Us Embassy In Iraq Under Attack

[Jeff]

 

 

Annnnnd once again, its all the fault of the evil Merica! Damn you for making the Iranians blip that button!

 

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-iran-crash-russia/russia-iran-was-spooked-by-reports-of-u-s-f-35s-when-it-downed-airliner-idUKKBN1ZG1LI

 

 

It's fleshed out a bit more, but this is what you were saying just one week ago.

 

No, and I believe we kicked this around several times and you still didnt get my point. I dont blame Trump for this airliner full of civilians being killed. But if he didnt realise that there were going to be dead people at some point when he kicked JCPOA over, then he is a damn fool. Again, look at the leadup to KAL007 and you might see my point. Reagan didnt cause it, but he framed the environment in which the tragedy occured with several decisions that if they were not reckless, were certainly questionable. Please, read the section where it says 'spooking the soviets, Psyops'. Its not that much different from how the Trump white house has been dealing with Iran in recent weeks.

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/a-cold-war-conundrum/source.htm#Top%20of%20File

Someone was going to end up dead at some point. The same thing happened int he leadup to flight 655 too for that matter. There was over a year of increasing tension, and nobody bothered to recognise where it was going to lead.

 

 

To be fair to Stuart, it's not that he supports Iran, it's simply that he appears to be completely incapable of deciding which set of internet "facts" to believe. Whereas most on this site decide to believe the set of facts that most closely match what this echo chamber demands, Stuart seems to be overwhelmed by all the echo chambers he is trying to stick his head into, to the point where he chooses to entertain all of them.

 

Facts are a funny thing. A week ago I said it was possibly a missile that brought this aircraft down, and I was accused of being highly aggressive and unfair to Iran. Is that whats called the middle ground in these parts?

 

Perhaps you want to go back and read what I actually wrote before you instantly accept DK's not entirely accurate rememberance of it. Even better, tuck into any book on Able Archer and you might that I was trying to draw attention to. Crises are made. They are not JUST one sides fault, and whilst one side is usually more reasonable than the other, its beholden on both to demonstrate intelligent management. If you want to interpet that as stirring it, and not what it actually was, an attempt to have a reasonable debate on crisis management, then I cant talk to you.

 

Or you can just default to sneering again. its really up to you.

 

 

It's not his fault but it's his fault?

 

If a number of people are misunderstanding what you say then maybe it's how you're saying it. Or maybe they're right.

[NickM]

 

Annnnnd once again, its all the fault of the evil Merica! Damn you for making the Iranians blip that button!

 

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-iran-crash-russia/russia-iran-was-spooked-by-reports-of-u-s-f-35s-when-it-downed-airliner-idUKKBN1ZG1LI

 

 

It's fleshed out a bit more, but this is what you were saying just one week ago.

 

Curse that cliche but inevitable development!

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

 

 

Annnnnd once again, its all the fault of the evil Merica! Damn you for making the Iranians blip that button!

 

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-iran-crash-russia/russia-iran-was-spooked-by-reports-of-u-s-f-35s-when-it-downed-airliner-idUKKBN1ZG1LI

 

It's fleshed out a bit more, but this is what you were saying just one week ago.

No, and I believe we kicked this around several times and you still didnt get my point. I dont blame Trump for this airliner full of civilians being killed. But if he didnt realise that there were going to be dead people at some point when he kicked JCPOA over, then he is a damn fool. Again, look at the leadup to KAL007 and you might see my point. Reagan didnt cause it, but he framed the environment in which the tragedy occured with several decisions that if they were not reckless, were certainly questionable. Please, read the section where it says 'spooking the soviets, Psyops'. Its not that much different from how the Trump white house has been dealing with Iran in recent weeks.

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/a-cold-war-conundrum/source.htm#Top%20of%20File

Someone was going to end up dead at some point. The same thing happened int he leadup to flight 655 too for that matter. There was over a year of increasing tension, and nobody bothered to recognise where it was going to lead.

 

 

To be fair to Stuart, it's not that he supports Iran, it's simply that he appears to be completely incapable of deciding which set of internet "facts" to believe. Whereas most on this site decide to believe the set of facts that most closely match what this echo chamber demands, Stuart seems to be overwhelmed by all the echo chambers he is trying to stick his head into, to the point where he chooses to entertain all of them.

