War with Iran?

[Belsnickel]

(09-19-2019, 11:35 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I get it, I don't entirely disagree either.  I would say that Iran is in the top 5 of the world's worst countries.  I wouldn't agree with direct military action, but I have no issue with us providing support for a SA action against Iran.

I think that my issue lies with SA. Iran sucks, and so does SA. Both of them are theocratic garbage piles. One pretends to have some democratic principles and one pretends to be an ally. Both are breeding grounds for anti-Western sentiments and extremism. I'm happy to see the two of them beat the crap out of each other.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(09-19-2019, 11:35 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I get it, I don't entirely disagree either.  I would say that Iran is in the top 5 of the world's worst countries.  I wouldn't agree with direct military action, but I have no issue with us providing support for a SA action against Iran.

Only a chance to be true if we're talking non-African countries. 

Iran can feed their people, isn't ravaged by AIDs, malaria, , and isn't rampant with warlords leading child soldiers. 

Even if you exclude Africa, I still am not 100% sure they make the Top-5 cut. In no real order... Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Afghanistan, Haiti, and North Korea all seem like pretty easy choices before Iran. I'm sure there's a couple more I am forgetting and some more on top of that which are in the conversation.

Iran is pretty awful, but they are far from the cellar at the end of the day. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-19-2019, 01:55 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think that my issue lies with SA. Iran sucks, and so does SA. Both of them are theocratic garbage piles. One pretends to have some democratic principles and one pretends to be an ally. Both are breeding grounds for anti-Western sentiments and extremism. I'm happy to see the two of them beat the crap out of each other.

I certainly wouldn't shed a tear.  One important distinction though, SA isn't trying to develop nuclear weapons they could then give to jihadists.

(09-19-2019, 03:47 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Only a chance to be true if we're talking non-African countries. 

Iran can feed their people, isn't ravaged by AIDs, malaria, , and isn't rampant with warlords leading child soldiers. 

Even if you exclude Africa, I still am not 100% sure they make the Top-5 cut. In no real order... Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Afghanistan, Haiti, and North Korea all seem like pretty easy choices before Iran. I'm sure there's a couple more I am forgetting and some more on top of that which are in the conversation.

Iran is pretty awful, but they are far from the cellar at the end of the day. 

I'm not talking about the shape the country is in, I'm talking about how "evil" their government is.  My top four would be, in no particular order, China, Russia, N. Korea and Iran.

[Benton]

(09-19-2019, 11:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I certainly wouldn't shed a tear.  One important distinction though, SA isn't trying to develop nuclear weapons they could then give to jihadists.

Quote:Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman told CBS last year that the kingdom would develop nuclear weapons if its rival Iran did. In addition, the kingdom has occasionally pushed back against agreeing to U.S. standards that would block two paths to potentially making fissile material for nuclear weapons clandestinely: enriching uranium and reprocessing spent fuel.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-saudi-nuclear/us-approved-secret-nuclear-power-work-for-saudi-arabia-idUSKCN1R82MG

I would add, though, that there's been more connection to Saudis attacking the US than Iran.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/09/reveal-saudi-official-allegedly-tied-911-attackers-190913011926350.html

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-19-2019, 11:44 PM)Benton Wrote: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-saudi-nuclear/us-approved-secret-nuclear-power-work-for-saudi-arabia-idUSKCN1R82MG

I would add, though, that there's been more connection to Saudis attacking the US than Iran.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/09/reveal-saudi-official-allegedly-tied-911-attackers-190913011926350.html

Benton, please brother, you know you didn't just refute my statement.  SA saying they would develop nuclear weapons IF Iran does is not remotely the same as them developing them independently of such.  This statement is the exact reason the NPT was thought of in the first place.  Iran breaking this treaty, after declaring they didn't want nuclear weapons in the first place, is not proof of SA's bad intentions in this regard.

Note that I am not defending SA as a nation, I am merely pointing out that your attempts at a direct comparison are flawed.

[Dill]

(09-17-2019, 11:21 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: More accurately, Dill always looks to defend first. 

Well if Dill's posting history is any indication (including THIS thread, e.g. see #352, 357,368) it would be More accurate to say Dill scouts the factual terrain first, frames the results analytically, so they can be compared and evaluated, then draws inferences and invites others to do the same.

This approach draws Trump defenders when the subject is current foreign policy.  

