Will the current US administration go to war with Iran?

Will the current US administration go to war with Iran?


  • Total voters
    13
Abou Sandal

Abou Sandal

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
Trump: Trumpeting For a War on Iran?
By Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich | Feb 6, 2017


Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif (fourth from right) with officials China, France, Germany, the EU, Russia, the UK, and the US on April 2, 2015. (US State Department)


The Trump administration is continuing the US's longstanding policy of hostility toward Iran for standing in the way of the neocons' goal of world hegemony.

The Trump Administration’s rhetoric and actions have alarmed the world. The protests in response to his visa ban have overshadowed and distracted from a darker threat: war with Iran. Is the fear of the threat greater than the threat itself? The answer is not clear.

Certainly Americans and non-Americans who took comfort in the fact that we would have a more peaceful world believing that Trump would not start a nuclear war with Russia must now have reason to pause. The sad and stark reality is that US foreign policy is continuous. An important part of this continuity is a war that has been waged against Iran for the past 38 years–unabated.

The character of this war has changed over time. From a failed coup which attempted to destroy the Islamic Republic in its early days (the Nojeh Coup), to aiding Saddam Hussein with intelligence and weapons of mass destruction to kill Iranians during the 8-year Iran-Iraq war, helping and promoting the terrorist MEK group, the training and recruiting of the Jundallah terrorist group to launch attacks in Iran, putting Special Forces on the ground in Iran, the imposition of sanctioned terrorism, the lethal Stuxnet cyberattack, and the list goes on and on, as does the continuity of it.

While President Jimmy Carter initiated the Rapid Deployment Force and put boots on the Ground in the Persian Gulf, virtually every U.S. president since has threatened Iran with military action. It is hard to remember when the option was not on the table. However, thus far, every U.S. administration has wisely avoided a head on military confrontation with Iran.

To his credit, although George W. Bush was egged on to engage militarily with Iran, , the 2002 Millennium Challenge, exercises which simulated war, demonstrated America’s inability to win a war with Iran. The challenge was too daunting. It is not just Iran‘s formidable defense forces that have to be reckoned with; but the fact that one of Iran’s strengths and deterrents has been its ability to retaliate to any attack by closing down the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow passageway off the coast of Iran. Given that 17 million barrels of oil a day, or 35% of the world’s seaborne oil exports go through the Strait of Hormuz, incidents in the Strait would be fatal for the world economy.

Faced with this reality, over the years, the United States has taken a multi-prong approach to prepare for an eventual/potential military confrontation with Iran. These plans have included promoting the false narrative of an imaginary threat from a non-existent nuclear weapon and the falsehood of Iran being engaged in terrorism (when in fact Iran has been subjected to terrorism for decades as illustrated above). These ‘alternate facts’ have enabled the United States to rally friend and foe against Iran, and to buy itself time to seek alternative routes to the Strait of Hormuz.



Plan B: West Africa and Yemen

In early 2000s, the renowned British think tank Chatham House issued one of the first publications that determined African oil would be a good alternate to Persian Gulf oil in case of oil disruption. This followed an earlier strategy paper for the U.S. to move toward African oil—The African White Paper—that was on the desk May 31, 2000, of then U.S. Vice President **** Cheney, a former CEO of energy giant Halliburton. In 2002, the Israeli-based think tank, IASPS, suggested America push toward African oil. In an interesting coincidence, in the same year, the Nigerian terror group, Boko Haram, was “founded”.

In 2007, the United States African Command (AFRICOM) helped consolidate this push into the region. The 2011, a publication titled: “Globalizing West African Oil: US ‘energy security’ and the global economy” outlined “US positioning itself to use military force to ensure African oil continued to flow to the United States”. This was but one strategy to supply oil in addition to or as an alternate to the passage of oil through the Strait of Hormuz.

Nigeria and Yemen took on new importance.

In 2012, several alternate routes to Strait of Hormuz were identified which at the time of the report were considered to be limited in capacity and more expensive. However, collectively, the West African oil and control of Bab Al-Mandeb would diminish the strategic importance of the Strait of Hormuz in case of war.