 

Facts are a funny thing. A week ago I said it was possibly a missile that brought this aircraft down, and I was accused of being highly aggressive and unfair to Iran. Is that whats called the middle ground in these parts?

 

Perhaps you want to go back and read what I actually wrote before you instantly accept DK's not entirely accurate rememberance of it. Even better, tuck into any book on Able Archer and you might that I was trying to draw attention to. Crises are made. They are not JUST one sides fault, and whilst one side is usually more reasonable than the other, its beholden on both to demonstrate intelligent management. If you want to interpet that as stirring it, and not what it actually was, an attempt to have a reasonable debate on crisis management, then I cant talk to you.

 

Or you can just default to sneering again. its really up to you.

It's not his fault but it's his fault?

 

If a number of people are misunderstanding what you say then maybe it's how you're saying it. Or maybe they're right.

 

I don't think it's people misunderstanding. I think it's a number of people wilfully drawing the wrong conclusions of what I'm saying, so they can safely dismiss it. So they don't have to stop and think presumably.

 

Do I think Trump wanted civilians to die? No. That I wont blame on him. Do I think he showed a complete lack of understanding that confronting Iran would result in people getting killed, not all intentionally? Yes. Particularly when it's happened every time we ratchet the tension up on iran, whether it was in Iraq in the 2000s, or the Persian gulf in 1987 and 1988.

 

Yes, I think confronting Iran is necessary. For that he gets full marks from me. I find the way it's being done artless and inflammatory. Particularly as it's replicating most of the same policy mistakes made over the past 40 years.

 

I read about 4 years ago a lot on the 1987/88 confrontation, the main conclusion I take is the US did not take on board how paranoid Iran was, just as they did not with the Soviets. I can't point to that being Trumps exclusive mistake, but if the same mistake is made for decades, then why it out of line to point that out?

 

 

I'll leave it there. I didn't want a pissing contest, but if other want to indulge themselves, have at it. I'm out.

[RETAC21]

 

 

 

 

Annnnnd once again, its all the fault of the evil Merica! Damn you for making the Iranians blip that button!

 

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-iran-crash-russia/russia-iran-was-spooked-by-reports-of-u-s-f-35s-when-it-downed-airliner-idUKKBN1ZG1LI

It's fleshed out a bit more, but this is what you were saying just one week ago.

No, and I believe we kicked this around several times and you still didnt get my point. I dont blame Trump for this airliner full of civilians being killed. But if he didnt realise that there were going to be dead people at some point when he kicked JCPOA over, then he is a damn fool. Again, look at the leadup to KAL007 and you might see my point. Reagan didnt cause it, but he framed the environment in which the tragedy occured with several decisions that if they were not reckless, were certainly questionable. Please, read the section where it says 'spooking the soviets, Psyops'. Its not that much different from how the Trump white house has been dealing with Iran in recent weeks.

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/a-cold-war-conundrum/source.htm#Top%20of%20File

Someone was going to end up dead at some point. The same thing happened int he leadup to flight 655 too for that matter. There was over a year of increasing tension, and nobody bothered to recognise where it was going to lead.

 

 

To be fair to Stuart, it's not that he supports Iran, it's simply that he appears to be completely incapable of deciding which set of internet "facts" to believe. Whereas most on this site decide to believe the set of facts that most closely match what this echo chamber demands, Stuart seems to be overwhelmed by all the echo chambers he is trying to stick his head into, to the point where he chooses to entertain all of them.

Facts are a funny thing. A week ago I said it was possibly a missile that brought this aircraft down, and I was accused of being highly aggressive and unfair to Iran. Is that whats called the middle ground in these parts?

 

Perhaps you want to go back and read what I actually wrote before you instantly accept DK's not entirely accurate rememberance of it. Even better, tuck into any book on Able Archer and you might that I was trying to draw attention to. Crises are made. They are not JUST one sides fault, and whilst one side is usually more reasonable than the other, its beholden on both to demonstrate intelligent management. If you want to interpet that as stirring it, and not what it actually was, an attempt to have a reasonable debate on crisis management, then I cant talk to you.

 

Or you can just default to sneering again. its really up to you.

It's not his fault but it's his fault?

 

If a number of people are misunderstanding what you say then maybe it's how you're saying it. Or maybe they're right.

