We Were "This Close" Says Iran

The chants you refer to, which had lost all its resonance within Iran until the US began to try again to impose itself on Iran, first under Bush, who put Iran into the 'axis of evil', and since then, more recently under Trump's "maximum pressure, don't mean what you imagine. They don't show real hatred for America, but are meant to signify resistance to America's attempts to impose itself on Iran and in the region.

You have to have visited Iran to understand even that slogan, but I noticed a CNN anchor who had visited Iran, and who had even talked to crowds who were shouting these slogans, was ridiculed by people like you for trying to honestly relate her experience talking to these people.

If America tries to stop imposing itself on Iran, those chants and what you allude to would disappear. Iran's political culture is fiercely resistant of any foreign attempt to impose itself on Iran. Which is why Iran has been able to keep its distinct heritage and culture for over several millennia of history. Otherwise, though, the same way Iran never had any aspiration to conquer Rome even as it stood firmly to stop Rome from taking over the Middle East, Iran has no desire or interest to anything that is your's. But it wants you to properly understand what is your's and what is not.

 

The best retaliation they ever made was rocket attacks on US coalition bases in Iraq, Iran's capabilities are still limited. A war with Iran would be costly for the US and even would promote destabilization and a rise of another US animosity aside isis, a war wit Iran is senseless and does not have a paramount goal.

 

So sorry!, It was Alexa, I don't know how I did that...lol

 

I really don't know who the Americans target as enemies, I only gave his contribution to Hizbi as an example, you also acknowledge that he was on the battle field - so to speak - fighting ISIS, he was very active in the proxy command business, perhaps the threats he posed in the Saudi front or Yemen or somewhere else were more important than Lebanon or Syria, perhaps not - all I'm saying is that we know he was a very active and very important pivot in Iran's ability to activate its proxies.
I dont think any democracy has such a person to compare, it's like the head of the KGB was not just a diplomat.

 

Live and let live....
Are you sure it's what you (Iran) preach in order to demand in return ? 'cause many in the ME would argue about that.

 

Yes and no....
The fantasies or propaganda about each side has to do with ordinary citizens support in order to be true - that is for Iran to Nuke Israel as soon as they develop these weapons and for Israel to conquer Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Iraq, Iran - as the legend goes...

Both are just propaganda because the ppl would not support such things no matter how "evil" the man on top and both leaderships as much as I can tell worry a great deal about popular support, we do have enough conventional reasons to fight each other, sadly.....

 

And that is Irans problem.

 

The only reason we are still in Iraq is the flawed policy of nation building. If we seek no more than the total annihilation of a country such as Iran we could do so and you guys would be little more than a training exercise for our military and a target range to practice with the latest high technology weapons at our disposal.

 

The US could do a lot of damage to Iran. But whether you like to pretend otherwise, or are simply clueless, as the US is doing its vandalism and damage, Iran could bring a lot of damage and destruction all across the region which hosts dozens of US bases, thousands of US troops, and which sees dozens of US naval assets. And, in the process, Iran would be destroying much of the oil infrastructure and closing off key shipping lanes in the region. Pretty much everything within a 2,000 mile radius of Iran is within the range of more than 50,000 Iranian missiles. And these are ballistic missiles which are both precise in their ability to hit their targets and carry a major punch (typically loaded with 1-2 thousand kilogram warheads). And this is just one of the many ways Iran could and would retaliate.

Otherwise, lets be clear. If taking out Iran or its military was as simple as you imagine, the US would have done it already. And Trump's isn't much into "nation building" so you can be sure that isn't the impediment either.

 

Saddam had the same bluster and ended up hiding in a hole.

 

Saddam didn't have the same bluster and, as you mentioned, ended up hiding in a hole. Iran has been fighting the US for much longer and hasn't been hiding anywhere.

 

Talking about hiding in holes and Saddam reminded me of this:

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/...saddam-era-bunkers-during-iran-strikes-report
US troops hid in Saddam-era bunkers during Iran strikes: Report

The US learned from Iraq that the base would be attacked and did nothing to stop it. The attacks came in waves and besides the damage and injury they did, could have (but for 'sheer luck') killed many troops. Yet, even as each salvo was being fired at the base, the US did nothing. Instead, it has its troops hiding in bunkers made by Saddam.

 

Like in Libya perhaps? Or doesn't an ambassador count?

 

At best Iran would go down fighting but it would go down fast and hard. Any fantasies you harbor of any kind of victory over the US are just that, fantasies. Your country would cease to exist and our war with you would be no more than a page in a chapter of American history.

 

The point here is not that Iran is a Theocracy and we are a Democracy. We don't assassinate high level people from Russia.

For sure Soleimani was active with Iran's proxies - that's what military leaders do. It wasn't like this guy was some rogue actor - he was acting on behalf of his Gov't. That he is gone makes zero difference - someone else will be appointed to do his job - interact with Iran's proxies and so on.