In his article for the Strategic Culture Foundation, “The Geopolitics Behind the War in Yemen: The Start of a New Front against Iran” geo-political researcher Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya correctly states: “[T]he US wants to make sure that it could control the Bab Al-Mandeb, the Gulf of Aden, and the Socotra Islands (Yemen). Bab Al-Mandeb it is an important strategic chokepoint for international maritime trade and energy shipments that connect the Persian Gulf via the Indian Ocean with the Mediterranean Sea via the Red Sea. It is just as important as the Suez Canal for the maritime shipping lanes and trade between Africa, Asia, and Europe.”

War on Iran has never been a first option. The neoconservative think tank, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), argued in its 2004 policy paper “The Challenges of U.S. Preventive Military Action” that the ideal situation was (and continues to be) to have a compliant regime in Tehran. Instead of direct conflict, the policy paper (a must read) called for the assassination of scientists, introducing a malware, covertly provide Iran plans with a design flaw, sabotage, introduce viruses, etc. These suggestions were fully and faithfully executed against Iran.

With the policy enacted, much of the world sighed with relief when the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA , or the “Iran Nuclear Deal” which restricts Iran’s domestic nuclear power in exchange for the lifting of sanctions on Iran) was signed in the naïve belief that a war with Iran had been alleviated. Obama’s genius was in his execution of U.S. policies which disarmed and disbanded the antiwar movements. But the JCPOA was not about improved relations with Iran, it was about undermining it. As recently as April 2015, as the signing of the JCPOA was drawing near, during a speech at the Army War College Strategy Conference, then Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work elaborated on how the Pentagon plans to counter the three types of wars supposedly being waged by Iran, Russia, and China.

As previously planned, the purpose of the JCPOA was to pave the way for a compliant regime in Tehran faithful to Washington, failing that, Washington would be better prepared for war for under the JCPOA, Iran would open itself up to inspections beyond the mandate of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). In other words, the plan would act as a Trojan horse to provide America with targets and soft spots. Apparently the plan was not moving forward fast enough to please Obama, or Trump. In direct violation of international law and concepts of state sovereignty, the Obama administration slammed sanctions on Iran for testing missiles. Iran’s missile program was and is totally separate from the JCPOA and Iran is within its sovereign rights and within the framework of international law to build conventional missiles.

Trump followed suit. Trump ran on a campaign of changing Washington and his speeches were full of contempt for Obama; ironically, like Obama, candidate Trump continued the tactic of disarming many by calling himself a deal maker, a businessman who would create jobs, and for his rhetoric of non-interference. But few intellectuals paid attention to his fighting words, and fewer still heeded the advisors he surrounded himself with or they would have noted that Trump considers Islam as the number one enemy, followed by Iran, China, and Russia.

The ideology of those he has picked to serve in his administration reflects the contrarian character of Trump and indicates their support of this continuity in US foreign policy. Former intelligence chief and Trump’s current National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn, stated that the Obama administration willfully allowed the rise of ISIS, yet the newly appointed Pentagon Chief “Mad Dog Mattis” has stated: “I consider ISIS nothing more than an excuse for Iran to continue its mischief.” So the NSC (National Security Council) believes that Obama helped ISIS rise and the Pentagon believes that ISIS helps Iran continue its ‘mischief’. Is it any wonder that Trump is both confused and confusing?

And is it any wonder that when on January 28th Trump signed an Executive Order calling for a plan to defeat ISIS in 30 days the US, UK, France and Australia ran war games drill in the Persian Gulf that simulated a confrontation with Iran--the country that has, itself, been fighting ISIS. When Iran exercised its right, by international law, to test a missile, the United States lied and accused Iran of breaking the JCPOA. Threats and new sanctions ensued.

Trump, the self-acclaimed dealmaker who took office on the promise of making new jobs, slammed more sanctions on Iran. Sanctions take jobs away from Americans by prohibiting business with Iran, and they also compel Iranians to become fully self-sufficient, breaking the chains of neo-colonialism. What a deal!

Even though Trump has lashed out at friend and foe, Team Trump has realized that when it comes to attacking a formidable enemy, it cannot do it alone. Although both in his book, Time to Get Tough, and on his campaign trails he has lashed out at Saudi Arabia, in an about-face, he has not included Saudis and other Arab state sponsors of terror on his travel ban list. It would appear that someone whispered in Mr. Trump’s ear that Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Qatar are fighting America’s dirty war in Yemen (and in Syria) and killing Yemenis. In fact, the infamous Erik Prince, founder of the notorious Blackwater who is said to be advising Trump from the shadows, received a $120 million contract from the Obama Administration, and for the past several years has been working with Arab countries, UAE in particular, in the “security” and “training” of militias in the Gulf of Aden, Yemen.



