Iran/US conflict

[Onkel Neal]

https://www.foxnews.com/world/iranian-islamic-revolutionary-guard-corps-boats-tried-failed-to-seize-british-oil-tanker-in-persian-gulf-senior-us-defense-official-says

ive Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps gunboats tried to seize a British oil tanker in the Persian Gulf Wednesday but backed off after a British warship approached, a senior U.S. defense official told Fox News.

The British warship was said to have been less than 5 miles behind the tanker but soon intercepted the Iranian boats and threatened to open fire. A manned U.S. reconnaissance aircraft was above as well, the official said, adding that Iranian forces left without opening fire.

Yeah, the Royal Navy doesn't mess around. :yep:

[Skybird]

Yeah, the Royal Navy doesn't mess around.

Sure, but how many RN vessels exist on the planet any more, how many of them are at sea at once - and how many tankers pass through critical waters per day?

The Iranians probably will now work to improve their timing.

[Jimbuna]

Sure, but how many RN vessels exist on the planet any more, how many of them are at sea at once - and how many tankers pass through critical waters per day?

The Iranians probably will now work to improve their timing.

The Royal Navy has a frigate, four minehunters and a Royal Fleet Auxiliary support ship already stationed in a permanent Naval Support Facility in the region, at Mina Salman in Bahrain.

I should imagine at least one more frigate will be despatched to assist HMS Montrose.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48946051

[Skybird]

You certainly understood the underlying problem I pointed at. Too low numbers in general.

Maybe have missile teams on tankers in that region from now on. A missile shot on a tanker may cauzse a whole and oil spilling out and fire. And it would get the Iranias a war shipped to them without further costs. But a missile with a suitable HE or fragmentation warhead hitting a speed boat makes short process with it.

[ikalugin]

I am not sure if that would be enough to run all the right tankers without bundling them into convoys. If the story is true ofc.

[Jimbuna]

Give the west a few days to organise themselves but if a tanker is attacked and set ablaze I think it would be western airpower and not navl that would bring about a heavy price to be paid.

[ikalugin]

And as we know airpower by itself is not enough.


Not that we would protest - it would drive oil prices and arms sales up.

[Schroeder]

I wonder though what Iran (if it actually was Iran) is trying to achieve here.:hmmm:

[Skybird]

I wonder though what Iran (if it actually was Iran) is trying to achieve here.:hmmm:
Wie du mir, so ich dir. The Brits seized an Iranian tanker at Gribraltar recently. Alkso, they want to demonstrate to the US how vulnerable tankers are - and how capable their forces.



Air drones were my first guess, too, but if the Iranians adapt their attacking technique for boarding tankers, plan their timing better and get aboard, drones in the air would not change the fact that then the tanker is under Iranian control as long as they do not meet armed superior resistence - aboard. And then the hostage negotiation game begins.

[ikalugin]

If Iran can't trade in oil, why should it's neighbours?

[Catfish]

I wonder though what Iran (if it actually was Iran) is trying to achieve here.:hmmm:

Just emphasized the obvious :03:
"How can you know the Iranians placed the mines?"
"We were there."

[Skybird]

If Iran can't trade in oil, why should it's neighbours?
Because

1. they are not part of Iran, and

2. are not being sanctioned.

[ikalugin]

Because

1. they are not part of Iran, and

2. are not being sanctioned.
I was pondering the question from Iranian position. Who do not believe that they are being rightfully sanctioned.

[Commander Wallace]

I was pondering the question from Iranian position. Who do not believe that they are being rightfully sanctioned.




The U.S hardly has to justify it's actions to a regime like Iran. The U.S is merely using it's economic powers as it sees fit and the U.S is within it's rights to deny access to it's financial institutions. Actually, I'm sorry that Iran didn't attack the British tanker. Iran would have payed a terrible price. :yep:

[Aktungbby]

The Royal Navy has a frigate, four minehunters and a Royal Fleet Auxiliary support ship already stationed in a permanent Naval Support Facility in the region, at Mina Salman in Bahrain.

I should imagine at least one more frigate will be despatched to assist HMS Montrose.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48946051
WHAT WITH THE COMMANDEERED IRANIAN TANKER AT GIBRALTAR AND THE SIMILAR DETAINMENT OF THE NORTH KOREAN VESSEL 'WISE HONEST' :timeout: NOW IN AMERICAN SAMOA AND MASSIVE SANCTIONS NOW IN PLACE AGAINST MALFEASORS IRAN AND FATBOY....WWIII IS WELL UNDERWAY AS WE MAKE THE 'HAVE NOTS' HAVE EVEN LESS. NUTHING WOULD PLEASE ME MORE THAN TO RESURRECT A RUST BUCKET TANKER AND ARM IT WITH AN ARRAY PHALANX GUNS HIDDEN LIKE THE OLD WWI Q SHIPS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q-ship (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q-ship) (Attacks on merchant ships by pirates originating on the Somalia coast (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracy_in_Somalia) have brought suggestions from some security experts that Q-ships be used again to tempt pirates into attacking a well-defended ship.) AND LET THE IRANIANS APPROACH AT THEIR PERIL. RULE 1: NO STOPPIN' FOR SURVIVORS :arrgh!: ALSO WE SHOULD POST FALSE NEWS THAT NEW KORAN TRANSLATION REVEALS THAT U DON'T GET 72 VIRGINS IN PARADISE IF U DIE ON JIHAD ....BY DROWNING-THAT SHOULD REDUCE JIHADIST ENTHUSIASM CONSIDERABLY!:arrgh!: (PSYCHOLGICAL WARFARE??!!) PLAN B CALLS FOR A COMPLETE BLOCKADE OF HORMUZ BY SINKING ALA SCAPA FLOW STYLE BLOCK-SHIPS AND TURNING THE PERSIAN GULF INTO A PERMANENT LAKE; THEY' PAY TREMENDOUS FEE TO SHIP THRU OUR PIPELINES...WEIRDLY RENDERING UNTO IRAN WHAT IT IS CURRENTLY ATTEMPTING IN THE STRAIT.https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Tapline.png <PIPELINE ACROSS SAUDI ARABIA

[vienna]

I always have a bit of skepticism when I hear about these sorts of 'incidents'. Iran has certain enemies, Saudi's, Israel, etc., who would love to see Iran taken out by the US or some other power. There is a long history of disinformation and covert activity from some of the enemies of Iran and it would not be beyond rational thought to perhaps suspect a 'false flag' at work; its not very difficult to take a few boats, mark them up as Iranian, crew them with troops in fake uniforms, and send them to have a go at UK, US, or other foreign shipping and then pass off the blame on Iran for whatever reason or cause. I'm not saying Iran didn't send those boats, I'm just saying that before the UK, US, or anyone else starts shooting, they very much should be certain of who deserves the blowback...


If there is any need for a frame of reference, a starting point is the notorious case of the "Weapons of Mass Destruction"...








<O>

[Commander Wallace]

^ Excellent point. :yep:

[Aktungbby]

If there is any need for a frame of reference, a starting point is the notorious case of the "Weapons of Mass Destruction"...








<O>you failed to mention FDR's planning his own 'day of infamy' & the Gulf of Tonkin incident which precipitated a decade of misery...GEORGE II WAS SIMPLY FOLLOWING THE WARFARING MANTRA OF THE 20TH CENTURY AMERICAN WAR MACHINE

[Onkel Neal]

Sure, but how many RN vessels exist on the planet any more, how many of them are at sea at once - and how many tankers pass through critical waters per day?

The Iranians probably will now work to improve their timing.

There only needs to be one as long as it's in the right place :shucks:

Plus, the Royal Navy's auxiliary wing is the United States Navy.

[vienna]

you failed to mention FDR's planning his own 'day of infamy' & the Gulf of Tonkin incident which precipitated a decade of misery...GEORGE II WAS SIMPLY FOLLOWING THE WARFARING MANTRA OF THE 20TH CENTURY AMERICAN WAR MACHINE




Aside from possible state-backed 'false flag' action, there is an outside chance of some oil trading/refining private interest(s) trying to stage an incident to drive up oil prices (greed is always a great motive); and then, there is also the possibility of some terrorist group trying to 'stir the pot' to keep the principal players off balance in the hope of using the chaos as a means of furthering their own agenda; another plausible scenario is a group of 'renegade' IRG extremists motivated by dissatisfaction with the Iranian government's response(s) to the imposition of sanctions, etc. The 'usual suspects' is a large and multi-motivated assemblage...








<O>

[Rockstar]

Get ready, here comes Praying Mantis.

https://plantfreak.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/tumblr_lo7tvnq4sg1qcpzsh.jpg

[JU_88]

While the RN is indeed a tiny fraction of what it once was (e,g WW2), Its a bit of a false comparison.
Advances in technology, firepower, range and overall capability (plus massive increase in costs) mean its very difficult compare - and very hard to justify building such a large number of ships anymore.

How many 40's/50's Era destroyers would you trade in for one modern one? :D
Its come along way from a steamer with a 5" gun and a couple of torpedo launchers.

[Jimbuna]

And as we know airpower by itself is not enough.



There is more than sufficient airpower in the region to cause massive damage to the Iranian military infrastructure. Nobody is suggesting 'boots on Iranian territory.

The U.S hardly has to justify it's actions to a regime like Iran. The U.S is merely using it's economic powers as it sees fit and the U.S is within it's rights to deny access to it's financial institutions. Actually, I'm sorry that Iran didn't attack the British tanker. Iran would have payed a terrible price. :yep:

That is my belief also :yep:

[ikalugin]

There is more than sufficient airpower in the region to cause massive damage to the Iranian military infrastructure. Nobody is suggesting 'boots on Iranian territory.

Which is not enough to win the war or enact regime change. I am also uncertain that said airpower would be capable of removing Iranian capability to force significant attrition to the tankers passing the straits if not outright closing them, from Yemen experience for example.

[STEED]

I always have a bit of skepticism when I hear about these sorts of 'incidents'. Iran has certain enemies, Saudi's, Israel, etc., who would love to see Iran taken out by the US or some other power.



<O>


I agree we need facts not sound bites before some one decides to pull the trigger.

[Jimbuna]

Which is not enough to win the war or enact regime change. I am also uncertain that said airpower would be capable of removing Iranian capability to force significant attrition to the tankers passing the straits if not outright closing them, from Yemen experience for example.

I've never mentioned 'war' or 'regime change' I'm talking about maintaing the navigation route through the Straits of Hormuz. Any entity threatening said navigation would be swiftly dealt with in a day or two even if a week or two.

[ikalugin]

I've never mentioned 'war' or 'regime change' I'm talking about maintaing the navigation route through the Straits of Hormuz. Any entity threatening said navigation would be swiftly dealt with in a day or two even if a week or two.
That is not what is happening in Yemen. Modern airforces of petro-monarchies (compare and contrast KSA airforce with RAF for example) fail to supress the ability to hit targets within say aforementioned KSA.

Straits are closer to Iran and do not require complex logistics for Iran to cover. Moreover due to Iran's geographical position Western powers would find it hard to close down the ability of Iran to re-supply from 3rd parties.

[Jimbuna]

I'm not sure you're on the same wavelength as I am.

The superior weapons platforms of both US and UK not only carrier based but also from allied airfields in the region as well as prcision missile capability would be more effective than that currently used in Yemen, surely.

I envision a swift and precision response toward any and all platforms labelled as being with hostile intent, whether that be FAC or missile site locations.

The Straits of Hormuz are vital in ensuring a large percentage of the worlds flow of oil, I've been there and seen it (albeit back in 77) and as such any attempt to close said area would mean the side with hostile intent would need to concentrate their efforts at quite a small choke point making it more likely they could be brought to book.

[ikalugin]

Considering how US is now a net exporter of energy (LNG, oil) they would benefit from closure of the straits.

As to the technological capabilities - KSA and the other locals operate about the same equipment say UK or USA would in such a war (apart from their massive stocks of ballistic and other missiles that INF treaty killed) and still fail to destroy the strike capability in Yemen. As such I doubt that western powers have the capability to destroy Iranian capability to close down the straits for civilian traffic, much less capability to inflict significant attrition to said traffic (which would lock it down essentially), without a full scale invasion.

Moreover Iran would be able to buy (and ship either by rail or by sea) all the weapons it would need to conduct this war, without the western powers being able to really stop it.

[Jimbuna]

Only time will tell.

[Rockstar]

I've never mentioned 'war' or 'regime change' I'm talking about maintaing the navigation route through the Straits of Hormuz. Any entity threatening said navigation would be swiftly dealt with in a day or two even if a week or two.




exactley, something similar in nature to '88 Operation Praying Mantis

[Jimbuna]

HMS Duncan a Type 45 destroyer is enroute.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48958359

[Jimbuna]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1ACkDgzg2w

[Skybird]

Digesting German and English wikipedia entries (they are not just translations of each other, but are different).


Type 45. Good ships, but not as good as they could have been. Economic superiority over Sheffield class, the ship runs 3-4 times as long with one load of fuel. 4-5 times as high capacity to track mutliple air targets simultaneously and fight them at medium and longer ranges - but only outdated Phalanx system close air defence, no missle-equipped CIWS (big mistake, imo, could become very costly in case of hot combat). Cannon of smaller callibre than initially wanted, sonar, but only helicopter for ASW, no own torpedo launcher. Some more wepaons cpould be armed later on, but it isd questionable that it will happen, due to the budget cuts and high costs of such refits. One or two ships got equipped with Harpoons, and all ships can be later equipped with 16 criuise msisile launch tubes.



Money was saved, by introducing some unneeded vulnerabilities, me thinks. Especially the lacking missile CWIS and only helicopters for ASW woudl irk me. In case of a sudden sub attack that was not deteced before, the ship has no option to react quickly by mounting pressure on the sub with own combat means, and the helicopter, admittedly the superior choice once engaged, if not by chance being on station would takes some minutes to get up. These ships are expensive, I think one saved at the wrong end here.



Montrose will soon return to base for resupply, then it will again be one British ship on station only.



How many US ships are on staiton at any time, does anyone know? I do not mean total number of units, but only those being on station at any given time. The rule of three usually says one third of units on duty, one third preparing for mission in harbour, one third undergoing maintenance.

[Jimbuna]

Montrose will soon return to base for resupply, then it will again be one British ship on station only.




Instead of returning home to the UK after a six to nine-month deployment, Montrose is being stationed in Bahrain until 2022 to ensure a permanent presence and spare warships the lengthy passage to and from Britain, time which could be spent on patrol in the Middle East.

[ikalugin]

T45 is a decent European AAW FFG but does not shine in any other mission. While one ship can act as legal tripwire it is not going to be particularly usefull unless you begin running convoys.

[Skybird]

Instead of returning home to the UK after a six to nine-month deployment, Montrose is being stationed in Bahrain until 2022 to ensure a permanent presence and spare warships the lengthy passage to and from Britain, time which could be spent on patrol in the Middle East.
Thats what I meant. Still, a ship in port is not on station. And it takes time to get back and forth. If such hijack attempts cannot be counterd by armed air/drone support of any kind, its only a question of time before a tanker will get hijacked for sure - and once Iranian troops are aboard, its theirs if not meeting superior armed resistence on board that drives them off again.

Last time they were lucky that the Montrose was close enough to reach the scene in time. Just a quarter of an hour or even ten minutes later, and the story maybe would be told differently today.

