Iran Super Thread- Merged

[The Bread Guy]

In an increasingly transactional world, wonder how this'll play with POTUS47 & Co.?

Russia has provided Iran with information that can help Tehran strike US military, AP sources say

Russia has provided Iran with information that could help Tehran strike American warships, aircraft and other assets in the region.

apnews.com

Russia is providing intelligence to Iran on the location of U.S. forces, sources say

The assistance could help Iran locate American warships, radar or other communication systems, but there's no indication Moscow is helping direct Iranian strikes, sources tell NBC News.

www.nbcnews.com

Official response from the WH according to this:

White House reacts to report Russia helping Iran

The White House dismissed reports that Russia shared intelligence with Iran, saying it has not impacted U.S. military operations in the region.

www.newsweek.com

 

[GR66]

Let me throw out a couple of hypotheticals in relationship to this sinking:

1. US Sub contacts a P-8 and it re-directs from its current mission to contact the Iranian vessel with the challenge to surrender.
   1. What potential risk is there of the P-8 abandoning it's current mission? They don't just fly around for fun.
   2. What is the risk to the P-8? Is the Iranian vessel going to surrender to a radio message only? An unidentified blip on their radar? Or will the P-8 need to get into visual range and display the fact it has weapons that could target the ship before they would be willing to surrender?
   3. Can the P-8 shadow the Iranian vessel all the way to the neutral port to ensure that it complies? Does the US sub have to continue to shadow them to make sure?
2. Assuming that the Iranian ship surrenders is there the possibility that while enroute back to port that they figure out that a US Sub may have been who initially spotted them and sent the P-8 looking for them?
   1. If they determine there is a US sub in the vicinity is there any risk that the Iranians detect them and fire torpedoes at them?
   2. Both China and Russia are allies of Iran (being dependent on oil/drones). Is there the possibility that the Iranians send out a message that they have been detected? What if the Russians or Chinese have their own subs in the vicinity and decide to investigate the situation? If they happened to detect the US submarine could they pass that information on to the Iranian ship so they could possibly attack the sub?
3. The Iranians have intentionally attacked civilian targets and oil infrastructure in order to cause economic damage. What if on the way back to port they come across a foreign tanker and decide to attack it in hopes of sinking it before the US can respond? Or damage the port facilities in Sri Lanka before scuttling themselves blocking the harbour?

The way I see it there are so many possibilities left open by leaving an enemy combatant with the potential to cause damage/chaos in a war. None of these possibilities are at all highly likely, but do you leave the opening there for them?

Whether you agree with the political decision to launch this war or not I think that once hostilities have started you have to act like you are at war and not give any openings to the enemy. During WWII one of the major reasons for the US victory against Japan was the unrestricted submarine warfare against enemy shipping. German U-boats almost did the same to the UK. I don't doubt that in the next major global conflict that it will be similar. I can definitely see Canadian ships and aircraft needing to take out oil tankers, etc. in order to starve China of fuel, etc.

Unfortunately war is not pretty. That's why we need to try so hard to avoid it.

 

[Brad Sallows]

If the goal is to keep the public turned against the government and want to overthrow them with someone that is in the US interest, excessive or cruel acts aren’t necessarily the best way forward.

1. Sinking a warship using a typical anti-ship weapon isn't cruel or excessive.

2. If the Iranian government survives, it's probably best if it has no naval capability greater than a speedboat and no air capability greater than its drones. Destroying every ship, aircraft, launch platform, and other major piece of warfighting equipment is insurance against failure.

 

[Eaglelord17]

1. Sinking a warship using a typical anti-ship weapon isn't cruel or excessive.

2. If the Iranian government survives, it's probably best if it has no naval capability greater than a speedboat and no air capability greater than its drones. Destroying every ship, aircraft, launch platform, and other major piece of warfighting equipment is insurance against failure.

The fact military or former military members are debating whether sinking a unarmed ship without providing a opportunity to surrender is a good thing, should tell you much about how the general public will react to such a move.

If the US wants to be successful in governmental change they need to be seen as the good guys. Messaging matters, and acts of mercy (such as providing a opportunity to surrender) as much as some might view it as weakness, others will view as strength. It signals that they aren’t wanting to just kill Iranians (many of whom will be conscripts not professional soldiers) rather help them remove the regime.

All this nonsense about this being a holy war, bombing schools and such isn’t going to play into the message that the US is the good guys and you should play ball with them.

