There will be if Iran attacks the United States or does actually make efforts to close the straits. The international community will not tolerate it. That is when the pressure will start on Russia and China to cease doing business with them. If things remain the way they are, it's all just talk and nothing will come of it.
I dont know specifics of Iranian missile technology, the advent of GPS guided missiles highly increases their medium range effectiveness. It also wouldn't surprise me if Russia or China equips them with modern missiles or targeting systems. Just like Iraq in the late 80s and Vietnam in the 60s and 70s, our adversaries will supply rogue nations with modern weapons to test their effectiveness against the US.
Range has never been the problem for them, it's always been accuracy. Iran is currently trying to counter American technology by using solid-fueled missiles which give less of a signature before launch and while in flight. They are harder to detect. This doesn't help their accuracy though, just makes it harder for close in support weapons and other MtM to negate them. ESM and other counter measures (chaff and flares) will also play a role. As of right now, Iran doesn't possess a technological advantage in any area, despite having thousands of short and long range missiles. The current range can extend all the way to Israel and South-Eastern Europe. Certainly, something to worry about.
Sure there was...Iran enter Iraq after Obama pulled out, with the rise of ISIS, and has been fighting across the country into Syria. The Saudi's didn't invade Yeman...they put troops on the border because the Iranian funded terrorist group that overthrew the Yemen Govt was getting dangerously close to their border. There was no humanitarian crisis in Yemen until the Iranian sponsored terrorist became active...with that said the Saudi's along with a collation of 9 Gulf states did finally intervene after the Iranian backed terrorist violence became far to extreme. Part of the 9 States, include the UAE, and Jordan two of the most free states in the Gulf region
Yeah it has been a cat and mouse game where the mouse, Iran, has no where to hide. My point is Obama did nothing different than any other Pres and US Navy ship commanders have the right to fire upon a threatening vessel and it sure as heck doesn't matter who is Pres.
Oh, dear. The "Death to America!" crowd's servants in the United States are upset that Trump is cutting off their masters' cash flow. Boo-hoo. Yes, we HAVE seen this picture before... Operation Praying Mantis Operation Praying Mantis was an attack on 18 April 1988, by U.S. forces within Iranian territorial waters in retaliation for the Iranian mining of the Persian Gulf during the Iran–Iraq War and the subsequent damage to an American warship... By the end of the operation, U.S. air and surface units had sunk, or severely damaged, half of Iran's operational fleet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Mantis
I could be wrong, but I think the real changes have been in RoE (Rules of Engagement). I think Obama backed away from Iran because he was trying to make an arms and a nuclear deal. I am not sure if Trump has changed this. Trump did change the RoE when it came to going after ISIS, or allowed Gen. Mattis to make the changes which led to a much quicker defeat. I know we currently seem to be hyper-aware of what Iran is doing in the Gulf, as opposed to when Obama was President. Under Reagan and Bush Sr. we literally had an open ticket to attack them if they even looked threatening or if we thought they would become aggressive.
If attacking merchant ships in international waters in the circumstances described in the link is not terrorism, nothing is. How would you define a US attack on Iranian merchant ships in international waters? I gave you highlights from a timeline that shows the Iranian regime's frequent use of terror as a default method to achieve its goals . Need more recent attacks? Thought you'd remember recent attempts in several EU countries. Oh, well...
Most Arab countries have declared Hezbollah a terrorist organization. No aid and no support, whatsoever. Bahrain even deported Lebanese citizens who had links to or supported Hezbollah. https://mepc.org/commentary/arab-league-labels-hezbollah-terrorist-organization
Leaving factual inaccuracies aside, Iranian involvement in foreign countries almost wholly takes the form of special forces and intelligence services.
Training fighters, shipping weapons, actively funding terror, fighting proxy wars. The IRGC-QF alone numbers between 130K -180K. That is a pretty impressive.