[Skybird]

T45 is a decent European AAW FFG but does not shine in any other mission. While one ship can act as legal tripwire it is not going to be particularly usefull unless you begin running convoys.
I tend to agree. Especially on the convoy thing.

Formally, T45 nevertheless is a DD. :D

Lets get some heavy machine guns and guided missile tripods on tankers and merchants - and the marines needed to operate them. Next have helicopter gunships on the ready (probably there are some somewhere already), and drones with long station time providing constant aerial surveillance.

[ikalugin]

DDG then if we are going all formal and American.



As to the armed troops onboard - then those become essentially RN ships and thus legitimate military targets if a war is declared. And you no longer need angry men on small boats to tinker with them - as Saudis found out land based AShMs work just fine.

[Jimbuna]

The horse trading has begun.

Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt has said the Iranian tanker detained by Royal Marines near Gibraltar could be released, if the UK is guaranteed the oil is not bound for Syria.

The tanker, seized on 4 July, was suspected of breaking EU sanctions.

Iran claimed the seizure was "piracy". Iranian ships later tried to impede a British tanker, the UK claimed.

After "constructive" talks with Tehran, Mr Hunt said he was encouraged Iran has no desire to escalate the situation.

He said he reassured Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif that "our concern has always been destination, not origin of the oil" and that the UK would facilitate release "if we received sufficient guarantees that it would not be going to Syria".

He added that Mr Zarif wants to resolve the issue and was "not seeking to escalate".

However, the Iranian foreign minister insisted his country would continue its oil exports under any conditions.

In a statement issued after the phone conversation with Mr Hunt, Mr Zarif said the destination of the oil tanker was a legal one in the eastern Mediterranean, adding that Britain should quickly release the vessel.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/48977093

[Skybird]

And you no longer need angry men on small boats to tinker with them - as Saudis found out land based AShMs work just fine.Which then is no longer a hijacking attempt, but an open war. Needless to say the Americans would not let that pass without an according reaction, which would be punishing. Maybe not knocking Iran out (hard to do), but very punishing for sure.


Of course there is an escalation ladder beyond this, but that is already the case right now and makes no real different anymore. And its in Iran's hand how far they wish to go.

[Jimbuna]

And its in Iran's hand how far they wish to go.

Precisely, the assets are already in place to meat out a swift reaction.

[Skybird]

Iran possibly got another vessel as its wanted prey.


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/iran-news-oil-tanker-riah-missing-persian-gulf-iranians-vow-response-united-kingdom-seizing-grace-1-2019-07-16/


The uS and the UK remains ilent on whethger they know what happened or not, it seems. If they know it not it shows what I was trying to point at: that with so small numbers in units on nstation you cannot have a sufficient surveillance and proteciton in that regionb, and that Iran only needs to wait for a better opportunity and timing to try again and have better luck.


There is a RG base nearby, and anothe rvessel has been captured by the RG in that area some time earlier. So the scenario that this tanker has been captured by the RG is absolutely realistic and possible.

[Mr Quatro]

Seems to be that no one claims to own the ship either which has previously not turned off it's tracking data in three months of travels in the same region.

The ship's registered owner, Dubai-based Prime Tankers LLC, told the AP it had sold the ship to another company called Mouj Al-Bahar. A man who answered a telephone number registered to the firm told the AP it didn't own any ships.

Pan-Arab television network Al-Arabiya reported on Tuesday that officials in the UAE had said it was not owned by any entity in the country.

[Jimbuna]

I wonder who actually owns the ship then :hmmm:

Meanwhile, frigate HMS Kent will travel to the region from mid-September to bolster the Royal Navy's presence.

[Jimbuna]

They may be referring to the Riah.

Iran says it seized a "foreign tanker" and its 12 crew on Sunday for smuggling fuel in the Gulf.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-49029053

[vienna]

The more I hear about the situation, the more I wonder about the Revolutionary Guards: could it be possible the Ayatollahs in the Iranian government have lost their leash hold on the Guards and the Guard has gone rogue? It wouldn't be the first time a radical fanatic military unit has turned on its own leaders, usually because they deem the leadership as too 'soft'. The only other conclusion would be the Ayatollahs have a real death wish...






<O>

[Mr Quatro]

News just said a USN ship shot down an Iranian drone :o

[nikimcbee]

Dumb question. Why don't we just female dog slap these guys, like we did to the Libyans in the mid-1980s or the Serbs during Kosovo?


Are they: Too powerful?
Too psychotic?
They will escalate it more?

Are we:
Too weak to really do anything?
No will?
Too politically divided?


Now that I think about it, what would happen if we treated them like the Serbs during Kosovo? Limited air campaign and bomb the poop out of their navy. No need to invade or full on ground war, treat them like school yard bully and give them a good punch in the nose. Pre snowflake and millennial days, when you could fight at school w/o having a news crew show up.

[vienna]

Probably could/would happen, but Donald Snowflake overrode his advisors and called it off t the last minute; now, that probably ticked off his Saudi masters...









<O>

[Rockstar]

Dumb question. Why don't we just female dog slap these guys, like we did to the Libyans in the mid-1980s or the Serbs during Kosovo?


Are they: Too powerful?
Too psychotic?
They will escalate it more?

Are we:
Too weak to really do anything?
No will?
Too politically divided?




Now that I think about it, what would happen if we treated them like the Serbs during Kosovo? Limited air campaign and bomb the poop out of their navy. No need to invade or full on ground war, treat them like school yard bully and give them a good punch in the nose. Pre snowflake and millennial days, when you could fight at school w/o having a news crew show up.



I dont think its because we're weak, far from it. I don't think it has anything to do with real domestic politics either, or a lack of will. The question is what do we get out of it if we do? Libya we had the backing of the U.N. France and others to intervene to destabilize the country and gain access to gold and oil. Siding with the Albanians the U.S./E.U. got access to a resource rich land and more importantly we got to stick it too the Russians again :D. The idea of just flying around the world and bombing the snot out of other countries navy's just because we can probably isn't such a good idea.

[Catfish]

It looks like the US just shot down an own drone. :hmmm:

[JU_88]

Dumb question. Why don't we just female dog slap these guys, like we did to the Libyans in the mid-1980s or the Serbs during Kosovo?

Because like NK, they are considerably more powerful than any other Nation the U.S has been in direct conflict with in the last 50 years.
....And (drum roll) they are allied with Russia.
So yeah, it wouldn't just be another Iraq (as if that wasn't bad enough) It would likely be far worse and much harder to contain :nope:

[Skybird]

The more I hear about the situation, the more I wonder about the Revolutionary Guards: could it be possible the Ayatollahs in the Iranian government have lost their leash hold on the Guards and the Guard has gone rogue? It wouldn't be the first time a radical fanatic military unit has turned on its own leaders, usually because they deem the leadership as too 'soft'. The only other conclusion would be the Ayatollahs have a real death wish...

The RG are a state within the state, and their officers control and own criticla parts of the Iranian economy, industry and business, so they have their own material interests for sure - and they use their position to protect them. This is not rwally new, but is so since longer time, it was like this already in the 90s, maybe not to sich and extensive degree, but I canot comoare since IU do not know the present status, but I would expect it has become worse in the past 20+ years.


You can maybe think of it by comparing them to the Praetorians in Rome. initially founded as a elite guard for the Ceasars, they sometimes turned against their masters if these were in the way of their own interests. I do not say that the RG can and would turn against the Ayatollahs any time soon, but I think it is important to not foget that they have their own interests - and the Ayatollahs must take them into account.

[Jimbuna]

News just said a USN ship shot down an Iranian drone :o

It looks like the US just shot down an own drone. :hmmm:

Friend or foe?

This article reckons foe.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49040415

[Catfish]

from the article:
"US destroyed Iranian drone in Strait of Hormuz, says Trump"
edited a bit.:
I guess this is "evidence" enough (ahem)

[JU_88]

from the article:
"US destroyed Iranian drone in Strait of Hormuz, says Trump"
I guess this is evidence enough.

Trump says they did, Iranian officals says they didn't,

So we have a choice.

a) Sit tight and sensibly wait for some reliable evidence.

b) Mouth off predictions based on personal bias and on the silly assumption that either of the above claims is trustworthy.

Much of the media will choose b) naturally.

[ikalugin]

c) go to war

https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/colin-powell-un.jpg

[Skybird]

from the article:
"US destroyed Iranian drone in Strait of Hormuz, says Trump"
I guess this is evidence enough.
This kind of queer logic does not do you any favour. It just is not enough to justify your conclusion.

[JU_88]

This kind of queer logic does not do you any favour. It just is not enough to justify your conclusion.

I'm now not clear if You failed to detected his sarcasm sky, or in fact you did and are telling him off for insinuating the evidence points to Trump lying and Iran being honest.

Either way there is nothing neutral or reliable to go on.

[Skybird]

When I link his comment to his earlier post #52, I fail to detect any sarcasm there. I still don't detect it when seeing both replies in context of the immediate previous postings by people.

[JU_88]

Im not poking at you or anything, The trouble is - Sarcasm can be hard to interpret in written text, throw someone with English as a second language in to the mix and its twice as hard.

[nikimcbee]

Because like NK, they are considerably more powerful than any other Nation the U.S has been in direct conflict with in the last 50 years.
....And (drum roll) they are allied with Russia.
So yeah, it wouldn't just be another Iraq (as if that wasn't bad enough) It would likely be far worse and much harder to contain :nope:

Russia didn't come to Serbia's aid (as far as I remember) during the Kosovo crisis and they have much closer ties culturally than they do with Iran.


I would be more worried that a bombing campaign would trigger a ground war with those clowns. I think Iran would lash out with terrorist attacks everywhere and it would spiral out of control.

[em2nought]

I kind of think that sarcasm isn't as big a thing in Germany as it is here? Or it doesn't translate well?



If you take what the left is laying on verbatim the right isn't allowed to use jokes, sarcasm, or anything of that sort EVER. :har:

[Skybird]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-49053383

And Iran got a UK-flagged tanker, as I feared they would: only a question of time. Symbolic station presence and one or two ships scattered across a way too huge ocean just is not the way to go.

Arm those damn merchants and tankers and have firing crews on them, missiles and heavy MGs, and snipers with heavy callibre rifles that can penetrate light armour, the likes of M107 and similar callibres. These teams can be shuttled onto deck and off deck again via helicopter, jumping from one ship to the next as needed for transit. One has to fight the Iranians where they attack, not where one wants them and hopes them to be. I am sure there are small missiles types the likes of Milan that can be used with great effect not against tanks, but speed boats like the RG uses them, that get moved by two-man teams only and are easy and fast to mount and demount. There are missiles for every task. ASM may be too heavy, with weights from 100 to 700 kg, but why not ATGMs: with fragmentation warheads or HE warheads that are launched form shoulder or from tripods? Sounds about right against ships the size of RG speed boats. And of ATGMs there are more than enough models and types. Their range usually is somewhere between ~ 1 and 4.5 km - perfect for the task at hand.

Also: convoys, why don't they form escorted convoys but just sit and hope and waste time...? The first incident should have been a warning, this defeat - thats what it is - now was completely needless. Another nail in the coffin of European approach to the Iran matter.

Also, I would choose traffic routes for tankers as far north and as close to Iranian borders as legally possible - to maximise the chance that any tanker spilling oil will present the Iranians the pleasure of dealing with a formidable oil pest on their coastline.

[Skybird]

And another tanker, belonging to a British ocean carrier, has been taken, though has been released some time later and currently moves on.



Somebody is dancing on somebody else's nosetip.

[moose1am]

Now, what is going to happen? I wish that we would do something to stop Iran from messing with ships passing though the area in the Persian Gulf. :Kaleun_Mad:

[Onkel Neal]

U.S. military has begun reestablishing air base inside Saudi Arabia (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/mideast/u-s-military-has-begun-reestablishing-air-base-inside-saudi-n1031916)

Here we go.

In June the U.S. military began moving equipment and hundreds of troops back to a military base in Saudi Arabia that the U.S. deserted more than 15 years ago, according to two U.S. officials familiar with the deployment.

Over the coming weeks the deployment to Prince Sultan Air Base, intended to counter the threat from Iran, will grow to include fighter jets and Patriot long-range missile defense systems, the officials said. The Patriots have already arrived at the base and should be operational in mid-July, while the aircraft are expected to arrive in August.

Several hundred U.S. service members are already on site preparing the facility south of Riyadh, which is controlled by the Royal Saudi Air Force, a number that will grown to more than 500 after the arrival of an air squadron.

[Rockstar]

are there any british troop or equipment deployments to the region?

[Mr Quatro]

Conversion of merchant ships into warships:
During the maritime warfare, merchant ships can’t be converted into warships. According to the practice of Britain, the conversion of merchant ships into warships can be made by the belligerent state in its own port. It can’t be made in a neutral port.

I don't think the merchant marine allow for arming their ships ...

[Skybird]

Russia and China do it in waters infested by African pirates.They stationed firing teams on deck for the duration of passages.


Also, I do not care for ink pissing and paragraph riding if it is about the safety of own merchants and crews that travel through waters where hostile nations act as hostage takers and hijackers.


The alternative to my suggestions is much jigher naval and air presence and convoy forming. As long as that does not happen, I stay pragmatic: push me, and I push back a lil' stronger. Shoot at me, and I shoot back a lil' bit more. Try to overwhelm my resistence, and I send th air force and have your coastline installations flattened.


This is the ordinary and well-accepted form of communicating in certain parts of the world.

[Jimbuna]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-49053383

And Iran got a UK-flagged tanker, as I feared they would: only a question of time. Symbolic station presence and one or two ships scattered across a way too huge ocean just is not the way to go.

Arm those damn merchants and tankers and have firing crews on them, missiles and heavy MGs, and snipers with heavy callibre rifles that can penetrate light armour, the likes of M107 and similar callibres. These teams can be shuttled onto deck and off deck again via helicopter, jumping from one ship to the next as needed for transit. One has to fight the Iranians where they attack, not where one wants them and hopes them to be. I am sure there are small missiles types the likes of Milan that can be used with great effect not against tanks, but speed boats like the RG uses them, that get moved by two-man teams only and are easy and fast to mount and demount. There are missiles for every task. ASM may be too heavy, with weights from 100 to 700 kg, but why not ATGMs: with fragmentation warheads or HE warheads that are launched form shoulder or from tripods? Sounds about right against ships the size of RG speed boats. And of ATGMs there are more than enough models and types. Their range usually is somewhere between ~ 1 and 4.5 km - perfect for the task at hand.

Also: convoys, why don't they form escorted convoys but just sit and hope and waste time...? The first incident should have been a warning, this defeat - thats what it is - now was completely needless. Another nail in the coffin of European approach to the Iran matter.

Also, I would choose traffic routes for tankers as far north and as close to Iranian borders as legally possible - to maximise the chance that any tanker spilling oil will present the Iranians the pleasure of dealing with a formidable oil pest on their coastline.

Russia and China do it in waters infested by African pirates.They stationed firing teams on deck for the duration of passages.


Also, I do not care for ink pissing and paragraph riding if it is about the safety of own merchants and crews that travel through waters where hostile nations act as hostage takers and hijackers.


The alternative to my suggestions is much jigher naval and air presence and convoy forming. As long as that does not happen, I stay pragmatic: push me, and I push back a lil' stronger. Shoot at me, and I shoot back a lil' bit more. Try to overwhelm my resistence, and I send th air force and have your coastline installations flattened.


