Explosion rocks arms depot north of Iraq's Baghdad

The failure of Iran to react to repeated Israeli bombing of pro Iranian targets in Syria has made the Israelis slowly move the fight to Iraq. I hope those in Iran who felt that its best ignoring Israel's actions begin to rethink their posture.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019...depot-north-iraq-baghdad-190820171200992.html

https://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Are-airstrikes-on-Shiite-militias-in-Iraq-new-front-599189
ARE AIRSTRIKES ON SHI’ITE MILITIAS IN IRAQ NEW FRONT?
In the recent alleged airstrikes the militias have been silent on blaming Israel; the US-led coalition has said in the past they were not responsible.

 

It Was !

​

 

I have no doubt Israel is behind these attacks. The issue is how to react to them? The argument in Iran has been that the Israelis, anxious that even the Trump administration (despite Bolton) isn't eager to start a war with Iran, is trying to create conditions that would cause such a war. For this reason, they basically have argued that Israeli actions should be ignored, as responding to them would basically bring about the result the Israelis are looking for. The other side of the argument, however, is more convincing to me. Namely that:
1) the Israelis have concluded that Iran would NOT respond, which is why they are engaging in these actions, and intend to use Iran's lack of response as evidence to use to push the US to launch its aerial vandalism against Iran, as the main constraint felt by those in the US who want to attack Iran is the argument that Iran would retaliate and then the whole thing would turn into a big mess.
2) Regardless of Israeli's intentions, the fact is that the lack of response is emboldening them and eventually this will cause them to act in a way that would indeed force Iran to respond anyway. Much better to respond early.

I hope Iran responds to this latest Israel attack very forcefully. Based on what I am reading, that doesn't seem to be the case right now, as technically the responsibility to defend against these Israeli attacks rests with the Iraqi government and that is giving opponents of any retaliation an out. But my view on all this should be clear by now: Iran should take everything to the point where either the US/Israeli side blinks, or there is a war. The current circumstances are not tenable and waiting for things to get worse for Iran before Iran acts isn't wise.

 

Why don't we not have a war?

 

Israel is given total right to bomb and kill anyone she wants and is continually doing it. It is never mentioned in our papers....but if anyone responds that is seen as reason for Israel to do everything she can to 'defend' herself from this 'attack' and in the case of Israel that means with US support as needed.

 

You understand the nature of the beast we are talking about better than practically anyone else here. Unfortunately, the geopolitical chessboard has been set in ways that make a difficult for Iran to give Israel a proper response. Hezbollah is under a lot of domestic pressure not to do anything that would plunge Lebanon and its other communities in a war which would be devastating to them, but which Hezbollah itself is well positioned to fight. In Iraq, the government there (while relying on the support of pro Iranian groups to be in power) is ultimately led at the top by figures who are close to the US and follow its mandate to a large extent. Iran, itself, in the meantime has to play a delicate balancing act: one where it doesn't show the kind of weakness against the Americans that would invite them to act more adventurously than they have, while dealing with domestic pressures which wouldn't understand getting involved in a war unless Iran itself is directly threatened, all the while trying (foolishly, IMO) to maintain at least rhetorical support for an ill-conceived "nuclear deal" that is a dead letter for everyone now but which has one provision that is potentially worthwhile (see report below) if indeed it was to be implemented (as opposed to every other part which hasn't). But, alas, even that part -- the lifting of the UN arms embargo on Iran, which under the JCPOA, is set to occur in a year or so -- is not something Iran can count on as America is working feverishly to prevent it. While the Russian and Chinese could (in theory) be beneficiaries of large arms deals with Iran if that embargo is finally lifted, both have often found themselves enticed by other lucrative deals which don't carry the same headaches. The Chinese, for instance are quite busy helping Iran's arch nemesis, the Saudis, develop a ballistic missile capability and both Russia and China have seen some Saudi largess (as well as Israeli projects) dangled there way to keep them from being too interested in what Iran might be able to offer.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-embargo-on-iran-lifted-in-2020-idUSKCN1VA253
Pompeo warns of 'new turmoil' if U.N. arms embargo on Iran lifted in 2020

