Uhm dear geopolitical friends is this a big deal? kleinbl00, am_Unition
The US pulled out of the nuclear deal and applied sanctions. The sanctions are crippling, if you deal with Iran than you can't do business in the US. They have absolutely rocked an already unsteady Iranian economy. Iran has engaged in many provocative acts over past year to try and force the world community to come to the table and improve conditions in the country. Many of these provocative acts have rubbed up against American interests. Aside from working the sanctions as hard as humanly possible the Trump administration has chosen to not too respond. Trump has talked about how he doesn't want war with Iran many times. Iran has been gaining some traction with the world community and had little incentive to ease off. The Trump administration was begining to look weak or passive. I guess the buck stopped when an American contractor was killed. Will Iran back off now that the US has bared its teeth? Will Iran redouble the pressure? Who knows, I don't think the Iranians know. They probably have to respond in some way to save face with their own public and assorted allies but I'm sure someone is trying to figure out how to deescalate the situation. Will both sides take a path that lowers the temperature? The Iranian public has been in the streets, outraged at the status quo in recent months. The government has violently suppressed the protests. We are talking about scores or possibly hundreds of dead, the counts have been suppressed by the government and bodies keep showing up. This is a big problem for the government. The Iranian government is far from monolithic. There are many competing factions. The Ayatollah is old and might be the last Ayatollah who has significant power. The president has been under a negative propaganda assault from the incredibly powerful revolutionary guard who would like to see their own guy in the presidency (I can't remember this guy's name for the life of me, maybe he is the guy we just wacked but I suspect not). Iranians have shown time and again that when the are attacked by outside forces, they stick together. I don't know anything about the guy the US killed and that about all I know bout the Iranian situation right now.
Minor detail: The company that owns my company makes truck parts. They do business with Iran. My job is essentially government contracting, so I often have to sign forms that say we do business with Iran. It doesn't prevent us from doing business in the US. It's just a form you fill out and submit along with your bid. If anyone at the buyer has an issue with the Iran thing, they can throw our bid out because we do biz with Iran. But they don't. I honestly don't think anyone reads that form; in today's globalized economy it just isn't practical to think your little form can stop a $50 bn company from doing business wherever the fuck they want to.
I was looking for some good charts but this BBC piece does most the work for me. As a result of the sanctions, Iran's gross domestic product (GDP) contracted an estimated 4.8% in the 2018 and is forecast to shrink another 9.5% in 2019 , according to the International Monetary Fund. The unemployment rate meanwhile rose from 14.5% in 2018 to 16.8% in 2019. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-middle-east-48119109 There's lots more horrible reading to be done. If you're an American NGO that stands against the current government you've talked to your bank about why it should give you your money. If your an Iranian hospital trying to buy medicine you've had trouble finding a bank to deal with you. My wife had venmo stop payment for an $8 Cubano sandwich because her topic line was Cuba, the payment was to the guy who sits at the desk next to her. Good luck venmoing someone in Iran. Your company must have a waiver from the Treasury. I bet it was a lot of paper shuffling to get it done.
I feel like the response from Iran was basically the equivalent of "we don't want any trouble". Felt like the minimum they could do and save face. I'm sure there will be more to come, but they seem to be on eggshells out of the gate. Maybe they are just buying time for something more though.Will Iran back off now that the US has bared its teeth?
I was talking Paul about this today and he suggested that accidentally shooting down that Ukrainian passenger jet the other day may have added to their desire to chill shit out a bit. Makes sense to me. They don't want a US hot war and they just killed a bunch of civilians on accident. Time to chill before the next round of pressure. They have keep pushing as long as they suffer under crippling sanction, either that or roll over on their backs and give up everything to Trump. Iranians are a hard, strong people, they aren't about to roll over.
Yeah Twitter is losing its mind. Here's a bright bit to keep things in perspective: Here's what I know: 1) I follow a couple Iranian news sources (in English) and Soleimani comes up a lot. 2) His Wikipedia page does not indicate that he is irrelevant. 3) Iran doesn't really move symmetrically. 4) It's been pointed out that Atlanta Cyberattack of 2018 was Iranian, although not believed to be state-sanctioned. 5) Someone screengrabbed a couple C5s taking off. Full of Rangers? Maybe. Full of peanuts? Probably not. I mean... they made a movie about the guy. "Beloved military commander assassinated by drone strike" is gonna be a hard one to let go. I don't think anybody knows what happens next but I don't think it's hyperbole to say that something is going to happen.
