What does Iran think they would gain ?

[mapuc]

Lately the last week or so I have through our Danish and Swedish news

read USA have sent a Carrier to the Middle east and some Patriot missile and diplomats who aren't necessary should leave Baghdad.

This step by the Americans should be because Iran is planning on or may attack targets in the area.

And by other words Iran is planning on or may attack US interest in this area.

Here is my thoughts

What does Iran think they would gain, by doing this ?

In the Geopolitical and military point-of-view ?
(and a little on the religious point-of-view)

Markus

[bstanko6]

It’s that “take an inch... gain a mile” mentality.

Just to see what they can get.

[bstanko6]

It’s actually a great way to gain information on your enemy. Move this way, see them move that way. Total Cold War tactics!

[ikalugin]

I expect that US is placing forces (120k troops?) in the region for another OIF type deal.


It is not about Iran the same way it was not about Iraq having WMDs.


On the other hand US has de-coupled sanctions regime from actual behaviour by actors, which means that actors (such as Iran) are no longer incentivised to behave. And from their perspective it may be that the other local actors (ie KSA) being allowed to export oil while they can't is unfair and is an example of double standards.

[Mr Quatro]

Why Iran is doing this I do not know, but the USN is ready

The task force was reported exiting the Suez Canal Monday May 13th

https://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=109119

The deployment of the Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group (follows almost two years of intense training and preparation that began when the ship completed its refueling complex overhaul availability in May 2017, and will culminate in the execution of the homeport shift from Norfolk, Virginia to San Diego, California.

On 1 April 2019, Abraham Lincoln and Carrier Strike Group 12 departed Norfolk for a six-month deployment that will end with a shifting of homeport to San Diego

As it turns out, a third carrier was already en route, and as of today, CVN 69 Eisenhower is either at the opening of the Straits of Hormuz, or just past it. That makes 3 aircraft carriers in the middle east, 2 in the Gulf and the Arabian Sea and one just off the coast of Syria.

[Catfish]

It seems the only evidence is that the US sent a carrier and task force. Spain withdraw its warship from the group. All else is not clear.

British General Contradicts U.S. Claim of increased threat from Iran backed militias.

The sabotage on the tankers could have been done by anyone, literally. Of course one might think about Iran, or rather Yemen. The latter is at war with Saudi Arabia, and Iran has been said to support Yemen.

Or it's all a cover up and the next we hear is that Iran has weapons of mass destruction.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by mapuc

What does Iran think they would gain, by doing this ?

Probably little to nothing other than a perceived saving of face.

[Skybird]

Difficult to judge whether it all is just played by Iran alone.


Already over a decade ago, a certain Gen. Weslep Clarke formlated a doctrine that called for the toppling of regimes in the Muslim belt of hostility, he lsuted a series of countries that the US must seek to topple, with Iran at the end.


Everybody say that trump runs berserk again. I am not so sure, becasue he is under a strong spell by Bolton, and others qho are known fro running long-ranging strategies. Could be that history one day finds that from washington'S POV things went accoding to plan.


I do not complain, my hostile stand on Iran should be known by now. I just think that the media come to very strange conclsuions again when reporting on what is happening with those tanker sabotages etc etc.


The European "strategy" on Iran, if one is not ashamed to even call it that, is in ruins. And we should be thankful for that.

[mapuc]

Have been thinking about this information on Iran planning on or may attack targets in the Middle East. and I may be wrong.

I guess we all know Iran is supporting one of the combats in the Civil war in Yemen.

We also know that Saudi-Arabia is supporting the other side directly.

My guess is Iran will go all in, in this civil war.

Which probably means war between Iran and Saudi-Arabia.

and most certainly involving USA.

Markus

[Skybird]

Well, general Clarke called, 12 years ago, for the toppling of the regimes in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Sudan, Libya, Somalia - and Iran. This doctrine was said to have become very influential in Washington, beyond party barriers and presidents.



Just saying.



I would not miss any of these, to make this one clear. But the aUS hardly acts only for the wellbeing of mankind, but they have their own powerpolitical ambitions in this.



Every coin has two sides. US-dollars (Rubels, Euros) are no exception.

[Commander Wallace]

In reality, this is little more than one carrier strike group relieving another after having fulfilled it's deployment and patrol. Sabre rattling at best.

[Platapus]

Perhaps you are asking the wrong question?


What does the US have to gain?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Perhaps you are asking the wrong question?


What does the US have to gain?

Defending he role of the hegemon.

[Mr Quatro]

Those oil tankers were USA bound, but they weren't full of oil yet so as not to pollute home waters. Iran sells oil and now the price of gas is sky high.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Mr Quatro

Those oil tankers were USA bound, but they weren't full of oil yet so as not to pollute home waters. Iran sells oil and now the price of gas is sky high.

Where was that picture taken? Where I'm at the highest prices are around $3.15, and just last week I paid $3.09. Still high by my standards, but I'm glad I don't live wherever that is.