 1945. Then they became the leader (at least as economic power) and started defending their position.

China will keep being friendly with everyone until it reaches the top. Then they will have to destroy anyone who wants to remove them from the top and they will do the same as US or any other empire in history.

About how they build their own country, laws, system - that's their business.

History shows that "leaders" expends their system and laws to their empire. And seeing how they threat muslims in china I hope for the ME they never rule them.

What a joke and pathetic display.

Iran warned USA hours infront the attack, no serious damage was done.

This was a face saving action and Trump knew it, that he did not even act when it happens shows this.


Well at least now is the steam out and maybe negotiations are possible.

Aristide wrote:

Well at least now is the steam out and maybe negotiations are possible.

.... no.

AlfaT8 wrote:

Aristide wrote:

Well at least now is the steam out and maybe negotiations are possible.

.... no.

We talk about Iran. The city of Paris has a bigger economy than Iran.

The situation in Iran is dire. Economy is broken. People riot against the regime. The Ayatollah doesnt want war, his regime would not survive.

The Irony is that the only victims were the many iranians in the Boeing 737 that Iran shot down.

This is something I found, maybe it will be useful to see a bigger picture...but not sure about the truthfulness of these sources.

http://middleeastobserver.net/irans-irgc-aerospace-chief-on-us-casualties-damages-future-retaliation-steps/

https://twitter.com/shafei_d/status/1215252597885620224

Isos wrote:And you think China instead US will be better ? China is building carriers and missile destroyerd for a reason, to use them just like US uses them. Stop seeing China as a savior. They are the same as US if not worse.

China has been promoting trade and stability for decades now.

They're building the current fleet to defend their trade routes against the United States.

In regards of whether they are better or not, only time will tell. Though it has nothing to do with what I have said. As it is still very likely they've calmed Iran down.

littlerabbit wrote:This is something I found, maybe it will be useful to see a bigger picture...but not sure about the truthfulness of these sources.

http://middleeastobserver.net/irans-irgc-aerospace-chief-on-us-casualties-damages-future-retaliation-steps/

https://twitter.com/shafei_d/status/1215252597885620224

^ this last one sounds way OTT with reality

Check rt in youtube..

RT and told that the iranian general in reality was deceived fooled by trump.. into a meeting
in bagdad for peace in the middle east..  they invited him and a saudi delegation ..
with an offer..

reality was a trap.. they lure the iranian general into believe US wanted to re-negotiate
a deal with iran , to end the tensions in middle east..  but when the iranian general shows
, american had their drones in place , to attack his convoy..


here is from a forum poster... summarize better what trump did to iran in iraq..

Trump has just shown Iran, North Korea, and every other country on earth why they HAVE to get and keep nuclear weapons. Trump has shamed and blackened the name of America Worldwide ..... how could anyone trust a Nation that breaks Treaties & agreements willy-nilly. Trump has now murdered a man "Under a WHITE FLAG" "There was nothing to suggest to the Iraqis that it was unsafe for Soleimani to travel (he had a DIPLOMATIC passport) to Baghdad – quite the contrary. This suggests that Trump helped lure the Iranian commander to a place where he could be killed. It is possible that the president was unaware of the crucial role that Soleimani was playing in the attempted rapprochement with the Saudis. Or that he knew but did not care." www.independent.co.uk/voices/qassem-soleimani-death-iran-baghdad-middle-east-iraq-saudi-arabia-a9272901.html?utm_source=taboola&utm_medium=Feed
---------
https://www.globalresearch.ca/deeper-story-behind-assassination-soleimani/5700117
The Deeper Story Behind the Assassination of Soleimani. Washington Threats to Engage in False flag Sniper Shootings. Iraq Prime Minister

This is one of the lowest thing against adversary that US military have done in a conflict.

it will be comparable to trump inviting lavrov , to talk in washington dc and when he touch down
in american airport .. his diplomatic plane is bombed to hell ,totally by american airforce waiting him..
and later claim , it was done for Russia , interference us elections..

Aristide wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:

Aristide wrote:

Well at least now is the steam out and maybe negotiations are possible.

.... no.

We talk about Iran. The city of Paris has a bigger economy than Iran.

The situation in Iran is dire. Economy is broken. People riot against the regime. The Ayatollah doesnt want war, his regime would not survive.

The Irony is that the only victims were the many iranians in the Boeing 737 that Iran shot down.

Well, them and Suliemani, the Iraqi Hezbollah leader, another 30+ of his militia taken out by the US the previous week, and the 56 people who were crushed to death in a stampede during Suleimani's funeral

It's like the Iranians got enraged, rushed to meet the enemy, stepped on a garden rake and then tripped and fell into a well.

That's what happens when you forget that revenge is a dish best served cold.

Bunch of own goals.

The US clearly did shit itself for a few days there though, but they weren't called in the end. They won this round, and they crushed the morale of the enemy.

And now the US is starting to gloat over it, with 'deescelation' seemingly at least, a done deal. Trump's press conference, and now the Canadian, British PMs and the Pentagon pointing to the crashed airliner.
They're going to slap around Iran a little more now, not immediately, but give it a couple of months.

Isos wrote:

China has a foreign policy of non-interference.

Just like the US until 1945. Then they became the leader (at least as economic power) and started defending their position.

China will keep being friendly with everyone until it reaches the top. Then they will have to destroy anyone who wants to remove them from the top and they will do the same as US or any other empire in history.

Like I said, I'd rather not judge a nation by what it hasn't done

There are more than enough nations for us to judge by what they do do, the US chief among them

For now China are the good guys