Support NeoGAF

[EviLore]

I'm curious where this is coming from. That sounds a lot more like treason level intelligence leaks than some pentagon press release. Kinda like that congressman saying "The japanese can't hit our subs because we dive too deep!" in WW2. Revealing that we can't engage yet is a HUGE nugget to let slip. Probably just clickbait interpretation though.

Not sure on source off hand.

We don't have an aircraft carrier near the Middle East at the moment though, which complicates matters.

 

[Bojji]

He has had his hands tied by the courts many times. A King would not.

US Presidents simply have a lot of unilateral power when it comes to military action.

Congressional leaders are also saying no. He isn't a dictator. Dictators are not told "no".

He does things first and then maybe face any opposition.

 

[winjer]

What I've read about the revolution of 1979 does line up with that. It was, at least in the moment, a widespread sentiment in favor of change and not every Iranian group had the same beliefs. You had a grand alliance between the bazaar merchants, the rural conservatives, religious scholars, city liberals, student movements, pro-soviet communists, secularist politicians and others. It was ultimately the religious leadership that took final control over the new state structure, in practice, but for a few months and arguably years they had to share power and accommodate other interests.

The Shah, for all his modernist ways and secular sympathies, was still an authoritarian. Many groups had legitimate complaints against him. He both failed to grant sufficient democratic reforms when there was still plenty of time and also failed to properly deal with Khomeini, who ballooned into a much larger problem over the years and, if anything, his exile made him more famous. Much has been said about SAVAK, his repressive secret police, but in the end the Shah was also getting too old and sick, so he didn't want to go for a full bloodbath.

Unfortunately, the current ruling authorities of Iran are, in fact, more than willing to go for said bloodbath. If foreign forces don't carry out some kind of strategic move or surgical strikes, nobody is going to stop them.

I don't know as much about Turkey, but I get the impression that, despite Erdogan's best attempts to erode them, Turkey still has strong secularist roots.

Just to add a few more things.
The Shad was also a womanizer. He married and divorced 3 times. And had a lot of mistresses.
He also spent a lot of time in parties and abroad enjoying the good life. And he was also an avid car collector.
This made him an easy target for the more conservative groups in the country to denounce him. Especially by Khomeini.
Khrushchev even had a large scale propaganda push, which weakened his stance with the Iranian people.
He also was very paranoid, imagining plots and enemies where there weren't. So he alienated more people than he should have.
When he removed the Prime-Minister Mosaddegh, people became even more against him.
And finally, by the end of his regime, he was very ill, having to do several treatments abroad. The Iranian revolution occurred during one of his exits.

On the other hand, when he took power, Iran saw a 2 digit economic growth. Iran started to take control of it's oil reserves, to the detriment of BP.
At one point, after the oil crisis of 74, France and Great Britain even asked for 1Billion dollar loan from Iran. The Shad did agree to the loan, a sign of how the power had shifted.
He also built several schools, roads and hospitals, and modernized several aspects of society. This is why we can find photos from 60-70 Iran, looking like it was in a European capital. even the women were using mini skirts.
Strangely, one of the groups that criticized the Shad reforms, were Iranian students in western universities.

Khomeini did not present himself as an extremist Islamist at the time. For over a decade, he presented himself as a moderate Muslim (as moderate as a Muslim can be).
This allowed him to gather support with a lot more people.

 

[Nocty]

Congressional leaders are also saying no. He isn't a dictator. Dictators are not told "no".

He is at least behaving or trying to be come one. Look at his actions, and his words man lol

I dont live in the US, thank fuck. Only in the US could someone as insane as him be in leadership roles

 

[EviLore]

 

[Topher]

He is at least behaving or trying to be come one. Look at his actions, and his words man lol

I dont live in the US, thank fuck. Only in the US could someone as insane as him be in leadership roles

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

I hope the guy is not living in UK

 

[calico]

He does things first and then maybe face any opposition.

Presidents don't have to beg for permission from the other branches to use their executive power. His power does not come via them.

