• zifnab25 [he/him, any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      39
      ·
      10 months ago

      I could very easily see Hilary pulling this trigger (or Obama or Bush for that matter).

      If anything, I suspect Trump mismanagement of the occupation probably was what opened up diplomacy with Iran wide enough to convince Solemani that a visit was possible. The bombing (of Iraq’s own airfield!) was just Trump trying to slam the door shut after the horse had left.

      • 420blazeit69 [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        30
        ·
        9 months ago

        I could very easily see Hilary pulling this trigger (or Obama or Bush for that matter).

        Obama had reached a diplomatic agreement with Iran on their nuclear program; Trump was a big step backwards there, as he was on Cuba. Even with the DPRK I don’t think anything substantive materialized.

        Looking at everything reasonable in Trump’s favor, he was just as bad as Obama on foreign policy. “He was actually OK there” has always been more contrarian than anything.

        • zifnab25 [he/him, any]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          9 months ago

          Obama had reached a diplomatic agreement with Iran on their nuclear program

          But he held the line on Iraq and even opened up fronts in Syria. If the Iranian military left itself exposed like that? Obama might be willing to take the shot, if he thought he could advance his position further in the region.

          Trump was a big step backwards there, as he was on Cuba. Even with the DPRK I don’t think anything substantive materialized.

          Obama was trying to carrot the Cubans toward privatization after decades of stick. But he was just as invested in an eventual corporate takeover as Clinton or Carter.

          Trump was a flailing putz who did everything for attention. His moves weren’t strategic past the next headline.

          Looking at everything reasonable in Trump’s favor, he was just as bad as Obama on foreign policy.

          He was worse in strategy, which made him better in consequence. He undermined international institutions and tried to grift NATO states. He made catty remarks and empty threats to look tough, without having any kind of interest in a protracted commitment to any one conflict.

          A Trump mix up at the White House would force another big wave of resignations and bring in a bunch of new grifters and know nothings.

          Whether that would be better or worse is forever up to debate. But it will erode US statecraft faster than a stable continuous second term.

          • 420blazeit69 [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            9 months ago

            He was worse in strategy, which made him better in consequence.

            I don’t give Trump credit for accidentally harming stuff like NATO because the same rash decisions that did that almost started war with Iran (twice, actually, if I’m remembering correctly). Accidental good is also good you can’t count on going forward.

            • zifnab25 [he/him, any]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              9 months ago

              I don’t give Trump credit for accidentally harming stuff like NATO because the same rash decisions that did that almost started war with Iran

              The biggest thing keeping us out of a war with Iran is the Zagros Mountains. Trump bombing an Iraqi air field fucked US/Iran diplomacy for a generation and caused every other government official in the region to take a step back from the nearest American military base. But it wasn’t going to initiate a direct attack from Iran into Iraq (because they’re trying to cultivate an alliance). If anything, it heightened the support Iran had for Yemen, which culminated in the closing of the Gulf of Adan to… 90%+ of traffic through the Suez? If you want to talk about something that hurt Western nations as much as losing Solemani hurt Iran… Billions, if not tens of billions of dollars, and right through the heart of Mediterranean shipping (ie, Israeli accumulated wealth) industry.

              If we can assign Trump credit for that… well… god damn. Way to go, dude.

              Accidental good is also good you can’t count on going forward.

              Biden is consistently bad on policy, while maintaining a pipeline of experienced professionals with long term job aspirations. Trump occasionally prat-falls over his own dick, while hundreds of experienced professionals in the various agencies flee the sinking ship he’s created.

              I see Trump as a kind-of American Boris Yeltsin. I don’t think that will make America a better place, but perhaps it will allow other nations to assert themselves when the US retreats from the global stage.

              • 420blazeit69 [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                9
                ·
                9 months ago

                But it wasn’t going to initiate a direct attack from Iran into Iraq

                It did exactly that! There were acts of war exchanged by both sides; we’re extremely lucky the situation didn’t boil over.

                Trump accidentally did some harm to the empire, but we were right on the precipice of a war that would have killed (easily) millions.

                • zifnab25 [he/him, any]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  It did exactly that!

                  Iran reportedly informed the Iraqi government of an imminent attack shortly beforehand. The United States Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the attack was intended to kill, however some analysts suggested the strike was deliberately designed to avoid causing any fatalities in order to dissuade an armed American response

              • marxisthayaca [he/him,they/them]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                9 months ago

                The goal at this point is for America to become so preoccupied with internal contradictions that they withdraw from the world. Allowing for multipolarity (and God willing, unipolarity from the Chinese).