What's new

US coalition to leave Iraq ‘in due deference to sovereignty’ – general

Two purposes are being served here:

1 - It is possible for US to intercept missiles, but near impossible to intercept small rockets. They want to exit from Iraq (with Iraqi assurances of safe exit) because this is the only place where they are at a walking distance from Irani militias.

2 - If after the exit, Iran hits any targets in other parts of middle east, their airborne forces do not hesitate to drop MOABs in Iraq, in addition to Iran.

But I am still sticking to my opinion.. Iran will not attack US interests in the region. Iran knows its capabilities, and it doesn't want to be reduced to a third world nation, specially when it doesn't have ICBMs.
 
.
No where does the letter mentions withdrawal, they have termed it as troop re-positioning
More of an attempt to gauge the reaction of Iraqi Government
IF this letter is real, it could be part of a plan to see if the Iraqis are bluffing or, at the very least, give the Iraqis a face saving option to allow US troops to remain. After Trump's irrational threats of sanctions and demands that Iraq pay the US 'billions' before US troops leave, the Iraqis were under a lot of pressure politically to demonstrate that they would not be threatened into allowing US troops to stay. Now, the Iraqi government can say that the US did not threaten Iraq into letting US troops stay and that the US was going to withdraw but the Iraqi government asked them to stay.

Of course, this could be Trump throwing another tantrum after being told by his advisers that there was no legal basis for the US to stay in Iraq if the Iraqi government demanded they leave, and that there was no legal basis to demand billions from Iraq for constructing a US base. Trump did after all withdraw suddenly from Syria, causing the Turkish government to establish a safe zone.

If the withdrawal actually goes through, this will be a major climb down, failure and loss of face for Trump after his arrogant threats, and a huge loss for the US in its bid to contain Iran - the Soleimani assassination will have backfired spectacularly on the US.
 
.
NATO/US are removing weak points... /easy targets...and is going to rely on long rame CM/Bombing in case of War...

So, this is not a good development on the surface.

However, let us hold our horses for now and see what Iran does/doesn't in the next few days... but there will be intesity in Kabulistan and Iraq for sure...

Everything happening so fast and so abruptly on the surface shows a Plan!!!

The US wargamed DesertStorm long before actual war...

We need to secure OurBalochistan/Gawadar at all costs!
A THOROUGHLY DESIGNED AND PROBABLY A WELL-EXECUTED PLAN.
 
.
Its a trap...

BREAKING: US deploying 6 B-52 strategic bombers to Diego Garcia which could be used for operations against Iran if ordered- via CNN’s @barbarastarrcnn

Lol
They are already stationed there, so how can they can be deployed?
 
.
Two purposes are being served here:

1 - It is possible for US to intercept missiles, but near impossible to intercept small rockets. They want to exit from Iraq (with Iraqi assurances of safe exit) because this is the only place where they are at a walking distance from Irani militias.

2 - If after the exit, Iran hits any targets in other parts of middle east, their airborne forces do not hesitate to drop MOABs in Iraq, in addition to Iran.

But I am still sticking to my opinion.. Iran will not attack US interests in the region. Iran knows its capabilities, and it doesn't want to be reduced to a third world nation, specially when it doesn't have ICBMs.
You see buddy, what you are saying is a heavy argument as well as those who are giving counter arguments suggesting a war.

The situation is quite complicated and every second counts, every move shapes it to new heights and paths.
 
.
Could be part of a plan to see if the Iraqis are bluffing or, at the very least, give the Iraqis a face saving option to allow US troops to remain. After Trump's irrational threats of sanctions and demands that Iraq pay the US 'billions' before US troops leave, the Iraqis were under a lot of pressure politically to demonstrate that they would not be threatened into allowing US troops to stay. Now, the Iraqi government could say that the US did not threaten Iraq into letting US troops stay.

If the withdrawal actually goes through, this will be a major climb down, failure and loss of face for Trump after his arrogant threats, and a huge loss for the US in its bid to contain Iran - the Soleimani assassination will have backfired spectacularly on the US.

Trump cannot take billions from Iraq as the agreement between USA and Iraqi govt never gave usa ownership of bases. I will find the copy and post.

