Iran Super Thread- Merged

[Remius]

Iran had to be dealt with and its been coming 40 years. Some are just upset about who is doing it.

Go read about Operation Ajax and the subsequent fallout from that.

The US is a big reason why that Regime exists.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

I'd like to see what "participation" would look like with the current state of the CAF. Whipping out the CF-18s?

Do you have anything positive at all to say about the CAF, or in fact Canada? I suppose that leading the MNB in Latvia is a colossal waste of time / demonstration of Canada's complete uselessness? FOM operations in SE Asia?

I can't remember if you are still serving, but if you are, it must be hard to find the motivation, (other than financial) for you to go to work every day.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

I think the US has an exceptional track record of winning. achieving clearly defined military objectives in the first 4 phases of conflict

That part is indisputable.

Phase 5 is hard, and I have the scars to prove it from deployments with the US (one NATO, the others not) in three theatres that struggled with planning and executing the what next part of operations. My time in the Pentagon also allowed me a close up view of the planning, process, culture, etc.

So based on my experience, absent any clearly defined objectives post "smash it all without stupid rules of engagement", this war of choice is likely to have the same outcomes

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Call it want you want its a violent conflict.



As I said previously that's a legitimate target. People in the Navy have to wrap their heads around the fact we are first and foremost a war fighting organization. Everything else is secondary.

View attachment 98782



What did Jean Chretien say when the US wanted us to go into Iraq ? What did he say about Canadian Gov support for the invasion of Iraq ?

And how would that best serve the nation's interests? What geopolitical objectives would saying no advance?

Imagine if Trudeau would have said no fucking way, closing that door, and confining Canada's options in the coming months? Would you have supported that?

 

[KevinB]

Is it more likely the professionals in the US military provided the US Administration with a very comprehensive options analysis with follow on assumptions and plans? Following that the deciders make the decision and accept the requisite risks associated?

Military yes, but that doesn’t apply to geopolitical. That is the realm of Foggy Bottom (Department of State).

I have much less faith in that, based on a lot of personal experience, and public examples for decades.

Or are you truly stuck in this space where everyone down there are bumbling fools not thinking about 5 min after?

I suggest this has been in planning and prep for a long time. Just tracking the intelligence and assembling the target packages would have been massive and an ongoing flow.

The Military side is a part of the equation, but the majority of issues that I think most here have concerns about aren’t specifically related to that.

Both Iraq and Afghanistan had the best leadership options cut out before a new government could be formed.
Sept 10 2001 saw ‘The Lion of Pansjir’ Ahmad Shah Massoud killed by AlQ as part of the deal with the Taliban for sanctuary.
In Iraq the Grand Ayatollah Majid al-Khoei was hacked to death by a crowd of Al Sadr’s forces in Najaf in 2003.

 

[Halifax Tar]

And how would that best serve the nation's interests? What geopolitical objectives would saying no advance?

Is there anything more geopolitically beneficial than a sovereign nation acting like a sovereign nation ?

Imagine if Trudeau would have said no fucking way, closing that door, and confining Canada's options in the coming months? Would you have supported that?

Now we're playing alternate history or SciFi I like it. I'm going to need to convene about that for a while in introspection while I contemplate whipping out a 6 pack of F18s.

I've never said that I think Canada should or shouldn't get involved in Iran. But I am sure the LPC base will love it if Carney weeble wabbles us into sending us over to secure better positioning for CUSMA.

I think its pretty obvious the US really doesn't care if we approve or participate.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Is there anything more geopolitically beneficial than a sovereign nation acting like a sovereign nation ?

Show me how we are not acting like a sovereign nation. The GoC has refused to be drawn into deciding on a key issue by a reporter posing a hypothetical in a foreign country? That sounds like the act of a sovereign country to me. You know. Making decisions one one's own terms in pursuit of national objectives.

Speaking of hypotheticals, if the CPC was governing right now, what should the answer of been? Hell no?

Any thoughts on the potential second and third order effects of saying hell no? NORAD anyone? Punitive tariffs? Etc?

Can you identify any positive geopolitical benefits (and follow on effects) that would reaped by saying Hell No, in what others have reminded us is the first week of this war?

 

[brihard]

I'm not sure this is the kind of thing that gets a people to rise up.

Trump says he needs to be involved in selecting Iran's next leader, Axios reports

U.S. President Donald Trump told Axios on Thursday that he needs to ‌be personally involved in selecting Iran's next leader.

www.reuters.com

Yeah that may not have a net beneficial effect on the attitudes of the Iranian people…

 

[ytz]

I think the US has an exceptional track record of winning.

