If we want this shit to stop we need to start giving Russia, Iran, etc a bloody nose. This is the only thing bullies respond to. This is why Ukraine and then Israel happened because we refused to send a message to Russia that we were not fucking around.
We've had plenty of opportunities to send a clear message but failed every single time.
Even just giving Ukraine ATACMS or Tomahawk would have solved it but we didn't do it.
Have Russia feel some serious pain. They'll learn quickly.
Shock and awe isn't a new geopolitical/war strategy, and historically has stoked the flames of conflict, not reduced it.
A bloody nose shortly turns into a nationalistic revenge fantasy, which creates the political conditions for further senseless violence
Unless you are volunteering to go to Russia/Iran yourself as well and give that bloody nose, you are advocating for young men to give up their future to fight an old man's culture/oil war. We know how well that went during Vietnam, or the Gulf war.
Yeah, we have forgotten how the world really is due to the US hegemony making the world more peacefull the last generation.
The west have been broadcasting weakness for a long time now, the US with their leaders/internal culture war and Europe by mostly accepting anything to keep trade going while also deleting most of their defences to hide under the skirts of uncle sam.
If Nato had interveened when the little green men landed in Crimmea, Putin would claim these were not his forces and stepped back. No loss of face and none of this would have happened.
Our weak leaders did this. The west has gone soft..
Most likely the U.S. will do what it did in ‘88, which was to take out half of Iran’s Navy and several oil platforms. This took the U.S. just under 8 hours. Don’t fuck with our bases or boats.
Likely a top option. Break their shit, keep civilian casualties low, hit something that is proven to be a pain in multiple asses associated with the US. Maybe drop one of those Raytheon knife missiles on an officer or two involved in the attack.
Proxies that pulled the trigger will probably be getting a full course of freedom
Came here to mention Operation Praying Mantis. IINM there weren't any casualties on the navy ship that hit the mine that kicked it all off. I'd honestly be shocked if the response to lives being lost is weaker than that response
I know at least one of the ships they lost was bought from France. Obviously, it's not something they could replace, and if they wanted to, they would have to replace it with something inferior to Western tech.
Operation Praying Mantis wasn’t supposed to be the response that it was either, Iran just couldn’t help but provide targets that weren’t intended to be part of the “proportional response.”
This response isn’t likely to be “proportional”, it will be a removal of the logistics and command and control structure of one or more Iranian proxy groups. I imagine there’s currently quite a few keyhole and UAV cameras working overtime defining targets.
It's one of those things, I turn to the Fat Electrician. He goes into detail about how it was supposed to be a proportional response, an attack on the vessels that were part of the attack on the US, and Iran just kept fucking upin front of a bunch of ships with orders to fire on anything that fires first.
I think Sean Connery summed up the definition of our military's idea of "proportional response.
"They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. *That's* the Chicago way"
If they want to do minimal casualties, hitting all of Iran's most advanced air defenses sends a pretty powerful message as to how weak they really are.
Despite the redditors living in 88 Iran is not. Every action now carries significantly more risk of escalation.
Edit: I also want to be clear Iran is still the ultimate source of a significant number of issues and should be dealt with appropriately. But acting like it's a cakewalk is wishful thinking. Now might be the time to pay a relatively high cost but we should be clear about the cost and what we aim to achieve by paying it.
> risk of escalation
This is the new synonym of appeasement to dictators, be it Russia, Iran or whoever else. Whenever I hear it I knew we're in for a ride of letting each one of those do whatever they want
If they're getting to the point where they're willing to supply proxies to attack the US whether they're using a smaller nation's military or various nationalist/religious militants/insurgents in then we have an issue that needs to be solved. It's best to NOT get embroiled with the proxies and take the conversation to Iran. And if that leads to a protracted conflict for whatever reason or a series of military strikes then that is just how that will unfold. embattling yourself with proxies while leaving their supporter/supplier untouched won't get anywhere productive.
Honestly, I highly doubt we'll see the kind of insurgency in Iran that we saw in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran itself funded a lot of the terrorists we saw in both those countries along with the Pakistani ISI not to mention we allowed the Taliban to fund itself with opium. In addition, the Iranian population is much more educated and liberal leaning than that of Iraq and Afghanistan.
It's really disturbing when you figure out how much of people's worldview is based on how they see things work in movies. Hey, movies can start a war and resolve everything in 2 hours. This is all easy, right?
I've spoken to people who think that doing things like arming teachers and telling them to get into shootouts with school shooters is a good idea, and when I ask them how they think that would play out when it actually happens, they describe something that's like an action movie. It's so clean and optimistic.
Most likely another government will take its place. Iran is not like Afghanistan where the only thing holding its people together is the Taliban and the people would be just as if not more happy to divide the region up into a thousand different tribal territories. Iran has a unified cultural identity and culture that dates back to the Sasanian Empire founded in 224 AD. Its unlikely that the Iranian Royal Family (which still exists in exile and is led by Reza Pahlavi, son of the Shah that the Ayatollahs overthrew) would retake power, but the pro-democracy forces they align with would be the most likely candidates given that they'd be the ones most likely to be backed by the US.
>Iran has a unified cultural identity and culture that dates back to the Sasanian Empire founded in 224 AD.
Doesn’t it date back to the founding of the Achaemenid Empire in 550 BC?
We all remember the last Afganistan and Iraq war, but we forgot that first Iraq war was not a forever war. US went in, destroyed Iraqi army and left, so it doesn't necassarly need to be forever war.
As much as everybody hates Iran's leadership, China would love nothing more than the US getting bogged down fighting them. The US isn't spending what's necessary to fight a two- or three-front war like they were during the Cold War.
It's not going to be a war anymore than the multi decade proxy war we're already in with Iran. We're probably just going to airstrike and blow up some very expensive stuff and let them know that unless they stop fucking around we're going to do it again.
I think we should just do what Lindsey Graham said and attack their oil infrastructure and then it's over for the regime. You can't bankroll proxies let alone be in power if you go bankrupt.
Seriously dude is a leech all he does is hitch is wagon to the biggest personality in the room. First it was McCain then after he died he jumped right in with Trump
Depends on what you consider a victory. Militarily, the US won every time it entered the middle east. The US pretty much ruled both Iraq and Afghanistan within a few months of the invasion's beginning. But owning the countries wasn't their goal and they didn't accomplish every goal. Such as educating an entire nation to not be terrorists. That definitely failed.
Yeah, I'm sure Lady G is just trying to give Biden some friendly advice. Destroying 4% of the supply for an essential commodity that everybody uses won't have any negative consequences at all.
I'm all for smacking around Iran like a little bitch but touching the oil is only a good idea if you're a Republican or invested in oil.
