Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
ExpandMyMind

US apparently readying for Iran attack

176 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

ExpandMyMind
Quote

BAGHDAD — US Embassy in Iraq says the State Department has ordered all non-emergency government staff to leave Iraq right away.

WP via AP

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

I don't know what to make of this. 

Has it happened before ? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
8 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

I don't know what to make of this. 

Has it happened before ? 

I have no idea. It might just be politics and no attack will come, but since Friday there has been coordination with the Saudis to paint Iran as in the process of attacking ships.

Might not be the US who would even attack Iran, even though there is apparently a Bolton plan to deploy over 100k troops. Could be that Israel and Saudi Arabia will be the ones to go to war with US blessing.

We'll see what, if anything, happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

If Iran is using its proxies to sabotage shipping and is preparing to launch an attack against U.S. forces in the region in revenge for sanctions that are hurting them then he's just being rational to send a message that they need to stand down.  As you said, we'll see what, if anything, happens, no?

Edited by and then

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
17 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

I don't know what to make of this. 

Has it happened before ? 

To me, the better question should be whether such an attack is justified under current circumstances.  If the plan is to put U.S. troops on Iranian soil in their thousands then I'd say NO, absolutely not.  If it's to get their attention that we will, in fact, strike them hard if they hit us in the region with proxies, then yes.  They've been on a very long "winning streak" since Obama and it is difficult for them to accept the harsh conditions they face now due to sanctions.  If one of the old men wants to strike out in anger, he needs to be shown that Obama isn't in charge any longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
32 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

I have no idea. It might just be politics and no attack will come, but since Friday there has been coordination with the Saudis to paint Iran as in the process of attacking ships.

Might not be the US who would even attack Iran, even though there is apparently a Bolton plan to deploy over 100k troops. Could be that Israel and Saudi Arabia will be the ones to go to war with US blessing.

We'll see what, if anything, happens.

A deployment of 100,000 ground troops is not a trivial thing. The Wasp - the USN's largest (I think) troop carrier/assault vessel, only carries 2000 troops, and there are only 8 or 10 in that class .  Of course, other ships - including passenger ships - can be used, but such vessels don't have specialist assault facilities. 

If I recall correctly, the liberation of Kuwait, and the subsequent attack on Iraq, only involved about 30,000 US troops ? And THAT had massive bases in Saudi Arabia. 

I mean.. how do you FEED 100,000 troops ? Just IMAGINE the queue for the toilets. 

I really can't imagine that this "100,000 troops" thing is just hyperbole ? 

 

Edited by RoofGardener

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
9 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

A deployment of 100,000 ground troops is not a trivial thing. The Wasp - the USN's largest (I think) troop carrier/assault vessel, only carries 2000 troops, and there are only 8 or 10 in that class .  Of course, other ships - including passenger ships - can be used, but such vessels don't have specialist assault facilities. 

If I recall correctly, the liberation of Kuwait, and the subsequent attack on Iraq, only involved about 30,000 US troops ? And THAT had massive bases in Saudi Arabia. 

I mean.. how do you FEED 100,000 troops ? Just IMAGINE the queue for the toilets. 

I really can't imagine that this "100,000 troops" thing is just hyperbole ? 

 

It's just Bolton's plan, allegedly. It does look like he's trying to push Iran into war though.

Quote

Intelligence and military officials in Europe as well as in the United States said that over the past year, most aggressive moves have originated not in Tehran, but in Washington — where John R. Bolton, the national security adviser, has prodded President Trump into backing Iran into a corner.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/14/world/middleeast/trump-iran-threats.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
5 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

It's just Bolton's plan, allegedly. It does look like he's trying to push Iran into war though.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/14/world/middleeast/trump-iran-threats.html

... Intelligence and military officials in Europe as well as in the United States said that over the past year, most aggressive moves have originated not in Tehran, but in Washington ..

Well, yes.. that's because Iran is doing all of its work in secret, whereas John Bolton is doing it in public. Hence it will APPEAR that the US is making all the aggressive moves. 

Sadly, I can't read the New York Times article, as it demands I turn my addblocker off, and subscribe. 

Edited by RoofGardener

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
6 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

... Intelligence and military officials in Europe as well as in the United States said that over the past year, most aggressive moves have originated not in Tehran, but in Washington ..

