Various Imperial Reflexes (Iran and Venezuela Thread)

Maybe this should go in my personal thread, but there might as well be a separate topic. To inaugurate the thread I made a Polandball comic reflecting current events between America and Iran (see if you can spot the bonus).

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://i.imgur.com/kTquSou.png

Bonus being little baby Venezuela under the table!

I appreciate your comic and your use of analogy but I do have to nit pick.

The British and French fail in 56 because their power is already gone. The Suez is not a climax but rather an epilogue. America tells the UK-French-Isreali triumvirate to cease and they must. Sure they can win a shooting match but they can not exert their will upon it. Who could stop America from exerting its will? We operate worldwide with near impunity.

Having said all that intervention should be opposed because these call for intervention are nakedly imperialist. We had a deal with Iran, a good deal, and they tore it up for the sole purpose of setting the groundwork.

Maduro is an authoritarian but I hardly think an American backed coup will do anything except set off a dirty war and cause even more hunger to befall the people.

America has shown it can exert influence around the globe. It is pretty poor at judging when it should. America can operate nearly everywhere but the cost is a long way from "impunity". In cases such as Afghanistan America even relies on Pakistan for the logistical train. Far from ideal and adds a massive cost.

Many other places America even struggles to project its will these days - such as Central and South America. Mainly because it is less a leader than a bully.

What the USA really should be doing is spending large sums of money on updating infrastructure at home rather than building then destroying it abroad.

~:smoking:

Oh, absolutely. The UK misjudged its place and had their foreign policy overridden, while America can technically still act in the face of even unified great power resistance. American empire is still kicking, and we can still enjoy paying an enormous price to nudge the world's levers.

However, I do caution that aspects of the latest adventurism have the potential, depending on the precise nature and extent of the overreach, to outright degrade America's imperial standing and capacity to the point where we don't even notice the climax. It depends on what the current administration hopes for, or intends to achieve or to do. Hopefully all of it is more reckless posturing in the vein of 2017 "Rocket Man", but we can't afford to be complacent. Is it just launching some missiles? If it's just launching some missiles or dropping some bombs, we can physically do that; the degradation is largely to our standing is part and part-and-parcel of the steady long-term damage Trump is doing to American power, but nothing like a sharp knockback as in Suez. But do they want to go so far as a punitive ground invasion of Iran? Is it regime change?! Do they want to seize Iran's ports in the strait, or its oil terminals like Kharg? My concern with a half-assed ground or naval invasion is that I believe it carries the distinct possibility of, essentially, defeat. Iran is a much tougher nut to crack than Iraq, and certainly we're strong enough to do it if we mobilize our whole economy and military for the purpose. But if it's "120000" troops, or a couple of carrier groups with an attitude of 'We'll be home before the Fourth of July'? We're back to Korea or Vietnam-level casualty figures on a much shorter timescale due to incompetence and hubris. Massive civilian devastation further strengthens the case for China and Russia to break the international order from enabling 'Yankee aggression', likely peeling off much of Europe (don't expect many friends in this fight).

Though not objectively the worst-case scenario, if only because it spares the most lives, my greatest fear is subtly that limited-objective scenario where the US tries to seize ports or oil terminals with Marines and carriers, just to wave its dick around. So close to the coast we would finally be putting to the test the theory that aircraft carriers are now expensive obsolete relics, floating coffins. If Iran can sink or even badly damage a carrier with missiles or small craft, killing hundreds of sailors, then the world sees America swaggering in like a drunk cowboy stereotype and receiving a justifiable black eye in turn. Even worse if the Marines cannot achieve through combined arms the securing of even a limited territorial objective.

I think that's a real and serious possibility with this administration and this scenario. And it would be something analogous to Britain's Suez overreach - but much worse for everyone. "The bigger they are, the harder they fall..."

And think about this: what if the administration intends substantive military action toward Iran and Venezuela simultaneously? They could honestly be that stupid/delusional.

In those scenarios, we may already be in that imperial epilogue, and the consequences of not realizing it are much greater than a mostly loss of prestige for a has-been. It has reverberations on a civilizational scale for the struggles of this century.

So my comic is an extended excuse for a "hold my beer" joke, pretty much.


Edit: BTW, deliciously apropos that a the very model of a modern British major general is rebuking American warmongering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

America has shown it can exert influence around the globe. It is pretty poor at judging when it should. America can operate nearly everywhere but the cost is a long way from "impunity". In cases such as Afghanistan America even relies on Pakistan for the logistical train. Far from ideal and adds a massive cost.

Many other places America even struggles to project its will these days - such as Central and South America. Mainly because it is less a leader than a bully.

