- Reaction score
- 6,927
- Points
- 1,260
Iran Super Thread- Merged
- Thread starter JasonH
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 11,525
- Points
- 1,040
The US is generally a lot more careful about its targeting than Iran. Trump could order attacks which override the judgement of targeters. At least it should be possible to agree that escalating to those targets is unlawful for everyone.
The escalating belligerent is Iran. The first major step outside the combatants' circle was attacks on neutral shipping - basically, on the "civil infrastructure" that is Gulf shipping. For example, Mayuree Naree is a Thai-flagged ship that was bound for India, from UAE, in ballast and not even an oil tanker. (See here.) There's a chance still for Iran to demonstrate that it is serious about climbing down from its position and rigorously limiting its attacks to shipping directly involved with the US and Israel.
OK, so that confirms for me that your earlier derogatory comment was aimed at me personally, not the people I was writing about. I expect you to stop that.
As for the dynamics; sure, I understand that the Iranian government hasn't really been acting like it's bound by international laws and norms for most of five decades. I know they have big cultural and religious beefs with the mostly Arab states of the region. I don't actually expect them to not attack non-combatants and non-combatant targets. I expect them to essentially seek to create terror. Iran should occupy approximately the same position in popular sentiment as Russia. When I consider how people would react if the US were participating in a campaign to bring Russia to heel, I suppose they would be at worst neutral/balanced with respect to the aims and the means and effects and not wish-casting "the US will be sorry".
- Reaction score
- 11,525
- Points
- 1,040
Offering to prevent someone from doing something they don't seem to really want to do is just the counterpart of offering to give someone something they don't really want. It doesn't make much of a point to them. What it does is provide diplomatic cover - "we're here to convince everyone to respect these particular laws and customs, equally".
Buddy. Selection and maintenance of the aim is a rather basic idea. Do you even know what the aim is in this war? Cause at this point, I'm not even sure the guy leading the parade has any idea.
Meanwhile, a whole bunch of people here are fantasizing about taking over random islands. And can't articulate to what end. Taking over Abu Musa and the Tunbs doesn't open the Strait. And Qeshm is the size of Okinawa. Not something a MEU could hold.
I think of the folks here as non-amateurs. So it's a little disappointing when some of the "ideas" are on par with Twitter level of analysis.
Edit. Will add too that I didn't mean to suggest no opinion below the rank of Major counts. That's a bad faith reading of my post. I specifically said I hope the people pushing uncritical thought here didn't reach leadership levels. Cause I sure as well wouldn't want someone in charge of me who can't think through more than one chess move.
Last edited:
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Fossil
- Reaction score
- 44,800
- Points
- 1,160
- Reaction score
- 8,678
- Points
- 1,360
I'll take "Only allowed staff jobs and not to lead soldiers for a $100" Alex.
I’m doubtful Iran missed the nuclear site by over 10km. Is there any independent evidence they was their target?
- Reaction score
- 3,002
- Points
- 1,090
its of course possible but i think unlikely. More likely there will be a farm subsidy after the fact. With cost doubling from 320 to 640 a ton
a graphical rep of Gulf constraints. I would think Helium will be the biggest one
Since I do know who you are and what you bring to this discussion - mind me asking your take on the situation the belligerents and the regional neighbours find themselves in, and potential ways forward? Because I’m extremely curious what you think of the situation and the ways this could go. If you prefer not to, totally understood.
- Reaction score
- 11,525
- Points
- 1,040
If a coalition goes to protect shipping, it doesn't go to force the Straits open. That mission is unrealistic, and should be treated as a strawman advanced by naysayers. Iran can effectively force complete closure simply by hitting a few ships indiscriminately. We already know this.
The purpose should be to escort (and defend) shipping which should be exempted from attack - a reminder to Iran to respect a commitment it has already proposed. If Iran were to attack any of the ships (escorts or escorted) in a convoy, it would be deemed to have committed an act of war against all of the countries represented in the convoy. Warships would be in the same position as soldiers interposed between a belligerent force and non-combatants that the soldiers are trying to protect under very limited RoE. The countries would have to decide each for itself how to respond. The simplest response would be to agree that the Gulf is closed to all shipping, which is not much of a concession; it would simply be an explicit acknowledgement of facts on the ground and amplification that if it's going to apply to anyone, it will apply to everyone. Not all of the pain falls on one "side". China might then have some frank discussions with Iran. The point, again, would be to help (encourage) Iran to keep its word.