Yeah I’m one of the people was all “who the f is this guy” but I’ve been aware of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard for some time now and a commander of those forces seems like it would be a big deal to the Iranian government and people. And to use your words, they’re good at “skullduggery” so I can’t imagine much good coming out of this.
Soleimani’s assassination could have wide-ranging implications beyond the direct confrontation between the United States and Iran. In Iraq, where the U.S. Embassy is already urging Americans to evacuate immediately, Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi condemned the attack, and Iraq’s parliament is reportedly planning to hold an emergency meeting to “discuss decisive decisions to put an end to the U.S. presence in Iraq.” Notably, though, the response from influential cleric Muqtada al-Sadr was more muted. In a statement, he called on Iran to avoid escalation, obliquely criticized pro-Iran militias, pledged to revive his own militia, the Mahdi Army, and didn’t mention the United States by name. Elsewhere, Israel has put its embassies and the military on high alert amid calls by Hezbollah for revenge attacks. Curiously, Germany cast blame for the escalation solely on Iran. One other thing to watch is whether more distant powers like Japan that had been planning on dispatching naval forces to the region to protect open sea lanes will remain willing to do so if war between the United States and Iran appears to be a real possibility. -Geopolitical Futures, this morningAll eyes on Tehran. The United States assassinated Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the longtime chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and a singular figure in the Middle East over the past two decades, with an airstrike at the Baghdad airport early on Friday morning. Soleimani had just arrived on a flight from Lebanon. Also killed were a senior commander of Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, and (reportedly) deputy Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem. The Pentagon said the strikes were intended to deter future Iranian aggression in the region, while the State Department said they were motivated by an “imminent” attack on U.S. facilities in the region by Iran or Iran-backed militias in Iraq. This is, to put it mildly, a dramatic escalation in the U.S.-Iran confrontation, pushing what’s largely been a shadow war waged by proxies for more than a decade out into the open. As chief of the IRGC’s notorious Quds Force, Soleimani had been instrumental in a range of efforts that ran counter to U.S. interests, including countless insurgent attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq in the 2000s, Baghdad's subsequent expulsion of U.S. forces from the country, Iran’s successful campaign to turn the tide of the Syrian civil war back in favor of Syrian President Bashar Assad and the surge in Hezbollah’s capabilities on Israel’s border. He was also spearheading Iran’s recent resurgence of influence in Iraq and presumably played some role in last week’s attack on the U.S. Embassy in Iraq by pro-Iran militiamen. But his death will hardly deal a death blow to Iran’s expansion in the region or its ability to attack U.S. interests. Given the popularity of Soleimani at home and Iran’s need to deter future assassinations, Tehran will almost certainly be compelled to respond in one form or another. For now, a cycle of tit-for-tat retaliation is more likely than a spiral toward all-out war, given the correlation of forces and Tehran’s limited capacity for escalation.
I think it is useful to draw parallels, to understand the magnitude of what the US just did: The equivalent would be if Mike Pompeo was meeting with the Japanese defense minister, Taro Kono, at Dallas-Ft Worth Airport, and a Venezuelan drone shot a rocket that exploded the convoy on the tarmac, killing both Pompeo and Kono. What would the US do? What would the US feel? How would Americans respond to the killing of our Secretary of State, and a general from a respected ally? Now, imagine if Venezuela had their soldiers on our streets for the last 25 years. Killing civilians with impunity. Driving around and ignoring all traffic conditions and rules like they own the place... and then killed Pompeo and Kono? The magnitude of the US's assassination cannot be understated, and ANY and ALL responses from Iran could be considered commensurate with the level of dishonor and embarrassment this will cause them. They can't get ground forces to US soil, but I have no doubt every US Embassy in Asia, the Middle East, and South America are currently being targeted for massive attacks, at the very least.
Naaah people hate the fuck out of Mike Pompeo. Not only that he's just a cabinet-level guy. Not only that but our government structure is very different than Iran's. Not only that but Iranians and Iraqis don't really think about Americans the way Americans think about anything. Not only that but we haven't had foreign missile-carrying drones in our skies for the past fifteen years. I get what you're saying but people make analogies so that they can force analogous thinking. I don't think analogous thinking serves us here.
At least my new limp will keep me off the frontlines? (In all seriousness, I doubt we're heading for all-out war in the near future. I think we'll keep swapping blows, but Iran is suffering right now and they don't see them committing to more direct action than they've taken thus far)
True. But more chaos in the region doesn't bode well and it is the unforeseen consequences that lead to war be it now and/or when new regimes are born from it. The world is complex and chaotic enough as it is and this is just more fuel piled onto the fire. I'll try not to brood too much ha, my new year's resolution is to not worry about events that I have little control / influence over. Ironically, learned that from my management courses this year.
