Crisis in the Arabian Gulf

[Khafee]

The US considering sending 5k troops to its bases around Iran. Location not known but mostly likely to the US base in Qatar.

Pentagon plans to send 5,000 more troops to Middle East amid Iran threat: US officials

AP
Reuters
May 23, 2019

• Tehran and Washington have this month been escalating rhetoric against each other
• The US military deployed a carrier strike group, bombers and Patriot missiles to the Middle East earlier this month

WASHINGTON: The US Department of Defense is considering a US military request to send about 5,000 additional troops to the Middle East amid increasing tensions with Iran, two US officials told Reuters on Wednesday.

Tehran and Washington have this month been escalating rhetoric against each other, following US President Donald Trump’s decision to try to cut Iran’s oil exports to zero and beef up the US military presence in the Gulf in response to what he said were Iranian threats.

The officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the request had been made by US Central Command, but added that it was not clear whether the Pentagon would approve the request.

The Pentagon regularly receives — and declines — requests for additional resources from US combatant commands throughout the world.
One of the officials said the requested troops would be defensive in nature.

This appeared to be the latest request for additional resources in the face of what US officials have said are credible threats from Iran against US forces and American interests in the Middle East.

The Pentagon declined to comment on future plans.

“As a matter of longstanding policy, we are not going to discuss or speculate on potential future plans and requests for forces,” Commander Rebecca Rebarich, a Pentagon spokeswoman, said on Wednesday.


Acting US Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan said on Tuesday that while threats from Iran in the Middle East remained high, deterrence measures taken by the Pentagon had “put on hold” the potential for attacks on Americans.

The US military deployed a carrier strike group, bombers and Patriot missiles to the Middle East earlier this month in response to what Washington said were troubling indications of possible preparations for an attack by Iran.

Trump had warned on Monday that Iran would be met with “great force” if it attacked US interests in the Middle East.

Pentagon plans to send more troops to Middle East amid Iran threat

WASHINGTON: The United States is considering deploying more troops to the Middle East as it looks for ways to enhance the protection of its forces in the turbulent region, acting US Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan said Thursday. Shanahan denied news reports that plans call for the deployment...

www.arabnews.com

 

[Persian Gulf]

Can you elaborate on this more? If I understood correctly, you're referring to a post war Iran in which government will be replaced like in Iraq war. And Iran will return to pre-revolution era during which it was open to the world and so on? If that is the case, then a war will still be in favor of Arabs only and only if they utilize the right political strategies during such a war. Otherwise Iran will still pose a security threat to them even after a limited war. It's hard to change reality in Syria and Iraq, but you somehow need to win back Yemen. And have a larger involvement in Syrian political process.

Your posts seem reasonable. But as an Iranian it is clear the US doesn't want a successful Iran. Pre-Revolution/sanctions Iran had the largest GDP in the region, if Iran suddenly became a good US puppet again and sanctions were removed, with 80m+ educated population and strong scientific/industrial base (I will make some posts about this in the Iranian section later today), huge oil and GAS reserves (and various minerals) etc Iran would be a $1.5 trillion+ economy in a strategic location - why would the US want such a powerful Iran?

It is the same with KSA, as soon as they get too rich and try to be independent they will meet a bad response from the US (like the Shah did).

Keep in mind, Iranian regime can survive for another year(from internal unrest). So it remains to be seen if Trump wins a second term. It is a complicated situation for both sides. On one hand, Arabs feel they can convince the Trump administration to take more serious measures against Iran, including military ones, while they can. On the other, Iranians can try surviving a whole year of decreased oil exports, but they do not trust the US and its commitment to the nuclear agreement. They also have justification to take their own set of measures due to US withdrawal from agreement and new sanctions. So now is the opportunity for Iran to play its cards as dangerous as that might be.

Iran is being smart to link small retaliatory measures to US withdrawal and EU failure to meet its obligations under the JCPOA/UNSCR 2231, without totally breaking the JCPOA and putting the ball back in the EU's court.

If Iran will be sanctioned for complying with JCPOA and not having nuclear weapons and EU doesn't want to do anything then what is the point? If Iran is being sanctioned for nukes then it should at least get nukes! This is the view of many Iranians now.

