World, Writing, Wealth discussion
World & Current Events
>
US Middle East Policy - Success? Failure? Something else?
The "attacks" on the embassy were more like spontaneous protests by irate citizens, following the five bombing raids, which followed the rockets at Kirkuk, that followed . . .? As for intel about future events, there has been so much previous intel, like WMD that was palpably wrong, that I do not regard that as justification for killing. I guess we just have to agree to differ on that because there is no way we can evaluate that intel.The problem with the Obama deal, from Iran's perspective, was that the US continued to maintain sanctions anyway. They gave up the nuke program in accord with the agreement, at least that is what the UN inspectors said and there is no evidence to disbelieve them, and Iran got nothing of significance, but it kept its word. The trade agreements with Canada and Mexico are irrelevant - Trump could not wreck those significantly because too many US multinationals were being punished, and that would end his re-election prospects. The US does not trade significantly with Iran. The surrender part I mentioned was that Washington would dictate Iranian foreign policy, and that was not going to happen. That "terrorism" you mention was effectively supporting Shia forces elsewhere, in the fight against ISIS, the Yemenis against Saudis, and the bit that you don't like, some of those rockets, etc, appear to have been fired against Israel.
If the US wanted to negotiate, consider the ten year limit you mention. Why not raise it, and say, let us continue for five years and by that time have an agreement as to what follows. If Iran is keeping its side of the bargain, nothing is lost. If the issue is about Israel, then why not demonstrate good faith b y making a less provocative attempt to settle the West Bank, if Iran will leave Hamas to its fate? If the issue is about not fighting Sunni extremists, then I am sorry, Nik, but it is the US that is supporting terrorists.
Ian wrote: "As for intel about future events, there has been so much previous intel, like WMD that was palpably wrong, that I do not regard that as justification for killing...."Intel can be wrong, but you don't infer from past mistakes that you can't trust your lavishly funded intelligence services. If anything, from a standpoint of soleimani's liquidation, the intel was remarkably precise as of his movements, might be similarly precise about his intentions. It would be foolish not to take seriously your own intelligence. And preemption is much better than dealing with tragedies of, god forbid, 9/11 dimension. What can be so off anyway, that soleimani intended to become an indie author and leave alone decades long hobby of targeting Americans and their friends? Unlikely. It's just one arch-terrorist less. And yes, the US defines who's terrorist for them, basing on what they do towards the US and not how heroic he's perceived in Iran.
Ian wrote: "The problem with the Obama deal, from Iran's perspective, was that the US continued to maintain sanctions anyway....."
Not as far as I'm aware of. Obama removed sanctions, Trump reinstated them.
Ian wrote: "They gave up the nuke program in accord with the agreement, at least that is what the UN inspectors said and there is no evidence to disbelieve them...."
As far as I read this is real, but you choose to disregard it: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle...
It's not Netanyahu's allegations anymore, it's IAEA findings.
Ian wrote: "the Yemenis against Saudis...."
Ian, it's not Yemenis against Saudis and I bet you know it. It's Yemeni Houthi rebels against Yemeni internationally recognized government. Exactly same situ like in Syria, I just wonder why in Syria you support the government while in Yemen - rebels? Why, you prefer Shias over Sunnis for some reason?
Ian wrote: "If the US wanted to negotiate, consider the ten year limit you mention...."
Macron tried and got a flat reply "Iran's ballistic program is not negotiable", like they once said about nuclear one. Obviously, these guys need a bit of persuasion. Iran's issue is solely about a threat, the West can't afford having nuclear armed ballistic Iran plus exporting its Islamic revolution everywhere. The tactic approach how to achieve it differs, but Trump's approach I would say is more appropriate to regional mentality. Trump regularly call them to negotiate, why not give it a try?
Ian wrote: "If the issue is about Israel, then why not demonstrate good faith b y making a less provocative attempt to settle the West Bank, if Iran will leave Hamas to its fate?...."
Israel is in the same basket of those whom Iran wishes 'death' and announce destruction, however Israel deals with it all the time on its own. Reported over 200 strikes over Iranian entrenchment in Syria. Even Russia seems to understand Israel concern and let it go.
BTW, the liquidation of a rogue Islamic jihad leader in Gaza two months ago, who took orders from Iran and regularly undermined Hamas compliance with the ceasefire may actually improve the chances for a long-term arrangement that Egyptian intelligence is trying to broker: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle...
