Yeah, the US is promoting stability in the same way Iran is, unstable till they win then stable. The US tends to get REALLY pissy when people keep fighting after the US has what it wants.
Bush Sr actually did a pretty good job of using US influence to increase stability, but foreign policy was really in his wheel well. It also hurt his reelection since the American public doesn't actually like peace.
Also worth noting that "us contractor" is deseptive language at least. More proper word would be US mercenary. They aren't contracted to build bridges exactly. So on one side media says Iran is funding terrorists, but on other side they are called "contractors". Both words mean people paid to carry out military actions on behalf of state.
Joonas Pastila yeah you’re completely off. US contractor could be anything to do with infrastructure, logistics, cyber defense, etc. Iran is funding terrorists and that’s not just a US claim. Hezbollah, SMGs, and the PMF in Iraq are all under influence of Iran.
@@markmarra3850 Except we know exactly who died at the Iraqi military airbase now and we did at the time of your post. An employee of Valiant Integrated Services LLC. In this case it's almost certainly military even if what they're doing exactly at that time hasn't been disclosed. I don't agree with the label mercenary though. It's PMC. In this context it's quite meaningless to distinguish PMC from US service because four US service members were injured in the same attack. Usually where PMCs are a contentious topic (due to difference in accountability) is when they're on offence.
You might underestimate the zealot levels of Trump's current base. Another war is probably not the straw that breaks your back if you have not abandoned Trump before this point in time.
I'm assuming you made that up because you felt like it was a useful historical analogy? I can't find any such quote, but by all means, please share if you know of a source. I do, however, know that Yamamoto said, "In the first six to twelve months of a war with the United States and Great Britain I will run wild and win victory upon victory. But then, if the war continues after that, I have no expectation of success." That doesn't sound like a guy who thinks if you hit a country hard enough, they'll retreat. But in another way, the statement is trivially true. If you hit them *hard enough* they'll retreat. So if they don't retreat, you didn't hit them hard enough. And the moment they retreat, you can say you hit them hard enough or they were afraid of such a hit. So the Japanese didn't hit us hard enough at Pearl Habor, but we sure as heck did in return: twice. And just so, Iran can hit us back for Soleimani. Maybe that hit wasn't hard enough. But it's always up to us just how hard we want to hit them -- hard enough to make them retreat? If it comes to that, well, that's a lot better than an Iranian nuclear bomb going off in Tel Aviv or New York.
@@GulfsideMinistries Chris I just made that quote up on the spot just like the majority of quotes on the internet. In my opinion, the problem with this whole tactic is that it goes against the original objective: peacefully sorting things out. Just as the Japanese have failed to sort their problems out peacefully when they wanted no war with the U.S., the U.S. has failed this time around when it wanted no war in the Middle East. Even if the U.S. could achieve victory militarily against Iran in a war, it won't change the fact that the original goal has gone down the drain. Meanwhile, Iran's goal was getting nuclear power and it has yet to lose track of that goal. Prior to this airstrike, they tried diplomacy with the nuclear deal, which the U.S. unilaterally scuttled, and then a proxy war to get the U.S. back down, which ended with this. I don't imagine they have many options left to achieve the original objective other than continuing with the proxy war or pursuing nuclear weapons to use as a bargaining chip as North Korea is doing. The latter option would make the U.S' fear a self-fulfilling prophecy. Literally, every action the U.S. has taken so far has made the situation worse. A bad nuclear deal was better than a proxy war, a proxy war was better than the active pursuit of nuclear weapons, and I don't even dare suggest what would be worse than Iran's active pursuit of nuclear weapons but lately, I have been on a losing spree to reality in pessimism.
@@GulfsideMinistries Regardless of whether it's an actual quote, it does correctly convey the general gist of Yamamoto's thinking. I looked at the entire Pacific and realized that, with *3* carriers in the region, the US was really Japan's most serious opponent. Britain, Friance, Australia, and the rest all had presence of course, but none of them had the ability to project the force that we could. Yamamoto truly felt that if he could knock out the carriers thus leaving the US at a 6-0 deficit would force the US to negotiate non-aggression in the Pacific.
More like what the US thought before Vietnam. Failing to see that the locals did not believe themselves to be fighting for a regime against "liberators" they believed they were fighting for their independence from imperialism. same thing here, Iran needs some way to keep themselves from becoming the next Yemen, as long as that is on the table they can't back down, not if it means they'l lose their independence.
@@fujihita2500 - I don't disagree with what you've said above, but I will correct one thing. While nuclear power was an ultimate goal of Iran, more recently what the leaders of Iran hoped to accomplish, and one of the major reasons for entering into the agreement with the US and European allies, was to lessen or remove some the crippling sanctions that have been put on the Iranian people. What the Trump administration has managed to do is cancel that agreement, impose even more sanctions on the country, and now with the killing of an extremely popular general, has mobilized the population and given them an external foe to focus on. Not a great way to demoralize the population, which was sort of the point of the sanctions in the first place.
Yes he did, Trump is a brilliant strategist. He defeated 17 Republican candidates get the party nomination, he then went on to win an election that every poll and survey said his opponent had a 90% chance of winning. He was able to get funding for his wall, build his wall, get mexico to secure their side of it...he won Trade wars with Canada, Mexico, China and Europe. He got his tax cut through...the list goes on and on. You cant accidentally find yourself at the helm of a superpower with haveing a strategy to get you there. You cant be as effective in his policy as he has been without strategy.
