Iranian General Sulemain and others reported killed in Baghdad airstrike

[Edge-]

The deal was also with the other 4 members so just the US pulling out was enough for them to ignore it?

Yes, because the US threatened sanctions on member-nations if they continued to abide by the deal economically. Read the Wikipedia I linked, dude.

[Gaidax]

So Netanyashu made a statement to his security council, summed up as "This is america's problem, not ours". When you can't get Israel on board for war with Iran, you know you fucked up.

You simply misrepresent the meaning behind that particular statement.

It's simply what it is - not our operation, so not our direct problem really. We certainly enjoy the outcome, that one is a big blow there not to be underestimated - that cocksucker was the literal mastermind of all this network of Iranian proxies all across the ME and in hindsight - he should have been dead a decade ago.

[Dacien]

I'm sure that Trump will claim this crowd as being all about him;


Hundreds of thousands mourn Soleimani at funeral in Tehran

I've been reading some tweets suggesting that attending this funeral wasn't exactly, uh, optional. It was but it wasn't, so to speak. Consequences could follow for not attending.

[PACOX]

Where are you seeing this information about the plan to kill him before the Embassy attack?

Almost every news article cites the decision came after the attack on the 27th and not the embassy attacks.

[Shadowferal]

I've been reading some tweets suggesting that attending this funeral wasn't exactly, uh, optional. It was but it wasn't, so to speak. Consequences could follow for not attending.

Sounds like the usual Trump rally.

[Voidwielder]

Iranian and American Strategies After Soleimani
by George Friedman
Iran has expressed outrage at the killing of Qassem Soleimani, the head of Iran’s Quds Force, and has announced a resumption of its nuclear enrichment program, but little in the way of reprisals has actually taken place.

For the United States, the goal of killing Soleimani was to break the Iranian sphere of influence. Its method for doing so has been partly political and partly military. Politically, it has tried to influence some groups with looser ties to Iran. Militarily, it has sought to use air power to destroy key installations. The air campaign is likely to continue in Iraq as Israel attacks in Syria. The U.S. is likely unprepared to act in Lebanon but may continue to support Saudi and Emirati forces in Yemen. In other words, the U.S. was in the process of initiating its offensive against Iran, and that has a long way to go before achieving desired ends. The killing of Soleimani is a step, not closure.

For Iran, the killing opens the door to political maneuver at a time when it badly needs some room. Many U.S. allies, some involved in the nuclear talks that spawned sanctions, have condemned the American action. Resuming the nuclear program is designed to create further opposition to U.S. action, since the U.S. will be blamed for the restart. Iran’s goal will be to create a divide between the U.S. and countries like Germany and France, and use that to isolate the U.S. and create an opening that could lead to the collapse of sanctions. A terrorist action against civilian targets cuts against this strategy.

The test will be whether the anti-Iran alliance will hold, and whether the sanctions can be eased in this way. If they can, the U.S. has to reconsider its actions, because the economic isolation of Iran is the key to U.S. strategy. So now the battle turns to countries participating in the sanction program, particularly the larger European ones. The threat of violence is there, but for the moment the Iranians will use this event as a lever for ending sanctions.

Some perspective.

[muto]

Snip

War is not ethical, which completely invalidates your whole argument. It’s the same argument that lethal injection is more ethical than the electric chair when in both cases the person dies.

[Dadwen]

Yes, because the US threatened sanctions on member-nations if they continued to abide by the deal economically. Read the Wikipedia I linked, dude.

we're going to impose sanctions on the UK? EU? China and France? didn't see that in there, read though it I thought fairly well.

[Crispin]

I've been reading some tweets suggesting that attending this funeral wasn't exactly, uh, optional. It was but it wasn't, so to speak. Consequences could follow for not attending.

Where have you been reading this?

[Edge-]

we're going to impose sanctions on the UK? EU? China and France? didn't see that in there, read though it I thought fairly well.

On the companies that engaged in trade, yes. That's why the EU was looking for a way to circumvent that and continue business with Iran a while back - https://www.forbes.com/sites/frances.../#35f53ee32c8d

[Elegiac]

I've been reading some tweets suggesting that attending this funeral wasn't exactly, uh, optional. It was but it wasn't, so to speak. Consequences could follow for not attending.

Were these tweets belonging to people like Ben Shapiro and Tomi Lahren, perhaps?