So will there be a not so distant military confrontation with Iran?

Not if sanity prevails. And with Trump and his generals, that is a big IF. While for many years the foundation has been laid and preparations made for a potential military confrontation with Iran, it has always been a last resort; not because the American political elite did not want war, but because they cannot win THIS war. For 8 years, Iran fought not just Iraq, but virtually the whole world. America and its allies funded Saddam’s war against Iran, gave it intelligence and weaponry, including weapons of mass destruction. In a period when Iran was reeling from a revolution, its army was in disarray, its population virtually one-third of the current population, and its supply of US provided weapons halted. Yet Iran prevailed. Various American administrations have come to the realization that while it may take a village to fight Iran, attacking Iran would destroy the global village.

It is time for us to remind Trump that we don’t want to lose our village.

Trump: Trumpeting For a War on Iran? | Foreign Policy Journal


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now read the next article and have a look on how the MSM lies bluntly, directs the narrative, suggests course of action and deceives, while inciting for war.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A new confrontation
Donald Trump intends to take on Iran. Right, but risky
How far is the new administration prepared to go?



Feb 25th 2017


CHAOTIC, fractious and bafflingly inconsistent though the Trump administration may be, on one issue it appears united: Iran. There is ample evidence that since the signing in mid-2015 of the deal to curb Iran’s nuclear programme, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran has taken advantage of the easing of sanctions and the unfreezing of about $100bn worth of overseas assets to project its power across the region with greater boldness. Barack Obama, the new team believe, let it off the hook.

Since the deal, Iran has stepped up its support for Bashar al-Assad in Syria to the point where, with Russian air support, his regime’s survival appears assured for the foreseeable future. Iran has also worked with Russia to supply Hizbullah, a Lebanese Shia militia fighting in Syria, with heavy weapons. It has poured other Shia militias into Syria from Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

In Iraq, meanwhile, Iranian-backed militias are fighting alongside American-supported Iraqi security forces against Islamic State (IS). But once IS is ejected from Mosul, they will be a potent weapon in Iran’s attempt to turn Iraq into a dependent satrapy. In Yemen the civil war is a proxy struggle between Sunni Gulf Arabs, who back the recognised government, against Shia Houthi rebels whom Iran supplies with training and weapons, including anti-ship missiles that have been fired at American warships in the Red Sea.

Meanwhile, Iran’s elite Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps has conducted a series of tests of ballistic missiles capable of delivering a nuclear warhead in defiance, though not clear violation, of UN Security Resolution 2231, which underpins the nuclear deal. The latest, on January 29th, resulted in the US Treasury slapping new sanctions on several Iranian individuals and companies connected to the missile programme. The response was measured (and probably dusted off from something prepared by the Obama administration). But it was backed up by a statement from the short-lived national security adviser, Mike Flynn, that Iran was “officially being put on notice” about its behaviour.

What did he mean by that?

Mr Flynn, however, was vague about what that involved. It is one thing to decide that Iran must be confronted and pushed back, quite another to know how to do it without running the risk of plunging America into another Middle Eastern war and increasing turmoil in a region that already has plenty of it.

The future of the nuclear deal is also in doubt. During the presidential campaign Mr Trump described it as the “worst deal in history”, and congressional Republicans have little affection for it. But given the increased influence of James Mattis, the defence secretary, and Rex Tillerson, the secretary of state, there is little appetite in the administration for unilaterally abrogating an international agreement that has largely taken the nuclear issue off the table for the next decade or so and which has strong international support.

Instead, the emphasis will be on rigorous enforcement. Minor Iranian transgressions, such as the recent breach of the amount of heavy water Iran is allowed to hold for its reactors, will not be tolerated. Should Iran be caught deliberately cheating, America could try to persuade other signatories to the deal (France, Germany, Britain and the European Union, but probably not Russia or China) that some sanctions should “snap back”.