@@TheBaconWizard what do you mean he bought the nomination? Who had it to sell to him? There is no one nomination each state gets to nominate someone a as determined by that states Republican party convention. Worst candidate in DNC history. She received more votes than Obama did didnt she? She was favored by 90% to win wasnt she?
Trump was already impeached. Both House Speaker Pelosi and republican Senate seem to agree there will be nothing resembling a trial. He's already gotten away with "this impeachment thing".
@@evilotto9200 Impeachment is a process that requires the documents to be submitted to the Senate. There is a very strong argument that can and is being made that Trump has not yet technically been impeached.
He's not at risk from that, you need a super majority to remove a sitting president which won't happen. More likely he want to divert the public's attention from the impeachment.
The impartiality in this video is a breath of fresh air. Whilst I have my personal views on the conflict, having the facts laid out as they are and to not fall into the trap of identity politics is just what the world needs right now.
On my screen the text and graphics often overlapped in the middle of the slide which caused some of the text to be unreadable as it fell behind the graphic. You might consider sliding the graphic to the right of center when there's a lot of text. Just a thought.
@Chicken nugget 24/7 Quds is a section of the Iranian military whereas Kurds are a nationless state. When the countries' borders were drawn after world war 2, Kurdistan was ignored/ forgotten about.
Murica, and Republicans in particular, love capitalism. Why don't they understand that removing sanctions and requiring Iran to allow foreign companies to establish freely in the country. Two to five years later, Iran will be loving their improving quality of life, and aggression would be politically impossible for Iran's leadership. This kind of thinking is what Obama had in mind; have Iran fall in love with making money
As bad as Sadam was, we should have staid out of Iraq. It's not the job of the US to interfere just because we don't like what someone's doing. IMO Iraq (and the entire region) would have been better off if the US had not invaded.
I concur with the 'not a grand strategist' interpretation. Trump will always act to defend his image, which, currently, is centered on looking tough and undoing anything that the Democrats have done in the last 8 years. If it fits those profiles, he will say yes to just about anything.
I do like that this video makes me understand Trump's choice of action. Still very bold move. Also I emplore you to stop putting text in the background and cover them with objects so you can't read it. Text is used as emphasis and making it not fully vissible frustrates me. Love the vids though.
Some facts were slightly incorrect.. It was stated that the recent attack on the Embassy in Iraq was carried out by Iran. This is completely false.. There is no evidence Iran was involved and numerous witnesses claiming that the protesters were Iraqi citizens simply protesting This video also does not mention that the general was invited to Iraq (according to Iraqi prime Minister) for talks about de-escalation between militias and Iraq/US forces. This video also suggests that the numerous rebel factions who are opposed to the US presence in the region take orders from the Iranian government. This is false.. Many of these "proxy forces" align themselves with Iran but operate autonomously. The attack that killed the American contractor for example.. There is no evidence to suggest the attack was orchestrated by any Iranian. I realise those in the west might find this comment to be a personal attack. That was not my intention, I simply wish to provide a counter balance.
Good? Probably not. That's not the question. The question is, have more potential bad outcomes been taken off the table? It's silly to think that in these sorts of situations the outcome will be "good." It won't. The goal will be for the outcome to be the least bad as possible. That's what Obama himself tried to do with his deal - get realized the least bad potential reality. Some felt his least bad potentiality wasn't, in fact, the least bad -- Trump among them. And who knows what the possible exit ramps and possible end-states are (none of them good, for sure, to your point)? But it certainly does seem to make an emboldened nuclear Iran less likely (whatever other possibilities it increases).
In the end everything got deescalated. Iran shot a fake attack that killed no one and pretty much nothing happened. Now Iran has no money. Trump got exactly what he wanted and negotiations are now much more likely.
The thing is that Trump was given a list of options with officials pointing out that assassinating Suleimani would be the most extreme option, so I don't think he felt forced to make that choice. In addition, the officials were shocked that he chose the most extreme option. They didn't think he would. Make of that what you will.
Ummm one small mistake so far at the 2:30 mark...iran only stopped its end when the other European countries stopped trade because of extraterritorial sanctions!! Not a big deal but it can be misleading if someone didn't know that
Let's not forget this conversation really wound down after Iran shutdown a passenger airliner... If the USA really was led by a bunch of war mongers, this would be the most ideal situation to start something.
What do you mean by the US aiming to maintain stability in the region? They arguably and demonstrably created the mayhem in the Middle East in the first place, didn't they?
Killing an amercian citizen, and wounding soldiers? Orchestrating an attack on our embassy (considered US soil!) But retaliation via executing the person who orchestrated the attack while he was still in Iraq, but us killing him is an act of war? We are increasing tensions? This a biased channe. I'm unsubscribing
The vas Iran end vensuela left The gon stil end ples the banks In va dos not America fiks Hur self in sted of dis Valen the hav bin in vor For70 + gers
A good strategy and trumps actions are completely opposed to each other. He will do the bad move, I'm not in favour of any party in the US they are all bad FYI.
This reporting is naive in the extreme. Trump made an irrational decision, likely based on some conversation or opinion article, to boost his popularity at home. War increased popularity for Thatcher and Bush and got them re-elected and/or he needs to divert the conversation from impeachment. Trump is not a strategic thinker. Any report that suggests so should be challenged. I truly can no longer support TLDR as a Patreon based on this poor quality reporting. I should also point out the name of the Iranian force is Quds (pronounced Kuds not Kurds!).
cute... to think that oaf could have enough cognitive abilities to devise a strategy... lol he does not have either, strategy nor enough cognitive abilities to devise one.
