Us Embassy In Iraq Under Attack

[Jeff]

 

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.

 

 

Anyone ask the Iraqi people how they'll feel about being Iranian lackies?

[Jeff]

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

The heady days of the revolution when they could get a million Basij children to clear minefields with their feet are over. Suliemani and his goons have the blood of many Iranian protesters on their hands. The Mullahs are acting as much out of fear as any sense of strength. The Shia in the region won't like being cannon fodder for Iranian geopolitics for ever. There have already been stories that Hezbollah rank and file aren't happy dying in Syria.

[Simon Tan]

The more I see, the more it looks like Iraq. Moqtada al Sadr and Ayahtollah Sistani have opposed the PM candidate sent by the Iran backed parliamentary faction. The President has refused to nominate the candidate. It may well have been that Soleimani was preparing to force the issue with the PMUs against a disparate and compromised Iraqi security forces. The PMU has evolved into the Sepah in Iraq, answering to the Quds organization alongside the political apparatus.

[Jeff]

The more I see, the more it looks like Iraq. Moqtada al Sadr and Ayahtollah Sistani have opposed the PM candidate sent by the Iran backed parliamentary faction. The President has refused to nominate the candidate. It may well have been that Soleimani was preparing to force the issue with the PMUs against a disparate and compromised Iraqi security forces. The PMU has evolved into the Sepah in Iraq, answering to the Quds organization alongside the political apparatus.

Agreed.

[Simon Tan]

This has evolved over the year vis a vis Syria, Saudi, Yemen and finally it came home to roost in Iraq, with the fall of the Iraqi government. The fall of the al-Mahdi government and the ending of the party lists is taking the direct line of control through the Badr and SIIC channels.

[bojan]

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

 

Ofc not, but Shahs 26 years of misrule played a big thing in the initial generation of the protests that have led to his overthrow. See bellow.

 

 

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

 

 

With probably way less support w/o quarter of the century of the Shah's bullshit. For a "Average Joe" in Iran 1979 as to him Islamists were seen as an only faction strong enough to resist foreign involvement, be it American or a Soviet (Soviets were only slightly less hated in the '70s than Americans). This played well into Persian arrogance, which is an epic thing, on the level of the British or French one.

 

 

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

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

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

 

Yeah, I gather we weren't told either.

[JWB]

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.

What fast population growth?

[Adam Peter]

(Soviets were only slightly less hated in the '70s than Americans)

I remember reading about it, a Hungarian truck driver in the 80's was forced to drive the truck through a Soviet (called the Little Satan) and an US (called the Big Satan) flags on a street far from his route.

 

They drove leaning to center to have a chance against snipers then.

[Adam Peter]

What fast population growth?

The Iranian Baby Boom Why the Islamic republic has such a youthful population. 2009

 

 

The youth vote will be critical in the Iranian election of Friday, June 12, as roughly 60 percent of the population is under 30. In comparison, as of the 2000 census, only about 40 percent of people in the United States fall into that age group. Why is Iran’s population so young?

[JWB]

 

What fast population growth?

The Iranian Baby Boom Why the Islamic republic has such a youthful population. 2009

 

 

The youth vote will be critical in the Iranian election of Friday, June 12, as roughly 60 percent of the population is under 30. In comparison, as of the 2000 census, only about 40 percent of people in the United States fall into that age group. Why is Iran’s population so young?

 

That article is 10 years old and it uses statistics from Y2K. The average family has only two children. It is doubtful any parents want to risk the life of the one son in a highly unpopular war again the USA in Iraq.

[Adam Peter]

Yes, 10 years old, and shows how the gov. tried to turn away families from having 3+ children. Contains the reasoning for it. So the current situation is result of inertia.

[lucklucky]

 

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

 

Ofc not, but Shahs 26 years of misrule played a big thing in the initial generation of the protests that have led to his overthrow. See bellow.

 

 

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

 

 

With probably way less support w/o quarter of the century of the Shah's bullshit. For a "Average Joe" in Iran 1979 as to him Islamists were seen as an only faction strong enough to resist foreign involvement, be it American or a Soviet (Soviets were only slightly less hated in the '70s than Americans). This played well into Persian arrogance, which is an epic thing, on the level of the British or French one.

