Will Trump encourage the revival of Iran?

  • UAE says it will show restraint after tanker attacks, Iran's behavior a concern

    DUBAI (Reuters) - The United Arab Emirates will show restraint after attacks on oil tankers off its coast and is committed to de-escalation during a “difficult situation” caused by Iranian behavior in the region, a senior official said on Wednesday.

    Trump deployed a aircraft carrier to the gulf last week. The Americans are pulling their people out of neighbouring countries to Iran, especially Iraq and yesterday the Iranians attacked a UAE tanker.


    I disagreed with Trump about tearing up the nuclear deal with Iran. Keeping Iran and its nuclear ambitions under control should've been top priority, but there's no denying that Iranian backed parties spread death and chaos across the whole region and this needs to be stood up against.


    Are we nearing the time when the American's patience with Iran finally wears out and Trump orders an attack against the regime?

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • I have no doubt in my mind that Trump is just itching to have a war/military campaign during his tenure at the Whitehouse, he is no doubt one of the politician types who believe that initiating a war/military campaign during their time in office is the sign of a great statesman.

    Young boys in the park jumpers for goalpost that's what footballs all about isn't it.

  • The sad truth is that Europe hasn't the strength to protect itself from Islam terrorism and the even sadder truth is that it lacks the courage and sense of reality to stand alongside the US. Britain's diplomacy is just a displacement activity for timidity and procrastination. The rest of Europe, thanks to the EU, the time, money, willpower, firepower, cohesion, confidence and breadth of vision beyond their new backyard (EU) to recognise a bigger global picture than just anti-Americanism. It isn't useful to try and analyse and focus on countries or tribes within the Middle East or Islam generally who happen to be “the threat of the month”. Amidst Islam’s internal deadly squabbles the West remains the common enemy, the infidels, the countries that one day will fall to the ascendance of Islam.


    Deep down America knows that the world is now too small, the military capabilities more far reaching and within striking distance, while terrorism or guerrilla warfare a terrible uncontrollable equaliser, and world disorder worse than it has ever been. So America can't be indefinitely insular and disengage from these threats, in spite of being unsupported, reviled or snubbed by Europe. America knows that in the long run the East-West schism and the Islamic ascendancy could overthrow what passes today for global equilibrium.


    The very idea held in Europe of trying to keep Islam at bay by expecting America to keep shovelling billion into Iran in the hope that Iran won't build up their nuclear capabilities is politically moronic and financially hypocritical.


    In the context of the above I think a preoccupation with the personality of Donald Trump is Lilliputianal.

  • I have no doubt in my mind that Trump is just itching to have a war/military campaign during his tenure at the Whitehouse, he is no doubt one of the politician types who believe that initiating a war/military campaign during their time in office is the sign of a great statesman.

    He's always said the opposite Ron, so we'll see. But Trump has uber hawk John Bolton in his team, who is very keen to blow the hell out of Iran.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • I agree with most of that, but Iran was keeping its side of the nuclear deal.


    Iran is spreading death and chaos across the region through its proxies, so is no innocent player here, but what is more important, dealing with Iran's militias who threaten Israel or keeping their nuclear ambitions under control? I say nuclear comes first, always.


    Interestingly, Andrew Neil made a comment on This Week and said he was in the region last week and said that the tankers that were attacked by Iran did not contain any fuel and this was Iran essentially sending a message that they have the capabilities to disrupt the world's oil supply if they choose to do so. A very dangerous way to send a message...


    I think Iran needs to be stood up to, so I agree with Trump in that sense, but not at the expense of the nuclear deal which now seems dead in the water.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • Can't argue with that.:)


    I think Trump will order an attack. He's in with the Israelis and they want Iran to be punished for all the problems they cause Israel.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • Iran lacking cash to fund terror groups, domestic cyber agency short of funds, declassified intel shows

    Newly declassified intelligence shows that Palestinian terror group Hamas had to introduce “austerity plans” due to lack of funding from the Iranian regime.

    State Department officials say the intelligence that was shared exclusively with Fox News reveals Tehran’s diminishing resources and influence within the region, prompting cutbacks among groups backed by the regime.

    This comes amid a tough sanctions regime introduced by the U.S., which sent the country into a recession, with inflation topping 50 percent.

    This very interesting report from Fox News on Friday shows the Iranian regime is teething on the edge and is perhaps why Trump tore up the nuclear deal. Not because he didn't think the Iranians were keeping to it, but he wanted an excuse to impose more sanctions on them and squeeze them into suffocation.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • Looks like Iran might be cranking things up further....X/


    The Americans have a carrier in the gulf and flew a B-52 over the area yesterday.


    Do we reckon Trump is about to attack them?

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • Do we reckon Trump is about to attack them?