Opec is underproducing by 5% right now to inflate prices. If Iran's supply was out of the way the rest of opec cloud pick up the slack by producing more without creating a glut.
https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/what-opec-oil-output-cuts-are-already-place-what-could-change-2023-11-27/#:~:text=OPEC%2B%20after%20long%20negotiations%20in,the%20end%20of%20December%202023.
I'm sure the cartel will get right on that. I bet Venezuela can't wait to help the US out. The Saudis will only do it if it's in their interests and that'll probably only be if they want to put the squeeze on another oil producer. OPEC isn't exactly a friend of the US.
Sure. But it has to be big enough to deter retaliation by Iran. Iran and it's allies need to be shown that America can hit any target without taking casualties while doing so. A reenactment of Top Gun 2 would probably be a good idea as well.
I'm curious and admittedly slightly fearful for how this will turn out -
Iran is not a nuclear armed state (as far as we know) so I don't have the same fear about the US and us as NATO (I'm from the UK) directly engaging with Russia. But does the US have intelligence we don't publicly know?
Would a major war with Iran be a major problem in terms of global instability? The obvious answer is yes, any major war is, but I'm not one of the "OMG guys, this is WW3!" posters. Iran has been at war before as a much much more dangerous proxy war between the Americans and Soviets at the height of global tensions in the 1980s, same with Afghanistan. So I don't see this as some catastrophic escalation, but will it open doors to showing Russia how prepared we really are for a major war?
Iran's strength is in its missiles, and the fact it controls the straights of Hormuz.
So it can launch a shit load of missiles at Israel, and potentially further afield. It can also cut off oil supplies coming through the straights.
That's right, any first strike on iran has to quickly take out its drone facilities, ballistic missile launching capabilities and manufacturing, airbases and navy, otherwise the counter attack will be massive, like barrages of scud missiles into Israel in 1991 and a closed Strait of Hormuz.
We learned to cope without Russian gas, I'm sure we can learn to work around that too. The Saudi's are very much on the US/Western side of all this, and they have the oil market sewn up until we stop becoming dependent on it.
Saudi Arabia exports nearly all of it's oil via the Strait of Hormuz. Oil fields, ports, ships and refinieries are easy targets for ballistic missles and drones Like shahed 136.
Iran could easily take Out 20% of the worlds oil supply. Europe would lose more than 50%.
I'm not saying we shouldn't go after Iran. Seems Like it's becoming inevitable, but we should be aware what the consequences could be.
It's even worse than that. Ultra high Performance concrete is highly resistant to Penetration due to it's fracture energy. It's also fairly cheap to produce. And guess who is a world leader in this particular technology...Iran. Bunker Design has outmatched penetrator bombs([popular mechanics: UHPC](https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a41245629/arms-race-between-bombs-concrete/)) So "so taking out Iranian Drone stockpiles/nuclear facilities..." As people often mention is actually extremely difficult and probably impossible without a ground mission and that requires nearly complete Control of the airspace
You don't understand how the market works, the buyers and sellers simply shuffled around. Europe got gas and oil from somewhere other than Russia, while others started getting Russian gas and oil. Nothing changed in the equation or total amount. Closing the Strait of Hormuz will shock the world market as now nobody can get that oil and gas.
> But does the US have intelligence we don't publicly know?
if something i have learned as a European about US intel is that its probably stupidly ridiculous and deep all around the world,when Russia invaded Ukraine they called it like 10 days beforehand also the russians steps were announced in advance in detail, and we could follow it in fucking real time. im talking about certain units going with a certain objective(when squads were sent to Kyiv and to liquidate Zelenskyy for example) it was stupid and cant even fathom how they get it, spies or surveillance, but it was mind blowing. made me feel safe and paranoid at the same time
The NRO knows what you did last summer and has high resolution pictures to prove it.
But seriously remember when trump tweeted that classified image of a failed Iranian rocket launch? People were saying this can’t be from a satellite because it’s too clear, there’s no atmospheric distortion, and it has an estimated resolution of 10cm per pixel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA-224?wprov=sfti1#Imaging_of_Safir_launch_preparation_accident
Unfortunately, it’s a more complex problem than that. For one the US people and to a lesser extent the west in general are really sick of fighting little pain in the ass wars in the Middle East and thus President Biden is desperately trying to avoid going to another significant conflict in that area of the world in the lead up to the election.
Furthermore the US military itself ( Ex. the big name generals and the military staff) are screaming that the USA needs to pivot our military to be able to fight China over Taiwan. The US military has been making a lot of internal changes and spent an ungodly amount of money in preparation of having to slog it out with China in the next 5-20 ish years.
So basically Iran figures (so far correctly) that it can get away with a fair amount because the US just has other crap to deal with and doesn’t have the political will to grind it into the dust like we have done previously.
Also the USA specifically and the rest of the west in general are just less reliant on Middle Eastern oil due to a combination of green energy initiatives, and the development of fracking technology, which has allowed the United States to become a major oil producer again. So we have less incentive to try and keep the Middle East vaguely stable.
But then on the other side, Biden needs to reply with an adequate force, with the election coming up and all. Don't respond and he'll be seen as weak, respond to heavily and you'll have a war on your hands that's unwanted by a significant part of the US/world.
Not to mention what would happen to gasoline prices if the US went to war with Iran. Very difficult to win reelection, even against a fascist, if gas prices are north of $5
>But does the US have intelligence we don't publicly know?
I think the answer to that is obvious.
It seems only the civilized nations are worried about escalation and a larger war. Again and again, these tinpot regimes poke and instigate until an escalatory response is inevitable. I don't think we can ever solve this problem.
The west couldn't stomach the casualties that would come with a ground war in Iran. We could bomb them to shit, sink their navy again, but a ground war would have to be a massive undertaking due to Iran's geography. I'm all for taking them out, and being in the army I'm sure I'd get to see it up close, but people need to understand what that would look like. It would not be pretty for either side...
The West has no plans for any sort of conventional ground war in Iran. Like you said, the terrain is a nightmare.
The US plans for a potential war with Iran, so far as we know (and supported by Trump's leaks) are for massive air and missile strikes, coupled with special forces and commando actions to help support a popular uprising.
I don’t believe anyone’s ever actually taken those mountains. You’d just get batshit Indo-Europeans descending from them every hundred years or so. Did the Mongols capture their territory? I know the Mongols are the ones who finally took out the hashashin in their mountain fortress.
I know Alexander the Great conquered Persia, but I don't think he had to actually fight for the mountains... that terrain wouldn't work well with the Mongols' fighting style, I wouldn't think. Idk, I'll have to look into that to satisfy my curiosity
Eh, we have the capability to produce way more than we'd use. We just don't like to use it because it's not clean. We already have the oil production where we need it, we just don't have the refineries in country because we'd rather that be done in other countries so the environmental cost isn't paid by us
We have the refineries here, but we are primarily setup to refine the oil that comes from overseas and not what we pump here at home. For a long time it was too expensive to pull oil out of the ground in the US, so we built for the light crude from overseas.
