Iranian General Sulemain and others reported killed in Baghdad airstrike

[Skroe]

First of all I never said you are cool with Trump, just that your viewpoint is quite extreme, for quite a few parts of the world.

What I meant to say is you are fine, with presidents that act in the interest of the US, when I talked about dividing the US population I was talking about his internal politics, which are accepted by quite a few, but not by you, most likely because of your south american origin and value of the constitution. His politics aim to divide the american nation in terms of race, something you despise, you seem to see the US citizens as one great community, united in purpose and values and try to defend this view passionately.

In essence internally you want democracy being defended and the way of life of citizens being assured, yet at the same time you are willing to deny other people in different nations, the same basis, if it interferes with US interest.

In multiple ways that’s it quite correct. I don’t even particularly care about US “division”. Actually I mock people who clutch their pearls at Americans yelling at each other loudly over political disagreements. Kicking our own ass is as American as apple pie. The rest of this just the entire motivation behind my anti- trump activity just... off.

But the part I want to focus on is my wanting to “deny other countries the right to defend themselves.” That’s inaccurate. I expect them to defend themselves and certainly with democratic counties we should always find an accommodation. But not with authoritarian regimes. Authoritarian regimes are not legitimate representatives of their people and several among them have interests in direct opposition to our own. Of course we should press for us to maximize our position vis a vis them. How could it be any other way? The work of the free world is not done until the unfree is made free. We should not tolerate it’s perpetuance and certainly we should set them low when they directly challenge us

Let me put it this way how the hell are people supposed to trust the US, considering its track record, it goes back on its word if it pleases, it bombs people to hell if it so wishes and has tens of thousands of troops in many nations, that could theoretically strike at a moments notice, electing that orange bastard reinforces such views as well.

- - - Updated - - -



Precisely, which is a damn shame really, but hey that's global politics, some of the most inhumane game humans invented.

no country should ever trust the US. The kind of trust you talk of is for children. And we should never trust any country. That’s emotional. Foreign relations are rational, not emotional. 85% of this thread is people reacting emotionally to soMething that is rational.

No. Don’t trust us. But trust is to act in our interest s. And that is in turn, what we trust about you. And that’s the correct approach because foreign relations is entirely interest driven.

Let me give a modern day example.

The US is currently trying to coax Europe into blocking Huawei as part of our global push back against china. The US intelligence community regards Huawei as a massive security threat that will undermine western security if it is put deep into European telecom infrastructure. Europe likes Huawei because it’s cheap. The US made significant advances in gerring Europe to a common position with us in the last 2 months, but we’re still it the. Simply put, Europe loves money, probably more than the security it takes badly for granted, and doesn’t want to offend the China market or badly needs and Chinese investment it badly wants. So it’s been a constant struggle between Europe alienating the ally and friend it has and wants to keep, and it alienating the friend it wants. And make no mistake. The Us will not bend on Huawei. We are winning in clipping it’s wings and we won’t lay off.

So should we trust Europe to do the right thing? Common values and all that? Fuck no. When we get a deal with Europe it will contain enough loop holes in it that will still allow Huawei in, in some form, because Europe will sell that it China as a compromise and hope we tolerate a less than full ban, because Europe’s interests are both security and trade. This has even happened her but we clearly should not trust Europe to put its alliance with us first - it never does when it comes to money - but we can trust them to act in their own interests, while will be that soft-kinda-not really ban.

That is what IR looks like. I don’t think Europe will be right for that approach, but I can’t begrudge them for acting in their interests either.

So no, never trust us. Trust is for children. Just trust that the US will try to advance it’s
Interests and defend its position. Rational foreign policy should be loveless. It should be only calculated.

[Blur4stuff]

I'd rather Iran be more clever in their response than killing people. Whether or not anyone thinks Sulemain deserved to die, I think everyone here knows Trump did this to help himself. He wants to distract from impeachment and lack of meaningful progress on just about any issue as president. He probably also thinks it helps him win the election.

So instead of just dropping bombs or having people shot, I wish they'd punch back more at Trump than random people (without violence). For example, open a few dozen boxes of roaches at the mar-a-lago or make a deal with another country to have his personal properties seized or hotels shut down. Hell, pull a reverse Ukraine and find/buy dirt on Trump then release it.