Ian wrote: "If the issue is about not fighting Sunni extremists...." No, the issue is about not targeting Americans and not ascending to a nuclear-ballistic global threat
Nik, 1. If the US defines who is a terrorist based on what someone thinks is going to happen, then that tends to become whoever is embarking on asymmetric warfare - the argument seems to be if you don't line up so we can wipe you ut with superior technology, you are a terrorist. The case for Iran favouring terrorism, as opposed to taking asymmetric actions is weak, and because asymmetric warfare tends to involve militias, control is weak. The guys who fired rockets at Kirkuk were just as likely to be exercising personal grudges as to be following orders. That doesn't excuse them, and the US had a perfect right to respond by wiping them out, but there is no evidence that they actually went after the guilty, and plenty of evidence they did not.
2. To the best of my knowledge, Obama only partially lifted sanctions, and maintained the freeze on Iranian money. As artiual support for that, why did the Iranians leave so much there when they could have taken it away? I suppose they could have been stupid, but my guess is because they couldn't.
3. The common feature of my support, as you call it, is the bomb victims. The Saudis are bombing Yemen and Yemenis are starving and it is not only the rebels, in fact the rebels are probably better fed than most.
4. Iran probably feels that since there are strong forces lined up waiting to bomb it, it needs some sort of means of retaliation. A missile with conventional explosives is so much worse than a cruise missile, which the US seems to think whenever something goes wrong it will fire off about a hundred? I agree we do not want Iran nuclear-armed, but my argument was Obama had achieved that, and Trump threw that achievement out the window in a fi of no very-well thought out pique.
5. I see the Iraqi parliament has passed a vote to expel all foreign troops. As yet it is not a law, because there are apparently more constitutional steps, but if it progresses, will the US leave? In your opinion, should it?
Ian wrote: "I see the Iraqi parliament has passed a vote to expel all foreign troops. As yet it is not a law, because there are apparently more constitutional steps, but if it progresses, will the US leave? In your opinion, should it?..."It looks like the US will have to leave. They still have plenty of bases near Iran...
Ian, I give some credence that the States have some knowledge which militias target them and that choosing kataib hezbollah is not a random draw. Punishing a specific worrier is not a must when you confront an organization.Defining quds as terrorists weren't based on what they intended to do, but on their 'past record' of what they did.
As of pulling out of Iraq, if asked, as far as I read they have a relatively modest contingent there of 5k soldiers, probably covered by alternative locations elsewhere in the ME. No need to keep troops just as sitting ducks, but rather evaluate alternatives and work together with Iraqi government on how to proceed next
I expect Iran to respond with violence, but for the moment, they have been put on the back foot. They have lost a high value asset, whilst their economy is taking a hit.The US is losing positions in Iraq, and getting some bad press. However, we wanted out of Iraq, because the nation itself is not politically tenable. Further, the regional powers, of value to the US, are the Saudis, Israelis, and the Kurds. Do you think that any of them will shed a tear over this? As for the treaty, the current US position is that it was ultimately self destructive. In short, Iran could remain in general compliance with the treaty so as to lift sanctions and improve their economy. Simultaneously, they committed minor breaches which allowed them to move forward slowly, knowing that the treaty was too valuable to most Western powers for them to scrap it outright. Thus they could improve their internal situation by delaying getting nukes by a decade. Therefore the treaty only pushed the issue of Iranian nuclear proliferation off onto our children.
On a side note, now would be a very good time for Iranian intelligence to find evidence of Western payments to the deceased's rivals. Nothing like convincing fundamentalists to carry out a purge of their own military.
J. wrote: "On a side note, now would be a very good time for Iranian intelligence to find evidence of Western payments to the deceased's rivals. Nothing like convincing fundamentalists to carry out a purge of their own military...."Chloe endorses your proposal.
Graeme wrote: "Chloe endorses your proposal. "Such is the story of my life. If an intelligent and beautiful woman likes my proposal it's because she is imaginary and/or OK with my willingness to cause murder(s).
As yet the foreign troops do not have to get - that was a parliamentary vote, but there is more to do before it would become law. However, from a strategic point of view, if the US is required to leave, it does remove the threat from a large land border for Iran.
