[voksveta]

Iran is hella smarter than the US.

[roundman]

Originally posted by MRT144
Iran is hella smart Indeed. They certainly aren't the messianic madmen some like to make them out to be.

[brraverishhh]

To be honest, this article doesn't make sense to me. It's too clever by half.

Once the escalation starts, it likely would take on a life of its own, to end when the US decides it's good and ready to call off the dogs. Also, it shows a fundamental lack of understanding about how the US works. The president has the whip hand in the short term with regard to how the military is used. The military could put Iran in the stone age before the congress has its say.

[elapicearpisp]

Dan, it's just another of those silly speculative fluff pieces which assign every country outside of the West with some sort of genius ability to plan grand strategy.

[MartZubok]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Dan, it's just another of those silly speculative fluff pieces which assign every country outside of the West with some sort of genius ability to plan grand strategy. KH put it for the cheap seats in the back row.

[Forex Autopilot]

KH put it for the cheap seats in the back row.

I have no idea what this means.

[f29sXS07]

Originally posted by DanS
To be honest, this article doesn't make sense to me. It's too clever by half.

Once the escalation starts, it likely would take on a life of its own, to end when the US decides it's good and ready to call off the dogs. Also, it shows a fundamental lack of understanding about how the US works. The president has the whip hand in the short term with regard to how the military is used. The military could put Iran in the stone age before the congress has its say. Did you pay attention to Lebanon? That wasnt close to putting anyone in the stone age, but the political costs were dramatic.

For the US to send Iran to the stone age over a minor naval confrontation in the Gulf is out of the question. Game over, we lose.

[BigMovies]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
KH put it for the cheap seats in the back row.

I have no idea what this means. d'uh, hes agreeing with you.

[kHy87gPC]

I really couldn't tell. Was he trying to say I "hit it for six" or "knocked it out of the park" or something?

[DeilMikina]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I really couldn't tell. Was he trying to say I "hit it for six" or "knocked it out of the park" or something? no, he was saying that the guys in the orchestra seats could understand his profundity, but you translated it for the guys in seats near the roof.

[wmirkru]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


no, he was saying that the guys in the orchestra seats could understand his profundity, but you translated it for the guys in seats near the roof. Ahh. I don't know why I couldn't see that.

[somozasayre]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Dan, it's just another of those silly speculative fluff pieces which assign every country outside of the West with some sort of genius ability to plan grand strategy. or paints the US with a complete lack of ability to plan a mediocre strategy. Do we have some current examples?

[accotMask17]

I think that several very limited incidents with the US navy, or even with other local navies (saudia? kuwait?) could easily shuffle the cards without actually giving enough pretext for the US to go to war.

Especially if escorted by an unidentified terrorist attack in one of the pro-Us countries (clearly Iranian work, but unprovable).

This will scare Saudi Arabia and its allies.

On the other hand it will not be enough for the US to start war.

- not enough to convince the UN / Europe.
- not enough to convince public opinion.

Unless alot of US soldiers are killed in a way directly traceable to Iran, the democrats will merely say that the Iranians are clearly a strong player, and need to be confronted with dialogue.

[RichardFG435]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
I think that several very limited incidents with the US navy, or even with other local navies (saudia? kuwait?) could easily shuffle the cards without actually giving enough pretext for the US to go to war. What did you have in mind? Once the first shot is fired, all bets are off. Nobody knows what would happen after that -- neither Iran nor the US.

If the US knows it couldn't control the situation to such a fine degree, what makes Iran believe that it can?

[polleroy]

What if Iran sent a ship packed with civilians on a course that appeared to be directly headed towards a US navy vessel and ignored warnings long enough to get itself attacked?

Iran "wins" that battle so long as it's leadership doesn't mourn the loss of life and people blame the US for the consequences.

If that ship is not attacked then later, Iran sends a similar vessel packed with explosives to do the same thing. The ship seriously damages a US naval vessel and Iran "wins" by inflicting a "military defeat" on the great Satan.

The question is whether Iran would be capable of packing a ship with civilians and intentionally putting it in harms way just to test US resolve and make it look bad. I'm not sure if even they would be capable of that. Does anybody know of any confirmed cases of a government successfully using such a cynical tactic?

[BashBeissedat]

Originally posted by Geronimo
The question is whether Iran would be capable of packing a ship with civilians and intentionally putting it in harms way just to test US resolve and make it look bad. I'm not sure if even they would be capable of that. Does anybody know of any confirmed cases of a government successfully using such a cynical tactic? You could at least try to be subtle...

[Logaleta]

Originally posted by DanS
I don't think Lebanon is an apt analogy for a number of reasons, not least of which is that Iran has lots more expensive targets from which to extract a suitable price. Iran has exposed pressure points readily at hand. A lot of those are off-limits, I believe.

[snislarne]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Ive heard folks in the "lets take Iran on NOW" camp say that. And im afraid I dont buy it. You have missiles on the coast. The Spec ops guys come in, you pull the missiles back. They hit smoke. Then they have to run, before you hit them from further inland. A coastal raid strategy, to stop the missiles, without the ability to operate in force inland to protect flanks, or to hold at least coastal areas, seems problematic to me. Any spec ops attack worth its name would be too swift for the missiles to be pulled inland.

[HartOvara]

In a major assault, American missiles will also be launched from submarines and underground silos in Colorado and South Dakota. Why would we use ICBMs on Iran?

The article is pure crap because of this.

The Iranians can close the straights of Hormuz with relatively cheap short range missiles. How many times do I have to explain why this is not the case. A few days max, maybe, is all they could do.

How successful were Iraqi coastal defense batteries at keeping us away from Kuwait and Iraq waters in 91?

Its simply going to be too hard to stop that without boots on the ground along the coast. Why?

Besides, assuming its only spec ops. between Afghan, and Iraq, do we really even have spec ops to spare? Yes.

Reviving old threads

[Vitoethiche]

Originally posted by Patroklos

How many times do I have to explain why this is not the case. A few days max, maybe, is all they could do.

How successful were Iraqi coastal defense batteries at keeping us away from Kuwait and Iraq waters in 91?
I missed your earlier explanations.

Iraqi coastal defense batteries? different strategic situation, no? You hit them from the air, were they mobile? And we werent running tankers along the Kuwaiti coast were we? Im not being snarky here, I honestly dont know if the situations are comparable.