Post New

Iran to attack before they respond? WHY are so many black leaders anti-Israel? IF trump was currently the president, would he take out the loaded Iranian missile sites before they attack? Israels credit rating was downgraded today.

https://dersh.substack.com/p/why-are-so-many-black...

"Iran to attack before they respond?"

Because the world - is changing. And because many in the world are sick of certain things, the pendulum shifts and many times it shifts too much or the wrong way.




WHY are so many black leaders anti-Israel?"

Because they have known things for awhile. Experienced things. And now they feel they can speak out a bit. They can't win - but they can speak out. They share things with many in this world for much of human history. Just like the criminal justice system for instance, we're entering a time where very slowly ate glacier speed, downscale whites are discovering things that their black counterparts have known for a generation or more. Eventually, it will be acceptable to speak in even more blunt terms and as that point more of this constituency can be exposed to more truths.



"IF trump was currently the president, would he take out the loaded Iranian missile sites before they attack?"

I so hope not. Mind you, he and Republicans love being Israeli Mules alongside many of their Democrat counterparts. Especially Trump - he loves being used so who knows, maybe he would.


"Israels credit rating was downgraded today."

They'll be 100% fine.

To be fair, I was very close friends with a black documentary film maker and professor before he passed way too young, last year. We were buds for over 30 years so we could be straight up with each other. He said many blacks hate Jews because decades ago Jews were slum lords, participated in red lining, were mean spirited landlords, etc. Obviously, it wasn’t only Jews but in New York it was basically almost all landlords were racist. So, there is much truth in those allegations tho at the time, those of us living in government subsidized housing were just trying to survive ourselves. 😢 ☮️

" Eventually, it will be acceptable to speak in even more blunt terms and as that point more of this constituency can be exposed to more truths." WHO can't speak candidly today?

Iran to attack before they respond?

Mostly because the degree to which military action is provocative and destabilizing depends (in part) on whether it is an attack or a counter-attack.

Israel and Iran are not in a hot war. So launching a military strike would be a massive escalation in tensions in the area....but less so if it is in response to being attacked first. Israel felt that the value of killing Haniyeh was worth ratcheting up the tension somewhat, and all parties recognize that it will lead to some response from Iran (though probably not a massive response). But it's in Israel's best interests (and probably Iran's) for things to not get out of hand.

So Israel makes it clear that when Iran responds they'll respond again in turn. That's a useful message to send, since they want Iran's response to be small enough that they can possibly just ignore it or retaliate with some non-military response. But it's not in their interests to just go out and attack Iran.

So Israel makes it clear that when Iran responds they'll respond again in turn. That's a useful message to send, since they want Iran's response to be small enough that they can possibly just ignore it or retaliate with some non-military response. But it's not in their interests to just go out and attack Iran. - albaby

-----------------

Returning to a never ending proxy war with Iran is not an option, especially when Iran is on the doorstep of nuclear arms. The problem is that Iran can sponsor all the proxy aggression it wants and pay no consequences themselves. That has to change. Deterrence is not achieved with proportional responses. The response needs to be massive with the promise of more of the same if Iran doesn't stop their proxy war.

That will take more than a feeble US president repeatedly saying "don't". The massive naval presence we have assembled in the area is no deterrence at all without the enemy's sincere belief that you have no problem using it. Given Trumps track record (Soleimani, dropping the MOAB in Afghanistan), Iran would have something more credible to worry about than a policy of "Don't"

Fun Question for the day: How would Iran respond if Trump announced, "If the MV Behshad is still present in the Red sea when I become president, you will lose it."

If the MV Behshad is still present in the Red sea when I become president, you will lose it.

They’d do what every tin pot terrorist outfit does: make some Biblical-sounding pronouncement about how the Most Holy Battles of Fire and Raining Toads Await The Disturber Of The Ship…then quietly move it out of there. Rapidly.

The Air Force just sank an old Navy ship during a recent SINKEX with a 2,000lb glide bomb. The bomb was delivered by a B-2, IIRC. The target broke in half and sank in minutes; if I’m Trump I post that on Truth Social with the caption, “Just sayin’”.

The problem is that Iran can sponsor all the proxy aggression it wants and pay no consequences themselves. That has to change.

Okay - how?

I mean, it's easy to say that Iran's activities within a region within which it is a significant hegemonic power, has the largest army and is the second-largest country, and is in alliance with several other regional powers "has to change". It's like saying Russia has to stop invading Ukraine, or China has to stop menacing Taiwan. I mean, we'd all love it if Iran stopped acting like it was a dominant military power in the area...but they're not going to just because we want them to, or even because we threaten them.

Iran's a regionally powerful country, and one of the things that goes with being a regionally powerful country is that you can engage in proxy conflicts in the region. Because you've got too big a military footprint for anyone to really come after you in a way that could start an actual war.

How would Iran respond if Trump announced, "If the MV Behshad is still present in the Red sea when I become president, you will lose it."

They'd ignore it, knowing that the U.S. isn't going to start a hot war with Iran by sinking the Behshad. The Behshad lacks the capability to defend itself from an attack - literally every country in the region has the physical ability to sink it, if they wanted to. The reason that none of them have - even Israel - is because sinking the ship isn't worth the consequences that would flow from sinking it. It's no small thing to destroy a ship lawfully present in international waters, using your military to kill the citizens of another sovereign nation.

Older African Americans are very wise, and know realities in the world.

The kids haven't seen the ball since the kickoff.

...but they're not going to just because we want them to, or even because we threaten them.

Exactly. You don't threaten, you don't draw lines, you don't trail the Navy's coat along the Red Sea with a big SHOOT ME sign dangling from the fantail. You...do. As in, you find something they value and you eliminate it. Quietly and without much fanfare until it's done.

The Behshad lacks the capability to defend itself from an attack - literally every country in the region has the physical ability to sink it, if they wanted to. The reason that none of them have - even Israel - is because sinking the ship isn't worth the consequences that would flow from sinking it. It's no small thing to destroy a ship lawfully present in international waters, using your military to kill the citizens of another sovereign nation.

There are numbers of ways to send a message. A low level flyby at Mach 1.1 from a couple of F-15's would send a nice message.

Deterrence is not achieved with proportional responses. The response needs to be massive with the promise of more of the same if Iran doesn't stop their proxy war.

The thing is, are you sure that is what you want to do? We went into Iraq in GW2, and a large chunk of that was "we need to finish the job" (of GW1). One of the feeble excuses was "we are wearing out planes in the no fly zone". We are not very good at predicting the results of our intrigues or incursions. So give me three scenarios - an optimistic one, a mediocre one, and a disastrous one - that might be the result of your proposition, and remember to be as stupid in the disastrous one as we know we can be.


Optimistic - Iran straightens out, the Islamic state retreats and democracy flowers - we become good friends and all is forgotten.

Mediocre - we keep lobbing at Iran periodically, and we count down till they get the bomb.

Disastrous - its all yours. :)

The Air Force just sank an old Navy ship during a recent SINKEX with a 2,000lb glide bomb. The bomb was delivered by a B-2, IIRC. The target broke in half and sank in minutes; if I’m Trump I post that on Truth Social with the caption, “Just sayin’”. = Dope

------------

Nice touch.

Also, LOL verbiage with the fire and raining toads stuff

There are numbers of ways to send a message. A low level flyby at Mach 1.1 from a couple of F-15's would send a nice message.

What message? Iran knows that the U.S. could easily sink the Behshad. It's a slow vessel in international waters with virtually no defensive capability. And it's not like we haven't sent them the message that we want them to stop supporting the Houthis. There's no reason to think they'd change their tactics based on a flyby.

This is all just magical thinking: that there's some costless, easy thing we could do that would make Iran stop pursuing its interests in the region. The Behshad goes into the Red Sea not because we lack the military power to sink it, and not because Iran is unaware that the U.S. is very upset that they're doing it. It's because there are enormous consequences to sinking a vessel in international waters, and Iran knows that its not in the US' interests to trigger those consequences.

They'd ignore it, knowing that the U.S. isn't going to start a hot war with Iran by sinking the Behshad.

How is that different from striking a compound in Beirut? Or launching cruise missiles in Afghanistan (as Clinton did)? Those were actual sovereign territory, not international waters.

The problem is that if an adversary knows you're not going to do anything, then there is no threat. Unlike China and Taiwan, or China and the Philippines...we don't know that China won't take action. And we know Putin will take action, as he did in Crimea, and now Ukraine (in part because he knew -as Hitler did- that no one would step-up**).

They are like bullies. Sometimes you have to bloody the nose of a bully to make them leave you alone.

So, if the Behshad has no defenses, send in the SEALs. Remove everyone from the ship and sink it. Send the sailors back to Iran unharmed.

Yeah, I may have stopped being a Rep 25 years ago, but I'm still somewhat hawkish about nonsense like this.





**Though I don't think he counted on his actions resulting in the expansion of NATO, nor the international military aid support for Ukraine. A miscalculation on his part.

A low level flyby at Mach 1.1 from a couple of F-15's would send a nice message.

Quibble. F18s. F18s are carrier-based, and we have a carrier in the vicinity.

I recall a few decades ago we unleashed an SR71 in Central America. It screamed at mach 2+ across (I think) Nicaragua, blowing out windows under it's flight path. That was such a beautiful aircraft. I've seen two of them, and they are so cool.

Exactly. You don't threaten, you don't draw lines, you don't trail the Navy's coat along the Red Sea with a big SHOOT ME sign dangling from the fantail. You...do. As in, you find something they value and you eliminate it. Quietly and without much fanfare until it's done.

The phrase “stumbling into war” comes to mind.

Remember that Iran and Iraq fought each other for 10 years to a rough stalemate, which indicates to me that Iran has some relatively decent conventional forces. Perhaps not overwhelming, but enough to make trouble if they want. Then recall that to go into Iraq the second time we had to marshall another coalition, keep the other Arab countries out of it, calm down Israel when things started falling out of the sky on them, and pre-position assets and troops there for weeks, perhaps months before we were ready to go. And even with that it took us a fairly long time to achieve our objective.

Now recall that Iran is three times the geographic size of Iraq, with double the population. If you stumble into a war with them because of the macho breast beating you advocate, you better be ready for some serious troubles at home perhaps not sooner but definitely later.

The biggest, toughest, badass on the block doesn’t always win. Vietnam. Afghanistan. Agincourt. The Revolutionary War in the US. Be careful before you lock and load. You might find yourself on the bitter end of an always unpredictable adventure.

None of this means you shouldn’t respond to provocations either, just that caution is probably an important step before you make any unhalterable decisions.

LOL verbiage with the fire and raining toads stuff

Yeah, I liked that, too. :-)

It's because there are enormous consequences to sinking a vessel in international waters, and Iran knows that its not in the US' interests to trigger those consequences. - albaby

---------------

Providing the intelligence and coordination for Iranian proxies launching 100's of missile attacks on shipping, also operating in international waters, is plenty of justification. Iran has effectively shut down the Suez Canal adding massive costs to supply chains affecting prices all around the world. That also is an enormous consequence of proportionality.

How is that different from striking a compound in Beirut? Or launching cruise missiles in Afghanistan (as Clinton did)? Those were actual sovereign territory, not international waters.

Lebanon and Afghanistan are small, weak countries. We attacked military targets in the countries that attacked our interests, not third party nations that supported those countries. And as you mention, it's entirely a different thing to attack military assets in a foreign country than to attack a vessel in international waters - because while no one cares that Afghanistan had their airspace violated after supporting terror attacks, lots of nations care if the US arrogates to itself the authority to attack vessels in international waters.

So we consistently attack Houthi targets in Yemen, in retaliation for their attacks on our interests....but we're not going to take out a Iranian-flagged vessel in international waters. Iran knows it, so bluffing a response against Iran is against our interests.