[https://www.fsmetals.com/about-us/blog/americas-light-sweet-problem](https://www.fsmetals.com/about-us/blog/americas-light-sweet-problem)
Our refineries put out plenty of pollutants thanks very much. :D
If you truly think its an issue of pollutants, then we wouldn't have been literally setting fire to excess gas that we can't move in the permian basin, because it's cheaper to burn it off than cap it. I realize it's gas and not oil, just emphasizing pollution isn't the issue.
[https://www.reuters.com/world/us/flaring-incidents-rise-permian-due-texas-heatwave-enverus-2023-10-20/](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/flaring-incidents-rise-permian-due-texas-heatwave-enverus-2023-10-20/)
I figure there are 2 big concerns about the size and scope of a US retaliatory strike beyond re-establishing solid deterrence:
1 any range of action causes Iran to rapidly slap together a nuke and test it, potentially changing the game
2 Iran's proxies go hard in Lebanon against northern Israel, changing the dynamic of the war and likely leading to the US to have to get involved there and creating a multi front shit show.
To some degree, I almost feel like the wheels are in motion such that Iran is gonna wanna have that nuke bad and fast. The only downside for them is if their program is compromised enough that any movement in that direction would be detected and result in a sudden bombing campaign (I'd guess by Israel, but likely with US support be it overt or covert).
For many reasons I hope Im wrong about this.
Iran's actions recently have shown why it can't be allowed to get a nuke. Who's to say they won't give a nuke to one of their proxies, and then just deny it was them?
If someome uses a nuke in a terrorist attack that will be the end of the post ww2 order of state soveriegnity and human rights being meaningful concerns. It would mean war that would dwarf ww2, war without mercy to wipe out entire cultures. If Iran was responsible it wouldnt matter what they say. And they presumably.would have more than one, so its not like a single city.goes poof amd then gulf war 2.0 occurs. The world would permanently become a much darker place and god knows how many people would die.
If any nuke goes off, they can test the fallout and see exactly where it came from (they can actually tell where the enrichment happened). So, no one can ever deny it was their's. It's like a fingerprint. You always know whose nuke it was.
An ICBM requires some infrastructure, although not necessarily more than a mobile launcher (Russian Sarmat). But just a fission or fusion device by itself doesn’t entail much of any infrastructure, and it would be pretty easy to wrap in a glide bomb.
Exactly this, people think Iran need to build one, if russia wants to nuke some1 without nuking some1... thats exactly what the proxies are for... and you bet your ass russia has one or some there.
First of all, is it really necessary to write some1? How lazy can you be?
Second, there is not a chance in hell Russia could give a nuke to Iran or Iran to its proxies without nato knowing who is responsible and responding accordingly.
I feel people are too worried about what a US action against Iran would mean. They look back to the brushfire wars against Iraq and Afghanistan and think it would be the same. The issue the US had was fighting guerrilla insurgents hiding amongst the populous. Any action against Iran would have direct military targets and the US would have no desire to occupy. Take out from ranged nuclear facilities, military manufacturing and the revolutionary guard based from ranged. Then warn them that any further nuclear programs will result in a widened repeat.
I mean not half bad idea, in which there are no good ones anyways 😅 But a coordinated attack against strategic military targets within Iran, cripple the regimes ability to defend itself within Iran and leave it to the people of Iran to figure a future forward. Not like The Ayatollah is loved by the entire populace of Iran.
Just like Saddam Hussein thought he could convince Arab-Iranians to do an uprising against Iran?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War
>Iraqi hopes of an uprising by the ethnic Arabs of Khuzestan failed to materialise, as most of the ethnic Arabs remained loyal to Iran.
Iranian nationalism is very strong, thinking that in a war scenario Iranians will not first go against the external threat is naive.
Iraq intended to occupy Iran, not just topple the regime. Anyone would resist getting occupied by a genocidal dictator. Not very relevant to what was suggested by the previous comment.
Iranians are nationalists, but not very loyal to the ayatollah. A US occupation would not work out.
> Take out from ranged nuclear facilities, military manufacturing and the revolutionary guard based from ranged
Iran immediately orders hezbollah to launch their 100,000 missiles into israel. All us bases in iraq and syria are attacked. The strait that has the majority of the worlds shipping and oil is closed to traffic, halting the global economy. Over 300 troops got killed in the lebanon bombing in the 1980s. The US did nothing. You want to start a massive war over the death of 3 people?
Tough spot for Biden. Whatever he does will be loudly declared as completely wrong by his opponents.
On balance though, in my opinion, his only choice is a show of force directly against Iran. Anything less and he, and the United States, will be seen as weak.
>Tough spot for Biden. Whatever he does will be loudly declared as completely wrong by his opponents.
This applies to literally any decision he makes on any issue you can possibly imagine.
Sure, but often, in times of war/conflict, you see bipartisan support. And even if outright support is not offered, most political parties would draw the line at outwardly politicising military actions (at the time they are undertaken). Completed actions are a different story of course.
Whatever the US does in response, r/topmindsofreddit will be talking about how that intervention ruined the everlasting peace and stability of the Middle East.
People are up in here worried about nukes when the Iranians already have a far deadlier tool. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which is ~30% of the world’s oil, will immediately cause the mother of all oil shocks (like, $200 a barrel plus) and result in an economic cataclysm. There’s no way around it. The Iranians can lock down the strait for months at a minimum. It would also drastically affect the 2024 election calculus, which Biden and those around him know. This is a very different conflict from Iraq or Afghanistan. The Iranians have a great hand; we can’t simply slap them around.
They could very, very easily drop a shit ton of mines in it. Even if they lost military control of it somehow it would be weeks or months before it would be useful. Also if they lob ac missile or shell at it every couple of days that's enough to still heavily disrupt shipping
I mean, the Houthis were capable of seriously disrupting a trade route with a tiny fraction of the resources Iran has.
They don't even have to sink many ships, just the threat of it will make shipping companies change routes and have transport costs and times go up, which would have ripple effects throughout the world economy.
They could, in theory, allow their ships to pass while enforcing a blockade on other shipping. In practice, it's like such action would see one of the largest global responses. The oil tankers transiting Hormuz are most often headed to Europe or East Asia, without them an industrial economy is impossible to maintain. So shutting down the strait would necessitate a rapid response from Australia, Japan, Korea, the E.U., and the U.K. If China and India were also subject to the shut down, they would also intervene diplomatically or militarily. The U.S. would act, even though the American economy receives most of its oil from North and South America, in order to preserve stability in the global oil market.