[Crispin]

Trump going with the “imminent attack” line, which was almost certainly a lie, is a terrible, terrible mistake that is setting his policy up for failure since its birth here.

A decapitation strike on Soleimani because of the embassy’s sacking is reason enough. That is the right message to send.

If he elects to pursue a fairy tale whereby the US used Cerebro and Professor X to peer into the minds Solemani and disrupt an attack that was imminent and only he knew about, Trump is opening himself up to international and domestic inquiries. Inquiries that will show he is at worst lying, at best exaggerating the urgency.

If that’s what happens, he deserves the firestorm that will come. Because the lesson or “attack our property and threaten our people and you die for it” is good enough.

- - - Updated - - -


Because we aren’t going to war with Iran and it’s insane how many people think we are.

We are not going to go to War with Iran.

Giving countries black eyes and broken arms is not war.

The issue for Europeans is not that a war will begin, it's how the US administration decides to take out an extremely high profile because they think it's fitting. It shows extreme carelesness and crosses a line Europe just does not want to join.

Ultimately it makes us wonder if the US is on the same level as China and Russia, there's no 'speak softly and carry a big stick', now it's 'launch missilles at generals while we arent at war with them, in an airport in another country while he's on his way to a funural'

I have no doubt that the US see's themselves as 'the good guys', because alot of you view the world in black and white, it's just not that simple.


This inicident obiously won't come to the point where the European allies shift away from alligning with the US, but it's another drop in the bucket. Ultimately the US is not a super power anymore than Russia is without it's allies, there's no invading anyone with carriers alone. Heck with China Europe could easily become a far more equal partner and ditch the "Now your place vassals!!1" attitude from the Americans.

[BronzeCondor]

- - - Updated - - -

Trump going with the “imminent attack” line, which was almost certainly a lie, is a terrible, terrible mistake that is setting his policy up for failure since its birth here.

A decapitation strike on Soleimani because of the embassy’s sacking is reason enough. That is the right message to send.

If he elects to pursue a fairy tale whereby the US used Cerebro and Professor X to peer into the minds Solemani and disrupt an attack that was imminent and only he knew about, Trump is opening himself up to international and domestic inquiries. Inquiries that will show he is at worst lying, at best exaggerating the urgency.

If that’s what happens, he deserves the firestorm that will come. Because the lesson or “attack our property and threaten our people and you die for it” is good enough.

Because we aren’t going to war with Iran and it’s insane how many people think we are.

We are not going to go to War with Iran.

Giving countries black eyes and broken arms is not war.

The world isn't a pre-determined set of scenarios. You can't say that with confidence, we have to let their actions play out, as well as ours, to determine the outcome for the future.

Let me give a modern day example.

The US is currently trying to coax Europe into blocking Huawei as part of our global push back against china. The US intelligence community regards Huawei as a massive security threat that will undermine western security if it is put deep into European telecom infrastructure. Europe likes Huawei because it’s cheap. The US made significant advances in gerring Europe to a common position with us in the last 2 months, but we’re still it the. Simply put, Europe loves money, probably more than the security it takes badly for granted, and doesn’t want to offend the China market or badly needs and Chinese investment it badly wants. So it’s been a constant struggle between Europe alienating the ally and friend it has and wants to keep, and it alienating the friend it wants. And make no mistake. The Us will not bend on Huawei. We are winning in clipping it’s wings and we won’t lay off.

So should we trust Europe to do the right thing? Common values and all that? Fuck no. When we get a deal with Europe it will contain enough loop holes in it that will still allow Huawei in, in some form, because Europe will sell that it China as a compromise and hope we tolerate a less than full ban, because Europe’s interests are both security and trade. This has even happened her but we clearly should not trust Europe to put its alliance with us first - it never does when it comes to money - but we can trust them to act in their own interests, while will be that soft-kinda-not really ban.

That is what IR looks like. I don’t think Europe will be right for that approach, but I can’t begrudge them for acting in their interests either.

So no, never trust us. Trust is for children. Just trust that the US will try to advance it’s
Interests and defend its position. Rational foreign policy should be loveless. It should be only calculated.

Don't underestimate Europe, China has fiscally enticing incentives but Europe isn't naive. Have some faith Skroe.

