U.S. warns merchant ships of possible Iranian attacks; cleric threatens U.S. fleet

[55Jay]

7 minutes ago, geoffbezoz said:

Why have you just published, for Iran to read, the USN secret war plans ?  ????????????  or is it you  are just providing some back fill for the next Clancy book ?

Naw, it's old hat, no secret, which is why Iran tends to *blink* from their unenviable position. 

[spidermike007]

42 minutes ago, 55Jay said:

IMO, the aw shit turning point in this scenario isn't mobilizing US assets INTO the Gulf, including the big show of landing B52s on Qatar.  Nope.  Too close. 

 

It's when you see them moving OUT of the Gulf.  CENTCOM FWD on Qatar, and the 5th Fleet/COMUSNAVCENT on Bahrain in particular, are within slingshot range of Iran.

 

5th Fleet Admiral/staff will designate a temporary flag ship and mobilize to sea.  USN will fight from stand off positions in the N. Arabian Sea/near-Indian Ocean, taking out Iran's missile batteries and Naval assets/logistics/facilities in and around the Straits and coastline.  US air strikes and resupply from Diego Garcia and other Near-Asian footprints, Eastern Med/Middle East positions, as well as minor APODS and SPODS along the NAS/IO coast, Djibouti. Kenya, etc.  Fujairah, Oman are (closer in) beachheads with airfields, and are also backdoor land-side routes into UAE if the Strait is fouled/mined. 

 

Iran talks a lot of s**t but they also tend to *blink* first.

 

Wild cards being response/actions from Russia and China.

And Iran will retaliate in a way that will make America wish it had been wiser, more prudent, and a nation with some vision, and a real leader. Iran has the capability to cripple the US. Between their cyber capabilities, and their ideological willingness to fund a massive degree of terror, on US soil. The fact is, invading Iran could be the biggest mistake, in the history of the USA.

[from the home of CC]

if you don't think Saudi has been whispering in Donnie's ear you haven't been paying attention..

[Dumbastheycome]

5 hours ago, wayned said:

That someone is definitely Bolton and has backing from Pompeo.  Bolton has promoted war with Iran and North Korea foe years!

Itch and scratch on  3  fronts...include Venezuala.

[Yellowtail]

3 hours ago, rabas said:

 

...Iran is Russia's no 1 puppet.

 

 

What happened to Trump?

[55Jay]

58 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

And Iran will retaliate in a way that will make America wish it had been wiser, more prudent, and a nation with some vision, and a real leader. Iran has the capability to cripple the US. Between their cyber capabilities, and their ideological willingness to fund a massive degree of terror, on US soil. The fact is, invading Iran could be the biggest mistake, in the history of the USA.

Agreed, I would prefer no conflict.  We've been here before, Iran knows how far they can push before they have to back down.  What I fear and loathe is the build up and shows of force, right at the tipping point.  One wrong move, one overzealous military guy on either side, and it kicks off.

 

But if it were to kick off, Iran wouldn't last long militarily.  This is why they tend to back down fro their hyperbolic threats and ultimatums.  The last one I recall was they would sink a US Carrier if it crossed their line in the sand.  US sailed a carrier to challenge that threat.  Not a peep. 

 

Agreed, invading (boots on the ground) would be a huge blunder, exceeding Iraq2 and Endless Afghanistan.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, spidermike007 said:

And Iran will retaliate in a way that will make America wish it had been wiser, more prudent, and a nation with some vision, and a real leader. Iran has the capability to cripple the US. Between their cyber capabilities, and their ideological willingness to fund a massive degree of terror, on US soil. The fact is, invading Iran could be the biggest mistake, in the history of the USA.

 

More scaremongering, more exaggerations. For reference, look up some of the talk aired prior to the Iraq engagements. About the same. The military phase of things ended quickly and decidedly.

 

The backlash is something connected with remaining in country, rather than with the punching the other side in the face.

[roquefort]

 

 

10 hours ago, wayned said:

And he is being advised to do it by his two war monger advisers, Pompeo and Bolton,  who need to take a vacation to a country where euthanasia is legal and check themselves into a fast track program.

Two psychopaths and a buffoon in charge of the world's destiny. What could possibly go wrong?

 

Edited May 11, 2019 by roquefort

[user46546545]

Here we go- the Talking Yam wants to cause a war and deflect attention from his criminal activities

[user46546545]

27 minutes ago, 55Jay said:

Agreed, I would prefer no conflict.  We've been here before, Iran knows how far they can push before they have to back down.  What I fear and loathe is the build up and shows of force, right at the tipping point.  One wrong move, one overzealous military guy on either side, and it kicks off.