There is a difference between a "bully" and a nation that is using its regional military power to advance its foreign policy objectives within its sphere of influence. Not every entity that engages in aggression is a "bully" that can be dissuaded merely by standing up to them - sometimes the aggressor actually has some strength, and can and will impose costs on you that you're not willing to pay just to stop their aggression at that point. There are plenty of things we would go to war with Iran over, but their providing support resources to the Houthis isn't one of them.

So, if the Behshad has no defenses, send in the SEALs. Remove everyone from the ship and sink it. Send the sailors back to Iran unharmed. - 1pg

Excellent idea. Maybe then, instead of sinking, we tow it back to the USA and see what else we can learn....

Yeah, I may have stopped being a Rep 25 years ago, but I'm still somewhat hawkish about nonsense like this.

Glad to know...

What message? Iran knows that the U.S. could easily sink the Behshad. It's a slow vessel in international waters with virtually no defensive capability. And it's not like we haven't sent them the message that we want them to stop supporting the Houthis. There's no reason to think they'd change their tactics based on a flyby.

Biden's Just The Tip foreign policy places US Servicemen and women in harm's way for no reason. They sit there and await the next terror group that wants to use them for target practice. A supersonic flyby would likely blow out windows and damage most of the systems that ship uses to locate and track targets. In other words, disable its war functions without firing a shot.

Providing the intelligence and coordination for Iranian proxies launching 100's of missile attacks on shipping, also operating in international waters, is plenty of justification. Iran has effectively shut down the Suez Canal adding massive costs to supply chains affecting prices all around the world. That also is an enormous consequence of proportionality.

Sure. But are we ready to get into a hot war with Iran over it? There's a reason these conflicts are proxy conflicts, and why the belligerents take great pains to keep them from boiling into direct hot wars between the main parties. If we got into an actual shooting war, it wouldn't just be the Red Sea but also the Gulf that got shut down - adding even more massive costs to supply chains all around the world. It is just far too important to the interests of the US (and nearly all of our allies) that the region remain somewhat stable that it's incredibly unlikely that we would initiate a hot war with Iran.

Iran knows this. So if we threaten to sink an Iranian-flagged vessel in international waters, the most likely response from them would be to ignore the threat and do whatever they want with the vessel. It's not a credible threat.

A supersonic flyby would likely blow out windows and damage most of the systems that ship uses to locate and track targets. In other words, disable its war functions without firing a shot.

Would it? I can see that it might break some windows - though even ordinary cargo ships that have to traverse heavier seas are likely to have more durable glass than your standard suburban home, and I would expect that a cargo ship that's actually clandestinely conducting support missions would be kitted out with something stronger. And while the ship couldn't handle an actual attack from US fighters, it seems extraordinarily unlikely that its mission systems don't have even the minimal protection necessary to survive something as mild as a supersonic flyby.

Remember that Iran and Iraq fought each other for 10 years to a rough stalemate, which indicates to me that Iran has some relatively decent conventional forces.

Iran's conventional forces aren't a threat to the US. Put it this way:
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/f-22-stealt...

As the two Iranian aircraft moved to intercept the drone, one of the escorting Raptors also made a move and flew up underneath one of the approaching Phantoms. After taking a moment to glance up at the armament carried by the two F-4s, the F-22 pilot then pulled up alongside the left wing of one of the adversarial aircraft and hailed them, telling the Iranian pilots that they “really ought to go home”.

Now recall that Iran is three times the geographic size of Iraq, with double the population. If you stumble into a war with them because of the macho breast beating you advocate, you better be ready for some serious troubles at home perhaps not sooner but definitely later.

Sending a message after you've been the victim of unchecked aggression from a terror-sponsoring state does not automatically mean full-on war. Not even close.

When Trump whacked Qasem Soleimani, were we at war with Iran?
Consider that since 1979 we've effectively been waging an on-again, off-again low scale conflict.

But are we ready to get into a hot war with Iran over it?

You guys have it backwards. Iran isn't ready to get into a hot war with us.
They're content to tug, tug, tug...just to see how many tugs Superman will put up with on his cape. Sooner or later the simple rules of FAFO have to apply.

You guys do realize that Iranian-backed terrorists have been firing live war shots at our destroyers and other ships for months, right? How many times are we going to allow that? Do you realize how expensive it is to fire off dozens of SM-6s and what not to bring these things down? Or what happens if some ship is a couple of seconds too late and takes a hit?

What then? The time has long past to first level the launchers and eliminate the Houthis who are doing the rocket firing.

Iran knows this. So if we threaten to sink an Iranian-flagged vessel in international waters, the most likely response from them would be to ignore the threat and do whatever they want with the vessel. It's not a credible threat.

Who threatened to sink anything? Not Trump in this scenario. He merely reposted a publicly available video with a caption. The only violent action I would take it is blowing up all the launchers the Houthis are using...and if a number of Iranian "advisors" were taken out at the same time, too bad. The flyby just adds some more flavor and is the way of saying...don't be next.

Would it?

Uhhh....yes.
https://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/the-time-a...

It's rather well known that you don't want to be standing nearby when somebody flies by at >Mach 1.

it seems extraordinarily unlikely that its mission systems don't have even the minimal protection necessary to survive something as mild as a supersonic flyby.

They're hardly mild, and communication gear and radars aren't the most robust pieces of kit in any Navy.

You guys do realize that Iranian-backed terrorists have been firing live war shots at our destroyers and other ships for months, right? How many times are we going to allow that?

We're not. We've been attacking the terrorists directly - we've been firing live war shots at the Houthis in Yemen for months also. Again, the issue isn't whether there will be proxy fighting. The issue is whether the US is willing to change the fighting from a proxy conflict to a direct one.

The time has long past to first level the launchers and eliminate the Houthis who are doing the rocket firing.

Yep, we've been doing that. Us and the British. For example:

https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/...

Who threatened to sink anything?

That was the post I was responding to - BHM asked what would happen if a President Trump told Iran that they had to move the Behshad or they would lose it. I told him that they would ignore that threat to sink it. They would certainly ignore a "signal" or "message" that was even less direct than a threat. We're willing to attack the Houthis in Yemen. We might even assassinate an Iranian military commander as a direct military target. But we're not going to sink an Iranian ship in international waters.

It's rather well known that you don't want to be standing nearby when somebody flies by at >Mach 1.

And I wouldn't want to be on the deck of a cargo ship facing a storm in international waters. Which is why even an ordinary commercial vessel is going to have glazing that is far more robust than a dining hall.

They're hardly mild, and communication gear and radars aren't the most robust pieces of kit in any Navy.

No, but I imagine they're designed to at least withstand the forces inflicted by a jet merely doing a flyby. It seems like wishful thinking to posit that a military vessel's equipment can be disabled by an enemy aircraft just flying by, without them even firing a shot. Surely they're designed to be robust enough to withstand that?

We're not. We've been attacking the terrorists directly - we've been firing live war shots at the Houthis in Yemen for months also. Again, the issue isn't whether there will be proxy fighting. The issue is whether the US is willing to change the fighting from a proxy conflict to a direct one.


We've been doing classical Biden Just The Tip. Small nibbles when a CHOMP is necessary.
BTW, how do the missiles get to the Houthis?

They would certainly ignore a "signal" or "message" that was even less direct than a threat.

We can agree to disagree. The Iranians understand what messing with the US Navy means, going back to the 1980s.

A supersonic flyby would likely blow out windows and damage most of the systems that ship uses to locate and track targets.

Blow out windows? Yes. Damage most of the systems? Probably not.

You guys have it backwards. Iran isn't ready to get into a hot war with us.

No, nincompoop, neither one of us wants to get into a hot war with the other one.

We've been doing classical Biden Just The Tip. Small nibbles when a CHOMP is necessary.
BTW, how do the missiles get to the Houthis?

The missiles get to the Houthis because we also have ships in the region. International waters, and all that. We're allowed to be there, just like the Iranians are allowed to have ships there.

We do small nibbles because we aren't willing to devote the resources to a CHOMP. We're not sending ground forces into Yemen, so we're only going to do remote attacks. And remote attacks are very expensive. We could keep responding with missiles, but a pretty painful exchange:

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/19/missile-d...

We're not Superman. We're not invulnerable, and there are all sorts of costs to taking military action, and all sorts of limitations on what can be achieved through military force. Which is why we aren't going to invade Yemen with ground forces, which is why the Houthis are able to keep harassing conventional shipping. And because the consequences of elevating this from a proxy fight against the Houthis into a direct military engagement with Iran is so high, we're not doing that either - at least, not for the minor benefit of taking out a minor asset like the Behshad.

We can agree to disagree. The Iranians understand what messing with the US Navy means, going back to the 1980s.

Which is why the Iranians aren't messing with the US Navy. They're being very careful to use proxies in the region - and even those proxies are targeting commercial vessels.

The issue is whether the US is willing to change the fighting from a proxy conflict to a direct one.

Then the proxy war is one-sided, and we need to challenge Iran in a hot war.

Right now, their proxies are attacking us directly. Iran faces no cost (except for materiel). Low risk, high reward for Iran. They'll only stop if it costs them something. Otherwise, why stop?

I'm not terribly concerned about a "hot war" with Iran. They can't touch us. Their army is useless, and their air force and navy we could destroy in a day. They might go after Israel, but Israel would demolish them.

Right now, Iran has no downside to their actions. We need to give them one if we expect them to modify their behavior.

Yes, the flyby would just be a statement. It would do little damage to a ship. As you say, the windows and radars are designed to withstand hurricane forces. Kinda useless if they weren't. Not that I know the specs, specifically. But you design ships to withstand powerful storms at sea. The compression wave of a sonic boom would be unpleasant for anyone on deck, but it would not be catastrophic for ship operations.

...and even those proxies are targeting commercial vessels.

And the US Navy. The Houthis have said they deliberately targeted a US Navy destroyer. Again, for Iran there is little risk unless we hold them responsible for the actions of the Houthis.

https://apnews.com/article/yemen-houthi-red-sea-at...

Then the proxy war is one-sided, and we need to challenge Iran in a hot war.

Most proxy wars are one-sided. That doesn't support starting a hot war with Iran.

The Houthis are harassing commercial trade in the Red Sea. We want them to stop, because that harms US interests.

But a hot war with Iran also harms US interests. It would destabilize commercial trade in both the Red Sea and the Gulf to a vastly far greater degree than anything the Houthis are doing. We're not going to invade Iran itself - we're not even willing to invade Yemen to make this stop.

So what would be the military aims of the hot war with Iran? What would we be trying to accomplish? What would the cost of achieving those aims? What would be the consequences for the region?

We wee folks on a message board don't know the answers to those - there are lots of people who have trained their whole lives on both the US and Iranian sides to figure out the answers - but those are the questions that are relevant to whether Iran would heed a US threat to sink an Iranian flag vessel in international waters. I think Iran has correctly assessed that a hot war with Iran is so detrimental to US interests in the region that we wouldn't follow through on such a threat. Regardless of who the President was.

And the US Navy. The Houthis have said they deliberately targeted a US Navy destroyer. Again, for Iran there is little risk unless we hold them responsible for the actions of the Houthis.

Even so. They've mostly avoided directly attacking military ships, which vastly lowers the risk of this escalating.

The Iranians do face little risk of retaliation for sponsoring a proxy. That's why nations use proxies for fighting. It allows conflict without a hot war between major powers. The Iranians accept the limitations of what such a conflict can achieve - harassing shipping lanes only to the ability of the Houthis, which is vastly less damaging than if the Iranian navy and air force were attacking vessels directly. But that lowers the costs to them of engaging in it. We do it, too - it's why we support Ukraine but aren't bombing the Russians ourselves.

We could escalate the costs to the Iranians....but only by vastly escalating the costs to ourselves, since that would detonate both the Red Sea and the Gulf. The Iranians sponsor the Houthis just enough that it's not in our interests to hold them responsible for the actions of the Houthis. They keep their support low enough that it would be a mistake for us to escalate the conflict.

