Remember to be courteous and polite in all of your interactions within the gates of Shrewd'm.
- Manlobbi
Personal Finance / Macroeconomic Trends & Risks
No. of Recommendations: 16
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/us-eyes...Something new and exciting in negotiations with Iran. Iran has asked for reparations to cover the repair of the damage caused by the US and Israeli attacks. Somewhere along the line, the funds morphed to about $24B of Iranian frozen funds - 1/2 at time of signing, half at time of closing. The US has rejected this for two reasons: First, it would reduce their bargaining leverage and second, it would make Trump look lousy after he poked Obama for freeing up $1.5B in the past.
Now, the US has decided to use the Iranian funds to pay for the damage to other Gulf countries done by Iran.
At some point, considering the tit-for-tat of the US and Iran taking pot shots at each other, if the US takes too big a bite from the apple, Iran can send, not four, but 50 drones to a US warship and sink it. Despite thee US claims to have completely obliterated Iran's military, I suspect they have the means to both inflict considerable damage against US assets at a time that the US can no longer afford sending an infinite number of additional warheads into Iran (or they would already have done so).
For obvious reasons, a ground attack against Iran would be a significant challenge and the main local force the US can exert is from quite vulnerable navel weapons (they can send missiles or drop bombs from strategic bombers - but those classes of weapons are also in depleted supply - and that action would endanger local US war ships..
Assuming the US can't take the political heat longer than Iran can deal with its blockade, Iran has already won and the US is simply trying to figure out how to disengage while continuing to claim they have won.
For many reasons, watching this reality show is very to the Chinese as it indicates how hobbled the mighty US military has become at the hands of a third-rate military power.
Jeff
No. of Recommendations: 0
It's pretty clear to me that many would love to see this nation simply eradicated, as long as neighboring allies aren't hurt by fallout from doing so. Not even sure that the current admin would be all that concerned about neighboring countries. Please note that I AM NOT suggesting this would be a good thing, just one I could see coming from our current group of leaders if it were possible. Is it?
IP
No. of Recommendations: 4
Does eradication include the populus of Iran or only its leaders? Haven't we already done that?
The sticking point, as I see it, is that Israel is not willing to give up the
"lebensraum" that it has already carved out of southern Lebanon with the same justification that it cleansed Palestinians from their homes.
All in service of greater Israel.
No. of Recommendations: 0
Now, the US has decided to use the Iranian funds to pay for the damage to other Gulf countries done by Iran.
Comments relevant to the US bargaining position, by former security advisor Joe Kent, and others, have been discussed on the Policy board. Posting those comments here would get me flamed.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 4
Does eradication include the populus of Iran or only its leaders? Haven't we already done that?
We have apparently tried to do that, but clearly not succeeded based on the military hardware still being thrown at us. And again, I am not suggesting this is a good thing. Rather I am wondering if it is feasible for Trump to follow up his threats with action. I don't see diplomacy ever giving him the ability to walk away with a "win." Nuclear I don't view as an option given the fall out in the region. Are there tools at his disposition that could localize extreme measures? I simply don't know enough about military options.
I fear the only way for diplomacy to "win" is a change of administration in the US.
IP
No. of Recommendations: 5
IP
Are you suggesting your approval for use of a series of smaller tactical nuclear weapons where fallout is a localized phenomenon? Civilian casualties are not of concern? Moreover, would not Putin then follow suit in Ukraine?
Surely we have not reached a level of frustration that would lead to the use of city buster bombs. Remember, the US and CIA are directly responsible for the current mess in Iran. We are currently making it worse.
Finally, use of tactical nukes would have to be followed up by boots on the ground embroiling us in a decades long occupation.
Trump needs to walk away from Netanyahu and AIPAC needs to be treated like the foreign lobbyist it is.
Sent this private to defuse (hopefully) my rhetoric a bit.
fd
No. of Recommendations: 6
Are you suggesting your approval for use of a series of smaller tactical nuclear weapons where fallout is a localized phenomenon?
Read my posts again, as I was VERY clear, even using caps, that this is not something I approve of, rather something I suspect Trump would have no problem with. He should have never started this war in the first place, but this is what you get when you hand the keys of the kingdom to a middle school level bully.
use of a series of smaller tactical nuclear weapons where fallout is a localized phenomenon?
These exist? Now I am sorry I asked. I hoped for assurance that nothing exists to accomplish the total destruction of one civilization by another.
Sent this private ...
No, but thanks for trying. It's OK, I would expect to be smacked up the side of the head if I had suggested this as a good course of action. I am simply concerned that Trump thinks anything goes and wondered how much risk of this being possible there was.
IP
No. of Recommendations: 13
For obvious reasons, a ground attack against Iran would be a significant challenge
To say the least. For the Gulf War we used Saudi Arabia, and to a lesser extent UAE and Kuwait to stage supplies, bases, and personnel in the hundreds of thousands. At the moment Saudi Arabia and UAE are denying us use of our airbases in their countries to attack Iran (even by air), and Kuwait is denying that we are using Kuwaiti bases (because they don’t want to be on the wrong side of Iran either.)
So before you plan a ground invasion you have to have somewhere to invade from - like England during World War II or the Japanese islands in the Pacific which we fought for with increasing casualties the closer we got.
There is no way to invade short of putting hundreds of thousands of troops in harms way (Desert Storm involved almost 700,000) and we’re just not gonna do it. Trump won’t do it because he’s all hat, no cattle. Congress won’t do it because they would be running for their lives. The military would advise against it because it’s hopeless, but they would do it if ordered because that’s what they do, unfortunately.
No, we are not going to “attack.” You are right, Trump is groping for a way out, and there isn’t one except surrender, so he has to figure out a way to surrender while calling it a great victory, in which he will be aided by his accomplices in the right-wing media.
This is a loss, straight up. Bibi has tried to convince every President since ever to do it, only Trump was stupid enough to say yes.
No. of Recommendations: 1
the US has decided to use the Iranian funds to pay for the damage to other Gulf countries done by Iran.
What Iran will do is simple: They will say "Give us OUR money--in full". Spankee will say "We spent it" and Iran will say "The US spent its own money. Give us OUR money--in full." The war will never end, and it will be "Spankee's War on Iran".
The analogy would be a bank taking money from Spankee's accounts and then giving him whatever was left--if anything. In other words, pulling a Spankee scam on Spankee.
No. of Recommendations: 1
The analogy would be a bank taking money from Spankee's accounts and then giving him whatever was left--if anything. In other words, pulling a Spankee scam on Spankee.
Actually, it's a riff on what the EU has been talking about: using frozen Russian assets to fund Ukraine's defense, except it's turned around so the aggressor is using the assets of the country it attacked.
Steve
