War with Iran?

[*bfine32*]

(08-01-2019, 07:19 PM)Dill Wrote: The NYT has a good recap of your recap. European nations have not responded to Britain's coalition proposal yet. Firm "no" to the US, though. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/01/world/europe/trump-iran-gulf-patrol.html

SSF and I are not squabbling over your facts, but their interpretation and import.

In post #352, in response to Trump's refusal to aid Britain after its tanker was seized, I asked

"I would be interested in hearing people's thoughts on how US allies and Iran will view US paralysis. If allies and other nations all now have to spend money beefing up defenses to defend tankers, won't they see this as largely the result of Trump trashing the Iran deal? Will they blame Trump or Iran primarily?"

In posts #358 and 360, I view this separation of Britain (and European allies) from the US on a matter of cooperative security as a remarkable development and would invite those following the thread to consider whether it is a precedent of things to come, e.g., diminished effectiveness of US diplomacy, usually exercised through alliances. What further consequences may be likely?

The squabbles between us concerned, first, whether asserting Iran is "responsible for its own behavior" answers the questions I have posed (I say no), second, a long digression over whether he is "refuting" my points by merely repeating my premises as if they were his own (I say no) while claiming "nothing to see here," and now, whether the seizure of the Grace 1 tanker off Gibraltar has anything to do with the trashed Iran Deal.  He says no. The last three posts I have been explaining why the EU does not seize non-EU ships to enforce EU sanctions on Syria. He thinks I was saying that the EU does not impose sanctions on non-EU nations, and refuted that with a flourish, since obviously there are EU sanctions on Syria, and it is a non-EU nation.

That's our squabble in a nutshell.

I just get more and more confused following these debates:

So the US has offered to escort ships through the strait but has refused to help Britain protect its ships?

Britain has appealed to the Union of which it is currently a part of for assistance and that's considered separating itself from the US?

You don't think Iran is responsible for its own behavior?

So the EU chooses not to seize ships they see as breaking the agreement?

Hell if I were UK I'd be looking to exit too. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-01-2019, 07:19 PM)Dill Wrote: The NYT has a good recap of your recap. European nations have not responded to Britain's coalition proposal yet. Firm "no" to the US, though. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/01/world/europe/trump-iran-gulf-patrol.html

SSF and I are not squabbling over your facts, but their interpretation and import.

In post #352, in response to Trump's refusal to aid Britain after its tanker was seized, I asked

"I would be interested in hearing people's thoughts on how US allies and Iran will view US paralysis. If allies and other nations all now have to spend money beefing up defenses to defend tankers, won't they see this as largely the result of Trump trashing the Iran deal? Will they blame Trump or Iran primarily?"

In posts #358 and 360, I view this separation of Britain (and European allies) from the US on a matter of cooperative security as a remarkable development and would invite those following the thread to consider whether it is a precedent of things to come, e.g., diminished effectiveness of US diplomacy, usually exercised through alliances. What further consequences may be likely?

The squabbles between us concerned, first, whether asserting Iran is "responsible for its own behavior" answers the questions I have posed (I say no), second, a long digression over whether he is "refuting" my points by merely repeating my premises as if they were his own (I say no) while claiming "nothing to see here," and now, whether the seizure of the Grace 1 tanker off Gibraltar has anything to do with the trashed Iran Deal.  He says no. The last three posts I have been explaining why the EU does not seize non-EU ships to enforce EU sanctions on Syria. He thinks I was saying that the EU does not impose sanctions on non-EU nations, and refuted that with a flourish, since obviously there are EU sanctions on Syria, and it is a non-EU nation.

That's our squabble in a nutshell.

You forgot to add that your entire argument is based on supposition and you've supplied zero concrete evidence for it.

[Dill]

(08-01-2019, 09:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I just get more and more confused following these debates:

So the US has offered to escort ships through the strait but has refused to help Britain protect its ships?
Britain has appealed to the Union of which it is currently a part of for assistance and that's considered separating itself from the US?
You don't think Iran is responsible for its own behavior?
So the EU chooses not to seize ships they see as breaking the agreement?
Hell if I were UK I'd be looking to exit too. 

Good questions/ponts, B, addressed in reverse order.

The UK may be preparing to Brexit now (probably against the current will of the majority), but it still prefers to join a coalition of Europeans than appear to support US Iran policy. Who knows, though. Britain's Trump is PM now. We could see this decision reversed.

