[ckaihatsu]

If Iran takes Iraq, why would they stop there? It's worth a lot of money, they hate each others guts, and the Saudi are lousy at fighting.

I'm at the edges of my knowledge here, but I don't think that Iran has imperialist-type ambitions -- more to the point is that there would be Iran-Iraq *trading links* and general cooperation.

[Deutschmania]

As this article states , the strike was launched not at Syrian military forces , but rather at Iranian backed militias , it retaliation for attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq . Here are some highlighted quotes from the NBC News article , which illustrates the circumstances of this action .

The president’s decision appeared aimed at sending a signal to Iran and its proxies in the region that Washington would not tolerate attacks on its personnel in Iraq, even at a sensitive diplomatic moment.

Three rocket attacks in one week in Iraq, including a deadly strike that hit a U.S.-led coalition base in the northern Iraqi town of Irbil, presented a test for Biden only weeks after assuming the presidency. The rocket assaults coincided with a diplomatic initiative launched by the administration to try to revive a 2015 nuclear agreement between Iran and world powers. Kirby said two F-15 fighter jets dropped seven precision guided munitions on buildings used by the Iranian-backed militias, totally destroying nine structures and partially destroying two. The buildings were located in Abu Kamal, near the Iraqi border, a location known as a hub for the Iraqi Shiite militias supported by Iran, he said.

“This location is known to facilitate Iranian-aligned militia group activity,” Kirby said.

The airstrikes were ordered in response to a series of rocket attacks against American and coalition personnel in Iraq, “and to ongoing threats to those personnel,” the Pentagon said in a statement on Thursday evening.

The buildings near the border were used by militias including Kataib Hezbollah and Kataib Sayyid al-Shuhada, according to the Pentagon.

“The operation sends an unambiguous message: President Biden will act to protect American and coalition personnel. At the same time, we have acted in a deliberate manner that aims to de-escalate the overall situation in both eastern Syria and Iraq,” the Pentagon said on Thursday.

Shortly after the strike, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin told reporters travelling with him that the administration had been “very deliberate about our approach.”

“We’re confident that target was being used by the same Shia militia that conducted the strikes,” Austin said, referring to the recent rocket attacks in Iraq on U.S. and coalition personnel.

So the attack was not so much against Syria as it was against state sponsored terrorists . In my opinion , all foreign military personnel should withdraw from the region , and if necessary U.N. peacekeepers should move in .

[ckaihatsu]

As this article states , the strike was launched not at Syrian military forces , but rather at Iranian backed militias , it retaliation for attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq . Here are some highlighted quotes from the NBC News article , which illustrates the circumstances of this action . So the attack was not so much against Syria as it was against state sponsored terrorists . In my opinion , all foreign military personnel should withdraw from the region , and if necessary U.N. peacekeepers should move in .

"State-sponsored terrorists", though -- ? Really -- ?

That's the *empire's* verbiage you're repeating -- doesn't Iraq, in reality, actually have a shit-ton of political capital in relation to the U.S. due to the "weapons of mass destruction" invasion by the U.S., of Iraq, from 2002-2007+, that killed up to a *million* Iraqis.

Given this history a little deterrence against a continued unjustifiable U.S. presence in Iraq is certainly understandable.

*My* take is that the U.S. empire *needs* the region to remain shaky and destabilized, otherwise countries like Iran, Iraq, Syria, etc., *will* find common geopolitical interests with one another and would form an anti-Western bloc against the Western petrodollar empire.

[annatar1914]

Jimmy Dore's take on this awful matter;

To the Devil with all of you who voted for Biden, actually voted for Biden that is, as well as voters for Trump, Biden's blood brother.

[late]

*My* take is that the U.S. empire *needs* the region to remain shaky and destabilized, otherwise countries like Iran, Iraq, Syria, etc., *will* find common geopolitical interests with one another and would form an anti-Western bloc against the Western petrodollar empire.

And how much stronger would that bloc be if it included the Saudi?

You are not far from making my argument for me.

[Patrickov]

*My* take is that the U.S. empire *needs* the region to remain shaky and destabilized, otherwise countries like Iran, Iraq, Syria, etc., *will* find common geopolitical interests with one another and would form an anti-Western bloc against the Western petrodollar empire.

