Trump Thread

[Seamus Fermanagh]

No it all started in 632 when noone could agree on who should be calif.

Any historical "start point" to the current state of affairs is arguable. The current government of Iran was promulgated in 1979 following the White Revolution. That could be used as a start point. As could the first change in power under that constitution following the death of Khomeini. Or, quite validly, the 1953 coup pushed by the USA and UK that returned autocratic power to the anti-communist shah displacing the elected prime minister as head of government. Again, one could start the story in 1941 with the Soviet occupation of Tehran to support the removal of the father of the 1953 coup's power recipient -- who had himself seized power in 1921. Or you could date if from the period of Ottoman rule, or the impact of the Mongol invasion, or -- yes -- the dispute over the succession to the Prophet Mohammed. Heck, you could even make a case for the lasting impact of Megos Alexandros' absorption of the Persian empire by the classical "West" following Gaugamela in the 4th century BCE.

As there are enough of those still alive from the 1953 event to tell the story, and the first generation of those raised as children by those impacted by 1953 are often the ones in power at present, it is a pretty reasonable start point to explain the thinking underpinning the current set of events.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Any historical "start point" to the current state of affairs is arguable. The current government of Iran was promulgated in 1979 following the White Revolution. That could be used as a start point. As could the first change in power under that constitution following the death of Khomeini. Or, quite validly, the 1953 coup pushed by the USA and UK that returned autocratic power to the anti-communist shah displacing the elected prime minister as head of government. Again, one could start the story in 1941 with the Soviet occupation of Tehran to support the removal of the father of the 1953 coup's power recipient -- who had himself seized power in 1921. Or you could date if from the period of Ottoman rule, or the impact of the Mongol invasion, or -- yes -- the dispute over the succession to the Prophet Mohammed. Heck, you could even make a case for the lasting impact of Megos Alexandros' absorption of the Persian empire by the classical "West" following Gaugamela in the 4th century BCE.

As there are enough of those still alive from the 1953 event to tell the story, and the first generation of those raised as children by those impacted by 1953 are often the ones in power at present, it is a pretty reasonable start point to explain the thinking underpinning the current set of events.

1953 is an important index point but I think 1979 is probably more important to modern Iranians, even the older generation - of course that's our fault too.

As regards the assassination, my understanding is that the general was in the country to meet with non government militias - militias which tend to undermine the credibility of the elected government. This is not to excuse the fact the general was assassinated but Greyblades is right - this is basically the same as the assassination of Bin Laden (that was a kill or capture missions, note kill comes first).

[Seamus Fermanagh]

1953 is an important index point but I think 1979 is probably more important to modern Iranians, even the older generation - of course that's our fault too...

Not entirely. Events in real life are democratic in that all parties to them get a 'vote' in the outcome. Certainly actions and inactions taken by the USA at the time played a major role, but the Khomeini and others were their own agents in enacting events too. Not all of their behavior or choices were simply reactive to those actions and decisions made by the West.

Though I tend to agree that the events of 1979/80 and their aftermath are the most salient for understanding the current state of affairs.

[Csargo]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-51028954

Missiles fired at US military bases in Iraq.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-51028954

Missiles fired at US military bases in Iraq.

Reasonably proportionate response, overall.

[Montmorency]

That was never my argument though, was it, Pan? My argument was that the EU was specifically aiming to create a European Superstate without the consent of the governed peoples (not the plural) and that the ills of the EU has come to out-way the economic benefits.

In the case of NATO I think it's fair to say that with European disarmament we rely on the US for our safety against Russia. If the US continues to elect Trump and we rearm that calculation might change - but Trump can only be elected once more and we aren't likely to rearm.

Your calculation appears to be that the UK can afford to leave the EU but cannot afford to leave NATO; it seems to me more the other way around. The US and EU all have their overall interests - balance of powers, maintenance of trade, territorial integrity - aligned with each other. This is the case whether the UK is in or out of NATO. Whereas if it were not the case, NATO would be basically inoperative and irrelevant to British security.

The coalition soldiers dont have the entirety of the nations armed forces abroad relying upon their continued leadership, he had subordinates he could use as intermediary, the iranians have diplomats; needlessly exposing himself to the enemy's air superiority was foolish simply as evidenced by the red smear he became. It is doubly so for the void in command his death left and that iran now is attempting to fill.

I don't think you understand what his job was. Air superiority had never been a problem before because he was protected by his position; usually it would have been a safe bet the US wouldn't be so foolish as to strike at him. What information do you have on any void created by his death?

Fairly sure sulemani didnt have diplomatic status/immunity, the western media would be raving it about if he did.

Diplomatic immunity? He had the immunity of being a high-ranking government official. Countries don't kill those unless they're at war or are overthrowing governments. In the abstract that's why the US, when it wants someone dead, relies on local proxies for plausible deniability. We could always have bombed Castro into oblivion, for example, but that looks a little worse than funding locals who already want to kill him (as seen successfully in many Latin American coups, unsuccessfully in the Bay of Pigs debacle).

