The Iran thread

[nsplayr]

@pilot I was explicitly not making an argument one way or the other on the facts.

The reason I responded to you was that you essentially dismissed Bacevich as a Trump-basher / Obama boot-licker & nothing more, and I thought that was unfair given his credentials and long record of consistent thinking and writing on US foreign policy.

Read widely, deeply and even read people with whom you might be inclined to disagree. Start your list with well-credentialed voices that have relevant expertise - I would put Bacevich in this category.

Probably good advice for life in general.

Edited September 17, 2019 by nsplayr

[brickhistory]

6 hours ago, pawnman said:

Sounds good in theory, but oil is a global market.  Supply goes down, price goes up... Regardless of where in the world the oil is extracted.

Indeed.  And as we're selling, thought that was the point.  The closure of the Straits is no longer a vital national interest of ours.  It still is to others.  Their turn to carry the ball.

Iran is trying to rattle the world and get the economic vise grips loosened before it all goes south internally.  If the West either caves to their behavior (likely) or gets the West to attack Iran (possibly), then the people will rally to the government and all is well again.

Just ask Argentina circa 1982...

[WheelsOff]

16 hours ago, nsplayr said:

FWIW Andrew Bacevich is a self-described conservative with a view of US foreign policy that is deeply skeptical that military power is an all-purpose salve that it's often used as. This has put him at odds at times with the current President as well as both of his predecessors. He's also a retired Army Colonel who served in Vietnam who earned a PhD from Princeton and lost a son to combat in Iraq.

All this to say: read him for yourself and figure out if you agree or disagree with his thoughts. I don't count myself in the camp that agrees with him reflexively, but I respect his thinking enough to at least read his writing on occasion. My recommendation is to start here, published in 2008.

Fair enough! Didn’t mean to sound dismissive of the guy as an individual; although his background doesn’t qualify him as an “expert” (like others have mentioned), it does give him a unique perspective. I guess what I really meant to say was that I get tired of the politics in here/elsewhere that seems to inject itself incessantly into whatever topic at hand is being discussed. 

Edit to add: Anyone know if Mattis’ new book talks much about Iran? Of all the people I know of who are in the book-writing business these days (not many, to be honest), I’d *think* he’d be one of the most “qualified” on this particular subject.

Edited September 17, 2019 by WheelsOff

[pawnman]

12 hours ago, brickhistory said:

Indeed.  And as we're selling, thought that was the point.  The closure of the Straits is no longer a vital national interest of ours.  It still is to others.  Their turn to carry the ball.

Iran is trying to rattle the world and get the economic vise grips loosened before it all goes south internally.  If the West either caves to their behavior (likely) or gets the West to attack Iran (possibly), then the people will rally to the government and all is well again.

Just ask Argentina circa 1982...

By "we" you mean "oil companies".  Our government isn't selling it.  

My bigger point is that even if we have enough to export, closing the Straits will cause global economic impact that will certainly affect the US adversely.  We've already got a trade war going... Not sure how well we'd weather a global oil crisis on top of that.

All of that said, don't get me wrong.  I want the US out of the Middle East.  The only people happier than Islamic terrorists about the blood and treasure we've spent there is our global competitors like China and Russia.  They are both thrilled that we've beaten our equipment and people to shit over a patch of sand that's been unconquerable since Alexander the Great.

[ctf151]

I read a theory that because Iran's economy is doing so poorly, striking Saudi oil facilities and causing an oil crisis would encourage countries to buy Iranian oil in the face of sanctions. 

[brickhistory]

15 hours ago, pawnman said:

By "we" you mean "oil companies".  Our government isn't selling it.  

My bigger point is that even if we have enough to export, closing the Straits will cause global economic impact that will certainly affect the US adversely.  We've already got a trade war going... Not sure how well we'd weather a global oil crisis on top of that.

All of that said, don't get me wrong.  I want the US out of the Middle East.  The only people happier than Islamic terrorists about the blood and treasure we've spent there is our global competitors like China and Russia.  They are both thrilled that we've beaten our equipment and people to shit over a patch of sand that's been unconquerable since Alexander the Great.

I think we are largely agreeing.

I'm just advocating that those that have a bigger dog in the fight - ready access to ME oil/Straits of Hormuz - should step up and look after their interests since it's no longer one of our top ones.  France, Germany, etc., y'all love you some Persians and like sticking it to the US, please, by all means, carry on.  We'll watch from our oil-rich sidelines.

And I again posit that Iran is throwing this tantrum to get the West to cave to their bad behavior at best, or to strike Iran at worst.  Either way, the blame for the very severe economic squeeze we've been tightening successfully since canning the bad Iran/nuke deal will be diverted to the ol' Satan, USA.  

Sorry, mullahs, you snookered the last nuke dealmaker and scored a financial windfall.  Not this time.

[Day Man]

12 hours ago, ctf151 said:

I read a theory that because Iran's economy is doing so poorly, striking Saudi oil facilities and causing an oil crisis would encourage countries to buy Iranian oil in the face of sanctions. 

Something else to remember is that Aramco is looking to IPO soon, and higher gas prices would benefit them too...

[Stoker]

8 hours ago, Day Man said:

Something else to remember is that Aramco is looking to IPO soon, and higher gas prices would benefit them too...

It definitely doesn't benefit Aramco to remind everyone that investing there is extremely risky.

[Day Man]

if you know of a market today that isn't risky (and can produce returns), please let me know...Lehman Brothers was a Blue Chip at one point too.

[jice]

58 minutes ago, Day Man said:

if you know of a market today that isn't risky (and can produce returns), please let me know...Lehman Brothers was a Blue Chip at one point too.

