Lot less fun speculating about a war, when you are literally next door, rather than two continents away.
:rolleyes:
Still, I think the chances of war are pretty high. Trump has basically pushed the Iranians into a situation from where there rapidly are becoming only two options, surrender or take chances with war.
History rarely has people choosing option “A”. But, you never force an adversary into option “B”, unless you are ready and prepared for war and the U.S manifestly isn’t.
What do you think Iranian “surrender” would look like and why isn’t that an option for them?
Also, why do you think “the U.S manifestly isn’t” “ready and prepared for war”?
There’s zero practical reason for U.S. troops in Iran; that would be a quagmire that would utterly dwarf the Iraq debacle. Just bomb and strike from above and afar.
For clarification, I don’t want a war with Iran, but if there has to be one, using ground troops would be the most colossally wrong way to do it.
Don’t mistake exhausted gallows humor for “fun”, I’m horrified and ashamed of what my government is doing.
Tom Cotton was on some news show where a reporter asked him if we’d win in a war with Iran. Cotton stopped short of holding a ruler to his dick, but just barely. Once again our news media is largely gaming out a possible war instead of beating up officials over the fact that no justification for armed conflict has been put forth.
To respond to SSR, I admit ignorance of the logistics. I was using “war” to cover anything from a sustained aerial campaign to boots on the ground. I suspect that we will be told, as we were in 2003, that we can do this war with few troops, Iranian oil revenue will offset the costs, and we’ll be greeted as liberators. Then we’ll blow the fuck out of everything, piss away untold trillions of dollars, get into bed with charlatans and marginal figures, and blame the Iranians for not pulling themselves up by their bootstraps.
Tell me about it.
Personally, though, I don’t think Israel will start a war. Bibi Netanyahu is terminally adverse to any sort of risky action; besides, he likes keeping Iran around as a threat. It gets him reelected.
With Trump, though, who the hell knows?
I don’t even know which thread to post this in. I hope this one will do:
https://mobile.twitter.com/IntelDoge/status/1128729083343462400
Accepting US demands as are.
:rolleyes:
Lets see,* a very recent history * in the region of the failure of the US Army to enforce the national will on two small countries.
Wars are not aboit dick measuring, or who is more badass. They are entered with a certain objective in mind. Achieving those objectives requires capabilities and political will to obtain their use. The US clearly does not have the military capability to compel Iranian acquiescence to US regional policies, without taking actions which would be politically unfeasible.
Its the Powell doctrine. If its “what is militarily necessary, is politically impossible, you have lost and get out”
And accomplish, jackshit. And get retaliation all over the region, both through conventional and indirect means. Make Lockerbie look like a joke.
Thats the problem. He (like his pal Modi) is a phenomenally weak man and weak men will do stupid things. I never expected Modi to actually try air attacks. Yet I spent Feb and March being kepth awake at night by fighters on CAP.
We were extremely lucky to avoid a general war. Don’t want you guys to need that luck.
Golly, I wonder what the recently designated by the Trump administration as a terrorist organization Revolutionary Guard spokesman might be reacting to.
Its fucking boilerplate. They are on alert. They no doubt are at a much heightened state of readiness and preparation.
Its like the US military saying “maximum readiness”.
I think the Iranians have a great deal of pride. Their idea of surrender may consist of killing as many as they can before they go down.
Then, in your opinion, you don’t believe the 2015 story in Al Jarida that allegedly, Netanyahu advocated for and asked the IAF to plan a set of airstrikes on suspected Iranian nuclear weapons production facilities? The strike that got cancelled when, again, allegedly, the United States informed Israel that military aircraft intruding within either Iraqi or Saudi airspace would be shot down? As IAF aircraft would need to transit either of those countries to reach targets in Iran, that pretty much ended any air strike thoughts.
I thought it far fetched too, as well as stretching Israel’s conventional strike capabilities to the limit, but I couldn’t dismiss the story out of hand. Ironically, if you assume somewhat rational behavior on the part of Iranian command and control, Israel is not the entity that needs to worry the most about a Shiite bomb, it’s the various Sunni-controlled nations in the area. Israel has an unstoppable counter value deterrent to Iranian action, with its Dolphin submarines and nuclear armed stealthy cruise missiles. The Gulf nations, AFAIK, don’t.
