Tensions with Iran

[Bart Carter]

Am I the only one who thinks interest rates are TOO low?
Fiscal conservatism is best when you're on the sweet spot for interest rates; it's not TOO expensive to borrow money, but it's still expensive enough that it forces people to make wiser decisions with their money, and it also promotes savings, which in turn promotes a degree of stiffness to disaster when it comes to personal economic incidences.
Personally, I think that somewhere between 6% and 8% on a mortgage is the right interest rate, if we needed to pick something as a bellwether.

Well, for me, the lower the interest rate the more profit. The more profit, the more I spend. The more I spend, the better the economy.

I also am able to put the additional profit into into growing my business, paying my employees more and plan for retirement.

Even the government wins because I pay more taxes.

Win-win-win-win-win-win-win-win-win-win-win-win-win...I could go on.

[LittleLebowski]

Well hell in that case, let's also invade Russia during the winter! It'll be different this time!

I know of an organization that has succeeded at that. #TeamMongol

[Chance]

I'm also starting to join the chorus of "it doesn't make sense that this would be Iran." Over the past several decades, Iran has established a very successful track record being a thorn in the side of the world, and they've done so in ways that rarely make the news. The Shamoon 1 attack against Saudi Aramco back in 2012 is a great example of how they can wreak havoc without drawing much attention to themselves (...probably - nothing's been publicly shared that proved Iran was responsible, but that's how cyber goes).

Anyone that pays attention to the region knows the kind of threat Iran poses, so I'm at a loss as to why they would want to do something this flashy.

[Bart Carter]

I'm also starting to join the chorus of "it doesn't make sense that this would be Iran." ...

U.S. law requires the Secretary of State to provide Congress, a full and complete report on terrorism with regard to those countries and groups meeting criteria set forth in the legislation. This annual report is entitled Country Reports on Terrorism. Guess what, Iran remained the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism.

Would it make sense that the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism would be behind this terrorism?

FWIW, a Revolutionary Guard patrol boat pulled alongside the ship and removed the remaining evidence (unexploded mine).

[blues]

U.S. law requires the Secretary of State to provide Congress, a full and complete report on terrorism with regard to those countries and groups meeting criteria set forth in the legislation. This annual report is entitled Country Reports on Terrorism. Guess what, Iran remained the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism.

Would it make sense that the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism would be behind this terrorism?

FWIW, a Revolutionary Guard patrol boat pulled alongside the ship and removed the remaining evidence (unexploded mine).

Unfortunately, this administration has a penchant for doing its best to circumvent what the law may require vis a vis congress. (Not to say other administrations may or may not have been guilty of same.)

Who do you trust when you can trust no one?

[JAD]

Unfortunately, this administration has a penchant for doing its best to circumvent what the law may require vis a vis congress. (Not to say other administrations may or may not have been guilty of same.)

Who do you trust when you can trust no one?

Mssrs. Smith et Wesson.

[blues]

Mssrs. Smith et Wesson.

That's a start...

(You trust your mother but you still cut the cards.)

[Ed L]

Commander Salamander, who is hardly a leftie, is recommending everyone calm the frak down.

His main point is that this only becomes our problem if we so choose to make it our business.

If you want to sink a ship with a limpet mine, you place it under the ship's waterline. Blowing a small hole in the side of a ship well above the waterline, at a part of a ship where nobody is expected to be, seems more like a provocation.

The tar baby is beckoning. Pompeo and Bolton seem eager to fall into its embrace.

To me the mining thing looks like a false flag job. Maybe Saudi Arabia trying to drag us in there in a bigger way against Iran.

Unless Iran does something blatant and more dramatic, I would urge the president against involvement. Among other things, I don't think he has the popularity among congress or much of the general population to stand behind him, and they would likely blame Trump for the whole thing and turn it into a huge crusade against Trump.

I also suspect that Iran has some Chinese YJ-18 anti ship missiles that can be launched from land, sea or air. These are copies of the Russian Klub anti ship missile, the 3M-54 Kalibr. The Chinese version is called the YJ-18. Both are sea-skimming anti-ship missiles with a range of between 140 and 340 miles (depending on the source of the info and the version of the missile). They carry a 333-660 lb warhead and can be launched from submarines, surface ships, airplanes, and shore batteries. They travel at just below mach 1 for most of their trip, then accelerate to mach 2.5-3 for the last 25 miles. I think they would be a problem for most of our current ship defense systems.

Further, the chinese have a version that can be launched out of a shipping container--which would be perfect for moving around on land and launching it.

The Persian Gulf would be an excellent place to employ this missile since it is long and relatively narrow. A target ship would not have as much warning against a land launched version of this missile since the geograpics would allow it to be launched from closer distances.

We have seen similar missiles employed in the Mideast when one hit an Israeli frigate off Gaza and another his a UAE shipping catamaran near Yemen..

I would not be surprised if the CHinese had sold Iran a bunmch of these nissiles.

[trailrunner]

If you want to sink a ship with a limpet mine, you place it under the ship's waterline. Blowing a small hole in the side of a ship well above the waterline, at a part of a ship where nobody is expected to be, seems more like a provocation.

Maybe, but consider these issues:

a) Placing a mine under the water line isn't that easy.
b) Even if you could place a mine under the water line, it's doubtful that one of those mines would sink a ship that size.
c) Placing an explosive charge next to large fuel tanks could be an effective way to multiply damage.
d) Maybe they didn't want to sink it. An uncontrolled fire that spreads can cause a lot of damage, including complete loss of ship. Even if the fire is controlled, a flaming ship that's shown over and over in the news gives your organization credibility and sends ripples through the worldwide economy.

[Borderland]

They definitely had chemical weapons, so I’m always a bit perplexed when people say Iraq had no WMDs. No nukes =/= no WMDs. And they had actively used chemical weapons on the Kurds in Iraq and on Iranian military and civilians in the past, under Saddam’s leadership. No real indication that his willingness to do so again in the future had changed.

They did have chemical weapons. They had nerve gas in 55 gal drums they dumped on the Kurds from helicopters. They didn't have a missile delivery system. They didn't even have a missile defense system. Almost every tomahawk missile that was launched by the US hit its target and there were hundreds.

So a WMD was nerve gas. US troops found a lot of nerve gas in artillery shells but none of that was a threat to the US.

That entire war was shooting fish in a barrel. Not much of a threat to anyone but Kurds and Shiite Muslims.