Iran Super Thread- Merged

[Czech_pivo]

Time and time again, war after war, decade after decade the LOAC are not applied evenly, and seldom applied at all relative to the rate of incidence. They certainly won’t be applied against any of the principal belligerents in this conflict.

This conflict has the potential to move the gist of Carney’s Davos pitch more than any other events that have occurred since then and most likely into the future.

It also lays bare for all to see what an utter waste of hundreds of billions in military spending the Gulf States have done over the decades. All the high end equipment they have is either tied up on the docks, under canvas in storage facilities or spending tens of millions of dollars in attempting to shoot down drone worth a few thousand each - with little success.
Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and UAE are unable or unwilling to gather their considerable naval resources to defend their own backyard.

 

[The Bread Guy]

… Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and UAE are unable or unwilling to gather their considerable naval resources to defend their own backyard.

Yet it’s NATO who are the cowards according to some, right?

 

[Baz]

Time and time again, war after war, decade after decade the LOAC are not applied evenly, and seldom applied at all relative to the rate of incidence. They certainly won’t be applied against any of the principal belligerents in this conflict.

Absolutely. However, I will apply them as a framework for what my government should or shouldn’t be doing.

I think my government should be participating in the reopening of the Straights of Hormuz. Not because the US asked (demanded?) that we do, but because that is what is ethical and in the best interests of the world.

Of course, in the medium to long term, the world should become less reliant on middle eastern energy.

However, it should not be a NATO led operation.

I wonder how the belligerents (Iran, Israel, and the US) would react if a coalition of the willing put a force in there with the sole purpose of protecting non-participating nation’s ships from all three of them?

 

[Cloud Cover]

The aforementioned Gulf states still remain far more likely to fight a war against Israel than with it. Especially against IRGC who haVE shown they can and will cause them serious harm.
Still, it seems clear that the IRGC must now be destroyed - as the saying goes “ that which doesn’t kill me makes me stronger”, or a grave tactical mistake. In this case both will be true without complete destruction.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Absolutely. However, I will apply them as a framework for what my government should or shouldn’t be doing.

I think my government should be participating in the reopening of the Straights of Hormuz. Not because the US asked (demanded?) that we do, but because that is what is ethical and in the best interests of the world.

Of course, in the medium to long term, the world should become less reliant on middle eastern energy.

However, it should not be a NATO led operation.

I wonder how the belligerents (Iran, Israel, and the US) would react if a coalition of the willing put a force in there with the sole purpose of protecting non-participating nation’s ships from all three of them?

We don’t owe the world over there anything and quite frankly getting involved with the world outside of our hemisphere has been a 30 year disaster. We need to sit all of this BS out, close the doors, rapidly re-arm and build a bigger, better military. And ramp up production of petroleum, gas, fertilizer, aluminum smelting.
China could take on the role you describe because neither Iran, Israel or the US will attack them. You can bet the gulf states are already working on that.

 

[Baz]

We don’t owe the world over there anything and quite frankly getting involved with the world outside of our hemisphere has been a 30 year disaster. We need to sit all of this BS out, close the doors, rapidly re-arm and build a bigger, better military. And ramp up production of petroleum, gas, fertilizer, aluminum smelting.
China could take on the role you describe because neither Iran, Israel or the US will attack them. You can bet the gulf states are already working on that.

No country ever does anything internationally because they owe anybody anything. Nor do they do it because it’s ethically right. The do it because it’s in their best interest.

I think it’s in our best interest as a middle power with aspirations to have worldwide, but moderate, influence, to be part of an international coalition, which doesn’t include any of the three belligerents, to stabilize and protect non-belligerents, including the Straights off Hormuz.

This does not include any nation that is party to the conflict, including countries that are hosting foreign forces.

I’m not opposed to the idea that Iran could not be allowed to continue operating outside the “rules” with impunity, but I’m not convinced that two states taking matters into their own hands was the answer, even given the lack of international agreement on what the answer was.

Feel free to disagree, from both sides, as I’m sure many do.

 

[Good2Golf]

Textbook lesson is escalation dynamics and who has escalation dominance.

Never underestimate who has read your book on deal making.

 

[McG]

Especially if you have not fully grasped what your ghost writer was saying.

 

[ytz]

Time and time again, war after war, decade after decade the LOAC are not applied evenly, and seldom applied at all relative to the rate of incidence. They certainly won’t be applied against any of the principal belligerents in this conflict.

I bought up the point a war crime as a technicality. Honestly, I'm less concerned about that than the escalation dynamics.

Also, starving the people (in this case of power) who you want to revolt against the IRGC doesn't seem like the way to win them over. At this point, it honestly seems punitive. Like he wants to punish the Iranian people for but giving him his grand victory.

It also lays bare for all to see what an utter waste of hundreds of billions in military spending the Gulf States have done over the decades. All the high end equipment they have is either tied up on the docks, under canvas in storage facilities or spending tens of millions of dollars in attempting to shoot down drone worth a few thousand each - with little success.
Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and UAE are unable or unwilling to gather their considerable naval resources to defend their own backyard.