The nuclear deal only lifted nuclear-related sanctions on Iran. Others remain in place, relating to ballistic-missile activity, support for terrorism and human-rights abuses. More could be imposed for further missile tests or violations of UN embargoes on arming Hizbullah in Syria and the Houthis in Yemen. America also maintains strict rules about illicit financial activity—Iran is believed by many to be a serial offender—and doing business with any commercial entities linked to the Revolutionary Guards, who have fingers in most of the Iranian economy. Nor does the Trump administration have to strain, as John Kerry (Mr Tillerson’s predecessor) did, to reassure international banks that they would not be penalised for financing deals in Iran. Even with Mr Kerry’s encouragement, the banks remained cautious.

Alongside sanctions, confronting Iran is likely to require a military component, though it, too, will have to be calibrated. Iran’s aim is to establish an arc of control that runs through Baghdad, Damascus and Beirut. Mr Mattis has been told to come up with a plan to prevent this. More direct help for the Saudis and Emiratis in Yemen is likely, as is aggressive patrolling of international waters to stop supplies of weapons from Iran getting to the Houthis. American warships, dangerously buzzed by Iranian patrol boats, may not be as restrained in their response as before.

In Syria, it looks as if there will be an attempt to prise apart the alliance between Russia and Iran. There will be an offer to Moscow of military co-operation against IS and recognition of Russia’s role in deciding the terms of a future settlement. If that fails, as is probable, Mr Mattis may decide that America will need more than the handful of special forces it currently has on the ground in Syria. He was unimpressed by Mr Obama’s policy to speak loudly and carry a small stick.

The biggest challenge will be Iraq. Mr Mattis, on a visit to the country this week, said that the 6,000 American forces assisting in the fight against IS would be staying on for some time after the fall of Mosul. He knows that without their presence, and the political influence it buys, there will be little to stop Iran from installing a new government of its choosing.

Iran may well be, as Senator Lindsey Graham said on February 19th, “a bad actor in the greatest sense of the word”. But it is a resourceful one. Any attempt to confront it risks escalation. Mr Trump’s trusted adviser, Stephen Bannon, believes that America is engaged in a civilisational struggle likely to lead to “a major shooting war in the Middle East again”. It is for Mr Mattis and Mr Tillerson to plot a course that restrains Iran without fulfilling that prophesy.

A new confrontation: Donald Trump intends to take on Iran. Right, but risky | The Economist

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



It is my understanding that the US war on Iran has been ongoing since decades. It never really stopped, but only changed phases and forms.

Today, many are predicting a new phase, which will take the form of a military confrontation with Iran, whether directly, or through proxies like Saudi Arabia and the GCC (Which might explain the phenomenal quantity of weapons of all kinds shipped to KSA and the huge military build up being prepared over there)

Now whatever the form, the substance is the same. The US would have opted for a military confrontation with Iran. Which will jeopardize the whole region, if not the whole World security and stability.

Do you think this option is likely?

Hence the question of the poll:

Will the current US administration go to war with Iran?

1- YES
2- NO
3- UNDECIDED
 
  • Advertisement
  • Abou Sandal

    Abou Sandal

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Is Trump Trying to Tweet Us Into a War With Iran?


    On Wednesday, the White House put out a statement from National Security Advisor Michael Flynn criticizing Iran’s recent ballistic missile test as well as a number of attacks in recent months by Iranian-supported Houthi militias against American, Saudi, and Emirati ships off the coast of Yemen. The statement then criticizes the Iran nuclear deal and the Obama administration, before concluding that “we are officially putting Iran on notice.”

    This is the Trump administration’s first meaningful foray into Iran policy since taking office. In some ways, it is reassuring, as parts of the statement are reasonable. And it does not appear that the administration is at least at this point determined to walk away from the nuclear agreement. But then President Donald Trump started tweeting. And now, there are some reasons for concern.


    First the good news. The elements of the official statement calling out Iran’s destabilizing behavior in the Middle East are on point. Indeed, the Barack Obama administration was also worried about missile launches off the coast of Yemen, which is why last October it struck Houthi radar sites and, over the past year, pursued a number of interdictions of Iranian arms shipments to the Houthis. Additionally, over the last five years the Obama team used a series of sanctions measures to target Houthis in Yemen for their threatening and destabilizing activities, as well as scores of powerful sanctions on Iran’s ballistic missile program and its support for terrorism and regional violence. But fair or not, there was a perception across the Middle East that the Obama administration overlooked some of these problematic actions because of its prioritization of the nuclear agreement. So for the new team to come in and signal that this is a priority should be reassuring to some of our Gulf partners and send an unambiguous message to the Iranian leadership.


