Iran Super Thread- Merged

[Czech_pivo]

Neither of which would justify bombing Stanford or MIT into non-existence.

There is also an Elephant in the Room issue here: You cannot "terminate" Iran's nuclear bomb program without getting rid of the basic source: their civilian nuclear power plants. but who wants to bomb an active nuclear reactor considering the risks associated with such action? That would certainly set the various surrounding countries against the US.

Forget Stanford or MIT, locally for me it would be McMaster's with this long and robust nuclear programme that would be bombed into oblivion under his logic.

 

[Brad Sallows]

In a way it was both but not quite the way you put forward.

The targeting cycle for air strikes is a fairly exact process. The results are more than likely one of the following two situations:

1) a target close to the school was the intended target but there was a technical glitch (mechanical or data entry) that caused the bomb to go "off target;" or

2) the school was the target to be hit but an intelligence failure caused the targeting team to evaluate the school as still being a part of the adjacent base without knowing that it had been turned into a school.

Those are both errors (technical malfunction, dated or otherwise incorrect intel).

What I mean for the first case is "the US intended to hit a school full of children because it was a school full of children".

 

[Brad Sallows]

Consequences.

Coalitions.

 

[PrairieFella]

It's only a war crime if you lose, or someone else has the power to hold you to account.

Who is powerful enough to hold America to account, and is also interested in preventing war crimes? I don't think the American people care about war crimes all that much, as it's been more than 150 years since the last major war on their soil.

If there is justice in this world, if war crimes are committed the accused are handed over to the Hague the next time the opposition is in power, be it democrat or republican administrstion committing crimes.

 

[Brad Sallows]

If the US deliberately 'blows' up their desalinization plants, would that constitute a 'war crime' under the current definitions?

Definitely. Those exist to serve essential humanitarian purposes. Military usage of water supplies is incidental.

Would that include blowing up their electric generating plants?

Depends on location and purpose, but most likely, and definitely if "all" are on the table.

Also, by blowing up their oil and gas facilities

And some of that, too. At some "degraded" point Iran should get the benefit of the doubt that the usual war-supporting industries are in fact incapable of supporting much war effort at all, and primarily are to the benefit of civil uses.

This isn't a "total war", and it should be easy to see how much of Trump's bluster also fits "terror bomb them to the negotiating table". Somewhere in the grey middle might be tit-for-tat - Iran bombs something in a Gulf state; the US bombs something roughly equivalent in Iran.

Iran could reach the point at which it is materially incapable of doing anything to anyone outside its borders except threaten marine insurers, with the government just hiding somewhere saying "if you want us, come and get us" while the repressive institutions of the regime act independently, and the US would still have reasonable limits on what it should be permitted to attack. Of course, at that point the repressive institutions would still be a target and the tipping point for armed uprising and/or military defections would be a lot closer.

 

[Furniture]

If there is justice in this world, if war crimes are committed the accused are handed over to the Hague the next time the opposition is in power, be it democrat or republican administrstion committing crimes.

That's not going to happen. No American government is going to send their political rivals to an international court to face justice for fear it would happen to them after their term.

 

[PrairieFella]

That's not going to happen. No American government is going to send their rivals to an international court to face justice. They will conduct a showy trial at home, to gain the maximum political benefit, and the system will become even more dysfunctional...

The entire system is frankly rotten to the core. Its despicable how much they can get away with and how cynical their system has become.

 

[brihard]

If there is justice in this world, if war crimes are committed the accused are handed over to the Hague the next time the opposition is in power, be it democrat or republican administrstion committing crimes.

That's not going to happen. No American government is going to send their rivals to an international court to face justice. They will conduct a showy trial at home, to gain the maximum political benefit, and the system will become even more dysfunctional...

Neither the U.S., Iran, nor Israel have ratified the Rome statute codifying the various statutory war crimes and crimes against humanity and establishing the International Criminal Court. So I don’t see any path where ICC would hypothetically have jurisdiction. On the contrary, the U.S. has sanctioned and caused great financial hardship for some of the ICC’s judges and prosecutors based on their involvement in investigations the U.S. deems contrary to its interests.

