Ending the mystery surrounding a series of explosions in Iraq which were
deemed unlikely to be coincidental, US officials are now confirming that these attacks were the result of Israeli airstrikes against them.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had already basically
confirmed this, and now with the US adding to it,the questions become a
lot more serious for Iraq, as far as what they are to do next.
The choices aren’t easy. Iraq has a marginal air defense system, so
unlike Iran or Syria they have little chance of shooting down an
attacking plane. Likewise, the Israeli planes are very similar to US
planes already flying with impunity in Iraqi airspace, making positive
identification harder.
The lack of clarity about whose planes are blowing what up in Iraq
likely fueled calls from Iraq for the US to limit their operations in
the country to those under control of Iraqi security forces. The US
initially accepted this, but then later insisted that many of their
missions wouldn’t apply.
Iraqi militias, which are the target of the Israelis, have since taken a few shots at spy aircraft near Baghdad, but their anti-aircraft guns probably aren’t really a match for multi-role combat aircraft.
Israel is spinning the militias as Iranian proxies, something the US has
done in the past as well. For Iraq, however, the excuse really doesn’t
matter, the problem is that once again regional and global powers are
looking to use Iraq as a battleground.
And this article posted here today: “U.S. Army releases deck of cards depicting Iranian weaponry: Report”.
Tell me again that Trump isn’t planning a war with Iran.
From that article:
“These cards come after months of heightened tension between the U.S. and Iran that have many worried about a potential armed conflict between the countries.”
Whenever “heightened tensions” are mentioned it should be noted who is almost completely responsible for those tensions . This article, and damn near every other one on the subject, makes it sound like there is somehow equal blame between the US and Iran for any of those “tensions”. But I suppose if Iran dropped out of the nuke deal, surrounded us with military assets, imposed sanctions intended to destroy us economically and there leader talked about obliterating us multiple times we’d feel the same way. Right after we bombed them back into the stone age.
“Tell me again that Trump isn’t planning a war with Iran.”
It’s a fair question, but consider:
Trump will not be reelected if he starts a war with Iran ***before the upcoming elections***, so it will not happen for the next year and a half.
To minimize Iranian retaliation, an American attack on Iran would have to be a complete surprise attack. With all the saber rattling and attempts to provoke Iran into providing a cassus belli, there is no way that’s gonna happen. Iran is already on high alert.
Iran has a very substantial missile inventory and these weapons all have highly accurate terminal guidance. Moments after the first cyber attack or shot fired Saudi and UAE oil facilities will be ablaze, the Straits of Hormuz will be closed, multiple US military installations nearby will come under attack, the Al Udeid US Air Base in Qatar will be cratered, and the fifth fleet in Bahrain and any warships in the gulf will come under attack by anti-ship missiles too numerous to be defended against.
The loss of Persian Gulf oil will throw the world economy into god-knows-what-kind-of disruption;
… and finally how many thousands of US service personnel might be taken prisoner. If they end up imprisoned in Iran the US will either have to invade or sue for peace.
War gaming this scenario always ends in catastrophe for the US. So this level of unpredictability would seem to suggest bullying and economic pressure to the max … but short of war.
That said, I’m not real confident of war vs no war, because Bolton, Pompeo, sure as hell want war, and Israel for sure wants Iran destroyed. Whether that means Israel wants war-with-all-the-consequences, who knows?
Scary as hell.
“Trump will not be reelected if he starts a war with Iran ***before the upcoming elections***,”
That is not necessarily true. First of all, what constitutes “he starts a war”. If he unilaterally attacks Iran without Iran not having done anything whatsoever under international law to provoke an attack, his base might be resentful of his abrogating his promise of “no new wars” – but that is not by any means proven or guaranteed.
Worse, if Trump can somehow find a reason to blame *Iran* for starting the war, then there is no proof that his base won’t also blame Iran.
Consider what I believe to be his intended method – a blockade of Iranian oil shipments pursuant to his goal to stopping all Iranian oil sales (and without a blockade, this is next to impossible in any event.) Most of his base is likely unaware that a blockade of this type is illegal under international law and considered an act of war under international law.
So what happens if he does it anyway – as he is threatening to do to Venezuela with even *less* reason than against Iran – and Iran retaliates by closing the Straits of Hormuz to all other oil shipments. Then Trump can claim that Iran is to blame for the results if the US Navy goes in and starts shooting up IRGC gunboats or whatever.
Can you say with *certainty* that his base is going to fail to vote for him – especially if his opponent is someone like Biden or one of the other loony-tune Democrats? Can you assume that his base is not going to want to “support the troops” once Iran starts shooting back at US forces in the vicinity? Can we even assume that Tulsi Gabbard wouldn’t “support the troops” in that scenario – even if she blames Trump for starting the war?