[Dill]

(09-17-2019, 02:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I saw the response by POTUS and it was not a War Mongering" as I've heard in the past. He actually said we don't want war. As to paying us: During Desert Storm it was rumored that King Fahd wanted to give each American Solider a pretty large reward. We turned him down; however, we did allow him to give us some shiny medals.  

Actually, the Saudis paid the US quite a bit during Desert Storm. At least 32 billion by first reckoning.  Payments from a number of countries in the region were arranged as Bush I built a coalition to apply military force towards a limited, definable goal, per the Powell Doctrine.

https://www.nytimes.com/1992/09/08/world/gulf-war-s-cost-to-arabs-estimated-at-620-billion.html?campaignId=7JFJX

This contrasts with Trump's framing of the current situation, which would make the US paid mercenaries of SA's foreign policy.

[Benton]

(09-20-2019, 01:52 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Benton, please brother, you know you didn't just refute my statement.  SA saying they would develop nuclear weapons IF Iran does is not remotely the same as them developing them independently of such.  This statement is the exact reason the NPT was thought of in the first place.  Iran breaking this treaty, after declaring they didn't want nuclear weapons in the first place, is not proof of SA's bad intentions in this regard.

Note that I am not defending SA as a nation, I am merely pointing out that your attempts at a direct comparison are flawed.

And for decades Iran insisted they were only seeking safe nuclear power.

I believe neither country.

[Dill]

(09-19-2019, 12:25 PM)Benton Wrote: Four of the top 10 world economies are in the EU. One ME country (SA) is in the top 20 (#19). Several of those are significant trade partners. I'm all for closing bases and reducing our NATO footprint, but not really a fan of shifting that money to a region constantly at war with not a lot of trading potential.

Not to mention that the EU, taken together, is an economy roughly the size of the US, and that our alliances--trade and military--with EU countries, make it, in combination with our economy, a tremendous lever to coordinate against Russia and China.

But if "they don't like us" that's another story.  The economic hit we take (e.g. unemployment) and the loss of political clout from ditching them would be worth it.  We'll build some Ford plants in Kuwait and Egypt and some of the 1% will be ok.

Wait . . . hold all that. . . I heard "they don't like us" in the ME either

[Dill]

(09-19-2019, 01:55 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think that my issue lies with SA. Iran sucks, and so does SA. Both of them are theocratic garbage piles. One pretends to have some democratic principles and one pretends to be an ally. Both are breeding grounds for anti-Western sentiments and extremism. I'm happy to see the two of them beat the crap out of each other.

That could be analogous to saying, 105 years ago, let Serbia and Austro-Hungary beat the crap out of each other.  Back then, military alliances set a world war in motion. In this case economic dependencies would work with similar effect.

A war between SA and Iran would shut down the Gulf. What's the US Navy in Bahrain and the AF in Qatar supposed to do with missiles flying overhead, unsure whom is targeted? Our oil-needy allies Japan, India, Germany and South Korea would feel the pain immediately as would ME partners Jordan, Iraq, and Turkey. Russia and Venezuela would profit immediately. The fissures opening in international relations would exploited by Russia, China, NK and enable some weakened bad actors like Al Qaeda and ISIS to regroup and reload. Also Iran has proxies, some of them bordering Israel north and south. Would they remain idle?

You are a policy guy. You understand that the point of diplomacy is to prevent war, to prevent countries from veering this close to it.  Now our media present us with lots of chatter from the administration and news commentators about "what to do now?!?" and whether WE should attack Iran because a country SA attacked with our technology (resulting in the world's current greatest humanitarian crisis) has struck back, likely with Iranian technology. 

The gamble that trashing the Iran Deal and re-instituting sanctions would "bring them to the table for a better deal" appears to have failed. And now we have a heavily armed Iran, its back to the wall, moving steadily up the escalatory ladder, and an impulsive president worried that a war will hurt his election chances (and Iran knows this) but who doesn't want to appear weak to his friends, MbS, Kim and Putin. 

Occasionally someone reminds us that we would not likely be in this quandary if 1) Trump had not trashed the Iran deal and re-instituted sanctions on that country, and 2) the US had put conditions on its alliance with SA. Use US weapons for defense, not Saddam-style invasions of neighboring countries; don't kill and dismember journalists working for US newspapers, etc. But that's all history now as various ad hoc responses are considered, not in terms of how they align with some already articulated ME policy for long term security, but in terms of how the world will perceive us ("Big stick" or "all talk"). And for the president, personally, in terms of how his base, and the world, will perceive him.

