The coming war with Iran

Trump will win re-election. All of this is just for show and it will happen.

Better questions should be about what measures the current Iranian power base will do once cornered and how they will lash out. Imagine being told you are the worlds biggest supporter of terrorism and your long time enemies are seen as saviours and then your oil exports are cut down to such a level you cannot fund anything.

Time is running out for them and they are given demands they could not possibly comply with. Look at Venezuela and how thats turning out.

The Strait will look like a very promising target to them if things go south. The USN making a run for it to guard it would throw spasms into the market we can not afford. If oil goes up the economies around the world will crash as they are unstable outside of the stock market.

And lets not forget Israel wants Iran gone.

Quote

(04-22-2019 12:24 PM)Once Was Not Wrote:  Well this could be interesting. U.S. seems hell bent on taking all of Iran's oil off the market. No more waivers or exemptions. Iran says they're gonna block the straits. Will they blink or will they retaliate will all the pain that no crude exports puts on them and their people?

Iran Threatens To Block Key Oil Chokepoint If It Can No Longer Export Crude

Quote:Iran will block the world’s most important chokepoint for global oil trade, the Strait of Hormuz, if Tehran is barred from using it to export its oil, Navy Rear Admiral Alireza Tangsiri, Commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC), said on Monday, just as the U.S. announced that it would not be extending any waivers to Iranian oil customers.

"According to international law, the Strait of Hormuz is a marine passageway and if we are barred from using it, we will shut it down. In case of any threat, we will have not even an iota of doubt to protect and defend the Iranian waters. We will defend our prestige and embark on reciprocal acts when it comes to defending Iran's right," Iranian Fars news agency quoted Tangsiri as saying in an interview with Arabic-language al-Alam news channel on Monday.

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo tweeted early on Monday, confirming earlier reports that the U.S. planned to end all waivers when they expire in early May:

“Maximum pressure on the Iranian regime means maximum pressure. That’s why the U.S. will not issue any exceptions to Iranian oil importers. The global oil market remains well-supplied. We’re confident it will remain stable as jurisdictions transition away from Iranian crude.”

The Department of State confirmed:

“Today we are announcing the United States will not issue any additional Significant Reduction Exceptions to existing importers of Iranian oil. The Trump Administration has taken Iran’s oil exports to historic lows, and we are dramatically accelerating our pressure campaign in a calibrated way that meets our national security objectives while maintaining well supplied global oil markets.”

I have to say, it's weird to see Trump bitch about oil and gasoline prices when he's busy trying to take two big oil producer's completely out of the market. (Venezuela and Iran).

I say if we're helping the Saudi's in Yemen then they can stop with this production cut bullshit they're doing and stop promoting it to OPEC or we get out. They have to choose. Aramco IPO stock price, or help in Yemen...not both. Not that they have the spare production to cover two big producers but still...

"The global oil market remains well-supplied" that's pretty funny Pompeo. The market seems to think otherwise.

Well, thanks to Obama the US exports oil now. Because the US exports oil the over whelming incentives are for pushing prices higher, becoming a bigger portion of the supply side, or both.

Quote

(04-22-2019 06:50 PM)BBinger Wrote:  Well, thanks to Obama the US exports oil now. Because the US exports oil the over whelming incentives are for pushing prices higher, becoming a bigger portion of the supply side, or both.

There is a thread on EE about peak oil. Plenty of informed posters are/have discussed the peak oil situation and whether it has happened or not. There is also evidence shale oil is a bust and has never brought a profit and only exists through free money from credit and the government.

/thread-33831.html

Quote

(04-23-2019 11:03 AM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  

(04-22-2019 06:50 PM)BBinger Wrote:  Well, thanks to Obama the US exports oil now. Because the US exports oil the over whelming incentives are for pushing prices higher, becoming a bigger portion of the supply side, or both.

There is a thread on EE about peak oil. Plenty of informed posters are/have discussed the peak oil situation and whether it has happened or not. There is also evidence shale oil is a bust and has never brought a profit and only exists through free money from credit and the government.

/thread-33831.html

Shale oil is not a bust, it is a profitable industry today with production costs now below $40/barrel, down from over twice that much only five years ago!

For some weird reason, doomer posters just can't wrap their heads around this very basic, central factor in shale oil production.