 

But if it were to kick off, Iran wouldn't last long militarily.  This is why they tend to back down fro their hyperbolic threats and ultimatums.  The last one I recall was they would sink a US Carrier if it crossed their line in the sand.  US sailed a carrier to challenge that threat.  Not a peep. 

 

Agreed, invading (boots on the ground) would be a huge blunder, exceeding Iraq2 and Endless Afghanistan.

Have no fear Prima Donald has it all under control- like Nicaragua and Nth Korea. The world laughs at the buffoon

[khunken]

The parallels with the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq are too close to ignore.

In both cases, a weak-minded & ignorant president has been taken over by a group of neo-cons (aka neo-Nazis) who have a blood lust for war and US imperial power.

All of the present anti-Irananian propaganda is manufactured (just like it was with Iraq) to bombard the media with unproven threats from Iran. The rhetoric from both sides rises but I doubt very much that Iran will be stupid enough to provide the US with an excuse to attack.

What is more likely is that Iran, given the pathetic support from European coutries whose companies pulled out of Iran, will go nuclear as that is real protection as NK has shown.

 

[Morch]

26 minutes ago, khunken said:

The parallels with the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq are too close to ignore.

In both cases, a weak-minded & ignorant president has been taken over by a group of neo-cons (aka neo-Nazis) who have a blood lust for war and US imperial power.

All of the present anti-Irananian propaganda is manufactured (just like it was with Iraq) to bombard the media with unproven threats from Iran. The rhetoric from both sides rises but I doubt very much that Iran will be stupid enough to provide the US with an excuse to attack.

What is more likely is that Iran, given the pathetic support from European coutries whose companies pulled out of Iran, will go nuclear as that is real protection as NK has shown.

 

 

Expected hyperbole aside, and ignoring the fact that Iran isn't quite the innocent lamb - questionable Iran could easily follow NK's example. NK had some element of surprise and doubts as to its intentions, while Iran's under scrutiny already. Going the nuclear way, if discovered prior to achieving the goal, will only serve to support the other side's narrative.

[khunken]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

Expected hyperbole aside, and ignoring the fact that Iran isn't quite the innocent lamb - questionable Iran could easily follow NK's example. NK had some element of surprise and doubts as to its intentions, while Iran's under scrutiny already. Going the nuclear way, if discovered prior to achieving the goal, will only serve to support the other side's narrative.

Ignoring your usual bias & distortion of others' posts, Iran has already moved up a notch with their nuclear capblities and, if they continue, will actually show that abandoning a deal and bullying others into doing the same, leads to a worse result than intended.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, khunken said:

Ignoring your usual bias & distortion of others' posts, Iran has already moved up a notch with their nuclear capblities and, if they continue, will actually show that abandoning a deal and bullying others into doing the same, leads to a worse result than intended.

 

Was there any "distortion of other's posts" in my post, or are you just mud slinging for the heck of it?

 

Currently, Iran is under a very tight inspections regime, which effectively bars a sudden breakthrough toward achieving military nuclear capability. As I understand it, even if they materialize, the recent steps announced by Iran are not quite (at least not yet) an actual breach of the agreement.

 

If Iran was to fully withdraw from the agreement, or do so in a manner which violates core issues, then the current US enforced sanctions would be enhanced through those applied by European signatories. Russia or China could go their own way, but doubtful either got serious enough incentives to do so.

 

And if the inspections regime currently in-place collapses, it would only serve to bolster the Trump & Co. narrative, and force European signatories to go along with the program.

 

I'm not (and never did) argue that the Trump administration quitting the so-called Iran Deal was a good move. The point made is that whether posters like it or not, the US is, in many ways, still top dog. Sure enough, maybe less so than in the past, but still a force to reckon with, and one which can not easily be countered. 

[khunken]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Was there any "distortion of other's posts" in my post, or are you just mud slinging for the heck of it?

 

Currently, Iran is under a very tight inspections regime, which effectively bars a sudden breakthrough toward achieving military nuclear capability. As I understand it, even if they materialize, the recent steps announced by Iran are not quite (at least not yet) an actual breach of the agreement.

 

If Iran was to fully withdraw from the agreement, or do so in a manner which violates core issues, then the current US enforced sanctions would be enhanced through those applied by European signatories. Russia or China could go their own way, but doubtful either got serious enough incentives to do so.

