Iran seems to be getting.... Frisky.

[Ron]

Reading around the net ... the war drums are beating.

Forgive me but I'm failing to see a compelling US interest in going to war with Iran.

There is a lot of justification of preemptive action based on "what if blah blah blah".

Certainly I understand that the .gov has intelligence they won't share with the public.

That's the same rationalization that won over support for bunches of us during the Iraq War build up and action.

I'm not buying into this continuation of blowing up stuff and killing people in that region for others interests.

What is our compelling national interest?

The last several Presidents have immediately ignored the Nation on this subject, almost as soon as they took office.

Who do they represent?

 

[dogmush]

I don't think Trump is going to go to war with Iran unless he's backed into a corner. He knows a new land war in the Mideast loses him the election.

Maybe some retaliatory airstrikes, maybe SOCOM gets the tanker crews out, but we aren't invading unless they kill US service members.

The wild card is what the extremist elements of the IRGC do. I don't think they are as tightly controlled by the mullahs as we'd like to think.

[Hawkmoon]

Why should U.S. SOCOM rescue British tanker crews? GB has special forces.

[dogmush]

Why should U.S. SOCOM rescue British tanker crews? GB has special forces.

We're allies,  
we're on ground with assets already,
SOCOM (in this case actually SOCCENT, Special Operations Command CENTral) includes UK forces,
That tanker got grabbed in the first place because SAS did us a solid
I'm expecting there to be more ship seizures as there has been no real downside to this one.

Pick a reason.

[Hawkmoon]

Sounds like it's time to start running protected convoys through the Strait of Hormuz.

[Andiron]

Why should U.S. SOCOM rescue British tanker crews? GB has special forces.

What dogmush said.

Plus, we take the tanker back,  and start running convoys.  If Iran doesn't like it what can they really do?  Declare outright way over an act of self defense?  Let them continue to be the badguys.

[zxcvbob]

Send Q-ships into the area?  (why haven't we done that already off the coast of Somalia?)

[French G.]

Send Q-ships into the area?  (why haven't we done that already off the coast of Somalia?)

Who says we haven't! We have in a manner of speaking. No results in the case I know of, but the bait was there.

[dogmush]

Send Q-ships into the area?  (why haven't we done that already off the coast of Somalia?)

Armed, undeclared spy ships firing on the flagged and declared Navy of a sovereign country.  Who, exactly, do you imagine is the bad guy in that situation?

Sounds like it's time to start running protected convoys through the Strait of Hormuz.

Many countries, including us, maintain a heavy military presence in the Straights of Hormuz and the Gulf of Oman.  There are a variety of reasons that military escorts of every ship transiting is undoable.  For 1, Oman wouldn't take kindly to it. Remember, there is no international waters in the straight, just Oman and Iran.  for 2. large convoy staging areas on either side are actually better targets.  Most obviously though, is that 5th fleet just doesn't have the ships to do that, even if you limit it to ships owned in countries friendly to us.

[Pb]

I agree with Ron.  No war with Iran.

[TommyGunn]

Armed, undeclared spy ships firing on the flagged and declared Navy of a sovereign country.  Who, exactly, do you imagine is the bad guy in that situation?


Many countries, including us, maintain a heavy military presence in the Straights of Hormuz and the Gulf of Oman.  There are a variety of reasons that military escorts of every ship transiting is undoable.  For 1, Oman wouldn't take kindly to it. Remember, there is no international waters in the straight, just Oman and Iran.  for 2. large convoy staging areas on either side are actually better targets.  Most obviously though, is that 5th fleet just doesn't have the ships to do that, even if you limit it to ships owned in countries friendly to us.

Your second point seems valid enough, but in regards your first point  "armed spy ships firing on ...the navy of a foreign country" which is engaged in an act of piracy on the high seas (or low seas?) by boarding a commercial ship and kidnapping it's crew?

I say "go for it,"....   assuming it's practical.  I'd love the idea of seeing a Iranian commando team fast roping down from a Soviet built chopper only to see the ship's crew was Seal Team 6.  And Seal Team 5.     And Seal Team 4.   And Seal Team 3.  And a few British S. A. S. Teams  as well.
I know.  That's Hollywierd....


I don't want a war with Iran either.  CERTAINLY NOT a war where we invade boots on the ground like Iraq 2.0.

But b*t*h slapping Iran around a bit would improve my schadenfreude quotient.  