It's extremely hypocritical for Trump voters to make snide remarks about the trappings of dictatorship in Iran when their President does little else but whine about not being able to use those very trappings ranging from military parades, to compulsory attendance, to revision of history to suit a narrative. Especially when said President frequently engages in acts of stochastic terrorism by painting targets on minorities for his worst followers. You know, exactly like the stereotypical fatwa.

[Voidwielder]

War is not ethical, which completely invalidates your whole argument. It’s the same argument that lethal injection is more ethical than the electric chair when in both cases the person dies.

War is ubiquitous. So you might as well be the one who calls the shots.

[Dacien]

Where have you been reading this?

Here's one of the tweets.

https://mobile.twitter.com/MessageFr...94629746937857

There was another one but I'm on my phone at lunch so I don't think I can dig it up. Just thought it was interesting.

[Dadwen]

On the companies that engaged in trade, yes. That's why the EU was looking for a way to circumvent that and continue business with Iran a while back - https://www.forbes.com/sites/frances.../#35f53ee32c8d

from my understanding (I might be wrong) but we have other Sanction on Iran separate from this for other issues.
Anyway we could go on if they are able to have negotiation with (unless it benefits them way more than us), either way does dropping off of this = having missiles shot at our people?

[Puupi]

Here's one of the tweets.

https://mobile.twitter.com/MessageFr...94629746937857

lol

I thought you had seen some actual evidence, or something that could have been remotely connected to this; like Iranian sources. But no, some Russian just throwing shit on the wall and wondering whether it will stick or not.

[ati87]

So my information is propaganda but yours isn’t... and around in circles we go. Look dude the only information I have is secondhand same as you. I’m not sitting here cheering on an invasion of Iran, far from it. I’m just not so jaded as to see this as some kind of convenient political stunt.

Do you mind pointing out the propaganda articles I'm spouting? The fact that I said that I point out that Sulemain was potentially popular isn't propaganda since in my sentence I allowed enough room for you to proof that he isn't popular. Fact is that you said that Sulemain isn't popular so prove it! According to the Iran government and the videos/pictures they released he is popular.

Furthermore your argument of the side that likes war boils down to the following. ''They where going to attack us'' and ''We will be seen as liberators'', you know how bloody cliche these arguments are? Countries have been using these for centuries to justify wars on false pretences.

[Dacien]

lol

I thought you had seen some actual evidence, or something that could have been remotely connected to this; like Iranian sources. But no, some Russian just throwing shit on the wall and wondering whether it will stick or not.

Well he works for the State Department, he's got some credibility. I don't think it's fair to call him "some Russian". There are Iranians backing him up in the comments.

Wouldn't surprise me is all.

[alexw]

tbh the iranians threatening trump's business properties is just another example of why a "businessman president" was a terrible idea.

If I was the Iranians this is exactly what I would do. Don't go after US military assets but after Trumps personal business assets.

Turn it into a feud between Trump and Iran rather than the US as a whole, then watch as Trump tries to use the US military to protect his own personal business interests. So plant bombs in Trump hotels/assets in the middle east then call in a bomb threat and tell them they have 30min to clear out before they go up in smoke, then watch them burn from afar. How exactly does he respond to that without it being clear he's using the US military as his own personal enforcement arm?

[Shadowferal]

So Netanyashu made a statement to his security council, summed up as "This is america's problem, not ours". When you can't get Israel on board for war with Iran, you know you fucked up.

They initially had a lukewarm...perfunctory response that lacked any real fire about the US playing in the Mideast.
Netanyahu probably realizes how fucked up US leadership is, and how much Putin is probably pulling Trump's strings...as usual.

[ati87]

They weren't, that was their money that they received. We didn't "pay" them anything, that's a conservative meme to spread disinformation and has been debunked to hell.

And economic incentives are generally how you bring countries like this to the negotiating table. Sanction them to hell (they were), and use the lifting of these sanctions as a way to get them to make concessions that are desirable.

And it was working.



Well, not withdrawing from this deal would have likely helped. But withdrawing years ago didn't benefit the US in the slightest and only served to instigate Iran and provoke attacks and retaliation for the US breaking our word.

Why should they believe any deal with sign now after Trump pulled out of the last one?

Honestly I think the Iran deal was something of a no-brainer for any sane person and that for Iran didn't really gave up anything.
Fact is that Iran had no plans to build nuclear weapons, this is a verifiable fact since nuclear weapons and nuclear power are two different processes. Making a bomb is kind of easy, even north korea can do it.
So Iran didn't really gave up anything where the US only gave back the money that was of Iran. Only reason why a deal like this was needed is because of chickenhawks that want to bomb Iran for decades now.