If a military op is to take place it will not be limited to few hits here and there rather a full scale one that will flip things upside down. Although Iran military arsenal is a bit outdated, it missiles have to neutralized.

The bottom line is, full scale war on Iran or NONE. Clipping the fingers of the Mullah should be enough through tough and tight sanctions. The Iranian people then will flip against the Mullah. Once they do we can speak about autonomous regions.

How did you deduce that the US will launch a "full scale" invasion against Iran exactly? The conventional wisdom is the total opposite - Iran is much too large for anything "full scale".

Blanket sanctions harm the people, not the government or 'mullahs'. Confirmed by ICJ recently when they ordered the US to lift sanctions that de facto were preventing humanitarian trade (food and medicine) - who do you think cannot get this food and medicine, the mullahs or the people?

If you want to talk about autonomous regions in Iran then you should be happy to do the same in Saudi Arabia.

 

[Khafee]

Your posts seem reasonable. But as an Iranian it is clear the US doesn't want a successful Iran. Pre-Revolution/sanctions Iran had the largest GDP in the region, if Iran suddenly became a good US puppet again and sanctions were removed, with 80m+ educated population and strong scientific/industrial base (I will make some posts about this in the Iranian section later today), huge oil and GAS reserves (and various minerals) etc Iran would be a $1.5 trillion+ economy in a strategic location - why would the US want such a powerful Iran?

It is the same with KSA, as soon as they get too rich and try to be independent they will meet a bad response from the US (like the Shah did).


Iran is being smart to link small retaliatory measures to US withdrawal and EU failure to meet its obligations under the JCPOA/UNSCR 2231, without totally breaking the JCPOA and putting the ball back in the EU's court.

If Iran will be sanctioned for complying with JCPOA and not having nuclear weapons and EU doesn't want to do anything then what is the point? If Iran is being sanctioned for nukes then it should at least get nukes! This is the view of many Iranians now.


How did you deduce that the US will launch a "full scale" invasion against Iran exactly? The conventional wisdom is the total opposite - Iran is much too large for anything "full scale".

Blanket sanctions harm the people, not the government or 'mullahs'. Confirmed by ICJ recently when they ordered the US to lift sanctions that de facto were preventing humanitarian trade (food and medicine) - who do you think cannot get this food and medicine, the mullahs or the people?

If you want to talk about autonomous regions in Iran then you should be happy to do the same in Saudi Arabia.

Iran needs to stop exporting terrorism, and their Velayet e Faqih doctrine to Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Yemen, Sudan, Pakistan, Bahrain, UAE, KSA, and the world will start to take them seriously.

 

[Persian Gulf]

Iran needs to stop exporting terrorism, and their Velayet e Faqih doctrine to Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Yemen, Sudan, Pakistan, Bahrain, KSA, and the world will start to take them seriously.

Iran supporting rebel militants in Bahrain/Yemen/KSA (which I don't dispute) is terrorism, but KSA supporting rebel militants in Syria and Iran is...?

Both sides act according to their perceived security needs and interests in response to how they perceive the other side acts. Wikileaks leaked cable of Saudi King calling for Trump to invade Iran (cut head off snake etc) so Iran tries to boost proxy forces as form of forward deterrence. It makes sense from a non-emotional, security POV. Just like KSA invading Yemen makes sense because they obviously don't want a pro-Iranian militia on their southern border.

I agree that in the starting days of the revolution the regime was very fanatical in exporting its ideology and this was very stupid, but supporting Syrian Govt against foreign fighters trying to establish a caliphate is not 'exporting terrorism' or any ideology to Syria.

 

[Khafee]

Iran supporting rebel militants in Bahrain/Yemen/KSA (which I don't dispute) is terrorism, but KSA supporting rebel militants in Syria and Iran is...?

Both sides act according to their perceived security needs and interests in response to how they perceive the other side acts. Wikileaks leaked cable of Saudi King calling for Trump to invade Iran (cut head off snake etc) so Iran tries to boost proxy forces as form of forward deterrence. It makes sense from a non-emotional, security POV. Just like KSA invading Yemen makes sense because they obviously don't want a pro-Iranian militia on their southern border.

