Trumps reckless designation of the IRGC to have dangerous consequences Watch

Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#1
Now this is an interesting one as whether or not you like Iran or the IRGC we should all be in agreement this move was one of the dumbest that orange tosspot could have made vis-a-vis Iran. Let me explain.
As I said, whether or not you like these people, designating them a terror group has manifold 3rd order effects and i'll detail them here;
1) Designating a countries armed forces a terror group sets a rather bad precedent as by all rights (whether you like it or not) A LOT of countries can now return the favour to America and under this precedent can kill and maim them willy nilly. This is also ignoring the fact the IRGC, whilst guilty of many questionable activities, in no way meet the definition of terrorism. Yes, it is true that terrorism doesnt technically have a definition but this simply further dilutes the term to being abjectly meaningless.
2) Iran is not Syria, Iraq or any of the other tin pot countries America beat up (and got kicked by) it has extensive influence across the region, and to a lesser degree, the world. It can make Americans lives bloody miserable in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and most other ME countries. ... also possibly in N/S America as well.
3)Leading on from p2, Iran was instrumental in helping America in Afghanistan and IRaq [without their assistance it would have been a lot worse for them - by designating Iran as a terror group [this is effectively what theyre doing] they are empowering the hard liners to act without any restraint. They know that America cant invade them after iraq and are free to reap merry mayhem.
4) the only people this benefits are the right in Tehran, not only has trump ruined the progressives chances with his terrorizing of iran economically and diplomatically (not to mention spreading mendacious lies) but he is doing his best to turn Iran from an ambivalent country into one of die hard radicals who will seek to hurt America, her allies and her interests.
5) last, but not least, as I imagine the quasi-fascists bibi and MBS had a hand in this it could well end up harming Americas dubious friends. Not only are both countries within range of Iranian IRBM's but Israel is well within range of the tens of thousands of advanced missiles from Lebanon which (despite iron dome and davids sling) will reap serious carnage on Israeli cities - the same goes for KSA's oil fields. Plus such actions are likely to intice Iran into restarting her nuclear ambitions, which despite many stupid people believing them to exist, have not since 2003.

With all things considered this is a serious dumb decision by a half-wit president and his acolytes who are themselves mentally sub-par, religious fanatics or zionist loons (ironically enough only so that Israel will burn at the end of days when Christ comes again) ... its a fun bunch of people in power right?

But by all means if you disagree with my assessment do comment


On Monday, in an unprecedented move, U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration designated Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a foreign terrorist organization. The decision wasn’t entirely unjustified: The IRGC creates, trains, funds, arms, and deploys forces with thousands of fighters beyond Iran’s borders. These include local insurgents but also terrorist groups, such as Hezbollah. IRGC-backed forces are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of U.S. service members.
The Trump administration’s decision was meant to serve U.S. interests by isolating Iran. It seems not to have considered, however, the many ways that the regime can retaliate.

