Us Embassy In Iraq Under Attack

[Panzermann]

The arrest of the UK ambassador seems to be mainly down to local decision making being poor - he was held until his identity was established and higher authorities told the locals to let him go.

 

As for the local decision making at the SAM battery, I would be quite surprised if a UK AD battery had the authority to launch a missile in the event of loss of communication unless there was a declared state of hostilities, and probably direct evidence that hostile action was under way, but in the end if your weapon system allows local control, this sort of thing can happen.

 

What interests me is how the choler of the Iranian street protesters shifted so quickly from Death to the great Satan to an internal target. When you raise mobs, your control can be tenuous at best.

 

I think it is different protestors and not necessarily the same people protesting. Their own government having killed hundreds of their own in accident is a good occassion to let out all the pent up frustration about the inept government and general corruption and everything.

[Nobu]

Agree that an outright invasion would be a mess, but more graduated forms of pressure would not. Tehran's actions this past week have been less level headed, and more headless chicken in various ways.

 

An Iranian order on short notice to an unprepared Hezbollah and company to strike a competent enemy sounds like a recipe for an Iranian disaster.

[Markus Becker]

Nice, so why didn't Trump attack Iran? An overt ballistic missile attack by the state (rather than state sponsored proxy) certainly justifies a couple of hundred tomahawks if he was looking for a reason. Instead he broke the cycle of escalation, much to the annoyance of the Democrats.

He did attack their finances. That does a lot of damage but no loud bang. At least not immediately.

[Colin]

Was Soleimani "officially" in Iraq or quietly visiting without formal approval?

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

 

 

It's a great conspiracy theory. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear to be true.https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/ukrainian-flight-ps752-crashes-shortly-after-take-off-from-tehran/

May be, but it is not obvious from this article, as flight track indicated only cover the time when transponder was on, and misses significant part of the flight (at least the part when " turned right back toward the airport and crashed")

,

 

How do the ATC know it turned around if the transponder was turned off? It apparently wasn't talking to anyone by radio it was too busy crashing...

 

Turning off transponder is not removing the plane from radar screen - but only removes identification mark attached to it (or the mark is replaced with system-generated ID).So quick analysis of radar data after the crash was enough to find out trajectory of the plane after transponder was switched off.

 

There are a LOT of modern ATC systems that dont emit radar at all, but just gather in the transponder codes. I dont know this is the case in Tehran, but in an Urban setting it seems at least possible.

 

The problem with the turn is that they said this BEFORE they admitted shooting it down and as an explanation as to why it was not hit by a missile. So whichever way you look at it, its suspect information, not borne out by what you can read on Flight Radar24. In fact, we have no evidence for it other than a bunch of guys who admit they lied through their teeth for 3 days.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

 

Look, I'm not a child, I know we need to confront iran. But we have to be honest with ourselves, there is going to be a price for doing it. The Ukrainian airliner is part of the price, undoubtedly there will be others in other circumstances.

 

Why then do you support confronting Iran if in the end you'll blame the west for actions committed by Iran? I mean let's not mince words. When you suggest that the price of confronting Iran is that Iran will shoot down civilian airliners, you are tacitly blaming the west for that shoot down.

 

Read what I said, I am not assigning blame. But if you want an explanation of how we got where we are, you cannot avoid that confronting Iran has led to a shootdown of an airliner, just as confronting the Soviets led to the shooting down of an airliner. As said, both needed confronting, but there was a price to be paid for doing that and it needs to be understood.

 

My comments are hard to misunderstand, unless one wants to willfully misunderstand them of course. I can repeat them again, but Im not sure the penny will drop.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

I think Donald is making a mistake if he is committing to de-escalation. Tehran has displayed an inability to handle pressure these past few days. No reason to discontinue applying it.

Well I guess the generals told him what a mess an invasion of Iran would become. Teheran cannot handle the pressure? Well there was the erropnously shot down aeroplane, yes and the IRGC has shown that their command and control sucks goat balls. but overall Teheran has acted quite level-headed I think. They could have launched all missiles they have without any warning at US bases around the gulf and released all those islamic terrorist groups on their payroll.

 

---

 

The official protests against the 'old fox' have started outside the UK embassy. There are literally millions who know nothing but the regime and are entirely beholden to them. Think theocratic feudalism.

 

The UK ambassador seems to have been invloved with the student protests. any triuth to that? And did he not want to walk too far when it was near the embassy?