I agree that in the starting days of the revolution the regime was very fanatical in exporting its ideology and this was very stupid, but supporting Syrian Govt against foreign fighters trying to establish a caliphate is not 'exporting terrorism' or any ideology to Syria, too much emotional language doesn't help us look forward.

Wikileaks is not reliable, secondly Mullah rhetoric is not evidence of anybodys involvement in Iran. On the Other hand, the latest attacks in Ormara, and Gawader PC in Pakistan are all eveidence of how Iran exports terrorism.

Secondly, KSA did not invade Yemen, they were invited to provide assistance by the legitimate govt of Yemen.

Kindly keep a tight lid on mullah rhetoric.

Thanks!

 

[Persian Gulf]

Kindly keep a tight lid on mullah rhetoric.

Thanks!

I do not have any 'mullah rhetoric' and I hate the mullahs a lot for destroying Iran in many areas.

 

[Khafee]

I do not have any 'mullah rhetoric' and I hate the mullahs a lot for destroying Iran in many areas.

Then you need to wake up, and stop parroting their rhetoric. There is a reason why everyone calls it a Pariah, and an official exporter of terrorism state.

 

[Persian Gulf]

Then you need to wake up, and stop parroting their rhetoric. There is a reason why everyone calls it a Pariah, and an official exporter of terrorism state.

I don't appreciate your rhetoric of telling someone who actually lived in Iran with first-hand experience of the corrupt and violent Islamist Regime how to think and what to say about it, so I think we should end the conversation here to avoid any bad feelings.

 

[Khafee]

I don't appreciate your rhetoric of telling someone who actually lived in Iran with first-hand experience of the corrupt and violent Islamist Regime how to think and what to say about it, so I think we should end the conversation here to avoid any bad feelings.

Good idea, btw I have spent time in Iran as well, so I know them inside out.

 

[Scorpion]

Your posts seem reasonable. But as an Iranian it is clear the US doesn't want a successful Iran. Pre-Revolution/sanctions Iran had the largest GDP in the region, if Iran suddenly became a good US puppet again and sanctions were removed, with 80m+ educated population and strong scientific/industrial base (I will make some posts about this in the Iranian section later today), huge oil and GAS reserves (and various minerals) etc Iran would be a $1.5 trillion+ economy in a strategic location - why would the US want such a powerful Iran?

It is the same with KSA, as soon as they get too rich and try to be independent they will meet a bad response from the US (like the Shah did).


Iran is being smart to link small retaliatory measures to US withdrawal and EU failure to meet its obligations under the JCPOA/UNSCR 2231, without totally breaking the JCPOA and putting the ball back in the EU's court.

If Iran will be sanctioned for complying with JCPOA and not having nuclear weapons and EU doesn't want to do anything then what is the point? If Iran is being sanctioned for nukes then it should at least get nukes! This is the view of many Iranians now.


How did you deduce that the US will launch a "full scale" invasion against Iran exactly? The conventional wisdom is the total opposite - Iran is much too large for anything "full scale".

Blanket sanctions harm the people, not the government or 'mullahs'. Confirmed by ICJ recently when they ordered the US to lift sanctions that de facto were preventing humanitarian trade (food and medicine) - who do you think cannot get this food and medicine, the mullahs or the people?

If you want to talk about autonomous regions in Iran then you should be happy to do the same in Saudi Arabia.

I drew my logic based on the Iraqi invasion and post US invasion. I don't think the US is going to repeat the same mistake again. Its either a full scale military op or none. The European position is due to Iran gas supplies. But they find themselves forced to help out. The UK, France and US are already stationed in the Gulf. Iran is indeed a big monster and I personally don't want a war to break in the region. Saudi Arabia doesn't want to spend a penny and we already have one front opened in the south however, if war erupt it will be a full scale one and many many countries will participate to minimize the risk and end the war in short period of time. I have no doubt Pakistan will also be involved beside US base in Afghanistan, Qatar, Iraq ,Kuwait and the UAE. Assuming this is an established coalition, the first thing that will be done is to secure Iran nuclear facilities especially those lying on the Gulf. Iran might have already built a bomb who knows but do you think it will be given a chance to leach a counter attack on Gulf States? I don't think so. Even China wont allow its oil supplies to be disturbed. The issue is not an autonomous region but to cripple the Mullah once and for all. Iranians have a lot of potentials and they deserve better life. The Mullah is basically spending all the money financing Hizbollah, Houthies, Iraqi militias and that somehow have harmed us severely in the past. Theoretically we can speak about autonomy as an option although I am strongly against that.

