So Czer is ISIS really just a Saudi front created to mess w/Iran?

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Utumno, Jun 14, 2014.

  1. Skars

    Skars I never troll

    Post Count:
    41,670
    You're the Iran guy Czer, if the US fully goes all in on Iran how does it go? I assume the US will win but Iran has enough Russia/China tech to do some damage and probably win the political side of a war.
     
  2. Czer

    Czer I'm a poor person. The lambo is my cousin's.

    Post Count:
    24,091
    US would need ww2 levels of troops to hold iran, at least 1 million soldiers, irans the size of western europe and has almost 90 million people, its basically a giant mountain with deserts

    Russia 100 percent wouldnt allow the US to occupy or defeat iran, it would be their death sentence and its very unrealistic the US would be able
     
    Last edited: May 14, 2019
  3. Czer

    Czer I'm a poor person. The lambo is my cousin's.

    Post Count:
    24,091
    This makes the most sense to me

    Iran seeks broader defense cooperation with Russia amid US pressure
    May 10, 2019

    https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/or...ary-cooperation-arms-deals-embargo-jcpoa.html

    Amid rising US pressure, Iran and Russia appear to be gearing toward forging closer military and defense ties. Last week, the commander of the regular Iranian navy announced plans for an Iranian-Russian joint military exercise in the Persian Gulf. Particularly given the recent speculations about differences arising between Tehran and Moscow in Syria, the announcement by Rear Adm. Hossein Khanzadi seemed to serve as a signal that bilateral ties are vital and unbreakable.

    It is not the first time Russia and Iran are to conduct such exercises. The Caspian Sea was the stage of similar war games in 2015 and 2017. Of note, Russia has been holding such maneuvers with China and Pakistan as well. But what makes the new Iran-Russia exercise stand out is the timing and the latest developments preceding it.

    Among those developments are the Artemis Trident 19 exercise jointly conducted by the United States, Britain and France in the Persian Gulf; the US decision to designate Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a Foreign Terrorist Organization; Washington's push to entirely halt Iranian oil exports and Iran’s threats that it may shut down the strategic Strait of Hormuz as a reciprocal measure; US efforts to boost its military presence in the Persian Gulf region, including Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, where it has deployed F-35 fighter jets; and Saudi steps toward forging what has been referred to as an Arab NATO.

    These developments have taken place in a context in which after adopting all forms of political and economic measures intensified by a widespread media war — and as part of its so-called maximum pressure policy — the United States is now pushing confrontation with Iran into a new level by militarily threatening Tehran or at least eliciting harsh responses from the latter. Meanwhile, the administration of President Hassan Rouhani has put an end to its policy of "strategic patience" by, for now, abandoning some of its voluntary commitments under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif has in turn brought up the prospects of an Iranian withdrawal from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as an option.

    After Washington's unilateral withdrawal from the JCPOA last May, Iran seems to have further lost its faith in negotiating with the United States. In a recently released comprehensive vision called the "Second Step of the Revolution," Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei once again dismissed the idea of any talks with Washington. Moreover, Qasem Soleimani, the powerful commander of the Quds Force — the foreign operations branch of the IRGC — has also described talks with the United States under the current circumstances as "sheer surrender."

    To put this stance into practice, Iran is expected to take more steps looking ahead. In this vein, Khamenei has already called on Iranians to "make appropriate and proportionate arrangements against the enemy's military postures." His remarks touched upon resisting economic, political and intelligence campaigns against Iran rather than necessarily a military confrontation. Yet a call for military preparedness could still be read between the lines. Iran has been focusing on ensuring such preparedness in recent years, most visibly in the form of its controversial missile program.

    What Iran chiefly lacks under the present circumstances is a foreign partner for conventional arms deals as well as military and security cooperation in an extremely tense and unstable region. Given Iran and Russia’s common views on regional security and their shared anti-American approach, Tehran has thus sought to expand its defense ties with Moscow to fill this gap and meet certain long-term goals. These goals include finding a place on Russia’s side in Moscow’s rivalry with Washington, promoting “an aggressive defense strategy” and collaborating on regional security. Importantly, Iran has also sought to make use of Russian military know-how.

    The Persian Gulf is a theater where Russia can flex its muscles in a region where the United States has long been the lone foreign superpower. In this vein, the joint Iranian-Russian exercises could eventually serve as another card in Russia's political bargaining with Washington. It is important to note that under the current circumstances such drills may not provide immediate or even medium-term strategic benefits for Iran. Tehran is aware of this, and thus its main aim with the exercises is to entice a Russian willingness to establish broader defense ties.

