Post New

April Fool! Highly unlikely that they are.

But after the abject failure of our NATO partners to so much as lift a finger to help us with respect to Iran it's now time to seriously assess our investments in NATO and President Trump and Secretary Rubio both made remarks to that effect.

I expect some NATO nations like France and Spain to be useless. It's in their national character to not be team players. But the Brits and the Germans are especially disappointing, the Brits especially given their skill at foreign intelligence (meaning, they know the score in Iran) and their shared history of being on the receiving end of Iranian terrorism.

Keir Starmer made several remarks today. They're quite illuminating:

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-remarks-...

First - let me say once again: this is not our war.

We will not be drawn into the conflict.

That is not in our national interest.

And the most effective way we can support the cost of living in Britain is to push for de-escalation in the Middle East and a re-opening of the Strait of Hormuz which is such a vital route for energy.

Yeah, yeah yeah. We know. Anyway:

And the UK has now brought together 35 nations around our statement of intent to push, as one, for maritime security across the Gulf.

And today I can announce that later this week the Foreign Secretary will host a meeting that brings those nations together for the first time where we will assess all viable diplomatic and political measures we can take…

To restore freedom of navigation, guarantee the safety of trapped ships and seafarers and to resume the movement of vital commodities.

Following this meeting, we will also convene our military planners…

To look at how we can marshal our capabilities…

And make the Strait accessible and safe after the fighting has stopped.

Because - I do have to level with people on this, this will not be easy.

Good for them. A bit late to the party, but better than never showing up at all.

He continues, now having suffered an attack of common sense:
We’re taking back control of our energy security, by investing in clean British energy.

Because that is the only way we get your bills off the rollercoaster that is controlled by Putin and the Iranian regime.

And frankly, I am sick and tired of your energy bills fluctuating up and down because we are on the International Market…

…when if we took control of our energy and had home grown renewables, we could stabilise your bills.

My bad. There's no common sense there. He's basically pushing more of the same failed green policies they've been pursuing for years.

In the end NATO knows that America - whether it's Republicans or Democrats will be there to be a deterrent to Russia and others.

Because American politicians are either sympathetic to colonizer Europe, AND OR on the Defense Payroll.

Spain will get away with all of it.

In the end NATO knows that America - whether it's Republicans or Democrats will be there to be a deterrent to Russia and others.

Because American politicians are either sympathetic to colonizer Europe, AND OR on the Defense Payroll.

Spain will get away with all of it.

Very likely.

But an example needs to be made of someone. If we didn't use Rota, Spain as a large Naval base there would be zero reason for Spain to be in NATO other than geography. Perhaps another location can be found for the Sixth Fleet, maybe Italy or along the African coast.

The French are the French. They pulled this same sh1t when Reagan needed to strike Libya after Qaddafi bombed a nightclub in Berlin - France denied use of their airspace then also. I still recall a mid 80's US News and World Report article about NATO that featured an interview with a US Army Infrantry Officer. He said, when asked about the usefulness and contribution level of some of our NATO partners that

"I'd rather have the Poles than the French". <--- bear in mind Poland was in the Warsaw Pact at this time.

The Europeans are coming to grips with the fact that they're no longer free nations. They're now dependents to their self-imposed bureaucratic strangulation that's baked in the worst of green and de-industrialist policies. Plus they're all going to be praying 5 times a day from now on.

It's in their national character to not be team players.

"Team player" is "JC"-speak for "I demand you cut your throat, for my benefit".

As luck would have it, I was reading an article in Air Force magazine yesterday, about the intervention in Libya. The other NATO members were on board with that. So was the UN.


United Nations Security Council Resolution 1970 was a measure adopted unanimously by the UN Security Council on 26 February 2011. It condemned the use of lethal force by the government of Muammar Gaddafi against protesters participating in the Libyan Civil War, and imposed a series of international sanctions in response.

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

The "justification" for the intervention was delusional blather: words to the effect "to prevent a massacre of civilians, at the hands of the Libyan army". The fact was the "civilians" were an armed force rebelling against the established Libyan government. As was the case in Syria, the west reacts with shock and horror, when a government it doesn't like tries to defend itself against an uprising. Of course, if the west likes the established government, then they are fine with the rebellion being crushed. Recall, there was an "Arab spring" uprising in Bahrain too. But the west likes the regime in Bahrain, so was perfectly fine with the Saudi army marching in and crushing the rebellion.

If Trump the Magnificent and Virile had been a politician, and understood consensus building, he could have made a case at the UN, using Hillary's playbook about Libya, citing whatever was the most inflated number for the "innocent people killed by the Iranian regime".

But no. Trump the Most Perfect is a "JC". He used the "JC" playbook: "shut up and do as you are told".

Hard telling what he will say tonight. Don't know what to make of it either, as so much of what he says is a mix of lies and delusion.

Steve

"Team player" is "JC"-speak for "I demand you cut your throat, for my benefit".


Cutting their throats, how?

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/iran-backed-...
Yup.

How about France and other places?
https://icct.nl/publication/iranian-external-opera...

I for the life of me will never understand how the left got to where it is today, that their hatred for 1 guy blinds them to nearly 50 years of murder and mayhem directed against us by the Iranians.

As luck would have it, I was reading an article in Air Force magazine yesterday, about the intervention in Libya. The other NATO members were on board with that. So was the UN.

Except for these guys:
https://www.upi.com/Archives/1986/04/15/France-whi...
PARIS -- France, which refused to allow U.S. warplanes to cross French territory en route to Libya, criticized the United States Tuesday for setting the stage for a new 'chain of violence' with its bombing raids.

Some things never change. And recall that Reagan launched those strikes in part due to this:
https://americanarchive.iwm.org.uk/stories/operati...

In retaliation for the deadly bombing of a West Berlin nightclub in April 1986, US President Ronald Reagan ordered an attack at the heart of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's regime. Ten days later, F-111s took off from RAF Lakenheath for what would become the longest combat fighter mission in history.

On the night of 5th April 1986, an explosion ripped through the dancefloor of a crowded West Berlin discotheque, sending partygoers tumbling into the cellar below. Two people died at the scene, 29-year-old Turkish woman Nermin Hannay and 21-year-old US Sergeant Kenneth T. Ford. Another US sergeant, James E. Goins, died later in hospital. Over 200 people were injured in the blast, including 79 Americans.

You'd have thought that the Germans would have been upset by foreign agents blowing up their citizens but maybe not.

NATO countries like France and Spain are useless.

I for the life of me will never understand how the left got to where it is today, that their hatred for 1 guy blinds them to nearly 50 years of murder and mayhem directed against us by the Iranians.

If you want to understand the left, you have to stop attributing our skepticism of the current operation with being blind to past Iranian practice.

All of us are aware of the Iranian's malefactions. We're just also aware that you're not likely to improve the situation all that much by lobbing missiles at them from a few hundred miles away. Sure, we can temporarily degrade some of their capabilities - but to temporary effect, and at such considerable cost to ourselves that it's not much of a net benefit even if all goes well.

And of course, once you go up the escalatory ladder you lose the deterrent effect of even those attacks: once you start bombing them, you can no longer threaten to start bombing them. Which is what led them to seize the strait, which they hadn't actually done in the last 50 years. It became a smart move for them once we went to war against them. So yes - things can actually get worse in some ways when you go to war, even if the regime is already terrible and fomenting problems to begin with.

That's why NATO isn't rushing to bail Trump out. He made a bad choice. Not bad because of any love for Iran or blindness to their murder and mayhem - bad because it's likely to lead to poor outcomes for everyone. Had he consulted NATO before doing any of this, they would have had an opportunity to explain to him why this was a bad move. Such explanation would have included the obvious likelihood that Iran would try to expand the war and interfere with energy flows. And the fact that even though the bombs and missiles could be done from hundreds of miles away, restoring the energy flows will require getting your actual troops (well, naval forces) within a dozen or two miles of Iranian territory.

Which is why Trump isn't just opening the straits ourselves. Because he knows that way lies troops coming home in flag-draped coffins. Which is why NATO isn't accepting his argument that we've done hard part (attacking from hundreds of miles away or 30,000 feet), and all that's left is the easy part (running interference within a few dozen miles of the Iranian coast or sending in ground troops to seize the area along the strait). He's trying to saddle other countries with the part of the mission that's most likely to involve serious casualties, even though he gave those countries no opportunities to make objections to the planning or initiation of the operation and no opportunity to make the case to their own citizenry that such losses were necessary. Which is a hard case to make, given that Trump appears to have concluded that the U.S. citizenry would not accept significant casualties to re-open the strait.

If you want to understand the left, you have to stop attributing our skepticism of the current operation with being blind to past Iranian practice.

You mean, as opposed to reading left wing posts that really don't discuss anything other that how much Trump sucks?

We're just also aware that you're not likely to improve the situation all that much by lobbing missiles at them from a few hundred miles away. Sure, we can temporarily degrade some of their capabilities - but to temporary effect, and at such considerable cost to ourselves that it's not much of a net benefit even if all goes well.

So we should...do nothing. The Iranians admitted - bragged, actually - that they had enough nuclear material for several bombs already. And they've also been lying about the scope and scale of their ballistic missile programs.

I suppose we could have done nothing, and waited until we had a world where Iran could shoot nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles over the arctic and into New York City. Inaction is always a choice, after all.

And of course, once you go up the escalatory ladder you lose the deterrent effect of even those attacks: once you start bombing them, you can no longer threaten to start bombing them. Which is what led them to seize the strait, which they hadn't actually done in the last 50 years. It became a smart move for them once we went to war against them. So yes - things can actually get worse in some ways when you go to war, even if the regime is already terrible and fomenting problems to begin with.

They've threatened to close the Strait before, specifically during the Iran/Iraq war and at other times: https://www.history.com/articles/7-historical-figh...
The Iran-Iraq War raged for eight years and threatened to disrupt the movement of oil through the Strait of Hormuz. Oil tankers became targets for both sides. In 1984, Iraq attacked some Iranian oil tankers and Iran retaliated by laying naval mines in the Persian Gulf and harassing Iraqi, Kuwaiti and Saudi tankers with armed speedboats. During the so-called “Tanker War," the U.S. sent warships to escort neutral tankers safely through the Strait of Hormuz.

In 1988, an Iranian mine damaged the USS Samuel B. Roberts, a naval frigate on escort duty in the Persian Gulf. The U.S. responded with Operation Praying Mantis, a major military operation that sank or crippled much of the Iranian navy. Later that year, a U.S. warship accidentally shot down Iran Air Flight 655, killing all 290 civilians aboard the commercial flight.

