There are two things at play in Iran-Iraq relations. Shiites hate Sunnis, Arabs hate Persians. Since Iraqi Shiites are both Shiites and Arab, and the majority, that has made relations with Iran complicated. Iraqi Shiites will fight the Persian menace when they feel the Persians are the most important threat, and they’ll ally with their Shiite brothers when the Sunnis are massacring them, as was the case during the Iraq civil war.
As long as Iran doesn’t actually try to invade Iraq, the Iraqi Shiites probably feel closer to their coreligionists.
Yes, and why not, Ravenman? At least the US would know not to fuck with Iran anymore.
It’s now beyond obvious – as North Korea and all of America’s adversaries have made perfectly clear – America does not fuck with countries that have nuclear weapons. This “crisis” never would have happened if Iran had nukes.
As Bob Dole would have said: I know it, you know it, and the American people know it.
The only people who really and truly care about Iran’s nuke capabilities are Israel and the hardcore imperialists in Israel and the US would insist on imposing their will on everyone else in the region.
Let the record show that Asahi has won this debate. No questions asked.
If the head of the Quds force is killing Americans, then we are in a de facto war with the Quds Force. Are you seriously arguing that we should let Quds Force order the deaths of Americans with no consequences?
Iran does have a navy, including 3 frigates and 7 submarines. But the real point is that the US Navy would not be able to cope with mines in the Strait of Hormuz. Even a tanker or two sunk in the Strait would block shipping.
It’s this kind of simplistic, childish thinking that’s led the US into one problem after another.
The US Navy has become an outdated relic, vulnerable to the latest generation of Chinese and Russian hypersonic anti-ship missiles. Is China’s DF-100 Missile Good Enough To Kill America’s Navy?
I propose that the consequences be thought out. If we do a thing that leads to many more American deaths, we have made a grave error. I fear that we have done just that.
Folks we have to get away from simplistic binaries in our thinking. Life is just not that simple. Modern salafist Sunnis hate the Shi’a, like our non-buddies in ISIL. That’s because they are zealot whackadoos. But Shi’a and Sunni populations have co-existed for millenia all throughout the ME/NA. One can see some hardening in certain war zones these days, just like you see increased polarization in American politics. So I wouldn’t want to completely undersell sectarian tensions. But it is mistake to cast this as some universal enmity. There are cultural ties that extend beyond simple confession. For example many/most of the larger Iraqi tribes like the Shammar and Jubar are multi-confessional.
A similar mistake is to assume Kurds are all pro-American and anti-Iranian. They are not. The PUK for instance have very deep ties to Iran( where they were based for decades )and its security apparatus. It was purportedly pressure from Soleimani himself that was one of the factors in gaining the late PUK leader Jalal Talabani the Iraqi presidency( c. 2006-2014 ).
Similarly for ethnic tensions. It’s not so clear cut. Even who identifies as what is not so simple. I’ve mentioned before that I know a Kurd, born and raised in Iran, who thinks of himself as Persian first, Kurdish second. Saddam Hussein when he invaded the oil rich Khuzestan province of Iran where Iranian Arabs form a small plurality, assumed they would welcome him with open arms. They did not. Arab vs. Persian is not nothing, but it appears to be less of a thing than I think some assume.
The situation in Iraq was a proxy war between Iran and the US. Just like Vietnam was a proxy war between Russia and the US. The reason for proxy wars is that open conflict is too dangerous for anyone to risk.
If someone wants to argue that it’s time to escalate this proxy war to an open confrontation, fine, but let’s not pretend it isn’t a dramatic and consequential development. We have been avoiding this for a reason. Apparently some people aren’t content in the wisdom of this, and are willing to expend the blood of other people’s children to figure out exactly what we’ve been avoiding.
Given how many people we were already losing, taking a chance on stopping the killing seems like a reasonable risk. I don’t think there’s an acceptable number of people we should be ready to lose so that we don’t provoke Iran.
Of course it’s not all that simple, but it’s a decent enough rule of thumb given that Sunnis oppress Shiites pretty much everywhere and they are fighting proxy wars in several places. It’s a real fault line and the fact that some Sunnis and Shiites get along doesn’t really change that.
As for Arabs/Persians, they’ve been at it longer than Muslims and Jews and there’s no sign of that changing.
War with Russia was too horrible to contemplate, plus we were willing to give as good as we got in the proxy wars, however long it lasted, and we were prepared to fight those proxy wars forever.
Iran is a different dynamic. We don’t want war, but war is not too horrible to contemplate. If war is the only way to stop Iran’s worldwide campaign of unconventional warfare, then that’s what will happen. And we aren’t actually willing to play proxy war for 60 years with Iran. We’ve got better things to do then have a cold war with a weak nation. They’ll either cut it out or they’ll pay an unacceptable price for their actions.
Everybody wants to pretend we can smash Iran’s military, and go home, and declare victory. We don’t want to admit we have other goals, but we do, that goal is to deter the unconventional warfare.
I’m here to tell you that direct military action against Iranian conventional forces will not slow or halt the unconventional warfare. On the contrary it will get activated in ways we haven’t seen yet. Then we’ll have to admit this provocation was a really stupid idea.
War is not too horrible to contemplate as long as the the higher-order effects don’t happen immediately. We can smash Iran’s conventional military forces and satisfy our war boner, but we’ll find that its extraterritorial forces are as strong as ever, unharmed, and mightily pissed.
If you think I’m wrong on this, consider Afghanistan. We’ve been in there 18 years because the enemy forces there were supposedly so feeble and inadequate, and 18 years later we’re about to run home with our tail between our legs because we couldn’t manage it. Iran is 20x harder than Afghanistan.
No, war is not the only way to stop Iran’s unconventional warfare. How about peace?
Iran wants peace. It’s the US that walked away from the negotiating table for no reason except that Trump wanted to show how macho he was. It’s the US that’s the war monger.
Unacceptable price? How about a doubling of oil prices and a meltdown of the global economy that will make 2008 look like a picnic? Is that a price the US is willing to pay?
I’ll grant that this isn’t something I have studied but I would be very surprised if the secret ingredient of unconventional warfare isn’t cash. So long as an organization like ISIS or whoever stays funded, unconventional warfare is a “go”.
So while I would agree that destroying soldiers and military equipment is of limited value, that’s not a new concept and our generals should be aware of it. Tactics takes out dangers. Strategy takes out supply lines.
Of course, part of shutting down the money pipeline might be things like freezing bank accounts and stuff, which requires the good will of foreign nations to throw in with you. Given that the price of throwing in with you might include having Iran start blowing up their grocery stores, it’s not a given that they will just decide to hop in and help out, rather than decide to sit on the sidelines.
One might suggest that needlessly pissing off all your friends - even the powerful ones - previous to getting in situations where you’re going to need to be asking them for some big favors, is probably a bad idea. One might even suggest that it’s because you’re always asking them for favors of this sort that everyone felt like it was reasonable for you to always be the one paying for lunch all these years.
Given that all evidence points to them sticking to the JCPOA even AFTER the US started the sanctions back up, I’m gonna need a lot more evidence than your “belief” that they never stopped.
Personally, I don’t give a flying fuck if Iran “wins” this. This kind of dick-waving is the same shit that’s been getting Americans killed for decades. The question is this: have our actions in the Middle East and abroad in the past twenty years led to more safety and security for the US, or less?
Then maybe we should declare war, instead of unilaterally assassinating foreign leaders in such a way that the entire world goes “WTF!?”