Detrimental how? Probably the price of oil would go up. OK.

Certainly not ideal. But I don't see any great threat if we neutralize their air force and navy (easy). Then maybe a full blockade...nothing goes in or out of Iran. Their economy is already a mess. They can't ship missiles (or oil) out, and nothing gets in. Except by land (that would be another can of worms since it would involve other nations like Iraq).

We don't need to invade to put the screws to them. Dish-out some hardship for them, instead of them dishing it out to us with impunity.

Sure, if a bully sends a minion to harass you, you break his nose. Then you go to the bully and throat-punch him. No other way to dissuade a bully than to make it cost him something.

We're basically waiting for another USS Cole. I think that is the bigger mistake.

To illustrate my point, I'll refer to a line I heard in The Recruit. A pair of assassins had missed their target. One was frustrated. The other said "they have to win every time, we just have to win once".

Our destroyers are downing any drones sent after them. But we have to win all the time. The Houthis only have to win once, and we have another USS Cole incident.

I'm not the least bit concerned about the Iranian air force or navy. As I said, we could neutralize both in a day. Then how are they going to harass the Gulf? With their large army? Not a threat at sea.

The issue is whether the US is willing to change the fighting from a proxy conflict to a direct one. - albaby

=================

Proactive vs re-active? Let the opponent control the scale and the pace and we react as minimally as possible. Been there, done that. Iran doesn't care about proxy casualties. Treat the proxies like hardware, as the delivery system for Iranian munitions.

Proportionality has been tried and has failed. Time for a new approach, time for real deterrence. Then it is up to Iran if we escalate from there. But let it be clear, an attack by proxies will be treated as an attack by Iran.

Detrimental how? Probably the price of oil would go up. OK.

Certainly not ideal. But I don't see any great threat if we neutralize their air force and navy (easy). Then maybe a full blockade...nothing goes in or out of Iran. Their economy is already a mess. They can't ship missiles (or oil) out, and nothing gets in. Except by land (that would be another can of worms since it would involve other nations like Iraq).

Detrimental, the same way that the current situation is detrimental. Regional instability would lead to massive economic consequences to international shipping and oil exports in the Gulf.

China and Russia wouldn't stand a US blockade of Iran, of course - Iran would ask for their support and assistance in escorting Iran-flag ships into the region.

Sure, if a bully sends a minion to harass you, you break his nose. Then you go to the bully and throat-punch him. No other way to dissuade a bully than to make it cost him something.

And then you go to jail for assault and battery. Or whatever you want to put into the metaphor to match the fact that it will cost you more to attack the bully than the damage the minion is doing by harassing you. Because this isn't a metaphorical "bully" harassing you for no good reason, but a regionally strong military power that is pursuing real regional interests.

The fantasy here is assuming that there is a very low-cost option that the US can take to stop Iran from taking these relatively small-scale actions. There is not. We certainly have the option to escalate the situation into a full-on war that inflames the Middle East....but the cost of doing that is so unbelievably high that Iran knows we're not going to do it (and we know Iran knows we're not going to do it). If we were going to do something insanely costly to temporarily abate the harassment, we'd just invade Yemen. But we're not doing that, and we're not starting a war with Iran over this, either. So threatening to sink an Iranian ship is an empty threat, and not one that will magically and costlessly stop the Iranian support of the Houthis.

No, but I imagine they're designed to at least withstand the forces inflicted by a jet merely doing a flyby. It seems like wishful thinking to posit that a military vessel's equipment can be disabled by an enemy aircraft just flying by, without them even firing a shot. Surely they're designed to be robust enough to withstand that?

Depends on what it is. Really high gain antennas and radars aren't super robust. <shrugs> I own neither a Arleigh Burke destroyer nor a supersonic jet to test it out.

At any rate. Just The Tip isn't a sustainable foreign policy.

The missiles get to the Houthis because we also have ships in the region. International waters, and all that. We're allowed to be there, just like the Iranians are allowed to have ships there.

...and our ships could interdict the missile shipments.

We do small nibbles because we aren't willing to devote the resources to a CHOMP. And this is Just The Tip. Just keep on prolonging the problem instead of solving it.

And remote attacks are very expensive. We could keep responding with missiles, but a pretty painful exchange:

You're making my point for me - I said this earlier. It's very expensive for us to keep shooting precision anti-air ordinance at cheap drones and their missiles. It's far more cost-effective to drop a bunch of dumb glide bombs onto their launch sites.

We're not Superman. We're not invulnerable, and there are all sorts of costs to taking military action, and all sorts of limitations on what can be achieved through military force.

At some point Harris has to make a choice: leave our ships out there, allow the Houthis to keep threatening the sea lanes, and hope they never get lucky. Or actually...do something. You guys keep making this a binary choice between World War 3 and Just The Tip, but there are more options than that.

Which is why the Iranians aren't messing with the US Navy. They're being very careful to use proxies in the region - and even those proxies are targeting commercial vessels.

Huh? No, my man:
https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2024/06/1...

The U.S.-led campaign against the Houthi rebels, overshadowed by the Israel-Hamas war in the Gaza Strip, has turned into the most intense running sea battle the Navy has faced since World War II, its leaders and experts told The Associated Press.

BTW the Navy's ability to remain at sea and fight for extended periods is being put to the test.

The pace of the fire can be seen on the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, where the paint around the hatches of its missile pods has been burned away from repeated launches. Its sailors sometimes have seconds to confirm a launch by the Houthis, confer with other ships and open fire on an incoming missile barrage that can move near or beyond the speed of sound.

“It is every single day, every single watch, and some of our ships have been out here for seven-plus months doing that,” said Capt. David Wroe, the commodore overseeing the guided missile destroyers.

7 months of Just the Tip. Here's the effect on morale:
Officers acknowledge some grumbling among their crew, wondering why the Navy doesn’t strike harder against the Houthis. The White House hasn’t discussed the Houthi campaign at the same level as negotiations over the Israel-Hamas war.

Which is why we aren't going to invade Yemen with ground forces, which is why the Houthis are able to keep harassing conventional shipping.

------------

Nobody here is proposing ground troops in Yemen. We must stop basing our policy on the proposition that the proxies are the enemy. Certainly they are, but only as an Iranian delivery system and not the real opponent.

The US has immense capacity to inflict damage using only naval and air force resources. We could easily pick off an IRG facility or weapons plant every day with no feet on the ground.

but it would not be catastrophic for ship operations.

It doesn't need to be. All it does is put the ship out of action for a day or so.

Right now, Iran has no downside to their actions. We need to give them one if we expect them to modify their behavior. - 1pg

--------------

That seems so obvious I am surprised the idea is resisted.

But let it be clear, an attack by proxies will be treated as an attack by Iran.

You can "let it be clear" that an attack by proxies will be treated as an attack by Iran only if that's true. And it's not.

It's a bluff. Iran knows we're not going to start a direct war with them over Houthi attacks on commercial shipping. Because they know that, they're not going to stop supporting the Houthis - whether we "let it be clear" or not. Because they know it's a bluff. We're not going to war with Iran unless they directly attack us - which is why they don't directly attack us.

Legally, politically, and diplomatically it is different when a nation's proxy attacks another country than if they attack directly. Which is why Iran can do this. They know - correctly - that no other nation on earth will treat the Houthi attacks on international shipping the same way as if these were Iranian attacks on international shipping. Because they're not the same. Supporting a belligerent is not identical to being the belligerent.

So Iran knows full well that an attack by proxies will not be treated as an attack by Iran, and they're not going to believe us if we say it will be. And since we're not going to go to war with Iran over this, making threats to that effect is not going to actually stop them.

I am way behind on my Perun. But this one appears to be relevant to what we're discussing. Proxies, bombings, and similar attacks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COBDSmx9QDw&t=2s

The other said "they have to win every time, we just have to win once".


And that's exactly what the Navy is saying:
“I don’t think people really understand just kind of how deadly serious it is what we’re doing and how under threat the ships continue to be,” Cmdr. Eric Blomberg with the USS Laboon told the AP on a visit to his warship on the Red Sea.

“We only have to get it wrong once,” he said. “The Houthis just have to get one through.”

Not The Recruit. It was Night Agent. Tangential to my point, but thought I would fix that error.

Right now, Iran has no downside to their actions. We need to give them one if we expect them to modify their behavior.


We agree on so little these days, but you nailed this. Iran will keep pushing as long as we allow them to.

which is vastly less damaging than if the Iranian navy and air force were attacking vessels directly. - albaby

---------------

That attack you are referring to would last about one day and then Iran has no air force or navy. And deterrence could be achieved well short of that. After destroying half their navy and air force, we could take a pause and ask if they want to keep the remaining half.

That seems so obvious I am surprised the idea is resisted.

I won't speculate to motivation. But I will say that I realize nothing is simple when we consider ramifications. There will be consequences. I don't think they will be as bad as others seem to think. But there will be consequences and costs, definitely.

Even if we don't do a full embargo, the other suggestion of interdicting missile shipments seems pretty straightforward. Otherwise, we have to win 100% of the time to avoid another USS Cole. They only have to win once.

After destroying half their navy and air force, we could take a pause and ask if they want to keep the remaining half.

As it turns out, Iran's starred in this movie before:
(lefty friendly site)
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jan/15/...


By Tom Kertscher
January 15, 2020
Yes, President Reagan destroyed about half of Iran's Navy after a US ship was damaged

Reagan knew the value of proportional response.

At any rate. Just The Tip isn't a sustainable foreign policy.

There might not exist any ideal sustainable foreign policy to address this issue. Our current approach might still be the least bad foreign policy, even if it falls short of achieving our goals. Any other foreign policy approach might simply be worse?

For example, why don't we just invade Yemen and slaughter the Houthi rebels, rather than just waiting for them to attack us? Because we know that such an invasion would be costly beyond belief (in both resources and US soldiers), and would probably end up with us leaving in a decade or three with Yemen still a massive problem. So even though just playing defense against Houthi drones is deeply unsatisfying, it's still a better policy option than invading Yemen.

The policy alternative of going to war with Iran to get them to stop supplying the Houthis is also worse than just trying to defend against the Houthi attacks. The latter is a lousy option, but a direct war between the US and Iran is a worse option - infinitely more costly to our interests than just taking some hits to Red Sea shipping. And Iran knows this.

So threatening an Iranian ship isn't going to solve this problem for us - regardless of whether that threat came from Biden or Trump, the Iranians are just not going to credit it as an actual threat.

So threatening an Iranian ship isn't going to solve this problem for us - regardless of whether that threat came from Biden or Trump, the Iranians are just not going to credit it as an actual threat.

Okay, fine. Then start IDing the means the Iranians are using to transport missiles to the Houthis and interdict those. Declare a law enforcement activity where the US is going to deter illegal weapons shipments. Any ships found to be carrying arms to the Houthis will be boarded and searched and if weapons are found, impounded.

Or we could continue to paint targets on our ships and invite the Houthis to keep shooting. You do realize that every missed shot from them is a chance for the Iranians to polish their ship-killing tactics, right?

I remember that.

As I recall, it was reported that the Iranian ships activated their targeting systems against our aircraft. We then made short work of them. They didn't fire, and we didn't give them the chance to. Activating targeting radar was enough.

That attack you are referring to would last about one day and then Iran has no air force or navy. And deterrence could be achieved well short of that. After destroying half their navy and air force, we could take a pause and ask if they want to keep the remaining half.

Exactly. Which is why Iran hasn't attacked the US. Why they use proxies. The US can't respond as if they had been attacked directly by Iran, because we haven't been.

As I recall, it was reported that the Iranian ships activated their targeting systems against our aircraft. We then made short work of them. They didn't fire, and we didn't give them the chance to. Activating targeting radar was enough.

Yup. If you've turned on your tracking radar, that's akin to pointing a gun at somebody and cocking the trigger. You take the shot in that case.

