White House plans to send 120,000 more troops to Middle East

The Hill

Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan last week presented the White House with a plan to send up to 120,000 troops to the Middle East in the event that Iran escalates tensions, according to a New York Times report.

The Times reports that National Security Adviser John Bolton issued an order for the plans and the proposal does not include a ground invasion that would require many more troops.

The plan was ordered to prepare in the event that Iran attacks American forces or accelerates the development of nuclear weapons, according to the Times, citing administration officials.

It is largely driven by national security advisor Bolton, who has pushed for more aggressive action against Iran under both Trump and former President George W. Bush.

It remained unclear whether President Trump has seen the plan or if he would support it given his frequent push for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan and Syria.

Two American national security officials told the Times they were concerned Trump’s announced Syria drawdown, as well as reduced U.S. naval presence in the region, had encouraged some Iranian leaders and given them the impression the U.S. will avoid a military confrontation if at all possible.

On Monday, when asked about the possibility of regime change in Iran during an appearance with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, Trump responded, “We’ll see what happens with Iran. If they do anything, it would be a very bad mistake.”

It was also unclear whether Trump had been briefed about the number of troops the plan called for, which would be nearly the size of the initial American force that invaded Iraq in 2003, according to the Times.

European leaders have expressed concerns to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo about escalating tensions between Washington and Tehran, with British foreign secretary Jeremy Hunt saying, “We are very worried about the risk of a conflict happening by accident, with an escalation that is unintended really on either side,” according to the Times.

A series of moves in recent weeks has ratcheted up tensions between Iran and the United States.

On the anniversary of Trump’s announcement that the U.S. would withdraw from the Iranian nuclear deal, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said Iran would scale back some of its commitments under the 2015 pact and last Sunday Bolton announced the U.S. would deploy a bomber task force and carrier strike group to the region in response to “a number of troubling and escalatory indications and warnings” from Iran.

The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Hill.

I swear to the gods, if it further leads to armed conflict with Iran, then we've seriously learned nothing.

Also, this aged really well...

Seriously hope not. What possible reason and justification would we have for going there?

Edit: seems this is just if they attacked us for some reason.

This is nuts, having two old people (one of them dodging a war) that never served playing Command and Conquer with real people lives.

I've had to write to my congressman this morning JUST in case something happens on this.

@nintendoboy16: Nice whataboutism at the end, which pretty much derails an otherwise serious thread about the rising tension between US and Iran.

But this is a pretty big step up in terms of tension but I doubt it will be a step towards war

Trump has until 2020 and most polls seem to throw a Democrat into the Whitehouse and we all know their stand on Iran so after 2020 it will be a bend the knee situation from a democratic president.

It's not like this will suddenly end under democrats. They're better than republicans from a perspective of improving social programs being fiscally responsible enough to actually pay for them, and protecting individual rights, but they're not peacemakers any more than the republican party

The United States has been in conflict with Iran for decades. Nothing has changed in case you weren't paying attention.

What a non Intervention america first president

These are the wars that never end.

They go on and on, my friend.

That wasn't a whataboutism.

People having melt downs as usual because Orange Man bad.

Trump has more information than anybody in this thread, and probably the entire world. He's making a more informed decision then the NPC's argue on this side of the forum.

Is this going to be religious war or something?...

@Serraph105: Maybe not, but I can't help but feel it's a major step down from Obama's accomplishments with Iran.

Of course, it was, but I do get why you think it was not because if you admit it was, then you would know 90% of your contributions to this forum is all pretty much whataboutisms.

What accomplishments? because what I and the rest of the world saw was a US president on the knee and making the world a more dangerous place.

It factually wasn't a whataboutism. Do not attempt to alter the English language,

• https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/whataboutism-origin-meaning
• https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/whataboutism
• https://www.dictionary.com/browse/whataboutism

A whataboutism is deflecting by bringing up another person/party's misconduct or misdeeds. Never was there a deflection and never was another person/party's misconduct brought up by the TC. He talked about the Trump WH and then gave a poorly aging quote by Trump. Hence the proper usage of the "this aged really well"meme, which isn't really a whataboutism in the slightest.

Please do better research before posting improper usage of terminology.

I want citation for this rather wild and contrarian claim. Given you did not know the definition of a whataboutism this is highly unlikely. Please show me 90% of my posts in this section being actual whataboutism. I want to see them, numbered and all. It should be reflected upon my total posts and a % given close to 90. If such data is not given, this post I just quoted was simply incorrect.

