Iran vs the US Megathread

[Gagium]

The PRC showing responsible leadership here:

https://news.rthk.hk/rthk/en/component/ ... 200108.htm

China on Wednesday urged restraint from all sides after Iran launched missiles at Iraqi bases housing US and British troops, saying Beijing would play a "responsible role" in helping to defuse tensions

Iran fired more than a dozen ballistic missiles overnight at Iraqi bases housing coalition forces, the first act of the Islamic republic's promised revenge for the US killing of top general Qasem Soleimani last week.

"It is not in the interest of any party that the situation in the Middle East worsens further," foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said at a regular press briefing. "We call on the parties concerned to exercise restraint."

Geng said China would "play a responsible role in promoting a de-escalation of the situation as soon as possible".

China, a permanent member of the UN Security Council, is a key partner of Iran and a major buyer of the country's oil.

"China has always advocated that all parties concerned should properly resolve their conflicts and differences through dialogue, negotiation and other peaceful means," Geng said.

Iran's embassy in Beijing posted on Wednesday an announcement on China's Twitter-like Weibo platform that "the end of America's evil influence in West Asia has begun".

The post was "liked" more than 380,000 times on Wednesday, with multiple commenters cheering Iran.

"Support the people of Iran in attacking the world's number-one terrorist!" one user wrote. Others called the people of Iran "brothers," and some said they wished to donate money to Tehran.

Iran, China and Russia held joint naval drills in the Indian Ocean and the Gulf of Oman in December and the Iranian foreign minister visited Beijing on New Year's Eve. (AFP)

I’m glad that some nations are trying to calm things down.

Ironic.

[Aureumterra]

The PRC showing responsible leadership here:

https://news.rthk.hk/rthk/en/component/ ... 200108.htm

China on Wednesday urged restraint from all sides after Iran launched missiles at Iraqi bases housing US and British troops, saying Beijing would play a "responsible role" in helping to defuse tensions

Iran fired more than a dozen ballistic missiles overnight at Iraqi bases housing coalition forces, the first act of the Islamic republic's promised revenge for the US killing of top general Qasem Soleimani last week.

"It is not in the interest of any party that the situation in the Middle East worsens further," foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said at a regular press briefing. "We call on the parties concerned to exercise restraint."

Geng said China would "play a responsible role in promoting a de-escalation of the situation as soon as possible".

China, a permanent member of the UN Security Council, is a key partner of Iran and a major buyer of the country's oil.

"China has always advocated that all parties concerned should properly resolve their conflicts and differences through dialogue, negotiation and other peaceful means," Geng said.

Iran's embassy in Beijing posted on Wednesday an announcement on China's Twitter-like Weibo platform that "the end of America's evil influence in West Asia has begun".

The post was "liked" more than 380,000 times on Wednesday, with multiple commenters cheering Iran.

"Support the people of Iran in attacking the world's number-one terrorist!" one user wrote. Others called the people of Iran "brothers," and some said they wished to donate money to Tehran.

Iran, China and Russia held joint naval drills in the Indian Ocean and the Gulf of Oman in December and the Iranian foreign minister visited Beijing on New Year's Eve. (AFP)

I’m glad that some nations are trying to calm things down.

Am I surprised that the poster who defended killing the HK protestors is posting the PRC’s supposed "responsibility" again?

[Diarcesia]

The PRC showing responsible leadership here:

https://news.rthk.hk/rthk/en/component/ ... 200108.htm



I’m glad that some nations are trying to calm things down.

It's always favorable playing the "mediator". It only serves to benefit them attempting to take control of the situation. I rather not believe for a moment one of the worst countries in the world has honorable intentions. I rather Germany or the UK be the "responsible one".

Germany and the UK are just better at hiding their motivations.

[Tarsonis]

Nobody benefits from a war in Iran. The Strait of Hormuz is too important to the world.

[Trsmk2]

Nobody benefits from a war in Iran. The Strait of Hormuz is too important to the world.

Shale oil Manufacturer open Champagne

[Holy Tedalonia]

It's always favorable playing the "mediator". It only serves to benefit them attempting to take control of the situation. I rather not believe for a moment one of the worst countries in the world has honorable intentions. I rather Germany or the UK be the "responsible one".