 

Though these protests have been still small in number compared to those who attended the funeral services(?) across Iran for MG Soleimani. So a large majority stands with their government and religious leaders I think. Especially with a freshly made martyr I think

 

No, it appears to be untrue from his comments. He went along to a wake to commemorate the loss of the victims (3 of which were Brits remember) and someone chanted anti Government messages. He immediately left, and was arrested outside. At which point, if his comments on twitter are true, it screams 'setup'.

Edited January 13, 2020 by Stuart Galbraith

[nitflegal]

 

 

 

Look, I'm not a child, I know we need to confront iran. But we have to be honest with ourselves, there is going to be a price for doing it. The Ukrainian airliner is part of the price, undoubtedly there will be others in other circumstances.

 

Why then do you support confronting Iran if in the end you'll blame the west for actions committed by Iran? I mean let's not mince words. When you suggest that the price of confronting Iran is that Iran will shoot down civilian airliners, you are tacitly blaming the west for that shoot down.

 

Read what I said, I am not assigning blame. But if you want an explanation of how we got where we are, you cannot avoid that confronting Iran has led to a shootdown of an airliner, just as confronting the Soviets led to the shooting down of an airliner. As said, both needed confronting, but there was a price to be paid for doing that and it needs to be understood.

 

My comments are hard to misunderstand, unless one wants to willfully misunderstand them of course. I can repeat them again, but Im not sure the penny will drop.

 

I suspect it has more to do with the fact that many of our more prominent mouth breathing pundits are pretty expressly saying that so it bleeds over. In the US we're getting a lot of hot air about how the event started with the drone hit and forgetting the embassy attack a few days before, never mind the IED's that have been killing and maiming coalition forces for years.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

 

 

 

Look, I'm not a child, I know we need to confront iran. But we have to be honest with ourselves, there is going to be a price for doing it. The Ukrainian airliner is part of the price, undoubtedly there will be others in other circumstances.

 

Why then do you support confronting Iran if in the end you'll blame the west for actions committed by Iran? I mean let's not mince words. When you suggest that the price of confronting Iran is that Iran will shoot down civilian airliners, you are tacitly blaming the west for that shoot down.

 

Read what I said, I am not assigning blame. But if you want an explanation of how we got where we are, you cannot avoid that confronting Iran has led to a shootdown of an airliner, just as confronting the Soviets led to the shooting down of an airliner. As said, both needed confronting, but there was a price to be paid for doing that and it needs to be understood.

 

My comments are hard to misunderstand, unless one wants to willfully misunderstand them of course. I can repeat them again, but Im not sure the penny will drop.

 

I suspect it has more to do with the fact that many of our more prominent mouth breathing pundits are pretty expressly saying that so it bleeds over. In the US we're getting a lot of hot air about how the event started with the drone hit and forgetting the embassy attack a few days before, never mind the IED's that have been killing and maiming coalition forces for years.

 

Its like a car accident. You can break it down into its component parts and say 'you are THIS much responsible for it, and the other party is THAT much responsible for it', but that really isnt very useful The most one can say is the crisis killed these people, and that both sides (more Iran) helped make the crisis.

 

Its easy to lay it in Trumps lap, but its wrong. You can just as much lay it in Obama's lap, or Reagans lap, or Carters lap. It doesnt really tell us a damn thing that is useful. I find it more useful to illustrate that international crises of this nature, even when they are fully justified, end up killing people. If people didnt realise that when they started engaging Iran, either in signing up for JCPOA, or leaving it, they were being willfully obtuse. There was also a price to be paid whatever decision was taken. There will be more yet, I feel sure of it.

[Jeff]

Can we please stop talking about an invasion of Iran? The US is never going to send a ground invasion into Iran. At worst, the USAF might get the go ahead for a massive sustained air campaign, at worst.

[Stuart Galbraith]

No, and I quite believe it. But they dont, and in not believing it, they may well go to far. They already blew away an airliners because they so convinced themselves the United States is coming for them. There is no telling what else they are going to get up to.

Edited January 13, 2020 by Stuart Galbraith

[Burncycle360]

No, and I quite believe it. But they dont, and in not believing it, they may well go to far. They already blew away an airliners because they so convinced themselves the United States is coming for them. There is no telling what else they are going to get up to.