Three pieces of information from al Jazeera:1 The Iraqi prime minister was quoted as saying that Qassem Soleimani had come to Baghdad International Airport and was driving into Baghdad to keep an appointment with him, to receive information and a proposal he had negotiated with the Saudis and some Gulf States to reduce tension between them and Iran, in other words some sort of start towards peace. You now have to choose between believing the Iraqi PM (and presumably there would be evidence of the booking of the meeting) and Trump's assertion that Qassem was planning the deaths of Americans. If the Iraqi PM is correct, Trump just destroyed some hope for peace, or at least negotiations for peace, which Nik has been insisting should take place.
2. Trump has said that if Iraq proceeds to request the US to leave Iraq, he will impose the most stringent sanctions on Iraq. I guess once you have finished blowing the place up, you might as well do what you can to stop them rebuilding.
3. Trump has stated that if Iran retaliates, the US will bomb Iran severely, including cultural sites. That is a threat to carry out a war crime under the Hague convention, to which the US is a signatory. It also shows what a Vandal Trump is at heart.
Ian wrote: "Three pieces of information from al Jazeera:1 The Iraqi prime minister was quoted as saying that Qassem Soleimani had come to Baghdad International Airport and was driving into Baghdad to keep an..."
Re your pieces of info from Al Jazeera:
1. Being a go -between regional countries, unfortunately doesn't prevent one from planning to kill Americans. Both assertions can be true. As far as we know Iran attacked Saudi's infrastructure to create "a need to reduce tensions" in the first place. Saudis and the US then chose not to retaliate.
2. Iraq can do whatever and Trump can demand costs recovered, if the US invested considerable amounts into infrastructure. I read also that many Sunni and Kurdish MPs weren't present at the voting and their position is yet to be heard: https://www.kurdistan24.net/en/news/8... Allowing for recent anti-Iran popular protests in Iraq, I'm not sure how many there would prefer to deal with Iran one on one.
3. Saying things and doing things are not the same. Trump is not necessarily Mr. Nice, especially towards those who act under the slogan "death to America" and threaten to kill Americans.
Nik,1. The point here is that there was a clear meeting with the head of the country where the killing took place. Perhaps this meeting would get nowhere - we have no idea - but how can you have peace negotiations when you have someone who kills one of the negotiators? You have always been arguing for negotiations. As for planning, (a) as I pointed out above, generals always plan for any eventuality but most plans are not acted on, and (b) the evidence is clear that this visit was not for killing Americans.
2. The US invested in infrastructure? Come on. It only invested in infrastructure to support itself after it bombed out all the pre-existing infrastructure. Added to which, given that Haliburton or someone similar built it, it was probably totally bloated in price.
3. Saying things and doing them are not the same, which is why negotiating with Trump is so difficult. However, that gave an insight into Trump's mind, and it s not pretty. To threaten in advance to carry out war crimes and act like ISIS shows he has a total disregard for normal behaviour.
As an aside, saying there are some Iraqi MPs who disagree with the majority is irrelevant, other than to show there is a democracy there, which is what the US is supposed to be supporting.
Sure a peaceful resolution achieved through negotiations is always a preferred option. soleimani was hardly a dove. I hope the great nation of Iran may have better candidates for peace negotiations :)Building military bases costs money and he mentioned the need to pay back the costs. But we are not there yet.
Trump doesn't have to be pretty, nor does his mind, and hardly for these qualities he was elected. His rhetoric doesn't contain death to Iran or anyone. I'm more afraid of khamenei's mind
Iraq did not ask the US to build bases - it built them when they invaded, and they are no use to Iraq. Of course, if Iraq has money in the US, Trump is as likely as not to freeze it as part of the sanctions and keep what he wants. He apparently thinks he can do more or less what he likes.His rhetoric does not say "Death to Iran", but he certainly says he is going to do a lot of damage to Iran, and for cultural sites, irreversible damage. Trump is far more dangerous because he has the means to do it.
Nobody has commented on my remarks on the photo above. What is significant about that is that in my opinion those soldiers will have a very hard time re-acclimatising themselves to life in the US when their tour is over. Slightly off-topic, but does Trump ever consider the damage he is doing to Americans? Even if we overlook the number of deaths invading Iran will cost, will the US improve its attitude to vets? From what I gather, vets' healthcare is somewhat limited by significant cost constraints, and maybe better care for them would be a better us f money than "punitive" bombing raids on Iran that will inevitably make the situation worse.
