Iran Super Thread- Merged

[Maxman1]

Agreed. Not disputing any of that. I was just pointing out that all ships that had participated in the exercise were supposedly unarmed.

There is absolutely no way the sub could know that.

And we still don't know what "unarmed for the exercise" even means. It would be absurd for a warship to sail that distance to and from a foreign port with no ammo whatsoever. It could be all weapon systems were simply unloaded, or it could mean all ammo was offloaded in India before the exercise and loaded afterwards, the former being more likely given there was a live fire component.

In any case, the "unarmed for the exercise" bit is irrelevant to whether it was a legitimate target or not.

I am talking about winning the war, not the battle. In WWII, the French fleet was given the option to switch sides or be sunk.

The French were still allies at that point.

a unarmed ship

See above.

 

[GR66]

There is absolutely no way the sub could know that.

And we still don't know what "unarmed for the exercise" even means. It would be absurd for a warship to sail that distance to and from a foreign port with no ammo whatsoever. It could be all weapon systems were simply unloaded, or it could mean all ammo was offloaded in India before the exercise and loaded afterwards, the former being more likely given there was a live fire component.

In any case, the "unarmed for the exercise" bit is irrelevant to whether it was a legitimate target or not.

The French were still allies at that point.

See above.

The 2nd Iranian ship in the area, the IRINS Bushehr that docked in Sri Lanka was a Bandar Abbas-class fleet supply ship. Anyone able to say for certain that given the ongoing US military build-up leading up to the war that they didn't re-arm the IRNS Dena after the exercise completed?

[edited to add] Or that they were planning to re-arm in order to take action against military or US/Gulf State flagged merchant shipping?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

There is absolutely no way the sub could know that.

I don't think that one of the roughly 35 to 40 deployable American SSN around the world at any given time just happened by accident upon that Iranian frigate. IMHO, US intelligence knew from open source information (after all, a USN ship was supposed to participate) that it was in India, that the exercise was over and it had sailed, most likely for home, and therefore, that SSN was set upon the frigate intentionally.

My real question is, what information was the Iranian frigate given by its headquarter as to the situation they were about to sail into. I mean, did anyone actually think it could just sail back home through the strait of Hormuz with combat going on in the region and the US having a whole fleet operating in the Indian ocean/Arabian gulf in the area just South of the strait? That would be a suicide mission if they thought their frigate had a greater than zero chance of inflicting damage to the US vessels with only 4 Noor/C-802 sub sonic SSM's and the US warships knowing it was on its way to the Gulf?

 

[Czech_pivo]

Iran is a global pariah and a massive cause of death and destruction. They are also responsible for sending much of the poison that fills our streets with drug induced zombies. They provided weapons and training to our enemies. They hold the entire region hostage.

Bomb the living shit out of them. This bandaid needed to be ripped off and dealt with. No Iranian Vessel, flagged or not should be allowed safe quarter. Strangle their economy, attrite their capacity to damage others.

And then what?

The US has never had any trouble in the past or today in achieving that. But what comes next? You're showing your military thinking/training here but what must come next is the non-military thinking/training. And that is, 'how does the US (and the West?) prevent the vacuum that comes out of what you've described above being filled by another ISIS, by a larger, more dangerous version of the Syrian Civil War or by another despot, even if its a despot supported by the US.

An Iranian Civil War will crush the economies of the Gulf States and will more likely pull one or more of them in a Civil War as well. Can the world economy deal with that outcome? An Iranian Civil War will result in millions and millions refugees being absorbed by their neighbouring countries and beyond, Europe, by proximity. It will be another case of us in here Canada being able to smugly say, 'Thank God for the Atlantic Ocean, the Arctic and America', otherwise we'd have 1-2million on our streets.

Can India/Pakistan/The Philippines deal with the loss of employment of tens of thousands of young men if they can no longer go to the Gulf for work? Can their economies absorb the loss of remittance money flowing back into them that support hundred of thousands of family members? Can they themselves deal with tens of thousands of newly unemployed men roaming their streets and countryside searching for work?

