Reports from Iranian media is that they gave the Americans a warning before the missiles were fired with the coordinates of the attack LOL.
All of the fear mongering and sensationalism by the Democrat left mass media was just more 'Fake News'. Add it to the list. Next.
Yep. The Irandians had to make a show of doing something. But not in a way that actually caused any appreciable damage or casualties. Our mass media is so full of S___. It can hardly be overstated.
We were not on the brink of a war. I can't think of a single entity that would profit from a war with Iran, sans conspiracy theories. Keep in mind Iran has continuously provoked throughout the years. This is tit for tat BS. What is a leader suppose to do when a sovereign state openly attacks our embassy? Its completely unrealistic for anyone to think Iran is going to come crawling back to the negotiation table under the current political climate.
People are really dumbasses huh. Two military.powers threatening escalation, lobbing missiles and drone strikes at each other, presidents threatening to destory cultural sites and you expect that **** not to make headline news about high tensions that can lead to war. Be happy that we aren't seeing a near term escalation at the moment but understand that we were in a far more calm steady relatiot with Iran before 2017 when we were still in the nuclear deal. Shaking up the hornet's nest for no reason other than to satisfy your distaste of the previous administration is absurd. We are closer to war with Iran than we were than any point in the past decade. Because the dice rolled a 5 - "escalations have ceased for the moment" , doesn't justify this unnecessary ramp up of escalations where the dice could easily roll a 3 - "escalations rise towards a full blown invasion"? And for what? Hating the previous administration?
In relative terms we were closer to war with Iran than any point in the past decade. There was no reason to back out of the agreement and fall down this rabbit hole. And a full blown land invasion of Iran is very unlikely. But a decade long proxy war in Iraq with Iran with escalations to the point of US tradional Infantry battalions on the ground fighting Iranian proxy militias and going back to weekly death counts of American troops like the good ol 2000's decade is definitely a realistic possibility.
Cant think of a single entity that benefited in 1914, either. Individuals making individual decisions miscalculated and get emotional.
This is a pretty clear admission from a Trump die hard that he does not and we should not take this president seriously about anything... especially on the matters of war. Such a ringing endorsement. So basically his one use as president is to troll and own libs on Twitter. Got it.
I am sure he will. He will call it the "Not the Same Deal that Obama Had" deal and whine about how he should get a Nobel Peace Prize. Meanwhile iran will escalate their nuclear weapon development. Sorta like north korea, only without the love letters.
I'm still convinced that in a year or two Iran will have nukes that could have been avoided with diplomacy and all the iran hawks will maddeningly puff out their chests and say, "See! We were right all along" with no awareness of their own role in their self fulfilling prophesy.
All these “see it was nothing” Trumpers seem to forget the US just assassinate a #2 in charge state actor of a sovereign country. This whole notion that Trump was always in control and never put risk of war on the table is complete gobbly gook nonsense. The end results is it looks like Trump is lucky Iranian officials don’t want a war with the US or aren’t completely irrational. Trump took a major escalatory approach, and got lucky in the response. This is not a win for Trumps re-election campaign to make a case for his steady hand in foreign policy. It’s a big freaking hit for him politically even if he gets back in the nuclear agreement and calls it’s a “big beautiful deal like the world has never seen.” People like the above poster can sell this However they want and point and laugh at liberals like they always do but it doesn’t change the fact that this was not a good week for Donald Trump.
Diplomacy didn't stop N. Korea from getting their nukes. They did it right under our nose. There is a lesson to learn there. The Iran deal needed a reset. How many schools, hospitals, treatment plans etc., did the injection of cash from the Obama deal net them? They spent it in Iraq and on their badass missles. It's kinda maddening that after the U.S. started a war with Iraq (wrong to do), we invested heavily into rebuilding and improving their infrastructure. Iran had no influence. And then they did. And it's during they 'when' that we should ask ourselves why and how. We slept on them and took our eye off the ball. For 8 years apparently.
Diplomacy with N. Korea didn't lead to N. Korea accepting terms allowing international nuclear inspectors to inspect their facilities. The diplomacy with Iran lead to terms allowing the IAEA to perform snap inspections in Iran. So you are comparing apples to oranges here. The part of the deal with Iran that heavily benefited Iranian citizens was the opening up of Western investment into the country. There was no reason to back off the deal.
first returns are starting to come in https://theweek.com/articles/888236/trumps-iranian-diplomacy-gambit Trump's Iranian diplomacy gambit Matthew Walther Illustrated | SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images, Asya_mix/iStock, Aerial3/iStock January 8, 2020 Like millions of other Americans I had absolutely no idea what would come of President Trump's address on Wednesday in response to Iran's attack on Tuesday night on a military base in Iraq. The fact that he was not scheduled to speak from the Oval Office made it unlikely that he would be announcing an escalation in the conflict between Washington and Tehran, much less the commencement of an invasion. But I do not think anyone was prepared for what ensued. After an awkward-sounding introduction about Iran's nuclear potential, he thanked American military personnel for their sacrifices and defended the recent killing of Qassem Soleimani, the commander of the Iranian paramilitary group Quds Force. Then he did something that made his opening statement seem more sensible in retrospect: He outlined a plan not only for an end to the current hostilities but a new era of peace and cooperation between the United States and Iran. This was premised upon two things: Iran's abandonment of its nuclear ambitions in accordance with a revised version of the Obama-era Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and the acknowledgement of a common enemy in ISIS and other Wahhabist groups. It is difficult to overstate the significance of the latter. For much of the last two decades, the defining feature of American foreign policy in the Middle East has been a blinkered refusal to acknowledge the internal tensions between countries within the broader Iranian Shiite axis and radical Sunni militants (see: Pence, Michael). Even when this reality has been noted, it has almost never been assumed that shared enemies could be the basis for cooperation of any kind between the United States and Iran. I for one cannot pretend this was not heartening. That said, it must be observed that we know absolutely nothing about the actual framework according to which these two policies — nuclear non-proliferation and the defeat of Wahhabism — will be pursued. Nor is it entirely clear whether the killing of Soleimani was always meant to be the precursor to the vague gestures in the direction of peace Trump made on Wednesday. Was the assassination of Iran's top military commander part of a grand design meant to force their hand, or is the decidedly non-truculent rhetoric coming out of the White House a spectacular piece of improvisation from the least predictable president in modern American history? We cannot know. But one thing is undeniable. If Trump, with help from our European allies, is able to draft a better version of the 2015 nuclear agreement, one that is easier to enforce and includes non-negotiable or reversible features such as the ability of American inspectors to visit Iranian military facilities, it would be a good thing for the United States, Iran, and the world. What would such a deal look like? How it would be negotiated? When, and by whom? If it were successful, would it be possible to follow it up with security cooperation between our two countries without arousing the (understandable) ire of our allies in the region? Can any meaningful progress be made on either of these goals within the next year, or even the next five? Is Trump's Cabinet staffed with people who see value in such objectives, to say nothing of having the diplomatic acumen and fortitude to pursue them? There is ample reason to be skeptical about all of these things. But a quiet and inchoate hope is better than the alternative of war. In this sense, we are all in the same position we were before Trump walked up to the podium on Wednesday morning — waiting, hoping, begging, praying for something that promises an end to the reality of endless war in the Middle East that two generations of Americans have lived with for virtually their entire lives.
So what do you call what they have done since Trump has been in office? Shot down a drone Shot missiles and damaged Saudi facilities Detained ships
Struck when needed? Well that's certainly one way to look at it but you would have to forget the previous things like shooting down a drone and firing missiles into Saudi. Trump isn't playing checkers its marbles.
