Quote:[url=https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/donald-trump]Donald Trump has claimed he has no “exit strategy” if the US goes to war with Iran, the latest sabre-rattling from the US president as tensions between the two countries continues to grow.



On a day that saw Mr Trump threaten to obliterate Iran if it attacked any US assets, and Tehran vowed to respond if another US drone were to breach its airspace, the president nevertheless left open the door for talks. 
He said Iran should inform the US when it was ready to negotiate.

At the same time, he also suggested that military conflict between the two countries was a genuine possibility.

Asked in the White House – where he was signing an unrelated executive order – if he had an “exit strategy” if the US were to go to war with Iran, he said: “You’re not going to need an exit strategy. I don’t do exit strategies.”

At another photo opportunity with the media, the president was asked what message he had for Iran’s leaders. 

“I’ll tell you what the message is: when they’re ready, let us know,” he said. Asked if he meant when Iran was ready to negotiate, he added: “Ready to do whatever. Doesn’t make a difference. Whatever they want to do, I’m ready.”




The president had started the day with stern threats, delivered on Twitter. Responding to headlines from Iran that said it considered new US sanctions imposed on Monday against the nation’s supreme leader “closing the door of diplomacy”, Mr Trump said Iran’s comments were “ignorant and insulting”. 


“Any attack by Iran on anything American will be met with great and overwhelming force,” he wrote. “In some areas, overwhelming will mean obliteration. No more John Kerry & Obama!”

In Iran, president Hassan Rouhani said the sanctions signed by Mr Trump a day earlier, largely symbolic and targeting Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, showed the US was “afflicted by mental retardation”. 

(06-26-2019, 08:40 AM)GMDino Wrote: C'mon kids!  We'll be in and out in less time that it takes to say Rhode Island National Guard!

Who needs an "exit strategy".

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-iran-war-us-sanctions-press-conference-today-latest-update-a8974806.html

[url=https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/donald-trump][/url]

(06-26-2019, 09:56 AM)jj22 Wrote: Iran has already called his bluff. Begging them to negotiate still after they have refused is a sure sign of weakness after all the twitter threats. Won't nobody tell Trump how foolish he sounds with these boy that cried I'll "obliterate" you threats?

These Dictators are having their way with Trump.

pic.twitter.com/P1AwSy1wqd

— ?Marie-Caroline? (@NoWay7790) July 3, 2019

(07-03-2019, 09:13 PM)GMDino Wrote:

pic.twitter.com/P1AwSy1wqd

— ?Marie-Caroline? (@NoWay7790) July 3, 2019

 

Quote:Iran said Friday it seized a British oil tanker in the Strait of Hormuz, a fresh escalation in confrontations in the strategic waterway that has become a flashpoint in tensions between Tehran and the West.

The website of Iran's Revolutionary Guard, sepahnews.com, said the tanker "Impero Stena" was seized Friday for "non-compliance with international maritime laws and regulations" and was taken to an Iranian port. The report did not say what port.

The operator of the Stena Impero said it was unable to contact the ship after it was approached by unidentified vessels and a helicopter in the Strait of Hormuz. The ship has 23 crew aboard.

The British government said it was urgently seeking more information.

(07-19-2019, 03:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Might be time for another strongly worded email:

https://news.yahoo.com/iran-denies-us-destroyed-iranian-055513104.html;_ylt=AwrXnCVxEjJd6xwA8QnQtDMD;_ylu=X3oDMTEyM2JtN2o4BGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDQjc2MDlfMQRzZWMDc3I-

(07-19-2019, 05:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: They tried seizing another UK tanker earlier this month and the Royal Navy intercepted them.  Looks like Iran is actively seeking armed conflict now, illegally seizing sovereign vessels of other nations and shooting down a US drone over international waters.

(07-23-2019, 08:59 AM)GMDino Wrote: General Bonespurs is at it again.

Always cool when an American president advertises their hypothetical capacity for genocide https://t.co/n1QNfRXM7K

— Adam Serwer? (@AdamSerwer) July 22, 2019

<


I'm guessing we are to "give him credit" for NOT doing that?


And no, I do not want him to order the death of 10,000,000 people.  I'm making fun of people who want to give Trump "credit" for not doing insane things.  Probably because they truly fear he is capable of doing insane things. 

(07-23-2019, 11:17 AM)Dill Wrote:
Sleepwalking Into War With Iran: Trump is drifting toward conflict and has no idea how to stop it.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/07/iran-britain-trump-tanker-bolton.html
Here is where we stand in the ongoing crisis (and it is a crisis) with Iran. The British navy is unable to defend a British tanker in the narrow Strait of Hormuz. President Donald Trump made it clear he wouldn’t help; he doesn’t want war, period, but is doing little or nothing to avert it. Meanwhile, the Iranians are escalating the conflict, hoping the West will back down. One can imagine the history book about all this 50 years from now, titled The Sleepwalkers: How the World Went to War in 2019.

This is rather interesting. No desire to lead a coalition of allies to police the Gulf.