[ringpriest]

Point of information, because apparently American media keep saying that the American embassy in Baghdad was ransacked: it wasn't.



First, a little background on the US presence in Baghdad - think of it like concentric circles: you've got the Green Zone, the US Embassy Compound, and the US embassy proper.

The Green Zone (aka, International Zone), is a ten-square-kilometer high-security area at the heart of Baghdad, and for a decade it was completely walled off by blast walls and patrolling American soldiers, kept completely segregated from the rest of the city, until recently, when it was opened back up to Iraqi public access, but still has high security.

The US Embassy Complex is itself over a heavily fortified 100+ acres inside the Green Zone, and is itself a small, self-sufficient city, including food, housing, entertainment, utilities, and the actual embassy building and ambassador's residence. Here's a outline of it within the Green Zone, along with a picture of the angry mob:




When the US Embassy compound was "attacked", what happened is that an angry mob of protesters (who shouldn't have even gotten into the Green Zone in the first place), fresh from the funeral of Iraqi militamen killed by American airstrikes (and apparently urged on by some anti-American Iraqi politicians) broke in to a gatehouse of the Embassy Complex (which was, oddly, guarded by Iraqis who let them in and not US personnel), set some fires, sprayed some graffiti, tried a sit in and then left - they never made it even twenty feet into the actual embassy compound, they trashed the gatehouse and its reception area.

Is it outside norms? Yes, it is, but it sure as hell isn't Benghazi in 2012, or Iran in 1979 - that it's being dragged through the American media like a bloody shirt is very troubling, and bodes ill for chances that the US will handle Trump's provocative distraction sanely. To my mind, it reeks of a set-up, though whether a false-flag by the US (to justify Trump's dog-wagging), by someone outside party (to provoke a US response), or by Iraq or Iran (to provoke a US response), I can't be sure; but right now, the result looks like its going to be exactly what Gen. Soleimani wanted - the United States is very likely to be kicked out of Iraq, which will in turn cripple its efforts in Syria, i.e Trump may have killed him, but right now it looks like he won anyway.

[zealo]

China isn't particularly interested in having Europe as equals either, just as a means to split us off from being aligned to the Americans.

If they were they'd be open to an economic relation that's far more of a two-way street, but as things currently stand it is far easier for the Chinese to do business in Europe, than it is for Europeans to do business inside China.

A lot of this is why it's crucial that the EU survives it's current ordeal with far right attitudes rising etc so we don't get squished by either side.

[ati87]

There's no need to do any fear mongering, Trump doesn't want war, the Iranians don't want war. Even the loony Demorats don't actually believe that Trump wants war, but they like to ramble on about how dangerous a president he is because they need attention like a water starved plant.



Trump isn't going to war, he doesn't even want to.

Trump doesn't want war but he has been pushing for one since the day he took office.
How can you believe in the good intentions of Trump after he send out the talking points that blamed Iran for 9/11....let alone the other obvious lies like ''they are going to attack us''.

But let that sink in for a moment, the fact that the Trump administration is blaming Iran or 9/11.

[Crispin]

There's no need to do any fear mongering, Trump doesn't want war, the Iranians don't want war. Even the loony Demorats don't actually believe that Trump wants war, but they like to ramble on about how dangerous a president he is because they need attention like a water starved plant.



Trump isn't going to war, he doesn't even want to.

Trump is honestly not the only one controlling whether there will be a war or not, it’s naive thinking it’s entirely his call.

[Bryntrollian]

It only matters if one person thinks we are... and that's Dumbass Dump.

Things aren't always as they seem.

[Draco-Onis]

Not true.
Without an AUMF it doesn’t happen. Without a supplemental budget passed by Congress it doesn’t get paid for.

Not to mention that the kind of forces we’d need with a war against Iran aren’t remotely close to deploying. Let me know when the US sends a few Carriers and starts flying all it’s C-5s to the region daily. Let me know when. 150,000 troops get called up from the national guard.

Really, this is absurd. It was absurd when Iran shot down our drone and it’s worse now. This skittishness isn’t healthy. Like policy wise it isn’t healthy but also psychologically. We are now perennially expecting the worst whenever the Us does something or in return has something done to it. And the thing is, you can’t counter by saying “well look at the record”. The record is pretty same clear. The worst just doesn’t happen.