 

If it tells you something about their mindset, they were more interested in saving face than they were worried about massive US retaliation within Iran proper when it came time to decide to act as a state and attack the US rather than do so using their proxies. To me that indicates they have more faith in US restraint than the pillars of their own internal stability. Problem with totalitarian regimes is you have to keep up appearances of infallibility otherwise you get people you've tried to indoctrinate asking questions about why you lied and what else you've been lying about their whole lives.

 

Only China can get away with that in the near future once their technological measures (social credit, facial recognition, elimination of anonymity on the internet and total communication and movement control both internet and sneakernet) are in place.

 

It's funny that half the US population lament about the oppression they suffer through and how Trump is the closest thing to "literally hitler" in our modern age when they just have no clue. They're old enough that the ignorance can't honestly be attributed to naivety, it's willful and deliberate. One of the sad side effects of prosperity, I suppose.

 

 

Edited January 13, 2020 by Burncycle360

[Stuart Galbraith]

You have to be careful of reverse projecting though. They may well be terrified of America, and their bluster is a hide for that fact. Just research operation Ryan and you will see what I mean. Some nations are capable of convincing themselves of the damndest things, and acting apparently completely unreasonably on the basis of them.

 

It's a time for clear communication, and not for barbs on both sides via twitter. Yes even the Iranians have discovered twitter, and it's doing them no favours.

Edited January 13, 2020 by Stuart Galbraith

[Nobu]

They have also discovered that they are being left behind as a society and a culture as the world advances forward without them.

 

The dangerous moment in the rehabilitation of theocracy/mind control cult members is the moment they realize they have been lied to. Similar elements may be coming into play in the Iranian street.

[Roman Alymov]

 

 

 

 

It's a great conspiracy theory. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear to be true.https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/ukrainian-flight-ps752-crashes-shortly-after-take-off-from-tehran/

May be, but it is not obvious from this article, as flight track indicated only cover the time when transponder was on, and misses significant part of the flight (at least the part when " turned right back toward the airport and crashed")

,

 

How do the ATC know it turned around if the transponder was turned off? It apparently wasn't talking to anyone by radio it was too busy crashing...

 

Turning off transponder is not removing the plane from radar screen - but only removes identification mark attached to it (or the mark is replaced with system-generated ID).So quick analysis of radar data after the crash was enough to find out trajectory of the plane after transponder was switched off.

 

There are a LOT of modern ATC systems that dont emit radar at all, but just gather in the transponder codes. I dont know this is the case in Tehran, but in an Urban setting it seems at least possible.

 

The problem with the turn is that they said this BEFORE they admitted shooting it down and as an explanation as to why it was not hit by a missile. So whichever way you look at it, its suspect information, not borne out by what you can read on Flight Radar24. In fact, we have no evidence for it other than a bunch of guys who admit they lied through their teeth for 3 days.

 

Unfortunately i am too busy to closely follow the situation, but i do not remember any mentioning of flight transponder problem by anybody (including Iranians) before it was admitted to be missile hit (except may be couple of guys in Russian internet who were saying something like "strange the transponder went off when engine failed" but were linking it to possible power wires cut by engine blades flying away).

Anyway, now version of transponder off 30 seconds PRIOR to SAM hit is supported by this timeline provided by NYT https://www.nytimes.com/video/world/middleeast/100000006911696/iran-crash.html?action=click&gtype=vhs&version=vhs-heading&module=vhs&region=title-area&cview=true&t=6

Of course it may be result of, for example, hit by another missile, some king of electronic countermeasures in the area jamming the signal or some technical fault, but it is very suspicious.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Or they just didnt check whether it was squawking a transponder code. Which once again would be uncannily like MH 17.

[Roman Alymov]

Or they just didnt check whether it was squawking a transponder code. Which once again would be uncannily like MH 17.

It is directly contradicting current version of timeline (transponder off prior to impact and staying off until collision with terrain few minutes, and dozens of kilometers, later. By the way NYT version of flight path (and missile hit point) is based on extending flight pass when transponder was still on - but we can't verify it since transponder was off, so may be second part of conspiracy theory (plane switching off transponder AND turning north out of regular passenger planes way) is also true (NYT do show north turn, but after missile hit).