 

[Scorpion]

Iran supporting rebel militants in Bahrain/Yemen/KSA (which I don't dispute) is terrorism, but KSA supporting rebel militants in Syria and Iran is...?

Both sides act according to their perceived security needs and interests in response to how they perceive the other side acts. Wikileaks leaked cable of Saudi King calling for Trump to invade Iran (cut head off snake etc) so Iran tries to boost proxy forces as form of forward deterrence. It makes sense from a non-emotional, security POV. Just like KSA invading Yemen makes sense because they obviously don't want a pro-Iranian militia on their southern border.

I agree that in the starting days of the revolution the regime was very fanatical in exporting its ideology and this was very stupid, but supporting Syrian Govt against foreign fighters trying to establish a caliphate is not 'exporting terrorism' or any ideology to Syria.

Allow me to disagree. Its true Saudi Arabia supported the Syria rebels when the civil war broke out but then retreated once Qatar and Turkey came to the picture and started supporting Islamists in Syria. I don't think Saudi Arabia has in the past supported any militia in Iran. It is Balushis are also asking for autonomous region in Southern Iran and a piece of Pakistan which Saudi Arabia opposes strongly. The issue with militias in Iran is that they receive support from militias in Afghanistan and elsewhere. In war torn countries, having access to weapons is very easy.

 

[Persian Gulf]

I drew my logic based on the Iraqi invasion and post US invasion. I don't think the US is going to repeat the same mistake again. Its either a full scale military op or none. The European position is due to Iran gas supplies. But they find themselves forced to help out. The UK, France and US are already stationed in the Gulf. Iran is indeed a big monster and I personally don't want a war to break in the region. Saudi Arabia doesn't want to spend a penny and we already have one front opened in the south however, if war erupt it will be a full scale one and many many countries will participate to minimize the risk and end the war in short period of time. I have no doubt Pakistan will also be involved beside US base in Afghanistan, Qatar, Iraq ,Kuwait and the UAE. Assuming this is an established coalition, the first thing that will be done is to secure Iran nuclear facilities especially those lying on the Gulf. Iran might have already built a bomb who knows but do you think it will be given a chance to leach a counter attack on Gulf States? I don't think so. Even China wont allow its oil supplies to be disturbed. The issue is not an autonomous region but to cripple the Mullah once and for all. Iranians have a lot of potentials and they deserve better life. The Mullah is basically spending all the money financing Hizbollah, Houthies, Iraqi militias and that somehow have harmed us severely in the past. Theoretically we can speak about autonomy as an option although I am strongly against that.

The mistake of Iraq was that it was a full scale invasion. Hence 1991 (a limited engagement) was a total success whilst 2003 (full scale invasion) was a total disaster.

Europe doesn't import much gas from Iran, so that's not relevant. Europe just doesn't want another war on false pretences, European populations are still scarred by the disastrous Iraq war. Europe also remains committed to the JCPOA and isn't obsessively anti-Iran like the US is (no similar hostage scenario and the fact Iran is on Europe's borders so it will lose more if there is a war in Iran). So there is no way at all that any European nation will be involved in any US war against Iran (indeed the Spanish recently announced the withdrawal of their frigate from the US fleet entering the Persian Gulf for this reason - that was the only non-US ship in the group). Iran recently made an indirect threat to Europe about the fact it has millions of Afghan refugees living in Iran that it can divert to Europe (combined with the millions of Iranians that would flee to Europe if the US invaded). Iran is also a key part of the opium trade from Afghanistan to Europe, and spends millions of dollars and has lost dozens of anti-narcotics officers trying to fight this. You can see where I am going with that. There is also no way Pakistan will be involved in any US aggression against Iran, I am very confident about that. As for the other 'countries' (they are better described as US airbases than sovereign countries), that just provides more airbases close to Iran for Iran to take out with BMs.

