The Iran thread

[SurelySerious]

54 minutes ago, pawnman said:

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.

Not firing across the border doesn’t pass the MLCOA/MDCOA test. 

[Clark Griswold]

7 hours ago, busdriver said:

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.

We may be told to leave and a new can of worms opens:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-security-blast-primeminister/rival-shiite-leaders-in-iraq-call-for-us-troop-expulsion-in-rare-show-of-unity-idUSKBN1Z20JO

Not sure how to view this move, but they killed an American, that's Trump's redline and unlike the other guy, he acted.  Something had to be done as you can only be pushed so many times until you have to give someone a bloody nose.  Dude was a legit target but try to avoid by 10 NM anything that would draw us in any further (directly) into any conflict in that region.  We save blood and treasure by not taking the bait sometimes.

The whole ME is just an insoluble problem that is not actually that important to the US anymore.  We should begin a slow disengagement over the next 3 years.

Tucker Carlson with JD Vance had intelligent commentary on this, at the 18:20 mark:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLk22tGaD1Q

 

[SurelySerious]

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/column-what-the-killing-of-qassem-soleimani-could-mean-for-iran
 

Pretty nuanced view. 

[Prozac]

I won’t argue that the Iranians didn’t have this coming. They absolutely did. But this was an escalation that may have started (escalated?) yet another open ended conflict in the Middle East. Are we prepared for that? What’s the end game here? I really hope this was part of a well thought out plan that ends with the minimum amount of force/blood/treasure  required to accomplish American goals in the region. I fear that in reality this was a rash reaction that will lead to further US entrenchment in the region with no clear idea of what a “victory” actually looks like. Incidentally, isn’t that exactly the sort of conflict that the administration says we should be pulling out of? 

[SurelySerious]

1 hour ago, Prozac said:

I fear that in reality this was a rash reaction that will lead to further US entrenchment in the region with no clear idea of what a “victory” actually looks like. Incidentally, isn’t that exactly the sort of conflict that the administration says we should be pulling out of? 

Disclosure: I think the dude was a combatant in the middle of a well known and wide ranging battlefield, and was probably masterminding the things the gov’t has accused him of. 
 

However, wrt whether this was well thought out or rash? POTUS is sometimes a bit vain and values his self image, and after railing against endless ME wars during campaign think has taken the recent attacks/rhetoric as personal affronts and personal challenges...leading to a rash decision. 
 

Throw what you thought were red lines for IR out, because the calculus  has changed a bit. I expect a lot of asymmetric activity soon...

Edited January 4, 2020 by SurelySerious

[gearhog]

7 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

 

Tucker Carlson with JD Vance had intelligent commentary on this, at the 18:20 mark:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLk22tGaD1Q

 

This is what I believe is happening. Our adversaries know a full-scale conventional war against the US cannot be won without first weakening our economic foundation and national will. They are risking actions that they believe will keep us engaged in the ME at a tremendous cost to the US but without crossing the line into open unlimited conflict.  Iran is already suffering under economic sanctions, so they're accepting higher levels of risk while being quietly supported by China and Russia. They are simply trying to bleed us out.

[Swizzle]

A Bait and Bleed strategy has been and is being used against us for at least two decades; It will continue. However, we "swatted" and squished a nuisance - onlookers will take note that the irritation is working and likely double-down on their subversive strategy to bleed us into weakness (i.e. loss of global influence/power/quality-of-life/way-of-life). Its a slow, progressively weakening strategy meant to engage on level below significant threat to the engagors self-preservation. A new political line was drawn, a new standard set inferring what is significant. What will the new response be to that line? Keeping in-line with their strategy and weaker position most likely more subversive actions?

[Bob Uecker]

Makes sense now more than ever, the Iraqi populace is united in their hatred of the Iranian-backed government. Not to say they are thrilled with the US, but after seeing hundreds of protestors being slaughtered by Iran-backed militias, Iraqi twitter seems to be loving the move to kill Suleiman.

[Clark Griswold]

2 hours ago, torqued said:

This is what I believe is happening. Our adversaries know a full-scale conventional war against the US cannot be won without first weakening our economic foundation and national will. They are risking actions that they believe will keep us engaged in the ME at a tremendous cost to the US but without crossing the line into open unlimited conflict.  Iran is already suffering under economic sanctions, so they're accepting higher levels of risk while being quietly supported by China and Russia. They are simply trying to bleed us out.

Yup, also keeping Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea afloat to pique at us from time to time.  We should find clients to antagonize them also and support with little restraint so long as they cause them trouble (Ukraine, Vietnam, KSA, etc...).

Another article on the subject

https://thefederalist.com/2020/01/04/killing-soleimani-was-necessary-and-shows-america-must-withdraw-from-iraq/

Decent and a short read, correctly repeats the refrain that another pointless US led conflict in the ME only benefits the Moscow-Beijing-Tehran axis of shit.

