World, Writing, Wealth discussion
World & Current Events
>
Tensions with Iran
Evidence - pictures of Iranian patrol boat removing alleged limpet mine, Could be removing evidence or removing threat of further explosion. Take your pick. Not the first time US has falsely accused Al Qaeda in Iraq anyone. Uranium smuggling in Iraq anyone. And not the first time Iran has targetted oil tankersDrone shot down - in Iranian airspace justified - outside not - again who to believe. Not the first time US aircraft have encroached into foreign airspace - Gary Powers anyone. Then again twitchy trigger fingers lead to mistakes or more fundamentalist forces want to cause an American attack. Twitchy American fingers may want to cause an incident that will trigger bigger action
The US seems to be very uninterested in engaging Iran militarily and Iran may just be using this assumption to the fullest, mounting tensions on almost daily basis.As we speak media reports that the attack mission was initiated and abruptly aborted: https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.c...
Ok, so the US almost punished Iran -:) The more I hear the today's chain of events the least believable it looks that any attack was indeed underway. Looks more like a 'cheap' trick to raise a hand to mimic a punch never intended. The leakage of this 'aborted attack' may be the attack. Not that Trump can change his mind, of course.The game who blinks first is on.
What do you think?
The aborted attack is interesting. I am wondering who authorised it in the first place. It has Bolton's signature, but Trump in principle has to say yes. Yes, Trump can change his mind, and does so frequently. But Nik might be right - there may have never been an attack in motion.
Now I read Trump admitted there were no planes in the air, just ready to scramble. But they always are, aren't they?
Nik wrote: "Now I read Trump admitted there were no planes in the air, just ready to scramble. But they always are, aren't they?"For a US Navy Carrier Group in potentially hostile waters - yes and some in air nearly all the time depending on level of alert, ROE, and actual location. Plus in that area land radar and land based aircraft.
My old life...
Philip wrote: "My old life..."Do I hear nostalgic tunes here? -:)
For a mission like that, it is probable that first there would be planning for it, then a provisional go, then everyone gets ready, so they may be more or less committed some time before they actually take off.
In the context of rising (or maybe already - not) tensions, an interesting meeting is scheduled for the next week btw Bolton, Patrushev and their Israeli peer in Israel.That's some Russian angle: https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/0...
Don't know whether to call it Israeli:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/moscow-...
It is one thing to go to a meeting. It is another to agree to anything, and in this context, with Iran absent, I don't think any agreement would mean anything. Personally, I doubt Russia will agree to much that Bolton proposes.
For all the debate years ago about why we went into Iraq, I feel like I'm the only one who ever noticed a presence in Iraq puts on both sides of Iran's border with our troops already in Afghanistan. I would never have been surprised if it ever comes out that our reason was not the WMDs, but to box Iran in.
J.J., if so, it isn't working. Thanks to a rather clumsy cowboy administration after Saddam fell, Iraq is now Shia controlled, and Iran has influence in Syria as well.
J.J. wrote: "For all the debate years ago about why we went into Iraq, I feel like I'm the only one who ever noticed a presence in Iraq puts on both sides of Iran's border with our troops already in Afghanistan..."Not so sure, as both Bushes don't strike me as beating about the bush kind of dudes. It wouldn't have been very hard to invent pretexts to go for the 'main dish' then.
It does make a lot of sense though that after the war against ISIS is pretty much over, the US contingent is Syria although lessened, still remains to check and hinder Iran's maneuvers in Syria.
BTW, and it's my observation that I'd like to hear opinions about. Before inauguration there were a lot of fear in the world that Trump would have US entangled in military conflicts and a lot received with awe appointment of Mad Dog and so on.Now Trump already has some track record and on its military count it's very limited - just two very limited in scope missile strikes in Syria and that's it.
Yes, Trump's rhetoric may some time be menacing and he surrounds himself at least with some dudes having hawkish reputation, but other than that - he's a strong believer in economic levers, pressure and negotiations and does not resort to a military option. So much even - that his adversaries started to sense this disinclination, thus reducing the deterrence factor
It occurs to me that Trump's reluctance to use military force may very well enhance the possibilities for negotiation, if only he were more consistent. His problem so far is his record in tearing up agreements, and in some ways his lack of clarity in what he wants. Of course he campaigned on wanting better relations with Russia, but the accusations of electoral tampering got in the way of that. As an aside, I think "Mad Dog" was relatively temperate compared with Bolton.
