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 (https://www.yahoo.com/news/1-spain-pulls-frigate-u-122754066.html?guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ 2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAANTd0-QJNHUfroathnK_5BIFpDRewLCdFyNupN0MoY-_pTJjqGsWftCcmNVEUSlI-l6KtVtEHqf7E_KBHuGLp2_AgHccfNt-1UzCd2UH3ENS7dOMq1KXqthWHV65RLG5Wurfr82f41z-FjOwHRenydY8XLh-gMG3w5O2PF3nbW3T). All else is not clear.

British General Contradicts U.S. Claim (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/www.yahoo.com/news/british-general-contradicts-u-claim-040131952.htmlhttp://) 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.

[ikalugin]

Was this desproved then?
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/14/politics/us-troops-middle-east-iran/index.html


120k troops is a lot.

[Jimbuna]

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



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

[Jimbuna]

Spain withdraw its warship from the group (https://www.yahoo.com/news/1-spain-pulls-frigate-u-122754066.html?guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ 2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAANTd0-QJNHUfroathnK_5BIFpDRewLCdFyNupN0MoY-_pTJjqGsWftCcmNVEUSlI-l6KtVtEHqf7E_KBHuGLp2_AgHccfNt-1UzCd2UH3ENS7dOMq1KXqthWHV65RLG5Wurfr82f41z-FjOwHRenydY8XLh-gMG3w5O2PF3nbW3T).





Robles said Spain respected the U.S. decision to focus on Iran and would rejoin the group as soon as it returns to its original task, adding: "Spain will always act as a serious and reliable partner as part of the European Union and within NATO."

Oh, really? :hmmm:

[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]

Perhaps you are asking the wrong question?


What does the US have to gain?
Defending he role of the hegemon.

[u crank]

Perhaps you are asking the wrong question?


What does the US have to gain?

Indeed. I'm gonna say little if anything at all. The last thing the US or anyone else needs is another Iraq or Libya or Syria. Almost for certain any attempt at regime change will be a disaster. It is also certain that Iran does not want a shooting war on their own territory. Hopefully cool heads will prevail.

[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. :hmmm:

http://a.abcnews.com/images/Business/gty_gas_prices_nt_120305_wmain.jpg

[em2nought]

I think John Bolton got picked on as a kid, and now it's payback time. It's always payback time.


https://i.chzbgr.com/original/2498522368/hA4CE5715/

[mapuc]

Platapus asked a good question

What does the US have to gain?

Reading this question many thoughts popped up in my head

such as-USA have lost a lot of its influence in the Middle East(said a few times in the Danish news throughout the years)
and now they are taking back the initiativ

USA is technically already at war with Iran-This trough the civil war in Yemen. USA is supporting SA and its allied and Iran is supporting the opposite.

u crank could be right in his statement.

Markus

[Jimbuna]

I've no problem with being accused of biasness but I believe the two articles below are fair and balanced.

Is the United States heading for war with Iran?

There are two competing narratives.

The first, which is favoured by US President Donald Trump's administration, is that Iran is up to no good. Preparations are said to have been seen for a potential attack on US targets, though few details have been revealed publicly.
The US has moved reinforcements to the region; it is reducing its non-essential diplomatic personnel in Iraq; and it is reportedly dusting off war plans.
The message to Tehran is clear: any attack on a US target from whatever source, be it Iran or one of its many proxies or allies in the region, will be met by a significant military response.

The second narrative lays the blame for this crisis squarely at Washington's door.

Iran - not surprisingly - holds to this view, but so too do many domestic critics of the Trump administration's approach.

Indeed, to varying degrees many of Mr Trump's key European allies share some of these concerns.

According to this narrative, the "Iran hawks" in the Trump administration - people like National Security Adviser John Bolton, or Secretary of State Mike Pompeo - sense an opportunity.

Their goal, this narrative argues, is regime change in Tehran. And if maximum economic pressure does not work then they believe, military action is not ruled out in the appropriate circumstances.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-48298517

US President Donald Trump has said he does not want a war with Iran amid rising tensions between the two countries, according to senior officials.

In a meeting on Wednesday the president told aides he did not want US pressure to turn into a conflict.
The US has deployed warships and planes to the Gulf and withdrawn diplomatic staff from Iraq in recent days.

Officials cited threats from Iran for the moves.

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei meanwhile said there would be no conflict.
"We don't seek a war, nor do they," he said in remarks carried on state media.
Reports say two US destroyers passed through the Strait of Hormuz without incident on Thursday.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48307445

[Mr Quatro]

What does a proxy war mean?

Some kind of big wig Iranian general is promising a proxie war calling on his army hiding in Iraq.

[u crank]

What does a proxy war mean?


The Viet Nam War, also known as the Second Indochina War is a classic example of a proxy war. The opposing sides in the Cold War fought each other indirectly or through intermediaries without having to engage in a larger conflict.

[Commander Wallace]

What does a proxy war mean?

Some kind of big wig Iranian general is promising a proxie war calling on his army hiding in Iraq.


One of the advantages of using " proxies " is the ability to test and refine weapon systems in the field without " direct " involvement. Israel tested American aircraft and weapon systems with great success and helped to refine tactics along with the weapons themselves.

There are of course exceptions as in the Vietnam war. American pilots faced off and battled a mix of Soviet and Vietnamese Pilots flying MiG Fighter aircraft. In addition, Soviet crews manned a number of AA missile batteries.

[Skybird]

The proxy war between Shia/Persia and Sunni/Saudi Arabia is raging sinc eyears, and before. It is no possibility, it is an ongoing fact.

Here is a sober assessment of the American and Iranian positions. The author is so sober in his assessment that one wonders when the last year was that he has had a drink. Good.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-48298517

[em2nought]

In addition, Soviet crews manned a number of AA missile batteries.


Soviet crews and this persona non grata


https://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Observer/Pix/pictures/2011/10/19/1319029458809/Jane-Finda-Hanoi-007.jpg

[mapuc]

From the article Skybird posted in his comment.

"Rather, this would be an air and maritime conflict with a huge dose of asymmetry in Iran's responses"

"It could set the whole region ablaze"

I don't know how they think in Teheran I can only guess that this is what they may be aiming at.

Attacking targets in SA/Iraq/other places….waiting for USA to attack Iran and then wait for it....war in the entire region.

Personally I hope this will not happen, none of it

Markus

[Commander Wallace]

Soviet crews and this persona non grata


https://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Observer/Pix/pictures/2011/10/19/1319029458809/Jane-Finda-Hanoi-007.jpg


And that means what, exactly ?

[Sailor Steve]

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. :hmmm:
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.