US threaten Iran with pre-emptive strike

thanks donald, very cool!

Isis is a fascist death cult that sought to genocide Shias. The group was an existential threat to the region. Soleimani is viewed as a superhero for leading the fight against the Middle East version of Nazis. That’s who Trump assassinated. https://t.co/AEy2lsvj7z

— Rania Khalek (@RaniaKhalek) January 5, 2020

off the charts bs propaganda going on there love the "thank you soleimani for keeping us safe" comments in the thread

also wtf

Yep, but the US will go back to funding them.

― ShariVari, Sunday, January 5, 2020 1:39 PM (nineteen minutes ago)

That was a joke

However, I wouldn’t be surprised if Qatar and KSA upped their covert support if there are no US soldiers in the firing line.

i see no reason to believe that ISIS is going to mount a comeback bc soleimani is dead and i think you can file predictions like that along with ones saying WW3 is imminent - i won't speculate about the psychological conditions that convince otherwise intelligent ppl to make predictions that are prima facie overstated + unlikely. re: divided iran suddenly being united no - the conditions that make iran weak (many minority populations bristling under regime rule, very weak economy, authoritarian autocracy and historical urban liberal population) continue to persist even if the regime does get a minor popularity bump. more importantly the regime continues to be willing to kill hundreds of protestors to keep rule - the true source of their strength, not overwhelming mandate or approval.

Twitterverse needs to remind Trump at every opportunity that Soleimani's funeral was better attended than his inauguration.

"the conditions that make iran weak (many minority populations bristling under regime rule, very weak economy, authoritarian autocracy and historical urban liberal population) continue to persist"

You forgot sanctions.

I assumed that was covered by 'very weak economy'.

Assume nothing is my one new year's resolution.

"Rice serves on the boards of several organizations, including the advisory board of Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University,[81] the board of directors of the Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (Bloomberg BNA),[82] and the board of directors of Partnership for Public Service.[83] She is a past member of the boards of directors of the National Democratic Institute, the U.S. Fund for UNICEF,[28] the Atlantic Council[84] and Internews Network.[85][86] She is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Aspen Strategy Group.[87][88]"

ok so she shouldn't be talking weird confused nonsense then (also NYT's editors shd pick up and challenge the nonsense ffs)

(giving her the benefit of the doubt as an obama-era diplomat i was wondering if she meant that the defeat of isis was a consequence of iran being brought somewhat more onside by the jcpoa, allowing for better co-operation between everyone whose interests it was in for it to be defeated -- if so she needed to make it a LOT clearer) (lol i went thru to the NYT to read the whole opinion, which was a waste of time obviously)

susan rice deserves doubt, and not the benefit kind

These Media Posts will serve as notification to the United States Congress that should Iran strike any U.S. person or target, the United States will quickly & fully strike back, & perhaps in a disproportionate manner. Such legal notice is not required, but is given nevertheless!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 5, 2020

Just reminding us that he can still legally say things.

Abandoning nuclear deal, Iran will no longer comply with enrichment restrictionshttps://t.co/edi10x2Zxi

— Rudaw English (@RudawEnglish) January 5, 2020

Related -

There seems to be some confusion over Iran's announcement re: the JCPOA.

An Iranian official has confirmed to me that they're not leaving the nuclear deal. With this latest move, there no longer will be a limit on the # of centrifuges. IAEA cooperation & access will continue.

— Suzanne DiMaggio (@suzannedimaggio) January 5, 2020

I reckon, over the coming weeks, we'll be seeing a lot of the Iranian Foreign Minister, Peter Gabriel.

https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/11/25/1385403959776/Mohammad-Javad-Zarif-006.jpg?width=300&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=a50494dba284cf5f1b7602252de07956

big time!

