Army Major Explains Why The US Military Should Stay Out Of Iran

Authored Major Danny Sjursen via BreakingDefense.com,

Last week, after Israel reportedly shot down an Iranian drone and Prime Minister Netanyahu proudly displayed a hunk of twisted metal as a war trophy, Americans were treated to fresh calls for regime change from some prominent neoconservatives.

Granted, Iran is no friend to the U.S. and might even qualify as a modest adversary. Its nuclear ambitions should continue to be thwarted, as most reports indicate they are.

Still, what Washington desperately needs right now is some perspective and an honest conversation about the realities of the Middle East. Not alarmism. The last thing the overstretched U.S. military needs is another hot war. It’s already pretty busy. President Obama bombed seven countries in 2016, and President Trump has continued apace.

There’s reason to worry. Trump, who ran on an eminently reasonable platform of disengagement from “dumb” wars in the region, quickly pivoted to a hawkish stance on the Islamic Republic. In December, when protestors hit the streets of Tehran based on mostly economic motives, Trump immediately rallied in support and not-so-subtlety tweeted “Oppressive regimes cannot endure forever.” Except, that is, for Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other illiberal authoritarian regimes we support.

Perhaps Trump simply meant the people of Iran would topple the ayatollahs, but if the recently released National Defense Strategy is any indicator — it lists Iran as one of four core threats —U.S.-imposed regime change is certainly on the table.

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis

It shouldn’t be. At present, Iran does notpresent a clear and present vital threat to American national security. Statements from Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, however, indicate he disagrees.

Mattis’ Blind Spot

The secretary is the boss, my boss, but his focus on the Iranian regime qualifies as his blind spot, a veritable Iran obsession.

Since at least 2011, Mattis has overstated the Iranian threat and hinted at toppling the regime in Tehran. And he’s only doubling down. This past May, Mattis told “Face the Nation,” that “what we find is, wherever there are challenges, wherever there is chaos, wherever there is violence, whether it be in Lebanon, in Syria, in Iraq, in Yemen, the attempts to unsettle Bahrain. We always find Iran and the IRGC [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps] at it.” He also once told then-President Obama that the top three threats in the Middle East were “Iran, Iran, Iran.” That sounds excessive.

Iran spends about as much on defense annually as the U.S. does on a single aircraft carrier. A simple comparison is instructive: Iran’s GDP was about $427 billion, and it spent some $11.5 billion on defense in 2016. U.S. allies, like Saudi Arabia (GDP: $678 billion; defense spending: $66.7 billion) and Israel (GDP: $348 billion; defense spending: $19.6 billion) can more than hold their own. And remember, standing behind them is the real behemoth, the U.S., which plans to spend $716 billion on defense in 2019—that’s $300 billion more than Iran’s entire GDP. The numbers speak for themselves. Conclusion: some perspective is in order.

While Iran definitely is engaged in the Mid-East, its own neighborhood, it’s rarely behind much of anything and doesn’t have nearly the power or influence to pull all the various regional strings. Yemeni and Bahraini unrest were homegrown. Conflict in Syria and Lebanon preceded Iranian deployments there. And Iraq, well, the U.S. handed Baghdad to Iran on a silver platter after that ill-fated invasion. Iran use regional proxies, rather than its own military, precisely because it is weak and fearful.

Furthermore, though he’s recently backed off some of his most bellicose threats, Mattis regularly draws distinctions between the supposedly disenfranchised people of Iran and an ostensibly separate revolutionary regime. There’s something to this, but in Mattis’ statements, it sounds like he’s calling for the fall of the regime. “It’s not the Iranian people,” Mattis added. “We are convinced it’s a regime that is conducting itself in order to stay in power in Tehran as a revolutionary regime, not as a proper nation-state. They are not looking out for the best interests of their own people.”

Maybe that’s true enough, but surely dozens of governments fail to represent their populace the world over. That doesn’t necessitate regime change, does it? Such rhetoric raises tensions and threatens to stoke nationalist tendencies in Iran which work to the advantage of relative hardliners.

The View from Tehran

After all, try and view the last decade of U.S. military actions from Tehran. Washington toppled and seemingly permanently occupied Iran’s neighbors on its western (Iraq) and eastern (Afghanistan) flanks, encircled the country with its military bases, and intervened in just about every country in its neighborhood.

Iranian C-14 missile boat.