I'm not sure his recent actions reduce the deterrent factor. It's a way to leave room for negotiation, but that's the advantage of being unpredictable. Keep them guessing. No one knows when you might turn into a hawk, which is entirely possible, and I think they keep that in mind.
True, Scout, but I don't think that unpredictability encourages negotiation.
So, Rouhani says Europeans told him Trump offered to lift sanctions for restarting negotiations, Trump denies, while Iran's belligerence goes unresponded , which inevitably will invite more. Cheap biz tactics - maybe, but Trump strikes me as a softy not a hawk. Or what do you think?
I think Trump finds himself between a rock and a hard place with respect to Iran. He broke the nuke deal and applied sanctions expecting Iran to fold but that did not happen. As for Iran's belligerence, in many ways, sanctions is an act of war, so Iran is legitimate in responding. For example, the UK seizing of an Iranian tanker on what is accepted as an international free passage is an act of war. The prevention of Iran from trading is an act of war, and seizing its money in the US banking system is essentially either theft or extortion, which are crimes if not carried out by governments. So let's not paint Iran as the sole guilty party.From Trump's point of view, he has to say irrespective of the rights or wrongs of it, he is here; now what? I don't think e finds anything attractive. I still think that any strikes by the US will have Iranian counterstrikes. The religious are not going to give in. So the only option to win by force is boots on the ground, but that is going to need at least a million men to hold the country (The joint chiefs told Bush Iraq needed 600,000 - everyone laughed at them, and look what happened. Sure the US can drive Abrams all over the pl;ace with much less, but you don't hold the resistance.) Trump does not want the body bags. So now what? Trump won't back down; Iran won't back down, so this situation, in my opinion, will just keep going a bit longer.
Ian wrote: "As for Iran's belligerence, in many ways, sanctions is an act of war, so Iran is legitimate in responding...."Legitimate in responding whom? To strike Saudis? Is that legitimate in your opinion?
Russia is under sanctions too. It applied counter sanctions and didn't strike Germany or UK, if you want a parallel.
Ian wrote: ".. the only option to win by force is boots on the ground, but that is going to need at least a million men to hold the country...."
I'd argue that's a bit of an old school approach. You don't need to win against Iran nor subdue it nor anything close. Precision strikes against Iranian pieces of military program that bothers the world would suffice and would keep Iran at bay for a long time. And if you ask me, Iran won't even retaliate because they know their limits. Like Assad didn't do anything after Obama's strike.
Ian wrote: "Trump won't back down; Iran won't back down, so this situation, in my opinion, will just keep going a bit longer....."
Won't be surprised if Trump backed down. Hope he won't
Nik, Russia applied counter-sanctions - that is a response. Also, you don't have to respond - it is optional, but Iran sanctioning anyone is just s joke.Assad did not respond to Obama's strike because he couldn't; he was within an ace of losing everything and he had to concentrate on the main picture. I would argue that Assad's strategy, given the hand he held, has been fairly good if we forget the initial stupidity and heavy-handedness that started the insurrection. On the other hand, maybe that was always going to start. The so-called Arab Spring was a sort of catalyst for uprisings, and landing their respective countries in dep pools of brown stuff.
You might be right about precision strikes achieving their end goal, but what say you are wrong? To argue that Iran won't retaliate might be correct, but in my opinion more likely to be wishful thinking. It retaliates, more strikes, more dead Iranians, more retaliation, now what? Are you going to bomb them into oblivion? Do you rely on cruise missiles or send in aircraft? What happens if you lose an aircraft, and we see the pilot on al Jazeera? That is hardly fatal, but it is not good material coming up to 2020 elections. More to the point, if they refuse to lie down and bow to your superior technology, how does it end? Or are we going to have this sort of thing going on indefinitely, with random tankers on fire in the gulf because t believe that such indefensible monstrosities are not going to take hits is just wishful thinking.