SLEDGE

On the illegal detention of 60 people at the US/Canada border https://t.co/skMKsi6fxV

— Autonomy Tucson (@autonomytucson) January 5, 2020

if only you Americans were so slow with your unrestricted assassination programs on foreign soil as you were with your peter gabriel japes.. ho ho ho!

umm... how did border patrol know their ancestry if most are us citizens?? 🤔

if I may then what is the appropriate term to identify a UK resident

More like a Shit 'un amirite

THREAD: Over the past few days, I've spoken extensively with career U.S. government officials as they've worked around the clock to try and mitigate the damage from Trump's ineptitude on Iran. With their permission, I'm sharing a small taste from our lengthy conversations. Enjoy.

— Reza Marashi (@rezamarashi) January 6, 2020

lol we're all gonna die

keep it to the uk thread bizarro

You’d think a country as big and diverse as the US would have no trouble understanding the logic of external attacks on a country often bringing internal enemies together, but only the US is real according to headbangers.

"When I used your points about Soleimani's murder being a catalyst for Iranians to rally around the flag, they said that was 'Obama apologist bullshit,' and the Soviet Union forced people against their will into public displays of support. So apparently Iran is a superpower now."

— Reza Marashi (@rezamarashi) January 6, 2020

everyone dies but we're not all going to die because some career U.S. government officials are freaked out about Iran

most telling tweet tho:

"They've been pushing to kill Soleimani for years, and they finally baited Trump into it."

i did wonder about that tweet xp bc you hardly need to be a superpower to have superpower like control over your populace - you just need to be an autocracy.

xpost Deep State!

I don't know, that display looks a lot more like opposition demos in Venezuela, rather than supporter dems. And Venezuela is an autocracy as well.

I don't know if Iran forces people to march (using either state security or just normal social pressure) and I don't know if I should be impressed by the video showing lots of people marching. Iran is a huge country. I just disagree that you need to be a superpower like the USSR to force people to march in solidarity. Iran has enough tight control over segments of its society that if you told me that they were using coercive methods to drum up fake support I wouldn't feel confident arguing otherwise. I certainly don't think the idea that Soleimani assassination has united the disparate elements of Iranian society is a credible one if you know even the smallest amount about those divisions - and I'm also a little confused by people critical of the move using "well now look you've gone and unified the Iranians" as an argument for why. It just seems like a very silly take.

I don't think it's that silly if you know just the tiniest amount about the relations between Iran and Iraq the last, say forty years. And what ISIS thought should be done to Shia muslims.

It's really kinda crazy just how many Iranians has been killed by the US and US-backed allies. It's not really unreasonable for middle / upper class Iranians to be concerned about what would happen if Iran was considered weak.

which bits of iranian society are okay with soleimani being executed by a reaper drone do you reckon, mordy?

xp I should've been clearer that I think the silly bit is that people who were in favor of the JCPOA and bringing Iran into the community of nations, etc, arguing that this was a tactically bad move because it united the Iranians. It's not consistent with their preferred methodological of engagement. It makes sense on one level as a critique of Trump according to his own goals (you say you want to undermine the regime but this will only strengthen it) but it doesn't make sense according to their own goals which don't include fostering unrest and generating a revolution.

I suspect anyone who views Soleimani as a representative of a violent regime that murders protestors, or even more accurately as a symbol of the regime's willingness to spend treasure and blood on foreign adventures in Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, might be less than distraught over his passing. tbc this is a country where internet and communications are still being manipulated by the gov in many places to crackdown on protestors and had to kill 200 people only a few weeks ago to tamp down protests. If you think all those protestors are suddenly pro-Iranian because the guy who represented some of the worst excesses of the regime was killed by the US... I mean maybe! I'm just a little cynical of twitter authorities claiming otherwise based on a funeral procession.

It's a bit tautological, though. Sure, people who think what Soleimani and the rest has been up to in the region is just 'foreign adventures' and 'worst excesses' won't be that sad about his death. But Iranians kinda have a reason to be against Sunni extremism, whether from ISIS or Saudi Arabia, so I'm not really sure that's the main complaint against the regime.

