Top Iranian general assassinated in Iraq

[WLJ]

    Fact check: The @USArmy is NOT contacting anyone regarding the draft.

    Text messages currently circulating are false and are not official Army communications.

    Read more: https://t.co/csGpTQNfQc

    — U.S. Army Recruiting (@usarec) January 7, 2020

[MechAg94]

I would not draw that conclusion.  They fired a limited number of projectiles at a large target.  The accuracy wasn't as bad as the pundits have made it seem.

Imagine if you fired a 00 buck round at a 2'x2' piece of plywood from 50 yds.  You could hit the target with 10 f 12 pellets and not do catastrophic damage to the plywood.

I heard someone speculating they may have been trying to bait Trump into more escalation.  Not sure I know enough about it to say that.

[makattak]

I heard someone speculating they may have been trying to bait Trump into more escalation.  Not sure I know enough about it to say that.

My read is this was a face-saving measure. They are actually afraid of what Trump might do if they succeed in killing more Americans, so they fired off a bunch of missiles, with the intent of avoiding killing Americans.

It's possible that the preparations that the military has made over the past few weeks were responsible for the lack of casualties, as well, but this really looks like bluster to me.

It appears that is Trump's take as well, given he isn't responding with "fire and fury" like he did to their threats recently.

Notice, also, that the Iranians weren't coming out with "AND YOU'LL GET MORE OF THAT IF YOU MESS WITH US!", but are (publicly, at least) acting like this was enough of a payback. For taking out their top general.

Again, makes me think it's about saving face, while being seriously frightened of angering and further provoking the U.S.

[Ben]

Slight tangent, but in reading, it's my understanding that there were no anti-missile defenses at the targets because they are in short supply and apparently not something the US thought was a high priority for the area.

I'm wondering if Iran has intel on which bases have (and have not) missile defenses and chose accordingly, or if they just did "eenie meenie minie moe".

[dogmush]

Slight tangent, but in reading, it's my understanding that there were no anti-missile defenses at the targets because they are in short supply and apparently not something the US thought was a high priority for the area.

I'm wondering if Iran has intel on which bases have (and have not) missile defenses and chose accordingly, or if they just did "eenie meenie minie moe".

They targeted the bases in Iraq that we launch drones from.  Specifically (probably) the drone that launched the strike on Soleimani.

[dogmush]

My read is this was a face-saving measure. They are actually afraid of what Trump might do if they succeed in killing more Americans, so they fired off a bunch of missiles, with the intent of avoiding killing Americans.

It's possible that the preparations that the military has made over the past few weeks were responsible for the lack of casualties, as well, but this really looks like bluster to me.

There's no indication that this was planned to limit casualties.  They were specifically going for the drones we have in Iraq.


Also, I really hate cable news.

[Ben]

Also, I really hate cable news.

 

I've been trying to limit what I come away with to whatever official statements they get from the gov, and the retired Generals they always pull out of the woodwork when this stuff happens. I think a lot of the latter pull stuff out of their ass though.

[makattak]

There's no indication that this was planned to limit casualties.  They were specifically going for the drones we have in Iraq.


Also, I really hate cable news.

The other option, then, is that they are terribly inept and are happy just to have it on the record that they tried.

[WLJ]

Adding to the fun:  apparently a 737 crashed in Iran shortly after takeoff, with 180 aboard:

https://twitter.com/davidinglestv/status/1214750797998649344?s=21

Could just be a coincidence, of course ...

Could be more to this

Iran is refusing to hand over the black box of the doomed Ukrainian airliner to Boeing amid an investigation into what caused the crash that killed all 176 people aboard the flight out of Tehran early Wednesday, according to a report.

Ali Abedzadeh, the head of Tehran’s civil aviation organization, told Mehr news agency in Tehran that Iran has not made a decision on which country or international authority it would send the black box to for its data to be analyzed, Reuters reported. rt

https://www.foxnews.com/world/iran-refuses-give-black-box-ukrainian-plane-boeing-tehran-crash

[dogmush]

The other option, then, is that they are terribly inept and are happy just to have it on the record that they tried.

I quote myself:

I would not draw that conclusion.  They fired a limited number of projectiles at a large target.  The accuracy wasn't as bad as the pundits have made it seem.

Imagine if you fired a 00 buck round at a 2'x2' piece of plywood from 50 yds.  You could hit the target with 10 f 12 pellets and not do catastrophic damage to the plywood.

I think they were hoping for more.  I don't think the attack was inept by any means.  People get to used to Tomahawks just working, missiles are actually kinda tricky.

[makattak]

I quote myself:

I think they were hoping for more.  I don't think the attack was inept by any means.  People get to used to Tomahawks just working, missiles are actually kinda tricky.

That's fine to hold that opinion, but as far as I can tell, the attack failed. The Iranians claim they killed 30 Americans (they didn't) and are happy (publicly, at least) to say they achieved their goal.

IF they were interested in retribution, they'd try another attack, if, as you suggest, it was just a case of not very good missiles.

It's not the fact that they didn't cause a lot of casualties. It's the fact that they are making noises that this was enough satisfaction for them that makes me think it was about the show of force, not actual results. 

[dogmush]

Oh, it was a show of force. They are hoping that we take the out and don't hit back.

Where you are incorrect is the opinion that it was inept, failed, or was specifically trying to limit casualties..

They weren't as many have said, avoiding casualties.  It's just that where their targets were parked doesn't tend to have a bunch of folks hanging out in the middle of the night.

Their missiles weren't 100%, but they weren't the crappy Katyushas that the militias use either.

[MillCreek]

I, for one, would be thrilled if both sides would call it good and not continue military escalation.

