Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
ExpandMyMind

US apparently readying for Iran attack

296 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Hammerclaw
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Setton said:

I hope you're right. My understanding is that Trump doesn't want a war. My worry is that the likes of Bolton will be quite happy to feed him a distorted picture to make him think war is the only option. 

Curious - what cargo do you think they are carrying? US sanctions are not international law. 

Munitions to war zones and other cargoes prohibited by international law and UN sanctions.The US Navy filled the void left by the Royal after WW2, when you gave up your empire and contracted your forces diminishing your presence on the high seas. We've built hundreds of overseas bases to support that role we shouldered. The Royal Navy was the gold standard we modelled our fleet operations after. You were great teachers and we were apt students.

 

Edited by Hammerclaw
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
1 hour ago, pallidin said:

But they ARE recognized restrictions of trade via U.N. charter if the sanctioning nation is a member of the U.N. Security Council, of which the United States is.

Really? Even if the other members don't agree? 

So you're saying Russia could slap sanctions on, say, Ukraine and the US would be obliged to enforce them? I think not, somehow. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
33 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Munitions to war zones and other cargoes prohibited by international law and UN sanctions

Assuming you mean to the Houthis in Yemen. Isn't that what the US is doing for Saudi? Why is that less illegal? 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
1 minute ago, Setton said:

Really? Even if the other members don't agree? 

So you're saying Russia could slap sanctions on, say, Ukraine and the US would be obliged to enforce them? I think not, somehow. 

Countries can trade with whomever they wish.  As sovereign nations, they have that RIGHT. The U.S. cannot DEMAND or FORCE anyone to obey sanctions.  It's their choice.  They can trade with Iran or they can have access to OUR markets, just not both at the same time.  Fair enough?  I mean, that seems reasonable, no?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
4 minutes ago, Setton said:

Assuming you mean to the Houthis in Yemen. Isn't that what the US is doing for Saudi? Why is that less illegal? 

You get that warfare isn't predicated on "fairness", yeah?  When Iran and the Houthis can ENFORCE their use of the seas then America will step back.  Until then, they need to play nice with others or they'll get BROKE DOWN, BUSTED...  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
29 minutes ago, and then said:

Countries can trade with whomever they wish.  As sovereign nations, they have that RIGHT. The U.S. cannot DEMAND or FORCE anyone to obey sanctions.  It's their choice.  They can trade with Iran or they can have access to OUR markets, just not both at the same time.  Fair enough?  I mean, that seems reasonable, no?

But that is not what was being claimed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
18 minutes ago, and then said:

You get that warfare isn't predicated on "fairness", yeah?  When Iran and the Houthis can ENFORCE their use of the seas then America will step back. 

We weren't talking about war, we were talking about the US apparently having a legal obligation to board and confiscate Iranian vessels. Which they do not. 

Quote

Until then, they need to play nice with others or they'll get BROKE DOWN, BUSTED...  

Like you broke down, busted their militias in Iraq? 

Hell, if you want to go and fight another pointless war and waste your people, have at it. Just so long as our governments have the sense to leave you to it. Good to see the Spanish already exercising their right not to be dragged into a purely US conflict. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin
7 minutes ago, Setton said:

But that is not what was being claimed. 

Sure it is. But restrictions, though U.N. legal and enforceable, are sometimes ignored... but not often.

North Korea violated certain U.N. trade restrictions with China, secretly, but now known.

Remember that U.N. trade restrictions, though officially binding by U.N. member-states, are routinely violated at some level.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
8 hours ago, and then said:

Not so amusing how people choose to regard any information coming from Iran as truth while denying any information from the U.S.  And we should give a damn what the world thinks, why, exactly?  The mullahs are in control of this situation.  Their choice.

Well to be fair the UK and Europe are starting to question Trumps motives for more sanctions and military might. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
51 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

Well to be fair the UK and Europe are starting to question Trumps motives for more sanctions and military might. 

Fair enough.  They are sovereign, no question about that and if they have serious differences of opinion on policy then it can be discussed but ultimately, we have to make the moves that protect OUR security and goals in the world.  If we can't come to accommodation then we may have to make changes in our short-term trade policies to make the importance of the issue fully understood.  The current issue with China over trade and tariffs reflects the fact that in many instances we don't use our economic might to NEARLY the overwhelming advantage we could gain from it.  We realize that WE, also, have an obligation to work and play well with others.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
11 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

Wow, they did it ll on their own?  Those couple of thousand souls amidst the millions of Arabs.  Heroic.