 

I don't think it's people misunderstanding. I think it's a number of people wilfully drawing the wrong conclusions of what I'm saying, so they can safely dismiss it. So they don't have to stop and think presumably.

 

Do I think Trump wanted civilians to die? No. That I wont blame on him. Do I think he showed a complete lack of understanding that confronting Iran would result in people getting killed, not all intentionally? Yes. Particularly when it's happened every time we ratchet the tension up on iran, whether it was in Iraq in the 2000s, or the Persian gulf in 1987 and 1988.

 

Yes, I think confronting Iran is necessary. For that he gets full marks from me. I find the way it's being done artless and inflammatory. Particularly as it's replicating most of the same policy mistakes made over the past 40 years.

 

I read about 4 years ago a lot on the 1987/88 confrontation, the main conclusion I take is the US did not take on board how paranoid Iran was, just as they did not with the Soviets. I can't point to that being Trumps exclusive mistake, but if the same mistake is made for decades, then why it out of line to point that out?

 

 

I'll leave it there. I didn't want a pissing contest, but if other want to indulge themselves, have at it. I'm out.

 

 

You realise this line of reasoning could be applied to anything?

 

- I hate my boss, I shot him, my frustration with Stuart Galbraith's post in tanknet made me do it, damn Stuart!

- I like that watch, let's heist the shop, my frustration with Stuart Galbraith's post in tanknet made me do it, damn Stuart!

- That girl turned me down, time for rape, my frustration with Stuart Galbraith's post in tanknet made me do it, damn Stuart!

 

you see where I am getting at? Trump did the Iranian general in, the Iranians could have rolled with it and saved for the time Trump was no longer President or they could have visibly fired missiles knowning a .mil answer was likely, hence, let's put this unconnected SAM network on alert - oops!

[Ivanhoe]

It's just this war and that lying son of a bitch Johnson.

[R011]

I am sure having two barely coordinated air defence organizations with fire authority given to battery level commanders has nothing to do with this incident. It's Trump's fault.

[BansheeOne]

Three rockets fall inside Baghdad's Green Zone, no casualties: sources

 

(Reuters) - Three Katyusha rockets fell on Tuesday inside Baghdad's Green Zone which houses government buildings and foreign missions, Iraqi police sources told Reuters.

 

The three rockets were launched from Zafaraniyah district outside Baghdad, the sources said, adding that two rockets landed near the U.S. embassy.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-security-rockets/three-rockets-fall-inside-baghdads-green-zone-no-casualties-sources-idUSKBN1ZJ29M

[Jeff]

They're going to push it again until another one of them gets sliced and diced, not smart.

[Nobu]

They badly need to divert the Iranian public's attention away from its own leadership right now. More pushing to come.

[JWB]

[JWB]

[BansheeOne]

They badly need to divert the Iranian public's attention away from its own leadership right now. More pushing to come.

 

 

Date 21.01.2020

 

Iran lashes out against Albania after Soleimani killing

 

As tension between the US and Iran escalate, NATO member Albania finds itself in the crosshairs of the Islamic Republic.

 

After the recent assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in a US drone strike and ensuing saber-rattling between the two countries, Iran's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, lashed out against a surprising target: Albania, a tiny Balkan country on the edge of southeast Europe and NATO member state. "There is a small but evil European country in which Americans and traitors against Iran got together to conspire against the Islamic Republic."

 

Albania has become caught up in the escalating conflict between the US and Iran. Indeed, leaders in the capital, Tirana, welcomed Soleimani's assassination; they immediately expelled two Iranian diplomats, reportedly for engaging in activities deemed unacceptable for diplomats.

 

A 'steadfast alliance'

 

But why, exactly, is Albania involved in this US-Iranian standoff? The connection goes back several years and involves members of the People's Mujahedin of Iran (MEK), a formerly Iraq-based group that has endeavored to bring down the Iranian regime. After former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was ousted, MEK members in the country found themselves under attack from Iranian rocket strikes. The Iranian leadership regards the group as a terrorist organization; the group, however, has ties to the US, which then arranged for fellow NATO member state and staunch Washington ally Albania to grant refuge to over 3,000 MEK members.

 

The US and Albania reached a humanitarian agreement and in 2013, thousands of MEK members were resettled to the Balkan country. Indeed, Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama said following Khamenei's threats the resettlement resulted from his country's "unwavering alliance" with the US.

