US-Israel Attacks Iran

[snow66!]

   The goal of Empire is to maintain control of oil trade as it has been since the tying of the dollar to oil sales in 1974 after the "oil shock" and the break down of the post war "Bretton Woods Gold Standard". Controlling reserve currency status and maintaining control of maritime trade routes has been the raison d'etre of all US and Empire governments always. Whether Trump or any other President, retaking control of Iran has been a long term US/Empire policy throughout. There are countless think tank papers and statements by US politicians over the years that makes this perfectly clear. Protection of Israel is also part of this same reasoning. Israel is Empire's "pit bull" in the Middle East.
      NATO and the US military are the "Enforcer" of this system. It is why Libya and Iraq were invaded which everyone now understands. Likewise Syria. Only the wilfully blind still believe the fairy tales of US/NATO spreading democracy and protecting human rights. The goals of Empire are in front of us all, snow, and don't really require explaining. Follow their actions, not the lying words they use to justify their latest crime against humanity. When you follow just the actions of Empire, the goals are crystal clear, snow.
      The day will come very soon when everyone will claim to have always opposed Empire and its crimes.

OK, thanks, gringo!
Its just a pity that there are so many radical religious terrorist groups in the middle east that muddy the waters and make us lose perspective of the bigger picture [oil revenues?] as it were!

[gringo]

Those "facts" don't come up in my analysis simply because they are not facts.

The vast majority of weapons supplied to Iraq during the Iraq/Iran war came from the Soviet Union - Fact.

Moreover

"The Iraq Petroleum Company (IPC) was a Western-dominated consortium (involving British, French, Dutch, and American interests) that had controlled Iraqi oil since the 1920s. On 1 June 1972, the Iraqi government — under President Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr, with Saddam Hussein as the powerful Vice-Chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council — nationalised the IPC. Saddam was the driving force behind the decision and is widely credited as its architect. Iraq signed a Soviet-Iraqi Treaty of Friendship in 1972, cementing the relationship."

So according to you, the US thought they would privatise Iranian oil by letting an Arab Ba'athist Socialist (armed by the USSR) control the Iranian oil fields?

🤡

   Not according to me, David. Iraq under Saddam bought weapons from many sources. The funding came from Western sources. Do you dispute this? The materials and technology for the biological weapons program were provided by UK/US. The Soviets selling tanks to Iraq is irrelevant. Who exactly invaded who, David? Who provided chemical weapons and targeting, David? Iraq invading Iran was entirely at the behest and encouragement of US/UK/France.
     Those western countries had just been removed completely from Iran's oil and gas industry, something you also wrongly dispute. Is your claim that the US/UK didn't facilitate the invasion of Iran in order to take back control of the oil industry? Just because Saddam had some Soviet tanks? All of this is well documented and known. Your attempted debunkings are pathetic and desperate.

[gringo]

OK, thanks, gringo!
Its just a pity that there are so many radical religious terrorist groups in the middle east that muddy the waters and make us lose perspective of the bigger picture [oil revenues?] as it were!

   Which radical religious extremist groups "muddy the waters", in your opinion snow? The problem in western discourse about this subject is that the "waters are muddied" deliberately by western imperialists.
     Does anybody remember that time when Chinese armed and funded terror groups were fighting each other in Syria? Or when Russian funded and armed terrorists were fighting each other in Syria? Of course they don't, snow, because that never happened. It is remembered and well documented however, that US armed and funded terror groups were fighting each other. David may discover that one group had Kalashnikovs and claim that the Russians must have done it.
     While the Pentagon was funding and arming the so called "SDF" who fought ISIS, the CIA were funding ISIS and aligned Takfiri terror groups (Al Qaeda, Al Nusra et al). So the SDF and ISIS were opposed to each other but both armed and funded by US. Noner of this is contested information. Hezbollah were allies of the US in Syria, well the part of the US that opposed ISIS. As was the IRGC and General Soleimani.
     There is a big difference between resistance and aggression. Resistance isn't terrorism.

[David1819]

The materials and technology for the biological weapons program were provided by UK/US.

It was provided by US academia in 1985 (five years after the war started)

https://web.archive.org/web/20160424022339/http://www.markswatson.com/iraqbio.html

  The Soviets selling tanks to Iraq is irrelevant.