Iran's nuclear facilities are numerous and spread across the entire country. The main facility by the Persian Gulf is the Bushehr reactor, which is a totally civilian reactor, not a uranium enrichment site, so that wouldn't make much sense. The important facilities are Natanz and Fordow. Natanz is built deep underground and buried under several metres of reinforced concrete. Fordow is built very deep under a literal mountain and located very close to Qom (the centre of Shi'ism in Iran). To capture these two sites would require a huge US military presence in Iran and everyone knows the US does not have the appetite or ability to occupy such large amounts of Iranian land. Here is a map of some of the nuclear facilities that exist across Iran:

I agree Iranians have a lot of potential, but Iran's future is for Iranians to decide for themselves, not for Saudis or Israelis or Americans to decide for us. A foreign invading power backed by KSA united Iranians behind the regime in the '80s (Saddam) and the same thing will happen if the US decides to invade today (which I don't think it will). If you care about Iranians you shouldn't support illegal sanctions against Iran that harm ordinary Iranians rather than the regime.

Allow me to disagree. Its true Saudi Arabia supported the Syria rebels when the civil war broke out but then retreated once Qatar and Turkey came to the picture and started supporting Islamists in Syria. I don't think Saudi Arabia has in the past supported any militia in Iran. It is Balushis are also asking for autonomous region in Southern Iran and a piece of Pakistan which Saudi Arabia opposes strongly. The issue with militias in Iran is that they receive support from militias in Afghanistan and elsewhere. In war torn countries, having access to weapons is very easy.

I disagree with you on most things but you seem reasonable and rational so it's good to have discussions about these issues.

How is Iran supporting Syrian Govt different from KSA supporting Bahraini Govt? How is Iran supporting Yemeni rebels different from KSA supporting Syrian rebels? I am not justifying or supporting Iran's policies here, just to show that we should be consistent rather than say one side is holy and perfect and the other is just a terrorist monster.

Many Sunni terrorist groups operating on the fringes of Iran (such as Jundollah) are widely reported to receive funding and arms from KSA, Israel and the US. Your leaders have said you will bring the fight into Iran, then a Sunni militant group commits a terror attack killing dozens of civilians in Iran a few weeks later, so you can understand Iranian beliefs in this area. But of course you can say Iran supports groups KSA see as terrorist groups that directly harm KSA (such as Houthis), and this is 100% true.

 

[Scorpion]

Iran recently made an indirect threat to Europe about the fact it has millions of Afghan refugees living in Iran that it can divert to Europe (combined with the millions of Iranians that would flee to Europe if the US invaded). Iran is also a key part of the opium trade from Afghanistan to Europe, and spends millions of dollars and has lost dozens of anti-narcotics officers trying to fight this

I can see why the Europeans are taking the back seat now lol I don't blame them. How many Syrians and Iraqis have they received so far?Probably million or two. The EU economy might suffer as result of this.

I agree Iranians have a lot of potential, but Iran's future is for Iranians to decide for themselves, not for Saudis or Israelis or Americans to decide for us. A foreign invading power backed by KSA united Iranians behind the regime in the '80s (Saddam) and the same thing will happen if the US decides to invade today (which I don't think it will). If you care about Iranians you shouldn't support illegal sanctions against Iran that harm ordinary Iranians rather than the regime.

True. We also have interest in deciding for Iranians but with the current Mullah regime war is inevitable. If Iran is going to disturb oil supplies and harassing oil tankers every now and then, it will sure bite back at some point. Remember, oil supplies leaving Saudi Arabia through the Gulf usually head to EU and the US. So both will come to safeguard their oil. Saudi Arabia is busy with modernization and have no interest in getting involved in a war that will no doubt have an affect on its progress. We also have no interest in supporting sanctions against Iran. Its the Mullah that put Iran in this situation by arming and supporting militias in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen. If those militias have not picked a fight with Saudi Arabia then the hell we care.

