US sends warship to Yemen: What happens next?

[RoofGardener]

...

...Why would Iran attack US warships? What do they have to gain in doing that? That's just plain nonesense and the simple fact that it just didn't happen in real life only emphasizes that. Ah, but I forgot about the neocons rethoric, right, that Iran is the Great Evil™ of our time, of course!

...Decent leaders don't drag their country into pointless confrontations either.

I'm not confident of that "decent leaders" thing, Samus. Based on previous behavior, it is almost certain that Iranian Naval (and coastal defence) forces would challenge any US warship approaching the Iranian coast, or even approaching Iranian waters. (which is reasonable... America would do the same if a foreign warship rocked up outside of New York harbour.)

Somebody mentioned an iranian domestic Resistance movement. Does anyone have any information on this, because i find it somewhat unlikely.

I mean... EVERY nation has its dissenters and self-haters ... but in Iran such people are fed into furnaces and used to produce electricity !

[Occult1]

If that's war mongering then you really have no concept of the use of force. Hypothetical it is and it is based on relevant data.

What relevant data? Who did Iran declared open war to in recent times?

It's called striking against the Great Satan.

Lol, fanatism that is.

Roofgardner gives the exact reason why they would. Even the appearance of minor damage to our fleet would be viewed has a great victory in the Muslim world. We impede Islam from purifying the land. Since Iran's strength is not on the sea anyway, it would be a worthwhile sacrifice. This is why such a stern response is needed. Iran doesn't want to be a part of the international community; they just wish to preserve their covert pariah status. That way, they remain the victim for the brainwashed. They believe their position is above the international community.

I would rather say you don't want them as part of the international community as it doesn't fit your anti-Iranian agenda. Better be upfront about it instead of trying to find all kind of excuses for waging war on them, as you seem to be doing here.

Iran, on ther other hand, is still sitting at the negotiating table with the US, and is reported to make progress on a nuclear deal. These are the facts.

Edited April 27, 2015 by samus

[Occult1]

I'm not confident of that "decent leaders" thing, Samus. Based on previous behavior, it is almost certain that Iranian Naval (and coastal defence) forces would challenge any US warship approaching the Iranian coast, or even approaching Iranian waters. (which is reasonable... America would do the same if a foreign warship rocked up outside of New York harbour.)

I was not refering to the Iranian regime, but rather US leadership.

BTW, Iran's flotilla was in international waters, which belongs to no one. So they had the right be there. American warship came to meet them because the US suspected these Iranian cargos might perhaps turn in direction of Yemen and deliver weapons to the Houthis. So they were 'watching' just in case.

Neither the US or Iran wished to enter into a pointless confrontation, so Iran's flotilla turned back home peacefully.

Somebody mentioned an iranian domestic Resistance movement. Does anyone have any information on this, because i find it somewhat unlikely.

I mean... EVERY nation has its dissenters and self-haters ... but in Iran such people are fed into furnaces and used to produce electricity !

It's quite possible that a lot of countries have sleeping cells of terrorists on their grounds.

Edited April 27, 2015 by samus

[+and-then]

What relevant data? Who did Iran declared open war to in recent times?

Lol, fanatism that is.

I would rather say you don't want them as part of the international community, in your anti-Iranian agenda. Better be upfront about it instead of trying to find all kind of excuses for waging war on them, as you seem to be doing here.

Iran, on ther other hand, is still sitting at the negotiating table with the US, and is reported to make progress on a nuclear deal. These are the facts.

Of COURSE they are! No one has ever said they were stupid. They have an opportunity given by the fates to take full advantage of American weakness. I'm sure they can hardly believe their good fortune. But that does not legitimize their criminal regime in the eyes of the people they suppress and hang from cranes just for being gay. The women they stone to death for adultery. But those traits of this regime seem not to matter to those who support it, do they?