Then start IDing the means the Iranians are using to transport missiles to the Houthis and interdict those. Declare a law enforcement activity where the US is going to deter illegal weapons shipments. Any ships found to be carrying arms to the Houthis will be boarded and searched and if weapons are found, impounded.

A "law enforcement activity"? What jurisdiction does the US have to conduct "law enforcement activities" in the Persian Gulf? How would we "find" that ships are carrying weapons before we board and search them?

We could try to impose a military blockade on Yemeni ports, but I imagine that the official Yemeni government might have some thoughts on that - since we're nominally on their "side" against the Houthi rebels.

A "law enforcement activity"? What jurisdiction does the US have to conduct "law enforcement activities" in the Persian Gulf? How would we "find" that ships are carrying weapons before we board and search them?

The Iranians are under sanction, are they not? There are plenty of excuses for stopping their shipping.

The Iranians are under sanction, are they not?

Yeah - and they countries that have imposed those sanctions limit the trade that they conduct with Iran. Those sanctions don't have any legal bearing on, say, shipments between Iran and Yemen. Yemen has not imposed sanctions on Iran.

Yeah - and they countries that have imposed those sanctions limit the trade that they conduct with Iran. Those sanctions don't have any legal bearing on, say, shipments between Iran and Yemen. Yemen has not imposed sanctions on Iran.

Who's to say that manifests and destinations can't be fake? Better to board them and find out.

Who's to say that manifests and destinations can't be fake? Better to board them and find out.

What interest does the U.S. have under our sanctions regime in a Yemeni-bound vessel coming from Iran? We haven't imposed any sanctions on that. Nor would, I believe, our sanctions regime provide any legal basis for boarding a vessel in international waters (though it's been many, many years since I studied int'l maritime law).

Just The Tip isn't a sustainable foreign policy.

Would you mind telling us what this means? Explain "Just The Tip" fully/

What interest does the U.S. have under our sanctions regime in a Yemeni-bound vessel coming from Iran?

To interdict missiles that would otherwise be fired at our ships.

I'm going to assume you believe that's a...good thing?

Nor would, I believe, our sanctions regime provide any legal basis for boarding a vessel in international waters

Seriously, who cares? We have every right to defend ourselves in international waters.

Dopus and company. We don't want to invade Iran or anybody. It's expensive, we end up rehabing parts of the country and then it falls apart. We should not have invaded Afghanistan or Iraq in GW2. We got poor advice there. Look at how long we were in Afghanistan and have little to show for it. By invading Iraq we destabilized the Middle East and took away a check on Iran. And we helped install the Shah of Iran, which ultimately lead to this theocracy.

Just so you know, FB, removed the video that has gotten 66 replies on this board, so far. FB is one of the most powerful entities on the planet with respect to being able to control the narrative. Truly shameful.

A "law enforcement activity"? What jurisdiction does the US have...

I am not an international lawyer. However, there is precedent. We've boarded DPRK ships to seize weapons. Because the Gulf is a hot-zone, the US (and other nations) could probably classify it as a security operation to aid "peace in the region" (or some such political platitude).

BTW, that Perun episode really is paralleling our discussion here. He was referencing the missile attack about 3 months ago, but it was about the use of proxies and the calculations of escalation. You might enjoy it.

To interdict missiles that would otherwise be fired at our ships.

I'm going to assume you believe that's a...good thing?

It's not a legal thing, that's for certain. The U.S. doesn't have any right to just board and search any vessel it wants out in international waters. And unless I'm mistaken, there's no law that prohibits someone from owning or transporting missiles in international waters like that, so I'm not sure on what authority we would "interdict" them.

Generally speaking, when the US decides to blatantly violate international law, whether it's a "good thing" or not depends on whether the benefits of doing it are outweighed by the consequences of doing it. The US arrogating itself the right to board foreign-flag vessels and seize their lawful cargo is going to ruffle a lot of our allies' feathers.

Seriously, who cares? We have every right to defend ourselves in international waters.

We do, certainly. But that doesn't give us the right to board cargo ships that aren't actually attacking us. If we were to declare war against Yemen and institute a blockade, we would have the right to do that....but we're not in that situation.

I am not an international lawyer. However, there is precedent. We've boarded DPRK ships to seize weapons. Because the Gulf is a hot-zone, the US (and other nations) could probably classify it as a security operation to aid "peace in the region" (or some such political platitude).

Maritime law is an insanely complicated field, so I would caution against drawing parallels between different circumstances. For example, in the below link we did ask to board a suspected DPRK transport ship - but it was flying under a Belize flag of convenience, and was going to enter the straits of Malacca, which at its narrowest point lies within the territorial waters of two nations that we have close cooperation with:

https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2011-07/us-navy-tu...

Just waving the phrase "peace in the region" and calling it a security operation isn't going to make it legal for the US to decide what ships can legally traverse the Persian Gulf without our say-so.

Again, this is not to argue that in exigent circumstances we wouldn't stomp all over international law to do what we want. It's to push back on the idea that there's some magical cost-free solution that involves little more than making threats to Iran and the problem goes away. That's just not the case. The US President doesn't have a Green Lantern ring that lets him change any unappealing situation in the world as long as he strong-willed enough. The US has a lot of power, but some of that power can only be wielded when we're willing to send men with guns to die in a foreign land. That's not where we are with the Houthis. Honestly, with the destruction of the Hawkish neo-con wing of the GOP, we're probably at the nadir of our domestic politicians willing to commit to sending men with guns into a new combat theater.

It's not a legal thing, that's for certain.

Welp, bombing the crap out of someone isn't necessarily "legal" either, so you're going to have to comfortable with the idea that nation-states ignore laws when it means defending themselves. Since you mentioned Maritime Law, what does it say in Concept about The Freedom of The Seas and those who attempt to deny it?

Generally speaking, when the US decides to blatantly violate international law, whether it's a "good thing" or not depends on whether the benefits of doing it are outweighed by the consequences of doing it.

So my calculus is that I'd rather have to have the State Department call up some government whose flagged ship was just impounded for carrying missiles to the Houthis vs. having to explain why I didn't do everything in my power to protect the sailors I put in harm's way.

But that doesn't give us the right to board cargo ships that aren't actually attacking us. If we were to declare war against Yemen and institute a blockade, we would have the right to do that....but we're not in that situation.

They're currently shooting Iranian weapons at us with pretty much impunity and have been for...8 or 9 months? That's a long time to roll the dice.

In some scenarios the best defense is...more offense.

So threatening to sink an Iranian ship is an empty threat, and not one that will magically and costlessly stop the Iranian support of the Houthis. - albaby

---------------

Threatening not necessarily, but following through just once will certainly alter their calculus.

They know - correctly - that no other nation on earth will treat the Houthi attacks on international shipping the same way as if these were Iranian attacks on international shipping. - albaby

-------------

We are not asking them to.

Before we resume swimming in circles, could you be more specific about the avoid-at-all-costs international consequences we would suffer if we defend ourselves and assert their BS will no longer be tolerated.

Since you mentioned Maritime Law, what does it say in Concept about The Freedom of The Seas and those who attempt to deny it?

It's in favor of it. The Houthis are breaking maritime law by attacking commercial vessels. The Iranian government, though, is not directly engaged in that activity.

So my calculus is that I'd rather have to have the State Department call up some government whose flagged ship was just impounded for carrying missiles to the Houthis vs. having to explain why I didn't do everything in my power to protect the sailors I put in harm's way.

That's not the only calculus. You think it's just a phone call to some government? Another consequence is that the Chinese Navy starts boarding all of the ships traversing the sea lanes in Southeast Asia on some pretense, using the precedent set by the US that this is legal. Or perhaps Iran calls up the Chinese PLAN and asks for help escorting their ships in the area, leading PLAN to bulk up their resources in their base in Djibouti and start expanding their footprint in the Gulf of Aden. Or worst of all, perhaps Iran invites the Chinese to establish a naval base on their territory on the Persian Gulf - so far, China's only been able to establish one foreign military base (again, in Djibouti), and they would be itching to get a toehold in the Gulf. To say nothing of the very real possibility that Iran starts send military vessels to escort their cargo ships and they decline the US permission to board....leading to a risk of an actual conflict breaking out.

Yeah - forced boarding of foreign-flag vessels in violation of international law is not a costless endeavor. A little more complicated that Superman punching a bully.

They're currently shooting Iranian weapons at us with pretty much impunity and have been for...8 or 9 months? That's a long time to roll the dice.

Again, you have to pay attention to who "they" is. The Houthis are a rebel group that's trying to overthrow the existing Yemeni government, which is supported by Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Gulf states. So we're not being attacked by the Yemeni government or the Yemeni military, but instead by rebel forces that the official government is trying to suppress. So we're not going to declare war on Yemen or blockade their ports.

For example, why don't we just invade Yemen and slaughter the Houthi rebels, rather than just waiting for them to attack us? - albaby

-------------

Don't need to and nobody here is proposing that. You just keep bringing it up anyway.

As I recall, it was reported that the Iranian ships activated their targeting systems against our aircraft. We then made short work of them. They didn't fire, and we didn't give them the chance to. Activating targeting radar was enough. - 1pg

--------------

That is what deterrence looks like, nothing proportional about it. That is what makes it effective.

Just to be clear, I am not in favor of putting boots on the ground in Yemen (or Iran). You seem to be implying that.

Also, I do realize it is not cost-free. I'm asserting that the cost is -probably- manageable. If we pay (i.e. endure consequences) a bit more now, we may have to pay less (or nothing) later. As some contractors will tell you: "pay me now, or pay me more later". Right now we're suffering the death of a thousand cuts, while Iran suffers nothing. And they only have to 'win' once to really hurt us.

It's in favor of it. The Houthis are breaking maritime law by attacking commercial vessels. The Iranian government, though, is not directly engaged in that activity.

You mean other than giving them the murder weapons and the time/place the victims hang out? That's called an Accessory in most places.

You think it's just a phone call to some government? Another consequence is that the Chinese Navy starts boarding all of the ships traversing the sea lanes in Southeast Asia on some pretense, using the precedent set by the US that this is legal.

Are those pesky Filipinos shooting missiles at random ships traversing the straits there?
Navys board ships all the time during the course of perfectly legal anti-piracy operations, btw.

Or perhaps Iran calls up the Chinese PLAN and asks for help escorting their ships in the area, leading PLAN to bulk up their resources in their base in Djibouti and start expanding their footprint in the Gulf of Aden.

And the Chinese would politely take the call, would tell the Iranians they'll consider the offer, and hang up. Then laugh themselves silly. That's not how the Big Dragon rolls. They don't want to tip their hands before 2027. Nor are they going to risk this kind of stand off with the US over the Houthis because China's entry into the conflict - on the side of the Iranians - would reverberate through the region in ways you wouldn't believe.

Hilariously it would see a light-speed reopening of the Abraham Accords.

To say nothing of the very real possibility that Iran starts send military vessels to escort their cargo ships and they decline the US permission to board....leading to a risk of an actual conflict breaking out.

Uhhh, sure. Talk about tantamount to admitting they're trucking weapons to Yemen for us on us.

Yeah - forced boarding of foreign-flag vessels in violation of international law is not a costless endeavor. A little more complicated that Superman punching a bully.


Superman doesn't punch bullies; that's what Super Breath is for. The analogy holds up quite well - having the Coast Guard board and seize weapons-carrying vessels is a fraction of our capabilities.

Again, you have to pay attention to who "they" is. The Houthis are a rebel group that's trying to overthrow the existing Yemeni government, which is supported by Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Gulf states. So we're not being attacked by the Yemeni government or the Yemeni military, but instead by rebel forces that the official government is trying to suppress. So we're not going to declare war on Yemen or blockade their ports.

You're the only one raising the possibility of invading Yemen or blockading their ports. The goal here is to interdict Iran's ability to attack US shipping. Our armed forces aren't engaged in active combat in Iraq on the scale they were...we have resources enough to send messages.