Kings and dictators don't countenance any opposition at all though, unless it is an attempt to overthrow them by force.

 

[Madonis]

He does things first and then maybe face any opposition.

He's not a dictator, seriously speaking, but yeah...you could say the guy is flooding the zone and seeing what happens. Not asking questions first and instead letting the courts catch up with him later (and then attacking said courts when they do). That's...not good. If anything, it shows that a lot of traditional institutions and limitations on executive power were just taken for granted by both parties. Which is great news when you agree with the bold executive who comes in to sweep some of those away, but not so great news when you don't. Because you'd expect a bunch of these policies to shift right back, once another president comes in, yet I believe this newly expanded interpretation of executive power is only going to continue growing in future administrations...if you don't take a step back. After all, wise men have always known that too much power is a source of corruption.

 

[Bojji]

Presidents don't have to beg for permission from the other branches to use their executive power. His power does not come via them.

Kings and dictators don't countenance any opposition at all though, unless it is an attempt to overthrow them by force.

Yeah, that King comparison was a hyperbole.

Looking into the subject, not only Trump avoided congress and used military without their (congress) approval, some previous presidents did this as well. Looks like it's not "war" when it can be "special military operation", haha.

I wonder if they will be able to do this:

He's not a dictator, seriously speaking, but yeah...you could say the guy is flooding the zone and seeing what happens. Not asking questions first and instead letting the courts catch up with him later (and then attacking said courts when they do). That's...not good. If anything, it shows that a lot of traditional institutions and limitations on executive power were just taken for granted by both parties. Which is great news when you agree with the bold executive who comes in to sweep some of those away, but not so great news when you don't. Because you'd expect a bunch of these policies to shift right back, once another president comes in, yet I believe this newly expanded interpretation of executive power is only going to continue growing in future administrations...if you don't take a step back. After all, wise men have always known that too much power is a source of corruption.

Agree. System places too much power in the hands of one man. And if that person decides to go ape shit, a lot of damage can be done before anyone will be able to stop it...

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

He's not a dictator, seriously speaking, but yeah...you could say the guy is flooding the zone and seeing what happens. Not asking questions first and instead letting the courts catch up with him later (and then attacking said courts when they do). That's...not good. If anything, it shows that a lot of traditional institutions and limitations on executive power were just taken for granted by both parties.

He is using a correct approach in the paralyzed and ineffective Congress. Congress has not been designed for partisan resolutions - some founders though predicted that though. If you have a party that always votes NO, it is impossible to govern through the Congress as nothing is ever getting done. Like the whole OBBB was done because it was not possible to pass things from there independently due to lack of votes. Even his EOs are not being codified because the Congress does not care. Imagine making fast and urgent decisions through the Congress that is either vacationing or doing nothing. Add judges that throw injunctions because they can throw them, not because they have any logic and reasoning behind them in order to delay the process. Just like those judges who release criminals 100 times. Trump has come prepared this time. Rand Paul was against OBBB and ICE or Wall funding but it would not have passed later otherwise.

In fact it is reaching a point where Trump is starting to move towards using source of income that bypass the Congress, due to inability of the Congress to pass anything.

After all, wise men have always known that too much power is a source of corruption

Welcome to the Congress and the judiciary branch where too much became a source of corruption. The presidency at one point has become a proxy of the party, instead of a balancing act. Trump is unique as both parties oppose him at a certain level. Democrats are completely opposing him and GOP is partially opposing him. So he has to come up with a different approach.

Looking into the subject, not only Trump avoided congress and used military without their (congress) approval, some previous presidents did this as well. Looks like it's not "war" when it can be "special military operation", haha.

The irony is that one of the resolutions - aside the one from the 90s - was expanded in Obama years to give the ability to bomb Libya. A lot of tools at Trump's disposal are from democrat's own makings in order to bypass GOP.

I wonder if they will be able to do this:

You need supermajority to override Trump's veto. 2/3 House - 290 and 2/3 Senate - 67 votes. Even if it passes the House (which is also a question mark).

