I read about it. I think it was Churchill who ordered the RAF to bomb them with chemical gas from the air?
Iran v US confrontation
- Thread starter 4bars
- Start date
*"Brought modern chemistry to the people of Iraq. Many saw the effects of it right away."
Churchill certainly approved, not sure if he was directly involved. I think it was mustard gas, there is some dispute among historians as to just how extensively it was used.
I suspect this the great misunderstanding as far as Trump is concerned. He is not a politician, doesn't think like one, and is proud of that fact. In the US one or two are now beginning to wake up and see this is the case, and the rest of the world, now including Iran, are perhaps beginning to wake up to this fact as well. Trump doesn't really worry about losing face in a political sense, unless it scuppers his deals. Why has Soleimani been taken out now, if it was a political risk before, why now, what has changed?
In Trumps view, the pressure on Iran has to be increased to get them to the point where they will negotiate on his terms. He has done the same thing with China via the trade war scenario, although not using such naked force because after all China is a different story to Iran.
Trump wants to win, if he cant win he'll take as many cents on the dollar as he can get, if that's not possible he will walk away and come back when the signs are better, or when he can apply more leverage. If that never happens he shrugs his shoulders in a "you cant win them all manner."
Appearing not to give a feck is all part of the Donald's play-book and he's not really worried about any collateral damage caused outside America, whether its to friend or foe alike. Yet you suspect he would like a place in history, even if its the notoriety of being only the third USA President to be Impeached whilst reasserting America's place in the world as the 'big guy on the block' and not to be messed with!
Hasn't he failed almost completely in his aims regarding China and trade?
Trump=Jose.
Its difficult to judge, but from a distance I would say its a 'cents on the dollar' win for trump.
It has also sent a signal for the future that whilst he is President at least, the US is no longer a soft touch on having its trade secrets etc. ripped off
All his tweets today are concerning his impending impeachment. Evident where his priorities lie.
Trump has no idea. He's all tactics and no strategy. He makes these wild moves and gets nothing in return.
He's received nothing substantive in return for allowing North Korea back into the fold, and weakening the US bargaining position.
He received nothing in return for tearing up the TTIP and gifting SE Asia to China.
He received nothing in return from pulling out of Syria, and weakened the US bargaining position, even gifting US airbases to Russia. Imagine.
He's received nothing in return from sanctions on Iran, indeed by walking away from a ratified agreement, he's weakened the US bargaining position in future.
He's in danger of losing the US footprint in Iraq thanks to killing the Iranian number 2, gifting Iran further influence.
And nobody trusts the word of the US.
Strategic enemies are stronger today as a direct result of his actions. He's done more to weaken the US as a geopolitical force and isolate it from its natural allies, than anyone I can remember - history will be incredibly unkind to his regime.
Last edited:
Struggling to see the win. from QZ:
Consider the trade deficit: Today, the difference between US imports and exports is nearly $30 billion wider than it was when Trump took office. As tariffs made trade with China more expensive, US companies have shifted their supply chains to other countries
There is little evidence that the new taxes have convinced China that they should hurry internal reforms of its foreign investment rules [ie requiring foreign companies to partner with local ones] or approach to industrial policy.
US attempts to gain leverage by blocking the export of components required by Chinese telecom companies like XTE and Huawei called attention to their dependence on American chips, and now Beijing has announced a $29 billion fund to develop its own advanced semi-conductors.
United States will grow more slowly in 2020 (2.1%) than it is expected in 2019 (2.4%).
The pressure on the White House to make a cosmetic deal before campaign season helps explain why Trump would agree to a tariff-reduction deal that doesn’t accomplish any of the goals he set out last year.
Source:
As far as I'm aware his intention was to completely redefine the trading relationship between America and China, to leverage it in favour of America and that he got nowhere close to his initial lofty aims.
Last edited:
History of US-Iran Conflict Explained
I'm not so sure that is the case, but as I said he is no politician and the conventional wisdom applied to how Politicians should or might act, are wasted on Trump.
Trump wants to win, if he cant win he'll take as many cents on the dollar as he can get,
This is his apparent position with China. China never moves fast in anything, 30 to 50 year planning cycles are common because of their particular political model of Government. It remains to be seen how much this might/might not benefit the US over time
if that's not possible he will walk away and come back when the signs are better,
This seems to be how he is playing North Korea!
or when he can apply more leverage.
