Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 24 of 31

Thread: Why the Death of an Iranian Commander Won’t Mean World War III

  1. #1
    Never Been Justly Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Hooterville
    Posts
    40,137

    Why the Death of an Iranian Commander Won’t Mean World War III

    This is pretty close to what I’ve been saying....

    Why the Death of an Iranian Commander Won’t Mean World War III

    The U.S. dealt a major blow in taking out Iran’s imperial strategist. But the mullahs’ next move likely won’t be a dramatic escalation.

    After years of striding across the Middle East seemingly in command of the region, General Qassem Soleimani, head of Iran’s Quds Brigade, was finally killed by American airstrikes early Friday morning. History will not mourn one of the great mass murderers of our time who was responsible for scores of dead, mostly Arab and American. Soleimani was not just the face of Iranian terrorism—he represented its changing dimensions. The Islamic Republic has always been a violent regime, but initially its terror focused most intensely on Israel. In the past decade, Soleimani turned terrorism into an effective instrument of Iran’s imperial expansion by marshaling a transnational Shia expeditionary force that has prevailed in conflicts across the Middle East.

    His death will be a blow to the Iranian theocracy but—contrary to what many observers are warning—could very likely temper the clerical oligarchs, who tend to retreat in face of American determination.

    In its first decades in power, after the 1979 revolution, the Islamic Republic focused its furies on Israel. It nurtured Palestinian rejectionist groups and, most important, created the militant group Hezbollah in Lebanon. A grim record of suicide bombings, assassinations and kidnappings soon made Hezbollah a terrorist organization with an impressive global reach. Even before the rise of al-Qaeda, Hezbollah had assumed a prominent place in the world of fundamentalism; it not only introduced new tactics, such as suicide bombings, to Islamist resistance, but also ingeniously used religion to justify its indiscriminate violence. Still, however lethal Iran and its clients might have been, their violence was generally targeted, with Israel as the preferred prey.
    Story Continued Below

    Then came Qassem Soleimani—the shadowy commander of the elite Quds Force within the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps—and the convulsions that transformed the Middle East. Soleimani was the right man for the times. In the aftermath of the 9/11 tragedies, the Middle East state system essentially collapsed, creating its share of vacuums and opportunities. Iraq imploded in the midst of a sectarian conflict that Iran did much to inflame. Syria was destroyed by a civil war that Iran prolonged. And the Gulf states’ princely class seemed petulant yet vulnerable. The Islamic Republic wanted to take advantage of all this, but despite its grand pretensions, it was still a second-rate power with a mismanaged economy. If Iran was to embark on an expansionist venture, it had to be imperialism on the cheap. Soleimani did not pioneer the use of proxies, but he took that age-old practice to a new level.

    Under the watchful eye of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, Soleimani began expanding Iran’s imperial frontiers. For the first time in its history, Iran became a true regional power, stretching its influence from the banks of the Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf. Soleimani understood that Persians would not be willing to die in distant battlefields for the sake of Arabs, so he focused on recruiting Arabs and Afghans as an auxiliary force. He often boasted that he could create a militia in little time and deploy it against Iran’s various enemies. In Iraq, that meant killing and maiming nearly 1,000 American service members. In Syria, that meant terrorizing civilians and enabling President Basher Assad’s killing machine. The use of proxies gave Iran a measure of immunity, as it could score strategic victories without being directly complicit.

    Soleimani was adept at public relations, posting pictures of himself on battlefields with adoring followers. But while often thought of in the West as a potential political leader, he had no such sway among the Iranian people; the regime’s enforcers are not held in high esteem for having wasted Iran’s meager resources on Arab wars. Soleimani’s misjudgments were also noteworthy. He did not foresee the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq, a nation whose politics he claimed to have mastered. The massive protests by Iraqi Shias against Iranian influence in the past month were a further blow to his presumptions about that country. His attempt to build a land bridge across Iraq and Syria has been decimated by Israeli airstrikes. He wrongly assumed he could operate on the frontiers of Israel with impunity, a misapprehension that cost the lives of many of his foot soldiers.

    The question now is: What happens next? Khamenei has already appointed a successor to Soleimani, his deputy general, Esmail Qaani, and the mullahs will surely thunder from their podiums about America’s aggression. The regime will have to be seen as offering some kind of a response. But for all the fears already circulating that the United States just started World War III, Iran’s reaction is likely to be a calibrated one.

