Iran Super Thread- Merged

[FormerEnlisted]

unless we plan to restructure our society.

Then you've answered your own questions. Restructuring is preferable to 3k+ a week casualties for the US alone. Even if we 'win', we will lose the very world we went to war to defend.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

How did the invasion of Irak work out for the US (I won't even ask how it worked out for the Irakis)? And that was done with powerful forces staging over many months and building up from border countries with their assent. Who is going to allow the US to stage a land invasion of Iran from their territory?

That leaves invasion from the sea: The US marines operate Expeditionary units organized around twelve groups of three ships each carrying a force of about 5000 each marines - but that includes the air groups and support, so it's closer to 3500 ground troops. If all twelve groups are available (doubtful, especially since one of the cornerstone one burned to a crisp and has yet to be replaced and otherwise, some are in refit) that's about 42,000 troops. The US Army can probably put a further 3,000 to 4,000 troops there, so lets say a total of 45,000 boots on the ground, light forces with limited armour and guns and then, no follow on force until the ships can return to wherever they would pick up the next load up.

Anybody here thinks they can take a country of 95 million inhabitant, whit a very large number of them armed and with local knowledge of difficult terrain?

 

[Altair]

How did the invasion of Irak work out for the US (I won't even ask how it worked out for the Irakis)? And that was done with powerful forces staging over many months and building up from border countries with their assent. Who is going to allow the US to stage a land invasion of Iran from their territory?

That leaves invasion from the sea: The US marines operate Expeditionary units organized around twelve groups of three ships each carrying a force of about 5000 each marines - but that includes the air groups and support, so it's closer to 3500 ground troops. If all twelve groups are available (doubtful, especially since one of the cornerstone one burned to a crisp and has yet to be replaced and otherwise, some are in refit) that's about 42,000 troops. The US Army can probably put a further 3,000 to 4,000 troops there, so lets say a total of 45,000 boots on the ground, light forces with limited armour and guns and then, no follow on force until the ships can return to wherever they would pick up the next load up.

Anybody here thinks they can take a country of 95 million inhabitant, whit a very large number of them armed and with local knowledge of difficult terrain?

And more importantly, drones.

Weeks of watching their young men and women die on reddit will do most every democracy in.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Penalties imposed by whom, where and how?

Any country that chooses, on its own turf, by legislation.

Suppose foreign-based corporation X does business in/with the US and Iran. The US levies fees against its business in/with the US. Any of X's competitors willing to forego opportunities in Iranian markets for opportunities in US markets will have a competitive advantage.

 

[Altair]

Any country that chooses, on its own turf, by legislation.

Suppose foreign-based corporation X does business in/with the US and Iran. The US levies fees against its business in/with the US. Any of X's competitors willing to forego opportunities in Iranian markets for opportunities in US markets will have a competitive advantage.

Except Iran does most of its exports with China. So situation unchanged.

unless you're talking about sanctions on every company that pays the toll.

In which case you will have companies feeding europe middle east oil who simply will not do business with the USA.

 

[Brad Sallows]

How though? The entire globe is aware of the problem. Posting comparisons between centuries only serves to distract from proposed solutions.

There aren't that many unique mass human behaviour patterns. One of the archetypes is the tyrant or tyrannical regime emboldened by successive capitulations until eventually an intolerable provocation results in a conflict more destructive than if a conflict had erupted earlier.

The most recent opportunity for regime change was squandered when Israel began murdering diplomats and politicians. Nothing anyone does elsewhere matters as long as Israel refuses to cooperate with strategic processes.

The most recent opportunity required intervention already lined up and ready to go; if intervention had transpired, dissidents would have been more motivated and the regime would likely have had to behave even more atrociously. If the revolution had failed - and it probably would have - the butcher's bill of regime murders of its own people would have been even greater. That is a probability that everyone who complains about US failure to intervene at the right time mostly try to ignore. Without supporting operations sufficient to push the government out ready to go, watching the locals try and fail was probably the least cost in human misery.

In my opinion the best possible solution is cultural redefinition. Our efforts were bearing real fruit until everything kicked off prematurely and welded social support back onto the regime.

Bearing fruit? Are western values being imported into and tolerated within Islamic countries faster than Islamic values are being imported into and tolerated within western countries?

 

[Brad Sallows]

How did the invasion of Irak work out for the US (I won't even ask how it worked out for the Irakis)? And that was done with powerful Anybody here thinks they can take a country of 95 million inhabitant, whit a very large number of them armed and with local knowledge of difficult terrain?

You don't try to take the country. You force it into approximately the position of having to be an autarky and let nature take its course.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Except Iran does most of its exports with China. So situation unchanged.

