Iran v US confrontation

Classical Mechanic said:
He's a bit out there for sure but it would be a logical strategy for a country like Iran to employ. Although maintaining such covert cells would have become much more difficult in the digital age I would have thought.
Click to expand...
That’s not really their style though, is it? Certainly you’d have to keep an eye on the area around the Strait of Hormuz, Lebanon and Israel, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, etc.

An attack on US soil would be suicide though.
 
Pexbo said:
Yet that is the situation now and in your opinion this has proven to be a win for Trump.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the vast majority of his supporters will view it that way. Most of them probably agree on the nuclear deal with him anyway. Lets face it, the troops are staying in Iraq regardless.

Organic Potatoes said:
That’s not really their style though, is it? Certainly you’d have to keep an eye on the area around the Strait of Hormuz, Lebanon and Israel, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, etc.

An attack on US soil would be suicide though.
Click to expand...

Yeah, to be fair it would be a high cost for low reward strategy.
 
Pexbo said:
Click to expand...

That seems to sum it up, provided the immediate crisis is really over. It could be added that the situation of the Iraqi and Iranian opposition movements will probably worsen, but I doubt too many people in the West will care.
 
Pexbo said:


The fact it’s viewed as a win for Trump because it’s some sort of pissing game when it’s quite clearly an absolutely monumental loss for the US just shows how disconnected the President is from the country he’s representing.
Click to expand...

I'd say a fair few messages are intended to appease Trump without people really believing what they're saying.' AMERICA WAN! Boo Yah (Please stop being a jackass)' kind of deal
 
Sirens in the Green Zone in Baghdad (where the American Embassy is). Apparently two missiles were fired and explosions have been heard.
 
The stock market has been crazy volatile to all this, it does feel very manipulated in accordance to the events.
If the hit on the US bases were to save face, and the US allowed this one time retaliation, with the objectives than laid out in Trump's speech, insiders would have become very very wealthy in the space of just 12 hours.
 
starman said:
The stock market has been crazy volatile to all this, it does feel very manipulated in accordance to the events.
If the hit on the US bases were to save face, and the US allowed this one time retaliation, with the objectives than laid out in Trump's speech, insiders would have become very very rich in the space of just 12 hours.
Click to expand...
Indeed. And again - don't forget Eric Trump s tweet announcing the strike before it even happened which sent defense stocks way up. This is all about money, money and more money.
 
starman said:
The stock market has been crazy volatile to all this, it does feel very manipulated in accordance to the events.
If the hit on the US bases were to save face, and the US allowed this one time retaliation, with the objectives than laid out in Trump's speech, insiders would have become very very wealthy in the space of just 12 hours.
Click to expand...
Really? For the most part it has been just slightly going up, like normal (bar in the morning when it went a bit down, but then got back level when it became clear that there won't be bar). Of course, some individual stocks always go up and down but I don't think it has been a big deal.
 
Revan said:
Really? For the most part it has been just slightly going up, like normal (bar in the morning when it went a bit down, but then got back level when it became clear that there won't be bar). Of course, some individual stocks always go up and down but I don't think it has been a big deal.
Click to expand...

Index's were down almost 2% overnight when news broke and had fully recovered by the morning, And then jumped 1% after Trump spoke. 3% swing in 12 hours is crazy
 
TheReligion said:
Anyone who believes Iran would be a match for the US and/or any coalition needs a reality check. Using Iraq and Afghanistan to prove this point is mute as Western Forces have developed and learnt significantly since these conflicts for the reasons already outlined. The technology and tactics are much improved. Tried and tested so to speak. Western Forces are far better designed to cope with another war in the region than they were in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Click to expand...
War in Iran would be very difficult for Western forces. You can’t compare the geography of Iraq & Iran, the former is a quarter the size & basically flat, the latter is far more like Afghanistan & huge. To think the West would roll through Iran like they initially did in Iraq is foolish.
 
Ahhh, great to hear that old chestnut, the abject lie of the money returned to Iran in 2013. Glad to hear he is being roundly called out on that on most major television networks.
 
calodo2003 said:
War in Iran would be very difficult for Western forces. You can’t compare the geography of Iraq & Iran, the former is a quarter the size & basically flat, the latter is far more like Afghanistan & huge. To think the West would roll through Iran like they initially did in Iraq is foolish.
Click to expand...

If they wanted to they could if the will was there, could they keep and hold it is a different matter. Certainly the US could reduce Iran to a militia country with no hope of nuclear program for a decade, which is ultimately what the US want. People need to stop thinking America cares what happens on a humanitarian scale. America could do this in a month, yes Iran could still fight but their nuclear/midsole program would take a thrashing.
 
Carolina Red said:
The Trumpite misinformation campaign has been a success.
Click to expand...

