Tensions with Iran

[Chance]

At present, this has been an exercise in shouting and wasting money. I hope we don't tit for tat our way into someone getting killed, because then we've got real problems.

[TGS]

The response will likely be some air-to-ground weapons hitting the SAM battery that launched the missile that shot down the GH.

ETA: May not be air-to-ground. Could be Tomahawks.

This is more prudent than committing to a ground war at this point.

We have some pretty amazing munitions these days that can actually autonomously navigate their way around EW/ECM threats. We could definitely deliver a wakeup call to them. Shit, we could virtually neutralize their entire military C&C apparatus without actually putting a human over Iranian skies. Add humans and we could wipe out their entire ability to project in a single night, nearly unopposed.

Just think about the absolute steam-rolling that Iraq got in 1991 just from the air, and then think about the fact that Iran is virtually at the same capability they were in the 80s yet our tech in 1991 is no comparison to what we have now. It's a complete overmatch vs Iran.
__________________________________________

The difference between Iraq and Iran is that if we destabilized Iran, we wouldn't be destabilizing a relatively progressive country that would then find seedier factions trying to fill power vacuums in the aftermath. Iran is the seedy faction to begin with.

As for whether retaliating is worth it, I don't think appeasing Iran is a better solution. I'm under the impression that we really can't use diplomatic or economic sanctions any stricter than we already are, and I'm generally of the opinion that we should've bombed the country into the stone age in 1980, anyway. Iran is the 800lbs Gorilla of the Middle East that Germany was to Europe in the late 19th Century/Early 20th Century, so I'm unsure as to whether pulling back from the Persian Gulf area in order to quell our run-ins with Iran would be wise, too.

[Sensei]

This is more prudent than committing to a ground war at this point.

We have some pretty amazing munitions these days that can actually autonomously navigate their way around EW/ECM threats. We could definitely deliver a wakeup call to them. Shit, we could virtually neutralize their entire military C&C apparatus without actually putting a human over Iranian skies. Add humans and we could wipe out their entire ability to project in a single night, nearly unopposed.

Just think about the absolute steam-rolling that Iraq got in 1991 just from the air, and then think about the fact that Iran is virtually at the same capability they were in the 80s yet our tech in 1991 is no comparison to what we have now. It's a complete overmatch vs Iran.
__________________________________________

The difference between Iraq and Iran is that if we destabilized Iran, we wouldn't be destabilizing a relatively progressive country that would then find seedier factions trying to fill power vacuums in the aftermath. Iran is the seedy faction to begin with.

As for whether retaliating is worth it, I don't think appeasing Iran is a better solution. I'm under the impression that we really can't use diplomatic or economic sanctions any stricter than we already are, and I'm generally of the opinion that we should've bombed the country into the stone age in 1980, anyway. Iran is the 800lbs Gorilla of the Middle East that Germany was to Europe in the late 19th Century/Early 20th Century, so I'm unsure as to whether pulling back from the Persian Gulf area in order to quell our run-ins with Iran would be wise, too.

There are 1 million people of Iranian decent in America. If just 100 of them were committed and decided to go on soft-target rampages, it would be a disaster. Look at what 2 dipshits did to the city of Boston. Then, there is our porous Southern boarder. Having already been on the receiving end of what was likely an Iranian made IED, I’m not confident of our ability to keep their ordinance and WMD capability off of our streets.

[Stephanie B]

This is more prudent than committing to a ground war at this point.

We have some pretty amazing munitions these days that can actually autonomously navigate their way around EW/ECM threats. We could definitely deliver a wakeup call to them. Shit, we could virtually neutralize their entire military C&C apparatus without actually putting a human over Iranian skies. Add humans and we could wipe out their entire ability to project in a single night, nearly unopposed.

Just think about the absolute steam-rolling that Iraq got in 1991 just from the air, and then think about the fact that Iran is virtually at the same capability they were in the 80s yet our tech in 1991 is no comparison to what we have now. It's a complete overmatch vs Iran.
__________________________________________

The difference between Iraq and Iran is that if we destabilized Iran, we wouldn't be destabilizing a relatively progressive country that would then find seedier factions trying to fill power vacuums in the aftermath. Iran is the seedy faction to begin with.

As for whether retaliating is worth it, I don't think appeasing Iran is a better solution. I'm under the impression that we really can't use diplomatic or economic sanctions any stricter than we already are, and I'm generally of the opinion that we should've bombed the country into the stone age in 1980, anyway. Iran is the 800lbs Gorilla of the Middle East that Germany was to Europe in the late 19th Century/Early 20th Century, so I'm unsure as to whether pulling back from the Persian Gulf area in order to quell our run-ins with Iran would be wise, too.

So, bomb then back to the Stone Age. Then, what?

[Chance]

From BBC News:

President Donald Trump approved retaliatory military strikes against Iran on Thursday before changing his mind, US media report.

The New York Times, citing senior White House officials, says strikes were planned against a "handful" of targets.

They say the operation was allegedly under way "in its early stages" when Mr Trump stood the US military down. The White House has so far made no comment.

[Eric_L]

https://warontherocks.com/2019/06/th...the-moderates/

I found this interesting. Iranian people are as a rule moderate and fairly secular. They are also pro west. The mullahs on the other hand are NOT. obviously.

But I hear the war drums.........

[Chance]

Iranian people are as a rule moderate and fairly secular. They are also pro west.

Of the folks I know that have traveled to Iran and know the people, the consensus seems to be that far more of the population hates the government than would ever admit publicly (for understandable reasons). And the people are pretty progressive for that region. For instance: Iran has one of the highest rates of plastic surgeries in the world, which is probably something you wouldn't expect to see from an ultra-conservative country.

[Stephanie B]

From BBC News:

AP is reporting that Trump pulled the strikes after being told that over 100 people would be killed. Trump's tweeted that such an action would not be proportional for shooting down a flying toaster.

I agree with Trump. (You guys on Team Trump might want to circle today on your calendars.)

(I don't know why the projected casualty figure wasn't briefed to him earlier, I'm guessing that Bolton, et al, probably glossed over that point. )

[Stephanie B]

Of the folks I know that have traveled to Iran and know the people, the consensus seems to be that far more of the population hates the government than would ever admit publicly (for understandable reasons). And the people are pretty progressive for that region. For instance: Iran has one of the highest rates of plastic surgeries in the world, which is probably something you wouldn't expect to see from an ultra-conservative country.

So, we'll be greeted as liberators?

[Wondering Beard]

I think you guys might find this interesting: Our tricky peace


Extracts:
"Securing the shipping lanes in a region as large and important as the Persian Gulf is no easy feat. How does the U.S. do it, especially if Iran is determined to harass tankers?"
But that ignores the fact that Iran only gains by raising tensions in the Strait, upping the price of oil. But actually closing the Strait would be political, if not national suicide."

"our calculus changed on closing the Straits, not just due to domestic fracking output, but because China now consumes vast amounts of ME oil. 20 years ago, closing the straits hurt mainly our Asian allies. Now, it hurts our rival."