This is the ordinary and well-accepted form of communicating in certain parts of the world.

Fully agree :yep:

This wouldn't be happening if they were Russian or Chinese flagged.

[Jimbuna]

U.S. military has begun reestablishing air base inside Saudi Arabia (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/mideast/u-s-military-has-begun-reestablishing-air-base-inside-saudi-n1031916)

Here we go.

Nice one and hopefully the UK will step up to the plate with whatever means we have in the area.

There must be many EU countries whose shipping uses these lanes (there certainly was when I was there in the late seventies) so lets see them sharing the burdon with military means and not leave the lions share of said burdon on the few as was so often the case during the last world war.

Diplomacy isn't working so perhaps matters need to be addressed in a way there can be no misunderstanding that piracy in international waters will never be acceptable.

[ikalugin]

Russia didn't come to Serbia's aid (as far as I remember) during the Kosovo crisis and they have much closer ties culturally than they do with Iran.


I would be more worried that a bombing campaign would trigger a ground war with those clowns. I think Iran would lash out with terrorist attacks everywhere and it would spiral out of control.
We were supporting them diplomatically and we did send in paratroopers to Prishtina.


And we were much weaker back then and we believed that we can work together with the West at that time.

[Skybird]

Iran doe snot hide the intention behind its actions: the influential Guardian Council, which is practically synonymous with the highest authority there is, ayatollah Ali Chamenei, gets quoted by Germna media with having said that the tanker action is in direct "retaliation" for the British seizing of a tanker at Gibraltar. This terminology was used, says the news - diplomatic sweet-talking and hide-and-seek playing was not even tried.


Whatever it is worth, it was reported that Germany formulated a "strong" an d "determined" reply that demanded the release of the British tanker. I am sure that this made a strong impression in Teheran. :shucks:

[Jimbuna]

The press are saying that the tanker was seized in Omani waters but I'm wondering why they let the second tanker go :hmmm:

[moose1am]

The press are saying that the tanker was seized in Omani waters but I'm wondering why they let the second tanker go :hmmm:

I read about a British warship in the area. But why didn't it prevent the capture of the other British oil tanker? I guess you can't be in two places at the same time. The tanker that was captured by Iran was heading into the Persian Gulf. Not sure which direction the other oil tanker was going. I think that the article I read was posted in Subsim today.

[Rockstar]

Diplomacy isn't working so perhaps matters need to be addressed in a way there can be no misunderstanding that piracy in international waters will never be acceptable.

I dont think the Straits of Hormuz has any international waters. Every ship must at one time or another pass through someone's territorial water and will at such time be subject to their laws.

We're here now because of U.S. and E.U. sanctions in place to prevent the delivery of oil to the government of Syria. Iran obviously doesn't recognize those sanctions and seized a Brit tanker in an equivalent retaliation. By doing so I think gthey are effectively backing us into a corner. How far will we take it? Can we without losing face peacefully return the Iranian owned ship and still enforce sanctions? Or are we going to initiate another Operation Praying Mantis that would make the Revolutionary Guard think twice before doing something like that again.

[nikimcbee]

I wonder where Iran's submarines are during all of this?

[Catfish]

^ under close surveillance..

[u crank]

^ under close surveillance..

Indeed. I hope nobody twitches. :o

[vienna]

Indeed. I hope nobody twitches. :o


Yeah, hopefully they can keep him off his phone... oh, wait,... I misread "twitches" as "twitters"... my mistake...







<O>

[Skybird]

British Airways and now also Lufthansa have cancelled their flights from and to Cairo, whereas the Egypt airline has increased in numbers such flights that could replace the cancelled ones.



Reason given is a general terrorism warning. - From Iran with love?

[mapuc]

I hope this doesn't turn into something we don't like

A real mess of war, terrorism and suffering.

Markus

[Mr Quatro]

Evening news showed Iran's military guard taking the tanker over with machine guns and coming down from an helicopter with fast boats guarding them too, pretty wild all captured on film by Iran to show that they mean business. :yep:

[Jimbuna]

I read about a British warship in the area. But why didn't it prevent the capture of the other British oil tanker? I guess you can't be in two places at the same time. The tanker that was captured by Iran was heading into the Persian Gulf. Not sure which direction the other oil tanker was going. I think that the article I read was posted in Subsim today.

HMS Montrose was sixty minutes away.

[Jimbuna]

I dont think the Straits of Hormuz has any international waters. Every ship must at one time or another pass through someone's territorial water and will at such time be subject to their laws.



You are indeed correct and I've actually sailed those very Straits on a few occasions :)

My error, what I meant to say was that it is possible to transit the Straits without entering Iranian waters :oops:

https://i.imgur.com/aOIXbMI.jpg

The advise given by HMS Montrose via radio to the tanker as the scenario unfolded "As you are conducting transit passage in a recognised international strait, under international law your passage must not be impaired, impeded, obstructed or hampered."

[Catfish]

It is all a bit ridiculous, so why not ask the obvious questions:

Why did Trump cancel the uran treaty with Iran.
How does the he want to bring about a regime change in Iran.

[Skybird]

^


1. Because the treaty allowed Iran more breathing room (time, economic relief) to contonue and finalise the nuclear program without the West seriously resisting to it.


2. By trying to impose so much pressur eon civil socidety and private usiness that the situaiton collapsesa and the population would turn agaiunst its leadership, holding them repsiniosble for their suffering, not the Americnas. This attempt to breakl pulbic moral is doomed to fail, sicne the Iranians are extremely, VERY extremely patriotic people and both secular and orthodox, reölgipous and burgeoise people all rally aroudn their flag and leadership if pout uinder pressure from poutsiode. Trump wants to acchieve what already Saddam failed to acchieve. Trump is used to think that if he bullies the other, the other will give space and accept more compromrise to his disadvanatge, this is the TGrumpian idea of getting a better deal. But in that part of the world, such behaviour easily is seen as a loss of honour and face, and so they will not easily accept to behave like that.



Also it is about the terror support of Itran in the reigon and beyond. Lets not forget that Iran is one of the biggest terror financiers worldwide. That the west does not rule out totally, for principle reasons, to do any sort of business with it, shows what a rotten degenerated rathole the west itself already is.



I was in Iran for slonger time in the nineties. The first yout rtevolt was raging, hopes were that the US would support it, but the hope was disappointed, sinc eht eUs back then said: "You do it either our weay compeletly,m or its no way." But the younger peopoel back then did not want a Western style demicracy, they were far mroe prgmatic, I tell that from vis-a-vis experience. they wanted more access to media, less relgious censorship, less relgious diomiannce, more travel freedoms - THAT WAS IT. A wEtgsenr style demicracy they did not want. They did not want to copy the American model. They wnated Sharia-based state order and a constitution relfetcing that. They wanted to stay strictly orthodox Islamic. They were very pragmatic in their choice of freedoms, the great cultural and ideologic revolution it was not, and never ha sbeen. Pragmatic every-day-freedoms beign widened. One mullah told us that even the mullahs themselves had understood back then already that the revolution could not be attractive for the later generations for decades and decades to come.



Such a moderate shift towards more modern interpretation of a sharia.-based state wa snot what the US demanded, and so the US let the youth unrest mostly alone. Trump now wants to acheive the sam ething again - enforcing by brute econiomic force a chnage of Iranians ociety according to aemrican model and demand. It will not happen. He is making the enemy more bitter and more determined only.



We should have bombed the bomb programs components and sites from here into Mars orbit while that still had a chance of success, and else stayed away from Iran and kept it under strict isolation rules. What Trump tries economically has a much chance as what the Europeans tried: none. He just does not havbe a living image of these people'S mind and mentality. They tick not like he thinks they do. Reminds me a bit of WWII where they tried to shake civilian morale by bombing cities into the ground. The opposite happened. If you want to be successful with breaking public morale, you have to do it like the Russians and Assad did in Syria, and target the living indovodual population. You break morale by extincting the living people, and the weakest amongst them.



Its not nice. Its ironic, but the Western approach on Iran is way too subtle.

[Rockstar]

It is all a bit ridiculous, so why not ask the obvious questions:

Why did Trump cancel the uran treaty with Iran.
How does the he want to bring about a regime change in Iran.


I think the obvious was brought up before. And it was determined that Iran was taking their new found wealth and investing heavily in military operations funding proxy wars in Iraq, Syria and Yemen.

[Mr Quatro]

I think the obvious was brought up before. And it was determined that Iran was taking their new found wealth and investing heavily in military operations funding proxy wars in Iraq, Syria and Yemen.

True, plus I heard the through the grapevine that ten (10) percent of Iran is controlling 90% of Iran. :yep:

[Rockstar]

I wouldn't doubt Iran and Oman have a MOU which allows them to conduct certain operations in the others waters. Unfortunately U.S. and British warships are restricted to innocent passage when transiting the territorial waters of another nation. I dont think they can really do much else.

[Catfish]

It seems the UK seizing the tanker Grace 1 at Gibraltar acted under direct order from Washington.

"Legal Basis: Grace 1 headed for "wrong" addressees in Syria
There are no EU sanctions for importing oil into Syria - authorities in Gibraltar rely on the Start Regulation.
July 21, 2019, 18:27

The seizure of Grace 1 by the authorities of Gibraltar on 4 July is usually explained simply as "EU sanctions" against Syria. But it's about a start regulation.

Gibraltar extended the halting of Iranian oil tanker Grace 1 on Friday to mid-August. Only hours later, the Iranians in the Gulf of Oman grabbed a British ship. Although it was first given adventurous Ad-hoc reasons, but the connection with Gibraltar on the other hand is not disputed.

The seizure of Grace 1 on July 4 by the authorities of Gibraltar - which is British territory - is mostly explained medially simply with "EU sanctions" against Syria, where the Grace 1 was supposed to go. That has caused confusion. In fact, in the relevant EU regulations of 2012, which were last updated in 2019, there seems to be no oil import ban on Syria: only export of Syrian oil from regime-controlled areas is under embargo.

Controversial addressee

However, the legal basis for the retention of Grace 1 was served by a decree issued by the governor of Gibraltar: Grace 1's freight should therefore go to the Banias Refinery Company, which appears on the EU sanction list. This would not allow delivery through UK territorial waters. Spain, whose waters were previously affected, had done nothing, however. That's one of the reasons why Madrid does not comment on Grace 1 because it does not recognize Britain's claim to the waters off Gibraltar.

Interestingly, according to The Syria Report, just one day earlier, on July 3, Gibraltar had changed its own regulations that allowed it to stop Grace 1 on July 4: ships could be confiscated, the EU Break sanctions.

However, there are speculations that the authorities in Gibraltar acted under pressure from the US and London itself was almost taken by surprise. Although the rationale is EU law based, the decision could have been influenced by the US. The US is threatening with sanctions on countries involved in oil supplies to Syria. This also applies to the financial and logistical handling or insurance matters.

Panama withdraws registration

In any case, Panama, under whose flag the Grace 1 sailed, seems to follow Gibraltar's argument - or US pressure too. The Panama Maritime Authority deprived the ship of registration at the end of June, citing the suspicion that Grace 1 was dealing with "terrorist financing".

However, oil supplies to Syria have been on the rise in recent months, reports "The Syria Report," referring to Tanker Trackers. It is common knowledge that Iran and Russia supply oil to Syria. Most shipments have been through the Suez Canal. In early July, it was reported that the Egyptian authorities had prevented a Ukrainian oil tanker carrying Iranian oil from crossing the Channel for Syria. This was later denied by the Suez Canal Administration.

The Grace 1 sailed the much longer Gibraltar route because it was too heavy for the Suez Canal. It is a so-called VLCC, Very Large Crude Carrier, which can carry two million barrels (318 million liters) of oil fully loaded - which is the Grace 1. (Gudrun Harrer, 21.7.2019)"

From The Standard (translation by Google) https://www.derstandard.de/story/2000106526441/rechtliche-basis-grace-1-steuerte-falschen-adressaten-in-syrien-an

[Skybird]

From 2012, but the legal basis has not chnaged, I think:

https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/16/issue/16/transit-passage-rights-strait-hormuz-and-iran%E2%80%99s-threats-block-passage

The UN treaty of 1982 has been signed but not ratified by Iran. However, Iran claims the right for a 12 nm zone (instead mof 3 nm) which saw its mentioning and fundament in right this treaty.

Personally, I think in case of conflict neither the US nor Iran would care too much for legal conditions, but would just do what they deem is in their military interest. Of course, the US would take much more flak from international opinion for doing so, than Iran. Also, the US (and the UK) would be exposed to a far more criitcla population at home. No doubt that world reaction to a conflict and actor's behaviour would base on double standards.

[Onkel Neal]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQi4zjyHh2I

[Skybird]

There are strong hints that it was pressure, at leats determined requests from Washington that made the Britishmoving against that Iranian tanker at Gibraltar. One can safely assume that they already regret that they did. The action by the Iranians in the strait of Hormuz shows that having one or two isolated warships in that region, means nothing for protection of merchant and tanker traffic. The British fleet is just a shadow of its former self, the budget for defence as much under pressure as everywhere in the West except maybe the United States (who also were not present to help out the Brits over their tanker getting hijacked in obvious retribution). One can also doubt that London is eager to get drawn into another US-triggered war after the debacle of 2003.

The British position in all this is extremely weak and helpless. Modern technology on Britains few ships obviously is not as decisive as is assumed - if the fleet consists of indeed just so few vessels.

I imagine the new carrier would be ready already and equipped and be on station. How to protect that with such a small, if not even saying: minimalistic fleet...??? And Britain even builds TWO carriers again. I also imagine what the running costs for those carriers will do to the rest of the navy.

I also do not understand why Britain was so unprepoared and did not prohibit British ships to travel thorugh the strait, since retaliation by Itran was to be expected. That onely destroyer they sent, that lonely frigate that was there, both of them are hopelessly overchallenged. I read in a Swiss newspaper that a former British chief of staff said practically the same: and also said that the Royal Navy is unable to protect shipping lanes any longer, for the Hormuz strait alone the task would need a minimum of 6 frigate-class units on station (which means additonal units are needed to rotate units in and out). Instead : two lonely ships trying to stem the tide. What is London thinking?

British traders should have avoided the region at all cost since two weeks, since Gibraltar. What was so difficult in forseeing the events...???Why did London not gave order for that?

Some years ago Britain got its bum spanked by the Iranians when those Marines were captured on high sea. And now its the same. The radio protocol that Neal linked to, is an embarassment for Britain: honestly said, it made me laughing.


Only the US still has the ressources to maintain meaningful military presence around the globe. European nations should give up the idea of wanting to play in that league. These times are over, once and forever. Europe cannot even defend just itself in its own borders.

[Jimbuna]

Sky, whilst much of what you say rings some truth there is one undeniable fact. The UK even with six warships in the area is second only to the US in her military contribution.

Speaks volumes for the other countries that navigate the waters don't you think.

Seizure of assets and a trade embargo are now being given consideration so let us wait and see what our brave 'allies' are prepared to do/bring to the table.

[Jimbuna]

Iranian state media has released images of crew members on a British-flagged tanker that was seized in the Gulf.

Video footage and a photo appear to show cooks preparing meals and crew members being briefed by an Iranian official onboard the Stena Impero.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49074032

The real victims in this mess.