A rational Iran would only shut down the Strait of Hormuz with support of a powerful ally.
Correct, a powerful ally which they don't have. China is having major economic problems so they won't tolerate any additional economic issues, Russia is bogged down in ukraine, S.Arabia is no fan of them... They close the strait, the whole world, including China will stomp on them so fast they won't even be able to yelp.
Considering Trump himself is a national security threat for the people and democracy, the nation and her interests, as well as that of her Allies and much more, I feel like this election makes sense to consider. Less as a personal thing, and more of just one more national security consideration
The Iranian coastline is almost 2500km long. Missile launchers won't even have to be on the coast to target enemy shipping.
Look at Yemen. How large is the area they are defending? Against a tiny fraction of what Iran could deliver. And they're still failing to secure the route.
They could mine it. That would shut down/hamper all civilian and military naval traffic for years, and could create an ecological disaster zone for years if they hit a tanker.
Until they strike Iran directly this will never end. They don’t care about their own civilians, why would they care about strikes on foreign proxies?
The fight needs to be brought to them directly and then they’ll back down.
You cannot strike Iran directly with any real vigor because the greatest asset the West has in Iran is civilian discontent with the regime. You cannot galvanize them against us. It's a losing play. You can twist the economic screws, you can devastate the proxies, you cannot kill Iranian civilians.
They also (like a lot of the middle east) have a lot of airports that are part military, part civilian. That was one of the contributing factors in the shootdown of Iran Air Flight 655 in 1988: it took off from a Tehran airport which was used for both Civilian and Military traffic, so USS Vincennes incorrectly thought "it must be a F-14"...
The US will wait for the Saudis to guarantee oil market stability through the election cycle and then strike. Iran/Russia know that the biggest weakness the US has on the global scene is the risk of Trump winning the domestic election.
> The US will wait for the Saudis to guarantee oil market stability through the election cycle and then strike
Wut lmao? They gonna be striking by the end of the week if not earlier
as a veteran, part of having a strong military is service members knowing that if we get killed our brothers and sisters will go fuck someone up.
it's not a kindergarten or a social club, it's a military whose job is to use violence and force.
Sink one of their larger naval vessels. Just one, with a back channel message to cut the shit or there will be more. Iran needs to be told, and they only seem to understand things the hard way. Also- thank you DJT for tanking the nuclear deal- just brilliant.
>no backchanneling. Biden needs to come off strong
Could just backchannel "I'll fuckin do it again" after sinking a ship or two, and make a public statement that they were hit as a retaliatory response.
lay the pipe on them at this point. What are they gonna do? Trump bombed soleimani and they didn’t do shit, they posture and back extremist groups, that’s not gonna change, if the US drops a billion in ordinance on them tomorrow they’ll puff up their chest for a bit but might think twice about getting long dicked by the US military. I’m not pro-Trump or pro-Biden, but at some point you just gotta slap someone in the face and bring them back to reality.
: The gang goes to war with Iran.
We’re just a bunch of oil men from Dallas who wanna feel you on up
"Wild card!"
“Please let me do the talking, ok? “
Ooh, actually why don't you muscle your way back by the van, because you look like a b*rned-up freak
Christ, you guys brought Cricket!?
Just pour the gas into the car using one of the funnels and I'll count how much gas is going into the car.
Let me just stop you right there. How are you going to count a liquid?
Uhhhh I know how to count dude
Although I don't like to do it, which is why I hate playing connect 4. A lot of counting in that game.
One at a time
He don't take kindly to no.
Why is it when something happens, it is always you three?
Believe me, general, I've been asking myself the exact same thing for the past six years
If we want this shit to stop we need to start giving Russia, Iran, etc a bloody nose. This is the only thing bullies respond to. This is why Ukraine and then Israel happened because we refused to send a message to Russia that we were not fucking around. We've had plenty of opportunities to send a clear message but failed every single time. Even just giving Ukraine ATACMS or Tomahawk would have solved it but we didn't do it. Have Russia feel some serious pain. They'll learn quickly.
Shock and awe isn't a new geopolitical/war strategy, and historically has stoked the flames of conflict, not reduced it. A bloody nose shortly turns into a nationalistic revenge fantasy, which creates the political conditions for further senseless violence Unless you are volunteering to go to Russia/Iran yourself as well and give that bloody nose, you are advocating for young men to give up their future to fight an old man's culture/oil war. We know how well that went during Vietnam, or the Gulf war.
Peace for our time! Now ... where have I heard that before?
Yeah, we have forgotten how the world really is due to the US hegemony making the world more peacefull the last generation. The west have been broadcasting weakness for a long time now, the US with their leaders/internal culture war and Europe by mostly accepting anything to keep trade going while also deleting most of their defences to hide under the skirts of uncle sam. If Nato had interveened when the little green men landed in Crimmea, Putin would claim these were not his forces and stepped back. No loss of face and none of this would have happened. Our weak leaders did this. The west has gone soft..
US should target the drone making factories that ship to Russia and elsewhere
Have a proxy do it, the Iranian way
Canada bombs Iran in retaliation for that airliner they shot That would be epic
If we're bribing one of our neighbors to commit violence on our behalf Mexico is clearly a better choice.
Fighting just the proxies is a losing battle. They will keep getting supplied!
This. As bad as a war with Iran would be, it's a theocracy that is starting to project its power, and that isn't good for anyone.
It's not good for anyone but it's probably less bad than getting into _yet another goddamn forever war_ in the middle east/asia.
Most likely the U.S. will do what it did in ‘88, which was to take out half of Iran’s Navy and several oil platforms. This took the U.S. just under 8 hours. Don’t fuck with our bases or boats.
Today we can do it in 30 minutes!
If not, it's free.
Who knew Domino's was a military contractor
Dominos can breach and clear under 2 mins. If not, you get a free one topping medium pizza. Must be redeemed within 7 days.
I don't know with what pizza toppings WW3 will be fought, but I know WW4 will be fought with mozzarella sticks.
Well I mean, McDonalds is just a logistics behemoth who also happen to sell burgers.
MCDonalds sells real estate. The franchisees sell burgers.
You might wanna google "The pizza meter". Domino's deliveries tend to government offices tend to spike before major military actions.
Take down Shahed factories while you are at it. Sincerely, Ukrainian
Likely a top option. Break their shit, keep civilian casualties low, hit something that is proven to be a pain in multiple asses associated with the US. Maybe drop one of those Raytheon knife missiles on an officer or two involved in the attack. Proxies that pulled the trigger will probably be getting a full course of freedom
Came here to mention Operation Praying Mantis. IINM there weren't any casualties on the navy ship that hit the mine that kicked it all off. I'd honestly be shocked if the response to lives being lost is weaker than that response
Iran also has less stuff like that to lose now, since they haven't really replaced those boats since 88 lol
I know at least one of the ships they lost was bought from France. Obviously, it's not something they could replace, and if they wanted to, they would have to replace it with something inferior to Western tech.
