Tanker War 2.0

[Journeyman]

Prior to the attack on the tankers the Iranians fired a SAK at a US MQ9 Reaper but it missed.

That is stated as an unassailable fact, when it's actually a claim made by an 'unnamed US official.'  It took the government a day and a half to 'remember' that detail, plus the added pronouncement that another MQ9 had been shot down "in the days prior" by Iranian-backed Houthi rebels -- two claims made only once global media started expressing doubts about the American version of the tanker attack events.

So, not foreign shipping, but TWO American military aircraft attacked.... with absolutely no US outrage.  To quote a sailor:

Something just doesn't smell right.

#Charlie Wilson's John Bolton's War

 

[tomahawk6]

When all the necessary pieces are in place you will see a US armed response.

 

[Jarnhamar]

When all the necessary pieces are in place you will see a US armed response.

With the USS Maddox leading the charge perhaps?

 

[Edward Campbell]

That is stated as an unassailable fact, when it's actually a claim made by an 'unnamed US official.'  It took the government a day and a half to 'remember' that detail, plus the added pronouncement that another MQ9 had been shot down "in the days prior" by Iranian-backed Houthi rebels -- two claims made only once global media started expressing doubts about the American version of the tanker attack events.

So, not foreign shipping, but TWO American military aircraft attacked.... with absolutely no US outrage.  To quote a sailor:

#Charlie Wilson's John Bolton's War

And, in Foreign Affairs, Ilan Goldenberg of the Center for a New American Security suggests What a War With Iran Would Look Like. He posits one scenario in which "the United States faces a choice: continue the tit-for-tat escalation or overwhelm the enemy and destroy as much of its military capabilities as possible, as the United States did during Operation Desert Storm against Iraq in 1991. The Pentagon recommends “going big” so as not to leave U.S. forces vulnerable to further Iranian attacks. Bolton and U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo support the plan. Trump agrees, seeing a large-scale assault as the only way to prevent humiliation.

The United States sends some 120,000 troops to its bases in the Middle East, a figure approaching the 150,000 to 180,000 troops deployed to Iraq at any given point from 2003 to 2008. American aircraft attack conventional Iranian targets and much of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure in Natanz, Fordow, Arak, and Esfahan. For now, the military does not start a ground invasion or seek to topple the regime in Tehran, but ground forces are sent to the region, ready to invade if necessary.

Iran’s military is soon overwhelmed, but not before mounting a powerful, all-out counterattack. It steps up mining and swarming small-boat attacks on U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf. Missile attacks, cyberattacks, and other acts of sabotage against Gulf oil facilities send global oil prices skyrocketing for weeks or months, perhaps to $150 or more per barrel. Iran launches as many missiles as it can at U.S. military bases. Many of the missiles miss, but some do not. Iran’s proxies target U.S. troops in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, and Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen increase their rocket attacks against Saudi Arabia. Iran may even attempt terrorist attacks on U.S. embassies or military facilities around the globe—but will likely fail, as such attacks are difficult to execute successfully.

He concludes that "Even short of such worst-case scenarios, any war with Iran would tie down the United States in yet another Middle Eastern conflict for years to come. The war and its aftermath would likely cost hundreds of billions of dollars and hobble not just Trump but future U.S. presidents. Such a commitment would mean the end of the United States’ purported shift to great-power competition with Russia and China."

 

[Brad Sallows]

Or: a handful of weeks destroying most of the Iranian air force, naval forces, and critical infrastructure, followed by a ceasefire offer.

 

[Jarnhamar]

[quote author=E.R. Campbell]

He concludes that "Even short of such worst-case scenarios, any war with Iran would tie down the United States in yet another Middle Eastern conflict for years to come. The war and its aftermath would likely cost hundreds of billions of dollars and hobble not just Trump but future U.S. presidents. Such a commitment would mean the end of the United States’ purported shift to great-power competition with Russia and China."
[/quote]

I had it explained to me that Iran knows the USA has Middle East fatigue so their plan is to wait the US out. They already have a foothold in Iraq, both politically and with the SMGs. All the pro-Iran militias. Iran supposedly put some kind of moratorium on attacking US and allied members (to the militia groups) to try and get the US out faster.

 

[brihard]

I had it explained to me that Iran knows the USA has Middle East fatigue so their plan is to wait the US out. They already have a foothold in Iraq, both politically and with the SMGs. All the pro-Iran militias. Iran supposedly put some kind of moratorium on attacking US and allied members (to the militia groups) to try and get the US out faster.