Reagan understood that.

Dopus and company. We don't want to invade Iran or anybody. - Lapsody

------------

Agree and that is why nobody here has proposed invading Iran or anybody.

Good point about the Chinese Navy. I was going to point out that if we want to confront Iran, this is the time. The Soviets (yeah...Putin has changed them back) and Chinese have their own problems, and likely wouldn't be able to support Iran very much. But China escalate their misbehavior in the South China Sea. I don't think the Soviets have the bandwidth to do anything.

The Houthis are a rebel group that's trying to overthrow the existing Yemeni government, which is supported by Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Gulf states.

So do we then use a proxy in favor of the Yemeni government (do they have a functioning one?)? Give them aid and training to squash the Houthis?

I am not an international lawyer. However, there is precedent. We've boarded DPRK ships to seize weapons. Because the Gulf is a hot-zone, the US (and other nations) could probably classify it as a security operation to aid "peace in the region" (or some such political platitude). - 1pg

-------------

Let's not forget the granddaddy of all blockades, Kennedy and the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Agree and that is why nobody here has proposed invading Iran or anybody.

Literally no one has said, "Let's go invade Iran" and yet it keeps coming up.
Just you wait - one of them will partially quote my post and say tHeY wAnT tO iNvAdE iRaN.

Threatening not necessarily, but following through just once will certainly alter their calculus.

"Following through" requires committing a violation of international law and (probably) initiating hostilities against Iran, though. Sinking a vessel that has itself taken no overt hostile action against any of our vessels in the area, presumably killing many (if not most) of the Iranian nationals on board)? It's one thing to call a strike against a military base or against a military leader in direct retaliation for that country's actions against you....but for simply supplying a third party rebel group in another nation? You're kicking it way up the aggression scale. So you can always do that, but you're committing an overt act of aggression in circumstances that don't typically support that kind of attack.

Since Iran's leaders would probably welcome that kind of political gift ("Remember the Behshad!"), the threat is extraordinarily unlikely to get them to change course. And the consequences of the attack are almost certainly more negative for the US than anything we would gain from sinking the ship.

Since Iran's leaders would probably welcome that kind of political gift ("Remember the Behshad!"), t

How'd they like the "Remember Soleimani!!" gift?

Don't need to and nobody here is proposing that. You just keep bringing it up anyway.

Because they're the ones that are directly attacking the ships. They're the ones against whom direct military force is justified, and has relatively low consequences. So we could eliminate the immediate threat (at least for a while) by directly intervening in the Yemeni civil war and crushing the rebels.

The fact that we're not doing that means that the harassment of global shipping lanes in the Red Sea is not an important enough interest to support a military invasion of Yemen. Which makes it very unlikely that we're willing to "pay" much of a price to eliminate that harassment against Iran, either. Which makes any threat that we will (or have to) take action against Iran without direct provocation pretty empty.

So do we then use a proxy in favor of the Yemeni government (do they have a functioning one?)? Give them aid and training to squash the Houthis?

That's how it's been going. We provide a ton of military equipment to the Saudis, and the Saudis give it to the Yemenis.

And they only have to 'win' once to really hurt us. - 1pg

--------------

I think they are winning right now, and not hurting just us but the entire world by disrupting free trade.

So do we then use a proxy in favor of the Yemeni government (do they have a functioning one?)? Give them aid and training to squash the Houthis? - 1pg

---------------

Whipping the Houthis will not solve our problem with Iran,

Agree and that is why nobody here has proposed invading Iran or anybody.

Literally no one has said, "Let's go invade Iran" and yet it keeps coming up.

That's exactly the point. Sinking an Iranian ship is an act of war. But if you're not willing to back it up with actual war against Iran, then the Iranian government knows that you're not going to do anything to really hurt them. There's no ultimate sanction of "regime change" on the cards, here.

I don't think you're proposing invading Iran. To the contrary. We're not willing to commit to an Iraq or Afghanistan-style operation over something like this. They don't have nukes (which is the ultimate deterrent), but they are a big enough country with a big enough conventional army and big enough allies that they're (ultimately) safe from the bulk of our military power as long as we're not willing to put boots on the ground.

We're not willing to invade. Iran knows we're not willing to invade. Which means that they have some degree of impunity in throwing their weight around regionally, because the worst we would do is briefly blow up the Middle East for a bit. Since we're not going to do that over the Houthis of all things, they know full well that a threat to attack is an empty one.

And the consequences of the attack are almost certainly more negative for the US than anything we would gain from sinking the ship. - albaby

==========================

What are those consequences in your crystal ball?

Sinking an Iranian ship is an act of war. But if you're not willing to back it up with actual war against Iran, then the Iranian government knows that you're not going to do anything to really hurt them.

Uh, huh. So sinking ships doesn't hurt a country? I think that's not quite right.
The point isn't to go Audie Murphy on them, the point is something between a hand to the chest all the way up to a palm heel to the nose. You're describing full on double-leg-takedown-to-ground-and-pound...which is another level above.

Since we're not going to do that over the Houthis of all things, they know full well that a threat to attack is an empty one.

Okay, so in your mind there's literally nothing the US can do to get the Iranians to tone it down. We are completely helpless in the face of their awesome capabilities in the region.

So why are we bothering to said ships in the Red Sea?

The fact that we're not doing that means that the harassment of global shipping lanes in the Red Sea is not an important enough interest to support a military invasion of Yemen. - albaby

----------------

If we cut off the Iranian supply line, the Houthis become toothless and practically irrelevant. And we accomplish that not by interdicting shipments but incentivizing Iran the voluntarily cease an activity that always results in disproportionate pain.

And the Chinese would politely take the call, would tell the Iranians they'll consider the offer, and hang up. Then laugh themselves silly. That's not how the Big Dragon rolls. They don't want to tip their hands before 2027. Nor are they going to risk this kind of stand off with the US over the Houthis because China's entry into the conflict - on the side of the Iranians - would reverberate through the region in ways you wouldn't believe.

Hilariously it would see a light-speed reopening of the Abraham Accords.

They wouldn't laugh at all. The Chinese would jump at the chance to have a Gulf naval base. They're expanding their global military footprint, and are already active in the Gulf of Aden. To say nothing of their efforts to reorient the Gulf States economically away from the West, and towards the East - which the Gulf States are definitely encouraging. China is already Saudi Arabia's biggest customer by a fair sight.

The goal here is to interdict Iran's ability to attack US shipping. Our armed forces aren't engaged in active combat in Iraq on the scale they were...we have resources enough to send messages.

You can't board ships with "messages." You have to actually board them, with sailors. And since Iranian flag vessels aren't pirates, or even necessarily involved in any illegal activity at all, they don't have to let you board and you're not actually entitled to use force to make them. I mention a blockade because if we were actually at war with Yemen, we could then lawfully intercept Yemeni-bound vessels to search for munitions. But since we're not, we don't have any basis for doing that - any more than Iranian naval ships are allowed to board Saudi cargo vessels and seize the arms going to the Yemeni government.

But if you're not willing to back it up with actual war against Iran, then the Iranian government knows that you're not going to do anything to really hurt them. - albaby

----------------

Disagree, we can exact extremely high consequences with our navy alone. There is no need to invade as if they are occupying someone else's territory and must be ejected. And whether deterrence evolves into war is entirely up to them. It is important for them to know that if they want to go there, we have no problem upping the pain. At some point when we run out of military targets, we can unilaterally declare a cease fire.

What are those consequences in your crystal ball?

Oh, I mentioned them in the other post. The most certain consequence is that you throw a massive political lifeline to the Iranian government. We have only to look at Israel to see how powerful a "rally 'round the flag" moment is for an unpopular or unsteady regime. The US committing an act of war and violating international law to attack an Iranian cargo vessel, when neither that vessel nor any Iranian forces have done anything to US forces? Best thing that could happen in Tehran, especially after the embarrassment they've recently suffered.

The next most likely outcome is that Iran starts reciprocating in the Gulf, harassing commercial shipping from the Saudis to Yemen especially - Iran's got a decent-sized Navy, and can certainly throw their weight around that way. That increases the risk of more conflicts and more escalation. As noted above, they'd certainly reach out to their Chinese allies as well - they already conduct joint operations with the Chinese naval forces in the Persian and Gulf of Aden, and that would be strengthened intensely if Iran feels threatened by U.S. forces in the area.

There's the diplomatic consequences as well. US violations of international law won't just play poorly in Tehran; lots of nations, even some of our allies, don't want it to become an accepted norm of behavior that large military powers can sink cargo vessels without there being a precipitating cause.

And for what? Sinking a single ship isn't much of a tactical benefit, after all. It's not going to get Iran to stop supporting the Houthis, and is not going to get the Houthis to stop firing on ships in the Red Sea.

Sinking an Iranian ship is an act of war.

Or it makes people take you seriously. Or it gets people to the table.

There was a blatant attack on a US vessel that didn't involve war. The USS Liberty. I'm sure you know it.

Okay, so in your mind there's literally nothing the US can do to get the Iranians to tone it down. We are completely helpless in the face of their awesome capabilities in the region.

Nope. We're not "helpless" at all - we could reduce their country to rubble if we wanted to bear the cost of doing it. No, you're not suggesting we do that. But everything short of that also has a cost. Whether it's a hand to the chest or a palm heel to the nose, they all come with costs. Especially since Iran isn't really doing anything that falls much outside international norms - supporting an insurgency that's rebelling against a government you oppose is pretty basic stuff, and more or less the inverse of what the Saudis are doing in Yemen.

To borrow the "bully" analogy, it's frustrating to be harassed by a bully - but if you just go and beat the bully up, they can send you to jail. So unless the harassing is so terrible, it usually isn't worth it - and it's always worth it to try to find a solution other than beating up the bully.

So why are we bothering to send ships in the Red Sea?

Oh, because Israel/Iran might end up blowing up anyway. Israel deeply embarrassed the regime by killing Hamiyeh there, and Iran's going to counterstrike - and if they miscalculate and hit too hard, you might start to see escalation there (and between Iranian client Syria and ally Iraq). So we need more resources in the area both to respond to, and try to discourage, a situation where things get way out of hand.

Disagree, we can exact extremely high consequences with our navy alone.

Sure - again, if you want to start a hot war with Iran, we can shell the bejesus out of military targets there. But there's a reason we haven't just done that for the last thirty years. The ensuing chaos would wreak havoc on our interests in the Gulf, far more than what a few Houthi rockets have done.

Or it makes people take you seriously. Or it gets people to the table.

There was a blatant attack on a US vessel that didn't involve war. The USS Liberty. I'm sure you know it.

Of course. But there's no analog between the circumstances. If we were to sink the Behshad, the Iranians are going to agree that it was accidental - because the political benefit to Tehran of waving the bloody shirt is so enormous.

They wouldn't laugh at all. The Chinese would jump at the chance to have a Gulf naval base.

They are going to be reluctant to openly align themselves with Iran in a specific defense of Iran's trying to close the sea lanes. Ponder that international ramification for a minute.

To say nothing of their efforts to reorient the Gulf States economically away from the West, and towards the East - which the Gulf States are definitely encouraging. China is already Saudi Arabia's biggest customer by a fair sight.

So the best way to align themselves with the Gulf States is to...ally with Iran against the United States? That's not going to work - all that does is push the Gulf States back in our direction.

You have to actually board them, with sailors. And since Iranian flag vessels aren't pirates, or even necessarily involved in any illegal activity at all, they don't have to let you board and you're not actually entitled to use force to make them.

The Coast Guard conducts anti-drug and anti-smuggling operations all the time. Back them up with a QRF of Navy SEALs plus a detachment of Marine Cobras in case they need muscle.

Here's how it would go. A Coast Guard cutter would signal a say, Panamanian- or Malaysian-flagged ship that it was intending to send over an inspection party. The Iranians version of QRF is their speedboats and they would dutifully send one over to harass the Coast Guard cutter.