What the USA really should be doing is spending large sums of money on updating infrastructure at home rather than building then destroying it abroad.

~:smoking:

---

I think America is all together too confident in its ability to win protracted wars. When you look at its record since the post WWII era it's really not that great. The Korean war was a stalemate. Vietnam was a loss. The Iraq war was a pyrrhic victory and Iranian influence is strong in the country, and in Afghanistan the Taliban still holds large swathes of territory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Oh, absolutely. The UK misjudged its place and had their foreign policy overridden, while America can technically still act in the face of even unified great power resistance. American empire is still kicking, and we can still enjoy paying an enormous price to nudge the world's levers.

However, I do caution that aspects of the latest adventurism have the potential, depending on the precise nature and extent of the overreach, to outright degrade America's imperial standing and capacity to the point where we don't even notice the climax. It depends on what the current administration hopes for, or intends to achieve or to do. Hopefully all of it is more reckless posturing in the vein of 2017 "Rocket Man", but we can't afford to be complacent. Is it just launching some missiles? If it's just launching some missiles or dropping some bombs, we can physically do that; the degradation is largely to our standing is part and part-and-parcel of the steady long-term damage Trump is doing to American power, but nothing like a sharp knockback as in Suez. But do they want to go so far as a punitive ground invasion of Iran? Is it regime change?! Do they want to seize Iran's ports in the strait, or its oil terminals like Kharg? My concern with a half-assed ground or naval invasion is that I believe it carries the distinct possibility of, essentially, defeat. Iran is a much tougher nut to crack than Iraq, and certainly we're strong enough to do it if we mobilize our whole economy and military for the purpose. But if it's "120000" troops, or a couple of carrier groups with an attitude of 'We'll be home before the Fourth of July'? We're back to Korea or Vietnam-level casualty figures on a much shorter timescale due to incompetence and hubris. Massive civilian devastation further strengthens the case for China and Russia to break the international order from enabling 'Yankee aggression', likely peeling off much of Europe (don't expect many friends in this fight).

Though not objectively the worst-case scenario, if only because it spares the most lives, my greatest fear is subtly that limited-objective scenario where the US tries to seize ports or oil terminals with Marines and carriers, just to wave its dick around. So close to the coast we would finally be putting to the test the theory that aircraft carriers are now expensive obsolete relics, floating coffins. If Iran can sink or even badly damage a carrier with missiles or small craft, killing hundreds of sailors, then the world sees America swaggering in like a drunk cowboy stereotype and receiving a justifiable black eye in turn. Even worse if the Marines cannot achieve through combined arms the securing of even a limited territorial objective.

I think that's a real and serious possibility with this administration and this scenario. And it would be something analogous to Britain's Suez overreach - but much worse for everyone. "The bigger they are, the harder they fall..."

And think about this: what if the administration intends substantive military action toward Iran and Venezuela simultaneously? They could honestly be that stupid/delusional.

In those scenarios, we may already be in that imperial epilogue, and the consequences of not realizing it are much greater than a mostly loss of prestige for a has-been. It has reverberations on a civilizational scale for the struggles of this century.

So my comic is an extended excuse for a "hold my beer" joke, pretty much.


Edit: BTW, deliciously apropos that a the very model of a modern British major general is rebuking American warmongering.

---

Here's something fun: back in 2002 the US did a war game exercise that simulated a war with Iran and the general playing on the Iranian side managed to destroy the American fleet in just a couple of days. Of course the general in charge of the exercise didn't like the results and he ordered that the whole thing be restarted and scripted so that the US would be ensured victory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Oh, absolutely. The UK misjudged its place and had their foreign policy overridden, while America can technically still act in the face of even unified great power resistance. American empire is still kicking, and we can still enjoy paying an enormous price to nudge the world's levers.

However, I do caution that aspects of the latest adventurism have the potential, depending on the precise nature and extent of the overreach, to outright degrade America's imperial standing and capacity to the point where we don't even notice the climax. It depends on what the current administration hopes for, or intends to achieve or to do. Hopefully all of it is more reckless posturing in the vein of 2017 "Rocket Man", but we can't afford to be complacent. Is it just launching some missiles? If it's just launching some missiles or dropping some bombs, we can physically do that; the degradation is largely to our standing is part and part-and-parcel of the steady long-term damage Trump is doing to American power, but nothing like a sharp knockback as in Suez. But do they want to go so far as a punitive ground invasion of Iran? Is it regime change?! Do they want to seize Iran's ports in the strait, or its oil terminals like Kharg? My concern with a half-assed ground or naval invasion is that I believe it carries the distinct possibility of, essentially, defeat. Iran is a much tougher nut to crack than Iraq, and certainly we're strong enough to do it if we mobilize our whole economy and military for the purpose. But if it's "120000" troops, or a couple of carrier groups with an attitude of 'We'll be home before the Fourth of July'? We're back to Korea or Vietnam-level casualty figures on a much shorter timescale due to incompetence and hubris. Massive civilian devastation further strengthens the case for China and Russia to break the international order from enabling 'Yankee aggression', likely peeling off much of Europe (don't expect many friends in this fight).