In 2007, King Abdullah tried extended an olive branch to Iran but soon Iran flipped and continued harassing Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the UAE. Even during the flood back in 2007, Saudi Arabia sent a lot of supplies to Iran to help out. Also the recent flood, Saudi Arabia and the UAE sent some assistance to Iran regardless of the tension between the two countries, the lives of innocent people do matter.

Iran's nuclear facilities are numerous and spread across the entire country. The main facility by the Persian Gulf is the Bushehr reactor, which is a totally civilian reactor, not a uranium enrichment site, so that wouldn't make much sense. The important facilities are Natanz and Fordow. Natanz is built deep underground and buried under several metres of reinforced concrete. Fordow is built very deep under a literal mountain and located very close to Qom (the centre of Shi'ism in Iran). To capture these two sites would require a huge US military presence in Iran and everyone knows the US does not have the appetite or ability to occupy such large amounts of Iranian land. Here is a map of some of the nuclear facilities that exist across Iran:

Imagine if war took place and those facilities got hit, how many could die from the radiation? The US and its allies did think of this I am totally sure. That is why I brought this point up.

How is Iran supporting Syrian Govt different from KSA supporting Bahraini Govt? How is Iran supporting Yemeni rebels different from KSA supporting Syrian rebels? I am not justifying or supporting Iran's policies here, just to show that we should be consistent rather than say one side is holy and perfect and the other is just a terrorist monster.

Many Sunni terrorist groups operating on the fringes of Iran (such as Jundollah) are widely reported to receive funding and arms from KSA, Israel and the US. Your leaders have said you will bring the fight into Iran, then a Sunni militant group commits a terror attack killing dozens of civilians in Iran a few weeks later, so you can understand Iranian beliefs in this area. But of course you can say Iran supports groups KSA see as terrorist groups that directly harm KSA (such as Houthis), and this is 100% true.

No different but let me tell you how it is now big different. For the first six months, Saudi Arabia did support the Syrian government as it did not want another unstable Arab country. But then that bloody monster Assad started gassing his own people. Put yourself in their shoes for a second and let us assume for the sake of argument the Mullah started gassing Iranian people for whatever reason, do you think its morally acceptable to side with the regime agains innocent people?

As for supporting Bahrain regime/Yemeni regime, do you find it acceptable to have unrest in those countries as well? are we not fed up with that already after the US invasion of Iraq the entire region became unstable with Al-Qaeda, ISIS launching attacks here and there killing innocent people, exploding mosques and malls? How many attack have they launched so far in Saudi Arabia? Look at those countries where they use to be stable, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Syria, Lebanon. How they were and where they are now.

our leaders have said you will bring the fight into Iran, then a Sunni militant group commits a terror attack killing dozens of civilians in Iran a few weeks later, so you can understand Iranian beliefs in this area.

That is out of context, he said if Iran wants to fight and support anti-Saudi militias, then we will bring the fight inside Iran. What means is interpretable.

You see Iran has an issue, it wants to export its revolutionary ideology in the neighbouring countries and maybe beyond. If the Mullah can stop doing that then we will be living in peace and harmony.

Many Sunni terrorist groups operating on the fringes of Iran (such as Jundollah) are widely reported to receive funding and arms from KSA, Israel and the US

I will let @BATMAN to speak about this point you raised above. He is a scholar in this field. I can not comment. Its the first time I hear that. I actually I have heard that before but I don't believe it. Saudi Arabia has no interest in supporting a group that wants to take portion of Pakistan, separatists groups in general. Saudi Arabia opposed recent move by Iraq Kurdistan and Southern Sudan even though Saudi Arabia, Iraq central government and Sudan Bashir can barely stand each other.

 

[Persian Gulf]

I can see why the Europeans are taking the back seat now lol I don't blame them. How many Syrians and Iraqis have they received so far?Probably million or two. The EU economy might suffer as result of this.

Exactly, and Iran is a country of 82 million people. A full scale US invasion would result in millions of Iranians + millions of Afghans fleeing to Europe = disaster potentially ending the EU.