 

[Warspite]

Not sure on source off hand.

We don't have an aircraft carrier near the Middle East at the moment though, which complicates matters.

No carrier in the area, then the chances of the United States doing a thing is dramatically lower now. For Venezuela they rushed USS Ford to area and it wasn't till after that I know they were going to do something.

 

[Madonis]

Just to add a few more things.
The Shad was also a womanizer. He married and divorced 3 times. And had a lot of mistresses.
He also spent a lot of time in parties and abroad enjoying the good life. And he was also an avid car collector.
This made him an easy target for the more conservative groups in the country to denounce him. Especially by Khomeini.
Khrushchev even had a large scale propaganda push, which weakened his stance with the Iranian people.
He also was very paranoid, imagining plots and enemies where there weren't. So he alienated more people than he should have.
When he removed the Prime-Minister Mosaddegh, people became even more against him.
And finally, by the end of his regime, he was very ill, having to do several treatments abroad. The Iranian revolution occurred during one of his exits.

On the other hand, when he took power, Iran saw a 2 digit economic growth. Iran started to take control of it's oil reserves, to the detriment of BP.
At one point, after the oil crisis of 74, France and Great Britain even asked for 1Billion dollar loan from Iran. The Shad did agree to the loan, a sign of how the power had shifted.
He also built several schools, roads and hospitals, and modernized several aspects of society. This is why we can find photos from 60-70 Iran, looking like it was in a European capital. even the women were using mini skirts.
Strangely, one of the groups that criticized the Shad reforms, were Iranian students in western universities.

Khomeini did not present himself as an extremist Islamist at the time. For over a decade, he presented himself as a moderate Muslim (as moderate as a Muslim can be).
This allowed him to gather support with a lot more people.

Right. Thanks for elaborating on those points.

Incidentally, the general principle behind my prior comment also applies to the Shah in the context of Iran, despite the different cultures and legal frameworks involved. In fact, one of the real tragedies of Iran is that he did a lot of good to develop, educate and modernize the country, which even Iranian historians tend to recognize as beneficial in the grand scheme of things, but he was too self-serving and greedy about his own position. In other words: drunk with power.

If the Shah had assumed a more balanced approach, cut his personal excesses and voluntarily transitioned towards a fully constitutional monarchy, then we might not be having this conversation.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

Right. Thanks for elaborating on those points.

Incidentally, the general principle behind my prior comment also applies to the Shah in the context of Iran, despite the different cultures and legal frameworks involved. In fact, one of the real tragedies of Iran is that he did a lot of good to develop, educate and modernize the country, which even Iranian historians tend to recognize as beneficial in the grand scheme of things, but he was too self-serving and greedy about his own position. In other words: drunk with power.

If the Shah had assumed a more balanced approach, cut his personal excesses and voluntarily transitioned towards a fully constitutional monarchy, then we might not be having this conversation.

There has also been a sabotage from within. Iran is a very complicated country. Not only a religious component there but also it was a period of the Cold War with west/east playing chess games.

 

[Madonis]

He is using a correct approach in the paralyzed and ineffective Congress. Congress has not been designed for partisan resolutions - some founders though predicted that though. If you have a party that always votes NO, it is impossible to govern through the Congress as nothing is ever getting done. Like the whole OBBB was done because it was not possible to pass things from there independently due to lack of votes. Even his EOs are not being codified because the Congress does not care. Imagine making fast and urgent decisions through the Congress that is either vacationing or doing nothing. Add judges that throw injunctions because they can throw them, not because they have any logic and reasoning behind them in order to delay the process. Just like those judges who release criminals 100 times. Trump has come prepared this time. Rand Paul was against OBBB and ICE or Wall funding but it would not have passed later otherwise.

In fact it is reaching a point where Trump is starting to move towards using source of income that bypass the Congress, due to inability of the Congress to pass anything.


Welcome to the Congress and the judiciary branch where too much became a source of corruption.