Rather than going on about what Trump should or should not do right now,
I would be interested in hearing people's thoughts on how US allies and Iran will view US paralysis.

If allies and other nations all now have to spend money beefing up defenses to defend tankers, won't they see this as largely the result of Trump trashing the Iran deal? Will they blame Trump or Iran primarily?

Also, if Iran is seizing ships of countries that seize its ships, that means that control of escalation is one more step removed from Trump. And that willingness of individual countries to enforce Washington's embargo may falter.

Iran must know that, pre-election, Trump's hands are somewhat tied. It might be possible to humiliate him, force him back into the treaty, or a "new" one with cosmetic changes.

The way to stave off conflict, in this view, is for Trump to rejoin the accord. At this point, some say, the Iranians would be fine with cosmetic changes to the deal—for instance, renaming it—and letting Trump pretend that he wrote it so he wouldn’t suffer the humiliation of embracing Barack Obama’s diplomatic triumph.
But this level of humbling seems improbable.

(07-23-2019, 11:36 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What does this have to do with Iran?

(07-23-2019, 11:36 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Iran is responsible for their own actions.  This apparent abdication of responsibility on the part of Iran is odd.  They just committed state sponsored piracy and yet the blame is on Trump?  I suppose the argument is along the lines of Trump forcing their hand.  Just wondering when we get to hold Iran responsible for what they actually do, what line do they have to cross before they start being culpable?

(07-23-2019, 12:09 PM)GMDino Wrote: Rather than start a shiny new thread and upset folks I added this latest brain fart from Trump to the thread where folks said we could walk through Iran with the RI National Guard since DJT believes he could beat Afghanistan quicker.

Quote:Trump doesn't want war...but he needs to look "tough" so he won't do anything to actively prevent war also.  He's the guy telling his friends to hold him back while running his mouth and then saying the other guy was running his mouth.  This entire, possible soon to be cluster, situation is all predicated on DJT throwing out the multi-national agreement because...Obama.  Trump really believes he is the smarts guy in the room world and he can "fix" "everything" himself...even if it ain't broke.  Unfortunately he has no interest in listening to anyone, just doing it his way, and doesn't have the attention span long enough to see anything to an end.  Just to say he'll "look into" things and then say "we are close" to doing...something.

Quote:Iran will be held responsible for their actions at some point by someone...but we are here with those actions because the least prepared person to be POTUS is currently the POTUS.

(07-23-2019, 12:32 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Who in this thread stated that?

(06-17-2019, 02:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As to the "threat" Iran would pose. We kicked Iraq's but in about 100 hours and they kicked Iran's but. So we'd most likely have to commit the Rhode Island National Guard. Personally I don't want armed conflict and put the chances of it happening right between slim and none, but if it comes to conflict, it must be a coalition.

(07-23-2019, 12:32 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This is a lot of words to not answer the question asked.  Trump is responsible for what he says and does, Iran is responsible for what they say and do.  


I think you'll find the Iran deal was unpalatable by the majority, if not nearly all of, the GOP.  I don't think we would have stayed in the deal regardless of who won the presidency.  Except for maybe Jeb.  I am interested in the first part of this sentence.  Iran has been sponsoring terrorism since the revolution.  They are one of the most reprehensible governments on the planet.  One wonders when they'll get their comeuppance.

(07-23-2019, 11:36 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Iran is responsible for their own actions.  This apparent abdication of responsibility on the part of Iran is odd.  They just committed state sponsored piracy and yet the blame is on Trump?  I suppose the argument is along the lines of Trump forcing their hand.  Just wondering when we get to hold Iran responsible for what they actually do, what line do they have to cross before they start being culpable?

(07-25-2019, 08:50 PM)Dill Wrote: Speaking of "chains of consequences" following from Trump's choices, here is an astonishing development.

Looks like GB wants to form a coalition to protect shipping in the Gulf, but it will not be a part of the coalition the US is seeking to build.

I.e., our strongest and most important ally on the world stage looks to be going it alone, AND trying to salvage the Iran deal.

Britain’s Power Play in the Persian Gulf:
The United Kingdom hopes to get European countries to join it in a maritime coalition to protect vulnerable tankers near Iran.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/07/24/britains-power-play-in-the-persian-gulf/

In calling this week for a European naval coalition to provide security for commercial ships in the vital Strait of Hormuz, the United Kingdom is seeking to both uphold the nearly moribund nuclear deal with Iran and still push back against Tehran’s seizure last week of a British-flagged tanker.

The British proposal is seen as a partial rebuke of the Trump administration, as outgoing Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt stressed that the European naval coalition would not form part of the U.S. campaign of imposing maximum pressure on Iran, which includes the deployment of naval vessels, troops, and aircraft to the region.

(07-25-2019, 09:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: File this under "duh".  The UK is still an active signatory to the Iran deal and hopes to salvage it.  Directly participating with the US in the maritime protection of shipping undermines their ability to do this.  Hence this decision should surprise no one.  Regardless, if you think they won't coordinate their efforts with the US Navy you are naïve.  As one of the Johnson delegation was overheard to say recently, "They (the US) are the only ones with the assests anyways".