Earlier it was asserted that even if the law and facts were on the US’s side, we should not do things we are allowed to do if they are provocative. Why doesn’t this apply to Iran?
Wow, that’s super convenient.
Right?
Because shooting down a foreign drone in your own airspace isn’t provocative – you’re not provoking anything. But flying a drone just close enough to maybe be in someone else’s airspace in hopes that they’ll shoot it down is the very definition of provocative – even if you’re legally in the right.
I would guess that the Iranian reasoning is that, since the United States has declared economic war on them, they are fighting back in the only way that they can, which is to wage asymmetrical economic warfare. The approximate cost of the RQ-4A Global Hawk drone is $110 million, so the shooting down of the drone is a small victory on that front. The drone is an unmanned vehicle, so no-one died, hence the damage done to the United States has been largely economic, along with a miniscule reduction of U.S. military power.
The United States is the bully in this affair. They are the one’s being provocative by pulling out of an international agreement and then imposing severe sanctions on Iran. Trump, Bolton, Pompeo etc created this fiasco, so I think it’s a bit unreasonable for the U.S. to think that the Iranians are just going to meekly supplicate themselves before them.
It will all depend on where this incident took place. If the drone was in Iranian airspace, then I think there is some justification for the Iranian actions. If it wasn’t, then the Iranians are clearly in the wrong.
Nonsense. Shooting down anyone’s airplanes is provocative. It can be justified, but it’s provocative. Destroying stuff that doesn’t belong to you tends to be provocative. One has to be totally in the tank with some agenda not to recognize that.
Iran could have intercepted the drone with aircraft, but it chose to blow it up. They did not choose minimize the chances of a crisis.
Does Iran have fighters that can go up to 60,000 ft altitude?
But I do wonder if they knew it was a drone rather than a piloted aircraft. Is it obvious from the speed & altitude?
While I wouldn’t use the word “bully,” Trump et al decided on a stupid policy that would reasonably be seen to provoke violence.
But Iran’s decision to respond with violence is, while predictable, also inexcusable. They are adults and responsible for their own actions.
Iran cannot fight back with symmetrical economic warfare against the U.S. They can’t respond in kind and emulate the U.S. by imposing sanctions on the United States, or by telling all the countries of the world that they will be in trouble if they continue trading with the U.S.
This imbalance means that the Iranians are losing the economic war. This situation is not going to get any better the longer it goes on. What are you expecting the Iranians to do? Nothing?
If you back someone into a corner and they feel their very survival is at stake, and then you keep pushing them, they will probably offer a response.
So you support Iran using violence to push back against American policies? But… are you also denying that they are responsible for violence?
From size, speed and altitude, probably quite immediately clear to Iran that it was a Global Hawk. Too big to be a U-2. Far too high to be any commercial airliner. And the flight profile would have been deliberately flying near Iran in a “close-but-not-over-the-line” way no civilian aircraft would.
Boy oh boy, if Iran were flying a drone anywhere near the American coast, I just scratch my head and wonder what the American response might be.
I agree with James Clapper who urges caution and the getting to the bottom of the facts. He suggests that the U.S. and Iran could both be correct about where they say the shootdown occurred. He speculates that perhaps the drone did shallowly penetrate Iranian airspace, and the Iranians could therefore be citing that location, while perhaps the U.S. could be citing the location where the drone was hit by the missile.
I despise the Iranian regime with a passion, but I simply don’t trust the American version of events because of its current regime.
It’s also worth remembering that the Iranians captured an American drone that had violated its airspace back in 2011. That incident did not lead to a military response by the U.S.
From Fox News report on the conclusion of Situation Room briefing on Iran crisis :
I’m not supporting anything. I was putting forward the Iranian view of things, as I see it.
Not at all. I think the Iranians committed an act of extreme violence against the U.S. drone, just as the U.S. would do to an Iranian drone if in U.S. airspace.
I’m not sure what you think “intercept with aircraft” means, that doesn’t involve blowing it up. Are you thinking of boarding operations, or something?
I also wonder if the US and/or Iran will be releasing their raw telemetry data to other countries, to support their respective versions of the story. There might be evidence of fakery in one or the other set of data. Or, of course, one side might release data but not the other, which looks fishy for whichever side doesn’t.
I’m going to take you back to a discussion we had on the Russian/Putin threads in late 2016. I made the argument then that economic warfare is, in fact, warfare. As I recall, you seemed to be dismissive of that idea:
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19703402&postcount=64
Oh yeah? Then why is Iran firing at drones? Why are they attacking oil tankers? As I tried to explain to you, economic sanctions aren’t harmless; people die as a result of sanctions. Regimes collapse as a result of sanctions. Iran may be a fake democracy and a shitty regime all around, but they aren’t stupid. They’re not going to just let us build up militarily in the region. They’re going to take the fight to the US before we’re really ready to fight - something they may have learned by watching Saddam Hussein’s collapse and ultimately watching Saddam drop from a rope on New Year’s Eve like the crystal ball in Times Square. I’m not a fan of oppressive God-states like Iran, but as I’ve said before, economic sanctions aren’t without consequence. They can kill people just like bombs can. A country that is interested in peace doesn’t withdraw from a nuclear deal that was working in an attempt to crush its economy and send aircraft carriers from thousands of miles away to the region and say “We’re interested in negotiating for peace” - that’s a bullshit argument and everyone reading this knows it.
An interception is sending a manned aircraft to get near another aircraft, observe them, and warn them off. Countries do this all the time. Every few weeks you’ll read about Russians or Chinese fighters intercepting US surveillance airplanes in international airspace (and often doing reckless things).
Have you really not heard of interceptions before?