Jump to content

Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran.

Anastasis

By Anastasis
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Lagunamadre
Lagunamadre

My ex-wife is cheating on me!!! 

wildcat09
wildcat09

You vote for the white versions of those people.

Monster
Monster

Assuming we don't flip flop presidents until everyone riots, and Biden gets the office, how long do you think it'll be before we go to war with Iran? The loathing of Trump is well documented on t

Posted Images

bolverk

bolverk 29414

Posted
Posted

I'm not going to pull a bunch of quotes out of it, but if any of you are interesting in understanding Bolton's binary thinking, the New Yorker had an excellent but very long piece about him last month. It's well worth the time.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/05/06/john-bolton-on-the-warpath

Here's just one passage though that I think might be the most timely and relevant description of the situation (apologies for its length - it's a damned long article):

Quote

 

People who have worked with Bolton say that he is focussed less on North Korea than on Iran, where his vigilance can sometimes seem out of proportion to the apparent threat. “There are only two countries that can really threaten the United States—China and Russia,” the former senior national-security official said. “But Bolton has had this anal focus on Iran for twenty years. I don’t know why.” When I asked Bolton about it, he said, “I care about Iran because I care about nuclear weapons.”

On February 11th, Bolton released a video on Twitter, in which he addressed Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran. In a professorial tone, he noted that it was the fortieth anniversary of the Iranian Revolution and enumerated what he saw as its results: repression at home, terrorism abroad, a dismal economy, and the enmity of the world. “So, Ayatollah,” he said, “for all your boasts, for all your threats to the life of the American President, you are responsible for terrorizing your own people and terrorizing the world as a whole. I don’t think you’ll have many more anniversaries to enjoy.”

The Trump Administration has persistently spoken out against Iran, but it has also made scattershot efforts at diplomacy. A senior Iranian official told me that, in 2017, Trump sent eight requests to meet with the Iranian President, Hassan Rouhani. “Trump invited President Rouhani to dinner!” the official told me. Rouhani evidently declined, but, a few weeks before Bolton posted his video on Twitter, there was another apparent attempt. Admiral Ali Shamkhani, the secretary of Iran’s national-security council, told an Iranian news agency that a U.S. official had approached him, during a visit to Afghanistan, and “asked to hold talks.” Shamkhani didn’t say whether Iran had responded, but a Middle Eastern businessman told me that, around the same time, an Iranian official had asked him to pass a message to the White House.

Mattis served as a brake on confrontation. In late 2017, Iraq was preparing for parliamentary elections, and McMaster grew concerned about Iran’s efforts to influence the outcome. He asked the Pentagon to provide options to counter the Iranian campaign. As the elections approached, one of McMaster’s aides told me, a Pentagon official came to the White House. “I asked him what happened to the options,” the former aide said. “He told me, ‘We resisted those.’ You could feel everyone in the meeting go, ‘Excuse me?’ ”

In December, Mattis resigned, leaving Bolton as the most persistent voice on Iran. The Administration’s policy has gone well beyond withdrawing from the Obama-era agreement that limited the Iranian nuclear-weapons program: it has also put in place exceptionally aggressive economic sanctions and financial controls, along with a policy of drastically reducing oil exports. The new campaign also aims to force Iran to curtail its aggressive behavior in the region, which includes bankrolling Hezbollah and sending fighters to prop up Assad.

During the Obama Administration, the sanctions on Iran were designed to force the regime to agree to limit its nuclear program. Under Trump, the goal is apparently to make the Iranian people so miserable that they will overthrow the government. “After all the experience we’ve had with regime change, I think we’re out of that business,” a senior member of Trump’s foreign-policy team told me. “We can collapse their economy—it’s not that difficult. But it’s up to the Iranian people.”

Bolton suggested that the policy was working. “The opposition to the regime has widened,” he said. “There have been riots. You don’t always read about this in the Western press, because they don’t let reporters see it.” Although the United States has withdrawn from the nuclear accord, the Iranian regime continues to adhere to it. Funding to Hezbollah, Iran’s primary foreign proxy, has been cut substantially. Nervousness about the future has frozen foreign investment. With inflation at nearly fifty per cent, and with one in four young Iranians out of work, the economy is under extreme stress. Iranian oil exports, which rose to 2.8 million barrels a day after sanctions were lifted, have been severely diminished, at times to less than a million barrels a day. It’s possible that the Iranian government will be ousted. But allies worry that the White House is squeezing the regime so hard that it might force a confrontation, perhaps a military one. “They’re not giving the Iranians any room,” the Western diplomat told me. “It’s implosion or surrender.”