Trump made a call that Iran was an imminent threat and decided to act. It's that simple.

Had he consulted NATO before doing any of this, they would have had an opportunity to explain to him why this was a bad move.

How do you know he didn't?

We've discussed NATO before. If the NATO nations had any actual projectable combat power, you'd see them participating. But they don't, so we don't. That's put them in the position of various sizes of mice who all hope that who they think the cat is won't come looking for them.

I can't respect that. Iran has committed enough mayhem and murder over the years against the entire West that a reckoning was due at some point. Given that war with China is a non-zero possibility in a few years having a nuclear-armed Iran threatening US interests in the Gulf *and* having the ability to close the strait *and* having unlimited access to terror proxies is an unacceptable national security risk.

The europeans don't see it that way, however. For them, they pay lip service to world affairs and national security but their actions are merely those of a fading set of countries hoping to stave off their inevitable declines; their GDPs, stagnant, their population driven by increasing unassimilable groups of people who actively work to undermine their shared culture and a nonrepresentative beareaucratic governmental structure that actively limits choice and national dexterity.

So Trump is making a strategic gamble. The left - which hates Trump and refuses to see the world beyond that - is acting as one would suspect they would.

NATO countries like France and Spain are useless.

lessee what happens when the time and effort to build a consensus is expended:

2011 military intervention in Libya

France: The French Air Force, which flew the highest percentage of NATO's strikes (35%), participated in the mission with 18 Mirage, 19 Rafale, 6 Mirage F1, 6 Super Etendard, 2 E-2 Hawkeye, 3 Eurocopter Tiger, 16 Aérospatiale Gazelle aircraft. In addition, the French Navy anti-air destroyer Forbin and the frigate Jean Bart participated in the operations.[115] On 22 March, the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle arrived in international waters near Crete to provide military planners with a rapid-response air combat capability.[116] Accompanying Charles de Gaulle were the frigates Dupleix, Aconit, the fleet replenishment tanker Meuse, and one Rubis-class nuclear attack submarine.[117] France did station three Mirage 2000-5 aircraft and six Mirage 2000D at Souda Bay, Crete.[118] France also sent an amphibious assault helicopter carrier, the Tonnerre (relieved on 14 July by Mistral[119]), carrying 19 rotorcraft to operate off the coast of Libya.[120] The French Air Force and Navy flew 5600 sorties[121] (3100 CAS, 1200 reconnaissance, 400 air superiority, 340 air control, 580 air refueling) and delivered 1205 precision guided munitions (950 LGB and 225 AASM "hammer" missiles, 15 SCALP missiles).[122] Helicopter forces from Army Aviation aboard Tonnerre and Mistral LHD performed 41 night raids, 316 sorties, and destroyed 450 military objectives. The ammunition delivered were 432 Hot Missiles, 1500 68-mm rockets and 13,500 20- and 30-mm shells by Gazelle and Tigre helicopters. The French Navy provided Naval gunfire support and fired 3000 76- and 100-mm shells from the Jean Bart, Lafayette, Forbin, and Chevalier Paul destroyers.

Spain: The Spanish Armed Forces participated with six F-18 fighters, two Boeing 707-331B(KC) tanker aircraft, the Álvaro de Bazán-class frigate Méndez Núñez, the submarine Tramontana and two CN-235 MPA maritime surveillance planes. Spain participated in air control and maritime surveillance missions to prevent the inflow of arms to the Libyan regime. Spain also made the Spanish air base at Rota available to NATO.[146]

(and a few surprises)

United Arab Emirates: On 24 March, the United Arab Emirates Air Force sent six F-16 and six Mirage 2000 fighter jets to join the mission. This was also the first combat deployment of the Desert Falcon variant of F-16, which was the most sophisticated F-16 variant at the time. The planes were based at the Italian Decimomannu air base on Sardinia.[1

Qatar: The Qatar Armed Forces contributed with six Mirage 2000-5EDA fighter jets and two C-17 strategic transport aircraft to coalition no-fly zone enforcement efforts.[143] The Qatari aircraft were stationed in Crete.[116] At later stages in the Operation, Qatari Special Forces had been assisting in operations, including the training of the Tripoli Brigade and rebel forces in Benghazi and the Nafusa mountains. Qatar also brought small groups of Libyans to Qatar for small-unit leadership training in preparation for the rebel advance on Tripoli in August.

Jordan: Six Royal Jordanian Air Force fighter jets landed at a coalition airbase in Europe on 4 April to provide "logistical support" and act as an escort for Jordanian transport aircraft using the humanitarian corridor to deliver aid and supplies to opposition-held Cyrenaica, according to Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh. He did not specify the type of aircraft or what specific roles they may be called upon to perform, though he said they were not intended for combat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_interv...

Seems the Big O, and Hillary, did a better job of assembling a team. vs Trump the God Awful, treating everyone else like dirt.

Steve

Seems the Big O, and Hillary, did a better job of assembling a team. vs Trump the God Awful, treating everyone else like dirt.

Whoa. Some serious firepower here:
Jordan: 6 fighter jets (they're not in NATO)
Qatar: 6 fighter jets (they're not in NATO)
UAE: 12 fighter jets (they're not in NATO)
Spain: 6 fighter jets

Hilarious that the number '6' keeps showing up. That's not even a full squadron. One wonders how much begging Herself had to do just to get that much.

By the way. What strategic and/or imminent threat did Libya represent?

So we should...do nothing. The Iranians admitted - bragged, actually - that they had enough nuclear material for several bombs already. And they've also been lying about the scope and scale of their ballistic missile programs.

If all the alternatives to nothing don't help - or result in a worse situation than doing nothing - then doing nothing is the right move. If there are alternatives to doing nothing that might result in an improvement, but this specific thing isn't one of them, then you shouldn't to this specific thing. Whether the alternative we should be pursuing is something else, or nothing, it shouldn't be this.

They've threatened to close the Strait before, specifically during the Iran/Iraq war and at other times:

But they didn't do what they're doing now. That's the thing - once you start a war, all the things that the other side refrains from doing because they don't want to escalate things into all-out war suddenly are very much on the table. Which is, of course, exactly what happened. We started the war and killed their leadership, and they responded with attacks up and down the energy supply chain - including direct missile attacks into the territories of their fellow Gulf states.

Iran has committed enough mayhem and murder over the years against the entire West that a reckoning was due at some point.

Just because "a reckoning was due" does not mean that "starting a war was likely to improve our strategic position."

Given that war with China is a non-zero possibility in a few years having a nuclear-armed Iran threatening US interests in the Gulf *and* having the ability to close the strait *and* having unlimited access to terror proxies is an unacceptable national security risk.

And a course of action that would actually prevent all three of those things from happening might therefore be appropriate. But that's not this thing. We've had minimal impact on Iran's ability to develop a nuclear weapon (and I think the net effect of the war is to make Iran obtaining a nuke more likely rather than less likely, since we've completely discredited the faction that was pushing to remain below breakout). We haven't taken away their ability to close the strait. They've never had "unlimited" access to terror proxies, and it's hard to see how the U.S. military operation materially affects their access to them now - the regime is staying in place, it will be just as hardline and perhaps even more belligerent towards other nations in the Gulf (not just Israel), they're likely to get a new source of funds from their Hormuz extortion, and they have enormous credibility among the "terror proxy" community now that they've stood up to the U.S. and taken our best shot and survived intact.

Just because we really >want them to not have nukes and not have the ability to project power in the Gulf doesn't mean that starting a hot war with them is going to accomplish those goals. Recognizing that isn't saying that people are happy with the status quo - it's just recognizing that bombing them isn't going to have sufficient benefits to change that.

Iran has committed enough mayhem and murder over the years against the entire West that a reckoning was due at some point.

Dope, you don't need to waste your time regurgitating what the RW media is feeding you...you can just post links. That'll save you time.

If all the alternatives to nothing don't help - or result in a worse situation than doing nothing - then doing nothing is the right move. If there are alternatives to doing nothing that might result in an improvement, but this specific thing isn't one of them, then you shouldn't to this specific thing. Whether the alternative we should be pursuing is something else, or nothing, it shouldn't be this.

And this is the exact same strategic logic that led Stanley Baldwin and Albert Sarraut to sit on their thumbs and allow Hitler to reoccupy the Rhineland in 1936 in a direct violation of the Treaty of Versailles. Had they intervened when Hitler was pulling guns with horse-drawn wagons and had very little naval combat power to offset the Royal Navy and the French Fleet, WW2 might have been prevented. Similarly had Bill Clinton taken action and eliminated Osama Bin Laden and his entourage in the Sudan 9/11 might have been prevented.

Doing nothing is a choice. Strategic inaction has consequences.

But they didn't do what they're doing now.

They mined the strait and directly attack neutral-flagged container ships. One could argue they did MORE than they did now because they had far more capability relatively speaking at the time (no more Navy or aircraft for them now).
Here's a picture of a flaming Singaporean ship for you: https://www.history.com/articles/7-historical-figh...
Doesn't look like a love tap to me. Since no one will click on the link here's the caption:
The Singapore-flagged, 85,000-ton Norman Atlantic stands ablaze on December 6, 1987, after being attacked by an Iranian warship as it approached the Strait of Hormuz.

What Iran is doing is violating the peaceful passage of neutral ships in international waters. It's not any different from Hitler attempting to use his Wolf Packs to close the Atlantic to allied shipping in 1940-1941.

The response from our NATO "allies" should have been immediate condemnation and a pledge to escort tankers and other shipping through the Gulf. That they didn't - when they had the law and moral authority on their side - is a simultaneous demonstration of moral weakness, cowardice and the lack of any ability to project power.

People tell you they are when under stress. These aren't your father's europeans. (Although the French certainly are).

Just because we really >want them to not have nukes and not have the ability to project power in the Gulf doesn't mean that starting a hot war with them is going to accomplish those goals. Recognizing that isn't saying that people are happy with the status quo - it's just recognizing that bombing them isn't going to have sufficient benefits to change that.

LOL. They were headed down the path of getting a nuclear weapon. Several of them, in fact.
The strategic chicken Barack Obama actually fired one of his national security advisors for daring to ask him the question of "Do you want the Iranians to have a nuclear weapon or not?" and upbraided the guy publicly.

Strategic inaction carries penalties. Severe ones, at times. Trump decided that strategic inaction wasn't a viable choice given all that's potentially about to happen in the Pacific and chose to end the threat now with what he had today.

Ask yourself this: *When* Iran would have built a nuclear weapon and said, With this holy weapon we will close the straits of Hormuz unless <insert demand here> what would the ability of the western powers to respond be?

Doing nothing is a choice. Strategic inaction has consequences.