One of the bad outcomes of Bush's invasion is that the US thinks the locals will simply roll over and submit, because the Iraqi army did just that. That most of them subsequently took anti-US action that did hurt the US is overlooked.
The Iranian regime has been conducting 4th-gen operations with a number of state-sponsored proxy organisations for decades.Their leadership believed they were off-limits - now that belief will go into the dustbin of history.
It remains to be seen how the Iranian regime leadership cadre will respond.
Ian wrote: "Nobody has commented on my remarks on the photo above. What is significant about that is that in my opinion those soldiers will have a very hard time re-acclimatising themselves to life in the US when their tour is over. Slightly off-topic, but does Trump ever consider the damage he is doing to Americans? Even if we overlook the number of deaths invading Iran will cost, will the US improve its attitude to vets? From what I gather, vets' healthcare is somewhat limited by significant cost constraints, and maybe better care for them would be a better us f money than "punitive" bombing raids on Iran that will inevitably make the situation worse."I'm surprised. Earlier in this thread, you insinuated that the dead contractor had it coming. Now you seem greatly concerned for the well being of our troops.
I never said the dead contractor "had it coming". What I was at least trying to say was as a consequence of the US invasion and the incompetent administration when the US succeeded, the general atmosphere towards Americans became toxic. There were numerous contractors, such as those belonging to Blackwater, who fouled the nest further, with the overall result that contractors who went to Iraq om the circuit were carefully selected, and paid big money because of the risk of death. My point is, if you take big money because there is a risk of being killed, the whole point of risk and probability is some will be killed, and if it is you or someone you love, then that is what probability means. If you don't like it, don't take the money.Yes, I think it is absolutely terrible that your troops, on return, get a third-rate deal on health issues. Since they are your troops, I would also find it very depressing if you and other Americans did not feel more strongly about it than I do.
Ian wrote: "3. Trump has stated that if Iran retaliates, the US will bomb Iran severely, including cultural sites. That is a threat to carry out a war crime under the Hague convention, to which the US is a signatory. It also shows what a Vandal Trump is at heart...."It seems he's backing down from this threat as even his own allies are telling him it's a war crime. I would think this is an example of bluster as it makes no sense as a practical strategy. I mean, why would you waste the ordinance on a symbolic target when you could focus on suspected nuclear sites, or military bases, or other sites that might have a real affect on Iran's ability to wage war?
Heck, if it was me, I would try to find out where the Ayatollah is hiding out and direct the bombing his way. They don't really want war with the US because there is a very good chance we'll end their rule, and I would suspect staying alive and holding onto power is more important to them than pushing us over the precipice. Maybe a move that shows Iran's leadership that we will come after them and not the rest of the country will give them pause and rethink this whole antagonize the US strategy.
Your last sentence has strategic possibilities. I gather from our evening news there were more rocket attacks, but from the very limited news, not much effect. If so, it might have been the necessary symbolic attack, but until we get more information, speculating on what should happen next is merely inviting egg on face.
Hope there are no casualties from missiles reported fired by Iran at the US bases
After hearing live Trump's speech, the recent crisis seems to deescalate. "Mighty" Iran made a pretense (likely deliberately and wisely so) at punishing the US, causing very little damage, more for internal consumption and reputational gains, while the US, after showing Iran its place, returns to economic pressure. Hopefully, it won't be just a temporary relief, but a prospect for a comprehensive arrangement
Nik wrote: "Hopefully, it won't be just a temporary relief, but a prospect for a comprehensive arrangement "Indeed, hopefully, but that raises the question, what sort of arrangement would benefit ALL the players? Is it possible, or is the situation so entangled that it is not possible for one side or the other to give up on it. I suspect there will have to be dead rats to swallow but who does the swallowing, and how many?
Nik wrote: "After hearing live Trump's speech, the recent crisis seems to deescalate. "Mighty" Iran made a pretense (likely deliberately and wisely so) at punishing the US, causing very little damage, more for..."What he said in his speech was, what I think what we were all hoping for. We got Sulemani, Iran got to retaliate without costing any American lives, and Trump uses it to extend an olive branch while indicating economic retaliation through more sanctions...both countries got to thump their chests, and Trump gives Iran an out of sorts. Now it is entirely up to Iran whether or not this whole thing goes on, and the Democrats look like idiots for using this as another bash-Trump moment because now it looks like Trump was the one who knew what he was doing and they didn't.