    Due to arms trade restrictions imposed on Iran by the United States and European countries following the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Russia has been the leading arms supplier of the Islamic Republic. Under a deal signed in 1989, Moscow agreed to deliver $5.1 billion in weapons to Tehran, including S-200VE air defense systems, MiG-29 and Su-24 fighter jets as well as Mi-17 helicopters. However, seven years later, the deal was in tatters after the signing of the US-Russia Gore-Chernomyrdin arrangement. Normal Russian military ties with Iran were only resumed after this partnership was terminated. As such, in the 2000s, Iran imported even more Su-25 aircraft and purchased the Tor-M1 air defense systems to protect its vital government, military and nuclear sites against attack. One of the most notable deals between the two sides was for the Russian S-300 missile defense system, which was delivered to Iran in 2016.

    With the current external pressure on Iran only mounting, Moscow remains the sole ally that Tehran can count on for arms supplies and military partnership. Although such cooperation is facing hurdles under UN Security Council Resolution 2231, the two are making efforts to bypass the existing limitations. Perhaps more importantly, Russian military cooperation with Iran could jump with the lifting of the UN arms embargo in 2020 under Resolution 2231, which endorses the nuclear deal. Indeed, Dmitry Shugayev, the director of the Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation, has stressed that Iran-Russia military relations could further expand after 2020, and has also expressed Russia's interest in cooperating with Iran on the stationing of a defense shield on the coasts of the Persian Gulf.

    A post-2020 expansion in Iranian-Russian military cooperation would be a natural follow-on of a bilateral agreement in 2015 between the two sides to expand military ties, characterized by closer and more concrete cooperation. Indeed, it was within the framework of the 2015 agreement that Russia delivered its long-awaited S-300 defense systems. The accord also paved the way for Iran’s hosting of Russian aircraft at its western Nojeh air base and agreement to allow Russian fighter jets, bombers and missiles to use Iranian airspace for operations in Syria, where the two countries have found a lot in common to work on together.

    To counter US pressure with greater strength, Iran is feeling the urge to deepen its military ties with Russia post-2020 by requesting further conventional arms, including Su-30 and Su-35 fighter jets, Yakovlev Yak-130 light fighters, Mi-8 and Mi-17 helicopters, T-90 tanks and the Bastion mobile coastal defense missile system. But beyond mere weapons imports, Iran wants military ties with Russia to also encompass long-term cooperation aligned with the Islamic Republic’s regional and geopolitical strategies. However, it is noteworthy that both sides are pursuing the potential expansion of defense ties with caution: Iran has no intention of serving as a bargaining chip in the hands of Russia in its rivalry with the United States. Similarly, Moscow is by no means interested in unnecessarily entering a battlefield in which Iran is facing off the United States and its regional allies at a level unseen in recent history.
     
  4. Czer

    Czer I'm a poor person. The lambo is my cousin's.

    Post Count:
    24,091
    Trump says he's not considering sending troops to Iran, but he 'absolutely' would
    05/14/2019

    https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/14/trump-troops-iran-1320748

    President Donald Trump on Tuesday dismissed a report that he was reviewing a plan to send hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops to the Middle East, saying he'd send "a hell of a lot more troops than that" if he decided to get more aggressive with Iran.

    The New York Times reported Monday that top national security officials at the White House were presented last week with an updated plan by acting Defense Secretary Pat Shanahan that “envisions sending as many as 120,000 troops to the Middle East should Iran attack American forces or accelerate work on nuclear weapons.”

    “I think it's fake news, OK?” Trump told reporters while leaving the White House Tuesday. “Now, would I do that? Absolutely. But we have not planned for that. Hopefully we’re not going to have to plan for that. If we did that, we would send a hell of a lot more troops than that.”

    The conflict in Iran took several turns last week, with the U.S. deploying a Navy strike group and a unit of B-52 bombers to the region early in the week, followed by another warship and a battery of air-defense missiles, in response to what U.S. officials said was intelligence about threats from Iran. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has twice diverted foreign trips in response to moves by Tehran, most recently scrapping a meeting with U.S. embassy staff in Moscow to meet with European leaders in Brussels.

    Iran last week marked the one-year anniversary of the U.S. withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal by announcing that it would stop complying with parts of the pact. That move was met with U.S. sanctions on its metals sectors, after Washington had already tightened its grip on Iranian exports of enriched uranium and oil.

    But despite increasing tensions with Tehran, Trump also said last week he would be willing to reenter talks, urging President Hassan Rouhani to give him a call. And while Trump has said he would confront Iran with military action if necessary, he has also said he opposes unnecessary military conflict in the Middle East, announcing plans to pull most American troops out of both Syria and Afghanistan.