That applies both ways, doesn't it? Courts also ruled in directions that the previous administration didn't like. Some of those rulings were justified and others weren't, so no side can claim to be perfectly reasonable and immune to criticism or free from corruption. But instead of getting better, it's getting worse right now. There's a cyclical process here. It would be a lot easier to pass things if there was less partisanship and more of a desire to negotiate across the board, which includes being open to compromise and not aim for a maximum "win" without giving up on anything. Other presidents from both parties have done it. I agree that sometimes fast and urgent decisions are necessary (we are also talking about what's going on in Iran, after all), yet not everything on your shopping list requires a "fast and urgent" decision. Not everything is an "emergency". We'll see at least half (or more) of those executive orders being rolled back, because they're neither perfect nor permanent. I can agree with you, partially, in that there's a lot of corruption in the system, but maximum partisanship isn't helping. It's a cheat code to avoid seeking consensus.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

That applies both ways, doesn't it? Courts also ruled in directions that the previous administration didn't like. Some of those rulings were justified and others weren't, so no side can claim to be perfectly reasonable and immune to criticism or free from corruption. But instead of getting better, it's getting worse right now. There's a cyclical process here. It would be a lot easier to pass things if there was less partisanship and more of a desire to negotiate across the board, which includes being open to compromise and not aim for a maximum "win" without giving up on anything. Other presidents from both parties have done it. I agree that sometimes fast and urgent decisions are necessary (we are also talking about what's going on in Iran, after all), yet not everything on your shopping list requires a "fast and urgent" decision. Not everything is an "emergency". We'll see at least half (or more) of those executive orders being rolled back, because they're neither perfect nor permanent. I can agree with you, partially, in that there's a lot of corruption in the system, but maximum partisanship isn't helping. It's a cheat code to avoid seeking consensus.

It applies both ways but the democrats rarely switch sides. GOP does that much more often because they have RINOs. There are not that many DINOs at this point. Pelosi eradicated almost all of them. Schumer did that too.

The courts are especially egregious against the Trump administration and extremely in favor of the democrats. Whole Biden administration was basically about courts giving them free pass and easy arrest warrants for everything. On the local level democrats basically have a free reign everywhere. GOP is irrelevant locally and most of the time just does not do anything. Hell, even with their own committees they just do not bother to confirm judges and attorneys. A lot of injunctions were not justified from the very beginning - it is obvious for anybody, but they are designed just to stall the process. Even if everybody - including dogs - know that the ruling will be reverted.

You can't govern that way - you basically have people living in parallel realities. We literally have people in this very threads that complain about dictatorship when things do not go their way.

 

[Madonis]

Some Iranians have expressed concern to me that the speed of the U.S. policymaking process is not keeping up with events on the ground in #Iran.Also as interesting as these stories are, I would not rule out a U.S. motive in divulging these internal deliberations as part of a psychological operation to shape perceptions of the Islamic Republic's decision-makers to keep them off-balance in terms of the nature and timing of any American response.

Interesting point on both counts.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

Interesting point on both counts.

The issue is that there is no enough forces in the region for the wide scale attack. Unless there will be something surprising like B2. They don't have many chances to eradicate the opposition. Pahlavi is useless it seems.

 

[Tams]

Not sure on source off hand.

We don't have an aircraft carrier near the Middle East at the moment though, which complicates matters.

While using a carrier makes it much simpler and quicker, the US aren't short on options.

Using just tankers from those bases would also simplify things.

 

[winjer]

Interesting point on both counts.

Or maybe Trump is busy playing Golf.

 

[Jaybe]

Or maybe Trump is busy playing Golf.

Playing Gulf

 

[ADiTAR]

Could be a diversion. This admin loves the element of surprise. So they leak something and will do something else.

While using a carrier makes it mych simpler and quicker, the US aren't short on options.

Using just tankers from those bases would also simplify things.

During the Iran war besides the b52 that don't need a carrier, they used tomahawk missiles from submarines...