As I wrote, "...and every corporation with operations in a country which co-operates with Iran...". If China is propping up Iran, let corporations trading in/with China bear a cost.

There is an obvious risk in forcing corporations to decide whether to be all in or out of a particular set of trading nations; they might choose the undesired alternative. But the US is a huge market opportunity, and the continuing outrages of the Iranian and Chinese governments make it a morally difficult position to sell to ordinary consumers who might care. People who are angry at the US for its treatment of citizens, residents, and visitors over, say, matters of immigration enforcement are empty-headed if they're not already maximizing, say, their boycott of all products Chinese over its treatment of peoples within its borders.

 

[Altair]

As I wrote, "...and every corporation with operations in a country which co-operates with Iran...". If China is propping up Iran, let corporations trading in/with China bear a cost.

There is an obvious risk in forcing corporations to decide whether to be all in or out of a particular set of trading nations; they might choose the undesired alternative. But the US is a huge market opportunity, and the continuing outrages of the Iranian and Chinese governments make it a morally difficult position to sell to ordinary consumers who might care. People who are angry at the US for its treatment of citizens, residents, and visitors over, say, matters of immigration enforcement are empty-headed if they're not already maximizing, say, their boycott of all products Chinese over its treatment of peoples within its borders.

Iran was one of the most sanctioned nations on earth outside of north Korea.

You know how it trades? Because Chinese companies don't give a flying... what sanctions exist. They make their billions transporting Iranian oil that can go nowhere else to Chinese refineries. They cannot go to or trade with the USA? I guess they cry into their millions of dollars that they cannot go to Vegas.

That existed before for decades. What are you suggesting that didn't already exist? The second the Strait is open, China will buy their oil regardless of the sanctions.

Unless you're advocating to sanctioning the entire Chinese economy for trading with Iran, but as seen before, China has economic levers it can apply to America that get America to cry uncle before too long.

So nothing you're suggesting is feasible or realistic.

 

[YZT580]

As I wrote, "...and every corporation with operations in a country which co-operates with Iran...". If China is propping up Iran, let corporations trading in/with China bear a cost.

There is an obvious risk in forcing corporations to decide whether to be all in or out of a particular set of trading nations; they might choose the undesired alternative. But the US is a huge market opportunity, and the continuing outrages of the Iranian and Chinese governments make it a morally difficult position to sell to ordinary consumers who might care. People who are angry at the US for its treatment of citizens, residents, and visitors over, say, matters of immigration enforcement are empty-headed if they're not already maximizing, say, their boycott of all products Chinese over its treatment of peoples within its borders.

perhaps there is one group that we need to start factoring in and that is Iran's neighbours. At some point they are going to get fed up with either paying tribute to Iran (whom most of them both fear and detest) and take action to gain back their profits. All of them have significant military forces and most of them have been taking hard hits from Iran. Where the brink is, I don't know, but eventually they will strike back. Their backers will insist on it.

 

[Altair]

perhaps there is one group that we need to start factoring in and that is Iran's neighbours. At some point they are going to get fed up with either paying tribute to Iran (whom most of them both fear and detest) and take action to gain back their profits. All of them have significant military forces and most of them have been taking hard hits from Iran. Where the brink is, I don't know, but eventually they will strike back. Their backers will insist on it.

You know the one strategic calculus which prevents this?

These leaders will gather their generals (usually loyalists, not really good at their jobs) and ask them about the state of their militaries (usually very top down, kept somewhat weak to prevent coup attempts) and ask the most important question.

"What can you do that the Americans cannot do or have already done?"

After the awkward silence in the room, that plan gets chucked into fantasy land and they reluctantly pay the toll.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

You don't try to take the country. You force it into approximately the position of having to be an autarky and let nature take its course.

Ever heard of the Silk Roads (no, not the current one, well maybe a little)? Guess which country was at the epicenter of it all?

Iran has trade circuits all the way into Europe by way of the Slav states to the North, into India and then China to the East and North East. They have been there almost since recorded civilization has existed, and they are still there today. They do and have done in the past remarkably little trade with the Americas, a little more, but not much with the North East corner of Africa and none with the Australian continent. Tell me how the US will convince those countries I just mention they mostly trade with to stop doing so, especially with Bozo-in-chief at the helm.

 

[Altair]

Ever heard of the Silk Roads (no, not the current one, well maybe a little)? Guess which country was at the epicenter of it all?

Iran has trade circuits all the way into Europe by way of the Slav states to the North, into India and then China to the East and North East. They have been there almost since recorded civilization has existed, and they are still there today. They do and have done in the past remarkably little trade with the Americas, a little more, but not much with the North East corner of Africa and none with the Australian continent. Tell me how the US will convince those countries I just mention they mostly trade with to stop doing so, especially with Bozo-in-chief at the helm.