If the Iranian regime decides to stop adhering to the nuclear accords, the senior member of Trump’s foreign-policy team told me, “the military option comes back on the table.” In November, as Iran prepared to test-fire a medium-range ballistic missile, White House officials fiercely debated whether to destroy the missile on the launchpad. (“Anything that happens, they lurch to kinetic options,” the adviser on Middle East issues said, ruefully.) Eventually, they decided against it. The source familiar with Bolton’s thinking declined to discuss specifics, but said, “You can imagine where he came down.”

Sadjadpour, the Iran expert, believes that the tensions inside the White House over Iran have not been resolved. “Trump doesn’t want to go to war—he doesn’t want to intervene anywhere,” he told me. Trump’s real goal, he suggested, was the pageantry of public negotiations. The main obstacle to direct talks is Khamenei, he said; having the United States as an enemy has been a linchpin of the regime’s self-justification. “Bolton’s worst nightmare is that Khamenei will write Trump a letter saying, ‘Why don’t we get together and talk?’ Because he knows that Trump would jump at that opportunity.”

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Telegraph_it

Telegraph_it 3354

Posted
Posted

Trump needs Bolton so adversarial countries have to consider we might do something. It amazes me that a number of posters haven’t figured out the trump playbook yet and lose there minds with the next crisis. I’d suggest logging off for a bit and go enjoy a hobby. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18662

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Telegraph_it said:

Trump needs Bolton so adversarial countries have to consider we might do something. It amazes me that a number of posters haven’t figured out the trump playbook yet and lose there minds with the next crisis. I’d suggest logging off for a bit and go enjoy a hobby. 

This doesn't work when they know the decider is weak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bruh Man

Bruh Man 3160

Posted
Posted

Elijah J. Magnier is well-sourced in Tehran. He had an interesting on the "cancelled attack". TIFWIW

Quote

Iran is pushing US President Donald Trump to the edge of the abyss, raising the level of tensions to new heights in the Middle East. After the sabotage of four tankers at al-Fujairah and the attack on the Aramco pipeline a month ago, and last week’s attack on two tankers in the Gulf of Oman, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC – now categorized by the USA as a terrorist body) yesterday shot down a US Navy drone, sending two clear messages. The first message is that Iran is ready for an all-out war, no matter what the consequences. The second message is that Iran is aware that the US President has cornered himself; the embarrassing attack came a week after Trump launched his electoral campaign.

According to well-informed sources, Iran rejected a proposal by US intelligence – made via a third party – that Trump be allowed to bomb one, two or three clear objectives, to be chosen by Iran, so that both countries could appear to come out as winners and Trump could save face. Iran categorically rejected the offer and sent its reply: even an attack against an empty sandy beach in Iran would trigger a missile launch against US objectives in the Gulf.

Iran is not inclined to help Trump come down from the tree he has climbed and would rather keep him confused and cornered. Furthermore, Iran would love to see Trump fail to win a second term, and will do everything to help oust him from the White House at the end of his mandate in 2020.

Moreover, Iran has established a joint operations room to inform all its allies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Afghanistan of every step it is adopting in confronting the US in case of all-out war in the Middle East. Iran’s allies have increased their level of readiness and alert to the highest level; they will participate in the war from the moment it begins if necessary. According to sources, Iran’s allies will not hesitate to open fire against an already agreed on bank of objectives in a perfectly organised, orchestrated, synchronised and graduated response, anticipating a war that may last many months.

Sources confirmed that, in case of war, Iran aims to stop the flow of oil from the Middle East completely, not by targeting tankers but by hitting the sources of oil in every single Middle Eastern country, whether these countries are considered allies or enemies. The objective will be to cease all oil exports from the Middle East to the rest of the world.

Trump is trying to find a way out and calm tensions, stopping short of doing anything to ease the sanctions on Iran. It was the US President who triggered the current crisis by revoking the JCPOA nuclear deal at Benjamin Netanyahu’s request. Trump wants to see Iran suffer from the severe US sanctions for the duration of his presidential campaign. This status-quo is congenial to Trump but catastrophic for Iran.This is why Iran refused to go along with a scenario which would make Trump look like a winner by bombing locations in Iran, claiming he had destroyed the exact locations from which the missile was fired against his drone.