Loss history and presence of risk are very different things; different again when mitigation of either is largely beyond the entity’s control. 

Are you suggesting that Aramco/the Saudis are intentionally prolonging tensions or that they were no kidding complicit in recent attacks?

[Day Man]

I'm suggesting I don't trust anything I hear WRT the Saudis

[MechGov]

Edit to add: Anyone know if Mattis’ new book talks much about Iran? Of all the people I know of who are in the book-writing business these days (not many, to be honest), I’d *think* he’d be one of the most “qualified” on this particular subject.

Just finished listening to the audiobook version today. Iran is a recurring theme in Mattis’ book, however withdrawing from the JCPOA wasn’t really mentioned. He mentions the early JCPOA talks that happened during his tenure as CENTCOM cmdr, and sprinkled into his various tours in the region.

[Breckey]

Would we be pissed if Iran killed the SOCOM/CC in an Yemini airport? I feel as though our policy with Iran is rapidly becoming something like the domino theory from the 50s-60s. Being in a constant state of conflict since the 1990 has lost our credibility in the region. Let the regional powers figure it out. We don't need to have our hands in literally everything in the ME

[pawnman]

1 hour ago, Breckey said:

Would we be pissed if Iran killed the SOCOM/CC in an Yemini airport? I feel as though our policy with Iran is rapidly becoming something like the domino theory from the 50s-60s. Being in a constant state of conflict since the 1990 has lost our credibility in the region. Let the regional powers figure it out. We don't need to have our hands in literally everything in the ME

While I agree with the general sentiment...they did attack our embassy.  I appreciate an armed response compared to what happened in Benghazi.

[Kiloalpha]

At some point you have to escalate. The drone being shot down, the tankers being hijacked, the embassy being stormed... not to include the blood list of service members killed at the hands of Iran-based proxies. The question is whether this is the right escalation.

Side note, this really puts a wrench in Iraqi-US relations, but that was coming when they were working with the group that ended up attacking the embassy (allegedly).

[GrndPndr]

2 hours ago, Breckey said:

Would we be pissed if Iran killed the SOCOM/CC in an Yemini airport? I feel as though our policy with Iran is rapidly becoming something like the domino theory from the 50s-60s. Being in a constant state of conflict since the 1990 has lost our credibility in the region. Let the regional powers figure it out. We don't need to have our hands in literally everything in the ME

Iran's proxy forces are trouble enough, but to have their own leadership (dressed as civilians), in another state, and stirring up sh*t - is just too much.  I don't want us to be the next target in this tit-for-tat thing, but we seem prepared to handle the next step?

Questions:

• Are we prepared to defend ourselves in the region?
• Options after the next attack (whatever that is)?

[HuggyU2]

We regularly engage foreign fighters in Iraq.  And we don't check their passports before going kinetic.  He was in the wrong place as an enemy combatant, on a known battlefield that we have been fighting on for years.    

I hope for the sake of his family he had SGLI.  

Edited January 3, 2020 by HuggyU2

[herkbum]

We regularly engage foreign fighters in Iraq.  And we don't check their passports before going kinetic.  He was in the wrong place as an enemy combatant, on a known battlefield that we have been fighting on for years.    
I hope for the sake of his family he had SGLI.  

And not to mention who he was traveling with. No doubt he was there up to no good, especially considering the timing.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[jrizzell]

Would we be pissed if Iran killed the SOCOM/CC in an Yemini airport? I feel as though our policy with Iran is rapidly becoming something like the domino theory from the 50s-60s. Being in a constant state of conflict since the 1990 has lost our credibility in the region. Let the regional powers figure it out. We don't need to have our hands in literally everything in the ME

This is not an apples to apples comparison...SOCOM/CC isn’t the leader of an organization that routinely kills and maims foreign soldiers and civilians using terroristic tactics. If you lead an attack on a sovereign nations embassy, they’re going to be consequences...Unfortunately we’ve injected ourselves into the ME, and after this, getting out will be much more challenging.

[Breckey]

The Green Beret charter is basically to conduct unconvential and irregular warfare. That was their plan with MACV and working to disrupt the Soviets if the the Cold War kicked off in Europe.

I'll concede the attacking the embassy part.

[Prosuper]

Just saying, one of those ghosted was a guest of President Obama in the Oval office, a policy change in the extreme.

 

[Breckey]

Another thought experiment: can the new deployments, which are ostensibly due to increasing tensions with Iran, be for greater then 60 days without a new AUMF from Congress? There is little legal basis for the AUMF for Al Queda and 2003 Iraq would cover any kinetic strikes against Iran.

While the President has the authority to authorize military action vital to national security, strikes against a sovereign nation should be approved by at least the ASCs if not the whole Congress.

[busdriver]

This will either pop then go away like a zit, or it will be how the Iraqi civil war begins.

The advantage of Iran's strategy of using surrogate forces is plausible deniability, mainly that they can back down without losing face internally by denying their involvement.  The direction this goes will be about Iranian leadership maintaining power, and the internal messaging required to do that.

[pawnman]

49 minutes ago, Breckey said:

Another thought experiment: can the new deployments, which are ostensibly due to increasing tensions with Iran, be for greater then 60 days without a new AUMF from Congress? There is little legal basis for the AUMF for Al Queda and 2003 Iraq would cover any kinetic strikes against Iran.

While the President has the authority to authorize military action vital to national security, strikes against a sovereign nation should be approved by at least the ASCs if not the whole Congress.

Why couldn't they deploy to Iraq for six months without a new AUMF?  As long as they don't start firing across the border, I don't see why the current AUMF wouldn't cover it.

[Tank]