Well, yes.. that's because Iran is doing all of its work in secret, whereas John Bolton is doing it in public. Hence it will APPEAR that the US is making all the aggressive moves. 

Sadly, I can't read the New York Times article, as it demands I turn my addblocker off, and subscribe. 

That's not the case.

Quote

The remarks from the British official — Maj. Gen. Chris Ghika, who is also the deputy commander of the American-led coalition fighting the Islamic State — run “counter to the identified credible threats available to intelligence from U.S. and allies regarding Iranian-backed forces in the region.”

Pompeo also this week stated something similar. 

This is all Bolton and Trump, SA and Israel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
27 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

It's just Bolton's plan, allegedly. It does look like he's trying to push Iran into war though.

Sure does.  He's been an open Iran hater for a long long while. Dangerous man, imo

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps

Here's a good one  Link

Well, darn  :angry:  I can't clip a sample of that article. But the gist is :  Allies Split With US Over Iranian Threat

The other day the Spanish pulled one of their ships that was accompanying the US' ships going to the gulf. That's a bad omen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
21 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

... Intelligence and military officials in Europe as well as in the United States said that over the past year, most aggressive moves have originated not in Tehran, but in Washington ..

Well, yes.. that's because Iran is doing all of its work in secret, whereas John Bolton is doing it in public. Hence it will APPEAR that the US is making all the aggressive moves. 

Sadly, I can't read the New York Times article, as it demands I turn my addblocker off, and subscribe. 

I'd think those intelligence and military officials probably have a decent idea of what goes on in secret too. Kind of the point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
13 minutes ago, Setton said:

I'd think those intelligence and military officials probably have a decent idea of what goes on in secret too. Kind of the point. 

Hmmm.... good point. Having said that, the "European intelligence and military officials" are all anonymous and unattributed. So it could be a junior filing clerk in the Lichtenstein Intelligence Service, or a midshipsman in the Swiss Navy, neither of which had any real knowledge of the situation. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
21 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Here's a good one  Link

Well, darn  :angry:  I can't clip a sample of that article. But the gist is :  Allies Split With US Over Iranian Threat

The other day the Spanish pulled one of their ships that was accompanying the US' ships going to the gulf. That's a bad omen. 

Not good indeed !

Having said that, the Spanish have a reputation of surrendering to terrorists at the slightest provocation. 

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
22 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

A deployment of 100,000 ground troops is not a trivial thing. The Wasp - the USN's largest (I think) troop carrier/assault vessel, only carries 2000 troops, and there are only 8 or 10 in that class .  Of course, other ships - including passenger ships - can be used, but such vessels don't have specialist assault facilities. 

If I recall correctly, the liberation of Kuwait, and the subsequent attack on Iraq, only involved about 30,000 US troops ? And THAT had massive bases in Saudi Arabia. 

I mean.. how do you FEED 100,000 troops ? Just IMAGINE the queue for the toilets. 

I really can't imagine that this "100,000 troops" thing is just hyperbole ? 

 

We put a half million on the ground before we invited Saddam to leave Kuwait.  The U.S. military does logistics like no other business on the planet.  NO ONE is sending 100K troops to Iran, ain't gonna happen...

FTR, in a real situation where a buildup was necessary they'd be flown in over a few weeks. If the zone was "hot" a few thousand would be dropped in to secure the area first.

Edited by and then

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

 

22 minutes ago, and then said:

We put a half million on the ground before we invited Saddam to leave Kuwait.  The U.S. military does logistics like no other business on the planet.  NO ONE is sending 100K troops to Iran, ain't gonna happen...

Weeeeell.... yes.... but... back then they had the whole of the Middle East to stage into and get organised.

To attack Iran now.. well.. unless they got permission to stage in Iraq (HIGHLY unlikely), then they would have to contemplate a direct coastal assault, sailing across the Persian Gulf from Saudi or Kuwait, and attempting a forced landing on the Iranian beaches. 

That would be.. well.... not the easiest thing in the world ? the Iranians would go absolutely ape with short and medium range rockets and missiles, and the landing craft and assault carriers would surely get hit ? 