Trump wants to win the war of appearances, but is facing an Iranian regime as unaccommodating to him as he has been to Iran. Trump seems oblivious of the fact that economic embargo is an act of war; by unilaterally blocking the export of Iranian oil and so crippling Iran’s economy, Trump has already declared war on Iran.

In response to the latest incidents, the US sent only limited reinforcements to the Middle East last week. According to sources, these forces were composed of several drone teams and a strike force capable of intervening in case of future attacks on oil tankers. The downing of the drone was Iran’s message to the US that nothing is off limits: all gloves are off. The Iranian message, made explicit already last year by Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and other political and military officials, is clear: if we can’t export our oil, nobody can. But this message seems not to have reached Trump’s ears.

The US media claim that President Trump approved military strikes against Iran but revoked the order hours later. What actually happened – according to the source – is the following:

Iran was informed in advance by a third party of a proposal by US intelligence that Iran selects one or two or three empty locations for the US to bomb. This was intended to make everyone happy by saving face for all concerned. Iran refused to play along with this charade, which was ultimately designed to save face for Trump. Nonetheless, Iran was reassured by this offer that the US has no intention of going to war and is trying to find a way out of its quandary; Trump is looking for a way out. 

Iran also does not want war, but neither will it accept the continued embargo of its oil exports. As long as Iran is blocked from selling its oil, Iran and Trump will continue their danse macabre on the edge of the abyss.

Iran’s economy is under attack by Trump’s embargo on Iranian oil exports. Trump refuses to lift the embargo and wants to negotiate first. Trump, unlike Israel and the hawks in his administration, is trying to avoid a shooting war. Netanyahu has reiterated his desire for war with Iran—a war that the US will fight–and is meeting with his Arab allies to help bring it about. As Ha’aretz described Netanyahu’s Iran dilemma last month, the goal is to get Trump to go to war without putting Israel on the front line.

It is Trump’s desire to avoid war that makes him susceptible to Iranian pressure. Trump will be in an even more critical position domestically if Iranian missiles target Middle Eastern oil. Iran is offering only two choices to the US President: end the embargo on Iranian oil or go to war. Sources acknowledge that the future is uncertain and potentially very dangerous for the region and the global economy, since Iran will definitely not stop in its plans to halt all oil tanker navigation if its own oil cannot be exported. 

Iran and the US are already at war economically. A way out of this crisis would be for Trump to close his eyes while allowing Europe to work to lift the economic pressure on Iran, without sanctioning the European companies concerned. Otherwise, there may be no escape from a regional and global catastrophe.
 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RPM

RPM 26235

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Bruh Man said:

A way out of this crisis would be for Trump to close his eyes while allowing Europe to work to lift the economic pressure on Iran, without sanctioning the European companies concerned. Otherwise, there may be no escape from a regional and global catastrophe.
 

He's made lots of friends in Europe.

giphy.gif

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
scottsins

scottsins 1953

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Telegraph_it said:

Trump needs Bolton so adversarial countries have to consider we might do something. It amazes me that a number of posters haven’t figured out the trump playbook yet and lose there minds with the next crisis. I’d suggest logging off for a bit and go enjoy a hobby. 