It was far more than a couple of thousand and you can denigrate their efforts in ignorance if you like but the truth is they had NO assistance on the ground from any major nation.  France was selling them a few arms and some older aircraft but Britain actively supported the Arabs and America mostly stayed out of it in '48.  They fought for their LIVES and they won against overwhelming odds.  Yeah, it WAS heroic.  It was a hell of a lot better showing than those haplessly tribal and dysfunctional Arabs.  They couldn't decide if they wanted to kill the Jews more than their neighbors.  The same thing happened in '67.  '73 was a much different story.  Sadat built a disciplined force and the Russians armed them with Kornets and AA missiles to deny air superiority.  If Nixon hadn't helped then, Israel may well have eaten a biscuit, as they say.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
1 minute ago, and then said:

Fair enough.  They are sovereign, no question about that and if they have serious differences of opinion on policy then it can be discussed but ultimately, we have to make the moves that protect OUR security and goals in the world.  If we can't come to accommodation then we may have to make changes in our short-term trade policies to make the importance of the issue fully understood.  The current issue with China over trade and tariffs reflects the fact that in many instances we don't use our economic might to NEARLY the overwhelming advantage we could gain from it.  We realize that WE, also, have an obligation to work and play well with others.

Im just afraid that his Middle East policy is starting to resemble Bush's neo-con objectives. Not that i really care but at some point Trump might have to concede that the U.S. has more in its foreign policy arsenal than threats and that he's not the only smart guy in Washington. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Setton said:

Assuming you mean to the Houthis in Yemen. Isn't that what the US is doing for Saudi? Why is that less illegal? 

Since when is it illegal to interdict shipments of weapons to insurrectionists in a sovereign nation at it's government's request? Once they're in Yemeni territorial waters they are fair game.

 

Edited by Hammerclaw
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil
10 hours ago, and then said:

You can hate the U.S.

Any attempt you make to rationalise completely disappear when you include this type of sulky diatribe in your posts.  I've told you time and time again, it's not about the people or the nation for that matter, it's the Govt, especially when such Govt lean to the Conservative Right and it's not hate, it's dislike.  Reading the 'I'm the poor American who everyone hates' monologue in every discussion gets a bit fastidious after a while.  Whether you care or not, next step it'll be the ignore button.  To you the next move.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil
10 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Well, the MIG's, Mirages and F14's would have VERY little chance of even getting within 100 miles of the 5th Fleet. They would be absolutely slaughtered. 

Chinese C-802 "Silkworm" anti-ship cruise missiles COULD be a problem. However, you would expect a US warship to be able to defeat such a missile. They did back in the Gulf War, and also in operations around Yemen. Heck... an ageing Type-42 Royal Navy destroyer (HMS Gloucester) shot down a C-802 using Sea Dart back in the Iraq war.

Another thing to consider is that surely the Russians (and Chinese) have an interest in keeping Iran as a powerful regional ally.  Would they just sit idle while the US bombs away?  Would they directly intervene or upgrade their supply of weaponry to the Iranians which COULD cause significant US losses?  The other question to ask would be, how much is the US prepared to risk in the destruction of billions of dollars of highly sophisticated equipment and be dragged into a lengthy fight, if Chinese and Russians do get involved?  Loss of personnel and billions of dollars of equipment would be political suicide in a war public opinion isn't too keen on (from what I've read from surveys).  Unlike the war in Iraq, there is no 9/11 to stir the plebes into accepting a war on the other side of the world this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
22 minutes ago, Black Red Devil said:

Any attempt you make to rationalise completely disappear when you include this type of sulky diatribe in your posts.  I've told you time and time again, it's not about the people or the nation for that matter, it's the Govt, especially when such Govt lean to the Conservative Right and it's not hate, it's dislike.  Reading the 'I'm the poor American who everyone hates' monologue in every discussion gets a bit fastidious after a while.  Whether you care or not, next step it'll be the ignore button.  To you the next move.

My apologies, listening to consistent fault-finding about my country's policies tends to skew my thinking about the person doing the critique. As for the topic, Iran's move.  They can work and play with the world or they can get hurt in a big way while killing some of my countrymen and flailing in frustration and ineffectiveness.  Frankly, I think they're a lot wiser than EMM believes and so is Trump.  He doesn't mind using force when it's really necessary but I haven't seen him champing at the bit to kill anyone.  Unlike Bathhouse Barry who actually used to insist on creating the "kill list" for the drones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
 
 
1
2 minutes ago, Black Red Devil said:

Another thing to consider is that surely the Russians (and Chinese) have an interest in keeping Iran as a powerful regional ally.  Would they just sit idle while the US bombs away?  Would they directly intervene or upgrade their supply of weaponry to the Iranians which COULD cause significant US losses?  The other question to ask would be, how much is the US prepared to risk in the destruction of billions of dollars of highly sophisticated equipment and be dragged into a lengthy fight, if Chinese and Russians do get involved?  Loss of personnel and billions of dollars of equipment would be political suicide in a war public opinion isn't too keen on (from what I've read from surveys).  Unlike the war in Iraq, there is no 9/11 to stir the plebes into accepting a war on the other side of the world this time.