The CG board is armed and has a 3" deck gun plus other things to use. If the Iranians get hostile, then the Marine Cobra lights up the speedboat or sinks it with a Hellfire. But that won't be necessary because the speedboat wouldn't want to tangle with an attack helicopter.

Disagree, we can exact extremely high consequences with our navy alone. There is no need to invade as if they are occupying someone else's territory and must be ejected. And whether deterrence evolves into war is entirely up to them.

Exactly. Reagan sent them the FAFO message in the 1980's and it was received. After it cost the Iranians a bunch of naval assets.

To borrow the "bully" analogy, it's frustrating to be harassed by a bully - but if you just go and beat the bully up, they can send you to jail. So unless the harassing is so terrible, it usually isn't worth it - and it's always worth it to try to find a solution other than beating up the bully.

Depends on the jurisdiction you're in. If you're unlucky enough to be bullied in San Francisco or New York, yup, you punch a bully and you're going to jail. But if you're in Montana or Texas the cop will look at the bully and his fresh shiner and ask him if the bullying was worth it. And then go on his merry way.

Are the high seas more like New York or Texas?

Oh, because Israel/Iran might end up blowing up anyway. Israel deeply embarrassed the regime by killing Hamiyeh there, and Iran's going to counterstrike - and if they miscalculate and hit too hard, you might start to see escalation there (and between Iranian client Syria and ally Iraq).

That was last week or so. Why have we been sending ships and painting SHOOT ME on them for the last 8 months?

Sure - again, if you want to start a hot war with Iran, we can shell the bejesus out of military targets there.

Sure about that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Ma...

They are going to be reluctant to openly align themselves with Iran in a specific defense of Iran's trying to close the sea lanes. Ponder that international ramification for a minute.

They don't have to align with Iran in a specific defense of Iran's trying to close the sea lanes...just to escort Iranian cargo ships. They don't have to agree with what Iran's clients in Yemen are trying to do - just that the US shouldn't be allowed to sink ships in the Gulf with impunity. They'd be willing to do that for a naval base on the Gulf, any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

A Coast Guard cutter would signal a say, Panamanian- or Malaysian-flagged ship that it was intending to send over an inspection party.

But what about an Iranian-flagged ship? They're under no obligation to let the US board them - and they won't. What then? We just open fire? What if they call for a bigger naval ship to come help them out? Remember, this isn't a drug smuggling operation - this is (presumably) a government operation, and the Iranian government will be sending more than just a speedboat to escort a bunch of their commercial ships.

Or they'll just smuggle them in overland.

But if you're in Montana or Texas the cop will look at the bully and his fresh shiner and ask him if the bullying was worth it. And then go on his merry way.

Are you sure? Looking the other way on a domestic like that can lead to some real bad consequences down the road.

Even so, they can always hire a lawyer and sue you. They don't need the cops to get involved.

That was last week or so. Why have we been sending ships and painting SHOOT ME on them for the last 8 months?

The ones that have been launching strikes against the Houthi rebels? I mean...isn't it obvious? They've been launching attacks against the Houthi rebel positions. You know - fighting against the people that have been actually attacking commercial vessels:

https://maritime-executive.com/article/u-s-and-uk-...

They don't have to align with Iran in a specific defense of Iran's trying to close the sea lanes...just to escort Iranian cargo ships. ...that are being used to ferry Iranian missiles to terrorists.

That's not a Panda-face kind of thing to do, right? That's more of a Dragon-face kind of thing to do. They won't go Dragon-face until they're ready to hit Taiwan and subjugate more of the Philippines.

They'd be willing to do that for a naval base on the Gulf, any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

If they wanted a Chinese naval base in Iran, they could have one any time they want by merely making lots of Port Calls in Bandar-e Abbas. While they were there they'd helpfully pay for port upgrades.

But what about an Iranian-flagged ship? They're under no obligation to let the US board them - and they won't. What then?

Watch it head to port and record what cargo gets offloaded from it. Follow the missiles allll the way to the launcher. Then have an airstrike take out the missiles and the Iranian techs loading them.

After that you go to the UN and say, "Iran is now directly involved in attacks on Red Sea shipping". Then you have the legal juice to declare a maritime exclusion zone around Yemen where all ships are required to stop for inspection.

What's Iran going to say? By being belligerent they gave away the store. There's value in provoking that kind of response out of them.

Or they'll just smuggle them in overland.

Even better! A Green Beret team illuminates the truck with a laser, and that's that.

Are you sure? Looking the other way on a domestic like that can lead to some real bad consequences down the road.


Ever talk to any good old boy cops? They understand what Frontier Justice is.

Even so, they can always hire a lawyer and sue you. They don't need the cops to get involved.

And say what? "I stole this kid's lunch money and he punched me out"? Juries in San Francisco would side with the bully, in Texas they'd hold a lottery to see who else gets to beat the bully up.

I mean...isn't it obvious?

The Navy is there protecting the sea lanes in addition to providing the odd support to Yemen. According to you and in every post in this thread you've argued that the US has literally no recourse but to allow the Houthis to shoot at our ships at will.

Sure about that?

Yeah, pretty sure. Again, the difference between a strike and a counterstrike. Iran had mined the waters and caused the near-destruction of a US warship - so a direct response to Iranian military activity is something that a regime can easily back away from. Plus, as noted in the article, at the time Iran was being checked militarily by Iraq - so they were in no position to suffer the loss of additional military materiel.

Here, though, the circumstances are different. The US still has an amazing amount of military firepower, but Iran is now the pre-eminent conventional military force in the region, and Iraq is an ally. They have naval allies in the Chinese, who have a nearby military base in Djibouti. They won't face the military pressure to back down. And because the Iranians haven't directly attacked the US military, there's not really a face-saving opportunity for the Iranians to slink back and claim they gave as good as the got.

Yeah, pretty sure.

Reagan sank some of their Navy and wrecked a bunch of their oil platforms. What would Harris be willing to do?

Again, the difference between a strike and a counterstrike. Iran had mined the waters and caused the near-destruction of a US warship - so a direct response to Iranian military activity is something that a regime can easily back away from.

The Iranians were laying passive mines in international waters then. Now they're supplying direct weapons to the Houthis to use on our ships. In some ways, that's worse.

Why do you think the US and others are applying restrictions to what the Ukrainians can and can't do with the weapons we give them?

The US still has an amazing amount of military firepower, but Iran is now the pre-eminent conventional military force in the region, and Iraq is an ally. They have naval allies in the Chinese, who have a nearby military base in Djibouti. They won't face the military pressure to back down. And because the Iranians haven't directly attacked the US military, there's not really a face-saving opportunity for the Iranians to slink back and claim they gave as good as the got.

So again, according to you, due to the overwhelming superiority of Iranian firepower in the region, we should just sit there and take it.

BTW. What's the most advanced aircraft that the Iranians operate?
The answer might give you a hint as to what China/Russia think of Iran as a client state.

The ensuing chaos would wreak havoc on our interests in the Gulf, far more than what a few Houthi rockets have done. - albaby

--------------

Would? I'll give you could.

And I keep pointing out that the problem is Iran. If the Houthis suddenly disappeared, we still have an aggressive Iran, vowin g Death to the Great Satan and have pledged to erase Israel.

Without their Houthi-launcher, the Iranians still have reliable delivery systems for their armaments. And you are right about Chinese expansionism in the region. Regaining some level of control over the region is in our best interest and is easier now than it will be in five years as the spread of the Chicom virus continues. Our apparent paralysis could be construed as the Chicoms exercising deterrence over the USA right now.

that are being used to ferry Iranian missiles to terrorists.

Not all of them, of course. The Chinese aren't doing this because they want to help missiles get to the Houthis - they're doing it because their naval allies are being harassed by American military forces for no reason.

If they wanted a Chinese naval base in Iran, they could have one any time they want by merely making lots of Port Calls in Bandar-e Abbas. While they were there they'd helpfully pay for port upgrades.

That's how it starts, yes. And the way you get invited to make lots of port calls in Bandar-e Abbas is by providing naval assistance to the Iranian government. And the way that happens is if, say, a foreign power is harassing the Iranian merchant marine....

Watch it head to port and record what cargo gets offloaded from it. Follow the missiles allll the way to the launcher. Then have an airstrike take out the missiles and the Iranian techs loading them.

After that you go to the UN and say, "Iran is now directly involved in attacks on Red Sea shipping". Then you have the legal juice to declare a maritime exclusion zone around Yemen where all ships are required to stop for inspection.

Except that the Yemeni government hasn't been able to do this. And they actually control the port - not just trying to watch from a naval vessel off short. So maybe these shipments aren't as easy to find and record as you suspect?

The Chinese aren't doing this because they want to help missiles get to the Houthis - they're doing it because their naval allies are being harassed by American military forces for no reason.


And aligning themselves openly with the world's #1 terror state. That's not a Panda-face look.

And the way you get invited to make lots of port calls in Bandar-e Abbas is by providing naval assistance to the Iranian government.

Heh. The Iranians have already asked. Multiple times, in fact, and they already have a deal.

https://www.csis.org/analysis/china-and-iran-major...

The terms of the agreement were not made public, but it seems to be largely economic.2 It seems to call for Chinese investment of $400 billon in Iran over a 25 year period in return for lower Iranian petroleum export prices. An earlier draft called for Chinese investment akin to some 100 projects, and the New York Times reported that they would include key infrastructure programs like airports, high-speed railways and subways, free-trade zones in Maku in northwestern Iran; projects in Abadan, where the Shatt al-Arab river flows into the Gulf, and on the island Qeshm in the Gulf. The agreement also may lead to a major Chinese investment in Iran’s petroleum sector, both to modernize existing facilities and to expend oil and gas production.

Oh, you poor Iranian sots. You have no idea what you just bought.
The agreement gives China potential access to Iran’s new port and naval base at Jask, which is located outside the Gulf on Iran’s Indian Ocean coast. It counters India’s efforts to develop Iran’s port and new petroleum pipeline and oil export facilities at Chabahar, and it hinders India’s role in helping Iran create better road and railroad access to Central Asia.

Note the mention of India here.

Except that the Yemeni government hasn't been able to do this.

Remind me how many naval assets Yemen has?

And I keep pointing out that the problem is Iran. If the Houthis suddenly disappeared, we still have an aggressive Iran, vowing Death to the Great Satan and have pledged to erase Israel.

Agreed. But the fact that Iran is the problem doesn't mean that direct military action against Iran is in the long term interests of the United States. Because there are consequences that stem from that military action.

I've mentioned from time to time that Iran's ascension in the region occurred in no small part because the U.S. decided that regime change in Iraq was a good idea. Solve the "Axis of Evil," doncha know. Ignored the fact that Iraq wasn't in an Axis with Iran, but instead was a geopolitical rival and military check on Iranian hegemony. So we took out Iraq, realigning the region more purely on the Sunni/Shia split and freeing Iran to be the much more aggressive hegemon they are today.

Because there are consequences that stem from that military action.

Heh. There are consequences from military inaction.

And aligning themselves openly with the world's #1 terror state. That's not a Panda-face look.

Ummmm....they've been aligned with Iran for years. What is this "Panda-face" thing? China has made no secret of its eagerness to ally with Iran - and Russia. Nor any secret of their efforts at greater economic ties as well. China's going around the world and making deals with everyone - Belt and Road and all that.

Iran doesn't want the U.S. to be the only superpower, and they certainly don't want to be left on their own to be on the receiving end of U.S. firepower. If we start attacking them, they will most assuredly run into the arms of the Chinese.

Remind me how many naval assets Yemen has?

Why does it matter? Your plan was to follow the ships to port. Yemen controls the ports. So if it's possible to observe the weapons at the port, Yemen should be able to do that - certainly better than an observer out at sea.

Ummmm....they've been aligned with Iran for years.

