Ops-Normal.org

boing, nice analysis but you still have the question who could be the next dealer who would keep Iran united and civil war free.

Jeremy Corbyn - he already has previous with Iran.

Mr Corbyn appeared on Press TV, Iran's state broadcast network, a channel that was banned in the UK.
Mr Corbyn accepted payments amounting to up to £5000 for his appearances on the channel that he made between 2009-2012.
His last appearance was made just six months after Ofcom had banned the channel after it aired the torturing of Iranian-Canadian journalist Maziar Bahari, who had returned to his home country to report on the 2009 elections.

Jeremy Corbyn says he would not use nuclear weapons - so the rest of the World would be safe.

G-CPTN wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 03, 2020 8:22 pm

The body of Qasem Soleimani was 'torn to shreds' by Donald Trump's missiles and it was his famous red ring on his severed hand that confirmed his identity.

You've just got to love the Sun's attention to detail. The icon they've used to represent B-52s looks remarkably like a TU-95 Bear.

So now we all wait with anticipation of what Iran will do in retaliation after the US action. If I read president Trump correctly, any Iranian military response will be answered double. If Iran decides to pull back its aggressive efforts to destabilize the Middle East and destroy Israel, president Trump will respond favorably. That's how he rolls.

The takeout of Iran's chief provocateur of turmoil was brilliant.

We look forward to Trump's demise with equal delight.

Mr Trump has put American interests and American lives first and acted on it, good for him, I hope that Mr Johnson will do the same if necessary. It has been the liberal left that has encouraged the Ayatollahs to think that they can keep pushing the West, now they know they can't.

The thing is that a lot of us aren't convinced that what he's done will save US lives. It might save a few, but the reaction to the incident may well cause far more casualties than that. I wonder how many Iranians (and fanatics from other ME countries) signed up to jihadi school in the past day or so as a result of the action?

om15 wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 03, 2020 9:21 pm

Mr Trump has put American interests and American lives first and acted on it, good for him, I hope that Mr Johnson will do the same if necessary. It has been the liberal left that has encouraged the Ayatollahs to think that they can keep pushing the West, now they know they can't.

And shat all over his allies as is his wont. Action without notice and disrespect at every turn, Are you British? If so, do you care you care about your country and its interests. Clearly not whatever the case!

llondel wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 03, 2020 9:30 pm

The thing is that a lot of us aren't convinced that what he's done will save US lives. It might save a few, but the reaction to the incident may well cause far more casualties than that. I wonder how many Iranians (and fanatics from other ME countries) signed up to jihadi school in the past day or so as a result of the action?

+1

RiS.

Are not the Shah's kids still running around somewhere?

The appointment of that King of Idiots, Paul Bremer, in Iraq and the subsequent installation of Allawi is a perfect example of how things should not be done. The mistake would be to intend to run the whole country of Iran on US dictated lines. The object of the military action is to secure the gulf facing Iranian coast, to discourage terrorism and to let the remaining Iranian administration know that this is not the game they hoped it was. That's it, finish. That photo of the severed hand with the famous ring still in place will make Iranian leaders consider. The days when you fought a national leader all the way to his bunker have gone and the World knows this.

98% of the land area of Iran will be unaffected by military action. The economy will be decimated. So a new leader hacks his way to the top of the heap, what does he need? He needs security in his position, he needs to fix the economy to keep the peasants happy and he needs muscle behind his regime. OK, return the coast to him in name, let the oil flow, all it will cost him is a crackdown on extremists. If you like him back him up, if you don't find someone else. Since the authority that controls the Gulf coast controls the economy they have pretty good leverage.

So, what about the Russians, the only power strong enough and close enough to object? Well, they could build a fleet on Lake Baku or perhaps reconquer Georgia, or they could arrange a hike through Turkmenistan none of which are short term solutions. A naval attack from the south has a few problems. So, basically, all they could do for a new regime is supply it through Tehran but the oil would still not be flowing through the Gulf ports so it is hard to see why this would help the new regime and it certainly would PO the US.

Not really a very complicated chess game. When mate can be called before the first pawn moves you know it's not your old game of chess.

.

New York Times Op-Ed from several hours before the strike (tweeted at 1:38pm EST)
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/02/opin ... nytopinion
Included in that is:

What if the former commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, Qassim Suleimani, visits Baghdad for a meeting and you know the address?

It is the only specific example given in the piece, which is on hypersonic missiles.
The article's author is Steven Simon, Obama's former senior director for the Middle East and North Africa on the National Security Council.
You will note that the person and place are exact, the reason is correct, and that Suleimani is described as former Commander, whereas in fact he was the commander of QUDS until his death.

Conspiracy theory, anyone?

Iran has been pushing for years, it has a stated aim of removing Israel from the map, it is a completely destabilising factor in the middle east, it has been prodding the US for quite some time, now it has had a slap. If an Israeli General had been hit by a missile there would be a defending silence from the whinging left.

If someone had put a cruise missile down the chimney of a Munich Beer Hall in the 1930s we would have been spared a lot of trouble, that is the situation we are in now, it is up to Iran to behave or face the consequences, my guess is that they will sputter about revenge but back off.

boing wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 03, 2020 9:42 pm

So, what about the Russians, the only power strong enough and close enough to object? Well, they could build a fleet on Lake Baku
.

That would be the Caspian Sea.

Interesting Fox. On the face of it a deliberate leak.

As Ian Fleming wrote:

Once is happenstance. Identifying the target as Suleimani.
Twice is coincidence. Identifying the general location.
Three times is enemy action. Identifying the purpose "For a meeting".

Men have been hung for less.

.

Clearly no one in the Iranian regime reads the NYT.
Makes you wonder if anybody really does
Maybe they should have run the piece in The Guardian...but no-one reads that either

BenThere wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 03, 2020 9:01 pm

So now we all wait with anticipation of what Iran will do in retaliation after the US action. If I read president Trump correctly, any Iranian military response will be answered double. If Iran decides to pull back its aggressive efforts to destabilize the Middle East and destroy Israel, president Trump will respond favorably. That's how he rolls.

The takeout of Iran's chief provocateur of turmoil was brilliant.

Someone made a mistake here, maybe: they don't allow Iran to pull back its aggressivity AND save face at the same time - a vital part in this area of the world.

Now regarding people willing to die to revenge the death of the chief I am not sure if there are many but unfortunately few are necessary.

Yes PN, as a Nav. you are quite correct. Actually a fascinating body of water. Its surface is below sea level which implies it would fill up if was connected to a real source of sea water but regardless of this it is actually the largest lake in the World which justifies its title as a sea.

boing wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 03, 2020 10:52 pm

Yes PN, as a Nav. you are quite correct. Actually a fascinating body of water. Its surface is below sea level which implies it would fill up if was connected to a real source of sea water but regardless of this it is actually the largest lake in the World which justifies its title as a sea.

I thought the title Sea might be due to being salty.

RiS,
Technically to be a sea it has to be connected to a real open sea but I guess if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it counts as a duck. The locals do actually call it Lake Baku in travel brochures but the rest of the World, as PN points out, call it the Caspian.

.