And right, the EU chooses not to enforce EU rules on non-EU members acting outside the EU. MOST countries choose not to violate others' sovereignty like that. (Imagine PA state troopers stopping a vehicle with CA plates in Ohio to enforce PA speed limits.) Strictly speaking, the EU does not have an "agreement" with, say, Panama or India or South Africa or Iran, to impose sanctions on Syria. So those countries would not be breaking any agreement with the EU were they to trade with Syria. Contrast this with US sanctions on Iran, which it requires all other countries to follow, or face sanctions on themselves. That's about FORCE, not "agreement."

I suppose everyone is responsible for his own behavior. My questions were about cause and effect, posed within an analytic framework familiar to anyone in the foreign policy community, to examine how current actions of allies and adversaries unfold in the wake the broken Iran Deal. E.g., would Iran be "responsible" for seizing a British tanker if Britain were not already "responsible" for seizing an Iranian? Would Britain have seized the Iranian ship were the US not "responsible" for pressuring its allies to pressure Iran?

In contrast to this analytic approach, the goal of propaganda is to frame international conflict as a moral drama which obscures cause/effect relations in favor of inherently good or bad actors. Within this frame, Iran would be "responsible" for virtually any action deemed anti-US, even if reacting to US provocation. US "responsibility" would be framed out of consideration. Professional foreign policy analysis would be "defending Iran" wherever it strayed from the party line.

Since WWII, the US and GB have worked tightly together in the ME, supporting each other's security needs. To the extreme on Britain's side, as the Iraq war showed. Pre-Trump, were Iran threatening Gulf shipping, the first two countries to "coalesce" on security policy in the region would be the US and GB.  Since Trump trashed the Iran Deal, while GB and the rest of the world are trying to keep it, a division has appeared between the US and its allies. So GB still loudly proclaims its world partnership with the US, but declines to join Trump's proposed Operation Sentinel, along with Germany and the rest of Europe, leaving the US as an embarrassing coalition of one so far.  That is certainly a degree of separation in the Iran policy of the US and GB. And it could widen to affect each country's greater ME policies. So Britain is only "separating itself from the US" with respect to ME policy, at this point. But the separation is clearly there.

The US refused to help when the Impero was seized, but that was two weeks ago. Now it is NOT refusing in the sense that it has called for a coalition.

[*bfine32*]

(08-02-2019, 01:48 PM)Dill Wrote: Good questions/ponts, B, addressed in reverse order.

The UK may be preparing to Brexit now (probably against the current will of the majority), but it still prefers to join a coalition of Europeans than appear to support US Iran policy. Who knows, though. Britain's Trump is PM now. We could see this decision reversed.

And right, the EU chooses not to enforce EU rules on non-EU members acting outside the EU. MOST countries choose not to violate others' sovereignty like that. (Imagine PA state troopers stopping a vehicle with CA plates in Ohio to enforce PA speed limits.) Strictly speaking, the EU does not have an "agreement" with, say, Panama or India or South Africa or Iran, to impose sanctions on Syria. So those countries would not be breaking any agreement with the EU were they to trade with Syria. Contrast this with US sanctions on Iran, which it requires all other countries to follow, or face sanctions on themselves. That's about FORCE, not "agreement."

I suppose everyone is responsible for his own behavior. My questions were about cause and effect, posed within an analytic framework familiar to anyone in the foreign policy community, to examine how current actions of allies and adversaries unfold in the wake the broken Iran Deal. E.g., would Iran be "responsible" for seizing a British tanker if Britain were not already "responsible" for seizing an Iranian? Would Britain have seized the Iranian ship were the US not "responsible" for pressuring its allies to pressure Iran?

In contrast to this analytic approach, the goal of propaganda is to frame international conflict as a moral drama which obscures cause/effect relations in favor of inherently good or bad actors. Within this frame, Iran would be "responsible" for virtually any action deemed anti-US, even if reacting to US provocation. US "responsibility" would be framed out of consideration. Professional foreign policy analysis would be "defending Iran" wherever it strayed from the party line.