Nation building afterwards has always been the problem

Win the battle. Lose the war.

This is not a minor detail. Iran was emboldened by the US failing to create a stable country in Iraq. A failing that was a deliberate result of their ignorance, notably the American policy of "de-Baathification" that massively fueled the insurgency there (fueled by a tens to hundred of thousands of suddenly unemployed ex-military, police, etc). This then led to ISIS and subsequently massive resource draws that basically made it impossible to win in Afghanistan.

Where would the US be today if they hadn't f'd up in Iraq? Afghanistan might have gone better. They'd have trillions less in debt. Iran would have to perpetually worry about both a hostile Iraq and a strong US, possibly with bases next door in Afghanistan. ISIS wouldn't have happened. Most importantly they would have substantially more flexibilixity for the strategic competition with China.

Amazing to me that after all these years, poor American choices are handwaved away. And the blame for these states to regain stability is attributed to them and their "culture". Maybe if they're so incapable of doing the nation building part, they shouldn't get into wars that will inevitably require them to nation build? Just a thought. They can easily destroy Iran's military capabilities without resorting to a desire to commit regime change.

I don't even like the regime. Their history is ghastly. But I don't see this as leading to anything but a worse net outcome for anybody but the strategic rivals of the US.

 

[Remius]

Is there anything more geopolitically beneficial than a sovereign nation acting like a sovereign nation ?



Now we're playing alternate history or SciFi I like it. I'm going to need to convene about that for a while in introspection while I contemplate whipping out a 6 pack of F18s.

I've never said that I think Canada should or shouldn't get involved in Iran. But I am sure the LPC base will love it if Carney weeble wabbles us into sending us over to secure better positioning for CUSMA.

I think it’s pretty obvious the US really doesn't care if we approve or participate.

You have been at least up to this point very much against spending any blood and treasure on foreign entanglements.

 

[ytz]

Military yes, but that doesn’t apply to geopolitical. That is the realm of Foggy Bottom (Department of State).

I have much less faith in that, based on a lot of personal experience, and public examples for decades.

Doesn't help if the State Dept (and equivalents in other governments) are treated as optional niceties. Didn't Rubio cull a whole bunch?

 

[ytz]

I'm not sure this is the kind of thing that gets a people to rise up.

Trump says he needs to be involved in selecting Iran's next leader, Axios reports

U.S. President Donald Trump told Axios on Thursday that he needs to ‌be personally involved in selecting Iran's next leader.

www.reuters.com

Every day these guys are really proving the trope of ignorant Westerners trying to rule from afar. The more he talks the less likely he's making regime change.

 

[Lumber]

THIS is what should have happened with the Dena.

https://www.news18.com/world/sri-lanka-to-take-control-of-iranian-ship-iris-bushehr-after-us-torpedoed-iris-dena-ws-l-9944861.html

 

[OldSolduer]

I am not against sending troops into harms way, but neither am I for it.

IF the GoC decides it needs to send troops in any capacity, they better be properly equipped and led. The CDS and others have to make theat very clear.

 

[Lumber]

This isn't a capability that the Americans need from us, USSOCOM alone is larger than our entire Armed Forces.

I wasn't opining as to whether the Americans would need or want our help, rather it was a retort to the implication that nothing Canada has could be of value to the Americans in this contest.

 

[Halifax Tar]

You have been at least up to this point very much against spending any blood and treasure on foreign entanglements in Europe.

Important detail.

Show me how we are not acting like a sovereign nation. The GoC has refused to be drawn into deciding on a key issue by a reporter posing a hypothetical in a foreign country? That sounds like the act of a sovereign country to me. You know. Making decisions one one's own terms in pursuit of national objectives.

What decision has been made ? It sounds like typical weeble wabbling to me.

If we have categorically come out and said yes or no I honestly missed that.

Speaking of hypotheticals, if the CPC was governing right now, what should the answer of been? Hell no?

I'm not playing what if games. I believe I alluded to that above.

Any thoughts on the potential second and third order effects of saying hell no? NORAD anyone? Punitive tariffs? Etc?

We said no in 2003 and survived second and third order effects. And we had a strong economy before Free trade.

I doubt we'd register. A nasty tweet maybe ? Or what ever you call a post on Truth Social.

Can you identify any positive geopolitical benefits (and follow on effects) that would reaped by saying Hell No, in what others have reminded us is the first week of this war?

I dunno maybe we will get to find out.