    I doubt a mass attack but something more surgical is a possibility. So far evidence of Iran's involvement is circumstantial, if something firm is exposed then a retalliatory strike is definitely on the cards.

    History is much like an Endless Waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever.

    4312-gwban-gif

    If my post is in this colour  it is moderation. Take note.

  • The Iranians themselves rescued the tanker's crew, so you maybe right Heero. Why would Iran attack the tankers, only to then rescue the people on them? That doesn't make sense.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • Gulf of Oman tanker attacks: US says video shows Iran removing mine

    The US military has released a video which it says shows Iranian special forces removing an unexploded mine from the side of an oil tanker damaged in an attack in the Gulf of Oman on Thursday.

    The US also released images of the Japanese tanker apparently showing the unexploded mine before it was removed.

    A Norwegian tanker in the gulf also reported being hit by three blasts.

    Now we know why the Iranians rescues the crews, to mask what they were really doing which was trying to remove their unexploded mines from the ships.


    The Iranian regime has just slit its own throat. Gulf War 3 here we go...X/

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • Iran nuclear deal: Enriched uranium limit will be breached on 27 June

    Iran has announced it will breach on 27 June the limit on its stockpile of enriched uranium that was set under a 2015 nuclear deal with world powers.

    Its atomic energy agency said Iran had quadrupled its production of the material, which is used to make reactor fuel and potentially nuclear weapons.

    But it added there was "still time" for European countries to act by protecting Iran from reinstated US sanctions.

    When Trump ripped up the deal, it was inevitable this would be Iran's response. What now? A full blown war?

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • I can't see that anyone can object to Iran raising its nuclear provisions now that the 2015 deal is cancelled. Nor can I see why anyone would object to the US cancelling that deal when Iran had breached it anyway. Nor can I see why the European countries would wish to act to protect Iran from US sanctions, which would only enable, if not actively encourage Iran to continue its nuclear build-up.


    I understand that the Strait of Homuz is a marine passageway which by International Law can be used by all. I also understand that US sanctions forbid its use by various countries' oil tankers to export Iran oil. I can understand why Iran would take belligerent and sabotaging action if other countries are complying with US sanctions and using the Straits of Homuz to facilitate exporting of oil from any or all Middle East Countries with the exception of Iran.


    What I cannot understand is why the US, with all its drones, satellites and military hardware is unable to supply incontestable evidence that Iran is performing these attacks on oil tankers in the Strait of Homuz. The last time I remember the US having incontestable evidence to justify going to war was that of weapons of mass destruction existing in Iraq. So I can understand that European scepticism might be rational rather than wishful thinking to keep out of a fight with Iran.


    The Middle East is a crazy place and it's not beyond possibility that the sabotaging of oil tankers was by of some faction of mad buggers or ruthless schemers in the Middle East who are enemies of Iran and seek to goad the US into a war that obliterates Iran. Who might carry out or support such deadly mischief? Saudi? Kuwait? Isis (in all its variations)? Israel? America? (No, that last suggestion is not a typing error).

  • What I cannot understand is why the US, with all its drones, satellites and military hardware is unable to supply incontestable evidence that Iran is performing these attacks on oil tankers in the Strait of Homuz. The last time I remember the US having incontestable evidence to justify going to war was that of weapons of mass destruction existing in Iraq. So I can understand that European scepticism might be rational rather than wishful thinking to keep out of a fight with Iran.

    Supposedly, their spy satellites can see a mouse running around on the ground, but if America releases these kind of images, it gives away their full capabilities which they might need to take full advantage of if they were to get into conflict with a more equal player like China or Russia. That said, the evidence they did produce I thought was good.

    Who might carry out or support such deadly mischief? Saudi? Kuwait? Isis (in all its variations)? Israel? America? (No, that last suggestion is not a typing error).


    And yes, as for the Colin Powell evidence to the UN about WMD, we all know where that came from... so the point on accuracy of so-called evidence is a point made very often these days, with good reason.


    The Middle East is a crazy place and it's not beyond possibility that the sabotaging of oil tankers was by of some faction of mad buggers or ruthless schemers in the Middle East who are enemies of Iran and seek to goad the US into a war that obliterates Iran. Who might carry out or support such deadly mischief? Saudi? Kuwait? Isis (in all its variations)? Israel? America? (No, that last suggestion is not a typing error).

    Donald Rumsfield??:P If he's still breathing. He and his neo-con colleagues did want to "reshape" the region.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • It seems like an attack on Iran is almost inevitable now following this and the attacks on the tankers.


    Should the UK support the Americans in yet another regime change or should we stay out of it?