The other central factor that doomers don't get is that extraction technology is always improving. There are about 500 years of oil in the ground as of what we know today, in the near future we will be able to access most of it.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/22/p...nt-matter/

Quote

Shale has definitely gotten their margins and costs under control. From October to the end of last year crude dropped almost 45% to just above $42. I looked at every US inventory report and it didn't make a dent in production. Steady 12 million barrels a day the whole way down. We're also producing more than 2 million bpd than a year ago. Biggest producer in the world actually. But, not a net exporter. We do export 2-3 million a day and import 5-6 million give or take.

Still, it's more oil on the market and less power in the hands of OPEC and the Saudi's.

Quote

Less power in the hands of OPEC? You do realise the US underscores the security of OPEC nations and they were effectively ordered to ramp up production to hurt Russia?

And 9/11 dont use those retarded insults towards me. I've seen you throw things like that in the thread I linked and it seems you have a vested interest in looking at it from a certain perspective so I'm hardly going to take your word for it when things can be misleading.

If energy is so easy to get in the US then why is the industrial complex and their butt buddies in the financial sector so hell bent on getting as many oil producing countries under the Western oil production umbrella?

Honestly I'd expect people here to see beyond charts and graphs of bullshit shale production and see the path we're on.

That trumped up turkey Pompeo basically stated "our dear friends and allies" - the arab nations, will pull up their bootstraps and replace that almost 5% production Iran will leave once the US starts hurting outside parties who want Iranian oil.

To trust arab nations is akin to trusting Israel and its leadership to not start wars and conflicts to their own ends. Colour me shocked when the Gulf nations dont do what the US demands they do in the future.

Quote

Foolsgold, I think you're being a bit thin-skinned there, but you being a good, positive poster, I'm sorry if I've offended you with my dismissive vocabulary. (and btw it's "911", as in the Porsche model, not "9/11"). But the crux of my argument is completely valid, the basic notion that shale industry costs have been shrinking in a most dramatic manner. This is a point that doomers have kept ignoring.

The operational cost numbers can't be fudged, we're talking about publicly traded companies and a whole industry with many operators and analysts. As OnceWasNot pointed out, the fact that shale production went unabated when oil price dipped to $42 gives you some indication of where their costs have dropped. Shale production costs are now in the mid-$20s:




The US will actively still try to control global oil production centers in the Gulf regardless of the fact it is achieving energy independence, for 3 reasons:

- The Petrodollar, with oil trade being conducted in US$ between third party countries like say, Koweit and Japan. This is one of the main pillars of the USD as the global currency, and because of this the US can sustain large trade deficits without a huge inflation.

- Geopolitics. Control over Gulf (and Venezuelan) production is a way to throttle emerging economic/geopolitical rivals, like China, Japan, India and W. Europe, whose economies are very dependent on oil imports.

Here's the picture of global oil reserves, reflecting very conservative estimates for couuntries with vast shale potential like the US and Russia:



- Israel. Most of the hostility against Iran today is driven by their zionist expansionist agenda, via agents like Kushner, and neocons like Bolton or Lena and AIPAC, which has a stranglehold on both parties. Iran is the only regional power left standing, and has helped foil Israeli plan for regime change and dismemberment of Syria and control over Lebanon.

Gulf nations are more or less puppet regimes, the recent palace coup in Saudi that put MbS in power was a way to ward off more independent minded leaders of the Saud clans, like "Dopey" prince Waleed. Qatar is the only sheikdom that has veered off the main coalition, its rulers allying with Turkey.

Quote

(04-24-2019 11:32 AM)911 Wrote:  Foolsgold, I think you're being a bit thin-skinned there, but you being a good, positive poster, I'm sorry if I've offended you with my dismissive vocabulary. (and btw it's "911", as in the Porsche model, not "9/11"). But the crux of my argument is completely valid, the basic notion that shale industry costs have been shrinking in a most dramatic manner. This is a point that doomers have kept ignoring.

