Iran Super Thread- Merged

[OldSolduer]

Why would we be upset about DJT removing a brutal communist dictatorship in Cuba? Canadians gonna miss cheap rum and shitty resorts?

That’s precisely what the chattering fools will complain about.
We’ve lost our way morally and ethically.

 

[QV]

That’s precisely what the chattering fools will complain about.
We’ve lost our way morally and ethically.

The same fools who loudly proclaim they are boycotting the USA gladly go and support a communist dictatorship in Cuba or a drug cartel owned resort in Mexico.

 

[Good2Golf]

This isn't really a problem for the Americans per se. As I stated above, they are energy independent so they may feel a little price tag shock at the pumps but they are the least impacted by this. It hurts their adversaries far more than it hurts them.

Perhaps not a ‘short-term’ problem for America per se. However, the petrodollar has never been at risk like it is now. If America retreats to frack-frack-fracking and buying 1.5Tbbls of Canadian WSC a year to flaunt its energy independence, having unbalanced the M.E., it’s only a matter of time until the petroyuan becomes a thing. It’s only a matter of time now, because I don’t think America has enough truly-strategic vision to keep the petrodollar alive.

 

[Cloud Cover]

If you’re Trump right now:

- How do I get out of this?

Israel: you’re not going anywhere;
Russia: you’re doing fine keep going. 3 more days to victory!
China: we love the smell of failure in the morning, it smells like victory.
NATO: err, uggg, not our mandate.
Japan and South Korea: wtf Donnie?
Canada: yes, no, never, maybe, no, Islamophobia is real, what about the arktik and climate change?
France: let me finish this smoke first and I’ll let you know.
UK: we ruled the waves
Board of Peace: we’re broke because of you.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

And while some may have immediately decried it as a failure, others among us immediately questioned whether the U.S. had actually applied proper strategic foresight to this, and whether they had properly considered risks and mapped out a realistic and viable theory of victory. Thus far the evidence at hand still does not really suggest that they have done those things. Clearly this has not gone quite as planned or intended, and it’s made the pronouncements of victory in the first days ring a bit hollow in light of the continued (and very much still to come) economic chaos, and the barely veiled threats that a purported allies had better help bail the U.S. out of its own mess.

To try to fob all these concerns and observations off as ‘Trump Derangement Syndrome’ is silly and disingenuous, and basically tries to ad hominem around valid critiques being levied at Trump’s strategizing.

Can you explain to me what YOU believe American/Israeli strategic objectives are?

I'll tell you what I believe they are, but I want to hear what you think they are...

I believe there are two immediate military objectives:

Nuclear Disarmament: Preventing Iran from developing or pursuing nuclear weapons.
Military Capacity Reduction: Destruction of Iran's missile production, missile stockpiles, and navy.

These are ongoing and the Israeli/American coalition is achieving considerable success.

I believe this is a medium-term military objective:

Proxy Network Neutralization: Stripping away the "Axis of Resistance" (e.g., Hamas, Hezbollah).

Israel is mobilizing and looks poised to invade Southern Lebanon. Iran has been considerably weakened in Syria and elsewhere. The Houthi problem still needs to be resolved but the Saudis/Gulf States may be able to make a move there with Iran tied up at home.

I believe these two are longer-term strategic objectives:

Regional Hegemony Control: Impoe a new, more stable regional security architecture and eliminating Iran's ability to project power.
Regime Change/Collapse: Topple the current Iranian leadership or make them subservient to American hegemony.

Ongoing but this will not happen overnight.

Bigger picture and longer term we have further erosion in trust for the U.S., further erosion in the strength of America’s diplomatic relationships, long term harm to the economic and social security of the Gulf states, significant depletion of exquisite munitions, attrition of some very expensive defense capabilities, and a relative strengthening of China against the U.S.. All of these were foreseeable and foreseen, and were warned about.

This move is being done at the behest of the Gulf States. The leadership there is encouraging Trump in private. They are our Allies in the region and want the Iranians weakened. They also get it done without really having a lift a finger. It's a win-win for them.

Fortunately the U.S. military has lost few people so far and I hope that remains the case.

There does not appear to be any easy off ramp for Trump that will achieve whatever strategic objectives we’re able to discern. Iran remains an industrialized country of 90+ million with a technically capable and educated workforce, it has a lot of mountains to bury things under, and hardliners have much more ammunition now in the perennial power dynamics.

Any of this could change and I’ll reassess if it does. To this point a negative assessment of the trajectory the U.S. strategy is on is both grounded in fact and is reasonable.

Explain how it's a negative trajectory and why you believe this to be the case?

 

[Brad Sallows]

Great, then they’ve got it all under control and all figured out. They don’t need anyone in NATO to go to the Strait of H or Japan, China or Australia to help them.
Good, end of this story, nothing more for us to talk about here.

Maybe for what they want they don't actually need any of that. They have a game; they're setting the rules and playing it; they invite others to join on those terms. Do other nations need the US more than the US needs them?

Israel is part of this. Preventive war is a no-no. The Iranian government is run by militant religious fanatics who don't like Israel and the US, have said so repeatedly, and are openly working on nuclear warheads and delivery systems. Does Israel have to eat a nuke before it does anything, or has one of the rules been rendered obsolete (quite a while ago) and the international community just hasn't realistically grasped the situation?

 

[Cloud Cover]

Curious if the USMC can seize Kharg Island, hold it long enough to disable its operation without causing an environmental catastrophe, lock it up and leave in a day or two.
Put Iran in the position of either destroying it or negotiating.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Perhaps not a ‘short-term’ problem for America per se. However, the petrodollar has never been at risk like it is now. If America retreats to frack-frack-fracking and buying 1.5Tbbls of Canadian WSC a year to flaunt its energy independence, having unbalanced the M.E., it’s only a matter of time until the petroyuan becomes a thing. It’s only a matter of time now, because I don’t think America has enough truly-strategic vision to keep the petrodollar alive.

WSC has always been America's true strategic petroleum reserve. I for one look forward to the day we fire up Unitary Oil Trains en masse again

 

[Brad Sallows]

and a relative strengthening of China against the U.S

With respect to nations looking for new trading opportunities with China that may be true, but that's mostly tariff-dependent. What can't be overlooked is that twice now (Venezuela and Iran) China has shown that it can't or won't protect its friends to any degree that matters, and that a few of China's weapon exports haven't measured up to the US and Israeli threats.

I don't see either the US or China really improving its stature on net as a result of this round of Iran's ongoing war against the Satans.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Maybe for what they want they don't actually need any of that. They have a game; they're setting the rules and playing it; they invite others to join on those terms. Do other nations need the US more than the US needs them?

Israel is part of this. Preventive war is a no-no. The Iranian government is run by militant religious fanatics who don't like Israel and the US, have said so repeatedly, and are openly working on nuclear warheads and delivery systems. Does Israel have to eat a nuke before it does anything, or has one of the rules been rendered obsolete (quite a while ago) and the international community just hasn't realistically grasped the situation?

It's funny to hear the cognitive dissonance coming from the Lloyd Axworthy "Responsibility to Protect" crowd in the regard.