[Occult1]

Of COURSE they are! No one has ever said they were stupid. They have an opportunity given by the fates to take full advantage of American weakness. I'm sure they can hardly believe their good fortune. But that does not legitimize their criminal regime in the eyes of the people they suppress and hang from cranes just for being gay. The women they stone to death for adultery. But those traits of this regime seem not to matter to those who support it, do they?

Sure, in the meantime you have been defending the head chopping regime of Saudi Arabia on this forum quite a few time. Should they be overthrown as well?

Should you ask this Saudi blogger Raif Badawi waiting to be lashed 1,000 times? But they are a Western ally and a partner for Israel against Iran so that's OK...

This sort of double standard seriously lacks credibility.

Edited April 27, 2015 by samus

[Thorvir]

The last time the Iranian Navy challenged the US navy... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Mantis .

Anyone wanna bet the outcome won't be close the same?

[stevewinn]

The last time the Iranian Navy challenged the US navy... http://en.wikipedia...._Praying_Mantis .

Anyone wanna bet the outcome won't be close the same?

If people can remember back to 2002, a real live fire exercise and part simulated war game called millennium challenge 02, was the USA v Iran/or Iraq, a retired US Marine - a Lt-Gen by the name of Paul Van Ripper played the part of the enemy. The US Navy suffered major loses and the US commander got a sulk on. when his high tech fleet was annihilated within hours of the exercise starting. They promptly restarted the exercise but in order for the US to win they placed all sorts of restrictions on the enemy team such as the use of certain tactics and not allowing them to use saturation attack, or use of anti-shipping missiles and disabling radar. - War is never cut and dry.

Edited April 27, 2015 by stevewinn

[Occult1]

The last time the Iranian Navy challenged the US navy... http://en.wikipedia...._Praying_Mantis .

Anyone wanna bet the outcome won't be close the same?

That was in the Iran-Iraq war of the 80's, when the US (not so secretly) supported Saddam Hussein.

And when Israel shipped billions of dollars worth of weapons in aid for Iran to help win this war.

The world has changed since then.

Edited April 27, 2015 by samus

[Thorvir]

If people can remember back to 2002, a real live fire exercise and part simulated war game called millennium challenge 02, was the USA v Iran/or Iraq, a retired US Marine - a Lt-Gen by the name of Paul Van Ripper played the part of the enemy. The US Navy suffered major loses and the US commander got a sulk on. when his high tech fleet was annihilated within hours of the exercise starting. They promptly restarted the exercise but in order for the US to win they placed all sorts of restrictions on the enemy team such as the use of certain tactics and not allowing them to use saturation attack, or use of anti-shipping missiles and disabling radar. - War is never cut and dry.

/facepalm

You seriously think that will happen if Iran starts something?

[+and-then]

Sure, in the meantime you have been defending the head chopping regime of Saudi Arabia on this forum quite a few time. Should they be overthrown as well?

Should you ask this Saudi blogger Raif Badawi waiting to be lashed 1,000 times? But they are a Western ally and a partner for Israel against Iran so that's OK...

This sort of double standard seriously lacks credibility.

I support those who are willing to help defend against those who want to destroy my country. I agree that S.A. is definitely not a paragon of virtue. They are as guilty or more guilty than Iran for their behavior with respect to their Islamic traditions. The difference is that they do have attempted to help in the region, at least usually. The US and S.A. are not FRIENDS... they are business partners. The Wahabbist scum are no better than the Shia Twelver nuts in Iran. If they could totally annihilate one another in a vacuum without taking the rest of the planet along for the ride, that'd be quite alright with me.

[Occult1]

I support those who are willing to help defend against those who want to destroy my country.

The way I see it, anti-American sentiment by some Iranians originates from a blind support by the US to the Israeli regime, at the detriment of a country like Iran, then asked to follow like sheep. Can you honestly expect the hard-liners in Iran to show great love for your country? Is that even realistic?

When you choose to apply such one-sided foreign policies for many years, you have to assume others won't like you or even hate you for it and learn to live with that fact. Unless you are some sort of megalomaniac, you can hope to destroy them all and bend the world to your will.

