Iran harassed the US Navy under Obama — here's why it stopped under Trump

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

So Iran stopped going after relatively meaningless symbolic propaganda scoring points and instead invests into effective policy-pursuing by strengthening its military engagement in Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and in militias in other countries.

Instead? Weren't they already doing both?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by August

Instead? Weren't they already doing both?

From Neal's link:

Instead, rushing US ships and putting them on the defensive, as well as capturing sailors, works mainly for propaganda purposes for Iran, whose authoritarian regime controls the media and pushes a heavily anti-US agenda. With Trump similarly focused on optics and pledging to revitalize the US military, Iran may have pivoted towards quietly pursuing its foreign policy goals, rather than making a scene that Trump could react to violently.
"There's another side of this," said Schanzer. "They understood that there was a change in the rules of the risk/reward calculus, but they also seem to understand that there was less of a policy with regard to their regional activity from Yemen to Iraq to Syria."
So while Iran has dropped the very visible, US-centric naval run-ins, it's picked up on recruiting militias, deploying its armed forces to Syria, and supplying anti-US and anti-Israel militant groups. "

A shift. A strengthening of the one policy, a greater ignoring of the other policy.

[Jimbuna]

@Catfish: I thought your deleted post was a fair one.

I'll add, you wouldn't see that form of naval harrassment against Chinese or Russian vessels whether friend or foe, the tolerance level would be at zero.

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

From Neal's link:



A shift. A strengthening of the one policy, a greater ignoring of the other policy.

Says some guy from some Washington think tank that nobody ever heard of, it isn't the Gospel Skybird.

For example the article makes a lot of use of phrases like "may have" and "seems to" and figures that these changes in activity coincided with the change in administration. Well imo that is far too early for Trumps policies however volatile to be implemented let alone for them to cause a real change in Iran's activities as a result. It's a lot easier to stop a single tactic like poking the US Navy with small boats off their own coast than it is to set up foreign military campaigns.

If there are indeed increased levels of activity now, just 14 months into Trumps administration, it's because Obama took his foot off their necks half a decade ago not because the Iranians have suddenly become militarily capable overnight.

The fact is Iran has been supplying militant groups, messing around in Syria and elsewhere and generally stirring the Pot of Trouble to varying degrees for decades. It's nothing new, but I understand the desire to make the implication that it's all Trumps fault.

[Skybird]

It has indeed, you must not tell me. It ust seesm that is has restrengthened certain efforts in this regard. Many mainstream media
since months say that Israel and Iran seem to head for a collision due to increased Iranian acivites over the past 6 months or longer. Iran gets also motivated by Russian patronage which has increased over Syria, and again: espcially in the last 6-12 months.

[Platapus]

Perhaps the US Navy has stopped moving into the disputed water area??

[August]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Perhaps the US Navy has stopped moving into the disputed water area??

So you're saying the US Navy was more agressive under the peace-nick Obama administration that it is under the war hawk Trump administration?

Naw I don't buy it.

[Catfish]

^ Obama just did not do it so openly, you know he thought about what the world might think about America. But maybe he just listened to one or two experts.

Regarding Obama bashing: Obama helped initialise the arabian spring, he tried to build up trust in the arabian world, he finally got Bin Laden, and he almost tied the Ukraina to the west; some of it did not work out mostly because of how the US had behaved in decades before, and some secret service screw-ups. However this is much more than some other presidents achieved. And other than Trump, he was no loose cannon on deck.

Regarding a provocation or an intentional breaching of territorial waters it was either aggressive behaviour aka willy waving, or a navigational error (incompetence). It also seems the engine of the rivererine command boat broke down at the wrong time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_U...naval_incident
You can of course blame it all on Obama.

But do you think that being openly aggressive is what makes a country?
You must really admire North Korea, China and Turkey then. I left out Russia, because its reluctant way is more like Obama behaved