Exactly correct -- which is exactly how the Iranians operated in eastern, central, and southern Iraq during the first years of the American 'incursion' there to get rid of Saddam. And the Iranians killed and maimed lots of American military personnel! Anyway, (yawn!) nobody should worry about these Islamo-morons closing, or even restricting, anyone's passage through the Straits of Hormuz. The reaction to something like that by any one of several other countries around the world could reduce Iran to a state of bewildered, stunned destruction. And believe this if nothing else -- Donald Trump would accept an Iranian invitation to a "cage match" like that with the greatest possible relish! ."So THAT's what thermobaric bomb does?! Have some more!"
You brought up Obama, not me. I was just explaining the difference. If you read my post with an open mind, you would see it wasn't actually a shot at Obama, but an explanation as to why Obama went softer on Iran. It's because he was trying to work out a political deal via John Kerry. But I can insult Obama all day, he is an easy target with a long list of disasters in foreign policy. Too bad he didn't take our enemies as serious as he did spying on American citizens. What a disgrace to out country he was. Thank God Trump is undoing almost all of it and restoring prestige back to our country.
Those "special forces" are proxy armies funded and equipped by Iran, fighting Iran's wars. It's not like Iran peacefully awaits for the Americans to attack. They're actively trying to take over the Middle East by all means, they've been doing it since 1979. The spread of Saudi inspired Salafism throughout Europe is a reaction to Iranian efforts to spread their own religious and political ideologies, a method to counter Iranian influence. It's an ongoing cold war with violent outbreaks now and then. The Middle East is complicated. It's the least understood region on Earth, I think.
Like I said, countries like Iran get to use their resources more efficiently than we do. Maintaining hegemony is far more difficult, orders of magnitude more difficult, than maintaining regional leverage.
Well, no, it's their special forces that build and maintain these proxy armies, but in a looser sense you're correct. Even further back than that. But the truth is that Iran isn't the most likely country to become the regional hegemon, Turkey is. Simply untrue. For over a millennia the way that wealthy Muslim rulers improve their prestige is to build religious education institutions. The fact that Salafism happened to be the creed of the wealthy Muslims of the mid-20th century was historical accident. For the most part, the Iranians and Saudis are trying to win different hearts and minds.
The bottom line is that Iran needs to assert itself strongly against the U.S. and the U.S. needs to atone for its misdeeds in Iran during the 1950 - 1970 period. An apology from Washington would be an excellent start.
I'll take that and argue the point no further. Further back? Details? Hegemony in the Muslim world is a different proposition. It involves spiritual leadership as well as - or even more than - political and economical hegemony. As long as the Saudis are the custodians of Mecca, they have the upper hand. Turkey is on a path to become an Islamic caliphate. Its leaders' ideology mirrors that of the Muslim Brotherhood, a soft takeover of all democratic institutions and slow destruction of democracy from within, until nothing but Islam remains. I'm not sure if Erdogan cares more about religion or about rebuilding the Ottoman Empire. Anyway, the Muslim Brotherhood is banned in most Arab countries right now, and those countries' leaders are not that stupid to let it back in through the Turkish backdoor. Besides, Turkish economy is intimately tied to Saudi wealth, so things are a bit more complex. I agree though that a secular, democratic Turkey could become a regional power in the Middle East. Salafism didn't happen to be the creed of the wealthy Muslims. It was widespread long before the takeover of the Arabian Peninsula by the Saudis. Salafism is not what most westerners think it is. There are several brands, actually. One of the ideologues of the Muslim Brotherhood, for instance, Sayyid Qutb, whose ideology is now rejected by the majority in the organization, is the driving power behind one the most (in)famous Salafi jihadist movements, Bin Laden's al Qaeda. That's Egyptian inspired Salafi jihadism, not Saudi. I found a very good analysis of the consequences of Iran's attempts to change the balance of power in the Middle East. https://www.lawfareblog.com/iranian-revolution-and-its-legacy-terrorism (Yes, I checked the author's credentials).
a war in the area would raise gas prices at the pump for sure so when is Trump gonna make this better deal then Obama with Iran? Iraq and Iran were at war, we stopped them... then we go to war with each... crazy
