Re: Saker with mature analysis of the Iranian counter-strike after Soleimani's murder. Also reaching the Archived Message
Posted by brooks on January 30, 2020, 12:56 pm, in reply to "Saker with mature analysis of the Iranian counter-strike after Soleimani's murder. Also reaching the"
re Clearly the Iranians were ready for exactly the kind of further escalation that the U.S. wanted to avoid at almost any cost. What nonsense. If the US had wanted to avoid further escalation, it would not have torn up the JCPOA, introduced more punishing sanctions, or murdered Soleimani in an unprovoked act of international terrorism/aggression/war. These are all acts that demonstrate the exact opposite of what Raevsky claims and reveal that what the US wants is further escalation regardless of the costs which could easily have been catastrophically higher than they turned out to be. I also find this unintelligible: You can think of the current US posture as “binary”: it is either “all off” or “all on”. The US posture since 1979 has been constant provocations and a decades-long war of attrition via sanctions and economic sabotage with occasional escalations, not either full-out war - “all on” - or de-escalation, concessions and serious negotiations for peace - “all off” - as Raevsky implies.
|
|