It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is the Trump Administration Pivoting the Fight in Syria Toward a War with Iran?

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 28 2018 @ 09:27 PM
link   
An Interesting Article.
A Must Read.
Is the Trump Administration Pivoting the Fight in Syria Toward a War with Iran?




The largest American military base in Syria covers more than five hundred acres, but it can’t be seen from the road. When I visited in mid-October, on the condition that I not reveal the exact location, I thought my taxi-driver had brought me to the wrong place. All I saw were a few Kurdish soldiers standing around a barricade. But, past the checkpoint and up a hill, a vast encampment spread out before us. The perimeter was constructed of dirt berms, sod-filled gabions, and razor wire. The runway was more than a mile long, and sunk below grade, so that planes would seem to disappear as they landed. There were hastily constructed wood buildings, huge clamshell tents, stacks of shipping containers, rows of white trucks and sport-utility vehicles, prefabricated trailers housing showers and latrines, and a dusty athletic field where soldiers were jogging around a track in the desert twilight.




posted on Nov, 28 2018 @ 09:36 PM
link   
a reply to: AtlasHawk

No probably not.

😯



posted on Nov, 28 2018 @ 09:50 PM
link   
The US has been posturing against Iran since before I can remember. Nothing new here but who really knows when heads will butt. Could be tomorrow or never. Who knows.



posted on Nov, 28 2018 @ 10:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: AtlasHawk

No probably not.

😯


That would be assuming he micromanages military action like Obama. While we could say Obama ramped things up too much (I doubt you would).

Trump gave the authorization to let generals call the shots on the field.

Whatever your politically lean, foreign policy could change without Trump's decision making.
edit on 28-11-2018 by CriticalStinker because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2018 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Money, Arms, War, Profit



posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 01:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: AtlasHawk

No probably not.

😯


That would be assuming he micromanages military action like Obama. While we could say Obama ramped things up too much (I doubt you would).

Trump gave the authorization to let generals call the shots on the field.

Whatever your politically lean, foreign policy could change without Trump's decision making.

Well to be fair the president is the commander in chief and was elected in part to oversee the military(granted Obama was more of a war hawk than many expected).
Personally though I don't think leaving foreign policy to the generals is the best idea.
In the field tactics for sure but decisions about whether or not to engage in a new military operation should be left to the diplomats.
Some of the generals in my opinion would be a little too eager for another opportunity to play with all their new toys.
ETA: I would actually prefer Trump to be involved in a huge decision like this.
Many here believe him to be a peacemaker and it would certainly improve my opinion of him if he brought an end to the prospect of yet another unwanted war.
edit on 29-11-2018 by Osirisvset because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 03:07 AM
link   
a reply to: AtlasHawk

The US has been vilifying and criminalizing Iran, for the last 20 years and likely longer.

They've don it for that very small but very powerful country in the area.

Bearing in mind that Iran has not invaded any country for the last 100 years or so. Compare that record with that of the US and you'll see who the boogy man is.

The war that occurred when Saddam Hussein invaded Iran which cost 2 million lives was very much uncle sams idea and all Iran did was defend itself.

(I remember reading a small article in the middle of a newspaper, abut midway through that war, that Iran ordered 2 million meters of burial cloth and the article went on to say it took two meters of burial cloth to bury one man.)

Funny how; all some bloke in the white house has to do is nod his head and 2,000,000 people will die. THATS; power.



posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 04:20 AM
link   
No, they are not.

Trump has zero interest in a war with Iran, however, I am sure Soros and other Globalists are gleefully wringing their fingers hoping for one.



posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 06:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Osirisvset


Personally though I don't think leaving foreign policy to the generals is the best idea.


I agree with your whole post, but I want to touch on this.

The instance in Syria comes to mind where we killed 100~ (conservative estimates) Russian contractors in an engagement.

Luckily nothing came of it (that we know of), and we were attacked first so I don't think it highlights flaw in that situation.

But we were shown how fast proxy wars can evolve, and while I'm not naive enough to think any president is morally superior, when they sit down and decide these things, they typically have a bunch of advisors. Many times in history advisors have kept situations calm.



posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 07:03 AM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

I think you're woefully misinformed if you think some general is just going to take it upon himself to begin offensive operations against another country without authority from congress or the president.



posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 07:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: CriticalStinker

I think you're woefully misinformed if you think some general is just going to take it upon himself to begin offensive operations against another country without authority from congress or the president.


Understand there is some nuance to what I said. I wasn't implying that a general would take it upon himself to just go to war with another country.

However I did show an example of what can happy in a proxy war.

So a general with iffy intel could hypothetically strike a target with Iranian/Russian advisers.

This isn't a grave concern of mine, just pointing out it could happen.

Either way, I was merely pointing out that Trump has structured things that this could happen without his direct input, which is true.



posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 08:28 AM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

I think you're overstating the leeway Trump gave the Combatant Commander (generals).

For example :
Under Obama, if we saw terrorists planting bombs in the road with a drone or ISR, we would have to ask for permission to engage them if they weren't actively shooting at us.

The request to engage would have to be routed up through the chain of command to who knows how high. And it would routinely take several hours to get a response back, by which time the dirtbags were already gone.

What Trump has done, is give the generals back their authority to conduct operations at their discretion within their area of responsibility.

But they are still adhering to National Strategic Guidance passed down from the president to the SecDef.

I get what you're saying, but you're overestimating the military's authority.

No one is "leaving foreign policy" to Generals, or even the DoD. The State Dept will always be the lead for foreign policy.



posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 08:30 AM
link   
a reply to: AtlasHawk

Iran can't be trusted. While they may be helping to fight ISIS because they are radical Sunni Muslims, they would love nothing more than to turn Syria into it's own Shiite Islamic State. They only protect Assad when it suits their immediate needs, but Assad is too secular for them and they would love nothing more than to control the border between Syria and Israel. They'll turn on anyone who interferes with their ultimate goal of turning Israel into Islamic land.



posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 08:35 AM
link   
a reply to: watchitburn

I wasn't trying to frame that they are in charge of our foreign policy.

Just highlighting recent changes have given more possibility to something inadvertently happening.



posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 08:45 AM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Okay, gotcha.

I think the most likely worst case scenario, is some Iranian fast boats getting too close to one of our amphibs and they get shot to pieces.



posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 08:48 AM
link   
a reply to: AtlasHawk

Yeah USA and the others in the club are gearing up for war but so are the Iranians and their club. Reports this week of daily Iranian military transport planes flying equipment into Lebanon to prep that front up against the club



posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 08:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Okay, gotcha.

I think the most likely worst case scenario, is some Iranian fast boats getting too close to one of our amphibs and they get shot to pieces.


In all honesty, aside from everything I've said...

I'm far more concerned with Israel forcing our hand so to speak than any American individual(s) proactively positioning for a war with Iran.



posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 12:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus
No, they are not.

Trump has zero interest in a war with Iran, however, I am sure Soros and other Globalists are gleefully wringing their fingers hoping for one.


Yes no doubt they are hoping for one. But highly doubt that they would want a Nuclear Holocaust or M.A.D to happen otherwise everything what they planned for will fall in destruction and ruin.



posted on Dec, 3 2018 @ 11:45 PM
link   
No the Israeli Administration decided a long time ago it's just Trumps luck or badluck that he became President when the rest of the Countries around Israel have had a regime changes to make them friends of West.




top topics



 
1

log in

join