Not enough cognitive ability to form any strategy (even a bad one) but capable of becoming president of a country, bloody hell the cognitive dissonance is out of control here
@@9992DAZ that he became president says more about the state of affairs, the people that voted for him, and the non-representative system than about him, really. All you can truly say is that he is not the typical republican, or human even...
The man defeated 17 Republican Candidates one by one, then defeated " the most qualified presidential candidate ever" by acuring major swing states and then stealing several states that have been democratic held for generations. He renegotiated NAFTA, won a trade war agaisnt China and Europe. He got his tax cuts through and funding for his border wall. Someone doesnt just accidentally find themselves rueling over the world only superpower, especially after never holding political office in his life. He got there by being strategic
@@Ameriguy99 "The man defeated 17 Republican Candidates one by one" Yeah... did you have a look at them? It was the bottom of the pit. And he did not win, he steamrolled them by giving racists, assholes, selfish pricks and uneducated swamp people credence. " the most qualified presidential candidate ever" who made that ridiculous claim? also, he did not. he lost the popular vote. The electoral college is bs and if you don't agree, you are a lying ass, or an absolute moron and this debate is pointless. But none of that matters. None of that makes him a smart person. It just shows you how d8umb americans are - just like you. utter idiots, lacking the most fundamental basic education or comprehension abilities.
Your take gives me a different perspective, thanks for it. Seen as you presented it, Trump's move isn't that irrational as I believe. In defence of my perception I have to say that it seems very hard to believe that Trump has a general strategy in his table by now, he is acting by feeling and just pushing the World with the enormous inertia that the USA creates. Of course this is a Schoolyard tactic: you hit your opponents as hard as you can expecting them being hurt to the point they decide to step back. The thing is, in this movement he is destroying the confidence his allies have, creates confusion and resintiment. All of this in a context where almost all the violent choices are open. Not wise at all.
Just because some voters want a thing does not make it a good idea, or even legal. I often hear the 'his supporters wanted a thug, he is acting like a thug, what is the problem?' like that somehow makes the behavior good or that the will of some minority should override law and reason. Yeah, he campaigned on violating a treaty. The US still violated it, even if it was a promise to his supporters.
Strike was ordered after the general ordered the attack on the US Embassy. Why do you guys ignore the fact Sulemanie has been organizing massive terrorist strikes and destabilizing the region for decades let alone the fact that the Quds force is a modern day S.S. unit. But then that wouldn't jive with painting Iran as some sort of victim.
Not only was Trump forced to do something to show that Iran cannot just conduct attacks against the US forces without retaliation, but also i think that killing Soleimani was one of the best options since: 1. he was already classified as a terrorist 2. He was the second in command of the army and the person who primarily conducted attacks against US forces and his job was to literally drive US out of the middle east, so they killed the person directly responsible for the attacks against US 3. He has no spiritual successor in the Iranian army because no one has shown to be as brutal and effective at killing people 4. Iran lost a great part of their armed forces so they will be hesitant to retaliate 5. it showed Iran that no one is safe, so they better know who they are messing with
1. By the US. Which I'd say means little as the main quality to have to end up on that list is "be an enemy of the US". 2. They primarily (and effectively) fought against ISIS. I dare say had Trump not retreated from the Iran Nuclear Deal, the minor attacks wouldn't even have happened. But fo course they'd try to drive out the US. 3. Really? How did you find out that? Did you have a look at all potential candidates and rank them in "brutality" and "effectiveness at killing people"? I'd assume they have lots of people eager to take his place and "revenge" him. 4. Where and when did they lose a great part of their armed forces? Generally curious. 5. It showed all of Iran a common enemy that would not hesitate to kill their leaders even without offically declaring war. It showed Iraq once again that the US spit on their souvereignity and that the US are not really an ally. Solemeini's moral status aside - the only thing this did is further escalate the situation and rally the people in Iran and Iraq BEHIND anti-American fundamentalists
Ahm, the corner trump has been painted into is the impeachment stuff. That is what 'forced' him to assassinate someone that would cause as much controversy as possible.
@@neeneko i like your conspiracy theories also trump isn't afraid of impeachment because the senate has 0% chance of actually impeaching him since its fully partisan, except 3 democrats who voted present
He might not be afraid of impeachment, but he hates the image of it. Image is everything to this guy, he has a long history of insecurity, and his tweet storms show that this 'disrespect' is eating him alive. Plus, as many have pointed out, it is a conspiracy theory that started with him. He is the one that claimed a president with falling poll numbers and media embarrassment should start a war with Iran.
Let's say that you're the Iraqi leadership and you believe that Trump is a brilliant strategist. You don't want an all out war with him because you believe he has a winning strategy. Let's say that you're the Iraqi leadership and you think that Trump is crazy. You don't want an all out ware with him because you believe that he's crazy enough to follow through on his threat to bomb 53 Iraqi sites, including cultural sites, meaning mosques which they use as shields for their military assets. Either way, brilliant or crazy, or both, you don't want to get into an all out war with him because he has the ability to bomb you back into the stone ages and he has shown the willingness to do it quickly and without congressional approval. The U.S. currently has the capability to strike 53 Irani targets nearly simultaneously and no one can stop them. Iran could complain to the U.N. about war crimes after it happens, and in the meantime they would be looking at 25 years of rebuilding to recover from their miscalculation.