In other words, once the war starts, how do we know that his base won’t support Trump as a “war President” rather than punishing him for starting the war?
I submit that it is by no means a certainty that everyone seems to assume that Trump *has* to lose the election if a war with Iran breaks out as a result of actions he has taken *short* of *unilaterally* attacking Iran directly first.
“To minimize Iranian retaliation, an American attack on Iran would have to be a complete surprise attack.”
No, it doesn’t. The US is also already on fairly high alert. Also, if Iran is alert, any US Navy and Air Force movements in the region would likely alert Iran to an imminent attack in any event. A “complete surprise attack” would be almost impossible. The only question would be determining the magnitude of the US attack – and that is precisely why Iran would likely retaliate themselves with a full-scale retaliation.
So the US is unlikely to be able to “minimize” Iranian retaliation regardless of how the war starts. Iranian officials have suggested that *any* US military attack action against them – such as US Navy ships firing on IRGC gunboats – might trigger a full-scale retaliation region-wide. And they would be wise to do so. Any attempt to “ride out” the initial US attack would mean losing valuable assets – especially their missile launchers – that would be useful to inflicting significant damage on US assets in the region.
But that “significant damage” isn’t going to prevent the US from prosecuting the war. In fact, it will pretty much guarantee that the US will redouble its attacks on Iran – and most of the US electorate will come together and support that effort – and support Trump as a “war President.” And it is likely that initially – as long as the US relies on air and naval power – it will succeed in inflicting vast damage on Iran’s civilian infrastructure – if not on the majority of Iranian military assets. As long as it *appears* that the US is winning – as was the case in Iraq before the insurgency appeared – much of the US electorate – and all of the US media – will be supporting the war – and Trump. Only when the immediate and longer term economic aspects occur – or when the US has to invade at least the Iranian coastline to try to keep the Straits open (or simply abandons that goal) – will the electorate decide the cost is too great.
And by then, it will *be* too late because the government will prosecute the war anyway because of the profits the military-industrial complex and the oil companies are making.
Another scenario: Israel starts a war with Iran – perhaps by starting another war with Hezbollah in Lebanon – and then extends it to Iran by claiming Iran is directly supporting Hezbollah. And the US joins Israel in attacking Hezbollah – which is the only way Israel can have any chance of defeating Hezbollah currently – and then Trump joins Israel in extending the war into Iran, as part of “defeating terrorism.” How sure can we be that the US electorate won’t support that kind of escalation – especially if US troops are involved in Lebanon and start dying there? It almost happened in Iraq when Bush and Cheney were blaming Iran for “IEDs made in Iran”.
We know Trump fully supports Israel virtually no matter what Israel does. If Trump thinks he can win the election by “supporting Israel against terrorism”, who can be sure he won’t start a war with Iran under various scenarios?
The problem with the belief that the “consequences are too devastating to be considered” is that one could say that about a lot of military conflicts. It was a mistake for the countries that started WWI to start it. It was a mistake for the countries that started WWII to start it. It was a mistake for the US to get involved in Vietnam. It was a mistake for the US to invade Iraq – and Afghanistan – and those happened in the last twenty years.
Also, the people who start wars don’t pay for it – at least not in the US. None of the neocons will pay any price. No ranking Republican or Democrat will pay any price. If Trump loses the election, the next President will prosecute the war anyway. The US electorate no longer controls either the Congress or the White House or the Deep State.
The assumption that Trump won’t start the war is just that – an assumption. There is nothing guaranteeing it. For Trump *not* to start the war means he is going to have go against literally *everyone* who is advising him (except maybe Tucker Carlson.) I have no faith in Trump being able to do that and much greater belief that in the end, he, like every other recent President, couldn’t care less about *not* starting a war – just in not being *blamed* for starting it.
“The assumption that Trump won’t start the war is just that – an assumption.”
More like a calculation. With way too many “known unknowns” and “unknown unknowns”.
Everything you say makes sense. All I can add is that for me, I gave Trump the same chance I give any first term president: you made some campaign promises, among them to end the crazy Mideast wars. That’s the issue/promise that mattered to me, the promise I want kept. If Bolton and Pompeo are still running US foreign policy come election day 2020, I’m staying home … or voting for Tulsi Gabbard if she’s the Dem candidate.
yomama,
Trump’s base will come out with a new country song, by some low IQ clown, promising that “Uncle Sam will kick your Islamic Ass!”. And millions of rednecks will enlist.
“The choices aren’t easy. Iraq has a marginal air defense system, so unlike Iran or Syria they have little chance of shooting down an attacking plane. Likewise, the Israeli planes are very similar to US planes already flying with impunity in Iraqi airspace, making positive identification harder.”
