Just spitballing here: Iran has far more than twelve missiles. They could have hit a lot. Arguments that they "missed" are not particularly plausible, considering they managed to shut down a Saudi refinery second hand. Iran, for their part, is publicly playing up the bloodshed, while also saying "it isn't enough" while also pretty conclusively not blaming the US for either the Ukranian airliner nor the earthquake (because c'mon). The phrase the war nerds of Twitter keep using is "escalate to de-escalate" as in "here, we fired missiles at you, now you can calm down so we don't have to go to war." Note that this is the first time Iranian conventional forces have struck the United States, other than shooting down a drone (that was most probably in Iranian airspace). It's really not their style. It would break with centuries of precedent for Iran to get all troops-in-field over this one. Symmetrical response, from their point of view, would be murdering Giuliani. I don't think Iran is done, but I also don't think this was Iran starting. This, from my read, is Iran going "here's that response you were looking for, now settle in because by the time we've had our say you'll have forgotten how pissed we are and your people will have moved on." South asia does vengeance with remarkable patience. If Iran wanted to pop off a few missiles for the sake of popping off a few missiles they could have done it within a half hour of Suleimani being assassinated. This is something else and everyone pretending otherwise is eating the conventional narrative with a spoon.
LOL GPF 10 minutes ago: Here are the most significant aspects of Iran’s strikes: One, they were launched from Iranian soil, and Tehran made no attempt to maintain plausible deniability by retaliating through regional proxies. Two, Iran attacked with ballistic missiles rather than, say, rockets used by Iranian proxies in the past attacks. The Iranian ballistic missile program has made major strides in recent years; as with the attacks on Saudi oil infrastructure this summer, Tehran was once again attempting to demonstrate an ability to deliver heavy explosives from a distance to sensitive targets with a relatively high degree of accuracy – and to wreak major havoc across the region, including in Israel, which Hezbollah threatened to attack if the U.S. struck back. Three, damage is believed to be limited. It’s possible, of course, that Iran just missed its real targets on the other side of the (very large) bases – that Iranian missiles aren’t actually as accurate as claimed. But officials from both sides have told multiple outlets that this was intentional, and that the U.S. was warned (possibly via the Iraqi government) to batten down the hatches before the attacks started. If true, then Tehran was leaving open an opportunity for de-escalation. Indeed, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said that unless the U.S. retaliates, Iran had “concluded” its “proportional” response. In other words, Iran has made its point and made a big show of force to satisfy hawks at home. (Tehran is claiming as many as 80 U.S. personnel were killed.) And the U.S. can point to what appears to be a measured response to justify standing pat. Still, even if the U.S. holds its fire, it’s doubtful that this thing is over altogether. As intimated by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps – which, unlike the government, said the attacks were merely the “first step” – the Iranian response was not proportional to the killing of Qassem Soleimani, and historically, the IRGC has always retaliated, often to the consternation of the government and its diplomatic and strategic goals. And when it does, it does so quietly, through covert action conducted months or years after a provocation, often via proxies and in a place far from the original battlefield. The threat of, say, an assassination will hang over U.S. and allied officials for some time to come, so the risk of further escalation between the U.S. and Iran can’t be ignored. The underlying sources of tension between Washington and Tehran have only stiffened. Tehran is still grappling with crippling sanctions, immense domestic anger over Soleimani’s killing, a security establishment capable of defying the government, unwavering imperatives compelling it to remain aggressive in the region, and a decision on whether and how quickly to resume its nuclear pursuits. For now, though, there’s a chance to avoid an immediate spiral toward all-out war. At least I'm getting good at parroting the thinking of the wonks I payIran retaliates. The dust is still settling after Iran fired an estimated 15 ballistic missiles at (at least) two Iraqi military bases housing U.S. forces early Wednesday morning. The Pentagon has yet to release an official damage report, but multiple sources have suggested no U.S. personnel were hurt and only minimal damage was inflicted on U.S. materiel. An unconfirmed number of Iraqi casualties have been reported. The veracity of these reports will, to some degree, dictate how the U.S. responds.
Trump’s live statements a few minutes ago were very much in the direction of de-escalation. He’ll start (re)negotiating another deal. IMHO, it seems more clear than ever that Trump’s qualms about the previous deal center around Obama’s signature.
He is a creature of the Id. The only thing he cares about is owning the libs because it gives him chants. The problem facing us all is he has surrounded himself with unqualified sycophants of questionable qualification. I don't remember who, but some columnist or other remarked on the 40th anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis that if the Bush administration were in office in October '62, Miami would have rung in the new year radioactive. What would you give up to have the Bush Administration right now?
Yeah. Again, like you once remarked, we’ve definitely entered the twilight zone when John Bolton is the voice of reason regarding foreign policy, at least for Ukraine. He probably would’ve been a proponent of the recent aggression towards Iran, though.
I wonder. Bolton definitely wants the Shah back. But I'll bet Bolton would prefer that we starve the Iranians some more and then overthrow them when they're overthrowable. This whole "hey we martyred the second most powerful guy in the country" thing likely strikes him as amateurish.
Noice. Sadly, the accountability of Twitter is uniquely appealing, shy of video footage, I guess, if only for now. Hey, maybe Twitter could be super into escalating deepfake technology, because it would elevate their platform as the forefront of authenticity/sourcing.
Yeah, that’s a big source of my discomfort. Not only is Biff our president but there’s a cast of people in positions they’re dangerously unqualified for. Bring back Condoleeza please.