What he is attempting with latest move with Iran, i.e. tightening the knot, their only option is to threaten to up their Nuclear programme and in so doing they will destroy whatever is left of the agreement with Europe
If that never happens he shrugs his shoulders in a "you cant win them all manner."
This seems to be his approach in Syria, lots of investment required to rebuild in that country as its almost totally devastated, so let Russia pick up the tab, seems to be his way of thinking. Trump has now virtually thrown in his (and the US's) lot with Israel. America (at least whilst Trumps in power) has come off the fence over Israel/Palestine (two state solution) in the region and consequently its writ will not run in Syria, Iraq or Iran, whatever. However the US is seen to be able retain any military foot print it might require in the region, via its stronger ties to Israel.
More like Trump=Kim Jung Un. Being reckless and unpredictable doesn't make you strong, or respectable.. the US will be suffering blowback for years to come after he's gone.
I'm sure Putin would love to have the sort of influence in the Middle East Soviet Union used to have in its heyday but modern Russia cannot even begin to afford it. Russia's influence in the region may continue to slowly rise, but they'll never be able to sustain a big military presence there for any serious amount of time, so it''ll be more of a peacemaker/intermediary type of a role which they've already successfully used in local situations in Syria and are actively trying to involve themselves in elsewhere.
China is a different matter, they have ample financial resources but neither military/diplomatic experience in dealing with such matters, especially in such complex and volatile region nor I suspect the desire to get involved and especially invest the kind of money Americans spent on their Middle Eastern operation over the last decade and a half.
Last edited:
100 years since the uprising, still a war torn country. Cursed with its oil wealth and 7 thousands year of heritage. This part of land will never live in peace I am afraid.
Decent video over all but a lot of false information in that.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Well considering how well their last skirmish with Hezbollah went, I'm not surprised they're distancing themselves. Iran won't see it that way though.
He's an American-iranian, it's 100% correct to his world view.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Makes sense, according to them the Shah was a friendly misunderstood guy and not a violent brutal dictator who regularly had troops open foreign protestors.
He's the mate that eggs in his drunk friend and then when the drunk mate carries through with the Dare he denies any knowledge of him.
Bizarre of him, considering how far he’s gone to change the Israeli-US relationship into an Israeli-Republican one. If Trump turns on him, he’s fecked.
Does that include any landing on them as well?
Everyone wants to win. And everyone takes what they can. Trump is no different. The difference is, decent politicians have a proper idea of what a win looks like.
He isn't playing North Korea - NK are playing him, presumably now they have had the time to rebuild their testing facility, and have announced they are beginning tests again just in time for Trump's election campaign. He has achieved nothing.
Iran has many, many options. His assassination was't about tightening the knot re: the nukes it was about, IMO, trying to make up for the weakness of the US responses since they pulled out of the nuclear deal.
America's interest in Syria and Iraq was to keep a check on Iran's regional expansion (and ISIS) - having removed itself from one and nearly from another, they don't have the influence to achieve that goal anymore.
The US has a single radar facility in Israel. They don't base troops or aircraft there by the way.
Shrugging shoulders and saying you can't win them all... that's called retreating. It is what weak powers do, not strong ones.
Last edited:
One can see a calculation where it once made sense for Iran to trade restrictions on nukes for money, but what is the win here for them now? I wonder if they might decide, instead, that nuclear deterrence against an apparently irrational, and directly threatening adversary, might be worth more, and go for the nukes. I mean my god, imagine what effect an Iranian nuclear test would have.
Last edited:
I don't think the Iranians would do much now. I think they will wait for the election and see what will happen.
Wont get that far. The estimates for them to build a nuke seem to be placed at 8-12 months assuming no setbacks. The us wont let them get one.
... whereas America has a weapon as President.
To stop them, the US will have to (a) reboot the nuclear agreement with Iran with even bigger bribes or (b) go to war with Iran. And even then, I'm not sure even sure how it'd work. If the US couldn't stop North Korea, could they stop Iran?
Israel has stopped their neighbours without going to war, just by unilateral bombing.
And the bigliest weapon at that.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Give me a D, A, E, S and H, what does that spell? That's right, Iranian hegemony.
So I guess the Iraqis really paid for the military base? 
I'm far from an econ whiz and I could have told him that for much cheaper.
Fascinating.