Trump: evacuate Tehran

[jaypatriot]

He's obviously stupid enough to make ambiguous statements to fan the flames of fear.

If Trump is inflaming the fears of Iran and the Mullahs, then he is motivating them to avoid having their entire infrastructure and theocratic system destroyed.
That seems pretty smart to me. Who wants to see their entire region destroyed by Israel and America.
But I don't expect you to agree with me because that would mean you are supporting Trump's strategy.

 

[Rexedgar]

If Trump is inflaming the fears of Iran and the Mullahs, then he is motivating them to avoid having their entire infrastructure and theocratic system destroyed.
That seems pretty smart to me. Who wants to see their entire region destroyed by Israel and America.
But I don't expect you to agree with me because that would mean you are supporting Trump's strategy.

Oxymoron!

I thought this was a dumb cow, at one time!

 

[HumblePi]

An idiot without a plan makes statements that make his cluelessness very apparent.


The other concerning part here is this act of sparing Khamenei as if taking out world leaders is some normal process or something the US even had in the cards. Clown show always.

'Bombing' seems to be the only option that Republicans will consider. Who got the Iran nuclear agreement together with China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, along with the European Union? Oh yeah, Barack Obama, a democrat. Republicans don't value unilateral agreements where things are worked out through cooperation of all parties.

18 years ago, John McCain wanted to just bomb the hell out of Iran.

 

[oneworld2]

If I were in Tehran I would interpret that to mean that we're going to get nuked and the US will be the one to do it.

I doubt it myself.

I think there are a lot of psyops going on

 

[oneworld2]

Pretty damn callous statement. Have you renounced your humanity?ol

BTW.... I would say that same about Trump's tweat, but we all know the man is devoid of humanity and decency (he is actually a rather dark and scary fellow, maybe on par with the Joker), I just hope you are not following blindly along.

You can't renounce that which you never had ?

I think he just likes to be edgy

 

[Along Came Jones]

You left out the part where we overthrew their democratically elected government because it cancelled the previous regime’s oil contracts. Installing the Shah not once but twice. Which led directly to the current religious regime.

Consequences of our meddling in the name of profits. Like all over Latin America

I believe that may be an oversimplification. For the CIA the focus was blunting Iranian alignment with the Soviet Union. The Cold War. The British were more focused on preventing the nationalization of the Abadan refinery.

Something I cherry picked from Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952-1954, Iran, 1951–1954 -- State Department, Office of The Historian, 2017. Illustrates The Great Game at play.

there is also the possibility that a communist seizure of power in Iran may take place imperceptibly over a considerable period of time. Under this contingency, it would be extremely difficult to identify and demonstrate to our allies that specific countermeasures were required to prevent communist infiltration from reaching the point where it would be able to significantly influence the policies of the Iranian Government. In such circumstances, it might be desirable to implement certain of the plans discussed in the attached Report,3 prior to an identifiable attempted or actual communist seizure of power.

Lots of intrigue. Including tentative plans to induce the clergy to support overthrowing Mosaddegh.

“Nationalization of the oil industry possibly combined with further assassinations of top Iran officials, including even the shah, could easily lead to a complete breakdown of the Iran government and social order, from which a pro-Soviet regime might well emerge leaving Iran as a satellite state,” one undated CIA analysis from the report warned.

Out of that fear grew TPAJAX, the CIA codename for the coup plot. Papers show the CIA at one point “stockpiled enough arms and demolition material to support a 10,000-man guerrilla organization for six months,” and paid out $5.3 million for bribes and other costs, which would be equivalent to $48 million today. One CIA document casually refers to the fact that “several leading members of these (Iranian) security services are paid agents of this organization.”

The CIA also described hoping to use “powerfully influential clergy” within Shiite Iran to back the coup, something that would be anathema by the 1979 Islamic Revolution. It offers no definitive proof of that, though several documents show American officials in contact with Ayatollah Abol-Ghasem Kashani, an anti-British leader in the Iranian parliament who turned against Mosaddegh.-- US quietly publishes once-expunged papers on 1953 Iran coup, John Gambrell, Associated Press, 6/29/2017

 

[upsideguy]

It's just reality, a reality created by the insane Iranian leadership

....meeting head on with insane American leadership. This insanity will result in innocent people being killed, which is something we all should be outraged about.

What we want is a situation where cooler minds prevail. The problem is there are no cool minds involved in any of this, just bunch of deranged people that have acquired too much power for their temperament.

 

[maxparrish]

An idiot without a plan makes statements that make his cluelessness very apparent.


