US apparently readying for Iran attack

[Alchopwn]

1 hour ago, and then said:

Yet here we are.  There are a lot of maybes and perhaps, ifs, but the reality is that there is no single nation on the planet that can be sure of taking America's military down without grievous losses and potentially catastrophic global effects.  We may be perceived as a "bully" but only by those who simply disagree with our status and our goals in the world.  As soon as China, Russia, India or (insert name) gain a military/strategic advantage, they WILL use it.  That is what power projection is all about.  It was the same when Britannia ruled the waves and when other dynasties held sway.  No news here.  For now, it means that Iran's military leaders will have to keep seething in their near impotence.

I like your Realpolitik approach to the issue, and I mainly agree with you (and then).  The part I disagree with is the notion that China, Russia, and India will immediately act on any military/strategic advantage they gain.  Territorially, China has been well behaved.  They could have initiated a war over Taiwan, or fought Japan over the Senkaku Islands, or initiated a fight over the Spratleys, but they have restricted their imperialism to the US model of commercial imperialism.  Russia has been a lot worse behaved, repeatedly undermining its neighbors like Ukraine, Poland, Byelorus, Finnland, Georgia etc, and election meddling in the USA and Europe, and should be considered to be full enemies while Putin is in power.  As for India, it's only real issue is Kashmir, and they have that well enough in hand.  India isn't militarily expansionist, and is the largest English speaking pluralist democracy in the world, and conveniently placed on the exact opposite side of the world to the USA.  The USA and India need to forge closer alliances imo.  I would say Russia WILL use any advantage while Putin is in power, China will be more circumspect, and India is struggling to get itself organized.

On the issue of Iran, I am not so certain that Huthis blowing up tankers actually represents Iran opening a proxy war with the USA.  While the Huthis are definitely Shi'ites, and are seen to be acting as proxies for Iran in the Yemen Civil War, with the Saudis (US allies) on the other side, is that really what is going on?  I don't think Iran has nearly as much control over the Huthis as the analysts are suggesting, and was the tanker attack against the USA or the Saudis?  I personally think that the USA's support for the Saudi regime is ill advised, given what a murderous pack of human rights abusing thieves and scoundrels the House of Saud are.  Iran by comparison is a LOT more democratic, despite the veneer of Islamic Fundamentalism.  Iran has actual democratic institutions, and the minute the Islamic element of the regime crumbles, Iran will become a valuable ally again, and potentially a lot more valuable than the Saudis have ever been.

It is also worth pointing out that the USA has performed war games, modeling a war with Iran that didn't go well...

Retired Marine Colonel Paul Van Riper humiliates US Military in Iran Wargame.  

Hopefully military planners in the USA are paying HUGE attention to everything this little simulation could potentially teach them.

Edited May 18, 2019 by Alchopwn

[Sir Smoke aLot]

2 hours ago, pallidin said:

Perhaps it would be helpful to remind everyone that the regime of Iran is THE world leader in state-sponsored terrorism.

I would love to see some evidence for that claim. So far none was provided by US government, Saudis, Israel or anyone for that matter. In over 40 years of sanctions and pressure against Iran there is no one single evidence of their misconduct.

 If you know more about it i would be grateful if you'd share but it seems to me that you are not interested in such discussions? If that's the case sorry for bothering you 2nd time but you seem to repeat what medias are saying without even giving it much thought.

.Honestly i was sure that you are joking for most part

 

[Unusual Tournament]

5 hours ago, pallidin said:

Remember, under radical Islam it is allowed and encouraged to "lie and deceive infidels", as well as destroy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiya

[Unusual Tournament]

3 hours ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

I would love to see some evidence for that claim. So far none was provided by US government, Saudis, Israel or anyone for that matter. In over 40 years of sanctions and pressure against Iran there is no one single evidence of their misconduct.

 If you know more about it i would be grateful if you'd share but it seems to me that you are not interested in such discussions? If that's the case sorry for bothering you 2nd time but you seem to repeat what medias are saying without even giving it much thought.