I remember way back in August 2002, and even then the rhetoric was chilling: “Everyone wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran,” a British official close to the President Bush team told Newsweek in the lead up to the Iraq War. Who could rationally blame Iran’s leaders for fearing they were next? And who would be surprised to see them turn to Shia militias to trap the U.S. military in a Baghdad quagmire? That’s basic survival instincts. While not excusing their tactics, it’s undeniable that their approach enhanced their standing vis-à-vis Iraq and the region—an unintended consequence of ousting Saddam Hussein.

Iranians also have a long memory. The CIA helped overthrow a democratically elected government in Tehran in 1953. Then, throughout the 1980s, the U.S. backed Saddam Hussein in Iraq’s brutal invasion of Iran. Heck, President Reagan even sent one Donald Rumsfeld (remember him?) to make nice with Saddam.

None of this sordid history obviates Iran from acting responsibly in the region—but this must serve as a reality check for Washington’s triumphalism and an unfathomable commitment to strategic overreach. Walking the proverbial mile in an adversary’s shoes isn’t “soft,” it’s smart. Only by understanding the motives of other countries can we correctly predict and counter actions that undermine America’s interests.

Military Action: A Bad Idea

Iran’s military is far from the imposing behemoth threat of hawkish imagination. In fact, Saudi Arabia is much better armed and could likely handle Iran by itself—remember, it spends more than five times much on its military than Iran.

Nonetheless, Iran is spatially large and mountainous with an enormous, fiercely nationalist population. Make no mistake, U.S. military occupation of the Islamic Republic would make the Iraq War, for once, actually look like the “cakewalk” it was billed to be.

America’s armed forces are currently spread thin in a dozen simultaneous operations and deployed in nearly 70 percent of the world’s countries. The Army alone is rotating brigades to deter Russia in Eastern Europe; manning the DMZ in South Korea; training and advising across Africa; conducting raids in Somalia, Yemen, and Niger; and actively fighting in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

So where are the troops available to topple Tehran? They don’t exist. The U.S. military is already running at full throttle, and the American people won’t be flocking to recruiters to stave off an overhyped, distant Iranian threat. The polling data is clear: Americans don’t want another war.

Ubiquitous, over-the-top proclamations aside, Iran’s various regional interventions have been more cost than benefit for Tehran and largely defensive in nature—look no further than recent protests throughout Iran for proof. Iran isn’t seeking a New Persia any more, or less, than our purported Turkish (NATO) ally’s dream of a revamped Ottoman Empire. That’s rhetoric, not reality. And these days, with Turkish tanks just miles from U.S. forces in Syria and openly threatening Washington, guess who the greater threat is?

Indeed, it might be time for Washington to swallow its pride and admit to some common interests with Iran in the region—the defeat of ISIS, suppression on Sunni Islamists, and a stable, non-threatening Afghanistan—rather than harping on the exaggerated negatives.

Look, I don’t take any of this lightly. Iranian-supplied bombs killed two of my soldiers on January 25, 2007. Still, it’s important to remember, no Iranians have attacked the homeland since 9/11 (not something that can be said of our many autocratic “allies” in the region). The proper role of the U.S. military is to prevent enemies killing Americans, not to keep rival Mid-East factions from killing each other.

Forget a new war. Iran isn’t worth it. Not now, probably not ever. The U.S. military is busy, thank you very much. And any trouble it causes can easily be countered by our partners and allies in the region.

Washington should ditch the alarmism and get real in the complex Middle East.

Comments

BobEore J S Bach Fri, 03/02/2018 - 23:30 Permalink

Poking behind the smoke and mirrors for but a moment leads quickly to the abandonment of false trails set by fake news medias ...

and the clear revelation of the mischief makers, and their motives. With steady hammer blows already delivered to the SHAKEY SAKER style of misreporting of the muddled eastern mess... it seems our ONEMEDIA MASTERZ have engaged the services of smoother schmoozers... in a "Majorly" manner:

While Iran definitely is engaged in the Mid-East, its own neighborhood, it’s rarely behind much of anything and doesn’t have nearly the power or influence to pull all the various regional strings.

Well err... precisely. So  whooo does\?/ A tiny TERROR STATE in the s e Med... with an enormous 'footprint' covering all channels of communication medias... does. Tis they - not their dogsbodies such as IRAN/TURKEY/SAUDISTAN/KRG JURDISTAN, etc., who 'utilize proxies' to perform their tasks in the muddled eastern theater.