Past protests have been about foreign adventurism and military ambitions as well as economic + political/religious concerns but in fact they are all related. If you're spending money on wars abroad, you're not spending that money on citizens (we know all about this in the US) - moreover, Iran has suffered from sanctions in part because of blowback from support for aggressive anti-Western and anti-Saudi + anti-Israeli proxies. Even fear over Sunni radicalism is not unrelated to questions of religious fundamentalism at home as well - so I think this is a bit more complex than "well we're afraid of ISIS therefore Soleimani is a hero."

Sure, if you think the Iranian regime is to blame for everything, then killing Soleimani was no big deal. I don't think most Iranians feel that way, though. It's also not the truth, btw.

Like, the sanctions was Trump getting mad because he shat himself and wanted to blame Obama. Who in Iran blames the regime for that?

Congratulations, Mr. President, with one reckless move, you have ceded Iraq to Iran, put our soldiers and our allies at greater risk, given ISIS a reprieve, united a divided Iran which will now revive its nuclear weapons program. Well done, Sir.

If in the extremely unlikely event Trump were to read this, I am pretty sure he would only see

Congratulations, Mr. President, blah blah blah. Well done, Sir.

I disagree about the reason for the sanctions. I mean yes there is a psychological component here involving Trump and Obama but there is more going on - in exchange for the JCPOA Obama essentially gave Iran free reign in places like Syria where Soleimani was active and helped keep the Assad regime in power, and Iran continued its sponsorship of groups like Hezbollah and the Houthis despite the nuclear deal. Iranian behavior abroad was supposed to be tackled after the JCPOA but it became clear that the Obama administration basically spent its will + ability to influence Iran on those issues by agreeing to the JCPOA. There is logic to this decision - Obama decided (and at least in part because of Bibi & MBS overselling the threat) that it was worth trading Iran this permissiveness in exchange for stopping the nuclear program which was seen as a greater threat. The irony (or possible flaw in this analysis) is that the problems Iran posed to the region were not nuclear before the deal and continued to not be nuclear after the deal. They were able to wrought all kinds of destruction through more conventional means. From this perspective the purpose of the sanctions was to address these pressing issues by hamstringing the regime's ability to exercise such a free hand.

Come on

Like clearly that's not what Trump thought when he wrote that tweet

+ the idea that Iran should stop doing what the Sauds are doing because of the nuclear deal has never been realistic.

If this is gonna be the Freddie B show, I will ask the usher to throw me out

So, if Trump ordered the drone assassination while Soleimani was visiting Mesopotamia for US-initiated talks to deescalate, and just 50 miles from where Husayn ibn Ali was betrayed and martyred near Karbala in 680, am I wrong to think that this all plays into the martyrdom cult 200 million Shia Muslims fervently believe in?

I mean, if you think such a significant swatch of people is an amorphous blob that all thinks the exact same, sure.

I don't think of Shia as undifferentiated any more than I think that Protestant Christians are. But Iran has been a fairly stalwart ally of Shia groups throughout the Mideast, and I'm not sure I've seen any practicing Shia critics of Iran.

As an interested observer of religion I'm more curious how this will play out historically. I wish I knew more about Shia than the their origin story in the early caliphates, and that there's a whole martyrdom cult with self flagellation sect that reminds me only of Filipino Catholicism among modern Christian sects.

My guess (for the time capsule) is that Soleimani will increasingly be treated as a saint/wali. As stupid as past American foreign policy mistakes in the Mid-east have been, this one has the potential to be irreversible due to its cultural import, and effectively permanent.

I mean, possibly? It’s just I’ve been thinking to myself of fellow citizens I wouldn’t have a problem with Donald Trump reducing to a greasy spot on a whim outside an airport, and I have to tell you, even the worst of us? Not America’s to kill. That’s the principle, not sectarianism.

*i did hesitate over this, but not for very long