The operational cost numbers can't be fudged, we're talking about publicly traded companies and a whole industry with many operators and analysts. As OnceWasNot pointed out, the fact that shale production went unabated when oil price dipped to $42 gives you some indication of where their costs have dropped. Shale production costs are now in the mid-$20s:




The US will actively still try to control global oil production centers in the Gulf regardless of the fact it is achieving energy independence, for 3 reasons:

- The Petrodollar, with oil trade being conducted in US$ between third party countries like say, Koweit and Japan. This is one of the main pillars of the USD as the global currency, and because of this the US can sustain large trade deficits without a huge inflation.

- Geopolitics. Control over Gulf (and Venezuelan) production is a way to throttle emerging economic/geopolitical rivals, like China, Japan, India and W. Europe, whose economies are very dependent on oil imports.

Here's the picture of global oil reserves, reflecting very conservative estimates for couuntries with vast shale potential like the US and Russia:



- Israel. Most of the hostility against Iran today is driven by their zionist expansionist agenda, via agents like Kushner, and neocons like Bolton or Lena and AIPAC, which has a stranglehold on both parties. Iran is the only regional power left standing, and has helped foil Israeli plan for regime change and dismemberment of Syria and control over Lebanon.

Gulf nations are more or less puppet regimes, the recent palace coup in Saudi that put MbS in power was a way to ward off more independent minded leaders of the Saud clans, like "Dopey" prince Waleed. Qatar is the only sheikdom that has veered off the main coalition, its rulers allying with Turkey.

Were Gaddafi and Saddam threats to Israel or threats to the petro dollar? Does Israel really aspire to become Greater Israel? And why is Somalia important in the Project for new American century?

Quote

When will these warmongering freaks finally fuck off?

Breitbart Wrote:Pompeo: ‘Absolutely’ the Case We’ve Seen Escalatory Action from Iran

ABOARD A MILITARY AIRCRAFT — Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Sunday evening that it is “absolutely” the case that the United States has seen “escalatory action” from Iran, prompting the deployment of a carrier strike group and a bomber task force.

“And the fact that if those actions take place if they do by some third party proxy, whether that’s a Shia militia group, the Houthis or Hezbollah, we will hold the Iranians — the Iranian leadership directly accountable for that,” he said.

Asked if he could clarify what the escalatory actions are, he responded, “No I can’t.”

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/...from-iran/

Quote

With all this escalation it feels inevitable something is going to happen. Probably Venezuela this term and Iran the next. We're like an addict that needs it's fix. I guess Syria and Yemen aren't enough.

Quote

That's how dying empires behave. They lash out trying to exert their influence.

Quote

@ HCE. The US has also parked a carrier nearby "just in case".

Quote

(05-06-2019 01:23 PM)Easy_C Wrote:  That's how dying empires behave. They lash out trying to exert their influence.

Trump went from Julius to Nero.

It's one thing to be destroyed by your enemies, it is another to be betrayed by the one you chose. History will not judge Trump kindly.

Quote

From a retired career CIA officer:

Quote:National Security Advisor John Bolton, aided by his comrade-in-arms Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, is doing everything possible to instigate a war with Iran. Naked aggression as a means of starting such a war may be too much for even Bolton to pull off, so the strategy has been to try to pressure and goad Iran into doing something—anything—that could be construed as a casus belli. So far, no doubt to Bolton’s frustration, Iran has exercised remarkable restraint in the face of unrelenting and escalating hostility from the Trump administration. Iran even continues to comply with its obligations under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the agreement that restricted Iran’s nuclear program, despite the U.S. reneging on the agreement and the resulting absence of economic improvement for Iran that was part of the deal. But Bolton keeps searching for still more ways to goad and to pressure.

https://lobelog.com/boltons-war/

Quote

I'll take info about Bolton doing everything he can when the mainstream actually starts reporting the real news and not this fake bullshit about Iran being the biggest supporter of terrorism in Syria. Nothing about Saudi. I can understand them not mentioning Israel helping ISIS but Saudi? Shine a light on 1 cockroach you will see others so its radio silence.

This is just ramping up so all is well with the donkeys that are the US tax payer. Optics are crucial here still and it wont go over well if they cant hook NATO into it with their lies like before.

Small town America needs propaganda to feel hate for some brown skins in some sand dunes over there remember.

Quote

Isn't the military industrial complex e.g Raytheon and Lockeed Martin as much to blame for the senseless wars asml much as Jews, maybe even more so?