Trump was in a position to launch targeted strikes on Syria, because Syria wasn't in a position to retaliate. You're right that if we try that with Iran, Iran will just escalate. But if we do nothing, Iran will keep pushing regardless. It will be the same outcome we had with Al Qaeda when Bill Clinton did little to nothing with each attack on American targets, and in Bush's first year in office, they pull off 9/11. I almost wonder if war is inevitable at some point, or if we'll end up with a future president who will capitulate to them and give them everything they want while we get another deal with only token concessions from Iran.
The UK, Germany and France have now threatened Iran with agreement withdrawal, not for the Saudi attacks but because of a technical breach of the agreement. If Iran has done this and the UN states it has then it seems a stupid move when the US was on its own in leaving the agreement.
Philip wrote: "The UK, Germany and France have now threatened Iran with agreement withdrawal, not for the Saudi attacks but because of a technical breach of the agreement. If Iran has done this and the UN states ..."It is a question of which agreement. If it is the fact they have gone past their enriching level, yes, they have. They said they would unless Europe at least honoured its part of the agreement, and Europe did not. It gave a lot of platitudinous statements, but it has applied the trade sanctions on Iran, so if one side breaks it like that, there is no agreement.
You didn't care to explain how targeting SA is legitimate -:)Ian wrote: "Nik, Russia applied counter-sanctions - that is a response. Also, you don't have to respond - it is optional, but Iran sanctioning anyone is just s joke..."
Russian sanctions are a joke too, if anything, their local population suffers from them the most.
Ian wrote: "To argue that Iran won't retaliate might be correct, but in my opinion more likely to be wishful thinking....."
But you see that Iran escalates all the time and at this point lack of action definitely encourages it. In my estimate of the situation and I agree with JJ here, only a strong military response to be felt by the ayatollahs might have a sobering effect and stop further escalation of aggression on the part of Iran. The moment they understood that the dog only barks but doesn't bite, much of a deterrence was gone...
Ayatollahs will not feel the effect. Only the average person when their power/water station is blown up by a precise strike or their house is destroyed by a wayward missile/falling back SAM
If Iran can be precise the West can more. I'm sure there are assets that ayatollahs won't be happy to lose while ordinary people won't feel the difference. But what do I know - maybe just asking to show restraint or imploring Iran would help.
Nik, As to the legitimacy of striking SA, if the Houthis actually did it, since they have been bombed unmercifully and have had tens of thousands on the brink of starvation, or dead, they are certainly legitimate. The Saudis bombing them is an act of war. Also, there appears to be no public evidence produced so far that Iran did any more than supply the missiles.The Ayatollahs will not be affected adversely - it is as Philip says, the average Iranian. The US missiles are not that accurate, especially since they tend to send so many of them, and if military bases are targeted, there will be dead Iranians, and mourning relatives. Remember, without evidence that the Iranians did it, that will inflame the Iranian general population. I don't know, but my guess is the average Iranian, who is hurt by the sanctions, will already be fairly anti-American, and such a strike may be the single biggest help for a recruitment drive. There is no easy answer to this, and the problem has arisen because Trump pulled out of the nuclear deal on impulse without having thought out what would happen next. That problem remains; whatever the US does not will generate consequences. The problem is, how to handle them.
I regard that Iran hit SA as established enough otherwise European governments wouldn't join Pompeo's accusations. And there is certainly zero justification for it. Or just being a US ally is enough for you?Houthis are the rebels, no? Can you please explain why you seem to support their struggle against the government and Iran's backing them while being totally against Syrian moderate rebels fighting against Assad, who used chems on his ppl and who's also happened to be supported by Iran? Is Syrian government somehow more legitimate for you than that of Yemen?
As of precision of the US missiles: Obama's strike in Syria went quite well. If you don't want casualties - you can even spread leaflets and ask ppl to abandon certain premises. Again if Iran succeeded in a precision strike, l believe that a few other armies can too.
Not the US is the reason behind Iran's belligerence. Trump offers them negotiations, they prefer confrontation.
