I was going to write a detailed response to the above post but frankly I can't make much sense of it. You are saying at one point that shutting off the Strait will raise the price of oil, which in previous times when the Strait has been threatened it has, and that it will also lower the price of oil hurting Iran. The selective blockade you describe has already been in place for years under US sanctions. The US has already been trying to stop Iranian oil going through the Strait with very mixed results. Iranian threats to shut down the Strait aren't based on a selective seizing of tankers, although they have done that, but to literally shut it down with missiles and mine it. Also since this has been brought up by a few posters. The Iranian Navy isn't like the US or UK Navy. It's not primarily composed of capital ships (large prominent vessels like aircraft carriers, battleships, and destroyers) it is mostly small attack boats that take advantage of proximity to the shoreline. Like every other theater of conflict Iran is going to fight asymmetrically and given how narrow the Strait of Hormuz is and that Iran already controls the northern shore and some islands they already have an advantage of geography.
No it won't lower the price. It will raise the price... I don't contend it will lower the price and I don't contend this would help Iran. Also our full military has not been involved and no there has not been an effective blockade established. Also you have to have boats to lay mines friend. We can eliminate all their boats with our military strength. Iran does not have the power to control those waters. Additionally, the small boats you speak of are a poor man's navy. Do you really think our navy and air force are incapable of dealing with this threat? How low do you think of our armed forces to cower at the sight of some high speed boats? If those are truly that effective, then I imagine we have wasted billions. But, I seriously doubt that. High speed boats are not armored enough nor armed well. They can be destroyed with turrets, guided missiles, a spray of bullets, torpedoes, the new directed energy weapon they are putting on destroyers, and probably a number of other ways that I don't know about because I am of course not a naval warfare expert. But to suggest that Iran is in anyway able to stand up to the US military is a joke. Overall, you give way too much credit to Iran and you seem to think that Iran will be OK somehow if we shut off those waters? Not sure why you are confused, but again I am not contending that shutting off the straight will lower the price of oil. Just the opposite which helps us, as we are an oil exported. This hurts Iran because they won't be able to sell and this hurts China which would love more oil from Iran and cheaper prices, as China is not an oil exporter. Visually, I want to show you the difference between the US Navy and the Iranian Navy. The laser system being installed by 2021... so in one year... perhaps earlier if needed. And Iran... Of course, I would rather let THEM shut down the strait.... far easier and cheaper. Those small boats have a limited range. This would still effectively raise the price of oil and it benefits us since we are selling oil. We can still intercept their shipping outside of the range of their small boats and disrupt their efforts. There are a number of ways this could play out. But I really don't think they can hold those waters if the US really desires to control it. Of course we don't exactly have to in order to wear down Iran which is already showing internal cracking as a result of its economic problems. Also we have 11 aircraft carriers. We will soon have 12 aircraft carriers. This is another way to control those waters without sending out large boats near their shore.
Yes, I agree. I think we've made clear what our next steps are, and they would be as you described. The ball is back in Iran's court. Are they going to take measures that lead to the actions you describe? As you indicate, it would take a series of poor decisions on Iran's part to get to that level.
Yes. We've been in essentially a declared state of war against terrorists and terrorist organizations for quite some time...and Sulieman's actions fell into that category...with Iran being one of the countries specifically stated as being behind much of the terrorism. So, we were just as much at war over this as we were with UBL. T Look at all the actions Iran, and Suleiman specifically have taken against the U.S.---this is also just as true for this situation as it was for UBL. Perhaps even morese...Iran has a lot more backing its actions than UBL ever did. Sending missiles is not overt confrontation? This is actually part of those negotiations. Iran was taking direct action against us, we told them repeatedly to stop, and they only escalated further. So we sent a strong message back to them in return. If you think conducting strikes like this is not part of the 'negotiating'...how do you tie this with Iran doing everything they've done that led to this? It's all part of the same thing. Not true. No one outside of Iran has said anything positive about Suliemani or negative about our actions. Again, I think we viewed Suleimani very very similarly to UBL. With perhaps the difference of those under him, as you point out. Which was likely taken into consideration in the attack, which was very limited in scale. I don't know that I do either...but I feel no sorrow over his passing, either. Our problem was with a set of actions that had been taken, and were being planned, against us...and our actions were geared to address those. I do believe at some point those conducting terrorism, regardless of state affiliation, and indeed, maybe perhaps specifically because of said state affiliation, need to be reminded that there are consequences for taking those actions. Yes, in this relationship I might have to agree with that..which is why I am conceptually aligned with your desire for de escalation. Especially when the fact that most Iranians have always seemed disposed to think fondly of Americans. Keep in mind that this was Trump's position too...and he received a fair amount of criticism for it (stating that he'd be willing to sit down and personally talk with them) But how much of the type of actions Suleimani(/Iran) had been taking against us do we need to take before sending a strong message that they need to stop? Economic sanctions were already in place. That basically leaves military response, or strongly worded letters. We'd seen where the latter got us...nowhere. The problem here is that much of the Iranian regime's power comes from their rhetoric and perception of standing up to us, and taking the fight to us...without, of course, ever really actually doing so. We let them know they went too far. What they do about that is up to them..but complicated by their need to maintain said perception.
It's curious that Russia and China both have been relatively silent. They just held join exercises with Iran too. I wonder if an aggression pact or alliance was forthcoming and now can't be announced. **Pure speculation on my part.
Apologies I can't do a bullet-by-bullet response, but I mostly understand where you're coming from. This one bit I've got a real problem with. We are not in any declared war with Iran. And, to interpret the war on terror bill to include allowing the president to unilaterally decide to wage war on whatever country he wants to categorize as terrorist is imo a very dangerous thing. I am not comfortable with the rationale that it's okay to kill an Iranian general because that general is a terrorist. Whatever he's done, he's first and foremost an agent of Iran and killing him is an act of war on Iran, not on terrorism. It is a very different thing in my mind from fighting the squirrelly non-state organizations out to kill us.
Is Saudi Arabia a terrorist state? Is what they do to the people of Yemen terroristic? What is the difference between them and Iran that makes one a terrorist state and one not? It seems like we make up arbitrary definition of terrorism for the public to feel more justified in going to war aka propaganda. I suggest reading this: article. https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/2020/01/03/us-iran-conflict-since-nuclear-deal/2803223001/ Iran was no where this brazen before pulling out of the Iran Nuclear deal with attacking American assets in the region. They actually had incentive to not as their assets were unfrozen and sanctions were lifted.
True... of course we have to wonder if there isn't more behind all this... also your avatar of Xi is so beautiful. It really captures his jolly figure.
Actually, I wish I'd replied differently to this. First, I do like the way you posted this. Second, I understand that for most people this is probably true. Not saying I'm better than anyone else here, but I do try to view everything objectively. This is true for all things but staying completely objective on domestic political issues is hard. But I've always felt military matters were different. They are not a conservative or liberal action, but an American action. As such they should IMHO be viewed objectively. I've supported things like this when Obama did them as well Finally...your logic here would imply most posts here are political, not objective. Also true, but I try to focus my discussions on those who also seem more objective.