Official statements by the Iranian government already yield clues that Tehran is preparing to interpret the designation as an attack and to respond accordingly. Mere hours after the U.S. announcement, Tehran responded by similarly designating U.S. Central Command—the combatant command responsible for theaters across the Middle East, South Asia, and the Horn of Africa—as a terrorist organization. Mohammad Ali Jafari, the IRGC’s commander in chief, said the U.S. Army in the region would “not enjoy today’s peace.” The implication was clear: The Guards would begin to target U.S. military personnel.
This would not be a new posture for Iran. It is well-known that Iran supplied the materials for explosively formed penetrators, an armor-piercing form of improvised explosive device favored by Iraqi Shiite militias during battles against U.S. troops at the height of the conflict in Iraq, between 2006 and 2010. The United States holds Iran responsible for the deaths of more than 600 American soldiers in Iraq.
If Iran now seeks to respond to the designation by escalating tensions against the U.S. military, it has several options. It can choose to focus either on areas where the IRGC already has a direct presence or in places where Iran’s nonstate clients have influence. Although the United States has decreased its troop levels in Syria, Iran still maintains a robust presence there, supporting Lebanese Hezbollah units in the country and commanding a vast Shiite foreign fighter network that could be used to attack U.S. troops directly or indirectly. In Iraq—where the United States still has approximately 5,200 troops—Tehran enjoys the loyalty of several prominent Shiite militias, including Kataib Hezbollah, Asaib Ahl al-Haq, and the Badr Organization.
The Guards could also begin targeting American civilians abroad, either directly or by working through a proxy group. IRGC-linked individuals and outlets have already pointed to U.S. contractors and members of the intelligence community working in the region as possible targets. Hezbollah is a prime candidate for perpetrating such attacks, which could include kidnapping or direct attacks on U.S infrastructure and personnel. On Wednesday, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah reminded the United States of his organization’s capabilities and suggested that it would not stand by on the sidelines as U.S. actions grew more aggressive in the region. Hezbollah is capable of following through on its threats, as it maintains a vast global infrastructure and has been responsible for attacks in Argentina and Bulgaria, while attacks have been thwarted in locales as diverse as Cyprus, Kenya, India, Thailand, and Georgia.
Iran could also stage an attack using IRGC cyberwarfare units, which have previously targeted U.S. persons, financial companies, and public infrastructure. Unlike other nations that possess sophisticated technical capabilities, Iran’s cyberactivities focus less on espionage and more on offensive operations within the networks of its adversaries. In March 2016, the United States indicted several Iranian citizens who were alleged to be working as hackers for the IRGC and Iranian government. These individuals were accused of launching cyberattacks on the New York Stock Exchange, Nasdaq, and several banks and financial institutions, as well as the Bowman Avenue Dam in Rye Brook, New York, where hackers gained unauthorized remote access to a computer controlling the dam.
Aside from military attacks, the United States may also suffer diplomatic fallout from Iran’s designation of U.S. Central Command as a terrorist group. What once would have been a minor misunderstanding between the two adversaries could very well become a tripwire for increased friction. Iran has already threatened to act against U.S. vessels in the Persian Gulf—the Iranian coasts of which have largely been the IRGC’s responsibility to patrol. If a situation arises similar to the one in 2016, when Revolutionary Guards captured American sailors in the gulf, Washington will not have the formal and informal channels of communication it had then to get the sailors released. Instead, the Iranians may hold Americans hostage for extended periods of time or even harm them. Similarly, although the conventional Iranian military, not the IRGC, is mostly responsible for the country’s activities in the Bab el-Mandeb strait, the Gulf of Aden, and Gulf of Oman with a mission largely focused on anti-piracy, it could use its position to further provoke the United States.
Even if Iran doesn’t instigate such a situation, contact between the U.S. and Iranian militaries is nearly unavoidable. As mutual threats, such as the Islamic State, lose ground in the region, the United States and Iran are entering a new era of competition in key strategic theaters—including Afghanistan and Iraq. Iran’s steadily increasing leverage in Iraq and Syria, and its growing network of proxies in Lebanon, Bahrain, and Yemen, means that the Trump administration cannot simply wish the Iranians away. Washington must find a way to come to terms with Iran on critical geopolitical issues—reconstruction in Syria, the continued campaign against Islamic State remnants, keeping Afghanistan from descending into chaos, and forging political reconciliation in Iraq between Sunnis and Shiites.
What the United States has done instead is increase the likelihood of a tit-for-tat escalation with Tehran—one that requires significant diplomatic resources to avoid resulting in a broader regional conflagration that includes Israel and the Gulf states and produces chaos throughout the region.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/04/11...o-strike-back/
0
reply
Palmyra
Badges: 17
#2
Report 1 week ago
#2
Funny how reformists in Iran hugely assisted the US in overthrowing the Taliban in Afghanistan (shared intelligence and even took part in very successful joint military operations against the Taliban), only for Genius George to throw those reformists under the bus by labelling Iran as part of an 'axis of evil' weeks later.