    But the Trump team needs to be careful. The Yemen conflict is a difficult and ugly slog in which America’s core interests are not fully engaged, which is why the Obama administration chose for the most part to stay out. There is a value in reassuring partners, but it must be weighed against the risks of diving into a quagmire. Moreover, the Houthis are not under the direct control of Iran. Compared to other non-state proxies such as Hezbollah or Iraqi Shiite militias, the Iranian-Houthi connection is weak. If the United States threatens direct action against Iran for behavior taken by a proxy Iran cannot or does not actually control, that can be a dangerous pathway towards unintended escalation. Better to tie any threats to Iran’s shipment of weapons to the Houthis — an action Iran’s government has control over and which is a clear violation of U.N. Security Council Resolutions pertaining to the Yemen conflict.


    The Trump administration also called for a U.N. Security Council consultation to discuss and highlight Iran’s ballistic missile test. This is also a reasonable step and is reassuring in that — despite their disdain for multilateral institutions — the Trump team in this case appears to recognize the value of holding such a session and using it to politically isolate Iran for a provocative test. Moreover, doing so is a good step for counterproliferation efforts. The U.N. has unique abilities to rally member states to publicly identify and target nodes in Iran’s missile and nuclear proliferation networks, including through the implementation of sanctions.

    Whether the missile test is a violation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 2231, the resolution recognizing the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the nuclear accord with Iran, is open to interpretation. It is up to a panel of experts that monitors implementation of the Security Council Resolutions against Iran to conclude that. Those experts couldn’t reach consensus about whether similar tests last year constituted a violation; the panel merely called them inconsistent with the spirit of the resolution. So, it was unwise for the Trump administration to so quickly call it a violation, putting it at odds with the Europeans and the Russians.

    But the biggest problem with the statement is that Flynn used it to criticize the nuclear agreement as “weak and ineffective.” And then, Trump doubled down on this position, tweeting this morning that “Iran was on its last legs and ready to collapse” before the JCPOA and claiming Iran had received $150 billion as part of the deal — a number that has been repeatedly debunked. None of the steps Iran has taken in recent days violated the JCPOA. And more importantly, this whole situation would today would be much worse if Iran was significantly closer to a nuclear weapons capability, which it would be without the nuclear agreement.

    Iran was not on the verge of collapsing in 2013 when the nuclear negotiations began in earnest, but it was weeks away from being able to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon. As for the claim of $150 billion, no one knows precisely what the number is — but most experts put the funds Iran was able to obtain in the aftermath of the agreement at far less than $150 billion. And these funds were not a giveaway, but Iranian money that it had obtained through trade in past years but was unable to repatriate because of sanctions imposed by the Obama administration. The bottom line is that a medium range ballistic missile test and some delivery of arms to a second-tier proxy are a problem, but not a problem on the same level as obtaining a nuclear weapon, which the agreement has thus far stopped.

    Even if the Trump administration wants to walk away from the nuclear agreement or provoke the Iranians to walk away, criticizing the deal was unwise. If it wants to build international support and put more pressure on Iran, the statement should have reaffirmed America’s commitment to abiding by its obligations to the letter and spirit of the nuclear agreement and called on Iran to do the same. Critiquing the deal just isolates the United States from the rest of the P5+1, which does little to increase pressure or leverage on Iran.

    Finally, the most newsworthy part of the statement came at the very end where the administration made clear it was putting Iran “on notice.” On the one hand, this could be an effective tactic. Trump is seen as dangerous and unpredictable; a tough statement that does not commit the administration to specific action could be a useful deterrent. The Iranians want no part of a direct confrontation with the United States and Trump could, in theory, use his reputation as an impulsive and unstable actor to be crazy like a fox to deter Iran and force it to scale back some of its destabilizing behavior in the Middle East.