True. That doesn't mean that doing any particular action is smart. Or will make things better. Or won't make things worse.

That they didn't - when they had the law and moral authority on their side - is a simultaneous demonstration of moral weakness, cowardice and the lack of any ability to project power.

Why didn't we do that? Why haven't we started escorting tankers and other shipping vessels through the gulf? Is it because of our moral weakness, cowardice, and lack of any ability to project power?

Or is because that particular mission involves putting servicemen and women within twenty miles of the Iranian coast, making them viable targets for Iran to create non-trivial numbers of casualties that the American public will not support?

LOL. They were headed down the path of getting a nuclear weapon. Several of them, in fact.

And all of those paths remain just as open to them now as they did before the war. We haven't done anything to change their capabilities.

Iranian strategy has always been to head down the path of getting a nuclear weapon and not pass breakout. If they had actually wanted to move to breakout, they easily could have at any point during the last five or six years (up until the 12 Day War). But they did not. Because the faction in the Iranian government that wanted breakout was in the minority, and they were overruled by others who felt that Iran could project power more readily in a non-nuclear Middle East than one in which six or seven countries had nukes.

Severe ones, at times. Trump decided that strategic inaction wasn't a viable choice given all that's potentially about to happen in the Pacific and chose to end the threat now with what he had today.

Except he didn't. He didn't choose to end the threat. He chose to engage in an aerial campaign without ground troops. Which doesn't end Iran's nuclear capabilities - indeed, it barely will affect them from where they were before the war. They hadn't restarted the program, so there wasn't really anything left that hadn't been destroyed in the 12-day war. And it doesn't end Iran's nuclear ambitions, and indeed makes it far more likely that they won't stop short of breakout when they restart their program.

Why didn't we do that? Why haven't we started escorting tankers and other shipping vessels through the gulf? Is it because of our moral weakness, cowardice, and lack of any ability to project power?

Because we're taking out their ability to launch attacks. I'll also point out that I've flagged the diminished state of our Navy for the past several years on this board and on PA.

Or is because that particular mission involves putting servicemen and women within twenty miles of the Iranian coast, making them viable targets for Iran to create non-trivial numbers of casualties that the American public will not support?

Oh, so we're the cowards? That's certainly a take. "TACO" (<--- lol) and all that.

And all of those paths remain just as open to them now as they did before the war. We haven't done anything to change their capabilities.

If one believes that all we've done is blow up empty parking lots and bounce rubble, sure.

Iranian strategy has always been to head down the path of getting a nuclear weapon and not pass breakout.

And there it is. I knew that leftists didn't actually believe that the Iranians really wanted a nuclear weapon, that instead it was all a bluff. Or something.

If they had actually wanted to move to breakout, they easily could have at any point during the last five or six years (up until the 12 Day War). But they did not. Because the faction in the Iranian government that wanted breakout was in the minority, and they were overruled by others who felt that Iran could project power more readily in a non-nuclear Middle East than one in which six or seven countries had nukes.

Erm, okay. The religious fanatics who export terror at will are the dominant "faction" in the Iranian government. There IS no other "faction" of "moderates". I'm, reminded of the 1980's joke that goes like this:

What does an Iranian moderate look like?
He's the one who ran out of ammunition.

Still applies today.

Except he didn't. He didn't choose to end the threat.

Sure, okay. We're just digging holes with our explosives in Iran. Totally pointless exercise.

He chose to engage in an aerial campaign without ground troops. Which doesn't end Iran's nuclear capabilities - indeed, it barely will affect them from where they were before the war. They hadn't restarted the program, so there wasn't really anything left that hadn't been destroyed in the 12-day war. And it doesn't end Iran's nuclear ambitions, and indeed makes it far more likely that they won't stop short of breakout when they restart their program.

And if the Marines are sent in to seize Kharg Island, then what will you say? Taking that is checkmate for Iran's economy, as 90% of their oil exports move through those terminals. Seize that, the Iranian economy ceases to exist.

I'll won't ask you to comment on the hypothetical of Iran threatening to detonate a nuclear weapon in the middle of the strait. Instead, I'll play it out for you:

1. Iran issues the threat. Immediately Lloyd's on London says "We're not insuring tanker traffic through the Gulf" or just raises rates through the ceiling.
2. Oil prices rise
3. The western powers can't risk war because it's too easy for the Iranians to carry out their threat. Plus it's not like they're threatening to nuke Chicago or London, so a nuclear deterrent is off the table.
4. The Iranians gain concessions in the form of sanctions relief and quickly put the money towards terror and more weapons development.
5. In 12 months, the cycle starts again.

That's what strategic inaction buys you. If I'm Trump when this is all over I call up Rutte and tell him not to bother to invite Spain and France to any NATO conferences or meetings because as far as the US delegation is concerned, they're dead to us. I'd also cancel any and all training exercises with either country for a few years (it's not like they have any military readiness anyhow). I'd also quietly speak to Giorgia Meloni about relocating any Sixth Fleet ships from Rota, Spain to Naples (where the repair facilities are located anyway).

Because we're taking out their ability to launch attacks. I'll also point out that I've flagged the diminished state of our Navy for the past several years on this board and on PA.

But why not also do the escorting? After all, you've also pointed out the diminished state of Europe's naval forces for the past several years. Surely if this is something that can reasonably be done by the European navies - which haven't had the benefit of mobilizing massive numbers to the region in anticipation of the war - then surely we could do it as well.

I mean, I ask the question, but I know the answer. Because that's the really dangerous part of the mission, in terms of potential casualties to actual service members. Firing missiles and bombs from far away has its risks, but you're far less likely to start having a lot of coffins than if you're running ships within one or two dozen miles of the Iranian coast.

If one believes that all we've done is blow up empty parking lots and bounce rubble, sure.

With respect to their nuclear capabilities? We haven't really been blowing anything up with respect to their nuclear program, which is what I was talking about. We blew everything up last year, and Iran didn't rebuild any of it. That's why Gabbard had to dodge so much at her hearing. Iran hadn't done anything to reactivate their enrichment program. So there was nothing to blow up.

And there it is. I knew that leftists didn't actually believe that the Iranians really wanted a nuclear weapon, that instead it was all a bluff. Or something.

It's not a bluff or something - but they have deliberately chosen to remain below breakout even though they've had the capacity to do so for at least a half dozen years. Why? If they wanted to enrich to weapons grade, there's been nothing stopping them since Trump abrogated the JCPOA. Why didn't they do it? They've had the ability to actually create a nuke for a least a decade, but chose not to. Why?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/iran-nuclear-bomb...

They wanted to get the benefits of a nuke without escalating. They wanted to de facto have a nuke, but not quite have it in place so that it wouldn't launch a war. But now that they know that the war will be launched whether they rush for breakout or not, there's no longer any reason to delay.

And if the Marines are sent in to seize Kharg Island, then what will you say? Taking that is checkmate for Iran's economy, as 90% of their oil exports move through those terminals. Seize that, the Iranian economy ceases to exist.

I'd say that's pretty unlikely to happen. Trump doesn't want to send Marines to seize Kharg Island, because he doesn't want boots on the ground and the casualties that come with it. Nor does he want the spike in oil and gas prices that would accompany both that attack and the inevitable Iranian response.

But even if it did, Iran's economy doesn't cease to exist if you seize Kharg - oil exports are about 12% of their GDP. It would take a massive hit, but the regime would almost certainly continue to resist. And since we're leaving Iran very shortly, they can certainly hold out the 2-3 weeks that would entail.

That's what strategic inaction buys you.

But that's also what this war buys you. Iran has no less ability to build a nuclear weapon the day after our bombs stop falling now than they did in late February. You can't bomb knowledge. They know how to enrich uranium, they know how to build centrifuges, and you can't stop them from being able to do that.

You could invade with ground forces and seize the country. But we're not going to do that. You could bribe/bargain with them to not develop a nuke. But Trump isn't going to do that, and they wouldn't trust him to keep his bargain. You can threaten them with consequences if they develop a nuke, but they won't trust him not to implement the consequences even if they comply.

Again, no one disputes the downsides to Iran having a nuke. What we question is the wisdom of doing this specific thing, when this specific thing (an air war with no ground troops) doesn't materially affect Iran's ability to have a nuke.

Strategic inaction carries penalties. Severe ones, at times.

So does impulsive action based on false information.

Remember yellowcake and WMDs?

But why not also do the escorting?

Because we don't have a big enough Navy, as I've pointed out on this board a zillion times.

After all, you've also pointed out the diminished state of Europe's naval forces for the past several years. Surely if this is something that can reasonably be done by the European navies - which haven't had the benefit of mobilizing massive numbers to the region in anticipation of the war - then surely we could do it as well.

Not while conducting offensive operations at the same time.
You're also making my point for me that the europeans have allowed their military readiness to slide beneath the waves to a point where they might as well not have any Navies at all.

I mean, I ask the question, but I know the answer. Because that's the really dangerous part of the mission, in terms of potential casualties to actual service members. Firing missiles and bombs from far away has its risks, but you're far less likely to start having a lot of coffins than if you're running ships within one or two dozen miles of the Iranian coast.

Erm, okay.

With respect to their nuclear capabilities? We haven't really been blowing anything up with respect to their nuclear program, which is what I was talking about. We blew everything up last year, and Iran didn't rebuild any of it. That's why Gabbard had to dodge so much at her hearing. Iran hadn't done anything to reactivate their enrichment program. So there was nothing to blow up.

https://www.msn.coam/en-in/news/other/watch-huge-e...

How do you know we "haven't really been blowing anything up with respect to their nuclear program"? Are you getting briefings on the strike packages?

It's not a bluff or something - but they have deliberately chosen to remain below breakout even though they've had the capacity to do so for at least a half dozen years.

And yet: https://www.iranintl.com/en/202506078822
Iran has formally defended its enrichment of uranium to 60% purity in a public statement, insisting the activity is not prohibited under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

And how much do you need, anyway? You can build the bomb with as low as 20% enriched uranium. The higher the level of enrichment you have, the less physical mass of uranium you need to create fission. The bomb at Hiroshima was ~80%.

You also don't need sophisticated implosion type initiation systems either - all you need is a small gun to fire a uranium "bullet" into another chunk of uranium. Boom. (Some lib on this board will doubt that, I invite you to study nuclear weapons design history).

So the Iranians are already in possession of everything they need to make a crude nuclear weapon.

But even if it did, Iran's economy doesn't cease to exist if you seize Kharg - oil exports are about 12% of their GDP.

More like 23%, and several of their industries tied to oil (and/or were dependent on oil revenue) would take a massive hit. No, they don't have the ability to recover from losing a quarter of GDP instantly.