The problem is folks think wars are an easy decision for us or them. It will never be. Even if Iran suffers as “little” as large scale air strikes, it will take decades to recover from it. It can’t afford to keep on going as is, much less repaid when we blow up their government and military Infrastructure and let them foot the bill. And on our end, our own Pentagon is laser focused on China, who spooks them. And they are very eager to be out of the large land war in Asia business. So to turn around and hypothesize that they’ll present the President with that option is also absurd.

Folks need to chill. Seriously. The New Cold War is going to be self imposed psychological warfare of every time the US puts missiles in Asia and points them at China it’s a new Cuban missile crisis. It’s one thing to be prudent and question strategy (as I have repeatedly in this thread) but the mass panic and despair is detached from reality.

I’ll say again. Trump was just impeached. You think Nancy Pelosi will ever give him the $60 billion or so he’d need to finance punching Iran in the face (a non occupation punitive measure)? Never going to Happen.

You probably know more about this than me but can't Trump just move the cost of war off the books like Bush did? They can still use emergency powers to deploy troops for 60 days without congressional approval not to mention use contractors which by that point congress would have no choice anyways since we would be in a hot war.

- - - Updated - - -

Things aren't always as they seem.

Apparently you've missed Trump's twitter feed and responses in the last 24 hours.

[ringpriest]

While that analogy is obviously crude, to be frank, warfare is crude. As is might-makes-right geopolitics, which is what you're arguing for. You're not moving society forward, you're dragging us backward. Which, frankly, you recognize, as you call this a "new Cold War". Another Cold War emerging is a failure of geopolitics and diplomacy. And in this case, the aggressor nation is the United States of America. You're the one posing the threat. The enemy China is forced to push their production and military technology to compete against. Because you've forgotten the first part of a Cold War.

The Arms Race. You kicked off the arms race again, forced China to subjugate themselves or kick up to compete, and most of the other developed nations in the world see you warmongering. You need another big war, because your military-industrial complex owns Congress. You need that war to justify the maintenance of that army. So when the world is largely peaceful, you pick another fight.

Another point of information here - while I am no fan of how the United States chooses to conduct itself on the world stage (its moving strongly towards a Russia-esque "global thug" approach), United States emphatically did not force China into an arms race over the last 2+ decades; US military spending (and military strength in general) took a sharp downturn after the end of the Cold War in 1991. China's military was an empty shell in the mid-90s, dependent on a handful of Cold-Wa-era systems for strategic deterrence and focused around massive manpower and little else; realizing that was going to be insufficient for the 21st Century, the PRC embarked on an aggressive modernization in the last half of the 90s - it's military spending (and military power) were increasing well before 9/11 happened and the US started to increase military spending, and even then, while China has been building a modern military engine across the board designed for peer warfare (with some distinct choices based on their geostrategic requirements), the US has been focusing on the War on Terror and neglecting its peer warfare capabilities. There was some talk from right-wing warmongers (of the sort who sit in think tanks paid for by defense contractors) about China as a peer competitor from the mid-90s onward, but the overwhelming majority of those were just looking for excuses for their chosen flavor of defense funding - once Al Qaeda arrived on the scene, the overwhelming majority of "anti-China" think tank dwellers headed towards the green shores of anti-terrorism money without a look back; it's only in the last couple years, since the failed "Pacific Pivot" that minority elements of US military and civilian leadership have really started to grok a need to take China seriously, and they're still not the ones running the show and calling the shots.

During that same time, China has also undergone a sea change, although perhaps one that isn't so obvious to North American observers - economically, it's somewhere like the post-WWII United States, with "the modern world" (and its wealth and luxuries) coming to an increasingly large segment of the population; simultaneously, the post-Mao Chinese government built by Deng Xiaoping has been overtaken by an increasingly corrupt, oligarchic and dictatorial Xi Jingping. (A lot of Westerners I talk to can't seem to see the difference between one system and another, so I'll try to explain - think of it as the difference between Obama and a smarter Trump; or look to origins: Deng's immediate successors were engineers who grew up in the post-WWII era and who'd risen through the party bureaucracy mostly on their own, while the current President Xi (aka. Pooh), while technically an engineer, is a "princeling", a 2nd-generation party leader who has quietly rejected much of Deng's political reforms). It's also left its old rival India in the dust economically, a position China clearly wants to cement while it has the lead - China is aggressively building a "US in the mid-20th Century"-style empire in East Asia, with clear designs on dominating (in classic US-style) everything between them and the Atlantic.