    Unfortunately, there is little indication that he and his team have the deftness to pull this off and plenty of signs that he may just be plain old crazy. It is not clear if they have a next step planned or are even working an interagency process to develop options such as new sanctions, more aggressive interdictions, or targeted strikes if Iran responds by escalating. Reports that Secretary James Mattis, while on his trip in Asia, had to convince Flynn to tone back the statement and that U.S. Central Command did not know the statement was coming are disconcerting, as Centcom would play a central role in developing response options. The reality is that most of the options that the administration develops would require support from partners across the globe, which means they require President Trump to be doing a better job of building coalitions and treating our allies with respect. Add to that the fact that the Trump team does not have the good communication channels with Iran that the Obama administration used to deescalate tensions and there is a high risk of the situation quickly exploding.

    Is Trump Trying to Tweet Us Into a War With Iran? | Foreign Policy
     
    JB81

    JB81

    Legendary Member
    With the current boiling situation at home, it would be very hard to go to war with any country. The war won't be a distraction in this case, but opening another front on him. The war is extremely unpopular in both political parties; except for McCain who still live in the cold war era

    Better for Trump to stick onto his economic policies. The majority of his supporters want a more transparent government and a better economic situation.
     
    Mighty Goat

    Mighty Goat

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    [article]

    115th CONGRESS
    1st Session
    H. J. RES. 10


    To authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces to achieve the goal of preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
    January 3, 2017
    Mr. Hastings submitted the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

    JOINT RESOLUTION
    To authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces to achieve the goal of preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

    SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This joint resolution may be cited as the “Authorization of Use of Force Against Iran Resolution”.

    SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds the following:

    (1) On July 14, 2015, a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action designed to ensure that Iran’s nuclear program is used solely for peaceful purposes was finalized.

    (2) Pursuant to the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, signed into law on May 22, 2015, the United States Congress is tasked with reviewing this plan of action to make certain the terms of the agreement will unequivocally prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state.

    (3) The United States must do all that is necessary to ensure that all of Iran’s pathways to obtaining a nuclear weapon are blocked.

    (4) Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear weapon has and will continue to destabilize the region.

    (5) Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear weapon is a threat not only to the United States but also to our allies in the region.

    (6) Iran’s sincerity in forgoing the procurement of a nuclear weapon has created legitimate cause for concern.

    SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES TO ACHIEVE THE GOAL OF PREVENTING IRAN FROM OBTAINING NUCLEAR WEAPONS.


    (a) In General.—The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as the President determines necessary and appropriate in order to achieve the goal of preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

    (b) War Powers Resolution Requirements.—

    (1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.—Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

    (2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS.—Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

    SEC. 4. REPORT.

    Not later than 60 days after the date on which the President exercises the authority described in section 3, and every 60 days thereafter, the President shall submit to Congress a report on the specific actions taken pursuant to such authority.

    Text - H.J.Res.10 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): Authorization of Use of Force Against Iran Resolution | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
    [/article]
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Jo
    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    Legendary Member
    With the current boiling situation at home, it would be very hard to go to war with any country. The war won't be a distraction in this case, but opening another front on him. The war is extremely unpopular in both political parties; except for McCain who still live in the cold war era

    Better for Trump to stick onto his economic policies. The majority of his supporters want a more transparent government and a better economic situation.
    We will not go into war with Iran, we simply will impose crippling sanctions the way sanctions should've been had it not been for Obama's weakness and delusion.

    If Iran will decide to go into war with us, then it will be on Iran to answer for it.
     
    Mighty Goat

    Mighty Goat

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    We will not go into war with Iran, we simply will impose crippling sanctions the way sanctions should've been had it not been for Obama's weakness and delusion.

    If Iran will decide to go into war with us, then it will be on Iran.
    You empower Iran with sanctions because sanctions mean save. Syria lasted this long in war because during sanctions they had enough stock of flour for two years. This was very important. Iraq collapsed after sanctions only because Iraq was put into sanctions after two major wars. The first is the Iraq Iran war and the second is the Gulf war.

    Iran is financially strong because of the sanctions.
     
    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    Legendary Member
    You empower Iran with sanctions because sanctions mean save. Syria lasted this long in war because during sanctions they had enough stock of flour for two years. This was very important. Iraq collapsed after sanctions only because Iraq was put into sanctions after two major wars. The first is the Iraq Iran war and the second is the Gulf war.