Again, no one disputes the downsides to Iran having a nuke.

Then that makes the strategic inaction and inability to game scenarios where they do have one pretty inexcusable.

So does impulsive action based on false information.

Remember yellowcake and WMDs?

Was wondering when someone would bring up Iraq.

For one, Iran isn't Iraq. Much of the Iranian population is rooting for the bombing. Second, the Iranians are openly bragging about what they have and what they want to do with it. So if there's any "false information", it's coming from the Iranians themselves.

By the way. What strategic and/or imminent threat did Libya represent?

Go back and read Resolution 1970. It was all about "protecting civilians", ie, the rebels who had taken up arms against the recognized government of Libya.

The demonstrations in Iran in January, and the alleged tens of thousands of demonstrators killed, would be a better excuse than what floated 1970. It would have been better if the Israeli had kept their pie hole shut, instead of bragging about how Mossad agents were in country, agitating for more, bigger, more violent, demonstrations.

Keep in mind, Trump the God Awful had declared their nuke facilities "obliterated" last summer. The Omani mediator was reporting Iran offering to give up more than they did in the JCPOA, but Trump the God wanted war, so attacked between "peace" negotiation sessions. The WMD excuse on this go around stinks even more that it did 20 years ago. Recall, Iraq had provided a truckload of documentation that it had gotten ride of everything. UN inspectors were in country, reporting good cooperation by Iraqi authorities, and they weren't finding diddly. But Bush wanted his war, in spite of the lack of evidence.

The Brits, French, Saudis, all contributed combat formations for "Desert Storm".

The Brits, French, Canadians, Italians, Germans, and others, helped in the invasion of Afghanistan, because of the plausible link to the 9/11 attack.

The list of participants in the invasion of Iraq was a lot shorter, because the justification was pretty questionable: UK, Australia, Poland.

Trump the God Awful thinks he's the center of the universe. No credible justification. Goes out of his way to insult our allies. And, son of a gun, our allies are telling him to pound sand.

Steve

For one, Iran isn't Iraq. Much of the Iranian population is rooting for the bombing.

Not anymore.

Not while conducting offensive operations at the same time.
You're also making my point for me that the europeans have allowed their military readiness to slide beneath the waves to a point where they might as well not have any Navies at all.

No, just pointing out the inconsistency of your position. If the europeans don't have much naval strength, as you suggest, and Trump is insisting that this is something the Europeans could (or should) do, then it's clearly something that we could do ourselves - even while conducting offensive operations.

The reason we don't do it is for the same reason we don't have boots on the ground. It's difficult and dangerous to the service members, because it requires putting large numbers of people within the range of drones and short-range missile fire that we can't protect them from.

How do you know we "haven't really been blowing anything up with respect to their nuclear program"? Are you getting briefings on the strike packages?

Because we already blew nearly everything up the last time we were there. And the DNI's office confirmed that they didn't rebuild any of the stuff we blew up last time. Gabbard avoided saying it out loud in her testimony, because she didn't want the video clip - but Iran had done nothing to restore the prior facilities. We've done a few strikes on some of the sites again, but to very marginal effect, because these were either tertiary sites or because they were already "obliterated" last time, to coin a phrase. Per the IAEA:

Rafael Grossi, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said in an interview that aired Sunday the U.S.-Israeli war against Iran has not done as much damage to the latter’s country nuclear program as U.S. and Israeli strikes did last June.

“This time around, I think the focus of the campaign does not seem to be specifically the nuclear facilities, although there have been some hits in Natanz and Isfahan and also at another place near Parchin, which used to be a facility more related to the weaponization efforts, but back in the early 2000s,” Grossi told host Margaret Brennan on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

“So, there has been some [impact], but I would say they have been relatively marginal when you consider the overall nature of the military campaign so far,” he added.

https://thehill.com/policy/international/5795733-g...

Then that makes the strategic inaction and inability to game scenarios where they do have one pretty inexcusable.

Unless there isn't a scenario where attacking them can prevent them from having a nuke, at any cost you're willing to accept. If you're not going to do an Iraq-style invasion, and anything short of that won't prevent them from getting a nuke if they want one, then what you would call strategic inaction may be the only option.

There's no inability to game scenarios where they have one - it's pretty easy to do, and I'm sure every national security department in every country has run those scenarios. That doesn't mean that you can stop them from getting a nuke by bombing them.

If you can't stop them from getting a nuke by bombing them, and if your country is unwilling to invade with ground troops, then "strategic inaction" may be all that's left. I mean, there's always diplomacy, but you have to believe that would work for that to be an alternative. There's always the option of bribing them not to go for a nuke, which is what we were doing for a while....but if you're going to reject that, you're foreclosing a lot of the potential action space.

Trump the God Awful thinks he's the center of the universe.

He’ll be giving an address this evening.

Should be cringe worthy.

For one, Iran isn't Iraq. Much of the Iranian population is rooting for the bombing.

Well, that is what the USian media is telling us. We old phartz remember the USian media showing us jubilant crowds whacking a stature of Saddam with their shoes. That didn't mean we could install a Quisling in Baghdad and call it a day.

Steve

He’ll be giving an address this evening.

What we don't know, is if he will raise, or fold. Or is he trying to manipulate the market one way on Thursday, then he does the opposite over the weekend, so he and his cronies can make another pile of loot.

Steve

LOL. They were headed down the path of getting a nuclear weapon. Several of them, in fact.

Yeah...after the Felon tossed out the treaty with them. It may not have been a perfect treaty, but it did pretty much halt their arms production program. They've ramped that up since the Felon tossed it. The bombing last year put a crimp in their operations, but they'll be on track again within a few years.

Not anymore.

Sure about that?

Yeah...after the Felon tossed out the treaty with them.

Would this be the same treaty that expired in 10 or so years, removed all sanctions, and essentially gave them the bomb at that time?

That "treaty"? The one that was never approved by the Senate (and was thus merely a handshake agreement from Obama, who knew damn well he was kicking this particular can down the road?

And I'm sure that Iran is merely responding to the Bad Orange Man in terms of their weapons development. After all they're little angels over there, right?

Well, that is what the USian media is telling us. We old phartz remember the USian media showing us jubilant crowds whacking a stature of Saddam with their shoes. That didn't mean we could install a Quisling in Baghdad and call it a day.

I suppose one could trot out a few dead-enders in Iran who love the Mullahs; statistics says that there must be somebody over there who does.

The majority of the people? Don't support the mullahs. For proof of that go look at any of the videos of Iranians in the streets. When you see a bunch of women there, ask yourself if they're wearing hijabs or not or are dancing. There's your answer.

But why not also do the escorting?

I don't think we've learned how to defend against drones adequately to risk major assets like destroyers. I'm sure we'll get there. But we aren't there yet. Ukraine and Russia are still figuring out how to defend against land drones. Russia didn't have much opportunity to figure out sea drones before their Black Sea Fleet was decimated. They still don't get anywhere near the shores of Ukraine.

We don't want another USS Stark incident or a USS Cole incident. We can't spare the assets, and we don't have replacements on the way.

I think we need to live with the consequences of our actions. I'm unwilling to sacrifice the lives of sailors because of an obvious consequence of attacking Iran. We should probably shut off Iran's spigot entirely. Their economy almost certainly would collapse, and then -maybe- there would be enough support for an insurrection to accomplish the stated goal of regime change. If we let their oil flow, they'll just build more stuff that goes 'boom', and then use it.

No, just pointing out the inconsistency of your position. If the europeans don't have much naval strength, as you suggest, and Trump is insisting that this is something the Europeans could (or should) do, then it's clearly something that we could do ourselves - even while conducting offensive operations.

There's no inconsistency whatsoever. If anything, it's *yours*. You're the one who has been telling me - insisting, even - that the europeans are ready and able to defend themselves and their interests.

So why aren't they responding to attacks on neutral shipping in international waters, something that Hitler did?

Because we already blew nearly everything up the last time we were there.

Oh, really? I seem to recall you lamenting that the last set of strikes didn't accomplish anything and that air power alone doesn't do jack squat.

So which is it? Did we degrade or eliminate their nuclear and other capabilities or have we not?
And if we did last time, why are we not (in your view) going to accomplish anything this time around?

Unless there isn't a scenario where attacking them can prevent them from having a nuke, at any cost you're willing to accept. If you're not going to do an Iraq-style invasion, and anything short of that won't prevent them from getting a nuke if they want one, then what you would call strategic inaction may be the only option.

You literally just got through saying
Because we already blew nearly everything up the last time we were there. And the DNI's office confirmed that they didn't rebuild any of the stuff we blew up last time.

Again, which is it?

If you can't stop them from getting a nuke by bombing them, and if your country is unwilling to invade with ground troops, then "strategic inaction" may be all that's left. I mean, there's always diplomacy, but you have to believe that would work for that to be an alternative. There's always the option of bribing them not to go for a nuke, which is what we were doing for a while....but if you're going to reject that, you're foreclosing a lot of the potential action space.

I'm sure this very conversation was held at 10 Downing St. in March of 1936. How did it work out for the world? Or the version of this conversation that happened either in Foggy Bottom or the White House Situation Room in the late 1990s?

I think we need to live with the consequences of our actions. I'm unwilling to sacrifice the lives of sailors because of an obvious consequence of attacking Iran. We should probably shut off Iran's spigot entirely. Their economy almost certainly would collapse, and then -maybe- there would be enough support for an insurrection to accomplish the stated goal of regime change. If we let their oil flow, they'll just build more stuff that goes 'boom', and then use it.

A rec for this.
The Iranians are a nest of scorpions. They serve no purpose in the world other than to export terror and chaos. Like it not, Trump decided that their current state of ballistic missile development + their existing levels of nuclear enrichment + their willingness to use state assets (their Navy, etc.) to disrupt trade in the straits + their willingness to export terror through proxies in Yemen (the Houthis), Gaza (Hama), Lebanon (Hezbollah) and other places constituted a threat that couldn't be kicked down the road any longer.

We can agree to disagree about whether or not blasting them right now was either the right thing to do or even if it was a good thing. But the most important notion is that we've arrived at this point in time and it can't be undone. Thank you for recognizing that.

We should probably shut off Iran's spigot entirely. Their economy almost certainly would collapse, and then -maybe- there would be enough support for an insurrection to accomplish the stated goal of regime change.

I don't think we're willing to do that. You'd spike oil prices vastly higher than they are now, and likely set off a world-wide recession. The damage to global agriculture and chip making (fertilizer and helium) would be pretty terrible, and the economies of several other Gulf nations (Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, UAE) would also collapse as Iran responded by sealing off Hormuz. Saudi can adapt somewhat, unless the Iranians can call in the Houthis to go after Red Sea traffic. Things wouldn't be so hot in receiver countries either, like Japan and Taiwan. And Europe definitely doesn't want the refugee problem that would create.