Everyone analyzes Trump's strategies like a chess game, and some have gone as far as to claim that he's playing Checkers (Draughts) while other government leaders are playing Chess, but I think that he's playing Poker (Texas Hold'em to be exact) while they are trying to play Chess and he's blowing them away. He knows that he's the chip leader (because of our superior economic and military strength) and he holds the nuts, that is the best possible hand given the current arrangement on the table. So far, he's played tight. That means that he hasn't been bluffing. When he's bet on a hand and been called on it, he's shown that he was actually betting on a good hand. Anyone who would bet against him right now if he goes all in would be a fool. He's the chip leader and he's been playing tight. If you go all in against him there is a very good chance you'll go bust.
Yeah, but he has failed at pretty much everything. Other leaders beat him over and over. The only people he is winning against are his own supporters as he uses his marketing skills to spin failure after failure as a 'win'. Even when he is caught in a bluff, he just tells his supporters that their memory is wrong and media lies so they should listen to what he is saying now. That is what people are forgetting. Trump is not playing games with world leaders, he is playing them with the US population. World leaders are mostly ignoring him and his wannabe royal family.
@@neeneko Which other leaders have beat him. Be specific. Canada? He got the USMCA. Mexico? USMCA plus they have deployed troops to their boarders and kept refuges in Mexico for processing. NATO? They are now paying their dues which they weren't paying before Trump called them on it. China? They will be signing a Phase 1 deal soon. Who has an economy or a military as strong as the U.S? Nearly every other world economy is declining while the U.S. economy is growing.
@@neeneko What bluff has he been caught in? He said he would get us out of NAFTA and make a better deal. He has. He said he would pull us out of the Paris accord. He has. He said he would pull us out of the TPP. He has. He showed that he has the guts to use our military when he says he will.
@@neeneko You are making exactly the same mistake that I mention in this comment. He is playing a great game of Texas Hold'em against people who barely know the rules of the game. They don't even know what game they are playing. You would be one to bet against him and lose everything. Whether they think he's a genius or a nut, any world leader that ignores the president of the most powerful economy and military in the world is a fool. They may not want to play with him, but they have to. P.S. Boris Johnson knows this and is wiser for it. The sooner he can make a deal with the U.S. the better Brexit will go for the U.K, and that really scares the E.U.
@Jacquelynn Booth Snookered is a billiards term. Wrong game, but I'll go with it. If by listening to his son-in-law, you're referring to moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, you should remember that the U.S. congress had just UNANIMOUSLY voted to do it in the previous administration, and that was the second (or third?) time that the U.S. congress had done that. Other presidents, including Obama, had said they were going to do it and didn't. He ran on that as a campaign promise, and he followed through. He followed up on his promise. He followed up on congressional law. He kept a promise that two presidents before him had made and broke. People predicted that would start WWIII - BUT IT DIDN'T. So, once again, the thing that has everybody pissed is that he actually kept a promise and followed U.S. law as passed by congress. Imagine that.
Disproportionate response is the only response against the aggressions of regimes that cannot be ousted from power by popular vote. Iran is a theocratic dictatorship parading as a republic.
Nothing like the killing of an Iran General to revive a channel lol
I resubscribed just because of this video
Any phrase starting with "trump must know" has a thousand problems.
Just the thousand!
@@deidremontrose4379 What an intelligent reply. (Sarcastic)
The US "promoting stability" in ANY region is an enormous joke 😂😂😂
Yeah, the US is promoting stability in the same way Iran is, unstable till they win then stable. The US tends to get REALLY pissy when people keep fighting after the US has what it wants.
I wonder how many times they have successfully made a region more stable . Oh wait I remember it’s 0
the middle east has never been a stable region anyone that thinks they want peace are an enormous joke.
Honey Badger well if peace would be achieved they would have to change the boarders up quite a bit from the ones that Britain drew
Bush Sr actually did a pretty good job of using US influence to increase stability, but foreign policy was really in his wheel well. It also hurt his reelection since the American public doesn't actually like peace.
Also worth noting that "us contractor" is deseptive language at least. More proper word would be US mercenary. They aren't contracted to build bridges exactly.
So on one side media says Iran is funding terrorists, but on other side they are called "contractors". Both words mean people paid to carry out military actions on behalf of state.
Joonas Pastila yeah you’re completely off. US contractor could be anything to do with infrastructure, logistics, cyber defense, etc.
Iran is funding terrorists and that’s not just a US claim. Hezbollah, SMGs, and the PMF in Iraq are all under influence of Iran.
@@markmarra3850 Except we know exactly who died at the Iraqi military airbase now and we did at the time of your post. An employee of Valiant Integrated Services LLC. In this case it's almost certainly military even if what they're doing exactly at that time hasn't been disclosed.
I don't agree with the label mercenary though. It's PMC. In this context it's quite meaningless to distinguish PMC from US service because four US service members were injured in the same attack. Usually where PMCs are a contentious topic (due to difference in accountability) is when they're on offence.
"America's effort to promote stability in the region"
BAH
You might underestimate the zealot levels of Trump's current base. Another war is probably not the straw that breaks your back if you have not abandoned Trump before this point in time.
Exactly. Trumps base is so brainwashed that they'll support anything he does. Even starting another war in the middle east.
3:36 "If you hit a country hard enough with military actions, they will retreat." -- the Japanese admiralty before Pearl Harbor.
I'm assuming you made that up because you felt like it was a useful historical analogy? I can't find any such quote, but by all means, please share if you know of a source. I do, however, know that Yamamoto said, "In the first six to twelve months of a war with the United States and Great Britain I will run wild and win victory upon victory. But then, if the war continues after that, I have no expectation of success." That doesn't sound like a guy who thinks if you hit a country hard enough, they'll retreat.
