Us Embassy In Iraq Under Attack

[rmgill]

 

....At least since I was a kid and the Iranians invaded and took over our embassy in Tehran..

1953. Iranian coup.

 

Ahh, yes, remember the Cold War and all the wonderful things Communists brung us? Yes. The end result of that coup was the poor result that was the Shah. But, can you really say that the Islamic Revolution in Iran has been a swimmingly good alternative?

Edited January 4, 2020 by rmgill

[DKTanker]

All the usual suspects were wetting themselves worrying about what their ally, Iran would do. Little did they realize that Trump would double down.

 

https://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/US-airstrike-north-of-Baghdad-six-Shia-militia-men-killed-613049

 

US airstrikes targeting an Iraqi militia convoy near camp Taji north of Baghdad were reported by Iraqi state TV on Saturday.

According to pro-Hezbollah Lebanese media site Al-Manar, the strikes targeted a convoy of Iraq's Popular Mobilization Forces an umbrella group of Iran-backed Shia militias.

Six people were killed in the strikes, three were critically wounded, an Iraqi army source said.

[JWB]

 

 

....At least since I was a kid and the Iranians invaded and took over our embassy in Tehran..

1953. Iranian coup.

 

Yep, stupidly encouraged by the Brits so they could keep their oil concession, and the got us to do the dirty work.

 

What dirty work. US did almost nothing.

[Simon Tan]

This is a bunfight for Iraq.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

 

....At least since I was a kid and the Iranians invaded and took over our embassy in Tehran..

1953. Iranian coup.

 

Yep, stupidly encouraged by the Brits so they could keep their oil concession, and the got us to do the dirty work.

 

So you are saying is, nations SHOULD be run by Socialists?

 

Look how much money the US Defense industry made out of Pahlavi. Lets stop pretending that dog and pony show was purely for our benefit. And even if we had left Mosadegh in harness, what would have happened? The USSR would have been in there like a ferret up a drainpipe, and we would have been screwed on the price of oil for the next several decades. In how Iran would now look, they would have had a choice between North Korea or Venezuela. So for the Iranians, not much change there then.

 

There were no alternatives to what happened, just as there wasnt in South America. There is no reason to beat ourselves with a stick for the past, any more than there is a reason to cheer it.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

 

....At least since I was a kid and the Iranians invaded and took over our embassy in Tehran..

1953. Iranian coup.

 

Ahh, yes, remember the Cold War and all the wonderful things Communists brung us? Yes. The end result of that coup was the poor result that was the Shah. But, can you really say that the Islamic Revolution in Iran has been a swimmingly good alternative?

 

Exactly. It was a choice of the lesser evil. Nobody at the time could predict that it would bring the Iranian revolution, and if we had, at least we might have consoled ourselves with the thought it kept the Communists out. The Iranian regime if nothing else I believe did a really good job at beating down on the Tudeh, the Iranian Communist party.

[RETAC21]

 

 

 

....At least since I was a kid and the Iranians invaded and took over our embassy in Tehran..

1953. Iranian coup.

 

Yep, stupidly encouraged by the Brits so they could keep their oil concession, and the got us to do the dirty work.

 

So you are saying is, nations SHOULD be run by Socialists?

 

Look how much money the US Defense industry made out of Pahlavi. Lets stop pretending that dog and pony show was purely for our benefit. And even if we had left Mosadegh in harness, what would have happened? The USSR would have been in there like a ferret up a drainpipe, and we would have been screwed on the price of oil for the next several decades. In how Iran would now look, they would have had a choice between North Korea or Venezuela. So for the Iranians, not much change there then.

 

There were no alternatives to what happened, just as there wasnt in South America. There is no reason to beat ourselves with a stick for the past, any more than there is a reason to cheer it.

 

 

One would have thought that by now the story that Mossadegh was communist would have been buried, since the CIA itself admitted it was all a fabrication to justify his deposing - so Anglo Iranian could keep in business. That the Shah then went crazy in the 70s buying US toys is irrelevant to 1953. That bonanza came because the Iranian guvmint finally did what Mossadegh was attempting - nationalisation of the oil - but with the Shah in the US side of things, it was acceptable.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

 

 

 

....At least since I was a kid and the Iranians invaded and took over our embassy in Tehran..

1953. Iranian coup.

 

Yep, stupidly encouraged by the Brits so they could keep their oil concession, and the got us to do the dirty work.

 

So you are saying is, nations SHOULD be run by Socialists?

