Jump to content
Sumerian

Pompeo threatens Iran

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

The Trump Administration seems to be going full scale neocon - especially with Pompeo and Bolton now in high positions. 

Read:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/21/pompeo-us-demands-major-changes-in-iran-following-trumps-withdrawal-from-nuclear-deal.html

They are threatening to implement extremely strong sanctions, and they say Iran's economy will struggle to even stand.

Now is the time for cooler heads in Iran to prevail, as any escalation can be used and justified as a pretext to attack Iran. Iran must not fall in the same mistake as those before them who were threatened in a similar manner but thought they were invincible, they must not approach anything now with arrogance and bravado.

Edited by Sumerian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If an American dog is killed, the US bombs a whole city. So, how come US didn't attack Iran yet? There were many instances they could have done that for eg hostage crisis, Sailors captured and so on and so forth. They can't attack Iran - no matter what. Remember how badly operation Eagle Claws had failed!!! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, rambo007 said:

If an American dog is killed, the US bombs a whole city. So, how come US didn't attack Iran yet? There were many instances they could have done that for eg hostage crisis, Sailors captured and so on and so forth. They can't attack Iran - no matter what. Remember how badly operation Eagle Claws had failed!!! 

The US destroyed the Iranian Navy in the 1980s and Israel killed Iranians in Syria. Never underestimate your enemy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sumerian said:

The US destroyed the Iranian Navy in the 1980s and Israel killed Iranians in Syria. Never underestimate your enemy. 

'Destroyed' would be an over exaggerated word. Yes, during war and conflicts damages do occur but the main objective still not achieved i.e. regime change and making the Islamic revolution null and void. Again I repeat...US will never risk a direct full scale war with Iran. It can only use Arab puppets as it has been done before. Failure of Operation Eagle Claws is still a questionable debate within the US army as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rambo007 said:

'Destroyed' would be an over exaggerated word. Yes, during war and conflicts damages do occur but the main objective still not achieved i.e. regime change and making the Islamic revolution null and void. Again I repeat...US will never risk a direct full scale war with Iran. It can only use Arab puppets as it has been done before. Failure of Operation Eagle Claws is still a questionable debate within the US army as well. 

I'm talking Operation Praying Mantis; 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Mantis

The US doesn't have to go to war now. Do you know how the US invaded Iraq? The US was bombing Iraq for 10 years before they invaded, they implemented a complete blockade on the country which killed thousands and estimates say a million people, they destroyed military and civilian infrastructure, they completely controlled Iraq airspace for 10 years.

Basically, they made the country ripe for invasion before they invaded.

And they have the military capability to do this to any country on Earth bar China and Russia.

All I'm saying is Iran should not fall in the same trap as Saddam, who due to his arrogance and bravado during and after the Gulf War, made it easy for America and Britain to make a case for invasion. 

Furthermore, who said America wants to invade? They can destroy Iran without invasion. They can simply weaken Iran to the extent where Iran becomes irrelevant, again, just like Iraq in the 90s.

Read about US strategies;

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_no-fly_zones

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iraq

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Iraq_(1998)

Edited by Sumerian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sumerian said:

I'm talking Operation Praying Mantis; 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Mantis

The US doesn't have to go to war now. Do you know how the US invaded Iraq? The US was bombing Iraq for 10 years before they invaded, they implemented a complete blockade on the country which killed thousands and estimates say a million people, they destroyed military and civilian infrastructure, they completely controlled Iraq airspace for 10 years.

Basically, they made the country ripe for invasion before they invaded.

And they have the military capability to do this to any country on Earth bar China and Russia.

All I'm saying is Iran should not fall in the same trap as Saddam, who due to his arrogance and bravado during and after the Gulf War, made it easy for America and Britain to make a case for invasion. 

Furthermore, who said America wants to invade? They can destroy Iran without invasion. They can simply weaken Iran to the extent where Iran becomes irrelevant, again, just like Iraq in the 90s.

Read about US strategies;

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_no-fly_zones

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iraq

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Iraq_(1998)

Beg to partially disagree with you. Iraq is a different story all in all. Saddam the tyrant versus Bush the tyrant. Friends becoming foes. Under the leadership of the Supreme Leader I don't think Iran can be trapped. I am not doubting about American conventional and economic powers but Iran is proportionally vigilant. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, rambo007 said:

Beg to partially disagree with you. Iraq is a different story all in all. Saddam the tyrant versus Bush the tyrant. Friends becoming foes. Under the leadership of the Supreme Leader I don't think Iran can be trapped. I am not doubting about American conventional and economic powers but Iran is proportionally vigilant. 

I would never equate Iran's leaders with Saddam's idiocy, the stupidest person in Iran is smarter than a hundred Saddams.

I'm just saying they should not repeat his mistakes brother, and his biggest mistake was arrogance. All I'm saying is Iran shouldn't be arrogant and take the me Vs the world approach like Saddam (la) did. Saddam was genuinely a stupid politician and a worse economist.

So far Iran has been extremely smart and cautious after the nuclear deal was terminated, for example, negotiating with the Europeans and trying to find fractures within the American-European alliance which it can exploit. That is rational policy.

All I'm saying is Iran shouldn't give themselves a reason to be demonised and give America a pretext to attack, and it doesn't have to sacrifice its sovereignty at the same time - these are not mutually exclusive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Sumerian said:

I would never equate Iran's leaders with Saddam's idiocy, the stupidest person in Iran is smarter than a hundred Saddams.

I'm just saying they should not repeat his mistakes brother, and his biggest mistake was arrogance. All I'm saying is Iran shouldn't be arrogant and take the me Vs the world approach like Saddam (la) did. Saddam was genuinely a stupid politician and a worse economist.

So far Iran has been extremely smart and cautious after the nuclear deal was terminated, for example, negotiating with the Europeans and trying to find fractures within the American-European alliance which it can exploit. That is rational policy.

All I'm saying is Iran shouldn't give themselves a reason to be demonised and give America a pretext to attack, and it doesn't have to sacrifice its sovereignty at the same time - these are not mutually exclusive.

I agree with you.Don't surrender, don't retreat but be sensible. But remember the enemies that Iran is dealing with are extremely cunning. They usually attack other countries under false pretext.And (worst case scenario) even if Iran accepts most of the US demands still it won't be able to win US friendship because they are against the regime and it's supporters. Anyway, thanks for enlightening me by sharing your knowledge. God bless!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the 70s, the Russians "could it US" and the PRC "could hit US", and now the DPRK "could hit US".

So what do the hysterical run-at-the-mouths say?

 

http://www.politifact.com/north-carolina/statements/2018/may/22/david-rouzer/congressman-deal-ensured-iran-could-hit-us-nuclear/ 

 

:furious: "Hey Dummy. Where are the lCBMs? lran doesn't have any."

Edited by hasanhh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hasanhh said:

In the 70s, the Russians "could it US" and the PRC "could hit US", and now the DPRK "could hit US".

So what do the hysterical run-at-the-mouths say?

 

http://www.politifact.com/north-carolina/statements/2018/may/22/david-rouzer/congressman-deal-ensured-iran-could-hit-us-nuclear/ 

 

:furious: "Hey Dummy. Where are the lCBMs? lran doesn't have any."

Hmmm, reminds me of another country that has cried wolf.1525109536533.thumb.png.025d8eee941de745243ec52fcfabae67.png

Edited by Zurushkan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×