 

[HavokFour]

In an increasingly transactional world, wonder how this'll play with POTUS47 & Co.?

Russia has provided Iran with information that can help Tehran strike US military, AP sources say

Russia has provided Iran with information that could help Tehran strike American warships, aircraft and other assets in the region.

apnews.com

Russia is providing intelligence to Iran on the location of U.S. forces, sources say

The assistance could help Iran locate American warships, radar or other communication systems, but there's no indication Moscow is helping direct Iranian strikes, sources tell NBC News.

www.nbcnews.com

Official response from the WH according to this:

White House reacts to report Russia helping Iran

The White House dismissed reports that Russia shared intelligence with Iran, saying it has not impacted U.S. military operations in the region.

www.newsweek.com

View attachment 98811

Getting some mixed signals again, because at the same time the admin is saying this.

US could lift sanctions on more Russian oil, says Bessent

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Friday ‌said the United States could remove sanctions from more Russian oil, a day after Washington issued a ⁠30-day waiver allowing the sale of Russian crude currently stranded at sea to continue to India.

www.reuters.com

Would this not be rewarding Russia for helping Iran's efforts in shooting at Americans, or am I crazy?

 

[McG]

The fact military or former military members are debating whether sinking a unarmed ship without providing a opportunity to surrender is a good thing, should tell you much about how the general public will react to such a move.

The fact military or former military members are debating whether sinking a warship without providing a opportunity to surrender is an acceptable thing, should tell you much about how poorly CAF has trained LOAC and military ethics … and now there are potentially a lot of ignorant people in leadership positions ready to make dangerous decisions.

 

[YZT580]

Let me throw out a couple of hypotheticals in relationship to this sinking:

1. US Sub contacts a P-8 and it re-directs from its current mission to contact the Iranian vessel with the challenge to surrender.
   1. What potential risk is there of the P-8 abandoning it's current mission? They don't just fly around for fun.
   2. What is the risk to the P-8? Is the Iranian vessel going to surrender to a radio message only? An unidentified blip on their radar? Or will the P-8 need to get into visual range and display the fact it has weapons that could target the ship before they would be willing to surrender?
   3. Can the P-8 shadow the Iranian vessel all the way to the neutral port to ensure that it complies? Does the US sub have to continue to shadow them to make sure?
2. Assuming that the Iranian ship surrenders is there the possibility that while enroute back to port that they figure out that a US Sub may have been who initially spotted them and sent the P-8 looking for them?
   1. If they determine there is a US sub in the vicinity is there any risk that the Iranians detect them and fire torpedoes at them?
   2. Both China and Russia are allies of Iran (being dependent on oil/drones). Is there the possibility that the Iranians send out a message that they have been detected? What if the Russians or Chinese have their own subs in the vicinity and decide to investigate the situation? If they happened to detect the US submarine could they pass that information on to the Iranian ship so they could possibly attack the sub?
3. The Iranians have intentionally attacked civilian targets and oil infrastructure in order to cause economic damage. What if on the way back to port they come across a foreign tanker and decide to attack it in hopes of sinking it before the US can respond? Or damage the port facilities in Sri Lanka before scuttling themselves blocking the harbour?

The way I see it there are so many possibilities left open by leaving an enemy combatant with the potential to cause damage/chaos in a war. None of these possibilities are at all highly likely, but do you leave the opening there for them?

Whether you agree with the political decision to launch this war or not I think that once hostilities have started you have to act like you are at war and not give any openings to the enemy. During WWII one of the major reasons for the US victory against Japan was the unrestricted submarine warfare against enemy shipping. German U-boats almost did the same to the UK. I don't doubt that in the next major global conflict that it will be similar. I can definitely see Canadian ships and aircraft needing to take out oil tankers, etc. in order to starve China of fuel, etc.

Unfortunately war is not pretty. That's why we need to try so hard to avoid it.

and the sooner we add subs to our inventory the better off we will be.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Scanned a couple of pages on this thread but could not find this article posted. Basically, was/is the Kuwaiti F18 pilot a rogue?

Kuwaiti F/A-18’s Triple Friendly Fire Shootdown Gets Stranger By The Day

Questions mount over the bizarre blue-on-blue incident over Kuwait that resulted in the loss of three U.S. Air Force F-15Es. Questions mount over the bizarre blue-on-blue incident over Kuwait that resulted in the loss of three U.S. Air Force F-15Es.

www.twz.com

 

[HavokFour]

Trying to rope in Australia for whatever reason. Is the war turning more sour than expected? I thought Iran was getting absolutely crushed.