This is also a good video by Israeli/Russian intelligence officer about why US cannot launch full scale war on Iran:

True. We also have interest in deciding for Iranians but with the current Mullah regime war is inevitable. If Iran is going to disturb oil supplies and harassing oil tankers every now and then, it will sure bite back at some point. Remember, oil supplies leaving Saudi Arabia through the Gulf usually head to EU and the US. So both will come to safeguard their oil. Saudi Arabia is busy with modernization and have no interest in getting involved in a war that will no doubt have an affect on its progress. We also have no interest in supporting sanctions against Iran. Its the Mullah that put Iran in this situation by arming and supporting militias in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen. If those militias have not picked a fight with Saudi Arabia then the hell we care.

In 2007, King Abdullah tried extended an olive branch to Iran but soon Iran flipped and continued harassing Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the UAE. Even during the flood back in 2007, Saudi Arabia sent a lot of supplies to Iran to help out. Also the recent flood, Saudi Arabia and the UAE sent some assistance to Iran regardless of the tension between the two countries, the lives of innocent people do matter.

About blocking the Strait of Hormuz, I agree that this is in fact a suicide action by Iran and definitely a last resort. Although Iran would only do this in response to a US attack, so the EU/China may blame US for this and put pressure on US to end invasion (rather than blame Iran for responding in this way), but this cannot be predicted.

I am happy to hear that you do not support sanctions or war against Iran. Many Iranians have a different perception that Saudi Arabia is in fact leading the charge for sanctions and war against Iran.

I know about the KSA/UAE aid donation to Iran for the recent huge floods, that was a good gesture and this should be built upon by both sides to lessen hostilities. As far as I know, however, Iran has frequently called for talks with KSA but it is KSA that has rejected these talks. I think both sides must always talk, without dialogue there can only be misunderstanding and escalation of conflict.

Ideally, KSA and Iran should be at the forefront of co-operation in all fields, from economic to scientific to military. The US wants money and strategic benefits from having an ally in the Middle East, before that was Iran until 1979 and now it's KSA. The best day for the region will be the day Iran and KSA ally and remove the need to have US to profit off wars and conflicts in the region. This will be the worst day in the life of the US, which is why I think the US will do anything to stop it happening.

No different but let me tell you how it is now big different. For the first six months, Saudi Arabia did support the Syrian government as it did not want another unstable Arab country. But then that bloody monster Assad started gassing his own people. Put yourself in their shoes for a second and let us assume for the sake of argument the Mullah started gassing Iranian people for whatever reason, do you think its morally acceptable to side with the regime agains innocent people?

As for supporting Bahrain regime/Yemeni regime, do you find it acceptable to have unrest in those countries as well? are we not fed up with that already after the US invasion of Iraq the entire region became unstable with Al-Qaeda, ISIS launching attacks here and there killing innocent people, exploding mosques and malls? How many attack have they launched so far in Saudi Arabia? Look at those countries where they use to be stable, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Syria, Lebanon. How they were and where they are now.

I do not know fully about the gas attacks, as far as I know there were rebel gas attacks before that which the international community ignored. Regardless, a proper response to such a horrific attack is humanitarian assistance and pressure for free elections so Syrians can decide their future, not to arm and fund 50,000 extremist foreign militant fighters.

Iran told Houthis not to advance to Sana'a in 2012, Houthis did not listen. Iran opposed US invasion of Iraq as well. I don't support fostering unrest in any countries, I am not the Iranian government.

That is out of context, he said if Iran wants to fight and support anti-Saudi militias, then we will bring the fight inside Iran. What means is interpretable.

You see Iran has an issue, it wants to export its revolutionary ideology in the neighbouring countries and maybe beyond. If the Mullah can stop doing that then we will be living in peace and harmony.

But KSA defines Houthi as anti-Saudi militia, then determine Iran is supporting them (this is true of course, but Houthis have been fighting in Yemen for decades before Iran was involved), so this meets the condition to "bring the fight inside Iran", no?