Edited by RoofGardener

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
10 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

 

Weeeeell.... yes.... but... they had the whole of the Middle East to stage into and get organised. Unless they got permission to stage in Iraq (HIGHLY unlikely), then they would have to contemplate a direct coastal assault, sailing across the Persian Gulf from Saudi or Kuwait, and attempting a forced landing on the Iranian beaches. 

They could stage in one or more of the Sunni gulf states and file in an orderly way after the door was kicked in.  Roofy, the U.S. ISN'T going to invade Iran.  We have the capability to crush their military infrastructure, paralyze their operations and mostly decapitate their political structure, not to mention reducing their highly-valued nuclear infrastructure to expensive rubble in a matter of hours.  All of which can be done with around the clock air bombardment, and cyber strikes.  The numbers of U.S. boots on the ground would be in the hundreds - at most.  The real danger of taking casualties would be in the Straits and back home in the good ole U.S. of A. by way of cell activation and terror strikes.  It would be an ugly, costly war and it is to be avoided if at all possible but not at the price of letting them dictate the terms and allowing them to have nukes.  Imagine having Kim sitting astride the Straits of Hormuz and dictating the price of energy to the global economy.  Think about that a moment.  Hell, it'd be even worse than that.  At least he's not a religious fanatic.  They are the ones who've forced THIS little contretemps.  Trump isn't even getting in their face or trying to humiliate them.  He's still offering to meet with them and discuss things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RabidMongoose
On ‎15‎/‎05‎/‎2019 at 2:02 PM, ExpandMyMind said:

WP via AP

Trump hasn't had a war and re-election is up soon.

I hope he waits until we have outed May as we dont want her staying in power too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Smoke aLot
23 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Sure does.  He's been an open Iran hater for a long long while. Dangerous man, imo

That really is pure hate towards Iran by some figures and it's only their personal goal to go into this war, for one reason or the other. Not one single evidence was provided of Iranian misconduct in the region or about their respect towards JCPOA about nuclear energy. What's absurd - Trump has rendered that deal obsolete but in rhetoric there is mention of ''Iranian nuclear threat'' :D 

Best ''evidence'' so far was the ''red line'' bomb drawing presented to UN.

Even to this day Bolton insists that Iraq invasion was great thing and was justified. Decades have passed and not one single evidence was presented to support that claim either. How are those same people allowed to stay in politics is beyond me.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RabidMongoose
12 minutes ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

That really is pure hate towards Iran by some figures and it's only their personal goal to go into this war, for one reason or the other. Not one single evidence was provided of Iranian misconduct in the region or about their respect towards JCPOA about nuclear energy. What's absurd - Trump has rendered that deal obsolete but in rhetoric there is mention of ''Iranian nuclear threat'' :D 

Best ''evidence'' so far was the ''red line'' bomb drawing presented to UN.

Even to this day Bolton insists that Iraq invasion was great thing and was justified. Decades have passed and not one single evidence was presented to support that claim either. How are those same people allowed to stay in politics is beyond me.

Well, my country setup their oil industry and then got done over by their Government at the time. In edition, they have openly worked against us in Iraq and Syria. They have a mentality where because historically they were a great nation they are still trying to live the dream. The aim is for them to emerge as a Middle Eastern superpower but they are opposed to us.

Just watch videos of their citizens burning US and UK flags in the street calling us the big and little Satan.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
2 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Hmmm.... good point. Having said that, the "European intelligence and military officials" are all anonymous and unattributed. 

Again, kind of comes with the territory. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Smoke aLot
1 hour ago, RabidMongoose said:

Well, my country setup their oil industry and then got done over by their Government at the time.

It's sovereign right of any country (including Venezuela for example) to decide about how it should manage their resources. I assume you was referring to British petrol and 1950's? France was there first actually. Important to note about the whole issue of ''developing'' Iranian oil industry is simply this - their democratically elected president was ousted because of oil.

1 hour ago, RabidMongoose said:

they have openly worked against us in Iraq and Syria

That is difference of opinion and matter of perspective. For Iran the West was working against Iran in Iraq and Syria. It's subject for itself, broad one but one side wanted Assad gone, Iran wanted Syria to remain sovereign country and it's territorial integrity to stay the same. Both Russian and Iranian help was officially asked for by legitimate Syrian government.

1 hour ago, RabidMongoose said:

They have a mentality where because historically they were a great nation they are still trying to live the dream.