---

I think Bolton truly believes that a military action will topple the regime in Iran. IMO, Any line of thinking that supposes the people will rise with the foreign invader borders on the criminally stupid but here we are. The line of thinking is that by crippling the oil that the people will be starved into revoultion, this is what the war hawks actually think. Iran would be a quagmire of the highest order and the American people will not stand for any sort of real total mobilization.

Being stupid is one thing, being impetuous is one thing, Being stupid and impetuous is a recipe for disaster. One has to remember that both Pompeo and Bolton subscribe to the theory that we didn't try hard enough in Vietnam. That they were stabbed in the back by the politicians at home. Remind you of anything?

Quote:

---

Though not objectively the worst-case scenario, if only because it spares the most lives, my greatest fear is subtly that limited-objective scenario where the US tries to seize ports or oil terminals with Marines and carriers, just to wave its dick around. So close to the coast we would finally be putting to the test the theory that aircraft carriers are now expensive obsolete relics, floating coffins. If Iran can sink or even badly damage a carrier with missiles or small craft, killing hundreds of sailors, then the world sees America swaggering in like a drunk cowboy stereotype and receiving a justifiable black eye in turn. Even worse if the Marines cannot achieve through combined arms the securing of even a limited territorial objective.

---

So war is chaos and anything could happen. Maybe I channeling my inner Jellicoe but I just don't see how anyone could sink a carrier without a similar blue water CG in the area. Sinking the carrier would at the very least entail sinking the destroyers and the scoring enough direct hits to actually make the thing go under. There is no Arizona style Magazine explosion that can happen.

Even if it did happen. The drunk Cowboy has 8 more and a sunk carrier would give them reason to use them.

Quote:

---

I think that's a real and serious possibility with this administration and this scenario. And it would be something analogous to Britain's Suez overreach - but much worse for everyone. "The bigger they are, the harder they fall..."

And think about this: what if the administration intends substantive military action toward Iran and Venezuela simultaneously? They could honestly be that stupid/delusional.

In those scenarios, we may already be in that imperial epilogue, and the consequences of not realizing it are much greater than a mostly loss of prestige for a has-been. It has reverberations on a civilizational scale for the struggles of this century.

So my comic is an extended excuse for a "hold my beer" joke, pretty much.

---

We agree here man, I fully expect this whole thing to collapse in on itself like a dying star. We have learned nothing since 2003.

Quote:

---

Here's something fun: back in 2002 the US did a war game exercise that simulated a war with Iran and the general playing on the Iranian side managed to destroy the American fleet in just a couple of days. Of course the general in charge of the exercise didn't like the results and he ordered that the whole thing be restarted and scripted so that the US would be ensured victory.

---

Von Ripper sending all his small civilian craft to ram the Navy vessels is something that would be noticed. Publications liken this to a suprise Cole style attack, which would be true if it were 1 or 2 not the 000s he had. Not that he didn't expose anything, just worth pointing out,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

One has to remember that both Pompeo and Bolton subscribe to the theory that we didn't try hard enough in Vietnam. That they were stabbed in the back by the politicians at home. Remind you of anything?

---

Hitler!

Your analysis appears correct though. Your current administration seems even more foolish than ours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Hitler!

Your analysis appears correct though. Your current administration seems even more foolish than ours.

---

Obviously a bit flippant but the idea that "we just need to commit more" is pervase in the Western geopolitics.

"We need to commit more" folks do not tend to really understand what an effective "more" would require. Think in terms of more troops than we have, with far more civil engineering/education resources, and then deploy them for a generation.

Short of that, "more" ups the costs without altering the basic equation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

So war is chaos and anything could happen. Maybe I channeling my inner Jellicoe but I just don't see how anyone could sink a carrier without a similar blue water CG in the area. Sinking the carrier would at the very least entail sinking the destroyers and the scoring enough direct hits to actually make the thing go under. There is no Arizona style Magazine explosion that can happen.