The last thing the US needs right now (from any perspective, from progressive humanitarian to imperial capitalist) is another drawn-out war in the Middle-East - it's going to wreck the American economy through non-productive expenditures, wreck the American military through over-extension and delayed maintenance and R&D (and likely wreck endangered American democracy, too). While I am an mostly a pacifist save in self-defense, I am also a believer in the old saying, "If you desire peace, prepare for war"; an isolationist United States that squanders its power on thuggery and pointless wars cannot act as a deterrent to Chinese or Russian ambitions, and instead practically invites them to try for control over the World Island, instead, I would rather see a US that offers a better example (which in many ways it still does, although an increasingly fractured and unappealing one) and which stops wasting money on pointless, destructive wars and builds a robust deterrent force that can also support freedom of the seas (what's happened in the South China sea over the last decade+ is a damning indictment of both American failure and Chinese aggression) and encourages growing the global economic pie, instead of more destructive alternatives.

Anyway, I'm already wandering off-topic too far - point is, while the United States is far from perfect, China bears at least equal responsibility for any New Cold War - their current path is very much one the PRC government has chosen, not one they've been forced into by the United States.

[Slant]

It was the militia Soleimani backed sacking our embassy. That’s too far. Several years of ever more brazen adventurism on his part, and that was far enough.

After the US started bombing shit in Iraq, mind you. The US is the aggressor here. Never ever make the mistake to assume that Europe is stupid. This is all you, bud. You started this shitshow because of one dude. One mercenary. And you are the only one escalating shit. So they sack your embassy, big deal, you killed a dozen of them. To you, that's nothing, because to you they are subhumans.

My fear is irrational? Infinitesmal? It just happened a couple years ago. Because of US actions. This is not a fear, it's a concern and one of the reasons for our objections. And second, it is founded in past experience. The US fucks up shit, because they always fuck up shit. And then they fuck off, because they always fuck off. Why? Because as horny as y'all are for bloodshed, as soon as you remember that it's your own brothers dying, y'all are crying to end the war, because boo-hoo. And then you return and all the world has gained is one more country in ruins. No stability, no functional Government, barely an economy left and a lot of people that are on the run.

That is what you do. You terrorize nations. YOU are the aggressor. Right here, right now. YOU are the bad dudes.

I'm not concerned about Iran. Not one bit. Funny, how they don't target Europe. That's US fantasy. See, your logic is, clearly anyone against us is against all our allies. Nobody thinks in those simplified black and white terms. And I've long ago been immunized against any kind of American fearmongering. I really just couldn't care less what Americans think is a danger or not. Y'all need to untwist your titties. You're wound up so badly, why don't you in fact nuke the entire planet? I mean, you are literally surrounded by mortal enemies on all sides, technically.

You do your thing, but this is madness. You're justifying a stupid action with some fantasy of a new world order that is like the cold war in the 80s? That's American romanticism right there. The cold war was shit. And Europe won't have it.

Be mindful, too, that the EU is cleaning house in the next decade. And the US is becoming a burden. When y'all aren't constantly nagging about our spending, you're trying to drag us into illegal, imperialistic (yes, I said it... because althoughy ou won't colonize the ME, you sure as heck treat them like colonies) and unjust conflicts that we have nothing to gain of.

So one of these days when one of your Presidents goes "..or we quit NATO!" the EU states may just say "Well then, bye!"

Oh, go ahead, cry me a river of how much we need you. Jesus F. Christ, your baby nation has been created on this planet 250 years ago... who exactly do you think you are? Do you think Europe hasn't seen Empires come and go so often that we're really, REALLY not impressed with your sabre rattling? Go ahead, start your conflict... but don't expect us to be loyal to the bully that picks fights all the time.

[Flarelaine]

Does anyone remember when Republicans said they didn't want Hillary because she was a warmonger? It seems those same false conservatives are now applauding Trump for dragging us into war and conflict.

They were afraid Hillary would go to war with Russia. Moscow Mitch obviously would not like that.