But in another way, the statement is trivially true. If you hit them *hard enough* they'll retreat. So if they don't retreat, you didn't hit them hard enough. And the moment they retreat, you can say you hit them hard enough or they were afraid of such a hit. So the Japanese didn't hit us hard enough at Pearl Habor, but we sure as heck did in return: twice. And just so, Iran can hit us back for Soleimani. Maybe that hit wasn't hard enough. But it's always up to us just how hard we want to hit them -- hard enough to make them retreat? If it comes to that, well, that's a lot better than an Iranian nuclear bomb going off in Tel Aviv or New York.
@@GulfsideMinistries Chris I just made that quote up on the spot just like the majority of quotes on the internet. In my opinion, the problem with this whole tactic is that it goes against the original objective: peacefully sorting things out. Just as the Japanese have failed to sort their problems out peacefully when they wanted no war with the U.S., the U.S. has failed this time around when it wanted no war in the Middle East. Even if the U.S. could achieve victory militarily against Iran in a war, it won't change the fact that the original goal has gone down the drain.
Meanwhile, Iran's goal was getting nuclear power and it has yet to lose track of that goal. Prior to this airstrike, they tried diplomacy with the nuclear deal, which the U.S. unilaterally scuttled, and then a proxy war to get the U.S. back down, which ended with this. I don't imagine they have many options left to achieve the original objective other than continuing with the proxy war or pursuing nuclear weapons to use as a bargaining chip as North Korea is doing. The latter option would make the U.S' fear a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Literally, every action the U.S. has taken so far has made the situation worse. A bad nuclear deal was better than a proxy war, a proxy war was better than the active pursuit of nuclear weapons, and I don't even dare suggest what would be worse than Iran's active pursuit of nuclear weapons but lately, I have been on a losing spree to reality in pessimism.
@@GulfsideMinistries Regardless of whether it's an actual quote, it does correctly convey the general gist of Yamamoto's thinking. I looked at the entire Pacific and realized that, with *3* carriers in the region, the US was really Japan's most serious opponent. Britain, Friance, Australia, and the rest all had presence of course, but none of them had the ability to project the force that we could. Yamamoto truly felt that if he could knock out the carriers thus leaving the US at a 6-0 deficit would force the US to negotiate non-aggression in the Pacific.
More like what the US thought before Vietnam. Failing to see that the locals did not believe themselves to be fighting for a regime against "liberators" they believed they were fighting for their independence from imperialism. same thing here, Iran needs some way to keep themselves from becoming the next Yemen, as long as that is on the table they can't back down, not if it means they'l lose their independence.
@@fujihita2500 - I don't disagree with what you've said above, but I will correct one thing. While nuclear power was an ultimate goal of Iran, more recently what the leaders of Iran hoped to accomplish, and one of the major reasons for entering into the agreement with the US and European allies, was to lessen or remove some the crippling sanctions that have been put on the Iranian people. What the Trump administration has managed to do is cancel that agreement, impose even more sanctions on the country, and now with the killing of an extremely popular general, has mobilized the population and given them an external foe to focus on. Not a great way to demoralize the population, which was sort of the point of the sanctions in the first place.
After Brexit Deals, we now have Iran deals. It seems like TLDR truly loves 'deals'.
Deal or no Deal must be their favourite game show lol. :)
I'm excited to see how you can explain something that I don't believe exists.
"Trump must know..."
I feel like you're really overestimating Trump here.
The Iranians got a strong slap in the face. Let's hope they learned something from it.
I'm sorry. Did you use the words "Trump" and "strategy" in the same sentence?
Yes he did, Trump is a brilliant strategist. He defeated 17 Republican candidates get the party nomination, he then went on to win an election that every poll and survey said his opponent had a 90% chance of winning. He was able to get funding for his wall, build his wall, get mexico to secure their side of it...he won Trade wars with Canada, Mexico, China and Europe. He got his tax cut through...the list goes on and on. You cant accidentally find yourself at the helm of a superpower with haveing a strategy to get you there. You cant be as effective in his policy as he has been without strategy.
@@Ameriguy99 He bought the nomination and then lost the popular vote to the worst candidate in DNC history.
@@TheBaconWizard what do you mean he bought the nomination? Who had it to sell to him? There is no one nomination each state gets to nominate someone a as determined by that states Republican party convention.
Worst candidate in DNC history. She received more votes than Obama did didnt she? She was favored by 90% to win wasnt she?
Why people keep talking about his strategy in Iran? His strategy is in Washington and how to get away with this impeachment thing...
Trump was already impeached. Both House Speaker Pelosi and republican Senate seem to agree there will be nothing resembling a trial.
He's already gotten away with "this impeachment thing".
@@evilotto9200 Impeachment is a process that requires the documents to be submitted to the Senate. There is a very strong argument that can and is being made that Trump has not yet technically been impeached.
He's not at risk from that, you need a super majority to remove a sitting president which won't happen. More likely he want to divert the public's attention from the impeachment.
It's nice to get a little TLDR over here. Thanks guys!
Great video guys! Really helpful
Iran: AHA SO THAT’S WHAT HE’S UP TO
Wait... this channel isn't dead?
Not any more!
why are you surprised, friedrich? you're supposed to be dead since 1992!
Blowing things up until they stop moving is technically a strategy. Didn't workout so well in Vietnam though.
Nice work!
The impartiality in this video is a breath of fresh air. Whilst I have my personal views on the conflict, having the facts laid out as they are and to not fall into the trap of identity politics is just what the world needs right now.
They just wanted to see what would happen if you flew your drone without a licence.