Joseph Goebbels On Propaganda

- If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

- There was no point in seeking to convert the intellectuals. For intellectuals would never be converted and would anyways always yield to the stronger, and this will always be ‘the man in the street.’ Arguments must therefore be crude, clear and forcible, and appeal to emotions and instincts, not the intellect. Truth was unimportant and entirely subordinate to tactics and psychology.

- The rank and file are usually much more primitive than we imagine. Propaganda must therefore always be essentially simple and repetitive. In the long run basic results in influencing public opinion will be achieved only by the man who is able to reduce problems to the simplest terms.
 
InLevyITrust said:
If they wanted to they could if the will was there, could they keep and hold it is a different matter. Certainly the US could reduce Iran to a militia country with no hope of nuclear program for a decade, which is ultimately what the US want. People need to stop thinking America cares what happens on a humanitarian scale. America could do this in a month, yes Iran could still fight but their nuclear/midsole program would take a thrashing.
Click to expand...
We could definitely hinder their nuclear program, but we already did before. We could do that with cyber a la Stuxnet, it would be more difficult now, but feasible. To think that we could accomplish bigger goals than that (regime change, capitulation of military, complete public sentiment sway, control of Strait of Hormuz) is small minded & foolish. We could inflict damage, but they could use (potentially nuclear tipped, but not necessarily needed) Sunburns on our Fifth Fleet in the Gulf / at port in Bahrain in the first hour of conflict, then turn off the Strait of Hormuz soon after, plunging the world’s economy into chaos overnight.
On paper, the Western military would win v. Iranian military, but Iran ain’t gonna fight symmetrically. That’s where they would score key victories & win a somewhat lopsided stalemate, setting up the next round of hostilities.
 
VidaRed said:
Joseph Goebbels On Propaganda

- If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

- There was no point in seeking to convert the intellectuals. For intellectuals would never be converted and would anyways always yield to the stronger, and this will always be ‘the man in the street.’ Arguments must therefore be crude, clear and forcible, and appeal to emotions and instincts, not the intellect. Truth was unimportant and entirely subordinate to tactics and psychology.

- The rank and file are usually much more primitive than we imagine. Propaganda must therefore always be essentially simple and repetitive. In the long run basic results in influencing public opinion will be achieved only by the man who is able to reduce problems to the simplest terms.
Click to expand...
Circa 1930 is circa 2020. The Nazis would be proud their vision is still holding forth in 2020 & being employed by the current admin.
 
Nancy Pelosi says House WILL vote to limit Donald Trump's power to go to war with Iran accusing him of having NO 'coherent strategy' to 'keep Americans safe'

Trump looking more and more like the spoilt man child that he is.
 
Drifter said:
Nancy Pelosi says House WILL vote to limit Donald Trump's power to go to war with Iran accusing him of having NO 'coherent strategy' to 'keep Americans safe'

Trump looking more and more like the spoilt man child that he is.
Click to expand...

Although this is much needed, Trump would ignore it anyway and the move will just be spun as proof of more hatred of Trump by the bitter anti-American Democratic party who don't want the USA to defend itself.

No matter what rational thought says, the right will have an answer for it and they will spread that far and wide on social media and their cult members will lap it up. I fear the USA is so polarized now, nothing will swing either side anymore. The hatred and fear runs too deep. As does the brainwashing on the right.
 
calodo2003 said:
War in Iran would be very difficult for Western forces. You can’t compare the geography of Iraq & Iran, the former is a quarter the size & basically flat, the latter is far more like Afghanistan & huge. To think the West would roll through Iran like they initially did in Iraq is foolish.
Click to expand...
Iran is presented as a major regional power, but that is not the reality, at least in military terms. It would be outgunned massively by the US, and any war would be short-lived up to the point of rendering the current regime untenable and destroying all the key military and infrastructure targets (including the nuclear facilities). The problem would not be the initial invasion, but any subsequent occupation phase. The US may be able to achieve all of its objectives without subduing the whole country, and without the need for a lengthy occupation though.

It may be happy to make an example of Iran by simply trashing it - reducing it to a failed state with no government or military to speak of - then walking away - i.e. playing no part in rebuilding the state or shaping its future. Iran on its own would be powerless to prevent such an act of vandalism, and it is doubtful that its strategic partnerships with Russia and China would translate into any kind of meaningful military support in the event of a major conflict with the US. If it suffered such a fate, it would take decades for it to recover.

My understanding is that the US would be violating international law if it embarked on a war to remove the current regime with no plan for facilitating the transition to a post-war government, but I don't imagine Trump would see this as a problem as he knows the US would never be held to account.

The problem is that the whole concept of international law and a rules based order breaks down if the most powerful nation on the planet doesn't choose to conform. A war between the US and Iran may not be especially dangerous (to the rest of the world) in itself, but its legacy could be the terminal failure of the structures designed to maintain peace and order in the world.
 