Strange how everyone talks about MH17 that was shot down over Ukraine, allegedly by separatists in Eastern Ukraine using Russian weapons, but no one talks about Iran Air Flight 655 that was shot down over the Persian Gulf by a US Navy ship from Iranian territorial waters, killing all 290 civilians on board. The US never apologised and in fact gave the Captain of the USS Vincennes responsible a Legion of Merit medal award.

Everyone feigns outrage when Assad allegedly uses chemical weapons in Syria, but when the US was helping Saddam Hussein use chemical weapons against Iran (Saddam invaded Iran in 1980) and giving them diplomatic protection at the UN no one cared. Tens of thousands of Iranians were killed or injured (many still to this day) in the largest use of chemical weapons since WW1. Iranian lives are cheap and chemical weapons are permitted when it suits the US.

Not to mention the 'grand bargain' Iranian reformists offered the US in 2003 (offering to end all support for Hezbollah and all Palestinian militant groups, and to permanent limits on its nuclear programme - which, at the time, was tiny and very primitive compared to today, in exchange for an end to sanctions) that Genius George rejected without even reading.

The US claims to be behind the Iranian people, but calls them terrorists and bans them from entering the US. To bring it back to your point a bit, Qassem Soleimani (head of the Quds Force - the overseas branch of the IRGC) is consistently rated as the most popular man in Iran, but the US sanction him as a terrorist (whilst John Bolton gives paid speeches for the terrorist MEK where he promises that Iran will have regime change before 2019 - update: that failed).

The IRGC are the ones that put their lives on the line to fight against Saddam's Iraq when they invaded Iran in 1980. They are the ones that fight against ISIS in Iran's neighbours to prevent them from ever threatening to invade Iran. They are the ones developing Iran's missiles that are its sole form of deterrence in a violence-prone region of Western-backed dictatorships that import hundreds of billions of lethal US weaponry, with military budgets higher than Iran's by a factor of 10. As a result, they are seen as defenders of Iran's territorial integrity and quite popular. The IRGC also have regular conscripts and now ordinary Iranians that are mandated to do military service (there is conscription in Iran) will be labelled as terrorists. Way to turn the most pro-American population in the region against you.
Last edited by Palmyra; 1 week ago
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#3
(Original post by Palmyra)
Funny how reformists in Iran hugely assisted the US in overthrowing the Taliban in Afghanistan (shared intelligence and even took part in very successful joint military operations against the Taliban), only for Genius George to throw those reformists under the bus by labelling Iran as part of an 'axis of evil' weeks later.

Strange how everyone talks about MH17 that was shot down over Ukraine, allegedly by separatists in Eastern Ukraine using Russian weapons, but no one talks about Iran Air Flight 655 that was shot down over the Persian Gulf by a US Navy ship from Iranian territorial waters, killing all 290 civilians on board. The US never apologised and in fact gave the Captain of the USS Vincennes responsible a Legion of Merit medal award.

Everyone feigns outrage when Assad allegedly uses chemical weapons in Syria, but when the US was helping Saddam Hussein use chemical weapons against Iran (Saddam invaded Iran in 1980) and giving them diplomatic protection at the UN no one cared.

Not to mention the grand bargain Iranian reformists offered the US in 2003 (offering to end all support for Hezbollah and other groups in exchange for restoration of ties and an end to sanctions) that Genius George rejected without even reading.

The US claims to be behind the Iranian people, but calls them terrorists and bans them from entering the US. To bring it back to your point a bit, Qassem Soleimani is consistently rated as the most popular man in Iran, but the US sanction him as a terrorist (whilst John Bolton gives paid speeches for the terrorist MEK where he promises that Iran will have regime change before 2019 - update: that failed).
I read a great quote that the coalition in afghanistan wasnt of US making but it was a Russo-Iranian-Indian affair that the US hijacked.

Indeed, and everyone seems to call the US a good power? its bizarre. Not to mention the fact all of these american-fetishists seem to try and defend that act of terrorism, its revolting.

Its almost touching the irony isnt it? They sold him the equipment and expertise to use it to kill untold iranians and kurds and then tried to deny it at the UN.