 

And if the inspections regime currently in-place collapses, it would only serve to bolster the Trump & Co. narrative, and force European signatories to go along with the program.

 

I'm not (and never did) argue that the Trump administration quitting the so-called Iran Deal was a good move. The point made is that whether posters like it or not, the US is, in many ways, still top dog. Sure enough, maybe less so than in the past, but still a force to reckon with, and one which can not easily be countered. 

Are you stalking me or are you just up to your usual stupid twisting games?

If Iran pulls out of what's left of the deal, of course the Europeans will too. But that's meaningless as their companies have already pulled out over US threats. Despite your attempts to pour muck on it, it's still a possible scenario and definitely better than an US attack on Iran, which would make going nuclear probable as well as the usual 'collateral damage'.

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, khunken said:

Are you stalking me or are you just up to your usual stupid twisting games?

If Iran pulls out of what's left of the deal, of course the Europeans will too. But that's meaningless as their companies have already pulled out over US threats. Despite your attempts to pour muck on it, it's still a possible scenario and definitely better than an US attack on Iran, which would make going nuclear probable as well as the usual 'collateral damage'.

I doubt the US would attack Iran, they would likely get Israel to take care of their "light work".

 

How ironic would that be? 

[stevenl]

9 hours ago, rabas said:

 

Protecting the Straits of Hormuz from Iranian closer is not a Trump issue. It's been a strategic Western alliance initiative since at least the 60s. Iran will find no sympathy throughout the world except from its one supporter Mr. Putin and his surrogates North Korea and Venezuela, and to a lesser extent US democrats. Even China will cooperate as they import far more oil from the Persian Gulf than the US.  Not even Arab oil exporting states want the straits closed.

 

Dangerous stuff? Yes, very, especially since Putin is becoming more unhinged. Surely he's not thrilled his lover Donald keeps trashing his every global initiative from Iran, Syria, Venezuela, North Korea, Ukraine, and the Russian economy, plus belittling his coveted S200/S300 missiles.

Trump is threatening war, so Putin is the dangerous and unhinged one. Time for you to understand what is really happening, but there is little hope for that.

[Dumbastheycome]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Expected hyperbole aside, and ignoring the fact that Iran isn't quite the innocent lamb - questionable Iran could easily follow NK's example. NK had some element of surprise and doubts as to its intentions, while Iran's under scrutiny already. Going the nuclear way, if discovered prior to achieving the goal, will only serve to support the other side's narrative.

And that  narrative  is? To  deny the threat of  succumbing  to the same  fate as  neighbours?  Destroyed  by  the dictate that has left chaos and brutal disorganized  factional nations to implode themselves  as proof of salvation by a militaristic  clique  who waves the  superior  sword of ultimate  obliteration in  gross demonstration  of mystical justification??

Look to where the threat originates  instead of  promoting the reaction  to  it!

 

[rabas]

36 minutes ago, stevenl said:

 

Trump is threatening war, so Putin is the dangerous and unhinged one. Time for you to understand what is really happening, but there is little hope for that.

 

"... becoming more unhinged", comes from a senior Russian academic scientist and friend whom I've worked with for decades, among others (I too am a 'senior' scientist). There have been many irrational arrests recently, leading some to opine the man whose name cannot be mentioned is coming unglued. Maybe constant US pressure on Russia's global interests, or maybe he fell of his horse, I do not know. I also have many Irani friends, worked in Iran and for an Irani owned company elsewhere. I once had the honor at a Tehran dinner to sit next to the cousin of the guy who led the US Embassy takeover. He was elected to parliament based on his involvement. They said "Allo, you, American, you need to talk to this guy".  We talked about telecom -----, his choice.

 

So sorry my ability to understand is not to your spec, but if I need to know what CNN is pining about Donald Trump, I will give you a shout.

[Dumbastheycome]

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

I doubt the US would attack Iran, they would likely get Israel to take care of their "light work".

 

How ironic would that be? 

Nothing ironic  in that eventuality  because  Israel  is  the  local  agent  of the US   militaristic  regime. And  if  that  " light work "   was  suicidal I am sure  the  POTUS  would  express  extreme  sorrow and  display   crocodile  tears  while  the  "clean up  crews"  annexed anything  of   remaining   value  whilst   announcing salvation  and  victory !

Edited May 11, 2019 by Dumbastheycome

[Benmart]

So many experts about so many issues. 

[Morch]

2 hours ago, khunken said:

Are you stalking me or are you just up to your usual stupid twisting games?