.Honestly i was sure that you are joking for most part

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiya

[Black Red Devil]

9 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

China might but Russia isnt as likely, historically Russia and Iran have been rivals more then they be allies as both want to be the dominant regional power in central Asia.  While they are allies of convience for now it's unlikely they would come to each others rescue if stuff really got bad.

Neither Russia or China could directly intervene in any conflict between Iran and America.  Russia, as it currently is, is barely a shadow of the USSR by just about every single metric imaginable.  Russia just simply doesnt have the man power or production capability to fight a prolonged war against America or the west so unless Russia is convinced they could win before America begins full mobilization they wont get involved.  All of that is ignoring the lack of logistical ability Russia currently has to support truly large troop deployments far from Russia.  China though does have the man power and production ability to fight a prolonged war but has near zero ability to project any military might other then immediately outside mainland China.

Russia and China would almost certainly supply weapons to Iran but they wouldnt supply top tier weapon systems as that would be far too risky.  Russian weapon exports depend heavily on the claim that they can counter/match American weapon systems but they have never truly been tested against American weapon systems, by American weapon systems I mean the non-export variants.  Even if the are able to counter American weapon systems if the Iranians use them poorly and do a poor showing of them that would drastically hurt Russian weapon exports also showing the capabilities of these weapon systems let alone the risk of capture would allow America to make better countermeasures.  For China it is more of keeping their top tier weapon systems abilities and vulnerabilities a secret then anything else.

Also the assumption of a prolonged military conflict with Iran might not be justified.  The US has fought with Iran before post Iranian revolution and it was a short limited conflict with disproportionate Iranian losses.  There is no reason to believe any conflict this time would last any longer especially if Irans ability to close the straights is completely neutralized.

Good analysis and agree with most of it although it does sound a bit too far leaning towards a landslide victory by the US and I don't believe it would.  I also don't believe the Chinese or the Russians would commit large number of troops but weapons yes. 

The only problem with your analysis is that you don't consider the influence of public opinion and international pressure considering the US would be attacking another country based on a feeble motive.  IMO, unless there is some serious reason which I'm not aware of, I doubt people in the US would welcome strong action against Iran because of Israel or because their allies blew up some pipelines.  The world has become accustomed to false flags and at least half the country (the Democrat side) and many swing voters from the Republican side would be against any type of military action.  There is no 9/11 to rely on this time.  Again, depending on the reason and depending on the real value of Iranian forces and equipment supplied by Russians and Chinese, the Neocons in Congress (and Trump) could have big problems on their hands if they did force an attack on Iran and body bags started piling up (from both sides) with billions of dollars of modern day equipment destroyed. 

In the end it really depends on how much the US would commit to such an attack.  A couple of bombing raids would do nothing to hurt the Iranians and actually make them more resolute and defiant in keep doing what the supposedly did for the US to justify such an attack.  Committing more planes and ships to an attack could be more risky and incur negative public opinion as mentioned above.  When you analyse it more profoundly, the whole idea of using military force against Iran doesn't sound like a smart idea.

[pallidin]

What a remarkable discussion.

You people are extraordinarily intelligent on both sides... refreshing.

[Black Red Devil]

7 hours ago, and then said:

You could be correct but OTOH, does it even occur to you as a possibility that the intel of an Iranian proxy assault against our troops just might be possible?  Why is that possibility seemingly rejected out of hand as so unlikely as to be overlooked altogether?  Why the near-automatic assumption of a false flag op?  This site isn't THE most accurate but they get things right from time to time:

https://www.debka.com/us-ready-to-go-for-irans-guards-bases-if-iraqi-shiite-proxies-attack-al-tanf-garrison/   

If this is the reason Pompeo has his feathers in a ruffle, someone needs to ask him why are their American troops in Syria.  He might be a murderous dictator, but Assad is still the Syrian President.  Did he officially invite American troops on Syrian soil?

[pallidin]

3 minutes ago, Black Red Devil said:

... He might be a murderous dictator, but Assad is still the Syrian President...

Ummmm ok.........