Ha oh yes, although in fainess to that i dont believe it ever reached him did it? I think the state department tossed it without a second though.

Ha i included that bit about the MEK in my thesis and got called in to back it up, the professor was mildly shocked that it was true. But yes it does rather prove the fact that America doesnt know what a terrorist is and if anything is only in the business of aiding them - not to mention being one. Especially with that ****knuckle bolton.
0
reply
Palmyra
Badges: 17
#4
Report 1 week ago
#4
(Original post by Napp)
I read a great quote that the coalition in afghanistan wasnt of US making but it was a Russo-Iranian-Indian affair that the US hijacked.

Indeed, and everyone seems to call the US a good power? its bizarre. Not to mention the fact all of these american-fetishists seem to try and defend that act of terrorism, its revolting.

Ha i included that bit about the MEK in my thesis and got called in to back it up, the professor was mildly shocked that it was true. But yes it does rather prove the fact that America doesnt know what a terrorist is and if anything is only in the business of aiding them - not to mention being one. Especially with that ****knuckle bolton.
Afghanistan is a perfect example of America's foreign policy being hijacked by a small group of individuals/entities. Ironically, in 1998 the Taliban murdered some Iranian diplomats, so Iran massed troops on the border and was preparing an invasion to overthrow the Taliban. But the US strongly warned Iran against invading, only to then invade Afghanistan themselves a few years later.

In 1992 Netanyahu warned that Iran was 3-5 years away from developing nuclear weapons.

In 2002 Netanyahu told Congress that invading Iraq and overthrowing Saddam would have "enormous positive reverberations on the region".

The US has never faced justice for its war crimes. Now it has successfully scared the ICC enough such that they refuse to investigate US war crimes in Afghanistan. One day the world will learn of US war crimes in Korea and Vietnam (etc - but these are the ones that the world lacks awareness of and are the most significant in terms of pure suffering and damage caused). Truly horrifying when you learn the details. History will not be kind to the US, nor should it.

What was your thesis on? Good on you for sticking with it and educating your professor on the reality of US foreign policy.
Last edited by Palmyra; 1 week ago
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#5
(Original post by Palmyra)
Afghanistan is a perfect example of America's foreign policy being hijacked by a small group of individuals/entities. Ironically, in 1998 the Taliban murdered some Iranian diplomats, so Iran massed troops on the border and was preparing an invasion to overthrow the Taliban. But the US strongly warned Iran against invading, only to then invade Afghanistan themselves a few years later.

In 1992 Netanyahu warned that Iran was 3-5 years away from developing nuclear weapons.

In 2002 Netanyahu told Congress that invading Iraq and overthrowing Saddam would have "enormous positive reverberations on the region".

The US has never faced justice for its war crimes. Now it has successfully scared the ICC enough such that they refuse to investigate US war crimes in Afghanistan. One day the world will learn of US war crimes in Korea and Vietnam (etc - but these are the ones that the world lacks awareness of and are the most significant in terms of pure suffering and damage caused). Truly horrifying when you learn the details. History will not be kind to the US, nor should it.