    The Times reported that officials including national security adviser John Bolton, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff Joseph Dunford, CIA Director Gina Haspell and director of national intelligence Dan Coats attended the meeting last week at which potential troop levels were discussed. The 120,000 figure was at the high end of that spectrum, according to the paper.
     
  5. Czer

    Czer I'm a poor person. The lambo is my cousin's.

    Post Count:
    24,091
    US does not seek war with Iran, says Mike Pompeo
    5/14/2019

    https://preview.tinyurl.com/y6esk9m6



    US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has said the United States does not seek a war with Iran, amid rapidly growing tensions between the two countries.

    Speaking in Russia, Mr Pompeo said the US was looking for Iran to behave like a "normal country" but would respond if its interests were attacked.

    Meanwhile, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has also said there will be no war with the US.

    Last week, the US deployed warships and warplanes to the Gulf.

    Tensions escalated even further after an incident with four tankers off the United Arab Emirates on Sunday, with US investigators reportedly believing Iran or groups it supports were involved.

    No evidence of Iran's role has emerged and Tehran, which denies any involvement, has called for an investigation.

    In another development, Spain withdrew a frigate from a US-led naval group in the Gulf as tensions between Washington and Tehran rose.

    What has Pompeo said?
    Mr Pompeo, who held talks with Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in the Russian city of Sochi, said the US "fundamentally" did not seek a conflict with Iran.

    "We have also made clear to the Iranians that if American interests are attacked, we will most certainly respond in an appropriate fashion."

    The talks between Mr Pompeo and Mr Lavrov to help improve ties between Washington and Moscow have underlined continuing differences:
    • Mr Pompeo said he had urged Russia to end its support for President Nicolás Maduro but Mr Lavrov rejected this, saying the US threats against Mr Maduro were undemocratic
    • He also said he had warned Russia against interference in the 2020 US presidential election while Mr Lavrov said he hoped that tumult over allegations of Russian influence in US elections would die down
    • On Ukraine, Mr Pompeo said the US would not recognise Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 and that sanctions would remain in place
    What has Iran said?
    In remarks carried on state media and on his Twitter account, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei repeated Tehran's position that it would not negotiate with the US on a nuclear deal to replace the one President Donald Trump withdrew from last year.

    But Mr Khamenei said: "We don't seek a war, nor do they."

    On Monday, President Hassan Rouhani told a meeting with clerics that Iran was "too great to be intimidated by anyone", saying: "God willing we will pass this difficult period with glory and our heads held high, and defeat the enemy."

    What has Spain said?
    The Spanish frigate Mendez Nunez had been accompanying a US aircraft carrier's strike group in the Gulf for a military exercise.

    But on Tuesday, Acting Defence Minister Margarita Robles said it would be recalled because the original mission had changed.

    The Spanish daily El Pais said Madrid wanted to avoid being dragged into any kind of conflict with Iran.

    A defence ministry spokesman later told AFP news agency it was "a temporary withdrawal... as long as the American aircraft carrier is in this zone".

    "No possible confrontation or warlike action is envisaged (by Spain) and it is for this reason that the participation is suspended for the moment," the spokesman added.

    Why have tensions with Iran risen?
    The incident with the four commercial ships is said to have taken place within UAE territorial waters in the Gulf of Oman, east of the emirate of Fujairah, but few details have been released.

    The vessels had been targeted in a "sabotage attack" near Fujairah port, just outside the Strait of Hormuz, the UAE foreign ministry said.

    There were no casualties but Saudi Arabia said two of its ships had suffered "significant damage". Another tanker was Norwegian-registered while the fourth was reportedly UAE-flagged.

    US military investigators discovered large holes in all of the ships and believe they were caused by explosive charges, the Associated Press reported quoting an unnamed official. They did not explain how the damage was linked to Iran.

    Compared with previous attacks on shipping in the Middle East - the USS Cole in 2000, the Limburg tanker in 2002 and more recent attacks off Yemen - the damage done to four tankers off the UAE coast on Sunday is minimal.

    There has been no oil spillage, no flames and no casualties. But the timing is both suspicious and dangerous.

    Whoever carried out this attack could hardly have been unaware of the rising tensions in the Gulf, with the US dispatching additional forces to the region. It would appear that the anonymous culprit was deliberately trying to ratchet up that tension, possibly provoking a conflict.