When all the fake storylines are axed... in favor of the real story - it's abundantly clear to the impartial observer that the plethora of faux "Islamist" regime lording over the various peoples of that part of the world - whether "revolutionary," "neo-ottomaniacly, "Shia" "Sunni", or just plain "funny" = as in "funny munknee' style FAKE...

are all cells of the one viral Sabbatean-led TALMUDIC KABBALIST pirate empire which the fake news media pretends are fighting amongst themselves... the better to fool both Russia and the west into dropping the gloves with each other - for the advancement of the 'new jerusalem' new world ordure ... brought to you by the very same "tiny" gang o Lubavitchers which organizes mass spectacle tower topplings... presidential  turkey shoots... and school shooting dramas with patsies and passports all arranged in a delicate origami of obfuscating  shock n awe.

In reply to by J S Bach

vato poco BobEore Sat, 03/03/2018 - 04:00 Permalink

to: Major Fuckin Danny

fr: anyone with a brain

re: this bullshit you're spouting on ZH

Danny me foine boyo, it's come to our attention you've been putting shit on ZH (and most likely paying them to go along with it) a few contrarian points: 

1) you're an "army major". that's middle management, and fairly middle MM at that. how the fuck do you figure you're qualified to critique national/global affairs at a strategic level?

2) as an "army major", you swore an oath to, among other things, respect & follow your chain of command. not doing a real good job of that, are you danny? do you consider your imbecilic musings on the state of mind of your C-in-C and the SecDef to be ... in accordance with chain of command?

3) are we to believe that since you're OK with you publicly dissing your superiors, you'd be OK with a 2nd Looey or an uppitty corporal doing the same to you??

4) yeah, didn't think so

5) you're a disgrace, danny. shut your fucking mouth until you RESIGN YOUR FUCKING COMMISSION, you worthless POS

In reply to by BobEore

not dead yet vato poco Sat, 03/03/2018 - 05:15 Permalink

Sounds like you're another one of those "America love it or leave it" morons who bends over and takes the propaganda up the ass. Love means recognizing the good with the bad and changing things for the better instead of going "yes sir yes sir give me more sir". Even in the military there is freedom of speech and the Major is exercising that right. He has the right to tell you his opinion as well as share it with his superiors who may not agree but acknowledge his right to say it. Unless he has disobeyed any orders from his superiors he has done nothing wrong. Being a major he is a lot higher than "middle management", may even have a top secret clearance for all we know, and though he may have access to a lot of information as long as it's not classified he hasn't broken any laws. Care to enlighten us with your overwhelming qualifications to comment on national and world affairs? As least Danny has been in the ME and done combat there which gives a valuable perspective to his writings. Willing to bet with your uncontrolled ravings and hatred the closest you ever got to the ME was a Persian carpet. There are plenty of high ranking military officers who disagree with the US fucking up the ME and may have encouraged Danny to write his stuff.

Dumb asses whine when they see an article they don't like and bitch about why they put it on ZH. It's important to know other viewpoints and to know what kind of crap the crazies are pushing. You won't learn anything if all you want to hear and read is stuff you agree with.

By your ravings it obvious you think every soldier should be dumber than a box of rocks with a brain the size of a pea. Guess we need to go back to the good old days and take low IQ high school dropouts and potential convicts given a choice between the military or jail. It's one way to empty out the jails.

In the last day or two ZH printed a letter written to the president by retired or former high level intelligence people saying essentially the same thing as Danny. Real pros who have lived and breathed this kind of stuff saying Iran is a big nothing burger and not worth going to war over. In your mind they should be shot for treason instead of being applauded for the courage to head off a potentially devastating war, possibly WW3, that will send many of our young men and women home in body bags with may more missing body parts and or having scrambled brains ruining theirs and their families lives. Not to mention running the printing press wide open to pay for it. Of course I'm sure you'll be first in line to volunteer to deploy. Not.

In reply to by vato poco

Harry Lightning Juggernaut x2 Sat, 03/03/2018 - 08:18 Permalink

Those Marines had a very good purpose for being there, even if the mission was poorly designed. Twice in the prior decade, war in the Middle East had resulted in terrible economic outcomes for the US and the world as the price of oil was put up to levels that caused financial paralysis for many industries. Seeking to protect American and global interests in a stable source of energy to power households and factories, the US sent troops to Lebanon to prevent war between Israel and the Iranian-supported Hezbollah, backled by the other Iranian ally in the region sitting in Damascus. 