I think this is a bit unfair. The US Navy itself is scared to enter the Strait. The US has been unable to successfully protect its own assets. And the Gulf countries have shot down something like 90% of everything fired their way. I don't think most NATO countries, including Canada, would have similar performance to be honest. And indeed, most countries, including Canada, have refused to really take seriously the lessons from Ukraine on drones and cost asymmetry.

If you're expecting them to start a naval fight with Iran. Why should they? They don't see it as their war. And escalating with direct involvement is a sure way to piss off their own populations. They may not have elections. But they generally try not to piss off their populations either.

I wonder how the belligerents (Iran, Israel, and the US) would react if a coalition of the willing put a force in there with the sole purpose of protecting non-participating nation’s ships from all three of them?

Think of how this would work in practice. Would we be willing to target launchers on shore? How would we do that if they are beyond line of sight of the ships? We can't be independent here. We have to essentially sign up with the Americans.

Also, we're back to the original problem. It's not just the Strait. It's infrastructure in the region too. If they knock off 10 mbpd worth of production with multiple years worth of damage, opening the Strait may be a moot point.

 

[Baz]

Think of how this would work in practice. Would we be willing to target launchers on shore? How would we do that if they are beyond line of sight of the ships? We can't be independent here. We have to essentially sign up with the Americans.

Also, we're back to the original problem. It's not just the Strait. It's infrastructure in the region too. If they knock off 10 mbpd worth of production with multiple years worth of damage, opening the Strait may be a moot point.

I was thinking more that having adults in the room might make the children take their toys and go into their corners. Plus it would give everybody a chance to take a breath and go “we’ve did our part, now let’s lick our wounds.”

Ie soft power

 

[HavokFour]

You are making the assumption that no Iranians went to Russia and learned first hand how to use these drones over the last 2+ yrs.

Correct. We know for a fact Iranians have been in both Russia and occupied territories exchanging knowledge with the Russians.

From 2022.

Iran sends military trainers to Crimea to teach Russians how to fly drones

Iran has sent trainers to Crimea to teach Russian pilots how to fly Iranian drones, according to the White House. And NBC’s Cal Perry joins Shep Smith to report on how Ukrainian school children are being trained for a potential nuclear strike.

www.cnbc.com

Iranian advisers killed aiding Russians in Crimea, says Kyiv

Top security official says Tehran military personnel in occupied areas will be ‘targeted’

www.theguardian.com

And don't forget, North Korea is also in there too.

 

[HavokFour]

Yet it’s NATO who are the cowards according to some, right?

The Board of Peace has been awefuly quiet.

 

[Czech_pivo]

I think this is a bit unfair. The US Navy itself is scared to enter the Strait. The US has been unable to successfully protect its own assets. And the Gulf countries have shot down something like 90% of everything fired their way. I don't think most NATO countries, including Canada, would have similar performance to be honest. And indeed, most countries, including Canada, have refused to really take seriously the lessons from Ukraine on drones and cost asymmetry.

If you're expecting them to start a naval fight with Iran. Why should they? They don't see it as their war. And escalating with direct involvement is a sure way to piss off their own populations. They may not have elections. But they generally try not to piss off their populations either.

It's their war because their countries and their livelihoods are being directly attacked, correct? It's their own citizens that have been killed and are being killed. It is the point for them having an armed forces if they are not willing to defend what is theirs?

Why should Canada or others put their own ships/people in harms ways when the countries that are being attacked aren't willing to do so in the first place? Earlier someone said that we should go for 'ethical' reasons. Do those same 'ethical' reasons not apply to sending oil supplies to Cuba? The government systems throughout all of the Gulf States are no different than the government system that is in place in Cuba in my humble opinion. Both are not worth our support in many many ways.

If Canada and others, outside of the US/Israel, were to go and open up the straits, what's in it for us? Will the Gulf States sell to those countries that went and opened the Straits oil/gas at say at 15-25% discount to the world spot price for a 1-3yrs time period?

If Canada and others outside of US/Israel were to send in their warships to the Straits would they do so without any air support? Only France/Italy/Japan/Spain would be the only remaining countries in any possible position to supply air cover. Would they? Would it even come close to what would be needed? If shooting/defense against drones/missiles started up, where would these ships even go for resupply? Would a RCN vessel have to go all the way to Australia for resupply? Would they have to go to Italy? Halifax? I would assume that they would not go to any UK/US/Israel facility for resupply as that would then negate their 'neutrality' in not supporting the US/Israel's decision to kick this thing off in the first place.

EDIT: Also do not forget that the Iranians have labelled the RCN as a 'Terrorist' organization. Our going to the Straits as a result of this would more than likely result in us being attacked. Which of our potential participants in a coalition in opening up the Straits, outside of US/Israel participation, would want us involved knowing that their warship could be directly put in harms way because the RCN warships 1nm off their port side has been labelled a ship belonging to a 'Terrorist' organization be the Iranians?

 

[Czech_pivo]

The Board of Peace has been awefuly quiet.

All the money has already been spent.....