[moose1am]

I wonder though what Iran (if it actually was Iran) is trying to achieve here.:hmmm:

Maybe they are trying to run up the price of oil so that they can make more money selling their oil that they smuggle out of Iran.

[moose1am]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQi4zjyHh2I

Didn't the British ship that was nearby taken out the Iranian Helicopter before their commandos roped down to take over the British Oil Tanker. They could have shot that helicopter out of the sky. They should do that the next time IMHO. Iran needs to know that they are going to lose this war.

[Mr Quatro]

GB is slow to anger, but make no mistake when they do it will be in their favor :yep:

Ultimately, as Winston Churchill reminded us, we depend for our freedom and democracy on “rough men”

[Jimbuna]

Didn't the British ship that was nearby taken out the Iranian Helicopter before their commandos roped down to take over the British Oil Tanker. They could have shot that helicopter out of the sky. They should do that the next time IMHO. Iran needs to know that they are going to lose this war.

See my post #86 https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2619451&postcount=86

HMS Montrose was sixty minutes away.

[ikalugin]

GB is slow to anger, but make no mistake when they do it will be in their favor :yep:
Only if they get strong backers ie USA.


Without them I am uncertain if UK has real viable military options on the table, as the straits are not some remote islands and the relative balance is now much worse for the UK than when the Empire stroke back.

[Aktungbby]

I note that the Iranians have an empty tanker; the Brits have a full tanker!...as per my previous post (#15): that's making the "have nots" have less! Points to Britain for the moment.:hmmm:

[Skybird]

Sky, whilst much of what you say rings some truth there is one undeniable fact. The UK even with six warships in the area is second only to the US in her military contribution.

Speaks volumes for the other countries that navigate the waters don't you think.

Seizure of assets and a trade embargo are now being given consideration so let us wait and see what our brave 'allies' are prepared to do/bring to the table.
Indeed, but Lonbdon knew that it was standing alone in this and that there is no European military mission running currently. It helps nobody to plan on grounds of conditions that are not fulfilled. There will not be a shared ,military, meaningfzul military mission of European allie sin the gulf - and it wa slike that in the past two weeks since Gibraltar as well.


London played with fire while being extrenely ikllk-prepared and just hoped that it would get away with it. But the Iranians spoiled that hope,m they are int he far stronger position.


Jeremey Hunt today accepted the facts when indicating that the UK would not subscribe to the American plan of maximising pressure on Iran. Not after 2003, and not in the absence of European support. Lomndown will accept to negotiate an exchange - the embargo brekaing Tanker form Gibraltar freeed for the British tanker hijacked in the Strait of Horemuz. Which will be a big propaganda victory for Teheran, and a big embarassement once again for London. Assuming that mad Boris does not pull some realxyl crazy stuntk,l but he needs to cook his tea with water olike everybody else as well, and so his options will be as limited as they already are today.



Sorry, Jim, but while we both know that you are right ab out your complaint about the Ezuropeans, I nevertheless do not buy it as an arugment for the past moves of your govenrment. I think that it most oikely was a mix of Brexit chaos, Johnson eleciton threat, and mere incompetence in general in assessing the Iranians correctly. I mean the whole European strategy against Iran is a big erring. I say this since many years: Iran is not about giving up the bomb, the bomb is the only guarantee to keep the Americans away forever for sure. Either the West accepts a nuclear armed Iran sooner or later, with all the dirty consequences that will mean for Islamic terror and proliferation and a nculear arms race in the region, or it accepts the need to deny this option to Iran with the needed amount of military force - which will be a very very huge amount of force, more than Afghanistan or Iraq. This will not be about surgical strikes with scalpel-like tiny knifes, but a berserker'S party with broadswords and warhammers. I do not see that either Trump or any European has the will to carry this out. And just one night of Tomahawks strikes as a punishement for something will not get any signficant message across. Plus that Iran has the means and options to retaliate in asymmetrical ways.

[Skybird]

The real victims in this mess.
I agrree. It has angered me many times with how much non-chalance the fate of hostages of African pirates has eben ignored in Europe already, while mayn fo nthem returned traumatized, got tortured, and spend days and weeks in fear for theiur life, where victims of staged executuions, and so forth.


Arm those damn merchants during transit. Missiles, drones, heavy mahcine guns. At clkose rnage even RPG-style rockets can cause havov with helicipters and RG speedboats. What international law says is irrelevant if Iran already has started to violate it. Laws and treaties are two-way streets. Armed resistance of troops sttioned on traders could buy the time needed to vector in armed US drones. One lonely British frigate or destroyer is chanceless to beat the clock if the Irnaisn can chose the time and place and pick their prey at their liking.



Or radio the attackers a lecture on what you epxect them to not do. That radio protocol really had me grinnign from one ear to the other. Sorry, Jim, but the embrassement of your country for this is well-deserved. Aftewr hte marines caught some years ago and led around like poodles on lines, I would have expected better preparedness if still sailing into harms way.



Do not expect a big European rescue mission. The EU is about punishment for Brexitannia, have you forgotten? As long as no othe rEuropean natiosn lose ships in the gulf, I see little chance that you will find much support from EU nations. I even heard a comment on radio short time ago that said that Britain, due to its Brexit ambitions, suffers from Iranian hands a well-deserved demonstration of what it means to reject the block.



And Trump? He is about creating opporunties for American business to bite off big heaps out off your econoymnand public budgets. This "special relaitonship" betwehne the UK and the US, is a historic thing only, but was a lie alread in 2003. And today, it is even more so. Not to mention that Britain could not afford such milkitary adventures anymore.



Sorry, I do not want to hurt your feelings or offend you country, Jim, I just stubbornly talk frankly and open. You may take into accoutn that i do the same about Germany, the EU, the US. Its not just cheap Schadenfreude.

[Skybird]

I just had the crazy idea that May maybe did not react to the possibility of the to-be-expected retaliation by Iran just so to leave an especially big and foul egg in the nest on her desk as welcome present for an ingoing new prime minister Boris Johnson?

[Jimbuna]

Sorry, I do not want to hurt your feelings or offend you country, Jim, I just stubbornly talk frankly and open. You may take into accoutn that i do the same about Germany, the EU, the US. Its not just cheap Schadenfreude.

No foul play alleged Sky, you are well entitled to your opinion and as I've said earlier, much of it has a ring of truth at times.

What I do find a tad ironically humourous is the fact you're a German talking about so-called military weaknesses of the UK when your own country no longer has the means to defend its own borders. The majority of the Luftwaffe, the parts that are still airworthy were all at RIAT over the weekend :03:

I just had the crazy idea that May maybe did not react to the possibility of the to-be-expected retaliation by Iran just so to leave an especially big and foul egg in the nest on her desk as welcome present for an ingoing new prime minister Boris Johnson?

That thought had also crossed my mind :)

[Skybird]

What I do find a tad ironically humourous is the fact you're a German talking about so-called military weaknesses of the UK when your own country no longer has the means to defend its own borders.


Absolutely! I am aware of that and did not intend to imply that us wonderful Germans would do it better, in fact we do it even worse. The armed forces are weak and impotent, and new fence ministress claimed she wants to raise the budget to those 2% of GDP as Germany promised in 2014 (Steinmeier, SPD), and immediately she got attacked by the SPD that said that new "weapon craziness" (original quote) would not be the right thing to do. That it is a treaty oblogation that Germany viollates since years and that had been accepted and promsied by a SPD minster back then, nobody mentions anymore.


Well, the players in this episode at Gibraltar and Hormuz are Iran and - Britain, not Germany. It would be better if there were a European alliance to form convoys, but as a matter of fact Britain stands alone currently, and todays annoucnement by Hunt that there will be a European mission, is just his own plan and hope so far - none of the other nations have agreed with him so far.And we do not now if Hunt sitll will be there after tomorrow.


What we nations in the west all suffer form, is age. We are overaging, old, weakening societies. Even with sufficient funding, we would find it increasingly diffiicult to find the young men willing to serve for a bad wage. The few youngster there are know only peace and take it for granted, and the main part of society is old and at an age where it is no longer capable or willing to commit itself to military needs and thinking. The armed forces need to compete with business and industry for the young people there are, and lack of talented trainees has become a potentially neck-breaking problem in Germany (thats the drive behind Germany'S migration policy, but the hope that integration-willing, well-trained experts and specialist workers only would come, has been demystified by now - in the long run migration will cost us more money than we can financially benefit from it to stabilize social security systems. We have a deficitary net effect from it - and now the eocnomy is even cooling and badly trained migrants will be amongst the first getting fired - and then getting wellfare. Merkel messed it up completely.



Old nations and societies tend to stay away from war adventures, it is the young men that becom easily excited about it.The Budneswehr doe snot find enough recruits. The nroxal navy has similiar problems. The US air force is said to run thin on pilots. The demographic problem is the same throughout the West, it seems.


https://de.scribd.com/document/339621828/WAR-Index-2017-Ranking-Map-Heinsohn-06-02-2017

^ From 2017, but still in trend and tendency valid.



Practically all the West has a war index below or at 1.00, while the hotspots of violence and aggressive expansion all are multiple factors higher. It also how huge the part of the world is that is in extreme volatility. Quite discouraging.


https://www.weeklystandard.com/gunnar-heinsohn/afghanistan-russia-and-the-war-index

http://time-price-research-astrofin.blogspot.com/2017/05/a-demographic-theory-of-war-gunnar.html

[mapuc]

Is this a good solution to the ongoing problem ?

https://news.yahoo.com/us-tells-uk-responsibility-care-133149631.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmRrL3VybD9z YT10JnJjdD1qJnE9JmVzcmM9cyZzb3VyY2U9d2ViJmNkPTQmdm VkPTJhaFVLRXdpNW9vN2IwOG5qQWhWbHpxWUtIVDBOQmpRUUZq QURlZ1FJQ0JBQiZ1cmw9aHR0cHMlM0ElMkYlMkZuZXdzLnlhaG 9vLmNvbSUyRnVzLXRlbGxzLXVrLXJlc3BvbnNpYmlsaXR5LWNh cmUtMTMzMTQ5NjMxLmh0bWwmdXNnPUFPdlZhdzA0T3daQzUzbH FkTk1yT0ZmUW5wODY&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAFh4lsbVRywFRe70QAQVSzUytGT9 xErguHYQRB7GCj3_iTnf3uZWXKfk1rk3oSVmHpEQOTDjWd1tLO 7KadeQ-fungjBabPPFDLZ6DRGVhawRrvILF4lETlll1YiFVIVwrM30bSN fxitDWxKx38YU0Y6OlEwk4Gs25favigtthFKB

Jeremy Hunt, the Foreign Secretary, on Monday announced a joint European maritime mission on the Strait of Hormuz in the aftermath of a British tanker seizure in the Gulf

They have mentioned it on Danish tv. Saying England have send some kind of request to the Danish government.

And the speaker also said

We can also expect the same from USA.
(I know what my Danish friends are going to discuss the next few month ahead)

Markus

[Catfish]

It would be a good idea to deploy an international force, just to make some points clear to Iran.
I just wonder who.. France, Italy or any other EU nation comes to mind.
Germany could send.. wait..

Maybe the "Gorch F o c k".

[Jimbuna]

It would be a good idea to deploy an international force, just to make some points clear to Iran.
I just wonder who.. France, Italy or any other EU nation comes to mind.
Germany could send.. wait..

Maybe the "Gorch F o c k".


Probably the best way forward :yep:

Mr Hunt said the UK would develop a maritime protection mission with other European nations to allow ships to pass through the area safely.

The foreign secretary secured support for the initiative from both French and German foreign ministers on the phone on Sunday evening, the BBC has been told. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49076294

The video report in the link below pretty accurately sums up what this is all about.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-middle-east-49076483/iran-crisis-a-tale-of-two-tankers

[Skybird]

I agree, escorted convoys and multiple times as many warships in the region, plus helicopters.



But that the UK wants it does not mean that it will happen the way they intend it. France with its imperial self-perception maybe follows, but others like Germany - dont bet on it.


-----


I just read that China has bunkered astronomic volumes of Iranian oil which it has smuggled secretly out of Iran. If this oil finds its way back on the market, a price shock is th emost likely result, that much their stockpiled oil reserves now are. It shows that Iran is not as isolated as Western sanctioneers want to think of it. Who nows what the Russians are doing for Iran - they share borders.

[ikalugin]

We do not share a land border with Iran, we do share the Caspian sea and there are two railroads down there. So yes, we could be supplying all sorts of things to Iran if need be.

[Jimbuna]

Petrol prices thus far remain stable but would soon rise if Iran decided to block the Strait.

That in itself would probably bring about a military response from the West.

[Mr Quatro]

What's wrong with going over there to take her back even if you have to sink her?

Remember the Barbary Pirates :yep:

[Jimbuna]

The UK certainly has the means but I very much doubt if she has the will.

[Rockstar]

kewl a cutting out expedition, Im in!

[Skybird]

German news magazine FCOUS reports that already on Wednesday another tanker was hijacked by IRG. They will publish more details soon.

Trump pushed Germany into self-embarrassment by officially asking for German military contributions to any maritime operaiton in the Straight. Its of course also an attempt to bring the Europeans into the American anti-Iran operation. Still, The German position makes me grin. Of course, he knew that, Germany will say No and has said No, and will look bad in that of course. Well deserved.

Some German parties said there should be a European mission that does not provoke Iran and "does not leave the control in the Street to the Americans". Others warned that any sending of military shps inot the Strait would needlessly spill fuel into the fire and would provoke Iran". Well, we hold our breath for their verbal reaction to the latest Iranian action. I expect nothing less than a ultra-determined statement that sends shockwaves through the global diplomatic world! :yeah: Serves Iran right.

[Catfish]

Well the official version is that Iran is not liked, and the threat to Israel is only one of the reasons. Oil is another..

And while we can certainly expect anything from Iran, the first real move of confrontation has been made by the UK, pretending to act under EU law (while indeed playing poodle for the US). I mean how many tankers have passed Gib heading for Syriah before without being capered?

They are all playing their game, and while i do not especially like the Mullahs they are there to stay, and you will not get them out without direct war.

[Skybird]

I do not agree on the nuclear threat and the Iranian support for international terror being alibis to gag them economically or "steal their oil" or to control the flow of oil to China and Asia. The threat of nuclear wepaons and the threat of proliferation and nuclear arms arace in the region, and the threats of Iran to Israel, and the Iranian terror export - each of them for itself imo are valid reasons to isolate and contain Iran and to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons no matter the costs of this denial.



And I say this since long before Trump came to power already.

[Jimbuna]

It will be interesting to see what nationality said tanker is and if it turns out to be British then the chances of a military response may well be raised a notch.

Poodles have been known to bite on occasion :nope:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-49225916

[Onkel Neal]

Iran seizes another oil tanker, third as feud with US continues (https://nypost.com/2019/08/04/iran-seizes-another-oil-tanker-third-as-feud-with-us-continues/)

Iran seized a vessel it accused of smuggling fuel in the Persian Gulf, the third time the Iranian Revolutionary Guards detained a ship in the waterway in recent weeks as the stalemate between the Islamic Republic and the US continues.

The Iranian forces intercepted the ship Wednesday near Farsi Island, which is used by the Revolutionary Guards as a navy base, state media reported on Sunday.

