Iran US relations: Tehran demands the release of frozen assets upfront and adds Yemen conditions following the collapse of a prior agreement, hardening its stance against Washington in the ongoing Middle East conflict.
In Iran, thousands have been killed and their stance does not seem to change
You know how Americans came together and supported GWB to invade Iraq to get revenge for 911?
It’s the same thing. The American terrorist attacks on Iran made them come together and vowed revenge, except they are actually targeting the terrorists that attacked them not another nation.
I would bet my bottom Iran gov will hold until the end.
Well, they’ve thoroughly crushed their attacker and humiliated them, and they’ve successfully decolonized most of the region (US bases are closing and they’re not returning). Why wouldn’t they hold?
This was ALL visible and demonstrated recently in the disaster that was the invasion of Iraq
Uhhh… which part was visible and demonstrated? Iraq now has a US friendly government, it was a complete success. ISIS taking over was the disaster in Iraq, not the invasion itself. The US captured Saddam, put him through a sham trial and he was hung in a dark shed, stole the oil, destroyed the nation, and slaughtered millions of Iraqis.
Iraq now has a US friendly government, it was a complete success
That’s a wild stance. The vast majority of Americans now see the war as a failure. It cost trillions, was founded on abject lies, and brought nothing for the American people
I’m noticing you neglect to consider the people’s perspective. You think the Iranian people care about US bases in the region? Removing US bases does not put food on their table. It doesn’t give them safe, reliable drinking water
The military success of the war, from either side, has little bearing on public sentiment because neither people has anything to gain materially. It’s a war of attrition with only abstract geopolitical goals
The vast majority of Americans now see the war as a failure. It cost trillions, was founded on abject lies, and brought nothing for the American people
It was a success for the empire, yes it was founded on lies, it helped the ruling class steal vast amounts of resources, it helped the war machine industry make bank and deepen it’s grip on the world, it helped fracture the resistance to American imperialism. It helped the ruling class implement massive surveillance systems, strip citizens of basic rights in the name of national security, and more. The biggest objective win was removing Saddam and installing a US/Israel friendly puppet government that will give oil contracts away to western counties and turn a blind eye on imperialism and completely ignore the idea of reparations.
I’m noticing you neglect to consider the people’s perspective
Okay.
You think the Iranian people care about US bases in the region?
Do I think the Iranian people care that the US no longer has air bases right across the border to launch bombers that bomb their schools? Yes, I do.
Removing US bases does not put food on their table.
It literally does. Pushing the American empire out of the region will translate to removing sanctions, which will literally put food on the average Iranian table.
You don’t understand how important the bases were for US hegemony and imperial control, and now that most host countries realize they don’t offer the protection they promised, America is being eliminated from their national defense strategy.
The military success of the war, from either side, has little bearing on public sentiment because neither people has anything to gain materially.
Okay… The discussion was about the government’s goals in attacking Iran, not about the public stance. You’re counter arguing an argument you pulled out of thin air.
Not 100% sure that I agree with your point about Iraq, but I’m not saying I completely disagree either.
You’re absolutely correct to call out that Iraq is not the abject failure - from the perspective of US leadership - that people often describe it as. This is one of those difficult conversations to have around a lot of well intentioned but thoughtless leftists who will go off on a hair trigger as if this means you somehow think Iraq was either a good thing, or a good decision. It was neither. But, strategically speaking, it was broadly a success. As you say, the US wanted to a) remove Saddam from power, b) establish a friendly satellite government, and c) gain access to the country’s oil reserves, and they achieved all three of those goals.
I guess where I would differ is that while they achieved those short-term goals, I think it can be strongly argued that none of those goals adequately served the US’ long term geopolitical interests. In that sense, I think that Iraq can still be considered a strategic misstep, even though they accomplished their immediate objectives. First, obviously, the cost they paid for those objectives was arguably far too high. I don’t think the US actually meaningfully benefited from any of those goals to a degree that made it worth the lives, money, political capital, and damage to their global trust, reputation and moral standing. And I think that the destabilizing impact on the region and the galvanization of nascent movements like ISIL were pretty much inevitable.
I would tend to argue that the US could have done far more to further their geopolitical interests in the region by not choosing to invade, so in that sense I’d still consider it a poor strategic decision (and this is, of course, putting aside any question of the moral dimensions, on which it was obviously horrific), even though they were, in the limited sense you describe, successful.