    Ali Khamenei is a cagey leader who did not become one of the longest serving rulers in the Middle East by impetuously going to war with America. The clerical oligarchs respect American determination and understand the imbalance between a superpower and a struggling regional actor. They have never figured out Donald Trump, a U.S. president who offers unconditional talks while working to crater the Iranian economy. We should not expect Iran to take on a president who just ordered the killing of one of their famed commanders.

    Past is often prologue in Iran. When a truculent Ronald Reagan assumed the presidency, Iran hastily released the American diplomats it had held hostage for 444 days. When George W. Bush’s shock and awe campaign quickly displaced the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Iran responded by suspending its nuclear program. The mullahs relish assaulting America but are circumspect when facing a tough-minded, unpredictable president. The Islamic Republic had already pledged to retreat further from its nuclear obligations by next week. A move in that direction seems more likely at this point, as opposed to blowing up American diplomatic and military outposts.

    As the commemoration ceremonies begin in Iran, it is important to stress that the imperial edifice that Soleimani built was already stressed. The sanctions reimposed by the Trump administration after its abrogation of the Obama-era Iran nuclear deal have depleted Iran’s economy, calling into question its foreign policy imperatives. In November, Iran was rocked by massive demonstrations as the regime had to curtail its onerous fuel subsidies. An uneasy path lies ahead for the clerical oligarchs. The last thing they need is a costly confrontation with a president willing to do things they once considered unimaginable.


    At the bottom of all the tributes paid to democracy, is the little man, walking into the little booth, with a little pencil, making a little cross on a little bit of paper - no amount of rhetoric or voluminous discussion can possibly diminish the overwhelming importance of the point.

  2. #2
    Only because the crazy ayatollahs are more thoughtful than the Trump regime.
    The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent anybody else.

  3. #3
    Never Been Justly Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Hooterville
    Posts
    40,137
    Quote Originally Posted by danmand View Post
    Only because the crazy ayatollahs are more fragile than the Trump regime.
    Fixed it for you


    At the bottom of all the tributes paid to democracy, is the little man, walking into the little booth, with a little pencil, making a little cross on a little bit of paper - no amount of rhetoric or voluminous discussion can possibly diminish the overwhelming importance of the point.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by onthebottom View Post
    Fixed it for you
    What's Trump's endgame in this?
    Don’t be a tough guy. Don’t be a fool! I will call you later

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by onthebottom View Post
    This is pretty close to what I’ve been saying....

    Why the Death of an Iranian Commander Won’t Mean World War III

    The U.S. dealt a major blow in taking out Iran’s imperial strategist. But the mullahs’ next move likely won’t be a dramatic escalation.

    After years of striding across the Middle East seemingly in command of the region, General Qassem Soleimani, head of Iran’s Quds Brigade, was finally killed by American airstrikes early Friday morning. History will not mourn one of the great mass murderers of our time who was responsible for scores of dead, mostly Arab and American. Soleimani was not just the face of Iranian terrorism—he represented its changing dimensions. The Islamic Republic has always been a violent regime, but initially its terror focused most intensely on Israel. In the past decade, Soleimani turned terrorism into an effective instrument of Iran’s imperial expansion by marshaling a transnational Shia expeditionary force that has prevailed in conflicts across the Middle East.

    His death will be a blow to the Iranian theocracy but—contrary to what many observers are warning—could very likely temper the clerical oligarchs, who tend to retreat in face of American determination.

    In its first decades in power, after the 1979 revolution, the Islamic Republic focused its furies on Israel. It nurtured Palestinian rejectionist groups and, most important, created the militant group Hezbollah in Lebanon. A grim record of suicide bombings, assassinations and kidnappings soon made Hezbollah a terrorist organization with an impressive global reach. Even before the rise of al-Qaeda, Hezbollah had assumed a prominent place in the world of fundamentalism; it not only introduced new tactics, such as suicide bombings, to Islamist resistance, but also ingeniously used religion to justify its indiscriminate violence. Still, however lethal Iran and its clients might have been, their violence was generally targeted, with Israel as the preferred prey.
    Story Continued Below

    Then came Qassem Soleimani—the shadowy commander of the elite Quds Force within the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps—and the convulsions that transformed the Middle East. Soleimani was the right man for the times. In the aftermath of the 9/11 tragedies, the Middle East state system essentially collapsed, creating its share of vacuums and opportunities. Iraq imploded in the midst of a sectarian conflict that Iran did much to inflame. Syria was destroyed by a civil war that Iran prolonged. And the Gulf states’ princely class seemed petulant yet vulnerable. The Islamic Republic wanted to take advantage of all this, but despite its grand pretensions, it was still a second-rate power with a mismanaged economy. If Iran was to embark on an expansionist venture, it had to be imperialism on the cheap. Soleimani did not pioneer the use of proxies, but he took that age-old practice to a new level.