What was your thesis on? Good on you for sticking with it and educating your professor on the reality of US foreign policy.
Ah yes i recall that incident, although i didnt know about 'gool 'ol' uncle sam jamming his oar in.
Ha i bet he's eating his words now. Then again Netenyahu is officially a fascist now given who hes got in his coalition of racists.
Its a dreadful shame really, i mean even if anyone wanted to the US will never play ball with justice (ironic considering their quaint lie of trying to uphold "the global rules based system". We can only hope they get the tongue lashing they deserve for their disgraceful war like attitude.
Oh my thesis focussed on Russian foreign policy towards Iran but this particular bit was on how Russia gripes at the US for funding Chechen terrorists which then fed in to this instance of that dolt pompeo meeting with the MEK and calling them a legitimate government in exile - a rather droll claim considering the Iranians despise them with a passion. then again, given this is what happened when Saddam was over thrown i really shouldnt be surprised.
0
reply
Palmyra
Badges: 17
#6
Report 1 week ago
#6
(Original post by Napp)
Oh my thesis focussed on Russian foreign policy towards Iran
Very interesting topic. Did you discuss 1) history of Iran ceding land in the 1800s due to wars with Russia, 2) Russia's occupation of much of northern Iran, 3) Soviet support for the so-called Republic of Mahabad and refusal to leave Iranian territory after WW2, 4) Russia's multiple delays in building the Bushehr nuclear reactor, 5) Russia's refusal to live up to a signed contract to deliver purely defensive s-300 SAM systems and 6) Russia's votes in favour of UNSC sanctions against Iran? (They also materially supported Saddam in his invasion of Iran, but virtually everyone did.)
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#7
(Original post by Palmyra)
Very interesting topic. Did you discuss 1) history of Iran ceding land in the 1800s due to wars with Russia, 2) Russia's occupation of much of northern Iran, 3) Soviet support for the so-called Republic of Mahabad and refusal to leave Iranian territory after WW2, 4) Russia's multiple delays in building the Bushehr nuclear reactor, 5) Russia's refusal to live up to a signed contract to deliver purely defensive s-300 SAM systems and 6) Russia's votes in favour of UNSC sanctions against Iran? (They also materially supported Saddam in his invasion of Iran, but virtually everyone did.)
In the original copy I was going to but i was told to narrow it down to just from the Russian perspective and it primarily foccused on the post cold war era but the two treaties did form a fairly key crux of the debate. I did find it rather interesting that 'turkmenchay' is still used as a modern colloquialism in Iran to refer to a heinous national humiliation.

But yes all of those were mentioned, especially the Bushehr example. Interestingly enough i came to the conclusion that it was little more than trying to strong arm iran into behaving more in line with the Russian view. With that being said Russia was in the rather awkward position of trying to act as a 'responsible stakeholder' whilst also a good business partner - unluckily for her. However, on the flip side theyve now delivered the Antey 2500 (if memory serves) and have contracts to build several more reactors at Bushehr.

On the Iran-Iraq war though its worth bearing in mind that the Soviets did render a bit of aid to Iran as well, a somewhat odd policy but yeah. It was great fun (if very tiring) to do the research on that. If i find time in the future i wouldnt mind carrying it on to a PhD level.
0
reply
Mustafa0605
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 week ago
#8
I’ve been to Iran. It’s one of the most developed countries in the Middle East apart from the rich gulf countries obviously. Tehran itself looks like a big European city with many malls and very clean streets. The Iranian parliament consists of men and women of all religions and areas. I believe they are getting targeted because they don’t rely on the World establishment. E.g they have their own central bank with no interest and they produce their own medicine and most of their weapons are either home produced or Russian/Chinese. Also their firm support for ally countries such as Lebanon and Syria scares Israel and interrupt the greater Israel plans.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
Last edited by Mustafa0605; 1 week ago
1
reply
Palmyra
Badges: 17
#9
Report 1 week ago
#9
(Original post by Napp)
In the original copy I was going to but i was told to narrow it down to just from the Russian perspective and it primarily foccused on the post cold war era but the two treaties did form a fairly key crux of the debate. I did find it rather interesting that 'turkmenchay' is still used as a modern colloquialism in Iran to refer to a heinous national humiliation.

But yes all of those were mentioned, especially the Bushehr example. Interestingly enough i came to the conclusion that it was little more than trying to strong arm iran into behaving more in line with the Russian view. With that being said Russia was in the rather awkward position of trying to act as a 'responsible stakeholder' whilst also a good business partner - unluckily for her. However, on the flip side theyve now delivered the Antey 2500 (if memory serves) and have contracts to build several more reactors at Bushehr.

On the Iran-Iraq war though its worth bearing in mind that the Soviets did render a bit of aid to Iran as well, a somewhat odd policy but yeah. It was great fun (if very tiring) to do the research on that. If i find time in the future i wouldnt mind carrying it on to a PhD level.
They offered the Antey 2500 but Iran opted for the s-300pmu2 (which was, very belatedly, and only after Iran threatened to launch arbitral proceedings against Russia for breach of contract, delivered).