The letter is leaked but Reuters news also confirmed it in some tweets as well. So this means letter was sent.

The statement of defence sec is also there say no plan to leave. Don't know what is happening here.
 
. . .
Trump cannot take billions from Iraq as the agreement between USA and Iraqi govt never gave usa ownership of bases. I will find the copy and post.
I agree - I updated my post to reflect that. The US has no legal basis to stay in Iraq if the Iraqi government demands they leave.
 
. .
We need to secure OurBalochistan/Gawadar at all costs!
To be honest, to achieve that, USA needs to be somehow kept out of S-B province and somehow, the mullahs need to survive, as they have less ill-intent towards Pakistan than USA does. The mullahocracy is the lesser of two ills if you want to put it that way.

If USA gets permanent posting at the Iranian-Pakistani border, Gwadar and Pakistan are screwed. USA will allow India a free hand to operate from Chabahar. They don't give a sh+t what the gangus do to us.

Although it's certainly not in our interests to openly take sides, I am beginning to suspect it might be in our interests to support the mullahs in some clandestine way.

I have no doubt that India is covertly striking a deal with USA with regards to future Indian "projects" in S-B province - and it ain't gonna be building libraries..
 
.
You see buddy, what you are saying is a heavy argument as well as those who are giving counter arguments suggesting a war.

The situation is quite complicated and every second counts, every move shapes it to new heights and paths.
My analysis is based on US's restlessness to move out of Afghanistan..

US has learnt a lot from Afghanistan, and while they are busy there, they will not open any new front.

But this move is of course a preventive measure and any army would have done the same thing.. US doesn't want that militias, which sometimes contain rogue elements too, fire 50 rockets on each base in Iraq, killing score of US soldiers.. It's a good move from Americans..

Keeping militias which are only partially controlled has their own costs. When a country wants coordinated decisions, these militias take decisions on their own and jeopardize the whole plan of a country.

US is not afraid of Iran. US is afraid of militias which may hit them killing many soldiers.. It will put a huge pressure on Americans back home.
 
. .
To be honest, to achieve that, USA needs to be somehow kept out of S-B province and somehow, the mullahs need to survive, as they have less ill-intent towards Pakistan than USA does. The mullahocracy is the lesser of two ills if you want to put it that way.

If USA gets permanent posting at the Iranian-Pakistani border, Gwadar and Pakistan are screwed. USA will allow India a free hand to operate from Chabahar. They don't give a sh+t what the gangus do to us.

Although it's certainly not in our interests to openly take sides, I am beginning to suspect it might be in our interests to support the mullahs in some clandestine way.

I have no doubt that India is covertly striking a deal with USA with regards to future Indian "projects" in S-B province - and it ain't gonna be building libraries..
Exactly, Iran is someone a fort for us at the moment.
A fort that bites you as well

My analysis is based on US's restlessness to move out of Afghanistan..

US has learnt a lot from Afghanistan, and while they are busy there, they will not open any new front.

But this move is of course a preventive measure and any army would have done the same thing.. US doesn't want that militias, which sometimes contain rogue elements too, fire 50 rockets on each base in Iraq, killing score of US soldiers.. It's a good move from Americans..

Keeping militias which are only partially controlled has their own costs. When a country wants coordinated decisions, these militias take decisions on their own and jeopardize the whole plan of a country.

US is not afraid of Iran. US is afraid of militias which may hit them killing many soldiers.. It will put a huge pressure on Americans back home.
Can US get out of Afghanistan via iraq ?
Could this route have been possible while the Gen suleimani was alive ?
 
.
Its a perfect spot quite far off so the Iranians cant hit it easily And B-52s and B2s are Strategic assets they can strike targets Thousands of Km away.
ENoFfUZXYAArnRm



Just moving troops out of Baghdad. Plus nothings confirmed yet lots of confusion.


still within the range of Iran ballistic missiles

This is same tactic as in 1920 before world war 1 leaving small occupied areas in preparation for the bigger war.

This is an illusion bigger war might come in the region. Muslims countries should unite.

I hope freakin arabs arab let their land and airspace be used against any muslim country.

Bigger war is a real threat
i hope PK is ready as a Muslims country you are bound to join in if its get messy
 
.
Back
Top Bottom