I agree that S.A. is definitely not a paragon of virtue. They are as guilty or more guilty than Iran for their behavior with respect to their Islamic traditions.

Clearly not. I am glad you will admit it. Now it seems to me that the Islamic fundamentalists are not the only one with reprehensible behaviors in the Middle-East, the Zionists in Israel are really no better. It's a fanatical ideology, one responsible for grave human right abuses on the native people of Palestine.

The difference is that they do have attempted to help in the region, at least usually. The US and S.A. are not FRIENDS... they are business partners. The Wahabbist scum are no better than the Shia Twelver nuts in Iran. If they could totally annihilate one another in a vacuum without taking the rest of the planet along for the ride, that'd be quite alright with me.

I fail to see how Saudi Arabia has been of any help to stabilize the region in recent times. Gulf donors are highly suspected to finance Al-Qaeda and ISIS, extremist groups that are currently wreaking havoc all over the Middle-East and threatening Western interests in the region.

If the West can cease it's interventionists policies in this part of world, which have brought about epic failures and scant success, I think we would see some improvements, it's a learning process. That may be a part of the problem, don't you think? It's time to rethink our approach or else you keep running in circles.

Edited April 28, 2015 by samus

[+and-then]

The way I see it, anti-American sentiment by some Iranians originates from a blind support by the US to the Israeli regime, at the detriment of a country like Iran, then asked to follow like sheep. Can you honestly expect the hard-liners in Iran to show great love for your country? Is that even realistic?

When you choose to apply such one-sided foreign policies for many years, you have to assume others won't like you or even hate you for it and learn to live with that fact. Unless you are some sort of megalomaniac, you can hope to destroy them all and bend the world to your will.

Clearly not. I am glad you will admit it. Now it seems to me that the Islamic fundamentalists are not the only one with reprehensible behaviors in the Middle-East, the Zionists in Israel are really no better. It's a fanatical ideology, one responsible for grave human right abuses on the native people of Palestine.

I fail to see how Saudi Arabia has been of any help to stabilize the region in recent times. Gulf donors are highly suspected to finance Al-Qaeda and ISIS, extremist groups that are currently wreaking havoc all over the Middle-East and threatening Western interests in the region.

If the West can cease it's interventionists policies in this part of world, which have brought about epic failures and scant success, I think we would see some improvements, it's a learning process. That may be a part of the problem, don't you think? It's time to rethink our approach or else you keep running in circles.

If the west unilaterally departed the region we would see a brutal struggle and the worst elements would rise to control. In fact we are seeing the beginnings of that now due to Obama's lack of understanding of the realities of the region. If the destruction would remain in the area and not come to our shores I'd be tempted to just look the other way. But the truth is they will NOT just allow us to leave. They would view it as weakness and would be unable to stop themselves from attempting to exploit it. I think it's just a matter of time until another major attack happens on US soil. And if it is not met with an overwhelming destructive response it will only be the first of many such attacks against America.

[RoofGardener]

If people can remember back to 2002, a real live fire exercise and part simulated war game called millennium challenge 02, was the USA v Iran/or Iraq, a retired US Marine - a Lt-Gen by the name of Paul Van Ripper played the part of the enemy. The US Navy suffered major loses and the US commander got a sulk on. when his high tech fleet was annihilated within hours of the exercise starting. They promptly restarted the exercise but in order for the US to win they placed all sorts of restrictions on the enemy team such as the use of certain tactics and not allowing them to use saturation attack, or use of anti-shipping missiles and disabling radar. - War is never cut and dry.

Lord above; I'd never heard of this, Stevewinn; thanks for pointing it out.

In a Nutshell, General Ripper (?!?) used asymmetrical warfare techniques, with weapons very similar to the Iranians. He destroyed 16 warships, including the carrier, and "killed" 20,000 American sailors.