How was voting in favour of politically-charged, unfounded and disproportionate UNSCRs related to Russia's need to act as a 'responsible stakeholder'? The reality is that Israel and the US have a lot of leverage over Russia and exercise it re: Russia's relations with Iran as and when they feel the need to.

I don't agree that the Soviets aided Iran at all. The Soviets were the biggest suppliers of weapons to Iraq throughout the course of the war (they used Russian jets, Russian tanks, etc) because the Islamic Republic were very anti-Communist and destroyed the Iranian communist party (Tudeh).
Last edited by Palmyra; 1 week ago
0
reply
Palmyra
Badges: 17
#10
Report 1 week ago
#10
(Original post by Mustafa0605)
I’ve been to Iran. It’s one of the most developed countries in the Middle East apart from the rich persian gulf countries obviously. Tehran itself looks like a big European city with many malls and very clean streets. The Iranian parliament consists of men and women of all religions and areas. I believe they are getting targeted because they don’t rely on the World establishment. E.g they have their own central bank with no interest and they produce their own medicine and most of their weapons are either home produced or Russian/Chinese. Also their firm support for ally countries such as Lebanon and Syria scares Israel and interrupt the greater Israel plans.
Indeed. Iran has the largest Jewish population in the region outside of Israel, with dozens of synagogues (without armed security like in Europe), Jewish schools, and a Jewish member of Parliament too.

The Anti Defamation League themselves in fact confirmed that Iranians are the least anti-Semitic population in the MENA region.
0
reply
Molseh
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 week ago
#11
Source on this?
It goes against all conventional knowledge and intelligence on the ground at the time.
(Original post by Napp)
3)Leading on from p2, Iran was instrumental in helping America in Afghanistan and IRaq [without their assistance it would have been a lot worse for them - by designating Iran as a terror group [this is effectively what theyre doing] they are empowering the hard liners to act without any restraint. They know that America cant invade them after iraq and are free to reap merry mayhem.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/04/11...o-strike-back/
0
reply
Palmyra
Badges: 17
#12
Report 1 week ago
#12
(Original post by Molseh)
Source on this?
It goes against all conventional knowledge and intelligence on the ground at the time.
For Afghanistan it's widely known. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_uprising_in_Herat

For Iraq it's not true: despite Saddam's invasion of Iran and widespread use of chemical weapons against Iranians, Iran consistently opposed the US invasion(s) of Iraq and overthrow of Saddam. Iran did co-operate with the US in forming the new Iraqi Government(s), though.

Saddam's regime was incredibly sectarian: despite Iraq being 65-70% Shia, Sunnis were totally dominant in all aspects of public life and especially in the Iraqi Government.
Last edited by Palmyra; 1 week ago
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#13
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#13
(Original post by Palmyra)
They offered the Antey 2500 but Iran opted for the s-300pmu2 (which was, very belatedly, and only after Iran threatened to launch arbitral proceedings against Russia for breach of contract, delivered).

How was voting in favour of politically-charged, unfounded and disproportionate UNSCRs related to Russia's need to act as a 'responsible stakeholder'? The reality is that Israel and the US have a lot of leverage over Russia and exercise it over Iran as and when they feel the need to.

I don't agree that the Soviets aided Iran at all. The Soviets were the biggest suppliers of weapons to Iraq throughout the course of the war (they used Russian jets, Russian tanks, etc) because the Islamic Republic were very anti-Communist and destroyed the Iranian communist party (Tudeh).
Ah that was it. Although wasn't the fact Putin was back in the Kremlin, as opposed to Medvedev, a rather key point as well? after all he is a Eurasionist who takes his views in no small part from Dugin and Primakov et al. who have all advocated much better relations with Iran.

