White House reviews military plans against Iran - New York Times

[Morch]

17 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Having military options in place in the event of Iran attacking US forces is sensible.  The fear is that Trump will act without thinking things through, which would be a disaster.

 

The US could defeat Iran's military and topple its government, but could not pacify the population or replace the government.  The result would be many times worse than Iraq.

 

I agree with almost all of the above. What I find curious is the last comment - "the results would be many times worse than Iraq".

 

If past instances of the same failed policy are anything to go by, then the results would indeed be messy. But why would that be worse that Iraq? The Iranian regime isn't a single-strongman replica of Iraq or Libya (or to use another example, the Shah). Khamenei is respected, but not quite as revered as Khomeini.

 

In terms of possible demographic/religious fault lines, perhaps not worse that Iraq - 90% or so Shia, about 65% Persians (with notable Azeri and Kurd minorities).

 

No powerful next door neighbor with enough clout to meddle in politics either.

[IAMHERE]

I want No Boots on the Ground. Do any military action solely from the air. Stay out of Iran. 

[Morch]

12 minutes ago, candide said:

A related concern is that, once Iran neutralized, the door is open to Saudi influence expansion with the benediction of the Trump administration.

I don't see the possibility of an increase of the hold of Salafist organisations in this region as positive scenario.

 

How do you suggest that might happen? Iranians embracing Saudis who sided with the US? Iran's Shia mass "converting" to Sunni beliefs? Saudi Arabia can't handle a mini-war in it's backyard, can't translate political moves into actual gains and is having trouble even making dissidents disappear quietly. Taking over Iran is a rather tall order.

[bristolboy]

7 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

How do you suggest that might happen? Iranians embracing Saudis who sided with the US? Iran's Shia mass "converting" to Sunni beliefs? Saudi Arabia can't handle a mini-war in it's backyard, can't translate political moves into actual gains and is having trouble even making dissidents disappear quietly. Taking over Iran is a rather tall order.

Apparently, you don't believe that Iran has all that much to with the successes and resilience of the Houthis in Yemen. For once, you and I agree.

[Morch]

Just now, bristolboy said:

Apparently, you don't believe that Iran has all that much to with the successes and resilience of the Houthis in Yemen. For once, you and I agree.

 

Apparently. But in reality, not what I posted. There was no reference as to elements' relative contribution to the state of things. Either way, topic isn't about Yemen.

[bristolboy]

5 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Apparently. But in reality, not what I posted. There was no reference as to elements' relative contribution to the state of things. Either way, topic isn't about Yemen.

You're the one who seemed to think that neutralizing Iran wouldn't change Saudi Arabia's influence in the region. If you think the issue is off topic, why did you address it in the first place? You got some special dispensation?

Edited May 14, 2019 by bristolboy

[billd766]

9 hours ago, ezzra said:

If Assad and his good buddy Putin created over one million regugges, not to mention hundred of thousands of casualties, most have ended in the bosoms of Frau Merkel and the rest of Europe, but if Europe doesn't want any of those anymore, convince Iran to play nice with Trump...

Actually you need to convince Trump to play nice with Iran. 

 

The USA with Trump, Bolton and Pompeo are the cause of the problem. If the USA could get rid of those three warmongers the whole world would be a lot safer IMHO.

 

120,000 US troops are NOT the solution.

Edited May 14, 2019 by billd766
Edited for bad spelling after I had posted it

[Morch]

8 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

You're the one who seemed to think that neutralizing Iran wouldn't change Saudi Arabia's influence in the region. If you think the issue is off topic, why did you address it in the first place? You got some special dispensation?

 

SA's prospects of greater influence in a post-war Iran is relevant. Cherry-picking my post and twisting my words to highlight one of your pet topics, not so much. Try harder.

[arithai12]

6 hours ago, rabas said:

Saddam, Sunni/Shia + Chemicals.

Right. Congratulations for your unbiased perception.

[bristolboy]

4 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

SA's prospects of greater influence in a post-war Iran is relevant. Cherry-picking my post and twisting my words to highlight one of your pet topics, not so much. Try harder.

Candide:

A related concern is that, once Iran neutralized, the door is open to Saudi influence expansion with the benediction of the Trump administration.

I don't see the possibility of an increase of the hold of Salafist organisations in this region as positive scenario.

Morch

How do you suggest that might happen? Iranians embracing Saudis who sided with the US? Iran's Shia mass "converting" to Sunni beliefs? Saudi Arabia can't handle a mini-war in it's backyard, can't translate political moves into actual gains and is having trouble even making dissidents disappear quietly. Taking over Iran is a rather tall order.

Don't need to twist anything to leave you hanging.