I also do want to note that I think there’s a sense in which Jhex is actually correct about Iraq; while the US did succeed, operationally, in achieving their strategic goals, Iraq also demonstrated some long-standing issues with the US military that have only worsened with time. Something that’s not talked about enough in regard to both Iraq and Afghanistan is that there were multiple units that were activated for those invasions only to repeatedly fail their workups and ultimately end up sitting out the initial stages of those wars. That’s shockingly bad. When you have whole divisions that are so incompetently trained that they are literally undeployable… Well, what are they even there for? The US military is huge, but it’s becoming increasingly apparent that it’s also extremely badly managed, and that these issues are not new. I know people who work alongside American soldiers, and the general consensus is that they are some of the least professional, most poorly trained in all of NATO. That’s unbelievably bad for a military with that kind of budget and history. The US throws a lot of money at its army, but doesn’t get a lot of bang for its buck. The fact that they’re now struggling to maintain a single regional conflict has its roots in the struggles they experienced maintaining two simultaneous conflicts back in the early 2000s. These recent issues didn’t come out of nowhere.
I guess where I would differ is that while they achieved those short-term goals, I think it can be strongly argued that none of those goals adequately served the US’ long term geopolitical interests
We don’t differ. The empire the overstretched and cannot continue doing the same playbook indefinitely, and a failure as big as the Iran war is a huge a result of that, it’s similar to WWII Germany, the US military is arrogant and thinks it’s untouchable and can invade any nation at will, and the rest of the world are tired of it and starting to realize they might be next. Modern drone warfare renders American air superiority not as much of a threat, and yes the empire’s expansion cannot be sustained. Celebration!
while the US did succeed, operationally, in achieving their strategic goals, Iraq also demonstrated some long-standing issues with the US military that have only worsened with time. Something that’s not talked about enough in regard to both Iraq and Afghanistan is that there were multiple units that were activated for those invasions only to repeatedly fail their workups and ultimately end up sitting out the initial stages of those wars. That’s shockingly bad. When you have whole divisions that are so incompetently trained that they are literally undeployable… Well, what are they even there for? The US military is huge, but it’s becoming increasingly apparent that it’s also extremely badly managed, and that these issues are not new. I know people who work alongside American soldiers, and the general consensus is that they are some of the least professional, most poorly trained in all of NATO. That’s unbelievably bad for a military with that kind of budget and history.
I agree with that. Jhex did not argue that, they argued that I didn’t care about the millions of Iraqis I said the US slaughtered, which is just twisting my words and attacking me baselessly, but whatever.
These recent issues didn’t come out of nowhere.
I agree. For months before the war every expert worth listening to said this is how it’s going to go, and now they’re scrambling to sell opening the strait as a victory.
They counted on being able to use death and destruction to compensate for all the issues you highlighted. I hope it was clear I was not complementing the US on their destruction of Iraq, but as you said they achieved their primary objectives, it was a military success.
You know how Americans came together and supported GWB to invade Iraq to get revenge for 911?
It’s the same thing. The American terrorist attacks on Iran made them come together and vowed revenge, except they are actually targeting the terrorists that attacked them not another nation.
Well, they’ve thoroughly crushed their attacker and humiliated them, and they’ve successfully decolonized most of the region (US bases are closing and they’re not returning). Why wouldn’t they hold?
Uhhh… which part was visible and demonstrated? Iraq now has a US friendly government, it was a complete success. ISIS taking over was the disaster in Iraq, not the invasion itself. The US captured Saddam, put him through a sham trial and he was hung in a dark shed, stole the oil, destroyed the nation, and slaughtered millions of Iraqis.
They wanted to repeat that.
That’s a wild stance. The vast majority of Americans now see the war as a failure. It cost trillions, was founded on abject lies, and brought nothing for the American people
I’m noticing you neglect to consider the people’s perspective. You think the Iranian people care about US bases in the region? Removing US bases does not put food on their table. It doesn’t give them safe, reliable drinking water
The military success of the war, from either side, has little bearing on public sentiment because neither people has anything to gain materially. It’s a war of attrition with only abstract geopolitical goals
It was a success for the empire, yes it was founded on lies, it helped the ruling class steal vast amounts of resources, it helped the war machine industry make bank and deepen it’s grip on the world, it helped fracture the resistance to American imperialism. It helped the ruling class implement massive surveillance systems, strip citizens of basic rights in the name of national security, and more. The biggest objective win was removing Saddam and installing a US/Israel friendly puppet government that will give oil contracts away to western counties and turn a blind eye on imperialism and completely ignore the idea of reparations.
