Huge Protests In Iran Call for IRGC and Regime to Go After They Admit Shooting Down Plane

Protests continue in Iran...

Fourth Day of Iran Protests Brings Student Rallies at Tehran Universities
https://www.breitbart.com/national-...rings-student-rallies-at-tehran-universities/

 

He doesn't want to be king:

 

Very interesting!!!

 

@realDonaldTrump your speech on #Iran from Milwaukee has been subbd. In Farsi and is circulating all over #Iranian social media. #IraniansLoveTrump Thank you for standing with the #IranProtesters @davereaboi @DonaldJTrumpJr

https://twitter.com/SagharKasraie/s...ntial-politics-trump-administration-day-1091/

 

Crickets from Democrats.

The real situation in Iran:

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=510695156229440

Clearly a deplorable.

 

I thought foreigners hate Trump?

 

Better a king than an Islamofascist Mullah.

 

If you had told me 2 weeks ago, that Trump would not only defend the embassy, but also kill perhaps the top terrorist on earth, expose Iranian incompetence, get democrats to side with the mullahs and terrorists, have the most popular tweet ever in Iran, and have Trump rallies being watched in Iran-I would have never believed it.

 

It reminds me of when Reagan was busy defeating the Evil Empire, over the objections of these same Democrats. Truly the enemy within......

 

Of course our relationship with Iran is not explained by any one single event. As we both know, there is a lot of history between the two nations.

But the hit on Soleimani was triggered by very recent events - the unprovoked killing of an American and wounding of 4 soldiers on an American base in Iraq and the attempted storming of our embassy in Baghdad.

As you know, I want our military OUT of both Syria and Iraq. But as long as they are there, even if I don't agree with it, I absolutely believe they may defend themselves, and they may retaliate if attacked. Furthermore, I am convinced that these attacks were perpetrated by Shiite militias taking their orders from Iran and, specifically, Soleimani.

We took out one general. He has been replaced with another general. The last thing Iran wants is for the U.S. to get really pissed. The killing of Soleimani was not only justified, but it definitely sent a message. The fact that that message was received loud and clear in Tehran became evident when the Iranians virtually called us up in advance of their "retaliatory" missile attack to warn us it was coming. This forewarning was instrumental in their attack resulting in zero casualties to either American or Iraqi troops. IMHO, this is what Iran wanted - no casualties. Why?

Fear and common sense.

Trump rightly ignored their little propaganda stunt, and nothing else has happened.

One thing Trump has proven is that he will sit down and negotiate with anyone. I'm not saying the Iranians will negotiate with Trump, but the door is always open.

 

Democrats shot down a bill to support and help the protesters. They side with terrorists, but why?

 

They have a shared goal of weakening the United States.

 

There is even more to it than that, but we will leave it at what you said.

While the rest of your message is generally articulate and reasoned, even if lacking in certain respects, this part of your message lacks credible evidence. And, in fact, is refuted by the evidence that does exist. In any case, the mortar attacks you allude to were certainly not unprovoked. If you want, I can give you a partial list of actions taken by the US against the Iraqi forces that were allegedly behind the mortar attacks which you refer to.

While I respect your viewpoint, lets say that those in Iraq and Syria who share your preference that US troops leave their country, view it as entirely legitimate (for understandable reasons, if you put yourself in the same shoes) to attack forces occupying their country (or parts of it) as long as they haven't.

Simplistic. The relationship between Iran and the rest of the forces that comprise the broader, axis of resistance, is more complicated than what you mention. However, I am not going to quibble too much about this as obviously Iran has a significant role in the overall policies of the axis of resistance and General Soleimani was Iran's point-man on this front.

General Soleimani was no ordinary general; he was hugely popular in Iran and among those who are sympathetic towards the axis of resistance. But the real point is this: unless the US wanted to declare war on Iran for policies which General Soleimani was merely implementing, what the US did was clear form of state sponsored terrorism. It violated several different tenants of public international law and was entirely at odds with basic norms in international relations. Norms which, of course, Trump (taking a page from the neocon script which influences him even if he may not share all their more grandiose agendas) is also not interested in strengthening and has been working on weakening instead.

A coherent narrative, but tells you only a part of the larger story and has bits and pieces of propaganda affecting it as well.

The fuller picture is that, obviously, Iran wanted to retaliate in a manner that was both direct and attributable to Iran as an open retaliation against the assassination of General Soleimani, as well as one that would not force a war between the two sides. Iran was willing to risk such a war by doing what it did, since even this attack fell within the scope of Trump's threat to hit back at Iran (and called Trump's bluff in this regard), but it wasn't interested in doing something that would make a war inevitable. It wanted to give Trump an out if he chose to take it.

In this regard, for a host of reasons, Iran prefers that responsibility for any actual war rest with the US, calibrating its responses in numerous attacks attributed to Iran to date (including the attacks on the oil tankers, the shooting down of the US Global Hawk drone, the attack on the Aramco facility) in a way that would send a message without engaging in mindless mayhem. In fact, in all those attacks, including the attacks on the oil tankers (where Iran took pains to put the mines in a place on the tankers where they would cause damage but neither casualties nor an oil spill), the Aramco attack (taking out half of the Saudi oil production without causing any casualties), the taking down of the Global Hawk (while specifically not taking down the manned reconnaissance plane flying alongside the Global Hawk despite being able to do so), the fact that these attacks didn't cause casualties showed further sophistication and capability than if they had.