[Black Red Devil]

7 hours ago, and then said:

Yet here we are.  There are a lot of maybes and perhaps, ifs, but the reality is that there is no single nation on the planet that can be sure of taking America's military down without grievous losses and potentially catastrophic global effects.  We may be perceived as a "bully" but only by those who simply disagree with our status and our goals in the world.  As soon as China, Russia, India or (insert name) gain a military/strategic advantage, they WILL use it.  That is what power projection is all about.  It was the same when Britannia ruled the waves and when other dynasties held sway.  No news here.  For now, it means that Iran's military leaders will have to keep seething in their near impotence.

Well, I can't argue with this.  It does fit in well with the typical mindset of the war mongering Neocon Fascist, mostly from the Republican spectrum.  Luckily for you, many of these war hungry creatures inhabit your Congress. 

[Black Red Devil]

Just now, pallidin said:

Ummmm ok.........

No, it's not OK.  Similarly, it's not OK other murderous dictators in the world weren't and aren't treated the same way with parts of their country occupied by US troops.  Your 'ummm ok' sounds morally humanitarian but you're not fooling anyone buddy. 

[Black Red Devil]

5 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

They could have initiated a war over Taiwan, or fought Japan over the Senkaku Islands, or initiated a fight over the Spratleys, but they have restricted their imperialism to the US model of commercial imperialism. 

On the issue of Iran, I am not so certain that Huthis blowing up tankers actually represents Iran opening a proxy war with the USA.  While the Huthis are definitely Shi'ites, and are seen to be acting as proxies for Iran in the Yemen Civil War, with the Saudis (US allies) on the other side, is that really what is going on?  I don't think Iran has nearly as much control over the Huthis as the analysts are suggesting, and was the tanker attack against the USA or the Saudis?  I personally think that the USA's support for the Saudi regime is ill advised, given what a murderous pack of human rights abusing thieves and scoundrels the House of Saud are.  Iran by comparison is a LOT more democratic, despite the veneer of Islamic Fundamentalism.  Iran has actual democratic institutions, and the minute the Islamic element of the regime crumbles, Iran will become a valuable ally again, and potentially a lot more valuable than the Saudis have ever been.

It is also worth pointing out that the USA has performed war games, modeling a war with Iran that didn't go well...

Retired Marine Colonel Paul Van Riper humiliates US Military in Iran Wargame.  

Hopefully military planners in the USA are paying HUGE attention to everything this little simulation could potentially teach them.

I like your rationale in the second paragraph.  I disagree with the first paragraph and just a correction, the Chinese economy copied the British model of commercial imperialism, not the US.

[Alchopwn]

31 minutes ago, Black Red Devil said:

I like your rationale in the second paragraph.  I disagree with the first paragraph and just a correction, the Chinese economy copied the British model of commercial imperialism, not the US.

I disagree.  The British model of commercial imperialism generally involved military occupation and captive markets, whereas the US model has been about corporate and financial domination without threatening existing governments (well, not often) and a more soft power approach via cultural exports.  Now China has yet to properly understand the soft power approach, and hasn't intervened militarily anywhere yet, so I would regard their efforts as corporate and financial ergo, the US model.  On the other hand, perhaps I misunderstood what you mean by the British model?

In any case, I am not in favor of war with Iran.  I think the USA is ill-prepared for it at present.  I also suspect that the recent evacuation of US non-essential personnel from Iraq and elsewhere was mainly precautionary in case the tanker attacks DID signal a new Iranian proxy offensive against the USA.  That option is not unthinkable, it is just unlikely.  I doubt Iran would try their luck when they stand to lose so much by going to war with the USA, and I suspect the Iranian govt know it too.

 

Edited May 18, 2019 by Alchopwn

[pallidin]

45 minutes ago, Black Red Devil said:

No, it's not OK.  Similarly, it's not OK other murderous dictators in the world weren't and aren't treated the same way with parts of their country occupied by US troops.  Your 'ummm ok' sounds morally humanitarian but you're not fooling anyone buddy. 