Ian wrote: "Your last sentence has strategic possibilities. I gather from our evening news there were more rocket attacks, but from the very limited news, not much effect. If so, it might have been the necessa..."You know, I don't know how many here in the US actually believe the people of Iran and their leaders share the same views, especially when we see the anti government protests frequently on the news. Attacking any civilian target just for the heck of it is plain dumb because ideally, if we were to theoretically topple the government, we'd like to be able to hand it over to the people without them hating us like a chunk of Iraq did.
Replacing the Ayatollahs right now might be little better than dreaming because as far as I can see, while many people will be disgruntled, I don't see anyone there who is in a position to organise a change of government. Of course, the counter could be, if I could see him he would be dead or in prison, but that doesn't change the argument. I think the present government in Iran will be there for the next few years anyway.Trump has clearly gained over the Dems right now, but in politics there is a long time to go until November. As for Iran, it still remains to be seen what they will do. The obvious next move would be to meet with Trump, but I am not sure Khamanei actually travels, and I don't think sending a junior would achieve much. So we are back to, what should happen next? Who should give up what in return for what? What would be the basis of a negotiation?
Ian wrote: "...what sort of arrangement would benefit ALL the players?..."Iran wants sanctions removed to fully benefit from its oil, the US wants nuclear program checked, incl means of delivery, as well as spread of Iran's proxies into the region and threatening its allies and can provide non-aggression assurances. Not something either party can't give up without losing much. The barrier is more in a psychological sphere: mistrust, pride & other impractical bullshit on Iranian part, as the US repeatedly and consistently invite them to negotiate.
J.J. wrote: "What he said in his speech was, what I think what we were all hoping for. We got Sulemani, Iran got to retaliate without costing any American lives, and Trump uses it to extend an olive branch while indicating economic retaliation through more sanctions...both countries got to thump their chests, and Trump gives Iran an out of sorts. Now it is entirely up to Iran whether or not this whole thing goes on..."Pretty much agree with this summary.
Ian wrote: "The obvious next move would be to meet with Trump, but I am not sure Khamanei actually travels, and I don't think sending a junior would achieve much...."It was rumored Trump was ready to meet Rouhani on the sidelines of the UN assembly in autumn ..
Iran so far showed very calculated and thoroughly weighed approach: damaging the ships, but not sinking them, attacking Saudi oilfields, but causing no casualties, downing unmanned airplanes, up until they crossed the line of killing a US contractor. Even there they correctly calculated that the US response would divert dissatisfaction from Iran to the US, however they didn't expect the US going straight after their top commander and demonstrating they don't shun an all-out. They'd be double wise if they attempt to come out with a deal - which they can always sell as "victorious" to their people.
I disagree with Nik a little. The US, and most here, seem to think Iran has control of the proxies, but I am less convinced. Many of the militias will only accept Tehran as a source of weapons, etc, but they will not take orders in the way a disciplined army will. I suspect that Iran could not deliver on control of the proxies, which makes that part difficult. They may not have ordered the attack that killed the contractor. Also, it is more than pride that binds Iran to the proxies - Iran is the only opposition to wahabbi suppression of Shiites.Therein lies the problem that I think is approaching being insoluble. As long as the US is happy to put arms into the Saudis, and has no control on what happens to them, Iran has to offer similar, if much smaller, support to Shia. So I think the only solution here must at a very minimum get the US to limit and put controls over its arms sales, and I don't think Trump will do that because eit costs money.
Ian wrote: "I disagree with Nik a little. The US, and most here, seem to think Iran has control of the proxies, but I am less convinced. Many of the militias will only accept Tehran as a source of weapons, etc..."I'm also unsure how much control Tehran has over proxies forces. This is true for anyone attempting to use proxies and is just as applicable for the West.
You want discipline - you have to have an army.
Proxy forces are only in it while they see a conflict/alliance as advantageous to their own ends.
Looks like the Iranians accidentally shot down the Ukraine flight out of Tehran.REF: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/09/wo...
Graeme wrote: "Looks like the Iranians accidentally shot down the Ukraine flight out of Tehran.REF: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/09/wo..."
I suspect this is the likely explanation. The problem is, the US has announced that if Tehran does not pull back, it will hit very hard. Guy on missile defence sees a low flying jet coming straight at him - what does he do? He has a split second to get this right, and if he panics, he gets it wrong. You may recall a US destroyer did the same thing a few years ago, and it certainly had more time to get things right. The Iranian coordination was at fault, though, because ther should have been a message from air traffic control to the defence units telling them of the flight paths and times of authorised flights.
