Iran Super Thread- Merged

[brihard]

DIME. All of it.

No need to repeat 1930s techniques of accommodations and appeasement. We already know that to the tyrants of the day, everything short of force that doesn't compel them to stop their bad behaviour is a sign of weakness. Solve the problems (Iran, Houthi, whoever) while they're small. Easier in 1936 than in 1939.

That’s a non-answer. What specific forceful/coercive measures do you feel ought be tried that haven’t already? And why would that ‘win’ the strategic problem in your mind versus just burning things on the entire region down further through Iranian reprisal?

 

[Furniture]

Yup. The ugly reality is the U.S. is probably in a predicament without a likely strategic win. It will probably be an eventual exit with concessions.

I don't think people suggesting this have thought it through..

If America allows Iran to control the SoH, international shipping dies. Some group will claim the SoM, BAM, SoG, etc... and the rest of the world will just have to comply.

Iran can't "win" unless we as a collective give-up on international shipping, and "we" as a collective can't do that and survive as modern societies.

I feel as though too many people are hung-up on Trump and not enough are considering the real world implications of an American withdrawal.

 

[brihard]

I don't think people suggesting this have thought it through..

If America allows Iran to control the SoH, international shipping dies. Some group will claim the SoM, BAM, SoG, etc... and the rest of the world will just have to comply.

Iran can't "win" unless we as a collective give-up on international shipping, and "we" as a collective can't do that and survive as modern societies.

I feel as though too many people are hung-up on Trump and not enough are considering the real world implications of an American withdrawal.

Why does international shipping die? Think it through logically. Countries controlling key waterways are in no way served in the long run by keeping them choked off. A new equilibrium would probably mean some relatively modest ‘transit fee’; a buck a barrel or what have you. Shippers then just price that rent in. Costs go up a bit, demand reduces a bit accordingly… from a strict economic standpoint, it’s perfectly manageable, even if it’s economically inefficient rent seeking.

Now, do I recognize that as lawful or legitimate? Absolutely not. Legally, UNOS and conventional international law firmly recognize the transit passage rules for such straits. From a practical standpoint, I’d rather not the extra couple cents per liter at the pump that would mean. I fully agree with you on the principle of the matter. But I personally don’t have anything I can do about it. We’ve seen in the past few years that international law increasingly means only what those with leverage and power decide it means.

Can big states do anything about a new order of maritime extortion? Well, the biggest state in the world in terms of raw power seems flummoxed in trying to impose its way militarily. Ironically, we had an order of free transit in the Strait of Hormuz, and the U.S. chose to launch a war that has very predictably upended that.

Iran of course is a rogue state already substantially severed from a lot of global systems. They started with less to lose. Am I worried about other maritime straits being similarly extorted? Well, Bab el Mandeb, for sure. It’s already in play largely thanks to this same regional conflict. Malacca? Gibraltar? Dover? Danish? I don’t offhand see many other countries who would benefit in the balance.

This will balance out. New weapons have upended things; new defenses and countermeasures will catch up. I’m just calling it as I see it now.

 

[Furniture]

Why does international shipping die? Think it through logically. Countries controlling key waterways are in no way served in the long run by keeping them choked off. A new equilibrium would probably mean some relatively modest ‘transit fee’; a buck a barrel or what have you. Shippers then just price that rent in. Costs go up a bit, demand reduces a bit accordingly… from a strict economic standpoint, it’s perfectly manageable, even if it’s economically inefficient rent seeking.

The problem is, no nation/society will tolerate the "transit fee" impose by the crazies. Make no mistake, the crazies will be the ones imposing the "fees". Singapore isn't about to impose a fee on the SoM, but some crazy religious sect in Indonesia might... Particularly if they realize that the world won't punish the Houthi or Iran for doing the same.

Now, do I recognize that as lawful or legitimate? Absolutely not. Legally, UNOS and conventional international law firmly recognize the transit passage rules for such straits. From a practical standpoint, I’d rather not the extra couple cents per liter at the pump that would mean. I fully agree with you on the principle of the matter. But I personally don’t have anything I can do about it. We’ve seen in the past few years that international law increasingly means only what those with leverage and power decide it means.

The problem is, it won't be "cents on the litre" it will be a choke-hold, that increases as our ability to absorb it increases.