The attack on those Marines by puppets serving the interests of Tehran surely is another reason why the US has an unpaid bill to collect from those towel heads, and should have done so long ago. Now the stakes are much higher as the father of all global Islamic terror would be a grave threat to the security of the entire world if permitted to develop a nuclear arsenal. Hence, the US has a vested interest to lead the effort to rid the world of the theocracy in Tehran, and should endow such objective with a greater priority than nearly all other missions currently being entertained by the US military.

In reply to by Juggernaut x2

Harry Lightning The Gladiator Sat, 03/03/2018 - 11:38 Permalink

Having had extensive experience working and fighting with the US military, I can tell you that every soldier is aware that the reasons why they are engaged in whatever mission they are assigned is because Washington has decided that such action  benefits a vital interest of the United States. Soldiers do not require the reasons why we fight, we take our orders and execute our missions. You believe intrinsically that the people making policy are doing what's best for the country whose uniform you are wearing. If you don't believe that then don't volunteer to be a soldier. Or don't live in a country where they have a military draft. 

After studying warfare for most of my life, I can say that nearly all wars fought have a monetary component, insofar as you fight to protect someone's money. But that is part of the country you defend, the country's wealth. In the days of old soldiers fought to defend the King's wealth, now wealth is more distributed so soldiers fight to defend the wealth of a country that is held by corporations and individuals. For after all, corporations are owned by individuals. 

So in reality your question is meaningless. By fighting to defend the wealth of a nation a soldier fights in part to defend the wealth of individuals that they hold through ownership of corporate interests. The corporate interests are a legitimate part of the national interests, for the modern division of labor is implemented through a corporate structure. If companies are endangered so too are the jobs those companies provide. When jobs are endangered, that hits home and injures the national interest. And it is the national interest for which the soldier fights.

In reply to by The Gladiator

Harry Lightning The Gladiator Sat, 03/03/2018 - 12:06 Permalink

You obviously have never served as a soldier. Your simplistic view of what a soldier thinks is your impediment to understanding why other people protect your ass. 

Your stupid argument could be reduced to your locale. Say you work at the local food market, and the store has a terrible fire to the point that it no longer exists. At that point you wish you had a fire department in the town where the store was located for they could have saved your job. Yes, the fire department would have been serving a corporation, but in essence by serving that corporation they would have been protecting your job and your financial security.

Same can be said if the store was robbed and the owner did not have the capital to replenish his shelves. You'd be out of a job wishing you had a police force that was big enough to have been able to patrol the area where the store was while it was being robbed. 

Now I know its difficult for you, but try to allow your mind to expand these examples to the world stage. The military that defends your country is ultimately defending you, as would have the fire and police departments in my example. Had those departments intervened in the fire or robbery, they would have been ultimately serving your interests the same way the military of your country seeks to do the same for matters concerning your country and its enemies. Ultimately, the people of a country are the beneficiaries of a military action. When that stops being true, the action ends. VietNam is a good example of that, When the people of the US came to believe that their military's actions in VietNam stopped benefiting their individual interests, they withdrew their support for the war. But while they believed they were sharing in a benefit to fighting the war, they supported it. 

What's important to remember isd that soldiers do not seek to take part in that decision-making process. They instead carry out the will of their countrymen and women by executing the missions formulated by the officials who answer to the populace. Which is why your entire premise of the soldiers serving as mindless automatons is uninformed at best and ignorant at worst.

Try again, you get three tries for your dollar. Maybe you'll get it right next time.

In reply to by The Gladiator

The Gladiator Harry Lightning Sat, 03/03/2018 - 12:32 Permalink

I wondered how long it would take you to resort to insulting me to be able to emphasize your point. A tactic used by people that refuse to be debated on an educated level,rather than a "I'm right,and you're an idiot" dialogue.According to your thinking,we, The US, had no reason to protect our way of life and it's luxuries prior to the Spanish-American war.It became clear that war was a favorable tool to capture resources we didn't have,but desired, through that one single military action. Your theory seems to indicate that wanting another country's resources are the same as protecting our financial freedom. If our foreign endeavors are to protect the corporations,ultimately resulting in maintaining our financial status quo, and it is benevolent,why then are we sold it as a "protect our freedom/ spread democracy" campaign? The fact remains,the indoctrination you received as a soldier and try to propagate to the average American is not being bought by the majority. 