---

I don't know enough to argue whether Iran's missile complement has a plausible attack vector from the shore. This article contends:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

Experts and outside observers believe that Iran has given considerable thought to vanquishing an American aircraft carrier. In January 2015, Adm. Ali Fadavi of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps Navy claimed his force was capable of sinking American aircraft carriers in the event of war.
[...]
There are many reasons to be skeptical about Admiral Fadavi’s claim. The first is that Iranian forces have a range problem. U.S. forces, particularly those on aircraft carriers, have a much greater operational range than Iranian forces. The longest-range Iranian coastal defense missile, the Ghader antiship cruise missile, has a range of 186 miles—less than half that of a F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. The same goes for Iranian air power, where Iranian warplanes and their weapons are outranged by American defenses. Major U.S. warships such as aircraft carriers can stay well out of range of Iranian forces and operate with impunity. The second Iranian problem is a firepower problem. Although Iran has scores of ships armed with antiship missiles, few if any have a warhead powerful enough to seriously damage an American carrier. The Chinese C-802 antiship cruise missile, from which Iranian antiship missiles are derived, has a warhead weighing just under four hundred pounds. During the Cold War, the Soviet Navy and Air Forces designed for the anticarrier role typically had a warhead size of 1,600 to 2,200 pounds. Most Soviet missiles designed for the anticarrier role, such as the AS-4 Kitchen, were optionally armed with nuclear warheads, which speaks volumes about how difficult the Soviets thought it would be to reliably sink a carrier. Fortunately, Iran does not have nuclear weapons. The third problem is an opportunity problem. Even if Iran were to somehow acquire the resources to sink a carrier, the United States could simply avoid it and choose another means of attack. The United States will never place an aircraft carrier with 5,500 American servicemen and servicewomen within range of an enemy force at risk unless there was little to no alternative—and the Pentagon has plenty of alternatives to a carrier’s firepower, including cruise missiles launched from warships and long-range strategic bombers. The fourth problem is the overwhelming superiority of U.S. forces in the defense. U.S. aircraft carriers are typically escorted by one Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruiser and one or two Arleigh Burke–class guided missile destroyers, all of which have the Aegis combat system. These ships were specifically designed for protecting aircraft carriers against mass air and missile attacks. Combat air patrols flown by F/A-18E/F Super Hornets will be able to take out aircraft and warships at long ranges. Finally, Phalanx close-in Gatling guns, five-inch, twenty-five-millimeter and .50 caliber guns scattered throughout a carrier strike group can make short work of any drones, helicopters, or fast attack boats that somehow make it through the carrier’s wall of air power. A fifth and final problem? The overwhelming superiority of U.S. forces in the offense. Any campaign against Iran would almost certainly see the United States striking first, and striking hard against any and all Iranian ships and aircraft that are a threat to American forces. Naval bases, air bases, air defenses, IRIN and IRGCN ships at sea, port facilities, antiship missile batteries and bases would all come under attack from land- and carrier-based aircraft, long-distance bombers operating from bases such as Diego Garcia, and ships and submarines firing cruise missiles. Iranian naval forces would suffer heavy attrition from the strikes, which would be unrelenting until intelligence indicated they were no longer a threat.

All of that having been said, there are bright spots in the Iranian arsenal. Taking a cue from China and its DF-21D antiship ballistic missiles (ASBMs), Iran recently claimed to have tested ASBMs of its own. The radar-guided Hormuz 1 and 2 antiship ballistic missiles have allegedly hit targets at ranges of up to 155 miles. While that’s not far enough to outrange an aircraft carrier, the Iranians are on the right track. Another substantial threat are the three Kilo-class diesel-electric attack submarines purchased from Russia in the early 1990s. Built for shallow water and coastal operations, the Kilo class are theoretically highly capable submarines. The Iranian boats, according to the authoritative Combat Fleets of the World, suffered from battery problems, poor training and inadequate maintenance. Still, properly crewed and equipped, the submarines and their torpedoes could inflict great damage on an aircraft carrier.

---

Quote:

---

Iran is currently incapable of sinking a U.S. Navy carrier, but that is not an advantage the Pentagon can count on enjoying forever.

---

It sounds like if the aircraft carriers stay far away from the shore, they should be safe. On the other hand, there are many points in the Gulf once you move past the peninsular coast, as well as the Hormuz Strait chokepoint, that might see carriers within a vulnerable range. Then, here's a recent article on Iran's recent developments in advanced ballistic missiles that easily have the range to strike American fleets. Altogether hard for me to judge as a non-expert.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SFTS

Even if it did happen. The drunk Cowboy has 8 more and a sunk carrier would give them reason to use them.

---

Christ, that's just an intensification of disaster. Can you imagine? 'For the first time since World War II America has lost an aircraft carrier in action. We will redouble our efforts. We will not rest until the enemy is crushed. We have reserves, SEND IN EVERYTHING!!!' To borrow a moment of flippancy, that is the trope, the exact progression toward downfall the Evil Empire typically follows in film and literature isn't it?