If Iran pulls out of what's left of the deal, of course the Europeans will too. But that's meaningless as their companies have already pulled out over US threats. Despite your attempts to pour muck on it, it's still a possible scenario and definitely better than an US attack on Iran, which would make going nuclear probable as well as the usual 'collateral damage'.

 

Are you quite alright? Replying to your posts isn't "stalking", and of course, they weren't distorted or twisted.

 

There's a difference between European firms pulling out of Iran, and European governments laying sanctions on other firms doing business with Iran (in the same manner the US does now). It means that the scope of the sanctions grows, and that Iran will have even fewer trading partners. If it was meaningless the Iranians wouldn't be upset about the European signatories actions and responses.

 

I've provided a reasoned (rather than "pour muck") argument as to why it would be both difficult and currently dangerous for Iran to choose the military nuclear capability at this time. Doesn't mean that Iran wouldn't go there, just that it's not very likely under current circumstances. You may notice my position is opposed to the Trump administration & Co. narrative on this point.

 

No idea how a US attack on Iran would lead to the latter suddenly developing military nuclear capability. If past military engagements of this sort are referenced, the receiving end's military apparatus is destroyed, and years of rebuilding, destabilization and insurgency follow. None of these seem like a precursor for a development as suggested.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

I doubt the US would attack Iran, they would likely get Israel to take care of their "light work".

 

How ironic would that be? 

 

I doubt you could support this notion with anything much. Previous occasions saw the US asking Israel to stay out of it, for political reasons. If it comes to that, the US could probably deal with Iran on without any operational assistance. Use of air and naval bases, air space and territorial waters would suffice. If others join, it would be, again, political more than anything else.

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

I doubt you could support this notion with anything much. Previous occasions saw the US asking Israel to stay out of it, for political reasons. If it comes to that, the US could probably deal with Iran on without any operational assistance. Use of air and naval bases, air space and territorial waters would suffice. If others join, it would be, again, political more than anything else.

Yeah, I was just baiting dude...

[Dumbastheycome]

1 hour ago, Dumbastheycome said:

Nothing ironic  in that eventuality  because  Israel  is  the  local  agent  of the US   militaristic  regime. And  if  that  " light work "   was  suicidal I am sure  the  POTUS  would  express  extreme  sorrow and  display   crocodile  tears  while  the  "clean up  crews"  annexed anything  of   remaining   value  whilst   announcing salvation  and  victory !

No  surprise.

[Dumbastheycome]

If only the  world  could  put  put aside dullard subscription to  political  propaganda !

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, Dumbastheycome said:

If only the  world  could  put  put aside dullard subscription to  political  propaganda !

Well then you'd have nothing to regurgitate and you'd have to start thinking for yourself...

 

 (just kidding)

[Dumbastheycome]

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

Well then you'd have nothing to regurgitate and you'd have to start thinking for yourself...

 

 (just kidding)

I heed  your  words. In fact I think I was already there  but thanks  for  the  opinion. lol

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

15 hours ago, geoffbezoz said:

Oh dear, this could go the complete opposite way to which Trump had hoped.

 

You mean peace could break out in the Middle East as a result of this??? 

 

That seems more than a bit unlikely... more likely, the result could be exactly what Trump, Bolton and others want -- confrontation.

 

Although, remember, Trump and Kim in North Korea were once almost on the verge of war... Then later, Trump publicly pronounced himself in "love" with Kim....

 

So I find myself agreeing with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard leader when he is quoted in the OP as saying, "Our nation ... sees America as unreliable."

 

Indeed, that is the definition of Trump's foreign policy scorecard.

 

Edited May 11, 2019 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[stevenl]

3 minutes ago, khunken said:

You have previously & now stalked many of my posts (& others whose posts went against your agenda). Reasoned argument my arse as your second paragraph totally distorts what I said.

So I'll write it slowly so's you understand - European governments (Unlike the US) excepting always the UK, do not blindly impose sanctions on companies outside their jurisdictions that do business with Iran. They normally follow UN mandates which certainly have no chance of being imposed just because the US says so. As most major EU companies have withdrawn due to US threats, the impact of EU countries withdrawing from the pact in minimal. So, I'll repeat that IMO Iran will eventually go nuclear, the only question is 'when'.

Am I allowed to have an opinion or are you back to carrying out your pseudo-mod agenda?

Yes, withdrawing from the Iran nuclear agreement was a major strategic mistake that USA and Israel will regret.