What's your suggestion how to react to bombing SA oil infrastructure, btw? Or maybe applauding ayatollahs for their kindness and consideration?
Nik began this thread with an invitation to debate. I'm a member of another group (now having slid into disuse) which gloried in debate. I dearly miss the challenge. So let's debate it.For over a thousand years they have been killing each other, over the question of Mohamad's successor. This is more of the same. The only reason the West cares is oil. Our need for oil has funded so much bloodshed. We cannot force them to change, but we can leave them to their fate.
I propose a two part solution.
1.) In the short term we need time and security. This means eliminating threats as they arise. As has already been pointed out, the associated collateral damage of military action creates more problems than it destroys. Sadly for them, they have an extensive history of killing each other. This means that we can always find someone who will eliminate the problem, cheaply, and without drawing attention to the West. If we decide to care about the people, we could focus on eliminating extremists. Otherwise, we can just focus on stability. (Oppressive regimes can be surprisingly stable.)
2.) After buying the necessary time, our focus needs to be on cutting their source of funding. This means ending the age of oil. The nation(s) which develop and implement the technologies to do this first, will secure economic hegemony for themselves. The States which have been buoyed by oil, will atrophy and collapse. Their violent proxies will still exist, but they will run out of the funding needed to pose a danger to the West. Then we can have Earth Day Parades and self driving Teslas, while we tell ourselves that they aren't our problem.
This is cynical and perhaps even murderous. It would condemn entire countries to collapse and barbarism. But it could work.
So here I stand, bring on the debate. Bring your counter-arguments, and we shall see whether cynicism can stand against them.
That other governments join in Pompeo's accusations is not evidence, Nik. The evidence would be some sort of observation that tracked where the missiles travelled from, and nobody has produced that. Governments have been known to support other governments for complete side-issues, trusting the first one to be right.Even if the Houthis are rebels, so what? Are you arguing the US should be returned as a British colony because there were rebels fighting there? The nature of the fight is simple, Shia vs Sunni, and as J. noted, this has been ongoing since about 700 AD. Nothing new there, except the weapons are getting more devastating, and as J noted, funded by oil.
The strikes against Syria may have been precise, but they were essentially benign and a waste of time - they achieved nothing. Earlier, the threat of them did prevent the flourishing of chemical weapons, so the threat is useful, but its impact diminishes with use.
To argue that Trump wants to negotiate may be correct, but the problem is, from the Iranian side, why negotiate when you carry out your side, then the US pulls out and wants to renegotiate? If you don't get anything for your actions, why bother?
Hey J, sure the debates are welcome and hope we can keep it friendly and impersonal. We used to have plenty by the way, which unfortunately sometimes results in people leaving.I'd generally agree with your approach but perhaps for other motives and in a positive way. They certainly are entitled to do whatever and who are we or anyone to interfere in their biz, way of life, etc. Moreover - we can wish them well and all, no hatred, condescending or patronizing.
To be fair - just as they were killing each other the West was killing each other and the rest of the world quite similarly. The West indeed turned more pacifistic (although we might be witnessing a reversal) while some other parts of the world haven't.
I further agree with you, if I understand your idea correctly, that the threats are to be dealt with. Nuclear & ballistic Iran is a great danger. Something to be addressed. Preferably by a good and verifiable deal, failing which - militarily. No need to invade Iran or whatever. There was an article maybe a month ago that inter alia mentions that the US built an analogue of Fordow underground facility and presented impressive photos of how it was destroyed. Hope it won't come to that. If Iran is not stopped, Saudis and others will go nuclear too.
There are also additional issues. For example - Saudi Arabia is the biggest US armaments client. In some situs , you know allies expect some sort of military backing, something like Putin saving Assad's ass.
As far as I read sufficient evidence was uncovered. Allowing for a drastically different approach btw Europe & US about Iranian issue, there must be something very convincing for Boris, Emanuel & Angela to join the US in blaming Iran. But maybe they still investigate and we'll hear more details.As of rebels - I just asked why you support Assad versus Syrian rebels and Houthis versus Yemen government, to understand your logic for a diametrically opposite approach in these two cases
Nik,I agree that a nuclear armed Iran is an unacceptable risk. It would be nice if a deal were possible, but I believe that the same Iranian policies which make an Iran with nukes unacceptable also make a deal unlikely, at best. Any deal requires rational actors, and I do not view Iran as a rational actor, at this time.