“The IRGC’s naval forces have seized a foreign oil tanker in the Persian Gulf that was smuggling fuel for some Arab countries,” the paramilitary’s forces commander Ramezan Zirahi said, according to state-run media.

The Iraq ship was carrying about 185,000 gallons of fuel, the report said, but it did not provide additional details or identify the nationality of the crew.

The Iraqi oil ministry said it had ties to the seized ship.
The Bahrain-based US Fifth Fleet said it did not have information to confirm the report.

Iran seized a Panamanian-flagged United Arab Emirates tanker, the MT Riah...

[Jimbuna]

Strange one is this Neal, your link (well not exactly yours but that of the New York Post) states The Iraqi oil ministry said it had ties to the seized ship.

Whilst the BBC link below states Iraq's oil ministry has said it has no connection to the seized vessel and that it is working to gather information about it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-49225916

The sooner the vessel is identified we'll see if another country has been pulled into the problem.

It is being suggested the vessel may be Iraqi.

[Jimbuna]

The US Department of Justice has put in a request to detain supertanker Grace 1, which will be considered by Gibraltar's attorney general.

The vessel, carrying Iranian oil, was seized by Royal Marines on 4 July - triggering a standoff with Tehran.

It was set to be released within hours, after the attorney general indicated he would make no further order for its detention.

But after the US application the matter has been adjourned until 15:00 BST.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49355591

We should learn of the decision later this afternoon but I should imagine diplomats from all sides will be working behind the scene very hard night and day.

[Catfish]

So the supertanker Grace1 was detained due to a (made-up) breach of EU law by England, and now the US demands it to be further detained?

Well i guess we all know what's really going on, don't we? :haha:

[Jimbuna]

The outcome will be decided by the courts.

[Aktungbby]

Well i guess we all know what's really going on, don't we? :haha: IE: RULE 1: THE ATLANTIC IS AN ENGLISH SPEAKING LAKE!:hmph:
:O: ALTHOUGH WE WE ARE OFT SEPARATED BY A 'COMMON LANGUAGE'(1776; 1812):doh:

[Jimbuna]

The court has ruled that the tanker is to be released.

[Jimbuna]

The US justice department has issued a warrant to seize a detained Iranian oil tanker, a day after a judge in Gibraltar ordered it to be released.

The Grace 1 supertanker, which is carrying 2.1m barrels of oil, was detained on 4 July on suspicion of illegally transporting oil to Syria.

A last-minute legal attempt by the US to keep the tanker detained was rejected by Gibraltar on Thursday.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49379144

The question being....who will respond to the court order?

[Skybird]

The question being....who will respond to the court order?
US Navy...?

[Jimbuna]

US Navy...?

Most likely, I should imagine they'll already have vessels in the area :yep:

[mapuc]

Pure speculation

If the American Navy work as an extended part of the American law and enforcement and sieges this tanker right after it have left Gibraltar

What will happen in USA ? Will the Dem. accuse Trump ?
What will happen in Europe and Middle east. How will the politicians react to this action(if it happens) and not to forget the response from Iran ?

Markus

[Jimbuna]

Most likely, I should imagine they'll already have vessels in the area :yep:

Apparently not, they are now offering millions of dollars in an effort for the ships captain to hand his vessel over to US authorities.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-49589075

[Jimbuna]

The Iranian oil tanker at the centre of an international incident has been sailing just off the Syrian coast, satellite images appear to show.

The Adrian Darya-1 was seized by Gibraltar in July with the aid of British forces over fears it was bound for Syria, violating EU sanctions.

It was eventually released after assurances were given that it would not head for the war-ravaged country.

But images released on Saturday seemed to show it two nautical miles offshore.

The images, from US company Maxar Technologies, appeared to place the tanker very close to the Syrian port of Tartus on 6 September.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-49619152

So much for Iranian assurances.

[Jimbuna]

The British-flagged tanker seized by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards more than two months ago has been released, according to Iranian officials.

“The legal process has finished and based on that the conditions for letting the oil tanker go free have been fulfilled and the oil tanker can move,” Ali Rabiei, Iran’s government spokesman, said on Monday, according to the official IRNA news agency.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/iran-says-uk-flagged-tanker-seized-in-july-is-free-to-leave/ar-AAHINTX?li=BBoPWjQ&ocid=mailsignout

[ikalugin]

Good to hear, I wish for the British crew to return to their loved once safe and sound.

[Jimbuna]

The 23-man crew aboard the Stena Impero was made up 18 Indians, three Russians, a Latvian and a Filipino. No British citizens were onboard.

[Onkel Neal]

Tanker released
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/27/middleeast/uk-tanker-iran-released-intl/index.html

[Skybird]

Round goes to Iran with a double scoring. They got the UK to falter and pull back, and they managed to break the Syria blockade and selling them their oil. That they lied about their own tankers destination and get away with that as well, is just a tiny tip of cream on the top.

[Jimbuna]

^ Tis certainly looking that way and can only serve to embolden them in the future.

[Skybird]

Nevertheless, taken for itself it hit the right guy. If you track events around Iran'S exporting of murderings and terror, you know his name is that of a murderer, terror master, bomb planter and villain. No tear is to be shed. Also, Iran is responisble for plenty of bloodshed and bombing attacks in Iraq. This man was hit by his own medicine while staying in his playground Iraq, planning new death and organising new terror. Sounds fair and just to me.

If Iran thinks it must escalate further from here, so be it. Their range of tools is wide and far-reaching, asymmetrical as well, yes. Should this be the reason why the West endlessly paralysis itself in fear and intimdiation and hysterical concern? If they prefer to hit back again, than we/the Us muts hit again as well - and even stronger. If you get hit, hit back adequately - plus X. The next retaliatory measure by the US may take place inside Iran.

It was clear for everybody that an attack like that on the US embassy could not remain unanswered without literally castrating yourself under the eyes of the world. The US had to deliver a fist.



Democrats once again makes me wondering whether I should cry or laugh about them.


Its election campaigning in the US. If i were Iran, I would be extremely careful now.


Gold prices over here went up by over 40 coins within just a few hours. :)

[ikalugin]

@skybird Ironically he may have been the moderate.

[Skybird]

@skybird Ironically he may have been the moderate.
Sulaimani? A moderate? His name was on my mind since years. "Moderate" is not on my list of adjectives describing him. He was unfortunately very clever and unscrupoulous, which made him outstandingly dangerous, since he was very efficient. Its was a high-IQ target that was taken out here.


Al-Sadr calls his former militia back to arms. As a Westerner you better have no business to do in Iraq anymore. Or Iran. This all can lead to a nasty chapter in the all nasty Iraqi tale. Still I think the uS action was one of the possible and adequate actions. When somethign is a mess anyway, you cannot move without causing messy reactions.

[Jimbuna]

Iran's most powerful military commander, General Qasem Soleimani, has been killed by a US air strike in Iraq.

The 62-year old spearheaded Iranian military operations in the Middle East as head of Iran's elite Quds Force.

He was killed at Baghdad airport, alongside local Iran-backed militias, early on Friday in a strike ordered by US President Donald Trump.

Gen Soleimani's killing marks a major escalation in tensions between Washington and Tehran.

Under his leadership, Iran had bolstered Hezbollah in Lebanon and other pro-Iranian militant groups, expanded Iran's military presence in Iraq and Syria and orchestrated Syria's offensive against rebel groups in the country's long civil war.

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said "severe revenge awaits the criminals" behind the attack. He also announced three days of national mourning.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-50979463

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

[ikalugin]

Moderate as in moderate in comparison.


So you may end trading a moderate and cautious general for a more hot headed one.

[Rockstar]

Obviously Trump never played the old Tropico video game before. Instead of blowing someone up you use the “arrange accident” option to avoid blowback. :D

[Aktungbby]

Live by the sword, die by the sword.AHEM: it's "live by the drone; die by the drone":Kaleun_Salivating:

[mapuc]

So Teheran wows retaliation.

What options do they have-if they want to sent USA a message they don't forget ?

Markus

[Onkel Neal]

I find this interesting. Iranian backed fighters try to storm the American embassy, US hits back with strike that takes out important Iranian military leader.

What will happen next? Nothing? What can Iran do that they are not already doing? Will this trigger the green light for Iranian sleeper agents already in the US?

We need to get Russia on our side on this.

[Rockstar]

Since the attack was carried out in Iraq and not Iran I expect a regional response by Iran via one or more of their proxies. With the recent history of a major U.S. military attack against a country after 9-11. I somewhat doubt they would carry out a retaliation on U.S. soil. In fact I think the thought of being linked to an attack on U.S. soil scares the hell out of them.

[Aktungbby]

So Teheran wows retaliation.

What options do they have-if they want to sent USA a message they don't forget ?

Markus

I find this interesting. Iranian backed fighters try to storm the American embassy, US hits back with strike that takes out important Iranian military leader.

What will happen next? Nothing? What can Iran do that they are not already doing? Will this trigger the green light for Iranian sleeper agents already in the US?

We need to get Russia on our side on this. https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2642915&postcount=3066 (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2642915&postcount=3066) https://m.wsj.net/video/20200103/010320soleimani4/010320soleimani4_960x540.jpgOf particular interest is the lack of a crater or 'collateral damage' to surrounding area of the vehicles struck by raptor drones-note today's photo W.S.J.: lack of scorching on wall art etc.:hmmm:... a merciful hit by any standard??!!:oops: :yep: :doh: probaby by use of the flying ginzu missile https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Lockheed_Martin_Longbow_Hellfire-800x439.jpg designed to prevent such. The Hellfire R9X, also known as the “Flying Ginsu” after the knives advertised in campy infomercials, kills its enemies by flying directly at them, popping out several steel blades at the last moment to slice its targets into bits. however if the vehicle fuel tank becomes involved from impact all bets are off. As for retaliation: the twin World Towers, the Pentagon and possibly 1996 PanAm 800 https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/76/Twa_800_in-flight_breakup.jpg/220px-Twa_800_in-flight_breakup.jpg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Twa_800_in-flight_breakup.jpg) as retaliation for the USS Vincennes missile downing of Iran Air 655 in 1988 all point up that vengeance will be paid, whether Christian or Islamic in origin. America will will respond. Any small nation has to ponder 'awkening the sleeping giant' that is the U.S. Considering attacks on oil refineries in Saudi Arabia(technically our ally), mysterious attacks on tankers in the Persian Gulf, and the shoot down of an American drone in the Hormuz Strait, the game is very much afoot and nobody's backin' down....as we've just demonstrated!

[ikalugin]

I find this interesting. Iranian backed fighters try to storm the American embassy, US hits back with strike that takes out important Iranian military leader.

What will happen next? Nothing? What can Iran do that they are not already doing? Will this trigger the green light for Iranian sleeper agents already in the US?

We need to get Russia on our side on this.


I think we are stocking up on popcorn right now.


As to Trump's motivations I think they were more about not being in the same situation as Hillary was over Bengazi.

[Mr Quatro]

I think we are stocking up on popcorn right now.


As to Trump's motivations I think they were more about not being in the same situation as Hillary was over Bengazi.

We learn from our mistakes, Peal Harbor, Vietnam, Bengazi :yep:

[mapuc]

Even though I'm not an expert on military strategy I'm 110 % sure we will not be witness to an all out Iranian attack on American warships and/or their bases in the region.

I'm pretty sure, as Rockstar also mentioned in his latest comment- this retaliation will be done by some Iran supported militia who will attack American interest somewhere in the region.

Markus

[Rockstar]

looking on the bright side oil spiked.

[Skybird]

Even though I'm not an expert on military strategy I'm 110 % sure we will not be witness to an all out Iranian attack on American warships and/or their bases in the region.

I'm pretty sure, as Rockstar also mentioned in his latest comment- this retaliation will be done by some Iran supported militia who will attack American interest somewhere in the region.

Markus
They will go after soft targets, and civilian ones as well, maybe. They will go after those targets that are in reach of their capabilities. An open exchange on the conventional battlefield was never an option seriously considered.

[Skybird]

We need to get Russia on our side on this.
Becoming a man with dreams, eh?

[ikalugin]

Just like Israel we are going to just sit on the sidelines on this and enjoy the show.

[Skybird]

Different to Russia Israel cannot afford to just sit on the sideline. It already is on high alert.

Iran has no air force worth the name that could reach Israel. But it has missiles. Plenty of them. And militias and terror groups. With drones.And best contact into the terrorism scene.

[Jimbuna]

looking on the bright side oil spiked.

I doubt the Iranians will attack the US directly but they may attempt to take out Saudi oil production then Trump would probably take out the Iranian oil producing infrastructure.

I'll say one thing about the POTUS....any attack against the US or her allies will almost definitely be met with overwhelming proportionality.

[Jimbuna]

A huge crowd in Iraq's capital Baghdad is taking part in a funeral procession for the Iranian military commander Qasem Soleimani, who was killed in a US air strike on Thursday.

His body is to be returned to Iran for a funeral and burial in his home town.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-50991810

I wouldn't have thought there'd be much if anything left of him to bury.

[Mr Quatro]

I wouldn't have thought there'd be much if anything left of him to bury.

Sure didn't look like it ... all alone too on the edge of the air field.

I wonder if the drone operator will get a bonus :o

[Aktungbby]

Sure didn't look like it ... all alone too on the edge of the air field.

I wonder if the drone operator will get a bonus :oGenerally speaking, I'd say yes.::o The follow-on attack killed 5 more Iran backed militiamen in a convoy 24 hours later.

[mapuc]

In the news at 0100 some maleperson from the Danish military acedemy(similar to West Point) said in an interview.

Iran has a lot of long range missile who can reach far they can reach all the areas where American have bases or where their interest is.

When I heard this I began to think what Skybird wrote in a response to my former comment.
And I think Skybird is right-Iran will not engage USA directly.

Then earlier today around noon I saw some Swedish news where some high ranked officer in the Iranian RG said something about the Hormuz, tankers lifeline to the west and American warship.

Are The Iranian RG going to engage USA directly ?
(I do remember some of you saying this RG are seperate from the leaders in Teheran)

Personally I hope, now Iran has to ball, will kick it away.

Markus

[August]

We need to get Russia on our side on this.


I don't want Russia on our side.

They can't be trusted. There is no reset button ever invented that would ever make them a trustworthy ally in any venture. Depending on them will only result in disappointment and partnering with them will only result in betrayal.

Even now they claim they will sit back and munch on popcorn but we both know that if we get into open war with Iran they will conspire and support them behind our backs. If they are on our side they will have access to our plans and intelligence with they will promptly relay to the enemy, so what would be the point?

[em2nought]

A huge crowd in Iraq's capital Baghdad is taking part in a funeral procession for the Iranian military commander Qasem Soleimani, who was killed in a US air strike on Thursday.

His body is to be returned to Iran for a funeral and burial in his home town.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-50991810



Shame "somebody" didn't send "something" to the funeral too. :D

[Mr Quatro]

Shame "somebody" didn't send "something" to the funeral too. :D

Trump wanted to send a Boeing 737 Max to the president of Iran to make atonement for the slaughter of their general, but Congress wouldn't approve of it :D

[Onkel Neal]

Then earlier today around noon I saw some Swedish news where some high ranked officer in the Iranian RG said something about the Hormuz, tankers lifeline to the west and American warship.



