- Joined
- Apr 17, 2019
- Messages
- 6,840
- Points
- 113
Can't help it.
Stinkypura itself has been leased to the Yanks by Ah Loong, making it a valid target for nuclear strikes
https://www.straitstimes.com/singap...hows-support-for-us-presence-in-region-mindef
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
2020 US-Iran War Update Thread
- Thread starter Rogue Trader
- Start date
Can't help it.
Stinkypura itself has been leased to the Yanks by Ah Loong, making it a valid target for nuclear strikes
https://www.straitstimes.com/singap...hows-support-for-us-presence-in-region-mindef
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2018
- Messages
- 30,279
- Points
- 113
Note To Iran: Want to Start World War III? Sink a U.S. Navy Carrier
Key point: The sneak attack on Pearl Harbor shows that certain attacks can backfire on the enemy.
Since the 1950s, the supercarrier has been the most visible representation of U.S. military power and maritime hegemony. Although supercarriers have participated in nearly every military conflict since the commissioning of USS Forrestal in 1955, no carrier has come under determined attack from a capable opponent. In part, this is because supercarriers are very difficult to attack, but the symbolic grandeur of the massive ships also plays a role; no one wants to know what the United States might do if one of its carriers came under attack.
What would happen if a foe attacked a United States Navy (USN) aircraft carrier during a conflict? How would the United States react, and how would it respond?
Circumstances:
Circumstances obviously matter for an attack on a U.S. aircraft carrier. An out-of-the-blue attack from a conventionally armed state actor would enjoy the highest levels of success, but would also have an impact on elite and public opinion in the United States that might drive calls for dire retribution. An attack as part of a crisis would seem less extraordinarily hostile, but would nevertheless incur demands for a severe response. Finally, an attack during active hostilities might well represent a significant escalation but would be least likely to elicit an enraged public response. Most devastating of all might be an attack by a non-state actor that resulted in significant casualties and/or the destruction of the carrier. This would undoubtedly inflame U.S. public opinion while leaving the United States without a clear path for response and retribution.
Jan
6
1912
German geophysicist Alfred Wegener first presents his theory of continental drift.
add this to your site
Escalatory Logic:
As part of an ongoing military conflict, an attack against a USN carrier would not necessarily represent a legal challenge; aircraft carriers are weapons of war, after all, and they are just as vulnerable to attack as any other weapon. But as military theorists have pointed out for at least two centuries, states choose their levels of escalation very carefully. Most wars are limited wars, and in limited wars, generals, admirals, and politicians are aware of the political import of the targets they select. Consequently, some targets remain off-limits for states that want to keep a war limited, even if those targets make a material contribution to the conduct of the conflict.
The United States has enjoyed, for quite some time, a perception of untouchability around its most cherished, expensive, and effective military assets. Even with conventional naval and air forces, attacking a supercarrier is no mean task; the USSR tried to develop effective anti-carrier weapons and tactics for decades, a pursuit that China has now taken up. But aircraft carriers have an almost mythic symbolic importance, both in global opinion and in the self-conception of the U.S. Navy. No state has undertaken a determined attack against a USN carrier since World War II.
Authorizing an attack against a USN supercarrier would require a weighty political decision. Political and senior military authorities might prefer to simply damage a carrier, which would send America a message about vulnerability but that would not necessarily lead to the deaths of extensive numbers of U.S. personnel. However, it would be difficult for anyone to guarantee limitations on damage, as a "lucky shot" might destroy the carrier. Granting the authority to attack a carrier would necessarily run the risk of sinking the ship. The USS Nimitz carries almost 6000 American military personnel and represents a vast expenditure of American treasure. Attacking her, and thus endangering this blood and treasure, is a very risky prospect indeed. The sinking of a U.S. aircraft carrier might well result in casualties that would exceed the total losses of the Iraq War in no more than a few minutes. When capital ships sink, they sometimes take nearly every crew member with them; 1415 of a crew of 1418 went down with HMS Hood in 1941, for example.
The targets of an attack against a carrier, in effect, would be U.S. military capabilities, public opinion, and elite opinion (defining elite as including military and civilian leadership). The political and military leadership of the foe would need to believe that attacking the carrier was militarily feasible, that it would further operational or strategic goals, and that the likely U.S. responses were manageable in military and political terms. On the operational and strategic levels, it's not difficult to imagine a context in which damaging, destroying, or deterring a carrier would enable operational military success. Simply clearing the skies of F/A-18s and F-35s tends to make life easier for fielded military forces. On the strategic side, an attack would convey a seriousness of commitment, while creating fear of vulnerability in America. Damaging or sinking a carrier would make the costs of war starkly clear to Americans, and might dissuade them from further conflict. Finally, any decision to escalate must take the potential U.S. response seriously and including either that America would not escalate in response or that any U.S. response could be effectively managed.
Impact:
Much would depend on the effectiveness of the attack. Even an unsuccessful attempt at attacking a supercarrier (an intercepted submarine sortie or a volley of ballistic missiles that failed to reach the target, for example) would carry escalatory risks, although it would also indicate seriousness of purpose to U.S. policymakers.
The military impact of a successful strike against a carrier would be straightforward. A missile volley that either sank a carrier or led to a “mission-kill” by damaging the flight deck of a carrier into inoperability would deeply affect U.S. military operations, both by removing the carrier from the fight and from deterring America from deploying other carriers to the region. The USN can deploy only a limited number of carriers at any given time. In a crisis, the USN could shift carriers around and stand up additional ships, but knocking out a carrier effectively eliminates around 10 percent of American naval aviation strike power. The United States has other options (land-based air, cruise missiles, assault carriers), but in many scenarios damaging or sinking a carrier could have a dramatic impact on the military balance.
However, a “mission-kill” would not necessarily inflame U.S. public opinion, and might even create a sense of vulnerability among the American people. Perhaps more importantly, such an attack might give U.S. policymakers (who have historically been more casualty-averse than the U.S. public) pause over the costs and benefits of the intervention. An attack that sank a carrier with significant casualties, on the other hand, might well result in demands for vengeance, the specific circumstances of the attack notwithstanding. This could put U.S. policymakers in the awkward position of needing to escalate, without being able to use some of the most lethal military options in their toolkit.
But again, the attacker would run severe risks. Damaging or sinking a carrier could result in a much stronger U.S. commitment to the conflict, as well as a U.S. decision to escalate either vertically (by using additional weapon systems) or horizontally (by widening the geographic scope of the fight). Sinking a carrier would be a great way to turn a limited war into a major war, and there are very few countries that would seriously contemplate major war against the United States.
Final Salvo:
It is not likely that any foe will decide to attack a USN supercarrier by accident. Launching an attack against a carrier represents a profound political-military decision to escalate the stakes of a conflict, and it is unlikely that a tactical commander (a sub skipper, for example) would be allowed to make such a decision on his or her own. If such an attack ever takes place during a crisis or a conflict, the policymakers on either side (not to mention the rest of the world) will need to take very deep breaths and think hard about what the next steps might be.
Robert Farley, a frequent contributor to TNI, is a Visiting Professor at the United States Army War College. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government. This first appeared earlier in 2019.
Image: Wikimedia.
Key point: The sneak attack on Pearl Harbor shows that certain attacks can backfire on the enemy.