    Iran is financially strong because of the sanctions.
    OK, if sanctions are good for Iran, then there'll be no war. Excellent news, isn't it.
     
    Mighty Goat

    Mighty Goat

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    OK, if sanctions are good for Iran, then there'll be no war. Excellent news, isn't it.
    I do not understand as usual.

    Note that you are proposing unilateral sanctions. I mean sanctions on Iran have been lifted by the international community.

    Unilateral sanctions are just lost business opportunities for the United States. Iran now can do business with the rest of the world. The sanctions you are proposing are useless.

    Open up for Iranian business and they will vanish with the trade as the "invisible hand" works its way.
     
    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    Legendary Member
    I do not understand as usual.

    Note that you are proposing unilateral sanctions. I mean sanctions on Iran have been lifted by the international community.

    Unilateral sanctions are just lost business opportunities for the United States. Iran now can do business with the rest of the world. The sanctions you are proposing are useless.

    Open up for Iranian business and they will vanish with the trade as the "invisible hand" works its way.
    Usually when facing a choice - do business with us or with Iran everyone picks us, the USA.

    PS. Do not forget that we do not have agreement with Iran and everyone including Iran (which was explicitly warned) knows this.
     
    Libnene Qu7

    Libnene Qu7

    Super Ultra Senior Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    It would be another huge (bigly) mistake by a US Republican president.

    First Iraq, in which Trump supported and then lied about not supporting it, then maybe Iran. Let me say that Iran is not like Iraq of 2008. Iran will fight back and will do so really hard. Trump isn't a strong enough president to bear such a heavy cost, the American people will eat him alive. Let him stay worried about Schwarzneggar sabotaging his Apprentice show, that's more apt for someone of his IQ.
     
    Mighty Goat

    Mighty Goat

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Usually when facing a choice - do business with us or with Iran everyone picks us, the USA.

    PS. Do not forget that we do not have agreement with Iran and everyone including Iran (which was explicitly warned) knows this.
    Maybe many will chose Iran to do oil business over the United States.

    You sell products. You need markets. Iran is a market. A big market.

    Business is a relationship and not an us versus them argument. Us do business with them is the trade formula.
     
    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    Legendary Member
    Maybe many will chose Iran to do oil business over the United States.

    You sell products. You need markets. Iran is a market. A big market.

    Business is a relationship and not an us versus them argument. Us do business with them is the trade formula.
    Oil is the weakest of all arguments that you just made, even "Iran is big market" is not as weak.
     
    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    Legendary Member
    When one makes such grand judgement one should spend some time explaining why.
    Fair.

    Number are as of 2015:
    Daily US import of oil - 9.4M of barrels.
    Daily Iran export of oil - 1.5M of barrels.

    Trump plans to make USA completely free of oil imports.
    It means that suddenly oil producers will need to export 9.4M of barrels a day less.
    Subtract Iranian oil completely and you still have surplus of 7.9M of barrels a day.

    Not only World will not need Iranian oil, but price of oil will go down too.
    Once Iran cannot make money on oil it will become one of the poorest countries in the region with all its plans to build nukes going to hell.

    PS. "Iran is big market" my ass.


    Correction: Iran's oil exports have tripled since late 2015 - Jun. 16, 2016
     
    Last edited:
    Mighty Goat

    Mighty Goat

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Fair.

    Number are as of 2015:
    Daily US import of oil - 9.4M of barrels.
    Daily Iran export of oil - 1.5M of barrels.

    Trump plans to make USA completely free of oil imports.
    It means that suddenly oil producers will need to export 9.4M of barrels a day less.
    Subtract Iranian oil completely and you still have surplus of 7.9M of barrels a day.

    Not only World will not need Iranian oil, but price of oil will go down too.
    Once Iran cannot make money on oil it will become one of the poorest countries in the region with all its plans to build nukes going to hell.

    PS. "Iran is big market" my ass.
    1- Not comparable numbers taking that sanctions were only lifted in 2015 and the lift is gradual.
    2- You are comparing US imports in relation to Iran exports. What is the point you want to make in here.
    3- You are absolutely delusional if you think that the world can live in peace without sorting the shit with Iran.
    4- Wake up and smell the roses. Do you really think that a state as old as history can just vanish and be poor just like this.
    5- You sound like you are the American version of Hezbollah.