 

[EviLore]

"
U.S. President Donald J. Trump is expected to assist Iranians who are protesting nationwide against the Islamic Republic, several sources familiar with the details of discussions held in recent days told The Jerusalem Post.

"Trump has essentially decided to help the protesters in Iran. What he has not yet decided is the how and the when. The spectrum ranges from a military option, namely strikes against regime targets, to cyber support against the regime, to providing Starlink systems to help protesters," one source familiar with the discussions told the Post.
"

 

[Topher]

"
U.S. President Donald J. Trump is expected to assist Iranians who are protesting nationwide against the Islamic Republic, several sources familiar with the details of discussions held in recent days told The Jerusalem Post.

"Trump has essentially decided to help the protesters in Iran. What he has not yet decided is the how and the when. The spectrum ranges from a military option, namely strikes against regime targets, to cyber support against the regime, to providing Starlink systems to help protesters," one source familiar with the discussions told the Post.
"

May not get another opportunity like this.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

May not get another opportunity like this.

It depends. The bigger question is there is an opportunity now or not. The fundamental issue is that there is no organizing force within Iran. Even Lenin had bolsheviks inside before his arrival. Pahlavi has nothing. And the elites are silent. Including the army.

 

[Jaybe]

"The spectrum ranges from a military option, namely strikes against regime targets, to cyber support against the regime, to providing Starlink systems to help protesters," one source familiar with the discussions told the Post.
"

Hopefully all the above. Seems like this is the time.

 

[Go_Ly_Dow]

You would think the US would proceed with attacks on Iran via Israel?

The issue is that Iran would retaliate with all they have left by attacking US air bases in Gulf nations, if the US goes about it directly and all of them would be keen to avoid that.

 

[Warspite]

The issue with using bases in the area is that Iran can strike back at the countries supporting the strikes. A carrier eliminates that issue but Iran could just go out in a blaze of glory and launch at everyone it can even with a carrier.

 

[Madonis]

It depends. The bigger question is there is an opportunity now or not. The fundamental issue is that there is no organizing force within Iran. Even Lenin had bolsheviks inside before his arrival. Pahlavi has nothing. And the elites are silent. Including the army.

You miss one hundred percent of all the shots you don't take. If the U.S. had helped the internal Iraqi opposition topple Saddam right after Operation Desert Storm, then perhaps the 2003 invasion may not have been necessary (if it ever was, but I digress).

Interventions are tough and your point is valid, but what we can say with a high degree of certainty is...if you wait for a perfect opportunity to act, then you might keep waiting for decades.

I agree it doesn't look like Pahlavi has any "master plan" for an uprising or anything like that...yet a stronger regime that can survive this challenge will make organizing future ones even harder.

 

[Dr Bass]

He is at least behaving or trying to be come one. Look at his actions, and his words man lol

I dont live in the US, thank fuck. Only in the US could someone as insane as him be in leadership roles

I honestly can't believe there are people who believe this.

Also, the United States is huge. It's also incredibly varied. So making a blanket statement about not living in the US is about as intelligent as saying I'm so glad I don't live in Europe. Well, where are you talking about? There are plenty of people who live in New York who wouldn't be caught dead in Texas, or California escapees who went to Florida and wish they could afford to come back. The more important part of the US are the states, which was the original purpose of the country. You know, weak Federal Government, more influential local government. Which we have rapidly moved away from of course, but that was the original intent.

Speaking of countries across the pond, you think Trump is a dictator but people in various European countries are being thrown in jail for social media posts?

On topic, I really hope the US doesn't get involved with this from a military perspective. Supply the citizens with all the starlink you want, but let them fight their battle atm.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

 

[Donald mac Ronald]

I sincerely hope the USA gives the protestors the help they need, Including wiping out the republican guard and their leaders.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

 

[Hawking Radiation]

As long as communication with the outside world remains so limited, I fear the senseless killings by the Revolutionary Guards and Basij militia will continue in an attempt to quell the uprising.

