What’s happening in Iran?

WOW_WOW. We kicked the FID attempt from the territories of Georgia. As well as the large-scaled UW attempt from Syria... We banned the attempt to launch a US naval base at Crimea. By taking Crimea back to it's propper place...:) You guys have really powerful and professional Armed Forces which I respect. But don't be too cocky, that thing killed many glorious warriors.

Sasha, remind us about the Wagner folks that tried to cross the Euphrates near Deir ez Zor. It’s sort of germane to cautioning USMIL about cockiness.

edit: regarding Ivan, I honestly think it’s from our education system highlighted Ivan Grozny and it sounded terrible so it stuck. Russians = Ivan cuz it’s the only Russian associated name we remember.
 
WOW_WOW. We kicked the FID attempt from the territories of Georgia. As well as the large-scaled UW attempt from Syria... We banned the attempt to launch a US naval base at Crimea. By taking Crimea back to it's propper place...:) You guys have really powerful and professional Armed Forces which I respect. But don't be too cocky, that thing killed many glorious warriors.

mod edit
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sasha, remind us about the Wagner folks that tried to cross the Euphrates near Deir ez Zor. It’s sort of germane to cautioning USMIL about cockiness.

edit: regarding Ivan, I honestly think it’s from our education system highlighted Ivan Grozny and it sounded terrible so it stuck. Russians = Ivan cuz it’s the only Russian associated name we remember.
Lyosha:) Alexey. Yes, and it happened due to the same reason totally. We were cocky...
 
Big argument I'm seeing now is on authorities.

Some people are suggesting that POTUS is in violation of the NDAA SEC. 1229 "PROHIBITION OF UNAUTHORIZED MILITARY FORCE IN OR AGAINST IRAN."

Although if you take a look at SEC. 1229(c)(2)


I think the exceptions consistent with the War Power Resolutions sec (2)(c)(2) &(3).



Statutory authorization in this sense is both the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs.

You can see how the WH has interpreted the AUMFs in a congressional correspondence here in that they don't view the AUMF as authorizing military force against Iran, except as may be necessary to defend the U.S. or partner forces engaged in counterterrorism operations or operations to establish a stable, democratic Iraq.

I'd probably suggest that as an attempt for barracks lawyer. How it squares with the NDAA, and whether or not it was prudent even if technically or tenuously authorized, are different questions.
Good post.

Had no idea this was in the NDAA. This had me going back and skimming through all the latest. It's interesting to say the least. Would love to know the details behind how that kind of shit gets into these things.

That said, Soleimani led the Quds Force - a U.S. declared terrorist organization and was acting on it's behalf. As such, no foul. Play on.
 
Not meaning to butt in. I thought the CIA hated Trump, I figured it was still full of Obama acolytes and progressive holdovers. Has Haspel cleaned up the organization?

Some people I know on the left who don't believe in the deep state see it as Trump getting the CIA to direct it as a new regime change, since the CIA does have that track record.

Some people I know on the right have justified as "deep state real, but the Patriots in SAD/PAD are doing what they can to protect America and help Trump".
It's interesting, to say the least.


That said, Soleimani led the Quds Force - a U.S. declared terrorist organization and was acting on it's behalf. As such, no foul. Play on.

That's where it gets sort of dicey though from a geopolitical standpoint, doesn't it?

Soleimani was both part of a designated terrorist organization and a foreign government official of a country we aren't (ostensibly) at war with.
The arguement that we essentially assassinated what amounts to the VP of Iran isn't really off base.
 
That's where it gets sort of dicey though from a geopolitical standpoint, doesn't it?

Soleimani was both part of a designated terrorist organization and a foreign government official of a country we aren't (ostensibly) at war with.
The arguement that we essentially assassinated what amounts to the VP of Iran isn't really off base.
Bad on them for conflating the two.

Double bad on them if they didn't understand this type of stuff is what brought us to Iraq.

Play stupid games, when stupid prizes.
 
Bad on them for conflating the two.

Double bad on them if they didn't understand this type of stuff is what brought us to Iraq.

Play stupid games, when stupid prizes.

It's a good thing the US doesn't have a similar agency which supports groups in foreign countries and is considered a terrorist organization by some of our rivals.

Oh wait, we do.

We're going to have to wait and see what happens, but I think making this out to be something as simple as "US kills terrorist" like so many media sources/politicians are is drastically disregarding the complexity of the situation.
Soleimani wasn't unequivocally loved in Iran, but he had a broad enough base of support that we've martyred him, and I won't be surprised if the regime isn't able to use that to grow nationalistic support and suppress the current embers of revolution if we don't have a well though out follow up.

ETA: I don't want that first paragraph to seem like I'm attacking our own intelligence agencies; merely highlighting the fact that we kinda conflate the two things as well, depending on how people view the meddling.
 
People conflating him as the VP is not really good use of the Org Chart. It's more like whacking a service chief. They have a President and even Vice President whom are elected. It's like a constitutional monarchy, but not. The president does all the domestic executive shit and the Supreme Leader does all the foreign policy shit...and we just whacked one of his Field Marshalls.

But last I checked we don't have 4 stars leading our own version of the Muj anywhere.

Our next move better be sinking every boat they got. This could get hairy, but we can exact a lot of damage on their earmarking capabilities without committing a lot of manpower.
 
Back
Top