I still can’t see the point in many of the alleged Iranian actions. Now we’re supposed to believe that forward basing of tactical ballistic missiles in Basra is likely? Missiles there can’t hit anything that Iranian based missiles couldn’t. As far as deniability, we’re supposed to believe that, in the hypothetical event of a strike against US bases with large numbers of missiles launched from Basra, that the US would accept that the strike was the work of Iraqi based Shia militants, and not from the IRGC? To quote something I read elsewhere, “the US is just supposed to think these guys built multi stage solid rocket motored missiles in their garage like they had Tony Stark working for them”
It’s ridiculous on its face.
Exxon is evacuating its production personnel from the Basra area, FWIW.
Netherlands and Germany are apparently pulling their people out of Iraq too.
Yeah, I doubt the Iranians lose much sleep over the Dolphin class.
It needs to transit narrow waters to reach Iranian targets. Needing to surface twice.
The IAF is a much more potent threat to them.
Nope. With the missiles the US has hard data for, because the USN watched the test, the range of those missiles is at least 900 miles. They can kill Tehran from dockside in Haifa. 35 years ago, the US deployed BGM-109A or TLAM-N. Same type of missile, nuclear armed, subsonic, with high accuracy. It had at least a 1500 mile range. We’re assuming the Israelis couldn’t have come up with something similar in 35 years? (IIRC, TLAM with that range was prohibited from being sold to Israel)
Make the range 1500 miles, like the 109A, and they can hit practically everything in Iran, from the Eastern Med. No Suez transit or Eliat basing required.
I still don’t know if anything will happen, but people do seem to be clearing the area, a bit like an old Western showdown on Main Street at noon, between two twitchy gunfighters.
Uncle Sam is standing there alone.
If all the US wants to do is bomb a bunch of military sites and call it a day, we’re prepared for that. Trump seems to be a good student of Bill Clinton’s “wag the dog” school of military strategy in this way.
Prior to Gulf War 1 and Gulf War 2 there was a massive logistical/personnel buildup that was extensively reported by the media. We haven’t seen that happen yet, and and effort like that would be too large to hide even before internet days.
Another way to perhaps more easily keep track of a buildup like that, since, as you note, the media hates keeping track of trucks and supply ships, is to keep track of where the US’s various carriers are. 1 CVN and 1 LHD, whether it can carry a meaningful amount of F-35s or not, is nothing compared to what was used for Desert Storm (6 carriers), OEF (initially two carriers, then a third, with six used in all), and so on.
Also, see if any of the tactical fighter wings are being deployed to KSA or Al Udeid, as they were for Desert Storm and OIF.
To me, there doesn’t seem to be enough materiel yet, in theatre, to conduct the kind of airstrikes against Iran that would result in materially degrading their WMD production capabilities. Even with the proliferation of land attack cruise missiles on surface combatants or with utilizing long range strategic bombers.
Sortie the three carriers that, AIUI, the US can meaningfully sortie at any one time, what with training requirements, overhauls and the like, along with some Gator Navy platforms to carry F35s, and I’ll think that something really serious, with regime toppling as the intention, is about to happen. Still more than enough present now though to sink most of the small craft the IRGC can rush into or near the Straits, as well as attrit installations near the Straits. A la Praying Mantis, as was mentioned above.
All bets are off if the IRGC or IRIN get really lucky, and manage to kill the Lincoln, or break a lot of things in Balad or Al Udeid or other places where lots of Americans are. Total KIA casualties in OEF/OIF have been ~5300. Killing the Lincoln can duplicate that in an afternoon.
Agreed. The US has never seen an aircraft carrier sunk, and I feel like it’s way too cavalier about the possibility of this happening. I would put not-distant odds on a carrier being heavily damaged or sunk. Not sure if the US has seriously faced off against a country that has invested a good deal in anti-ship missiles. 1/5 odds on the Lincoln anyone?