    While Saudi Arabia and the UAE have stopped short of blaming their adversary, Iran, US officials have reportedly said that is where their suspicions lie. But Iran has condemned the attack as "dreadful" and a parliamentary spokesman said Iranian suspicions fell on Israel.
    [​IMG]
    What has Trump said?
    On Tuesday, President Trump dismissed a New York Times report suggesting the military had plans to send up to 120,000 troops to the Middle East should Iran attack US forces there or accelerate work on nuclear weapons.

    "We have not planned for that. Hopefully we're not going to have to plan for that. And if we did that, we'd send a hell of a lot more troops than that," Mr Trump said a day after warning Iran that it would "suffer greatly" if it did anything.

    The US has previously warned that "Iran or its proxies" could be targeting maritime traffic in the region and, in recent days, deployed warships to counter "clear indications" of threats from the country.

    Iran dismissed the allegation as nonsense.

    Earlier, Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen said they had carried out drone attacks on a major Saudi oil pipeline. Saudi Arabia's energy minister described the incident as an act of terrorism.
     
  6. Czer

    Czer I'm a poor person. The lambo is my cousin's.

    Post Count:
    24,091
    The US conscripted/enlisted 16 million troops in WW2 for perspective.

    Even during WW2 we had the largest airforce, largest production of military vehicles, largest navy, both artillery and tank production were second only to the Soviets.

    Today both Russia and China have a larger tank force, China has the largest ballistic missile arsenal, US leads air force with Russia and China behind.

    The US has a ridiculous number of aircraft over second place Russia, our 14,000 vs Russia's 3,000 and China's smaller 3,000. This is why the S system AA are so important for the Russians.

    China and India have the largest active standing armies while the US and North Korea are almost exactly equal in numbers. Followed closely by Pakistan, South Korea, and Iran (IRGC is not counted among total Iranian armed forces, only the Artesh in most calculations). Those are the top 8 largest standing armies on earth.

    China's shortest range defensive missile (SRBM) can hit Taiwan and Afghanistan.
     
    Last edited: May 14, 2019
  7. Czer

    Czer I'm a poor person. The lambo is my cousin's.

    Post Count:
    24,091
    Allies split with US over Iranian threat as war worries mount
    British general tells reporters that coalition forces have not detected any issues with Iran-backed forced in Iraq and Syria, drawing rare rebuke from US military and exposing rift
    5/14/2019

    https://www.timesofisrael.com/allies-split-with-us-over-iranian-threat-as-war-worries-mount/

    WASHINGTON — International worries that the Trump administration is sliding toward war with Iran flared into the open Tuesday amid skepticism about its claims that the Islamic Republic poses a growing threat to the US and its allies in the Persian Gulf and beyond .

    The US military rebutted doubts expressed by a British general about such a threat. US President Donald Trump denied a report that the administration has updated plans to send more than 100,000 troops to counter Iran if necessary. But Trump then stirred the controversy further by saying: “Would I do that? Absolutely.”

    The general’s remarks exposed international skepticism over the American military build-up in the Middle East, a legacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq that was predicated on false intelligence. US officials have not publicly provided any evidence to back up claims of an increased Iranian threat amid other signs of allied unease.

    As tensions in the region started to surge, British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt said his nation was worried about the risk of accidental conflict “with an escalation that is unintended really on either side.” Then on Tuesday, Spain temporarily pulled one of its frigates from the US-led combat fleet heading toward the Strait of Hormuz. That was followed by the unusual public challenge to the Trump administration by the general.

    “No, there’s been no increased threat from Iranian-backed forces in Iraq and Syria,” said Maj. Gen. Chris Ghika, a British senior officer in the US-backed coalition fighting the Islamic State group. Ghika, speaking in a video conference from coalition headquarters in Baghdad, told reporters at the Pentagon that the coalition monitors the presence of Iranian-backed forces “along with a whole range of others because that’s the environment we’re in.”

    But he added, “There are a substantial number of militia groups in Iraq and Syria, and we don’t see any increased threat from any of them at this stage.”

    Ghika denied he was contradicting his US partners.

    “I don’t think we’re out of step with the White House at all,” Ghika said.

    But late in the day, in a rare public rebuttal of an allied military officer, US Central Command said Ghika’s remarks “run counter to the identified credible threats” from Iranian-backed forces in the Mideast. In a written statement, Central Command said the coalition in Baghdad has increased the alert level for all service members in Iraq and Syria.

    “As a result, (the coalition) is now at a high level of alert as we continue to closely monitor credible and possibly imminent threats to U.S. forces in Iraq,” the statement said.

    At the White House, Trump, who has repeatedly argued for avoiding long-term conflicts in the Mideast, discounted a New York Times report that the US has updated plans that could send up to 120,000 troops to counter Iran if it attacked American forces.

