Today, political news, global headlines, Twitter words of the US president:
“We were cocked & loaded to retaliate last night on 3 different sights when I asked, how many will die. 150 people, sir, was the answer from a General. 10 minutes before the strike I stopped it…”
The near disaster, war between the US and Iran, has the world’s press and global social media ‘buzzing’ this morning. StratDem goes to one of the most visited site on the Internet, Reddit, to report “Front page of the Internet” political reactions.
It’s not a beat of war drums, not a U.S. base screaming for more “shock ‘n awe”, another Iraq disaster, an expanding regional disaster with millions of migrants fleeing destruction, economic meltdown, the drawing in of Iran’s allies Russia and China, an escalating crisis as oil/gas and fossil fuel supplies are disrupted with other crises, the climate crisis and humanitarian needs, set aside for war.
Here’s how numerous Reddit posters reacted today to the threat of another war:
Iranian general says US was warned several times before drone was shot down
People comparing the danger of Trump, Bolton, and Pompeo fooling the country/world into war to the Bush Iraq WMDs but the they miss the size of Iran and the scope of a war with that country.
It’s as big as Germany. Sorry. It has about as many people as Germany. Over 80 million. It’s the 18th most populated country on earth. It’s also the 18th biggest economy in the world as well at about 1.7 Trillion. That’s just behind Canada and Saudi Arabia but hundreds of Billions more than Australia – that underdeveloped defenseless third world country. I didn’t mean to say it was as big as Germany, it’s not even close. It is over 4 times bigger than Germany. It is a massive country with large portions being inhospitable and impassable mountains and deserts. It is not an exaggeration to say that it’s very land is a fortress.
Invading Iran is invading an economy the size of Texas with nearly 3 times the population and more than twice as much area to cover with 10 times the logistical issues. It would make the Vietnam War seem quaint, short, and clean. This ignores that this would almost certainly lead to a cascading series of events that would incite massive, possibly global war. Nearly every probable scenario would result in the deaths of millions as a result of the conflict and its secondary impacts. To accomplish what goals???
If you aren’t terrified of the idea of starting this war I strongly encourage you to speak to a veteran who’s under 80. If the war goes well it would mean years of death and violence on a scale the US has not seen in 2 generations. It won’t go well. I have no idea why we are even considering it.
I’ve posted version of this several times and I e gotten a few response saying the equivalent of “but we’ll just use our Air Force/bombings/missile strikes” or even “we’ll just use nukes.” The first group are scary because they don’t seem to grasp basic math or history. The second are not sane.
The use of ANY nuclear weapons changes the world as we know it. It is the most taboo act of war short of possibly a biological attack. If the order was given it would be better if there were a coup in the US. That would be less destabilizing. Not downplaying that, I’m trying to give a sense of scope. It would break the Western alliance and the US economy, followed by the world, would take a hit to the economy on par with the Great Depression.
Edit: Addition really – Tehran, Iran has a larger population than NYC. Both weigh in at just below 9 Million people. Imagine trying to take any action against a city of that size without committing multiple war crimes by accident. Imagine the response to Katrina, but with war. That’s only a tenth of the population.
There are 5 other cities in Iran with populations over 1 million.
There are 60 more cities with population between 100 thousand and 1 million.
For reference, Albany, NY doesn’t quite have 100 thousand residents. There are 139 OTHER cities in Iran in Albany’s bracket. Source
Edit2 – Call your Representatives! I hadn’t called about this before, but I just did. I actually spoke to a person at the office of Roy Blunt (MO). I started a generic 15 second, you don’t care and I know that, statement of concern and then I switched tactics and asked the person if they knew how many people lived in Iran. In Tehran. If they had a ballpark guess. They didn’t and I told them. I wasn’t calm but I didn’t yell. I begged. I said “Please, this isn’t a political call. War on this scale is unthinkable and nobody is saying anything. You’re THERE. Say something, I’m begging you PLEASE say anything. Just say that you’re scared because you’d be crazy not to be. Please! It’s almost too late, but you’re there. Try. Please.” They were shook by it, not that I expect it to work directly, but they heard those numbers. I’m going to do that some more.
Edit3 – Just had a long conversation with someone in Rep. Ann Wagner’s office. They guessed that Iran had a population of around 500k. Let that sink in. That 1/163 of the right answer. Tehran has 18 times that many.
He heard me out for several minutes. He said he’d give my numbers to the rep.
You’re right. Iran is not Iraq. It’s hard to overstate just how bad a war in Iran could get, not to mention the incredible humanitarian and refugee crisis that would be created by a war.
And the Iraq war was started by a relatively (at the time) popular President, and the administration took many months to make the case for war. They used UN weapons inspections and got some degree of international support and buy-in. 6 nations joined the US in invading Iraq.
At this time, a war in Iran lacks popular support domestically, and would likely be met with almost universal condemnation internationally. The US could see itself facing not just international outrage, but perhaps even sanctions depending on how extreme an act of war we commit.
Iran hasn’t done anything that comes close to justifying an invasion. The US will become a pariah.