 

Look how much money the US Defense industry made out of Pahlavi. Lets stop pretending that dog and pony show was purely for our benefit. And even if we had left Mosadegh in harness, what would have happened? The USSR would have been in there like a ferret up a drainpipe, and we would have been screwed on the price of oil for the next several decades. In how Iran would now look, they would have had a choice between North Korea or Venezuela. So for the Iranians, not much change there then.

 

There were no alternatives to what happened, just as there wasnt in South America. There is no reason to beat ourselves with a stick for the past, any more than there is a reason to cheer it.

 

 

One would have thought that by now the story that Mossadegh was communist would have been buried, since the CIA itself admitted it was all a fabrication to justify his deposing - so Anglo Iranian could keep in business. That the Shah then went crazy in the 70s buying US toys is irrelevant to 1953. That bonanza came because the Iranian guvmint finally did what Mossadegh was attempting - nationalisation of the oil - but with the Shah in the US side of things, it was acceptable.

 

No, he was no communist. But he was it seems to me very much a Socialist in the mould of the South American nations. So the alternatives to my mind were either a Pinochet style regime (which in essence is what they got) or a Venezuela style regime (which is what they largely have).

 

The difference was the shah was our Joe, and any money he made was spent right back on expensive military hardware. He pretty much kept our Chieftain and F14 production lines going for years. I doubt we would have got much back from a Mossadegh style regime.

[RETAC21]

 

 

 

 

 

....At least since I was a kid and the Iranians invaded and took over our embassy in Tehran..

1953. Iranian coup.

 

Yep, stupidly encouraged by the Brits so they could keep their oil concession, and the got us to do the dirty work.

 

So you are saying is, nations SHOULD be run by Socialists?

 

Look how much money the US Defense industry made out of Pahlavi. Lets stop pretending that dog and pony show was purely for our benefit. And even if we had left Mosadegh in harness, what would have happened? The USSR would have been in there like a ferret up a drainpipe, and we would have been screwed on the price of oil for the next several decades. In how Iran would now look, they would have had a choice between North Korea or Venezuela. So for the Iranians, not much change there then.

 

There were no alternatives to what happened, just as there wasnt in South America. There is no reason to beat ourselves with a stick for the past, any more than there is a reason to cheer it.

 

 

One would have thought that by now the story that Mossadegh was communist would have been buried, since the CIA itself admitted it was all a fabrication to justify his deposing - so Anglo Iranian could keep in business. That the Shah then went crazy in the 70s buying US toys is irrelevant to 1953. That bonanza came because the Iranian guvmint finally did what Mossadegh was attempting - nationalisation of the oil - but with the Shah in the US side of things, it was acceptable.

 

No, he was no communist. But he was it seems to me very much a Socialist in the mould of the South American nations. So the alternatives to my mind were either a Pinochet style regime (which in essence is what they got) or a Venezuela style regime (which is what they largely have).

 

The difference was the shah was our Joe, and any money he made was spent right back on expensive military hardware. He pretty much kept our Chieftain and F14 production lines going for years. I doubt we would have got much back from a Mossadegh style regime.

 

 

He could hardly have gor a Venezuela going in Iran, and his "regime" would have been more democratic than the current Theocracy or the Shah's mad empire. As .mil acquisition were decided by the Shah, the toy factories would still have got their business. Let's not kid ourselves, this and the 1954 Guatemalan coup motivations was to keep the business of influential companies going, not anti-communism - and when it would have been relevant (ie Cuba) it was botched and left a Communist regime in place, because the commies will always come on top, being the most ruthless bunch.

[seahawk]

This is a bunfight for Iraq.

It is not even a fight. The Shias in Iraq will support Iran and Iran is next door, the USA is far away and the US public will be way less willing to accept dead soldiers than the other side will be willing to accept dead martyrs.

[MiloMorai]

I guess Trump's troop reduction in the ME has gone for a crap now.

[JasonJ]

 

This is a bunfight for Iraq.

It is not even a fight. The Shias in Iraq will support Iran and Iran is next door, the USA is far away and the US public will be way less willing to accept dead soldiers than the other side will be willing to accept dead martyrs.

 

 

One form might be just straight bombing of Iran itself. Way back since McCain's bombombbomb Iran with the current Bolton, and then after the take out of Soleimani and subsequent talk about what Iran might do as a response, Graham was saying to build up greater deterrence towards Iran taking a revenge course by putting out there the option to bomb Iranian oil facilities, thus crippling the last leg of Iran's economy.

 

I do agree that the US population itself is war wary and will not want another big ground campaign with no end in sight. And I don't think anti-Iran Iraqi groups backed by US advisers and airpower would be enough to remove Iranian influence.