Germany and the UK are just better at hiding their motivations.

Of course, but they have actual incentive to make sure both sides leave happy or at least not at war. As Germany and UK rely on the Arabic oil, but are allied to us. China is only really interested in keeping their oil supplier safe and secure.

Nobody benefits from a war in Iran. The Strait of Hormuz is too important to the world.

While this is true, the USA doesn't lose much in blockading the strait other then the world complaining about our action. If need be we can destroy Iran's economy. This is mainly because we are a oil exporter now.

[Alien Space Bats]

Do you know where Iran is on the map?

(Image)

I seriously hope this poll went wrong somehow...

You know, I really have to wonder about the people who located Iran near Toledo, Atlanta, or Phoenix... not to mention the score or so who thought it was somewhere near Oklahoma.

[Holy Tedalonia]

Do you know where Iran is on the map?

(Image)

I seriously hope this poll went wrong somehow...

You know, I really have to wonder about the people who located Iran near Toledo, Atlanta, or Phoenix... not to mention the score or so who thought it was somewhere near Oklahoma.

Probably just memelords who think it's funny to give a outlandish answer.

[Aureumterra]

You know, I really have to wonder about the people who located Iran near Toledo, Atlanta, or Phoenix... not to mention the score or so who thought it was somewhere near Oklahoma.

Probably just memelords who think it's funny to give a outlandish answer.

Many people guessed Iraq

[The South Falls]

You know, I really have to wonder about the people who located Iran near Toledo, Atlanta, or Phoenix... not to mention the score or so who thought it was somewhere near Oklahoma.

Probably just memelords who think it's funny to give a outlandish answer.

No one can be that stupid. Like, that's an outer limit of total stupidity.

[Alien Space Bats]

Pretty sure the US military technology has ways to deal cruise missiles.

Oh, sure they do. The typical U.S. warship can probably take out 80-90% of the cruise missiles sent its way, and that's on a bad day.

The typical tanker, OTOH, has zero ability to avoid getting hit by a cruise missile. And if insurance rates climb high enough, no one will be able to haul crude out of the Persian Gulf. THAT'S always been the big threat, not the likelihood of a U.S. warship getting taken out (although statistically, we almost certain WOULD lose a few warships over time, with 50-150 dead a pop; after all, even the best defensive systems are never 100% effective).

[Alien Space Bats]

I cannot fathom why people think marching into a country surrounded by mountains was even on the table? This would have been an aerial and artillery (via the Saudis) assault on key targets to bring their extremely unstable government to its knees and incite another revolution.

Iran survived an eight-year war against Iraq in which they lost three-quarters of a million men. That hardly suggests that the country is incapable of surviving a protracted U.S. air campaign.

You know, I'm old enough to remember the 1979 Islamic Revolution. People have been predicting the imminent demise of the current regime every year since then. You'd think at some point folks would learn, but evidently not...

[Alien Space Bats]

And even if we decide for regime change we could just do a Libya instead.

Let them figure it out on their own.

Libya was already in the midst of a revolution when we intervened; all we did was help it along. That's not the case in Iran.

Also we could and probably would just seize their islands in the gulf.

And the coastline? All 1500 km (or so of it)? Would we seize that, too?

You're assuming the Iranian people would turn on their own government and replace it with one more to our liking. What if they don't? What if they prove as resistant to that kind of pressure as, say, the people of North Vietnam did back in the '60s and '70s?

And what if the conflict drags on for months or even years with the Gulf closed to oil tankers? What happens to the global economy (including our own) then?

[Novus America]

Pretty sure the US military technology has ways to deal cruise missiles.

Oh, sure they do. The typical U.S. warship can probably take out 80-90% of the cruise missiles sent its way, and that's on a bad day.

The typical tanker, OTOH, has zero ability to avoid getting hit by a cruise missile. And if insurance rates climb high enough, no one will be able to haul crude out of the Persian Gulf. THAT'S always been the big threat, not the likelihood of a U.S. warship getting taken out (although statistically, we almost certain WOULD lose a few warships over time, with 50-150 dead a pop; after all, even the best defensive systems are never 100% effective).