In reply to by Harry Lightning

Harry Lightning sheik_yur_bouti Sat, 03/03/2018 - 08:10 Permalink

The bottom line is that Islamic terrorism barely existed save for the occasional Palestinean acts of stupidity until the 1979 revolution in Iran. Even since the theocracy has been in charge in Tehran, Iran has been the father of nearly all terrorist activities in the Middle East. Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Syrian government...all puppets of Iran's towel-heads. This group of terrorists will not stop until they have established a new Pan Muslim caliphate across the Middle East, with control over the oilfields and the holy lands of Mecca and Medina, a new Muslim order of Shia aristocracy and Muslim terror from all quarters of Islam.

The US basically was able to encircle and render the terrorists of Tehran impotent while controlling Afghanistan to the east, Iraq to the west and the Persian Gulf to the south. But instead of using this position of strength to coordinate with Iranian moderates who want the theocracy toppled, Bush could not see the big picture and obama only wanted to get out of the region, and an historic opportunity was lost to rid the world of one of its two most severe threats. Severe because this regime, this exporter of terrorism and fomentor of death wants a nuclear arsenal with which to add to its terror model. Should this be allowed to occur, the world will have a far more serious problem with terrorism than anything having been faced so far. Iran will do with nukes what is has done with its revolution, export them to sympathetic partners throughout the Milddle East to be used to push Israel either into the Mediterranean Sea or into oblivion. The result of allowing the Iranian revolutionary government to continue will no doubt be a nuclear exchange between at the minimum Israel and Iran, and at the worst case, the US and Russia.

Making the situation even more vital for America is that there is a score to settle with these little bastards in Tehran. Time may have passed but the memory of what the Iranian revolutionary government did to the State Department workers that were held hostage for 400-something days has yet to be avenged. Just for that alone these muthafuckers deserve to be annihilated. The US should not forget that there is an unpaid bill that the Iranians owe for what they did in 1979 and 1980,  and that bill needs to be collected so as to show the world that America always pays its enemies back no matter how long it takes.

The imbecile who claims to be a Major once again shows his naivete in this article. He has a history around here of showing his inability to see the forest instead of just some rows of trees, he doesn't see the big picture that determines how policy needs to be sewn together in order to be effective. The Major has no sense of geopolitical strategy, and when he writes that several of his direct reports were killed by elements of the Iranian military and does not follow that up with a burning desire to get revenge, I sense either a liar who is no soldier, or a REMF who should be sent into early retirement because he destroys morale and does not have the killer instinct necessary for an officer to command troops on to victory. These are the officers who get their soldiers killed because they cannot instinctually see that force more often than not is the only strategy that enemies of the US will understand.

The US has two sets of bad actors that must be vanquished as soon as possible to ensure the safety of the world. If its military would prioritize these two nations and work to neutralize them, it would succeed at its mission of keeping the world from blowing itself up. Everything else right now must take a back seat to stopping the nuclear ambitions of North Korea and Iran. Excellent progress has been made in enlisting the Chinese to shut down the North Korean threat, but the stupidity of the neocons in the US Congress and Senate - and in the Pentagon - are making it difficult to enlist the Russians to shut down the nuclear activities of the Iranians. If the US was smart it would stop threatening the security of Russia in exchange for strong and verifiable assistance from the Russians in getting their Iranian ally to drop its nuclear ambition., The Russians have many reasons to terminate their support of Iran, including the fact that the Putin Doctrine of defending Russian people where ever they may live is being put to the test by an Iranian regime that threatens the existence of Israel which is now nearly one third populated by Russians. While its true that Russia looks upon Russian Jews in a lesser light than Russian non-Jews, Putin cannot allow his Doctrine to be parsed by ethnic or religious exception considering the multi-cultural background of the Russian people. If the concept of what constitutes a Russian can be diluted based upon the dilution of ethnicities, then the entire Putin Doctrine will be laid to waste and Russia no longer will have a rationale for claiming hold of some portion of the former Union of republics. The Americans should jump all over this prospective anomaly to convince the Russians that they need to influence the Iranians to abandon a nuclear weapons program aimed at creating weapons to blackmail Israel. 

Yet none of this critical dynamic is considered by this faux Major. His is simply a shallow mis-reading of the geopolitics of the Mid East, which is nothing more than a high school understanding of the factors in play there. What the Major is selling no one should be buying, and frankly for ZH to publish his rubbish is demeaning to the forum and sickens me to see such disregard for what is important to consider in a very dangerous world.