And even then, it might not work. The regime is fresh off slaughtering folks who weren't even engaged in insurrection, and they probably have sufficient asymmetrical control over the use of force in the countr to keep any uprising in check for quite a while. Crater the Iranian economy and you create an even greater risk of "rally 'round the flag." Authoritarian regimes use external enemies as part of their propaganda, and you just make it that much easier when even opponents of the regime know that you're taking action to tank the country.

So why aren't they responding to attacks on neutral shipping in international waters, something that Hitler did?

For the same reason we're not. It's not even clear they can protect the ships from the type of drone and missile attacks that Iran can launch from shore, they would be exposing their own troops to casualty risks that their population is no more prepared to absorb than we are, and because the U.S. was the proximate cause of the strait being closed. Just because a customer decides that they're not going to follow the "you break it, you bought it" rule doesn't mean that the store owner will go along with it.

They correctly intuit that the U.S. and Israel caused this situation by choosing to make war on Iran without having a plan in place to prevent them from disrupting global energy supplies. If you don't assemble your coalition of allies on the front end - getting their agreement and giving them a seat at the table from the very beginning - they're not going to be in a position to rush to your aid when things go pear-shaped.

So which is it? Did we degrade or eliminate their nuclear and other capabilities or have we not?
And if we did last time, why are we not (in your view) going to accomplish anything this time around?

It's both. Last time, we blew up nearly everything that could be blown up by bombers and missiles. And blowing things up with bombers and missiles isn't enough to prevent them from developing a nuke in the future, because Iran still can (eventually) dig up the fissile material and has the ability to redevelop the centrifuges.

There's nothing left to bomb, because they didn't rebuild any of the stuff we bombed last time. But since they still have all the knowledge and fissile material (which you can't eliminate by bombing), you're not preventing them from ever having a nuclear weapon.

I'm sure this very conversation was held at 10 Downing St. in March of 1936. How did it work out for the world? Or the version of this conversation that happened either in Foggy Bottom or the White House Situation Room in the late 1990s?

Sometimes declaring war is the right thing to do. Sometimes it's not. The fact that you can identify moments in history when an attack should have been made but wasn't does not mean that the war that we chose to launch in February can achieve its goals or was the smart thing to do. Whatever conversations were held at 10 Downing St. in March of 1936 don't suddenly make the decision to invade Iraq in 2003 a smart choice, or the Russians' invasion of Afghanistan either. Sometimes launching a war is the right move, and sometimes it's a phenomenally stupid move - and sometimes it's something that will end up being a jumbled muddle that causes losses to both sides without significantly advancing your strategic goals.

I don't think we're willing to do that.

I agree. In which case, we shouldn't be doing this at all. You're either in it to win, or you're not. If you're not, don't kill people for -essentially- no reason.

And even then, it might not work.

Absolutely. It would be a dice roll. But I think it would be the ONLY way -maybe- to accomplish it. Crushing their military wasn't/isn't enough. Dropping more bombs won't do it.

The discontent of the Iranian people is the only thing that could do it. But it would have to be pervasive and unstoppable. If their economy is functioning, that isn't going to happen. May not happen anyway (as you say, could be "rally around the flag"). But that's the only shot.

Otherwise we should just go home. We shouldn't even have started, but that horse has already escaped the barn.

For the same reason we're not.

We're not? We're the ones sending their Navy and any ship that looks Minelaying-capable to the bottom of the sea. Plus our ships are being used as missile/drone defense radar and SAM sites.

They correctly intuit that the U.S. and Israel caused this situation by choosing to make war on Iran without having a plan in place to prevent them from disrupting global energy supplies.

That's hardly the correct intuit. Do you honestly think the Navy hasn't gamed out this out for the past several decades?

If you do, then I suggest you research one Marine Lt. General Paul Van Riper and his contributions.

It's both. Last time, we blew up nearly everything that could be blown up by bombers and missiles. And blowing things up with bombers and missiles isn't enough to prevent them from developing a nuke in the future, because Iran still can (eventually) dig up the fissile material and has the ability to redevelop the centrifuges.

Those centrifuges - the ones not buried under tons 'o rubble - are likely unrepairable. It's kinda hard to rebalance something that needs to spin at 100,000rpm after it's been broken.

And how do you know that we blew everything up in only 12 days?

The fact that you can identify moments in history when an attack should have been made but wasn't does not mean that the war that we chose to launch in February can achieve its goals or was the smart thing to do.

And it's not intended to. What it *is* intended to do is prove the point that doing nothing is in itself a choice and that choice can have dire consequences down the road.

1poorguy has it 100% correct: What matters is where we go from here because the good ship Navel-gazing about Not Doing Something set sail a while ago.

Crushing their military wasn't/isn't enough. Dropping more bombs won't do it.

The discontent of the Iranian people is the only thing that could do it. But it would have to be pervasive and unstoppable. If their economy is functioning, that isn't going to happen.

The Iranian public lacks the resources to be able to effectively overthrow the heavily armed religious leaders and their military. Their economy is at least semi-functional. The leadership was able to re-establish itself after having the old leadership eliminated. Which means the US military strikes were INEFFECTIVE at accomplishing their desired objective(s).

It is time to remove the INEFFECTIVE US LEADERSHIP--as publicly documented by their ongoing failures.

We're not? We're the ones sending their Navy and any ship that looks Minelaying-capable to the bottom of the sea. Plus our ships are being used as missile/drone defense radar and SAM sites.

But that's not what needs to happen. Which is why ships aren't traversing the strait without being cleared by Iran. What Trump is asking other countries to do, which we're not doing ourselves, is to secure the strait. That means either escort ships that will run interference against attacks from the shore (drones and missiles) or doing something on the actual shore to prevent Iran from making those attacks (boots on the ground).

It's obvious why we're not doing that - the public wouldn't support the casualties that would result from it. Which is why other countries, who never agreed to this in the first place, aren't willing to take that bullet for us.

Do you honestly think the Navy hasn't gamed out this out for the past several decades?

I'm sure they have. And I'm sure they have lots of plans for either naval escorts or ground troops seizing territory along the shoreline - or both - in order to respond to it. But we're not doing any of that, because we don't want to bear the costs that would inevitably come from it. Which is why we're not prepared to respond to this rather obvious countermeasure. And Trump is asserting that no one ever gamed out that Iran might attack energy networks in other Gulf States. I think that's untrue, of course - I have no doubt the military has gamed that out as well - but the fact that Trump is claiming that none of his team ever discussed it indicates that the current operation wasn't prepared for it.

And it's not intended to. What it *is* intended to do is prove the point that doing nothing is in itself a choice and that choice can have dire consequences down the road.

1poorguy has it 100% correct: What matters is where we go from here because the good ship Navel-gazing about Not Doing Something set sail a while ago.

Sure. And launching a war is a choice, and that choice can have dire consequences down the road as well. And sometimes launching a choice is the wrong choice compared to doing a deal (even a bad one), or even doing nothing at all.

And "where we go from here" is dramatically affected by how we got here. Because this military action was ill-considered and is unlikely to achieve any of our long-term strategic goals, that constrains our future options. Our allies are not willing to contribute because we didn't prepare the ground for them to do so. The public isn't willing to support escalation because we didn't prepare the ground for them to do so. And almost all of the reasons against "Doing Something" are also reasons against "Doing Something More," and they're certainly reasons against excoriating NATO countries for being understandably hesitant about pulling our chestnuts out of the fire we deliberately chose to put them into.

That they didn't - when they had the law and moral authority on their side - is a simultaneous demonstration of moral weakness, cowardice and the lack of any ability to project power.

Trump's silly shilly shally TACO international 'diplomacy' isn't 'projecting power', it is making our nation look foolish and incompetent. We strengthen our enemies and weaken our alliances. Just plan STUPID.

Trump is the poster boy for moral weakness and cowardice.

You live in upside down world.

Should be cringe worthy.

Has Trump EVER opened his mouth when it WASN'T cringeworthy?

And I'm sure they have lots of plans for either naval escorts or ground troops seizing territory along the shoreline - or both - in order to respond to it. But we're not doing any of that, because we don't want to bear the costs that would inevitably come from it. Which is why we're not prepared to respond to this rather obvious countermeasure. And Trump is asserting that no one ever gamed out that Iran might attack energy networks in other Gulf States. I think that's untrue, of course - I have no doubt the military has gamed that out as well - but the fact that Trump is claiming that none of his team ever discussed it indicates that the current operation wasn't prepared for it.

Let's learn from Marine Lt. General Paul van Riper:

https://warontherocks.com/2015/11/millennium-chall...

Red team leader Van Riper knew his country’s political leadership could not accept this, which he believed would lead the blue forces to directly intervene. Since the George W. Bush administration had recently announced the “preemption doctrine,” Van Riper decided that as soon as a U.S. Navy carrier battle group steamed into the Gulf, he would “preempt the preemptors” and strike first. Once U.S. forces were within range, Van Riper’s forces unleashed a barrage of missiles from ground-based launchers, commercial ships, and planes flying low and without radio communications to reduce their radar signature. Simultaneously, swarms of speedboats loaded with explosives launched kamikaze attacks. The carrier battle group’s Aegis radar system — which tracks and attempts to intercept incoming missiles — was quickly overwhelmed, and 19 U.S. ships were sunk, including the carrier, several cruisers, and five amphibious ships. “The whole thing was over in five, maybe ten minutes,” Van Riper said.

The red team had struck a devastating blow against the blue team. The impact of the OPFOR’s ability to render a U.S. carrier battle group — the centerpiece of the U.S. Navy — militarily worthless stunned most of the MC ’02 participants. Van Riper described the mood as “an eerie silence. Like people didn’t really know what to do next.” Blue team leader Bell admitted that the OPFOR had “sunk my damn navy,” and had inflicted “an extremely high rate of attrition, and a disaster, from which we all learned a great lesson.”

Our forces in the Gulf are already in harm's way; I'm not sure why you keep returning to the point that we're unwilling to risk our ships.

Let's continue and look at the actual after-action report:
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/news/2024-11-01/rigged-w...
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/32484-lt-gen-pa...
From Red JTF-South's position Blue JTF's attack was not rapid, nor was it decisive. After the introduction of flexible deterrent option (FOO) forces Blue required another 23 days (12 July-3 August) to move sufficient forces into theater and to commence offensive actions. At the end of hostilities Red ITF-South still retained its control of the southern Red mainland.