OK... it wasn't quite that simple. You've just GOT to read this... http://en.wikipedia...._Challenge_2002

It is also worrying to hear that there was a real-life General Ripper

Edited April 28, 2015 by RoofGardener

[+and-then]

Lord above; I'd never heard of this, Stevewinn; thanks for pointing it out.

In a Nutshell, General Ripper (?!?) used asymmetrical warfare techniques, with weapons very similar to the Iranians. He destroyed 16 warships, including the carrier, and "killed" 20,000 American sailors.

OK... it wasn't quite that simple. You've just GOT to read this... http://en.wikipedia...._Challenge_2002

It is also worrying to hear that there was a real-life General Ripper

Yep... I used to watch a TV series called JAG (Judge Advocate General) - a program about the adventures of military attorneys, fictionalized of course, and this event was so strange the writers even incorporated it into one of their scripts! NEVER UNDERESTIMATE your enemy. Iran can not defeat the US but they certainly can kill many troops if they are underestimated.

[Mr.United_Nations]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-32503660

Kinda expected it to happen

[Occult1]

http://www.bbc.co.uk...e-east-32503660

Kinda expected it to happen

This commercial ship did not belong to the US (besides having not a single American on board) and was in Iranian waters. Now perhaps the IRGC had their reasons to intercept this ship, direct it to the nearest port and have a look into it's container. It's an Iranian matter, I think, and not a provocation of some sort.

''According to Press TV, the cargo ship was seized due to legal issues, with an Iranian Foreign Ministry source telling Press TV that the ship has been seized over financial violations.''

Source: http://www.presstv.i...-board-pentagon

Edited April 28, 2015 by samus

[+and-then]

The commercial ship did not belong to the US (besides having not a single American on board) and was in Iranian waters. Now perhaps the IRGC had their reasons to intercept this container, direct to the nearest port and have a look into it's container.

I hope the US companies who use American merchant seamen are smart enough to keep them well clear of Iranian (among others) waters. If they seized a crew then Obama would allow them to spit on us for months or years and never do anything substantive to teach them that they should not grab our people. If the ship was in Iranian waters and had no business in an Iranian port then Iran is certainly justified in boarding and searching. The problem occurs when the crew is held indefinitely and not charged with any real crime. Iran has a history of holding foreign nationals against their will for extended periods. If Carter had been a man with a spine America would have lost the 52 hostages and Iran would have lost a few CITIES. Had he acted so it's possible that this viper's nest wouldn't be quite so energetic these days. No worries though, there's always tomorrow

[RavenHawk]

Do you recall how Nasser's popularity skyrocketed across the Middle East when Egypt was BEATEN in the Yom Kippur war ? The Muslim Nations hailed it as a military VICTORY because SOME territory had been (temporarily) taken from Israel, removing the feeling that Israel was invincible.

Nasser died before the Yom Kippur war. You might be thinking of the Suez Crisis or even the Six day War?? By ’79 a peace treaty was established. Such a turn around would not have been possible if Nasser was still alive.

Imagine if the US navy strayed closer to Iranian waters, and a swarm of small Iranian missile corvettes badly damaged some American ships (perhaps even a Carrier).

In most situations, if they strayed, the missile threat would be neutralized. The C802 has limited range (~120km??). It still requires visual identification of the target before they launch to assure what they are aiming at. Radar at that 120km limit can’t distinguish targets very well without human intervention. And if the Iranians fire at that range, the missiles will be easier to knock out. The missile boats will have to try to venture out miles further to improve their chances but that makes them better targets themselves. After command and control sites are taken out, each boat can be picked off piecemeal as they wouldn’t have the safety of shore defenses to protect them. Maybe we should build our own plywood carriers and use them as decoys? Or even use those captured Iranian freighters?? Or even empty super tankers. Or even use the nearly dozen decommissioned supercarriers waiting for disposal. Whichever choice (maybe all of them), mount dozens of Phalanx. Give the Iranians a target rich environment to expend their missiles on. The intention would be to counter their swarm of missiles and boats with our own swarm of hot lead. It’s the old tactic of he who can put more lead in the air wins. They need to design a Phalanx Picket Corvette loaded for bear (3 twin mounts fore, 3 twin mounts aft, 2 more twin mounts port and starboard) that could keep up with and protect task groups. That would be the best low tech defense against anti-ship missiles. Overkill is the watchword.

