T. Belman. Sure, there are lot’s of reasons not to repeat the Iraq invasion in Iran. And sure, the War Lobby would be pushing for it. Rest assured that Trump is not about to do it but that doesn’t mean he has to abandon his inclination to acheive regime change.
First of all, without the tough talk, Iran would not agree to a serious change in the Iran Deal. Trump is demanding denuclearization. Their facilities must be destroyed. Thus, short of causing Iran to go bankrupt through the use of sanctions, the US and Israel, or perhaps Israel alone, would have to bomb all their known nuke facilities. While they are at it, they should bomb the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to smitherenes. No need to invade. In the ensuing chaos, there will be insurrections, backed by the CIA, all over the country. it may well be that the Iranian Army, that for almost 40 years got the short end of the stick, will be happy to see the end of the IRGC, and can be flipped. Think about it.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
@ Bear Klein:
8 attacks in 22 months, not a lot, and not an indication of a different policy. Even if it were, they are sporadic and isolated, which might mean they are of nuisance and disruptive intent rather than otherwise.
I’m interested in that you can get non-published info, presumably accurate info.
I’m more than surprised that the USS Mason was actually struck. With the huge amount of technical equipment that all these ships in war zones carry, it’s rare that a missile can get through the array of defensive measures. If the Houthi missile actually struck, what was the damage in killed, wounded and structural damage…?? Do you know..? was it in the report…?
The Houthis are not really a high-tech force.
I’ve seen pictures and descriptions of SCUD missiles and they are very unwieldy and reportedly quite inaccurate. I don’t know to what extent. I’ve seen a report saying that they began the war with 300 SCUDS, fired off 170, and the remainder were destroyed at their base by Saudi air raids. But that they also have locally made spin-off. You’ve probably seen this as well.
And now according the report you highlighted, the US is on the way to take measures to keep the Red Sea approaches clear of the enemy. Let’s hope they succeed.
Now there is an Israeli report that Iranians will be targeting Israeli shipping in the Red Sea.
https://www.debka.com/irans-saviz-cargo-ship-set-up-red-sea-attack-on-two-saudi-oil-tankers/
http://jcpa.org/article/iran-naval-weapons-houthi-hands-threaten-freedom-navigation-red-sea/
@ Edgar G.:
Your info is not complete sorry. One quick search provides the below. I also have non-published info.
“Since the beginning of the war, the Houthis have used short-range Scud missiles, and the United Nations says they have also used surface-to-air missiles, improvised to operate as surface-to-surface rockets against Saudi Arabia.
But a suspected Houthi missile attack against a United Arab Emirates vessel in a strategic Red Sea shipping lane this month, as well as the attempted strikes against the U.S. warship, raise worries about the rebels’ capability to launch bolder attacks.” https://www.reuters.com/article/us-yemen-security-iran/exclusive-iran-steps-up-weapons-supply-to-yemens-houthis-via-oman-officials-idUSKCN12K0CX
@ Bear Klein:
I looked them up. The Houthi’s have Toyota trucks equipped with Vulcan 20 mm Gatling gun style large machine guns. An old but proven gun. So, yes they’d be a problem unless tracked by attack helicopters, or fire from planes overhead.
It looks as if the Saudis are not prepared for the long haul of an occasional attack and prefer to change the route. It’s effective range is from 2-4000 yards, so the tankers much be pretty close to the coast. They also use them in fighter planes…
Only way to stop Iranian aggression is destroy the regime. Only way to stop Iran from becoming full fledged nuke power.
Soleimani also made a lot of threats to USA and Trump.
https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/iran/iranian-general-soleimani-red-sea-no-longer-safe-with-u-s-presence-1.6315590
@ Edgar G.:
The missiles are mobile and not a site that is part of the problem logistically.
@ Bear Klein:
I know what you mean now…Of course the original sinking was between Saudia and the Yemenites, isolated, .as they must have sent a hundred tankers since, until this….but a second one shows more seriousness, But assuming that the Saudis kept using the same route. surely minimal common sense would mandate proper protection for the tankers. It depends on what armaments the Saudis actually can deploy there, and what expertise they have in using them, as well as exactly what kind of armaments the Houthis used.. Saudia hasn’t been successful in that war so far.
I was postulating that American Interests were being affected. If that ship was meant for the US. and they became involved. they could easily stop all this. As could Israel, . Since the US Saudi, and Israeli connections are very recent, I don’t think they have “their act together” yet, to cater for all eventualities like this unexpected attack. Perhaps since it’s the first one in over 3 months,……
If I were the Saudi General, I would keep sending oil transports, even closer to the coast, and have spotter aeroplanes at high altitudes able to track where the missile site is. Then of course, hammer it in a surprise night attack. I know it’s not nearly as simple as I just said but…
@ Edgar G.:
This is not the first time this occurred they sunk an oil tanker I believe and it is easy to hit one of these ships if you do not control the land near by and the land is controlled by the enemy. So it is easy to fire a missile and damage or sink a ship from the land.