[dogmush]

It seems as if the CinC is going to let it lie here for now.  Sanctions and a new, crappier for Iran, nuke deal.  (I suspect no cash will be involved in this one).  He also kinda laid down the gauntlet on our NATO, China and Russia to step up and help us with keeping Iran non nukey.  No word of leaving Iraq at all.

The big question over the next couple days will, I think, be if Iran can control the terror groups it has backed, and get them to back off.  A bunch of them are screaming for blood, and I'm not sure we'll be satisfied with proxies now.  Iran brings the dogs it made to heel, or they might end up owning their actions.

Still, it doesn't look like we're launching tonight, and that's always good.

[WLJ]

Satellite Photos Reveal Extent Of Damage From Iranian Strike On Air Base In Iraq
https://www.npr.org/2020/01/08/794517031/satellite-photos-reveal-extent-of-damage-at-al-assad-air-base

[dogmush]

Satellite Photos Reveal Extent Of Damage From Iranian Strike On Air Base In Iraq
https://www.npr.org/2020/01/08/794517031/satellite-photos-reveal-extent-of-damage-at-al-assad-air-base

"at least five" buildings, it says.

[K Frame]

For me, the most amazing aspect of all of this is the effect the attack is having on crude oil prices.

Last night when the first reports of the attack came out, crude futures soared, gaining as much as 5%, with WTI pushing over $68 a barrel and Brent pushing over $70 a barrel.

Yet, as the news came out about the limited nature of the strike, futures began to slip.

Then, as it looked like there wasn't going to be an immediate US military response, prices began to fall steadily. Now that Trump has said that there's no indication of furthering activity by the Iranians, crude has plummeted, losing as of a few minutes ago 4.6%, or $2.89 a barrel for WTI. WTI is now trading below $60 a barrel for the first time in awhile.

[Ben]

The big question over the next couple days will, I think, be if Iran can control the terror groups it has backed, and get them to back off.  A bunch of them are screaming for blood, and I'm not sure we'll be satisfied with proxies now.  Iran brings the dogs it made to heel, or they might end up owning their actions.

Yeah, it sounds like the Trump admin plans to lay blame for any attacks by any fringe groups right at Iran's feet.

[Ben]

For me, the most amazing aspect of all of this is the effect the attack is having on crude oil prices.

Last night when the first reports of the attack came out, crude futures soared, gaining as much as 5%, with WTI pushing over $68 a barrel and Brent pushing over $70 a barrel.

Yet, as the news came out about the limited nature of the strike, futures began to slip.

Then, as it looked like there wasn't going to be an immediate US military response, prices began to fall steadily. Now that Trump has said that there's no indication of furthering activity by the Iranians, crude has plummeted, losing as of a few minutes ago 4.6%, or $2.89 a barrel for WTI. WTI is now trading below $60 a barrel for the first time in awhile.

I can't help but think part of the "meh" reaction is due to US oil production and us needing ME oil less and less.

[AZRedhawk44]

I can't help but think part of the "meh" reaction is due to US oil production and us needing ME oil less and less.

This also doesn't involve territory used to transport oil.  Syria/Turkey and northern Iraq have oil pipeline networks that transport crude to Europe.  Damaging the transport infrastructure drives prices up everywhere since the demand in Europe gets met by diverting supply from North America via tanker ship.

[K Frame]

"I can't help but think part of the "meh" reaction is due to US oil production and us needing ME oil less and less."

You'd be on to something... IF the absolute opposite hadn't happened when drones hit the Saudi oil shipping depot some months ago and prices spiked, HARD. And stayed spiked.

"This also doesn't involve territory used to transport oil."

That's not the point. The fear involves a broader conflict that escalates into the Straits of Hormuz. Iran has repeatedly broadcast its intentions to, if a larger conflict breaks out, do its level best to shut the Straits of Hormuz. And given Iran's known stockpile of highly capable ship killing missiles, which are both land based and emplaced on fast patrol boats, they likely could do it for a time until US and other naval assets could neutralize that threat.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/08/oil-prices-to-jump-above-100-if-iran-blocks-the-strait-of-hormuz-analysts.html?&qsearchterm=hormuz


Remember, just because the US is producing a lot more oil doesn't mean that our prices would remain low while the rest of the world's prices soar. Oil is an internationally priced and traded commodity, meaning pricing activities are felt world wide, even though production is regional.

21% of the world's current crude supply travels through the Straits. The pipelines into Europe are realistically at capacity, and if I'm not mistaken, much of the capacity of those pipelines is taken up in transporting distillates, not crude.

[K Frame]

And Oh Goodie! The Dems are currently holding a press conference on the situation in the middle east.

Wanna bet that it's just X minutes of ORANGE MAN BAD! ORANGE MAN DERANGED! ORANGE MAN WANTS WAR!

[fifth_column]

It's interesting to note that the Iraqi government seemed to have no issue with Iran implementing missile strikes on their sovereign soil . . . .

[WLJ]

And Oh Goodie! The Dems are currently holding a press conference on the situation in the middle east.

Wanna bet that it's just X minutes of ORANGE MAN BAD! ORANGE MAN DERANGED! ORANGE MAN WANTS WAR!

Have they had a press conference since 2016 that wasn't Orange Man Bad?

[dogmush]

And Oh Goodie! The Dems are currently holding a press conference on the situation in the middle east.

Wanna bet that it's just X minutes of ORANGE MAN BAD! ORANGE MAN DERANGED! ORANGE MAN WANTS WAR!

I caught the CinC's speech, but missed that press conference.  Did they say anything useful and/or interesting?