 

 

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

 

 

Shah rubbed many religious conservatives. I can see Mossadegh doing the same or worse. Mossadegh, an heir or another coup can easily put the economy down with instability. I also disagree with idea that the coup had to do with America per se, mostly for Islamists it had.

[bojan]

...Shah rubbed many religious conservatives. I can see Mossadegh doing the same or worse...

 

Yes, but Islamists would not find ally in moderets in his overthrow like they found in the Shah's.

 

 

Mossadegh, an heir or another coup can easily put the economy down with instability. I also disagree with idea that the coup had to do with America per se, mostly for Islamists it had.

 

 

Revolution initially stated over Shah's oppression, then got hijacked by islamists and their "Iran Strong" platform. And a lot of undecided people fled to them as they saw Shah as a direct exponent of the US and moderates as not able to rule due the 1953. coup. Whole thing is incredibly complex, but it is a good bet that w/o 1953. there would be no islamist rule in Iran. That does not mean there would be a western style democracy either.

And the point remains that 1953. was a first shot in the US-Iran conflict, no matter what happened after that.

Edited January 4, 2020 by bojan

[Nobu]

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.

 

Agree with the fuse analogy. Toppling a regime is one thing, effectively managing the resultant situation is another, as Washington discovered then and is revisiting now.

 

Those who do not learn history...

[Stargrunt6]

From Iranian subreddit

 

https://i.redd.it/pkoksqtddp841.png

[Stuart Galbraith]

I guess average Iranians are not that upset.

[Stargrunt6]

Meanwhile, can the anti Trumpers finally put the Trump-Putin collusion nonsense to rest now that he has bombed a general of one of a Russian ally?

[RETAC21]

Meanwhile, can the anti Trumpers finally put the Trump-Putin collusion nonsense to rest now that he has bombed a general of one of a Russian ally?

 

A disposable peon to hide the truth

 

[JWB]

Shah was thrown from because Iran's economy collapsed after oil workers struck in November 1978. His repression was probably little worse than other 'tin horn' despots like Pinochet or Franco. Certainly less than Mussolini. It had no effect on majority conservative middle class.

[Skywalkre]

Meanwhile, can the anti Trumpers finally put the Trump-Putin collusion nonsense to rest now that he has bombed a general of one of a Russian ally?

It's been particularly amusing browsing reddit and seeing in the same threads folks 1) talk about how this attack came after Trump talked to Putin and clearly Putin either directed him or gave the ok for the attack and 2) talk about how Russia has a defense treaty with Iran and will declare war on the US if anything more happens.

 

I'm no fan of Trump but this whole affair just highlights how real TDS is. The dissonance is painful to read.

[bojan]

TDS, BDS, ODS etc are just standard conspiracy theory style narratives where someone is considered both uber-competent and utterly incompetent at the same time.

Edited January 4, 2020 by bojan

[Panzermann]

The problem is that the leadership in Tehran no longer liked Soleimani after getting his ass handed to him in the battle of Tikrit by the IS in 2015. After that he was their poster boy, which they did sent around to their various militias and smile into the camera and pose for selfies. They could not get rid of him because he was popular, now the US made them very happy.

 

They made him a martyr that now can live on forever in iranian PR. Dead men are much less troublemakers than living ones. So in the longer run it may even be a favour to the rulers of Iran. THough they are never ever going to admit it. And as that caricature shows, the general was not universally liked. Or at least seen as dumb to walk about wihtout caution in Iraq.

Edited January 5, 2020 by Panzermann

[JasonJ]

What's interesting is a question about how strong Iranian special forces and backed militia are in Iraq. If they were willing to shot rockets at a US base, they might be feeling confident. The US says that they took him out on opportunity since he was planning attacks on US presence in Iraq. If that's true, then it suggests confidence in the Iranian side to expand the fight against the US again inside of Iraq. Or.. the rocket attack on the US base was more of a one off spur of the moment that was not part of calculated form of increasing attacks on US positions in Iraq. In which case, then Iran may not really have the strength to make a serious retaliation. It may be that the existance of IS just simply put a hold between fighting between the US and Iranian backed militias in Iraq. But now with IS gone, it might be going back to the US and Iran fighting in Iraq again.

Edited January 5, 2020 by JasonJ

[Simon Tan]

Shaheeds are best subordinates.