The Big Middle Eastern Thread

[Harry]

American political establishment seemingly trying to coalesce around a consensus view at the moment.

[Michael]

1 minute ago, Harry said:

 

LOL

[Michael]

1 minute ago, Harry said:

American political establishment seemingly trying to coalesce around a consensus view at the moment.

No surprise that the Iranian PM(I mean the IRAQI PM, lol) has condemned the assasination of Soleimani.

[Fairy In Boots]

22 minutes ago, Michael said:

Of course Soleimani wasn't a sympathy piece, if you know anything about Middle Eastern Politics, you will know that Soleimani was infamous, the man was a brute! Abu Mahdi was similarly a nasty piece of work. But that is not the point, the point here is that by killing Soleimani, one of the significant figures in the Iranian regime, the US has really gone close to instigating something very serious with Iran. The Iranians are not going to take Soleimani's death lightly and the consequences could be far reaching.

 

Think you misunderstood my point regarding a sympathy piece. It’s not a sympathetic article it clearly lets you know who he is and what sort of strings he was pulling. It “sympathy piece” remark was because in lieu of the events you usually get counter pieces from folk who’re more concerned with attacking Trump than giving facts. 

Case in point, you have #ww3 trending and people calling Trump a warmonger & posts about distractions from impeachment. 

That’s farcial the Americans won’t tolerate attacks on their embassies, they consider it their soil and any attack upon it gives them a green light  to take “defensive” action (bit 1984). Iran will respond but that won’t be for some time the snake has had its head cut off and it’s immediate focus will be who fills the military power vacuum left within the regime. Then it’s responses will be proxy wars by sponsoring insurgents and terror offences against US interests throughout the Middle East. Pretty much the status quo as is within the Middle East anyway, US is backing the Saudis they always will

There’s no threat of WW3 because militarily nobody can compete with US drone capabilities. 

[Azeem]

Iran won't launch an outright assault, some calculated move by using it's proxies.

[Inverted]

I'm pretty sure that the US once wargamed a war with Iran scenario and it was a catastrophe, with thousands of American dead and a carrier lost in the first two days. 

The United States is untouchable militarily but for decades they have understandably been cautious with powers such as Iran and North Korea which possess large, extremely motivated militaries with strong asymmetric warfare capabilities. 

Nobody is going to do a Saddam anymore and march a ripoff 1980s Soviet Army into a 21st century head to head with the US.

[Azeem]

Surely it is understandable that there isn't going to be a head to head with the US. Iran will hurt what matters to US in the region i.e Saudis, Israel or a direct attack on one of their bases in the region.

[Michael]

3 minutes ago, Fairy In Boots said:

Think you misunderstood my point regarding a sympathy piece. It’s not a sympathetic article it clearly lets you know who he is and what sort of strings he was pulling. It “sympathy piece” remark was because in lieu of the events you usually get counter pieces from folk who’re more concerned with attacking Trump than giving facts. 

Case in point, you have #ww3 trending and people calling Trump a warmonger & posts about distractions from impeachment. 

That’s farcial the Americans won’t tolerate attacks on their embassies, they consider it their soil and any attack upon it gives them a green light  to take “defensive” action (bit 1984). Iran will respond but that won’t be for some time the snake has had its head cut off and it’s immediate focus will be who fills the military power vacuum left within the regime. Then it’s responses will be proxy wars by sponsoring insurgents and terror offences against US interests throughout the Middle East. Pretty much the status quo as is within the Middle East anyway, US is backing the Saudis they always will

There’s no threat of WW3 because militarily nobody can compete with US drone capabilities. 

Yes, you were alluding to the fact that Soleimani's power and what type of man he is, right? As for Trump, he is going on the offensive and in most people's opinions he has probably gome too far. Not for any sympathy towards Soleimani, but because of him upping the anti against Iran. The attack on the US Embassy didn't really warrant murdering a major public figure of the Iranian regime, as chaotic as it was. 

There won't be a WW3, but Iran will use its influence in the region to form attacks on Americans in the Middle East or on others such as the Saudis and the Israelis. The Iranians are likely to intensify such efforts and cause more strife in the region. 

[6666]

Here we go. The end of the world begins.

[Azeem]

People are a bit overreacting but it's certainly not a thing to be underestimated.

I mean US didn't invaded Iraq in a moment there were skirmishes for quite a while before that. This decade has started very interestingly.

[Inverted]

There's not going to be a nuclear war or even a major conventional war. The Iranian regime may be run by zealots, but they're not insane - in fact if either side can be accused of a religiously fanatical, apocalyptic worldview, it's the Americans. 

