patrick.net

Would Iran be doing this if Trump had not been elected? Surely they heard everything that Trump has had to say on the subject over the last year, and are preparing for the treaty to be nullified.

Yes. It does look like they are testing him doesn't it?

It also shows that they were blatantly lying, of course. The question is, will Trump follow-up a treaty collapse with another written agreement? I don't think so. That would be more blathering.

I suspect he will sit down with Israel and talk specifics about how to execute the worst case scenario. If we do nothing at this point, whatever Israel does, we will be forced to support. This means specifics on how to handle the diplomatic after effects and not just the military playbook.

He probably considers ISIS the bigger threat. At least the Iranians wear uniforms. He must make his ISIS destruction plan clear. He knows the cowards will hide behind grandma, in schools, and in hospitals. They will count on civilian casualties to weaken the allied resolve. On the other hand, if he continues to stoke the fires and spark Muslim backlash and ISIS recruitment, the roaches may scamper voluntarily out into the open.

deepcgi says

He must make his ISIS destruction plan clear. He knows the cowards will hide behind grandma, in schools, and in hospitals. They will count on civilian casualties to weaken the allied resolve. On the other hand, if he continues to stoke the fires and spark Muslim backlash and ISIS recruitment, the roaches may scamper voluntarily out into the open.

That's an interesting theory. On the other of extreme of possibilities is that he will be the best recruiter ISIS has ever had and he'll continue to escalate tensions with Iraq so that we cannot effectively fight them. Time will tell.

IMO a nuclear Iran is a bigger threat than a diminishing ISIS (current state of affairs).

deepcgi says

He probably considers ISIS the bigger threat.

Which is weird: they don't have neither nukes nor ICBMS to deliver them. The only way they could hurt US is through acts of terror on US soil. Which is nothing compared to nuclear device delivered by ICBM.

Straw Man says

Which is weird: they don't have neither nukes nor ICBMS to deliver them. The only way they could hurt US is through acts of terror on US soil. Which is nothing compared to nuclear device delivered by ICBM.

Who is ever going to launch an ICBM at the US and give us a return address to retaliate? Launching a missile (let alone a nuke) at the US guarantees one's destruction.

I am much more worried since 9/11 that a State actor like Iran or North Korea would anonymously arm jihadis to sneak a nuke into a major US city.

socal2 says

Who is ever going to launch an ICBM at the US and give us a return address to retaliate? Launching a missile (let alone a nuke) at the US guarantees one's destruction.

Well, bunch of Putin brides on this very site were advocating for bending over and spreading lower cheeks and declaring Putin the ruler of Europe and Middle East because "OMG, Russia has nukes!"

socal2 says

I am much more worried since 9/11 that a State actor like Iran or North Korea would anonymously arm jihadis to sneak a nuke into a major US city.

Iran would probably be more interested to do something like that to Israel. North Korea is just a China's proxy.
As for return addresses: for Saddam to be wiped out simple mentioning of Iraq in Osama's "list of grievances" was enough. If nuke goes off in a major US city some usual suspects will have to work very hard to prove they had nothing to do with it. It's not like there will be a court trial....

Iran can act as both ISIS and Iran if they chose to, yes? The covert side and the honorable side.

Lets hypothesize for a moment that Iran chose a day very soon to launch a massive destabilization around the world.

Let's say they chose this coming February 11th, on the anniversary of the Iranian Revolution of 1979, on which to unleash an offensive. They could easily take the first steps under the guise of ISIS. False flags in the name of Israel and the US. Fingers could be pointed falsely at Turkey, Syria or even Saudi Arabia. All good options even before taking official actions in the name of their own "Defense".

We are not prepared for anything like this. Given time, with Trump in an unrestrained hawkish stance, we may be on better footing, but for now, it looks like the perfect time to piss on the electric fence.

What would you criticize in hindsight of our predicament if it actually took place?

deepcgi says

Fingers could be pointed falsely at Turkey, Syria or even Saudi Arabia.

Why would anyone point a finger at these 3 countries? Two of these are our allies and Syria has no relevant capabilities.

deepcgi says

Iran launches ballistic missile test in defiance of the UN Resolution.

Unless you can prove the missile was designed to carry nuclear warheads then a ballistic missile test is not in defiance of the UN Resolution. There is no provision in the resolution against ballistic missile tests themselves. Go read the resolution.

best resolution is let them fight and sell them weapon.

Obama would have said nothing could be done and go play golf on the weekends.

According to the resolution, Iran is "called upon not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology."