What happens if the world's fertilizer output coming from the Gulf Region falls by 20% or 35% or even higher? Does that lead to less food being grown around the world? Does famine appear in Africa or somewhere in SE Asia? Does that lead to a new Civil War occurring in those areas? Does it start 2 Civil Wars, how about 5? How many new refugees will be coming from these areas? How many will try their luck in a dingy crossing the Med for Italy, Greece or Spain?

What if the oil/gas supply in the entire region falls by 10% or 25% or even higher? What does that do the price of gas back in the US? $4/gallon? $6/gallon? Higher? How big of a recession do we see? How many homes/businesses/loss of employment happen? Does this 'force' China, India and maybe even the EU to turn back to Russian oil/gas in order to keep their lights on, their homes heated and the factories working? Does this result in Ukraine going under as Russia has the new found money to keep the war going. Does that mean Canada/NATO gets pulled even deeper into the eastern flank of the NATO border?

I have never had any doubt that the US could not achieve 'total victory' militarily in Iran. I am also of the belief that the regime of religious fanatics running the place should be wiped out completely, they should have been wiped out over 10yrs ago, 20yrs ago, 30yrs ago, but nothing happened. But if the amount of planning that went into the military side was something like 1million man/hours of effort, then the amount of time/planning dealing with the political side, the 'what if' side of things, should be at least triple the amount of effort.

There's an old saying, 'Its easy to destroy something but its much harder to rebuild it after', this rings true with that is currently going on now.

 

[Good2Golf]

That comes from not being in a fight since Korea.

The culture will take a beating when the ball drops. I have faith we can readjust our arcs though.

It was pretty involved in Guld War 1…

 

[Kirkhill]

And then what?

The US has never had any trouble in the past or today in achieving that. But what comes next? You're showing your military thinking/training here but what must come next is the non-military thinking/training. And that is, 'how does the US (and the West?) prevent the vacuum that comes out of what you've described above being filled by another ISIS, by a larger, more dangerous version of the Syrian Civil War or by another despot, even if its a despot supported by the US.

An Iranian Civil War will crush the economies of the Gulf States and will more likely pull one or more of them in a Civil War as well. Can the world economy deal with that outcome? An Iranian Civil War will result in millions and millions refugees being absorbed by their neighbouring countries and beyond, Europe, by proximity. It will be another case of us in here Canada being able to smugly say, 'Thank God for the Atlantic Ocean, the Arctic and America', otherwise we'd have 1-2million on our streets.

Can India/Pakistan/The Philippines deal with the loss of employment of tens of thousands of young men if they can no longer go to the Gulf for work? Can their economies absorb the loss of remittance money flowing back into them that support hundred of thousands of family members? Can they themselves deal with tens of thousands of newly unemployed men roaming their streets and countryside searching for work?

What happens if the world's fertilizer output coming from the Gulf Region falls by 20% or 35% or even higher? Does that lead to less food being grown around the world? Does famine appear in Africa or somewhere in SE Asia? Does that lead to a new Civil War occurring in those areas? Does it start 2 Civil Wars, how about 5? How many new refugees will be coming from these areas? How many will try their luck in a dingy crossing the Med for Italy, Greece or Spain?

What if the oil/gas supply in the entire region falls by 10% or 25% or even higher? What does that do the price of gas back in the US? $4/gallon? $6/gallon? Higher? How big of a recession do we see? How many homes/businesses/loss of employment happen? Does this 'force' China, India and maybe even the EU to turn back to Russian oil/gas in order to keep their lights on, their homes heated and the factories working? Does this result in Ukraine going under as Russia has the new found money to keep the war going. Does that mean Canada/NATO gets pulled even deeper into the eastern flank of the NATO border?

I have never had any doubt that the US could not achieve 'total victory' militarily in Iran. I am also of the belief that the regime of religious fanatics running the place should be wiped out completely, they should have been wiped out over 10yrs ago, 20yrs ago, 30yrs ago, but nothing happened. But if the amount of planning that went into the military side was something like 1million man/hours of effort, then the amount of time/planning dealing with the political side, the 'what if' side of things, should be at least triple the amount of effort.

There's an old saying, 'Its easy to destroy something but its much harder to rebuild it after', this rings true with that is currently going on now.