 

The Iranian government is busy with survival.
Citizens on the verge of rebellion, the economy collapsing, no human rights, no women's rights, those who dare say something against the Ayatollahs have been
arrested and locked in a Revolutionary Guards prison.
The Persian people must rise up and overthrow this evil tyrannical regime.
Inshallhh

 

It has been the hottest summer ever.
No wonder those arm depos catch fire and explodes. All it takes is a piece of grass or a cigarret. No need for fancy air strikes.

 

After the initial shock of the renewed sanctions wore off quickly last year, this is the "rebellion" Iranians have so far been busy engaging in:
https://www.rferl.org/a/iran-dogs-killing-strays/30119463.html
https://www.rferl.org/a/iran-dog-killings-protests/30119479.html

 

I agree with you but the wrinkle is that the Americans will not be reporting it as a dove-ish response by Iran because the word they want to get out is that Iran is a war-mongering monster. To show the diplomatic side to Iran's government does not support the overall, American-concocted image of Iran.

Can there be any stronger evidence that Israel is non-complicit?

 

The "image makers" in the west will make of Iran's image as they wish -- and as they have done for so many years. Nothing Iran can do to change that either. The small minority of more educated Americans who might know the real truth are voices that will be easily ignored. Otherwise, if Iran's image was truly based on its actions, you couldn't possibly find a nation (Iran) engage in such a grotesque act of appeasement as is ultimately the "nuclear deal" and yet find even that deal be painted as some "favor" to Iran! You couldn't find a situation where Iran, expecting an imminent ruling at the Iran-US Claims Tribunal at the Hague in its favor for around 4 times the sum of the settlement reached (after that same tribunal had ruled billions of dollars in numerous cases in favor of the Americans, which Iran had paid each time), see a portion of its money (around 1.5 billlion US) that the Americans were unlawfully holding for decades be painted as some "ransom" when that fraction was finally delivered to Iran in cash (in cash only because no banks could wire that sum to Iran even with a US presidential order due to the many sanctions that existed against Iran even then). You wouldn't see some of the Iranian money in Iranian bank accounts outside be temporarily released back to Iran, the actual sum closer to 50B US, be painted as Iran being given 150 Billion USD by Obama and the nuclear deal. You wouldn't see a nation that had agreed, and then carried out, the dismantling of so much of its nuclear infrastructure and 98% of its enriched uranium (all of which had come to Iran at great financial and other costs, totaling hundreds of billions of USD), as part of the deal, be somehow represented as having gotten away with anything because of a nuclear deal which was a fraud whose promises were never fulfilled --- not even when the US hadn't yet officially withdrawn from it! Nor could you have possibly seen a government in Iran, getting elected by millions who foolishly imagined that appeasement would bring Iran out of its Israeli-neocon orchestrated isolation, be painted as the kind of government it has been painted!

The image of Iran will be whatever they wish it to be. The important thing is for Iran to accept reality and not pretend it can ignore and wish it away. If the government in Iran is truly unable or unwilling to live up to its pretensions and slogans, it needs to go. Otherwise, if it has any honor or commitment to the only things that give it any legitimacy, namely its slogans of independence and standing up to foreign bullies, then it is past time it acted without worrying about what anyone else thinks. Otherwise, the only thing I worry about in any war is the damage to some of Iran's historic heritage and architecture and the like. Those have a longevity far greater than human life. Human life, on the other hand, ends at some point and that life is not worth living unless it comes with the kind of hope and liberty that Americans are trying to outlaw. If war is the only thing that can stop what is going around Iran right now, so be it as far as I am concerned. Better now when Iran still has a few cards left in its hands than tomorrow when even those cards are taken away.