    Under the watchful eye of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, Soleimani began expanding Iran’s imperial frontiers. For the first time in its history, Iran became a true regional power, stretching its influence from the banks of the Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf. Soleimani understood that Persians would not be willing to die in distant battlefields for the sake of Arabs, so he focused on recruiting Arabs and Afghans as an auxiliary force. He often boasted that he could create a militia in little time and deploy it against Iran’s various enemies. In Iraq, that meant killing and maiming nearly 1,000 American service members. In Syria, that meant terrorizing civilians and enabling President Basher Assad’s killing machine. The use of proxies gave Iran a measure of immunity, as it could score strategic victories without being directly complicit.

    Soleimani was adept at public relations, posting pictures of himself on battlefields with adoring followers. But while often thought of in the West as a potential political leader, he had no such sway among the Iranian people; the regime’s enforcers are not held in high esteem for having wasted Iran’s meager resources on Arab wars. Soleimani’s misjudgments were also noteworthy. He did not foresee the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq, a nation whose politics he claimed to have mastered. The massive protests by Iraqi Shias against Iranian influence in the past month were a further blow to his presumptions about that country. His attempt to build a land bridge across Iraq and Syria has been decimated by Israeli airstrikes. He wrongly assumed he could operate on the frontiers of Israel with impunity, a misapprehension that cost the lives of many of his foot soldiers.

    The question now is: What happens next? Khamenei has already appointed a successor to Soleimani, his deputy general, Esmail Qaani, and the mullahs will surely thunder from their podiums about America’s aggression. The regime will have to be seen as offering some kind of a response. But for all the fears already circulating that the United States just started World War III, Iran’s reaction is likely to be a calibrated one.

    Ali Khamenei is a cagey leader who did not become one of the longest serving rulers in the Middle East by impetuously going to war with America. The clerical oligarchs respect American determination and understand the imbalance between a superpower and a struggling regional actor. They have never figured out Donald Trump, a U.S. president who offers unconditional talks while working to crater the Iranian economy. We should not expect Iran to take on a president who just ordered the killing of one of their famed commanders.

    Past is often prologue in Iran. When a truculent Ronald Reagan assumed the presidency, Iran hastily released the American diplomats it had held hostage for 444 days. When George W. Bush’s shock and awe campaign quickly displaced the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Iran responded by suspending its nuclear program. The mullahs relish assaulting America but are circumspect when facing a tough-minded, unpredictable president. The Islamic Republic had already pledged to retreat further from its nuclear obligations by next week. A move in that direction seems more likely at this point, as opposed to blowing up American diplomatic and military outposts.

    As the commemoration ceremonies begin in Iran, it is important to stress that the imperial edifice that Soleimani built was already stressed. The sanctions reimposed by the Trump administration after its abrogation of the Obama-era Iran nuclear deal have depleted Iran’s economy, calling into question its foreign policy imperatives. In November, Iran was rocked by massive demonstrations as the regime had to curtail its onerous fuel subsidies. An uneasy path lies ahead for the clerical oligarchs. The last thing they need is a costly confrontation with a president willing to do things they once considered unimaginable.
    I’m always suspicious when someone doesn’t include the author, the source or the link. So I almost always do some research and it turns out the author is Ray Takeyh from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, known as one of the core groups in the pro Israel lobby.

  6. #6
    Iran has neither the allies nor the economic means to wage a modern war. Any comparisons to the previous global conflicts are useless. We haven't been at this set of circumstances since probably the second century of the common era.
    "I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in," Hillary Clinton

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by jcpro View Post
    Iran has neither the allies nor the economic means to wage a modern war. Any comparisons to the previous global conflicts are useless. We haven't been at this set of circumstances since probably the second century of the common era.
    Previous conflicts. Try the current conflict in Afghanistan. USA and its NATO allies have been soundly defeated by tribesmen with AK47's.
    The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent anybody else.