Any major conflict would result in hundreds of thousands of not millions of deaths, and they would overwhelmingly be Middle-Eastern. The Americans would be overjoyed with that result. The Iranians, not so much. 

The Iranians will have to respond somehow to save face, but they'll do so in a way which does not play directly into the Americans' hands. 

The Americans are throwing their weight around and needling their enemies into gestures of resistance, which they can then frame as aggression. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

1 hour ago, Inverted said:

There's not going to be a nuclear war or even a major conventional war. The Iranian regime may be run by zealots, but they're not insane - in fact if either side can be accused of a religiously fanatical, apocalyptic worldview, it's the Americans. 

Any major conflict would result in hundreds of thousands of not millions of deaths, and they would overwhelmingly be Middle-Eastern. The Americans would be overjoyed with that result. The Iranians, not so much. 

The Iranians will have to respond somehow to save face, but they'll do so in a way which does not play directly into the Americans' hands. 

The Americans are throwing their weight around and needling their enemies into gestures of resistance, which they can then frame as aggression. 

I think Trump might invade Iran because no wartime president has ever lost an election tbh.

[Azeem]

Protests by Shia groups here in some cities, people don't realize how far reaching consequences this will have. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

7 minutes ago, Azeem said:

Protests by Shia groups here in some cities, people don't realize how far reaching consequences this will have. 

The news here was talking about how Iraqis would be happy about this.

Yeah maybe the Sunni’s in Iraq. But Iran quite is popular with the Shia population of Iraq... and that’s why Iran’s had such influence in the country - especially after ISIS went through Iraq killing Shias for YouTube videos. So that’s about 60% of the population that liked this guy because he funded and trained militias with the Iranian military.

And don’t forget Sunnis were a minority running the show before the US toppled Sadam. Which is why the current Iraqi government is pretty friendly to Iran.

Sectarian shit is stupid, for sure, but it’s also an incredibly important part of why that part of the world is so fucking tense. And it’s not really thought about a lot by the west, despite them doing shite in the Middle East forever

[Inverted]

It seems the Iraqi parliament has resolved on kicking out the Americans. So their stunt has cost them what little influence they had left in the country, though they probably figured they were on borrowed time anyway so it's not a huge loss to have the Iraqi gov turn completely on them now. 

[Michael]

19 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

The news here was talking about how Iraqis would be happy about this.

Yeah maybe the Sunni’s in Iraq. But Iran quite is popular with the Shia population of Iraq... and that’s why Iran’s had such influence in the country - especially after ISIS went through Iraq killing Shias for YouTube videos. So that’s about 60% of the population that liked this guy because he funded and trained militias with the Iranian military.

And don’t forget Sunnis were a minority running the show before the US toppled Sadam. Which is why the current Iraqi government is pretty friendly to Iran.

Sectarian shit is stupid, for sure, but it’s also an incredibly important part of why that part of the world is so fucking tense. And it’s not really thought about a lot by the west, despite them doing shite in the Middle East forever

Yes, the Sunni Iraqis hated Qassem Soleimani and they will for the most part, be pleased that he is now out of the picture. It's obviously true that the Iraqi Shias have always looked to Iran favourably, mainly due to religious reasons. They were happy with the Iranian influence at the start of a new era after the sunni backed Saddam was overthrown. However, in recent times, even many of the Shia Iraqis have become fed up with how Iran has interferred in Iraq and they are even more angry with their predominantly Shia lead government, which is corrupt as hell.

I think the West and the US in particular are well aware of the Shia Sunni divide in that region and the US in particular plays on that religious divide as well as the differences that certain ethnic groups have. They will side with one group when it's convenient for them and then side with the other side when the time is right. There are plenty examples of this through history, Iraq being just one of them. That's US foreign policy for you.

[The Artful Dodger]

In fairness, it's every 'great power' foreign policy. Throughout history the ones with power have manipulated, deceived and betrayed supposed allies when they saw fit. It's the way of the world. 

The UK just needs to keep its beak out, we are no longer an important power and just need to accept retirement. Hopefully meaning none of our young men needlessly dying.

[Inverted]

15 minutes ago, The Artful Dodger said:

In fairness, it's every 'great power' foreign policy. Throughout history the ones with power have manipulated, deceived and betrayed supposed allies when they saw fit. It's the way of the world. 

The UK just needs to keep its beak out, we are no longer an important power and just need to accept retirement. Hopefully meaning none of our young men needlessly dying.