 

Maybe you have something there after all! Why didn't Iran think of it! It is quite a hot summer in Israel too. Maybe a few things start blowing up there too! After all, before some other such mysterious explosions in the Persian Gulf, the Saudis and the Emiratis were in the front lines of the forces pushing the US to take hostile measures against Iran. Both those, who were always the "weak links" in the chain of forces behind America's policies on Iran, have now more or less dropped out of the fight! At least for now, they have each made it clear that they have had enough of this hot summer!

 

Yes, I understand.

It is a difficult situation - "pretensions and slogans" "slogans of independence and standing up to foreign bullies". They can be used against you and in the hands of the deft most certainly are used against you.

Iran is fostering powerful friends in the world and they too need to be considered. Hitler, they say, was not pleased when Japan attacked Pearl Harbour because Germany wasn't yet ready to take on the US. Russia, Turkey, China, and perhaps (in a tiny capacity) North Korea are looking on and you know what they are thinking.

Well yes, we have seen what the U.S. did to Irak's historical heritage, in fact, the historical heritage of mankind .... they utterly destroyed it. Purposely and now gone forever. That is a fair summation of America's concern. They have no heritage of their own and they don't give a stuff for anyone else's. I wonder if it isn't envy of the cultural "flagpole" around which citizens rally against those bent on destroying it.

That is the dilemma that every nation facing armed aggression has contemplated since the beginning of time. Under the same circumstances, the U.S. would have made a pre-emptive strike long ago but of course, they hold most of the cards and they've got at least a dozen aces & Jokers up their sleeves & cuffs. So although one can agree with you one can hope that Iran's allies are fully "on board" beforehand, the importance of which Japan (it seems) had failed to realize.

 

Oh hell, Nuke the btch (Iran), and be done with it.

 

I appreciate and understand your argument, but where we differ is that I don't think Iran has any allies that it can rely on (besides, possibly, the groups it funds in the region). Not Russia, which is busy making deals at Iran's expense with the Israelis (and the Saudis too!) and who is typically (not always) acting more as a rival than any sort of an ally in Syria. Not China, which has been acting similarly and is also busy making its own deals with the Saudis and Israelis, while it is ultimately mostly focused on how it can use the threat of getting closer to Iran to win concessions (or avoid American ones) in its negotiations with them. Not Turkey, who I think should be an ally of Iran, but who (besides competing ambitions) is ultimately too vulnerable to American pressures as its economy is heavily dependent on the kind of strings the globalized international economic system uses to chain its members to it. The best Iran can hope from them is to not actively help the Americans.

Incidentally, on the Russians, I should mention this. I hold no brief for Saddam, who was ultimately a lackey who grew too big for his leash and was taken down. But while Saddam cursed the "Persians" even as he was being taken to the gallows as much as the Americans that had put him that position, he should have also cursed the Russians too! Saddam's war machine was destroyed and dismantled in 1991 when he negotiated a deal with the Russians on the eve of the ground offensive in that war. The Russians convinced him to pull out of Kuwait, telling him he had withstood the American air assault and could declare victory doing so. So as the Americans were beginning their ground offensive, Saddam's troops were pulling out of Kuwait and finding their exit routes trapped, with the US going on a turkey shoot massacring the Iraqi forces on the so-called highway of death.

And even in Syria, where the Russians eventually came to actually be helpful once Iran had done much of the heavy lifting and helped Assad survive the early onslaught were everyone was singing to the same tune ("Assad must go"), the Russians were mostly busy sitting in meetings and conferences to discuss the post Assad Syria! Aside from the occasional use of their veto at the UN (even then, not as forcefully as in a case where you know your ally has been intentionally plunged into a civil war by those who are implicitly and explicitly helping the most extremist jihadist groups that have given Islam the kind of reputation the Islamophobes love), without Iran standing up for Assad, the Russians would have been as helpful as they were to their other friend in the region, namely Qaddafi, who they also sat and watch be massacred and taken out.