No matter who fights whom, Ukraine gets hit -:( So far, Canada, US & Britain allege it was a missile, while Iran denies..
And for those who believe in divine retribution, Ukraine was on the other side, mistakenly downing a plane 19 years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberia...
It is also interesting that the Western Powers are prepared to accept that such a missile strike was a mistake (which it almost certainly was - contrary to what some may think, I doubt anyone in the military or a militia would deliberately shoot down a passenger plane) but nobody was prepared to accept the same when the Malaysian plane was shot down over Eastern Ukraine.
It appears that Iran is actively destroying evidence at the crash site.https://amp.theguardian.com/world/202...
That would hardly be surprising, but I don't think it changes much. I think everyone accepts it was brought down by a missile, and they would be the only ones firing them.
Ian wrote: "That would hardly be surprising, but I don't think it changes much. I think everyone accepts it was brought down by a missile, and they would be the only ones firing them."It changes things for the families of the dead. If Iran had admitted to the mistake and been sympathetic to the victims, the families of the victims would have closure. Instead, the Islamic Republic is letting scavengers loot the site. If you were a parent of one of the dead, how deeply would the rage run through you? Would any politician be able to advocate for anything the least bit advantageous for Iran, without you showing up on TV, holding that photo and retelling that story? Iran is tying their own hands, out of spite.
Iran has now admitted the aircraft was shot down, they stated it was a mistake, and they offered their apologies and condolences to relations of the dead. Now what?My feeling is that Trump's rhetoric and bombast was at least a contributing factor. When you promise the full might of US technology to smash Iran, the guys operating the missiles are scared. I wonder how many here have a record of, by and large, making almost instantaneously correct decisions in less than half a second? My guess is not many.
Anyway, it will be interesting to see what happens next. This could b very important.
Ian, it's amazing, if not to say ridiculous, how you blame everything on the States. 'At least a contributing factor'? And at most: full responsibility?
Wonder what would you have written, if an American finger trembled while the missiles were on the flight, and pressed the button, razing Tehran before the rockets hit the ground? In militant rhetoric promising harsh reprisal and American bodies scattered around, Iran surpassed the States by far in intimidation.
Or being an underdog - everything's excusable for them and no matter what - it's because of the States?
I'm a former SAM controller in my early military career and had frequent involvement with Air Defence Systems throughout my time. When you are on full alert you have very little time to react. There are previous occurrences of mistakes happening, not least the USS Vincennes - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Ai...In that situation Iran's actions in the Straits of Hormuz had put all military ships on high alert and sadly the crew opened fire on a civilian airliner.
In this situation the US actions and threats led to Iranian missile firing and then subsequent alert of Iranian forces for Trump's threatened retaliation if Iran took action.
That is I believe what Ian means when he claims a contributing factor. If you threaten someone you can expect them to be prepared or over reactive.
Before everyone calls me an Iranian apologist this does not excuse the actions of the controllers. I have been in their position with the only difference between firing and not firing a a small depression of the firing button or pull of the trigger. Not firing is just as difficult a decision when it's your job to protect your colleagues, city, nation. It takes training and calm processes - something not notable in Iran's rhetoric and actions.
On the US side threatening to destroy a nation's culture is just as abhorrent whilst usual claims of destroying Iran. One might hope that calmer heads will prevail before more innocent people are killed whether it's passengers on airlines or drivers in motorcades.
1.) Iran allowed commercial operations to continue while they carried out an attack which they had every reason to believe would draw a massive military reprisal.2.) They did not shoot down an unidentified aircraft that wandered into their airspace. They shot down a 737 that was presumably squawking happy, while taking off from their commercial airport.
In the West, there would be inquests and prosecutions.
This bitter comment, attributed to a local dude in Iran, expressing his or her attitude to Iranian authorities: "They exercised a great care that missiles cause no harm to Americans, while shooting out of the sky a passenger plane full of Iranians" kinda resonated
Nik, if you read my previous posts on this you will note I stated that Iran should have given its air defence system full details of all comme3rcial flights.J., what do you mean by "squawking happy"? Exactly what do you think the SAM operator was doing? What do you think a US warplane would be doing if it were returning from a raid?