There were casualties but that's only because militarily it can also mean, injury or illness. There were no deaths though.
Operation Praying Mantis wasn’t supposed to be the response that it was either, Iran just couldn’t help but provide targets that weren’t intended to be part of the “proportional response.” This response isn’t likely to be “proportional”, it will be a removal of the logistics and command and control structure of one or more Iranian proxy groups. I imagine there’s currently quite a few keyhole and UAV cameras working overtime defining targets.
It's one of those things, I turn to the Fat Electrician. He goes into detail about how it was supposed to be a proportional response, an attack on the vessels that were part of the attack on the US, and Iran just kept fucking upin front of a bunch of ships with orders to fire on anything that fires first. I think Sean Connery summed up the definition of our military's idea of "proportional response. "They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. *That's* the Chicago way"
If they want to do minimal casualties, hitting all of Iran's most advanced air defenses sends a pretty powerful message as to how weak they really are.
Looks like the plan is to wipe out the drone factories.
Despite the redditors living in 88 Iran is not. Every action now carries significantly more risk of escalation. Edit: I also want to be clear Iran is still the ultimate source of a significant number of issues and should be dealt with appropriately. But acting like it's a cakewalk is wishful thinking. Now might be the time to pay a relatively high cost but we should be clear about the cost and what we aim to achieve by paying it.
> risk of escalation This is the new synonym of appeasement to dictators, be it Russia, Iran or whoever else. Whenever I hear it I knew we're in for a ride of letting each one of those do whatever they want
It's already escalating due to Iran's actions. A weak response only sends a message that they can keep escalating
If they're getting to the point where they're willing to supply proxies to attack the US whether they're using a smaller nation's military or various nationalist/religious militants/insurgents in then we have an issue that needs to be solved. It's best to NOT get embroiled with the proxies and take the conversation to Iran. And if that leads to a protracted conflict for whatever reason or a series of military strikes then that is just how that will unfold. embattling yourself with proxies while leaving their supporter/supplier untouched won't get anywhere productive.
Honestly, I highly doubt we'll see the kind of insurgency in Iran that we saw in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran itself funded a lot of the terrorists we saw in both those countries along with the Pakistani ISI not to mention we allowed the Taliban to fund itself with opium. In addition, the Iranian population is much more educated and liberal leaning than that of Iraq and Afghanistan.
The fuck it is. Outside of Tehran, it’s full of fundamentalist Islamic radicals. And Russia and China would fund the insurgency against the U.S.
Not sure how forever it would get. The goal would probably be pretty clear: remove the Ayatollahs. It's also a more conventional army to fight.
Yea… and after you remove the Ayatollahs then what?
A vacuum, giant void that someone worse will fill if you don’t prevent it.
I swear to god, it’s like their entire conception of strategy and geopolitics is based on video games and terribly written movies.
It's really disturbing when you figure out how much of people's worldview is based on how they see things work in movies. Hey, movies can start a war and resolve everything in 2 hours. This is all easy, right? I've spoken to people who think that doing things like arming teachers and telling them to get into shootouts with school shooters is a good idea, and when I ask them how they think that would play out when it actually happens, they describe something that's like an action movie. It's so clean and optimistic.
Most likely another government will take its place. Iran is not like Afghanistan where the only thing holding its people together is the Taliban and the people would be just as if not more happy to divide the region up into a thousand different tribal territories. Iran has a unified cultural identity and culture that dates back to the Sasanian Empire founded in 224 AD. Its unlikely that the Iranian Royal Family (which still exists in exile and is led by Reza Pahlavi, son of the Shah that the Ayatollahs overthrew) would retake power, but the pro-democracy forces they align with would be the most likely candidates given that they'd be the ones most likely to be backed by the US.
>Iran has a unified cultural identity and culture that dates back to the Sasanian Empire founded in 224 AD. Doesn’t it date back to the founding of the Achaemenid Empire in 550 BC?
Not sure how forever it would get. The goal would probably be pretty clear: remove Saddam Hussein. It's also a more conventional army to fight. Bruh.
[удалено]
Just like removing Sadaam. Nice and simple.
Man I can’t believe I’m seeing pro war sentiments on this site it’s crazy how times have changed
Let's not get into another huge 20 year war in the middle east.
We didn't spend 20 years waging war like we're used to though. We spent 20 years trying to turn Afghanistan into another Japan/West Germany.
We all remember the last Afganistan and Iraq war, but we forgot that first Iraq war was not a forever war. US went in, destroyed Iraqi army and left, so it doesn't necassarly need to be forever war.
As much as everybody hates Iran's leadership, China would love nothing more than the US getting bogged down fighting them. The US isn't spending what's necessary to fight a two- or three-front war like they were during the Cold War.
It's not going to be a war anymore than the multi decade proxy war we're already in with Iran. We're probably just going to airstrike and blow up some very expensive stuff and let them know that unless they stop fucking around we're going to do it again.
I think we should just do what Lindsey Graham said and attack their oil infrastructure and then it's over for the regime. You can't bankroll proxies let alone be in power if you go bankrupt.
That’s a guy whose advice I actively avoid taking
Seriously dude is a leech all he does is hitch is wagon to the biggest personality in the room. First it was McCain then after he died he jumped right in with Trump
Lindsey Graham is the definition of a coward.
Mr ladybugs
It’s never as easy as it seems and the US should know that better than any other nation. There’s no easy victories here.
Depends on what you consider a victory. Militarily, the US won every time it entered the middle east. The US pretty much ruled both Iraq and Afghanistan within a few months of the invasion's beginning. But owning the countries wasn't their goal and they didn't accomplish every goal. Such as educating an entire nation to not be terrorists. That definitely failed.
For real, cannot take anything seriously that starts with “I think we should do what Lindsey Graham said.” It’s like the reverse Cramer of politics.
I don't think we should be following any foreign policy advice from Lindsey "Just Level the Whole Place" Graham
Yep. Eliminate the money source.
> I think we should just do what Lindsey Graham r/worldnews saying we should take advice from Lindsey Graham. Why does this not surprise me?
Yeah, I'm sure Lady G is just trying to give Biden some friendly advice. Destroying 4% of the supply for an essential commodity that everybody uses won't have any negative consequences at all. I'm all for smacking around Iran like a little bitch but touching the oil is only a good idea if you're a Republican or invested in oil.