In other words, they've gamed out a lot of what you're saying.

Here's a WaPo summary: https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2024...
When Van Riper told the story of the Millennium Challenge to journalist Malcolm Gladwell, he said the Blue Forces were stuck in their mode of thinking. Their vastly superior technology included advanced intelligence matrices and an Operational Net Assessment that identified OPFOR vulnerabilities and what Van Riper was most likely to do next, selected from a predetermined range of possible scenarios.

Basically, the Blue Forces relied heavily on the technology. When the United States took out the fictional Iran’s microwave towers and fiber optics, they expected Van Riper’s forces to use satellite and cell phones that could be monitored.

Not a chance.

Van Riper instead used motorcycle couriers, messages hidden in prayers called over the muezzin, and even coded lighting systems on his airfields, all of which were old tactics employed during World War II.

The Pentagon got a rude reminder that the enemy gets a vote. After initially balking, to their credit, they learned.

In other words, they've gamed out a lot of what you're saying.

I think you misunderstand my point. Of course they've gamed all of this out. There's an untold number of an analyses and studies of what a war in the Persian Gulf would involve. As David Frum noted today:

Trump’s inability to comprehend the relevance of Persian Gulf supplies to American motorists may explain how he stumbled into his Iran war in the first place. A threat to the Strait of Hormuz may be the most war-gamed problem in the whole U.S. military inventory. It’s thorny enough to have deterred American presidents from attacking Iran for nearly 50 years, no matter how provocatively Iran behaved.

https://archive.ph/Gpsip#selection-749.0-753.185

That doesn't mean that this Administration was prepared for it, though. Of course the military knew of the likelihood of Iran closing the Gulf and what the various options were to respond to that closure. For the Administration to be prepared for it, they would have had to have the resources in place to counter that threat - either our own resources or to have invested the appropriate diplomatic resources to get the resources of other nations available - and they would have had to be in a position to use those resources. That would require the public, and Congress, being adequately prepared to accept some degree of ship losses and casualties, because you can't open the Gulf without getting many more ships much much closer to drone and missile range than we have now. And the Administration having chosen which of the various options would be necessary to re-open the Gulf and being prepared to implement it.

Instead, we have Trump tonight basically declaring "Mission Accom...." Sorry - wrong war. I mean "Objectives Completed" in Iran. No preparing the nation for further escalation, no laying the groundwork for support for a new phase in the war. So it sure looks like we're going to solve Iran's seizure of the strait of Hormuz by the rather unorthodox (and probably not wargamed) strategy of....simply ignoring it and declaring it to be someone else's problem. Seems like we'll just claim that "straits don't count" since they weren't on our list of objectives, therefore we won and quit the battlefield, leaving Iran in charge of the strait. Which seems like a pretty poor tradeoff for simply getting new younger mullahs in charge of the same radical Islamic authoritarian regime and taking out their air force and navy, along with using up a lot of our inventory of interceptors and tomahawks in order to reduce their inventory of ballistic missiles.

That doesn't mean that this Administration was prepared for it,

Given this administration’s talent for memory-holing, and firing so many who held institutional memory, it’s no wonder their first response to the closure of Hormuz was:

“Who could have possibly predicted they’d do this?”

"I for the life of me will never understand how the left got to where it is today, that their hatred for 1 guy blinds them to nearly 50 years of murder and mayhem directed against us by the Iranians."

In addition to being an absolute dumbass when it comes to accurately being able to understand or even describe his opponent's positions, Dumbass Dope has more than a couple of times brought up the Iranian protestors.

One of the people Trump has been negotiating with who he thinks is one of the moderates who could lead Iran going forward is Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf. Trump indicated that he was someone the U.S. was in contact with in an interview.

What we should know about Ghalibaf is that he was once the head of the internal police who cracked down on rioters (in fact bragged about it).

So to use the Iranian protestors as justification for what we have done in Iran while also negotiating with Ghalibaf is the height of hypocrisy. The Iranian people are not going to like the U.S. if the U.S. installs one of the people who helped quell the protests.

I often wonder if Trumps takes pleasure from constantly making his cult followers look like Dumbasses knowing that they will still follow him.

Stop using A.I. to forumlate your responses, albaby1.

More A.I. generated nonsense from Albaby1.

Trump didn't "start this war."

Iran has been fighting this war against America and its allies since 1979.

Directly, and via many proxies such as Hezbollah and Hamas.

Your insane leftist bias (aided by A.I prompts) is glaring.

Trump’s inability to comprehend the relevance of Persian Gulf supplies to American motorists may explain how he stumbled into his Iran war in the first place. A threat to the Strait of Hormuz may be the most war-gamed problem in the whole U.S. military inventory. It’s thorny enough to have deterred American presidents from attacking Iran for nearly 50 years, no matter how provocatively Iran behaved.

And this is some statement.
Does Frum really believe that nobody understands the oil market? Sheesh already. This is just more backwards-looking navel gazing.

For the Administration to be prepared for it, they would have had to have the resources in place to counter that threat - either our own resources or to have invested the appropriate diplomatic resources to get the resources of other nations available - and they would have had to be in a position to use those resources.

Oh, so we have another 50 Burke-class destroyers, or we went back in time and bought the FREMM ships from Italy?

(We didn't do that)

Which seems like a pretty poor tradeoff for simply getting new younger mullahs in charge of the same radical Islamic authoritarian regime and taking out their air force and navy, along with using up a lot of our inventory of interceptors and tomahawks in order to reduce their inventory of ballistic missiles.

Maybe. Maybe not.
You're overlooking the fact that Iran had ballistic missile capabilities (multistage) that were unknown before. Even Mossad evidently didn't know that they could range out over 4,000km. And if you can build a two-stage rocket that can go that far, you can work on a 3-stage rocket capable of hitting the US. Then throw in their 60% enriched uranium.

I'm amazed at the number of people who really don't believe the Iranians wanted the bomb. It's just head-scratching.

Does Frum really believe that nobody understands the oil market? Sheesh already. This is just more backwards-looking navel gazing.

Trump the Conqueror got $1B worth of advice, from US big oil, two years ago: take other people's production offline, so other countries need to bid against the US for USian oil. Big oil reaps fantastic profits. He clearly cares not one whit what Proles pay for gas. After all, Proles are nothing but expendable meat. We are talking PROFITS here.

Steve

Trump the Conqueror got $1B worth of advice, from US big oil, two years ago: take other people's production offline, so other countries need to bid against the US for USian oil. Big oil reaps fantastic profits. He clearly cares not one whit what Proles pay for gas. After all, Proles are nothing but expendable meat. We are talking PROFITS here.

What happens when enough production comes online such that the price of gas stabilizes in a few weeks?

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2026-03-1...

Oil is flowing through Santa Barbara’s controversial pipeline for the first time since 2015, after Trump invoked the Defense Production Act to override state regulators.
California officials are fighting back, with state parks demanding Sable Offshore immediately remove the pipeline and threatening legal action within 10 days.
Sable and the Trump administration argue the restart is essential for national security and will boost California’s domestic oil supply by approximately 17%.

50k more barrels a day. It's a start. The sky-is-falling crowd will whine that we need to up production by orders of magnitude more than that and to that I say, patience.

I'm amazed at the number of people who really don't believe the Iranians wanted the bomb. It's just head-scratching.

It’s because they have an unnatural hate for President Trump they’ve become Iran sympathizers.
America be damned.

50k more barrels a day. It's a start. The sky-is-falling crowd will whine that we need to up production by orders of magnitude more than that and to that I say, patience.

We are talking about 20% of global supply being obstructed. Trump the Grand Master of Oil has openly invited those who had sourced oil from the Gulf, to bid for USian oil. They will, of course, be bidding against USian consumers, so retail prices here will fly.

And, as he openly said last night, he has seized control of Venezuela's oil, so he has even more oil to profiteer off of.

Steve

It’s because they have an unnatural hate for President Trump they’ve become Iran sympathizers.
America be damned.

We can call them "Tucker Carlson libs" from now on. It won't be long before they start quoting TC's America-last, Yay-to-the-Islamists, down-with-da-Joooos stuff anyway.

We are talking about 20% of global supply being obstructed. Trump the Grand Master of Oil has openly invited those who had sourced oil from the Gulf, to bid for USian oil. They will, of course, be bidding against USian consumers, so retail prices here will fly.

And, as he openly said last night, he has seized control of Venezuela's oil, so he has even more oil to profiteer off of.

And this board was convinced that no one would want to bother to invest in Venezuela. How's that prediction going to hold up?

Not very well.

And this board was convinced that no one would want to bother to invest in Venezuela. How's that prediction going to hold up?

I have been long big oil for nearly two years. I have openly speculated, over that time, what Generalissimo Trump would do to cut off other people's production, to better line his pockets.

Well, no-one believed Cassandra either.

Steve

You're overlooking the fact that Iran had ballistic missile capabilities (multistage) that were unknown before. Even Mossad evidently didn't know that they could range out over 4,000km. And if you can build a two-stage rocket that can go that far, you can work on a 3-stage rocket capable of hitting the US. Then throw in their 60% enriched uranium.

And if you can do all that before Operation Epic Fury, you can do all that after Operation Epic Fury.

No one's overlooking it. We're simply pointing out that this particular operation doesn't eliminate the threat of anything Iran might do (or might have done) in the future in terms of weapons development. It probably doesn't materially delay it. Because you can bet that they've learned from this war, and learned that their missiles and drones are far more effective defensive deterrents than their Air Force or Navy. So the post-war defensive rebuild is going to be far more focused on more and more missiles.

I'm amazed at the number of people who really don't believe the Iranians wanted the bomb. It's just head-scratching.

Why is that headscratching? If they wanted to race to a bomb, they could have had one years ago. So clearly there was some internal resistance to taking that step.

They certainly wanted a bomb. But they also recognized there were downsides to doing that that mitigated against the benefits of getting one.

And if you can do all that before Operation Epic Fury, you can do all that after Operation Epic Fury.


Sure. But not instantly, and that's the point. And maybe the plan is to run guns into Iran and give the people a fighting chance. Get the Kurds (who are occupying part of Iran) a safe zone. And since Iran now has no Air Force their ability to do anything about it is very limited.

We're simply pointing out that this particular operation doesn't eliminate the threat of anything Iran might do (or might have done) in the future in terms of weapons development.

Which carries a series of assumptions, the most notable being that the situation on the ground there never changes. But now that the Kurds are marching in there the situation *has* fundamentally changed on the ground. Let's see how it plays out.

Why is that headscratching? Because it means nobody really understands these people or their motives or pays attention to world events.