Trump's bluff was called and he was given an out which he took. But "nothing else has happened" is both premature and false. First, you have had several of the kind of incidents (e.g., mortar attacks against US forces in Iraq) since then, including one yesterday. Second, during this time, Iraq's parliament and government have asked the US to leave the country, which is the ultimate objectives of Iran's proxy war against the US in Iraq. Third, the missile attacks represented merely the immediate reaction of Iran to General Soleimani's assassination. The real fight has not even yet begun in earnest, in part due to the tragedy that has right now engulfed public attention in Iran. The whole 'hoopla' about this unfortunate tragedy will subside. In fact, when the dust settles, it might even become clear that the US (or possibly Israel) bear as much responsibility for what happened than any Iranian authority, as jamming and electronic warfare measures are being openly blamed and investigated as among the reasons which led to the errors behind the shoot down of the Ukrainian airliner. But one thing I can assure you of is this: this is not over for either side. Not for Iran and not for the US either.

Trump's door is open for Iran to capitulate. For a side that hasn't accomplished nearly anything except win some propaganda battles among those who were already converted (both at home, in the region, and in Iran), while in fact alienating many more people, the idea that Iran will capitulate seems like wishful thinking.

 

As long as AIPAC is an influential interest group even among the leadership of the Democratic party, the differences between the Republicans and Democrats on Iran in merely about tactics and partisan politics. Otherwise, they both share the same ultimate objectives.

But, among the rank-and-file in both parties, with their numbers much larger among the Democrats, there are those who 'share' Iran's belief that the US should not have forces in Iraq or Syria or elsewhere in the region. Hence, many Democrats (and quite a few Republicans) will not be entirely enthusiastic about seeing the US set in motion policies which not only bring troops home, but add to the troops in the region. And which not only diminish the risk of 'endless wars' but increases those risks.

 

I have heard of a mortar attack on one of our bases in the past day or two. But there were no casualties. I think casualties are the red line for Trump. If one of these Iranian-backed Shiite militias causes a bunch of casualties, I expect Trump will blame Iran, and then Trump will hit back.

Nobody in the U.S. thought a U.S. president would sit down with Kim Jong Un and talk ... until Trump did it. Trump is not just any U.S. president. He has proven that he will negotiate and talk with anyone, and he has said that he would negotiate with Iran - even now.

Iran need not capitulate. Capitulate what? Many people in this country - not just Trump - did not agree with the nuclear agreement with Iran because of restrictions on verification and because it wasn't permanent. Knowing Trump, if Iran wanted to make a deal with the U.S. that was fully verifiable and permanent, what would they be capitulating?

There is a lot of bad history between the U.S. and Iran. But Trump - perhaps more than any past U.S. president or potentially future president - is the type of person who would be happy to close this unhappy chapter and start something new. He showed this characteristic with North Korea. Iran would have to pledge to stop supporting groups like Hezbollah and stop shipping arms to groups like Hamas and the Houthis in Yemen. If Iran wished to be a peaceful nation, not fomenting war against other nations and peoples, knowing Trump, he would welcome Iran into friendship and cooperation.

That is how Trump is. He does not feel tied to the past. He is dynamic and not afraid of positive change. What he needs, of course, to bring about positive change, is an honest partner. If Iran wished to be that partner, it could happen.

If Iran or Iran's proxies attack our overseas people, Iran is going to feel our wrath. However, if Iran wishes to turn the page and take a positive, productive path, anything is possible with this president. There will be a new president in either 2020 or 2024. Iran should realize that there is an opportunity for a new paradigm that may disappear when he is out of office, and Iran should take advantage of the opportunity while it's still there.

Seth

 

I'd point out that the administration did NOT say that was the reason. And, they gave messages so mixed an contrary that it had Republican Senators upset.

Next, Iran is clearly NOT cowed by this assassination. In fact, one of their actions was to take a stronger stance on their nuclear program - the single most important issue we have with Iran.

Trump has made NO move to negotiat with Iran. In fact, he trashed the multination negotiation we had.

And, any claim that the deal wasn't good enough is total crap. As expected, Iran was encroaching on that deal. Had Trump wanted to negotiate he could have used that encroachment and the power of our allies who signed that document and who had the same rightful complaints.

But, he did not. He renegged and walked away.

European countries ARE working on negotiating with Iran. Trump's actions are are hindering that. And, he's making no move to improve that problem.

 

The Obama deal is dead and gone.

 

I deny the circulation

 

Are you saying its not available in Iran, with farsi translation?

https://twitter.com/hashtag/Iranian?src=hash

Iran so far away...

 

It is JPOCA, which where approved by the UN security council, NOT Obama deal.
Trump is targeting Iranian people, just to reverse what was done in Obama time? What a histrionic kid!

 

Where has Trump targeted the Iranian people?

The Iranian people are NOT the problem.

Im in Los Angeles-there is a huge number of Persians here.

Obama's deal is over, expired, kaput, ineffective.

 

Those in LA have Iranian origin, but mostly not Iranians, and not affected by sanctions. They have moved 40 years ago, some are even just born from an iranian father, while some are fans of shah regime

 

And, Trump IS targeting Iranian people, even if he claims that his actions are intended to make people rise against the govt.

 

Yes thats true, but they are as Iranian as you, sanctions or not.

 

As I understand it, the sanctions have been quite destabilizing in your country.

Would you agree?

Does the typical Iranian in Iran love the Mullahs?