Cruise missiles do not work against aircraft. Worse they only have LOS targeting radars.
Meaning said radars are limited by the horizon. Without aircraft you cannot see a ship more than about 25NM away.

They work in confined waters like the Gulf, but not so well in more open waters.

But yes, Iran could close off the Gulf for a month or two.

The problem with this is it would be murder suicide.
Iran could not move its oil either.

Plus the US would be harmed least. Europe and Asia would get hammered, but the US only gets a tiny fraction of its net oil demand from the Gulf.

[Novus America]

And even if we decide for regime change we could just do a Libya instead.

Let them figure it out on their own.

Libya was already in the midst of a revolution when we intervened; all we did was help it along. That's not the case in Iran.

Also we could and probably would just seize their islands in the gulf.

And the coastline? All 1500 km (or so of it)? Would we seize that, too?

You're assuming the Iranian people would turn on their own government and replace it with one more to our liking. What if they don't? What if they prove as resistant to that kind of pressure as, say, the people of North Vietnam did back in the '60s and '70s?

And what if the conflict drags on for months or even years with the Gulf closed to oil tankers? What happens to the global economy (including our own) then?

We do not need to seize their whole coast. Just their islands and establish air superiority.
The radar used to target the missiles are LOS, and thus cannot see past the horizon or past islands, and can be destroyed by aircraft.

And they might prove resistant to revolution but given the unrest the have faced recently seems unlikely. A small gas price increase started riots in the street.

But even so we do not have to topple their government, just get them to agree to enough demands.

The thing is the Gulf would be shut down a few months probably. Again a large land invasion is not even possible without months of planning anyways. By the time it is ready the war would probably be over.

And sure the global economy would get hit, but actually the US is best positioned to survive it.
We are nearly self sufficient in oil already and have a huge reserve of DUC wells.

The US would get hurt far less than most, but Iran would be destroyed. It would be suicide for Iran because Iran could not move its own oil.

[Holy Tedalonia]

I cannot fathom why people think marching into a country surrounded by mountains was even on the table? This would have been an aerial and artillery (via the Saudis) assault on key targets to bring their extremely unstable government to its knees and incite another revolution.

Iran survived an eight-year war against Iraq in which they lost three-quarters of a million men. That hardly suggests that the country is incapable of surviving a protracted U.S. air campaign.

You know, I'm old enough to remember the 1979 Islamic Revolution. People have been predicting the imminent demise of the current regime every year since then. You'd think at some point folks would learn, but evidently not...

Which is why US generals should focus on securing the strait rather then focusing on fruitless bombing.

[Alien Space Bats]

Did you just, like, forget radiation exists and that trudging through miles of radioactive fallout isn't a sound tactical strategy or...?

Small nukes (which is pretty much what the DPRK has; indeed, I don't think they've even tested a "boosted" [i.e., heavy water enhanced] fission weapon, which is what you need to break out of the 15-25KT range) produce less lasting radiation than larger weapons, and buttoned-up armor and mechanized infantry can penetrate irradiated zones to distances quite close to ground zero (i.e., within 50-100m of said aiming point) in most battlefield situations so long as they don't linger for more than 6-8 hours.

Plus you figure that you're going to lose a lot of the first wave through the blast zone anyway; the calculation making this acceptable is that you end up losing less than you would in a head-on fight.

Besides which, in the case of lower-yield (i.e., tactical range) weapons, the radiation levels taper off pretty fast anyway. People were wandering around Hiroshima and Nagasaki the day after each of those two bombings (which were ~15KT strikes, pretty much in the current North Korean range), and few if any of those people ended up dying of radiation poisoning after doing so.

This is all straight 1950s-era doctrine, which is pretty much what the Soviet-made gear the DPRK has today was designed for, anyway. No one's ever tried it before, but it's been studied to death for over 60 years, and it's definitely doable.

[Novus America]

I cannot fathom why people think marching into a country surrounded by mountains was even on the table? This would have been an aerial and artillery (via the Saudis) assault on key targets to bring their extremely unstable government to its knees and incite another revolution.