The other concerning part here is this act of sparing Khamenei as if taking out world leaders is some normal process or something the US even had in the cards. Clown show always.

I read it as him backing down from baiting, knowing that no one had to evacuate Tehran to begin with. Trump loves to use ambiguous allusions to make his target uncomfortable or angry, an ill-thought-out tactic that often makes things worse than better.

Being responsible is boring, which is why he made appeals to Russia to show us Clinton's emails - it sounded intriguing and provocative.

As far as taking out Khamenei, more posturing. Reports are that Israel was going to do it but Trump nixed it. If it happens, it will be by Israel, not TACO.

 

[ElChupacabra]

'Bombing' seems to be the only option that Republicans will consider. Who got the Iran nuclear agreement together with China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, along with the European Union? Oh yeah, Barack Obama, a democrat. Republicans don't value unilateral agreements where things are worked out through cooperation of all parties.

18 years ago, John McCain wanted to just bomb the hell out of Iran.

Yeah, the "bomb Iran" folks have been at it for quite some time. I guess we'll see if what comes next is any better than what's been. I'll defer to our results in Iraq and Afghanistan as examples.

 

[maxparrish]

You left out the part where we overthrew their democratically elected government because it cancelled the previous regime’s oil contracts. Installing the Shah not once but twice. Which led directly to the current religious regime.

Consequences of our meddling in the name of profits. Like all over Latin America

I don't think anyone can know if it even indirectly led to the current regime. In the end, religious fanaticism rejected all secularism, including that of any secular government be it elected or not. And it was the Shah's pursuit of modernity that began the regimes unraveling, the White Revolution.

In short, any movement that reduced the power of the Imans and undermined their authority and wealth was going to be opposed. It had nothing to do with elected vs non elected.

 

[HumblePi]

Yeah, the "bomb Iran" folks have been at it for quite some time. I guess we'll see if what comes next is any better than what's been. I'll defer to our results in Iraq and Afghanistan as examples.

This article is from Nov. 2020. Trump wanted to bomb Iran. Luckily, wiser heads prevailed, and Trump was talked out of it. But he had to do something. Instead of bombing Iran, he assassinated Iran's top General Soleimani while he was in Iraq. That led to the shooting down of a passenger jet by the IRGC guard that was leaving Tehran on its way to Ukraine. 176 civilians died in that attack on the plane. Fears and tensions were so high in Iran that they mistook that plane for an enemy attack on Tehran. This happened just two weeks after Trump lost the election to Joe Biden. So, what was Trump's motivation for the assassination since he was heading out the door? This is just my opinion, but Trump was already claiming the election was stolen, and his loyalists were planning to fight with everything they had. I'm convinced this maneuver by Trump was strictly a politically strategic. I think it was so he could be seen as a 'hero' by his base, to given them one more reason to 'fight like hell' on Jan 6.

Nov. 19, 2020
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opini...l-could-leaving-biden-pick-pieces-ncna1248186
According to The New York Times, it took the combined persuasive powers of Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark Milley and acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller to talk Trump out of the idea of bombing Iran's leading nuclear facility at Natanz last week.

 

[maxparrish]

Yeah, the "bomb Iran" folks have been at it for quite some time. I guess we'll see if what comes next is any better than what's been. I'll defer to our results in Iraq and Afghanistan as examples.

They are good examples of policies that don't have a victory strategy (as opposed to exit strategy). Bush Jr., Powell, and Rumsfeld all had different visions of what was to be accomplished and what was not.

Powell sold the idea that "if you break it, you have to fix it". Rumsfeld believed we didn't have to fix anything. And Bush Jr. fumbled with efforts to democratize Iraq, thinking that a military victory was "mission accomplished", being unprepared for a war of insurgency.

Then, and now, I don't believe if you break it, you have to fix it. The US has had plenty of trauma in wars of occupation, and it simply isn't economically or politically acceptable to become mired in such wars. Three months after it was clear there was no WMD, Saddam had been captured, and the mission was done. Leaving Iraq to its social and religious madness was probably the best and far less expensive strategy.

As far as Afghanistan is concerned, it was a low intensity operation and the calculus was simple: the cost of staying vs the cost and consequences of leaving. Is it better to leave and presume one might have to invade once every decade to crush terrorists or is it better to pay the price indefinity?

 

[Juin]

Per this thread's OP, trump sounds as if he's on board with the United States' entering Israel's war against Iran.

I, personally, do not appreciate being manipulated into declaring war on Iran.

My feelings as well.