Anyway, here's a report on Trump telling his admin he doesn't want war with Iran. As usual, it's not clear what he wants, or if he knows what he wants, other than "looking tough". Yes, Trump will go to great lengths to act in a way that he perceives as "looking tough". Such as apparently recognizing his China trade war is damaging the economy and especially hurting his supporters in farm country, but none of that matters as long as the base thinks he is tough against China. Then you get remarkable quotes from people like Steve Bannon and Senator Tom Cotton, who appear to be going to Stalinist extremes of dogma:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bannon

The days of being soft on China are over ... Politics now drives the economics.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sen. Cotton

There will be some sacrifice on the part of Americans, I grant you that. But also that sacrifice is pretty minimal compared to the sacrifices that our soldiers make overseas that are fallen heroes or laid to rest.

[Ed. This sounds exactly like a politruk's propaganda spiel.]

---

It's stupefying that 'we must make sacrifices for the greater good' is not a message any leftist is permitted to say vis-a-vis, for example, climate change, but it's common sense for nationalists who just want to fuck with other countries.

I leave you with Senator Cotton singing us a rousing tune.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

I think Bolton truly believes that a military action will topple the regime in Iran. IMO, Any line of thinking that supposes the people will rise with the foreign invader borders on the criminally stupid but here we are. The line of thinking is that by crippling the oil that the people will be starved into revoultion, this is what the war hawks actually think. Iran would be a quagmire of the highest order and the American people will not stand for any sort of real total mobilization.

---

Economic hardship is one of the primary motivators for revolution but what Bolton et al don't understand is that when a foreign power is responsible for said hardship it tends to stoke nationalist sentiment and it becomes all to easy for the government to scapegoat whoever is doing the sanctions and rally people behind the military. This is what Maduro does and while he may not be particularly popular it's been enough for him to stave off Guiado's coup attempts.

Iranians are exposed to way more Iranian propaganda than they are American propaganda; they don't know or care why the US wants to overthrow their government they just know that the US are the ones making it harder for them to make a decent living.

I don't know what the point of sinking a US carrier would be.
You might celebrate it as a huge victory until you realize it's just like Pearl Harbor or 9/11 and they're going to bomb the poop out of you in response from Saudi Airbases that the Saudis opened for them because the entire world is shocked that you killed 2000 sailors in one attack.

The argies sunk several UK ships and still don't have the Malvinas. The effort to sink a US carrier would probably be better spent trying to kill the aircraft (and cruise missiles) it (and other ships) launches. By being purely defensive and minimizing the effect of attacks you might win a PR and war exhaustion victory. A dedicated US effort to destroy Iran can probably not be stopped anyway. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

The effort to sink a US carrier would probably be better spent trying to kill the aircraft (and cruise missiles) it (and other ships) launches. By being purely defensive and minimizing the effect of attacks you might win a PR and war exhaustion victory.

---

It depends on what the US mission is, but the point that nonless-violent resistance in the face of naked US aggression would be one of the best strategies available to Iran, a sort of diplo-attrition, is a good one.

Quote:

---

Second, the United States lacks broad international support for a campaign of regime change. Even allies such as Saudi Arabia and Israel would likely blanch at the long-term costs that the war would create. Neither Russia nor China would support the war at all, and both would likely intervene in ways designed to ease the pressure on Tehran. Europeans would react with heavy public disapproval, eventually forcing even sympathetic leaders in France and the U.K. to distance themselves from Washington.

Third, it is unclear how such a military intervention would end. The U.S. lacks the international support to undertake the sort of militarized containment that is used against Iraq during the 1990s. International sympathy for Iran would only increase over time, a fact that Iran’s leaders surely understand. If the Islamic Republic didn’t not collapse, the U.S. would eventually have to either admit defeat or open the door to dangerous escalation.

---

Of course, forbearance under attack requires a lot of discipline and governmental unity that Iran may not be able to hold together in the circumstances.


If my posts tend to visit a theme of frustration it's because of how silly everything is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

I don't know what the point of sinking a US carrier would be.
You might celebrate it as a huge victory until you realize it's just like Pearl Harbor or 9/11 and they're going to bomb the poop out of you in response from Saudi Airbases that the Saudis opened for them because the entire world is shocked that you killed 2000 sailors in one attack.