Since the 1950s, the supercarrier has been the most visible representation of U.S. military power and maritime hegemony. Although supercarriers have participated in nearly every military conflict since the commissioning of USS Forrestal in 1955, no carrier has come under determined attack from a capable opponent. In part, this is because supercarriers are very difficult to attack, but the symbolic grandeur of the massive ships also plays a role; no one wants to know what the United States might do if one of its carriers came under attack.
What would happen if a foe attacked a United States Navy (USN) aircraft carrier during a conflict? How would the United States react, and how would it respond?
Circumstances:
Circumstances obviously matter for an attack on a U.S. aircraft carrier. An out-of-the-blue attack from a conventionally armed state actor would enjoy the highest levels of success, but would also have an impact on elite and public opinion in the United States that might drive calls for dire retribution. An attack as part of a crisis would seem less extraordinarily hostile, but would nevertheless incur demands for a severe response. Finally, an attack during active hostilities might well represent a significant escalation but would be least likely to elicit an enraged public response. Most devastating of all might be an attack by a non-state actor that resulted in significant casualties and/or the destruction of the carrier. This would undoubtedly inflame U.S. public opinion while leaving the United States without a clear path for response and retribution.
Jan
6
1912
German geophysicist Alfred Wegener first presents his theory of continental drift.
add this to your site
Escalatory Logic:
As part of an ongoing military conflict, an attack against a USN carrier would not necessarily represent a legal challenge; aircraft carriers are weapons of war, after all, and they are just as vulnerable to attack as any other weapon. But as military theorists have pointed out for at least two centuries, states choose their levels of escalation very carefully. Most wars are limited wars, and in limited wars, generals, admirals, and politicians are aware of the political import of the targets they select. Consequently, some targets remain off-limits for states that want to keep a war limited, even if those targets make a material contribution to the conduct of the conflict.
The United States has enjoyed, for quite some time, a perception of untouchability around its most cherished, expensive, and effective military assets. Even with conventional naval and air forces, attacking a supercarrier is no mean task; the USSR tried to develop effective anti-carrier weapons and tactics for decades, a pursuit that China has now taken up. But aircraft carriers have an almost mythic symbolic importance, both in global opinion and in the self-conception of the U.S. Navy. No state has undertaken a determined attack against a USN carrier since World War II.
Authorizing an attack against a USN supercarrier would require a weighty political decision. Political and senior military authorities might prefer to simply damage a carrier, which would send America a message about vulnerability but that would not necessarily lead to the deaths of extensive numbers of U.S. personnel. However, it would be difficult for anyone to guarantee limitations on damage, as a "lucky shot" might destroy the carrier. Granting the authority to attack a carrier would necessarily run the risk of sinking the ship. The USS Nimitz carries almost 6000 American military personnel and represents a vast expenditure of American treasure. Attacking her, and thus endangering this blood and treasure, is a very risky prospect indeed. The sinking of a U.S. aircraft carrier might well result in casualties that would exceed the total losses of the Iraq War in no more than a few minutes. When capital ships sink, they sometimes take nearly every crew member with them; 1415 of a crew of 1418 went down with HMS Hood in 1941, for example.
The targets of an attack against a carrier, in effect, would be U.S. military capabilities, public opinion, and elite opinion (defining elite as including military and civilian leadership). The political and military leadership of the foe would need to believe that attacking the carrier was militarily feasible, that it would further operational or strategic goals, and that the likely U.S. responses were manageable in military and political terms. On the operational and strategic levels, it's not difficult to imagine a context in which damaging, destroying, or deterring a carrier would enable operational military success. Simply clearing the skies of F/A-18s and F-35s tends to make life easier for fielded military forces. On the strategic side, an attack would convey a seriousness of commitment, while creating fear of vulnerability in America. Damaging or sinking a carrier would make the costs of war starkly clear to Americans, and might dissuade them from further conflict. Finally, any decision to escalate must take the potential U.S. response seriously and including either that America would not escalate in response or that any U.S. response could be effectively managed.
Impact:
Much would depend on the effectiveness of the attack. Even an unsuccessful attempt at attacking a supercarrier (an intercepted submarine sortie or a volley of ballistic missiles that failed to reach the target, for example) would carry escalatory risks, although it would also indicate seriousness of purpose to U.S. policymakers.
The military impact of a successful strike against a carrier would be straightforward. A missile volley that either sank a carrier or led to a “mission-kill” by damaging the flight deck of a carrier into inoperability would deeply affect U.S. military operations, both by removing the carrier from the fight and from deterring America from deploying other carriers to the region. The USN can deploy only a limited number of carriers at any given time. In a crisis, the USN could shift carriers around and stand up additional ships, but knocking out a carrier effectively eliminates around 10 percent of American naval aviation strike power. The United States has other options (land-based air, cruise missiles, assault carriers), but in many scenarios damaging or sinking a carrier could have a dramatic impact on the military balance.
However, a “mission-kill” would not necessarily inflame U.S. public opinion, and might even create a sense of vulnerability among the American people. Perhaps more importantly, such an attack might give U.S. policymakers (who have historically been more casualty-averse than the U.S. public) pause over the costs and benefits of the intervention. An attack that sank a carrier with significant casualties, on the other hand, might well result in demands for vengeance, the specific circumstances of the attack notwithstanding. This could put U.S. policymakers in the awkward position of needing to escalate, without being able to use some of the most lethal military options in their toolkit.
But again, the attacker would run severe risks. Damaging or sinking a carrier could result in a much stronger U.S. commitment to the conflict, as well as a U.S. decision to escalate either vertically (by using additional weapon systems) or horizontally (by widening the geographic scope of the fight). Sinking a carrier would be a great way to turn a limited war into a major war, and there are very few countries that would seriously contemplate major war against the United States.
Final Salvo:
It is not likely that any foe will decide to attack a USN supercarrier by accident. Launching an attack against a carrier represents a profound political-military decision to escalate the stakes of a conflict, and it is unlikely that a tactical commander (a sub skipper, for example) would be allowed to make such a decision on his or her own. If such an attack ever takes place during a crisis or a conflict, the policymakers on either side (not to mention the rest of the world) will need to take very deep breaths and think hard about what the next steps might be.
Robert Farley, a frequent contributor to TNI, is a Visiting Professor at the United States Army War College. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government. This first appeared earlier in 2019.
Image: Wikimedia.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2018
- Messages
- 30,279
- Points
- 113
Why A U.S.-Iran War Isn't Going To Happen
The coming weeks and months may see irregular warfare prosecuted with newfound vigor through such familiar unconventional warmaking methods. It’s doubtful Tehran would launch into conventional operations, stepping onto ground it knows America dominates. To launch full-scale military reprisals would justify full-scale U.S. military reprisals that, in all likelihood, would outstrip Iran’s in firepower and ferocity
Will Tehran and Washington let slip the dogs of war following last week’s aerial takedown of Qasem Soleimani, commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’s IRGC) Quds Force? You could be forgiven for thinking so considering the hot takes that greeted the news of the drone strike outside Baghdad. For example, one prominent commentator, the Council on Foreign Relations’ Richard Haass, opined that the Middle East “region (and possibly the world) will be the battlefield.”
Color me skeptical. The apocalypse is not at hand.
Haass is right in the limited sense that irregular military operations now span the globe. Terrorists thirst to strike at far as well as near enemies in hopes of degrading their will to fight. They respect no national boundaries and never have. Frontiers are likewise murky in the cyber realm, to name another battleground with no defined battlefronts. The United States and Iran have waged cyber combat for a decade or more, dating to the Stuxnet worm attack on the Iranian nuclear complex in 2010.