Since WWII, the US and GB have worked tightly together in the ME, supporting each other's security needs. To the extreme on Britain's side, as the Iraq war showed. Pre-Trump, were Iran threatening Gulf shipping, the first two countries to "coalesce" on security policy in the region would be the US and GB.  Since Trump trashed the Iran Deal, while GB and the rest of the world are trying to keep it, a division has appeared between the US and its allies. So GB still loudly proclaims its world partnership with the US, but declines to join Trump's proposed Operation Sentinel, along with Germany and the rest of Europe, leaving the US as an embarrassing coalition of one so far.  That is certainly a degree of separation in the Iran policy of the US and GB. And it could widen to affect each country's greater ME policies. So Britain is only "separating itself from the US" with respect to ME policy, at this point. But the separation is clearly there.

The US refused to help when the Impero was seized, but that was two weeks ago. Now it is NOT refusing in the sense that it has called for a coalition.

I appreciate your good faith answers. I think I see why Britain is telling the EU to kick rocks.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-49240867


UK to join US-led taskforce in Gulf to protect merchant ships

Well, there's Dill's argument shot to shite. I suppose Iran's continued state sponsored piracy became rather more of a concern than Dill's suppositions.

[Dill]

(08-06-2019, 10:18 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-49240867

UK to join US-led taskforce in Gulf to protect merchant ships

Well, there's Dill's argument shot to shite.  I suppose Iran's continued state sponsored piracy became rather more of a concern than Dill's suppositions.

LOL, What was Dill's argument again?

[*bfine32*]

(08-02-2019, 05:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I appreciate your good faith answers. I think I see why Britain is telling the EU to kick rocks.

(08-06-2019, 10:18 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-49240867


UK to join US-led taskforce in Gulf to protect merchant ships

Well, there's Dill's argument shot to shite.  I suppose Iran's continued state sponsored piracy became rather more of a concern than Dill's suppositions.

Nailed it. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-06-2019, 05:37 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL, What was Dill's argument again?

One would think Dill would know.  I recall something about the UK not participating in a US led task force in the region being further indication of how weakened our traditional alliances have become and how distrusted we now are.  I suppose if my argument had completely fallen apart I'd try and forget it too.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(08-06-2019, 06:51 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: One would think Dill would know.  I recall something about the UK not participating in a US led task force in the region being further indication of how weakened our traditional alliances have become and how distrusted we now are.  I suppose if my argument had completely fallen apart I'd try and forget it too.

[JustWinBaby]

(08-06-2019, 06:51 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: One would think Dill would know.

Why would you think this?  I'm legitimately curious to understand why...

[Dill]

(08-06-2019, 06:51 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: One would think Dill would know.  I recall something about the UK not participating in a US led task force in the region being further indication of how weakened our traditional alliances have become and how distrusted we now are.  I suppose if my argument had completely fallen apart I'd try and forget it too.

Dill would know. The question is whether you would. Even after I have summarized it for you in posts #368 and 371. And for Bfine in #380 and 383.  I keep having to do this because, as demonstrated, you keep getting it wrong, repeating my own points as if objections and misreading/misconstruing evidence.

In post #383, 08/02, I say the following in response to a question by Bfine.

(08-02-2019, 01:48 PM)Dill Wrote: The UK may be preparing to Brexit now (probably against the current will of the majority), but it still prefers to join a coalition of Europeans than appear to support US Iran policy. Who knows, though. Britain's Trump is PM now. We could see this decision reversed.

According to your source: British attempts to create a European-led coalition to provide maritime security in the Gulf - and to deter Iran - have clearly not born fruit, at least yet.
Hence the UK decision to "join an international maritime security mission", which will be led by the US.
So far, the UK is the only other member.

The apparent change of heart has been made easier by the recent changes in Downing Street.
The UK government still says it hopes the taskforce can transition to a European-led mission - though so far no other European countries have said they're willing to commit warships to protect merchant shipping as part of an international maritime force.
The government also insists that its policy to Iran has not changed.

Britain says it remains committed, along with EU allies, to maintaining the Iran nuclear deal - unlike the US.
But Iran may view this latest move differently.

"Changes in Downing Street"--an allusion to the new prime minister. Jeremy Hunt, the guy who proposed the EU coalition, is gone.

For anyone who has followed my "argument," Britain, along with the rest of the EU, continues to separate itself from the US Iran policy by maintaining the Iran Deal.--as stated in your article. That is a fact. Just as it was a fact that, as of 08/02, GB had refused to join the US Naval coalition.