  8. #8
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Ghawar
    Posts
    5,452
    No WWIII for sure. Assassinations of U.S. officials,
    militants and citizens around the world would be
    more appropriate responses from Iran and Iraq.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by danmand View Post
    Previous conflicts. Try the current conflict in Afghanistan. USA and its NATO allies have been soundly defeated by tribesmen with AK47's.
    So the Afghanis won, eh? By hiding in their holes?if that's a victory, they can have it. Btw, the objective of the attack on Afghanistan has been accomplished. Osama(remember him?) is dead. All of his infrastructures and training camps are gone. Bush
    tried, foolishly, to introduce civilization to those people- a mistake. Once America pulls out, they'll go back to their own ways of constant unrest, young boys fucking and child marriage. They'll stone a few women, along the way and, if they can find any reasonably tall buildings, they'll use them for the flying lessons for their gay population. Only difference is that, this time, if they'll begin entertaining terrorist training camps again, the damn Yankees will just drone them. In the name of national security, of course.
    "I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in," Hillary Clinton

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by jcpro View Post
    So the Afghanis won, eh? By hiding in their holes?if that's a victory, they can have it. Btw, the objective of the attack on Afghanistan has been accomplished. Osama(remember him?) is dead. All of his infrastructures and training camps are gone. Bush
    tried, foolishly, to introduce civilization to those people- a mistake. Once America pulls out, they'll go back to their own ways of constant unrest, young boys fucking and child marriage. They'll stone a few women, along the way and, if they can find any reasonably tall buildings, they'll use them for the flying lessons for their gay population. Only difference is that, this time, if they'll begin entertaining terrorist training camps again, the damn Yankees will just drone them. In the name of national security, of course.
    You seem to think very highly of POC....

  11. #11
    Official Cyclops Wrangler
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Hanging out with the One-Eyed Monster.
    Posts
    22,718
    Quote Originally Posted by jcpro View Post
    So the Afghanis won, eh? By hiding in their holes?if that's a victory, they can have it. Btw, the objective of the attack on Afghanistan has been accomplished. Osama(remember him?) is dead. All of his infrastructures and training camps are gone. Bush
    tried, foolishly, to introduce civilization to those people- a mistake. Once America pulls out, they'll go back to their own ways of constant unrest, young boys fucking and child marriage. They'll stone a few women, along the way and, if they can find any reasonably tall buildings, they'll use them for the flying lessons for their gay population. Only difference is that, this time, if they'll begin entertaining terrorist training camps again, the damn Yankees will just drone them. In the name of national security, of course.
    Yeah, the Afghans won.

    Because after all the Western media bombast. After all the dead and mutilated young men in Western uniforms. After all the "hearts and minds"..... the westerners had to turn and walk away and leave the Taliban in control. That's a win in asymmetrical warfare. Just like the Viets won. Like the Nicaraguans won. The Cubans won. The Iraqis won. Etc.

    If you don't think that's a "win" for the other side, why were American kids in those places fighting and dying to begin with?

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by jcpro View Post
    Iran has neither the allies nor the economic means to wage a modern war. Any comparisons to the previous global conflicts are useless. We haven't been at this set of circumstances since probably the second century of the common era.
    Why would they launch a modern war, their military budget is only $13 billion, about a third of Saudi Arabia.
    More likely they'd learn Saudi's lessons and let some Bin Laden type free.
    That was very cheap.

    Right now rockets are landing in the Green Zone in Baghdad.
    I doubt that's all they have planned.

    I expect that Iran is much brighter than Trump, its a low bar, but I doubt they'd do something stupidly obvious.
    Don’t be a tough guy. Don’t be a fool! I will call you later

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by oagre View Post
    Yeah, the Afghans won.

    Because after all the Western media bombast. After all the dead and mutilated young men in Western uniforms. After all the "hearts and minds"..... the westerners had to turn and walk away and leave the Taliban in control. That's a win in asymmetrical warfare. Just like the Viets won. Like the Nicaraguans won. The Cubans won. The Iraqis won. Etc.

    If you don't think that's a "win" for the other side, why were American kids in those places fighting and dying to begin with?
    Yeah, they sure won. They even look like winners. Especially Cuba, North Korea, and the rest of them. Possession of a battlefield is not necessarily a victory. They outwaited their opponents and got crashed strategically and economically in the end. And the rest they did it to themselves. Oh, btw. America "won" in Honduras. LOL! Same result in the end.
    "I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in," Hillary Clinton

  14. #14
    Never Been Justly Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Hooterville
    Posts
    40,137
    Quote Originally Posted by Frankfooter View Post
    What's Trump's endgame in this?
    Crush Iran economically to the point they can’t run a regional terror organization and isolate them so the Nazis will stop selling them centrifuges. Make them pay a high price for attacking and killing Americans.