 

 

[Krataiboy]

10 hours ago, ezzra said:

If Assad and his good buddy Putin created over one million regugges, not to mention hundred of thousands of casualties, most have ended in the bosoms of Frau Merkel and the rest of Europe, but if Europe doesn't want any of those anymore, convince Iran to play nice with Trump...

Glad you put an "if" in front of your take on recent events in Syria.  Other observers of Middle East affairs have concluded that US-backed outfits like Al Qaeda and ISIS also did their share to create a regugge crisis.

 

That said, it is entirely credible that the fiendishly cunning POTUS is posing the threat of an Iranian refugee sunami to persuade Europe to back his hard-line stance against the ayatollahs.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 14, 2019 by Krataiboy

[Morch]

15 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Candide:

A related concern is that, once Iran neutralized, the door is open to Saudi influence expansion with the benediction of the Trump administration.

I don't see the possibility of an increase of the hold of Salafist organisations in this region as positive scenario.

Morch

How do you suggest that might happen? Iranians embracing Saudis who sided with the US? Iran's Shia mass "converting" to Sunni beliefs? Saudi Arabia can't handle a mini-war in it's backyard, can't translate political moves into actual gains and is having trouble even making dissidents disappear quietly. Taking over Iran is a rather tall order.

Don't need to twist anything to leave you hanging.

 

 

 

And yet, twisting is exactly what you do (again). Your comment was rather specific, and not even accurate with regard to my own post. Guess that's why you didn't link it as well.

[candide]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

How do you suggest that might happen? Iranians embracing Saudis who sided with the US? Iran's Shia mass "converting" to Sunni beliefs? Saudi Arabia can't handle a mini-war in it's backyard, can't translate political moves into actual gains and is having trouble even making dissidents disappear quietly. Taking over Iran is a rather tall order.

I mean Saudi influence in other ME countries, not in Iran, of course. I'm not that stupid.

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, candide said:

I mean Saudi influence in other ME countries, not in Iran, of course. I'm not that stupid.

 

Fair enough, misinterpreted your post.

It's a good question whether SA can actually translate an Iranian defeat into a diplomatic victory. So far they haven't fared all that well - whether due to their own circumstances/incompetence or Iran's prowess can be argued, but the fact remains. Maybe such an outcome will provide an answer.

 

I guess it depends on how things pan out. How Iran comes out of such a war, whether other countries in the region were involved, and the length of time it will take to revive Iran's economy.

 

There's more to be said about this, but probably more Saudi-related, and not directly on topic.

 

 

[BestB]

120000 does not sound like protection but more like invasion but sure will get Iran’s attention and should make them think twice.

 

strangely enough if you google world war 3, the first 2 results is trumps warning to Iran and Iran’s response 

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

I agree with almost all of the above. What I find curious is the last comment - "the results would be many times worse than Iraq".

 

If past instances of the same failed policy are anything to go by, then the results would indeed be messy. But why would that be worse that Iraq? The Iranian regime isn't a single-strongman replica of Iraq or Libya (or to use another example, the Shah). Khamenei is respected, but not quite as revered as Khomeini.

 

In terms of possible demographic/religious fault lines, perhaps not worse that Iraq - 90% or so Shia, about 65% Persians (with notable Azeri and Kurd minorities).

 

No powerful next door neighbor with enough clout to meddle in politics either.

Iran, like Iraq, has a somewhat modern urban population, and a very conservative rural/desert population.  Like Iraq, the US could largely control the cities but not the country.  Unlike Iraq, Iran has the ideological Republican Guards, not the more secular military of Hussein.  Ideologues are known for fighting without end or compromise.  Iran also has more than twice the population of Iraq.  That would make it many times worse than Iraq.  It would also mean casualties in the hundreds of thousands at a minimum, and quite possibly over a million.

 

Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya should have taught the US, and the world, that winning the war is the easy part.  Winning the peace and bringing stability to a country that has only known iron-fisted rule is the challenge, one that the US has not proven itself capable of mastering. 

 

We will not have a quick victory in which we are treated as liberators and can go home, with everyone living happily ever after.  We will have another country in anarchy and another source of instability in an area already known for instability.  That should be obvious by now, unfortunately it doesn't seem obvious to a great many Americans, including those in leadership positions.

 

In short, after we "win" the war in Iran, we will have another drain on US lives and resources for decades to come, a more unstable Middle East, and more terrorists convinced that the US is at war with all Muslims.  I hope Trump won't get us into this, but I wouldn't be surprised if he did.