So if I state on 08/02 that given the new, Trump-style prime minister, Britain could "reverse" the preference for a European only security coalition in the Gulf, and then it does reverse that preference on 08/05--while maintaining the Iran Deal "UNLIKE THE US"--then how is my "argument shot to shite"? 

Looks like you are still just responding to posts ad hoc, scattershot, hyperbolic ("completely fallen apart") no grasp at all of the analytic framework in which I am posing/answering questions. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-07-2019, 08:23 AM)Dill Wrote: Dill would know. The question is whether you would. Even after I have summarized it for you in posts #368 and 371. And for Bfine in #380 and 383.  I keep having to do this because, as demonstrated, you keep getting it wrong, repeating my own points as if objections and misreading/misconstruing evidence.

In post #383, 08/02, I say the following in response to a question by Bfine.


According to your source: British attempts to create a European-led coalition to provide maritime security in the Gulf - and to deter Iran - have clearly not born fruit, at least yet.
Hence the UK decision to "join an international maritime security mission", which will be led by the US.
So far, the UK is the only other member.

The apparent change of heart has been made easier by the recent changes in Downing Street.
The UK government still says it hopes the taskforce can transition to a European-led mission - though so far no other European countries have said they're willing to commit warships to protect merchant shipping as part of an international maritime force.
The government also insists that its policy to Iran has not changed.

Britain says it remains committed, along with EU allies, to maintaining the Iran nuclear deal - unlike the US.
But Iran may view this latest move differently.

"Changes in Downing Street"--an allusion to the new prime minister. Jeremy Hunt, the guy who proposed the EU coalition, is gone.

For anyone who has followed my "argument," Britain, along with the rest of the EU, continues to separate itself from the US Iran policy by maintaining the Iran Deal.--as stated in your article. That is a fact. Just as it was a fact that, as of 08/02, GB had refused to join the US Naval coalition.

So if I state on 08/02 that given the new, Trump-style prime minister, Britain could "reverse" the preference for a European only security coalition in the Gulf, and then it does reverse that preference on 08/05--while maintaining the Iran Deal "UNLIKE THE US"--then how is my "argument shot to shite"? 

Looks like you are still just responding to posts ad hoc, scattershot, hyperbolic ("completely fallen apart") no grasp at all of the analytic framework in which I am posing/answering questions. 

Remember kids, if you simultaneously make both sides of an argument you can never be wrong.


One thing you did prove is how utterly neutered the EU is.  State sponsored piracy, no problem!

[GMDino]

(08-07-2019, 09:21 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Remember kids, if you simultaneously make both sides of an argument you can never be wrong.


One thing you did prove is how utterly neutered the EU is.  State sponsored piracy, no problem!

I think you mean if you can look at all sides and see where a situation is and where it might be heading (complete with supporting argument) you can be accused of being utterly wrong when it happens by someone who sticks to "one side" of an argument. 

[Dill]

(08-07-2019, 09:26 AM)GMDino Wrote: I think you mean if you can look at all sides and see where a situation is and where it might be heading (complete with supporting argument) you can be accused of being utterly wrong when it happens by someone who sticks to "one side" of an argument. 

LOL  Nailed it.

No one was making "both sides" of an argument here. 

But one has to be inclined to FOLLOW an argument before one can see that.

[Dill]

(08-07-2019, 09:21 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Remember kids, if you simultaneously make both sides of an argument you can never be wrong.

One thing you did prove is how utterly neutered the EU is.  State sponsored piracy, no problem!

What is the "other side" of my argument?

Or have you rushed to stumble? Again.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-07-2019, 11:26 AM)Dill Wrote: What is the "other side" of my argument?

Or have you rushed to stumble? Again.

Your positions in this thread have been rather contradictory.  First the UK not wanting to participate in a US led coalition in the gulf is a sign of our weakened alliances and a lack of trust n the US.  The UK is also not participating because they still support the Iran deal.  Then you argue that the UK seized an Iranian tanker at the behest of the US, which completely contradicts your initial supposition that the UK is not cooperating with us as they want to salvage the Iran deal.  Of course, this argument is based entirely on supposition and not one solid fact.  Then the UK actually joins the US led effort in the Gulf and then that was your argument all along.

Your Gordian knot of circuitous and contradictory arguments is tiresome to address so I will cease doing so now.  Feel free to interpret that as you will.

