A very powerful country stretching around throwing bombs in some directions killing people in other directions threatening people with sanctions but it isnt coherent and you know. You wouldnt get that impression from Mainstream Media go ahead glenn go ahead and i was just going to say this theme of. Escalation dominance has been the very central strategic objects about do not a state so. The simplicity that america would be able to increase escalate when it wants and the bring it down so for example if the u. S. Drops bombs in pakistan to syria or in another dozen countries understanding would be that country would not be allowed to respond because of the unpredictable and there are devastating consequences from your so they can bring tensions up and down as they want for for pressure now whats interesting with iran is they more or less denied this is america cost what they did last. And launch their missiles directly at American Military bases and america essentially have to suck it u
Inside of iraq against the will of the people in government and parliament there that is what makes this all asymmetrical and i think you can draw different conclusions about as the media likes to do who won and who lost go ahead alex and well. Heres what i think the fundamental difference is that the iranians deployed the. Range of their assets together that that Foreign Policy that diplomats they bring to get their political leaders they be able to bring in their intelligence operatives manage me people also their economic assets such as they are and they set themselves very clear objectives which they dont let themselves be done 38. 00 from and that objective is not clearly defined easy is to try to get the United States and the middle east out of iraq specifically areas where they can threaten iran the. Knowledge states by contrast what we see there is a dysfunctional government which doesnt have any kind of clear long 6 long established plan so you have different people pushing fo
Different reasons taran was being strategic and political while trump was relying upon sanctions and the 3rd and and the demand that the United States be remain inside of iraq against the will of the people in government and parliament there that is what makes this all asymmetrical and i think you can draw different conclusions about as the media likes to do who won and who lost go ahead alex and well what is what i mean i think the fundamental difference is that the range to the strategic range of their asses to get that Foreign Policy that diplomats they bring to get their political aint is they be able to bring in their intelligence operatives manage to me people also their economic assets such as they are and they set themselves very clear objectives which they dont let themselves be done from. And then objective is not clearly defined easy is to try to get the United States out of the middle east out of iraq specifically out of areas where they can threaten new iraq iran the Unite
Have people look wanting to escalate as you put it which means essentially having a war you see the u. S. Government forced into frantic diplomacy through the Swiss Embassy in tehran which it now turns out it was the United States which initiated it was lee u. S. And having started the escalation became panicked and saw the way out to deescalate in other words they dont have a clear objectives and theyre not working towards those objectives instead you get the impression of a very powerful country stretching around throwing bombs in some directions killing people in other directions threatening people with sanctions but it isnt coherent and. You wouldnt get that impression from Mainstream Media go ahead glenn go ahead last just going to say this theme of. Escalation dominance has been the very central strategic objective by the United States or. In the simplicity that america would be able to increase escalate when it wants and then bring it down so for example if the us drops bombs in
Was used all of the time and i think indeed it was asymmetrical but for very very Different Reasons taran was being strategic and political while trump was relying upon sanctions and the 3rd and and the demand that the United States be remain inside of iraq against the will of the people in government and parliament there that is what makes this all asymmetrical and i think you can draw different conclusions about as the media likes to do who won and who lost go ahead alex and well what is what i mean i think the fundamental difference is that the range to. Range of their assets together that that Foreign Policy that diplomats they bring to get their political aint is they be able to bring in their intelligence operatives manage to me people also their economic assets such as they are and they set themselves very clear objectives which they dont let themselves. It from and their objective is not clearly defined easy is to try to get the United States out of the middle east out of iraq