The coming weeks and months may see irregular warfare prosecuted with newfound vigor through such familiar unconventional warmaking methods. It’s doubtful Tehran would launch into conventional operations, stepping onto ground it knows America dominates. To launch full-scale military reprisals would justify full-scale U.S. military reprisals that, in all likelihood, would outstrip Iran’s in firepower and ferocity. The ayatollahs who oversee the Islamic Republic fret about coming up on the losing end of such a clash. As well they might, considering hard experience.
So the outlook is for more of the same. That’s a far cry from the more fevered prophecies of World War III aired since Soleimani went to his reward. To fathom Tehran’s dilemma, let’s ask a fellow who knew a thing or two about Persian ambitions. (The pre-Islamic Persian Empire, which bestrode the Middle East and menaced Europe, remains the lodestone of geopolitical success—even for Islamic Iran.)
Jan
6
1838
Alfred Vail demonstrates a telegraph system using dots and dashes (this is the forerunner of Morse code).
1912
German geophysicist Alfred Wegener first presents his theory of continental drift.
add this to your site
The Athenian historian Thucydides chronicled the Peloponnesian War, a fifth-century-B.C. maelstrom that engulfed the Greek world. Persia was a major player in that contest. In fact, it helped decide the endgame when the Great King supplied Athens’ antagonist, Sparta, with the resources to build itself into a naval power capable of defeating the vaunted Athenian navy at sea. But Thucydides also meditates on human nature at many junctures in his history, deriving observations of universal scope. At one stage, for instance, he has Athenian ambassadors posit that three of the prime movers impelling human actions are “fear, honor, and interest.” The emissaries appear to speak for the father of history.
Fear, honor, interest. There are few better places to start puzzling out why individuals and societies do what they do and glimpse what we ought to do. How does Thucydides’ hypothesis apply to post-Soleimani antagonism between the United States and Iran? Well, the slaying of the Quds Force chieftain puts the ball squarely in the Islamic Republic’s court. The mullahs must reply to the strike in some fashion. To remain idle would be to make themselves look weak and ineffectual in the eyes of the region and of ordinary Iranians.
In fecklessness lies danger. Doubly so now, after protests convulsed parts of Iran last November. The ensuing crackdown cost hundreds of Iranians their lives—and revealed how deeply resentments against the religious regime run. No autocrat relishes weakness, least of all an autocrat whose rule has come under duress from within. A show of power and steadfastness is necessary to cow domestic opponents.
But fear is an omnidirectional, multiple-domain thing for Iranian potentates. External threats abound. Iranians are keenly attuned to geographic encirclement, for instance. They view their country as the Middle East’s rightful heavyweight. Yet U.S. forces or their allies surround and constrain the Islamic Republic from all points of the compass with the partial exception of the northeastern quadrant, which encompasses the ‘stans of Central Asia, and beyond them Russia.
Look at your map. The U.S. Navy commands the westerly maritime flank, backed up by the U.S. Air Force. America’s Gulf Arab allies ring the western shores of the Persian Gulf. U.S. forces remain in Iraq to the northwest, where Suleimani fell, and in Afghanistan to the east. Even Pakistan, to the southeast, is an American treaty ally, albeit an uneasy one. These are forbidding surroundings. Tendrils of U.S. influence curl all around the Islamic Republic’s borders. Breaking out seems like a natural impulse for Iranian diplomacy and military strategy.
And yet. However fervent about its geopolitical ambitions, the Iranian leadership will be loath to undertake measures beyond the intermittent bombings, support to militants elsewhere in the region, and ritual denunciations of the Great Satan that have been mainstays of Iranian foreign policy for forty years now. Iranian leaders comprehend the forces arrayed against them. A serious effort at a breakout will remain premature unless and until they consummate their bid for atomic weaponry. The ability to threaten nuclear devastation may embolden them to try—but that remains for the future.
Next, honor. Irregular warfare is indecisive in itself, but it can provide splashy returns on a modest investment of resources and effort. Having staked their political legitimacy on sticking it to the Great Satan and his Middle Eastern toadies, the ayatollahs must deliver regular incremental results. Direct attacks on U.S. forces make good clickbait; so do pictures showing IRGC light surface combatants tailing U.S. Navy task forces; so do attacks on vital economic infrastructure in U.S. allies such as Saudi Arabia. And headlines convey the image of a virile power on the move.
The honor motive, then, merges with fear. Iranians fear being denied the honor they consider their due as the natural hegemon of the Gulf region and the Islamic world.
And lastly, interest. Mischief-making must suffice for Iran until it can amass the material wherewithal to make itself a hegemon. It’s fascinating that Thucydides lists material gain last among forces that animate human beings. After all, foreign-policy specialists list it first. Interest is quantifiable, and it seems to feed straight into calculations of cost, benefit, and risk. It makes statecraft seem rational!
There’s no way to know for sure after two millennia, but it seems likely the sage old Greek meant to deflate such excesses of rationalism. Namely, he regarded human nature as being about more than things we can count, like economic output or a large field army. For Thucydides cost/benefit arithmetic takes a back seat to not-strictly-rational passions—some of them dark, such as rage and spite, and others bright—that drive us all.
And indeed, for Iranians material interest constitutes the way to rejuvenate national honor while holding fear at bay. Breaking the economic blockade manifest in, say, the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” strategy would permit Tehran to revitalize the country’s moribund oil and gas sector. Renewed export trade would furnish wealth. Some could go into accoutrements of great power such as a high-tech navy and air force.
In turn Iranian leaders could back a more ambitious diplomacy with steel. They would enjoy the option of departing from their purely irregular, troublemaking ways and competing through more conventional methods. Or, more likely, they would harness irregular means as an adjunct to traditional strategic competition. Material gain, in short, not just satisfies economic needs and wants but amplifies martial might. In so doing it satisfies non-material cravings for renown and geopolitical say-so.
And the American side? Repeat this process. Refract U.S. policy and strategy through Thucydides’ prism of fear, honor, and interest, consider how Iranian and American motives may intersect and interact, and see what light that appraisal shines into the future. My take: perhaps World War III will come one day—but today is not that day.
James Holmes is J. C. Wylie Chair of Maritime Strategy at the Naval War College and the author of A Brief Guide to Maritime Strategy, out last month. The views voiced here are his alone.
The coming weeks and months may see irregular warfare prosecuted with newfound vigor through such familiar unconventional warmaking methods. It’s doubtful Tehran would launch into conventional operations, stepping onto ground it knows America dominates. To launch full-scale military reprisals would justify full-scale U.S. military reprisals that, in all likelihood, would outstrip Iran’s in firepower and ferocity
Will Tehran and Washington let slip the dogs of war following last week’s aerial takedown of Qasem Soleimani, commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’s IRGC) Quds Force? You could be forgiven for thinking so considering the hot takes that greeted the news of the drone strike outside Baghdad. For example, one prominent commentator, the Council on Foreign Relations’ Richard Haass, opined that the Middle East “region (and possibly the world) will be the battlefield.”
Color me skeptical. The apocalypse is not at hand.
Haass is right in the limited sense that irregular military operations now span the globe. Terrorists thirst to strike at far as well as near enemies in hopes of degrading their will to fight. They respect no national boundaries and never have. Frontiers are likewise murky in the cyber realm, to name another battleground with no defined battlefronts. The United States and Iran have waged cyber combat for a decade or more, dating to the Stuxnet worm attack on the Iranian nuclear complex in 2010.