Right, so the tanks. scuds and artillery that rolled into Iran and caused most the destruction is irrelevant. But research grade pathogens that the Iraqis purchased five years later is the key focal point despite the Iraqi's never actually using a biological weapon against Iran in the first place. 

The clown show continues.

[gringo]

It was provided by US academia in 1985 (five years after the war started)

https://web.archive.org/web/20160424022339/http://www.markswatson.com/iraqbio.html

Right, so the tanks. scuds and artillery that rolled into Iran and caused most the destruction is irrelevant. But research grade pathogens that the Iraqis purchased five years later is the key focal point despite the Iraqi's never actually using a biological weapon against Iran in the first place. 

The clown show continues.

     Yes it is irrelevant, David. The Soviets had nothing to do with Iraq invading Iran as everyone well knows. The US/UK funded and facillitated the invasion, this is fact and not disputed

    . "Iraqi's never actually using a biological weapon against Iran in the first place." - David.

     "Originally using mustard gas alone, in 1984 Iraq initiated the first verified combat use of nerve agents in history, beginning with tabun before moving to sarin.[2]" -
     "The Iraqi chemical weapons program, which had been active since the 1970s, was aimed at regulated offensive use, as evidenced in the chemical attacks against Iraqi Kurds as part of the Anfal campaign in the late 1980s. The 1988 Halabja massacre in Iraqi Kurdistan, which killed at least 3,200 people, is considered one of the worst attacks of the war. The Iraqis had also utilized chemical weapons against Iranian hospitals and medical centres.[3] According to a 2002 article in the American newspaper The Star-Ledger, 20,000 Iranian soldiers and combat medics were killed on the spot by nerve agents. As of 2002, 5,000 of the 80,000 survivors continue to seek regular medical treatment, while 1,000 are hospital inpatients.[4][5]"
     
     The use of chemical and biological weapons by Iraq under Saddam is extensively documented, as is the source of those weapons.

   
   

[gringo]

It was provided by US academia in 1985 (five years after the war started)

https://web.archive.org/web/20160424022339/http://www.markswatson.com/iraqbio.html

Right, so the tanks. scuds and artillery that rolled into Iran and caused most the destruction is irrelevant. But research grade pathogens that the Iraqis purchased five years later is the key focal point despite the Iraqi's never actually using a biological weapon against Iran in the first place. 

The clown show continues.

   It is worth pointing out, David, that Iraq's use of chemical weapons couldn't have been done alone. They needed co-conspirators to provide the chemicals and targeting information. Do you know who those co-conspirators were?

[David1819]

     Yes it is irrelevant, David. The Soviets had nothing to do with Iraq invading Iran as everyone well knows. The US/UK funded and facillitated the invasion, this is fact and not disputed
 

No, its a falsehood you are peddling.

    . "Iraqi's never actually using a biological weapon against Iran in the first place." - David.

     "Originally using mustard gas alone, in 1984 Iraq initiated the first verified combat use of nerve agents in history, beginning with tabun before moving to sarin.[2]" -
     "The Iraqi chemical weapons program, which had been active since the 1970s, was aimed at regulated offensive use, as evidenced in the chemical attacks against Iraqi Kurds as part of the Anfal campaign in the late 1980s. The 1988 Halabja massacre in Iraqi Kurdistan, which killed at least 3,200 people, is considered one of the worst attacks of the war. The Iraqis had also utilized chemical weapons against Iranian hospitals and medical centres.[3] According to a 2002 article in the American newspaper The Star-Ledger, 20,000 Iranian soldiers and combat medics were killed on the spot by nerve agents. As of 2002, 5,000 of the 80,000 survivors continue to seek regular medical treatment, while 1,000 are hospital inpatients.[4][5]"
     
     

Indeed. Every substance mentioned in what you quoted are chemical weapons, not biological weapons. Thanks for proving my point.

And well done for acknowledging Iraq's WMDs and Saddam's willingness to use them (even against his own people). You even cite an American newspaper in the run up to the 2003 Iraq war! I am impressed. 

 

[gringo]

No, its a falsehood you are peddling.


Indeed. Every substance mentioned in what you quoted are chemical weapons, not biological weapons. Thanks for proving my point.

And well done for acknowledging Iraq's WMDs and Saddam's willingness to use them (even against his own people). You even cite an American newspaper in the run up to the 2003 Iraq war! I am impressed.