The US is self-sufficient with a lot of additional capacity, it's not a lifeline to us.




When a covert extraterritorial team starts this kind of action on an American embassy, a decisive strike where it hurts is called for.

https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/78/590x/secondary/World-War-3-American-embassy-Baghdad-protest-2239766.jpg?r=1578125799456

Iran is going to find out when you punch Trump, he punches back - hard.

[Aktungbby]

https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2642915&postcount=3066 (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2642915&postcount=3066) https://m.wsj.net/video/20200103/010320soleimani4/010320soleimani4_960x540.jpgOf particular interest is the lack of a crater or 'collateral damage' to surrounding area of the vehicles struck by raptor drones-note today's photo W.S.J.: lack of scorching on wall art etc.:hmmm:... a merciful hit by any standard??!!:oops: :yep: :doh: probaby by use of the flying ginzu missile designed to prevent such. The Hellfire R9X, also known as the “Flying Ginsu” after the knives advertised in campy infomercials, kills its enemies by flying directly at them, popping out several steel blades at the last moment to slice its targets into bits.NOTE: I SEE SOME DISCREPANCIES OUR IRAQI FRIENDS ARE PUBLICISING; ALLEGEDLY A PHOTO OF THE BURNING CAR FROM A 30 & 160 DEGREE ANGLE....BUT NOW THERE'S NO ART WORK ON THE WALL AND THERE'S SPORADIC BLAST DAMAGE WHERE THE (UNDAMAGED?)ART HUNG ON THE WALL ...???:hmmm:https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2020/01/03/15/urn-publicid-ap.org-8e98e47b9cde4ba99b1e0bd72d88d56b.jpg> https://media1.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2020_01/3169406/200102-iraq-airport-baghdad-airstrike-ac-1101p_c2ea0c3da343b4d7af7173e5dc32de4b.fit-560w.jpg<MY COMPLIMENTS TO THE IRAQI MINISTER OF CULTURE RAPID-RESCUE SQUAD!:O:

[mapuc]

Nothing but a though. Shouldn't this Crisis between USA and Iran have its own threaed. A crisis who highly will end with a war between these two countries Markus

[Mr Quatro]

Build Embassy's with C-130 gunship's guns hidden on the inside walls ... :up:


https://www.bing.com/th/id/OIP.iYp-hK5dTwgtRMzbtTKzawHaFj?w=236&h=177&c=7&o=5&dpr=2&pid=1.7


They will think twice about that :yep:

[Onkel Neal]

Nothing but a though. Shouldn't this Crisis between USA and Iran have its own threaed. A crisis who highly will end with a war between these two countries Markus

I think that's a good idea.

[Onkel Neal]

Re-titled from Iranian IRGC boats seize oil tankers in Persian Gulf

[Mr Quatro]

Nothing but a though. Shouldn't this Crisis between USA and Iran have its own threaed. A crisis who highly will end with a war between these two countries Markus

I think that's a good idea.

Yeah! Call it First Blood (wait for it 2:25)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2qU27MjBOY

[mapuc]

There have been so far three attacks on American military and their ambassady in Iraq.

Now I wonder was this what Iran meant by a harsh revenge or is it only the beginning.
or was it an attack by Hisbollah who made the decision on their own.

It's an attack on USA, it is not what a would call a big punch in their face

What kind of response can we expect ?

Secondly
I'm pretty sure that these strong statement we have heard from the Iranian leaders and leaders of RG are not aimed at the American, but towards their own people.

Markus

[Tchocky]

Well the President has just declared his intent to bomb Iranian cultural sites.

Then said he doesn't want any more threats.


Great minds at work.

[Rockstar]

I dont foresee any grand escalation or invasion. I think we will just beef up security at our embassies and prepare to respond to any further threats.

In regards go the Straits of Hormuz I agree with Onkle its not that vital for us but it most certainly is for others. I'm guessing Denmark falls under 'other'


https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=39932
EIA estimates that 76% of the crude oil and condensate that moved through the Strait of Hormuz went to Asian markets in 2018. China, India, Japan, South Korea, and Singapore were the largest destinations for crude oil moving through the Strait of Hormuz to Asia, accounting for 65% of all Hormuz crude oil and condensate flows in 2018 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2019.06.20/chart4.svg

[Catfish]

[...] Iran is going to find out when you punch Trump, he punches back - hard.
Trump himself? I don't think he is the man up for that job.
He insults via Twitter, looks at the physical reaction and then calls for others to retaliate.
If ever the world leaders would go in personally for it, now wouldn't that be something!

Yes i know, Iran is not to be trusted. Question is why you/the US should not turn this to their advantage instead of.. this.

[Mr Quatro]

Trump himself? I don't think he is the man up for that job.
He insults via Twitter, looks at the physical reaction and then calls for others to retaliate.
If ever the world leaders would go in personally for it, now wouldn't that be something!

Yes i know, Iran is not to be trusted. Question is why you/the US should not turn this to their advantage instead of.. this.

President Trump is still POTUS which means he is still Commander in Chief which means you don't mess with America.

I care more what the enemy think the US will do if they retaliate ... Surely they know how close to WWIII this really is.

I was told 10 years ago that Iran will find out why we call our fighter planes Hornets :yep:

[mapuc]

I dont foresee any grand escalation or invasion. I think we will just beef up security at our embassies and prepare to respond to any further threats.

In regards go the Straits of Hormuz I agree with Onkle its not that vital for us but it most certainly is for others. I'm guessing Denmark falls under 'other'


Denmark is like Norway, UK and other european countries an oil producing country..

I can't give any link, now that I use my smart tv as browser.


Markus

[Tchocky]

I dont foresee any grand escalation or invasion.


Check out the Twitter feed of the current President.

52 sites selected to represent the 52 US hostages.

Some selected for their cultural importance.

I mean that's a war crime, but I guess I don't see any grand escalation either.

:Roll:

[Mr Quatro]

Check out the Twitter feed of the current President.

52 sites selected to represent the 52 US hostages.

Some selected for their cultural importance.

I mean that's a war crime, but I guess I don't see any grand escalation either.

:Roll:

Come on Tchocky Trump is a card player ... It's just a warning :o

"We have ... targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran" and "if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets... Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD," Trump wrote in a series of tweets.

[Tchocky]

Well I'm just glad that level-headed people not prone to impulsive scattershot decisions are in charge

[Mr Quatro]

Well I'm just glad that level-headed people not prone to impulsive scattershot decisions are in charge

Are you waiting at the airport for your plane to take off? :D

[August]

Yeah we're known for destroying sites of cultural importance.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CYTcQUKTVY


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWxszYK6IPU

[Rockstar]

Published September of 2010. Is still a good read and I think it reveals what is going on now has much more to do with than just Iran. Especially when you consider the vast majority of oil shipping through the straits is destined for a certain particular Asian market. This situation we see today unfolding has been long in the making.

https://www.cna.org/CNA_files/PDF/D0023622.A3.pdf



A Closer Look at China-Iran Relations Roundtable Report

Participants discussed China’s strategic calculus toward Iran. One referred to a recent speech given by Chinese Middle East scholar Wu Bingbing at the Wilson Center, in which he summed up China’s strategy in the Persian Gulf region as follows:
1.Refuse any single power’s unilateral control of the region
2.Prevent the emergence of any anti-Chinese regime in the region
3.Oppose formal support of Taiwan independence forces or other separatist forces in China by Gulf countries
4.Pursue potential support from the Gulf region for China’s foreign policy...

One participant argued that China is signing deals with Iran with a larger regional security strategy in mind, and cited a 2000 article by Tang Shiping in China’s influential Strategy and Management journal. According to this article, the United States already controls the west bank of the Persian Gulf through its proxy states, including Saudi Arabia and its smaller Gulf neighbors. This makes the Persian Gulf, in effect, an “internal sea” for the United States. Shiping argues, however, that if China and Russia were to build an “axis” of relations with Iran, they could maintain a “minimum balance” to thwart U.S. moves to embargo or control energy flows from the Gulf, since the success of such actions would require control over both the west and east banks...
Reading the report I'm beginning to believe we really upped the ante by targeting that Iranian General. Makes me think it was meant to send a seriously strong message to Iranian and Chinese leadership. You're next. Getting kinda scary now, huh?

[Catfish]

^ Now that is scary :eek:

When Trump's will (is that the same what the US really want?) is to drive the whole Middle East into China's arms, he is doing a good job.

After all Iran has done nothing else than it did years before, so why now this attack? Wasn't pulling out of the nuclear deal enough to destabilize for now?

Trump "foresaw" (lol) Obama starting a war to win a second election. Didn't happen. Maybe Trump thinks it may help him. Domestic political problems use to get out of medial focus with a real war :hmmm:
Only that this Scrotus is a gambler, and what happens if he loses.

[Jimbuna]

The Royal Navy have a meagre two warships on station in the Strait of Hormuz (HMS Montrose frigate and the HMS Defender destroyer) to help protect the flow of oil should they be necessary.

It would be nice if our European allies would also contribute.

[mapuc]

The Royal Navy have a meagre two warships on station in the Strait of Hormuz (HMS Montrose frigate and the HMS Defender destroyer) to help protect the flow of oil should they be necessary.

It would be nice if our European allies would also contribute.


Denmark is sending a Frigate, 1 helicopyer and 155 men.

They shall be part of an American task force.

From memory
Denmark(government) have made an option to send more stuff to the region if needed.

Markus

[Mr Quatro]

The Royal Navy have a meagre two warships on station in the Strait of Hormuz (HMS Montrose frigate and the HMS Defender destroyer) to help protect the flow of oil should they be necessary.

It would be nice if our European allies would also contribute.

France and Germany have agreed to join us if Iran retaliates ,,, :yep:

It's the Iranian people that I want to join us in seeing how corrupt their regime has become :yep:

[mapuc]

(An off topic thought from the bible)

Are we heading towards Armageddon ?

End of an off topic thought...

Markus

[Mr Quatro]

(An off topic thought from the bible)

Are we heading towards Armageddon ?

End of an off topic thought...

Markus

No we are not, "Wars and rumors of wars, but the end is not yet in sight" Book of St Luke :yep:

[Skybird]

Iraqi parliament voted for a resolution demanding that all US troops have to leave.

[Rockstar]

Article I read said ALL foreign troops and everyone knows how that will work out. You go first, no you go first, no you go first, no you go first....




http://news.trust.org/item/20200105141444-bjkfk

[August]

It's a non binding resolution that is pretty much symbolic. About as relevant as Democrats these days.

[mapuc]

The question I ask myself is.

What if the Americans and its allied refuse to leave...?

Markus

[August]

The question I ask myself is.

What if the Americans and its allied refuse to leave...?

Markus


https://www.foxnews.com/world/iraq-parliament-expulsion-us-troops-drone-attack

But the Iraqi Parliament vote doesn't mean that the U.S. military has to leave the country immediately. It's a non-binding vote, which is seen as mostly symbolic.The 5,000 U.S. troops are in Iraq at the invitation fo the country's executive branch, the Prime Minister's officer -- not Parliament. It is up to the Iraqi Prime Minister whether the troops will be expelled.
If they make us leave, which is fine by me BTW, they know it means an eventual Iranian backed coup that will shortly mean civil war between countries Sunni, Kurd and Shiite factions, the first two which boycotted the above mentioned non binding vote in protest against it.

[mapuc]

https://www.foxnews.com/world/iraq-parliament-expulsion-us-troops-drone-attack


If they make us leave, which is fine by me BTW, they know it means an eventual Iranian backed coup that will shortly mean civil war between countries Sunni, Kurd and Shiite factions, the first two which boycotted the above mentioned non binding vote in protest against it.

Members from USA both here on this forum and on FB want US military should leave middle east. One thing is what an ordinary American wants and what the leaders want.

I also have heard a plausible cause to this step.
The Iraqi people and their Parliament fear that a war between USA and Iran will be fought on Iraqi soil.

Markus

[Rockstar]

I'm of the opinion we must maintain a presence in the middle east. We are allied with Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Sunni Kurds and other sunni tribes. Our allies in Asia India, Japan, and South Korea would be affected if we left the Straits of Hormuz to Iran and China.

We stay, and if Esmail Ghaani or some other Iranian asshat wants to cause a problem we paint a target on his forehead too.

In the capital, the strike that took out Al Quds commander Qassem Soleimani capped a year that had already been dominated by turmoil and fear as the country’s finances crumbled, the authorities struggled to contain civil unrest, and provocation of the U.S. backfired.
“It's a nerve-racking situation that only adds to the likelihood of more unforeseen circumstances,” said Hossein, 44, sitting on a park bench in central Tehran with a newspaper. “We’re in a tinderbox ready to explode. I'm afraid of a chain of aggressive reactions that will throw the political and economic situation into further chaos and uncertainty.”


Seems so far to be going according to plan.

[August]

Members from USA both here on this forum and on FB want US military should leave middle east. One thing is what an ordinary American wants and what the leaders want.

I also have heard a plausible cause to this step.
The Iraqi people and their Parliament fear that a war between USA and Iran will be fought on Iraqi soil.

Markus


Well Trump also wants us out of foreign wars including those in the ME. But what we're not going to do (unless a Democrat is in the oval office) is ignore an attack upon our embassy like another democrat Jimmy Carter whose weakness contributed a lot to the present situation.

As for the Iraqi people/Parliament, a war has existed between the USA and Iran on Iraqi soil for over a decade now. The only difference being is that the Democrats chose to try and bribe them with planeloads of cash. The continued attacks upon our people and assets has showed the failure of that strategy.

[Tchocky]

I see we're in JCPOA fan fiction here. It's where we take one separate thing and pretend that it is in fact something else entirely. Planeloads of cash?

Eye roll.

It's a fun game to play with toddlers, but they usually figure out that the dog is in fact, no matter how loudly you insist, a cat.

Anyway.

Have to say I admire President Trump's plan here. It would certainly work on the US.

If Iran were to kill the Secretary of Defence on his way from Mexico City airport, then threaten heavy retaliation if the US responded, then we'd certainly never hear a peep out of the US about it. They would accept this as the way things are and not respond.

This strategy really works and everyone involved has thought it through in full.

That NYT report on how the drone strike option was included to make the sensible option seem more reasonable, and nobody ever thought Trump would go for it?


FAKE.

NEWS.

[MaDef]

The question I ask myself is.

What if the Americans and its allied refuse to leave...?

Markus On the flip side, what are the ramifications if the U.S. completely un-asses the area?

[Skybird]

I'm of the opinion we must maintain a presence in the middle east. We are allied with Turkey,
But Turkey not with you.
Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Sunni Kurds and other sunni tribes. Our allies in Asia India, Japan, and South Korea would be affected if we left the Straits of Hormuz to Iran and China.I dont get the impresison that the lil boy in the white house cares. America first. BTW, the Iraq that was created after 2003, is predimantely Shia, not Sunni, so with all your sunni "allies" :har: you Shia hobby may have put you in na kind of difficult seat. Iran is Shia as well.

[/QUOTE]
In the end, the Iraqi parliament is not the instance deciding on behalf of the US, and Pompeo made that clear already. Even a call by the Iraqi PM would not be followed. Law of the stronger, and all that.

Neither the Us nor Europe are ddecisvely depending on oil fromt he strait of Hormuz. The US is completely independent from it, the eU and Germany only get a small share of oil form there, and could compensate a closure easily. The biggest interest has - China, and Japan.