The coming weeks and months may see irregular warfare prosecuted with newfound vigor through such familiar unconventional warmaking methods. It’s doubtful Tehran would launch into conventional operations, stepping onto ground it knows America dominates. To launch full-scale military reprisals would justify full-scale U.S. military reprisals that, in all likelihood, would outstrip Iran’s in firepower and ferocity. The ayatollahs who oversee the Islamic Republic fret about coming up on the losing end of such a clash. As well they might, considering hard experience.
So the outlook is for more of the same. That’s a far cry from the more fevered prophecies of World War III aired since Soleimani went to his reward. To fathom Tehran’s dilemma, let’s ask a fellow who knew a thing or two about Persian ambitions. (The pre-Islamic Persian Empire, which bestrode the Middle East and menaced Europe, remains the lodestone of geopolitical success—even for Islamic Iran.)
Jan
6
1838
Alfred Vail demonstrates a telegraph system using dots and dashes (this is the forerunner of Morse code).
1912
German geophysicist Alfred Wegener first presents his theory of continental drift.
add this to your site
The Athenian historian Thucydides chronicled the Peloponnesian War, a fifth-century-B.C. maelstrom that engulfed the Greek world. Persia was a major player in that contest. In fact, it helped decide the endgame when the Great King supplied Athens’ antagonist, Sparta, with the resources to build itself into a naval power capable of defeating the vaunted Athenian navy at sea. But Thucydides also meditates on human nature at many junctures in his history, deriving observations of universal scope. At one stage, for instance, he has Athenian ambassadors posit that three of the prime movers impelling human actions are “fear, honor, and interest.” The emissaries appear to speak for the father of history.
Fear, honor, interest. There are few better places to start puzzling out why individuals and societies do what they do and glimpse what we ought to do. How does Thucydides’ hypothesis apply to post-Soleimani antagonism between the United States and Iran? Well, the slaying of the Quds Force chieftain puts the ball squarely in the Islamic Republic’s court. The mullahs must reply to the strike in some fashion. To remain idle would be to make themselves look weak and ineffectual in the eyes of the region and of ordinary Iranians.
In fecklessness lies danger. Doubly so now, after protests convulsed parts of Iran last November. The ensuing crackdown cost hundreds of Iranians their lives—and revealed how deeply resentments against the religious regime run. No autocrat relishes weakness, least of all an autocrat whose rule has come under duress from within. A show of power and steadfastness is necessary to cow domestic opponents.
But fear is an omnidirectional, multiple-domain thing for Iranian potentates. External threats abound. Iranians are keenly attuned to geographic encirclement, for instance. They view their country as the Middle East’s rightful heavyweight. Yet U.S. forces or their allies surround and constrain the Islamic Republic from all points of the compass with the partial exception of the northeastern quadrant, which encompasses the ‘stans of Central Asia, and beyond them Russia.
Look at your map. The U.S. Navy commands the westerly maritime flank, backed up by the U.S. Air Force. America’s Gulf Arab allies ring the western shores of the Persian Gulf. U.S. forces remain in Iraq to the northwest, where Suleimani fell, and in Afghanistan to the east. Even Pakistan, to the southeast, is an American treaty ally, albeit an uneasy one. These are forbidding surroundings. Tendrils of U.S. influence curl all around the Islamic Republic’s borders. Breaking out seems like a natural impulse for Iranian diplomacy and military strategy.
And yet. However fervent about its geopolitical ambitions, the Iranian leadership will be loath to undertake measures beyond the intermittent bombings, support to militants elsewhere in the region, and ritual denunciations of the Great Satan that have been mainstays of Iranian foreign policy for forty years now. Iranian leaders comprehend the forces arrayed against them. A serious effort at a breakout will remain premature unless and until they consummate their bid for atomic weaponry. The ability to threaten nuclear devastation may embolden them to try—but that remains for the future.
Next, honor. Irregular warfare is indecisive in itself, but it can provide splashy returns on a modest investment of resources and effort. Having staked their political legitimacy on sticking it to the Great Satan and his Middle Eastern toadies, the ayatollahs must deliver regular incremental results. Direct attacks on U.S. forces make good clickbait; so do pictures showing IRGC light surface combatants tailing U.S. Navy task forces; so do attacks on vital economic infrastructure in U.S. allies such as Saudi Arabia. And headlines convey the image of a virile power on the move.
The honor motive, then, merges with fear. Iranians fear being denied the honor they consider their due as the natural hegemon of the Gulf region and the Islamic world.
And lastly, interest. Mischief-making must suffice for Iran until it can amass the material wherewithal to make itself a hegemon. It’s fascinating that Thucydides lists material gain last among forces that animate human beings. After all, foreign-policy specialists list it first. Interest is quantifiable, and it seems to feed straight into calculations of cost, benefit, and risk. It makes statecraft seem rational!
There’s no way to know for sure after two millennia, but it seems likely the sage old Greek meant to deflate such excesses of rationalism. Namely, he regarded human nature as being about more than things we can count, like economic output or a large field army. For Thucydides cost/benefit arithmetic takes a back seat to not-strictly-rational passions—some of them dark, such as rage and spite, and others bright—that drive us all.
And indeed, for Iranians material interest constitutes the way to rejuvenate national honor while holding fear at bay. Breaking the economic blockade manifest in, say, the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” strategy would permit Tehran to revitalize the country’s moribund oil and gas sector. Renewed export trade would furnish wealth. Some could go into accoutrements of great power such as a high-tech navy and air force.
In turn Iranian leaders could back a more ambitious diplomacy with steel. They would enjoy the option of departing from their purely irregular, troublemaking ways and competing through more conventional methods. Or, more likely, they would harness irregular means as an adjunct to traditional strategic competition. Material gain, in short, not just satisfies economic needs and wants but amplifies martial might. In so doing it satisfies non-material cravings for renown and geopolitical say-so.
And the American side? Repeat this process. Refract U.S. policy and strategy through Thucydides’ prism of fear, honor, and interest, consider how Iranian and American motives may intersect and interact, and see what light that appraisal shines into the future. My take: perhaps World War III will come one day—but today is not that day.
James Holmes is J. C. Wylie Chair of Maritime Strategy at the Naval War College and the author of A Brief Guide to Maritime Strategy, out last month. The views voiced here are his alone.
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2008
- Messages
- 28,849
- Points
- 113
You didn't mention Singapore wtf you look down on BG Lee's capability?
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2008
- Messages
- 81,185
- Points
- 113
Too bad US carriers are not anywhere near iran.
Let us see if iraq will expel US forces and face US sanctions.
Oil prices will spike. Expect attack on saudi oil facilities if this happens.
Trump warns of sanctions if Iraq tries to expel U.S. troops
By ROBERT BURNS and JONATHAN LEMIREtoday
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump insists that Iranian cultural sites are fair game for the U.S. military, dismissing concerns within his own administration that doing so could constitute a war crime under international law. He also warned Iraq that he would levy punishing sanctions if it expelled American troops in retaliation for a U.S. airstrike in Baghdad that killed a top Iranian official.
Trump’s comments Sunday came amid escalating tensions in the Middle East following the killing of Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the head of Iran’s elite Quds force. Iran has vowed to retaliate and Iraq’s parliament responded by voting Sunday to oust U.S. troops based in the country.