Iran survived an eight-year war against Iraq in which they lost three-quarters of a million men. That hardly suggests that the country is incapable of surviving a protracted U.S. air campaign.

You know, I'm old enough to remember the 1979 Islamic Revolution. People have been predicting the imminent demise of the current regime every year since then. You'd think at some point folks would learn, but evidently not...

During that they still could move oil. Iraq never had the capability to destroy their economic infrastructure. Or blockade them. Also times have changed, Iran has seen large scale unrest over the past few years.

Sure it has been able to suppress it for now. But that would be much harder to do if their economy completely collapses.

The thing is the US can do far more than Iraq’s incompetent military could.

I am not old enough to remember but I have read about it, and we beat Iran in 1988. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operati ... ing_Mantis
Did not topple their government but forced them to come to terms with us.

[Alien Space Bats]

Imagine being a commander and having your soldiers rush the shore to just see hundreds of soldiers slowing down and then dropping without a sound due to the radiation poisoning.

See my comments above. Plus radiation doesn't kill that fast (it takes hours in the case of the strongest lethal exposures, days in the case of more ordinary lethal levels of exposure), especially when you're dealing with weapons in the Hiroshima or Nagasaki range.

But yeah, given the gear available in 1945, that wouldn't have been the smartest idea. Ten years later, though, both the U.S. and the Soviet Union would have easily been able to pull that sort of thing off with the gear they'd developed in the intervening decade.

[Alien Space Bats]

The US isn't in the ME for religious reasons, so the constitutional right to freedom of religion means literally nothing with this.

I'm using the word "constitutional" in both the legal AND the more general sense, as in the sentence, "Donald Trump is constitutionally incapable of either telling the truth or caring about anybody but himself."

My broader point is this: The U.S. does NOT want to be involved (or choose sides) in the broader Sunni-Shia conflict. We don't have any dog in that fight, and we shouldn't even dream about having one. It's just not who we are.

[Alien Space Bats]

Why on earth would Iran accept a deal with the U.S. now? We can no longer negotiate with good faith, we've forfeited that possibility.

Now? No reason at all.

In ten years, after continued protracted pressure? Maybe.

[Gormwood]

Trump and FOXNews repeat the debunked bullshit about Iran's refunded assets to blame Obama for Iran's missile reprisal.

Trump: Iran missiles fired at US were paid for with money released by Obama administration

As Trump claims a win on Iran, he accuses Obama of funding its attacks

[Novus America]

The US isn't in the ME for religious reasons, so the constitutional right to freedom of religion means literally nothing with this.

I'm using the word "constitutional" in both the legal AND the more general sense, as in the sentence, "Donald Trump is constitutionally incapable of either telling the truth or caring about anybody but himself."

My broader point is this: The U.S. does NOT want to be involved (or choose sides) in the broader Sunni-Shia conflict. We don't have any dog in that fight, and we shouldn't even dream about having one. It's just not who we are.

As long as the Shia IR regime is in place, we do.
Because right now it benefits us if the Sunnis win.

Not because we care about the religious aspects.

[Alien Space Bats]

Eh Congress is responsible for giving the Presidency that power in the first place. While Congress does possess sole authority to declare war, the President also needs latitude to execute his role as commander and chief in the modern world. Article 1 made a lot more sense when it took 3 months to cross the Atlantic.

Article I still makes sense. Presidents can (and do) use military action to put the opposition in a difficult position ("Oppose me in war and you're helping the enemy") as well as to create situations in which the can claim triumphant positive accomplishments to boost their popularity and remain in power. The Framers worried about this possibility, and rightly so. That's why they gave the power to declare war to Congress, feeling that giving it to the President created too much opportunity for abuse.

Military forces may be able to deploy much faster on the world stage, but human behavior and relationships haven't really changed. We still need to restrain our Presidents in order to prevent them from becoming tyrants.

[Holy Tedalonia]

Why on earth would Iran accept a deal with the U.S. now? We can no longer negotiate with good faith, we've forfeited that possibility.

Now? No reason at all.

In ten years, after continued protracted pressure? Maybe.

We could see a even faster result if we blockade the strait. That being said though, we would be seen as aggressor unless brought under the right circumstances.