Baghdadi and Bin laden didnt count apparantly.

We were already occupying half of Syria, so killing another terrorist in Syria (who the government, and pretty much all other governments, wanted dead anyway) isn't going to raise a fuss.

Pakistani sovereignty complaints were raised in the Bin Laden raid. It has permanently damaged our relations with them.

Importantly, neither were officials of recognized governments.

As much as I doubt that it has been so long since the US has killed a millitary leader (the CIA would probably dispute such) is it so because the US has some chivalric code or is it because this guy is the first one foolish enough to personally poke his head into american controlled airspace?

Most heads are free to poke because we don't normally bomb them when they're on official business. Unless we're at war. Because killing another country's officials is an act of war. It wouldn't be a good precedent to set for the sake of our own bureaucrats. Remember that our administration says it doesn't want war with Iran.

The last time the United States killed a major military leader in a foreign country was during World War II, when the American military shot down the plane carrying the Japanese admiral Isoroku Yamamoto as revenge for Pearl Harbor.

Funny you should say that when currently it is the iranians who are crying about being hit back.

An Iraqi Shiite militia with Iranian ties killed an American, for which we assassinated an Iranian major general, a deputy chairman, a brigadier general, a major, a colonel, a captain, and various bureaucrats. Iran doesn't have to be a good actor for the United States to be a bad actor.

As there are enough of those still alive from the 1953 event to tell the story, and the first generation of those raised as children by those impacted by 1953 are often the ones in power at present, it is a pretty reasonable start point to explain the thinking underpinning the current set of events.

We're talking about American-Iranian relations here, so everything else is a distraction.

More importantly, we have all the instances after 1953 of America actively working to undermine the Iranian government and kill Iranians - even when Iran works toward a compromise. The Iran-Iraq war is the inflection point everyone currently remembers there. But after the two-punch of Bush and Trump, Iran would be crazy ever to deal with us in good faith again.

As regards the assassination, my understanding is that the general was in the country to meet with non government militias - militias which tend to undermine the credibility of the elected government. This is not to excuse the fact the general was assassinated but Greyblades is right - this is basically the same as the assassination of Bin Laden (that was a kill or capture missions, note kill comes first).

That is very incorrect on both counts. The PMF are formally part of Iraq's military organization, just like the similarly-autonomous Kurdish peshmerga, going up to the civilian leadership of the Iraqi PM; the Iraqi government is not unaware of their ties to Iran. Suleimani was first of all there to meet the Iraqi PM on matters of international politics, as I posted just recently. Osama bin Laden was not a part of any government, let alone a major figure. These are not incidental details.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-51028954

Missiles fired at US military bases in Iraq.

Wow, that's it? Keeping it low-key, if there isn't something else on the pike.

[Greyblades]

Any historical "start point" to the current state of affairs is arguable. The current government of Iran was promulgated in 1979 following the White Revolution. That could be used as a start point. As could the first change in power under that constitution following the death of Khomeini. Or, quite validly, the 1953 coup pushed by the USA and UK that returned autocratic power to the anti-communist shah displacing the elected prime minister as head of government. Again, one could start the story in 1941 with the Soviet occupation of Tehran to support the removal of the father of the 1953 coup's power recipient -- who had himself seized power in 1921. Or you could date if from the period of Ottoman rule, or the impact of the Mongol invasion, or -- yes -- the dispute over the succession to the Prophet Mohammed. Heck, you could even make a case for the lasting impact of Megos Alexandros' absorption of the Persian empire by the classical "West" following Gaugamela in the 4th century BCE.

As there are enough of those still alive from the 1953 event to tell the story, and the first generation of those raised as children by those impacted by 1953 are often the ones in power at present, it is a pretty reasonable start point to explain the thinking underpinning the current set of events.

Forgive me, I forgot for the upteenth time to indicate my glibness.

In more serious terms I would point to 1901, where the 60 year term oil concession was signed that would lead to the foundation of the anglo-persian oil company, as being the starting point.

The perception of that concession being unfair was the motivation behind a renegociation in 1935 and mossadegh attempting to renege on the agreement in 1951, which provoked the british to embargo iran. Mossadegh proceeded to spiral in an (ironically considering he was persian) roman fasion; getting emergency powers through popular pressure against the shah, making massive societal reforms with said powers.

This ended up losing him support in parliament as his increasingly dictatorial actions alienated parts of his ruling coalition, combined with the british and american campaign of bribery put the kibosh on his ability to govern without the emergency powers. Faced with an increasingly shakey position he called a referendum, seeking popular approval to dissolve parliament and further extend his emergency powers, this he won in a remarkably corrupt fasion (seperate polling booths for yes or no, "suprisingly" ending up with 99% approval).

This display of amazingly bad politics combined with the economic depression the embargo had plunged iran into ended up turning everyone against him and pretty much handed the CIA the means of coup on a silver platter.

These details tends to be deemphasized in popular recollections of the event, or even left out completely. For some reason.