Not nearly to the degree that you're talking.

What is this "Panda-face" thing?

Standard 2-faced diplomacy: Panda-face, Dragon-face. They use "Panda-face" to engender warm fuzzies but it's merely a mask to hide the dragon behind.

People who've signed up for Belt and Road...heh.

What is this "Panda-face" thing?

You asked why Yemen wasn't stopping ships already.

Watch it head to port and record what cargo gets offloaded from it. Follow the missiles allll the way to the launcher. Then have an airstrike take out the missiles and the Iranian techs loading them.

You watch too many movies. Iran has 1500 miles of coastline and it’s all very far away from the US. Trying to patrol all of that and catch even 1/10th of what they choose to ship would be a fool’s errand.

Or they'll just smuggle them in overland.
Even better! A Green Beret team illuminates the truck with a laser, and that's that.

Very Hollywood. Also very unrealistic. Iran also has 3500 miles of land border, with connections to friendly countries and uninvolved including Azerbaijan, Armenia, Turkmenistan, to the east by Pakistan and Afghanistan; and to the west with Turkey and Iraq. If they want to smuggle missiles they have a multiplicity of options (especially considering they’re the government and control the access points).

PS: Attacking on shipping in the Red Sea and nearby began in 2019 when a different guy was President. Orangish fella, as I recall. Want to guess what he did about it?

Iran has 1500 miles of coastline and it’s all very far away from the US. Trying to patrol all of that and catch even 1/10th of what they choose to ship would be a fool’s errand.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_P-8_Poseidon

PS: Attacking on shipping in the Red Sea and nearby began in 2019 when a different guy was President. Orangish fella, as I recall. Want to guess what he did about it?

Were they shooting at US destroyer who were just sitting there?

I am not an international lawyer. However, there is precedent. We've boarded DPRK ships to seize weapons.

So what;s the precedent? Is it UN and narrowly confined to DPRK, or is it in general? What can trigger it off?

The USS Liberty wasn't an accident. I know the governments said so, but that was political expediency. The survivors of the ship say it was deliberate.

Thinking further about a "hot war" with Iran, what would that look like? Day 1: we sink their navy, and any of their air force that takes of is eliminated. Then what? If we don't invade, not much is going to happen. They have a sizeable army, but it would be useless if we don't put boots on the ground (which we shouldn't). How do you envision it?

The USS Liberty wasn't an accident. I know the governments said so, but that was political expediency. The survivors of the ship say it was deliberate.

It was deliberate and that was stated at the time.

SNIP
Israel apologized for the attack, saying that the USS Liberty had been attacked in error after being mistaken for an Egyptian ship.[5] Both the Israeli and U.S. governments conducted inquiries and issued reports that concluded the attack was a mistake due to Israeli confusion about the ship's identity.[6] Others, including survivors of the attack, have rejected these conclusions and maintain that the attack was deliberate.[7][8]SNIP

So it was deliberate and an error.

The survivors are saying it wasn't an error. That was the point you snipped.

The allegations are that the Israelis didn't like that ship off their shore. They knew it was a spy ship, and wanted it gone. Hence the attack. They didn't destroy it (they could have), they just drove it away. Then apologies all around, and sweep it under the rug.

Obviously with Iran, that wouldn't happen. My point was that war is not an inevitable outcome in those situations. Especially when Iran has no means to wage it against us. They would have to do something else (of which, I do not know). Though China could complicate that if Iran invited them in. Not sure China has the bandwidth to engage both in the middle east and the South China Sea, but maybe??

Thinking further about a "hot war" with Iran, what would that look like? Day 1: we sink their navy, and any of their air force that takes of is eliminated. Then what? If we don't invade, not much is going to happen. They have a sizeable army, but it would be useless if we don't put boots on the ground (which we shouldn't). How do you envision it?

The obvious answer is to have Iranian and Iraqi forces move on the U.S. military presence in Iraq and Kuwait. We've got about ~3K troops in Iraq and more than ~10K in Kuwait. That's actually our largest troop presence in the region, and so Iran's first military objective would be to attack all US forces in those two areas. If we obliterate their Navy (killing several thousand Iranian servicemen - these ships aren't empty), that's an act of complete war. Tehran will have little choice but to try to respond in similar fashion. They can't defeat the U.S. military, but they're going to have to engage. So they go into Kuwait, and maybe Saudi Arabia - to force the U.S. to engage them with land troops.

Another likely - but less certain - response would be to pull the trigger on Israel as well. No more sparse and isolated rocket attacks from Hizbollah; just have them start attacking en masse, and accept the Israeli response. This is to keep Israel focused on its own security, rather than attacking targets that the US doesn't want to be directly involved in.

Also likely is a call for help. China and Russia are not going to cede control over the area to the U.S. - Iran is an important client and a strategic check on US/Western interests in the region. They obviously don't want any direct engagement, but neither are they going to leave Iran out to dry. They'll provide replacement aircraft, and possibly small naval craft - and China may actually move some of their ships into Iranian ports to keep the US from attacking again.

All quite devastating to the international shipping that the US is ostensibly trying to protect. Which is the problem with a disproportional response - it's disproportional. Yes, the US could blow up the stability of the entire Middle East in order to hinder these rocket attacks. But then the US has to face the consequences of doing that.

Others, including survivors of the attack, have rejected these conclusions and maintain that the attack was deliberate.[7][8]

And how would they know it was deliberate? And how did you determine it was whitewashed?

It is possible for both to be true. You could have one section that doesn't like us there, but knows we're US, and another section that mistakes the ship for ...say... Egyptian. What counts is who gave the order to strike. But you seem to believe...

I wasn't there. So I believe the survivors more than the politicians. Do I know for certain? Nope.

If you read the wiki, it is not as cut-and-dried as the two governments would have you believe. FOIA requests and declassified documents (decades later) seem to indicate they pilots knew it wasn't an Egyptian ship, but continued the attack anyway.

Considering events at that time, both governments had reason to sweep it away. The Israelis needed our support, and we had an interest to maintain one of the only allies we had in that region. So I put more weight on survivors who were there. But we'll probably never know for certain.

If you read the wiki, it is not as cut-and-dried as the two governments would have you believe. FOIA requests and declassified documents (decades later) seem to indicate they pilots knew it wasn't an Egyptian ship, but continued the attack anyway.

Considering events at that time, both governments had reason to sweep it away. The Israelis needed our support, and we had an interest to maintain one of the only allies we had in that region. So I put more weight on survivors who were there. But we'll probably never know for certain.

I had to refresh my memory. I put a hard edge to these because mistakes that happen like this are a chain of events with different players at different times.


There's no smoking gun either way, so to me, that means the official conclusion that it was a mistake stands. Here's an article on it:

https://archive.is/49jKQ

But you see, I'll go with the historian fellow. There's also oodles of conspiracy theories there, do you think any of those are highly likely?

There's also oodles of conspiracy theories there, do you think any of those are highly likely?

What I think is likely is that the Israelis didn't want that ship offshore. I have read some of the more outlandish conspiracy theories, but I tend to go with Occam's Razor...the simplest explanation. I don't, for example, think the Israelis were trying to fool the Americans into thinking it was the Egyptians attacking (and, therefore, enter the conflict on their side). Frankly, they didn't need us. They were handling the situation quite well by themselves. They just didn't want that ship there.

As you say, "no smoking gun either way". So I tend to go with the accounts of the people who were there. But we will never really know for certain.

Perhaps "precedent" wasn't the correct word? It's been done before. Not often, but I recall the boarding and seizing of a DPRK shipment of weapons. Or maybe it is specific to the DPRK? Not sure. I just remember reading about it.

As another poster mentioned, there was also the Cuban Missile Crisis. Though the laws may have changed in the 60+ years since.

I think both actions were triggered by credible intel.

As you say, "no smoking gun either way". So I tend to go with the accounts of the people who were there.

Well, the person who gave the order wasn't there. And I would track it up from the observations to the person who gave the order back down to the pilot launching the missile. Most articles do not mention who gave the order, and as the historian asks - Why? You are misusing Occam's razor - the simplest answer is that mistakes were made. Then there is Hanlon's razor - Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity. So Hanlon tells us not to leap to think it was deliberate, which would be malicious. It will be deliberate at some point, but Remember the Maine!

All quite devastating to the international shipping that the US is ostensibly trying to protect. Which is the problem with a disproportional response - it's disproportional. Yes, the US could blow up the stability of the entire Middle East in order to hinder these rocket attacks. But then the US has to face the consequences of doing that.

Iran's resources are very limited. They simply do not have the capability to move on as many fronts as you're describing.

They can't mount a campaign of any type. Let me ask you this: How long do you think their F-4 Phantoms last against F-22s and F/A-18s? Not very long.

They're not rolling tanks anywhere either.

Perhaps "precedent" wasn't the correct word? It's been done before. Not often, but I recall the boarding and seizing of a DPRK shipment of weapons. Or maybe it is specific to the DPRK? Not sure. I just remember reading about it.

I think the Spanish boarded for us, it was questioned. I looked and there's an odd claim that they took their flag down and so were not sailing under any country. Odd.

As another poster mentioned, there was also the Cuban Missile Crisis. Though the laws may have changed in the 60+ years since.

I think that was covered by treaty, the OAS (Organization of American States) approved it, but in the middle of the showdown. So we backed into being legal, but probably had the tacit agreement of other nations. No one wanted nukes there and we agreed to dismantle our nukes in Turkey (on the QT).

Iran's resources are very limited. They simply do not have the capability to move on as many fronts as you're describing.

They also can't just let the US destroy their entire navy and air force and just shrug their shoulders with a "well, what can you do?" If a foreign power declares war on you (by invading and killing most of the people in a division of your armed forces), you're going to need to fight back - even if you're not going to win, there's no way an Iranian government would refrain from doing anything.

Iran's got one of the most powerful militaries in the region (behind Israel, maybe Egypt). They're going to counterattack. The US' largest footprint and assets are the various permanent bases in Kuwait, so that's the most likely response. They'd ask for (and probably receive) permission from Iraq to cross the Shatt al Arab and enter Kuwait over land and engage with U.S. forces there. Depending on how helpful Iraq wants to be, they can even allow Iranian troops to amass within Iraqi territory and advise the US that they are forbidden to enter Iraqi airspace - something that the US might have to honor.

The Iranian infantry wouldn't have much support - the US can dominate their air force, and in this scenario their surface Navy was destroyed (though they have a few dozen subs). But Iran will be alight with nationalistic and patriotic fervor, having had their brave soldiers murdered by the imperialist US without any direct provocation (they'll be the Ukrainians in their version of the story). And by turning up the temperature along Israel's northern border, they can keep their military occupied up towards Lebanon instead of having all their resources available to harry the troops along Kuwait.

It's not great for Iran to get into a shooting war with the US (okay, massive understatement) - but among their options in response to a massive attack from the US, that's probably their least-bad choice. They could also attack US forces in Iraq, but that's probably not a sufficiently large response to the provocation.

Then there is Hanlon's razor - Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity.

That is also good advice.

Interesting you mentioned the Maine. Officially, it was destroyed by an external explosion (e.g. mine). But the surviving sailors, and subsequent investigation (unofficial) has determined moderately conclusively that it was a coal storage fire that heated the bulkheads of the powder magazine, which then set off the explosion**. So the official explanation appears to be wrong.

Note: I looked it up, and apparently Rickover (of submarine fame) revisited this in the 70s and found the likely cause was the coal bunker igniting the powder magazine. It isn't clear to me that the official explanation was revised, despite Rickover's paper. NatGeo also investigated it, but didn't arrive at a solid conclusion. Discovery Channel also investigated, and concluded it was a coal bunker fire.



**Putting the coal (or later, fuel oil) bunkers next to the powder magazines seems ill-advised. Just sayin'...

Looked it up. They have 19 submarines. Not very useful in a land war (they aren't missile subs, they're diesels for anti-ship operations).

