Quote:If anyone thought the Biden administration would swiftly and effectively respond to the recent killing of three U.S. soldiers by Iran-controlled militias, think again. It's now been five days since the attack happened, and no retaliatory strikes have occurred.

Further, in an astounding show of cowardice, Biden and his cohorts in the "intelligence community" are now playing defense lawyer for Iran.

Intelligence officials have calculated that Tehran does not have full control over its proxy groups in the Middle East, including those responsible for attacking and killing U.S. troops in recent weeks, according to two U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

The Quds Force — an elite branch of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps — is responsible for sending weapons and military advisers as well as intelligence to support militias in Iraq and Syria as well as the Houthis in Yemen. The groups have varying ambitions and agendas, which sometimes overlap, but Tehran does not appear to have complete authority over their operational decision-making, the officials said.

While the disclosure means it may be particularly hard to predict what actions these groups will take, it also could lower the chance of the U.S. getting pulled into a direct confrontation with Iran. Any indication that Tehran was directly involved in ordering or overseeing the attacks would make U.S. retaliation against Iran more likely.

As with every leak that happens in the press, you always have to why the leak occurred. It's not a coincidence that amidst ongoing hesitation from the administration to respond to Iran's aggression, we are now seeing reports from "intelligence officials" (which are controlled by the White House) claiming that Iran isn't actually all that involved.

Of course, that assertion is laughably false. Those IRGC officials who are constantly in Iraq aren't there to enjoy the beaches and sprawling nightlife. They are there briefing and delivering intelligence to Iran's proxies. When Qasem Soleimani was turned into sausage in Bagdad, he was there directing Iranian-backed militias.

Claiming that the Mullahs aren't in "full control" is playing semantics. I'm sure Iran doesn't decree when each militia member eats dinner, but there is no doubt Iran helps identify targets and provides the weapons necessary to attack them. Yet, even if that wasn't the case, it still wouldn't absolve Iran because their financial support is enough to make them responsible.

What Biden is doing is disgraceful. He's so concerned with his dwindling re-election prospects that he's scared to take action in the face of naked aggression that killed U.S. soldiers. At this point, even if strikes do occur, they will have been so telegraphed that no high-valuable targets will be taken out. It's likely we hit some empty militia bases in Syria and Iraq and call it a day. That will simply give Iran the green light to move forward with more attacks.

Weakness has a cost. No one is suggesting a full-scale war with Iran, but to let its leaders off the hook here will have profoundly negative consequences down the road, including the likely deaths of more Americans. The right move is to hit Iran directly and provide a real deterrent in the future. Instead, Biden appears to be content to sell his own country down the river, reinforcing a perverted system of Iranian aggression, for what he sees as short-term political gain.

Link

"No one is suggesting a full-scale war with Iran"

No, but you are suggesting a tit for tat escalation game that leads exactly to that place. If you wanted to pull all of our troops out of random countries most of us didn't even know we had them in (like ummm were we even told prior to this happening we had troops on the Lebanon/Syria border?) and then retaliated with a strike I'd be fine with that. However, if we are going to retaliate and continue leaving US troops to be sitting ducks for return drone attacks eventually you get to a place enough get killed that you get an actual war.

"Claiming that the Mullahs aren't in "full control" is playing semantics. I'm sure Iran doesn't decree when each militia member eats dinner, but there is no doubt Iran helps identify targets and provides the weapons necessary to attack them. Yet, even if that wasn't the case, it still wouldn't absolve Iran because their financial support is enough to make them responsible."

So by this quote is Russia completely justified to directly attack the US because of Ukrainian strikes into Russia with our weapons, money, support, and operational backing?

Take out the Iranian naval base at Bandar Abbas, from which Iran launches most, if not all, it's BS activities, then GTFO and stay TFO.

If citizens were allowed to vote on such things (voting for politicians in general elections doesn't count), and with a simple majority being the only requirement, I wonder if Iran would still exist tomorrow?

(02-02-2024 10:18 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Take out the Iranian naval base at Bandar Abbas, from which Iran launches most, if not all, it's BS activities, then GTFO and stay TFO.

I'd be fine with that, if you do the part in bold right after. That's the problem though, there's no world where getting all American troops out of that area is an option. If you have to operate in a world where you are for sure leaving troops over there (again not the world I'd operate in but it's the unfortunate reality) then you really need to rethink how you retaliate.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/02/07/whe...t-and-run/

"In October 1983, after five Marines were killed in three separate incidents, National Security Advisor Robert McFarlane convinced the president to authorize the USS New Jersey to launch attacks against the Druze militia and Syrian forces on land. According to Powell, once the naval attack commenced, the Shiites “assumed the American ‘referee’ had taken sides against them. And since they could not reach the battleship, they found a more vulnerable target: the exposed Marines at the airport.” Within one week, Hezbollah-linked militants drove two truck bombs containing a half a kiloton of explosives into the Marine barracks at the Beirut International Airport, killing 220 Marines and 21 other U.S. service members.

In the months that followed, the Reagan administration discussed a range of options including striking back and fully withdrawing the Marines. Reagan never retaliated against Hezbollah or their Iranian and Syrian sponsors responsible for the bombings, a position widely endorsed by senior military officials."

"Yet, just three days later, on Feb. 7, Reagan ordered the Marines to “redeploy” to their ships offshore — which was actually a full withdrawal achieved in three weeks. Although the Marine’s mission in Lebanon was not clearly defined and, subsequently, not achieved, Reagan’s tacit admission of failure and withdrawal of the Marines from Lebanon limited America’s further involvement in foreign-policy disaster — saving money, lives, and time."

Only time I'm probably ever going to say this, Reagan was right.

(02-02-2024 10:32 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I'd be fine with that, if you do the part in bold right after.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/02/07/whe...t-and-run/

Reagan's response to Lebanon is probably the textbook for what I have in mind.