Oh, I won't tell you not to worry about it! I just don't think we're heading for open war yet. I think this strike likely violated international law, and it's deeply concerning that Trump was able to unilaterally make this decision because of the wartime powers handed to his office following 9/11. Sounds like a good set of courses, I'll take a page from your notes for the time being :)
Yes. 'bl00 might help quantify concern more, but this is at least a moderate escalation. It sounds like what mk once outlined, that Trump could start a war to distract from domestic woes. Of course we should worry about how much escalating the tension may appeal to Trump as a welcome diversion to impeachment and related news: I'm no expert on whether or not we should apply some sort of leverage to Iran, but are we not weary of wars in the middle east yet? I'll be back tomorrow with a more nuanced opinion, I'm still taking in details.
The tricky part is Iran has no real reason to fight a "war." They beat Iraq to a stalemate but it was awful. Meanwhile between Hamas and Hezbollah they managed to decapitate the CIA, blow up the Marine barracks in Lebanon and generally get what they wanted (and Stinger missiles - thanks, Ollie!) without having to fire a shot. cgod is right - Iran is unstable, has been unstable, continues to be unstable. Realistically speaking, we ran Iran for 30 years when we destabilized Mossadegh. Also realistically speaking, 35% of the crude and CNG in the world flow through the Strait of Hormuz and Iran already attacked Abqaiq, one facility that refines 7% of the world's petroleum all by itself.
Scott Anderson on the attacks https://www.lawfareblog.com/law-and-consequences-recent-airstrikes-iraq
All I hear in the holy land are worries about war. And how this might affect the upcoming elections in March... If you ask me, the US should be putting trump in chains and handing him over as a response. How can someone like him just single-handedly start a war? There will be war. As if this area hasn't seen enough.
Because the Senate voted to hand some of their war power responsibilities to the President after 9/11, and have been afraid to take them back ever since. Just a couple weeks/months? ago, the Senate again refused to hear legislation that would rebalance those powers between the Legislative and Executive branches of the government. Basically, Trump has almost carte blanche to take any military action - including boots on the ground and targeted assassinations like yesterday's - whenever he wants.... because of Mitch McConnell. How can someone like him just single-handedly start a war?
Israeli media has since flipped and is calling this an important move. Heck, they are even celebrating it. And at the head of it all, Netanyahu. He won his primaries with 70% of the votes, solidifying his position in his party. And now he will probably wave the military flag, declaring that he is the only one capable to defend Israel from Iran, since he has been trying to convince the world (and congress) for ages to go against Iran, in case you remember his speech from March 2015. So, take all this and add the Israeli post-trauma and fear of being "pushed into the sea" and you will get this guy reelected, under any terms he deems necessary, even immunity.
Concisely put! I appreciate the insight. As goobster mentioned, the executive branch has consolidated power greatly over the past 20 years (or, more accurately, reclaimed the powers confiscated and then some after Vietnam/Watergate). More importantly, however, representation in the United States heavily favors rural areas and rural areas are largely full of less-educated, poorer, older, whiter voters whose basic mentality is "right track/wrong track" and "wrong track" is anything that doesn't look like 1954. Political ideology in the United States has become increasingly polarized as the Right has pulled hard into conservative territory, whereby cultural talking points matter far more than economic or geopolitical ones. You have likely heard the term "identity politics" and while the United States is growing increasingly multicultural and cosmopolitan, the rural voter is becoming increasingly old and white. As a result, the special interests that represent identity have an outsized effect: the NRA, the Christian evangelists, the right-to-lifers, etc. It's telling, for example, that access to abortion is one of the principle battlegrounds of American politics despite the fact that abortions and teenage pregnancy are both less common than they were when Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973. Ability to govern matters much less than identity match. As a consequence, American legislators are terrible at governance but exceptional at sloganeering. This has caused American politics to be largely dysfunctional, with American approval of the House and Senate rarely breaking above 30%. Anyone running for national office, then, can use their job as a target in their ads and blame their job for their ineffectuality. However, they can be held to account in an election year for any votes that do not align with the identity politics of their constituents. And if you turn on Trump, the whole Trump-o-sphere will turn on you. So if they don't all turn at once, they're dogmeat. Fundamentally? The Republicans are a rump minority of the United States but the system is imbalanced so they're establishing a dynasty through conservative judges and identity politics. Works for the Ba'athists.