Iran is great nation, so is every other nation. Name me one man who doesn't feel the same.

1 hour ago, RabidMongoose said:

The aim is for them to emerge as a Middle Eastern superpower but they are opposed to us.

Iran is naturally regional superpower. When Shah was controlling that country no one had problem with Iran growing as regional superpower and arms trade and support was very high. Again, that's matter of perspective.

1 hour ago, RabidMongoose said:

Just watch videos of their citizens burning US and UK flags in the street calling us the big and little Satan.

They burn US and Israeli flags often but, as i mention above, from CIA orchestrated coup in 1953, which was done in the name of mentioned petrol industry... ... Ask yourself about how would you feel? 

5th decade of sanctions has started. Of course that they wont sing praises. Even tho that burning happens i haven't heard about British or US citizen being murdered on streets of Tehran. That burning is symbolic, your countries are continents away from each other.

World is just not black and white only, i keep repeating that often. Best regards.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Smoke aLot
3 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Hmmm.... good point. Having said that, the "European intelligence and military officials" are all anonymous and unattributed. So it could be a junior filing clerk in the Lichtenstein Intelligence Service, or a midshipsman in the Swiss Navy, neither of which had any real knowledge of the situation. 

Yeah, there is one i love the most... ''Syrian Observatory for Human Rights'', London based, one employee for long time and he never was on Syrian soil. From about page on their website :

'' ... ... Director and founder of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights: Rami Abdurrahman (Ossama Suleiman)The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights is not associated or linked to any political body. ''

Wiki page about it : LINK

From wiki : ''It is frequently quoted by major news outlets since the beginning of the war about daily numbers of deaths from all sides in the conflict and particularly civilians killed in airstrikes in Syria. The SOHR has been described as being "pro-opposition" and anti-Assad''

If it's ''anonymous'' it stinks :) But if it suits the narrative, it's ''credible'' in medias.

SOHR was founded in 2006 BTW. Similar ''credible sources'' are all around these days.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
2 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

Trump hasn't had a war and re-election is up soon.

I hope he waits until we have outed May as we dont want her staying in power too.

This is likely the case, since he believes it would win him reelection.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RabidMongoose
41 minutes ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

It's sovereign right of any country (including Venezuela for example) to decide about how it should manage their resources. I assume you was referring to British petrol and 1950's? France was there first actually. Important to note about the whole issue of ''developing'' Iranian oil industry is simply this - their democratically elected president was ousted because of oil.

That is difference of opinion and matter of perspective. For Iran the West was working against Iran in Iraq and Syria. It's subject for itself, broad one but one side wanted Assad gone, Iran wanted Syria to remain sovereign country and it's territorial integrity to stay the same. Both Russian and Iranian help was officially asked for by legitimate Syrian government.

Iran is great nation, so is every other nation. Name me one man who doesn't feel the same.

Iran is naturally regional superpower. When Shah was controlling that country no one had problem with Iran growing as regional superpower and arms trade and support was very high. Again, that's matter of perspective.

They burn US and Israeli flags often but, as i mention above, from CIA orchestrated coup in 1953, which was done in the name of mentioned petrol industry... ... Ask yourself about how would you feel? 

5th decade of sanctions has started. Of course that they wont sing praises. Even tho that burning happens i haven't heard about British or US citizen being murdered on streets of Tehran. That burning is symbolic, your countries are continents away from each other.

World is just not black and white only, i keep repeating that often. Best regards.

If we setup their oil industry investing billions for a set share and then their coup Government nationalises it, we obviously arent going to be happy about it. Our investors poured in billions and got stung. This is why we had a falling out and why we have been enemies ever since. Your sympathetic views towards them are deeply worrying and I hope if war erupts you are monitored. Its like you think its okay to cheat businesses out of money just because they are UK or US companies. We had a fair contract to setup their oil industry, we expect to be treated fairly in return. Not for them to annex the lot as soon as they get the chance and tell all our investors on your bike.

Iran is a Shiite country and they have always had an interest in Iraq due to its large Shiite population. They have been active inside of Iraq trying to destabilise it since we went in. I wonder how many US/UK/NATO troops lost their legs directly because of Iran? I wonder how many have come back in body bags? Your support of Iran is deeply concerning to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.