US officially declares IRGC as terrorist organisation

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

just two night after the announcing US military an terrorist organization by Iran. US has lost a B_52 bomber in Afghanistan.

Iran gave the IRGC the right to blow the covered of any US spy in Asia, and any country or organization that arrests US troops can now receive money as a bonus by handing these forces to Iran for trial in Iranian courts.


US army ( designated terrorists organization ) B-52 bomber crashes in Afghanistan

https://en.mehrnews.com/news/143978/US-terrorists-B-52-bomber-crashes-in-Afghanistan-report

https://muraselon.com/en/2019/04/taliban-claims-b52-bomber-afghanistan/

Down goes the native killers. Yankees go home. Yeah. Europe is that way.

 

[Solomon2]

Aren't the IRGC already heavily sanctioned? Either way that is still a big development and I don't see the US administration stopping here. Makes me wonder what others steps are in mind?...

...This is a dramatic escalation with real consequences. There is a difference between saying a state is a sponsor of terrorism and calling an arm of a state an actual terrorist organization. The designation will make the IRGC even more financially toxic than it already is...

The threshold is now lower for proving that someone is providing material support to the IRGC. The designation also makes any non-Iranians who wittingly or unwittingly do business with the IRGC vulnerable to having their U.S. visas revoked. This is an even more powerful disincentive for Europeans to invest in Iran...

... there are two basic objections to this move. The first is that this designation may provoke Iran to target U.S. forces...These threats are real...The mistake is thinking that pressure alone is provocative to Tehran. So are entreaties. In the days leading up to the final implementation of the nuclear deal in 2016, for example, the IRGC briefly took U.S. sailors hostage...

... The second objection is the designation further undermines the 2015 Iran nuclear deal...Some see this objection as a point in Trump’s favor...Trump’s statement said the designation “underscores the fact that Iran’s actions are fundamentally different from those of other governments.” This is a point that the narrow nuclear agreement, by dealing only with Iran’s nuclear program and not its support for terrorism, tried to evade.

Now the U.S. government has formally recognized that a key part of Iran’s military is legally indistinguishable from the terrorist groups it has been sponsoring for decades. Trump’s strategy, unlike his predecessor’s, begins with the premise that Iran is an outlaw state — and treats it as such until it changes its behavior.

link

 

[raptor22]

In many ways I agree with you but why do you think the americans have never launched a full on attack against Iran like they did with Iraq and afghanistan?

The American regime wouldn't attack those who knows would defend themselves.
Iraq & Afghanistan had been weakened through several decades of war,sanctions and people had no intention to stand against aggressor .. in fact they attacked defenseless countries & still after 18 years have not been able to accomplish their mission in Afghanistan.

...This is a dramatic escalation with real consequences. There is a difference between saying a state is a sponsor of terrorism and calling an arm of a state an actual terrorist organization. The designation will make the IRGC even more financially toxic than it already is...

The threshold is now lower for proving that someone is providing material support to the IRGC. The designation also makes any non-Iranians who wittingly or unwittingly do business with the IRGC vulnerable to having their U.S. visas revoked. This is an even more powerful disincentive for Europeans to invest in Iran...

... there are two basic objections to this move. The first is that this designation may provoke Iran to target U.S. forces...These threats are real...The mistake is thinking that pressure alone is provocative to Tehran. So are entreaties. In the days leading up to the final implementation of the nuclear deal in 2016, for example, the IRGC briefly took U.S. sailors hostage...

... The second objection is the designation further undermines the 2015 Iran nuclear deal...Some see this objection as a point in Trump’s favor...Trump’s statement said the designation “underscores the fact that Iran’s actions are fundamentally different from those of other governments.” This is a point that the narrow nuclear agreement, by dealing only with Iran’s nuclear program and not its support for terrorism, tried to evade.

Now the U.S. government has formally recognized that a key part of Iran’s military is legally indistinguishable from the terrorist groups it has been sponsoring for decades. Trump’s strategy, unlike his predecessor’s, begins with the premise that Iran is an outlaw state — and treats it as such until it changes its behavior.

link

Trump said it was Obama whom created isis .. when exactly he might designate the US regime as terrorist state?

 

[Solomon2]

Trump said it was Obama whom created isis .. when exactly he might designate the US regime as terrorist state?

Trump's new attorney general may be working on the Obama-isis connection. Tune back in a couple of months.

 

[LeGenD]

The American regime wouldn't attack those who knows would defend themselves.
Iraq & Afghanistan had been weakened through several decades of war,sanctions and people had no intention to stand against aggressor .. in fact they attacked defenseless countries & still after 18 years have not been able to accomplish their mission in Afghanistan.

They routed Al-Qaeda Network from Afghanistan and Pakistan - primary objective fulfilled.

Political reforms in Afghanistan - secondary objective. Efforts ongoing in this regard.

Iranians completely failed to realize the possibility that Iran's time might come after US is done with Iraq - since 1991. A notable factor is Iran's interventionist foreign policy - Iranian interventions in Lebanon, Iraq and Syria are notable examples. These interventions have raised numerous eyebrows and several countries are seemingly irked. This much was crystal clear to me - as an independent observer since 2003. Does not take a genius to figure out the obvious - common sense only.