Barring diplomacy, my prefered methods of dealing with this is sabotage and undermining the Islamic Republic through dirty tricks. (Extra points if we can get a counter-revolutionary figure head opposing the Iranian regime from exile, in Paris!) If military action does become necessary, I would prefer for the Saudis to do it, or at least create enough of a mess for our actions to be difficult to prove.
Nik, you ask about Assad and the Houthis. The common feature is both are Shia, both are fighting Wahhabi extremism. Take a look at Tehran and Riyadh, and see how the women live, and ask yourself, if you were a woman, where would you prefer to be, given you had to be reincarnated in one of them. (Neither may well be the obvious choice, but not permitted for the point of my example.) It is amusing that everyone assume Assad is hated. I saw a TV clip a few months ago in which Assad was walking down a street in Damascus with NO MINDERS, at least not in close proximity. I think that the Shia have been given the wrong end of the stick because the US wants to sell a lot of arms to the Saudis, in short the whole biz is to feed the US military-industrial complex. I believe the news we get from US officials is simply untrue, and it is of interest that many of the things I believed were untrue were confirmed in a speech by Tulsi Gabbard that I saw on TV. She was there, she knew, and yes, she is a Dem hopeful (very hopeful, in my opinion - she has next to no show, which is unfortunate because she seems to be the most reasonable candidate (in my opinion) in the running.I believe the best chance of keeping Iran nuclear-free was the option Obama tried. All evidence is it was working. Well done Trump. A piece of political stupidity made with no plan whatsoever for the consequences, and now everyone is wringing their hands.
You ask for my solution, Nik? Go back to negotiate. I believe Iran will give up nukes for the end of sanctions. You want more? Offer something more. Alternatively, use the military and clean the place out but be prepared for lots of body bags. As I remarked somewhere above, you need at least a million boots on the ground because only infantry can control territory. And if you try that, try to have a sensible government at the end and no stupid clown wearing cowboy boots as the head honcho. And keep the Saudis out. Any involvement of Sunnis is like fighting fire with acetylene.
J. wrote: "Any deal requires rational actors, and I do not view Iran as a rational actor, at this time...."They might be rational in their own incomprehensible to the West way, which rationale can include self-sacrifice and intrinsic hostility towards the West and its values. These and other regional actors respect strength and power and nothing else, so that's probably the only angle from which the deal can be achieved (if at all).
J. wrote: "Barring diplomacy, my prefered methods of dealing with this is sabotage and undermining the Islamic Republic through dirty tricks....."
Tried with Stuxnet and maybe have more up the sleeve. Not sure - toppling the regime is necessary or desired - just removing the threats. If yesterday's reports that Houthis' raid into Saudi Arabia resulted in hundreds of dead Saudis and surrendering divisions, the Saudi armed forces might be inadequate for the task.
Depends how it plays out, maybe Israel would need to have a go, but hope it'll be possible to avoid it.
Ian wrote: "Nik, you ask about Assad and the Houthis. The common feature is both are Shia, both are fighting Wahhabi extremism. Take a look at Tehran and Riyadh, and see how the women live, and ask yourself, i..."Ian, my impression is that you have a biased approach towards Sunnis and paint them all as Wahhabi extremists. I believe this is a wild exaggeration and is simply not true. That's Houthis slogan: "God is the Greatest, Death to America, Death to Israel, Curse on the Jews, Victory to Islam". Are they any different from Al Qaeda or ISIS?
If you look at the Sunni countries most of them have friendly relations with the States and Europe, including regional power houses of Saudi Arabia & Egypt. And you know what - Iran can have excellent relations with the States too, but not when they pronounce "Death to America" as their motto. The hostility comes from their direction, while the States are probably indifferent about shia/sunni.
Of course, there are extremists, but I guess you don't judge about Italians by the mafia, or the US by KKK.