There are other ways to fool radar at those ranges. It would initially be a game of cat & mouse.

Firstly, the Iranians would do the "aplogies... unintended attack... confusing situation... low level commander exceeding authority... domino effect... ships so close to each other inherently dangerous... etc etc" routine to cloud the issue in the international media, and to attempt to shift the blame onto the Americans.

That is expected. We can play that game too.

Secondly, even if the USA then launched devesteating tomahawk attacks against Iranian coastal facilities (it is a given that the attacking corvettes would all have been sunk already), then Iran could still walk away with a HUGE propaganda victory. The American Navy... humbled at sea. The patina of invincibility of the mighty USA Carrier Assault Group would be - in Arab/Muslim eyes - fataly weakened. And - once more - America would be painted as the petulant bully.

I don’t think it would be that much of a HUGE propaganda victory. It would be a Baghdad Bob moment. The US Navy wouldn’t be humbled but it could get severely stung. I see Islam fragmented not only between Sunnis and Shiite but also between Meccan and Medinan and between secular and sectarian. With a seventh group, the Heretic or Modifying Muslim thrown in. I think some of these divisions would root for what we do, especially if we make it between Arab and Persian.

Finally, I'm not sure that the USA is even capable of an extended, TRULY devestating air campaign against Iran. It lacks any forward bases in the region. No nation in the middle east, or even Turkey, would allow US bombers to use its airbases... not in an attack against a "fellow Muslim" nation. Saudi would suffer instant insurrection if it was caught helping the Americans. The B2 bombers MIGHT be able to attack directly from US soil.... IF they could get the relevant overflight permissions. But there aren't many of them, and they would require a whole HEAP of maintenance to run an extended bombing campaign. Related to that, and even with intensive maintenance, there is the nightmare scenario of a B2 suffering a mechanical fault, and crashing in .. say... Jordan ? Or the Sudan ? The russians (or perhaps the Chinese ? )would have it within hours, along with all its technological secrets.

It would take coalition building and I don’t see Obama or Kerry capable of doing that. I don’t think that Obama has gutted our forces so much that we can’t defend ourselves and not be capable of a devastating enough air campaign. However, SA and the other Gulf states do not want a nuclear Iran either (nor Turkey or Egypt). There wasn’t much blowback over Libya and that was the least useful campaign. The B2s and B52s would fly out of the States with places like Aviano and Diego Garcia as needed. Our campaign would not include boots on the ground. And anytime a bomber goes up, even during training, there is a chance of suffering mechanical fault. I think the Russians and even Chinese have enough of our stealth secrets anyway. You just need to look at the Chinese 5th gen J20 and J31.

So that leaves naval aviation ... the Carriers, and their escorts. Well, the escorts have tomahawks ... perhaps several hundred of them between them. However, that isn't much for an extended campaign. And then that really does just leave us with the carriers.

Hundreds is all that is needed but replenishment at sea would not be a problem. This would be the primary prong of the attack.

The Iranians can field hundreds of small boats, equiped with C802 or Harpoon anti-ship missiles, and some with torpedos. These would be hard to hit with traditional anti-ship missiles or torpedoes. Imagine these swarming out, backed by a hail of land-based ballistic or sea-skimming missiles to saturate the Americans air defence radars, and you have a BIG problem. They would be destroyed, of course, but could conceivably sink some of the Escort cruisers/destroyers, and perhaps even the carrier.