And, as you mention MH17 -how do you think, is it impossible that one of legacy Soviet BUKs deployed by pro-Ukrainians to the area (it is known fact - they were showing it on their mil TV channel) was not functioning properly and unable to receive transponder data for some time, making personnel think they see lonely Russian bomber and it is high time to press fire button (the same way as Ukrainian crew of Georgian BUK shot down Russian Tu-22M3 in 888 war)? 25+ years is very long time for complex electronic device, especially without proper storage and maintenance, and with untrained personnel ....

[rmgill]

Unfortunately i am too busy to closely follow the situation, but i do not remember any mentioning of flight transponder problem by anybody (including Iranians) before it was admitted to be missile hit (except may be couple of guys in Russian internet who were saying something like "strange the transponder went off when engine failed" but were linking it to possible power wires cut by engine blades flying away).

Anyway, now version of transponder off 30 seconds PRIOR to SAM hit is supported by this timeline provided by NYT https://www.nytimes.com/video/world/middleeast/100000006911696/iran-crash.html?action=click&gtype=vhs&version=vhs-heading&module=vhs&region=title-area&cview=true&t=6

Of course it may be result of, for example, hit by another missile, some king of electronic countermeasures in the area jamming the signal or some technical fault, but it is very suspicious.

 

 

I would put it down to the related data sources having poor time tracking or non-synchronized time. Clocks on computers drift over time. That's why we synchronize them frequently in the IT world. Certain processes for encryption depend upon the times being accurate.

[Roman Alymov]

RE "I would put it down to the related data sources having poor time tracking or non-synchronized time. Clocks on computers drift over time. That's why we synchronize them frequently in the IT world. Certain processes for encryption depend upon the times being accurate."

I thought about this possibility, but as for me it is unlikely (as having synchronized time is basic feature of any more or less sophisticated system) and without transponder off we got now explanation of why "the derka derka Allahu Akbar types" ©Jeff decided to abandon their coffee, rust to contacting their supperiors and, after getting no answer, fired missile(s) -after all, each missile is very expensive toy and they kow wasting it will not improve their careers, not mentioning shooting down wrong target....

Edited January 13, 2020 by Roman Alymov

[rmgill]

What's the drift of the data sources? What central time server(s) do they use? What sources do they use? Are they synchronized properly? if it's something on the internet, what final authoritative time servers are they using? US Naval Observatory? Is that within 30 seconds of Glonass? Galileo? Something Iran uses separately? What's the interval between updates of the various data sources that point to a difference in timing between impact and the transponder going off?

Given what we know and suspect, I'm inclined to think that the aircraft stopped transmitting the transponder code when it was hit by the first missile. I don't see the aircrew knowing they had a SAM coming at them, let alone 2.

As to expensive toys? How many SRBM's did they fire at pretty much nothing to make a point for internal consumption? How much for each of those?

[JasonJ]

Some info from the US soldiers' perspective at the base when hit by the BMs.

Troops at the Iraqi air base that bore the brunt of Iran's first direct missile attack against U.S. forces said they were shocked by its intensity and grateful to emerge unscathed.

 

The scale of the damage at the Ain al-Asad base showed Iran's destructive capability at a time when U.S. officials say they are still concerned that Iran-backed groups across the region could wage attacks on the United States.

 

"It's miraculous no one was hurt," Lt Col Staci Coleman, the U.S. air force officer who runs the airfield, told reporters on Monday at the vast base deep in the western Anbar desert in Iraq, where 1,500 Americans were deployed.

 

"Who thinks they're going to have ballistic missiles launched at them ... and suffer no casualties?"

 

The Jan. 8 attack came hours after U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper said the United States should expect retaliation over the U.S. killing of Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani in a drone strike in Iraq the previous week.

 

 

The killing raised fears of a new Middle East war, but the United States, Iraq and other countries with troops at the base said no one was hurt. U.S. military leaders have said that was thanks to commanders on the ground, not Tehran's goodwill.

 

At one site, a cruise missile had left a large crater and incinerated living quarters made from shipping containers.

 

Heavy concrete blast walls were knocked over and the shipping containers were smashed and charred along with contents including bicycles, chairs and other furniture. Several soldiers said one of their number had come very close to being blown up inside a shelter behind the blast walls.

 

Almost a dozen missiles hit the air base, where U.S. forces carried out "scatter plans" to move soldiers and equipment to a range of fortified areas apart from one another.

 

The United States did not have Patriot air defenses at the base, putting the onus on local commanders to protect their troops.

 

"We'd got notification there could be an attack a few hours prior so had moved equipment," said U.S. Staff Sergeant Tommie Caldwell.