I agree that exporting Iran's revolutionary ideology was a big cause of problems, especially during the first years of the revolution. And I am 100% against this. But I do not think support for Syrian government = exporting this ideology. Iran's support for Assad is partly because during Iran-Iraq war Syria was the only country in the ME not to support Iraq, so Iran doesn't forget this. Even in Iraq Ayatollah Sistani has ideological disagreements with Khomeini/Khomenei Shia doctrine. Iran also supported Sunni Hamas in Palestine, I don't think Iran's actions are 100% based on ideology.

KSA took a step back in Syria so I think Iran should openly encourage Houthis to negotiate political settlement in Yemen and to encourage ceasefires with KSA. Then via dialogues and meetings trust can be built by Iran taking steps back from Bahrain. Ultimately, Iran will not abandon Hezbollah or Assad, and Iraq is important for Iran because of forward deterrence against USA and it is a natural ally, but in all the other areas I believe there can be compromises and mutual understandings between KSA and Iran. It is a shame that the two most powerful countries in the ME must be in conflict to benefit the US and I hope this will end soon.

 

[Khafee]

Trump doubts U.S. needs to send more troops to Middle East
Phil Stewart, Jeff Mason
May 23, 2019

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump said on Thursday he did not think additional U.S. troops are needed in the Middle East to counter Iran, casting doubt on a Pentagon plan to bolster forces in the region.

“I don’t think we’re going to need them. I really don’t,” Trump told reporters. “I would certainly send troops if we need them.” If needed, “we’ll be there in whatever number we need,” he added.

Trump, who has been focused on trying to reduce the number of U.S. troops deployed around the world, spoke shortly before he was to be briefed at the White House on a new deployment plan by acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan.

Shanahan said the Pentagon was considering sending additional U.S. troops to the Middle East as one of the ways to bolster protection for American forces there amid tensions with Iran.

“What we’re looking at is: Are there things that we can do to enhance force protection in the Middle East?” Shanahan said.

“It may involve sending additional troops.”

But Shanahan, in remarks to reporters outside the Pentagon, dismissed reports suggesting specific numbers of troops were being considered at this point, saying: “As soon as there’s a change, I’ll give you an update.”

Tensions between Tehran and Washington have been steadily escalating in recent weeks, as Trump tightens sanctions meant to cut off Iran’s ability to sell oil on global markets. The Trump administration is also warning of possible Iranian plots against America and its allies.

Iran denies the accusations.

Any decision to send additional U.S. troops would follow a move to accelerate the deployment of a carrier strike group to the Middle East and send bombers and Patriot missiles to the region in response to what Washington said were troubling indications of possible preparations for an attack by Iran.

The United States says the steps are aimed at preventing conflict by deterring any dangerous activity by Iran or Iran-backed forces. But Iran has accused the United States of brinksmanship.

Reuters reported on Wednesday that the Pentagon was considering a proposal to send about 5,000 troops while other media reported that up to 10,000 could be deployed.

“I got up this morning and read that we were sending 10,000 troops to the Middle East, and then I read more recently that there was 5,0000,” Shanahan said.

“There is no 10,000 and there is no 5,000.”

The Pentagon regularly receives - and declines - requests for additional resources from U.S. combatant commands throughout the world.

A senior commander of Iran’s powerful Revolutionary Guards on Thursday described the standoff between Iran and the United States as a “clash of wills.”

“The confrontation and face-off of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the malicious government of America is the arena for a clash of wills,” Iran’s armed forces chief of staff Major General Mohammad Baqeri said.

He pointed to a battle during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war where Iran was victorious and said the outcome could be a message that Iran will have a “hard, crushing and obliterating response” for any enemy “adventurism.”

On Sunday, Trump tweeted: “If Iran wants to fight, that will be the official end of Iran. Never threaten the United States again!” But he has also signaled a willingness to talk with Tehran.

Reporting by Phil Stewart and Jeff Mason; additional reporting by Steve Holland in Washington and Babak Dehghanpisheh in Geneva; Editing by Phil Berlowitz and James Dalgleish

Trump doubts U.S. needs to send more troops to Middle East

President Donald Trump said on Thursday he did not think additional U.S. troops are needed in the Middle East to counter Iran, casting doubt on a Pentagon plan to bolster forces in the region.

www.reuters.com