* their

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104678

Posted
Posted
Elijah J. Magnier is well-sourced in Tehran. He had an interesting on the "cancelled attack". TIFWIW
Iran is pushing US President Donald Trump to the edge of the abyss, raising the level of tensions to new heights in the Middle East. After the sabotage of four tankers at al-Fujairah and the attack on the Aramco pipeline a month ago, and last week’s attack on two tankers in the Gulf of Oman, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC – now categorized by the USA as a terrorist body) yesterday shot down a US Navy drone, sending two clear messages. The first message is that Iran is ready for an all-out war, no matter what the consequences. The second message is that Iran is aware that the US President has cornered himself; the embarrassing attack came a week after Trump launched his electoral campaign.
According to well-informed sources, Iran rejected a proposal by US intelligence – made via a third party – that Trump be allowed to bomb one, two or three clear objectives, to be chosen by Iran, so that both countries could appear to come out as winners and Trump could save face. Iran categorically rejected the offer and sent its reply: even an attack against an empty sandy beach in Iran would trigger a missile launch against US objectives in the Gulf.
Iran is not inclined to help Trump come down from the tree he has climbed and would rather keep him confused and cornered. Furthermore, Iran would love to see Trump fail to win a second term, and will do everything to help oust him from the White House at the end of his mandate in 2020.
Moreover, Iran has established a joint operations room to inform all its allies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Afghanistan of every step it is adopting in confronting the US in case of all-out war in the Middle East. Iran’s allies have increased their level of readiness and alert to the highest level; they will participate in the war from the moment it begins if necessary. According to sources, Iran’s allies will not hesitate to open fire against an already agreed on bank of objectives in a perfectly organised, orchestrated, synchronised and graduated response, anticipating a war that may last many months.
Sources confirmed that, in case of war, Iran aims to stop the flow of oil from the Middle East completely, not by targeting tankers but by hitting the sources of oil in every single Middle Eastern country, whether these countries are considered allies or enemies. The objective will be to cease all oil exports from the Middle East to the rest of the world.
Trump is trying to find a way out and calm tensions, stopping short of doing anything to ease the sanctions on Iran. It was the US President who triggered the current crisis by revoking the JCPOA nuclear deal at Benjamin Netanyahu’s request. Trump wants to see Iran suffer from the severe US sanctions for the duration of his presidential campaign. This status-quo is congenial to Trump but catastrophic for Iran.This is why Iran refused to go along with a scenario which would make Trump look like a winner by bombing locations in Iran, claiming he had destroyed the exact locations from which the missile was fired against his drone.
Trump wants to win the war of appearances, but is facing an Iranian regime as unaccommodating to him as he has been to Iran. Trump seems oblivious of the fact that economic embargo is an act of war; by unilaterally blocking the export of Iranian oil and so crippling Iran’s economy, Trump has already declared war on Iran.
In response to the latest incidents, the US sent only limited reinforcements to the Middle East last week. According to sources, these forces were composed of several drone teams and a strike force capable of intervening in case of future attacks on oil tankers. The downing of the drone was Iran’s message to the US that nothing is off limits: all gloves are off. The Iranian message, made explicit already last year by Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and other political and military officials, is clear: if we can’t export our oil, nobody can. But this message seems not to have reached Trump’s ears.
The US media claim that President Trump approved military strikes against Iran but revoked the order hours later. What actually happened – according to the source – is the following:
Iran was informed in advance by a third party of a proposal by US intelligence that Iran selects one or two or three empty locations for the US to bomb. This was intended to make everyone happy by saving face for all concerned. Iran refused to play along with this charade, which was ultimately designed to save face for Trump. Nonetheless, Iran was reassured by this offer that the US has no intention of going to war and is trying to find a way out of its quandary; Trump is looking for a way out. 
Iran also does not want war, but neither will it accept the continued embargo of its oil exports. As long as Iran is blocked from selling its oil, Iran and Trump will continue their danse macabre on the edge of the abyss.
Iran’s economy is under attack by Trump’s embargo on Iranian oil exports. Trump refuses to lift the embargo and wants to negotiate first. Trump, unlike Israel and the hawks in his administration, is trying to avoid a shooting war. Netanyahu has reiterated his desire for war with Iran—a war that the US will fight–and is meeting with his Arab allies to help bring it about. As Ha’aretz described Netanyahu’s Iran dilemma last month, the goal is to get Trump to go to war without putting Israel on the front line.
It is Trump’s desire to avoid war that makes him susceptible to Iranian pressure. Trump will be in an even more critical position domestically if Iranian missiles target Middle Eastern oil. Iran is offering only two choices to the US President: end the embargo on Iranian oil or go to war. Sources acknowledge that the future is uncertain and potentially very dangerous for the region and the global economy, since Iran will definitely not stop in its plans to halt all oil tanker navigation if its own oil cannot be exported. 
Iran and the US are already at war economically. A way out of this crisis would be for Trump to close his eyes while allowing Europe to work to lift the economic pressure on Iran, without sanctioning the European companies concerned. Otherwise, there may be no escape from a regional and global catastrophe.
 
 

Yeah....play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28718

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Telegraph_it said:

Trump needs Bolton so adversarial countries have to consider we might do something. It amazes me that a number of posters haven’t figured out the trump playbook yet and lose there minds with the next crisis. I’d suggest logging off for a bit and go enjoy a hobby. 

Trump is an incompetent dumbfuck. Everyone in the world outside of his idiot supporters in the U.S. have figured out his playbook. He's batting 0.000 on the world stage. Our allies hate him, our enemies love him. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cacti

Cacti 191

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Furthermore, Iran...will do everything to help oust him from the White House at the end of his mandate in 2020. 

