The US just assassinated...

The E wrote:
And yet, here he is, ordering the assassination of an iranian official on iraqi soil. Here he is, surging almost 4000 troops into the theater, all on some nebulous "there's an attack imminent" bullshit that has not been corroborated by anyone credible yet.

Reinforcing Basra region make quite a lot of sense. It is the most vulnerable part of Iraq in therms of overland invasion. Every other part of border is relatively safe - it's mostly desert, with hundreds of miles until anything important - but near Basra and Abadan, Iranian troops need to advance only 20 km to completely cut Iraq from sea, and only 60 km to reach the entrance of Kuwait Bay. From where they could target El-Kuwait with their rockets & long-range artillery.

While such attack is not very probable, it is nerveless POSSIBLE, and in case thing degrade into all-out shooting war with Iran, it make every strategical sense to rush troops into this regions in advance.

Dilandu wrote:

The E wrote:
And yet, here he is, ordering the assassination of an iranian official on iraqi soil. Here he is, surging almost 4000 troops into the theater, all on some nebulous "there's an attack imminent" bullshit that has not been corroborated by anyone credible yet.

Reinforcing Basra region make quite a lot of sense. It is the most vulnerable part of Iraq in therms of overland invasion. Every other part of border is relatively safe - it's mostly desert, with hundreds of miles until anything important - but near Basra and Abadan, Iranian troops need to advance only 20 km to completely cut Iraq from sea, and only 60 km to reach the entrance of Kuwait Bay. From where they could target El-Kuwait with their rockets & long-range artillery.

While such attack is not very probable, it is nerveless POSSIBLE, and in case thing degrade into all-out shooting war with Iran, it make every strategical sense to rush troops into this regions in advance.

Yes... IF you're planning for a shooting war. Which was E's point.

gcomeau wrote:
Yes... IF you're planning for a shooting war. Which was E's point.

Being ready to a shooting war is kinda the best way to prevent it.

Dilandu wrote:

gcomeau wrote:
Yes... IF you're planning for a shooting war. Which was E's point.

Being ready to a shooting war is kinda the best way to prevent it.

And assassinating high level government officials and bragging on TV about it after trashing previously existing diplomatic agreements that had reduced tensions and opened diplomatic communication channels is kinda the worst way to prevent it.

gcomeau wrote:
And assassinating high level government officials and bragging on TV about it after trashing previously existing diplomatic agreements that had reduced tensions and opened diplomatic communication channels is kinda the worst way to prevent it.

Well, this already happens, isn't it?

I don't see a shooting war happening. Iran won't risk a direct confrontation. It will be one of those militias Soleimani organized, maybe a covert terror strike or even a cyber attack at something critical. It won't be fun and games...

Don

-

Have got to love Boris Johnson's response to being informed.

"Fuck"

n7axw wrote:It will be one of those militias Soleimani organized, maybe a covert terror strike or even a cyber attack at something critical. It won't be fun and games...

In other words, same old, same old.

They are already at war with us. They will do whatever they dare, as they have already been doing. Only fear keeps them from doing things even more blatant and undeniable. Blowing up Soleimani was a necessary reminder that they should be afraid.

What legitimate business would the head of Iran's secret police have in Iraq anyway? Directing an attack on our embassy was NOT legitimate business.
———————————
"What? You're a Betan! You can't do—"

Imaginos1892 wrote:

n7axw wrote:It will be one of those militias Soleimani organized, maybe a covert terror strike or even a cyber attack at something critical. It won't be fun and games...

In other words, same old, same old.

They are already at war with us. They will do whatever they dare, as they have already been doing. Only fear keeps them from doing things even more blatant and undeniable. Blowing up Soleimani was a necessary reminder that they should be afraid.

What legitimate business would the head of Iran's secret police have in Iraq anyway? Directing an attack on our embassy was NOT legitimate business.
———————————
"What? You're a Betan! You can't do—"

That they won't openly go to war with us doesn't mean they can't make it more difficult for us to protect our people and our interests in the region. Nor does it mean that they can't arrange unpleasantness at home. The question isn't whether or not the man deserved what he got. It's about if the consequences are worth it.

Don

-

Dilandu wrote:

The E wrote:
And yet, here he is, ordering the assassination of an iranian official on iraqi soil. Here he is, surging almost 4000 troops into the theater, all on some nebulous "there's an attack imminent" bullshit that has not been corroborated by anyone credible yet.

Reinforcing Basra region make quite a lot of sense. It is the most vulnerable part of Iraq in therms of overland invasion. Every other part of border is relatively safe - it's mostly desert, with hundreds of miles until anything important - but near Basra and Abadan, Iranian troops need to advance only 20 km to completely cut Iraq from sea, and only 60 km to reach the entrance of Kuwait Bay. From where they could target El-Kuwait with their rockets & long-range artillery.

While such attack is not very probable, it is nerveless POSSIBLE, and in case thing degrade into all-out shooting war with Iran, it make every strategical sense to rush troops into this regions in advance.

One has to wonder if the US has been monitoring troop movements in Iran that are consistent with preparations for invasion (or intervention in civil unrest). The Quids force has been inciting and provoking violence in Iraq since before the US invasion. A movement of forces "to protect Shia around Basra" could quickly become an invasion of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Can you say "ON BASALISK STATION.?"

Such an invasion would probably degenerate into a bloody stalemate between Iran and Saudi Arabia. It was presumed that the most probable scenario would be that ALL oil shipments from the Persian Gulf would cease but Saudi Arabia would pump oil by pipeline to continue to ship from Red Sea ports.

While I find this prospect of a bloody stalemate between Iran and Saudi Arabia amusing, the recent missile attack against Saudi oil processing suggests that Iran could take all Saudi oil off line. Iran could also take all Saudi power generation, water desalination, water pumping and distribution, and air conditioning off line. This would result in tens of millions in Saudi deaths within one week. Iran would then have an empire that includes the entire Persian Gulf and Arabian peninsula. This might become problematic for America even though the US is energy independent.

https://theconservativetreehouse.files. ... ntique.jpg


https://gellerreport.com/2020/01/the-ne ... mani.html/