    [article]
    [/article]
     
    Big Brother

    Big Brother

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    There will be no war with Iran without first cutting its fingers in the region: Hizbullah in Lebanon, Houthis in Yemen, its death squads in Iraq.
     
    Mighty Goat

    Mighty Goat

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    There will be no war with Iran without first cutting its fingers in the region: Hizbullah in Lebanon, Houthis in Yemen, its death squads in Iraq.
    You cannot cut the fingers and keep the source. As long as the source can feed the fingers. The fingers will stay.

    The only solution with Iran is negotiation. This issue can not be settled by war. In this one Israel is damn wrong on the strategy of defensive wars. Just like Hezbollah is wrong on the strategy of defensive war. Defensive war as a strategy assumes that one can live in isolation, pile arms and terrify one's neighbors by the pile on the one hand. Then sustain fear within one's own state so that the people continuously support armament under the pretext of survival and security. I do not know where this is going exactly. Does Israel really think it can orchestrate the balance of powers in the region?

    Iran's issue is not an American issue. It is an Israeli issue.

    Israel and the United States think that overthrowing regimes by foreign powers would eventually bring peace. I do not think so. This is because the people would always see this foreigner that attacked their sovereignty as an enemy and not a liberator.

    The Iranian people themselves are fed up from their governing regime, people like Trump gives the Ayatollah regime legitimacy. It empowers such a regime.

    Today we live at a time when the radical right Jewish, Christian, Shi'a and Sunni are engaged in a sharp polarization of global opinion along conservative and confessional discourse of identity. We cannot separate this from Israel being a Jewish State, Iran being an Islamic Republic, and Saudi Arabia being an Islamic Kingdom. Now we have Trump speaking in the name of Protestant Christianity, and Le Pen would set the Catholics in place.

    Orthodox Russia, is the only secular force at play, backed by China, and certainly Europe would join this camp after the phenomenon of Trump and the invasion of the Syrian refugees.

    This picture tells that the US and Israel are at the side of the losers, since the people would support Russia and China and the value of secularism on the United States and Israel confessional mobilization into conflict.
     
    Abou Sandal

    Abou Sandal

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    CIA Dr Michael Scheuer: Israel (RATistan) is pushing America to go to War with Iran



    But then again, there is always the possibility of waging a war on Iran, through proxies, and more particularly, through Saudi Arabia. It's not like the Saudis have any saying in it.
     
    HannaTheCrusader

    HannaTheCrusader

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    i doubt for couple of reasons

    trump aint no war monger
    trump has no political gain from such a war

    but yes, he might tighthen the screws on iran
     
    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    Legendary Member
    1- Not comparable numbers taking that sanctions were only lifted in 2015 and the lift is gradual.
    I sent correction if you noticed - change 1.5 to 2.6 and Iran still a loser in this equation.

    2- You are comparing US imports in relation to Iran exports. What is the point you want to make in here.
    I think I was exceptionally clear - "you still have surplus of 7.9M of barrels a day"

    3- You are absolutely delusional if you think that the world can live in peace without sorting the shit with Iran.
    Iran without money is just another dirt poor nobody country I do not give two thought about today and every day.

    4- Wake up and smell the roses. Do you really think that a state as old as history can just vanish and be poor just like this.
    History never vanishes, it is future that does.
    Besides, I never said Iran will vanish, I expect Ayatollahs to vanish and then we will be able to help Iran back on it's feet.

    5- You sound like you are the American version of Hezbollah.
    I do not know what it means, but considering the forum we are at for overwhelming majority here it must sound like undeserved compliment :)

    [article]United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 – passed on 20 July 2015. Sets out a schedule for suspending and eventually lifting UN sanctions, with provisions to reimpose UN sanctions in case of non-performance by Iran, in accordance with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.[/article]
    1. UN resolution may be in force, but it still cannot stop USA not to want to have anything to do with Iran and with those who want to have business with Iran.
    2. If you an I will think about it really hard we will come to a conclusion that even without sanctions Iran will not be able to earn enough to buy anything of value and it is simply because oil will be abundant from other sources and cheap - Iranian price*volume will be too low to make a difference.
     
    Top