The argies sunk several UK ships and still don't have the Malvinas. The effort to sink a US carrier would probably be better spent trying to kill the aircraft (and cruise missiles) it (and other ships) launches. By being purely defensive and minimizing the effect of attacks you might win a PR and war exhaustion victory. A dedicated US effort to destroy Iran can probably not be stopped anyway. :shrug:

---

With the air wing aboard, there are more than 6k on a Nimitz class.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Obviously a bit flippant but the idea that "we just need to commit more" is pervase in the Western geopolitics.

---

It's pervasive in Western culture across many aspects.
"They wanted it more." is the type of bullshit analysis you hear constantly in any sport.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

With the air wing aboard, there are more than 6k on a Nimitz class.

---

One would hope that not all aboard would die if the ship sinks, no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

It's pervasive in Western culture across many aspects.
"They wanted it more." is the type of bullshit analysis you hear constantly in any sport.

---

If we combine that, only the people who don't want to live strongly enough die in a war? The others just repel bullets and explosive force with the power of their mind/skin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

One would hope that not all aboard would die if the ship sinks, no?

---

Of course. But the tale of modern naval warfare suggests that most things catastrophic enough to sink a major warship tend to do so surprisingly quickly and with a high loss of life among those aboard.



The Iranian threat is, of course, their diesel submarines (kilo class). Kilo class subs can, with a dash of luck, be quiet enough to penetrate a carrier screen and take a shot at the carrier. Odds are against this working, of course, but diesel is quieter than nuke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Of course. But the tale of modern naval warfare suggests that most things catastrophic enough to sink a major warship tend to do so surprisingly quickly and with a high loss of life among those aboard.

---

How many of these huge, modern carriers have been sunk already? I'm not really well-informed about naval engagements of such modern vessels, but I would assume most of these were between somewhat older models of Destroyers and Frigates?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

The Iranian threat is, of course, their diesel submarines (kilo class). Kilo class subs can, with a dash of luck, be quiet enough to penetrate a carrier screen and take a shot at the carrier. Odds are against this working, of course, but diesel is quieter than nuke.

---

Yes, Diesel subs ain't bad, but IIRC they come close to carriers in exercises when the carrier escorts don't use active sonar or something like that. So I guess that's relatively unlikely if there is no major mistake by the escorts.

Of course the best solution would be that Khomeini and Trump/Bolton have a saber duel over who gets his way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

I don't know enough to argue whether Iran's missile complement has a plausible attack vector from the shore. This article contends:

It sounds like if the aircraft carriers stay far away from the shore, they should be safe. On the other hand, there are many points in the Gulf once you move past the peninsular coast, as well as the Hormuz Strait chokepoint, that might see carriers within a vulnerable range. Then, here's a recent article on Iran's recent developments in advanced ballistic missiles that easily have the range to strike American fleets. Altogether hard for me to judge as a non-expert.

---

Multiple missiles in a kill box getting by all the destroyers and scoring enough hits to render the carrier inoperable. Not impossible but improbable. All the plans go out the window when things actually start happening but it does appear that the USA is in the stronger position as of the moment.

Quote:

---

Christ, that's just an intensification of disaster. Can you imagine? 'For the first time since World War II America has lost an aircraft carrier in action. We will redouble our efforts. We will not rest until the enemy is crushed. We have reserves, SEND IN EVERYTHING!!!' To borrow a moment of flippancy, that is the trope, the exact progression toward downfall the Evil Empire typically follows in film and literature isn't it?

---

A sunk carrier would absolutely result in the closest thing to total mobilization that we would ever see. If there is one unifying theme of American history, it is protecting its navy. It will simply not allow that kind of black eye to go unanswered. Whatever kind of propaganda is needed, will be drummed up, tropey as it may be. Fear is a powerful motivator and these imagined communities are not immune to it.

You seem to be on a soviet kick lately, so I'll join you. The revolution does not start in 1917, it starts in 1881. What we are witnessing here does not start in 2019 but rather 2001. We are witnessing that fear (possibly) come to fruition.

Quote:

---

Anyway, here's a report on Trump telling his admin he doesn't want war with Iran. As usual, it's not clear what he wants, or if he knows what he wants, other than "looking tough". Yes, Trump will go to great lengths to act in a way that he perceives as "looking tough". Such as apparently recognizing his China trade war is damaging the economy and especially hurting his supporters in farm country, but none of that matters as long as the base thinks he is tough against China.

---

Reading the Trump tea leaves is useless. He is an empty vessel, waiting to be filled by the id.

Quote:

---

Then you get remarkable quotes from people like Steve Bannon and Senator Tom Cotton, who appear to be going to Stalinist extremes of dogma:

It's stupefying that 'we must make sacrifices for the greater good' is not a message any leftist is permitted to say vis-a-vis, for example, climate change, but it's common sense for nationalists who just want to fuck with other countries.