I wouldn't trust the Russians as far as I could throw them. The best I can say of them is that unlike the Americans, they aren't presently on any mission to conquer the world and are mostly worried about their own backyard. Otherwise, of course, if the Russians truly wanted to assume a position that is commensurate with all the nukes and missiles in their arsenal of weapons, they have right at their grasp an alliance that for centuries various Russian Czars and then communist leaders would have only been able to dream about! The "warm water" ports of the Persian Gulf can easily accommodate an alliance with a Russia with backbone, but even under Putin (who certainly has more backbone than some of the other post communist leaders in Russia), the Russians aren't showing themselves nearly as resolute as many of their supporters (or detractors) here imagine.

 

If that is your true assessment then I do not understand why you have made the statement below .....

From what I can gather by your paragraph (up top) Iran has no cards to play.

 

Nuke Iran, and quit wasting Humanity’s time.

 

Iran definitely has some cards. Iran can set the region ablaze, choke off traffic through not just the Strait of Hormuz, but even hit traffic heading towards the Suez. It can take out much of the American military war machine in the region. It can destroy the Saudi and other GCC oil facilities and ports. It can launch massive cyber attacks. It can even hit America, using sea launched missiles from submarines that can get closer to the US coast. In short, Iran can threaten its own version of 'vandalism'. Sure, we can't match the US in that regard, but such vandalism will come at great cost to the US and the economic system that underpins American hegemony. If the US ever believes that Iran is truly willing to bite the bullet and take the risk, it will either have to 'nuke Iran' as is being suggested here. Or back down, as the other alternatives are simply too costly for it. And I am hoping that the US is not crazy enough to actually want to nuke a country (with all of its unpredictable repercussions) just to advance an agenda that is neither necessary to its security nor justified by any sane calculation (except the calculation of the neocons and Israelis who imagine they can win get away with this).

 

Give it up. Nuke that btch.

 

While you are busy trolling, and have repeated this enough to make yourself clear, let me use this opportunity to say this: those in Iran who were complicit in depriving Iran of the 'surge capacity' it already enjoyed when it entered into the nuclear fraud known as the JCPOA, are ultimately going to have to answer you on this threat. Otherwise, I certainly would have had a good answer for this one too.

 

It’s not trolling, it’s sound advice. It’s like arguing over a pimple on your ass, pop the fkr.

 

I have to assume you are suffering from some malady whose false prescription for you is to beat your chest while aligning yourself with the biggest bullies you can find. People like you are the first to drop out of the fight when someone actually comes looking their way. But they are really brave when they feel they are allied with the more powerful. No wonder you don't mind Britain being treated like a lap dog: you find your security attaching yourself to a master you feel can protect you.

People with character will stand for their principles ultimately, regardless of any bully. And in doing so, whether they fail or succeed in the immediate task at hand, their story inspires other people of character to do the same when their turn comes. In the process, we often do find bullies tamed, with the unintended consequence of setting lap dogs such as yourself free too.

 

Nah. It’s just, Iran? Worth all those words? Why? It’s a political system created by delusions of a psychotic. You know, one doesn’t discuss ideas with a monster, you kill it before it eats you.

 

But they must do it THEMSELVES. The reason we are in this situation goes back to our supporting the Shah in 1979 and the reason we were supporting him then goes back to our overthrowing Mossa Degh in 1954. The Iranians are actually one of the more modern and freedom loving peoples in Southwest Asia BUT they are VERY resentful of Western powers interfering with how they run their country. They have LOONG memories in regard to that.

 

Or maybe you are just ignorant.

An excellent book, written a couple decades back, about the Iranian revolution which would enlighten you a bit (if you were the kind to appreciate any enlightenment in the first place) would be the following. It certainly has a lot of words! You can judge the quality of the book by the rave reviews.

But it is the first customer review on amazon.uk which said it best when it comes to what you need to learn and hear:
Brilliantly researched, erudite and detailed