‘Wake up’: Israel calls on Australia to join Middle East war

‘The war is now escalating on all fronts.’

7news.com.au

 

[Good2Golf]

Scanned a couple of pages on this thread but could not find this article posted. Basically, was/is the Kuwaiti F18 pilot a rogue?

Kuwaiti F/A-18’s Triple Friendly Fire Shootdown Gets Stranger By The Day

Questions mount over the bizarre blue-on-blue incident over Kuwait that resulted in the loss of three U.S. Air Force F-15Es. Questions mount over the bizarre blue-on-blue incident over Kuwait that resulted in the loss of three U.S. Air Force F-15Es.

www.twz.com

Wow, and a Legacy C-model, not a Super Hornet apparently…

Trying to rope in Australia for whatever reason. Is the war turning more sour than expected? I thought Iran was getting absolutely crushed.

‘Wake up’: Israel calls on Australia to join Middle East war

‘The war is now escalating on all fronts.’

7news.com.au

Sure, insult them and “wake up”’to join the side of might…

 

[OldSolduer]

1. Sinking a warship using a typical anti-ship weapon isn't cruel or excessive.

You're right on that account.

Before our next big war I would like to tell all of you in a real shooting war you don't give them a chance to surrender. No announcements, nothing unless they are under a white flag of surrender and even then keep them covered by fire.

Soft heads will get you and your troops killed.
"Playing fair" will get you and your troops killed.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Huh, interesting

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

 

[RangerRay]

View attachment 98811

Why am I not surprised? Wouldn’t want to ruffle feathers with Vlad…

All this nonsense about this being a holy war, bombing schools and such isn’t going to play into the message that the US is the good guys and you should play ball with them.

Here’s more on the “end times theology” invited into the military.

End-times rhetoric in US military ‘didn’t infiltrate, was invited in’

Use of Christian apocalyptic language by commanders reflects a climate shaped from the top down, says one Cornell expert. Another adds: the belief that Christians should actively bring about the end times rests on a misreading of the Book of Revelation.

as.cornell.edu

“Over 110 service members across every branch and more than 30 installations have reported commanders framing the Iran war as fulfillment of biblical prophecy. That pattern is consistent with what we've seen at the top of the Defense Department: prayer services at the Pentagon, affiliation with pastors who advocate Christian theocracy, a Bible study that preaches divine obligation to support Israel. End-times theology didn't infiltrate the military. It was invited in.

 

[armrdsoul77]

Scanned a couple of pages on this thread but could not find this article posted. Basically, was/is the Kuwaiti F18 pilot a rogue?

Kuwaiti F/A-18’s Triple Friendly Fire Shootdown Gets Stranger By The Day

Questions mount over the bizarre blue-on-blue incident over Kuwait that resulted in the loss of three U.S. Air Force F-15Es. Questions mount over the bizarre blue-on-blue incident over Kuwait that resulted in the loss of three U.S. Air Force F-15Es.

www.twz.com

Not once,not twice,but thrice.

 

[RangerRay]

He’s easily offended when this is brought up. Most leaders would take this kind of information very seriously

 

[PuckChaser]

Who's going to be the reason we move this thread to the politics area and lose half the contributors? Maybe we don't need the political cheapshots for such a serious issue.

- Milnet.ca Staff

 

[Brad Sallows]

The fact military or former military members are debating whether sinking a unarmed ship without providing a opportunity to surrender is a good thing, should tell you much about how the general public will react to such a move.

I suppose decades of restrictive peacekeeping and peace enforcement RoEs have polluted minds. Moreover, too many people have forgotten they're second-guessing things with the advantage of hindsight and a web browser instead of making decisions in the situation with the information and orders at hand.

The general public is hopelessly misinformed. Some even try to promulgate the view that it's somewhere between unfair and illegal for western forces to be able to inflict disproportionate casualties.

Use this opportunity to inform them.

If the US wants to be successful in governmental change

The US isn't attempting to change the government. It's attempting to create conditions for Iranians to change their own government.

 

[OldSolduer]

Way back when I was taking my ISCC we were out doing section attacks. Some of my peers thought you had to be fired on before you could attack.
I wasn’t one of them. When it was my turn we spotted them early and attacked with no warning.
That’s how it’s done in war.