Even if libs don't believe that Iran would ever actually use a weapon, it's not disputable that they would want one. One needs only look at North Korea for the example why.

Do you want a North Korea equivalent sitting on the Straits of Hormuz - untouchable, and can hold the world hostage on a whim?

And maybe the plan is to run guns into Iran and give the people a fighting chance. Get the Kurds (who are occupying part of Iran) a safe zone.

I think that's a hope, not a plan. The Israeli intelligence forces assessed the situation, and determined that the regime is fully in charge of the country and that any civilian uprising would result in the civilians getting massacred.

Even if libs don't believe that Iran would ever actually use a weapon, it's not disputable that they would want one.

No one disputes that they "want" one. But it's also true that they could have had one before now, and didn't obtain one. So you have to take a moment and think about why that is.

There is a difference between Iran "wanting" a nuclear weapons and "being willing to take the steps necessary, and suffer the consequences of those steps, to obtain one." A random bad person passing by a car on the street might want to steal it but decide not to because the downside to doing it is too great. I "want" to retire pretty soon, but with two kids going to college I'm not going to. I'm sure George W. Bush "wanted" to invade Iran at some point, but decided that the consequences were worse than the benefits. Etc.

Iran would love to have a nuclear weapon, if it would just end there. But it wouldn't. Obtaining a nuclear weapon brings its own set of problems, not least that you would see the other countries in the Gulf all rush to obtain nukes of their own. Iran wants a nuclear weapon to improve their security position and their ability to threaten other countries; but they also want the other countries in the region to not have a nuke (because that degrades their security position and their ability to threaten other countries). Two different wants. Both are real wants - but they conflict, because fulfilling one "want" brings unavoidable consequences.

The Iranian regime has had factions with different positions on which is the better strategy. There have been those who advocated racing to an actual bomb, even though that would cause the rest of the region to proliferate. And there have been those who argued that Iran was actually better off being just below breakout, which gives them more room to maneuver than if they were one nuclear power among six or seven - and that they could still be free from the risk of anyone actually going to war against them.

That latter viewpoint has been largely discredited. So Iran continues to want a nuclear weapon, but now the conflicting want (wanting the benefits of living in a non-nuclear neighborhood while remaining free from countries going to war against them) is no longer on the option.

Do you want a North Korea equivalent sitting on the Straits of Hormuz - untouchable, and can hold the world hostage on a whim?

Nope. But I also know that bombing them like this won't prevent that from happening. It might even make it more likely to happen. It's certainly made it more likely that Iran will consider holding the strait hostage more likely, because....well, it's now happened, when they've never done that before during peacetime (however strained the peace), and it looks like they're far more likely to do it during peacetime once Epic Fury is over. But it's also made it more likely that once the bombs stop dropping, they'll just bite hard and swallow and race to an actual weapon, rather than staying at the 60% they've been at for the last many years.

Iran would love to have a nuclear weapon, if it would just end there. But it wouldn't. Obtaining a nuclear weapon brings its own set of problems, not least that you would see the other countries in the Gulf all rush to obtain nukes of their own. Iran wants a nuclear weapon to improve their security position and their ability to threaten other countries; but they also want the other countries in the region to not have a nuke (because that degrades their security position and their ability to threaten other countries). Two different wants. Both are real wants - but they conflict, because fulfilling one "want" brings unavoidable consequences.


No, this is missing some things. First off, the US nuclear umbrella protects the Gulf States and most especially the ones that have US bases or other assets stationed there.

Secondly, what you're missing is that Iran wants the Untouchability Factor that being nuclear-armed gives them - allows them to make all sorts of mischief under the shadow of a mushroom cloud going off someplace. As I said further, all they need to do is threaten to drive a speedboat in the middle of the strait loaded with their nuke and container/tanker travel grinds to a halt.

The Iranian regime has had factions with different positions on which is the better strategy. There have been those who advocated racing to an actual bomb, even though that would cause the rest of the region to proliferate. And there have been those who argued that Iran was actually better off being just below breakout, which gives them more room to maneuver than if they were one nuclear power among six or seven - and that they could still be free from the risk of anyone actually going to war against them.

There are no "factions" in Iran. What you describe here is merely the Persian version of strategic ambiguity: Do they have one or not? Are they pursuing x or y or not? Etc.

It's certainly made it more likely that Iran will consider holding the strait hostage more likely, because....well, it's now happened, when they've never done that before during peacetime (however strained the peace), and it looks like they're far more likely to do it during peacetime once Epic Fury is over. But it's also made it more likely that once the bombs stop dropping, they'll just bite hard and swallow and race to an actual weapon, rather than staying at the 60% they've been at for the last many years.

What is "peacetime"? When one looks at this through the Iranian lens they've been at war with us for 50 years.

Sure. But not instantly, and that's the point. And maybe the plan is to run guns into Iran and give the people a fighting chance.

While Israel was bragging about having Mossad agents in country, agitating for more, bigger, more violent, demonstrations, there was chatter Mossad was also smuggling arms in to Iran.

Trump the Liberator paid plenty of lip service to supporting the demonstrators, but I did not hear he was doing anything concrete, the way the Big O and Hillary went to the UN for legal cover about the "humanitarian disaster" in Libya. Seems Trump the Conqueror was too busy knocking over Venezuela first, to better profiteer from the inevitable disruption in the Gulf, and missed the opportunity.

Steve

the way the Big O and Hillary went to the UN for legal cover about the "humanitarian disaster" in Libya.

Obama and Hillary! created more of a humanitarian crisis than they solved in Libya.

And, as he openly said last night, he has seized control of Venezuela's oil, so he has even more oil to profiteer off of.

And this board was convinced that no one would want to bother to invest in Venezuela. How's that prediction going to hold up?

Not very well.

Oil was $55 a barrel back then, and it was Enron's CEO that called Venezuela's oil uninvestible. Now in the magnificent Trumpian chaos, oil is $110 a barrel and Venezuela needed $80 a barrel to be profitable. If I recall correctly... Trump is letting Iranian tankers through to China, and wants China to buy Vz crude. Iran and Russia can nowturn up the spigots and convert that into arms against Israel and Ukraine. Trump still has no area on Gaza shores for Trump resorts. Bondi is fired, so we'll another blonde for AG soon. Korea is testing engines that will get their nukes to the USA. All's right with the Trumpian world, MAGA should be happy, except the ones getting hurt by Trump's follies.

Oil was $55 a barrel back then, and it was Enron's CEO that called Venezuela's oil uninvestible.

iirc, it was Exxon. But, of course, the honchos at XOM, COP, and CVX probably did not imagine that Trump the Conqueror would be stupid enough to start a war that would shut down nearly all traffic in the Gulf, which has doubled prices, so far.

Thing is, for VZ to be "investible" Trump would need to keep the war going, for years.

Recall the song I posted yesterday "One, two, three, what are we fighting for?". The fighting is probably, mostly, at the direction of Israel, but juicing big oil profits, to a remarkable degree, is also an objective. We Proles are only a ledger entry under "source of funds", for paying the escalating prices.

Steve

What happens when enough production comes online such that the price of gas stabilizes in a few weeks?

The proles are happy that the price stopped rising, and the oil companies are happy because the price settled sta higher price and their profits are up.

Secondly, what you're missing is that Iran wants the Untouchability Factor that being nuclear-armed gives them - allows them to make all sorts of mischief under the shadow of a mushroom cloud going off someplace.

I'm not missing that. I know Iran wants a nuclear weapon. But they also want other things - they want the rest of the Gulf states to not go nuclear, they want to be able to use proxies without possibly precipitating a nuclear exchange, etc.

It's like Donald Trump and Greenland. Trump wants to acquire Greenland. That's not a bluff, it's not a lie, it's not strategic posturing - Trump genuinely wants the U.S. to have possession of Greenland. And Trump could seize Greenland within a few weeks of giving the order.

But he doesn't give that order. Because even though he wants Greenland - genuinely - he also doesn't want to have the consequences that come with grabbing Greenland. Which is why even though he's had the ability to grab Greenland for the last year and a half or so, he hasn't done it. From which we don't infer that he doesn't want Greenland - we infer that he wants Greenland but chooses not to do it because of the many things that grabbing Greenland would cause to happen.

Similarly, Iran genuinely and totally wants a nuclear weapon - but they weigh that against the consequences. They are constrained, not by lacking a desire for a nuke, but by the events that going nuclear would precipitate.

What is "peacetime"? When one looks at this through the Iranian lens they've been at war with us for 50 years.

Peacetime in the sense of not being in a hot war. If Iran has been at war with us for 50 years, they've refrained from seizing the strait from virtually that entire time. It's been a (mostly) "cold war," to coin a phrase - they've been engaged in a bitter and hostile contest to exert power and foment problems and inflict damage on us, but not at the level of large-scale military forces. Only when they were actively involved in a hot, direct war with us (or Iraq) have they taken that step.

Once you've raced to the very top of the escalation ladder and launched a hot war, actions that a country refrained from doing because they didn't want to start a hot war are now fully on the table.

But they also want other things - they want the rest of the Gulf states to not go nuclear, they want to be able to use proxies without possibly precipitating a nuclear exchange, etc.

There are 2 nuclear powers in Iran's neighborhood, Israel and Pakistan. The Gulf states also are de facto under the United States' nuclear umbrella. There's no universe where the Kuwaitis or Saudis are going to build a nuke unless we walk away from the region (which was the Obama plan). Thankfully we're not doing that.

It's like Donald Trump and Greenland. Trump wants to acquire Greenland. That's not a bluff, it's not a lie, it's not strategic posturing - Trump genuinely wants the U.S. to have possession of Greenland. And Trump could seize Greenland within a few weeks of giving the order.

This is another thing the left gets wrong. What Trump wants is rare Earth minerals and he wants the NATO scofflaws to take Arctic security seriously. If he can get those two things then he doesn't need to annex Greenland. Our NATO "allies" are strategically short-sighted and frankly uninterested in making serious investments in Western economic independence.

Similarly, Iran genuinely and totally wants a nuclear weapon - but they weigh that against the consequences. They are constrained, not by lacking a desire for a nuke, but by the events that going nuclear would precipitate.

You've assumed a certain level of rationality in their decision making. They've demonstrated over 47 years the exact opposite.

Peacetime in the sense of not being in a hot war.
From the Iranian perspective they've been in a hot war with us that entire time.

The Gulf states also are de facto under the United States' nuclear umbrella.

They are not. If Iran were to attack one of the other Gulf states (as they have in this war), the U.S. isn't using nukes to protect them. Any more than China is going to use their nukes to protect Iran. Or any more than we've used our nukes now to protect them. They don't want other states in the region to race to nukes.