I strongly recommend that ZH readers boycott the alleged Major by refusing to open his posts. Perhaps if he loses an audience he will lose his chance to publish the nonsense that ZH allows him to spew within the confines of its pages. 

In reply to by sheik_yur_bouti

Harry Lightning Conscious Reviver Sat, 03/03/2018 - 11:20 Permalink

Your attempt to blame Israel for Iran's terrorism is comical. Israel does not fund the terrorist groups in the Middle East that I listed, groups that did not exist until they began receiving funding and other support from Iran. And Israel is not the country whose President said he wanted to "wipe from the face of the map" with a nuclear weapon. No, those were the actions and words of Iran. The only terrorists that Iran kills are the ones who want to overthrow the theocracy that seeks to build nuclear weapons that they will use in offensive ways against their enemies. 

I am sorry that this subject is to complicated for you. Accordingly it takes a lot of words to address it thoroughly. I wish I was paid at all, nevermind by the word. 

In reply to by Conscious Reviver

FBaggins Harry Lightning Sat, 03/03/2018 - 11:32 Permalink

Harry Lightning is FOS. Britain was the first to radicalize and militarize the Muslim Brotherhood both for oil and for Zio interests in the ME, and after WWII the US, controlled by the same bankster-oilster-cabal,  took over most of the GB functions giving birth to a host of terrorist organizations including the Taliban, Al Qaeda and then for some real chutzpah, Daesh (ISIS, ISIL, IS etc.) spending at least ten times the entire Iranian military budget each year for their terrorist insurgency operations. Go back to your real homeland and stay there. 

In reply to by Harry Lightning

Harry Lightning FBaggins Sat, 03/03/2018 - 11:55 Permalink

Israel lives in your mind rent free. There is no question in anyone's history that Islamic terror groups never organized and never implemented terrorist activities until Iran started supporting the formation of these groups after the Iranian revolution. 

Your attempt to generalize years of history under a simplistic view of what occurred in the Middle East is a thinly veiled attempt at justifying the terror that Iran has fomented in the region since 1979. Prior to that time the only terrorist activity was occasional missions carried out by militaristic arms of the Palestineans, such as the attack on the Olympic Village at the 1972 Summer Olympics. Since 1979, terrorist organizations funded by Iran, like Hamas and Hezbollah, have been permanent fixtures in the Middle East whose only reason for existence is to deny Israel its right to exist. 

This nonsense about a bankster-oilster cabal has no place in this discussion, save for that the US had a national interest in the Middle East to protect the supply of Mid Eastern oil flowing to the world, of which the US uses but 7%. The Carter Doctrine states that the US will keep open the Persian Gulf so as to defend the national interest America has in seeing Mid Eastern oil being able to flow, and that is the extent of its oil-related issue with Iran. Interestingly, that has never even been an issue with Iran, as the Persians never has sought to close off the Persian Gulf from oil traffic even though they threatened to do so. They simply know they do not have the resources to do so, and also know that to do so would hurt the very countries they are trying to align in their attempt at Mid Eastern hegemony. 

The amount of money spent on fighting terrorism is of course going to be assymetric, because to defend against terrorism requires you to defend myriad entry points for a terrorist activity to occur. This is why terrorism is favored by poor countries as a way to have influence, because they know that a small amount of expenditure on terrorist operations will require a large amount of expenditure to stop it. There is a cheap way to stop terrorism, but civilized countries do not have the courage to do it. Its very easy for a country with significant military resources to terrorize the terrorist country, but it requires that country to become more barbaric than the terrorist country it seeks to neutralize., The Nazis excelled at this kind of behavior, and were very successful in its implementation to quell any terrorist actions against it. 

Bottom line is that no one can rightfully argue that the world would not be a safer place without the terror-supporting regime in Tehran. As such the sooner they are removed, the better. 

In reply to by FBaggins

snowlywhite Harry Lightning Sat, 03/03/2018 - 13:04 Permalink

what a bunch of horseshit. You should write shorter posts, you'd look less ignorant.

1. in a previous post you were stating something along the lines that US should keep blundering around in the middle east to keep the world stable because of oil. Which is downright stupid. Fluctuations are caused by the market. And I should know a thing or two about them. Not by the instability in the middle east.