Trump first raised the prospect of targeting Iranian cultural sites Saturday in a tweet. Speaking with reporters Sunday as he flew back to Washington from his holiday stay in Florida, he doubled down, despite international prohibitions.
“They’re allowed to kill our people. They’re allowed to torture and maim our people. They’re allowed to use roadside bombs and blow up our people. And we’re not allowed to touch their cultural sites? It doesn’t work that way,” Trump said.
The targeted killing of Soleimani sparked outrage in the Middle East, including in Iraq, where more than 5,000 American troops are still on the ground 17 years after the U.S. invasion. Iraq’s parliament voted Sunday in favor of a nonbinding resolution calling for the expulsion of the American forces.
Trump said the U.S. wouldn’t leave without being paid for its military investments in Iraq over the years — then said if the troops do have to withdraw, he would hit Baghdad with economic penalties.
“We will charge them sanctions like they’ve never seen before ever. It’ll make Iranian sanctions look somewhat tame,” he said. “If there’s any hostility, that they do anything we think is inappropriate, we are going to put sanctions on Iraq, very big sanctions on Iraq.”
He added: “We’re not leaving until they pay us back for it.”
The administration has scrambled to contend with the backlash to the killing of Soleimani. Though he was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans, the targeted American strike marked a stark escalation in tensions between Washington and Tehran.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the U.S. military may well strike more Iranian leaders if the Islamic Republic retaliates. He tip-toed around questions about Trump’s threat to attack Iranian cultural sites, a military action that likely would be illegal under the laws of armed conflict and the U.N. charter.
Pompeo said only that any U.S. military strikes inside Iran would be legal.
“We’ll behave inside the system,” Pompeo said. “We always have and we always will.”
Trump’s warnings rattled some administration officials. One U.S. national security official said the president had caught many in the administration off guard and prompted internal calls for others in the government, including Pompeo, to clarify the matter. The official, who was not authorized to speak publicly to the issue, said clarification was necessary to affirm that the U.S. military would not intentionally commit war crimes.
Oona Hathaway, an international law professor at Yale and a former national security law official in the Defense Department’s legal office, said Trump’s threat amounted to “a pretty clear promise of commission of a war crime.”
The president’s threats to Iran did little to quell Tehran’s furor over the death of Soleimani. Iranian state television reported that the country would no longer abide by any limits of the 2015 nuclear deal it signed with the United States and other world powers. Trump withdrew the U.S. from the deal in 2018 and stepped up economic sanctions on Tehran — actions that accelerated a cycle of hostilities leading to the last week’s killing.
The administration also pushed back Sunday on questions about the legality of the strike on Soleimani. Pompeo said the administration would have been “culpably negligent” in its duty to protect the United States if it had not killed him. He did not provide evidence for his previous claims that Soleimani was plotting imminent attacks on Americans. Instead of arguing that an attack had been imminent, he said it was inevitable.
“We watched him continue to actively build out for what was going to be a significant attack – that’s what we believed – and we made the right decision,” he said, adding later: “We continue to prepare for whatever it is the Iranian regime may put in front of us within the next 10 minutes, within the next 10 days, and within the next 10 weeks.”
Congressional Democrats were skeptical.
“I really worry that the actions the president took will get us into what he calls another endless war in the Middle East. He promised we wouldn’t have that,” said Chuck Schumer of New York, the Senate’s top Democrat.
Schumer said Trump lacks the authority to engage militarily with Iran and Congress needs a new war powers resolution “to be a check on this president.” To which Pompeo said: “We have all the authority we need to do what we’ve done to date.”
Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., said the administration violated the Constitution by not consulting with Congress in advance.
Congressional staffs got their first briefings from the administration on Friday, and members were expected to be briefed this week.
But Trump made clear Sunday that he saw little reason to give Congress advanced warning if he orders the military to carry out further actions against Iran.
“These Media Posts will serve as notification to the United States Congress that should Iran strike any U.S. person or target, the United States will quickly & fully strike back, & perhaps in a disproportionate manner,” he wrote on Twitter. “Such legal notice is not required, but is given nevertheless!”
Democrats in Congress have complained that Trump’s order to kill Soleimani took place without first consulting with or informing top lawmakers, noting that Congress still holds sole power to declare war. Trump did meet the 48-hour deadline required by the War Powers Act to notify Congress of the deadly drone strike, though the document provided Saturday was entirely classified and no public version was released.
Moving swiftly to rebuke Trump for not consulting with Congress, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said late Sunday the House would introduce and vote this week on a war powers resolution to limit the president’s military actions regarding Iran. In a letter to House Democrats, Pelosi called the airstrike “provocative and disproportionate” and that it had “endangered our servicemembers, diplomats and others by risking a serious escalation of tensions with Iran.” A similar resolution was introduced in the Senate.
Some of the Democrats running to challenge Trump in November questioned whether he had a long-term plan for the Mideast.
Former Vice President Joe Biden said Trump was ill-prepared for the repercussions of the strike on Soleimani and had alienated allies by not alerting them of the plans. “I think we need a president who could provide steady leadership on Day One,” he said. “The next president is going to inherit a divided nation and a world in disarray.”
Pete Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana. said: “When you’re dealing with the Middle East, you need to think about the next and the next and the next move. This is not checkers. And I’m not sure any of us really believe that this president and the people around him″ are “really going through all of the consequences of what could happen next.”
Pompeo appeared on ABC’s “This Week,” CNN’s “State of the Union,” NBC’s “Meet the Press,”′ CBS’ “Face the Nation,″ ”Fox News Sunday” and Fox News Channel’s “Sunday Morning Futures.” Schumer was on ABC, Warner was on NBC and Buttigieg was on CNN
Let us see if iraq will expel US forces and face US sanctions.
Oil prices will spike. Expect attack on saudi oil facilities if this happens.
Trump warns of sanctions if Iraq tries to expel U.S. troops
By ROBERT BURNS and JONATHAN LEMIREtoday
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump insists that Iranian cultural sites are fair game for the U.S. military, dismissing concerns within his own administration that doing so could constitute a war crime under international law. He also warned Iraq that he would levy punishing sanctions if it expelled American troops in retaliation for a U.S. airstrike in Baghdad that killed a top Iranian official.
Trump’s comments Sunday came amid escalating tensions in the Middle East following the killing of Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the head of Iran’s elite Quds force. Iran has vowed to retaliate and Iraq’s parliament responded by voting Sunday to oust U.S. troops based in the country.
Trump first raised the prospect of targeting Iranian cultural sites Saturday in a tweet. Speaking with reporters Sunday as he flew back to Washington from his holiday stay in Florida, he doubled down, despite international prohibitions.
“They’re allowed to kill our people. They’re allowed to torture and maim our people. They’re allowed to use roadside bombs and blow up our people. And we’re not allowed to touch their cultural sites? It doesn’t work that way,” Trump said.
The targeted killing of Soleimani sparked outrage in the Middle East, including in Iraq, where more than 5,000 American troops are still on the ground 17 years after the U.S. invasion. Iraq’s parliament voted Sunday in favor of a nonbinding resolution calling for the expulsion of the American forces.
Trump said the U.S. wouldn’t leave without being paid for its military investments in Iraq over the years — then said if the troops do have to withdraw, he would hit Baghdad with economic penalties.