“They have the watches. We have the time.”

 

[Lumber]

Wait... So if Trump were to do this (attack Iran), it would potentially be  aboon to Russia? Say it ain't so...

 

[tomahawk6]

Operation Preying Mantis 1988. I think this type of op may play out sooner than later.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Mantis

 

[Brad Sallows]

Trump hasn't established a pattern as a warmongerer, but he is sometimes prone to adopting the course of action recommended by the most recent person who made a case to him.  The risk of war originates not with Trump.  More oversight of what the executive agencies are peddling rather than less is warranted.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I had it explained to me that Iran knows the USA has Middle East fatigue so their plan is to wait the US out. They already have a foothold in Iraq, both politically and with the SMGs. All the pro-Iran militias. Iran supposedly put some kind of moratorium on attacking US and allied members (to the militia groups) to try and get the US out faster.

From what I heard and read, the Iranian regime is made up of competing factions, so while such an order may go out, eventually one of the factions/groups are going to say "eff this" and conduct an attack of some sort.

If I was the US, I would start by attacking Iranian Proxy groups.

 

[Edward Campbell]

From what I heard and read, the Iranian regime is made up of competing factions, so while such an order may go out, eventually one of the factions/groups are going to say "eff this" and conduct an attack of some sort.

If I was the US, I would start by attacking Iranian Proxy groups.

Or one might say:

From what I heard and read, the Iranian American regime is made up of competing factions, so while such an order may go out, eventually one of the factions/groups are going to say "eff this" and conduct an attack of some sort.

If I was the US Iran, I would start by attacking Iranian American Proxy groups government in the region.

 

[tomahawk6]

SA weighs in.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/saudi-crown-prince-accuses-iran-of-twin-tanker-attacks/ar-AACW1Y7?ocid=spartanntp

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Or one might say:

From what I heard and read, the Iranian American regime is made up of competing factions, so while such an order may go out, eventually one of the factions/groups are going to say "eff this" and conduct an attack of some sort.

If I was the US Iran, I would start by attacking Iranian American Proxy groups government in the region.

The main two "factions" in the US are the State Department and the Pentagon, they see each other as the major opponent of the other. However the US military will not be attacking without orders. Iran has been fighting with US proxy groups for quite sometime. However there are quite few Iranian proxy groups that are quite exposed both in Iraq and Syria, that could suffer serious losses if the US decided to go after them without any warning. If you watch the ANNA and other video's you see a lot of of those groups have terrible Signal discipline and use commercial radios for comms. I suspect and hope the US have been quietly listening and tracking those proxy HQ's and leaders for such an occasion.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Saw this video, from Al Jazeera, on another website.


P.S. I find Al Jazeera's news mostly "fair and balanced."

 

[Journeyman]

P.S. I find Al Jazeera's news mostly "fair and balanced."

Ditto.  It's one of my start-the-day, over coffee, checks of the overnight traffic.  :nod:

 

[Lumber]

Ditto.  It's one of my start-the-day, over coffee, checks of the overnight traffic.  :nod:

I usually start with cbc, CNN and fox for their pure entertainment value, but then I finish off with AJ, WP, BBC and Reuters for a more unbiased take on actual news. AJ has been one of the best (surprisingly) news outlets I've enjoyed so far.

(it's actually very interesting jumping between fox News and CNN and seeing which site had which story at the top, and when, as well as seeing the different spin or "flavor" that each one will put in the same story... Basically, I don't go to these sites for real news, I go to watch in amusement as the US msm slowly spirals into... Whatever it is that is becoming...)

 

[dimsum]

I usually start with cbc, CNN and fox for their pure entertainment value, but then I finish off with AJ, WP, BBC and Reuters for a more unbiased take on actual news. AJ has been one of the best (surprisingly) news outlets I've enjoyed so far.

Agreed.  Their English service is miles ahead of most American channels.  BBC, AJ and WP/NYT, then the Guardian.

 

[Pelorus]

In my experience, the reality of a news org's reliability and objectivity is often more complex than can be characterized by a simple trustworthy/untrustworthy label.

Al Jazeera, for example, is generally one of the better sources for news related to the Middle East. However, there is more observable bias in stories relating to Qatar or the greater Qatar/Saudi dynamic. Knowing the background/ownership of a specific org is always helpful going in.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The 10 employees working on the Norwegian-owned MT Front Altair landed in Dubai following two days in Iran, the AP reports.