The Big Middle Eastern Thread

[SirBalon]

Looks like Trump is getting himself and his country into a decent amount of bother. Trump should be thinking about Muller’s words yesterday and when he eventually is no longer President.

[6666]

I don't think Trump knows what the fuck is going on and he's just listening to whichever warmonger was in the room with him last. John Bolton is a complete disaster to have influencing a president. Especially one as dumb as Trump.

Edited May 31, 2019 by 6666

[Cicero]

Just realised they do executions by firing squads in North Korea 

[SirBalon]

38 minutes ago, Cicero said:

Just realised they do executions by firing squads in North Korea 

He's quite inventive with his executions. He apparently shot his uncle out of a canon. It's no surprise both he and Trump have warmed to eachother.

[Dr. Gonzo]

16 hours ago, SirBalon said:

He's quite inventive with his executions. He apparently shot his uncle out of a canon. It's no surprise both he and Trump have warmed to eachother.

I thought he had his uncle blown up with a mortar

[SirBalon]

40 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I thought he had his uncle blown up with a mortar

I just took it out of the back of my mind on something he tends to do to people with canons and I knew about him killing his uncle, so just threw that one in there. 

[Azeem]

Exercises carried out by multiple fighter jets and helicopters, aided by the B-52, which is a nuclear-capable bomber.

Shit 

[El Profesor]

My impression is that Trump´s instincts are isolationist. But at the same time, he has John Bolton on his staff, so you never know. 

A war against Iran would be a totally different animal from the post-WWII wars fought by the United States. The US, even at the highest point of Cold War, was always comfortably the strongest nation in the world, economically and in military strenght. That is not the case anymore, I feel like the US are one stupid war away from losing its supremacy. 

They don´t have more the breathing room for another stupid war and Iran is certainly a regional power to be reckoned with. 

Much like the World War 1 sealed the fate of british hegemony, a war against Iran could definitely end post-WWII era dominated by the US and begin a very different chapter in the history of the world.    

[Azeem]

56 minutes ago, El Profesor said:

My impression is that Trump´s instincts are isolationist. But at the same time, he has John Bolton on his staff, so you never know. 

A war against Iran would be a totally different animal from the post-WWII wars fought by the United States. The US, even at the highest point of Cold War, was always comfortably the strongest nation in the world, economically and in military strenght. That is not the case anymore, I feel like the US are one stupid war away from losing its supremacy. 

They don´t have more the breathing room for another stupid war and Iran is certainly a regional power to be reckoned with. 

Much like the World War 1 sealed the fate of british hegemony, a war against Iran could definitely end post-WWII era dominated by the US and begin a very different chapter in the history of the world.    

I don't think there will be anyone left after this potential US war in the Middle East to hold the realm of global power as every major power in the World will be exhausted morally, financially and military to the point of extinction.

[SirBalon]

1 hour ago, El Profesor said:

My impression is that Trump´s instincts are isolationist. But at the same time, he has John Bolton on his staff, so you never know. 

A war against Iran would be a totally different animal from the post-WWII wars fought by the United States. The US, even at the highest point of Cold War, was always comfortably the strongest nation in the world, economically and in military strenght. That is not the case anymore, I feel like the US are one stupid war away from losing its supremacy. 

They don´t have more the breathing room for another stupid war and Iran is certainly a regional power to be reckoned with. 

Much like the World War 1 sealed the fate of british hegemony, a war against Iran could definitely end post-WWII era dominated by the US and begin a very different chapter in the history of the world.    

Agree with that and it isn't the only problem the US have which they never had previously. In the past the US were guaranteed a huge amount of support in terms of genuine die hard allies which isn't the case anymore. Aside from the UK which due to our Brexit issue would probably stand firm with the US (the trade issue), the rest of Europe aren't all that pro-US these days at all and there are other commitments and reliances that on a simple face of the matter supersede total adherence to being at the US's command. Things have changed and infact Trump has burned many already fragile bridges. The world is more divided and sortied compared to the past.

[Azeem]

Oh the widening gap between Europe and US is real, Europe believes US double crossed them by pulling out of Iran deal while Trump really pushed for America first narrative, US thinks that it does all the dirty work and gets all the hate while Europe benefits from dirty work. 

[SirBalon]

2 hours ago, Stick With Azeem said:

Oh the widening gap between Europe and US is real, Europe believes US double crossed them by pulling out of Iran deal while Trump really pushed for America first narrative, US thinks that it does all the dirty work and gets all the hate while Europe benefits from dirty work. 

Trump thinks many things and what we can say with certainty is that whatever Trump says, one should do the opposite and one won’t go far wrong and be on the right path.

It’s not just that with the issues between the US and Europe. The feeling from Europe in general is more than mutual. The US are another Russia in Euro eyes, but even more suspicious.

[Azeem]

21 minutes ago, SirBalon said:

Trump thinks many things and what we can say with certainty is that whatever Trump says, one should do the opposite and one won’t go far wrong and be on the right path.

It’s not just that with the issues between the US and Europe. The feeling from Europe in general is more than mutual. The US are another Russia in Euro eyes, but even more suspicious.