“We will charge them sanctions like they’ve never seen before ever. It’ll make Iranian sanctions look somewhat tame,” he said. “If there’s any hostility, that they do anything we think is inappropriate, we are going to put sanctions on Iraq, very big sanctions on Iraq.”
He added: “We’re not leaving until they pay us back for it.”
The administration has scrambled to contend with the backlash to the killing of Soleimani. Though he was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans, the targeted American strike marked a stark escalation in tensions between Washington and Tehran.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the U.S. military may well strike more Iranian leaders if the Islamic Republic retaliates. He tip-toed around questions about Trump’s threat to attack Iranian cultural sites, a military action that likely would be illegal under the laws of armed conflict and the U.N. charter.
Pompeo said only that any U.S. military strikes inside Iran would be legal.
“We’ll behave inside the system,” Pompeo said. “We always have and we always will.”
Trump’s warnings rattled some administration officials. One U.S. national security official said the president had caught many in the administration off guard and prompted internal calls for others in the government, including Pompeo, to clarify the matter. The official, who was not authorized to speak publicly to the issue, said clarification was necessary to affirm that the U.S. military would not intentionally commit war crimes.
Oona Hathaway, an international law professor at Yale and a former national security law official in the Defense Department’s legal office, said Trump’s threat amounted to “a pretty clear promise of commission of a war crime.”
The president’s threats to Iran did little to quell Tehran’s furor over the death of Soleimani. Iranian state television reported that the country would no longer abide by any limits of the 2015 nuclear deal it signed with the United States and other world powers. Trump withdrew the U.S. from the deal in 2018 and stepped up economic sanctions on Tehran — actions that accelerated a cycle of hostilities leading to the last week’s killing.
The administration also pushed back Sunday on questions about the legality of the strike on Soleimani. Pompeo said the administration would have been “culpably negligent” in its duty to protect the United States if it had not killed him. He did not provide evidence for his previous claims that Soleimani was plotting imminent attacks on Americans. Instead of arguing that an attack had been imminent, he said it was inevitable.
“We watched him continue to actively build out for what was going to be a significant attack – that’s what we believed – and we made the right decision,” he said, adding later: “We continue to prepare for whatever it is the Iranian regime may put in front of us within the next 10 minutes, within the next 10 days, and within the next 10 weeks.”
Congressional Democrats were skeptical.
“I really worry that the actions the president took will get us into what he calls another endless war in the Middle East. He promised we wouldn’t have that,” said Chuck Schumer of New York, the Senate’s top Democrat.
Schumer said Trump lacks the authority to engage militarily with Iran and Congress needs a new war powers resolution “to be a check on this president.” To which Pompeo said: “We have all the authority we need to do what we’ve done to date.”
Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., said the administration violated the Constitution by not consulting with Congress in advance.
Congressional staffs got their first briefings from the administration on Friday, and members were expected to be briefed this week.
But Trump made clear Sunday that he saw little reason to give Congress advanced warning if he orders the military to carry out further actions against Iran.
“These Media Posts will serve as notification to the United States Congress that should Iran strike any U.S. person or target, the United States will quickly & fully strike back, & perhaps in a disproportionate manner,” he wrote on Twitter. “Such legal notice is not required, but is given nevertheless!”
Democrats in Congress have complained that Trump’s order to kill Soleimani took place without first consulting with or informing top lawmakers, noting that Congress still holds sole power to declare war. Trump did meet the 48-hour deadline required by the War Powers Act to notify Congress of the deadly drone strike, though the document provided Saturday was entirely classified and no public version was released.
Moving swiftly to rebuke Trump for not consulting with Congress, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said late Sunday the House would introduce and vote this week on a war powers resolution to limit the president’s military actions regarding Iran. In a letter to House Democrats, Pelosi called the airstrike “provocative and disproportionate” and that it had “endangered our servicemembers, diplomats and others by risking a serious escalation of tensions with Iran.” A similar resolution was introduced in the Senate.
Some of the Democrats running to challenge Trump in November questioned whether he had a long-term plan for the Mideast.
Former Vice President Joe Biden said Trump was ill-prepared for the repercussions of the strike on Soleimani and had alienated allies by not alerting them of the plans. “I think we need a president who could provide steady leadership on Day One,” he said. “The next president is going to inherit a divided nation and a world in disarray.”
Pete Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana. said: “When you’re dealing with the Middle East, you need to think about the next and the next and the next move. This is not checkers. And I’m not sure any of us really believe that this president and the people around him″ are “really going through all of the consequences of what could happen next.”
Pompeo appeared on ABC’s “This Week,” CNN’s “State of the Union,” NBC’s “Meet the Press,”′ CBS’ “Face the Nation,″ ”Fox News Sunday” and Fox News Channel’s “Sunday Morning Futures.” Schumer was on ABC, Warner was on NBC and Buttigieg was on CNN
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2012
- Messages
- 28,963
- Points
- 113
KNN correct KNN war is not going to happen for sure but just some bombing here and there for revenge and case close KNN some civilians got to pay back for it's stoopid gov KNN
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2008
- Messages
- 81,185
- Points
- 113
Just wondering if saudi kingdom may fall. Their southern land invaded and occupied by houthi rebels from yemen. F-15's totally useless in this kind of warfare. And yet they bought more.
- Joined
- May 5, 2016
- Messages
- 515
- Points
- 43
Not so. It is very easy to make nuclear bombs. Even North Korea, Pakistan did it. It is the US bombings that is the difficulty. You build centrifuge for uranium enrichment, after all the money spent, they would bomb them out of existence. Cycle repeats.
Chan Rasjid.
"Chemical Analysis Of Plain Distilled Water May Refute Mass-Energy Conservation Of E=mc²"
http://www.emc2fails.com
- Joined
- May 6, 2012
- Messages
- 5,313
- Points
- 113
glocky, better to let the devils fight n destroy each other.... only that real peace will prevail..
- Joined
- May 5, 2016
- Messages
- 515
- Points
- 43
A google search does not give any real hint about this red flag of revenge.FOR FIRST TIME IN HISTORY, IRAN UNFURLS RED FLAG OF REVENGE OVER HOLY DOME OF JAMKARAN MOSQUE
17.8K 526 19 Share6 2
18.4K Donate
A screenshot from the video
For the first time in the history of Iran, a red flag was raised over the Holy Dome of Jamkaran Mosque symbolizing both blood spilled unjustly and serving as a call to avenge people who are killed.
The red flag was raised on top of one of the biggest and most important mosques in the holy city of Qom. This was done in honor of Qassem Suleimani and other officers who were assassinated by the US.
Therefore, Iran pledged that it will avenge their martyrdom.
I make a guess. The Arabic inscription reads "Revenge for Hussein". Hussein is the son of the prophet of Islam who was killed by an arrow during the struggle after the death of the prophet, probably related to the sunni shia split over the caliphate succession. So I think the body of Hussein was wrap in a white cloth red with blood. They could have raised a red flag then to signify revenge. There probably was never a red flag raised at any other instance in Islamic history, not just in Iran and over the Holiest mosque.
But then it may not have been the idea of Ali Khamenei.
Best regards,
Chan Rasjid Kah Chew,
Singapore.