[Slant]

The US should not strong arm its friends and neutral countries ever. We should always ask “what can we do for you?”.

You can stop destabilizing the ME.

Hear me out... the ME suffers from what I think is an evolutionary block. While Europe (and by extension) had its enlightenment, the Muslim world hasn't had that, yet. And you are disturbing the process. Turkey had it but in no small part due to the development in the ME, Turkey is now run by religious fundamentalists again. You need to stop interfering. And yes, that means bloodshed, because national "evolution" usually involves "revolution" of some sort. And those usually are bloody. You need to let that happen.

You know the yapping dog problem? So there's two ladies walking their dogs on a leash and they yap yap yap at each other all the time, tearing on the leash and whatnot. Annoying everyone around them. The solution is to cut the leash and let them go. Suddenly they shut up. Why? Because the leash is what gave them courage.

This is what you have with Saudi Arabia. You need to let SA and Iran duke it out. Europe had its 30 year war, let the ME have it also if need be. They need to solve that Shia Shiite bullshit on their own terms. And you need to stop interfering with that.

Also, Iran is quite insignificant on the global stage. Is this the hill you want to die on for your new world order? If China and Russia are your main concern (btw, why the elevation of importance for the regional power Russia?) deal with them. Not with some goatherders in the ME.

- - - Updated - - -

Well hold up. France was “ultimately right” in the sense that the outcome of Iraq was a shitshow. But let’s not pretend for a second their motives were pure.

No, France and Germany were right because they saw through your bullshit. They said so before you set one boot in Iraq. They called it. Do not ever try to correct history here, I will always remind you that the US left its path at that moment, when you started lying on purpose to everyone, including your allies. That is the point when you went down the wrong path and you have continued to go down the wrong path ever since.

You're lost. Your moral compass is royally foobar'd.

- - - Updated - - -

Attacking any site that does not have military value, particularly cultural sites, is considered a war crime, outlawed under Article 52 of
The Geneva Conventions of 1949, as amended in 1977.

Also the overwhelming majority of US Troops serve admirably and with great credit to this country. The war crimes that do occur are the tiny exception to that and are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The US military is not some thug gang. It’a not analogous to the Russian army or Iranian iRGC.

I need a link for that Convention. Because the usual four Geneva Conventions (excluding the Refugee Convention) do not show any such rule:

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/appli...n=openDocument
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/appli...n=openDocument
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/appli...n=openDocument
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/appli...n=openDocument

- - - Updated - - -

Don't underestimate Europe, China has fiscally enticing incentives but Europe isn't naive. Have some faith Skroe.

So, @Skroe is making some mental mistakes here. First, the EU won't do or not do anything "because the US wants it". That much has already been made abundantly clear on many occasions (EU walking out of TTIP, courts cancelling the data bridge agreement, trade disputes, slapping billion Euro fines on misbehaving US corporations despite the usual anger from the US about it, you're welcome for GDPR btw).

Second, the US already let Huwaei back in, so I don't know who the fuck he's talking about but the US isn't doing a lot to block Huwaei. And the EU sees a major concern in that... yes, we may block Huwaei or however they're spelled, but that only means someone else will come along and have Huwaei chips inside. Because that's how they operate. In any case, it's incredibly hard to keep up cybersecurity. So we can focus on dealing with the actual core problem, cybersecurity, and become better at that. Or we can do what the US does and pretend banning one silly company is solving all of our problems.

And make no mistake, the biggest cyber security threats are coming out of the US. China? Not our adversary here...

- - - Updated - - -

China isn't particularly interested in having Europe as equals either, just as a means to split us off from being aligned to the Americans.

If they were they'd be open to an economic relation that's far more of a two-way street, but as things currently stand it is far easier for the Chinese to do business in Europe, than it is for Europeans to do business inside China.

A lot of this is why it's crucial that the EU survives it's current ordeal with far right attitudes rising etc so we don't get squished by either side.

We're not. People read the news and think this is a game won by points. It's not. Europe's conditions are so good, if neither one actually occupies Europe, they won't be able to squash Europe. Also, European companies are pulling out of China for these problems you described. I'll predict China having a bit of a problem in the future and it'd be smart if we disentangled ourselves a little. They had to boost their economy once more just recently. I see a bursting bubble within the next 10 years or so.