US on the other hand thinks they are ones protecting Europe from Russia i.e NATO while Russia sees NATO not as a coalition but simply as way to bring US forces near its border a threat to its national security.

[SirBalon]

Just now, Stick With Azeem said:

US on the other hand thinks they are ones protecting Europe from Russia i.e NATO while Russia sees NATO not as a coalition but simply as way to bring US forces near its border a threat to its national security.

The situation with NATO and Europe is a dying requirement. Hopefully a similar thing can he created by Europe itself in the not too distant future and in so doing finally free itself from having to adhere to the US’s personal benefits with destabilising certain parts of the globe. We suffer the main retribution in Europe from their meddling.

[Azeem]

Just now, SirBalon said:

The situation with NATO and Europe is a dying requirement. Hopefully a similar thing can he created by Europe itself in the not too distant future and in so doing finally free itself from having to adhere to the US’s personal benefits with destabilising certain parts of the globe. We suffer the main retribution in Europe from their meddling.

But apart from a few countries does Europe has enough to replace what US offers in regards to that ?

[SirBalon]

43 minutes ago, Stick With Azeem said:

But apart from a few countries does Europe has enough to replace what US offers in regards to that ?

I think so. Definitely for our own continent’s interests yes. This isn’t talking about that invention of a European army, but a combined, strategical and powerful defence of European interests. We then have even more competitive power.

[Dr. Gonzo]

8 hours ago, SirBalon said:

The situation with NATO and Europe is a dying requirement. Hopefully a similar thing can he created by Europe itself in the not too distant future and in so doing finally free itself from having to adhere to the US’s personal benefits with destabilising certain parts of the globe. We suffer the main retribution in Europe from their meddling.

I'm not so sure that NATO is a dying requirement. We've seen plenty of Russian belligerence in recent years to indicate that they're going to try to push beyond their borders and invade elsewhere. NATO wasn't an effective deterrent to stop them from going into Georgia, it wasn't an effective deterrent to stop them from invading Ukraine and taking Crimea as their own. I'm not sure that the armies of Europe alone are enough of a deterrent for Russian belligerence. I think they already view NATO as an institution with waning influence, I imagine if the US is no longer standing beside Europe, they'll view it as virtually dead and keep trying to push back to Soviet borders.

 

11 hours ago, Stick With Azeem said:

I don't think there will be anyone left after this potential US war in the Middle East to hold the realm of global power as every major power in the World will be exhausted morally, financially and military to the point of extinction.

I think China would be left as the last superpower. But who knows how involved they would be in protecting their investments in the region - I imagine that right from the off in this potential war, we'll see the war escalate to a level where most countries that weren't initially involved in the first attacks will see what is happening and think "I don't want any part in this."

But it's a given that if anything happens, the Straight of Hormuz is just going to be riddled with mines and there are ships from all over the world that'll be impacted by that. So right from the offset, we'd be seeing carnage. And we'd also probably see the western world shit itself at what happens to petrol prices.

Granted, they'd have to be the ones trying to make the Middle East a relatively stable place after the hellfire dies down. But if the US does go to war with Iran, as I said before - I fully expect the entire region to go up in flames, the Islamic Republic knows it'll be staring defeat in conventional warfare in the face - I can't see them not using a potential invasion as a way to do everything they can to absolutely fuck over their enemies in any way they can, particularly Israel, the Saudis, and the UAE. And then there would be a long bloody occupation and insurgency over the ruins of Iran.

[SirBalon]

6 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I'm not so sure that NATO is a dying requirement. We've seen plenty of Russian belligerence in recent years to indicate that they're going to try to push beyond their borders and invade elsewhere. NATO wasn't an effective deterrent to stop them from going into Georgia, it wasn't an effective deterrent to stop them from invading Ukraine and taking Crimea as their own. I'm not sure that the armies of Europe alone are enough of a deterrent for Russian belligerence. I think they already view NATO as an institution with waning influence, I imagine if the US is no longer standing beside Europe, they'll view it as virtually dead and keep trying to push back to Soviet borders.

For me we have examples of the major problems the US really have in that they can't manipulate others in the manner they once did. The greatest example is the now with possibly the most elf indulgent President of the US in history, at least in modern history. This guy (Trump) loves himself so much but would really like to make a mark due to the narcissistic syndrome he suffers from... Plus HE NEEDS people to tell him he's great. With everything he is, he can't handle China or the US and Ping Pong Ball in North Korea has plainly been laughing at him during the whole tele-novels Trump has stupidly subjected himself to. Infact I would go as far as to say that both France and Germany have been taking the piss a bit with Trump since he became President.

All of this points to Trump probably doing something even more stupid than what he's already done and I'm not talking about him saying he'd date his daughter if she wasn't exactly that or the fact he said Mexico would pay for a wall and now he can't even persuade his own country to pay for it.

Something stupid will be done (although let's hope it doesn't occur to be honest)... It seems that there are a few just waiting for an excuse.