"Chemical Analysis Of Plain Distilled Water May Refute Mass-Energy Conservation Of E=mc²"
http://www.emc2fails.com
- Joined
- May 5, 2016
- Messages
- 515
- Points
- 43
That the Shia (Iranian Muslims) are the enemies of Sunni (eg. Saudi,Malaysia, Indonesia) is just nonsense. It is the politicians who want this split. Shai-sunni split is about who should be the true successor when the prophet died, Ali or Abu Bakr. This was 1400 years ago and the average Muslims don't care a wit.Shias are enemies, Saudi diplomat tells KL conference
Sheikh Abdurrahman Ibrahim Al-Rubai’in, the religious attache at the Saudi embassy in Kuala Lumpur, speaks at a convention organised by Pertubuhan Ilmuan Malaysia.
KUALA LUMPUR: A Saudi Arabian diplomat in Malaysia has launched a scathing attack on Shia Muslims, saying it is useless to include them in any efforts to unite Muslims as they are deviant.
Sheikh Abdurrahman Ibrahim Al-Rubai’in, who is the religious attache at the Saudi embassy in Kuala Lumpur, told a convention organised by a pro-Saudi group that Shia teachings posed the greatest challenge to Muslims.
“The differences between the Sunnis and Shias is not merely over jurisprudence, but also has to do between truth and falsehood,” he was quoted by Berita Harian, when addressing a national convention organised by Pertubuhan Ilmuan Malaysia (Ilmu).
Ilmu’s members who are closely linked to Umno have in the past backed Saudi policies and spoken out against Shia Islam, the second-largest school of thought in the Muslim world which has been a target of Wahhabi scholars.
Abdurrahman said past Muslim scholars had failed in their efforts at bringing together Sunnis and Shias because they could not find any commonalities.
He further claimed that Shia Muslims do not regard the Quran as followed by Sunni Muslims as authentic.
Berita Harian also reported that the convention also passed a resolution calling on Muslim countries to unite under the leadership of Saudi Arabia and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).
It warned of any efforts to work with “those with the agenda to disrupt Muslim unity under OIC.
The resolution is believed to be a response to Malaysia’s hosting of the KL Summit last month, which angered Saudi Arabia over the involvement of its vocal critics.
The KL Summit was attended by the leaders of Qatar, Iran and Turkey, states which have openly rebuked Saudi policies.
Meanwhile, the convention also urged the Rulers’ Conference to double efforts to fight Shia teachings, and called on the media to stop giving coverage to “Shia sympathisers”.
It also proposed that Malaysia host a summit of Sunni Muslim scholars under the auspices of OIC.
It is a lie that Shia don't follow the Quran etc,... There is only one Quran! About the hadith (sayings of the prophet), probably there may be some difference in interpretation, but minor. No average Muslim cares if you are Shia or Sunni nowadays. If the Malaysians do think there should be a real split between Shia and Sunni, it is because they are listening to talks which are politically based, nothing really about Islam as a religion.
Why did Dr. Mahathir invited Khamenei, a Shia. This Saudi guy is just talking politics and nothing about Islam.
Best regards,
Chan Rasjid Kah Chew,
Singapore.
"Chemical Analysis Of Plain Distilled Water May Refute Mass-Energy Conservation Of E=mc²"
http://www.emc2fails.com
- Joined
- May 5, 2016
- Messages
- 515
- Points
- 43
There may be a US-Iran war that may morph into a full scale Third World War! There is such a notion as a Black Swan event - an unexpected and unpredictable event.Why A U.S.-Iran War Isn't Going To Happen
The coming weeks and months may see irregular warfare prosecuted with newfound vigor through such familiar unconventional warmaking methods. It’s doubtful Tehran would launch into conventional operations, stepping onto ground it knows America dominates. To launch full-scale military reprisals would justify full-scale U.S. military reprisals that, in all likelihood, would outstrip Iran’s in firepower and ferocity
Will Tehran and Washington let slip the dogs of war following last week’s aerial takedown of Qasem Soleimani, commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’s IRGC) Quds Force? You could be forgiven for thinking so considering the hot takes that greeted the news of the drone strike outside Baghdad. For example, one prominent commentator, the Council on Foreign Relations’ Richard Haass, opined that the Middle East “region (and possibly the world) will be the battlefield.”
Color me skeptical. The apocalypse is not at hand.
Haass is right in the limited sense that irregular military operations now span the globe. Terrorists thirst to strike at far as well as near enemies in hopes of degrading their will to fight. They respect no national boundaries and never have. Frontiers are likewise murky in the cyber realm, to name another battleground with no defined battlefronts. The United States and Iran have waged cyber combat for a decade or more, dating to the Stuxnet worm attack on the Iranian nuclear complex in 2010.
The coming weeks and months may see irregular warfare prosecuted with newfound vigor through such familiar unconventional warmaking methods. It’s doubtful Tehran would launch into conventional operations, stepping onto ground it knows America dominates. To launch full-scale military reprisals would justify full-scale U.S. military reprisals that, in all likelihood, would outstrip Iran’s in firepower and ferocity. The ayatollahs who oversee the Islamic Republic fret about coming up on the losing end of such a clash. As well they might, considering hard experience.
So the outlook is for more of the same. That’s a far cry from the more fevered prophecies of World War III aired since Soleimani went to his reward. To fathom Tehran’s dilemma, let’s ask a fellow who knew a thing or two about Persian ambitions. (The pre-Islamic Persian Empire, which bestrode the Middle East and menaced Europe, remains the lodestone of geopolitical success—even for Islamic Iran.)
Jan
6
1838
Alfred Vail demonstrates a telegraph system using dots and dashes (this is the forerunner of Morse code).
1912
German geophysicist Alfred Wegener first presents his theory of continental drift.
add this to your site
The Athenian historian Thucydides chronicled the Peloponnesian War, a fifth-century-B.C. maelstrom that engulfed the Greek world. Persia was a major player in that contest. In fact, it helped decide the endgame when the Great King supplied Athens’ antagonist, Sparta, with the resources to build itself into a naval power capable of defeating the vaunted Athenian navy at sea. But Thucydides also meditates on human nature at many junctures in his history, deriving observations of universal scope. At one stage, for instance, he has Athenian ambassadors posit that three of the prime movers impelling human actions are “fear, honor, and interest.” The emissaries appear to speak for the father of history.
Fear, honor, interest. There are few better places to start puzzling out why individuals and societies do what they do and glimpse what we ought to do. How does Thucydides’ hypothesis apply to post-Soleimani antagonism between the United States and Iran? Well, the slaying of the Quds Force chieftain puts the ball squarely in the Islamic Republic’s court. The mullahs must reply to the strike in some fashion. To remain idle would be to make themselves look weak and ineffectual in the eyes of the region and of ordinary Iranians.
In fecklessness lies danger. Doubly so now, after protests convulsed parts of Iran last November. The ensuing crackdown cost hundreds of Iranians their lives—and revealed how deeply resentments against the religious regime run. No autocrat relishes weakness, least of all an autocrat whose rule has come under duress from within. A show of power and steadfastness is necessary to cow domestic opponents.
But fear is an omnidirectional, multiple-domain thing for Iranian potentates. External threats abound. Iranians are keenly attuned to geographic encirclement, for instance. They view their country as the Middle East’s rightful heavyweight. Yet U.S. forces or their allies surround and constrain the Islamic Republic from all points of the compass with the partial exception of the northeastern quadrant, which encompasses the ‘stans of Central Asia, and beyond them Russia.