[N730]

Regardless of if you think this was a mistake or not, if this leads to war with Iran, it is going to make our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan look efficient.

Iran is another beast when it comes to size, population, terrain, etc.

I mean Tehran is the size of New York City and the area surrounding brings the population to something like 16 million. The country's population is almost as much as Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria combined. And it's larger than the three countries put together.

And all of that is ignoring the militaristic and economic capability differences between the country of Iran and the different terrorist organizations we've fought for the past two decades.

I think that while the people here may be an exception, most Americans don't really understand what an undertaking a war with Iran would be. They see the Middle East as one homogeneous area and have heard Iran and Iraq mentioned together for so long that they equalize them.

The dude needed to die and the world is better off without him, but I'm hoping his status in the country and its leadership doesn't lead us into another war.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Baseops Network mobile app

[BashiChuni]

we'd wreck them. quickly.

[Mark1]

16 hours ago, Bob Uecker said:

Makes sense now more than ever, the Iraqi populace is united in their hatred of the Iranian-backed government. Not to say they are thrilled with the US, but after seeing hundreds of protestors being slaughtered by Iran-backed militias, Iraqi twitter seems to be loving the move to kill Suleiman.

Uh, not quite.  The Sunni portion, maybe, but that's only 1/3rd of the population.  You're seeing the vocal minority reaction, not a consensus.

I'm surprised it hasn't already occurred and maybe time will temper emotions so that it doesn't, but I'd guess the most likely outcome is the Shiite dominated Iraqi parliament votes to expel us with prodding behind the scenes from the Iranians.  At that point we have no legal justification to operate within their borders and the international community won't take kindly to [the inevitable] periodic violations of their territory for our military/intelligence operations.  That's when the Iranians move in to fill the void (to a greater degree than they already have after being invited to assist in pushing ISIS back) and transform Iraq in to the same kind of proxy that they've established elsewhere in the region.  The Sunnis will be backed into a corner, and insurgency will persist indefinitely along with the increased Iranian influence.

This is all assuming that the Iranians play it cool and have more foresight than we seem to have.  No guarantee of that.  If they go for a spectacular response then this changes and maybe we just embroil ourselves in another 20 years of nation building in the region.  But I'm sure our administration considered these possibilities when they chose to strike and has a solid plan to prevent them...I'm sure of it.

[Bob Uecker]

7 hours ago, Mark1 said:

Uh, not quite.  The Sunni portion, maybe, but that's only 1/3rd of the population.  You're seeing the vocal minority reaction, not a consensus.

I'm surprised it hasn't already occurred and maybe time will temper emotions so that it doesn't, but I'd guess the most likely outcome is the Shiite dominated Iraqi parliament votes to expel us with prodding behind the scenes from the Iranians.  At that point we have no legal justification to operate within their borders and the international community won't take kindly to [the inevitable] periodic violations of their territory for our military/intelligence operations.  That's when the Iranians move in to fill the void (to a greater degree than they already have after being invited to assist in pushing ISIS back) and transform Iraq in to the same kind of proxy that they've established elsewhere in the region.  The Sunnis will be backed into a corner, and insurgency will persist indefinitely along with the increased Iranian influence.

This is all assuming that the Iranians play it cool and have more foresight than we seem to have.  No guarantee of that.  If they go for a spectacular response then this changes and maybe we just embroil ourselves in another 20 years of nation building in the region.  But I'm sure our administration considered these possibilities when they chose to strike and has a solid plan to prevent them...I'm sure of it.

You realize most of the people protesting are Iraqi Shiites, right? There is a popular movement being led in those areas to stop Iranian influence, which sparked the events leading up till now.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/01/05/world/middleeast/iran-general-soleimani-iraq.amp.html
Iraqi Lawmakers Vote to Expel U.S. Troops as Iran Mourns a Slain General

the plot thickens.

[Majestik Møøse]

20 hours ago, N730 said:

Regardless of if you think this was a mistake or not, if this leads to war with Iran, it is going to make our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan look efficient.

Iran is another beast when it comes to size, population, terrain, etc.

I mean Tehran is the size of New York City and the area surrounding brings the population to something like 16 million. The country's population is almost as much as Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria combined. And it's larger than the three countries put together.

And all of that is ignoring the militaristic and economic capability differences between the country of Iran and the different terrorist organizations we've fought for the past two decades.

I think that while the people here may be an exception, most Americans don't really understand what an undertaking a war with Iran would be. They see the Middle East as one homogeneous area and have heard Iran and Iraq mentioned together for so long that they equalize them.