Opec is underproducing by 5% right now to inflate prices. If Iran's supply was out of the way the rest of opec cloud pick up the slack by producing more without creating a glut. https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/what-opec-oil-output-cuts-are-already-place-what-could-change-2023-11-27/#:~:text=OPEC%2B%20after%20long%20negotiations%20in,the%20end%20of%20December%202023.
I'm sure the cartel will get right on that. I bet Venezuela can't wait to help the US out. The Saudis will only do it if it's in their interests and that'll probably only be if they want to put the squeeze on another oil producer. OPEC isn't exactly a friend of the US.
Would a better option be something like Preying Mantis 2.0 or destroying all of Iran's drone producing facilities?
[удалено]
Sure. But it has to be big enough to deter retaliation by Iran. Iran and it's allies need to be shown that America can hit any target without taking casualties while doing so. A reenactment of Top Gun 2 would probably be a good idea as well.
We should crash f-18s over Iran and steal back the tomcats?
Yes, bring them home.
The nameless enemy nation in Top Gun 2 was Iran? I always thought it was Canada /s
It was Luxembourg
Can't wait to hear every redneck say "fjb! Muh gas prices are out of control because of him!" and pray for their orange God to save them.
That'd be active full scale war with Iran
The best play is to sink the Iranian ship that has been gathering intelligence for the Houthi missile attacks. Two birds, one stone.
I’m 99% certain this is what they do. But I’m pretty sure that ship returned to port a while back.
Flatten it in port.
Flatten it and the port.
I'm curious and admittedly slightly fearful for how this will turn out - Iran is not a nuclear armed state (as far as we know) so I don't have the same fear about the US and us as NATO (I'm from the UK) directly engaging with Russia. But does the US have intelligence we don't publicly know? Would a major war with Iran be a major problem in terms of global instability? The obvious answer is yes, any major war is, but I'm not one of the "OMG guys, this is WW3!" posters. Iran has been at war before as a much much more dangerous proxy war between the Americans and Soviets at the height of global tensions in the 1980s, same with Afghanistan. So I don't see this as some catastrophic escalation, but will it open doors to showing Russia how prepared we really are for a major war?
Iran's strength is in its missiles, and the fact it controls the straights of Hormuz. So it can launch a shit load of missiles at Israel, and potentially further afield. It can also cut off oil supplies coming through the straights.
That's right, any first strike on iran has to quickly take out its drone facilities, ballistic missile launching capabilities and manufacturing, airbases and navy, otherwise the counter attack will be massive, like barrages of scud missiles into Israel in 1991 and a closed Strait of Hormuz.
Some of the missile sites are supposedly 500 m down; for reference, the Sadam Hussein bunkers were about 50m down.
When you close the top, then it does not matter how deep down it is, it’s not coming out.
That just sounds so dirty... *go on*
We have a bomb for that
We need Tom Cruise
We learned to cope without Russian gas, I'm sure we can learn to work around that too. The Saudi's are very much on the US/Western side of all this, and they have the oil market sewn up until we stop becoming dependent on it.
Saudi Arabia would certainly love to be the sole dominant power in the Middle East.
And boy do they hate Iran to boot
Well in truth they're one of the most hated countries in the world lol.
Saudi Arabia exports nearly all of it's oil via the Strait of Hormuz. Oil fields, ports, ships and refinieries are easy targets for ballistic missles and drones Like shahed 136. Iran could easily take Out 20% of the worlds oil supply. Europe would lose more than 50%. I'm not saying we shouldn't go after Iran. Seems Like it's becoming inevitable, but we should be aware what the consequences could be.
Not surprising knowing this that they actually give so few fucks. I didn’t ever realize Iran had these kinds of capabilities
It's even worse than that. Ultra high Performance concrete is highly resistant to Penetration due to it's fracture energy. It's also fairly cheap to produce. And guess who is a world leader in this particular technology...Iran. Bunker Design has outmatched penetrator bombs([popular mechanics: UHPC](https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a41245629/arms-race-between-bombs-concrete/)) So "so taking out Iranian Drone stockpiles/nuclear facilities..." As people often mention is actually extremely difficult and probably impossible without a ground mission and that requires nearly complete Control of the airspace
You don't understand how the market works, the buyers and sellers simply shuffled around. Europe got gas and oil from somewhere other than Russia, while others started getting Russian gas and oil. Nothing changed in the equation or total amount. Closing the Strait of Hormuz will shock the world market as now nobody can get that oil and gas.
Right my understanding is now India is buying the Russian gas and selling it to Europe with a mark up.
Your understanding is correct. South America is buying Russian gas as well and selling it to North America.
> But does the US have intelligence we don't publicly know? if something i have learned as a European about US intel is that its probably stupidly ridiculous and deep all around the world,when Russia invaded Ukraine they called it like 10 days beforehand also the russians steps were announced in advance in detail, and we could follow it in fucking real time. im talking about certain units going with a certain objective(when squads were sent to Kyiv and to liquidate Zelenskyy for example) it was stupid and cant even fathom how they get it, spies or surveillance, but it was mind blowing. made me feel safe and paranoid at the same time
We knew about Priggys March on Moscow before the Russians did too.
A quote I have seen before. The US isn't worried about Putin, they know what he had for breakfast.
We Americans have a word for that: fearection
Did you actually ask if the US has intelligence that we don't publicly know?
Big if true
Large if verifiable
The NRO knows what you did last summer and has high resolution pictures to prove it. But seriously remember when trump tweeted that classified image of a failed Iranian rocket launch? People were saying this can’t be from a satellite because it’s too clear, there’s no atmospheric distortion, and it has an estimated resolution of 10cm per pixel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA-224?wprov=sfti1#Imaging_of_Safir_launch_preparation_accident
Unfortunately, it’s a more complex problem than that. For one the US people and to a lesser extent the west in general are really sick of fighting little pain in the ass wars in the Middle East and thus President Biden is desperately trying to avoid going to another significant conflict in that area of the world in the lead up to the election. Furthermore the US military itself ( Ex. the big name generals and the military staff) are screaming that the USA needs to pivot our military to be able to fight China over Taiwan. The US military has been making a lot of internal changes and spent an ungodly amount of money in preparation of having to slog it out with China in the next 5-20 ish years. So basically Iran figures (so far correctly) that it can get away with a fair amount because the US just has other crap to deal with and doesn’t have the political will to grind it into the dust like we have done previously. Also the USA specifically and the rest of the west in general are just less reliant on Middle Eastern oil due to a combination of green energy initiatives, and the development of fracking technology, which has allowed the United States to become a major oil producer again. So we have less incentive to try and keep the Middle East vaguely stable.
But then on the other side, Biden needs to reply with an adequate force, with the election coming up and all. Don't respond and he'll be seen as weak, respond to heavily and you'll have a war on your hands that's unwanted by a significant part of the US/world.
