We don't want to escalate tensions with Iran. It's only ok
by krudler (2024-01-15 17:31:11)

In reply to: Iran just hit Erbil with ballistic missiles  posted by ndsapper


when Iran escalates (which they've been doing for months)


Our fear is pathetic
by shillelaghhugger  (2024-01-15 23:35:05)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

Imagine the Iranians laughing at our current team of 'lead from behind' dorks in the administration still planning the next JCPOA or their post-Biden podcast series.

Iranians should be afraid of OUR escalation. Not the other way around. They have far more to lose in the region, a far lesser way to defend themselves from stand off weapons, and a country full of young people that are desperate for new leadership. But no, somehow we're scared of them.


Isn't escalation on our end
by AquinasDomer  (2024-01-16 09:02:43)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

Just as likely to lead to a rally around the flag effect in Iran?

I'm not saying we shouldn't escalate, but you have to factor in us against the world patriotism being an advantage for the leaders there.


Was there any meaningful reaction like that when
by krudler  (2024-01-16 11:16:35)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

Soleimani was killed? I saw some state sponsored rallies, but not much with staying power.


Iranian missile attacks on US bases after Soleimani (link)
by irishlaw2010  (2024-01-16 12:19:12)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply


Right, but they've been having their proxies do the same
by krudler  (2024-01-16 12:21:39)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

consistently for over 3 months, not to mention firing at our ships as well. My response to AD was specifically about his "rally around the flag" comment, and not really seeing a lot of that in Iran after we killed Soleimani aside from some state rallies.


I was responding to
by AquinasDomer  (2024-01-16 13:08:20)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

" a country full of young people that are desperate for new leadership."

And in terms of us being able to handle a stand off better that might be true in an absolute sense, but it was also the case in Vietnam. Our people won't tolerate the degree of suffering that Iran will tolerate. Heck, we wouldn't tolerate their current quality of life.

I'm glad I don't have to make the decisions on exactly how to respond, but I don't think it's so simple as we can blow more up than they can, therefore there's no way they'd respond in kind.


I don't think I was making that argument. My point is
by krudler  (2024-01-16 15:27:36)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

that the administration has been reluctant to use force or respond in kind for fear of escalation, while Iran has been unilaterally escalating without fear of any reprisals.


I think we have different goals
by AquinasDomer  (2024-01-16 17:21:29)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

We want to get through Israel's war in Gaza without the war metastasizing to other areas.

Iran wants to destabilize the neighborhood and gain more power in the region.

If we escalate we risk playing into their hands and strengthening their position politically in country and the Middle East.


What would Trump do?
by Brahms  (2024-01-16 07:25:47)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

I ask because its possible he’s at the helm again, though I pray I don’t find out.

Radical isolationism, I suspect.


Find another Iranian official to assassinate perhaps
by gozer  (2024-01-16 11:00:58)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

I leave it to the audience to decide whether that's a good thing, but one thing I'm pretty sure of: he will do whatever he thinks makes him look "strong"


He wasn't at the beginning of his last term
by ndsapper  (2024-01-16 08:38:38)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

Defeated ISIS in Iraq/Syria, increased forces in Afghanistan (and stopped the planned drawdown) before decreasing at end of term, established maximum pressure campaign on Iran, raised (then lowered) potential conflict with NK.

However, I do believe things have deteriorated to the point where he, or any Republican nominee, might be much more "America First" this time. We just aren't in as strong of a position as we were at the beginning of his first term (a decline accelerated by COVID and spanning two administrations). Our financial, civil, and military strength are all worse off and in need of focused attention.


Yes. Absolutely.
by ndsapper  (2024-01-15 20:00:24)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

I basically bring this same point up every conversation I have when talking policy (my current job doesn’t do policy so these are informal discussions).

It’s mind blowing how gentle our reactions. One off strikes, but only after we say over and over their purpose