Look at your map. The U.S. Navy commands the westerly maritime flank, backed up by the U.S. Air Force. America’s Gulf Arab allies ring the western shores of the Persian Gulf. U.S. forces remain in Iraq to the northwest, where Suleimani fell, and in Afghanistan to the east. Even Pakistan, to the southeast, is an American treaty ally, albeit an uneasy one. These are forbidding surroundings. Tendrils of U.S. influence curl all around the Islamic Republic’s borders. Breaking out seems like a natural impulse for Iranian diplomacy and military strategy.
And yet. However fervent about its geopolitical ambitions, the Iranian leadership will be loath to undertake measures beyond the intermittent bombings, support to militants elsewhere in the region, and ritual denunciations of the Great Satan that have been mainstays of Iranian foreign policy for forty years now. Iranian leaders comprehend the forces arrayed against them. A serious effort at a breakout will remain premature unless and until they consummate their bid for atomic weaponry. The ability to threaten nuclear devastation may embolden them to try—but that remains for the future.
Next, honor. Irregular warfare is indecisive in itself, but it can provide splashy returns on a modest investment of resources and effort. Having staked their political legitimacy on sticking it to the Great Satan and his Middle Eastern toadies, the ayatollahs must deliver regular incremental results. Direct attacks on U.S. forces make good clickbait; so do pictures showing IRGC light surface combatants tailing U.S. Navy task forces; so do attacks on vital economic infrastructure in U.S. allies such as Saudi Arabia. And headlines convey the image of a virile power on the move.
The honor motive, then, merges with fear. Iranians fear being denied the honor they consider their due as the natural hegemon of the Gulf region and the Islamic world.
And lastly, interest. Mischief-making must suffice for Iran until it can amass the material wherewithal to make itself a hegemon. It’s fascinating that Thucydides lists material gain last among forces that animate human beings. After all, foreign-policy specialists list it first. Interest is quantifiable, and it seems to feed straight into calculations of cost, benefit, and risk. It makes statecraft seem rational!
There’s no way to know for sure after two millennia, but it seems likely the sage old Greek meant to deflate such excesses of rationalism. Namely, he regarded human nature as being about more than things we can count, like economic output or a large field army. For Thucydides cost/benefit arithmetic takes a back seat to not-strictly-rational passions—some of them dark, such as rage and spite, and others bright—that drive us all.
And indeed, for Iranians material interest constitutes the way to rejuvenate national honor while holding fear at bay. Breaking the economic blockade manifest in, say, the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” strategy would permit Tehran to revitalize the country’s moribund oil and gas sector. Renewed export trade would furnish wealth. Some could go into accoutrements of great power such as a high-tech navy and air force.
In turn Iranian leaders could back a more ambitious diplomacy with steel. They would enjoy the option of departing from their purely irregular, troublemaking ways and competing through more conventional methods. Or, more likely, they would harness irregular means as an adjunct to traditional strategic competition. Material gain, in short, not just satisfies economic needs and wants but amplifies martial might. In so doing it satisfies non-material cravings for renown and geopolitical say-so.
And the American side? Repeat this process. Refract U.S. policy and strategy through Thucydides’ prism of fear, honor, and interest, consider how Iranian and American motives may intersect and interact, and see what light that appraisal shines into the future. My take: perhaps World War III will come one day—but today is not that day.
James Holmes is J. C. Wylie Chair of Maritime Strategy at the Naval War College and the author of A Brief Guide to Maritime Strategy, out last month. The views voiced here are his alone.
I doubt the Iranians are that dumb to declare war on the US, say followed up by attacks in the Suez of Hormuz, etc. Only Russia and China have the ability to fight a war with the US, not Iran.
But the unpredictable factor is Donald Trump - he is looking for blood. His unpredictability hides the color of the true swan, white or black. Human ambition is dangerous and Trump may be holding a secret within his breast - to make a mark in history. The fact that he is capable of openly talking about this assassination of Soleimani routinely shows he cares nothing much about consequences and whatever others think. He may just find an excuse and attack Iran direct. He cares not what happens after as long as he has a chance to make a mark in history.
Who know?
Best regards,
Chan Rasjid Kah Chew,
Singapore.
"Chemical Analysis Of Plain Distilled Water May Refute Mass-Energy Conservation Of E=mc²"
http://www.emc2fails.com
- Joined
- May 5, 2016
- Messages
- 515
- Points
- 43
Saudi may fall only when the US is in deep trouble. The US is still the top superpower.
Rasjid
- Joined
- May 5, 2016
- Messages
- 515
- Points
- 43
There is the common notion that the US super carriers are unsinkable. Could they beat the Titanic. The Titanic was touted as a ship that even God cannot sink - and it sank.
We really don't know if it is just a myth that US aircraft carriers are unsinkable - it has not been tested yet. It was when Deng Xiaoping tested his PLA army with the Vietnamese that he knew the Chinese PLA cannot win in modern warfare. Remember how the Houthi drones wreck havoc with the Saudi oil facilities.
We imagine how advance Western science and technology is - how we even could know events that happen at the edge of the universe where two black holes collided sending out gravitational waves; they even claimed detection of these waves from billions years ago! Greatness Me! We even know protons are composed of quarks even before we know much about the protons! So cut-and-paste these miracles of technology of the US onto their aircraft carrier:
"Even God cannot sink a US aircraft carrier!", the Pentagon.
The US aircraft carrier may get near Gulf Of Oman and may be targeted by the Iranians. Only a true test will tell if the super carriers may or may not be easily taken down. If a US carrier sinks, that's the start of WWIII - it's a matter of honor.
Best regards,
Chan Rasjid Kah Chew,
Singapore.0
"Chemical Analysis Of Plain Distilled Water May Refute Mass-Energy Conservation Of E=mc²"
http://www.emc2fails.com
We really don't know if it is just a myth that US aircraft carriers are unsinkable - it has not been tested yet. It was when Deng Xiaoping tested his PLA army with the Vietnamese that he knew the Chinese PLA cannot win in modern warfare. Remember how the Houthi drones wreck havoc with the Saudi oil facilities.
We imagine how advance Western science and technology is - how we even could know events that happen at the edge of the universe where two black holes collided sending out gravitational waves; they even claimed detection of these waves from billions years ago! Greatness Me! We even know protons are composed of quarks even before we know much about the protons! So cut-and-paste these miracles of technology of the US onto their aircraft carrier:
"Even God cannot sink a US aircraft carrier!", the Pentagon.
The US aircraft carrier may get near Gulf Of Oman and may be targeted by the Iranians. Only a true test will tell if the super carriers may or may not be easily taken down. If a US carrier sinks, that's the start of WWIII - it's a matter of honor.
Best regards,
Chan Rasjid Kah Chew,
Singapore.0
"Chemical Analysis Of Plain Distilled Water May Refute Mass-Energy Conservation Of E=mc²"
http://www.emc2fails.com
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2010
- Messages
- 38,520
- Points
- 113
Actually hor, peace on earth is just an abstract concept. This planet needs a cold reboot, then perhaps peace will follow.glocky, better to let the devils fight n destroy each other.... only that real peace will prevail..
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2019
- Messages
- 11,031
- Points
- 113
er... maybe for the rest of the world that rule (MAD) applies, but I' don't think for the ME.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2019
- Messages
- 11,031
- Points
- 113
peace will follow only when humans go back to struggling for survival with a vastly reduced population. The human animal is not naturally a peaceable one.Actually hor, peace on earth is just an abstract concept. This planet needs a cold reboot, then perhaps peace will follow.
Similar threads
