It’s isn’t a simple question; it’s a “gotcha” question. I’ll answer if you’ll answer some of mine, tho: which sanctions? How long have they been in effect? What effects have they had on the target country?
Your question is a bullshit question designed to get someone to say something you can attack with glee and ease, IMO.
Here’s an analogy: I move 4 100’ long x 40’ tall walls 1 foot closer to your house every day. I start a mile away. On the first day, are you justified in using force to stop me? How about on the 5000th day? :dubious: Are you ever justified in using violence against me? I mean, I’m not touching you…
The Iraq War was a land invasion, with the aim of changing the regime. If the aim is a limited war with Iran to force them to sign a new nuclear deal - I think a more likely aim than regime change for Trump - then that might not even involve a single American (or Saudi etc) boot on Iranian soil. For the Saudis, the Houthis are an Iranian proxy, so from their point of view, they are already in an indirect military war with Iran. A direct war with Iran would, for the Saudis, mean an extension of an existing war, not starting a new one.
I agree with Walken: if we go to war with Iran, I don’t think it’s going to be with the aim of occupation.
Who in the hell knows what happens after the first shot is fired. I do expect it to be devastating for Iran’s regime and its civilian population. I think Bolton and Pompeo have a very Curtis LeMay view of warfare. Maybe I’m wrong and are capable of more restraint than I give them credit for but I’m cynical given their history up to this point.
But however badly we level Iran, there are always surprises in a war, and things we simply don’t anticipate. I have no idea how this conflict would unfold. All I know is we’re dangerously close to finding out, and it doesn’t have to be this way.
The US already had a nuclear deal with Iran - which the US tore up. The US could easily reinstate that deal any time.
Sorry, but this is out of touch with reality. A conflict with Iran could never be so neat and limited. The Strait of Hormuz would be closed indefinitely to all shipping, just for a start. Iran can do this at will with mines and small attack boats (invisible to radar), and nobody can prevent it. Neither Saudi Arabia, nor Russia, nor China, nor any other country wants this. It would probably cause a world-wide economic recession.
Trump is quite obviously displeased with Iran’s relatively mild response to the recent American provocations. Kind of a not so passive but still aggressive ante upping on Trump’s part. He’ll get them to react the way he and his hope! Just you wait and see!
:smack:
I don’t disagree with any of that. The U.S. and its allies would win a conventional war, but the Iranians would fight back asymmetrically, and use their proxies/allies across the region to cause chaos. Who knows where that might lead.
For the Saudis, though, which is what the original point was about, a war against Iran would significantly weaken their arch-rival. It is also something that could be executed by the U.S - the most powerful military on the planet - with little military involvement by the Saudis themselves. It could also help end the war that they are currently in - the Yemeni Civil War - which has been going on for four years and shows no sign of resolution.
Here are Saudi Arabian casualties and losses in the Yemeni Civil War to date (via Wikipedia):
1,000-3,000 soldiers killed
10 captured
3 aircraft lost
9 helicopters lost
20 M1A2S lost
1 frigate damaged
These are losses that the Saudis have directly received as a result, they likely perceive, of Iranian support for the Houthis. Yet the Saudis have only been able to retaliate against their proxies, the Houthis, and not directly against Iran. I would be surprised if there are not hawks in Saudi Arabia, and I also have no doubt that MBS is determined to achieve victory in Yemen.
He has one card that he can play with Iran and that was not worth playing over a downed drone that was coming up to the end of its service life before SLEP. I don’t understand why people don’t get this, Congress is not going to pay for a foreign war under current conditions. Bolton may want regime change to the exclusion of everything else, to everyone else its simply a crisis to good to waste.
Its better to avoid direct military confrontation while ramping up psy-ops. Take the play book from Able Archer and adapt to current times. Between B-52 squadron size elements and carrier alpha strikes , should create quite favorable circumstances.
There’s lots of other things he could do. He could EASE sanctions. He could try, with his feeble mind, to negotiate a nuclear compromise like we had before he destroyed it. Those are just two off the top of my head.
What goal would that be then ? As has been already stated, the US already had a mutually agreed nuclear deal, and could probably get something similar back without killing people (not to mention, going to war to coerce people into making deals isn’t exactly Einstein. When you want people to negociate with you, do you start by punching them in the mouth ? And if so, do you expect them to respect the piece of paper you forced them to sign ?).
Blow shit up until some civil war happens ? Great idea, ISIS wasn’t enough…
I really don’t know, Kobal2. That’s a mystery to me.
So they blow half the country to bits, and then…what? And how would Iran retaliate? And how we would retaliate to their retaliation?
I get the impression that as poorly planned out as the Iraq adventure was that there’s even less planning for this conflict, and I would submit that Iran’s a stiffer challenge than Saddam.
It seems that the theory floating around right wing nutter regime change circles is that if there’s anything left in Iran to govern, we can install dissident groups once the current government is obliterated. One of the leading contenders for that prize is an exile group called “MEK”, which actually helped Saddam Hussein in his war with Iran. Doesn’t seem like there’s been much serious thought put into any of this, which is understandable in the case of Trump, but it’s inexplicable that he has hardly any senior advisers who’ve really gamed this out either. It’s literally the Fox Newsroom running the Departments of Defense and State.
Well this all sounds good and properly thought through. When has obliterating the popular leadership of a nation, funding “friendly” paramilitary groups and letting chaos run its course ever gone wrong or backfired, except that one time ? No, no that time, I’m talking about that time… though I suppose that other time too. Huh… I’ll get back to you.
ETA : actually, come to think of it (although this could be a whole 'nother debate I suppose), when has forceful regime change fostered by a foreign interest *ever *worked ? I suppose the colonial era would count, but they were a net negative on most if not all accounts (yes, including economic)
My fear is that when the shit hits the fan, Trump and the GOP won’t just take their frustration out on his foreign adversaries, but even more so, his domestic ones. Presidents have a history of expanding executive power during times of foreign conflict and crises. Exactly why that hasn’t registered with a single fucking person in this country yet…is a sad commentary on the state of American “democracy”.
Iranian news outlets are reporting on audio which they claim shows that the MEK/MKO and Saudis colluded over the tanker attacks. The MEK have links with various high-profile US politicians - John Bolton and Rudy Giuliani have both spoken at MEK rallies calling for regime change in Iran.
Obviously needs to be treated with a skeptical eye, but it at least adds another party to the suspects list for the oil tanker attacks.
Not that I think this is analogous, but off the top of my head Japan and Germany both spring to mind where forceful regime change fostered by a foreign power worked fairly well.
Personally, I don’t think regime change in this case would work if fostered by an outside power. It’s got to come from inside. Just like in North Korea and China, IMHO.
So, what are we saying here? Iran is trying to prompt President Trump into war or other retaliations and they couldn’t do this (regardless of drone location, cost, publicity, etc). Iran has failed to manipulate President Trump.
That’s the gist of it.
Also, predictions as tension rose, as Iran became more provocative, would be that President Trump would be provoked, yet he hasn’t been.
As a non-US citizen it is not up to me to say yay or nay to anything that Bernie Sanders voices, but what I heard coming from him today sounds like a totally new and interesting and worth pursuing point of view. It went along the lines of “why should the US spend billions of Dollars in a never ending fight in the middle east between Iran and Saudi Arabia? We should rather work towards those two getting together and sorting it out between themselves.” The only thing the US might look after would IMO be the safety of Israel so that it doesn’t get caught in the middle of these arch-enemies should they decide to slug it out. Is it only about oil?