 

[CaughtInThe]

I do have an idea of what anti-Trump clowns would say if he didn't issue a warning.

Weren't you one of the people that said that part of the reason you were voting for Trump was that there would be no wars?

 

[Lycanthrope]

I just love how Trump is working hard to de-escalate this situation.

Tweetin' for peace!

 

[What if...?]

I don't think anyone can know if it even indirectly led to the current regime. In the end, religious fanaticism rejected all secularism, including that of any secular government be it elected or not. And it was the Shah's pursuit of modernity that began the regimes unraveling, the White Revolution.

In short, any movement that reduced the power of the Imans and undermined their authority and wealth was going to be opposed. It had nothing to do with elected vs non elected.

1953 Iranian coup by the us and Britain to secure British access to Iranian oil. It was a democracy, by the way. You know, the thing we say we support and encourage.

Unless we don’t.

Look it up.

 

[maxparrish]

1953 Iranian coup by the us and Britain to secure British access to Iranian oil. It was a democracy, by the way. You know, the thing we say we support and encourage.

Unless we don’t.

Look it up.

Straw man. Nothing you wrote is material to my comments.

Read them again.

 

[What if...?]

Operation AJAX(us)

Operation Boot(Great Britain) gotta love the name, right?

 

[What if...?]

Straw man. Nothing you wrote is material to my comments.

Read it again.

We all know yall give no ****s about history and our responsibility for the current situations.

America! **** YEAH! Coming to save the mother****ing day now!

 

[maxparrish]

We all know yall give no ****s about history and our responsibility for the current situations.

America! **** YEAH! Coming to save the mother****ing day now!

Ummmm...okay.

 

[uptower]

 

[ElChupacabra]

They are good examples of policies that don't have a victory strategy (as opposed to exit strategy). Bush Jr., Powell, and Rumsfeld all had different visions of what was to be accomplished and what was not.

Powell sold the idea that "if you break it, you have to fix it". Rumsfeld believed we didn't have to fix anything. And Bush Jr. fumbled with efforts to democratize Iraq, thinking that a military victory was "mission accomplished", being unprepared for a war of insurgency.

Then, and now, I don't believe if you break it, you have to fix it. The US has had plenty of trauma in wars of occupation, and it simply isn't economically or politically acceptable to become mired in such wars. Three months after it was clear there was no WMD, Saddam had been captured, and the mission was done. Leaving Iraq to its social and religious madness was probably the best and far less expensive strategy.

As far as Afghanistan is concerned, it was a low intensity operation and the calculus was simple: the cost of staying vs the cost and consequences of leaving. Is it better to leave and presume one might have to invade once every decade to crush terrorists or is it better to pay the price indefinity?

This is an interesting point in that the "fix it" part isn't one the US has been any good at since the end of WW2, though that was a very different war than the ones the US has engaged in since then. While the lesson of Iraq and Afghanistan is that trying to fix what you break tends not to end well in regards to "nation building", the consequences of breaking something can sometimes be less than ideal as well. It's why I find regime change a very precarious business.

Risking the lives of US soldiers without some long term solution to the reason for invading doesn't really help sell this kind of venture well to the American people either. The wars people tend to support are those where the objectives and results are clear, and nation building isn't one of those as the two examples you mentioned proved out. In this scenario the stated goal could be to destroy Iran's nuclear capability, but it's clear that would require more than just destroying their facilities. If the US joins Israel on this endeavor then there's the question of what the joint goal is too, because Israel seems keen on eliminating the regime. Lacking a plan for what comes next makes this a really risky proposition.

 

[jaypatriot]

Oxymoron!

I thought this was a dumb cow, at one time!

How are you ever going to survive Trump until January 2029?
I find it amusing there are millions and millions of disgruntled voters who must live with the idea such a politician was elected by the majority of the voters and is now the most important leader of the entire world.
Talk about giving the Opposition the middle finger for four years.

 

[jaypatriot]

As much as people bad mouth Trump, he does truly care about all people, not just Americans.

I admire your courage walking around in the lion's den the way you do.
If this was Ancient Rome you would need slaves and gladiators to protect your home and family.

 

[trixare4kids]

How are you ever going to survive Trump until January 2029?
I find it amusing there are millions and millions of disgruntled voters who must live with the idea such a politician was elected by the majority of the voters and is now the most important leader of the entire world.
Talk about giving the Opposition the middle finger for four years.

Only 1312 more days left for the entitled butthurts who lost the election.
What I want to know is when do they get started looking inward at their own failure to communicate an intelligent message the voters will buy?