I leave you with Senator Cotton singing us a rousing tune.

---

Bannon is a self proclaimed acclerationist in the style of Lenin. He wishes to strike a blow while America seemingly still has the upper hand. Cotton is a law and order Jingoist who sees any attack upon his politics as an attack upon his person. Such men can not be reasoned with.

As a whole, the Iran situation is abhorrent. What's worse, a war with Iran can easily spark WW3 and as Einstein said, World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones. Iran is a military powerhouse - easily defensible land, strong military, well equipped and almost 90 million people population.

This is not a joke - a war with Iran can very rapidly degenerate to WW3.

Edyzmedieval:

You use "WW3" as a euphemism for a large scale nuclear exchange (a pretty common usage). Depending on how you count things, it would be the 5th or 6th "World War" since you could make cases for the Seven Year's War, the American Revolutionary War, the Napoleonic War after 1803, and the Cold War (including Korea and Vietnam) all having been world wars involving combat actions across the globe and the involvement of most or all of the economic and military powers of their respective eras.

Iran, as a tactical problem, would be difficult. The real concern is the strategic feasibility (low) irrespective of the tactical problem. Wining the fight and achieving little (or actually undercutting the strategic goal) has been too much a feature of USA/NATO combat efforts of late.

The nuclear club does not, to date, include Iran (though our doomsayers on the right in the USA think they do have them). The vast majority of these are under the aegis of the 5 permanent members of the UN security council. None of these countries has a vested interest in large scale nuclear exchange and, I suspect, might be quite reticent to intercede in a smaller nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan (strat policy folks still consider this the most likely nuclear exchange threat). While NK and Israel are known/presumed to have nuclear weapons, both of these states seem to have developed this capability to deter any existential threat. Iran's nuclear ability would very likely fall into that latter category as well.

In retaliation to Iranian-backed Shiite militias besieging and trashing the US embassy in Iraq in retaliation against lethal US airstrikes retaliating against a mortar attack by the militias that killed and injured American forces, the United States has killed, via drone strike, preeminent Iranian military leader Qassim Suleimani. Iran has vowed to retaliate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edyzmedieval

I am absolutely aghast at the fact that this has been done without consulting anyone, so haphazard and with incredibly dangerous consequences.

---

I'm not a huge stickler about thread divisions, but the Trump thread could use less love and we have ready alternatives.



Because it contains so much info, I'll repost a blog post on the event in its entirety:

Quote:

---

My hot take on Suleimani: He was widely regarded as an exceptionally competent military officer with strong connections to militant groups across the region. He was ideologically and professionally committed to curtailing US and Israeli influence in the Middle East, and he facilitated actions that killed Americans, Israelis, Iraqis, and Syrians, along with the destabilization of Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen. To his credit, he was the architect of the Iranian portion of the campaign to destroy ISIS, although he sought to replace ISIS with a coalition of militias loyal primarily to Iran, rather than to their home governments. In short, nothing about the “Suleimani was bad and it’s good he’s dead” takes is quite wrong, but it is dependent on “what I told you was true, from a certain point of view” thinking.

My read on why he’s dead at this very moment is that President Trump came into office committed to eliminating the JCPOA, but that he lacked any very firm set of ideas about what should replace it. Iran policy in this administration thus became “maximum pressure” almost by default. Trump did not appreciate that Iran could act at multiple levels of escalation and in multiple theaters across the Middle East, and was not prepared for the escalated Iranian military campaign that ensued after the US exited the JCPOA. Suleimani was an important architect of that campaign. Trump resisted the idea that the maximum pressure campaign necessarily included a military component, and thus was reluctant to respond militarily to Iranian actions against Saudi Arabia, in Iraq, in Syria, and in Yemen. Trump apparently believed that continued strong support for regional proxies (primarily Saudi Arabia and Israel) would be sufficient to manage Iran.

Trump of course takes a very personalistic approach to politics, and so the idea of killing Suleimani undoubtedly appealed to him, especially as he seemed to view the protests outside the US embassy in Baghdad as a personal affront. And so he apparently decided to push the button on Suleimani, a step that both President Bush and President Obama had considered and rejected. It’s worth pointing out here that this is *not* the worst way that he could have decided to respond; a relatively limited strike against folks in the direct chain of command is better than lots of things he could have done that would have risked killing civilians, destroying infrastructure, etc.