What do you think the Middle East would export if they'd stopped pumping? Camels? Middle East stable or not, oil will keep flowing, because that's what they produce. The fact that markets are emotional won't affect one iota the production of oil(eventually increase it due to higher profits).

The only time when it was a real crisis was when american imbecility managed to annoy everyone in the region enough to generate the opec. A remarkable display of the same "geopolitical" depth as you display here(only with real life effect, contrary to your posts). Managing to piss off everyone enough to actually have a semblance of united front in the Middle East requires above master levels of stupidity.

2. if there's anyone having a score to settle(as retarded as the concept might be), those should be the iranians given '53 story. You can't have a short term and imbecile policy and complain afterwards about "unexpected" consequences.

Yes, it kept the oil vaguely cheaper another generation; lost what's probably the only natural ally in the region for at least 3 generations. Great strategy; golfclap.

3. you're totally ignorant regarding history:

- the current syrian regime predates the iranian one by more than a decade.
- the current Islamic Jihad is a sunni concept(funny enough, probably supported most by Assad the father, who was anything but a religious person and definitely not a sunni :)).
- shia caliphate? Now that's even funnier. There might be some technical problems =)) Ok, it's organized religion, so prone to adapting to new political realities, but still...
- topple the regime? You and CNN. I've been there; the regime seems reasonably popular. You'll write another 10 novels of ZH posts before that'll happen. There's a huge difference between people grumbling(which happens basically everywhere in the world during all the written history) and people identifying a viable alternative to what they have.

Bottom line - US should wake up and try to figure out a way to align itself to whatever regime is in Tehran, since it's probably the best long term option for the US in the region. But apparently the russians beat you to that, so try again in 20 years. Obama vaguely tried, you could say, though not enough.

The guy's right: can't win a war in Iran(it's Iraq x10 or so), so that's off the table. Regime won't change either. So wake up to reality and see what's the best outcome in real life, not in some imaginary one. Or do what every declining empire does: live in the imaginary world. And no, I'm anything but happy about US decline.

"Fighting terrorism" is good propaganda for internal consumption; actually starting to believe one's own propaganda is when things go down the drain.

p.s. - "enlist Russia" =)) Dude, the US foreign policy is so retarded that it manage to make Iran and Russia allies; which are anything but natural allies. Quite the contrary. So good luck with that. :p

 

p.p.s. - Yes, China probably will help in NK. If it goes close enough to reality, probably Russia too. It's not in their interest to have a nuclear NK. And Kim has every reason to want nukes.

 

Neither of them will help in Iran's case; there's no reason why Iran would want nukes. So where would they help? In Nostradamus prophecies? Really...

In reply to by Harry Lightning

Truthoutthere Harry Lightning Sat, 03/03/2018 - 19:46 Permalink

Terrorism? Put 9/11 in your Israeli assisted false flag pipe and smoke it.Throw in the attack on the U.S.S. Liberty as we're at it.Islamic terrorism was as we now know it was sparked and fanned by America and Israel(courtesy of that cancerous cabal of ZioNazi cunts).The Amerikan Empire is the aggressor the rest of the world hates.It's demise can't come soon enough.And no,the rest of the world isn't afraid of Putin because there is no rational reason to be so.We're not that fucking stupid.

In reply to by Harry Lightning

Jayeles sheik_yur_bouti Sat, 03/03/2018 - 09:49 Permalink

Shortened from the text in chapter 17 (Beirut) in the book, By Way of Deception, by ex-Mossad officer Victor Ostrovsky, and Claire Hoy. 

 

By Way of Deception

When the Mossad learned that a large Mercedes truck was being fitted to hold large bombs, they concluded that the target would probably be the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut. Head of the Mossad at the time, Admony, decided only to give the Americans a warning so general, vague, and commonplace, "it was like sending a weather report". Admony said, "No, we're not there to protect Americans." At the same time, all Israeli installations were given the specific details of the Mercedes. At 6:20 a.m on October 23, 1983, a large Mercedes truck passed well within sight of Israeli sentries on its way to crash through the gate and barriers and into the lobby of the four-story Aviation Safety Building used as the headquarters for the Eighth Marine Battalion, killing 241 U.S. Marines. It "was the highest single-day death toll for the Americans since 246 died throughout Vietnam at the start of the Tet offensive on January 13, 1968. Within days, the Israelis passed along to the CIA the names of 13 people they thought were involved.