It may fundamentally be the same old great power politics, but even in a proxy conflict there are unwritten rules and expectations. This is in at least that sense something new, an escalation.

 During the Cold War, it's not like the USA went out to assassinate Red Army commanders. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

I just hope Iran doesn’t immediately escalate. There’s enough internal pressure in the US and enough external pressure from Saudi Arabia and Israel to push for the US invading Iran. So if Iran gives them a reason to invade, I’m not sure there will be enough people to counsel this administration to restraint.

[6666]

I wonder what could have caused this increased threat...

[6666]

32 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I just hope Iran doesn’t immediately escalate. There’s enough internal pressure in the US and enough external pressure from Saudi Arabia and Israel to push for the US invading Iran. So if Iran gives them a reason to invade, I’m not sure there will be enough people to counsel this administration to restraint.

They won't stop poking until they get a response though. The media is already readying their stories of Iranians being mad because Iranians are just naturally mental. With how disastrous our media were in this election, you can bet they'll be creating enough of a narrative that suggests we need to go to war. No way that Boris Johnson isn't licking his lips over this.

[The Artful Dodger]

I doubt it actually. If Boris Johnson has even the slightest political nouse he will know how deeply unpopular Trump is among the general population. Also how unpopular any military involvement would be. He's just won a big majority of seats he won't want to plunge into anything like this so soon. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

24 minutes ago, 6666 said:

They won't stop poking until they get a response though. The media is already readying their stories of Iranians being mad because Iranians are just naturally mental. With how disastrous our media were in this election, you can bet they'll be creating enough of a narrative that suggests we need to go to war. No way that Boris Johnson isn't licking his lips over this.

Both sides have been escalating since Trump stupidly decided to pull out of the nuke deal and reimpose sanctions as a way to get Iran to come back to the negotiating table. To which Iran responded, "fuck off, we're not negotiating with people that don't honour their deals, AGAIN."

The issue here is, Iran's government is going to feel like it has to respond. Suleimani was someone people were saying the Guardians Council might pick to be Khameini's successor - this guy wasn't just an important military general to Iran, he was politically popular amongst the Iranian hardliners (who've grown in power after the US backing out of the nuclear deal). They don't want to look weak in the region, they want to remain a power player in the Middle East, and they don't want to look weak to the Iranian public - who've already broken out in massive protests against the government several times in the last few years.

But I agree with this statement regarding the UK & getting involved in this shit:

1 minute ago, The Artful Dodger said:

I doubt it actually. If Boris Johnson has even the slightest political nouse he will know how deeply unpopular Trump is among the general population. Also how unpopular any military involvement would be. He's just won a big majority of seats he won't want to plunge into anything like this so soon. 

We're going to have other issues to sort out and BoJo will want to make the most of that big majority he's just won - I think that's why that stuff with Northern Rail is happening, he'll want to capitalise on winning in areas Tories haven't won so he can count on them again in the future.

[Fairy In Boots]

9 hours ago, Michael said:

Yes, you were alluding to the fact that Soleimani's power and what type of man he is, right? As for Trump, he is going on the offensive and in most people's opinions he has probably gome too far. Not for any sympathy towards Soleimani, but because of him upping the anti against Iran. The attack on the US Embassy didn't really warrant murdering a major public figure of the Iranian regime, as chaotic as it was. 

There won't be a WW3, but Iran will use its influence in the region to form attacks on Americans in the Middle East or on others such as the Saudis and the Israelis. The Iranians are likely to intensify such efforts and cause more strife in the region. 

I don’t know if he’s gone too far it’s an intangible thing so far as we’re effectively in new territory here. America was too soft under Bush and Obama on Iran and Iran continued to take the piss as both’s consolatory efforts have been a failure in the face of Iranian expansion. 

4 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I think Trump might invade Iran because no wartime president has ever lost an election tbh.

No think this has far more to do with this guy orchestrating attacks on American embassies, he’s responsible for American deaths. How many time do people expect the bear to keep getting poked before it bites? Suleimani has poked the US time and time again now the school yard bully isn’t afraid to chuck his weight around. As much as this demands a response from Iran this also demonstrates to North Korea/ other middle eastern characters/ China and Russia Trump will pull the trigger. 

Think Russia taking out people on British soil there’s a bigger game of chess here, the US administration are very much saying “fuck you we’ll hit back” it’s a significant line in the sand. 

Also it’s scary how when you truly think of it, how much global politics is similar to a game of civilisation on the PC

 

[Fairy In Boots]

Lol I’m not anti Jewish