Iran says will take drone incident to UN to show US ‘lying’
>I’d love to see a timed flightpath; not just the impact point.
>From what I’ve read the US and Iran aren’t disagreeing where the drone physically was. Iran argues that they own the straight of Hormuz (and the air above it), where the US argues that no country owns the international shipping lane, and Navy regularly patrols those waters to protect international shipping. So it isn’t about where the drone was, but a semantic argument about who owns that air
>First person I’ve seen in this thread who understands this. Iran regularly claims every vessel and aircraft making a SoH transit is in their airspace. Just as China claims to own the majority of the South China Sea, regardless of International Law only recognizing 12nm of territorial water and airspace. Every pilot and ship navigator knows how to transit the black line. Iran will claim you’re in their airspace even if you’re just off the coast of UAE. This kind of thing was bound to happen eventually, and I suspect it’s no coincidence that it happened to a drone. Shooting down a manned aircraft would be as close to an act of war as you can get in this scenario. Shooting down a drone is more of a statement you can bail on if it blows up in your face.
>The problem is, there are parts of the SOH that are about 23nm coast to coast. That means the territorial waters/airspace overlaps with Oman and UAE. Therefore, there is no international airspace where there is overlap. That’s why the rules of transit passage apply in the SOH.
Aircraft are allowed to fly there as long as they fly straight through and don’t linger. Helicopters operating in concert with a ship transiting the SOH are not bound by this restriction.
Now, is that where the drone was at the time? I have no idea. But the airspace there is pretty complex.
>But an unmanned drone was there, not a commercial or trade airliner. Isn’t that some kind of violation. Eli5 please
>Any aircraft is allowed to use the airspace to pass through, but that’s literally it. No surveillance, no stopping, not allowed to do anything other than move along through the airspace.
So I am doubtful that the drone had all its surveillance turned off, and that they were transferring it by air from base to base.
>I’m pretty sure any aircraft transiting such an area must have its transponder switched on to be considered not hostile.
I mean, if the US had a drone there to keep an eye on Iran to make sure they are sticking to their end of the treaty that the U.S. already backed out of, then maybe the U.S. shouldn’t have backed out of agreement and imposed sanctions on them in the first place… unless you know, they’re purposely trying to start a war with Iran…
>You say shooting a drone is provocative, but what about flying the drone? Put another way, how would the USA react to Iran flying drones off the coast of America?
>It would be vaporized while the president sits on a secure bunker
>From what I’ve read the US and Iran aren’t disagreeing where the drone physically was.
That isn’t what I’ve read:
The United States countered with its own coordinates, suggesting that the drone had been flying in international airspace when it was shot down, at a point about nine nautical miles southwest of that cited by Iran.
Disagreeing by 9 NMs is somewhat significant. It’d be a boon for Iran if they could prove their coordinates are correct.
>Iran says drone was 10 miles off the coast (which is their airspace) US says it was 21 miles (international waters) – Eiether way, I trust us more than I trust them, and given that they’ve faked GPS in the past to steal a drone – it’s possible theyre at fault even if the drone did go into their airspace.
>From what I’ve read the US and Iran aren’t disagreeing where the drone physically was.
That is not correct. The map clearly shows Iran claiming the drone was struck in its territorial waters.
Iran argues that they own the straight of Hormuz (and the air above it), where the US argues that no country owns the international shipping lane
>Sorry, but this is nonsense. You’re conflating transit passage rights with sovereignty of territorial waters. The two are not contradictory. Vessels have the right to pass, but the waters never cease to be territorial waters (and thus part of a sovereign country).
>Yes they are. The foreign minister of Iran has even tweeted the coordinates where they claim the drone was shot down, 25°59’43″N 57°02’25″E .
We can see that this is roughly 15km from the Iranian coast. This isn’t in the strait itself, where there is no international waters. It is either Iranian or Omanian, since it is so narrow that their respective territorial waters overlap, and is determined by a treaty.
The US on the other hand, claims the drone was 34km from land, which would indeed put it in international airspace.
I wonder how blatant disinformation like this even gets upvoted so high..
>Provided by someone other than the US
>Or any country in the region 99.9% I. Sure have radar tracking almost every type of aircraft flying by.
>Most modern radars hook into IFF, and the IFF readouts tagged to what the sensors detect is what operators are normally looking at. Of course military aircraft encrypt their IFF, and don’t broadcast out their identity to everyone who requests it.
Essentially all you’re going to see is a couple of lighted pixels that you’re assuming are the drone.
I assume that who ever operates the drone keeps a recorded feed of the aircraft’s information including GPS coordinates, but nobody is going to take America’s word for it, even if they’re telling the truth.
Yeah that ship has sailed, One too many “Cry wolf” events.
>I wouldnt trust any “evidence” given by the gulf states.
>The problem is a not insignificant number of world actors are beginning to feel the same way about the United States.
>This is the issue I am having. I don’t trust anyone involved. My own freakin government….
>You’re right to be concerned about the lack of faith people are demonstrating in the US and it’s allies, but let’s be honest, this is the result of that faith being shattered, especially due to the Iraq war. That trust needs to be earned. It makes sense not to buy a narrative from the US or it’s allies atm.