Last time it occurred I believe it was April they kept sending ships. Now that it has occurred again, the Saudis are taking a different approach. See below an article that sheds a bit information on the situation.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenrwald/2018/07/25/attack-on-saudi-oil-tanker-in-red-sea-prompts-halt-to-oil-shipments/#6fc57629906a
@ Bear Klein:
I don’t believe this will happen, unless the Iranians accidentally go over the edge of the chasm. It’s all very well for them to have their amorphous client state to do a bit of military blustering, but I didn’t see you enlarge the report with saying that the tanker had been sunk or seriously damaged, on fire and drifting etc. This was more like “firing a shot across the bows”. The stoppage is very likely temporary. And there are other routes for the tankers to travel where they won’t be molested. It maybe that for a short time they may require escort by corvettes etc.
I suggest that if the Americans send an aircraft carrier to the area, everybody will be like mice rushing back into their holes.
And if Iran attempts to seriously shut the Straits of Hormuz, then there will be real trouble. It’s obvious therefore why the Iranians, through proxies, made the feeble attempt in the Red Sea, it also being a –sort of– showing against Israel. Symbolic of course.
If Israel sent a sub around that area also, if from torpedo boats, they’d track where the boats came from and destroy the port. They likely already know everything to be known about that part of the world anyway. It’s close enough to a sensitive area to be not overlooked.
@ Bear Klein:
Hi, Bear. I noticed that news item about the Saudi tankers too. You are correct, in saying that this could be a cassus belli for Saudi Arabia, the US and everyone dependent on Red Sea shipping lanes, against Iran. All President Trump needs to do, is couple Iran’s recent actions — in the Red Sea, in Gaza, in the Golan and elsewhere, with their continuous violent threats against the US, and he could attack them at his leisure.
As for Tucker Carlson, Edgar has correctly pointed out that he is a newsman, not a statesman. He earns his living by grabbing headlines and attracting readers, as he has done here on Israpundit. Good job, Tucker!
I think Edgar is also pretty much on-target on effective ways to overthrow the Iranian regime. The latest I read on that country, was a demonstration in one of its cities in which the residents were exclaiming,
“We don’t have water!”
— https://en.radiofarda.com/a/iran-protests-water-shortages/29350686.html
That is a sign of a govenment in deep, deep trouble.
Saudi Oil Tanker was attacked yesterday in Red Sea area by Houtihis. They have now stopped shipping oil via the Red Sea. This impacts Europe, USA and Egypt. They all have reasons to intervene. This is all could be part of the catalyst that could start a major war against Iran (and their allies) by the Gulf States, USA and their allies.
@ Sebastien Zorn:
Perhaps Carlson meant that the reputation of his Presidency was destroyed by he Iraq war. Well,ever since, increasingly there have been criticisms of that war, it doesn’t go away, so Carlson is using this. As for Bush winning re-election his opponent was Kerry, full of controversy, of mingy and unimpressive appearance, which means he more or less had an election which won itself.
Besides, the second term election only a few months after the war had begun, and the country was behind it, other than a few individuals and Hollywood crappers. I don’t believe that any President has ever been replaced during a war.
Even Carter might have been re-elected if a war had been going on during his tenure….although…Carter …. I don’t know….it;s’ hard to believe…
The likeliest battle plan against Iran would predominately an air and naval campaign. It would target major Iran military bases (focused on IRGC locations), leadership locations, nuke locations, missile facilities and the oil and gas facilities predominately on the coast near the Straight of Hormuz. This could be completed in two weeks or so.
There could some follow up with special forces to make sure the bunker busters did destroy the nuke facilities and some other locations. If not they would be blown up by the ground forces.
This would not be a war like Iraq to capture Iran on the ground, which was the mistake of Iraq. There are possibilities that some of the opposition groups will already have been trained and armed by the USA and some of its friends, prior to the air campaign. Israel & USA now have a joint military command on Iran lead by tow generals.
@ Sebastien Zorn:
You have something there. He is obviously blinkered by his antagonistic attitude towards “foreign adventurism:”. Reading up on him, it says for the first year he was in full favour of the Iraq War but changed his mind after. But his opposition to becoming involved abroad has always been in his stated views.
I suppose he could be called and isolationist, although in this world of shifting alliances, and with America by it’s very necessity allied and involved with various world nations in an economic way, (which may imply a backing of military power at some time) and of a military nature, it’s hard to see how it can become what he wants.
He says that the Iraq war destroyed the Bush presidency. Did it? He was re-elected, wasn’t he? What’s Carlson’s definition of “destroyed” I wonder. Carter let Iran walk all over us and he lost all but one state in his re-election bid. I don’t think we are as afflicted with Vietnam syndrome as he thinks we are, or as the dems think we are.
@ Edgar G.:
Reading up on him a little, I’ve learned that he has always been a strong anti-interventionist militarily, in foreign countries, so in my post above, I think I hit the nail on the head more than I knew, in mentioning his “catastrophic viewpoint”.
And they could bomb the oil storage depot as well as the oil fields themselves, making Iran thoroughly bankrupt…..for the time being.
Carlson is on this “War” kick and seems intent on pushing his catastrophic viewpoint. He’s playing the part of an “Elder Statesman” years before the time. He’s a news caster, not a politician. He really has no idea as to what Trump’s REAL intentions are, so is happy making “educated” guesses, and running with those. .
These are not the days of the Iraq war, with it’s cumbersome and lengthy preparation, and massive logistics, along with transporting a huge number of soldiers and all their accoutrements.. Iran could be handled, after suitable softening up by sanctions and it’s oil industry destruction, by an uprising of the people themselves aided with American arms drops and money. Perhaps a number of “special” specialists.. Ted’s point , that the Army could be induced to support them has a lot of merit and validity.