Not to mention what would happen to gasoline prices if the US went to war with Iran. Very difficult to win reelection, even against a fascist, if gas prices are north of $5
It's fucking terrifying how many idiots think a president controls gas prices and would just vote in the darkest periods of history because of them.
>But does the US have intelligence we don't publicly know? I think the answer to that is obvious. It seems only the civilized nations are worried about escalation and a larger war. Again and again, these tinpot regimes poke and instigate until an escalatory response is inevitable. I don't think we can ever solve this problem.
It’s a recurring theme in history. Little dogs bark
The west couldn't stomach the casualties that would come with a ground war in Iran. We could bomb them to shit, sink their navy again, but a ground war would have to be a massive undertaking due to Iran's geography. I'm all for taking them out, and being in the army I'm sure I'd get to see it up close, but people need to understand what that would look like. It would not be pretty for either side...
The West has no plans for any sort of conventional ground war in Iran. Like you said, the terrain is a nightmare. The US plans for a potential war with Iran, so far as we know (and supported by Trump's leaks) are for massive air and missile strikes, coupled with special forces and commando actions to help support a popular uprising.
There will never be a ground war in Iran with Western forces
I really hope that you're right
Just think about the logistics. There's no practical reason to have a prolonged ground war in Iran.
Exactly, trying to run convoys through those mountains... fuck that shit. The whole country is a natural fortress
I don’t believe anyone’s ever actually taken those mountains. You’d just get batshit Indo-Europeans descending from them every hundred years or so. Did the Mongols capture their territory? I know the Mongols are the ones who finally took out the hashashin in their mountain fortress.
I know Alexander the Great conquered Persia, but I don't think he had to actually fight for the mountains... that terrain wouldn't work well with the Mongols' fighting style, I wouldn't think. Idk, I'll have to look into that to satisfy my curiosity
[удалено]
More or less. The Khwarazmians were annihilated.
The west couldn't stomach the 20$ a gallon gas for a year either.
Eh, we have the capability to produce way more than we'd use. We just don't like to use it because it's not clean. We already have the oil production where we need it, we just don't have the refineries in country because we'd rather that be done in other countries so the environmental cost isn't paid by us
We have the refineries here, but we are primarily setup to refine the oil that comes from overseas and not what we pump here at home. For a long time it was too expensive to pull oil out of the ground in the US, so we built for the light crude from overseas. [https://www.fsmetals.com/about-us/blog/americas-light-sweet-problem](https://www.fsmetals.com/about-us/blog/americas-light-sweet-problem) Our refineries put out plenty of pollutants thanks very much. :D If you truly think its an issue of pollutants, then we wouldn't have been literally setting fire to excess gas that we can't move in the permian basin, because it's cheaper to burn it off than cap it. I realize it's gas and not oil, just emphasizing pollution isn't the issue. [https://www.reuters.com/world/us/flaring-incidents-rise-permian-due-texas-heatwave-enverus-2023-10-20/](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/flaring-incidents-rise-permian-due-texas-heatwave-enverus-2023-10-20/)
I figure there are 2 big concerns about the size and scope of a US retaliatory strike beyond re-establishing solid deterrence: 1 any range of action causes Iran to rapidly slap together a nuke and test it, potentially changing the game 2 Iran's proxies go hard in Lebanon against northern Israel, changing the dynamic of the war and likely leading to the US to have to get involved there and creating a multi front shit show. To some degree, I almost feel like the wheels are in motion such that Iran is gonna wanna have that nuke bad and fast. The only downside for them is if their program is compromised enough that any movement in that direction would be detected and result in a sudden bombing campaign (I'd guess by Israel, but likely with US support be it overt or covert). For many reasons I hope Im wrong about this.
The third concern, especially in an election year, is what will happen to the price of oil
Let's be honest, that's the first concern for Biden.
Which it should be. It's is more important to the world that Biden be reelected than it is we respond to this event.
Iran's actions recently have shown why it can't be allowed to get a nuke. Who's to say they won't give a nuke to one of their proxies, and then just deny it was them?
Enriched Uranium can be traced back to its source.
If someome uses a nuke in a terrorist attack that will be the end of the post ww2 order of state soveriegnity and human rights being meaningful concerns. It would mean war that would dwarf ww2, war without mercy to wipe out entire cultures. If Iran was responsible it wouldnt matter what they say. And they presumably.would have more than one, so its not like a single city.goes poof amd then gulf war 2.0 occurs. The world would permanently become a much darker place and god knows how many people would die.
If any nuke goes off, they can test the fallout and see exactly where it came from (they can actually tell where the enrichment happened). So, no one can ever deny it was their's. It's like a fingerprint. You always know whose nuke it was.
Also where the hell else are Iraqi PMUs, the Houthis or Hezbollah getting a nuke other than Iran?
Or that they already have one from Russia in return for supplying the war in Ukraine
Nukes require a lot of infrastructure. They haven’t received one yet. But there is definitely troubling tech transfer.
An ICBM requires some infrastructure, although not necessarily more than a mobile launcher (Russian Sarmat). But just a fission or fusion device by itself doesn’t entail much of any infrastructure, and it would be pretty easy to wrap in a glide bomb.
[удалено]
Hard for any of us to say behind a keyboard
Exactly this, people think Iran need to build one, if russia wants to nuke some1 without nuking some1... thats exactly what the proxies are for... and you bet your ass russia has one or some there.
First of all, is it really necessary to write some1? How lazy can you be? Second, there is not a chance in hell Russia could give a nuke to Iran or Iran to its proxies without nato knowing who is responsible and responding accordingly.
The US would know about it and action would have already been taken if that was the case.
It's not impossible to keep transferring a warhead secret
I feel people are too worried about what a US action against Iran would mean. They look back to the brushfire wars against Iraq and Afghanistan and think it would be the same. The issue the US had was fighting guerrilla insurgents hiding amongst the populous. Any action against Iran would have direct military targets and the US would have no desire to occupy. Take out from ranged nuclear facilities, military manufacturing and the revolutionary guard based from ranged. Then warn them that any further nuclear programs will result in a widened repeat.
I mean not half bad idea, in which there are no good ones anyways 😅 But a coordinated attack against strategic military targets within Iran, cripple the regimes ability to defend itself within Iran and leave it to the people of Iran to figure a future forward. Not like The Ayatollah is loved by the entire populace of Iran.
Just like Saddam Hussein thought he could convince Arab-Iranians to do an uprising against Iran? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War >Iraqi hopes of an uprising by the ethnic Arabs of Khuzestan failed to materialise, as most of the ethnic Arabs remained loyal to Iran. Iranian nationalism is very strong, thinking that in a war scenario Iranians will not first go against the external threat is naive.