Okay.
Do I think the Iranian people care that the US no longer has air bases right across the border to launch bombers that bomb their schools? Yes, I do.
It literally does. Pushing the American empire out of the region will translate to removing sanctions, which will literally put food on the average Iranian table.
You don’t understand how important the bases were for US hegemony and imperial control, and now that most host countries realize they don’t offer the protection they promised, America is being eliminated from their national defense strategy.
Okay… The discussion was about the government’s goals in attacking Iran, not about the public stance. You’re counter arguing an argument you pulled out of thin air.
Not 100% sure that I agree with your point about Iraq, but I’m not saying I completely disagree either.
You’re absolutely correct to call out that Iraq is not the abject failure - from the perspective of US leadership - that people often describe it as. This is one of those difficult conversations to have around a lot of well intentioned but thoughtless leftists who will go off on a hair trigger as if this means you somehow think Iraq was either a good thing, or a good decision. It was neither. But, strategically speaking, it was broadly a success. As you say, the US wanted to a) remove Saddam from power, b) establish a friendly satellite government, and c) gain access to the country’s oil reserves, and they achieved all three of those goals.
I guess where I would differ is that while they achieved those short-term goals, I think it can be strongly argued that none of those goals adequately served the US’ long term geopolitical interests. In that sense, I think that Iraq can still be considered a strategic misstep, even though they accomplished their immediate objectives. First, obviously, the cost they paid for those objectives was arguably far too high. I don’t think the US actually meaningfully benefited from any of those goals to a degree that made it worth the lives, money, political capital, and damage to their global trust, reputation and moral standing. And I think that the destabilizing impact on the region and the galvanization of nascent movements like ISIL were pretty much inevitable.
I would tend to argue that the US could have done far more to further their geopolitical interests in the region by not choosing to invade, so in that sense I’d still consider it a poor strategic decision (and this is, of course, putting aside any question of the moral dimensions, on which it was obviously horrific), even though they were, in the limited sense you describe, successful.
I also do want to note that I think there’s a sense in which Jhex is actually correct about Iraq; while the US did succeed, operationally, in achieving their strategic goals, Iraq also demonstrated some long-standing issues with the US military that have only worsened with time. Something that’s not talked about enough in regard to both Iraq and Afghanistan is that there were multiple units that were activated for those invasions only to repeatedly fail their workups and ultimately end up sitting out the initial stages of those wars. That’s shockingly bad. When you have whole divisions that are so incompetently trained that they are literally undeployable… Well, what are they even there for? The US military is huge, but it’s becoming increasingly apparent that it’s also extremely badly managed, and that these issues are not new. I know people who work alongside American soldiers, and the general consensus is that they are some of the least professional, most poorly trained in all of NATO. That’s unbelievably bad for a military with that kind of budget and history. The US throws a lot of money at its army, but doesn’t get a lot of bang for its buck. The fact that they’re now struggling to maintain a single regional conflict has its roots in the struggles they experienced maintaining two simultaneous conflicts back in the early 2000s. These recent issues didn’t come out of nowhere.
We don’t differ. The empire the overstretched and cannot continue doing the same playbook indefinitely, and a failure as big as the Iran war is a huge a result of that, it’s similar to WWII Germany, the US military is arrogant and thinks it’s untouchable and can invade any nation at will, and the rest of the world are tired of it and starting to realize they might be next. Modern drone warfare renders American air superiority not as much of a threat, and yes the empire’s expansion cannot be sustained. Celebration!
I agree with that. Jhex did not argue that, they argued that I didn’t care about the millions of Iraqis I said the US slaughtered, which is just twisting my words and attacking me baselessly, but whatever.
I agree. For months before the war every expert worth listening to said this is how it’s going to go, and now they’re scrambling to sell opening the strait as a victory.
They counted on being able to use death and destruction to compensate for all the issues you highlighted. I hope it was clear I was not complementing the US on their destruction of Iraq, but as you said they achieved their primary objectives, it was a military success.