 

'IT'S LIKE TERROR'

 

Lt Col Coleman said that by 10pm all the staff she manages were ready to take cover. "People took this very seriously," she said.

 

Three and a half hours later the missiles started arriving. Several soldiers said they continued for two hours.

 

Staff Sgt Armando Martinez, who had been out in the open to watch for casualties, said he could not believe how easily one missile levelled the concrete blast walls.

 

"When a rocket strikes that's one thing; but a ballistic missile, it's like terror," he said.

 

"You see a white light like a shooting star and then a few seconds later it lands and explodes. The other day, after the attack, one colleague saw an actual shooting star and panicked."

 

One missile landed on the tarmac of a parking and servicing area for Blackhawk helicopters helping to ferry equipment in the fight against Islamic State insurgents.

 

The helicopters had been moved but it destroyed two light hangars and badly damaged portacabins nearby.

 

"We must have been in the bunkers for more than five hours, maybe seven or eight," said Kenneth Goodwin, Master Sgt in the U.S. Air Force. "They knew what they were aiming at by targeting the airfield and parking area."

 

It was the latest strike against an air base that has figured prominently in high-ranking U.S. officials' visits to Iraq.

 

"After these missile attacks, when we hear of possible militia rocket attacks, we tend to think, 'Oh only rockets ... that's a change'," Coleman said, describing the common feeling when the missile attacks were over as "sheer relief".

 

On Sunday the Iraqi military said four people had been wounded in an attack on Balad air base in northern Iraq, which also houses U.S. personnel. Military sources identified the wounded as Iraqi soldiers. (Reuters)

http://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=281883

[Nobu]

I don't think an outright invasion of Iran, or even a drawn-out air campaign, would ever be preferable to the kind of internal Iranian implosion that brought down the Shah. What is interesting is the possibility that Donald has lit the fuse that eventually brings it about.

[Stuart Galbraith]

I would love it if Donald Trump is the man that brings peace to the middle east. For one thing I would be proved wrong, and secondly, it would be really funny.

 

I dont think it likely, but then I thought a washed up Hollywood actor was going to cause WW3, so what the hell do I know.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Im surprised this hasnt had a wider mention.

 

https://www.foxnews.com/us/army-fake-texts-military-draft

 

The Army is warning people not to fall for text messages informing them that they've been selected to be drafted into the military.

The fraudulent text messages were sent throughout the country this week amid growing tensions between the United States and Iran that has seen the deployment of additional troops to the Middle East and driven talk on social media of another military conflict in the region.

The fake text messages tell the receiver the Army has tried contacting them unsuccessfully and orders them to report to the nearest recruiting branch for immediate departure to Iran.

"We're aware that this number is not disconnected, you'll be fined and sent to jail for minimum 6 years if no reply," some of the messages said.

 

It was unclear how many text messages were sent, the Army Recruiting Command told Fox News in an emailed statement. It said recruiters have seen screenshots of the messages from people in various parts of the country.

"Some have included fake names claiming to be Army recruiters, and others have used real names of leaders within our command," the recruiting command said. "Army security personnel are looking into the origin of the messages."

The military has been an all-volunteer force since the draft was abolished in 1973. All men age 18-25 are still required to register for the selective service.

"The decision to enact a draft is not made at or by U.S. Army Recruiting Command," the Army said in a Tuesday statement. "The Selective Service System, a separate agency outside of the Department of Defense, is the organization that manages registration for the Selective Service."

 

Registration does not enlist a person into the military.

"The Selective Service System is conducting business as usual,” according to the Selective Service System’s official Facebook page. “In the event that a national emergency necessitates a draft, Congress and the President would need to pass official legislation to authorize a draft."

If a draft were to be reinstated, the Selective Service would administer it, not the Army. The text messages come as additional troops have been deployed to the Middle East following the death of Iran's Quds Force Gen. Qassem Soleimani last week.

Soleimani was killed by a U.S. drone strike in Baghdad. In retaliation, Iran on Wednesday launched more than a dozen ballistic missiles into Iraq at bases that house U.S. troops. No one was killed.

[MiloMorai]

Trump and his minions are changing the reasons for the attack on the General. They are also not mentioning the failed attack on another 'target'.

​

The Pensacola attack that killed 3 sailor is know called a terrorist attack. Strange that SA is not designated a terrorist country like Iran