So you find U.S. occupation to be wrong?

[pallidin]

I was under the impression that temporary U.S. occupation is part of an effort to stabilize an area and return that area to the populace.

[pallidin]

I find it funny that U.S. haters accused us of using the war in Iraq to "steal their oil"

Yet not a single tanker of Iraqi oil was ever diverted to the U.S.

Not a single one.

[pallidin]

1 hour ago, Black Red Devil said:

...Your 'ummm ok' sounds morally humanitarian but you're not fooling anyone buddy. 

Ummm, ok.

[Black Red Devil]

7 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

I disagree.  The British model of commercial imperialism generally involved military occupation and captive markets, whereas the US model has been about corporate and financial domination without threatening existing governments (well, not often) and a more soft power approach via cultural exports.  Now China has yet to properly understand the soft power approach, and hasn't intervened militarily anywhere yet, so I would regard their efforts as corporate and financial ergo, the US model.  On the other hand, perhaps I misunderstood what you mean by the British model?

In any case, I am not in favor of war with Iran.  I think the USA is ill-prepared for it at present.  I also suspect that the recent evacuation of US non-essential personnel from Iraq and elsewhere was mainly precautionary in case the tanker attacks DID signal a new Iranian proxy offensive against the USA.  That option is not unthinkable, it is just unlikely.  I doubt Iran would try their luck when they stand to lose so much by going to war with the USA, and I suspect the Iranian govt know it too.

 

Well, based on the logic you applied in the first paragraph you do make a good point.  Although, 1) Economic Imperialism was based on the British Empire of commercialisation around the world and 2) military occupation (or rather military presence) doesn't always derive from wars but also on mutual cooperation and agreements.  In fact the US has hundreds of bases spread across the world.  It still has bases in Italy and Germany from WWII when it did occupy those countries.  Maybe the best way to describe Chinese imperialism is 21st century imperialism but they still have a long way to go to even come close to the riches it brought to the British (in the 19th century) and American (in the 20th century) economies.

I agree with the second paragraph.

[Black Red Devil]

7 hours ago, pallidin said:

I was under the impression that temporary U.S. occupation is part of an effort to stabilize an area and return that area to the populace.

When you get invited in, yes.

[Black Red Devil]

7 hours ago, pallidin said:

I find it funny that U.S. haters accused us of using the war in Iraq to "steal their oil"

Yet not a single tanker of Iraqi oil was ever diverted to the U.S.

Not a single one.

Hurry, you don't want to miss your next Fox News session.

[pallidin]

1 minute ago, Black Red Devil said:

When you get invited in, yes.

Why would a murderous regime invite ANY outside entities?

 

[pallidin]

1 minute ago, Black Red Devil said:

Hurry, you don't want to miss your next Fox News session.

Then do tell me a single point where we raped Iraqi oil

Can't do it, can you.

[Black Red Devil]

45 minutes ago, pallidin said:

Why would a murderous regime invite ANY outside entities?

 

They did, they invited Russia, not the US.  Tell me why the US went there?

[Black Red Devil]

46 minutes ago, pallidin said:

Then do tell me a single point where we raped Iraqi oil

Can't do it, can you.

What are you expecting, a photo of GW Bush driving a tanker out of Iraq? LOL, do you even understand how politics work in the real world?  Probably not if you're stuck in front of the TV listening to Hannity & Co.

[pallidin]

1 minute ago, Black Red Devil said:

What are you expecting, a photo of GW Bush driving a tanker out of Iraq? LOL, do you even understand how politics work in the real world?  Probably not if you're stuck in front of the TV listening to Hannity & Co.

So, your assertion is based on opinion, not facts.

[Black Red Devil]

2 minutes ago, pallidin said:

So, your assertion is based on opinion, not facts.

Man you don't even know what you're talking about.  Read up on OPEC and the petrodollar influence.  Read up on Halliburton and Dick Cheney's involvement.  Don't come back with silly questions, come back with opinions after you've read.  It's part of economic imperialism Alchopwn mentioned.