    At the bottom of all the tributes paid to democracy, is the little man, walking into the little booth, with a little pencil, making a little cross on a little bit of paper - no amount of rhetoric or voluminous discussion can possibly diminish the overwhelming importance of the point.

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by onthebottom View Post
    Crush Iran economically to the point they can’t run a regional terror organization and isolate them so the Nazis will stop selling them centrifuges. Make them pay a high price for attacking and killing Americans.
    And in the process generate an alliance between Turkey (Nato memer), Russia, China and Iran.

    Wait for Russia to give Iran S400's

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbfE4fp2BVY
    The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent anybody else.

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by onthebottom View Post
    Crush Iran economically to the point they can’t run a regional terror organization and isolate them so the Nazis will stop selling them centrifuges. Make them pay a high price for attacking and killing Americans.
    Trump sure screwed that one up, then.
    The rest of the world was going against his stupid sanctions so the economic thing while hurting wasn't going to crush them.
    No wonder he wants a war now.
    Don’t be a tough guy. Don’t be a fool! I will call you later

  17. #17
    Never Been Justly Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Hooterville
    Posts
    40,137
    Quote Originally Posted by Frankfooter View Post
    Trump sure screwed that one up, then.
    The rest of the world was going against his stupid sanctions so the economic thing while hurting wasn't going to crush them.
    No wonder he wants a war now.
    U.S. Sanctions Have Cost Iran $200 Billion

    President Hassan Rohani made the comments while launching a railway project near Tehran on December 31.

    "Iran would have earned $200 billion surplus income...if the country were not involved in an economic war," he said.

    The United States imposed new sanctions against Iran after Washington abandoned the 2015 nuclear deal in which Iran agreed to curb its controversial nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief and other incentives.

    The U.S. sanctions on Iran’s oil industry and exports have significantly cut Iranian oil exports, as the United States ended in May all waivers for all of Iran’s oil buyers and is going after anyone dealing with Iranian oil.

    Since the United States abandoned the deal in 2018, Iran has lost 90 percent of its oil exports, a key source of revenue. Its currency has plummeted, and inflation has surpassed 40 percent.

    Rohani also questioned arguments from hardline conservatives who criticize him and who say that the sanctions have not affected Iran.

    "What should we do? When there is no food and water, you are still in danger no matter how strong you are," he said.

    Rohani's comments came just weeks after millions of Iranians protested against economic hardships, inequality, financial corruption, and discrimination following a gas price hike in November.


    At the bottom of all the tributes paid to democracy, is the little man, walking into the little booth, with a little pencil, making a little cross on a little bit of paper - no amount of rhetoric or voluminous discussion can possibly diminish the overwhelming importance of the point.

  18. #18
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    15,694
    Blog Entries
    1
    The right wingers will be pissed off with this unexpected critique of their cult leader:

    Fox News' Tucker Carlson challenges Trump decision to assassinate Iran leader
    :

    Tucker Carlson has questioned Donald Trump’s decision to kill a top Iranian leader, marking a significant break from many Republican war hawks in Washington who have celebrated the president’s actions.

    Carlson — a popular conservative political host who the president himself praised by name during a rally in Florida on Friday night — said that he does not mourn the death of Quds Force leader Qassem Soleimani, but questioned the justification provided by the Trump administration.

    “Yes, Soleimani was linked to the deaths of Americans. Nobody mourns his passing. But Mexico and China are also linked to the deaths of Americans. Each has flooded our country with narcotics from which tens of thousands of Americans die every single year,” Carlson said during his show on Friday.

    He continued: “Not that anyone in power cares. So does that mean we get to bomb Oaxaca? Can we start assassinating generals in the [Chinese] People's Liberation Army?”

    The comments came as many Republicans were praising Mr Trump’s targeted attack in Baghdad that left Soleimani dead. Among those celebrating the death was senator Ben Sasse, who attempted to distil the issue in a statement.

    “This is very simple: General Soleimani is dead because he was an evil bastard who murdered Americans,” Mr Sasse's statement read, in apparent response to questions about why Mr Trump would have decided to attack Soleimani when he did, and why. “The President made the brave and right call, and Americans should be proud of our service members who got the job done.”

    The question is not if Iran will retaliate, it's how and when

    US arms companies see stock prices soar after Soleimani assassination

    Trump deploys thousands more troops after Soleimani killing
    Carlson took issue with that explanation, too, during his show.