Which is why it isn't going to happen.  It just isn't on the cards at this time.  No doubt, Israel and the Neocons would like it to be but America isn't in the mood.  Iran can be brought to the table by economic means and eventually they'll come.  If their mullahs are prideful and crazy enough to actually attack our forces, even using proxies, I'd be very surprised.  They know what's at stake and they know that regardless of what damage they might inflict on us through asymmetric strikes, they would lose their billions in nuclear infrastructure investment, they'd lose what remaining business contracts they have and MOST critical of all, they'd risk an uprising that might overthrow them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil

Sure Iran would pay a high price but if we've learnt anything from the wars in the ME in all these years, they don't like western interventions and become more resolute.  Rather than overthrow, I'd see them stepping up into their anti-Crusader rhetoric which would bring people closer together and closer to Islam. 

As pointed out, Iran is not the aggressor, the US is when they travel with their nuclear warheads off the coast of Iran, after Bolton and Pompeo have warned them they will strike if Iran dares attack US interests.  What are these interests?  Probably Israel, or the Saudi pipelines.  It sounds like bullying to me.  What if Russia and China started sending their ships off the coast of Saudi Arabia telling the Saudi's to stop attacking their interests and allies in Yemen or they'll strike?  Iran is allowed to have allies and support and supply them.  Isn't it what the US does?  Didn't the US supply the Afghani Northern Alliance against the Russians?  Going by the same principal, Russia should have attacked the US.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DarkHunter
36 minutes ago, Black Red Devil said:

Another thing to consider is that surely the Russians (and Chinese) have an interest in keeping Iran as a powerful regional ally.  Would they just sit idle while the US bombs away?  Would they directly intervene or upgrade their supply of weaponry to the Iranians which COULD cause significant US losses?  The other question to ask would be, how much is the US prepared to risk in the destruction of billions of dollars of highly sophisticated equipment and be dragged into a lengthy fight, if Chinese and Russians do get involved?  Loss of personnel and billions of dollars of equipment would be political suicide in a war public opinion isn't too keen on (from what I've read from surveys).  Unlike the war in Iraq, there is no 9/11 to stir the plebes into accepting a war on the other side of the world this time.

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
3 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

Rather than overthrow, I'd see them stepping up into their anti-Crusader rhetoric which would bring people closer together and closer to Islam. 

You aren't taking the feelings of the youth there into thoughtful consideration.  Sure, if we launched an across-the-board attack that killed large numbers of civilians or shut down most of the infrastructure it would galvanize resistance but I can't imagine our government doing anything so obviously stupid.  The mindset of that population is a MAJOR asset that would not be casually squandered without need.  I also doubt that Russia or China would risk open military confrontation.  They'd mobilize world opinion at the UN and lead an effort to break any sanctions regime but they are in it for the long game and would not risk a hot war over Iran.  They have too many means with much lower risks that they could employ against us in the region.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
3 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

Sure Iran would pay a high price but if we've learnt anything from the wars in the ME in all these years, they don't like western interventions and become more resolute.  Rather than overthrow, I'd see them stepping up into their anti-Crusader rhetoric which would bring people closer together and closer to Islam. 

As pointed out, Iran is not the aggressor, the US is when they travel with their nuclear warheads off the coast of Iran, after Bolton and Pompeo have warned them they will strike if Iran dares attack US interests.  What are these interests?  Probably Israel, or the Saudi pipelines.  It sounds like bullying to me.  What if Russia and China started sending their ships off the coast of Saudi Arabia telling the Saudi's to stop attacking their interests and allies in Yemen or they'll strike?  Iran is allowed to have allies and support and supply them.  Isn't it what the US does?  Didn't the US supply the Afghani Northern Alliance against the Russians?  Going by the same principal, Russia should have attacked the US.

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/   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
3 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

Russia should have attacked the US.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin

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

And they seem unwilling to stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin

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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw

Left to their own devices, the Persians will self-destruct as they historically have always done. There can not be another country in the world more in love with regime change than the Persians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.