[Dill]

(08-07-2019, 11:32 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Your positions in this thread have been rather contradictory.  First the UK not wanting to participate in a US led coalition in the gulf is a sign of our weakened alliances and a lack of trust n the US.  The UK is also not participating because they still support the Iran deal.  Then you argue that the UK seized an Iranian tanker at the behest of the US, which completely contradicts your initial supposition that the UK is not cooperating with us as they want to salvage the Iran deal.  Of course, this argument is based entirely on supposition and not one solid fact.  Then the UK actually joins the US led effort in the Gulf and then that was your argument all along.

Your Gordian knot of circuitous and contradictory arguments is tiresome to address so I will cease doing so now.  Feel free to interpret that as you will.

I "feel free" to interpret this as just another round of misconstruction.  For the second time on this thread, I get the last word.

1. Anyone actually following my argument would understand that it is based upon the following "solid facts": Trump trashed the Iran Deal against the wishes of the UK and other signatories; those signatories continue to honor the deal against US wishes.  At one point, the UK's Jeremy Hunt refused to join the US Coalition and called for one made of EU ships. Other allies continue to reject the US offer. What you call "supposition" enters in when I conclude that US efforts to force allies to comply with its Iran policy, and the efforts of allies to avoid compliance, constitute a strain on alliance, a sign of separation from US Iran policy.  

2. If I state it is a FACT that the US has pulled out of the Iran Deal, but that in the future, if a Democrat is elected president, it is POSSIBLE that the US could sign back onto the deal--that would not be "maintaining contradictory positions" or "both sides of the argument." It would be to recognize that policy can change with administrations, something foreign policy and intel analysts do all the time.*  Same if I say it is POSSIBLE that UK policy towards a Gulf coalition could change with a new Trump-friendly prime minister. If the UK under a new administration does decide to join the US coalition, but continues to maintain the Iran Deal against US wishes, then the above-mentioned strain is still there, notwithstanding this cooperation.

3.  If the UK decides to stick with the Iran Deal against US wishes, and the Foreign Secretary nixes a Gulf coalition with the US, AND THEN the UK also seizes a ship at Gibraltar, acting on US intel and falsely claiming it is following EU policy, then why shouldn't that just make the UK policy "circuitous and contradictory" rather than my argument? You aren't disputing that the UK continues to support the Iran Deal against US wishes, are you? Why isn't it likely, as the Guardian's Simon Tisdall suggests,  that "Conservative politicians, distracted by picking a new prime minister, jockeying for power, and preoccupied with Brexit, stumbled into an American trap" ?

4. Final point, despite the allowed-for shift in Gulf-security policy, the UK continues to honor the Iran Deal AGAINST US WISHES.  Based upon this FACT, I see continued strain in the US-UK alliance, not to mention strain on the other alliances as well. You seem to think "suppositions" are what the other guy has. Based upon what "solid facts" do you see no strain? Trust in Trump-directed US policy remains high because . . . ?

*Policy and intel analysts create estimates which assign evidence levels of probability/confidence. There is rarely the kind of either/or between "solid facts" and "supposition" you demand here--and cannot yourself provide.

[*bfine32*]

What should we do if Iran is bombing Saudi Oil Fields?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/u-s-blames-iran-for-attack-on-saudi-oil-fields/ar-AAHh2yx?li=BBnb4R7

Quote:Secretary of State Mike Pompeo blamed Iran for coordinated drone strikes on the heart of Saudi Arabia’s oil industry, saying they marked an unprecedented attack on the world’s energy supply.

The strikes shut down half of the kingdom’s crude production on Saturday, potentially roiling petroleum prices and demonstrating the power of Iran’s proxies.

Personally I can see us and England retaliating. I think the EU (especially Germany) gets it's oil from Russia

[*jason*]

(09-16-2019, 07:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What should we do if Iran is bombing Saudi Oil Fields?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/u-s-blames-iran-for-attack-on-saudi-oil-fields/ar-AAHh2yx?li=BBnb4R7


Personally I can see us and England retaliating. I think the EU (especially Germany) gets it's oil from Russia

What we should do is wash our hands of that situation. Neither of those governments share our values. What we will do is probably a different story.

[*bfine32*]

(09-16-2019, 09:42 PM)jason Wrote: What we should do is wash our hands of that situation. Neither of those governments share our values. What we will do is probably a different story.

We value cheap gas.