At this point, it appears that only significant external pressure could realistically bring an end to the violence.

 

[LordCBH]

Hopefully the terrorist driving that thing gets put down like the scum it is.

 

[DonkeyPunchJr]

 

[Hawking Radiation]

I hope this isn't taken the wrong way but Dawn Of The Dead comes to mind watching that last clip. Just the way the people are moving around the van.

 

[EviLore]

EU: "monitoring the situation"



Guess they're stuck reading the NeoGAF thread too.

 

[ioo]

The problem with all these situations is how do you transition to something better? You either have a popular uprising and some populist leader emerges as the figurehead and ultimately leader of the new regime - and we know how that tends to work out. Or you have a military backed coup with some brutal military leader who immediately turns to suppressing the populace with force.

so what's the solution then? They started somewhere and that is important

 

[Donald mac Ronald]

EU: "monitoring the situation"



Guess they're stuck reading the NeoGAF thread too.

Probably being briefed by Mamdani and his team.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

You miss one hundred percent of all the shots you don't take. If the U.S. had helped the internal Iraqi opposition topple Saddam right after Operation Desert Storm, then perhaps the 2003 invasion may not have been necessary (if it ever was, but I digress).

Interventions are tough and your point is valid, but what we can say with a high degree of certainty is...if you wait for a perfect opportunity to act, then you might keep waiting for decades.

I agree it doesn't look like Pahlavi has any "master plan" for an uprising or anything like that...yet a stronger regime that can survive this challenge will make organizing future ones even harder.

These protests wont make the regime stronger. Ayatollah will have less control in any case. But if Pahlavi loses his opportunity, it is on him for not trying to establish connections before.

The fact is that right now there is no strike, that could topple the regime. Even the revolution of 79 took a year.

Time and time again it shows that you really need military support to defeat the rulers. And as we can see the military is not siding with the protesters.

 

[winjer]

 

[Lord Panda]

EU: "monitoring the situation"



Guess they're stuck reading the NeoGAF thread too.

They had plenty of monitoring experience with Ukraine.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

EU: "monitoring the situation"



Guess they're stuck reading the NeoGAF thread too.

so weak

 

[Senua]

so weak

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

They had plenty of monitoring experience with Ukraine.

Isnt it hilarious how happily they send and troops to Greenland, but drag their foot and delay and blame USA with Ukraine. Trump should look at it and say oh you actually can send ships and troops. Good luck then. And pull out from Ukraine.

 

[Warspite]

Ah monitoring, the political way of hoping everything works out in the morning so they can continue to put their snout in the trough that the public pay for while taking zero responsibility for anything.

Next the strongly worded letter.

Irrelevant anyway I don't think the EU could do anything.

 

[MisterFalcon]

While using a carrier makes it much simpler and quicker, the US aren't short on options.

Using just tankers from those bases would also simplify things.

Oh, having bases in far away places is suddenly useful. I thought the US would focus purely on their own Western hemisphere and let all the foreigners to fend for themselves.
Note how some of these bases are part of the military alliance Trump wants to destroy and the rest are controlled by people of a faith he wants to ban from entering the US.

There will be a point where the US will be told to go fuck itself when it wants to use the countries is treats like shit for its foreign adventures.

 

[Bojji]

Isnt it hilarious how happily they send and troops to Greenland, but drag their foot and delay and blame USA with Ukraine. Trump should look at it and say oh you actually can send ships and troops. Good luck then. And pull out from Ukraine.

You want to them to send troops to Ukraine and start WW3?

Greenland is part of Denmark, why wouldn't they send their troops there?

 

[Trilobit]

So Western media is self-censoring due to cognitive dissonance? It makes no sense to me. At least the tin-foil explanation of government pressure or business pressure had some logic behind it. What's the logic here?

Group psychosis would be more accurate. Westerners overwhelmingly support secularism, at least in Europe, but when it comes to islam their principles go out the window. Woke tolerance has become a psychotic disorder.