[bristolboy]

17 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Iran, like Iraq, has a somewhat modern urban population, and a very conservative rural/desert population.  Like Iraq, the US could largely control the cities but not the country.  Unlike Iraq, Iran has the ideological Republican Guards, not the more secular military of Hussein.  Ideologues are known for fighting without end or compromise.  Iran also has more than twice the population of Iraq.  That would make it many times worse than Iraq.  It would also mean casualties in the hundreds of thousands at a minimum, and quite possibly over a million.

 

Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya should have taught the US, and the world, that winning the war is the easy part.  Winning the peace and bringing stability to a country that has only known iron-fisted rule is the challenge, one that the US has not proven itself capable of mastering. 

 

We will not have a quick victory in which we are treated as liberators and can go home, with everyone living happily ever after.  We will have another country in anarchy and another source of instability in an area already known for instability.  That should be obvious by now, unfortunately it doesn't seem obvious to a great many Americans, including those in leadership positions.

 

In short, after we "win" the war in Iran, we will have another drain on US lives and resources for decades to come, a more unstable Middle East, and more terrorists convinced that the US is at war with all Muslims.  I hope Trump won't get us into this, but I wouldn't be surprised if he did.

Except of course you really haven't won the war if you haven't won the peace. As Iraq demonstrated. That's the problem with asymmetric warfare.

And Morch's claim that the demographic breakdown of Iran could be comparable to that of Iraq in terms of fault lines is just untrue. The 17 million Azeris are well treated in Iran. 

Edited May 14, 2019 by bristolboy

[OneMoreFarang]

10 hours ago, Morch said:

 

It's high time some posters realize that there is no "rest of the world", at least not in any effective manner relating to their fantasies. Imaginary alliances don't count.

 

Trump is criticized (and rightly so) for the contempt he shows toward international cooperation (or even cooperating with allies). The thing is that criticism aside, the USA is still "big" enough on many fronts, to go at it solo, or to coerce/influence grudging compliance/non-interference from others. And while in the long term this might very well erode the USA's standing, there's presently little by way of counterbalance on offer. So from a ego-driven, relatively short-term leader's point of view - someone else's problem down the line, but works in the now.

 

I get it some feel the need to rant or vent, but sheesh....boycott the USA? Get real.

Obviously you are right. It wont be possible to boycott the USA.

But looking at their behavior, especially but not restricted to Trump, they really deserve it.

 

Maybe the good thing about Trump is that the Europeans wake up and realize that the USA is not a reliable partner. It is still a partner in many ways. But Europe can't and should not rely on them in the future.

[lannarebirth]

3 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Obviously you are right. It wont be possible to boycott the USA.

But looking at their behavior, especially but not restricted to Trump, they really deserve it.

 

Maybe the good thing about Trump is that the Europeans wake up and realize that the USA is not a reliable partner. It is still a partner in many ways. But Europe can't and should not rely on them in the future.

 

Europeans definition of a reliable partner is someone who picks up the check; in money or lives, it doesn't matter.

[OneMoreFarang]

11 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

Europeans definition of a reliable partner is someone who picks up the check; in money or lives, it doesn't matter.

You seem to be well informed - or at least you think you are...

[lannarebirth]

8 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

You seem to be well informed - or at least you think you are...

 

A person doesn't need to be informed of what they can see with their own eyes.

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Europeans definition of a reliable partner is someone who picks up the check; in money or lives, it doesn't matter.

Nonsense. A reliable partner is someone you can depend on. Period. What you are describing is a sugar daddy. Big difference.

[bristolboy]

I just went to foxnews.com to see what their take on the situation is. Nothing at all on the home page except off to the side a link to a video clip of Tom Cotton condemning Iran. Is it possible that even Fox News thinks this foray is a political loser?

Same goes for the washingtontimes.com except nothing at all.

Nationalreview.com also.

And you have to scroll way way down on Breitbart.com to find any reference to it.

Edited May 15, 2019 by bristolboy

[heybruce]

38 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I just went to foxnews.com to see what their take on the situation is. Nothing at all on the home page except off to the side a link to a video clip of Tom Cotton condemning Iran. Is it possible that even Fox News thinks this foray is a political loser?

Same goes for the washingtontimes.com except nothing at all.

Nationalreview.com also.

And you have to scroll way way down on Breitbart.com to find any reference to it.

If I remember correctly, Trump's incoherent campaign promised to end wars and stop being the world's policeman.  His base supported that, but his base expected him to be a tough-guy peaceful President.  Coherence isn't a Trump base thing.

 

I have no idea what is going on in Trump's erratic mind.  If he's told that getting the US into another war will improve his chances of being re-elected, I think he'd do it.

[lannarebirth]

52 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I just went to foxnews.com to see what their take on the situation is. Nothing at all on the home page except off to the side a link to a video clip of Tom Cotton condemning Iran. Is it possible that even Fox News thinks this foray is a political loser?

