UAE is not neutral. They’ve allowed the U.S. to base assets used in the attacks on Iran. The UAE chose to be a party to the armed conflict.
Iran Super Thread- Merged
- Thread starter JasonH
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 11,540
- Points
- 1,040
They have. Iran attacking non-military targets, though, is in the same grey-shading-to-black area as the US's proposals to attack power stations. The targets aren't selected for military necessity.
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 5,780
- Points
- 1,260
I have seen some speculation that Houthis may attempt to contain (and be seen attempting to contain) their escalation to just Israel in hopes that US and Saudi Arabia leave them alone for it. Watch to see if they engage commercial shipping or leave that alone as an indicator on this.Mini-Me kicks off...
Yemen's Iran-backed Houthis launch missile at Israel for first time since war began
Yemen's Iran-backed Houthis launch missile at Israel for first time since war began - follow live
As the war enters its second month, Donald Trump's special envoy says the US is hopeful of meetings with Iran "this week".www.bbc.com
Both sides chose to let that genie fly a while ago. Although there’s a case to be made for either side that attacking the resource industries that are relied on for inputs to military manufacturing could be fair game. It would be a stretch, but I don’t think any of the belligerents care much about what any non-party thinks of their targeting anyway.
- Reaction score
- 6,569
- Points
- 1,160
The Ploiesti Oil Fields, Schweinfurt Ball Bearing Plants, Cologne Rail Yards and the Ruhr Valley dams come to mind...
- Reaction score
- 27,223
- Points
- 1,360
They are when they’re selecting them for the Regime’s necessity.
Are you not seeing this as ECOAML?
- Reaction score
- 7,271
- Points
- 1,260
Whatever happens between now and say 9am EST on Monday, it will be interesting to see what The Donald says/does as I'm not sure he's willing to allow the stock market to repeat what occurred on Friday again on Monday, or the rest of the shorten week (with the market being closed on Friday). Its also 'Quarter end' on Tuesday, so that very well may factor into his words/actions as well.
www.cnbc.com
How the big oil and gas CEOs think the Iran war supply disruption will play out
How the big oil and gas CEOs think the Iran war supply disruption will play out
The oil industry's grim outlook for global oil and gas supplies stands in contrast to the Trump administration's promise that the disruption is short term.
www.cnbc.com
- Oil industry executives painted a grim picture of the Iran war supply disruption at S&P Global’s annual CERAWeek energy conference in Houston.
- They warned that the disruption is bigger than the markets understand and prices are unlikely to return to pre-war levels soon.
- The disruption to jet fuel, diesel and gasoline is even bigger. Shortages are rippling through Asia and will hit Europe by April, they said.
- Security experts said escalation of the war is likely. The conflict could break the Gulf Arab nations economies
- Reaction score
- 11,540
- Points
- 1,040
The Iranian government is executing the contemporary equivalent of terror bombing in order to convince third parties (nations) to apply political pressure to the US, in order to preserve the Iranian government. Terrorism is what the Iranian government does. Treat it like terrorism.
There’s no moral difference between Iran bombing LNG facilities, oil refineries, or aluminum smelters, and the U.S. and Israel attacking gas fields, oil facilities, and steel plants, presuming the attacks are on the facilities of a nation party to the conflict. If one side is engaged in ‘terror bombing’ by striking such industrial targets, both are.
The Gulf countries hosting U.S. forces and allowing use of their infrastructure and airspace to attack Iran are not ‘third parties’ in the sense that they aren’t parties to the conflict. If they let the U.S. launch attacks from their soil, they’re belligerents.
The Iranian regime is evil. That does not, however, mean that anything and everything they do in this war is going to be inherently offside.
Attacking a country that has not allowed U.S. or Israeli basing or overflight is attacking a neutral third party.
- Reaction score
- 7,271
- Points
- 1,260
What 3rd parties are you going on about? Saudi's, Qatari, UAE. Kuwait. Jordan, Iraq? All of them are active US Allies in this - all of them. The only instance of 'terror bombing' of a 3rd party that I've seen is the single attack against Azerbaijan. Please point out another to me if I've missed it?
- Reaction score
- 7,271
- Points
- 1,260
Spot on.
My example of the Luftwaffe stationing planes in Sweden or Turkey during the war and bombing the SU was ignored. If that had occurred then the Soviets would have been 100% justified in attacking Sweden or Turkey in return.
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 5,780
- Points
- 1,260
Attacking commercial shipping might seem to fit that description.
- Reaction score
- 7,271
- Points
- 1,260
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 5,780
- Points
- 1,260
Wasn't right then either.
- Reaction score
- 7,271
- Points
- 1,260
- Reaction score
- 11,540
- Points
- 1,040
There are always degrees of difference. Regardless, the US, Israel, and Iran can argue military necessity for non-combatant targets among themselves - their armed forces are in direct conflict. It's a long stretch for Iran to make that argument about Gulf states. The question isn't whether Gulf states are involved; it's whether there's any military necessity served by attacking their non-combatant people and things.
Also regardless, Iran has attacked neutral targets.
The arguments against Trump's threats to attack power stations in Iran apply to every piece of infrastructure in the Gulf states. What's the military necessity?
- Reaction score
- 11,540
- Points
- 1,040
There's a difference between granting basing and overflight rights, and active engagement in hostilities.
Iran is not reasonably attacking commercial infrastructure in Gulf states to impede their war-making capability (which they are not exercising, yet) or that of the US and Israel. It is attacking those (soft) targets as, basically, terror targets.
- Reaction score
- 6,569
- Points
- 1,160
So if UAE air defences engage Iranian drones and missiles that are targeting bases from which US forces are deploying to attack Iran does that count as "active engagement in hostilities"?
- Reaction score
- 7,271
- Points
- 1,260
So the Soviets placing missiles in Cuba made the Cubans what exactly in your way of reasoning? Neutrals?
Yes, Iran has attacked neutral targets. That’s why I specified that I’m only talking about attacks on parties to the conflict.
I agree that military necessity is a stretch. That’s why I said so several posts ago. I also careered that with the potential claim for attacking economic infrastructure that supports a war effort. We would expect that in a more ‘total’ war out of the history books… Though for Iran, subject to decapitation strikes and attacks aimed at economic ruin, the war likely seems pretty ‘total’.
Their attacks on economic targets in the Gulf are probably best understood as an active effort to make sure the costs of the war are partly borne by U.S. allies who have actively aided the war on Iran, and yes, from Iran’s standpoint, to hopefully convince one or more of them to exit the war and deny the U.S. use of their facilities.
It’s kind of weird seeing you suddenly get all gung ho on LOAC given past discussions on the merits and use of international law, but here we are I guess. Iran’s attacks have for the most part been very rational from a strategic standpoint. There’s very clear messaging in most of what they’re hitting, and how hard they hit it. More to the point, being the clobberee in this particular fight, they’re going to seek whatever options they can to preserve at least some strategic leverage.