    “Would I do that? Absolutely,” he told reporters. “But we have not planned for that. Hopefully we’re not going to have to plan for that. If we did that, we’d send a hell of a lot more troops than that.”

    Reinforcing Trump’s denial, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said at a joint news conference in Sochi with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, “We fundamentally do not seek war with Iran.”

    A Trump administration official said a recent small meeting of national security officials was not focused on a military response to Iran, but instead concentrated on a range of other policy options, including diplomacy and economic sanctions. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

    Lavrov said Pompeo told him that a potential deployment of 120,000 US troops to the Mideast was only a “rumor.” Lavrov said the international community needs to focus on diplomacy with Iran, including on the potentially explosive issue of Iran’s nuclear program, which is constrained by a US-brokered deal in 2015 that Trump has abandoned.

    US Iran envoy Brian Hook told reporters traveling with Pompeo in Brussels that the secretary of state shared intelligence on Iran with allies since “Europe shares our concerns about stability in the Gulf and the Middle East.” What the Europeans do not share, however, is Washington’s more aggressive approach to Iran.

    “We are very worried about the risk of a conflict happening by accident, with an escalation that is unintended really on either side but ends with some kind of conflict,” British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt told reporters in Brussels.

    “What we need is a period of calm to make sure that everyone understands what the other side is thinking,” Hunt said.

    Last week, US officials said they had detected signs of Iranian preparations for potential attacks on US forces and interests in the Mideast, but Washington has not spelled out that threat.

    Israeli officials have expressed worries that Iranian backed militias could attack Israel to provide cover for other Iranian actions or as retaliation for a confrontation between the US and Iran.

    On Sunday, a senior Iranian lawmaker hinted that Iran could hit Israel if the US attacked Tehran’s interests.

    The US has about 5,000 troops in Iraq and about 2,000 in Syria as part of the coalition campaign to defeat the Islamic State group there. It also has long had a variety of air and naval forces stationed in Bahrain, Qatar and elsewhere in the Gulf, partly to support military operations against IS and partly as a counter to Iranian influence.

    Gen. Ghika’s comments came amid dramatically heightened tensions in the Middle East. The US in recent days has ordered the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier strike group to the Gulf region, plus four B-52 bombers. It also is moving a Patriot air-defense missile battery to an undisclosed country in the area. As of Tuesday, the Lincoln and its strike group had passed through the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait in the Red Sea, but officials would not disclose their exact location.

    Tensions rose another notch with reports Sunday that four commercial vessels anchored off the United Arab Emirates had been damaged by sabotage.

    A US military team was sent to the UAE to investigate, and one US official said the initial assessment is that each ship has a 5- to 10-foot hole in it, near or just below the water line.

    The official, who was not authorized to publicly discuss details of the investigation, said the early interpretation is that the holes were caused by explosive charges.

    The official on Tuesday acknowledged seeing some photographs of the damage to the ships, but those images have not been made public.

    The official also said that the team is continuing to conduct forensic testing on the ship damage and that US leaders are still awaiting the final report.

    The team’s initial assessment is that the damage was done by Iranian or Iranian-backed proxies, but they are still going through the evidence and have not yet reached a final conclusion, the official said.
     
  8. Czer

    Czer I'm a poor person. The lambo is my cousin's.

    Post Count:
    24,091
    Bernie Sanders says war with Iran would be "many times worse than the Iraq War"
    MAY 14, 2019

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie...-would-be-many-times-worse-than-the-iraq-war/

    Sen. Bernie Sanders issued a sudden live video saying that war with Iran would be "many times worse than the Iraq War," in response to reporting by The New York Times saying that the Trump administration is reviewing a plan to send up to 120,000 troops to the Middle East.

    The idea was reportedly spearheaded by John Bolton, the president's national security adviser, who served in the George W. Bush administration at the height of the conflict in Iraq.

    "Sixteen years ago, the U.S. committed one of the worst blunders in history of our country by attacking Iraq," Sanders said in a video recorded live on Periscope and posted to Twitter. He called out Bolton as one of the "leading advocates" of the war, which he called the "biggest foreign policy disaster" in modern U.S. history.

    "Now, based on that disaster that he help bring about in Iraq, it appears that John Bolton wants a war in Iran," Sanders said. "A war in Iran would, in my view, be many times worse than the Iraq War."

    The senator said that he was working to build a coalition in Congress to force President Trump to ask Congress for authorization if he wants to engage in military action in Iran. Congress authorized Mr. Bush to take action in Iraq in 2002, but did not formally declare war. Opponents of the war in Iraq argue that President Bush did not have the constitutional authority to essentially declare war in the country.