Quote

We've heard this song before:

US sends Patriot missile system to Middle East amid Iran tensions

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48235940

The US is sending a Patriot missile-defence system to the Middle East amid escalating tensions with Iran.

A warship, USS Arlington, with amphibious vehicles and aircraft on board, will also join the USS Abraham Lincoln strike group in the Gulf.

And US B-52 bombers have arrived at a base in Qatar, the Pentagon said.


Sounds like they are making moves towards something. Just putting the feelers out, feeding propaganda to the masses to normalise shit when shit hits fan. B-52s though?

There are airbases all over the Middle East but I think the runway at Qatar is one of the longest and therefore needed for the B-52s. Al Udeid Air Base has a runway of 12000ft. so it provides that 10000ft. of length that the B52 likes to land, with ease.

But B52s? This must be posturing surely? They can't be planning to bomb the shit out of Iran?

Then again, in the unstoppable force and immovable object stakes, it's not like they are going to do a land invasion. They might drop in a few Paras/Airborne to strategic locations to target key facilities, but Iran has a lot of soldiers and a lot of armed civilians. Bombing the shit out of the country from 10000ft. is probably a better bet.

But to what end? Why? For Israel? For geopolitics and to control the centre of the grand chessboard? Regime change?

I guess Israel doesn't want them making any inroads to becoming a nuclear power, but I thought they knocked all those 'nuclear ambitions' on the head. Though they do have nuclear power, of course.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/220...lear-bomb/

The most ambitious effort ever to peacefully stop a country getting a nuclear bomb hangs by a thread this week. On 8 May Iranian president Hassan Rouhani announced that his country would start stockpiling low-enriched uranium and heavy water – a potential step towards building nuclear weapons.

The move was in response to US sanctions, despite Iran’s compliance with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which aims to limit the country’s potential bomb-making nuclear activities.


And so what if they do get the bomb? It's not like they are going to use it. MAD.


From the BBC article:

Officials told US media the USS Arlington had already been scheduled to go to the region, but its deployment was brought forward to provide enhanced command and control capabilities.

The USS Abraham Lincoln passed through the Suez Canal on Thursday, US Central Command said.


Again, why? They already have the 5th Fleet stationed at Manama in Bahrain. The world's largest naval deployment on the planet. That's why all of the Persian Gulf is blanked out when you view it on Google maps.

Those ships aren't just holed up in port there, they are wandering around various parts of the Gulf itself. But they decide to send another carrier. More posturing for public consumption, increasing preparedness for an attack? Or are they actually planning on getting their hands dirty this time?

I assume the 5th Fleet Strike Group would be enough to flatten Iran several times over by itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Fifth_Fleet

Missiles, fighter jets carrying missiles.

Talking of missiles.

Iran's semi-official Isna news agency quoted a senior Iranian cleric, Yousef Tabatabai-Nejad, as saying that the US military fleet could be "destroyed with one missile".

Iran has a massive amount of missiles. It's the backbone of their whole defense strategy. All along the many miles of coast (about 2500 Kms - it's a fractal remember) there are hidden and not so hidden missile batteries and silos that have been carefully chosen to pinpoint that one 40Km stretch of the Strait of Hormuz.

I guess that is what Tabatabai-Nejad is talking about. I'm not sure what the deadliest ASM (anti ship missile) is in their arsenal, but I know they have the deadly Sunburn: SS-N-22 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS-N-22 - traveling at Mach 3 less than 10 feet above the water, it's a menace.

Then again it's not as deadly as some would believe - though it might still 'spoil your day'. It wouldn't sink a Carrier even with a direct strike, and anti-missile defences stop it the majority of the time. But in the claustrophobic arena of that very small part of the Persian Gulf, things are different to being out at open sea.


The Sunburn is perhaps the most lethal anti-ship missile in the world, designed to fly as low as 9 feet above ground/water at more than 1,500 miles per hour (mach 2+). The missile uses a violent pop-up maneuver for its terminal approach to throw off Phalanx and other U.S. anti-missile defense systems. Given their low cost, they're perfectly suited for close quarter naval conflict in the bathtub-like Persian Gulf.

https://www.businessinsider.com/irans-ar...012-2?IR=T

You don't have to be Hannibal preparing for the Battle of Cannae to see that the Strait is a potential shooting gallery. Without a doubt, Iran has plotted and mapped every firing angle and location along the Gulf, their home-court coastline. This is going to put enormous interdiction pressure on U.S. warplanes to spot and destroy platforms, which may be as simple as a flat-bed truck. In reality, Iran has dug in from Jask in the east to Bandar in the west and can easily cover any ship, commercial or military, traversing the narrow Strait.