In general because Russia has a two track policy on the matter in line with the two power groups there. As a rule they dont want Iran to ever get the capability to get a nuclear bomb as whilst they have a partnership they are quite far from friends. On the other hand though theyre realists and note that occasionally penalizing iran works in their favour (US pressure having only a mild influence at this point) after all the sanctions can only really ban companies exposed in 3rd countries so many Russian firms made a killing out of it ... such as oil smuggling.
As for Israel though, I wouldnt say they have any influence over them per-se, they have working quid pro quo relationship which is mainly due to the huge number of russians in israel and the fact israel will sell russia advanced tech like drones but aside from that Russia does whats in its own interests, if they coincide with Israel then yippie for them. With that being said there have been instances such as cancelling the original S300 deal and the Iskander deal with Damascus.

Oh they did but they their policy matured significantly over time, they made a few overtures to Tehran (even if they were rebuffed) but they also armed them through their allies such as Libya, Syria and the DPRK. There's an excellent book on the war by a french man whose name ive utterly forgotten which id reccomend. However, to clarify my point the soviets aided Saddam a hell of a lot more but they did nevertheless provide some assistence to Tehran as well, especially towards the end of the war when it became abundantly clear Saddam was a loose cannon and Iran could provide a rather nice area to exploit economically.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#14
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#14
(Original post by Molseh)
Source on this?
It goes against all conventional knowledge and intelligence on the ground at the time.
Which bit? The fact Iran aided the US in Iraq and Afghanistan is common knowledge - noteably Irans direction of Shia's, sharing of intel and offering to lend physical assistence such as s&r. If you wish for a physical source though I would reccomend reading the late M Axeworth's book on the matter.
As for the fact the US knows theyd be walking into a firestorm if they tried to attack/invade Iran this was outlined by a defence select committee in 2004 i believe when Bush and his band of oiks were talking about it. I believe the phrasing used was something along the lines of Iraq would be a picnic compared to Iran.
0
reply
Palmyra
Badges: 17
#15
Report 1 week ago
#15
(Original post by Napp)
Which bit? The fact Iran aided the US in Iraq and Afghanistan is common knowledge - noteably Irans direction of Shia's, sharing of intel and offering to lend physical assistence such as s&r. If you wish for a physical source though I would reccomend reading the late M Axeworth's book on the matter.
As for the fact the US knows theyd be walking into a firestorm if they tried to attack/invade Iran this was outlined by a defence select committee in 2004 i believe when Bush and his band of oiks were talking about it. I believe the phrasing used was something along the lines of Iraq would be a picnic compared to Iran.
Iran's direction of shias is not a good example!

The Millennium Challenge of 2002 was also a good wake up call for the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002
0
reply
Molseh
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 week ago
#16
The bit where you claimed Iran helped the US in Afghanistan.
A few instance sduring the invasion does not make it a fact, that example was an opportunistic alliance (with the IRG SF btw) in an area with strong Persian heritage.

As soon as it became apparent that NATO forces were staying post 2001 Iranian influence took a U-Turn, Iranian fighters were often discovered embedded with the Taliban in Helmand and it was common knowledge that weapons and equipment were smuggled via Iran from Russia to Taliban insurgents.
(Original post by Napp)
Which bit? The fact Iran aided the US in Iraq and Afghanistan is common knowledge - noteably Irans direction of Shia's, sharing of intel and offering to lend physical assistence such as s&r. If you wish for a physical source though I would reccomend reading the late M Axeworth's book on the matter.
As for the fact the US knows theyd be walking into a firestorm if they tried to attack/invade Iran this was outlined by a defence select committee in 2004 i believe when Bush and his band of oiks were talking about it. I believe the phrasing used was something along the lines of Iraq would be a picnic compared to Iran.
(Original post by Palmyra)
For Afghanistan it's widely known. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_uprising_in_Herat

For Iraq it's not true: despite Saddam's invasion of Iran and widespread use of chemical weapons against Iranians, Iran consistently opposed the US invasion(s) of Iraq and overthrow of Saddam. Iran did co-operate with the US in forming the new Iraqi Government(s), though.

