We Were "This Close" Says Iran

Subs such as Iran posses are nothing more than instant under sea mass coffins with todays technology. Long ago by the end of WW2 putting out in a German U Boat was a suicide mission.

 

I don't understand your logic. Soleimani was not an Iranian version of CIA or Mossad. He was a General-Diplomat-High level official.

"If war was about to break out" - ? If this was the case then assassination of one that nations leaders (Hero's as you put it) would only enrage the Iranian Public (and leadership) which increases the probability of war.

Taking out one of the heads of Medusa - a head that will grow back a few seconds after it was taken out - only serves to enrage Medusa. While I suppose one could argue this has political value - there is zero strategic value in this action.

Rather this action had negative strategic value as the calls to remove US troops from Iraq have increased - which serves Iran's strategic interest - not our interest.

Further - Soliemani was on the front line in the fight against ISIS and Al Qaeda - so if anything the Strategic interest of the extremist Islamist movement was advanced.

Then you have the bigger picture. Violation of this millennia old covenant against target assassination of a nations high level officials does not advance our strategic interest. What it does is put our Diplomats and High level officials at risk - should other nations follow our lead.

How does this not increase instability in the world ?

Rather than being "a genius move" - this was yet another Trump administration blunder on the geopolitical chessboard.

Then you have the nuclear question. The Trump admin's actions have moved Iran closer towards obtaining nukes - not further away.

There is one group whose interests are served - the international financiers who own our military industrial complex and who dictate foreign and domestic policy.

 

You are wrong. Iran's mini subs, in particular, are very dangerous, can sit quietly in the shallow and confined waters of the Persian Gulf without being detected, and do a lot of damage. They are a serious concern to the US navy. In fact, it is often Iran's smallest vessels that pose the greatest danger to US naval forces. In this regard, Iran has (besides its large fleet of mostly small submarines) thousands of speed boats armed with missiles which, using Iran's swarming tactics, can inflict serious damage to the US naval forces in the Persian Gulf. That, along with Iran's very powerful anti-ship missile arsenal, including ballistic missiles designed to hit large naval vessels (including air craft carriers), make a confrontation with Iran particularly a concern for the US navy. In fact, many analysts often caution not to take talk about 'war with Iran' all that seriously, since frankly the US navy is simply not ready nor in any position for such a fight. Indeed, a tell tale sign of the US getting seriously ready to fight Iran isn't when the US increases its naval assets (targets) in the area, but take them out. As long as the US has these bases and targets for Iran to hit, it would take a lot of provocation on Iran's part for the US to be willing to put so many of its servicemen at risk.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/09/30/the-u-s-navy-isnt-ready-to-take-on-iran/
The U.S. Navy Isn’t Ready to Take On Iran
That’s why, for now, tough talk may remain just that.

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-...mmand-south-carolina-sitting-duck-iran-2019-9
The US military is practicing moving its Middle Eastern command base to South Carolina because its Qatar base is a 'sitting duck' for Iran

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/2019/06/04/what-war-with-iran-could-look-like/
What war with Iran could look like

 

Heard all this before prior to the Gulf War and you are wrong about your antiquated subs. They are worthless in the modern warfare world and it's likely we know where they all are at all times.

 

There is no question that we have overwhelming military superiority - and we both agree on this so you are preaching to the choir - but, there is more to this issue that that question.

Lets step back for a moment.

There was no question that Rome had military superiority against the Barbarians - yet - the Barbarians bankrupted Rome. There was no question that the British had military superiority - yet - the British Empire was bankrupted (as was the case with the previous economic empires - the Dutch and Spanish).

Throughout history - if the military superpower's economy was faltering - you could attack your neighbor and take their stuff. The rule of history has been - Technological innovation leads to Military Superiority which leads to economic hegemony.

Take the British for example - they had the gatling gun - with one gunship they could pretty much take over an entire African nation - fighting back with sticks and stones. The Return on Investment (ROI) was very high.

The natural tendency is for technology to spread - this is self evident. At some point down the road - the African Nation gets the gatling gun. (think of troops storming a hill in WW2 - one defended by machine gun turrets).

One gunship will not longer to - you have to send an entire armada - and you are going to take many casualties. The cost of projecting power has increased - and the ROI -has decreased.

This brings us to another rule of history - The cost of projecting power increases with time - most often to the point where the ROI becomes negative -bankrupting the Empire.

Yes we can overwhelm the enemy - but, at what cost. Projecting power over Iraq - a nation with a dilapidated military ravaged by the gulf war - coupled with a decade of sanctions and arms embargo. Saddam was simply to broke to maintain his military capacity -and even if he wanted to - there was an arms embargo. He was fighting back with dilapidated 1970's equipment - and an army that did not want to fight.

Our troops walked through the streets of Baghdad - and ideal environment for guerilla tactics - unscathed. Then we tried to project power over the region - 6 Trillion dollars later - what have we achieved ? The ROI was ridiculously negative.

We could have spent that money on infrastructure, technology, ramping up our economy to compete in the 3rd millennium. Instead we threw that money down the toilet -to pad the pockets of the international financiers who own the Military Industrial complex - with money borrowed from the same folks who own the banks - (500 Billion in interest per year) - and treating the tens of thousands of physically and psychologically wounded - by the healthcare and insurance oligopolies - owned by the same crowd.

Iraq was a joke compared to Iran. Iran has capabilities that are at least an order of magnitude above what Iraq had - including the ability to target the homeland.

You correctly stated "in some respects". That respect however happens to be long range cruise missiles. This is game changing technology. The same technology that allowed the US to have such overwhelming military superiority. When we attacked Iraq during the Gulf war .. what is the first thing we did ? .. a barrage of cruise missiles - taking out radar and missile batteries.

Iran could load up one or a number of container ships - with hundreds or thousands of cruise missiles - park the thing hundreds of miles off our coast - and let loose on our coastal cities. This is not fantasy - this is reality.

"Yeah but we would win in the end" - Of course we would - but, at what cost ? In addition to being able to target the homeland - they can target our bases in the region and our allies.

What do you figure the economic cost of shutting down the Straits of Hormuz would be- now combine that with blowing up Saudi Arabian pipeline infrastructure. What do you figure the price of oil would rise to ? "Damn - why is that Pipeline from Canada not built yet" ?

 

People trying to advance the ideal that Iranian naval asserts or air assets would be anything other than targets waiting to be destroyed for the US naval forces are simply wrong. USAF assets would only make the battle more decisive. We saw what total control of the air and superior armored forces are capable of doing in Iraq. Iran would be no different.

 

You seem under the impression I covet a war with Iran which is just not true. I'm merely saying if it came to that America would continue to be America while Iran would be effectively annihilated.
You bring up a good point though about the gap between our military capabilities shrinking with Iranian cruise missiles. How did it get to this point where a terrorist state shouting death to America was allowed to get this powerful. It makes me wonder if war with them is ultimately inevitable and the longer we wait the worse it will be for us. If I was president I'd be giving serious consideration to a first strike scenario to stop Iran from getting even stronger. American lives would be lost but ultimately many more would be saved. Not saying I'd do it but I'd be having serious discussions with my top military advisors about this and it would be on the table.

By the way I reject your comparison to Rome and Great Britain who were colonial powers looking to conquer and hold vast empires. America wants nothing of the sort but we do want as peaceful and prosperous a world as possible in order to do what we do, free trade and business. Sometimes this means quashing those that do seek empire.

 

1) How do these two statements (in bold) not contradict each other ? Regardless - you can bet your bottom dollar - your wife, kids, house and everything else you own - that the Pentagon has already considered this.

We did this with Iraq - where did it get us ? - the difference being is that Iran can hit back - and it can hit back hard. So the costs are even greater - and the ROI even more negative.

2) Iran is not a terrorist state - unless your definition includes the US as a "terrorist state". Saudi Arabia is a terrorist state - and we have armed them to the teeth with more sophisticated stuff than Iran has.

Taliban, Al Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, Al Shabaab, the nutjob Islamists in Pakistan, India and the ex Soviet "stans" - ALL follow the same Saudi inspired extremist Islamist Sunni/Salafi ideology. None of these groups are Shia - following some Iranian inspired ideology.

Saudi Arabia is the cradle of this extremist ideology - exporting this ideology all over the world for decades - supporting and arming these groups.

"Yeah but but - the Saudi's are our friends" - that does not change the fact that they are a terrorist nation.

Iran has been one of the countries fighting this terrorist scourge - as opposed to the US who has been arming and supporting Al Qaeda and other groups of the same ilk.

3) You completely missed the point of the Rome/Britain analogy - which was to point out the Historical imperative that the cost of projecting power increases as technology spreads.

We are now at a similar time in History - where the cost of projecting power is extremely high - and the ROI extremely low.

You say - "how did it get to this point" ? Technology has spread - that's how. The Russian's and Chinese are putting out very sophisticated technology - and they will sell some of that technology to anyone with cash. This problem going forward is only going to get worse.

Now we have this new drone threat - Put a few moments into thinking about this technology in the hands of a small terrorist cell. How do you defend against such a threat ?

Our carriers are already sitting ducks - obsolete against a major power such as Russia or China - not that these have a purpose in a war with these nations anyway as if we were to pose some significant threat to the homeland of these nations - nukes would start flying.

It is a pointless waste of money on that basis alone. So if these carriers are useless against the major powers - what is the point of having so many? Iran is the next largest power (in terms of being an enemy) - we don't need 10 big carriers and 9 smaller carriers to lay waste to Iran. 3 of the smaller one's would likely do the trick.

After Iran - who is next on the list - Somalia ? who is the next biggest threat after Iran ?

 

"This close"... to what?
Having their clock cleaned?
OH boy! Lucky us!!!

 

O

You are a long winded son of a gun. lol
My statements do not contradict each other. While having no thirst for war with Iraq I have to wonder if it's not necessary.

How did we get to this point is not about technology spreading but about how did we let a terrorist state acquire it without acting sooner.

You entirely missed my point. We seek no empire nor do we seek to project power for powers sake but we can't let a country like Iran become a world power. Did you learn nothing from the errors of our predecessors who turned a blind eye to Nazi Germany Fascist Italy and imperialist Japan?

Carriers and a super power conflict is another subject altogether . They are still effective in an Iranian type conflict.

 

About the only things they seem to understand, force and sanctions.

 

And they understand weakness as displayed by Obama when he gave them billions of dollars which funded the military we now face that has these very expensive missiles and drones at their disposal.

 

Necessary on what basis ?

It got to this point because of the rapidity at which technology spreads - everyone is getting this technology. I don't see how Iran is more of a threat than China Russia Pakistan, and so on. And we love terrorists state's so the whole "terrorist state) argument is out the window.

I did not say we did seek empire which is what you were claiming. The point of my comment was simply to show that the cost of projecting power increasing with time. That said - your claim that we do not seek economic hegemony/empire - is abject nonsense - if that is what you mean by empire .. and that is the only game left on the board. There is no such thing as Military Empire - like in the days of old. Those days disappeared with the advent of nukes.

Then you come out with this absurd accusation - about me learning nothing from Nazi Germany. Absurd nonsense this is - with a dose of projection. It is you that has not learned to assess the position on the board properly ... seemingly completely oblivious to the cost benefit equation.

I am about the betterment of the US - Throwing Trillions of dollars at Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Libya, Syria - has not been helping this nation - or the world for that matter.

Please explain to me how Iran - Militarily - is a threat comparable to that of Nazi Germany or Japan - on the basis of achieving the capability to build cruise missiles ? You are falling off the horse here.

 

True.

Some folks vastly over estimate their military ability in a conversion conflict though. They have antique aircraft, a small coastal navy and their land forces are equally outdated and outmatched. They simply do not have the technology or equipment to counter US forces.

They don’t lack courage or a fighting spirit, they have that without doubt.

But slinging mini subs, F14s and revamped T72s against US forces is not going to end well for them. And Trump is not the last few POTUSs, he will unleash the military on them full force. They could not withstand that kind of onslaught.

 

On the basis that war with Iraq is inevitable over the long haul. Letting them get so strong that they dare an all out war on Israel whos total destruction is their
stated goal and an act which would require our entrance into this all out war is not acceptable. Better now than then would be my policy.

It got to this point because Obama gave Iraq the funds to acquire this technology and turned a blind eye as they did.
We may need to take action before Iraq becomes another Nazi Germany or Imperialist Japan. Imagine the blood and treasure saved if we had nipped those countries in the bud.

 

A war with Iraq would be like a fight with a mortally wounded animal. They can do lots of damage in their death throws but they will ultimately die.

 

You have a distorted perspective - one fueled more by propaganda than some understanding of the situation on the ground.

Israel is an issue - but unless Iran attacks first - there is no reason for war - and it is certainly not inevitable. Iran was one of the first Muslim nations in the ME to recognize Israel's right to exist. Saudi Arabia on the other hand - they are the one's who dream about the total destruction of Israel. Iran supports the Palestinians - with small arms and supplies - it is what it is .. the blood feud between Israel and the Palestinians has been going on for 8 decades.

That is complete - utter - unadulterated nonsense. Who is feeding you these lies. Iran has been working on missile technology for decades.
Its not like they would have spent all the 100 billion on missile technology and it is not like that would have made much of a difference. Making missiles is cheap - Iran had plenty of money to maintain its missile program - technology is the hard part when it comes to making missiles - and money is not going to impact that equation significantly.

Iran has a 1.4 Trillion dollar economy - 100 billion is not going to have that much of an impact - Less than one year in extra revenue - and they were not spending that money all on missile technology - there is simply no point - perhaps they beefed up the budget - big deal. That is zero part of the reason why Iran has cruise missile technology.

 

https://m.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Co...ay-military-force-at-Al-Quds-rally-497736/amp

Obama lifted sanctions and gave Iran billions of dollars. It is naive to think that didn't fund the military they have today you speak so highly of.

 

'
Sure it likely helped them maintain military spending - most likely in other areas though. It had little to no effect on missile technology which is - and has been - their primary pursuit - for decades. They already had the technology and were building these missiles prior to getting the money. It is not like they were going to shut down their missile program had they not gotten the money ... they were busy as bees working on missile technology prior to getting the cash - and sanctions lifted.

Obama had no control over the sanctions in any case. The Sanctions that were in place were only effective because Russia -China - and Europe were on board. The entire security council was there France, Britain, Russia , China, US - along with Germany.

All of these nations had already told us they were going ahead with the deal- that these nations would lift sanctions as part of the deal. Obama could have gone "NO NO NO" we are not lifting sanctions - but that would not have made a difference when all the other nations were not party to those sanctions.

The Trump administrations move on the board has turned out to be a huge blunder. His solution - pull out of the deal - and try to force all the other nations of the world to comply with his sanctions. Think it was something like 19 out of 22 of his inner cabinet at the time told him not to do it.

The nations of the world went wild - stating not in private - but on the international stage - using the strongest language possible "You are messing with our sovereignty" Trump had unleashed the so called "Nuclear Option " - threatening to block a nations banks and corporations out of the international system of payments if they did not comply.

Imagine if some nation did that to us. How would you respond if you were a purchaser - and were tendering a contract - in which one of the companies bidding was from the Nation that was messing with your sovereignty.

And why would any sane person expect the people in the other nations of the world to act any differently ?

Every time we turn around - some nation is giving us the middle finger - Huawei 5G - numerous nations FU. Norstream - Germany FU
Italy - Belt and Road initiative (along with numerous others all over the world) FU - India, Turkey S-400 System - FU

And it goes on and on. While Trump is going around trying to club these other nations into submission - Russia - China -and these others are going around doing deals.

We are done in the ME - we just don't know it yet. Syria - Russia- Iran - Iraq - done. Saudi Arabia - will be followed by the other Gulf nations - Their largest customer is China now - not the US - China says "we want to use the Petro Yuan" they will use the Petro Yuan.

India is the next up and commer - we will have no preferred status there - Africa is up for Grabs - We will not be rebuilding Venezuela - Russia and China will be doing that - and their influence in South and central America is increasing.

Even Britain - the only ally that was part of the "Coalition of the willing" - told us to stuff it when we told them to not release the Iranian tanker.

Trump took a direct shot at the sovereignty of these nations - violated a long standing agreement in a very nasty way. We were "allowed" to have the "privilege" of running the global system of international payments - which was in US dollars. The benefit of having this privilege can not be understated - it is massive. We were "allowed" to have this privilege on the basis that we would not misuse it - and that is exactly what Trump has done - and the blowback has been intense - and still continues.

The nations of the world have ramped up efforts to introduce a competitor to the US system. In order for such a system to be a success - many other nations in the world need to agree - and why would they not - given how Trump just fked them over and totally misused our sole reserve currency status.

He has turned our corporations into global pariah's - at a time when we are facing competition like never before.

This is what Losing looks like - not winning.

 

Sanctions were working and between lifting them and giving Iran billions of dollars their missile program was not only put into high gear R&D wise but they suddenly had funds to manufacture them in bulk and we now have that to deal that.
Your assertion that unilateral sanctions don't hurt Iran are obviously wrong and the obvious proof is their failing economy since Trump reimposed them.
This is what Iran losing looks like.

"The US moves have hit the Iranian economy hard. While the oil-rich nation's crude exports have been down, inflation and unemployment have risen drastically."

https://m.dw.com/en/how-trumps-sanctions-are-crippling-irans-economy/a-49335908

 

I never asserted that unilateral sanctions were not hurting Iran - what the heck are you talking about ? - lets not get be making stuff up and attributing it to me. Sanctions are what brought Iran to the table - and what resulted in the nuclear deal - which was the purpose of the sanctions.

What part of "the other nations involved in the deal" were going to end the sanctions - did you not understand ? Did you expect Iran to deal and not have the sanctions lifted ?

What was/is the purpose of the sanctions ? "To bring Iran to the table over nukes" - They were not coming to the table without the sanctions being lifted - Duh - it was the whole purpose for which the sanctions were in place.

Iran was happily progressing towards a nuclear bomb - while the sanctions were in place - The security council got them to the table - and a deal was made - and Iran was following through on its end of the bargain according to those in charge of inspections.

What would you have the deal have done ? Get Iran to stop Uranium enrichment and keep the sanctions in place ? It would be idiotic to expect Iran to agree to such a thing. The other nations involved would never agree to such a mindless plan.

Dotard then started trying to add other things into the deal - things that had nothing to do with the nuclear issue. This is mindless stupidity on steroids.

Iran is suffering - no doubt about it - especially the people of Iran because that is who sanctions hurt most. So what ? At some point we get them back to the table - the deal will be the same that was offered originally - Iran will cease its enrichment - sanctions will be lifted and Iran will continue building its conventional arsenal.

In the meantime - we are getting our asses handed to us - our economic security taking serious hits - left right and center - because we have Dotard as commander and chief - thinking that global affairs is like negotiating with a supplier - and surrounding himself with nutjobs like Bolton.

So lets hear your plan - You are President how do you get Iran to the table - and what are your terms. Keep in mind that Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany are also at the table.

 

So you have been reduced to nothing more than a TDS rant and rave. Have a nice evening.

 

You have been reduced to name calling because you have been owned Now you run from the playground to stick head deep in the sandbox of denial - because you have no clue how to respond as your position is lost.

 

True enough.I have no response to a TDS rant.

 

You have no response to what your plan would be - Sorry that the Truth about your Hero causes you pain - and it is your partisan blindness that is the real TDS. Ho Ho Hoooo