Why would Iran stop at what you're comfortable with, when they can charge what it can force you to absorb? Then add-in that the people doing this hate you and what you believe, and will use their new found fortune to fund the people who will kill you in your bed.

Can big states do anything about a new order of maritime extortion? Well, the biggest state in the world in terms of raw power seems flummoxed in trying to impose its way militarily. Ironically, we had an order of free transit in the Strait of Hormuz, and the U.S. chose to launch a war that has very predictably upended that.

Yes they can. What they can't do is fix it while we tie our hands behind our back playing to rules we wrote 80 years ago... And eventually, we will re-discover our acceptance of "collateral damage", or we will collapse.

ran of course is a rogue state already substantially severed from a lot of global systems. They started with less to lose. Am I worried about other maritime straits being similarly extorted? Well, Bab el Mandeb, for sure. It’s already in play largely thanks to this same regional conflict. Malacca? Gibraltar? Dover? Danish? I don’t offhand see many other countries who would benefit in the balance.

They don't benefit, until the world backs down... Then out of nowhere, every strait has an "environmental" fee to pay. Some will be enforced by weapons, others by trade deals... Regardless, the worlds oceans become less free and imperial control of water becomes more important.

This will balance out. New weapons have upended things; new defenses and countermeasures will catch up. I’m just calling it as I see it now.

It will balance out, but I suspect the people wishing for a Trump defeat haven't really considered the costs. They see a Trump war, and wish for a loss, never considering what we all loose if he does.

Edit: Not to be too dramatic, but freedom of navigation is the underpinning of our entire world. It isn't something we can just walk away from unless we plan to restructure our society.

 

[Altair]

The problem is, no nation/society will tolerate the "transit fee" impose by the crazies. Make no mistake, the crazies will be the ones imposing the "fees". Singapore isn't about to impose a fee on the SoM, but some crazy religious sect in Indonesia might... Particularly if they realize that the world won't punish the Houthi or Iran for doing the same.

It's not going to be nations or societies making these choices.

It will be companies and private enterprise who have far less in terms of values outside profit margins.

And if its more affordable to pay the toll the toll they will pay.

The problem is, it won't be "cents on the litre" it will be a choke-hold, that increases as our ability to absorb it increases.

Why would Iran stop at what you're comfortable with, when they can charge what it can force you to absorb? Then add-in that the people doing this hate you and what you believe, and will use their new found fortune to fund the people who will kill you in your bed.

Who knows. Maybe the Iranians.

Yes they can. What they can't do is fix it while we tie our hands behind our back playing to rules we wrote 80 years ago... And eventually, we will re-discover our acceptance of "collateral damage", or we will collapse.

Except no democracy will support boots on the ground or the massive convoy efforts. Especially with bigger fish in China and Russia to fry.

The only nations that deemed it in their interest to upset the apple cart was the USA and Israel and now they cannot figure a way out of the mess they created.

They don't benefit, until the world backs down... Then out of nowhere, every strait has an "environmental" fee to pay. Some will be enforced by weapons, others by trade deals... Regardless, the worlds oceans become less free and imperial control of water becomes more important.

Funny, the second order effects of hairbrained military campaigns.

It will balance out, but I suspect the people wishing for a Trump defeat haven't really considered the costs. They see a Trump war, and wish for a loss, never considering what we all loose if he does.

Nobody wanted Iran to win but at the same time, its pretty clear that through sheer incompetence from the USA government they have handed Iran just that.

I think we would have all wanted a quick and decisive American victory to American defeat, but that's not the world we live in.

Highsight being 20/20 no war and a toll free and safe SoH was probably the best course of action, one followed by every president save one, who has now fumbled his way to impending defeat.

 

[Furniture]

t's not going to be nations or societies making these choices.

It will be companies and private enterprise who have far less in terms of values outside profit margins.

And if its more affordable to pay the toll the toll they will pay.

Who pays the companies?

Societies will pay, until they won't...

Who knows. Maybe the Iranians.

International sponsors of terrorism... Exactly the people you want to pay a lot of money to.

Except no democracy will support boots on the ground or the massive convoy efforts. Especially with bigger fish in China and Russia to fry.

The only nations that deemed it in their interest to upset the apple cart was the USA and Israel and now they cannot figure a way out of the mess they created.

You guys keep getting hung-up on a ground invasion/hold. I don't think that is/will be the play. I suspect that eventually people will get real comfortable will killing a lot of people via infrastructure. Just like we did when we killed millions of white people in WWII...