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • Stay out of it. There is a reason Iran is goading Trump and they are giving him the perfect excuse to place them out of the ballpark and aid the opposition there to gain strength. At all costs do not interfere this time.

    There, in a mauve light of drifted lupins,

    They hung in the cupped hands of mountains

    Made of tingling atoms.- Ted Hughes


  • I agree LW and it looks like Trump wants to stay out of it too, if he can:


    US-Iran: Trump 'pulls back after approving strikes' after drone downing

    President Donald Trump approved retaliatory military strikes against Iran on Thursday before changing his mind, US media report.

    The New York Times, citing senior White House officials, says strikes were planned against a "handful" of targets.

    They say the operation was allegedly under way "in its early stages" when Mr Trump stood the US military down. The White House has so far made no comment.

    The American industrial complex likes wars though, it's what keeps them in business.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • Trump is playing quite a gung-ho game there. I think he used his experience of boardroom tactics and as politics has become just a corporate battle ground, he is possibly the only person right now tough enough and savvy enough to know how to psych his opponents. The Democrats are just not that smart or tough. Iran would likely eat them alive.

    There, in a mauve light of drifted lupins,

    They hung in the cupped hands of mountains

    Made of tingling atoms.- Ted Hughes


  • All Trump needs to do is keep the sanctions on the country and they'll go bust and the regime will implode. No need for any wars. Looks like the Americans have given a response to the shooting of their drone:


    US 'launched cyber-attack on Iran weapons systems'

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • 1 Supposedly, their spy satellites can see a mouse running around on the ground, but if America releases these kind of images, it gives away their full capabilities which they might need to take full advantage of if they were to get into conflict with a more equal player like China or Russia. That said, the evidence they did produce I thought was good.


    2 And yes, as for the Colin Powell evidence to the UN about WMD, we all know where that came from... so the point on accuracy of so-called evidence is a point made very often these days, with good reason.


    3 Donald Rumsfield??:P If he's still breathing. He and his neo-con colleagues did want to "reshape" the region.

    1 Useful to know that and nice point about keeping schtum on what US spy sats can detect.


    2 Not sure of the logic here. What's the point of the world knowing that America has the accuracy if the world doesn't know if America also has the honesty? And there's a catch 22 here: if the world already knows that America's spy sats can see a mouse on the ground, then what secret is being given away by showing a photo of that mouse on the ground or, in this case, a photo identifying the Iran soldier trying to remove an unexploded Iranian missile from the oil tanker's hull. You supply the possible answer in your point 3


    3 The answer to the suspicion voiced by my question 2 is your point 3, which is that America would like to "reshape" the region. John Bolton does seem a shoe-in for Rumsfeld when it comes to hawkishness. So much so that it is almost comical in the way it plays in the media. Yet I wonder whether there is a good cop-bad cop strategy being played here by Trump and Bolton. If so, I suspect the Iranians see through it. But in a way, the bluff-threat is still there with Trump himself confessing he was of two minds and with Bolton champing at the bit, so that the threat looms even larger. I suspect the Iranian leaders are too subtle to fall for that for that game. But they might have to - what other choice does Iran have if Europe complies with the sanctions? I think we're now into negotiating a face-saving solution. Iran has a classy heritage and it would be a shame if they can't try harder to recapture their greatness. The true pigs are in Saudi Arabia.

  • I just just say right out that I do like John Bolton and he is a big friend and ally to this country and I do not put him in the same basket as that loon Rumsfield.


    If you've every read or seen any of the interviews Bolton has done over the decades, he's not a war mongering loon, but does see the world for how it is and is quite prepared to take on whatever challenge presents itself. As America is the predominate military power on this planet by far, his confidence stems from the capabilities and capacity that he knows his country can deploy.


    More to say later.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • War of words is hotting up:


    Donald Trump threatened to “obliterate” Iran in a furious tirade after the country’s president called him “mentally retarded”.

    The US President declared that any attack by Iran on “anything American” would be met with “overwhelming force” in a series of tweets.

    History is much like an Endless Waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever.

    4312-gwban-gif

    If my post is in this colour  it is moderation. Take note.

  • The Supreme Leader of Iran is not happy that he is personally being targetted now by sanctions.


    I don't like Trump and that will never change, but very targetted measures against these vile dictators like this is the way to go. As soon as they start losing a few billion here and there, it gets their attention and that's what Trump wants.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • I find these theocracies with their robed and turbaned dictators who persistently call for hatred against infidels and war incredibly tiresome. Iran needs to become a free republic.

    There, in a mauve light of drifted lupins,

    They hung in the cupped hands of mountains

    Made of tingling atoms.- Ted Hughes


  • Would be a lot cheaper too, as the money would start to flow to some of Iran's people rather than this fanatical regime.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member to leave a comment.