Don't know about the women, but I suspect both Iran and Saudia aren't exactly human rights paradises, although I hope FIFA will succeed in prompting Iran to let women watch football :)
Ian wrote: "You ask for my solution, Nik? Go back to negotiate. I believe Iran will give up nukes for the end of sanctions. You want more? Offer something more...."
Agree, but that's what Trump offers for god's sake! Trump also pulled out of NAFTA and luckily Mexico spared the US and didn't bomb its oil infrastructure in Texas :) Instead, they reached USMCA. And if you ask me - with Trump who sometimes seem to care more about a TV pic over the essence, Iran might come out with a not-that-very-different deal, but bearing Trump's initials on it instead of Obama's/Kerry's. I personally hope for a better deal and avoidability of a military confrontation...
Ian wrote: "I believe the news we get from US officials is simply untrue, and it is of interest that many of the things I believed were untrue were confirmed in a speech by Tulsi Gabbard that I saw on TV....."
Isn't this belief simply a bias towards US officials that they always lie? Just a few posts above you ask for 'evidence' and cast doubt about Macron's, Johnson's and Merkel's conclusions about Iran's involvement, but here you take Tulsi's word at its face value. Strange.
Nik is correct as far as rationality is concerned. A rational argument is one that follows logic, but the use of logic itself depends on the premises. You can have a perfectly logical position based on your premises that seems incomprehensible to someone who does not know what those premises are.I never said that all Sunnis are Wahhabis; merely that some are, another important point of logic of which Aristotle made a lot. Yes, I do not see ISIS as a benefit to anyone; ask the Yazidis, if you can find any left after ISIS did their best to exterminate them. And no, I don't see Iran as a source of light, but that doesn't mean we should bomb them into oblivion. What I object to is the West's interference in the region for no apparent better reason than to make money. I agree that "Death to America" and a number of others is distinctly unhelpful as a slogan, but as far as the Houthis are concerned, they are dying by the tens of thousands and the West is busy supplying arms to to those who are doing the killing, so yes, I can see they could get a bit upset. And it is the Sunnis who have killed the most ordinary Americans, e.g. in New York.
As for taking Tulsi's words at face value, she started with the statement, "I was there and I saw . . . " To me that is a claim of evidence. I have heard statements from the US intelligence community that went along the lines "They were Iranian made missiles (no argument - that is obvious) but we do not know where they came from; we believe they came from the North". That is not evidence and is not even the right direction (for either possibility). The problem with drone or cruise type missiles they don't have to fly in a straight line. However, as far as been made public, at least that I know of, there is no satellite evidence or observations of heat or light signatures from over the gulf, and given that besides satellites, it is an overloaded shipping route, and to come from Iran the missiles would presumably fly over the Gulf States and would be recorded on radar, I find the absence of anything but vague assertions and political bluster very telling. Are you really trying to tell me that if there was hard evidence of radar signatures, or sightings, or satellite traces that this would not be made public? Sorry, but I simply do not believe that missiles could come from Iran across major shipping and airline routes and nobody would notice. So yes, I believe Gabbard because she claims to have seen and I know she was there, and I don't believe the other politicians because they are unable to cite any physical evidence which should be easily obtained. The alternative - that the Houthis really fired them is far more credible because that would involve short flights over what is essentially barren desert.
Ian wrote: "I don't see Iran as a source of light, but that doesn't mean we should bomb them into oblivion...."Nobody's proposing that, as far as I'm aware. Not even Bolton. It looks like America is held to an Iraq stereotype and that simply changed. And economically - the campaigns were a disaster. It's now ingrained in their DNA and probably won't be repeated. If anything, looks like the US wants to distance itself as much as possible from the ME, concerned only with growing military capabilities of regional hostile powers and obligations towards the allies.
It's not random that Russia calls shots in the region.
However, leaving the oil facilities attack unanswered would in my opinion be a mistake, which will encourage further and ballsier ones.
Some reports contain info that launching locations were identified: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle...