The US can cease operations whenever it chooses. Trump can say whatever he wants; if the IRGC regime has not fallen, the undertaking will be accorded a failure.
There will still be some useful points made.
Anyone can easily halt oil flows from the Gulf, and some countries are affected much more than others (dependency).
Almost all potentially troublemaking countries will have to calculate (if they had forgotten) that the US can cause them a great deal of ruin without putting a single land formation on the ground. The very few that believe otherwise will still have to ask themselves whether their defences are as effective as they believe, and whether their overall vulnerability is too high to be risked.
Everyone should understand now that a possible price of a Chinese attack on Taiwan could be a complete indefinite halt of oil shipments to China, irrespective of the prospects of success of any actual invasion. There is (always has been) more in play than an "invincible" swarm of ships and aircraft and drones.
The purpose should be to escort (and defend) shipping which should be exempted from attack - a reminder to Iran to respect a commitment it has already proposed. If Iran were to attack any of the ships (escorts or escorted) in a convoy, it would be deemed to have committed an act of war against all of the countries represented in the convoy. Warships would be in the same position as soldiers interposed between a belligerent force and non-combatants that the soldiers are trying to protect under very limited RoE. The countries would have to decide each for itself how to respond. The simplest response would be to agree that the Gulf is closed to all shipping, which is not much of a concession; it would simply be an explicit acknowledgement of facts on the ground and amplification that if it's going to apply to anyone, it will apply to everyone. Not all of the pain falls on one "side". China might then have some frank discussions with Iran. The point, again, would be to help (encourage) Iran to keep its word.
The US can cease operations whenever it chooses. Trump can say whatever he wants; if the IRGC regime has not fallen, the undertaking will be accorded a failure.
There will still be some useful points made.
Anyone can easily halt oil flows from the Gulf, and some countries are affected much more than others (dependency).
Almost all potentially troublemaking countries will have to calculate (if they had forgotten) that the US can cause them a great deal of ruin without putting a single land formation on the ground. The very few that believe otherwise will still have to ask themselves whether their defences are as effective as they believe, and whether their overall vulnerability is too high to be risked.
Everyone should understand now that a possible price of a Chinese attack on Taiwan could be a complete indefinite halt of oil shipments to China, irrespective of the prospects of success of any actual invasion. There is (always has been) more in play than an "invincible" swarm of ships and aircraft and drones.
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 21,828
- Points
- 1,260
We could with some training man a canteen
War can't be fought with half measures. And this has been my complaint right from the beginning. If you tell the enemy from the start that you will not deploy ground troops, they know exactly what it takes to survive. Pretty obvious they thought this would be an affair of a few weeks and revolution would follow.
It's the incompetence and corruption I abhor above all else. And they deserve to get called it for it. Yet you defend this at every turn. For example, want to talk about the FBI firing its Iran counter-terrorism specialists months before launching a war on Iran because they reviewed classified information Trump had at Mar-a-lago. I don't think shit like that is excusable or keeps the American people (and everybody else) safe. You want to talk about the threat that Iran is and completely ignore the incompetence that enables or even magnifies that threat.
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 21,828
- Points
- 1,260
Who in the US is benefitting financially?
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Fossil
- Reaction score
- 44,800
- Points
- 1,160
I believe the main beneficiary is political... for Trump and his base.
Added this edit to clarify:
I don't think it's unreasonable when asking troops to risk their lives and risking global chaos to expect leaders to articulate the goals and the plan.
Let's be real here. We (including me) thought we might get a real uprising a few weeks ago. That's not happening. But instead of articulating less maximalist goals and a new plan, Trump is flailing around and trying to blame allies.
I don't think it's unreasonable when asking troops to risk their lives and risking global chaos to expect leaders to articulate the goals and the plan.
Let's be real here. We (including me) thought we might get a real uprising a few weeks ago. That's not happening. But instead of articulating less maximalist goals and a new plan, Trump is flailing around and trying to blame allies.