I never stated it was Trump's fault - but I stand by my statement that his bombast and murderous raid that Killed Soleimani would have made the SAM operator highly frightened. When Trump brags of the killing power of the US air force, that does not persuade the SAM operator to stop and think. Of course he was wrong, b ut I am far from convinced that many of those who want his blood would be that useful if the positions were changed. If you are ever in a position where the right decision has to be made almost instantaneously, not everybody gets it right. Evidence: look at the number of road crashes. In a war scenario, it is a lot harder.
Ian wrote: "...J., what do you mean by "squawking happy"? Exactly what do you think the SAM operator was doing? What do you think a US warplane would be doing if it were returning from a raid?..."Most aircraft carry a transponder which transmits a code to ID the aircraft, when it is painted by radar. Specific "squawk" codes are assigned by the tower as part of the taxi and take off instructions. After hand off, ATC uses these codes to keep track of the status of the aircraft in the area.
The friend or foe designator on SAMs uses these transponders, and a silhouette file, to figure out who needs killing. Military aircraft on missions set their transponders to only respond to friendly radar. If it gets painted by the enemy it will stay quiet, and the pilot or RIO/GIB will activate the ECM suite. In other words, the SAM operator should have been looking at a blip that squawked, "I'm a big happy 737, full of people, and I have permission from the ATC to be here." Plus if it was a fixed site, he saw the same aircraft, flying the same pattern, everyday.
J. wrote: "Ian wrote: "...J., what do you mean by "squawking happy"? Exactly what do you think the SAM operator was doing? What do you think a US warplane would be doing if it were returning from a raid?..."..."
Yes, but the question now is, did the Iranian operator have a receiver to pick up the squawk? If he knew it was a 737 he was a murderer, but did he? We should wait to find out, but it may be that we shall never know. Maybe I am naive, but I really believe he would never have fired that missile had he known.
The other point was whether Iran should have closed air space? It is arguable that once they carried out their act thy should have, but for how long? If they were going to wait until things settled, they could be waiting a long time. Did they close it for incoming flights? Was the scheduled flight flying on time? There is too much we don't know, but the simple fact is Iran shot down the aircraft, and either the operator was so stressed he made a mistake, or he did it on purpose. I would give him the benefit of the doubt because I can understand how such a mistake could arise.
The quote from the Iranian Air Defence Commander is that the operator believed it was a cruise missile which would have no IFF Squawk or perhaps his IFF receiver was not working. He also stated that he told the Iranian Government on Wednesday what had happened so some deliberate denials until yesterdayThe plane's transmitter should be checked by ATC during taxi, so more likely the SAM radar receiver did not pick it up, that's if that system has IFF capability as not all do. I've seen varying reports on which system was suspected.
As also explained the aircraft should have been on a regular flight path (may have been adjusted due to alert) which would be known to the Air Defence system; however, it is also possible that the SAM unit had been moved into position recently and was not familiar with the patterns or that operator was not familiar or he (probably) was a hot head who forgot the basics because he was scared.
It's fairly simple here. Neutralizing soleimani was a tactical move to restore deterrence and punish him for returning to kill Americans. It is reported that Trump had rejected fairly recently this measure before approving it later after the attack of the embassy and maybe some intel about further steps.
The strategy remains the same: Trump imposed the sanctions to bring Iran back into negotiations, while Iran gradually lessened its commitment to Obama's deal and used disruption and military pressure to cause the US to relieve the sanctions and/or have a position of strength in the negotiations. Neither side wants an all-out.
Ian wrote: "... The problem then is, how, because there is no sign that the current administration wants anything but total surrender."
Total surrender would be giving khamenei 72 hours to announce elections and fly to Pyongyand for asylum :) But that's not on the agenda at all. I rather expect they'd want to verify no military grade nukes are ever (not only 10 years) produced - something that they supposedly gave Obama, limitation on medium-long range missile, as means of delivery - a common practice btw superpowers at least, and rollback on supporting of slew of proxies regarded by the West as terrorist organizations. Not a surrender at all, taking into account how much the lifting of sanctions can do for Iran & its regime.
Trump withdrew from quite a few agreements and managed to close new ones with Mexico & Canada, on the way to closing a deal with Chinese. He means biz, not war, and would want to have an international success towards the elections. Iran attempted to wait him out and/or put military pressure. Maybe a good time to revisit this strategy?