Saddam's regime was incredibly sectarian: despite Iraq being 65-70% Shia, Sunnis were totally dominant in all aspects of public life and especially in the Iraqi Government.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#17
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#17
(Original post by Palmyra)
Iran's direction of shias is not a good example!

The Millennium Challenge of 2002 was also a good wake up call for the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002
That was more poor phrasing on my part, however its influence over various clerics was considered a boon in Europe and Washington... for a time at least aha. Although I should point out my area of expertise is from the Russian perspective not from the Iranian, i simply find Iran rather interesting )

Ah yes that would be it, I wasnt familiar was the war game per-se but only references to it.
0
reply
Palmyra
Badges: 17
#18
Report 1 week ago
#18
(Original post by Molseh)
The bit where you claimed Iran helped the US in Afghanistan.
A few instance sduring the invasion does not make it a fact, that example was an opportunistic alliance (with the IRG SF btw) in an area with strong Persian heritage.

As soon as it became apparent that NATO forces were staying post 2001 Iranian influence took a U-Turn, Iranian fighters were often discovered embedded with the Taliban in Helmand and it was common knowledge that weapons and equipment were smuggled via Iran from Russia to Taliban insurgents.
Iran did help the US hugely in the early stages of its invasion of Afghanistan. Sharing key intel, offering Iranian airspace, even joint military ops.

As I mentioned above, after Genius George rewarded Iranian reformists for putting their neck on the line like this by labelling Iran as part of an 'axis of evil', Iran cut off all co-operation with the US - including (in fact primarily) in Afghanistan, and justifiably so.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#19
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#19
(Original post by Molseh)
The bit where you claimed Iran helped the US in Afghanistan.
A few instance sduring the invasion does not make it a fact, that example was an opportunistic alliance (with the IRG SF btw) in an area with strong Persian heritage.

As soon as it became apparent that NATO forces were staying post 2001 Iranian influence took a U-Turn, Iranian fighters were often discovered embedded with the Taliban in Helmand and it was common knowledge that weapons and equipment were smuggled via Iran from Russia to Taliban insurgents.
Rendered assistance/helped ... I am using the two as synonyms here as the outcome is the same.
Err no that is exactly what it makes it. The fact it wasnt permanent help is irrelevant - especially as the yanks then stabbed the Iranians in the back.
Yes and no. Its no secret the Iranians hated the Taliban and wanted them gone but seeing as Rasfanjani was a moderate who reached out with America for a detente to imply this was nothing but cynicism is dubious at best.

Of course it did, so what? Why would they be happy with a hostile imperial force on their door step who actively threatened to attack them? Dont be so silly.
No there were claims of it. Seeing as the Taliban and various other terror groups have been found with large amounts of US weaponry as well i'd try not to open that jar of worms if i were you.
However, whats wrong with Iran *allegedly* aiding the Taliban? It makes perfect sense. America has been soundly beaten and the Taliban have won that war, it would be foolish for the Iranians to not cultivate an understanding with the next leaders there, especially as thanks to America ISIS is active around them.

To paint the Iranians as doing anything especially bad or unreasonable here is risible im afraid, its nothing more than classic defensive realism.
0
reply
Molseh
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#20
Report 1 week ago
#20
I mean the OP used the word instrumental - their help was useful on invasion no doubt, but beyond that in the 17 years since they have been actively opposing the US - whether that be the 'axis of evil' effect or more the worry of US having a permanent base next door and gaining influence in the region I don't know.
(Original post by Palmyra)
Iran did help the US hugely in the early stages of its invasion of Afghanistan. Sharing key intel, offering Iranian airspace, even joint military ops.

As I mentioned above, after Genius George rewarded Iranian reformists for putting their neck on the line like this by labelling Iran as part of an 'axis of evil', Iran cut off all co-operation with the US - including (in fact primarily) in Afghanistan, and justifiably so.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (502)
37.66%
No - but I will (103)
7.73%
No - I don't want to (91)
6.83%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (637)
47.79%

Watched Threads

View All