But you're right, incredibly expensive, real-time positioning, long-range ballistic missiles are primarily meant for pizza delivery. With Kosher meats of course.

The false "terrorist enabler" label would be most disruptive if applied to our allies rather than Iran's but it wouldn't hurt to add North Korea, Venezuela, Lebanon, or especially Russia to the list.

deepcgi says

But you're right, incredibly expensive, real-time positioning, long-range ballistic missiles are primarily meant for pizza delivery. With Kosher meats of course.

A long-range ballistic missile is 600 miles? Really? Last time I checked that was just short of qualifying as medium range ballistic missile. The next step up is intermediate range, then long range, then intercontinental.

Apparently you are unaware that most common ballistic missiles were the german v2 and the russian scud (range 600+ miles in later versions) sold by the 10's of thousands to at least 50 countries around the world. Thousands have been launched. For pizza delivery of course.

If the US wanted to prohibit all ballistic missile tests then they should not have signed the resolution until that was what it said.

deepcgi says

The false "terrorist enabler" label would be most disruptive if applied to our allies rather than Iran's but it wouldn't hurt to add North Korea, Venezuela, Lebanon, or especially Russia to the list.

That is a tbp level of incomprehensible. Can you translate to english.

YesYNot says

he'll continue to escalate tensions with Iraq so that we cannot effectively fight them. Time will tell.

yes agreed, until we put in another secular puppet. Blame goes on Bush Jr. for that one.

Not supporting Assad, presumably in part, because Russia was, that goes on Obama/Clinton

bob2356 says

If the US wanted to prohibit all ballistic missile tests then they should not have signed the resolution until that was what it said.

wouldn't be completely surprised if many were in opposition to the agreement.

Since agreement signed, there has been more aggression from Iran against US Naval targets; if anything, the nuclear deal doesn't change fact that Iran and Russia are staunchly supportive of Assad, as is Turkey, and the US hasn't been terribly supportive of keeping a secularist in power.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/09/politics/us-iran-warning-shots/

https://news.usni.org/2016/09/06/iranian-boats-harass-another-u-s-navy-patrol-coastal-ship-persian-gulf

http://www.businessinsider.com/uss-squall-fired-shots-after-incident-iranian-navy-ship-2016-8

MMR says

wouldn't be completely surprised if many were in opposition to the agreement.

Anything to back that up? If they are in opposition then rescind their signatures.

MMR says

there has been more aggression from Iran against US Naval targets;

Quantify more aggression. Iran has always been pushing the US navy. So if Iran stationed warships at the entrance to the mississippi river and the houston shipping channel do you believe the president would order the US navy to stay away and leave them alone?

MMR says

the nuclear deal doesn't change fact that Iran and Russia are staunchly supportive of Assad, as is Turkey, and the US hasn't been terribly supportive of keeping a secularist in power.

Terrific, let's knock off another secular middle east leader and replace him with chaos and wahabbi jihadist fundamentalists. The US government hates assad because the GCC sunni's (Saudis, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait) hate assad who is shia. When the saudi's say shit, the US squats and makes grunting noises.

Shall we simplify things by cutting through one key level of BS? Iran doesn't want nuclear fuel for nuclear power. They are lying about that. They want a nuclear arsenal, and they want ballistic missiles to carry them.

Another level: President Obama said "I will do everything within my power to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons...everything in my power". He was lying. He only wanted to kick the can down the road to the next guy.

I am saying above that Iran has an openly hostile and dishonorable government. They have all of the bluster and intent of the nationless terrorist lot, and are not above using terrorist actions to further their agenda. They could and would implicate other nations for their own advantage.

The February 11th Scenario is an intellectual exercise. If I were an Israel-and-USA-detesting Iranian General, it would have been on my mind as a compelling idea for some months, now.

deepcgi says

I am saying above that Iran has an openly hostile and dishonorable government. They have all of the bluster and intent of the nationless terrorist lot, and are not above using terrorist actions to further their agenda. They could and would implicate other nations for their own advantage.

What terrorist actions have they used to further their agenda? You forgot to include any examples. Their agenda like standing up to wahabbi jihadist fundamentalists that continue to promulgate terrorists attacks all around the world? The saudi's send out an army of sunni terrorists to attack us and are our BFF. There aren't any shia terrorist attacks and iran is our bitter enemy. That makes sense.

I agree with you about Saudi Arabia.

As far as Iran is concerned...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2016/06/02/politics/state-department-report-terrorism/index.html?client=safari

But this information is from Hillary Clinton's State Department, so add a grain of salt.