Even in the best of times with the full extent of their soft power, America had little in terms of economic presence in those regions.

And now America has tossed tariffs on most every country, and stopped handing out aid which was their only other way to influence those regions.

It's almost like they are doing everything in their power to go about this the wrong way.

Like someone handed the president a list of actions of what not to do in terms of isolating China, Russian, and Iran, and the president took it as a to do list.

 

[FormerEnlisted]

One of the archetypes is the tyrant or tyrannical regime emboldened by successive capitulations until eventually an intolerable provocation results in a conflict more destructive than if a conflict had erupted earlier.

Yes, I agree. I already made it very clear that Israel's unilateral aggression is a strategic impossibility. There is no point in even addressing our enemies until we can identify who our allies are.

The US government made it very clear that the only reason they entered this conflict was because the Israelis were going to attack and there was no way to stop them. You are going in circles trying to reconcile a clear military imperative (structured command with defined leadership) with amateur and self destructive behaviour.

This war was unnecessary and has already failed at meeting any articulable sovereign interest for Canadians. The only benefit to us is that it guarantees the death of Trumpism and gives his successor a really good reason to avoid further integration with Israeli national politics.

Any further escalation only serves to weaken us, the USA, NATO as a whole, and undo decades of diplomacy. We have no legal obligation to get involved. I am not going to waste space here denouncing Iran. That horse has been beaten to death so hard its bones have already fossilized.

However, the subtext to your general argument seems to be that China is our primary threat. Which we agree on completely. For this very reason I don't want to see our precious human capital wasted for absolutely no benefit. If you believe that our destruction of Iran will improve our strategic position versus China, I am interested in your argument.

 

[Brad Sallows]

You are going in circles trying to reconcile a clear military imperative (structured command with defined leadership) with amateur and self destructive behaviour.

I don't care about the haphazard US administration control of its military power. What I'm looking at is the politics. There are really only two possible futures: one in which Iran never has the power to follow through on its government's desire to extinguish Israel, and one in which it eventually does. (I don't see things muddling along in the approximate steady state they were prior to Hamas's recent attack on Israel; that door is closed.) Then it's just a matter of whether an Islamic fundamentalist government calculates that kicking off a religiously tinged war will further its long-term aims or not, or even just take the risk that a fight to the finish with Israel might escalate. Things I take for granted:

• Iran will happily sign "we'll pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today" deals and then subvert them until it is discovered, at which point it will openly abrogate them
• no deal signed with Iran will mean any more to them than the various things 1930s dictators agreed to (in succession, because people allowed themselves to be repeatedly conned)
• Iran will conduct its "rug-merchant" stalling negotiations to buy time when it is weak, as long as others are willing to play
• Iran will continue to export terror and political interference

A thing I think is near certainty: a string of future provocations will exist; one of them will be a breaking point; the more powerful Iran has managed to become, the more costly will be the events after that break.

The sovereign interest for other countries which might have to get involved is always the same: smaller conflict now instead of greater one in future.

It's remarkable how many echoes of the 1930's exist, elsewhere and here. Lots of reasons (all valid by themselves) not to fight to contain aggression in the short term, especially if it mostly lands on someone else's doorstep. No real concern for a path that might lead to a truly ruinous war. Various agitators bent on weakening the resolve of the mostly liberal countries to do anything about aggression. All that needs to happen is for the west, collectively, to be about as incompetent and short-sighted as the pre-1914 and pre-1939 gangs. My read of politicians of those times is that they were more serious, sober, politically and socially intelligent, and multi-partisan about solving their big problems than any of today's crop, and the people of the times were more inured to general hardship, so a prospective future big conflict should worry anyone who believes these two things.

However, the subtext to your general argument seems to be that China is our primary threat. Which we agree on completely. For this very reason I don't want to see our precious human capital wasted for absolutely no benefit. If you believe that our destruction of Iran will improve our strategic position versus China, I am interested in your argument.

I don't believe the destruction of Iran is needed; I believe the replacement of the Iranian government is needed.

Across the board, China is the greater adversary. First place for risk of another world-level war, though, belongs to Iran.

 

[FormerEnlisted]

Across the board, China is the greater adversary. First place for risk of another world-level war, though, belongs to Iran.

Yes, I agree completely.

Your argument for immediate action is heavily weighted toward factors which affect Israel. What do they have to do with us as Canadians? Or as North Americans? Or as members of NATO?

If Israel can't be trusted to behave rationally, and they are confident in their own ability to defend themselves (which is demonstrable), the inevitable outcome is that they nuke Iran themselves.

We should be focused on preparing for the consequences of that decision. Adding our own men to the mix just means we bleed resources before the inevitable fallout hits the fan.