It might not be so easy to sink a Carrier with one strike, but a battery of them? On supporting vessels? You probably wouldn't want to sink a Carrier anyway as that is really upping the ante. Didn't America say that any sinking of one of their Carriers with the massive loss of life it would entail (5000 plus men) would be considered an attack on their 'sovereignty' and they would be quite happy to retaliate in kind with nuclear weapons?

That would really put the cat among the pigeons. Better to just sink a few supporting vessels and harrass. But I can't see Iran doing that first, no way, that would be in retaliation to America's belligerence.

And Bolton is belligerent isn't he? He must be wetting himself. Anyway, I thought that Trump didn't like his moustache? Let's face it, no one likes Bolton's gay fucking 'tache apart from (big boy) Bolton himself.

But this is no laughing matter. I mean, it probably won't happen. It's probably all theatre just to push Iran in to a corner and crush them economically, but still. What if shit gets real? What if Iran has something even more deadly in their ASM arsenal and they use it or just get lucky, even? What then? Even without a full sinking of a Carrier, America would go berserk at the loss of a thousand or two thousand lives. Fuck, they invaded whole countries over the death of 3000 people on 9/11. It would give them the very excuse they needed to just nuke Tehran. Israel probably wouldn't protest either. And there isn't even anything left of Iraq now to protest even if they wanted (which they wouldn't - no love lost there).

But Iran does have a more deadly version of the Sunburn in the form of the Onyx which can hit Bahrain:

Equally disturbing is Iran's missile range for the entire Persian Gulf. Bahrain itself could be hit by the longer-range version of the Sunburn, the Onyx. Is the U.S. (which has three aircraft carrier groups in play currently) going to stick around or clear out to the Oman Sea, leaving control of the oil lanes to Iran? Or will they stay and slug it out with the Iranians? If so, at what cost? Iran's strategic advantage may mean some losses for the 5th Fleet, if this gets played out on Iran's home court.

This article I am quoting from is 7 years old now. But it's still true that Russia and China are providing missiles to Iran. Who knows what they really have up their sleeve.

They also have the S-300 missile system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_missile_system

And an advanced version of it as well. So not even American fighter jets would be safe. I'd imagine they'd have no problem shooting down a slow B52. Would their fighter jet escorts have the capability to stop something that fast and deadly? A dozen of them?


I just can't see this happening in reality. If it does really happen, then we are at a time in our history where everyone would see it for what it was: pure American war-mongering.

But those bombs are getting old and near to their sell-by date, and we haven't had a good old war for a while now. It might just be what the doctor ordered if it is deemed to be convenient to distract from whatever other evil needs to be covered up.

The truth is, none of us know what is going on. We really don't know how far they will go. We don't even know why they do what they do really. Was Afghanistan and Iraq about oil? About Opium? About controlling the centre of the grand chessboard, just in case, to either be in a better position in future conflicts, or to just be in a better position to start and win whatever conflict takes the fancy to begin with?

More and more this posturing and sabre-rattling is making me nervous. I'm starting to think they might be serious, as insane as it would be.

Trump would be totally busted. As I said, I'll go along with the Trump train even to the point of misguided loyalty, but an attack on Iran would be a 'bridge too far'.

The whole Syria thing and spat that happened a while back could be explained in a dozen different ways depending on how you were prepared to give the benefit of the doubt. But an attack on Iran would garner no benefit of doubt at all.

They aren't angels. They probably do want to build a bomb. I get it.

But they aren't really bothering anyone outside of Iran, are they? I mean more than anyone else. I'm sure they have their proxies such as Hezbollah and all that, but still.

America, if you want to bomb the living daylights out of a country, then I vote for Mexico. They are flooding your country with illegals who take jobs and drive wages down. They flood your country with gangsters who sell drugs and deal in human trafficking - kids and women. They torture and they rape and they are sub-human many of them. And they hate you, and they are laughing at how weak you are. I could go on.