Steerpike said:
Iran is presented as a major regional power, but that is not the reality, at least in military terms. It would be outgunned massively by the US, and any war would be short-lived up to the point of rendering the current regime untenable and destroying all the key military and infrastructure targets (including the nuclear facilities). The problem would not be the initial invasion, but any subsequent occupation phase. The US may be able to achieve all of its objectives without subduing the whole country, and without the need for a lengthy occupation though.

It may be happy to make an example of Iran by simply trashing it - reducing it to a failed state with no government or military to speak of - then walking away - i.e. playing no part in rebuilding the state or shaping its future. Iran on its own would be powerless to prevent such an act of vandalism, and it is doubtful that its strategic partnerships with Russia and China would translate into any kind of meaningful military support in the event of a major conflict with the US. If it suffered such a fate, it would take decades for it to recover.

My understanding is that the US would be violating international law if it embarked on a war to remove the current regime with no plan for facilitating the transition to a post-war government, but I don't imagine Trump would see this as a problem as he knows the US would never be held to account.

The problem is that the whole concept of international law and a rules based order breaks down if the most powerful nation on the planet doesn't choose to conform. A war between the US and Iran may not be especially dangerous (to the rest of the world) in itself, but its legacy could be the terminal failure of the structures designed to maintain peace and order in the world.
Click to expand...
Of course all this assumes the US would deploy conventional warfare whereas it has arguably accomplished much more through covert ops over the years. It is one of the primary reasons Putin hates Hillary so much - because he accuses her of fanning the flames of the protests against his regime several years ago.
 
Steerpike said:
Iran is presented as a major regional power, but that is not the reality, at least in military terms. It would be outgunned massively by the US, and any war would be short-lived up to the point of rendering the current regime untenable and destroying all the key military and infrastructure targets (including the nuclear facilities). The problem would not be the initial invasion, but any subsequent occupation phase. The US may be able to achieve all of its objectives without subduing the whole country, and without the need for a lengthy occupation though.

It may be happy to make an example of Iran by simply trashing it - reducing it to a failed state with no government or military to speak of - then walking away - i.e. playing no part in rebuilding the state or shaping its future. Iran on its own would be powerless to prevent such an act of vandalism, and it is doubtful that its strategic partnerships with Russia and China would translate into any kind of meaningful military support in the event of a major conflict with the US. If it suffered such a fate, it would take decades for it to recover.

My understanding is that the US would be violating international law if it embarked on a war to remove the current regime with no plan for facilitating the transition to a post-war government, but I don't imagine Trump would see this as a problem as he knows the US would never be held to account.

The problem is that the whole concept of international law and a rules based order breaks down if the most powerful nation on the planet doesn't choose to conform. A war between the US and Iran may not be especially dangerous (to the rest of the world) in itself, but its legacy could be the terminal failure of the structures designed to maintain peace and order in the world.
Click to expand...

Iran would be fecked. The americans can fecked them up.

At what expense though? The 2020s are era of internet, many many more countries (even fhe 3rd world countries has internet) knows more about what's actually happening it's hard to propaganda iran, it's hard to contain the world from seeing what americans are, a big corporate bully and the source of world conflict.

Americans are burning bridges all over the world. Probably nobody would raise a voice for now, but the resentment and disgust would globaĺly for every team america arrogance and invasion.
 
calodo2003 said:
Circa 1930 is circa 2020. The Nazis would be proud their vision is still holding forth in 2020 & being employed by the current admin.
Click to expand...
Not just your admin either. It's the same policy used world over by right winged nationalist cnuts
 
Thank feck that Iran are mature and sensible regime willing to de-escalate. It's difficult dealing with a war-obsessed US that has a murder and death fetish, but the Iranian solution managed it perfectly.
 
So looks like Iran's face saving attack may be the last of it officially now for a little while. Trump likely got told to sit down by someone over in America, as I doubt it was his decision not to just nuke Iran.

Problem I see now, is that the whole episode will just further fuel the fires for terrorist groups to do their own attacks. I'd assuming it won't be to far into the year before something is blown up. Whether these will be with or without Iran funding doesn't really matter, America will likely point the finger at them anyway in further attempts to stir up war and votes. Rinse and repeat with more innocent lives being lost.
 
Revan said:
All polls put Dems winning the election, his approval is on low forties, and people seem to not want a war (bar the crazy nutters who still think that the Iraq war was a great idea). Add to the fact that he did not build a wall and didn’t bring troops home.

It is Dems to lose. Which they will probably do with all the Intra-fighting (especially from the left part of the party).
Click to expand...

If the thought of 5 more years of agent trump doesn't unite them then they deserve everything that comes
 
Dante said:
Thank feck that Iran are mature and sensible regime willing to de-escalate. It's difficult dealing with a war-obsessed US that has a murder and death fetish, but the Iranian solution managed it perfectly.
Click to expand...