Look at Pakistan - WE stay away from the issues of the Middle East and advice reconcilation among the warring factions when called upon.

 

[Sine Nomine]

Cu

US a chance to "reset" Iraqi govt in its favor. Iran played a hard and deadly game with US for dominance in Iraq. US errors in earlier phase of the war helped Iran indirectly and unintentionally.

Cut the crap,without USAF Iran was doing jack shit against ISIS.It was USAF which pushed ISIS back.

 

[raptor22]

Trump's new attorney general may be working on the Obama-isis connection. Tune back in a couple of months.

It wasn't only Obama, whole system was supporting AQ & other terrorist group .. & now they are supporting MKE.

They routed Al-Qaeda Network from Afghanistan and Pakistan - primary objective fulfilled.

Political reforms in Afghanistan - secondary objective. Efforts ongoing in this regard.

Iranians completely failed to acknowledge the possibility that Iran's time might come after US is done with Iraq. A notable factor is Iran's interventionist foreign policy - Iran's interventions in Lebanon, Iraq and Syria are notable examples. These interventions have raised numerous eyebrows and several countries are seemingly irked. This much was crystal clear to me - as an independent observer since 2003. Does not take a genius to figure out the obvious - common sense only.

Look at Pakistan - WE stay away from the issues of the Middle East and advice reconcilation among the warring factions when called upon.

You mean the one that invaded Iraq without the UNSC authorization is unhappy for the so-called Iranian interventions in the region??
We are a part of this region they are NOT, unfortunately the outside powers' interventions in this region through different ways has destroyed the region and kept it back ... we wouldn't wait for therm to come after us we would do anything that could disturb their plans.

Cu

Cut the crap,without USAF Iran was doing jack shit against ISIS.It was USAF which pushed ISIS back.

Yeap, just in presence of the american terrorists troops in Iraq isis managed to bb 2 kms away from Arbil and 65 kms from Baghdad .. Both asked us to come to their help ...

 

[LeGenD]

You mean the one that invaded Iraq without the UNSC authorization is unhappy for the so-called Iranian interventions in the region??
We are a part of this region they are NOT, unfortunately the outside powers' interventions in this region through different ways has destroyed the region and kept it back ... we wouldn't wait for therm to come after us we would do anything that could disturb their plans.

American interventionist foreign policy is obvious to anybody. But TWO WRONGS DON'T MAKE A RIGHT.

Iran did its best to hurt US-led forces in Iraq by supporting and arming anti-US Iraqi Shia militias (Muqatada al-Sadr's Mehdi Army being a notable example), but US-led forces overcame all manner of Iraqi insurgency by 2008, and Muqatada al-Sadr fled to Iran consequently until the situation in Iraq cooled-off and then Iraqi PM Nouri al-Maliki assured Muqatada al-Sadr of safety in Iraq on the condition that he will abandon militia politics which the latter seemingly did. Numerous Americans [openly] perceive Iran as being responsible for the deaths of hundreds of US troops in Iraq during the period (2004 - 2008).

Operation Inherent Resolve (Syrian chapter) have also ended recently. Therefore, US is ready for Iran at this stage. Trump administration timed its decision to declare IRGC a terrorist organization accordingly.

Although I find the aforementioned decision in bad taste. Let us hope that sanity prevails, but Iran needs to revisit its interventionist foreign policy as well.

Yeap, just in presence of the american terrorists troops in Iraq isis managed to bb 2 kms away from Arbil and 65 kms from Baghdad .. Both asked us to come to their help ...

American troops had left Iraq in 2011.

FYI: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/19/world/middleeast/last-convoy-of-american-troops-leaves-iraq.html

They came back to Iraq in 2014 to defeat ISIS (Operation Inherent Resolve).

 

[925boy]

Cu

Cut the crap,without USAF Iran was doing jack shit against ISIS.It was USAF which pushed ISIS back.

No, YOU cut the crap- US didnt do that many strikes against ISIS earlier on in the war. how do we know this? why were there soo many ISIS targets in Syria Russia had to eliminate?

Also, if Iran wasnt doing anything (bad )against ISIS, why did ISIS carry out a very big terrorist attack in Tehran in 2017? It makes no sense for ISIS to attack Iran inside Iran IF Iran was actually doing nothing against ISIS. You also forget USAF didnt help the Iraqi govt when ISIS was closing in on Baghdad in 2014.

Operation Inherent Resolve (Syrian chapter) have also ended recently. Therefore, US is ready for Iran at this stage.

LOL. What made US "ready" all of a sudden for Iran? Afterall the fundamentals have no changed- US can start a war with Iran, but it cant conclude or end it: 1) in time and 2) to its advantage.

American troops had left Iraq in 2011.

US troops never left Iraq.5,000 US soldiers are still in Iraq now. Also, sorry, but what do you mean by "troops"? PMC? US marines/army personnel?

I'm worried US military cant finish off enemies anymore. I hope i am wrong, but i would bet money i am right.