I just read a Niall Ferguson substack article where he introduced the phrase "Regime Alteration"

Not "Regime Change"

I have been thinking in terms of street hustlers (Don King and Donald Trump) and 3-Card Monte.
Perhaps the game is the ancient one of dice.
You put the dice in a cup.
You give it a rattle.
You turn them out.
You examine the results.
You don't like the results.
You put the dice in a cup.
You give it a rattle.....

Repeat as long as you are entertained or until the money runs out.

.....

America has demonstrated that no matter how much money is spent on a single shake of the dice, no matter how long they spend trying to manage the outcome, how long they spend shaking the cup, the end result is still pretty random.

Plan B is to shake the cup, toss the dice, examine the results, shake the cup, toss the dice...... repeat until satisfied or broke.
In this case the dice are living people with agency making decisions.
Perhaps they will tire of being shaken up.
America can afford to shake dice like this many times.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

And then what?

The US has never had any trouble in the past or today in achieving that. But what comes next? You're showing your military thinking/training here but what must come next is the non-military thinking/training. And that is, 'how does the US (and the West?) prevent the vacuum that comes out of what you've described above being filled by another ISIS, by a larger, more dangerous version of the Syrian Civil War or by another despot, even if its a despot supported by the US.

An Iranian Civil War will crush the economies of the Gulf States and will more likely pull one or more of them in a Civil War as well. Can the world economy deal with that outcome? An Iranian Civil War will result in millions and millions refugees being absorbed by their neighbouring countries and beyond, Europe, by proximity. It will be another case of us in here Canada being able to smugly say, 'Thank God for the Atlantic Ocean, the Arctic and America', otherwise we'd have 1-2million on our streets.

Can India/Pakistan/The Philippines deal with the loss of employment of tens of thousands of young men if they can no longer go to the Gulf for work? Can their economies absorb the loss of remittance money flowing back into them that support hundred of thousands of family members? Can they themselves deal with tens of thousands of newly unemployed men roaming their streets and countryside searching for work?

What happens if the world's fertilizer output coming from the Gulf Region falls by 20% or 35% or even higher? Does that lead to less food being grown around the world? Does famine appear in Africa or somewhere in SE Asia? Does that lead to a new Civil War occurring in those areas? Does it start 2 Civil Wars, how about 5? How many new refugees will be coming from these areas? How many will try their luck in a dingy crossing the Med for Italy, Greece or Spain?

What if the oil/gas supply in the entire region falls by 10% or 25% or even higher? What does that do the price of gas back in the US? $4/gallon? $6/gallon? Higher? How big of a recession do we see? How many homes/businesses/loss of employment happen? Does this 'force' China, India and maybe even the EU to turn back to Russian oil/gas in order to keep their lights on, their homes heated and the factories working? Does this result in Ukraine going under as Russia has the new found money to keep the war going. Does that mean Canada/NATO gets pulled even deeper into the eastern flank of the NATO border?

I have never had any doubt that the US could not achieve 'total victory' militarily in Iran. I am also of the belief that the regime of religious fanatics running the place should be wiped out completely, they should have been wiped out over 10yrs ago, 20yrs ago, 30yrs ago, but nothing happened. But if the amount of planning that went into the military side was something like 1million man/hours of effort, then the amount of time/planning dealing with the political side, the 'what if' side of things, should be at least triple the amount of effort.

There's an old saying, 'Its easy to destroy something but its much harder to rebuild it after', this rings true with that is currently going on now.

Your argument assumes the worst-case outcome of regime change while also treating the current situation as stable, which it clearly isn’t. Iran is already one of the primary sources of instability in the Middle East through proxy wars, militia funding, and regional interference. The “vacuum” you’re worried about isn’t hypothetical, it’s already being filled by Tehran’s activities across Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Gaza.

Secondly, the cascading global collapse scenario you describe assumes multiple worst-case events happening simultaneously: regional war, refugee crises, fertilizer shortages, oil shocks, and global recession. Strategic planning absolutely considers those risks, but treating the most catastrophic chain of events as the most likely outcome leads to paralysis. Energy markets, supply chains, and international systems have historically adapted to disruptions far larger than the removal of a single regime.

Finally, leaving a destabilizing regime in place indefinitely isn’t a risk-free option, it simply kicks the problem forward while allowing it to grow more dangerous and entrenched. Planning for the political aftermath is essential, but assuming that any change must automatically produce something worse than the current trajectory ignores the fact that the status quo is already producing the instability you’re concerned about.