Does Iraq really believe they have an option of shooting down an Israeli plane? They’ve really bought into that ally bullshit it would seem.
The sh-t storm that would come down on Iraq if they ever did shoot down an Israeli or US plane would not be a pretty sight. They can complain all they want about the US occupation but we are there until the upcoming war with Iran and the flurry of Iranian missiles that will rain down on US bases within hours of any attack. That will bring on WWIII and end consideration of Israeli and US overflights. That will be the least of their concerns, and ours.
Choose+Exception=EVIL
Choose+Exception=EVIL
So you want authority over your own airspace? Isn’t that adorable… so naive.
“Iraq has a marginal air defense system”
The US is the Iraqi air defense system. The US refused to act against Israeli airstrikes (of course). Therefore, Iraq will have to suffer airstrikes, or make other arrangements with someone else who is willing to stop the Israelis.
Iraq might do a switcheroo and become allies with
Iran.
Yes. Other choices might include Russia or China, which have the capability, and each have some interests in Iraq and in extending their military influence in that region.
At a further extreme, some elements in the EU might be willing to confront Israel, especially if they can get oil out of it. The EU also has its own ASTER missile family, and would like to promote sales it. I’d discount that, but not rule it out entirely. It would however cost a serious split with the US, but Trump is pushing them that way anyway.
Good idea, perhaps a mutual defense pact…
My impression is that Iraq has always wanted the US gone, and is now ready, since ISIS — the Sunni resistance, actually — is reduced to guerrilla attacks and suicide bombers. If Iraq evicts the US — if that’s even possible — Putin would be there in a flash to provide whatever defensive equipment might be necessary. Plus, if the US no longer has Balad Air Base, for air support for the Kurds and their US “advisers”, protecting them becomes more difficult. Creating an opening for Assad to reassert control. Possibly Jordan could take up the slack. (Can anyone see Israel allowing the US to operate from Israeli territory?)
The MIddle East, the gift that keeps on giving.
Wait, wait! Bloomberg says that, “The Trump administration suggested the blistering summer heat in Iraq, not alleged Israeli airstrikes, may have been responsible for at least some of the recent explosions that have destroyed Iraqi weapons depots linked to Iran.” Denial is not just a river in Egypt.
Wait, wait! Bloomberg says that, “The Trump administration suggested the blistering summer heat in Iraq, not alleged Israeli airstrikes, may have been responsible for at least some of the recent explosions that have destroyed Iraqi weapons depots linked to Iran.” Denial is not just a river in Egypt.
US Officials Admit To Allowing Israel To Bomb Iraq From US Bases Within Iraq
Nice clip Jim! The strikes were performed by 1 or 2 Israeli jets stationed in a US base in northern Iraq. They most likely disguised themselves as US fighter jets with US permission of course!
Exactly!!
Iraq needs to kick US army out and allies with Iran militarily for their own survival….
US has nothing better to do. Looks like some real defense system against missiles, planes, drones, helicopters is needed.
And stupid ME countries actually believe that US will sell them defense systems to defend their airspace against Israel? What is the point of Saudi buying American planes? Planes will not protect you against airspace intruder. If anyone plans to use them against Iran — no point, It has a decent defense systems.
Use it against each other in the Gulf? Pointless self destructive exercise. It is not clear to me the point in buying all kinds of armaments — Gulf states spent fortune on US weapons. The only thing that will make it make sense — getting firepower over Israel. Considering that Israel’s Iron Dome is more hype then reality — I can imagine that only thing that Israel has going is nuclear weapons.
But now, not only Iran is suspect ever since acquiring NPP, a new challenge is arising with Saudi Arabia planning to acquire about 15 NPPs!
And the comedy goes on — with US offering assistance in the shape of an integrator, as if building NPP is just a matter of technology mix and match. Since US has not built NPP since seventies, and there are no companies with track record to do it -/ there is nothing US can offer. And there is a doze of bafflement — why do countries like Saudi Arabia or Iran need NPP? Energy is what they sell, and they must insure they have it for a while. Saudi Arabia has huge domestic need — from fast trains run by electricity, to growing air conditioned spaces. And the production of water by desalinization — again requiring electricity. Today, they are burning oil and gas to generate electricity. This will change. Countries like Iran have shown to many that NPP technology is now accessible to countries that never thought it possible. Turkey followed with NPP and now Egypt. Russia and China are working jointly on new technology that will make NPP simpler and safer.
So now there is a conundrum — it will not be possible to demonize all countries the way Iran was demonized. And how to be a factor in this nuclear field — if US no longer builds NPP? Middle East is getting more complex, and various bombings just poking and prodding to see if anything gives. Israel wants attention and is not getting it.