Various Imperial Reflexes (Iran and Venezuela Thread)

[Montmorency]

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: 

[Strike For The South]

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.

[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.

[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.

[Tuuvi]

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

[Strike For The South]

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?

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.

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.

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,

[Husar]

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.

[Montmorency]

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: 

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.

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.

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:

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

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.

[Tuuvi]

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.

[Tuuvi]

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.

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.