Finally, some good fucking content.
See you in 3 months for the next video
On my screen the text and graphics often overlapped in the middle of the slide which caused some of the text to be unreadable as it fell behind the graphic. You might consider sliding the graphic to the right of center when there's a lot of text. Just a thought.
Please note that Quds and Kurds are two very similar sounding nouns used to describe two very different people.
@Chicken nugget 24/7 Quds is a section of the Iranian military whereas Kurds are a nationless state. When the countries' borders were drawn after world war 2, Kurdistan was ignored/ forgotten about.
The only winning play for Iran at this point is to acquire some nukes and make it widely known ASAP. Worked for North Korea.
YAY! Finally some content not Brexit related.
Murica, and Republicans in particular, love capitalism. Why don't they understand that removing sanctions and requiring Iran to allow foreign companies to establish freely in the country. Two to five years later, Iran will be loving their improving quality of life, and aggression would be politically impossible for Iran's leadership. This kind of thinking is what Obama had in mind; have Iran fall in love with making money
As bad as Sadam was, we should have staid out of Iraq. It's not the job of the US to interfere just because we don't like what someone's doing. IMO Iraq (and the entire region) would have been better off if the US had not invaded.
I concur with the 'not a grand strategist' interpretation. Trump will always act to defend his image, which, currently, is centered on looking tough and undoing anything that the Democrats have done in the last 8 years. If it fits those profiles, he will say yes to just about anything.
I do like that this video makes me understand Trump's choice of action. Still very bold move.
Also I emplore you to stop putting text in the background and cover them with objects so you can't read it. Text is used as emphasis and making it not fully vissible frustrates me. Love the vids though.
I'd like to know how the negotiating is going.
Some facts were slightly incorrect..
It was stated that the recent attack on the Embassy in Iraq was carried out by Iran. This is completely false.. There is no evidence Iran was involved and numerous witnesses claiming that the protesters were Iraqi citizens simply protesting
This video also does not mention that the general was invited to Iraq (according to Iraqi prime Minister) for talks about de-escalation between militias and Iraq/US forces.
This video also suggests that the numerous rebel factions who are opposed to the US presence in the region take orders from the Iranian government. This is false.. Many of these "proxy forces" align themselves with Iran but operate autonomously. The attack that killed the American contractor for example.. There is no evidence to suggest the attack was orchestrated by any Iranian.
I realise those in the west might find this comment to be a personal attack. That was not my intention, I simply wish to provide a counter balance.
The part about the embassy was where i thought 'wait what?' Where is that evidence?
1:35 the image is blocking the text?????
Your icon for Trump should be orange.
I fear that no good will come from this.
Good? Probably not. That's not the question. The question is, have more potential bad outcomes been taken off the table? It's silly to think that in these sorts of situations the outcome will be "good." It won't. The goal will be for the outcome to be the least bad as possible. That's what Obama himself tried to do with his deal - get realized the least bad potential reality. Some felt his least bad potentiality wasn't, in fact, the least bad -- Trump among them. And who knows what the possible exit ramps and possible end-states are (none of them good, for sure, to your point)? But it certainly does seem to make an emboldened nuclear Iran less likely (whatever other possibilities it increases).
"bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" - the late Senator John McCain
I think Donald acted recklessly and should have listened to his advisors.
In the end everything got deescalated. Iran shot a fake attack that killed no one and pretty much nothing happened. Now Iran has no money. Trump got exactly what he wanted and negotiations are now much more likely.
Bolton would have asked him to nuke Teheran. 😂😂😂
They're going to try to explain Trump's thinking. This should be good...
The thing is that Trump was given a list of options with officials pointing out that assassinating Suleimani would be the most extreme option, so I don't think he felt forced to make that choice. In addition, the officials were shocked that he chose the most extreme option. They didn't think he would. Make of that what you will.
Ummm one small mistake so far at the 2:30 mark...iran only stopped its end when the other European countries stopped trade because of extraterritorial sanctions!! Not a big deal but it can be misleading if someone didn't know that
Strategy? Lol. #45 doesnt think as far as tying his shoelaces when he puts his shoes on.
Do you concede that he is that capable? He has people for that. They have a far better view of his feet.
Let's not forget this conversation really wound down after Iran shutdown a passenger airliner... If the USA really was led by a bunch of war mongers, this would be the most ideal situation to start something.
A former CIA agent said that there is a high possibility that USA hacked Iran missile system which lead to an Ukrainian passenger plane. Who knows...
He has none!
What strategy? He seems to be flopping all over the place... and its WORKING!.
QUDS force, not KURDS force
Well things are certainly heating up in the world of geopolitics thanks to Trump.
Trump has no strategy all. Not even his marriages...
I think you overestimate Trump by thinking he has a "plan"
If you're trying to appeal to Americans, try using $ signs instead of £ signs for money.
2:40
Nothing to do with Kurds!!!
QUDS is named after the Arabic for Jerusalem and pronounced "coods" with a C as in Caustic.
What US stability promotion?
Europe is in pretty good shape thanks to the US promoting stability, so is east Asia
What do you mean by the US aiming to maintain stability in the region? They arguably and demonstrably created the mayhem in the Middle East in the first place, didn't they?
Oh yes a country that's been involved in the region for about 50 years is responsible for 2,000 years of violance and instability
I feel like ‘tear up that thing that Obama did so I can do it better’ is motive enough for Trump. It seems his whole motivation for so many things...
TL:DR: There is none...