Obviously we have similar people who engage with our proxies - how does this not compare with Soleimani ?

In terms of dirty deeds - we have comparable.

We did not do ourselves any favors by taking this guy out. Nothing was accomplished other than yet another violating of the rules of civilized behavior among nations.

 

Sure we could - we could drop a few nukes and that would be that.

A conventional war would be a disaster. You are completely out of your mind if you think Iran would be training exercise. That's what Rumsfeld said about Iraq - and look how that turned out. 5000 soldiers dead - tens of thousands injured both physically and psychologically - and 6 Trillion dollars - and what did we accomplish ?

There is no comparison between Iraq and Iran. Iran is way way stronger than Iraq was.

This is not to say that we would not decimate them - of course we would - but at what cost ?

 

Agreed.

Actually, we (America) think mainly in terms of individual freedom and our Constitution and society are structured around that. Our interactions with the outside world are necessarily more complex. Economics certainly are an important and prominent aspect of our foreign policy, as they are with every other country, but it’s only one aspect.

I get what you’re saying about “heedlessness” and its consequences. There’s another, similar way to look at that and it’s a theme that runs through the works of one of our greatest writers, William Faulkner, who won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1949. His most powerful and complex novels (ex., Absolom, Absolom!) deal with the Antebellum, Civil War, and post-Antebellum South and the issue that still hangs like a black cloud over the South - slavery - and the theme is essentially Man cannot defy Nature with impunity. This axiom applies regardless of whether we are referring to Nature in its broadest form (cosmic and human nature) or its narrowest form (our earthly habitat). In the case of the Antebellum South, Man defied his own nature by enslaving his fellow Man, and the consequence of that arrogance was the South’s destruction during our Civil War. Another example can be found in the former Soviet Union where the communists enslaved the population and instituted a socio-economic system that contradicted human nature and the consequence of their arrogance was the destruction of the USSR.

As for the problems of slavery, wars of conquest, racism, etc., they existed long before the Enlightenment and the foundation of the United States of America, and some of those problems were brought here from the Old World. Where we screwed up was not in our post-Enlightenment thinking - it was in our ignorance and abandonment of our Enlightenment thinking here in America, which I’ll point out is different from the Enlightenment thinking in Europe and most particularly France. We didn’t reject and expel religion in our Enlightenment - we fused it with the secular. Anyway, had the Founders and the generations that followed them adhered to the lofty Enlightenment and Christian ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights we would have abolished slavery in 1789 and perhaps treated the indigenous people in this country differently.

Mankind is the devil’s playground, my friend. Where there are people, the playground comes with them.

I understand what you’re saying and I’m capable of thinking in those terms, but many Americans can understand this from our own post-Enlightenment perspective. However, I will concede that many of us cannot.

 

You are confusing the occupation and attempt at nation building with the actual war in Iraq in which Saddam's forces were immediately defeated with a handful of US casualties.

 

Nice post, but unfortunately I don’t have time right now to give it the attention and response it deserves. I will reply this evening when I am able to do so. Thanks.

 

So we go in - take out the leader - and just leave ? What would that accomplish - Zero. . Iran would likely respond by mass bombing of Israel - and our bases in the region.

Iraq's military had been decimated by desert storm a decade prior. In the interim there were crippling sanctions and an arms embargo. Saddam was fighting back with dilapidated 1970's equipment - and an army and people that did not want to fight.

Our troops walked through the streets of Baghdad unimpeded - No one was shooting at them from rooftops - setting up bombs in the streets and so on. It was a cake walk.

Iraq's scud missiles were a joke compared to Iranian missile technology. This would be like comparing a tomahawk cruise missile to the home make rockets that Hezbollah fires at Israel.

 

When we were contemplating war with Iraq all we heard from the left was how strong the Iraq military was and how we would fail just as they now do with Iran.
We don't need troops on the ground to destroy every last vestige of civilization in Iran if we so desired. It would be little more than a training exercise.

 

As usual - you are repeating your premise - as if premise repetition constitutes proof of claim - and making up nonsense.

Your claim that all we heard from the left was how strong Iraq's military was is false.

 

The left loves to revise history. At the time they said our weapons would fail in the desert heat and sand and Iraq soldiers were used to the heat that our troops would collapse in not to mention reports Iraq had the third largest army in the world. Remember the "thousands of body bags will be needed for US troops thing?

 

To be fair I said top general. I assume your talking about haftar?

 

Your claim about the left was false - and silliness to begin with - and it is you who is revising history. If not - then prove your claim.
The left was not claiming writ large - that Saddam was some powerful military force ... as this would be stupid - and most on the left are not that stupid.

This matters not to your even more absurd mindlessness in arguing that Iraq is comparable to Iran with respect to military might. That is right of the turnip truck of revisionist history - and revisionist reality.

Please give us your comparison of the Scud Missile technology that Saddam was using during the Iraq war - and Iran missile technology as it exists today.