 

But even bombing the oil facilities may not stop a resumed nuclear program.

[RETAC21]

 

This is a bunfight for Iraq.

It is not even a fight. The Shias in Iraq will support Iran and Iran is next door, the USA is far away and the US public will be way less willing to accept dead soldiers than the other side will be willing to accept dead martyrs.

 

 

It would be so simple if everything was black or white:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/27/world/middleeast/iraqi-protest-najaf-iran-burn.html

[seahawk]

 

 

This is a bunfight for Iraq.

It is not even a fight. The Shias in Iraq will support Iran and Iran is next door, the USA is far away and the US public will be way less willing to accept dead soldiers than the other side will be willing to accept dead martyrs.

 

 

It would be so simple if everything was black or white:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/27/world/middleeast/iraqi-protest-najaf-iran-burn.html

 

Surely not all Shias support Iran and surely it would be a blood bath in Iraq in case of a civil war, but the basic problem persists. Iran has plenty willing bodies to throw into the fire and share a border with Iraq. In addition the Iraqi government is completely impotent, as they needed the support from Iran to defeat ISIS and are barely capable of anything without it. Add that no fraction in the country will stand behind the USA any more. Not the Sunnis (for what happened in Syria), not the Kurds (for what happened in Syria) not the Shias due to large Iranian influence.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

 

 

This is a bunfight for Iraq.

It is not even a fight. The Shias in Iraq will support Iran and Iran is next door, the USA is far away and the US public will be way less willing to accept dead soldiers than the other side will be willing to accept dead martyrs.

 

 

It would be so simple if everything was black or white:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/27/world/middleeast/iraqi-protest-najaf-iran-burn.html

 

Surely not all Shias support Iran and surely it would be a blood bath in Iraq in case of a civil war, but the basic problem persists. Iran has plenty willing bodies to throw into the fire and share a border with Iraq. In addition the Iraqi government is completely impotent, as they needed the support from Iran to defeat ISIS and are barely capable of anything without it. Add that no fraction in the country will stand behind the USA any more. Not the Sunnis (for what happened in Syria), not the Kurds (for what happened in Syria) not the Shias due to large Iranian influence.

 

Is that really true anymore though? In the 1980's they were fighting a defence against a foreign invader, and were less than a decade away from a popular revolution. They are 40 years away from the revolution now, its increasingly authoritarian, and most of the old wartime commanders are aging and dying out.

 

Not that I see us doing a mass tank drive on Tehran either, but I dont see the mass of people in Iran unquestioningly following the regime. If Iran is contested in Syria and Yemen (and Yemen at the very least would be easy for America to turn off) then im not seeing a mass of people to go and fight in these places. And if they do, so much better the opportunity for Iran purging itself of lunatics.

 

I dont want to see a war with Iran, its wholly unpredictable the long term results it would have. But Iran are the ones holding pissing contests whilst dangerously overextented. As Nasser found when he did the same thing, rhetoric and ideology can only carry you so far.

[seahawk]

They do not need many Iranians and even there they have a constant influx of willing bodies, as the economic situation and fast population growth means many young males have no job and with that no chance to marry and service in their militias brings money. But a much bigger reservoir can be found in the Shia population the region, all seeing fast population growth, high rates of unemployment and economic pressure. Sending a son to fight for Iran, makes a family healthy money and the small payout if he gets killed, buys them a house. Life is cheap in the middle East.

Edited January 4, 2020 by seahawk

[Stuart Galbraith]

They do not need many Iranians and even there they have a constant influx of willing bodies, as the economic situation and fast population growth means many young males have no job and with that no chance to marry and service in their militias brings money. But a much bigger reservoir can be found in the Shia population the region, all seeing fast population growth, high rates of unemployment and economic pressure. Sending a son to fight for Iran, makes a family healthy money and the small payout if he gets killed, buys them a house. Life is cheap in the middle East.

 

 

They do not need many Iranians and even there they have a constant influx of willing bodies, as the economic situation and fast population growth means many young males have no job and with that no chance to marry and service in their militias brings money. But a much bigger reservoir can be found in the Shia population the region, all seeing fast population growth, high rates of unemployment and economic pressure. Sending a son to fight for Iran, makes a family healthy money and the small payout if he gets killed, buys them a house. Life is cheap in the middle East.