 

[LeGenD]

LOL. What made US "ready" all of a sudden for Iran?

No military operations ongoing.

Afterall the fundamentals have no changed- US can start a war with Iran, but it cant conclude or end it: 1) in time and 2) to its advantage.

Never underestimate a resourceful adversary.

US troops never left Iraq.5,000 US soldiers are still in Iraq now. Also, sorry, but what do you mean by "troops"? PMC? US marines/army personnel?

You can say that but Obama administration reduced American military footprint in Iraq by a substantial margin in 2011 under the impression that Iraq was finally stable enough to handle its own affairs (drawdown). However, former Ba'athists colluded with AQI militia to establish ISIS in 2013 and attempted to overthrow Iraqi government afterwards, but US intervened once again and comitted 5000 American troops to help Iraqi government in defeating ISIS across the country (Operation Inherent Resolve). Conversely, Iran extended its support to Iraqi PMF (predominantly Shia militias) against ISIS.

Both US and Iran committed to defeating ISIS across Syria and Iraq side-by-side but via distinct proxies.

Take a look at the timeline of events since 2003: https://www.securityassistance.org/fact_sheet/us-security-cooperation-iraq-timeline-2003-2018

I'm worried US military cant finish off enemies anymore. I hope i am wrong, but i would bet money i am right.

1. What became of Saddam regime in Iraq?
2. What became of Qaddafi regime in Libya?
3. What became of Al-Qaeda Network across Afghanistan and Pakistan?
4. What became of ISIS movement across Syria and Iraq?

Do the aforementioned political entities exist and/or potent enough to threaten people across the world? NO.

 

[925boy]

No military operations ongoing.

False, cuz ongoing military operations(for the most part) by US weren't a hindrance to attacking Iran in the first place.

Never underestimate a resourceful adversary.

US is not a resourceful adversary. Iran is. US is a productive adversary with alot to use...and waste.

Both US and Iran committed to defeating ISIS across Syria and Iraq side-by-side but via distinct proxies.

Iran did more than US. I ignored that link you sent(which was helpful for certain facts btw) because i am confident we arent fully up to date on the secret actions/deals/moves that created and controls ISIS. why? vast majority of ISIS attacks in the region supported US interests:
1) ISIS never attacked ISrael while on the Syrian/Israeli border- supports US position
2) ISIS did a big terrorist attack in Tehran in 2017- supports US position
3) ISIS was the initial ground force let into SYria by Turkey to fight Assad- supports US position
4) ISIS-K showed up in Afghanistan to fight taliban- supports US position
5) ISIS drive into Baghdad in 2014 to take over Iraqi govt- supports US position
i dunno what else to say.. but that looks funky( at best to me).

I'm all for the truth.

Take a look at the timeline of events since 2003:

- first tell us the secret moves and agreements US/NATO/GCC made with ISIS and THEN we 'll be able to consolidate everything about this entity called ISIS.

1. What became of Saddam regime in Iraq?

Saddam was a weak *** mofo with no real military power- a paper tiger, so whats the big deal here? he didnt even have any WMD. US taking out Saddam wasnt really a big deal. why couldnt US install a pro-US leader in Baghdad after the trillions spent?

2. What became of Qaddafi regime in Libya?

another weak *** mofo with no good ground forces OR AD so whats there to be proud of?US even illegally misinterpreted UN resolution on Libya in order to attack Gaddafi.

3. What became of Al-Qaeda Network across Afghanistan and Pakistan?

They rant to Pakistan and Iran to restructure and consolidate. Iran facilitated AQ within a "friend-of-a-friend is -my-enemy" context. Also, these terrorist groups are ones that any good military can handle/tackle so whats there to be proud of here for US military?

4. What became of ISIS movement across Syria and Iraq?

ISIS's "handlers"have other plans for the group since ISIS wasnt succesful in its "Syria mission"- ISIS members were sent back to Iraq and some were sent tto Afghanistan to fight Taliban(which supports US interests).

Do the aforementioned political entities exist and/or potent enough to threaten people across the world? NO.

Local champions deserve no medals.

 

[BATMAN]

all the @DudFighters and @Rusty

 

[Rusty]

all the @DudFighters and @Rusty

Kindly stop tagging me, I don't need to deal with anymore people foaming at the mouth. I already have enough Indians for that.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

Regarding Israel, Pakistan is definitely a hypocrite though- With your Islamic bomb and huge population you guys have done 0 for fellow Muslim brothers in Gaza and WB. I literally mean it- ZERO. so pls dont be a hypocrite.

You want us to nuke Israel?

That will not help Palestinians or Arabs, neither will it help us.

Stop being a troll.

Nuclear power of Pakistan is for protection of Pakistan only.

It will only be used to protect others in response if another power launches nukes at our brothers or sisters.

They rant to Pakistan and Iran to restructure and consolidate. Iran facilitated AQ within a "friend-of-a-friend is -my-enemy" context.

Another one of your bogus lies.

 

[BATMAN]

Nuclear power of Pakistan is for protection of Pakistan only.

What's wrong in earning some money by renting it?
After all we are not the signatory of NPT?