In reply to by sheik_yur_bouti

FBaggins vato poco Sat, 03/03/2018 - 11:19 Permalink

The major likely represents the large portion of the US military which is loyal to the interests of the US and which has a conscience and which is split from the other US military faction and upper echelon brass with dual citizenships, but faithful to Israel-banksters-oilsters-first, and which is faithfully carrying out the Zio-first globalist plan of destabilizing and taking over every nation of the Levant including Syria and Iran, and in the process conquering Russia. FO asshole.   

In reply to by vato poco

FBaggins hootowl Sat, 03/03/2018 - 15:53 Permalink

It is simply an age-old plan to dominate and control the world based on a misconception they are chosen, entitled and are superior, not too unlike Nazism, all of which has come out of a relatively exclusive, sectarian religion, in which its tribal leaders have concentrated their wealth, information, and power not only for immediate advancement and control but mainly for their long-range end of world domination. Any exclusive group or cabal like the Masons can do the same thing if they have enough resolve and control of their members.

The problem is the sociopathic methods which always seem to involve dehumanizing outsiders in some way in order to justify skirting the moral laws and conventions in whatever nation in which the group or tribe resides.  In medieval times usury was considered unconscionable by the Christian host nations, but an exclusive ethnic group (socially isolated and often the subject of discrimination) concentrated their wealth and sustained the practice of usury despite the laws and conventions in those early times. When that practice became more conventional with the rise of nation states and European commerce with the need to borrow money, they were ahead of the game in the bankster industry. Fair is fair we say.

However, in reviewing historical issues over the past 400 years one beings to see not only the many failures of Christians and their churches in living up to their universal standards when it came to choices of enriching themselves at the expense of some underclass or less advanced people, but also we find a distinct pattern in that one exclusive group going way beyond any universal restraints or conventions to advance their own particular interests.  One can find no major illicit and lucrative enterprise over the past 400 years in which they have not only greatly profited but have actually dominated.  There are numerous examples people can research, for instance:

1. the Rothschild's involvement in the slave trade;

2.  the British opium wars against China, from which trade not only Queen Victoria made a massive fortune, but from which the Rothschild, Sassoon families and surrogates made much more in setting up and sustaining the industry;

3. the  profiting from funding opposing sides of major European and world wars for the past 400 years;

4. the funding and fueling of unrest, division, and war in the ME; 

5. the destabilization and coup in the Ukraine.

Anyone who cares to deny such power and control only has to ask if there is any truth to the porposition, "The man who controls the British money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply."   

It is also instructive to check out which ethnic group had and continues to have the largest and most sophisticated crime and vice syndicates and mafias in the US, and which group has always had the best access to money laundering. 

Furthermore, why is Russia so vilified and bashed by the Western cabal-owned mainstream media and politicians?  

Russia which was under Western banskter-cabal control all through the life of the USSR, is presently the only major power relatively free of that control. What Putin has been busy opposing is the Rothschild-bankster-backed and funded, globalist One World Government, together with their proposed One World Bank in which the cabal intends to control the world's money supply - no doubt running another ponzi operation with a fiat currency backed my international military force, much like the same mess they made with the US Federal Reserve and the precarious US petrodollar, which they will most certainly intend to abandon to the prejudice and impoverishment of everyone holding that currency. 

In addition to its coveted Asian-dominating landmass and its plentiful resources, Russia under Putin has been a huge problem for the cabal attaining its globalist goals. He has been instrumental in setting up an alternate world banking system independent of cabal dominance. Further, he has had the audacity to offer to the world an alternative to the One World Government machinations of the cabal, whereby all nations, including the US, GB, Israel, and the EU, would have to adhere to the Rule of Law under acceptable conventions which would protect the self-determination and sovereignty of all member nations.

For these reasons the cabal-controlled media and political hacks in the West are paid and induced to bash both Putin and Russia.  

The bottom line for the survival of the world is for the backing of all creeds and nations which will adhere only to trading and dealing with others on the basis of gold and silver, i.e. the guiding golden and silver moral standards of our Western civilization, which are:

 1. The golden rule: Deal with others as you would have them deal with yourself;

  (and if that is too expensive for you then in the very least adhere to the use the silver currency rule which is)

 2. Do not do to others that which you do not want done to yourself.

These rules essentially are grounded on the Western "neighbor principle" in which the notion of "others" is universal (not sectarian) and extends to anyone who can foreseeably be affected by your actions and which is the essence of our morality-based criminal and tort laws in our civilization. 

 

In reply to by hootowl