China. I think that could trigger some interesting ideas in lil' boy's strange brain. Especially if China decides to maintain its own naval presence in the straits. But why would it want to? Iran and China are allies, and China is a preferredf customer of Iran's oil. China buys any oil it cna get. Russian, Chinese, it does not matter.

[Skybird]

On the flip side, what are the ramifications if the U.S. completely un-asses the area?
Loss of face and what has remained of its credibility. Not that the lil' boy has left much at all by now. By the end of 2024, it will be completely gone, and he will leave the Un-united States of America as his heritage and present to the future American generation.

[Mr Quatro]

On the flip side, what are the ramifications if the U.S. completely un-asses the area?

No more Iranian threat for anyone ... no more Iranian Navy/Air Force or anything ... just an Army to fight no one, but then a cyber war or chicken sh*t rebels already in America, before the peace talks of course. :yep:

[August]

Planeloads of cash?

Eye roll.


That was an exaggeration. They allowed room for the crew as well.


https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-sent-two-more-planeloads-of-cash-to-iran-after-initial-payment-1473208256

[mapuc]

If this Iranian source is correct

The response will be militarily against USA controlled military targets in the region.

As some military leader said on CNN.

(using my own words)
They gave us a punch in our face. We have the right to do the same to then and if they mean peace they will not retaliate this.

Now I wonder-is it only strong words we hear from the Iranian ?

Markus

[Tchocky]

That was an exaggeration. They allowed room for the crew as well.


https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-sent-two-more-planeloads-of-cash-to-iran-after-initial-payment-1473208256This was part of JCPOA, and had nothing to do with the proxy conflict in Iraq.

Which was the point you were trying to make.

Like I said, this dog is a cat.

[Skybird]

If this Iranian source is correct

The response will be militarily against USA controlled military targets in the region.

As some military leader said on CNN.

(using my own words)
They gave us a punch in our face. We have the right to do the same to then and if they mean peace they will not retaliate this.

Now I wonder-is it only strong words we hear from the Iranian ?

Markus
They will retaliate, most likely by use of any of their many proxies, or terrorism. The US has many, many bases and installation in the region, it is for my taste very difficult to defend since there are so m any, its a kind of overstretching. But the targets must not even be Americna once. You can hurt the S tremendously by hitting US proxies - and by that damaging strategic interests of the US.

But I do not take the Iranian word for granted that they consider only military targets.

I do not rule out bombing runs against targets on US home soil or in Europe.

And naval traffic. Its a shooting gallery.

Expect everything, anytime.

For once, I agree with Trump's threat of disproportionate retaliation. This is no damn match of dodge ball. Sports and fairness have no place here.

[August]

This was part of JCPOA, and had nothing to do with the proxy conflict in Iraq.

Which was the point you were trying to make.

Like I said, this dog is a cat.


I know what the deal was and I don't care. Those funds were originally frozen back in 1979 for very good reasons. Now maybe you and the Obama administration are ok with it but I think it was a mistake to give our enemies large sums of money that they will use to kill us.

[mapuc]

After my last comment my imagination ran away with me.

Iran has this three days of mourning which ends tomorrow(Monday)
The Iranian president gives the go-ahead to the military who have picked 3 targets

1. An American warship in the Strait of Hormuz
2. Airbase in Kuwait
3. Naval base in Oman.

USA retaliate as promised by Trump

Iran knows they can not fight alone against USA, so they do two things to get their muslim brothers on their side.

1. Attack one of their most holly place they have-using propagande saying it was US who did this.
2. Attack Israel-Hopeing they will counter attack-using propaganda saying Israel has joined forces with USA..........

But this was my free running imagination.

Markus

[Tchocky]

That deal delayed and reduced the Iranian nuclear programme considerably.

Now you can decide that there is no give and take possible and therefore confrontation is the right choice.

Fair enough I guess.

But it's really stupid to conflate a nuclear pact that includes sacrifice from both sides with something unrelated. As you did above.

You're right on one thing though - you really don't care about facts or details.

If the JCPOA included significant anti-terror facets you'd have one hell of a point.

Dog is still a cat though.

[Skybird]

The deal bought Iran the time it needed to sneak as closely towards the finishing line as possible without starting the final sprint and triggering vilent reaction. The West got nothing in return for that accept the comfort of not needing to turn tough back then already: and enjoying the cozy warmth of assuming that all will be well and Europe is a diplomatic power to count with. The European Iran diplomacy - is in ruins, militarily and diplomatically Europe is a dwarf. It based on self-deception from beginning on, so tbe outcome is just fair. The US does right in not caring for European positions over Iran.

[Mr Quatro]

This is how they think :yep:

Abolfazl Abutorabi, a hardline member of Iran’s parliament, urged Iran to treat a U.S. airstrike that killed a top Iranian general as an act of war, warranting immediate response.

https://americanmilitarynews.com/2020/01/report-iran-mp-threatens-attack-on-white-house-we-can-attack-the-white-house-itself/?utm_source=amn&utm_campaign=alt&utm_medium=facebook&fbclid=IwAR1fxvsuysUUBa6xA4qsOOTtpq5KePpJx9oyvGJkt PLmVUkw88AybqvoAHY


“We can attack the White House itself, we can respond to them on the American soil. We have the power, and God willing we will respond in an appropriate time,” Abutorabi said in comments first circulated by Iran’s ILNA news agency.

Abutorabi made his comments during parliamentary debates as to how the Iranian government should respond to the U.S. strike in Baghdad, Iraq that killed Gen. Qassem Soleimani. For Abutorabi, the answer was that Iran “should crush America’s teeth.”

“This is a declaration of war, which means if you hesitate you lose,”

[Skybird]

^And yet, the majority of Trump'S voters do not want another war, and he said he will lead the US out of its many war operations and military engagements. It remains to be seen how this will be played by the WH when Iran goes tough, and how any war action will go with Trump's voters. In the past, victorious military operations helped potlicans to score at home. But this time? And whether it will be "victorious action" at all, also is not question with a predetermined answers. In the past 20, 25 years, the US has excelled in politically lose its wars which it militarily indeed should have won. Lack of understanding of the enemy's nature, and lacking strategic longterm foresight were the reasons. Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan nor the engagements during the socalled Arab Spring qualify for a description of successes, or to have achieved in the region what one hoped and claimed they would acchieve. To what degree the prevention of Muslim terrorism in the West counts on behalff of these wars, can be debated. I think other measurements taken are more relevant in this regard. They all came with massive legal fallout for freedom and civili rights and media freedom.

[Jimbuna]

https://i.postimg.cc/63Kfg2cF/81652875-2427008940742657-8024774968099209216-o.jpg (https://postimages.org/)

[ikalugin]

TBH I find the fact how the rise of tensions in Libya is being overshadowed by this rather amusing.


In the dark grim present of the Middle East (and North Africa and a bunch of other such places bundled up) there is only War.

[Méo]

This is how they think :yep:

Abolfazl Abutorabi, a hardline member of Iran’s parliament, urged Iran to treat a U.S. airstrike that killed a top Iranian general as an act of war, warranting immediate response.



https://americanmilitarynews.com/2020/01/report-iran-mp-threatens-attack-on-white-house-we-can-attack-the-white-house-itself/?utm_source=amn&utm_campaign=alt&utm_medium=facebook&fbclid=IwAR1fxvsuysUUBa6xA4qsOOTtpq5KePpJx9oyvGJkt PLmVUkw88AybqvoAHY

“We can attack the White House itself, we can respond to them on the American soil. We have the power, and God willing we will respond in an appropriate time,” Abutorabi said in comments first circulated by Iran’s ILNA news agency.

Abutorabi made his comments during parliamentary debates as to how the Iranian government should respond to the U.S. strike in Baghdad, Iraq that killed Gen. Qassem Soleimani. For Abutorabi, the answer was that Iran “should crush America’s teeth.”

“This is a declaration of war, which means if you hesitate you lose,”




This brings to mind an interesting question, a reverse and hypothetical situation:

How the U.S. would react if, during peace time, the Iranian government would send a raid to kill one of the top U.S. general :hmmm:

[AVGWarhawk]

^And yet, the majority of Trump'S voters do not want another war, and he said he will lead the US out of its many war operations and military engagements. It remains to be seen how this will be played by the WH when Iran goes tough, and how any war action will go with Trump's voters. In the past, victorious military operations helped potlicans to score at home. But this time? And whether it will be "victorious action" at all, also is not question with a predetermined answers. In the past 20, 25 years, the US has excelled in politically lose its wars which it militarily indeed should have won. Lack of understanding of the enemy's nature, and lacking strategic longterm foresight were the reasons. Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan nor the engagements during the socalled Arab Spring qualify for a description of successes, or to have achieved in the region what one hoped and claimed they would acchieve. To what degree the prevention of Muslim terrorism in the West counts on behalff of these wars, can be debated. I think other measurements taken are more relevant in this regard. They all came with massive legal fallout for freedom and civili rights and media freedom.


Trumps has stated numerous times he does not want a war and will not take the USA to war. However, Trump has always stated that acts such as the attack on the embassy and American lives lost will result in a reaction. As said, this past attack was not going to be another Benghazi. If Trump did not act on what he has said prior to this attack it would be taken as empty rhetoric. A weak position. Obama red line never existed. Trump has a red line.

[mapuc]

The awaiting response from Iran.

How they will react is unknown, even though they have said it will be militarily.

Our media have presented this as the attack is right around the corner.

I myself think it will come much later.

I would:

Attack them when they less expect it.
Attack them where they less expect it
Attack them in a way they less expect it.

Markus

[Mr Quatro]

Iran is still in morning for the general, but does anyone know what this blue thing is in their square: https://news.yahoo.com/mourners-pack-tehran-grieve-iran-general-soleimani-070158455.html


https://s.yimg.com/uu/api/res/1.2/O0ugEnM3O9UrTuxqZ8MulA--~B/aD01NzU7dz03Njg7c209MTthcHBpZD15dGFjaHlvbg--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/afp.com/d4e6129bcf24a3100714f85cb9bfa53345d98796.jpg

[AVGWarhawk]

Iran is still in morning for the general, but does anyone know what this blue thing is in their square: https://news.yahoo.com/mourners-pack-tehran-grieve-iran-general-soleimani-070158455.html


https://s.yimg.com/uu/api/res/1.2/O0ugEnM3O9UrTuxqZ8MulA--~B/aD01NzU7dz03Njg7c209MTthcHBpZD15dGFjaHlvbg--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/afp.com/d4e6129bcf24a3100714f85cb9bfa53345d98796.jpg


Command deck of the USS Enterprise. NCC-1701.

[Jimbuna]

To the best of my knowledge it is a rounfabout in the centre of Engelab Square but I'm not sure if the blue round shaped sphere is a monument or something similar.

Could be a leisure pool for the 72 virgins :hmmm:

[AVGWarhawk]

Could be a leisure pool for the 72 virgins :hmmm:

:har:

[Mr Quatro]

I know that Iran is jealous of SA black rock in Mecca ... so I was wondering if it is a worship symbol :hmmm:

Mean while Trump may be on the wrong path of threatening Iran with his tweet Saturday.

In a tweet Saturday night, Trump said that if Iran strikes any Americans or American assets, the United States has targeted 52 Iranian sites -- a reference to the number of Americans taken hostage in the 1979 revolution -- "some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture,"

Now wouldn't that be a hoot if he did that and got impeached for it :haha:

Trump's threatened attack on Iranian cultural sites could be a war crime if carried out

https://www.cbs46.com/trump-s-threatened-attack-on-iranian-cultural-sites-could-be/article_f1054b44-4b54-560b-9f71-eff7b6b743cc.html

After an al-Qaeda affiliated group destroyed ancient religious monuments in Timbuktu, Mali, in 2012, the International Criminal Court took on a unique criminal case: prosecuting cultural destruction.

Though it generally focuses on human rights violations, the ICC charged the leader of the jihadist group, Ahmad al-Faqi al-Mahdi, with a war crime for destroying cultural artifacts in Timbuktu.

The case was the first criminal charge of its kind. It "breaks new ground for the protection of humanity's shared cultural heritage and values," UNESCO Secretary-General Irina Bokova said at the time. Al-Mahdi eventually pleaded guilty and was sentenced to nine years in prison.

[Jimbuna]

https://i.postimg.cc/NGzGdn1T/81402386-3400909643314184-2553346418110627840-o.jpg (https://postimages.org/)

[ET2SN]

Um, Jim.
Bolton's gone.

:Kaleun_Wink:

[Aktungbby]

To the best of my knowledge it is a rounfabout in the centre of Engelab Square but I'm not sure if the blue round shaped sphere is a monument or something similar.