    "I am working hard to see if we can get 51 members of the U.S. Senate, as well as a majority in the House of Representatives to make clear that before the President takes any military action in Iran or anyplace else, he must seek authorization from the Congress," Sanders said in the video. "Taking us into a war without congressional authorization would be unconstitutional and illegal."

    Mr. Trump denied the Times' reporting on Tuesday morning, calling the paper "fake news."

    "Now, would I do that? Absolutely," Mr. Trump told reporters. "But we have not planned for that. Hopefully, we are not going to have to plan for that. And if we did that, we'd send a hell of a lot more troops than that."
     
  9. Czer

    Czer I'm a poor person. The lambo is my cousin's.

    Post Count:
    24,091
    British General Contradicts U.S. Claim of Increased Threat From Iran-Backed Militia
    5/14/2019

    http://time.com/5589433/iran-isis-christopher-ghika-contradicts-us/?utm_source=reddit.com

    The top British general in the U.S.-led coalition against ISIS says there is not an increased threat from Iranian-backed forces in Iraq or Syria, despite claims to the contrary by the U.S. to justify increasing its presence in the region.

    “No – there’s been no increased threat from Iranian-backed forces in Iraq and Syria,” Maj. Gen. Christopher Ghika, deputy commander of Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR), the coalition responsible for counter-terrorist operations against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, said in a video briefing, according to the Guardian.

    Ghika said that he has not seen Shia militias in Iraq, who have varying ties to Iran, change their stance recently. “I think it’s important to say that many of them are compliant and we have seen no change in that posture since the recent exchange between the United States and Iran,” he said, according to the Guardian.

    Ghika’s comments contradict those of U.S. officials, who cited “clear indications” that Iran or Iranian-backed forces were preparing for a possible attack against U.S. forces as justification for the deployment of an an aircraft carrier and a bomber task force to the Middle East earlier this month.

    The U.S. Central Command rebuked Ghika’s comments in a statement released late Tuesday.

    “Recent comments from OIR’s Deputy Commander run counter to the identified credible threats available to intelligence from U.S. and allies regarding Iranian backed forces in the region,” said in the statement.

    U.S. officials said that Iran or Iranian allies were responsible for damage to Saudi oil tankers off the coast of the UAE earlier this week.
     
  10. Czer

    Czer I'm a poor person. The lambo is my cousin's.

    Post Count:
    24,091
    Global worries flare over whether US sliding toward Iran war

    https://apnews.com/b90c61d2b8fe49849c88e6be85baa0d3

    WASHINGTON (AP) — International worries that the Trump administration is sliding toward war with Iran flared into the open Tuesday amid skepticism about its claims that the Islamic Republic poses a growing threat to the U.S. and its allies in the Persian Gulf and beyond .

    The U.S. military rebutted doubts expressed by a British general about such a threat. President Donald Trump denied a report that the administration has updated plans to send more than 100,000 troops to counter Iran if necessary. But Trump then stirred the controversy further by saying: “Would I do that? Absolutely.”

    The general’s remarks exposed international skepticism over the American military build-up in the Middle East, a legacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq that was predicated on false intelligence. U.S. officials have not publicly provided any evidence to back up claims of an increased Iranian threat amid other signs of allied unease.

    As tensions in the region started to surge, British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt said his nation was worried about the risk of accidental conflict “with an escalation that is unintended really on either side.” Then on Tuesday, Spain temporarily pulled one of its frigates from the U.S.-led combat fleet heading toward the Strait of Hormuz. That was followed by the unusual public challenge to the Trump administration by the general.

    “No, there’s been no increased threat from Iranian-backed forces in Iraq and Syria,” said Maj. Gen. Chris Ghika, a senior officer in the U.S.-backed coalition fighting the Islamic State group. Ghika, speaking in a video conference from coalition headquarters in Baghdad, told reporters at the Pentagon that the coalition monitors the presence of Iranian-backed forces “along with a whole range of others because that’s the environment we’re in.”

    But he added, “There are a substantial number of militia groups in Iraq and Syria, and we don’t see any increased threat from any of them at this stage.”

    Late in the day, in a rare public rebuttal of an allied military officer, U.S. Central Command said Ghika’s remarks “run counter to the identified credible threats” from Iranian-backed forces in the Mideast. In a written statement, Central Command said the coalition in Baghdad has increased the alert level for all service members in Iraq and Syria.