I don't really see the alternatives any better.

What the West has consistently been wrong is that they install proxies instead of doing the hard work of transforming the societies themselves. I have zero concern if they earn their petromoney the right way.

On the other hand, Russia and China utilize these anti-West sentiment to enable dictatorial regimes to thrive and work for them.

I don't find having 10 times more people living under oppression better than killing maybe a (significant I admit) fraction in order to give the rest of them a chance.

[Potemkin]

I don't really see the alternatives any better.

What the West has consistently been wrong is that they install proxies instead of doing the hard work of transforming the societies themselves. I have zero concern if they earn their petromoney the right way.

On the other hand, Russia and China utilize these anti-West sentiment to enable dictatorial regimes to thrive and work for them.

I don't find having 10 times more people living under oppression better than killing maybe a (significant I admit) fraction in order to give the rest of them a chance.

You have a new and refreshing take on "the white man's burden", @Patrickov.

[Istanbuller]

The US strikes may drive new rounds of refugee waves at gates of Europe. Four years of peace is already gone in first month of new US administration.

[B0ycey]

The US strikes may drive new rounds of refugee waves at gates of Europe. Four years of peace is already gone in first month of new US administration.

Don't know how you figured that out considering Trump assassinated Soleimani.

That could have caused a serious conflict and had Trump more than a year left of his presidency I suspect Iran wouldn't have held back with so much restraint. That isn't to say that this incident shouldn't be without caution. The action was perhaps justifiable and understandable given that it was to protect US servicemen in Syria. But it also could set a presidence. I don't want to see another war in the ME because all wars there seem pyrrhic and cause more problems than they solve. Iran also couldn't be controlled by occupation neither. So I suspect these kind of strikes won't be so common actually. I would expect to see more caution with Biden.

[late]

Four years of peace...

On what planet do you reside, because it's definitely not the one the rest of us are on.

[Beren]

Don't know how you figured that out considering Trump assassinated Soleimani. :?:

Trump did the Russians tactical favours in Syria while strategically messing with Iran, whereas Biden does the opposite with returning to the Iran deal while bombing Iranian positions in Syria.

[Istanbuller]

Don't know how you figured that out considering Trump assassinated Soleimani. :?:

That could have caused a serious conflict and had Trump more than a year left of his presidency I suspect Iran wouldn't have held back with so much restraint. That isn't to say that this incident shouldn't be without caution. The action was perhaps justifiable and understandable given that it was to protect US servicemen in Syria. But it also could set a presidence. I don't want to see another war in the ME because all wars there seem pyrrhic and cause more problems than they solve. Iran also couldn't be controlled by occupation neither. So I suspect these kind of strikes won't be so common actually. I would expect to see more caution with Biden.

On what planet do you reside, because it's definitely not the one the rest of us are on.

Trump's foreign policies were fundamentally different than that of Obama & Biden admin. His unorthodox approach was something never seen before. That is the reason why he broke up ties with John Bolton.

Unlike American establishment politicians, bureaucrats and technocrats, Trump was listening to people. He was negoatating. His pragmatic approach led to US-N.Korea talks.

Sulemani assasination was a specific target. It was an operation. But what Obama was doing is carpet bombing masses including innocent people which led to huge refugee flows. Biden is repating Obama now.

[B0ycey]

Trump did the Russians tactical favours in Syria while strategically messing with Iran, whereas Biden does the opposite with returning to the Iran deal while bombing Iranian positions in Syria.

I don't really know what part of this sentence implied that Trump supplied us with four years of peace or whether it was merely rhetorical. I could have mentioned Khan Shaykhun if I wanted to suggest that Trump wasn't doing Russian tactical favours. Although the failure to ultimately support the White Helmets and the Kurds did that but I wouldn't have said that was intentional but merely an error of what the West thought they could have been achieved. Assad was safe once Russia interfered. That was before Trump's time I might add. But even so, Biden isn't after Assad and he isn't after Iran neither. He is though interested in maintaining American interest in the ME if he wants to have military action there rather than sending troops home. Which is fine if the UK stay out of it. Besides, the strikes weren't against Iran, just Iranian supportive rebels. And that matters diplomatically. Especially if you are looking at regaining the Iran deal.