We pretend that democracies won't tolerate war crimes, but in reality, when it's a choice between our kids dying, and theirs... Their kids(insert whatever privilege group you desire) die every time.

Funny, the second order effects of hairbrained military campaigns.

Funny the third order effects... Who would have predicted that the death of a reformist monarch in the Austro-Hungarian empire would lead to a century of war in the middle east?

You may be content in your position in the world, but your position in the world is entirely predicated on international trade working like it has for the last couple of centuries.

Nobody wanted Iran to win but at the same time, its pretty clear that through sheer incompetence from the USA government they have handed Iran just that.

No, Iran has been handed a reprieve at best. If the world allows Iran to "win", just to spite Trump, the world has signed it's own death sentence.

I think we would have all wanted a quick and decisive American victory to American defeat, but that's not the world we live in.

Highsight being 20/20 no war and a toll free and safe SoH was probably the best course of action, one followed by every president save one, who has now fumbled his way to impending defeat.

There is no world where a "toll" on international water-way is acceptable. If America/the world allows it, we will be at war all over the globe for the next several decades.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Anyone advocating a ground invasion and the subsequent necessary occupation to resolve this strategic dilemma is, most charitably, an abject imbecile who should lose their Command and Conquer privileges.

A ground invasion would indeed be decisive, but not in the way the U.S. administration would want, or U.S. voters would reward. We would see high res drone video of a lot of Americans getting killed, and the shattering of any remaining illusion that the U.S. military (particularly its logistical train) is immune from the changes in firepower the Ukraine war has brought to the forefront.

The west and the other Arab states can fly a lot more drones and missiles than Iran. The IRGC might find themselves the in the sights of FPV drones. Also the term "Rational actors", they certainly have a rationale, but it's very different than ours.

 

[Altair]

Who pays the companies?

Societies will pay, until they won't...

Other companies.

Then the consumer.

And consumers care way more about affordability than where their oil came from.

International sponsors of terrorism... Exactly the people you want to pay a lot of money to.

Not typically, but who went and started a war that may have that as a possibility?

Reminder, the SoH was open and free of tolls February 27th.

You guys keep getting hung-up on a ground invasion/hold. I don't think that is/will be the play. I suspect that eventually people will get real comfortable will killing a lot of people via infrastructure. Just like we did when we killed millions of white people in WWII...

Uh....huh. The nation that killed tens of thousands of its own people will somehow be swayed by the west deciding to kill tens of thousands of their people? Millions?

Yeah, okay.

And again, the stakes are not that high. If the choices are let iran charge a dollar per barrel or commit mass killing war crimes most will pick the dollar.

We pretend that democracies won't tolerate war crimes, but in reality, when it's a choice between our kids dying, and theirs... Their kids(insert whatever privilege group you desire) die every time.

Again, stakes really aren't that high. Nobody kids will be dying because gas is a few dollars more expensive (but cheaper than right now) because iran is charging a toll.

Funny the third order effects... Who would have predicted that the death of a reformist monarch in the Austro-Hungarian empire would lead to a century of war in the middle east?

Fair.

You may be content in your position in the world, but your position in the world is entirely predicated on international trade working like it has for the last couple of centuries.

And who upset that apple cart again? Right...Trump.

No, Iran has been handed a reprieve at best. If the world allows Iran to "win", just to spite Trump, the world has signed it's own death sentence.

It won't be a situation of the world letting iran win to spite Trump. It will be the USA letting iran win because the USA failed.

the world is not at war with Iran. The world did not lose in Vietnam. The world did not lose in Iraq. These are American wars, America owns the result of them.

Unless you think the world had to join the USA in Vietnam or the Iraq war.

As for the death sentence, I dont think Iran charging a toll makes them a superpower all of a sudden. They will be stronger militarily and more flush with cash, but they have decades of sanctions and the like to catch up on.

There is no world where a "toll" on international water-way is acceptable. If America/the world allows it, we will be at war all over the globe for the next several decades.

It's not acceptable but unless the USA (leave the world out of it, its not our war) finds a way to keep it open, Iran will defacto own it. And that's on America. Losing wars have consequences.

It's why most don't start them on a whim, without the will to win it, or the means to carry it out.

America decided it could do all three and now everyone is worse off for it.