Objectively intelligent.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I think a more long range worst case scenario is the rulers in Iran finding a way to use the death of this figure to gin up nationalism and hatred for the US among a population that is not anti-US or anti-Western.

I'm all for killing the degenerate hard liners who rule Iran. Nobody anywhere wants them in power. The world hates them; most of their own people hate them. But the calculation Bush and Obama made was that to engage in aggression against the country in any manner could give the rulers an issue around which to rally the people. The rulers are currently pretty desperate, as we've really strangled their economy. They were praying for a reaction like Trump's. Lets hope the population sees through the propaganda of the rulers and rejects efforts to stoke up nationalism.

And let's hope Iran doesn't react in a manner that results in Trump inviting Wolfowitz and Perle to the White House to provide advice.

Here's my long-term worst case scenario: Somewhere along the way, the autocrats in Turkey, Iran, and Arabia decide to carve up the Middle East among themselves and to hell with it. Iran gets Iraq, Kuwait, and Azerbaijan, and a green light to do what they will in Central Asia, the Sauds get Yemen, Oman, the gulf states, and Jordan, and get a free hand in Sudan, Eritrea, and Djibouti, and Turkey gets Syria, Lebanon, Armenia and Georgia, and a free hand in the Caucuses' and the Black Sea basin in general, as well as Cyprus, and then Turkey and the Saud's split Egypt (Turkey gets Alexandria and Cairo but the Saud's have the Suez and lower Egypt).

Each of those countries would be roughly as populous or more populous and at least as wealthy as Russia to the North and otherwise all would be bordered by significantly weaker countries in the Balkans, Africa, and Central Asia.

Sykes and Picot aren't the only ones with crayons.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Here's my long-term worst case scenario: Somewhere along the way, the autocrats in Turkey, Iran, and Arabia decide to carve up the Middle East among themselves and to hell with it. Iran gets Iraq, Kuwait, and Azerbaijan, and a green light to do what they will in Central Asia, the Sauds get Yemen, Oman, the gulf states, and Jordan, and get a free hand in Sudan, Eritrea, and Djibouti, and Turkey gets Syria, Lebanon, Armenia and Georgia, and a free hand in the Caucuses' and the Black Sea basin in general, as well as Cyprus, and then Turkey and the Saud's split Egypt (Turkey gets Alexandria and Cairo but the Saud's have the Suez and lower Egypt).

Each of those countries would be roughly as populous or more populous and at least as wealthy as Russia to the North and otherwise all would be bordered by significantly weaker countries in the Balkans, Africa, and Central Asia.

Sykes and Picot aren't the only ones with crayons.

Each of those countries sounds fractured, unstable and prone to civil war. You think the autocrats believe they can manage them?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

Each of those countries sounds fractured, unstable and prone to civil war. You think the autocrats believe they can manage them?

Certainly.

I think the Autocrats all have their eyes on some degree of expansion already, but are generally opposing expansion by the others as they each want a dominant role as the main regional power. The big problem I suggest is that they could get together and expel the US and Russia by working together and each be better off than if they fight each other and play client state to the two external powers.

And at some point in history, each of those powers has occupied the territories I assign them and more.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

I generally think assassination of another country's leaders is a bad idea, because it's unlikely to have strategic effect (the country just elevates another leader) and because it invites the same sort of response.

But what was Suleimani doing in Baghdad?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I generally think assassination of another country's leaders is a bad idea, because it's unlikely to have strategic effect (the country just elevates another leader) and because it invites the same sort of response.

But what was Suleimani doing in Baghdad?

Have you seen Andrew Exum's piece today?

He notes that they were regularly tracking Suleimani as he traveled between Syria and Iraq. Someone has to train all those militias.

I expect large portions of the Iraqi government welcomed his presence. Remember, Iran and the Shi'a militias played a big role in pushing Isis out.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

[1]Have you seen Andrew Exum's piece today?

[2]He notes that they were regularly tracking Suleimani as he traveled between Syria and Iraq. Someone has to train all those militias.

[3]I expect large portions of the Iraqi government welcomed his presence. Remember, Iran and the Shi'a militias played a big role in pushing Isis out.

[1] No. Do tell.

[2] OK, but it's weird for someone that senior in a government to spend so much time doing operational stuff outside his country's borders. He surely wasn't training the militias himself.

[3] Yes.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

[1] No. Do tell.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...le-man/604375/

[2] OK, but it's weird for someone that senior in a government to spend so much time doing operational stuff outside his country's borders. He surely wasn't training the militias himself.

It's like he was the general of the French Foreign Legion. It's kind of in the job description for the QUDS Force.

[3] Yes.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

And at some point in history, each of those powers has occupied the territories I assign them and more.

Yes, but there are also reasons beyond "western" intervention why they don't anymore, and while not particularly applicable to those three, significantly changed international norms about what you're allowed to do to placate troublemakers since then.