 

Rama concedes that taking in the MEK members poses a risk for Albania. Yet he said it was a risk that "also honors and keeps alive the Albanian tradition" — by which he means the country's previous role in protecting Jews from the Nazis during World War II. Albania deported not one single Jew to Nazi Germany.

 

MEK members fear for their safety

 

The MEK members live in a large, high-security camp near the coastal city of Durres, some 30 kilometers (19 miles) from Tirana. But now that Iran has vowed to avenge the killing of General Soleimani, they are increasingly concerned for their safety. While camp security has been tightened, MEK legal adviser Behzad Saffari told DW the group does not feel safe anywhere.

 

"The terrorism of the Iranian regime poses a threat to us everywhere in the world. The Iranian embassy in Tirana, and those in other European capitals, are centers of terrorist operations of the regime," he told DW, adding that German security agencies had confirmed that Iranian spy operations were targeting the group.

 

[...]

 

https://www.dw.com/en/iran-lashes-out-against-albania-after-soleimani-killing/a-52102170

Edited January 22, 2020 by BansheeOne

[Mikel2]

If "Big Satan" and "Small Satan" are already taken, what moniker does Albania get??

[BansheeOne]

Per the German version of that report, apparently it's "little devilish country".

[Ivanhoe]

Per the German version of that report, apparently it's "little devilish country".

 

Man, they could make some bank if they started flogging t-shirts with that logo.

[Roman Alymov]

 

It's not his fault but it's his fault?

 

If a number of people are misunderstanding what you say then maybe it's how you're saying it. Or maybe they're right.

 

Let me raise my voice in Stuart defense here: there is a big difference between "it is his fault" and "he was aware of possible consequences". For example: Imagine country A's leader ordered redeployment of forces to country B (ally) to frighten off possible (may be only imagined) danger of country C intervention. If country A cargo plane with, let's say, 300 Army A troops crash when approaching landing in country B, for technical reasons or due to technical fault of some other reasons -will it be A's President fault? Clearly not. But was President A aware of possibility of this hundreds of his men killed in incident? Surely he was. It is the price attached to big political game.

[DKTanker]

 

 

It's not his fault but it's his fault?

 

If a number of people are misunderstanding what you say then maybe it's how you're saying it. Or maybe they're right.

 

Let me raise my voice in Stuart defense here: there is a big difference between "it is his fault" and "he was aware of possible consequences". For example: Imagine country A's leader ordered redeployment of forces to country B (ally) to frighten off possible (may be only imagined) danger of country C intervention. If country A cargo plane with, let's say, 300 Army A troops crash when approaching landing in country B, for technical reasons or due to technical fault of some other reasons -will it be A's President fault? Clearly not. But was President A aware of possibility of this hundreds of his men killed in incident? Surely he was. It is the price attached to big political game.

 

Except that is not remotely what Stuart was suggesting. Normally when people say that was the price of the decision, they are talking about the cost upon one's own self. As in your example. But that isn't what Stuart was stating. It is his position that when X does one thing and Y responds by shooting themselves in the foot, it is the fault of X. Or at the very least X should have anticipated Y shooting themselves in the foot and offered to bear besponsibility.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

 

 

It's not his fault but it's his fault?

 

If a number of people are misunderstanding what you say then maybe it's how you're saying it. Or maybe they're right.

 

Let me raise my voice in Stuart defense here: there is a big difference between "it is his fault" and "he was aware of possible consequences". For example: Imagine country A's leader ordered redeployment of forces to country B (ally) to frighten off possible (may be only imagined) danger of country C intervention. If country A cargo plane with, let's say, 300 Army A troops crash when approaching landing in country B, for technical reasons or due to technical fault of some other reasons -will it be A's President fault? Clearly not. But was President A aware of possibility of this hundreds of his men killed in incident? Surely he was. It is the price attached to big political game.

 

Except that is not remotely what Stuart was suggesting. Normally when people say that was the price of the decision, they are talking about the cost upon one's own self. As in your example. But that isn't what Stuart was stating. It is his position that when X does one thing and Y responds by shooting themselves in the foot, it is the fault of X. Or at the very least X should have anticipated Y shooting themselves in the foot and offered to bear besponsibility.

 

Really? Once because again, you are rejigging what I said to what you want me to mean, just so you can argue with it. That is not quite, but some of the way into what I was trying to describe. Well done Roman, and English isn't even your first tongue.