    Ok so we agree that Iraq used chemical and nerve agents against Iran, provided by US/UK, and the development of biological weapons was ongoing also with the help of US/UK who provided anthrax, botulinum toxin, and West Nile virus.
    I am happy to correct the record that the UK/US provided agents and targeting for chemical weapons, including mustard gas, tabun and sarin and were also supplying and supporting a biological weapons program in which they co-conspired with Saddam although they hadn't yet used the Anthrax, Botulism and West Nile Virus that they had provided to this program. Is that better, David?
    I have never denied that Iraq used WMD against Iran. I have simply consistently pointed out that the US/UK were co-conspirators. Saddam couldn't have used these weapons without US/UK. And why did they provide Saddam with all of this? Why were the US/UK so invested in overthrowing the new Islamic government in Iran? What was the reason, do you think David? Anything to do with the "full re-nationalisation" of the oil and gas industry which you deny and obfuscate about?
     By the time of the Western Iraq invasion, Iraq's WMD programs were ended. The perfidy of the US/UK in the debacle is a matter of record no matter your attempted whitewashing. We provided chemical and biological agents, weapons and targeting to Saddam during the 1980-88 war against Iran and then invaded Iraq for having WMD programs that we provided but only when we were certain that they had been dismantled. Your desperation to blame Soviets or anybody else is pathetic. 

[gringo]

"You even cite an American newspaper in the run up to the 2003 Iraq war! I am impressed." - David.

    The reason I cite from Wiki or mainstream articles is only to emphasise that a point isn't disputed, David. When even heavily biased publications have to admit such uncomfortable truths, it cannot be claimed the source is anti Empire.

[David1819]

   It is worth pointing out, David, that Iraq's use of chemical weapons couldn't have been done alone. They needed co-conspirators to provide the chemicals and targeting information. Do you know who those co-conspirators were?

Tabun and Sarin have been around since the 1930s, they are simply highly potent pesticides. I think the Iraqis have the ability to point chemical laden artillery shells at the Iranian forces coming at them. Do you think these people are stupid?

[gringo]

https://x.com/Glenn_Diesen/status/2046540075207454848

"Iran claims that around 3,000 people were killed in riots it says were orchestrated and armed by the US, and it has published the names of those it says died in the US-backed insurgency. The US, by contrast, asserts that more than 40,000 people were killed in what it describes as a grassroots uprising.

Despite these sharply conflicting accounts, there has been no independent fact-finding process (whose names of victims has Iran allegedly omitted?) and little effort to facilitate open discussion to establish the truth. Instead, calls for transparency and verification are consistently dismissed outright, framed as denialism or labelled “pro-Iranian propaganda” that disrespects the victims. The premise is that caring about the victims of violence requires us to blindly trust the people who are very openly seeking to use this violence to legitimise wars that will kill thousands.

I am always amazed that there are grown-up people who buy into the notion that the US and NATO pursue foreign policies based on helping the oppressed people of the world, as opposed to dressing up geopolitics in the language of empathy and human rights."

[gringo]

Tabun and Sarin have been around since the 1930s, they are simply highly potent pesticides. I think the Iraqis have the ability to point chemical laden artillery shells at the Iranian forces coming at them. Do you think these people are stupid?

   "During the 1980s Iran-Iraq War, the U.S. provided critical intelligence, including satellite imagery of Iranian troop movements and vulnerabilities, to Iraq to help it sustain military operations and counter Iran. This support occurred despite U.S. knowledge that Iraq was using chemical weapons, which were sometimes deployed based on this intelligence."

    I think that you are stupid and ill informed as you keep on proving. The fact of US targeting information being used in order to use chemical agents against Iran is so well documented that only an idiot would deny it.

[David1819]

    Ok so we agree that Iraq used chemical and nerve agents against Iran, provided by US/UK, and the development of biological weapons was ongoing also with the help of US/UK who provided anthrax, botulinum toxin, and West Nile virus.
    I am happy to correct the record that the UK/US provided agents and targeting for chemical weapons, including mustard gas, tabun and sarin and were also supplying and supporting a biological weapons program in which they co-conspired with Saddam although they hadn't yet used the Anthrax, Botulism and West Nile Virus that they had provided to this program. Is that better, David?