The issue of concern now is the Iranian response. Iran will undoubtedly feel the need to respond in some fashion, but that response may have a de-escalatory impact. Cyber-attacks, for example, may prove annoying and somewhat destructive, but they’ll also carry a clear message of “we need to hit back, but we don’t really want to fight.” But then it’s also possible that Iran will take more aggressive steps that will lead to a lot more deaths. Iran can also undertake plenty of below-the-radar actions that will make Iraq and Lebanon effectively ungovernable. And while Suleimani was undoubtedly personally important, I have reservations that he was so operationally significant that Iran will be unable, in the short- and medium- term, to continue its operations across the region. Finally, in response to some questions in the comments, I think that even though Iraq’s tolerance for Iranian interference in its local politics is running thin, its tolerance for the US presence in the country is running even thinner. That said, the US has managed to stick around for this long…

Here’s a good rundown of what we know about the attack.
Here’s an older, but still useful, profile of Suleimani by Dexter Filkins.
Here’s the Israeli perspective on Suleimani.
Here’s a good discussion of the de-escalatory nature of cyber-attacks.
The Saudis should be nervous about Iranian retaliation.
A bit more operational detail on the attack.
Here’s what the law says about the authorization for the attacks, with particular attention to issues associated with the violation of Iraqi sovereignty.

---

And a smart comment:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Murc

Quote:

---

Here’s what the law says about the authorization for the attacks, with particular attention to issues associated with the violation of Iraqi sovereignty.

---

This is an extremely good link, and I urge everyone to read where its at... but I feel it makes a crucial mistake that's very common in the age of Trump.

Like, the section graf in their section on legal argument on legal theories and justifications begins thusly:

Quote:

---

While the administration has not yet provided a clear statement of the legal theory under which it acted

---

And what follows is like... two thousand words about American war doctrine and legislation and statutes and the Constitution, and a lot of speculation about how and why the Trump Administration might have incorporated any of these. Example:

Quote:

---

The 1973 War Powers Resolution obligates the executive branch to provide a report to Congress identifying the legal basis for any non-statutorily authorized military action within 48 hours, the deadline for which passed on Dec. 31. While not strictly required, such reports have generally been posted on the White House’s webpage. Yet no such report has been published to date, nor have there been reports that Congress has received one. If this situation holds, then the most likely explanation is that the Trump administration relied on statutory grounds to justify the Dec. 29 airstrikes.

---

Really. That's the most likely explanation?

Scott Anderson, the author, seems like a smart guy. But nowhere does he ever, in his reams and reams of analysis, raise what is almost certainly the actual explanation here.

And that explanation is this: the Trump Administration, by which we mean Trump himself, isn't operating under any firmer rationale than "we can do whatever the fuck we want and nobody has the power to stop us." Their legal theory is no firmer than "because suck our dicks, and by dicks we mean missiles, you cucks." They have not informed Congress as required by law not because they're relying on statutory interpretations that don't require this but because they hold Congress in utter contempt and they don't think Congress has either the will or the power to hold them to account. And any after-the-fact legal theories, rationales, or justifications they present for their actions will be just that; explanations they concocted after the fact as lies, that even they do not believe in but are uttering as part of political kabuki.

The Trump Administration doesn't think it needs any more justification for what it does than "'Murica, fuck yeah!"

Now, maybe my bead on this is wrong, but... it is very hard for me to take any analysis of the Trump Administrations actions seriously that does not raise this as a very, very serious possibility and discuss it at length. It doesn't matter how much you know about the War Powers Act and the 2001 and 2003 AUMFs if you're dealing with an administration that thinks none of that matters because president says so.

---

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ela-fell-apart

This was a blunder that could have had some serious repercussions on the global stage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edyzmedieval

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ela-fell-apart

This was a blunder that could have had some serious repercussions on the global stage.

---

I doubt the US government had any direct involvement in such a small-scale and incompetent operation, but with the Trump admin you never know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

I doubt the US government had any direct involvement in such a small-scale and incompetent operation, but with the Trump admin you never know.

---

I agree, though I think Trump would tend towards the grandiose if he bothered at all.

Those middle eastern cultures just aren't able to have democracy - they are clearly prone to dictatorship*

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/...072007050.html

Quote:

---

Darbyshire said Mossadegh's removal was inevitable.

"They would have wanted to oust Mossadegh regardless of whether he would have signed an agreement favourable to the British," he said. "Eventually they would have been forced to have considered getting rid of him to prevent a Russian takeover. I am convinced that was on the cards."

"The coup cost 700,000 pounds. I know because I spent it," Darbyshire said.

---

*especially when powerful nations deliberately conspire to make it so.

War must be avoided even more now. Look at what happened after WWI.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaka_Khan

War must be avoided even more now. Look at what happened after WWI.

---

And yet violent conflict is more common now than then -- albeit on a smaller scale

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

And yet violent conflict is more common now than then -- albeit on a smaller scale

---

Steven Pinker is mad you haven't been listening.