So we have at least two foreign nations interfering with our elections: Russia and Iran. And they are not aligned. Russia wants Trump to win, while Iran wants him out. Does Surly have enough outrage to go around?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23364

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Cacti said:

So we have at least two foreign nations interfering with our elections: Russia and Iran. And they are not aligned. Russia wants Trump to win, while Iran wants him out. Does Surly have enough outrage to go around?

Hard to believe any hostile foreign power doesn’t want Trump re-elected.  He’s a complete failure on every level.  

It’s pretty clear the party of Trump makes the United States weaker and the other party makes America stronger on the world stage. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
retread

retread 2951

Posted
Posted

He's a world class bitch. Imagine asking your enemies if you can bomb them. The best deals.

From above

Quote

According to well-informed sources, Iran rejected a proposal by US intelligence – made via a third party – that Trump be allowed to bomb one, two or three clear objectives, to be chosen by Iran, so that both countries could appear to come out as winners and Trump could save face. Iran categorically rejected the offer and sent its reply: even an attack against an empty sandy beach in Iran would trigger a missile launch against US objectives in the Gulf.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23398

Posted
  • Author
Posted
17 minutes ago, retread said:

He's a world class bitch. Imagine asking your enemies if you can bomb them. The best deals.

 From above

Zero chance this doesn't also get corroborated by US sources in the IC if it is true.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
retread

retread 2951

Posted
Posted (edited)

This is fine.

Quote

WASHINGTON — He heard from his generals and his diplomats. Lawmakers weighed in and so did his advisers. But among the voices that rang powerfully for President Trump was that of one of his favorite Fox News hosts: Tucker Carlson.

While national security advisers were urging a military strike against Iran, Mr. Carlson in recent days had told Mr. Trump that responding to Tehran’s provocations with force was crazy. The hawks did not have the president’s best interests at heart, he said. And if Mr. Trump got into a war with Iran, he could kiss his chances of re-election goodbye.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/21/us/politics/trump-iran-strike.html

Quote

Urged to Launch an Attack, Trump Listened to the Skeptics Who Said It Would Be a Costly Mistake

By Peter Baker, Maggie Haberman and Thomas Gibbons-Neff
June 21, 2019

WASHINGTON — He heard from his generals and his diplomats. Lawmakers weighed in and so did his advisers. But among the voices that rang powerfully for President Trump was that of one of his favorite Fox News hosts: Tucker Carlson.

While national security advisers were urging a military strike against Iran, Mr. Carlson in recent days had told Mr. Trump that responding to Tehran’s provocations with force was crazy. The hawks did not have the president’s best interests at heart, he said. And if Mr. Trump got into a war with Iran, he could kiss his chances of re-election goodbye.

However much weight that advice may or may not have had, the sentiments certainly reinforced the doubts that Mr. Trump himself harbored as he navigated his way through one of the most consequential foreign policy decisions of his presidency. By his own account, the president called off the “cocked & loaded” strike on Thursday night with only 10 minutes to spare to avoid the estimated deaths of as many as 150 people.

The concerns that Mr. Trump heard from Mr. Carlson reflected that part of the presidential id that has always hesitated at pulling the trigger. Belligerent and confrontational as he is in his public persona, Mr. Trump has at times pulled back from the use of force, convinced that America has wasted too many lives and too much money in pointless Middle East wars and wary of repeating what he considers the mistakes of his predecessors.

As Mr. Carlson and other skeptics have argued, a strike against Iran could easily spiral into a full-fledged war without easy victory. That, Mr. Trump was told, was everything he ran against. And so the president struggled into the early evening, committed to taking action to demonstrate resolve right up until the moment he decided against it and called off the warplanes and missile launchers.

“To those who want to criticize the president, I would say they ought to be thankful they’re not the ones having to make that decision,” said Senator Jim Risch, Republican of Idaho and the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, who was among the lawmakers at the White House that day. “I watched him really agonize over this.”

In recent days, Tucker Carlson, the Fox News host, had told Mr. Trump that responding to Tehran’s provocations with force was crazy.

The full story of how Mr. Trump set in motion an attack on another country and then canceled it remained to some extent shrouded in mystery even to some of those involved, according to interviews with administration officials, military officers and lawmakers, many of whom asked not to be named. On the day after the aborted strike, multiple, seemingly conflicting accounts emerged and the White House made no effort to reconcile them, choosing to stay silent about the deliberations. A spokeswoman for Fox News declined to comment.

One thing made clear yet again, however, was just how different Mr. Trump’s decision-making process is from those of other presidents, even on the weightiest of issues to confront a commander in chief.