So... What I'm saying is that Trump loves to advertise America as being in some much better situation than ever before which is far from the truth, but something tells me they've never been weaker and that this is the moment to take advantage. What will be curious is to see what stance the UK take with all the major issues we have in this country and not just Brexit. How much the UK will risk in sucking up to this twat at the expense of making even more enemies where we live (our neighbours)... They're curious times, maybe even quirte scary.

I opine that the US has big problems and they've never been less American.

(for my beloved John Cleese)

[Azeem]

Bolton may want War with Iran, but the Pentagon is Eyeing China

The recent White House decision to speed the deployment of an aircraft carrier battle group and other military assets to the Persian Gulf has led many in Washington and elsewhere to assume that the U.S. is gearing up for war with Iran. As in the lead-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, U.S. officials have cited suspect intelligence data to justify elaborate war preparations. On May 13th, acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan even presented top White House officials with plans to send as many as 120,000 troops to the Middle East for possible future combat with Iran and its proxies. Later reports indicated that the Pentagon might be making plans to send even more soldiers than that.

https://www.juancole.com/2019/06/bolton-pentagon-eyeing.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

 

[Azeem]

Two oil tankers attacked with explosions, clearly these are false flag attacks to give a phony reason to start a war otherwise one of the ship was Japanese and the Japanese president is in Tehran right now. 

[6666]

Looks like the US military is up to its old tricks.

[SirBalon]

The US blaming Iran. Didn’t see that coming. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

The US is blaming Iranian torpedos for the attack. There's a few issues with the theory, because while the Iranian government is horrific... they're not illogical actors:

• Japan's leader is in Iran right now. It's a historic meeting between him and the Iranian government as it's nearly been 50 years. Why strike a Japanese vessel while ties with Japan are normalising? We've also seen a willingness from Iran to try to actively engage the rest of the international community (part of why they signed the JCPOA) - if they're behind this act, them being revealed as the people behind the attack directly works against this foreign policy goal.
• The explosions happened on their starboard sides, given the course of these vessels... that'd mean they were struck on the side opposite to the Iranian coast
• The explosions were above the water line - this makes the torpedo theory very unlikely
• Full effect of sanctions as a response to this action would mean the largest purchasers of Iranian oil would stop purchasing oil from Iran. Right now Iran is courting the likes if India, China, and Japan to get them to commit to purchasing their oil despite Trump's renewed sanctions. Getting Japan less likely to purchase their oil would immediately harm Iran's goals there
• First SOS ships to respond were Iranian

The facts as we know them just don't add up to Iran being responsible for the attack.

We're probably looking at limpet mines on the tankers again (like the first attack), just judging by the fact the explosions occurred above the waterline. Considering the sloppy job they did in killing that WaPo journalist, I wouldn't be surprised if this is another sloppy job from Saudi Arabia... assuming these ships were docked in Saudi Arabia. Because if they were, then Saudi Arabia has the means to plant the explosives on the ships while they're docked. They're then able to detonate them once these ships leave port.

It makes much more sense from the Saudis considering they have the means (would know the ships are in port, have the money to grease palms and get the equipment), they have the motive (destroying their big rival in the region), and opportunity (knowing when ships are coming/going, knowing a Japanese ship being attacked as Japan's leader is in Iran, probably negotiating with Iran).

[MUFC]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-48630374

[Azeem]

5 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

The US is blaming Iranian torpedos for the attack. There's a few issues with the theory, because while the Iranian government is horrific... they're not illogical actors:

• Japan's leader is in Iran right now. It's a historic meeting between him and the Iranian government as it's nearly been 50 years. Why strike a Japanese vessel while ties with Japan are normalising? We've also seen a willingness from Iran to try to actively engage the rest of the international community (part of why they signed the JCPOA) - if they're behind this act, them being revealed as the people behind the attack directly works against this foreign policy goal.
• The explosions happened on their starboard sides, given the course of these vessels... that'd mean they were struck on the side opposite to the Iranian coast
• The explosions were above the water line - this makes the torpedo theory very unlikely
• Full effect of sanctions as a response to this action would mean the largest purchasers of Iranian oil would stop purchasing oil from Iran. Right now Iran is courting the likes if India, China, and Japan to get them to commit to purchasing their oil despite Trump's renewed sanctions. Getting Japan less likely to purchase their oil would immediately harm Iran's goals there
• First SOS ships to respond were Iranian

The facts as we know them just don't add up to Iran being responsible for the attack.

We're probably looking at limpet mines on the tankers again (like the first attack), just judging by the fact the explosions occurred above the waterline. Considering the sloppy job they did in killing that WaPo journalist, I wouldn't be surprised if this is another sloppy job from Saudi Arabia... assuming these ships were docked in Saudi Arabia. Because if they were, then Saudi Arabia has the means to plant the explosives on the ships while they're docked. They're then able to detonate them once these ships leave port.

It makes much more sense from the Saudis considering they have the means (would know the ships are in port, have the money to grease palms and get the equipment), they have the motive (destroying their big rival in the region), and opportunity (knowing when ships are coming/going, knowing a Japanese ship being attacked as Japan's leader is in Iran, probably negotiating with Iran).