 

Im saying, there is a appreciable difference between blame and responsibility. And not even full responsibility, in that he didnt order the firing button pressed, and had no ambition to see civilians killed. I increasingly loathe Trump, but he isnt a homicidal maniac for all his flaws. He didnt want innocent people to die. For the Iranians its just more water off a ducks back.

 

Your apparent argument, shared by many of you here, is binary. You say either something is, or is not someones fault. There cannot be any middle ground. I suggest there is an incremental middle ground where you can say 'No, i wouldn't blame him, but he sure didnt help'. And that is precisely where I put Trump. He didnt help. And as the only grown up in the room (I would not put Iran in the same context) he was the one that needed to.

 

You want an illustration, lets look at the Cuban missile crisis. It was the fault of Khrushchev putting missiles in Cuba that created the crisis, right? That is the narrative we have all been sold, for decades. Nice and simple, easy to understand. Its only recent research that has illustrated quite how extensive Operation Mongoose was, to the point the Russians, from their own perspective, understandably, completely overreacted to put the missile in stop an invasion.

 

So who begat the crisis? Do you blame Khrushchev for overreacting? Do you blame Kennedy for doing all he could to avoid a Communist Regime off the coast of Florida ? Do you blame Castro for throwing in his lot with the USSR? Do you blame the CIA for fucking up the bay of Pigs? Do you blame the CIA for wholly ignoring prior indicators? Or do you blame Eisenhower for being a pussy and not supporting the previous regime? And for me, you do the grown up thing, you put responsibility on all of them. With different and nuanced levels of responsibility, clearly. Kennedy deserves most of the credit for pulling the Irons out the fire, he also needs to take some of the responsibility for causing it.

 

Now I can further develop this argument, but Ive no ambition to turn it into a thesis which none of you will ever read, but if you accept the argument that two sides created this crisis, then two sides need to take at least some of the responsibility for the dead resulting from it. Because as I said at the start, look at any crisis of this nature, sooner or later someone turns up dead. Either Trump was a fool embarking on this, or he was very brave, but either way, there is responsibility to be shared. To my mind, the only argument left is how much.

 

That is the world in which we live. Its not binary. Its analogue, and fools are those that ascribe simplicity to events that defy it. Can I make my argument any clearer? Probably not. And what would be the point, you will just rewrite it to your pleasure anyway.

Edited January 23, 2020 by Stuart Galbraith

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

Edited January 23, 2020 by Stuart Galbraith

[JasonJ]

The underlying cause of the recent tensions (rockets kill contractor-5 base hit-embassy smashing, Soleimani assassination-BM strikes are just recent tensions) is the US sanctions on Iran and US interests to stay in Iraq (over 5,000 soldiers and massive embassy) and Iran pursuing proxy war in ME and efforts in expanding influence over Iraq. Along with the tanker, KSA oil facility hits, and so on. There's a massive pile of stuff. Cause/blame/responsibility cannot only be laid on just those recent events.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Yes, but who incited the rocket strikes? Because ive listened to a couple of podcasts that claim that Iranian supported militia in Iraq were struck first by Israeli drones. And they, overreacting and assuming the Americans were at least partially responsible, struck the Americans. At which point you almost have to wonder if Bibi was trying to incite something to keep the Americans in Iraq.

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20190828-iraq-israel-drone-attacks-were-launched-from-kurdish-area-in-syria/

 

This a clusterfuck that has many fathers. And yes, you have to put responsibility on a lots of different people.

Edited January 23, 2020 by Stuart Galbraith

[Stuart Galbraith]

There is a narrative the Israelis did it from US Bases, which I do not believe. OTOH, that being the story going around, quite probably the PMU and others do.

https://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2019/iraq-190906-sputnik01.htm

Edited January 23, 2020 by Stuart Galbraith

[JasonJ]

Yes, but who incited the rocket strikes? Because ive listened to a couple of podcasts that claim that Iranian supported militia in Iraq were struck first by Israeli drones. And they, overreacting and assuming the Americans were at least partially responsible, struck the Americans. At which point you almost have to wonder if Bibi was trying to incite something to keep the Americans in Iraq.

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20190828-iraq-israel-drone-attacks-were-launched-from-kurdish-area-in-syria/

 

This a clusterfuck that has many fathers. And yes, you have to put responsibility on a lots of different people.