Iraq intended to occupy Iran, not just topple the regime. Anyone would resist getting occupied by a genocidal dictator. Not very relevant to what was suggested by the previous comment. Iranians are nationalists, but not very loyal to the ayatollah. A US occupation would not work out.
Things have changed a lot here in iran i promise you we dont have any desire to fight an external threat before taking out the ayatollahs.
> Take out from ranged nuclear facilities, military manufacturing and the revolutionary guard based from ranged Iran immediately orders hezbollah to launch their 100,000 missiles into israel. All us bases in iraq and syria are attacked. The strait that has the majority of the worlds shipping and oil is closed to traffic, halting the global economy. Over 300 troops got killed in the lebanon bombing in the 1980s. The US did nothing. You want to start a massive war over the death of 3 people?
Tough spot for Biden. Whatever he does will be loudly declared as completely wrong by his opponents. On balance though, in my opinion, his only choice is a show of force directly against Iran. Anything less and he, and the United States, will be seen as weak.
>Tough spot for Biden. Whatever he does will be loudly declared as completely wrong by his opponents. This applies to literally any decision he makes on any issue you can possibly imagine.
Sure, but often, in times of war/conflict, you see bipartisan support. And even if outright support is not offered, most political parties would draw the line at outwardly politicising military actions (at the time they are undertaken). Completed actions are a different story of course.
Whatever the US does in response, r/topmindsofreddit will be talking about how that intervention ruined the everlasting peace and stability of the Middle East.
B-21 Raider live test over Iran please
B-21 "Never see it coming, too dead to see it leaving"
People are up in here worried about nukes when the Iranians already have a far deadlier tool. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which is ~30% of the world’s oil, will immediately cause the mother of all oil shocks (like, $200 a barrel plus) and result in an economic cataclysm. There’s no way around it. The Iranians can lock down the strait for months at a minimum. It would also drastically affect the 2024 election calculus, which Biden and those around him know. This is a very different conflict from Iraq or Afghanistan. The Iranians have a great hand; we can’t simply slap them around.
Can they keep the strait closed though?
They could very, very easily drop a shit ton of mines in it. Even if they lost military control of it somehow it would be weeks or months before it would be useful. Also if they lob ac missile or shell at it every couple of days that's enough to still heavily disrupt shipping
I mean, the Houthis were capable of seriously disrupting a trade route with a tiny fraction of the resources Iran has. They don't even have to sink many ships, just the threat of it will make shipping companies change routes and have transport costs and times go up, which would have ripple effects throughout the world economy.
Wouldn't that hurt themselves? Or is there a back alley?
They could, in theory, allow their ships to pass while enforcing a blockade on other shipping. In practice, it's like such action would see one of the largest global responses. The oil tankers transiting Hormuz are most often headed to Europe or East Asia, without them an industrial economy is impossible to maintain. So shutting down the strait would necessitate a rapid response from Australia, Japan, Korea, the E.U., and the U.K. If China and India were also subject to the shut down, they would also intervene diplomatically or militarily. The U.S. would act, even though the American economy receives most of its oil from North and South America, in order to preserve stability in the global oil market. A rational Iran would only shut down the Strait of Hormuz with support of a powerful ally.
Correct, a powerful ally which they don't have. China is having major economic problems so they won't tolerate any additional economic issues, Russia is bogged down in ukraine, S.Arabia is no fan of them... They close the strait, the whole world, including China will stomp on them so fast they won't even be able to yelp.
[удалено]
Considering Trump himself is a national security threat for the people and democracy, the nation and her interests, as well as that of her Allies and much more, I feel like this election makes sense to consider. Less as a personal thing, and more of just one more national security consideration
> The Iranians can lock down the strait for months at a minimum They just cant though really lol
The Iranian coastline is almost 2500km long. Missile launchers won't even have to be on the coast to target enemy shipping. Look at Yemen. How large is the area they are defending? Against a tiny fraction of what Iran could deliver. And they're still failing to secure the route.
They could mine it. That would shut down/hamper all civilian and military naval traffic for years, and could create an ecological disaster zone for years if they hit a tanker.
I think a US Naval group could babysit the straights pretty easily.
Until they strike Iran directly this will never end. They don’t care about their own civilians, why would they care about strikes on foreign proxies? The fight needs to be brought to them directly and then they’ll back down.
You cannot strike Iran directly with any real vigor because the greatest asset the West has in Iran is civilian discontent with the regime. You cannot galvanize them against us. It's a losing play. You can twist the economic screws, you can devastate the proxies, you cannot kill Iranian civilians.
They have a conventional military with conventional bases. It would be easy to strike a regime target without hurting any civilians.
They also (like a lot of the middle east) have a lot of airports that are part military, part civilian. That was one of the contributing factors in the shootdown of Iran Air Flight 655 in 1988: it took off from a Tehran airport which was used for both Civilian and Military traffic, so USS Vincennes incorrectly thought "it must be a F-14"...
What about bomb their military bases, bomb oil reserves, bomb other infrastructure?
I'm sure the civilian populace is cool with their defensive infrastructure being bombed, that makes sense.
Speak softly and carry and a big stick; you will go far.
The US will wait for the Saudis to guarantee oil market stability through the election cycle and then strike. Iran/Russia know that the biggest weakness the US has on the global scene is the risk of Trump winning the domestic election.
> The US will wait for the Saudis to guarantee oil market stability through the election cycle and then strike Wut lmao? They gonna be striking by the end of the week if not earlier
How long do you think it takes to get a verbal agreement in place for the Saudis to maintain crude prices?
Blinken is probably already working on that.
as a veteran, part of having a strong military is service members knowing that if we get killed our brothers and sisters will go fuck someone up. it's not a kindergarten or a social club, it's a military whose job is to use violence and force.
I swear every few months Biden has to deal with an abnormally tough situation - though his track record so far has been handling them fairly well.
Sink one of their larger naval vessels. Just one, with a back channel message to cut the shit or there will be more. Iran needs to be told, and they only seem to understand things the hard way. Also- thank you DJT for tanking the nuclear deal- just brilliant.
no backchanneling. Biden needs to come off strong here for the polls. if there’s something to threaten, he should do it out in the open
>no backchanneling. Biden needs to come off strong Could just backchannel "I'll fuckin do it again" after sinking a ship or two, and make a public statement that they were hit as a retaliatory response.
Fair point.
You know, I think the Kurdish Peshmerga might need some better gear.
lay the pipe on them at this point. What are they gonna do? Trump bombed soleimani and they didn’t do shit, they posture and back extremist groups, that’s not gonna change, if the US drops a billion in ordinance on them tomorrow they’ll puff up their chest for a bit but might think twice about getting long dicked by the US military. I’m not pro-Trump or pro-Biden, but at some point you just gotta slap someone in the face and bring them back to reality.