Churchill said that Russia is a puzzle wrapped up in an enigma wrapped in a mystery (I paraphrase). But America seems no less of a mystery to me sometimes. They sure do pick some funny battles and strange fights with others, while letting 'some' countries just shit all over them.

I don't pretend to understand.

But I'll know what's up if America decides to go to war with Iran on some 'trumped up' charges.

Fool me once...

Quote

Who knows with that moronic madman in the White House.

Quote

Iran could hit Saudi oil fields and refineries along with mining the strait and maybe even sinking a couple of very large container ships and perhaps an oil vessel.

Iran would not win but it will do everything it could to spite the US, Israel and the Saudis. The track record for conventional warfare for US/NATO is without a doubt not matched but we lost the majority of our soldiers to resistance and mercenaries.

Its easy to pop off an army but if that army goes to ground and thousands of pissed of Iranians join in along with the eventual Sunni insurgency courtesy of Saudi and Israel then you are talking massive casualties.

The better question is, what is the cost of such an endeavour and will the world stomach it? Afghanistan is still not solved and never will be, Syria isn't solved, Libya isn't solved and to put Iran on top of that pile of human misery? It would be quite an endeavour.

Just looking at the size of Iran and its position, I wouldn't put it against the Pentagon to think they will need two carrier groups to deal with it on top of the massive ground force needed.

Quote

For those that didn't read the links I posted:

The Sunburn is versatile, and can be fired from practically any platform, including just a flat bed truck. It has a 90-mile range, which is all that is necessary in the small Persian Gulf and 40-mile-wide Strait of Hormuz. Fired from shore a missile could hit a ship in the Strait in less than a minute. It presents a real threat to the U.S. Navy. Tests using the Aegean and RAM ship defense technology stops the Sunburn 95% of the time, but such testing was done in open seas, not a bathtub. The payload hit with a 750-pound conventional warhead can be witnessed at 1:53-1:57 in this video. Not enough to sink a carrier, but it could take down smaller capital ships and crew.

https://www.businessinsider.com/irans-ar...012-2?IR=T

Like I said, that article is 7 years old now and things have moved on. Russia and China have probably sold a few more lethal missiles to Iran for a bit of back-door oil. They can't go too far because America knows what is what in the field of missile defense. But you can bet your boots if there are any gray areas, they will be worked on and worked around.

Attack and defense capabilities will have moved on. But still, has any of this really been tested in anger yet? To more than a provisional degree?

You are always fighting the last war, as the saying goes.

The Iranians will have a boatload of those missiles. They will have them underground in the deep rock that is just a few miles off their coast. Who knows how many they have. They only need one to cause a ruckus. Whether that is taking down a battle ship, and changing the course of the 'war' via dwindling support at 'home' for American lives being lost, or taking down some other bigger ship whether by accident or design, and getting nuked in the process.

They even have a few of their own home grown missiles!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:B...es_of_Iran


We are all armchair generals. Even the real generals. Till shit gets real.

I hope there is something else at play here and we aren't seeing the beginnings of WWIII.

This has the potential to get out of hand very quickly.

Which is why I don't think any of this is serious and ultimately nothing will come of it, and it will all calm back down in a bit.

Things are quiet on the Western Front. So it doesn't hurt to rabble rouse the citizens in a game of 'Keep them on their toes'.

There will be no land war in Iran. And let's just hope there won't be a massive bombing campaign either.

I suppose a false flag would be a little too obvious at this point. Then again, at this point, who would question it.

The video linked in that article is over 10 years old:






But keep in mind this tech goes back almost half a century. It hasn't really been bettered. Only by degrees. So who would haggle about a mere decade? Law of diminishing returns and all that.

I have no doubt that Iran could destroy a significant amount of American hardware in the Gulf if push came to shove.

Ducks. Sitting.

Then again, I have no doubt they would never use that capability except under extreme duress.

They are not a threat.

This is what makes this coming scenario such a joke.


Armchair General, over and out...

Quote

(05-11-2019 06:34 PM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  Iran could hit Saudi oil fields and refineries along with mining the strait and maybe even sinking a couple of very large container ships and perhaps an oil vessel.