Could be a leisure pool for the 72 virgins :hmmm:73! HE GOT A POSTUMOUS PROMOTION TO LT. GENERAL! RANK HATH IT'S PRIVILEGES BBY!:O:
President Trump’s order to take out Qasem Soleimani was morally, constitutionally and strategically correct. It deserves more bipartisan support than the begrudging or negative reactions it has received thus far from my fellow Democrats.
The president’s decision was bold and unconventional. It’s understandable that the political class should have questions about it. But it isn’t understandable that all the questions are being raised by Democrats and all the praise is coming from Republicans. That divided response suggests the partisanship that has infected and disabled so much of U.S. domestic policy now also determines our elected leaders’ responses to major foreign-policy events and national-security issues, even the killing of a man responsible for murdering hundreds of Americans and planning to kill thousands more.
After World War II, Sen. Arthur Vandenberg, a Michigan Republican who was chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, formed a bipartisan partnership with President Truman that helped secure the postwar peace and greatly strengthened America’s position in the Cold War. “Politics stops at the water’s edge,” said Vandenberg when asked why he worked so closely with a Democratic president. He added that his fellow Americans undoubtedly had “earnest, honest, even vehement” differences of opinion on foreign policy, but if “we can keep partisan politics out of foreign affairs, it is entirely obvious that we shall speak with infinitely greater authority abroad.”
In their uniformly skeptical or negative reactions to Soleimani’s death, Democrats are falling well below Vandenberg’s standard and, I fear, creating the risk that the U.S. will be seen as acting and speaking with less authority abroad at this important time.
No American can dispute that Soleimani created, supported and directed a network of terrorist organizations that spread havoc in the Middle East. In Syria he made it possible for the Assad regime to respond with brutality to its own people’s demands for freedom. More than 500,000 Syrians have died since 2011 and millions more have been displaced from their homes.
During the Iraq war, Soleimani oversaw three camps in Iran where his elite Quds Force trained and equipped Iraqi militias. According to the U.S. government, these fighters have killed more than 600 American soldiers since 2003. In another time, this would have been a just cause for an American war against Iran, and certainly for trying to eliminate Soleimani. Within Iran, the Quds Force has worked with the supreme leader to suppress freedom and economic opportunity, jail dissident politicians and journalists, and kill protesters in the streets.
From the perspective of American values and interests, it’s impossible to mourn the death of such a man, and Democrats haven’t. Their response thus far has been “Yes, but . . .,” adding worries that Soleimani’s death will provoke a violent response from Iran. Democrats have also suggested that the Trump administration has no coherent strategy toward Iran or that Mr. Trump shouldn’t have acted without notice to and permission from Congress.
Yet if we allow fear of a self-declared enemy like Iran to dictate our actions, we will only encourage them to come after us and our allies more aggressively. Some Democrats have said that killing Soleimani will lead us into war with Iran. In fact, Soleimani and the Quds Force have been at war with the U.S. for years. It is more likely that his death will diminish the chances of a wider conflict because the demonstration of our willingness to kill him will give Iranian leaders (and probably others like Kim Jong Un ) much to fear.
Some Democrats have also refused to appreciate Soleimani’s elimination because they say it isn’t part of an overall strategy for the region. But based on the public record, there is a strategy, beginning with the Trump administration’s withdrawal from the Iran nuclear agreement, the shift to maximum economic pressure, and now adding a demonstrated willingness to respond with military force to Iran’s provocations. The goal is to bring the Iranian government back into negotiations to end its nuclear weapons program and rejoin the world’s economy.
The claim by some Democrats that Mr. Trump had no authority to order this attack without congressional approval is constitutionally untenable and practically senseless. Authority to act quickly to eliminate a threat to the U.S. is inherent in the powers granted to the president by the Constitution. It defies common sense to argue that the president must notify Congress or begin a formal process of authorization before acting on an imminent threat. C'MON HE TWEETED HIS INTENTIONS!:doh:
On many occasions President Obama sensibly ordered drone strikes on dangerous terrorist leaders, including U.S.-born Anwar al-Awlaki. He did so without specific congressional authorization, and without significant Democratic opposition. Mr. Obama also “brought justice” to Osama bin Laden without prior, explicit congressional approval.
It is possible that anti-Trump partisanship isn’t behind Democrats’ reluctance to say they’re glad Soleimani is dead. It may be that today’s Democratic Party simply doesn’t believe in the use of force against America’s enemies in the world. I don’t believe that is true, but episodes like this one may lead many Americans to wonder whether it is. If enough voters decide that Democrats can’t be trusted to keep America safe, Mr. Trump won’t have much trouble winning a second term in November. That’s one more reason Democrats should leave partisan politics at “the water’s edge” and, whatever their opinion of President Trump on other matters, stand together against Iran and dangerous leaders like Qasem Soleimani.
https://images.wsj.net/im-141513?width=620&size=1.5AS WITH ROBERT E. LEE UPON HEARING OF LT. GEN STONEWALL JACKSON(FATALLY WOUNDED) AT CHANCELLORSVILLE: "GENERAL (STONEWALL) JACKSON HAS LOST HIS LEFT ARM; I HAVE LOST MY RIGHT", AYATOLLAH ALI KAHMENEI HAS LOST HIS RIGHT HAND....THE LT. GENERAL HAS LOST HIS LEFT AND WILL NOT BE SO HANDY WITH THE VIRGINS IN PARADISE....:O: https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/soleimani_hand_ring.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=618&h=410&crop=1

[Jimbuna]

Um, Jim.
Bolton's gone.

:Kaleun_Wink:

Yeah, old image for the source I presume.

[Skybird]

Pentagon tells Iraq that US troops in coming days and weeks are relocating in preparation for a possible pulling out. It seems if Iraqi government tells them to leave, they will - with a fuming lil' boy leading the column, but they will pull out.



If they would not, techcially international law would turn their status into that of occupiers then.



Open lanes, streets and roads for Iran then. They want Iraq.



When will it ever be learned? When you embark on the path of military violence, you have to walk all the way, with all determination and until the very end. If they really would pull out, sanctions yes or not - Suleimani then would see the completing of his mssion from his grave - kicking the Americans out. That was his strategic mission in Iraq.



Looks as is they turn it into another military mission that they politically turn into another failure once again. Is there a medal to be won for a record in doing this? Suffer five strategic defeats and win a golden coin with a ribbon on it? Have they really thought they could take out the Al Quds mastermind and strategic architect of terror in the region, leave it to that, and win that way? I mean killing Suleimani always could have been the first step only!


Persia is the origin of chess, btw. A game nobody seems to play in Washington - but that they play in Moscow, Bejing, and Teheran. Chess, German: Schach, from Persian: Shah: king.

[Mr Quatro]

Pentagon tells Iraq that US troops in coming days and weeks are relocating in preparation for a possible pulling out. It seems if Iraqi government tells them to leave, they will - with a fuming lil' boy leading the column, but they will pull out.


Latest news is that a one star general wrote that letter and a four star general said that it was a mistake ... which part was a mistake has not yet surfaced.

The letter itself probably :yep:

[mapuc]

Some minutes ago I saw an issue on CNN where some sources inside US-military saying they are not planning on leaving.
Despite some note saying they are.

First of all this request or demand by the Iraqi government has to be sent to the US-government(I guess this is the correct way)

Their military is unwanted.

The same goes to other countries government.

Next question comes first after such a request or demand.

What will happened if US and its allied refuse ?
What will happened if the US and its allied withdraw its forces from Iraq ?

Markus

[Skybird]

Yes, seems to have been accident, however: a good commander plans ahead for all imaginable eventualities. One can safely assume that internally they indeed update altready existing plans for a possible pulling out. The mistake that seems to have happened is not that they update these plans, but that it became known.



Idf Iraq demands it, I think even the Ameinas sooner or later will leave. Lil' Boy will be fuming, and fire his sanctions. But whom in the region does he want to scare with sanciton anyway? Lifde in Iraq is miserable. Sanction will not make it worse for the people. It already IS worse.



The Europeans will leave for sure, if it is demanded. Moralists that they are they will not violate internationa law. If they stay while being demanded to leave, they become occupiers, so do the US troops. Bad propaganda, lousy PR, a free round for Iran again.

[mapuc]

Earlier this evening I saw in a link the headlines.

Iranian navy have no chance against USA.

This made me remember what an Iranian said to us, when I was studying to Industrial electricians in the beginning of the 90's

We discussed the Iraqi war(the first one)and what would happened if Iran joined forces with Iraq.

He said.
(from my memory)

"We may be beaten, our navy may be destroyed our airforce may be destroyed..the only thing we have to do is to sink or damage one of their carrier severe.
Thereafter we await the press and the people's reaction in USA"

Same thought I got then same thought popped up today.

What would happen in the American society if such a thing should happen
(a war breaks out and one of US-navy's carrier are damaged severe or sunk)?

I guess you answer will be
Will never happen or there will not be a war between USA and Iran.

Markus

[Skybird]

Western societies are vulnerable to mounting own losses, also their war index is low, means they find it harder to replace losses in young male fighters, because their women have less babies.

However I serously wonder how Iran would manage to sink or cripple a US carrier. It would need enorous assiahgcne by Chinese military and Chinese weaponry, and an intel-related effort that I thibk is beyond their reach.

US war index was 0.96 in 2018, and around 2.00 in the 70s.

Iran's war index in 2018 was 1.75, at the time they had their big war against Saddam's Iraq, it was around 4.3x. . They would not find a high-loss war like against Iraq as easy to digest anymore as back then, still they have bigger spiritual resistance in this regard. American mothers have less babies than Iranian ones.



Also, the war index is abot the ratio of young males versus old males. The morew young ones, the more aggressive, expansionistic energy a nation projects. Call it youth dynamics. Old people are too tired to want to fight battles and erect empires.


https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/weekly-standard/afghanistan-russia-and-the-war-index

That foreign power's wars in this region go so badly, has a lot to do with this ^. It foucsses on Afghanistan, nevertheless it illusatrate why you must take this data into account when considering Iran as well.



When American troops went into battle in 2001, Afghanistan’s war index was higher than ever. No matter how many smart bombs America and NATO dropped, Afghan forces grew stronger. The West was still not aware it was battling demographics. With an average of seven to eight children being born to each woman, Afghan insurgents could easily replace their losses.
So President Trump has good reason to feel uneasy about Afghanistan. Today Afghanistan’s pool of warriors numbers above 5 million; the country’s war index is almost 6.0.
This means the American military faces a difficult struggle in a still-volatile country. When a nation’s war index exceeds 3.0 (i.e. when there are 3,000 or more teens for every 1,000 older men) some form of violence becomes likely.
(...)
the hard reality is this: If the struggle in Afghanistan continues, in 13 years the pool of Afghan warriors will have jumped, since 2001, from 2.7 to 7.3 million men, and its war index of 4.24 will still be four times higher than in the US. If politicians push their armed forces toward combat, military leaders should first focus on the enemy’s war index. Where the index is 3.0 or higher, generals should think twice about intervening. If intervention cannot be avoided, military leaders should remember the expensive lessons learned by the Russians and the West alike: Planes, tanks, and troops have a limited impact when aggression is being driven by demographics.


I quote this not to distract from Iran to Afghanistan, but because there is a general lesson to be elarned form it, that by tendency is valid regarding Iran as well.

[Onkel Neal]

Pentagon tells Iraq that US troops in coming days and weeks are relocating in preparation for a possible pulling out. It seems if Iraqi government tells them to leave, they will




SO, I read this parliament vote was just 3 votes more than the quorum. I'm guessing the votes were all Shiites?

Doesn't sound like the mandate the press is reporting.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

I'm not sure why I'm supposed to be sad this one guy is dead. From what I understand, he was murdering scum.

[Skybird]

https://translate.google.de/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fzeitschrift-ip.dgap.org%2Fde%2Fip-die-zeitschrift%2Fthemen%2Fein-grandioses-taeuschungsmanoever


Written in autumn 2016. The author is a retired German ministerial director, was head of the planning staff in the Federal Ministry of Defense from 1982 to 1988. He is seen as one of the leading experts for nuclear security risks and was awared German, French and American decorations and medals in recognition of his expertise and service.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_R%C3%BChle


He also says in a more recent article that the socalled nculear deal never had a chance to accheive the claimed goal of banning Iran for 10-15 years from getting nuclear weapons. The article is locked and payware, unfortunately, so i cannot link and translate it.

[Skybird]

I'm not sure why I'm supposed to be sad this one guy is dead. From what I understand, he was murdering scum.
They call him the architect of the modern terror structure in the ME. That description is more precise, and correct. The blood of hundreds if not thousands drips off his hands. And he waged active war, year after year after year.



This was not just any general in a foreign country's army. He shoudl have ended up in the The Haguem, but unfortunately the Hague never rules for the gallow.


It irks me that Western media report about the hysteric funeral as if it were a state burial we should be concerned of and should pay tribute for. He was one of our most lethal enemies, and he has killed so many of us (Westerners and Israeli) . Eat and drink and celebrate life, I say!

[Rockstar]

Nobody has any desire whatsoever for Iran to have a nuclear weapon. Especially China, such a thing could escalate tensions, disrupt commerce, raise oil prices of which they depend on and disrupt their Silk Road intentions.
https://www.thenewsilkroadproject.com/writing/2018/6/17/chinas-silkroadsews-up-withturkeys-middle-corridor-then-into-central-asia-and-themiddle-east


Death to Tyrants and Freedom and Democracy for Syria? Not likely.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-25/natural-gas-war-burning-under-syria



I'm beginning to think our reasons for being in the Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan have little to do with Freedom and Democracy, ISIS or the Taliban. It is I think to establish U.S. friendly governments in an attempt to keep China from monopolizing the entire region. You hear many blame the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia being involved in plots against the U.S. that IMO meant to divide our alliance. All you have to do is read up on the backgrounds and beliefs of those Saudi nationals who committed acts of terrorism against the U.S. Their loyalties lie with the Muslim Brotherhood and or their goals not the Saudi government. Even that recent shooter at the Navy Base here in the U.S.

[Jimbuna]

Even when dead he is connected to yet more deaths.

Forty people have been killed in a stampede as Iranians flocked to the burial of a top commander killed in a US drone strike, officials say.

The deaths in Qasem Soleimani's hometown of Kerman led to the postponement of his interment. A new time will be announced later.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-51015795

[mapuc]

A friends friend wrote following in a comment to a friends post.

"USA and Israel will join forces and wipe Iran from the map once and for all"

I can't see any reason whatsoever to why Israel should or would take active part in a war between USA and Iran.

The only reason Israel would take part, would be defending them self.

Markus

[Skybird]

The only reason Israel would take part, would be defending them self.

^This. The point is that Israel already is at war with Iran. Iranian proxies launch attacks on Israel since years and years, and Iran establishes military presences in neighbouring countries, namely Lebanon and Syria. Israeli air force has repeatedly struck them - and also targetted Iranian weapon dumps and killed Iranian personnel. The war already is hot - its just still not on a huge scale.



Personally I hold zero sympathy for the idea of that you need to allow the other to hit and strike you first before your later attempt to defend yourself actually becomes self-defence instead of an act of "overreaction" and "excessive use of force not different to what the other did to you" and so yourself being declared to be "not better than your attacker". :o I am afraid of pain and injury, I am phobic to suffering, and I have a strong bias against needlessly allowing others to kill me. I try to take the other out BEFORE he can hit me. And in case of nuclear exchanges its simply stupid to wait for the first enemy impacts. You want to hit the other before he can even launch. ;)


BTW the US and Israel already have struck inside Iran, and probably repeatedly so. Remember the Stuxnet virus destroying Iranian centrifuges? That was a full-blown military attack, with innovative new weaponry. ;) In ancient times archers were not seen as formally legimtiated soldiers or knioghts, due to their new distance wepaons that knioghts and their armour could not reriost and suddenly endered their way of fighting useless. Still these invalid soldiers nevertheless killed knights. The sam emistake mit would be to say cyberweapons are nmot wepaons just becasue they have no warhead that goes boom and bang with bright light and loud sound.



Also, quite some Iranian nuclear expert has been mysteriously fallen victim to an accident, disappearance, or got simply openly assassinated inside Iran.



The war is being fought since years already. And people are dying since as long, and not few.

[mapuc]

^ You're right

There's an ongoing silent war between Israel and Iran a silent war most of us does not know anything about.

I also know Israel have set a red line(something with 90 %) if Iran are near this deadline-Israel will attack Iran in self defense.

It's this conflict we are witness to.

I don't think Israel is letting US using their airbases or their harbours in a war with Iran.

I don't think we will see fighter jets from USA and Israel attacking Iran or seeing soldiers from these two countries fighting Iranian military together.

Edit
Israel have their own missile defense - Iron Dome
End of Edit

I think, if a war is coming they will be on highest alert expecting anything.

Markus

[Torvald Von Mansee]

They call him the architect of the modern terror structure in the ME. That description is more precise, and correct. The blood of hundreds if not thousands drips off his hands. And he waged active war, year after year after year.



This was not just any general in a foreign country's army. He shoudl have ended up in the The Haguem, but unfortunately the Hague never rules for the gallow.


It irks me that Western media report about the hysteric funeral as if it were a state burial we should be concerned of and should pay tribute for. He was one of our most lethal enemies, and he has killed so many of us (Westerners and Israeli) . Eat and drink and celebrate life, I say!

L'Chaim!!!!

[August]

I think Sullimani was in Bagdhad to conduct a takeover of the US Embassy ala Tehran 1979. The first attempt to storm the embassy the other day was just a probe but they were gearing up for a second attempt and we got wind of it so we cut off the head of the snake before he could strike.



Trump is not Jimmy Carter and thank God for it.

[Tchocky]

It appears he was there in relation to a Saudi proposal to de-escalate tensions in the region.

[Tchocky]

Al-Asad airbase under Iranian missile attack right now.

Anbar province.

[Onkel Neal]

Here we go.