[B0ycey]

Sulemani assasination was a specific target. It was an operation. But what Obama was doing is carpet bombing masses including innocent people which led to huge refugee flows. Biden is repating Obama now.

Is anyone blaming Trump for the refugees? Not that I am saying Obama is guilt free, but the refugees timeline goes right back to Bush (both depending on how far you want to look back), The Arab Spring and ISIS. I won't blame Obama for the crisis the same way I don't blame Trump for it. I do however blame both of them for retaining conflict and exasperating it in the ME. We never had 4 years of peace with Trump and you are a fool if you think we had.

[Beren]

I don't really know what part of this sentence implied that Trump supplied us with four years of peace or whether it was merely rhetorical.

In my opinion Trump's Middle East policy could have been leading to a major armed conflict with Iran (see the 2019 Abqaiq–Khurais attack) that could have easily escalated, even though it may have included a tactical truce in Syria.

[B0ycey]

In my opinion Trump's Middle East policy could have been leading to a major armed conflict with Iran (see the 2019 Abqaiq–Khurais attack) that could have easily escalated, even though it may have included a tactical truce in Syria.

Perhaps. But I like to think Trump never had a plan and went on a whim because to think otherwise would imply he could think ahead. He most certainly couldn't. Also he certainly didn't collude with his allies on important matters and could have sent us to two World Wars during his time I might add. Although I do think Syria was in many ways a bigger clusterfuck than both the Iraq and Afgan wars combined. The West saw an opportunity to have even more interference in the ME and forgot that Russia was part of the equation. By which time they backed a horse and rather than backtrack, they had to deal with floods of refugees and support fucking rebels that couldn't do much. As least Cameron had a fuck you from Westminster when he tried to send British troops there... thank god. Alas, perhaps that is the only good thing to come from Trump's legacy. He did want to send troops home from Syria.

[Beren]

I like to think Trump never had a plan

Trump may not have had a plan, but there was a plan for sure.

[Istanbuller]

Is anyone blaming Trump for the refugees? Not that I am saying Obama is guilt free, but the refugees timeline goes right back to Bush (both depending on how far you want to look back), The Arab Spring and ISIS. I won't blame Obama for the crisis the same way I don't blame Trump for it. I do however blame both of them for retaining conflict and exasperating it in the ME. We never had 4 years of peace with Trump and you are a fool if you think we had.

You can't blame because Trump did not cause any refugee flow. He understands how harmful Pentagon's actions. Trump himself is against displacement of people from their homes.

Bush's war on Iraq did not caused refugee flows because he easily took down Iraq's dictator. Today there are democratic and fair elections in Iraq.

Obama is the guiltiest US president in memory. You can blame Obama for Syrian crisis and overturn of Arab Spring. Obama failed to support Syrian opposition when they were about to take down Assad. Obama directly led to Russian meddling in Syria. Instead of helping to take down rogue regimes, Obama and his Pentagon took assaults on democratic countries in the region. Biden and co tries to keep what they were doing under Obama now.

Trump admin had healthy relations with every country in the region. Normalizing ties between Israel and Gulf countries is just another example.

[B0ycey]

Trump admin had healthy relations with every country in the region. Normalizing ties between Israel and Gulf countries is just another example.

Rather than debate Obamas actions, which I haven't justified in any case, you have moved the goalsposts. This quote is the only thing that matters in your strawman. Trump didn't have normal relations in the ME. It was pretty much the same as Obamas, Bush Jrs, Clintons and Bush Snrs. He also didn't execute peace. He nearly started WW3 there and ultimately he never sent troops home. Obamas mistake was they left it too long to back rebels from the Arab spring. And then Russia backed Assad and they were left out to do anything meaningful due to international law. Obama didn't cause the refugees. Events before him did that. And as such he was powerless to do much but fight from the fringes whilst the refugees flooded into Europe. Or he could have just stepped back from it all together. And that was the same with Trump. Neither did anything to cause peace. And both threw petrol on the flames by remaining in Syria.

[late]

Trump's foreign policies were fundamentally different

There was no peace.

In fact, the overall thrust of what he did in the ME was destabilising.