No, Iraqi chemical weapons were produced domestically at the Muthana State Establishment, known officially as the "State Enterprise for Pesticide Production".

Iraq purchased anthrax and botulinum spores from a company know as ATCC under the false pretence of research purposes. It was Iraq and Iraq alone that cultivated and weaponized the pathogens. 

I have never denied that Iraq used WMD against Iran. I have simply consistently pointed out that the US/UK were co-conspirators. Saddam couldn't have used these weapons without US/UK. And why did they provide Saddam with all of this?

LOL The US government provided nothing as far as Iraq's WMDs are concerned. My take - Sudafed contains Pseudoephedrine which can be synthesized into Methamphetamine using rudimentary lab equipment. If I go into Boots and ask they provide me with Sudafed giving them the false pretence I have sinus congestion, Then take it home to turn it into crystal meth. Is the person behind the till a co-conspirator in my class A drugs production? I couldn't have made it without them! But wait! the UK government must be my co-conspirator also since they allow it to be sold over the counter and could not have obtained it otherwise.

If I remember correctly, the French helped build an Iraqi nuclear reactor. I so guess they were supplying him nuclear weapons?

Your desperation to blame Soviets or anybody else is pathetic. 

There is only one person to blame for that war and that is Saddam Hussein.

[snow66!]

   Which radical religious extremist groups "muddy the waters", in your opinion snow? The problem in western discourse about this subject is that the "waters are muddied" deliberately by western imperialists.
     Does anybody remember that time when Chinese armed and funded terror groups were fighting each other in Syria? Or when Russian funded and armed terrorists were fighting each other in Syria? Of course they don't, snow, because that never happened. It is remembered and well documented however, that US armed and funded terror groups were fighting each other. David may discover that one group had Kalashnikovs and claim that the Russians must have done it.
     While the Pentagon was funding and arming the so called "SDF" who fought ISIS, the CIA were funding ISIS and aligned Takfiri terror groups (Al Qaeda, Al Nusra et al). So the SDF and ISIS were opposed to each other but both armed and funded by US. Noner of this is contested information. Hezbollah were allies of the US in Syria, well the part of the US that opposed ISIS. As was the IRGC and General Soleimani.
     There is a big difference between resistance and aggression. Resistance isn't terrorism.

Thanks, gringo, you're far more knowledgeable on world affairs and the middle east than I am!
I may just ask Grok 'why has the USA and Israel started a war against Iran?',  just to see what kind of an answer it gives!

[David1819]

  the CIA were funding ISIS and aligned Takfiri terror groups (Al Qaeda, Al Nusra et al). So the SDF and ISIS were opposed to each other but both armed and funded by US. Noner of this is contested information.     

Really?

I asked Claude "Has the CIA ever funded ISIS? Yes or No?"

Answer " No. There is no credible evidence that the US funded ISIS. This claim is a widely circulated conspiracy theory."

I then asked "What do you have to say to someone who claims the US did fund ISIS and that its not contested information."

Answer "The claim confuses correlation with causation, or conflates separate programs.
The most common "evidence" people cite is that the U.S. armed Syrian rebel factions, and that some of those weapons later ended up in ISIS hands — either through capture, defection, or black market sales. That's a real phenomenon, but it's fundamentally different from intentionally funding ISIS. Weapons ending up in the wrong hands through blowback is not the same as deliberate financing.
"Not contested" is simply false.

It is very much contested — by historians, intelligence analysts, investigative journalists, and the documentary record. The burden of proof lies with whoever makes the affirmative claim. Asserting something is "not contested" doesn't make it so; it's actually a red flag that the person may be drawing from low-quality or partisan sources.

Ask them for the primary source.
Where exactly is this documented? A leaked CIA document? A congressional report? An intelligence whistleblower with corroborating evidence? Credible investigative journalism? If the answer is a YouTube video, a political commentator, or a foreign state media outlet (RT, for example, has pushed this narrative heavily), that matters.

The geopolitical logic doesn't hold up either.
ISIS was actively attacking U.S. allies, killing U.S. citizens, and destabilizing a region the U.S. has enormous strategic interest in. The idea that the CIA was simultaneously bombing ISIS and bankrolling it requires an extraordinary level of evidence — which simply doesn't exist.
The bottom line: healthy skepticism of government agencies is reasonable, but that's different from accepting an unsubstantiated conspiracy claim as settled fact."