Iran would not win but it will do everything it could to spite the US, Israel and the Saudis. The track record for conventional warfare for US/NATO is without a doubt not matched but we lost the majority of our soldiers to resistance and mercenaries.

Its easy to pop off an army but if that army goes to ground and thousands of pissed of Iranians join in along with the eventual Sunni insurgency courtesy of Saudi and Israel then you are talking massive casualties.

The better question is, what is the cost of such an endeavour and will the world stomach it? Afghanistan is still not solved and never will be, Syria isn't solved, Libya isn't solved and to put Iran on top of that pile of human misery? It would be quite an endeavour.

Just looking at the size of Iran and its position, I wouldn't put it against the Pentagon to think they will need two carrier groups to deal with it on top of the massive ground force needed.

Iran could do a lot of things. But that is the crux of this argument.

Iran ain't going to do shit against a far superior force it does not want to antagonise.

Not cowardice. Just common sense.

But when shit meets fan, we might see just how uncowardly the Iranians are. If they are forced in to a corner, well, good, they hold that corner, like a Rat. That corner is called the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran holds all the cards really in a way, but they dare not play them because they don't have 'the bomb'. Which is why they are trying to get 'the bomb' and why everyone around them is trying to stop them from getting 'the bomb'.

But I have no doubt that if things get hairy and control is given over to the more religious zealots in Iran they will have no compunction about giving a little dig at some of the lesser battle ships. They still won't have the balls to sink a Carrier (even if they could). And by 'balls' I mean, the same common sense that stops me taking out a local drug dealer because I know it wouldn't just stop at jail time for me, it would mean payback for my family.

America is a mafia. The people that run America are a bigger mafia again. Whether it's the joos or old money or wtf.

Donald Trump had an opportunity here to really right the ship. But he seems to have gone AWOL. I'm still on board though. Until he hits Iran. But at that point we will know that it isn't even him barking the orders and running the show. I doubt he gives a fuck about Iran one way or another. Let us and wait and see.

Going back to your point - I don't think the Saudis will get involved at all. They are just too slimey and under the radar. Fuck, if the joos are bad, the Sauds are worse!

Everyone's hands are clean here except Trump who gets to pick up the bill (along with the American people). I do have a certain amount of empathy for the guy (and the American people at large who get dragged in to this shit).

But for fuck's sake, is no one going to take any responsibility at all in this day and age?


We really are at a point where things might just get biblical!

Quote

(05-11-2019 07:05 PM)Rigsby Wrote:  

(05-11-2019 06:34 PM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  Iran could hit Saudi oil fields and refineries along with mining the strait and maybe even sinking a couple of very large container ships and perhaps an oil vessel.

Iran would not win but it will do everything it could to spite the US, Israel and the Saudis. The track record for conventional warfare for US/NATO is without a doubt not matched but we lost the majority of our soldiers to resistance and mercenaries.

Its easy to pop off an army but if that army goes to ground and thousands of pissed of Iranians join in along with the eventual Sunni insurgency courtesy of Saudi and Israel then you are talking massive casualties.

The better question is, what is the cost of such an endeavour and will the world stomach it? Afghanistan is still not solved and never will be, Syria isn't solved, Libya isn't solved and to put Iran on top of that pile of human misery? It would be quite an endeavour.

Just looking at the size of Iran and its position, I wouldn't put it against the Pentagon to think they will need two carrier groups to deal with it on top of the massive ground force needed.

Iran could do a lot of things. But that is the crux of this argument.

Iran ain't going to do shit against a far superior force it does not want to antagonise.

Not cowardice. Just common sense.

But when shit meets fan, we might see just how uncowardly the Iranians are. If they are forced in to a corner, well, good, they hold that corner, like a Rat. That corner is called the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran holds all the cards really in a way, but they dare not play them because they don't have 'the bomb'. Which is why they are trying to get 'the bomb' and why everyone around them is trying to stop them from getting 'the bomb'.

But I have no doubt that if things get hairy and control is given over to the more religious zealots in Iran they will have no compunction about giving a little dig at some of the lesser battle ships. They still won't have the balls to sink a Carrier (even if they could). And by 'balls' I mean, the same common sense that stops me taking out a local drug dealer because I know it wouldn't just stop at jail time for me, it would mean payback for my family.