Yeah, its a colossal mess. One way or the other, among a bunch of people running on high tensions that is lasting a long period of time, someone is going to snap, and the response will be to snap back. Regardless whether or not its from the Israeli side, or the Iranian side, or the US, side. The underlying conflict of interest is too much and shouldn't be expected to be manageable over the long term.

[JasonJ]

There is a narrative the Israelis did it from US Bases, which I do not believe. OTOH, that being the story going around, quite probably the PMU and others do.

https://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2019/iraq-190906-sputnik01.htm

20-40 years from now, there may be so much coming to light about this 2019-2020 period.

[Nobu]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's not his fault but it's his fault?

 

If a number of people are misunderstanding what you say then maybe it's how you're saying it. Or maybe they're right.

 

Let me raise my voice in Stuart defense here: there is a big difference between "it is his fault" and "he was aware of possible consequences". For example: Imagine country A's leader ordered redeployment of forces to country B (ally) to frighten off possible (may be only imagined) danger of country C intervention. If country A cargo plane with, let's say, 300 Army A troops crash when approaching landing in country B, for technical reasons or due to technical fault of some other reasons -will it be A's President fault? Clearly not. But was President A aware of possibility of this hundreds of his men killed in incident? Surely he was. It is the price attached to big political game.

Except that is not remotely what Stuart was suggesting. Normally when people say that was the price of the decision, they are talking about the cost upon one's own self. As in your example. But that isn't what Stuart was stating. It is his position that when X does one thing and Y responds by shooting themselves in the foot, it is the fault of X. Or at the very least X should have anticipated Y shooting themselves in the foot and offered to bear besponsibility.

Really? Once because again, you are rejigging what I said to what you want me to mean, just so you can argue with it. That is not quite, but some of the way into what I was trying to describe. Well done Roman, and English isn't even your first tongue.

 

Im saying, there is a appreciable difference between blame and responsibility. And not even full responsibility, in that he didnt order the firing button pressed, and had no ambition to see civilians killed. I increasingly loathe Trump, but he isnt a homicidal maniac for all his flaws. He didnt want innocent people to die. For the Iranians its just more water off a ducks back.

 

Your apparent argument, shared by many of you here, is binary. You say either something is, or is not someones fault. There cannot be any middle ground. I suggest there is an incremental middle ground where you can say 'No, i wouldn't blame him, but he sure didnt help'. And that is precisely where I put Trump. He didnt help. And as the only grown up in the room (I would not put Iran in the same context) he was the one that needed to.

 

You want an illustration, lets look at the Cuban missile crisis. It was the fault of Khrushchev putting missiles in Cuba that created the crisis, right? That is the narrative we have all been sold, for decades. Nice and simple, easy to understand. Its only recent research that has illustrated quite how extensive Operation Mongoose was, to the point the Russians, from their own perspective, understandably, completely overreacted to put the missile in stop an invasion.

 

So who begat the crisis? Do you blame Khrushchev for overreacting? Do you blame Kennedy for doing all he could to avoid a Communist Regime off the coast of Florida ? Do you blame Castro for throwing in his lot with the USSR? Do you blame the CIA for fucking up the bay of Pigs? Do you blame the CIA for wholly ignoring prior indicators? Or do you blame Eisenhower for being a pussy and not supporting the previous regime? And for me, you do the grown up thing, you put responsibility on all of them. With different and nuanced levels of responsibility, clearly. Kennedy deserves most of the credit for pulling the Irons out the fire, he also needs to take some of the responsibility for causing it.

 

Now I can further develop this argument, but Ive no ambition to turn it into a thesis which none of you will ever read, but if you accept the argument that two sides created this crisis, then two sides need to take at least some of the responsibility for the dead resulting from it. Because as I said at the start, look at any crisis of this nature, sooner or later someone turns up dead. Either Trump was a fool embarking on this, or he was very brave, but either way, there is responsibility to be shared. To my mind, the only argument left is how much.

 

That is the world in which we live. Its not binary. Its analogue, and fools are those that ascribe simplicity to events that defy it. Can I make my argument any clearer? Probably not. And what would be the point, you will just rewrite it to your pleasure anyway.

The line between fault and credit is a fine one. If Trump is willing to take the credit for his Iran policy, he should be prepared to answer for it as well. One of his strengths is that he is.