The dude needed to die and the world is better off without him, but I'm hoping his status in the country and its leadership doesn't lead us into another war.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Baseops Network mobile app
 

You know, war doesn’t have to mean regime change. Destroying all their shit, making them look inept to their own people, and walking away could effect a lot of internal change.

[N730]

You know, war doesn’t have to mean regime change. Destroying all their shit, making them look inept to their own people, and walking away could effect a lot of internal change.

You're absolutely right. My statements were just based on our past decisions in the region.

If we took that approach, it would be effective, but almost every time we've interacted with the region, regime change has been the course of action.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Baseops Network mobile app

[jazzdude]

You know, war doesn’t have to mean regime change. Destroying all their shit, making them look inept to their own people, and walking away could effect a lot of internal change.

Or it could strengthen their resolve, unify factions against a common enemy, and create a surge of patriotism/nationalism, making Iran a bigger problem, even if we smash all their toys. We're unlikely to occupy them, and I don't really see any surrounding countries itching to invade them, so the regime just has to wait us out, similar to Vietnam.

Sent from my SM-T700 using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

3 hours ago, Majestik Møøse said:

You know, war doesn’t have to mean regime change. Destroying all their shit, making them look inept to their own people, and walking away could effect a lot of internal change.

2

They will likely try an asymmetric attack so before that we should give them and asymmetric show of force demonstration.

Basically all the oil they export goes thru Kharg Island and they have other critical points we can apply pressure to if needed.  Right at 12.1 NM off Kharg, drop 500+ bombs from a mixed formation of B-2s, BUFFs and BONEs with a 30 ship of fighters generated and just waiting to be cut loose.

Not waremongering but saber rattling for right reasons, if you retaliate against us in a way that can not be accepted (i.e. you kill our civilians or other non-combatants or have your proxies commit an act of terrorism against such targets) we will cripple that which funds your government and is the vast majority of your economy.  That is the price, no apologies, no dithering, no discussion and no hesitation.

We will destroy your oil exporting capability via stand off weapons and we will close the Strait of Hormuz, if others complain about it (left leaning nations of Europe, Asia, etc...) fine, you're own your own for other defense matters (collective security, deterrence, support, etc).

Sometimes super powers just have to get shit done.  Like or not, a COA was taken that has got us here, strength and resolve is the only way to get all players on an off ramp to lowered tensions.

My unsolicited advice, give them an opportunity to save face and destroy another RPA to embarrass the Great Satan but use back channels to let them know we will destroy everything we can of value to their petroleum exporting capability.

[GKinnear]

4 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

My unsolicited advice, give them an opportunity to save face and destroy another RPA ...

Point of order: RPAs aren't disposable aircraft.

However, I acknowledge that a downed RPA has a different set of secondary/tertiary effects. If policy makers slap the table, I'll salute and march out smartly.

[SurelySerious]

28 minutes ago, GKinnear said:

Point of order: RPAs aren't disposable aircraft.

I think they might be, heard something about it in a song once. 

[SFG]

6 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

with a 30 ship of fighters

52-ship. With names on the side.

Everything should be in 52s from here on out. Including, pre-announce that our pullout from Iran will be in 2052.

[Majestik Møøse]

9 hours ago, jazzdude said:

Or it could strengthen their resolve, unify factions against a common enemy, and create a surge of patriotism/nationalism, making Iran a bigger problem, even if we smash all their toys. We're unlikely to occupy them, and I don't really see any surrounding countries itching to invade them, so the regime just has to wait us out, similar to Vietnam.

Vietnam was the US being in country during a civil war where the locals were 70/30 on the other side from the start. Let them sort the internal shit out, I would only recommend attacking Iran’s capabilities to wage war outside their borders.

[GKinnear]

5 hours ago, SurelySerious said:

I think they might be, heard something about it in a song once. 

Needs more cowbell

[Clark Griswold]

Point of order: RPAs aren't disposable aircraft.
However, I acknowledge that a downed RPA has a different set of secondary/tertiary effects. If policy makers slap the table, I'll salute and march out smartly.

Noted and your point is legitimate, I would call it a deliberate sacrifice to try to shape events favorably

Take the sensors out of the oldest Block 10 GH and put a ballast load in, fly it just inside 12 NM off their coast let them give it a Viking Funeral


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[viper154]

5 hours ago, SurelySerious said:

I think they might be, heard something about it in a song once. 

Ya they got it all wrong though, it wasn’t a F-16 that started WWII, the mother fucker was a drone. 

[jazzdude]

Vietnam was the US being in country during a civil war where the locals were 70/30 on the other side from the start. Let them sort the internal shit out, I would only recommend attacking Iran’s capabilities to wage war outside their borders.

Got it, so status quo. So long as they have a functioning economy and hate America, this'll never end and they will continue to export violence.