>Especially since in the 80s the US and the UK were each caught lying about being in Iranian airspace/waters
>Especially since in the 1950’s the US and the UK were caught overthrowing the Iranian government
>We basically brag about cutting through non international airspace a decade after the fact. Basically everything since the Bay of Pigs we’ve either been caught or freely admitted to being where we weren’t supposed to be. It’s so far beyond trope as to become modus operandi.
>Yellow cake anyone? Aluminum Tubes?
I’m not even sure who the US allies are anymore, other than Saudi Arabia and Israel.
>All the Gulf monarchies. UAE, Oman, Kuwait, Qatar.
>Its rather that, at least me personally, dont have any way of knowing what the truth is.
Saudi data cant be trusted, US cant either. Iran is also hardly a paramount of virtue. All the other countries are aligned to any of those countries and wouldnt go a neutral “oh fuck it let me tell the truth” – and even if they did (or proclaim to do): how to know they are know speaking the truth?
From my POV the situation is at its ground level at this shit stage due to the US. There was a hard fought for agreement to limit Iranian uran enrichment in exchange for getting Iran back to the international (/western) community. Iran complied with everything, still the US ignored the contract and invalidated it. Europe tried to uphold it, but US threats to sanction European companies that do business with Iran shuts down interest of european companies wanting to do business there.
So Iran has to pull back as well to not become a laughingstock (upholding ones part of a deal while not getting anything in return).
Now to look at the current situation: Why would Iran want to attack the tankers? What do they gain? Most of the oil going through the straight of hormuz goes to asia, and an asian tanker was struck from japan – who arent even part of the JCPOA, while the Japanese PM Abe was in Theran?
And the Japanese, who are the ones that were actually attacked, said that the attacks were from air bases systems and not mines like the US stated. What do they gain by lying if they were wrong?
The only beneficiary to this entire ordeal are:
The US that has been drumming up it to go to war with Iran since Trump became president and which accelerated once he hired Bolton
Saudi Arabia and its allies, who are in a regional conflict with Iran and would more than enjoy the NATO smacking them
Israel, which had been threatend by Iran in the past and is rightfully scared of Iran getting nukes (and/or its PM being scared of the investigation against him and wanting an international crisis to get out of it – but thats highly speculative
So yea, for me at least it is far, far more likely that the US or an ally of it orchestrated the attack to move the countries closer to war. Trump also has an election coming which doesnt look good for him (similar to Bush pre 2004 election) and might just look to start a war to bolster public opinion (like bush did in 2003).
It’s just a modern gulf of tonkin incident
>Gotta feed the military industrial complex machine
>God, I’d hope a fucking drone isn’t used as casus belli.
I don’t give a shit if it’s a trillion dollar drone.
No people were harmed in the making of this incident.
>He goes home, can’t tell his wife what happened, unspoken tensions arise, marriage ruined. An American family divided. Mr. President, the time to strike is now
>Yeah, I keep thinking of the Gulf of Tonkin and of the WMDs. My stomach starts to turn.
>Now to look at the current situation: Why would Iran want to attack the tankers? What do they gain?
It helps to remember that politics in Iran isn’t monolithic. The Iranian revolutionary guard could benefit from increased tensions that embarrassed the leadership in Iran for instance.
>I don’t trust either the US or Iran, and wouldn’t blindly believe evidence from US-aligned or Iran-aligned countries either. I’d only believe evidence from an independent international body similar to the IAEA.
>Who else is going to have access to that data exactly?
>Oman should have it I would expect.
It’s not like they’re far away.
>And probably the UAE, which also has territory on the south side of Gulf of Oman area.
>A whole number of countries who will be fully aware of what’s going on in that airspace via their radar.
>Everyone in that region has very good reasons to keep a close eye on what’s in the sky.
>Radar is one thing, but precise flight path data is another. Depending on where it’s launched from only a select few countries would have access to precise flight path data.
>Who needs the flight path data when you can track the actual object in the actual sky using radar and get timestamps with those tracking captures?
Flight path data can be manipulated.
>Radar contact can be as well. The truth of this matter will likely never be found because there are too many people willing to do nefarious things to get a result they want.
It’s one of those situations that makes me want to damn technology due to a (ir)rational want/need for honesty and truth. But even before all of this high tech stuff was created powers of the world weren’t honest. And I’d argue that today it’s harder to come to the truth than before because our technology allows us to manipulate data of all kinds. It caused me to question the validity of a lot of things we recognize as facts these days.
Idk, the worlds rough man. Real rough.
We’re not talking about powers of the world being honest. Nobody expects that.
Hard science that is corroborated by multiple sources is not something up for debate. If multiple countries in the region show the same radar tracking data for the drone, but the US says it is wrong, then the US is lying.
This whole “facts are up for debate” nonsense needs to stop.
>Probably 98%+ of US population doesn’t know Iranians/Persians are not Arab. They are Aryan. Many are pro-Europe, pro-West. They are deeply involved in Eurasian economics.