 

[ytz]

It's their war because their countries and their livelihoods are being directly attacked, correct? It's their own citizens that have been killed and are being killed. It is the point for them having an armed forces if they are not willing to defend what is theirs?

In case you haven't noticed, they have been defending what is theirs. It's a complex threat which nobody is particularly well suited against.

What you want here is for them to escalate and attempt to force open the Strait. That is a task that the freaking US says it can't do alone. You're expecting Gulf States with a bunch of Corvettes to do what exactly?

What they can and will do is cut a deal with Iran once Trump's tantrum is over. This war has been a vivid demonstration of Iran's dominance of the Gulf. They know they have to make peace with it.

 

[Czech_pivo]

In case you haven't noticed, they have been defending what is theirs. It's a complex threat which nobody is particularly well suited against.

What you want here is for them to escalate and attempt to force open the Strait. That is a task that the freaking US says it can't do alone. You're expecting Gulf States with a bunch of Corvettes to do what exactly?

What they can and will do is cut a deal with Iran once Trump's tantrum is over. This war has been a vivid demonstration of Iran's dominance of the Gulf. They know they have to make peace with it.

Let me understand what you're trying to say - that the US believes that be adding 10-12 or so frigates from Canada, Australia, Japan, Germany, The Netherlands, Indonesia, Italy, South Korea would be more than enough to force the Straits to be opened?

As I pointed out here earlier - the Saudis have 7 frigates and 9 Corvettes and the UAE has 11 Corvettes. That doesn't include what Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain have. I've not mentioned their minesweepers at all.

Lastly, if the Gulf States are all willing to sit on their hands and wait Trump out and then go cap in hand and bow down to the Iranians and cut a deal to get the Straits open, then explain why should Canada et al even bother to try to open the Straits ourselves?

 

[Brad Sallows]

My guess is Trump is going to push to have Marines used and land somewhere, the Islands makes sense.

Or, their main role is just "fleet in being".

 

[ytz]

Let me understand what you're trying to say - that the US believes that be adding 10-12 or so frigates from Canada, Australia, Japan, Germany, The Netherlands, Indonesia, Italy, South Korea would be more than enough to force the Straits to be opened?

I don't actually believe that the US believes this. If it was that easy the USN could roll up with a dozen frigates and get this done in a week or two.

I think Trump wants to hand off responsibility for the closure to somebody else. So that he can then scream on Truth Social about how the US left them an easy task and they are screwing it up. He wants to pass of what is becoming a very obvious failure. And potentially a long term commitment. Other countries aren't taking the bait.

As I pointed out here earlier - the Saudis have 7 frigates and 9 Corvettes and the UAE has 11 Corvettes. That doesn't include what Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain have. I've not mentioned their minesweepers at all.

Normal traffic through the Straits is > 100 ships a day. Two dozen combatants isn't enough to keep the Strait open. Also, it isn't just the Strait. Shipping has to be protected the length of the Gulf. And again that is only half the problem. Protecting the infrastructure is arguably much more important. If those ships have any air defence capabilities, they are arguably more valuable in port or operating as pickets.

Lastly, if the Gulf States are all willing to sit on their hands and wait Trump out and then go cap in hand and bow down to the Iranians and cut a deal to get the Straits open, then explain why should Canada et al even bother to try to open the Straits ourselves?

Nobody said we should? It's why the PM has categorically ruled out participation.

There's no point in anybody participating until we know what the Americans war goals are and most importantly that our deployed forces won't be caught in an escalation spiral that they then get unfairly blamed for.

 

[Czech_pivo]

I don't actually believe that the US believes this. If it was that easy the USN could roll up with a dozen frigates and get this done in a week or two.

I think Trump wants to hand off responsibility for the closure to somebody else. So that he can then scream on Truth Social about how the US left them an easy task and they are screwing it up. Other countries aren't taking the bait.



Normal traffic through the Straits is > 100 ships a day. Two dozen combatants isn't enough to keep the Strait open. And again that is only half the problem. Protecting the infrastructure is arguably much more important. If those ships have any air defence capabilities, they are arguably more valuable in port or operating as pickets.



Nobody said we should? It's why the PM has categorically ruled out participation.

There's no point in anybody participating until we know what the Americans war goals are and most importantly that our deployed forces won't be caught in an escalation spiral that they then get unfairly blamed for.

And then we have this news out of Japan.

Iran prepared to let Japanese ships transit Hormuz, FM says​

"While most Group of Seven nations have adversarial relations with Iran, Japan has maintained relatively friendly ties with the country, potentially giving Tokyo more diplomatic sway than its partners in the grouping."

Iran prepared to let Japanese ships transit Hormuz, FM says

While most G7 nations have poor relations with Iran, Japan has relatively friendly ties with the country, potentially giving Tokyo more diplomatic sway.

www.japantimes.co.jp

If the Chinese cut a similar deal as the Japanese look close to doing, then good luck to Trump in getting anyone to help that US out of the mess they are in.

 

[ytz]

Exactly what I said. Countries will just deals with Iran.

It's only really the Europeans in a bind. They're in missile range of Iran. But also need all that Gulf oil and gas.