[ati87]

You can stop destabilizing the ME.

Hear me out... the ME suffers from what I think is an evolutionary block. While Europe (and by extension) had its enlightenment, the Muslim world hasn't had that, yet. And you are disturbing the process. Turkey had it but in no small part due to the development in the ME, Turkey is now run by religious fundamentalists again. You need to stop interfering. And yes, that means bloodshed, because national "evolution" usually involves "revolution" of some sort. And those usually are bloody. You need to let that happen.

You know the yapping dog problem? So there's two ladies walking their dogs on a leash and they yap yap yap at each other all the time, tearing on the leash and whatnot. Annoying everyone around them. The solution is to cut the leash and let them go. Suddenly they shut up. Why? Because the leash is what gave them courage.

This is what you have with Saudi Arabia. You need to let SA and Iran duke it out. Europe had its 30 year war, let the ME have it also if need be. They need to solve that Shia Shiite bullshit on their own terms. And you need to stop interfering with that.

Also, Iran is quite insignificant on the global stage. Is this the hill you want to die on for your new world order? If China and Russia are your main concern (btw, why the elevation of importance for the regional power Russia?) deal with them. Not with some goatherders in the ME.

- - - Updated - - -

But what is enlightened Europe?
Enlightened Europe/West is what pushed the ME towards what it is today. Don't forget that current borders and chaos is partly caused by European powers which you just called enlightened.

I'm happy to live in Europe but at no point do I think that the mess of the ME is caused because of some sort lack of ''revelation'' in the ME. Whenever a ME country tried to go a certain way the response from the West was always negative. Turkey tried to go towards the EU for decades at this point (Erdoğan was once seen as a good thing), Egypt sacked his dictator but a few short years later the army took back the control with western support.

[ParanoiD84]

Iran was invaded by Iraq in the 80-88 war. I'd say Iran won, considering they still exist, and repelled Iraq from Iran by 1982 and was on the offensive in Iraq until the ceasefire. All while Iraq was being backed by most of the Western powers. I mean, these are simple things that can be researched.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War

We honestly don't want a conventional war with Iran. They consider Iraq to be their ancient homeland stolen by Western colonialists.

Would be nice with zero wars and conflicts but sadly that will never happen on this planet. It is what it is.

Iraq was also the 4th largest military in the world in 2003 before the us destroyed it so they didnt lose much in the iran-iraq war seeing as they also invaded kuwait right after. All both sides where really doing was killing civilians.

The war was a stalemate with both sides claiming victory because neither side could get anything done even after 8 years.

[Odintdk]

Our foreign policy over the past 3 decades, in analogy form:

1) I walk into your house. That TV you have is sweet. I tear up your living room. I shit on your bed. I even kick your cat.

2) You punch me.

3) I get angry and kill your family member. Then tell everyone I'm staying to make sure you don't punch me again.

4) Goto step 1.

Why do so many Americans fall for this crap?

The answer always have been: The great propaganda machine that operates within the US, was very, very successful in convincing everybody involved that they're always in the right. They don't fall for what you listed, because that is not the version they perceive within the US. They're only shown, told and taught the bits and pieces that fits the narrative of "freedom and democracy, brought to the rest of the uncivilized world".

Why don't they look up the truth? Again, simple: Anybody who dares even attempt that is automatically and immediately labeled a "conspiracy theorist/lunatic"

[AeneasBK]

Again, simple: Anybody who dares even attempt that is automatically and immediately labeled a "conspiracy theorist/lunatic"

Or more directly : traitor.

[Breccia]

For all those people who have been saying "It was okay for Trump to kill him, because Trump said he was a terrorist":

Iran has now called Trump a terrorist.

Does that mean they can assassinate your President? We are talking about someone who locks children in dog cages until they die for political reasons, extorts other countries (including tariffs to enforce a better trade deal), and encourages violence at political rallies, after all, so they can actually back up that claim.

If it was okay to kill Sulemain simply because Trump said Sulemain was a terrorist, then it is okay for Iran to kill Trump because they say he is a terrorist.

[Odintdk]

Or more directly : traitor.

Yup. It is no wonder that the open and educated chunks of the American people, often choose to stay quiet and not away from the topic of "foreign policy".