More to come, as oil prices rise . . . .

[*bfine32*]

(09-20-2019, 01:35 PM)Dill Wrote: Not to mention that the EU, taken together, is an economy roughly the size of the US, and that our alliances--trade and military--with EU countries, make it, in combination with our economy, a tremendous lever to coordinate against Russia and China.

But if "they don't like us" that's another story.  The economic hit we take (e.g. unemployment) and the loss of political clout from ditching them would be worth it.  We'll build some Ford plants in Kuwait and Egypt and some of the 1% will be ok.

Wait . . . hold all that. . . I heard "they don't like us" in the ME either

How many times have you been to the ME? My experience every time/where I've been is the people love us. They want schools, wells, rights, ect...

I'm not too sure the Nazis were big fans of us either.

[Dill]

(09-20-2019, 03:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: How many times have you been to the ME? My experience every time/where I've been is the people love us. They want schools, wells, rights, ect...

I'm not too sure the Nazis were big fans of us either.

Been to the ME many times: Egypt, Jordan, Palestine, Bahrain, Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Qatar. Lived there for 6 years. Afghanistan too, if you call it part of the Greater Middle East.

At a general level, I don't think "they hate us" much in either the EU or the ME, though some groups dislike our government.

Europe, South America, Africa, Middle or Far East--whether "they like us" should not be a basis for foreign policy decisions.



. . . still puzzling over the "Nazi" connection. Nazis hated some of us 70 years ago, so the EU, mostly people who hate Nazis now, hate us too?

[GMDino]

And we send our children to protect the country the 9/11 attackers came from because...oil.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/u-s-deploy-military-forces-saudi-arabia-after-drone-attacks-n1057216

[GMDino]

[Dill]

(09-23-2019, 04:08 PM)GMDino Wrote:

LOL I wouldn't say SA "sponsored" the attacks, as Al Qaeda was almost as much the royal family's enemy as ours.

They are responsible for spreading Wahabism though, and indirectly encouraging ever more extreme Salafism.

Iran's "revolutionary" Islam is a political threat to SA and Sunni states run by traditional elites, and a direct threat to Israel in the form of proxies such as Hezbollah and Hamas. So Iran is much more a threat to them than to the US.  Or was, anyway.  The logic of their situation vis a vis Iran made it imperative for both SA and Israel to keep the US and Iran in conflict, with the US keeping a lid on via sanctions and encircling military bases and deployments.

The Iran Deal removed the lid. The prospect of a non-nuclear but prosperous Iran made that a "very bad deal" indeed for Israel and SA. But replacing the lid now looks bad for all.

[fredtoast]

(09-20-2019, 01:21 PM)Benton Wrote: And for decades Iran insisted they were only seeking safe nuclear power.

I believe neither country.

Supposedly SA helped finance Pakistan's development of the bomb many years ago with a tacit agreement that Pakistan would supply them to SA if needed.

[fredtoast]

(09-19-2019, 01:55 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think that my issue lies with SA. Iran sucks, and so does SA. Both of them are theocratic garbage piles. One pretends to have some democratic principles and one pretends to be an ally. Both are breeding grounds for anti-Western sentiments and extremism. I'm happy to see the two of them beat the crap out of each other.

Remember the good old days when fighting against Iraq kept Iran occupied?

Too bad we put an end to that.

[Dill]

A good description of problems with the current Iran policy here. I still think blowing up the Iran Deal was Trump's worst foreign policy decision so far, the one with the riskiest, most unforseeable and uncontrollable consequences.

Main ideas are bolded, for easier skimming.

Trump’s Iran Policy Is a Failure: Blame U.S. blunders for the worsening crisis in the region.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/09/25/trumps-iran-policy-is-a-failure/?utm_source=PostUp&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=15271&utm_term=Flashpoints%20OC

This month’s attack on two Saudi Aramco oil facilities marked a stunning escalation of tensions in the Middle East. The scale, sophistication, and accuracy of the strikes all suggest that Iran most likely conducted them, as both Riyadh and Washington allege.

The strikes represent a surprising and ill-conceived escalation by Iran, just as U.S. President Donald Trump appeared be on the brink of offering concessions as an incentive to return to direct negotiations with the United States. But they also represent a massive, self-inflicted policy failure by the Trump administration, which triggered the crisis in the first place and has since worsened it through diplomatic, rhetorical, and strategic blunders. In his speech at the United Nations General Assembly Tuesday, Trump offered more of the same: the promise of continued economic and diplomatic pressure on Iran, which will do little to reduce tensions deter Iranian aggression....