That would be their strategy and knowing that, it can be defeated. A swarm can be strung out in a chase where they can run into each other or confused with smoke which means they would have to turn on their radar and make themselves targets. Sure, we might lose something. It is expected. You wouldn’t be doing it correctly if you didn’t lose something. Our strategy would to be not over confident just because we have the technological advantage. To do that is a serious mistake. You have to rely on tried and true tactics and use your technological advancement to secure the kill.

But would the American public tolerate the losses ? Especially with the entire Muslim World (and beyond) pumping out the "American Bully" propaganda message ?

That’s the question? The campaign is time critical. The lack of will by Americans (low information voters) would cause a rush in the prosecution of the campaign creating more casualties. And as far as the “American Bully” propaganda goes. That has become so passé anymore. Yes we are so deal with it. Either stop us or run away but quit crying about it.

I dunno folks... I really don't. I think the USA would have to be REALLY carefull about any attack on Iran.

I completely agree. I agree with your thinking here. I just don’t think it is as fatalistic a prospect as you might think. The key would be the commanders that lead this campaign.

[RavenHawk]

What relevant data?

It’s called character. It’s called doctrine. It’s called deceit. It’s called saber rattling. It’s called having effective control of at least five capitals (Gaza, Beirut, Damascus, Baghdad, & Sana’a).

Who did Iran declared open war to in recent times?

Keep hanging onto the red herring. Before 1939, how many nations did Hitler declare open war on? And how much territory did he gobble up?

Lol, fanatism that is.

Which is the core of Islam.

I would rather say you don't want them as part of the international community as it doesn't fit your anti-Iranian agenda.

And I would rather say that you are partially right. They do not want to be a part of the international community. They want to subjugate the international community to make the land pure to bring on the 12th Imam. That’s not so much an anti-Iranian agenda, just being vigilant of the Iranian anti-non Islamic agenda.

Better be upfront about it instead of trying to find all kind of excuses for waging war on them, as you seem to be doing here.

No need to find excuses, Iran provides plenty without trying. That is a pariah state that needs to be watched. What I seem to be doing here is a mental exercise in analyzing the situation as Roofgardener brought up (and MC02). I like doing that. I’m a student of military tactics so I find this fun. You on the other hand are an Iranian shill.

Iran, on ther other hand, is still sitting at the negotiating table with the US, and is reported to make progress on a nuclear deal. These are the facts.

They may still be sitting at the table but that’s because they haven’t finished playing Kerry. He is giving them everything on Obama’s orders. It’s our penitence for creating all the evil in the world. A deal that sees Iran with a nuke is no deal. The longer this theater goes on the sooner Iran will have one.

[kartikg]

Of COURSE they are! No one has ever said they were stupid. They have an opportunity given by the fates to take full advantage of American weakness. I'm sure they can hardly believe their good fortune. But that does not legitimize their criminal regime in the eyes of the people they suppress and hang from cranes just for being gay. The women they stone to death for adultery. But those traits of this regime seem not to matter to those who support it, do they?

That's their internal law and judicial system, blame it buy calling it a cruel regime and asking to be overthrown is too much won't you think?

[RavenHawk]

Sure, in the meantime you have been defending the head chopping regime of Saudi Arabia on this forum quite a few time. Should they be overthrown as well?

Should you ask this Saudi blogger Raif Badawi waiting to be lashed 1,000 times? But they are a Western ally and a partner for Israel against Iran so that's OK...

This sort of double standard seriously lacks credibility.

This just goes to show your lack of comprehension. SA is definitely an enigma. But they are an ally and not an enemy. Iran is an enemy and not interested in playing nice. SA is a big country with many princes with many interests. It’s hard to tell the Medinan Wahhabists from the reformers. It may never sort itself out but just as confronting Iran is the best thing for the future of Islam and the world, standing fast as SA’s ally is just as important. The war on Islam is not a war on every single Muslim.

[+and-then]

That's their internal law and judicial system, blame it buy calling it a cruel regime and asking to be overthrown is too much won't you think?