It’s only temporary. The Iranians know they can’t win a hot war with the US and will over time use proxies to strike back in odd places the US wouldn’t ordinarily expect. Hezbollah have in the past been used to go after targets from Argentina to Bulgaria to Thailand, and have even managed to get operatives into the US. Embassies in unusual places will likely be the targets over the next couple of years.
 
Redplane said:
So about that airliner no one suddenly seems to be giving any fecks about....
Click to expand...

Only the manufacturer is worried, because is another Boeing serious crash in a short period of time. And the airline is a quite reliable one that flies all over the world from the Americas to Asia and they have a very good safety history (not so good reviews in terms of flight services, but that's a different story).
 
Redplane said:
Of course all this assumes the US would deploy conventional warfare whereas it has arguably accomplished much more through covert ops over the years. It is one of the primary reasons Putin hates Hillary so much - because he accuses her of fanning the flames of the protests against his regime several years ago.
Click to expand...
The US would be perfectly happy to use conventional methods against a foe it knew it outgunned massively, and would still have covert options available as well. It would be much more likely to favour an entirely covert strategy against a more capable foe (e.g. Russia or China).

If the Iran situation were to escalate, what would be the objectives of any US action? I suggest something along the following lines: -

1. Substantial degradation of Iranian military capabilities.
2. Destruction of the nuclear facilities.
3. Removal of the present regime (does not necessarily include facilitating a replacement).
4. Severe damage to the Iranian infrastructure and economy, ensuring it is too weak to pose a threat for the foreseeable future.

The methods deployed would be whatever was needed to achieve those objectives.
 
Pexbo said:
I expect you notice them more because they invoke a bigger reaction and resonate with you more. In contrast when you see the left candidates criticised you shrug and subconsciously dismiss it as sensible criticisms of radical ideas.
Click to expand...
My beliefs are actually much closer to Sanders and Warren than Biden (though I see merits on Bloomberg too, and so think that he is the only one who will do something about the massive debt, and Yang is the only one who is giving logical answers and talking for many problems the other seem to not care about, though I don’t like his social credit thing). However, the vicious attacks have come almost entirely from the left (not Warren or Sanders personally, but Bernie bros and now AOC).

Thing is, if the party gets divided (as in the electorate of the left hating the moderates and vice versa) from idiots like AOC, then it doesn’t matter who wins the primary when Trump gets another 4 years in the office. Being uncompromising in your beliefs is awesome to get Twitter subscribers and do memes, but the net value in improving people lives is 0. Sanders should know this best, he has sponsored 3 bills in his time as senator (2 of them being to change the names of post offices). Some ‘Republican in disguise’ like Mancin has done far more for his constituents.

Saying that I am happy that Sanders initiated the Medicare for all, and AOC has been doing good things on making people think about climate change, but all of this will have 0 positive effect when Republicans win the president and senate again. Which they will, if Democrats fight with each other instead of seeing the bigger picture.
 
Raoul said:
It’s only temporary. The Iranians know they can’t win a hot war with the US and will over time use proxies to strike back in odd places the US wouldn’t ordinarily expect. Hezbollah have in the past been used to go after targets from Argentina to Bulgaria to Thailand, and have even managed to get operatives into the US. Embassies in unusual places will likely be the targets over the next couple of years.
Click to expand...
Right now, I imagine Trump would be very quick to point the finger at Iran if any kind of action against US assets or interests occurred. Iran absolutely cannot afford a direct conflict with the US, and the real threat may be that a faction sympathetic to Iran takes action that the regime hasn't sanctioned, and Trump uses that as a premise for an attack (I don't see him waiting on the outcome of any prolonged investigation).

Iran will want the whole situation to go very quiet while it uses its influence in Iraq to push for the expulsion of US forces.
 
calodo2003 said:
We could definitely hinder their nuclear program, but we already did before. We could do that with cyber a la Stuxnet, it would be more difficult now, but feasible. To think that we could accomplish bigger goals than that (regime change, capitulation of military, complete public sentiment sway, control of Strait of Hormuz) is small minded & foolish. We could inflict damage, but they could use (potentially nuclear tipped, but not necessarily needed) Sunburns on our Fifth Fleet in the Gulf / at port in Bahrain in the first hour of conflict, then turn off the Strait of Hormuz soon after, plunging the world’s economy into chaos overnight.
On paper, the Western military would win v. Iranian military, but Iran ain’t gonna fight symmetrically. That’s where they would score key victories & win a somewhat lopsided stalemate, setting up the next round of hostilities.
Click to expand...

Do the new generation of ships not have anti missile systems and radar jamming devices? The Sunburns are just devastating yes but no where near top of the tech, they aren't a stealth missile as far as I am aware.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.