Again, the key here is to recognize that Iran did not previously break out. They've been within a few weeks of enriching uranium to weapons grade and constructing a bomb for....well, for several years now. But they never did it. Not because they lacked the ability to do it - because they didn't want the consequences of what would happen if they did.

What Trump wants is rare Earth minerals and he wants the NATO scofflaws to take Arctic security seriously. If he can get those two things then he doesn't need to annex Greenland.

It's still the same thing. Whatever Trump's "wants" are with Greenland, he's had the ability to achieve them at any time in the last year and a half. He could have taken measures to annex Greenland, or seize their mineral deposits, or whatever at any point. Within a few weeks, we could have Greenland completely within our control. And we haven't. Which doesn't require denying that Trump has things he wants in Greenland - it simply means that there are countervailing wants that have dissuaded him from just taking what he wants in Greenland.

Which, again, is what's been happening with Iran's program for these last many years. They've wanted a nuke - no one disputes that - but they've also not wanted to deal with the consequences of getting a nuke. So they've refrained from getting a nuke, preferring instead to stay just under the threshhold of breakout.

From the Iranian perspective they've been in a hot war with us that entire time.

It's not a matter of perspective. We weren't actually in a hot war. We weren't doing to them that entire time what we're doing now. We hadn't escalated it into an real hot war. They refrained from doing certain things (like striking other Gulf states' energy facilities or closing the Straits) for nearly all that time because they didn't want to precipitate an actual hot war, because that wasn't in their interests. Now that we've just gone ahead and launched a hot war against them, we've eliminated the escalation threat for most of these things. Once you go to war, you can't threaten to go to war any more - you're already there. So now the strait is closed, because Iran doesn't have to worry that closing the strait would launch a war against them (because the war is already here).

They are not.

Yes, they are. The US bases ships in Qatar. Do you think that we would not cover an active Naval base? Or any one of the many air bases that house US jets and personnel in the region?

Anywhere a US asset goes, so goes the American nuclear umbrella. Do you think we have basing rights in so many countries because they love us that much?

Which doesn't require denying that Trump has things he wants in Greenland - it simply means that there are countervailing wants that have dissuaded him from just taking what he wants in Greenland.

Erm, okay. If you seriously want to believe we're going to have the Marines seize Greenland sometime soon, you're certainly free to believe that. But in actuality Trump wants NATO to

-Work to secure the Arctic, because as the ice shifts/opens up that means vulnerable sea lanes open up
-As more countries acquire ballistic missiles, passage over the Arctic to reach the US requires more radars and missile defense stations up north

...and then if there are western hemisphere-sourceable rare Earth minerals, we of course want those to lesson our dependence on China.

It's not a matter of perspective. We weren't actually in a hot war.

If the neighborhood thug routinely spray paints your house, kicks your dog, steals from your neighbors and occasionally pushes the nice old lady from across the street down a flight of stairs, you may try to convince yourself that you don't have a problem but the reality of it is that you do.

And then you have to decide if you're winning to tune up the neighborhood thug or not. And if you're willing to tune his a$$ up, how far are you willing to go? Who can you count on to help you? Who has the neighborhood thug cowed into submission? Who is willing to stand with you?

We're learning who's who in real time right now. NATO flunked the test:
https://townhall.com/columnists/victordavishanson/...

When NATO members in the past have operated unilaterally to defend their own national interests, they have often called on the U.S., as NATO's strongest member, for overt help.

For nearly 40 years, the U.S. had offered logistical, intelligence, reconnaissance, refueling, and diplomatic support to the French in their unilateral and postcolonial efforts to protect Chad from Libya and, later, Islamists.

During the 1982 Falklands War, a solitary Britain faced enormous logistical challenges in steaming halfway around the world to eject Argentina from its windswept and sparse islands.

U.S. aid was critical to the effort.

So America stepped up to help with intelligence, reconnaissance, the supply of some two million gallons of much-needed gasoline, and crucial restocking of Britain's depleted Tomahawk missiles.

The American tilt to Britain prompted anger from most Latin American nations of the shared Western hemisphere, as well as from many Hispanic American citizens at home.

No matter – President Ronald Reagan rightly saw the importance of solidarity with a NATO member and a long-time American ally. So he gave Britain a veritable blank check for American aid.

As I said, a test. A test they've more or less failed. Allies that won't even step up to defend their own interests aren't allies at all:

Europeans are far more vulnerable to Iranian-inspired Islamic terrorism. They are more reliant on foreign oil from the Middle East, some of it passing through the Strait of Hormuz.

All the U.S. had initially asked for was basing support in disarming a common Western enemy that, for nearly half a century, has slaughtered American diplomats and soldiers and tried to kill a U.S. president and secretary of state.

But most NATO members could not even offer tacit help. Some damned the U.S. effort as either illegal or unnecessary.

The American public watched the British waffle for days over permitting Americans to use their Diego Garcia base.

The Spanish banned American use of their NATO bases and airspace.

The Italians refused a request from American bombers to land and refuel at a Sicilian NATO base.

Many NATO heads of state rebuked the U.S. to their domestic audiences while, in typical two-faced fashion, publicly offering empty verbal support for the U.S. effort.

The NATO response to an Iranian missile aimed at fellow NATO member Turkey was anemic.

Even worse was the pathetic British reaction to another Iranian missile launch at a British base at Akrotiri, Cyprus.

As I've posted on this board, the reality is that our NATO "allies" have by and large allowed their militaries to atrophy to the point of uselessness.

Do you think that we would not cover an active Naval base? Or any one of the many air bases that house US jets and personnel in the region?

Yep. We're not launching a nuke just because someone attacks one of our airbases. We're not launching a nuke because a country invades another country that has one of our airbases.

If Iran were to physically invade Kuwait and try to seize it for their own, we probably wouldn't retaliate with a nuclear strike. But if Kuwait had its own nuclear weapon and Kuwait got to make the choice whether to respond with a nuke, they probably would.

That's the difference. Countries physically located in the Gulf face existential threats to their national security that the U.S. does not.

If the neighborhood thug routinely spray paints your house, kicks your dog, steals from your neighbors and occasionally pushes the nice old lady from across the street down a flight of stairs, you may try to convince yourself that you don't have a problem but the reality of it is that you do.

Having a problem isn't the same as being in a hot war. The neighborhood thug is definitely a problem - but in your hypothetical, he's not actually murdering people. Probably because murdering people is an escalation well above what he's actually doing. If you respond to his thuggery by actually trying to kill him, though, then there's nowhere left for the escalation to go - you've already responded to his depredations by escalating to the highest possible level. So even though he might not have thought of trying to kill you before (closing the strait of Hormuz), there's no longer any reason to hold back, because now you're outright trying to kill him.

And it might be things might now be worse for you, having escalated to this point - without that making the prior status quo not a problem. Iran was a problem - that doesn't mean that this is a solution.

No one is saying Iran isn't terrible. Or that they don't cause terrible problems. We're pointing out that this response to their terribleness isn't going to help, and will probably result in us being worse off.

Yep. We're not launching a nuke just because someone attacks one of our airbases. We're not launching a nuke because a country invades another country that has one of our airbases.

That's not how a nuclear umbrella works. Nukes are there to counter other nukes. In short, they're largely political weapons.

That's the difference. Countries physically located in the Gulf face existential threats to their national security that the U.S. does not.


I think you fundamentally misunderstand the calculus around nuclear weapons.

Having a problem isn't the same as being in a hot war. The neighborhood thug is definitely a problem - but in your hypothetical, he's not actually murdering people. Probably because murdering people is an escalation well above what he's actually doing. If you respond to his thuggery by actually trying to kill him, though, then there's nowhere left for the escalation to go - you've already responded to his depredations by escalating to the highest possible level. So even though he might not have thought of trying to kill you before (closing the strait of Hormuz), there's no longer any reason to hold back, because now you're outright trying to kill him.

I said "tune him up" which means "kick his a$$ hard enough that he learns his lesson or finds other targets to prey on". Either outcome is acceptable.

No one is saying Iran isn't terrible. Or that they don't cause terrible problems. We're pointing out that this response to their terribleness isn't going to help, and will probably result in us being worse off.

And you all have made this point 1000 times already. That's nice; it just also happens to be largely irrelevant because we are where we are at this point in time.

That's not how a nuclear umbrella works. Nukes are there to counter other nukes. In short, they're largely political weapons.

Nope. Nukes also serve the purpose of deterring conventional attacks. Israel didn't go out and get a nuke because they were concerned that one of the world's other nuclear powers might attack them with nuclear weapons - Israel's nuclear threat is also there to make sure that no other country (specifically Iran) can try to wipe Israel off the map with conventional forces without having a nuclear weapon dropped on their capital in the dying throes of the country.

I said "tune him up" which means "kick his a$$ hard enough that he learns his lesson or finds other targets to prey on". Either outcome is acceptable.

Except what if he doesn't? What if he instead goes out and gets a knife or a gun and decides to come back and kick your ass? Or perhaps uses the knife or gun to threaten to hurt one of your kids? Something he might not have done when he was just "neighborhood bully," but is now on the table because you've escalated to actual direct physical conflict?

You've ratcheted up the problem, and you very well might have made it much worse for yourself. Which is why "getting into a fistfight" is not always the best way to deal with a neighborhood bully. That doesn't mean the neighborhood bully isn't a problem, nor that you don't need to do something about it. But if the neighborhood bully doesn't respond by doing what you want, or slinking away, then you very well may have made the situation worse.

And you all have made this point 1000 times already. That's nice; it just also happens to be largely irrelevant because we are where we are at this point in time.

It's not the least bit irrelevant - because what we do going forward depends entirely on whether military action against Iran can accomplish any strategic goals. If blowing up stuff in Iran is not going to materially advance any security goal of the U.S. or delay their nuclear ambitions in any significant way, that's an obvious reason why we shouldn't have started the war in the first place - but it's also a hugely significant factor that we need to consider in deciding what we should do now. It's also a hugely significant factor in negotiations with Iran over how the war ends, because if what we've done hasn't materially weakened Iran's long-term threat profile in the region then we're going to have a much smaller set of possibly obtainable goals in a negotiation than if we have materially weakened their long-term threat profile.

Nope.

We'll agree to disagree here. I'll merely quote this as a reply, from Carl von Clausewitz in On War: If the aim of the military action is an equivalent for the political object, that action will in general diminish as the political object diminishes, and in a greater degree the more the political object dominates. Thus it is explained how, without any contradiction in itself, there may be Wars of all degrees of importance and energy, from a War of extermination down to the mere use of an army of observation.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.