So Hitler's Germany (as one example) would have been innocent because they were only executing policies within their choice of internal law and judiciary? Shilling for a terror state would be amusing if it weren't so deadly serious. My problem with people who do this is the sure expectation that they would be okay with ANYTHING Iran decided to do - even develop or use nukes. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem that you've made your choice, I just think it's appalling when supporters of Iran act as though they are lambs instead of wolves. YOU wouldn't live there and you certainly wouldn't want any female in your family to do so. Or would you?

[Occult1]

This just goes to show your lack of comprehension. SA is definitely an enigma. But they are an ally and not an enemy. Iran is an enemy and not interested in playing nice. SA is a big country with many princes with many interests. It's hard to tell the Medinan Wahhabists from the reformers. It may never sort itself out but just as confronting Iran is the best thing for the future of Islam and the world, standing fast as SA's ally is just as important. The war on Islam is not a war on every single Muslim.

I don't care that Saudi Arabia is an 'ally' or not, they are beheading and whiplashing their citizens condemned of crimes, based on Sharia Law and in the name of Allah. Pointing out Iran's human right abuses and closing our eyes on what's going on there is a double standard that seriously lacks credibility. And I don't share your anti-Iranian agenda so I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that. This country could also be an ally and once very much was. The West has made it unfriendly and suspicious.

Edited April 28, 2015 by samus

[RavenHawk]

Lord above; I'd never heard of this, Stevewinn; thanks for pointing it out.

In a Nutshell, General Ripper (?!?) used asymmetrical warfare techniques, with weapons very similar to the Iranians. He destroyed 16 warships, including the carrier, and "killed" 20,000 American sailors.

I barely remember it. Hoorah! Expect nothing less from a Marine. I wished that they would have run the same scenario over, now that the Blue side was aware of what was coming, would the same outcome have occurred? After all, it was just a computer simulation. One time through does not mean anything. But if we are going to go to war with Iran, I would want a hundred like Ripper leading the campaign. I have no problem with them restricting the parameters to test network-centric warfare, but I am concerned that it appears that some of the high level officers did not learn from the outcome. We cannot rely on advanced technology alone to win the day. It is a tool that should be used properly. But by the same token, it worries me that after seeing Ripper do his thing that many think that a fleet cannot take on missiles and small fast boats. Talking yourself into defeat is just as bad as being overconfident.

[RavenHawk]

I don't care that Saudi Arabia is an 'ally' or not, they are beheading and whiplashing their citizens condemned of crimes, based on Sharia Law and in the name of Allah. Pointing out Iran's human right abuses and closing our eyes on what's going on there is a double standard that seriously lacks credibility.

Talk about double standard. No one is closing their eyes to what goes on in SA, but that seems to be what you are doing with Iran. And again, you did not comprehend what was said. There are two ways an external source to affect change. We could certainly go to war with SA to make that change, but is that smart at this time? The other way is influence. Influence takes longer especially with SA as the Saud family is very large. Many in the Saud family as many Muslims across the world are open for reform. At this point in time SA is receptive to influence and that is the course we need to seek. This is not closing one’s eyes, but it could be grinning and bearing it. This is letting influence slowly change the mindset. The current regime in Tehran is not so receptive to reform. It’s easy to read their character. The reform of Islam is not going to happen if we go to war against all of Islam, only the Medinan Islamists and when other means don’t progress the narrative.

And I don't share your anti-Iranian agenda so I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that.

Again, I have no anti-Iranian agenda but I am vigilant to Iran’s agenda. If anything I am an anti-Shia regime. There are still many pro-Shah followers and internet connected millennials that seek to overthrow the regime for more democratic government. These groups need to be united and supported. A campaign against Iran’s military would strain its resources that might give this 5th column the chance to make a change from within.

This country could also be an ally and once very much was. The West has made it unfriendly and suspicious.

Yes, it was and it can be again but not with the current theocracy in power.