Same goes for the washingtontimes.com except nothing at all.

Nationalreview.com also.

And you have to scroll way way down on Breitbart.com to find any reference to it.

 

I haven't really been following this story. Why are we making as if we're about to go to war with the Iranians? Trump Tower Haifa? Trump Tower Riyadh? Is young Kushner collateralizing a loan?

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 15, 2019 by lannarebirth

[bristolboy]

22 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I haven't really been following this story. Why are we making as if we're about to go to war with the Iranians? Trump Tower Haifa? Trump Tower Riyadh? Is young Kushner collateralizing a loan?

 

 

 

 

 

More likely the motivation is one we've seen before: Whatever Obama accomplished, destroy it.

[heybruce]

28 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I haven't really been following this story. Why are we making as if we're about to go to war with the Iranians? Trump Tower Haifa? Trump Tower Riyadh? Is young Kushner collateralizing a loan?

Sec of State Pompeo having rapidly changing travels with not explanation given. 

 

Plans to send 120,000 troops to the Middle East if Iran attacks US forces (any attack on US forces could be blamed on Iranian proxies) or accelerate work on nuclear weapons (who's to say what qualifies as an acceleration?).  https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/13/world/middleeast/us-military-plans-iran.html 

 

Reports of sabotage on four tankers in the gulf with the administration pointing fingers at Iran without providing evidence (how many know about the Gulf of Tonkin incident?).  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident

 

Things are getting scary.

Edited May 15, 2019 by heybruce

[lannarebirth]

6 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

More likely the motivation is one we've seen before: Whatever Obama accomplished, destroy it.

 

Probably a "hey, look over there" (Wag The Dog) kinda thing. I hope nobody gets hurt or killed.

 

 

 

Edited May 15, 2019 by lannarebirth

[lannarebirth]

4 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Sec of State Pompeo having rapidly changing travels with not explanation given. 

 

Plans to send 120,000 troops to the Middle East if Iran attacks US forces (any attack on US forces could be blamed on Iranian proxies) or accelerate work on nuclear weapons (who's to say what qualifies as an acceleration?).  https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/13/world/middleeast/us-military-plans-iran.html 

 

Reports of sabotage on four tankers in the gulf with the administration pointing fingers at Iran without providing evidence (how many know about the Gulf of Tonkin incident?).  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident

 

Things are getting scary.

 

Yeah, I read about the tankers. Thank goodness for IMO standards for double bottomed hulls. Nobody seems to have seen anything. Yes, I'm well aware of the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

[spidermike007]

14 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Again with the scaremongering. To date, Iran didn't exhibit much by way of the capabilities alleged in the rant above. The hype is rather similar to talk prior to the Iraq Wars (I'm reminded of that Bill Hicks bit about the Republican Guard...worth looking up).

 

The issue is not with military plans against Iran. And it is not true that the best plan is "no plan". The issue is more to do with goals defined. If talking about regime change, agreed - didn't work out well elsewhere and no reason to expect otherwise. If a more limited goal - say, taking out ballistic and nuclear related targets - maybe more feasible (but similarly, needs to have the next, diplomatic step, in the ready). The worst would be getting into a military conflict situation with no plan whatsoever, and no predefined goals.

 

As for "formidable" - the USA's military might is built to address direct threats from the likes of Russia or China. Iran isn't quite on that level.

Nearly everyone underestimate the cyber capabilities of Iran. They are not to be messed with.

 

Another scholar stated, “Iran represents a qualitatively different cyber actor, they’re not stealing our intellectual property en masse like China, or using cyberspace as a black market as the Russians do…what Iran does use cyber for, including elevating its retaliatory capabilities abroad, makes it a serious threat.” James Mattis ominously described the Iranian cyber program this way: “if we’d talked three, four, five years ago, I’d have said it’s not a big threat. Today I will just tell you I would liken it to children juggling light bulbs filled with nitroglycerine. One time they’re going to do something serious and force foreign leaders to take it into account.”

 

According to a report from the Government Accountability Office, nearly all the critical infrastructure industries lack adequate cyber security metrics. The Defense Science Board Task Force on Cyber Deterrence issued a report this year stating “regional powers (e.g., Iran and North Korea) have a growing potential to use indigenous or purchased cyber tools to conduct catastrophic attacks on U.S. critical infrastructure. The U.S. Government must work with the private sector to intensify efforts to defend and boost the cyber resilience of U.S. critical infrastructure to avoid allowing extensive vulnerability to these nations. 

 

 

https://www.secjuice.com/iran-cyber-capabilities-implications-for-us/