The ICC is a ‘court of last resort’, and the expectation is that wherever possible, accused will be prosecuted domestically or in another forum such as the International Criminal Tribunals established in the wake of a few different conflicts.

It’s all academic anyway. The U.S. enjoys near total impunity in international humanitarian law. The most you might see is certain American officials being unable to travel to certain countries.

 

[brihard]

Marco Rubio has set out the latest version of America’s objectives in Iran.

“1. The destruction of Iran’s air force
2. The destruction of their navy
3. The severe diminishing of their missile launching capability
4. The destruction of their factories”

https://twitter.com/x/status/2038596812630593961

No mention of the nuclear program, which is weird. No mention of Hormuz.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Neither the U.S., Iran, nor Israel have ratified the Rome statute codifying the various statutory war crimes and crimes against humanity and establishing the International Criminal Court. So I don’t see any path where ICC would hypothetically have jurisdiction. On the contrary, the U.S. has sanctioned and caused great financial hardship for some of the ICC’s judges and prosecutors based on their involvement in investigations the U.S. deems contrary to its interests.

The ICC is a ‘court of last resort’, and the expectation is that wherever possible, accused will be prosecuted domestically or in another forum such as the International Criminal Tribunals established in the wake of a few different conflicts.

It’s all academic anyway. The U.S. enjoys near total impunity in international humanitarian law. The most you might see is certain American officials being unable to travel to certain countries.

Its all part of Carney's example of 'living the lie.'

 

[Czech_pivo]

Marco Rubio has set out the latest version of America’s objectives in Iran.

“1. The destruction of Iran’s air force
2. The destruction of their navy
3. The severe diminishing of their missile launching capability
4. The destruction of their factories”

https://twitter.com/x/status/2038596812630593961

No mention of the nuclear program, which is weird. No mention of Hormuz.

Setting up their ability to 'tick off' those 4 boxes and then exit from the entire situation.

1) - Tick
2) - Tick
3) - Close to be 'ticked'
4) - Could be a 'tick' already, completely opened ended with no tangible definitions of what's 'in' and 'out' of scope.

 

[ytz]

Oof, did they hit a Compass Call?

I've seen posts that suggest they did.

 

[ytz]

No mention of the nuclear program, which is weird. No mention of Hormuz.

If they quit and Iran gets to permanently toll the Strait, that could be the end of the Gulf-US relationship.

 

[GK .Dundas]

If they quit and Iran gets to permanently toll the Strait, that could be the end of the Gulf-US relationship.

But President Trump is the master of the art of the deal !

 

[Brad Sallows]

No mention of the nuclear program, which is weird. No mention of Hormuz.

"The Administration" following a script which doesn't match whatever Trump is saying isn't a novelty.

 

[ytz]

But President Trump is the master of the art of the deal !

The America First President ending the Petrodollar and ushering in the Chinese era would be truly ironic.

 

[The Bread Guy]

The irony of "if only more EV's were around" burns just a bit ...

EVs were meant to bypass oil. Now they’re stuck at the Strait of Hormuz

The war has blocked the only sea route for the high-grade, low-carbon aluminum EVs need. There's no quick substitute.

restofworld.org

 

[ytz]

The irony of "if only more EV's were around" burns just a bit ...

EVs were meant to bypass oil. Now they’re stuck at the Strait of Hormuz

The war has blocked the only sea route for the high-grade, low-carbon aluminum EVs need. There's no quick substitute.

restofworld.org

Well yeah. A lot of commodities depend on the Gulf.

But even oil and gas CEOs are now saying they aren't happy with what $100 oil and supply shocks will do to alternatives. No importing country (3/4 of the world) is going to forget this and how vulnerable they were.

 

[The Bread Guy]

"The Administration" following a script which doesn't match whatever Trump is saying isn't a novelty.

Oh yeah ....

 

[FJAG]

What I mean for the first case is "the US intended to hit a school full of children because it was a school full of children".

I know that's what you meant. And I'm saying that the system would allow for a deliberate targeting of that building under inaccurate intelligence but would never allow for its targeting if the facts known to the targeteers was that it was a school occupied by children. Even the Trump regime is not that degenerate. Maybe Putin.