I don't see what's here to doubt. Even if Iran used proxies, be they Houthis, Iraq PMU or whoever - they are clearly implicate. After all, acting through proxies rather than directly is Iran's signature and preferred tactic. Doesn't change the big picture though
Let's start with Iranian reason. Yes, logic proceeds from first principles. We know what those principles are, because they are in a book. If you don't show that book more respect and care than they show to their mothers, sisters, wives, and daughters, then they will kill you. They claim that this book deserves such treatment because the invisible giant, who lives on the moon, said so. Does this sound like the product of rational minds?
If you will recall, I am arguing in favor of threat negation and quarantine. From this position regime change is often overkill. I don't care if they kill themselves. I just want to prevent them from killing us, until such time as technology will render them economically irrelevant. So in order of descending preference:
1.) Political manipulation
2.) Sabotage
3.) Clandestine anti-material/personel activities
4.) Precision strikes
5.) Carpet bombing
An occupation would be counter-productive.
I concur with Nik that a response to the recent attack is necessary. That said, why should we draw attention with direct action, when we could instead provide intel to the Saudis, so that they can hunt down, capture, and publicly execute the attackers? Win, win, win.
That's probably what Pompeo discussed with MbS & King Salman while on the visit, however US abstention may have a disheartening effect on them :)
If you become irrational for beliefs that come from a religious base, then the West is hardly rational either. By rational I did not mean the premises had to be correct, but merely that they were then used in a logical fashion. Sorry if this was misleading. As Aristotle showed, you can have rational processes using totally ridiculous premises, and even, sometimes, get an acceptable output. And just to clarify another thought. I do not have any particular warm and fuzzies towards Iran. I merely want the underlying logic to be even-handed and apply equally to both parties, irrespective of our own preferential benefits. I also want to see a plan that might work employed, and then be made to work, following the military philosophy of General Wesley Clark. My problem with military strikes against Iran and hope for the best is it probably won't work, and you will merely make things worse. As a military strategy, wishful thinking is the last option, when all else fails.
Nik, the link includes the text, "No corroborating evidence or intelligence has yet been provided." Merely that the US has identified sites. Without evidence as to how the identification was made, I do not consider that as evidence.
Waging a war is unpopular, therefore we will probably see a growing number of camouflaged and denied attacks. The anonymity also allows the adversary not to be forced to retaliate to maintain prestige and reputation.There are instances when lack of other plausible explanation is also telling by elimination.And there is intelligence, which rarely gains publicity.
For example, Russian soldiers removed insignia when they stormed Crimea. But everyone knew exactly what was happening. And even Putin bragged about it a couple of years later. Whenever a Russian soldier is captivated - they show papers as if he retired from armed forces well before caught. They probably keep them ready for every soldier fighting on a foreign turf where Russian involvement is undeclared. So what.
Btw, Iran said it openly that if they can't sell oil, no one in the Gulf will be able to. Just as they gradually withdraw from nuclear agreement they gradually raise the disruption of oil trade. Gotta give them a credit - they are super cautious and try to keep to a very delicate line and avoid casualties especially among American troops
One more point that seems to me to have been overlooked in the assertions that Iran sent those missiles. The US has a very large military base on the east coast (in Dubai, I think) and it will have the most sophisticated radar surveillance of the area possible, after all the commander would lose a lot of face if Iran bombed it, including with missiles. Now the US has not released any evidence from this site on this attack. Why not? In logic, either the missiles were observed or they were not.(a) They were, but for some reason nobody released the information. Why not? This, to me, is incomprehensible.
Suppose they were not. Then either:
(b) The radar was incapable of detecting them, either because of super stealth or total incompetence, or
(c) The missiles did not cross the gulf.
My belief, based on probability, is that (c) is the most probable answer. I don't actually know, but nothing else makes sense.
Logic which is based on invalid principles is invalid. In the West, one need look no further than Young Earth Creationists to see how an invalid first principle has led to all manner of falacies being accepted in furtherance of their apologetics. Is their behavior rational?I was under the impression that the attack in Saudi Arabia was carried out by drone strike. Am I incorrect in that understanding?