    “As a result, (the coalition) is now at a high level of alert as we continue to closely monitor credible and possibly imminent threats to U.S. forces in Iraq,” the statement said.

    At the White House, Trump, who has repeatedly argued for avoiding long-term conflicts in the Mideast, discounted a New York Times report that the U.S. has updated plans that could send up to 120,000 troops to counter Iran if it attacked American forces.

    “Would I do that? Absolutely,” he told reporters. “But we have not planned for that. Hopefully we’re not going to have to plan for that. If we did that, we’d send a hell of a lot more troops than that.”

    Reinforcing Trump’s denial, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said at a joint news conference in Sochi with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, “We fundamentally do not seek war with Iran.”

    A Trump administration official said a recent small meeting of national security officials was not focused on a military response to Iran, but instead concentrated on a range of other policy options, including diplomacy and economic sanctions. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

    Lavrov said Pompeo told him that a potential deployment of 120,000 U.S. troops to the Mideast was only a “rumor.” Lavrov said the international community needs to focus on diplomacy with Iran, including on the potentially explosive issue of Iran’s nuclear program, which is constrained by a U.S.-brokered deal in 2015 that Trump has abandoned.

    U.S. Iran envoy Brian Hook told reporters traveling with Pompeo in Brussels that the secretary of state shared intelligence on Iran with allies since “Europe shares our concerns about stability in the Gulf and the Middle East.” What the Europeans do not share, however, is Washington’s more aggressive approach to Iran.

    “We are very worried about the risk of a conflict happening by accident, with an escalation that is unintended really on either side but ends with some kind of conflict,” British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt told reporters in Brussels.

    “What we need is a period of calm to make sure that everyone understands what the other side is thinking,” Hunt said.

    Last week, U.S. officials said they had detected signs of Iranian preparations for potential attacks on U.S. forces and interests in the Mideast, but Washington has not spelled out that threat.

    The U.S. has about 5,000 troops in Iraq and about 2,000 in Syria as part of the coalition campaign to defeat the Islamic State group there. It also has long had a variety of air and naval forces stationed in Bahrain, Qatar and elsewhere in the Gulf, partly to support military operations against IS and partly as a counter to Iranian influence.

    Gen. Ghika’s comments came amid dramatically heightened tensions in the Middle East. The U.S. in recent days has ordered the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier strike group to the Gulf region, plus four B-52 bombers. It also is moving a Patriot air-defense missile battery to an undisclosed country in the area. As of Tuesday, the Lincoln and its strike group had passed through the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait in the Red Sea, but officials would not disclose their exact location.

    Tensions rose another notch with reports Sunday that four commercial vessels anchored off the United Arab Emirates had been damaged by sabotage.

    A U.S. military team was sent to the UAE to investigate, and one U.S. official said the initial assessment is that each ship has a 5- to 10-foot hole in it, near or just below the water line. The official, who was not authorized to publicly discuss details of the investigation, said the early interpretation is that the holes were caused by explosive charges.

    The official on Tuesday acknowledged seeing some photographs of the damage to the ships, but those images have not been made public. The official also said that the team is continuing to conduct forensic testing on the ship damage and that U.S. leaders are still awaiting the final report. The team’s initial assessment is that the damage was done by Iranian or Iranian-backed proxies, but they are still going through the evidence and have not yet reached a final conclusion, the official said.
     
  11. Czer

    Czer I'm a poor person. The lambo is my cousin's.

    Post Count:
    24,091
    I refuse to believe this wasn't a long con psyop against the US

     
  12. Czer

    Czer I'm a poor person. The lambo is my cousin's.

    Post Count:
    24,091
  13. Czer

    Czer I'm a poor person. The lambo is my cousin's.

    Post Count:
    24,091
    Germany and Netherlands halt training schemes in Iraq as tensions rise
    15 May 2019

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ential-embassy-staff-leave-iraq-tensions-iran

    Germany and the Netherlands have suspended their military training programmes in Iraq because of a perceived security threat in the wake of rising US-Iranian tensions in the region.

    The announcements came after the US embassy in Baghdad ordered all but emergency staff to leave Iraq. No details of the supposed security threat were provided.

    A German defence ministry spokesman, Jens Flosdorff, said that by pausing its small-scale training missions north of Baghdad and the Kurdish region of northern Iraq, Germany was “orienting itself toward our partner countries, which have taken this step”.

    However, Flosdorff said the move was not a response to a “concrete threat” but rather to a general security situation being viewed as more tense.

    The Dutch public broadcaster, NOS, reported that the country’s 50-strong mission, mostly involved in training Kurdish fighters, had been halted “until further orders”, but quoted a defence ministry spokesman as saying he could not elaborate on the nature of the threat.