Killing an amercian citizen, and wounding soldiers? Orchestrating an attack on our embassy (considered US soil!) But retaliation via executing the person who orchestrated the attack while he was still in Iraq, but us killing him is an act of war? We are increasing tensions? This a biased channe. I'm unsubscribing
Sosojol kopret programing
For the ..... is it oile banks or
Ader timgs
Strategy? TRUMP? BAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
The vas Iran end vensuela left
The gon stil end ples the banks
In va dos not America fiks
Hur self in sted of dis
Valen the hav bin in vor
For70 + gers
Just scrap this channel and put all the videos on one main channel
USA action would be looked upon in a more accepted way, If Trump hadn't pulled out of the Iran nuclear agreement .
Poor and poorly documented... Sorry, the first of your videos that got a thumbs down...
A good strategy and trumps actions are completely opposed to each other. He will do the bad move, I'm not in favour of any party in the US they are all bad FYI.
Remember when TLDR was just about events and procedures and not just mainstream speculation?
You forgot china in the terrible iran nuclear deal
The Champions League King terrible 😂
th-cam.com/video/u4FkNbtkgps/w-d-xo.html
@@DTL9164Ah PragerU, the most real, respected, based and reliable (totally not conservative propaganda) University in the world
Yeah.. citing PragerU is a modern goodwin. If you use it as an argument, you lose, and there is no point in anyone arguing with you anymore.
This reporting is naive in the extreme. Trump made an irrational decision, likely based on some conversation or opinion article, to boost his popularity at home. War increased popularity for Thatcher and Bush and got them re-elected and/or he needs to divert the conversation from impeachment. Trump is not a strategic thinker. Any report that suggests so should be challenged. I truly can no longer support TLDR as a Patreon based on this poor quality reporting. I should also point out the name of the Iranian force is Quds (pronounced Kuds not Kurds!).
cute... to think that oaf could have enough cognitive abilities to devise a strategy... lol
he does not have either, strategy nor enough cognitive abilities to devise one.
Not enough cognitive ability to form any strategy (even a bad one) but capable of becoming president of a country, bloody hell the cognitive dissonance is out of control here
@@9992DAZ that he became president says more about the state of affairs, the people that voted for him, and the non-representative system than about him, really. All you can truly say is that he is not the typical republican, or human even...
The man defeated 17 Republican Candidates one by one, then defeated " the most qualified presidential candidate ever" by acuring major swing states and then stealing several states that have been democratic held for generations.
He renegotiated NAFTA, won a trade war agaisnt China and Europe. He got his tax cuts through and funding for his border wall.
Someone doesnt just accidentally find themselves rueling over the world only superpower, especially after never holding political office in his life. He got there by being strategic
@@Ameriguy99 "The man defeated 17 Republican Candidates one by one"
Yeah... did you have a look at them? It was the bottom of the pit. And he did not win, he steamrolled them by giving racists, assholes, selfish pricks and uneducated swamp people credence.
" the most qualified presidential candidate ever"
who made that ridiculous claim?
also, he did not. he lost the popular vote. The electoral college is bs and if you don't agree, you are a lying ass, or an absolute moron and this debate is pointless.
But none of that matters. None of that makes him a smart person. It just shows you how d8umb americans are - just like you. utter idiots, lacking the most fundamental basic education or comprehension abilities.
Your take gives me a different perspective, thanks for it. Seen as you presented it, Trump's move isn't that irrational as I believe.
In defence of my perception I have to say that it seems very hard to believe that Trump has a general strategy in his table by now, he is acting by feeling and just pushing the World with the enormous inertia that the USA creates.
Of course this is a Schoolyard tactic: you hit your opponents as hard as you can expecting them being hurt to the point they decide to step back. The thing is, in this movement he is destroying the confidence his allies have, creates confusion and resintiment. All of this in a context where almost all the violent choices are open. Not wise at all.
Iran looks so innocent with your badge version of it ^^
TLDR; Doesn't exist.
Trump ran on getting us out of the Iran nuclear deal. So, getting us out of the deal was keeping a campaign promise. Imagine that.
Going to War was not one..... I guess we see how many Americans lives are lost due Trump's lack of a real knowledge of the situation
Just because some voters want a thing does not make it a good idea, or even legal. I often hear the 'his supporters wanted a thug, he is acting like a thug, what is the problem?' like that somehow makes the behavior good or that the will of some minority should override law and reason.
Yeah, he campaigned on violating a treaty. The US still violated it, even if it was a promise to his supporters.
Yang2020.com time to move forward, peacefully
Strike was ordered after the general ordered the attack on the US Embassy. Why do you guys ignore the fact Sulemanie has been organizing massive terrorist strikes and destabilizing the region for decades let alone the fact that the Quds force is a modern day S.S. unit. But then that wouldn't jive with painting Iran as some sort of victim.
Everything Trump does is about himself. As an American I don't approve.
Not only was Trump forced to do something to show that Iran cannot just conduct attacks against the US forces without retaliation, but also i think that killing Soleimani was one of the best options since:
1. he was already classified as a terrorist
2. He was the second in command of the army and the person who primarily conducted attacks against US forces and his job was to literally drive US out of the middle east, so they killed the person directly responsible for the attacks against US
3. He has no spiritual successor in the Iranian army because no one has shown to be as brutal and effective at killing people
4. Iran lost a great part of their armed forces so they will be hesitant to retaliate
5. it showed Iran that no one is safe, so they better know who they are messing with
1. By the US. Which I'd say means little as the main quality to have to end up on that list is "be an enemy of the US".
2. They primarily (and effectively) fought against ISIS. I dare say had Trump not retreated from the Iran Nuclear Deal, the minor attacks wouldn't even have happened. But fo course they'd try to drive out the US.