If you have seen a photo of what comprises the wreckage it is fairly big. You need something sizeable to carry enough explosives to fo the required damage. I suppose you could call the old V1 a drone, albeit a somewhat uncontrolled one. Whatever, the equipment was big enough to at least plausibly have come from Iran.For me, logic is a methodology; the premises lie outside it, except that as outlined by Aristotle in "Prior Analytics", the premises have to be induced from observation, which in turn means they have to be discarded if it can be shown at any stage that they are wrong. Interestingly, Aristotle's two great blunders in physics arise from him ignoring his own procedures. Perhaps because "Physica" and "De Caelo" were written well before "Prior Analytics". However, I do not see that you can say someone is irrational just because they start with different premises to you. The Ayatollahs certainly start from somewhere that is more or less alien to my beliefs, but I do not see any sign of lack of rationality. They have different objectives, and start from somewhere else, but the evidence is that as far as the nuclear deal went, they kept their side of the agreement. That is rational; they have resumed enriching when the West abandoned its obligations, but that is not irrational on the part of the Iranians. The whole concept of agreements, and law, is that if the other side abandons its obligations, you are no longer obliged to keep yours.
I think the problem with trying to decide what the evidence is of Iran's involvement is that much of that evidence is likely classified at this point. If other European leaders agree with Trump's assessment, then they're seeing something we're not - something that definitely points to Iran as the perpetrator. On the other hand, it's not out of the realm of possibility all these leaders could share a false assumption in the interpretation of that evidence. I don't think the Bush Administration lied to us about the WMDs in Iraq, I think they took what they had and drew the wrong conclusion. It's possible the same thing could be happening among our leaders. It's difficult for us to make any real conclusion when we don't have the access to information that Trump and Merkel have.
I am more inclined to think that the UK and France also sell a lot of arms to the Saudis, so they are more inclined to take the easy option, not worry too much about checking on the evidence, and move on. As far as Johnson is concerned, I would have thought this would b little more than an irritation for him - it is not as if he hasn't got other big problems on his plate. In his case, the last thing he needs is to be controversial on something else.As for being classified, I rather think the evidence probably points against a launch from Iran, such as the absence of radar signals from the US air base. I believe if there was clear evidence the US would release it, but they do not want to publicise negative evidence because to be meaningful they would have to announce how little they can detect, and they d not want to tell anyone about their limitations. The fact that Trump is not keen to launch suggests to me that Trump knows there is no real evidence.
As far as I read, there are:- witnesses who saw that joint missile & drone attack came from the north
- the impact points and debris support the same direction
- SA patriot batteries and other air defenses are calibrated to cope with attacks from the south
- on top of that they have hardships to tackle low flying drones and cruise missiles
- the range of the missiles found at sites wouldn't allow them to reach the facilities if they were shot from Yemen
Even if Iraq pmu did it it was on Iranian behalf and under their command. That's what they have all their proxies for. Let that not fool us.
As of U.K., Germany & France they have a totally different from the US approach towards Iranian dossier, oil tanker attacks, etc in almost every aspect. A sudden unequivocal concord with the US in their accusation is a strong indication they were shown something very convincing they couldn't reject. Especially Macron, who's a sort of go-between Iran and the US pushing hard to renew negotiations
They suspect it's all a false flag.
That's my post there and I think it can be an opening shot here:
"Couldn't miss this one.
So, the peace-loving, lofty and progressive Iran is being framed and bullied by the the US-:) Really?
Whatever happens in the Strait of Hormuz is right off the shore of Iran. Did they present any kind of explanation of what had happened? They declared that if they can not sell oil, no one in the Gulf would be able to and it looks like they follow through on their promise. Don't think they even care to conceal that they are behind the attacks, as they clearly chose to tough it out and prove that the US is a paper tiger. Of course, Russia and N. Korea are watching closely.
Nobody's gonna invade Iran. It's about knocking out their nuclear and ballistic assets. Can be done without boots on the ground with chances that Iran won't dare to retaliate or retaliate low-key. I don't think anyone wants Iran as a menace.
Whatever supreme soldiers revolutionary guards may be, they may have trouble with superior weaponry.
It's all in a good spirit. Hope you guys cherish a debate -:)"
What's your attitude?