You may be right about the level of alientation between the US and Iran, it's hard to tell because our relationship with them has been historically negative. I'd still say that the Iranian hostage crisis represented a period of greater alienation than we have now. I know that Iraq has basically become a political battleground in which the US and Iran wage influence campaigns in opposition of each other since around the time when Saddam was toppled. You could be right that Soleimani's killing will embolden Iran and deteriorate US influence, since (as far as I know), Iraq viewed it as an uncalled for act-of-aggression. I know we deployed thousands of troops to the Middle East when the killing occurred and that we maintain tens of thousands of troops in the Middle East still. Whether or not our troop presence will prove a bulwark against Iranian influence is unknown to me.

You talk about tensions not escalating in reality like a movie but you described the relationship between the UAE and Israel as 'no lack of peace between them'. I get where you're coming from - there's no declared war or military engagements, but when one country was calling for the arrest of another country's intelligence agency director, labelling them a murderer, and not letting any citizens of aforementioned country enter through their border, I wouldn't necessarily describe that as peaceful. I would describe it however as an incremental escalation of tensions. This peace deal, though not some magic panacea to broader problems in the Middle East, takes things in the right direction by normalizing relations and lifting travel restrictions (including direct flights between the countries).

I agree that the Iran Deal is something worth preserving, at least in regards to its goals. The only logical reason (that I can think of) for pulling out is to restructure the deal to make it more beneficial to us. This requires maximum pressure on Iran to make them capitulate. Republican and Democrat administrations have both said they'd use military force to prevent Iran from getting the bomb. Iran knows this, and they'd risk political isolation (or worse) if they went ahead anyway. As far as I understand it, Iran is in a bad place right now with coronavirus and their economy has been shuttered by sanctions. I think they will choose to negotiate rather than pursue the bomb as some kind of political leverage. That negotiation will only likely happen after the election, since they're likely going to wait to see if there's a change of power and a change of possibilities here in the US.

As for Syria, things were handled badly in regards to Turkey. We could've done more to prevent what happened. But if our goal is to wait until there won't be any war/fighting, destruction, or power vacuums before we leave the Middle East, we'll be there forever. At some point, we have to recognize diminishing returns, cut our losses, and walk our ass back home, like we did when we left Saigon. Let Bashar al-Assad fight his battle with Turkey.

I'm all for giving Tara Reade the benefit of the doubt - but I haven't kept up with this story. Has anyone else?

Is there any reason to think she's not credible? Has any detail that she's provided been proven wrong?

I thought the picture of blueface throwing money at desperate homeless people was a clever analogy.

I think the bigger question is - what genius at the DNC thought it was a good idea to make Bill Clinton the keynote speaker?

It was probably Joe Biden's idea. Takes all the heat off of him in regards to the sexual misconduct allegations. 4D Chess.

I would say it's already been proven not to work as said bulwark. Iraq already formally voted for us to leave and Trump responded with the threat of sanctions if they force us out. Which means we are engaged in a de facto occupation of a country ruled by a Shia majority with close ties to Iran that now wants us out.

And we're the ones who installed said Shia government, banning the Sunni Baath party and thus alienating the Sunni minority and leading to the creation of first the insurgency and then later ISI$. That leaves only the Kurds as serious allies in that country. I'll return to this point later in my post.*

I was only commenting on why it's understandable that it's not very big news with everything else going on. If there's not a real risk of conflict here then a peace deal is cool but probably not massively important news. Especially since while Israel is a large military power, the UAE isn't.

You're dreaming, imo. Getting Iran to the table in the first place was incredibly difficult. The relatively radical and hawkish Revolutionary Guard has a massive influence over Iranian foreign policy and if anything, assassinating Soleimani assures that not only will we not get a better deal, we won't even get the original deal back.

The moderates in Iran stuck their necks out in the first place by signing a deal with the US. The fact that we tore it up at first chance made them look stupid. The fact that then we killed a cult icon and a top level official in their country made them look beyond stupid. There were protests over the economic situation in Iran leading up to his death and that strike completely took the air out of any sorta resistance to the govt and their military objectives.

... We literally just took soldiers from northern Syria and shifted them to other parts of the middle east when we saw the Turks mobilizing for a likely invasion. We stayed in the other parts of Syria, or as Trump put it we "protected the oil", and then eventually later on we ended up redeploying troops to northern Syria.

* There's literally no silver lining you can put on this. We didn't disengage from the region, we didn't bring our people home. We stepped aside to let an ethnic cleansing happen. Against the only allies we actually had left in the region. So now we've effectively ****ed over and pissed off the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds each in their own unique way.

I thought Trump literally just moved troops from one part of Syria to another part of Syria and now you're saying they were moved out of Syria before being put back in Syria? Man, now I'm losing faith.

They were pulled from northern Syria and redeployed to Iraq. There were other troops that weren't along the northern border that never left Syria. We abandoned just the northern border so Turkish forces could do as they please without pushback.

I thought I had read we went back into northern Syria more recently but I'm not finding any sources for that so I might've been mistaken on that part. But the real point is that if you're cheering it on cause you want less US involvement in the region you're also mistaken. We're no less involved overall and the troops (which were relatively few - maybe 1000 or so) are still deployed in the region just not in the same place they were before.

Goddamn those protesters don’t give no ****s about no virus.