Meetings and memos aside, he trusts his instincts more than institutions, reaches out to unconventional sources of guidance and is willing to defy a roomful of advisers. He has not had a Senate-confirmed defense secretary for nearly six months, and the acting secretary resigned  this week. And those advisers he does have were busy trying to outmaneuver each other.

Mr. Trump had been resisting a military response to repeated provocations by Iran for weeks by the time he woke up on Thursday morning to discover that an American spy plane had been shot down. Now led by John R. Bolton, his hawkish national security adviser, the president was faced with the choice of how to respond.

On Thursday morning, only hours after the drone was shot down, Mr. Bolton met for breakfast at the White House at 7 a.m. with Patrick Shanahan, the acting defense secretary who had announced his resignation just three days earlier, as well as with Mark T. Esper, the Army secretary set to replace Mr. Shanahan, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The group discussed the drone episode and agreed on a possible military response to recommend to the president, according to an administration official. At 11 a.m., the same group along with other national security officials met with Mr. Trump to brief him on options for a strike on Iran. According to one administration official, the potential casualties of such an attack were discussed at that meeting.

But as usual, Mr. Trump did not rely exclusively on his official team. Among the outsiders he talked with in the morning was Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and a close ally. Mr. Graham urged that he consider a military response to the drone’s shooting down.


Mr. Trump was given a list of at least a dozen strike options generated this month after there were attacks on tankers in the region. The list was then narrowed down to at least two alternatives. Among the targets would be facilities like radar and missile batteries.

Administration officials said on Friday that the president’s national security team was unanimous in favoring a response and all agreed with the final option recommended to Mr. Trump. But several military officials said General Dunford cautioned about the possible repercussions of a strike, warning that it could endanger American forces and allies in the region. A 6 p.m. meeting in Mr. Shanahan’s office at the Pentagon including General Dunford was described as particularly tense.

As for Mr. Pompeo, he argued during meetings at the White House that sanctions were having a powerful effect by slashing Iran’s revenues from oil sales, according to a senior administration official familiar with the discussion. While he expressed support for a pinpoint military response, he stressed that the sanctions were having the long-term effect the administration had hoped. Some of Mr. Trump’s aides wondered whether a strike would upset a strategy that was already working.

As of 7 p.m., senior American officials were told the strike was on and would be carried out between 9 and 10, or just before dawn in Iran. Within an hour, it was called off.

On Twitter and in an interview with NBC News, Mr. Trump attributed his change of heart to a desire to avoid casualties.

“I want to know something before you go,” he said he asked his generals. “How many people would be killed, in this case Iranians?”


“I thought about it for a second, and I said, you know what, they shot down an unmanned drone, plane, whatever you want to call it, and here we are sitting with a 150 dead people that would have taken place probably within a half an hour after I said go ahead,” Mr. Trump told NBC’s Chuck Todd. “And I didn’t like it, I didn’t think, I didn’t think it was proportionate.”

But an administration official informed about the discussions privately disputed that account. The 150-dead casualty estimate came not from a general but from a lawyer, according to the official. The estimate was developed by Pentagon lawyers drafting worst-case scenarios that, the official said, did not account for whether the strike was carried out during daytime, when more people might be present at the targets, or in the dark hours before sunrise, as the military planned.

That estimate was passed to the White House counsel, Pat A. Cipollone, without being cleared with Mr. Shanahan or General Dunford. It was then conveyed to the president by the White House lawyers, at which point Mr. Trump changed his mind and called off the strike.

Pentagon lawyers are typically involved in casualty and collateral damage estimates, charged with considering the worst possible outcome. Such numbers are fluid and almost always a rough guess, as it is almost impossible to know who or what will be at the site of an attack when it occurs.

But the lawyers’ involvement was seen by some of Mr. Trump’s aides as an attempt to circumvent Mr. Bolton and Pentagon leaders to influence the president. In effect, whether intended to or not, the casualty estimate played to the concerns that Mr. Trump had shared with Mr. Carlson and other skeptics of military action in the Middle East.

Gen. Jack Keane, a retired Army vice chairman who is close to the Trump White House, said another factor came into play during the deliberations — the president was told that the attack on the drone was really a mistake, as Mr. Trump had publicly suggested to reporters early in the day.

“The president got some additional information that the Iranian national leaders were frustrated or furious with the tactical commander who made the decision to shoot down the American drone,” General Keane said in an interview. Among those who were said to be angry, he said, was Qassim Suleimani, the powerful commander of Iran’s elite Quds Force.