 

Yes, but you STILL need an ideological component to drive membership. I dont believe people join the Iranian paramilitary forces, anymore than they joined the Waffen SS, because they want a job. There has to be an ideological component, and just as it was with the Soviets, its hard to see the zealotry having as much appeal as it did 4 decades ago.

 

Public apathy to do anything, that I entirely get. But we are talking about active membership of something, and for that I would think you would need true believers. I just cant see the revolutionary brand they have been setting out for decades has as much popular appeal as we may believe.

Edited January 4, 2020 by Stuart Galbraith

[seahawk]

Those are not the hardcore IRGC forces, but militias sent aboard. Commit a small crime and choose to go to prison or serve with the militia.

 

The Basij also function with a small core of ideology driven leaders and a large number of people joining for the benefits of service in the Basij. You avoid the draft and often serve in your home town and better conditions, you get first shot at places at universities, you are first pick for government jobs.

 

Even with the Waffen-SS the number of hardcore fanatics was small, but the benefits of joining them still appealed to many. (Better training, better equipment, better food, better PR campaign, promise of better education,.... also the usual young troublemakers were prime targets for them. Get in a few fights and the choice was to face the consequences or join the Waffen-SS. As long it was not any form of anti government activity or a serious crime, those young males were prime targets for the Waffen-SS. And the organisation was good at turning them into fanatics in training. I know the recruitment and training building they used in our city. It was kind of an old castle with lots of mansions attached and very imposing park and a long road leading up to it. I have seen the photos with the Nazi flags and the whole road lit by torches leading to the old castle also illuminated by torches and decorated with flags of the SS. They usually had a few roasted pigs and plenty of beer and wine got delivered there as well. I can imagine how that looked awesome to any boy around the age of 14-16.)

[lucklucky]

US does not need much troops in terrain to make a world of hurt to Ayatollahs.

[bojan]

... But, can you really say that the Islamic Revolution in Iran has been a swimmingly good alternative?

 

Who talked about what is good and what is not?

1979 revolution (that did not really start as an Islamic) was a direct consequence of the 1953. coup. Hoisted on the own petard is a saying. Fuse just took some 26 years to burn.

Edited January 4, 2020 by bojan

[JasonJ]

 

[lucklucky]

 

... But, can you really say that the Islamic Revolution in Iran has been a swimmingly good alternative?

 

Who talked about what is good and what is not?

1979 revolution (that did not really start as an Islamic) was a direct consequence of the 1953. coup. Hoisted on the own petard is a saying. Fuse just took some 26 years to burn.

 

It is a mistake to think that what happens and the only forces and reactions are only due to Western action.

I can see the Islamists making a coup against an eventual Mossadegh continuation.

[JasonJ]

About UK forces in Iraq.

 

 

The UK is reviewing its "force protection" in the Middle East, following the death of a top Iranian general in a US air strike.

Around 400 British Army personnel are deployed in Iraq, across three bases - Camp Taji near Baghdad, Union III in Baghdad, and Erbil in Iraqi Kurdistan.

The UK also has four Royal Navy ships in the Gulf - Type 45 destroyer HMS Defender, Type 23 frigate HMS Montrose and two minenhunters.

UK troops are in the country in a non-combat role, training the Iraqi Security Forces and the Kurdish Security Forces who are tackling the threat of so-called Islamic State.

 

...

https://www.forces.net/news/uk-reviewing-force-protection-middle-east-after-us-air-strike-kills-top-iran-general

[JasonJ]

14,000 US troops sent over since May last year. 750 from earlier this week. And now the most recent 3,000.

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) The United States is sending nearly 3,000 additional troops to the Middle East from the 82nd Airborne Division as a precaution amid rising threats to American forces in the region, the Pentagon said on Friday.

 

A senior U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said additional U.S. deployments were also being weighed, including sending elements of the Europe-based 173rd Airborne Brigade for tasks like embassy protection in Lebanon.

 

The Pentagon said the Immediate Response Force (IRF) brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division was being deployed.

 

The brigade will deploy to Kuwait as an appropriate and precautionary action in response to increased threat levels against U.S. personnel and facilities, and will assist in reconstituting the reserve, the Pentagon said in a statement.

 

The troops will be joining the roughly 750 forces that were sent to Kuwait early last week. Usually, a brigade consists of about 3,500 people.

 

U.S. officials told Reuters early last week that thousands of additional troops could be sent to the region and had been told to prepare to deploy.

 

The United States has already dispatched about 14,000 additional troops to the Middle East since May.

https://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0006266931?fp=fb306c36f8cdc789e95364001cd1acba

Edited January 4, 2020 by JasonJ

[Ivanhoe]