 

[Czech_pivo]

I just read a Niall Ferguson substack article where he introduced the phrase "Regime Alteration"

Not "Regime Change"

I have been thinking in terms of street hustlers (Don King and Donald Trump) and 3-Card Monte.
Perhaps the game is the ancient one of dice.
You put the dice in a cup.
You give it a rattle.
You turn them out.
You examine the results.
You don't like the results.
You put the dice in a cup.
You give it a rattle.....

Repeat as long as you are entertained or until the money runs out.

.....

America has demonstrated that no matter how much money is spent on a single shake of the dice, no matter how long they spend trying to manage the outcome, how long they spend shaking the cup, the end result is still pretty random.

Plan B is to shake the cup, toss the dice, examine the results, shake the cup, toss the dice...... repeat until satisfied or broke.
In this case the dice are living people with agency making decisions.
Perhaps they will tire of being shaken up.
America can afford to shake dice like this many times.

They can up until the point that the rest of the world stops buying US T-Bills. IF that occurs, the cup is broken and the dice are lost.

 

[Kirkhill]

They can up until the point that the rest of the world stops buying US T-Bills. IF that occurs, the cup is broken and the dice are lost.

As I said, you keep shaking until you run out of interest or money.

If it is no longer in the US interest to keep shaking then it will stop.

In the mean time they have shaken many cups.

The alternative to date has been to spend many dollars and lives on a single throw. That makes the game more like roulette.
And the rest of the world stops buying T-Bills in any case.
Or worse laughs at the US.
Or, worse still, ignores them.

I don't think anybody is ignoring the US today.


....

Perhaps this is Trump's Codicile to the Roosevelt Doctrine - What's the point of a big stick if people ignore it?

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

As I said, you keep shaking until you run out of interest or money.

If it is no longer in the US interest to keep shaking then it will stop.

In the mean time they have shaken many cups.

The alternative to date has been to spend many dollars and lives on a single throw. That makes the game more like roulette.
And the rest of the world stops buying T-Bills in any case.
Or worse laughs at the US.
Or, worse still, ignores them.

I don't think anybody is ignoring the US today.

Nobody is ignoring them anymore.

When insurance companies speak, Govts generally listen:

Lloyd's Stands Ready to Work With U.S. on Insurance for Hormuz Transits

War risk insurance remains available for shipping in the Strait of Hormuz and Arabian Gulf, according to Lloyd's of London, despite the decision of s...

maritime-executive.com

I get the feeling that Downing Street and the Europeans are about to find out again, like they did in the Suez, why you don't cross Uncle Sam.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Your argument assumes the worst-case outcome of regime change while also treating the current situation as stable, which it clearly isn’t. Iran is already one of the primary sources of instability in the Middle East through proxy wars, militia funding, and regional interference. The “vacuum” you’re worried about isn’t hypothetical, it’s already being filled by Tehran’s activities across Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Gaza.

Secondly, the cascading global collapse scenario you describe assumes multiple worst-case events happening simultaneously: regional war, refugee crises, fertilizer shortages, oil shocks, and global recession. Strategic planning absolutely considers those risks, but treating the most catastrophic chain of events as the most likely outcome leads to paralysis. Energy markets, supply chains, and international systems have historically adapted to disruptions far larger than the removal of a single regime.

Finally, leaving a destabilizing regime in place indefinitely isn’t a risk-free option, it simply kicks the problem forward while allowing it to grow more dangerous and entrenched. Planning for the political aftermath is essential, but assuming that any change must automatically produce something worse than the current trajectory ignores the fact that the status quo is already producing the instability you’re concerned about.

Yes - it assumes that worst case scenarios. Do you not plan for the worst case scenario in a military engagement? In any engagement?

What happens when Iran, the puppet master becomes the puppet? Then what? As for Iran being a 'single regime', I'd like to remind you that that single regime controls the 3rd or 4th (depending on which source used) largest oil deposits in the world. IF a stable, 'western' leaning or even 'neutral' regime was installed and stability occurred, the amount of new investment/capital that would flow into the country is staggering and it would have the chance to alter the balance of 'power' in the region and around the world. Iran is a country of 93 million people - it is by far the largest player in the regime.