“I don’t think that’s what was decisive for the president,” General Keane said, but it contributed to the decision, which he said was mainly driven by the casualty concern. “What was decisive for him was the comparison for him, compared to destroying missile batteries and killing people, of shooting down a drone.”

By this point, time was running out. Mr. Graham, who had pushed for a strike, was on an airplane heading to the West Coast and out of touch. Mr. Trump scrubbed the mission.

The decision made, the military ordered ships and planes in the region to stand down. At the White House, Mr. Trump turned on his television to watch the opening of Mr. Carlson’s 8 p.m. show, where he heard what surely must have sounded like vindication. Onscreen, Mr. Carlson declared that “foreign wars have ended in dismal failure for the United States.”

While no decision had been announced yet, Mr. Carlson praised Mr. Trump for resisting military intervention in Iran. “The same people who lured us into the Iraq quagmire 16 years ago are demanding a new war, this one with Iran,” he said. “The president, to his great credit, appears to be skeptical of this — very skeptical.”

If he kept the television on, though, Mr. Trump would have heard a radically different message from another friend on Fox at 9 p.m. With the news of Mr. Trump’s decision still not public, Sean Hannity declared that Mr. Trump may have “no choice” but to “bomb the hell out of them.”

For one night, at least, that would not be true. But the battle for Mr. Trump’s ear is not over.

 

Peter Baker and Thomas Gibbons-Neff reported from Washington, and Maggie Haberman from New York. Reporting was contributed by Helene Cooper, Michael Crowley, Catie Edmondson, Mark Landler, David E. Sanger and Eric Schmitt from Washington, and Michael Grynbaum from New York.

A version of this article appears in print on June 22, 2019, on Page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Input From All Over, Going by Instinct. 

 

Edited by retread
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Skyline

Skyline 325

Posted
Posted
23 hours ago, Skyline said:

I want to believe that he watched Tucker last night who pleaded for the president to not strike. 

If so, it's good. But also, Tucker holds the line between another war and the current status quo. 

Quote

WASHINGTON — He heard from his generals and his diplomats. Lawmakers weighed in and so did his advisers. But among the voices that rang powerfully for President Trump was that of one of his favorite Fox News hosts: Tucker Carlson.

God damn it

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23398

Posted
  • Author
Posted
17 minutes ago, retread said:

While national security advisers were urging a military strike against Iran, Mr. Carlson in recent days had told Mr. Trump that responding to Tehran’s provocations with force was crazy. The hawks did not have the president’s best interests at heart, he said. And if Mr. Trump got into a war with Iran, he could kiss his chances of re-election goodbye.

Tucker is right.

*washes mouth out with soap*

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23398

Posted
  • Author
Posted
7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yes.
And also, Tucker Carlson is maybe the most powerful man in the world, because he controls the POTUS. So wash your mouth out, but also, •time to drink hemlock•

What kind of communist block asterisks are these?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Foosters

Foosters 17734

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, Telegraph_it said:

Trump needs Bolton so adversarial countries have to consider we might do something. It amazes me that a number of posters haven’t figured out the trump playbook yet and lose there minds with the next crisis. I’d suggest logging off for a bit and go enjoy a hobby. 

Playbook... hahaha

Link to comment
Share on other sites
retread

retread 2951

Posted
Posted

Like Bolverk has pointed out, the movie Being There is a pretty accurate metaphor for Trump's life and presidency. Our fate depends on what Chauncey Gardiner is watching on TV at any moment.

Quote

The decision made, the military ordered ships and planes in the region to stand down. At the White House, Mr. Trump turned on his television to watch the opening of Mr. Carlson’s 8 p.m. show, where he heard what surely must have sounded like vindication. Onscreen, Mr. Carlson declared that “foreign wars have ended in dismal failure for the United States.”

While no decision had been announced yet, Mr. Carlson praised Mr. Trump for resisting military intervention in Iran. “The same people who lured us into the Iraq quagmire 16 years ago are demanding a new war, this one with Iran,” he said. “The president, to his great credit, appears to be skeptical of this — very skeptical.”

If he kept the television on, though, Mr. Trump would have heard a radically different message from another friend on Fox at 9 p.m. With the news of Mr. Trump’s decision still not public, Sean Hannity declared that Mr. Trump may have “no choice” but to “bomb the hell out of them.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28718

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, retread said:

Like Bolverk has pointed out, the movie Being There is a pretty accurate metaphor for Trump's life and presidency. Our fate depends on what Chauncey Gardiner is watching on TV at any moment.