It would seem to me to be ill-advised to cross Iraq and attack Kuwait. We would see them coming. It would be a "Highway of Death" all over again. Total massacre.

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

That might whip-up some national fervor, but it would also remove them from the top tier of military powers in the region. Their military would be all but annihilated.

Though they could use their subs to harass (directly) sea traffic. Diesels are very quiet, and difficult to detect. When we engage in wargames with allied nations, sometimes one of their diesels gets close enough to score a "kill" on one of our supercarriers. They are more than adequate to patrol coastal waters, and the entirety of the Gulf.

I think the bigger worry would be China getting more of a beachhead in the middle east at Iran's invitation. But that might happen anyway. There's nothing stopping Iran from issuing such an invite tomorrow.

Plus nukes. As Perun pointed out, analysts suspect that an attack on Iran's nuclear programs would likely result in an acceleration of them. And once they get a nuke, if we've mostly wiped them out, they might be encouraged to launch it on an ally (most likely Israel). The only thing that would be safe is Jerusalem because of the Al-Aqsa Mosque. They wouldn't risk destroying that.

They also can't just let the US destroy their entire navy and air force and just shrug their shoulders with a "well, what can you do?"

Sure. What happened the last time Israel made Iran look hbad?
https://theintercept.com/2024/04/15/iran-attack-is...

They launched loads of missiles and drones and most were shot down with zero damage. But then what?

Iran “has achieved all its goals, and in our view the operation has ended, and we do not intend to continue,” Mohammad Bagheri, chief of staff of the Iranian armed forces, said over the weekend. Still, he cautioned, “If the Zionist regime or its supporters demonstrate reckless behavior, they will receive a decisive and much stronger response.”

Sure, Jan.

Iran's got one of the most powerful militaries in the region (behind Israel, maybe Egypt).

I'm sure there's some team in Quito that can boast of being Ecuador's finest hockey team. But when you drop the gloves in the NHL, guess what? You dropped the gloves in the NHL.

You keep hyping Iran and their capabilities. Let's see what their Order Of Battle looks like, shall we?

Let's start with their Navy. I trust you'll find this source reasonable:
https://www.oni.navy.mil/Portals/12/Intel%20agenci...

The IRGC naval strategy is an extension of Iran’s national
defense strategy, which seeks to, deter a maritime
attack if possible, rapidly escalate if deterrence fails, and
wage a protracted war if necessary. Fundamental to this
strategy is the exploitation of geography and the use of
asymmetric doctrine to combat a technologically superior
force.

Translation: This means they lack the means to go toe-to-toe with a true blue water Navy so they lean on "asymmetric" means (read: terrorist or pirate-like tactics on the water) to get the job done. They also count on fighting in home waters.

. The doctrine manifests itself as hit-and-run style,
surprise attacks, or the amassing of large numbers of
unsophisticated weapons to overwhelm the enemies’
defenses. The amassing of naval forces is often described
as a swarm of small boats, and is essentially similar to
the human wave attacks Iran’s ground forces used in the
Iran-Iraq War.

Translation: Lots of dude in speedboats. The speedboats will have RPGs and a machine gun on board, maybe a Harpoon knock-off. That's about it.

Their "Capital Ships" are in the weight class of a more heavily armed version of a USCG Cutter. They also employ some North Korean-built submarines and some legacy Soviet boats. Aviation wise their Navy doesn't have much; they retrofitted some old Bell helicopters to carry missiles.

How about their Air Force? (info on their Army is limited)
https://www.bing.com/search?https://nationalintere...

The Iranian air force on paper is one of the biggest air arms in the world. Its order of battle includes around 350 fighters, more than twice as many as the Royal Air Force possesses.

Wow, that's impressive! Or is it?
The air force’s squadrons fly American-made F-14s, F-5s and F-4s dating from the 1970s, some 1980s-vintage MiG-29s and Sukhoi fighter-bombers and a few J-7s that the Islamic Republic bought from China during the 1990s.

Iran’s only recent acquisitions are locally-made, reverse-engineered copies of the F-5.

The F-5 was a nice, lightweight and cheap fighter. Terrific airframe for...1959. Lacking AWACS support in a meaningful way it won't fare so well against a modern Air Force.

They'd ask for (and probably receive) permission from Iraq to cross the Shatt al Arab and enter Kuwait over land and engage with U.S. forces there.

LOL. And we'd drop propaganda leaflets of the Highway Of Death in Kuwait circa 1991.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_of_Death

Though they could use their subs to harass (directly) sea traffic. Diesels are very quiet, and difficult to detect.

Diesels are very noisy and can only run when the sub is on the surface, not a great plan in a relatively narrow sea or isthmus. Diesel subs run on batteries when underwater, and only have enough juice for a couple days, although newer ones with fuel cells can triple that time or more. Running on electric makes them quieter, but not at all quiet. They can still be easily detected by sonobuoys or other means. They are still limited by motor noise and cavitation of the water passing the propellers.

Recharging the batteries takes several hours so it is not inconsequential for a sub to sit on the surface to do so.

I was referring to the boat-class, not the specific engine. Yes, a diesel engine is noisy. When operating on batteries, a diesel sub is pretty quiet. Especially more modern ones (I'm not talking WWII-era subs). You are correct that they need to charge their batteries. But you are not correct that they are not a threat. The boats are generally smaller, and disturb the water less, making less noise.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/war-games-s...

Yet despite making multiple attacks runs on the Reagan, the Gotland was never detected.

It would seem to me to be ill-advised to cross Iraq and attack Kuwait. We would see them coming. It would be a "Highway of Death" all over again. Total massacre.

Perhaps - but it's not entirely clear whether we could or would do that again. Operation Desert Shield (the first phase of the Gulf War) was a six-month deployment of massive amounts of military resources to the Gulf. We sent carriers, multiple aircraft fighter wings, and a host of other assets that were built up over that half a year. We were prepared to annihilate a large ground force, with the full cooperation of nearly all of the other countries of the region to allow us to use their territory for staging and deployment. And we had the full backing of the UN. In other words, we were the Good Guys, leading the Coalition of Nearly Everybody.

The war being described here wouldn't be like that. It's unlikely we would be in that same type of preparedness posture - we're not going to have that type of force arrayed in the Gulf. We're not going to be operating under a UN resolution authorizing us to attack Iran, either - so assembling that type of force in the Gulf is going to be enormously provocative and draw the opposition of a number of countries, who may choose to deploy to that area as well. It's also pretty durn unlikely that the U.S. electorate would support the expense of that kind of overwhelming firepower to go after an Iran that's done nothing more than supply rebels in a civil war we care nothing about.

Plus, as I alluded to above, Iran may also feel that they've got no choice but to uncork a decent-sized attack against Israel. It's a tough call - on the one hand, Israel's got the top military in the region. On the other hand, Iran is much worse off if the other Gulf States support the US in their attacks on Iran, and the only thing that could dissuade them is a reluctance to enter the conflict on the side of Israel.

Though they could use their subs to harass (directly) sea traffic. Diesels are very quiet, and difficult to detect. When we engage in wargames with allied nations, sometimes one of their diesels gets close enough to score a "kill" on one of our supercarriers. They are more than adequate to patrol coastal waters, and the entirety of the Gulf.

Exactly. They can't directly support their infantry, but they can harry the naval resources that the US would rely on to attack their infantry, which helps a little - and make it harder for us to move resources into Kuwait by sea. To say nothing of jeopardizing shipping in the Gulf.

I think the bigger worry would be China getting more of a beachhead in the middle east at Iran's invitation. But that might happen anyway. There's nothing stopping Iran from issuing such an invite tomorrow.

Except it's a big step to cede sovereignty and allow a foreign power to have a military presence in your country - 'cause once they're there, it's really hard to get them out (hi, Guantanamo Bay!). Iran's more allied to China than the US, but it's not like China's been all that kind to their Muslim population, and there are some real issues there. But having your navy slaughtered and your air force decimated might drive you to pledge fealty to any superpower that can protect you. It's these types of exigent circumstances and desperate crises that give rise to those bases getting established. That's how we got our bases in Kuwait and Iraq, after all. Again, it's the unforeseen consequences - we attacked Iraq and that allowed Iran to enter their sphere of influence. It would be ironic if a massive attack on Iran could unlock the region for a greater Chinese footprint.

You keep hyping Iran and their capabilities. Let's see what their Order Of Battle looks like, shall we?

Not sure what your point is - the hypothetical we're talking about is how Iran responds after their air force and navy (except maybe the subs) have basically been destroyed. It assumes those forces had minimal capabilities.

Iran's military is generally considered to be one of the most powerful in the region based on the capabilities of their land forces. They have a pretty sizable army.

Yes, if the U.S. has six months to optimally redeploy assets from around the globe and the cooperation of all the other Gulf States in the area, we can turn the road from Basra to Kuwait City into the road of death. Redeploying six aircraft carriers to the Gulf will do that (to say nothing of the British Navy, which basically wrapped up the Iraqi Navy for us). But without that preparation? Without all that build up? It's not like we stopped Hussein from taking Kuwait in the first place, after all. And in another difference from the Gulf War, having other global powers (notably China) supporting them in their response to the unprovoked aggression of the imperialist Americans, since (again) the U.S. won't be doing this with the imprimatur of a UN Resolution?

Iran can't hold Kuwait, but the purpose of the attack wouldn't be to conquer the country - just destroy the U.S. military presence there in response to the U.S. attacks.

Interesting you mentioned the Maine. Officially, it was destroyed by an external explosion (e.g. mine). But the surviving sailors, and subsequent investigation (unofficial) has determined moderately conclusively that it was a coal storage fire that heated the bulkheads of the powder magazine, which then set off the explosion**. So the official explanation appears to be wrong.

Note: I looked it up, and apparently Rickover (of submarine fame) revisited this in the 70s and found the likely cause was the coal bunker igniting the powder magazine. It isn't clear to me that the official explanation was revised, despite Rickover's paper. NatGeo also investigated it, but didn't arrive at a solid conclusion. Discovery Channel also investigated, and concluded it was a coal bunker fire.

Yep, that was the allusion. I learned as an adult that it was a coal bunker explosion. But it was a great rallying point.

I learned as an adult that it was a coal bunker explosion. But it was a great rallying point.

Kind of like “mushroom clouds from Iraq’s WMD” or “Gulf of Tonkin incident”.

I would like to think we have learned to rely more on evidence than claims before starting a war, but seeing how easily public passions are inflamed, coupled with the venal attitude of power hungry politicians, I doubt it.

Well, LBJ and the Gulf of Tonkin incident were part of me growing up and beginning to understand the world.

LBJ ““I’ll tell you what’s at the bottom of it,” he said. “If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.”

TONKIN: One of the Navy pilots flying overhead that night was squadron commander James Stockdale, who later gained fame as a POW and then as Ross Perot’s vice presidential running mate. “I had the best seat in the house to watch that event,” Stockdale said years later.

“Our destroyers were just shooting at phantom targets — there were no PT boats. There was nothing there but black water and American firepower,” he added.

If Stockdale’s claim wasn’t damning enough, here’s what President Johnson said in 1965: “For all I know, our Navy was shooting at whales out there.”

Then Lee Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”

You watch too many movies. Iran has 1500 miles of coastline and it’s all very far away from the US.

Ain't it the truth?

Even with the inception of Operation Stonegarden (land/air/sea interdiction of contraband, in cooperation with state and local agencies) we are unable to detect and catch all the vehicles/aircraft/boats operating in our own backyard.

We've recovered numerous vessels on Camp Pendleton that were offloaded and deserted before the rooster crowed. We've even recovered a vessel that beached and successfully offloaded directly beneath the I-5 immigration checkpoint. ....another directly below the USMC hovercraft station. Our booyaaa point of contact told me it was unlikely the operators made it to their highway rendezvous because his base patrols would have apprehended them. LOL.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

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