What is the reason for sending troops there? I highly doubt anyone in gulf state appreciates american presences. It just makes for good propaganda news for terrorist and usurpers.

Did you read this

"last week presented the White House with a plan to send up to 120,000 troops to the Middle East in the event that Iran escalates tensions,"

If not then the reason is, if and when troops are sent over there, is because Iran has escalated the situation to a point, where it´s needed to respond with military presence.

""Would I do that? Absolutely," Trump told reporters gathered Tuesday when asked about a New York Times report that his administration was considering a military build-up. "But we have not planned for that."

I understand the "iran escalates tension part" I just dont understand why we would be bothered. I am against any invasions or war games, it just makes the region even more unstable and breeding grounds for terrorist. Many refugees has made it to Europe and other parts of the world, its not hard for them to sympathize with extreme ideology when we constantly shows agression. It will bit us in the long run.

LOL pure comedy gold. Yes I'm sure they tried to brief trump but he doesn't pay attention to his briefings so I would not call him more informed. Probably those that tried to brief him........yes. trump........no.

Um, the Iran Nuclear Deals? Paying back Iran for the money the US technically stole from them? Even some Democrats that otherwise can't stand Obama backed him on the Iran Nuke Deals.

Resulting to shitty memes and half-assed troll comments.

Boooooooring.

Is that before or after 100s of experts including current and former heads of XYZ disagree with him on topic ABC? It's uninformed decisions that lead to this point:

Intelligence chiefs undercut Trump on Iran nuclear deal

https://www.axios.com/intelligence-chiefs-donald-trump-iran-nuclear-deal-0333ce3b-dd4e-4928-8753-447b98cedcc4.html

@n64dd: since when does Trump defer to anything but his own gut to make decisions?

People have resigned over and our agencies and institutions whose job it is to provide Trump with information to help him make prudent choices have been flabbergasted by his rejection of it to do what he wants. Often completely contradictory to people who are actually informed in these matters.

Heresay.

Also, regarding people acting like the Iran deal was breakthrough.

Well, that is a very good question, why do we bother being the world's police, but we do that because the foreign influence is important and also why we bother with Iran is because of Israel since Iran´s idea is to bomb Israel from existence if they knew they could.

So we have to protect our allies in the middle-east and also to be fair Iran is a very dangerous despot regime who would destroy the world if they could.

Oh you mean the "bend the knee deal" that only benefits Iran and makes the world an insanely more dangerous place. And what money? US did steal anything.

And Democrats love to bend the knee for despots so i am not that surprised they would back the Obama soft line. Why do you think under Obama Russia got Crimea and also had a few jets fly by a US ship in the middle-east?

You don't think we're actually THAT dumb enough to preemptively strike Iran.....right? Right?

Yes.

Was that the answer you were looking for?

@Jacanuk: The US is not the world police. The police upholds the law and protects the innocent.

US military adventurism has hardly upheld any laws nor has it protected innocent people.

It has however led to thousands of deaths directly (bombs from the air, bullets on the ground) and indirectly (refugees and opportunistic rivalries between locals).

Moreover, regarding Iran’s nuclear ambitions. I highly suspect they want a nuclear bomb, but I also believe they want it as deterrence (mainly from the US).

They are smart enough to realise if they used a nuclear bomb in Israel, it will be the end of the Islamic Republic.

Every country will halt all business with Iran and many countries (US and Europe for sure) will invade to change the government. Even it’s buddies (China & Russia) will turn against it.

Hey guys you must trust Trump's judgement!

I'm curious. Invading Iran, are we looking at a repeat of Iraq in terms of fighting power, or Vietnam?

@horgen: they are just looking for a reelection strategy and to raise the price of oil

Expensive plan.

@horgen: @Nuck81: "they are just looking for a reelection strategy"

Is that viable? I hope we're in a wiser (and more war weary state) due to our Iraqi misadventures

Bolton is still in the picture, isn't he?

@horgen: Yeah, and he's a warmonger, but that doesn't make it a viable reelection strategy.

Lies and deceit can make it a viable one.

@horgen: Rats. I hope you're wrong, but I fear you're right.

@mattbbpl: it's not anymore. But Trump and his worshippers think it is.

At this point all Trump is really interested in is bolstering his base, when it is already at it max.

That's why Trump is pushing for impeachment. It's another opportunity for him to whine about being a victim and how the system is against him.

He's a master manipulator.

The system was so rigged he could even win. D=