"It's for sure a white man's world in America. Hell, I raised that boy since he was the size of a piss-ant. And I'll say right now he never learned to read and write. No sir, had no brains at all. Was stuck with rice pudding between the ears. Short-changed by the Lord and dumb as a jackass. Look at him now. Yessir, all you gotta be is white in America to get whatever you want. Gobbledygook."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23398

Posted
  • Author
Posted
21 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


We’d be better off being run by a plate of migas. I mean, that’s probably true no matter who is president, because migas f’n rule.

Got the campaign shirt ready. Seriously, I might write in "Migas" this go around instead of Willie. 

 

Capture.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Telegraph_it

Telegraph_it 3354

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Trump is an incompetent dumbfuck. Everyone in the world outside of his idiot supporters in the U.S. have figured out his playbook. He's batting 0.000 on the world stage. Our allies hate him, our enemies love him. 

You would not know that from reading this thread and others.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Telegraph_it

Telegraph_it 3354

Posted
Posted

I didn’t say it was a good playbook. The shock and overreaction has become comical. 

Russia is a dying country. Their last grip on power (minus the nukes) is their natural gas. That is becoming obsolete now. 

We aren’t screwed. America has never been in a more powerful position and that would be true regardless who the President is. 

Trumpism ends when Trumps tenure is over and then we can go back to the establishment and bitch about that. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Irieguy

Irieguy 1059

Posted
Posted

Asking Iran if we can bomb them can’t be true can it?  I thought I was finally to the point where I could believe any stupid shit was possible with him but I’m struggling with this one. Of course it’s probably true but I can’t wrap my head around it. 

Were there rumors that Syria was given advance warning?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
horncyclist

horncyclist 1386

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Irieguy said:

Asking Iran if we can bomb them can’t be true can it?  I thought I was finally to the point where I could believe any stupid shit was possible with him but I’m struggling with this one. Of course it’s probably true but I can’t wrap my head around it. 

Were there rumors that Syria was given advance warning?  

I think it was confirmed that we told Russia who told the Syrians. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SDG

SDG 3319

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

I hope not. All of those mouthbreathers need to stay on the same network no one really watches anyway.

 

You might want to check the ratings....

And yes, in this case, Tucker is absolutely right.  

 

Edit to add ratings. 

https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/scoreboard-thursday-june-20/406909/

 

Edited by SDG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
4th&Five

4th&Five 41461

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, SDG said:

You might want to check the ratings....

And yes, in this case, Tucker is absolutely right.  

 

Edit to add ratings. 

https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/scoreboard-thursday-june-20/406909/

 

Do ratings really mean shit in 2019 when most people aren’t sitting in front of their tv when something is airing live? Other than sports of course. The olds watching fox make up their good ratings because they never leave the house because of the rabid ms13 gangs roaming every city in America. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23364

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

Do ratings really mean shit in 2019 when most people aren’t sitting in front of their tv when something is airing live? Other than sports of course. The olds watching fox make up their good ratings because they never leave the house because of the rabid ms13 gangs roaming every city in America. 

Ratings are not a good indicator of a cable news channels influence anymore.  Much of the content is reproduced in the social media information space and still drives many national conversations.  

The TV ratings can’t capture the entire footprint on society of a cable news program. 

What the ratings do capture is advertisement dollars.

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SDG

SDG 3319

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

Do ratings really mean shit in 2019 when most people aren’t sitting in front of their tv when something is airing live? Other than sports of course. The olds watching fox make up their good ratings because they never leave the house because of the rabid ms13 gangs roaming every city in America. 

Yes they do.  Just a small example; Tucker averages just under 3mm viewers per episode which would be in the top half (17 out of 42) college football bowls. 

Add that to what Hugo said and you’ll see that stating no one watches is factually incorrect. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23364

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

The title of that article is clickbait to make it seem as if an American was executed.
 

While that may be true, I’d wager that many of our CIA informants are not Americans, that’s why they’re good spies.   This sucks. 

The Trump Administration is a national security nightmare and I really can’t overstate it enough. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18662

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, SDG said:

Yes they do.  Just a small example; Tucker averages just under 3mm viewers per episode which would be in the top half (17 out of 42) college football bowls. 

Add that to what Hugo said and you’ll see that stating no one watches is factually incorrect. 

That's hardly anyone. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...