    “Nothing about life and certainly nothing about killing is ever very simple,” Carlson responded. “And any politician tells you otherwise is dumb or is lying.”

    It is unclear what, if any, response the Iranian government might have to the killing of its leader, but top officials have vowed to avenge their fallen general.

    Carlson has been a prominent defender of the president, even as he has avoided falling completely in line behind Mr Trump's boasts and lies.

    In November, for instance, Carlson highlighted the Washington Post's ongoing list of lies or untruths uttered by the president, which has reached over 15,000 at this point. The Fox News host acknowledged that Mr Trump often exaggerates, and even called him a "BS artist".

    But, soon after, Carlson turned the argument and defended the president by claiming he is disliked by the left because of the times when he actually tells the truth, and challenges the power structures in Washington that profit off the status quo of the government. Mr Trump, notably, has not released his tax returns or removed himself from his businesses, raising concerns about conflicts of interest stemming from his presidency and foreign policy dealings.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a9270766.html


    On ignore: Disrespectful Individuals!!

  19. #19
    Actually bver it was expected. Tucker is consistently anti war.
    I endorse Senator Bernie Sanders for President in 2020.

    It is my hope Tulsi Gabbard becomes his running mate.

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by onthebottom View Post
    So you're saying the sanctions were working?
    Then why the fuck did Trump start a war?
    Don’t be a tough guy. Don’t be a fool! I will call you later

  21. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Butler1000 View Post
    Actually bver it was expected. Tucker is consistently anti war.
    The "Trump is evil" crowd still don't understand why Trump was elected or how similar the Carlson's position is to Trump's on the foreign wars. Or how anti interventionist his voters are. Suleimani, for all his "brilliance", somehow missed the political reaction among the voters to the Benghazi attack and the collective memory and humiliation of the Tehran embassy attack- easy to miss if he only watched the CNN. The moment he tried the same gambit, he signed his death warrant.
    "I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in," Hillary Clinton

  22. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by jcpro View Post
    The "Trump is evil" crowd still don't understand why Trump was elected or how similar the Carlson's position is to Trump's on the foreign wars. Or how anti interventionist his voters are. Suleimani, for all his "brilliance", somehow missed the political reaction among the voters to the Benghazi attack and the collective memory and humiliation of the Tehran embassy attack- easy to miss if he only watched the CNN. The moment he tried the same gambit, he signed his death warrant.
    You really believe what you post?
    That Trump supporters are anti-interventionists?
    Other than butler, who is basically trolling everything, there are no Trump supporters against his trying to start a war with Iran.

    And yes, most people understand that Trump managed to convince poor white voters and the highly religious that it wasn't billionaires like him that were responsible for their lousy lives but instead immigrants and/or people of colour.
    Don’t be a tough guy. Don’t be a fool! I will call you later

  23. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Frankfooter View Post

    And yes, most people understand that Trump managed to convince poor white voters and the highly religious that it wasn't billionaires like him that were responsible for their lousy lives but instead immigrants and/or people of colour.
    There is a reason the rich people in USA are against public education.
    The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent anybody else.

  24. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by onthebottom View Post
    U.S. Sanctions Have Cost Iran $200 Billion

    President Hassan Rohani made the comments while launching a railway project near Tehran on December 31.

    "Iran would have earned $200 billion surplus income...if the country were not involved in an economic war," he said.

    The United States imposed new sanctions against Iran after Washington abandoned the 2015 nuclear deal in which Iran agreed to curb its controversial nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief and other incentives.

    The U.S. sanctions on Iran’s oil industry and exports have significantly cut Iranian oil exports, as the United States ended in May all waivers for all of Iran’s oil buyers and is going after anyone dealing with Iranian oil.

    Since the United States abandoned the deal in 2018, Iran has lost 90 percent of its oil exports, a key source of revenue. Its currency has plummeted, and inflation has surpassed 40 percent.

    Rohani also questioned arguments from hardline conservatives who criticize him and who say that the sanctions have not affected Iran.

    "What should we do? When there is no food and water, you are still in danger no matter how strong you are," he said.

    Rohani's comments came just weeks after millions of Iranians protested against economic hardships, inequality, financial corruption, and discrimination following a gas price hike in November.
    You should let people know that your source for this is Radio Free Liberty, a US government propaganda outlet that at one time was funded directly by the CIA.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •