US/Iran flirting with quagmire thred.

[Belesarius]

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/28613/everything-we-know-about-irans-claim-that-it-shot-down-a-u-s-rq-4-global-hawk-drone

 

Might as well start a thred for this shit.  Looks like there is gonna be enough stuff to keep a solo thred going.

 

[LoooSeR]

Saw claims that they shot down this UAV with system photo of which i posted somewhat recently

On 5/24/2019 at 3:48 PM, LoooSeR said:

Iranian Sevom Khordad. Range - up to 100 km, max height of target that can be engaged - 27 km

[Priory_of_Sion]

Seems that Trump does not want to start a conflict with Iran, which is great news. I don't know if he'll be able to tightrope his anti-war stance with his strong anti-Iranian positions & advisors forever. 

[Lord_James]

29 minutes ago, Priory_of_Sion said:

Seems that Trump does not want to start a conflict with Iran, which is great news. I don't know if he'll be able to tightrope his anti-war stance with his strong anti-Iranian positions & advisors forever. 

 

Not to mention, if Iran does it again, it will be a million times harder to play it off as “a mistake”. I hope it doesn’t come to war, because Iran will get absolutely rofl stomped, and also I don’t think many people would want another ISIS popping up in a country with possible nuclear weapons capability. 

[Walter_Sobchak]

31 minutes ago, Lord_James said:

 

Not to mention, if Iran does it again, it will be a million times harder to play it off as “a mistake”. I hope it doesn’t come to war, because Iran will get absolutely rofl stomped, and also I don’t think many people would want another ISIS popping up in a country with possible nuclear weapons capability. 

 

While I agree that the Iranian military lags far behind the US in terms of modern equipment and capabilities, I would not be so confident in the outcome of such a conflict.  It all depends on what goals the US sets as "victory" and how much of a commitment the US is willing to make.   Also, popular support for such a war in the US is going to remain really low unless Iran does something absolutely egregious, meaning that the US military will be very casualty adverse.  

 

Back in 2003 I was opposed to the Iraq war primarily on political and moral grounds.  I had assumed that if the war actually happened, it would be carried out competently.  For me, the biggest surprise was how poorly the whole thing was carried out.  Do not assume that US warmakers actually know what they are doing.

[LoooSeR]

6 minutes ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

While I agree that the Iranian military lags far behind the US in terms of modern equipment and capabilities, I would not be so confident in the outcome of such a conflict.  It all depends on what goals the US sets as "victory" and how much of a commitment the US is willing to make.   Also, popular support for such a war in the US is going to remain really low unless Iran does something absolutely egregious, meaning that the US military will be very casualty adverse.  

 

Back in 2003 I was opposed to the Iraq war primarily on political and moral grounds.  I had assumed that if the war actually happened, it would be carried out competently.  For me, the biggest surprise was how poorly the whole thing was carried out.  Do not assume that US warmakers actually know what they are doing.

   "US policy in ME is like an elephant in Chinese antique porcelain shop", phrase i heard about US politicians handling situation in Iraq after 2003.

[Ramlaen]

Trump offered Iran a way out without Iranian's dying but they don't seem interested.

 

 

[Lord_James]

 

Lets hope nukes don’t start flying. 

[Alzoc]

Iran is probably betting that the US won't actually commit to war based on the recent Irak and ISIS experiences.

 

In any case they dealt a blow to Trump credibility.

With their response to his tweet they made him look like a fool, and if he start to adopt a more martial rhetoric it won't sit well with his base either.

 

They are likely hoping that he'll be out in 2020 and hoping for a more reasonable US president to return to negotiations.

In the meantime more economical sanctions won't do much more damages: For one if Trump's out they won't have much time to apply their effects and next the existing ones already tanked their economy so badly it will hardly make a difference.

 

In this scenario, it's not a coincidence that the presidential campaign started recently, they dealt a blow to their opponent while giving even more reasons for their population to unify against an exterior foe.

[Priory_of_Sion]

21 minutes ago, Lord_James said:

Lets hope nukes don’t start flying. 

Here’s an interesting(frightening?) paper looking at the American nuclear taboo versus Iran: https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/full/10.1162/ISEC_a_00284

 

[Belesarius]

1 hour ago, Ramlaen said:

Trump offered Iran a way out without Iranian's dying but they don't seem interested.

 

 

I don't know that the US has the political willpower to deal with an extended conflict with Iran.  I would also expect a Trump government to have significant difficulty in building an international coalition to fight with Iran. He's pissed off a lot of allies. And on a personal level, I wouldn't waste a single American/Canadian/British life for anything to do with the middle east. Let the shithole rot.

 

[Xlucine]

3 hours ago, Lord_James said:

 

Not to mention, if Iran does it again, it will be a million times harder to play it off as “a mistake”. I hope it doesn’t come to war, because Iran will get absolutely rofl stomped, and also I don’t think many people would want another ISIS popping up in a country with possible nuclear weapons capability. 

 

"rofl-stomping" doesn't fit in the usual list of goals in conflict. Iran's likely goal is to be the biggest pain in the arse possible, and they have the deck stacked in their favour:

 

21% of the worlds oil flows through that strait, and it'll take anywhere from a week to a month to clear the mines (a week for a narrow, sort-of-safe channel, but what insurer would accept a 10% chance they lose the ship?). That's without iranian forces interrupting the MCM, or targeting tankers in other regions near the iranian coast (ASM launchers won't last longer than their first salvo, but that's a lot of missiles in the air. You can't reliably get them before they fire either, as iraqi scuds proved - and scuds are larger than ASMs). For reference  the 1979 oil crisis only involved a 4% drop in oil production, and lead to a doubling of the price of oil.

 

The US options to respond are pretty short of a rofl-stomp - they can muster a small air & naval campaign at best with the forces available. The first gulf war involved thousands of aircraft (compare to the few squadrons moved to the region recently), and even with a ground campaign saddam wasn't replaced. They could sink most of the iranian naval assets, probably enforce air superiority over the important bits, pop most of the ASM launchers, and might as well strike the nuclear facilities, but what's the end-state? How do they get the iranians to stop fighting, short of a total occupation (something that would be several times larger than gulf war 2)? ASMs have shown up in the hands of non-state actors, so a bloodied state actor like iran could dangle the credible threat of ASM strikes on nearby shipping for the foreseeable future even with a constant US fast jet presence.

 

Autonomous mine countermeasures has the potential to greatly improve MCM speed, but it's not ready today in the numbers needed and doesn't solve the ASM issue.

[Ramlaen]

 

[Belesarius]

53 minutes ago, Xlucine said:

 

" You can't reliably get them before they fire either, as iraqi scuds proved - and scuds are larger than ASMs). For reference  the 1979 oil crisis only involved a 4% drop in oil production, and lead to a doubling of the price of oil."

 

 

Iran has invested pretty heavily in disguising ASM launchers as standard shipping containers too, making the issue even trickier.

 

[Priory_of_Sion]

NYT is reporting that the US just worked up the courage to ask Iran to the prom but then got butterflies and didn't planned to strike sites in Iran, but Trump called it off while planes were in the air. 

[Walter_Sobchak]

41 minutes ago, Priory_of_Sion said:

NYT is reporting that the US just worked up the courage to ask Iran to the prom but then got butterflies and didn't planned to strike sites in Iran, but Trump called it off while planes were in the air. 

 

I just saw the same thing from ABC News.  Seems Trump reversed course against the advice of Bolton and Pompeo.  

[Belesarius]

1 hour ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

I just saw the same thing from ABC News.  Seems Trump reversed course against the advice of Bolton and Pompeo.  

Trump vs Repub. Hawks... Hmmm.

 

[Ramlaen]

https://www.apnews.com/84ad15edb7324472bb867852059a0a7a

Quote

The United States made preparations for a military strike against Iran on Thursday night in retaliation for the downing of a U.S. surveillance drone, but the operation was abruptly called off with just hours to go, a U.S. official said.

The official, who was not authorized to discuss the operation publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity, said the targets would have included radars and missile batteries. The New York Times reported that President Donald Trump had approved the strikes, but then called them off. The newspaper cited anonymous senior administration officials.

Quote

According to the official who spoke to The Associated Press, the strikes were recommended by the Pentagon and were among the options presented to senior administration officials.

Quote

The military operation was called off around 7:30 p.m. Washington time, after Trump had spent most of Thursday discussing Iran strategy with top national security advisers and congressional leaders.

 

[LoooSeR]

 

Map (Iranian version)

 

2nd one, blue shows borders of Iranian waters.

Spoiler

https://imp-navigator.livejournal.com/832172.html

 

   Iranians collected pieces of UAV:

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

[Xlucine]

Called off strike has been officially confirmed

 

[Walter_Sobchak]

2 hours ago, Xlucine said:

Called off strike has been officially confirmed

 

 

"Sites", not "sights".  

[Priory_of_Sion]

1 hour ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

"Sites", not "sights".  

I mean, this is what you should expect from a guy who has never read a book. 

 

It looks like this stuff has hurt Rex Tillerson's old company more than anyone else so far: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-iran-iraq-oil-exclusive/exclusive-exxons-53-billion-iraq-deal-hit-by-contract-snags-iran-tensions-sources-idUSKCN1TM0IZ

 

[Walter_Sobchak]

Trump has gone from "flirting with quagmire" to just plain flirting now.  MIGA!

 

 

[Priory_of_Sion]

It would be absolutely hilarious if Trump just wants to resign the JCPOA without any changes except a new name. 

[Mighty_Zuk]

6 hours ago, Priory_of_Sion said:

It would be absolutely hilarious if Trump just wants to resign the JCPOA without any changes except a new name. 

Trump's gonna anger a lot of people if he does it.

It became widespread "knowledge" that the ME allies were against all deals with Iran, when in fact most if not all would have wanted the deal to be expanded to include ballistic missiles, not outright cancelled.