3. Really? How did you find out that? Did you have a look at all potential candidates and rank them in "brutality" and "effectiveness at killing people"? I'd assume they have lots of people eager to take his place and "revenge" him.
4. Where and when did they lose a great part of their armed forces? Generally curious.
5. It showed all of Iran a common enemy that would not hesitate to kill their leaders even without offically declaring war. It showed Iraq once again that the US spit on their souvereignity and that the US are not really an ally.
Solemeini's moral status aside - the only thing this did is further escalate the situation and rally the people in Iran and Iraq BEHIND anti-American fundamentalists
Ahm, the corner trump has been painted into is the impeachment stuff. That is what 'forced' him to assassinate someone that would cause as much controversy as possible.
@@neeneko i like your conspiracy theories
also trump isn't afraid of impeachment because the senate has 0% chance of actually impeaching him since its fully partisan, except 3 democrats who voted present
He might not be afraid of impeachment, but he hates the image of it. Image is everything to this guy, he has a long history of insecurity, and his tweet storms show that this 'disrespect' is eating him alive.
Plus, as many have pointed out, it is a conspiracy theory that started with him. He is the one that claimed a president with falling poll numbers and media embarrassment should start a war with Iran.
juhotuho: So, now that trump is a terrorist, I suppose you will claim that killing Trump is the best option. I actually think you would be right.
You missed the part where the Iranians attacked our embassy in Iraq first
You know, an act of war
Let's say that you're the Iraqi leadership and you believe that Trump is a brilliant strategist. You don't want an all out war with him because you believe he has a winning strategy. Let's say that you're the Iraqi leadership and you think that Trump is crazy. You don't want an all out ware with him because you believe that he's crazy enough to follow through on his threat to bomb 53 Iraqi sites, including cultural sites, meaning mosques which they use as shields for their military assets. Either way, brilliant or crazy, or both, you don't want to get into an all out war with him because he has the ability to bomb you back into the stone ages and he has shown the willingness to do it quickly and without congressional approval. The U.S. currently has the capability to strike 53 Irani targets nearly simultaneously and no one can stop them. Iran could complain to the U.N. about war crimes after it happens, and in the meantime they would be looking at 25 years of rebuilding to recover from their miscalculation.
Everyone analyzes Trump's strategies like a chess game, and some have gone as far as to claim that he's playing Checkers (Draughts) while other government leaders are playing Chess, but I think that he's playing Poker (Texas Hold'em to be exact) while they are trying to play Chess and he's blowing them away. He knows that he's the chip leader (because of our superior economic and military strength) and he holds the nuts, that is the best possible hand given the current arrangement on the table. So far, he's played tight. That means that he hasn't been bluffing. When he's bet on a hand and been called on it, he's shown that he was actually betting on a good hand. Anyone who would bet against him right now if he goes all in would be a fool. He's the chip leader and he's been playing tight. If you go all in against him there is a very good chance you'll go bust.
Yeah, but he has failed at pretty much everything. Other leaders beat him over and over. The only people he is winning against are his own supporters as he uses his marketing skills to spin failure after failure as a 'win'. Even when he is caught in a bluff, he just tells his supporters that their memory is wrong and media lies so they should listen to what he is saying now.
That is what people are forgetting. Trump is not playing games with world leaders, he is playing them with the US population. World leaders are mostly ignoring him and his wannabe royal family.
@@neeneko Which other leaders have beat him. Be specific. Canada? He got the USMCA. Mexico? USMCA plus they have deployed troops to their boarders and kept refuges in Mexico for processing. NATO? They are now paying their dues which they weren't paying before Trump called them on it. China? They will be signing a Phase 1 deal soon. Who has an economy or a military as strong as the U.S? Nearly every other world economy is declining while the U.S. economy is growing.
@@neeneko What bluff has he been caught in? He said he would get us out of NAFTA and make a better deal. He has. He said he would pull us out of the Paris accord. He has. He said he would pull us out of the TPP. He has. He showed that he has the guts to use our military when he says he will.
@@neeneko You are making exactly the same mistake that I mention in this comment. He is playing a great game of Texas Hold'em against people who barely know the rules of the game. They don't even know what game they are playing. You would be one to bet against him and lose everything. Whether they think he's a genius or a nut, any world leader that ignores the president of the most powerful economy and military in the world is a fool. They may not want to play with him, but they have to. P.S. Boris Johnson knows this and is wiser for it. The sooner he can make a deal with the U.S. the better Brexit will go for the U.K, and that really scares the E.U.
@Jacquelynn Booth Snookered is a billiards term. Wrong game, but I'll go with it. If by listening to his son-in-law, you're referring to moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, you should remember that the U.S. congress had just UNANIMOUSLY voted to do it in the previous administration, and that was the second (or third?) time that the U.S. congress had done that. Other presidents, including Obama, had said they were going to do it and didn't. He ran on that as a campaign promise, and he followed through. He followed up on his promise. He followed up on congressional law. He kept a promise that two presidents before him had made and broke. People predicted that would start WWIII - BUT IT DIDN'T. So, once again, the thing that has everybody pissed is that he actually kept a promise and followed U.S. law as passed by congress. Imagine that.
First
5th
3rd
Disproportionate response is the only response against the aggressions of regimes that cannot be ousted from power by popular vote. Iran is a theocratic dictatorship parading as a republic.
Yes, because the United States has a long history of only allying with democratic, non oppressive nations in the regions... what a crock of shit.