The White House’s original mistake was its decision in May of last year to walk away from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, which was keeping Tehran’s nuclear program in check. For a year after the United States withdrew, Iran remained in the deal and tried to isolate Washington from its partners. This approach met with some success as key European governments, along with Russia and China, sided with Iran and worked to keep it compliant with the nuclear agreement. However, international companies fearing U.S. sanctions quickly withdrew from Iran, eliminating the economic benefits associated with the accord. Meanwhile opponents of the deal argued that their strategy had led to the best of both worlds: an Iran under severe sanctions that was still abiding by its 2015 nuclear commitments.

That changed in April, when the Trump administration announced that it would no longer provide any waivers for countries purchasing oil from Iran, in an attempt to drive Iranian oil exports down to zero. With dwindling oil revenue, Iranian leadership decided to demonstrate to the United States the costs of continuing with maximum pressure and send a message to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates that if Iran could not sell oil, their oil exports would also take a hit.

The first and most important task when an adversary such as Iran conducts an unattributable attack is to convince Congress, the public, and the world—especially the United States’ closest allies—that Iran was in fact behind the attack. Yet this requires credibility the president no longer has, because of his willingness to lie on a daily basis about everything from voter fraud conspiracy theories to falsified hurricane paths.

In spite of Trump’s penchant for lying, the United States has close partners, especially in Europe, that might still be willing to believe U.S. accusations toward Iran if presented with compelling evidence. To make that case, the administration must carefully and deliberately gather all the available intelligence, show it to key allies and partners to build broad international support, and only then release it publicly.. . . .

The administration’s failure to generate any kind of international response is not just about its lack of credibility. It’s also about a closely related issue: its complete unpredictability and unreliability.

U.S. partners are afraid to acknowledge Iran’s hand behind the attack even when the finger is likely pointed in the right direction, because they do not want to be associated with the erratic actions the United States might take next, which could potentially draw them into a conflict.

Take, for example, Operation Sentinel, the centerpiece of the Trump administration’s response to recent Iranian attacks in the Persian Gulf. The joint naval operation was meant to build a broad coalition of partners that would contribute ships and aircraft to monitor the Persian Gulf, Gulf of Oman, and Strait of Hormuz to deter Iranian attacks on international shipping. This is among the easiest types of coalition operations. Under a more trustworthy U.S. administration, most traditional U.S. partners would be expected to eagerly support such an effort. Instead, key partners such as Germany and France are trying to establish their own separate mission. Trump he is keen to have allies do more of the work, but his policies are driving the opposite outcome. The message to Iran is clear: The world does not care, so carry on with your attacks.

Even one of the United States’ most steadfast anti-Iran partners, the UAE, has not stood by the Trump administration. Not only did the UAE decline to publicly attribute the Fujairah attack to Iran even after the Trump administration encouraged it to do so, but it has also been pulling back from Yemen and begun naval military-to-military talks with Iran. If the UAE had any faith the United States would defend it and the Trump administration would act reliably, it may have acted differently.

Beyond its contribution to degrading U.S. credibility, reliability, and predictability, the Trump administration’s bellicose rhetoric, unsupported by a real military response, inhibits deterrence against Iran and limits Washington’s potential to push back covertly without igniting a large-scale conflict. Again and again, Trump has shown himself to be all talk and no action. Over the weekend, the president tweeted that the United States was “locked and loaded” to respond to Iran, only to pull back. This is a repeat pattern: In June, when Tehran reportedly downed a U.S. drone, Trump posted on Twitter about how Iran would pay but backed away from strikes in the end.

While Trump has no problem promising to punish Iran for its actions, he has yet to carry out any of his threats. Thus far, his lack of military response has kept the United States from the brink of war, but it has also sent a message to Iran that it can keep pushing further and further without consequences. Eventually, the Iranians may overstep and go too far, and when they do, a president who has spent months thumping his chest may feel he has no choice but to go big in response, triggering a major conflict.

Compare Trump’s failed approach to what Israel has been able to do in Syria, where it has struck more than 1,000 Iranian targets in some 200 separate airstrikes without triggering significant retaliation. Israel has left attribution for these strikes ambiguous so as to not embarrass Iran and force a public response. But the message to Tehran is clear: Israel has imposed limits on how far Iran can go in Syria.