Oil and gas shareholders?
Given their poll numbers I'm not sure they are benefiting. If they were, he wouldn't be tweeting like a scared teen.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Fossil
- Reaction score
- 44,800
- Points
- 1,160
- Reaction score
- 11,525
- Points
- 1,040
Pretty obvious that if you tell the enemy that, one thing it does is express confidence that you don't think it's needed in order to achieve whatever you really want, irrespective of what you claim as maximal war aims (or whatever maximal aims others seek to impose on you). Hoping to drag you into a quagmire on land isn't going to save your target.
Well, write your books. Here's a thing: decades after the fact, so much that everyone "just knows" about various battles and operations and campaigns of WW II is revealed as somewhere between mistaken and myth.
One thing that is fairly consistent: incompetence and corruption exist in substantial measure in all governments, and are worse (and therefore more debilitating) in true tyrannies. In the specific case you mention, there are Americans who think that parts of the FBI that are more interested in investigating unpopular presidents than in any more pressing concerns aren't fit for purpose and ought to be excised or repurposed. They won the election. Ranting about how much of those sorts of things you think I support doesn't change the domestic politics. An issue has more than one side. Maybe the US will suffer; politically, I can guess that one side will claim the other defanged the US and the other side will claim the first was sloppy about who it let into the country and wasted time pursing political revenge. Tsk, tsk.
Whatever happens, Iran is no longer an aspiring regional middle power for some time to come. Their "infrastructure deficit" has become rather larger than it was.
- Reaction score
- 19,432
- Points
- 1,160
There's a distinction between legal and illegal war and war crimes committed within that war. The former is complicated by the fact that asymmetric warfare is not well defined within the LOAC notwithstanding the attempts made with the Additional Protocols to the GC of 1977.
While the LOAC has always been considered relevant to state on state warfare, the Protocols introduced the notion of "peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist regimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination." Since regime change in 1979, Iran has considered its acts as part of legitimate warfare in defence of the Palestinians under that concept. That has included acts against foreign powers who aid Israel.
Personally, I think Iran stands on weak grounds considering the initial formation of the state of Israel was created by the UN but there has been a lot of water under the bridge since then. I'd be foolish to say who is the unlawful belligerent here since much of the world cannot agree. I think, however, that one can say quite properly that Iran, as a state, has engaged with numerous other states in an undeclared asymmetric war since 1979. Within that war, Iran has on numerous occasions committed acts that constitute war crimes through its own forces and those of its proxies - primarily by acts of violence against civilian populace in numerous countries.
Since there has been a long, ongoing, de facto war, a simple act of violence may not necessarily be a war crime. It depends on the act itself and whether it is in contravention of one or another of the provisions of the LOAC. Deliberately striking a US base in the UAE is not a war crime; deliberately or indiscriminately striking a hotel is.
It's a tough call. There is no general prohibition against destroying enemy property albeit there are various ones respecting, for example cultural objects or ones releasing dangerous forces such as dams or nuclear power plants. IMHO, oil and gas infrastructure would generally not be protected especially if used to support or fund a war effort.
No question: the LOAC is not applied evenly and I doubt it ever really has.
I have grave doubts about that. If countries who have a direct interest in keeping the strait open don't - China, India and Japan for example - then why should we. Moreover some of these are cutting deals with Iran to let their ships through so one can say the problem is solving itself albeit one can argue that point.
I agree we should be taking a lead in negotiations but not physical acts unless and until a framework exists for such a force. That's peacekeeping 101. If it doesn't then you are looking at a peacemaking force which would first need international (read UN) approval and would need to be strong enough to do the job. I don't see that on the horizon.
We currently have non. It's being rebuilt but I have a hard time seeing either of the US or Iran being persuaded by anything Canada has to say. Trump may be looking for a way out of the mess he has generated but he'll want it on his terms. Don't take this as me disagreeing with what Trump has done. Iran needed (still needs) some serious stepping on the but, IMHO, the way this particular phase of what I consider a long standing war was executed leaves a lot to be desired. I think his administration seriously underestimated the resilience, military capability and strategy of the Iranian power core.
Boy! There have been a few posts since I started this response so I'll just stop here for lunch.
Last edited:
