Toggle sidebar

Israel launches preemptive attacks against Iran (US bombs Iran)...

Huckleberry said:
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1935785133891895551

MacCallum: If the people asked you to return as Shah for a period of time, would you be open to that?

Pahlavi: I don’t think I need a title to perform as a transitional leader. I think the reason people are looking for me to fill that role is because of the confidence in me.
Click to expand...

Regime change and installing a new leader is definitely something that we should not be doing.
Have not we learned our lessons from Iraq, Afghanistan, and the previous Shah experiment?
 
Huckleberry said:
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1935785133891895551

MacCallum: If the people asked you to return as Shah for a period of time, would you be open to that?

Pahlavi: I don’t think I need a title to perform as a transitional leader. I think the reason people are looking for me to fill that role is because of the confidence in me.
Click to expand...

My one question is “How much confidence will they have in you once the US military goes home…..”

Iran needs to rid itself of the 1970’s… to include the idea of a shah
 
  • Like
Reactions: crimsonaudio and Its On A Slab
TIDE-HSV said:
Well, I go run errands and come back to see that, after Carlson and Bannon finished with TACO, it's now "within two weeks." Have I heard that before?
Click to expand...
www.msnbc.com

A familiar metric: White House says to expect Iran decision within ‘two weeks’

Donald Trump's reliance on a two-week timeline for a decision on Iran represents a striking failure of self-awareness.
www.msnbc.com www.msnbc.com

A familiar metric: White House says to expect Iran decision within ‘two weeks’
Donald Trump's reliance on a two-week timeline for a decision on Iran represents a striking failure of self-awareness.

...
At her latest briefing, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt acknowledged the “speculation” about the White House’s policy, which led her to read a prepared statement from the president. It read, “Based on the fact that there’s a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks.”

It’s difficult to say with confidence whether these negotiations exist or whether they’ll succeed, but the fact that Trump and his team has rolled out another “two week” timeline represents a remarkable failure of self-awareness.

Last week for example, the president said U.S. trading partners should expect letters on unilateral tariff rates in “two weeks.” Shortly before that, the president was asked about Vladimir Putin’s alleged interest in “peace.” He replied, “I can’t tell you that, but I’ll let you know in about two weeks.”

Last month, Trump was asked about tariff rates on pharmaceutical products. “I’ll know in the next two weeks,” he said.

Alas, we can keep going. Where’s Trump’s health care plan? It’ll be ready in “two weeks.” What about a possible minimum-wage increase? That, too, will be unveiled in “two weeks.” On everything from tax policy to infrastructure, immigration to reproductive health, the president’s detailed solutions are always just “two weeks” away.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 92tide and Its On A Slab
some_al_fan said:
Regime change and installing a new leader is definitely something that we should not be doing.
Have not we learned our lessons from Iraq, Afghanistan, and the previous Shah experiment?
Click to expand...

Well when AIPAC is married to an idea our neo cons and right wing news organizations fall in line with it. It’s amazing that we didn’t hear from this guy for decades and all of the sudden Netanyahu brings him back into the public eye months before attacking Iran, and now he is being paraded around as some transitional leader of a country who’s government hasn’t fallen yet.
 
  • Like
  • Sad
Reactions: crimsonaudio, 92tide, Its On A Slab and 1 other person
81usaf92 said:
Well when AIPAC is married to an idea our neo cons and right wing news organizations fall in line with it. It’s amazing that we didn’t hear from this guy for decades and all of the sudden Netanyahu brings him back into the public eye months before attacking Iran, and now he is being paraded around as some transitional leader of a country who’s government hasn’t fallen yet.
Click to expand...
How would he know if the populace had confidence in him, when they don't even know who he is, just his title...
 
  • Thank You
  • Like
Reactions: UAH and 92tide
There isn't going to be a new Shah in Iran any more than if Putin was deposed there would be a new Czar to take his place. It's just a natural question about who would lead the country absent any other credible ideas. If they kill Khameni one of his deputies will be installed as the new "supreme leader". The only way this does not happen is if the Israel/US partnership totally annihilates the government. If that happens it is anyone's guess but I doubt it will be a positive for the West.
 
  • Thank You
Reactions: UAH
TIDE-HSV said:
How would he know if the populace had confidence in him, when they don't even know who he is, just his title...
Click to expand...

If I’m not mistaken he tried this before during the Iraq-Iran war, more specifically his mother, but his Arab supporters said “you would get squashed the second you landed in Tehran”.

The general belief is that if there was a regime change then it will be a secular and more liberal government emerge or a military one. I seriously have my doubts that they would ever consider another Western backed monarch given how the whole reason they have clerics is because of Western backed monarch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UAH
75thru79 said:
There isn't going to be a new Shah in Iran any more than if Putin was deposed there would be a new Czar to take his place. It's just a natural question about who would lead the country absent any other credible ideas. If they kill Khameni one of his deputies will be installed as the new "supreme leader". The only way this does not happen is if the Israel/US partnership totally annihilates the government. If that happens it is anyone's guess but I doubt it will be a positive for the West.
Click to expand...

The problem is that Israel has killed most of the senior military and government leadership in the past two years and Khamenei’s chosen successor was killed in a helicopter crash. It pretty much all points to his son taking over, and in the midst of social unrest and foreign attacks it’s going to be tough for someone who has never held a government position, never been thought of as a serious contender for the job, and the government and military support in him is questionable at best to assume power. The current regime is already on death’s door, but the next guy is probably DOA. But I rather that happen when Iran isn’t in the middle of a war than it be a total panic because they are in one.
 
  • Thank You
Reactions: UAH
A lot of these news discussion programs are hilarious right now. Especially all hypotheticals. Guess they have to fill up the space with something. :rolleyes:

Personally, I really like the 2 week time frame from the president.

It allows Israel to continue doing the heavy lifting.

And Trump's desire to resolve things without warfare.

No idea if that's even possible.......but at least it's in play.

And the entire world can see his desire not to go to war.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Con and crimsonaudio
So show the world your restraint in getting involved in a war that you helped start in the shadows?

Our government is being lead by a bunch of morons, the eracticism you see in the handling of our economy can spill over into our military strategies.

You are not seeing 4D chess on display here with respect to our in engagement with Israel over Iran...

Bazza said:
A lot of these news discussion programs are hilarious right now. Especially all hypotheticals. Guess they have to fill up the space with something. :rolleyes:

Personally, I really like the 2 week time frame from the president.

It allows Israel to continue doing the heavy lifting.

And Trump's desire to resolve things without warfare.

No idea if that's even possible.......but at least it's in play.

And the entire world can see his desire not to go to war.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 92tide
I just saw this from G. W..Bush:

“I knew the failure to find WMD would transform the public perception of the war. While the world was undoubtedly safer with Saddam gone, the reality was that I had sent American troops into combat based in large part on intelligence that proved false. That was a massive blow to our credibility — my credibility — that would shake the confidence of the American people. No one was more shocked or angry than I was when we didn’t find the weapons. I had a sickening feeling every time I thought about it. I still do.”

While there is not much point in re-litigating the Iraq War, one thing is not deniable, we now live in a world that has that war as an example. If the president sends troops into conflict based on questionable intelligence, he risks not only their lives, but he risks the credibility of the US and his own credibility. If the intel community has been purged of those who do not toe the party line, and replace them with "yes men," then bad decisions follow. This dynamic led Putin to order the invasion of Ukraine.
I hope we avoid that pitfall. There is no more serious decision a president makes than whether to use force or not.
 
  • Thank You
  • Emphasis!
  • Like
Reactions: PaulD, crimsonaudio, Con and 4 others
Tidewater said:
I just saw this from G. W..Bush:

“I knew the failure to find WMD would transform the public perception of the war. While the world was undoubtedly safer with Saddam gone, the reality was that I had sent American troops into combat based in large part on intelligence that proved false. That was a massive blow to our credibility — my credibility — that would shake the confidence of the American people. No one was more shocked or angry than I was when we didn’t find the weapons. I had a sickening feeling every time I thought about it. I still do.”

While there is not much point in re-litigating the Iraq War, one thing is not deniable, we now live in a world that has that war as an example. If the president sends troops into conflict based on questionable intelligence, he risks not only their lives, but he risks the credibility of the US and his own credibility. If the intel community has been purged of those who do not toe the party line, and replace them with "yes men," then bad decisions follow. This dynamic led Putin to order the invasion of Ukraine.
I hope we avoid that pitfall. There is no more serious decision a president makes than whether to use force or not.
Click to expand...

It also proved that there is a such thing as “necessary evil”. Saddam pretty much kept the non Arabian Peninsula Arab world in check and the Iranians weren’t as committed to funding Arab terrorists as they are now. Removing Saddam created more chaos and instability in the Middle East that hadn’t been seen since the fall of the Ottomans. And to think that we have two world leaders barking for a regime change knowing full well with what happened in Iraq and Libya when foreign powers forced it.

I think Netanyahu conned Trump into this ridiculous conflict under the guise that it would be easy and no one would question it. But we have reached the point where it’s beyond obvious that it’s far more complicated than what BiBi has sold it as and Trump’s party is starting to fight itself over the possibility of war.

I just don’t see many positives in continuing this for the US or Israel because you risk more than you gain from the gamble.
 
  • Like
Reactions: crimsonaudio, JDCrimson, 92tide and 2 others
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Posts

Advertisement

Trending content

Advertisement

Latest threads

Top Bottom
Back