    German and Dutch officials did not respond to requests for comment on Wednesday morning. Neither country has followed the US example and withdrawn diplomats from their embassies in Iraq.

    In their public pronouncements, European capitals have generally voiced anxiety at the rising US-Iranian tensions, but European diplomats overwhelmingly blame the Donald Trump administration for seeking to provoke a confrontation. US allies have conspicuously avoided echoing US claims of an imminent threat from Iran.

    The UK and US military have given strikingly different views of the security situation for coalition forces in Iraq and Syria. The UK defence ministry stood by British Maj Gen Christopher Ghika, who was rebuked by US central command on Tuesday for insisting there was no increased threat from Iranian-aligned militias in the region.

    “Maj Gen Ghika speaks as a military officer in the US-led coalition focused on the fight against Daesh [Isis] in Iraq and Syria. His comments are based on the day to day military operations and his sole focus is the enduring defeat of Daesh,” the ministry said in a statement, which did not directly address the question of whether the security threat had increased.

    “He made clear in his Pentagon briefing that “there are a range of threats to American and coalition forces in this part of the world. There always have been, that is why we have a very robust range of force protection measures. The UK has long been clear about our concerns over Iran’s destabilising behaviour in the region.”

    The New York Times on Wednesday quoted an unnamed American official as saying an increased Iranian threat was “small stuff” that did not merit the military build-up advocated by the national security adviser, John Bolton. The official said the “ultimate goal of the year-long economic sanctions campaign by the Trump administration was to draw Iran into an armed conflict with the United States”, according to the report.

    Democrats in Congress have raised similar concerns, pointing to the parallels between the current US actions and the buildup to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, in which Bolton played a supporting role.

    “Iran is and has been for decades a malevolent actor and a state sponsor of terror,” Adam Schiff, the chairman of the House intelligence committee, told the Washington Post. “But I’m also gravely concerned about actions taken by the administration that appear calculated to put us on a collision course.”

    In recent days there have been sabotage attacks against oil tankers, two of them Saudi-owned, in the Persian Gulf, and Houthi rebels in Yemen claimed responsibility for drone strikes against Saudi oil installations. The Houthis receive backing from Iran but most experts say they are not directly controlled from Tehran.

    Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, insisted that “no one is seeking war”, but in the same speech he also ruled out negotiations with the US, saying such talks would be “poison” – an apparent response to Trump’s suggestion that the Iranian leadership call him directly.

    Khamenei also repeated Iran’s threat to enrich uranium beyond the 3.67% limit agreed in a multilateral nuclear deal in 2015, which Trump abrogated last year, if US does not ease its oil embargo and other sanctions. He made clear Iran could even go beyond its previous boundary of 20% enrichment, beyond which it becomes increasingly easy to attain weapons grade, above 90%.

    “Achieving 20% enrichment is the most difficult part,” Khamenei said, according to an Iranian press report. “The next steps are easier than this step.”
     
  14. Czer

    Czer I'm a poor person. The lambo is my cousin's.

    Post Count:
    24,091
    Side talk, Iranians didn't have surnames like you know today until 1912. Many Iranian surnames are the cities/regions they are from, or Islamic. Ahmadi is an Iranian Islamic surname, while Esfahani is is the romanized region of Isfahan.

    Mine is non Islamic and comes from the Fars province, 30 miles from Shiraz the capital of the province. Persepolis is in Fars.


    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2019
  15. Czer

    Czer I'm a poor person. The lambo is my cousin's.

    Post Count:
    24,091
  16. Kilinitic

    Kilinitic 6,000 feet beyond man and time

    Post Count:
    16,075
    Mine is nonislamic + not related to geography
     
  17. Utumno

    Utumno Administrator Staff Member

    Post Count:
    40,579
    What would Fayezi and Saman be? (some of my iranian pals last names)
     
  18. Czer

    Czer I'm a poor person. The lambo is my cousin's.

    Post Count:
    24,091
    Fayezi is in Kerman province and Saman is a county + city in Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari province

    do you have a shahnameh surname kil or is it even persian
     
  19. Czer

    Czer I'm a poor person. The lambo is my cousin's.

    Post Count:
    24,091
    So a leaked OPCW report had said the canisters of chemicals that the west claimed were dropped on area's, were in fact placed

     
  20. Czer

    Czer I'm a poor person. The lambo is my cousin's.

    Post Count:
    24,091
    SAA/Hez/Russian SF in Idlib destroying HTS (Al Nusra Al Qaeda)