I pull on those threads because a fair number of them have already started - Has Qatar stopped aluminum production? Has Qatar said that its energy exports are 'days away' from stopping? Has the US and Israel talked openly about supporting Iranian Kurds in creating mayhem in their respected areas with Iran? Is there already political unrest on the Baloch areas in Pakistan which could easily cross the border into Baloch Iran?

Businesses respond to uncertainty by pulling back on investment, on conserving capital or by looking for alternative partners or new export markets. Look around you now here in Canada, its happening to us on a daily basis because of the US tariffs and CUSMA uncertainty.

Lastly I didn't and don't suggest leaving any 'destabilizing regime' in place. Please go back and reread what I said. I said that the effort required after the last bomb falls is at least 3X greater than what was required to drop the bomb in the first place. I DO NOT believe that anything close to that effort has even been contemplated.

 

[Kirkhill]

Nobody is ignoring them anymore.

When insurance companies speak, Govts generally listen:

Lloyd's Stands Ready to Work With U.S. on Insurance for Hormuz Transits

War risk insurance remains available for shipping in the Strait of Hormuz and Arabian Gulf, according to Lloyd's of London, despite the decision of s...

maritime-executive.com

I get the feeling that Downing Street and the Europeans are about to find out again, like they did in the Suez, why you don't cross Uncle Sam.

They are also demonstrating that Grotius, Hakluyt and Mahan had it right.
With that in mind, aerospace is an extension of the waves. Sea, air and space domains are all functionally equivalent. So, for that matter, I guess, is the electro-magnetic domain.

 

[Kirkhill]

Yes - it assumes that worst case scenarios. Do you not plan for the worst case scenario in a military engagement? In any engagement?

What happens when Iran, the puppet master becomes the puppet? Then what? As for Iran being a 'single regime', I'd like to remind you that that single regime controls the 3rd or 4th (depending on which source used) largest oil deposits in the world. IF a stable, 'western' leaning or even 'neutral' regime was installed and stability occurred, the amount of new investment/capital that would flow into the country is staggering and it would have the chance to alter the balance of 'power' in the region and around the world. Iran is a country of 93 million people - it is by far the largest player in the regime.

I pull on those threads because a fair number of them have already started - Has Qatar stopped aluminum production? Has Qatar said that its energy exports are 'days away' from stopping? Has the US and Israel talked openly about supporting Iranian Kurds in creating mayhem in their respected areas with Iran? Is there already political unrest on the Baloch areas in Pakistan which could easily cross the border into Baloch Iran?

Businesses respond to uncertainty by pulling back on investment, on conserving capital or by looking for alternative partners or new export markets. Look around you now here in Canada, its happening to us on a daily basis because of the US tariffs and CUSMA uncertainty.

Lastly I didn't and don't suggest leaving any 'destabilizing regime' in place. Please go back and reread what I said. I said that the effort required after the last bomb falls is at least 3X greater than what was required to drop the bomb in the first place. I DO NOT believe that anything close to that effort has even been contemplated.

But the cost of any disturbance is not borne by just the initiator, be he president or ayatollah. Everybody is forced to react to the disturbance and, eventually, the disturbance fades and people live with the changes and start planning their own disturbances.

....

In an ideal free world, there are no puppets and puppet masters, Every individual has agency. Glorious chaos.

 

[Czech_pivo]

But the cost of any disturbance is not borne by just the initiator, be he president or ayatollah. Everybody is forced to react to the disturbance and, eventually, the disturbance fades and people live with the changes and start planning their own disturbances.

....

In an ideal free world, there are no puppets and puppet masters, Every individual has agency. Glorious chaos.

Yes, true - only because the initiator is either geographically thousands of km away, or in the case of Israel, safely took under their on nuclear umbrella.

 

[Kirkhill]

Two visions

 

[Kirkhill]

Yes, true - only because the initiator is either geographically thousands of km away, or in the case of Israel, safely took under their on nuclear umbrella.

The Ayatollah was an initiator. Putin and Xi are initiators. Gerry Adams is an initiator. The Pro-Palestine kids are initiators. So are Danielle Smith, Pierre Poilievre and Mark Carney. All of their actions and utterances have consequences that disturb.

I get to choose how to react. And if I disturb.