America is a mafia. The people that run America are a bigger mafia again. Whether it's the joos or old money or wtf.

Donald Trump had an opportunity here to really right the ship. But he seems to have gone AWOL. I'm still on board though. Until he hits Iran. But at that point we will know that it isn't even him barking the orders and running the show. I doubt he gives a fuck about Iran one way or another. Let us and wait and see.

Going back to your point - I don't think the Saudis will get involved at all. They are just too slimey and under the radar. Fuck, if the joos are bad, the Sauds are worse!

Everyone's hands are clean here except Trump who gets to pick up the bill (along with the American people). I do have a certain amount of empathy for the guy (and the American people at large who get dragged in to this shit).

But for fuck's sake, is no one going to take any responsibility at all in this day and age?


We really are at a point where things might just get biblical!

My one big dissent from your analysis is that if shooting happens, the best move is going to be sinking whatever US carriers are in missile range. This is also Venezuela's move if the US attacks them. When the USG aggresses it aggresses with impunity. Active Russian collaboration was the big factor that kept Syria from going down like Libya, but at the same time US involvement in Syria was denied across the board until at some point the script flipped and the US somehow was in Syria too long to simply just up and leave.

As Iran still enjoys the integrity of its borders, the Iranian move in the even of a US attack is unleashing the most devastating counter defense it can which means targeting any US ship in missile range.

If the US attacks and they can sink an aircraft carrier, they must sink the aircraft carrier. Yes the loss of life and the loss of an 11 figure replacement cost (before accounting for the complement of aircraft) capital ship will piss of the US, but it would also be a huge loss of face for the US.

But you are very right about the missiles. One thing that's changed since the US "Shock and Awe" campaign is that it has become clear the deterrent strategy against US attack is to bristle up with all the missiles a country can. If the US attacks China with carriers, the US loses its carriers to Chinese anti-ship missiles.

US versus Iran leads to a lot a very ugly World War scenarios. It also lead to Iran getting fucked up which means Iran has to fuck up US boats to the maximum extent it can. The US doesn't go for anything less than full ruination. If Iran has teeth they are going to have to bite back.

Quote

(05-11-2019 03:19 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  Who knows with that moronic madman in the White House.

Brah, you could have Trudeau, just saying.

(05-11-2019 09:59 PM)BBinger Wrote:  If the US attacks and they can sink an aircraft carrier, they must sink the aircraft carrier. Yes the loss of life and the loss of an 11 figure replacement cost.

Worst thing that could happen for Iran, the US would get cranky and decide to expend the last couple decades worth of munitions getting close to it's best before date. Do you think they really want to recycle that shit? Hell no! They want to drop it on some MF who most recently threatened them (and rightly so IMO).

Quote

(05-11-2019 10:20 PM)ChefAllDay Wrote:  

(05-11-2019 03:19 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  Who knows with that moronic madman in the White House.

Brah, you could have Trudeau, just saying.

(05-11-2019 09:59 PM)BBinger Wrote:  If the US attacks and they can sink an aircraft carrier, they must sink the aircraft carrier. Yes the loss of life and the loss of an 11 figure replacement cost.

Worst thing that could happen for Iran, the US would get cranky and decide to expend the last couple decades worth of munitions getting close to it's best before date. Do you think they really want to recycle that shit? Hell no! They want to drop it on some MF who most recently threatened them (and rightly so IMO).

There are no good options in a US versus Iran war for either side. The only real constraints are that the US would probably have to shoot first, and using nukes would draw a lot of ill will to the United States.

What reason does Iran have to not try to sink 11 figure price tag aircraft carriers other than the people bombing them will still be inclined to continue bombing them?

As far as things being right or not... The "Orange Man Bad" movement scared all of the reasonable picks away from Trump so that he is stuck with John Bolton and Mike Pompeo. Trump was making peace with North Korea's Kim dynasty of all people, but as President Trump has to divide his time among all the problems. As "Orange Man Fever" swept DC leaving Trump only the refuse pile to devote to day to day issues... Shit happens.

It is 2019, all of the bad things are on the table. Hope you are ready to play Fallout IRL edition.

Quote

What's stopping Iran from getting a nuclear deterrent? It's not like they have any incentive to hold back now.

Quote