[dogmush]

Your second point seems valid enough, but in regards your first point  "armed spy ships firing on ...the navy of a foreign country" which is engaged in an act of piracy on the high seas (or low seas?) by boarding a commercial ship and kidnapping it's crew?

But b*t*h slapping Iran around a bit would improve my schadenfreude quotient.  

They aren't engaged  in piracy though. They are the Navy of a sovereign nation conducting Marine Security Patrols off their shore, boarding and inspecting vessels suspected of crimes, and seizing contraband.

Remember that picture of the Coast Guardsman jumping on the narco sub from a couple weeks ago?  Yeah, That. That's what the IRGCN sees themselves as doing. You know why no one's talking about the first tanker Iran nabbed? Because it WAS smuggling fuel.

What, exactly,  do you think the US response would be if Mexican troops started riding along on boats heading north, and shooting Coast Guard cutters doing patrols?


If you really don't want a war, then stop advocating that we shoot at another country. We might still get a war, after all the enemy gets a vote, but let's try not to start one.

[Hawkmoon]

You know why no one's talking about the first tanker Iran nabbed? Because it WAS smuggling fuel.

I clearly didn't get the memo. Explain, please.

[dogmush]

I clearly didn't get the memo. Explain, please.

Gimme an hour or two to get to a real keyboard.

ETA:

On July 14th, 2019, a couple days after aggressively trying to stop the M/T British Heritage (and being run off by HMS Montrose) the M/T Riah was finishing up a westbound Transit of the Straights of Hormuz when she slowed to two knots, turned off her AIS transponder, and then turned north towards Iranian waters.  She subsequently dropped off RADAR.  The IRGCN later released video of them seizing the Riah in international waters.  As far as I know without digging the ship and her 12 crew are still in Iran.

The Riah is Panamanian flagged vessel (probably) owned by a company out of the UAE.  The UAE has denied owning her since the seizure, and Panama recinded her flag a couple days ago.  Iran claims, with some evidence, that she was smuggling gasoline out of Iran and selling it overseas.  Gasoline is heavily subsidized in Iran, so you can make a tidy profit that way.  They claim small dhows were meeting up with the Riah and transferring fuel to her, then she would transfer it to other, larger tankers in the Gulf of Oman.  Smaller tankers transferring fuel to larger tankers just outside the straights is not an uncommon practice even with legal cargos, but especially with smuggled petroleum.

So it's likely that this vessel WAS smuggling fuel, and Panama is too small, far away, and out of *expletive deleted*s to give about their flag, while UAE (with plausible deniability) isn't going to piss off Iran by making a fuss over it.  Those twelve foreign sailors are probably going to spend a long time in Iranian jail unless one happens to come from a powerful country.

In contrast the Stena Impero seems to be a much more straight forward tit-for-tat over the Brits grabbing Grace 1 in the Med.  The IRGCN claims they wanted to conduct a security inspection because she entered the SOH in the wrong lane, while transponder logs the UK released seem to show that she didn't.  I pretty thin excuse to grab her.  FWIW HMS Montrose was nearby and tried to help again, radioing Stena that she should continue on course and they were inbound but the tanker slowed and turned into Iranian waters before she got there. 

[Perd Hapley]

I get a kick out of how the word "sovereign" gets so popular, anytime the prospect of war is discussed.

[dogmush]

I get a kick out of how the word "sovereign" gets so popular, anytime the prospect of war is discussed.

Sovereign Nation has a specific definition under international law, and there is a finite list of them. When discussing military (or police) action, the distinction is important because it changes what is legal, and what is likely to get one's nation sanctioned.

Iran is a Sovereign Nation. Tibet, for example, is not. Taiwan, for now, is despite China's protestations.

[Perd Hapley]

Sovereign Nation has a specific definition under international law, and there is a finite list of them. When discussing military (or police) action, the distinction is important because it changes what is legal, and what is likely to get one's nation sanctioned.

Iran is a Sovereign Nation. Tibet, for example, is not. Taiwan, for now, is despite China's protestations.

For most people who bandy the term about, it's just talk. They're not consulting any list, and they don't know the legalities.

[TommyGunn]

They aren't engaged  in piracy though. They are the Navy of a sovereign nation conducting Marine Security Patrols off their shore, boarding and inspecting vessels suspected of crimes, and seizing contraband.   .....

Sure.  And Jack the Ripper was a good samaritan,  and Hitler was a humanitarian.

[dogmush]

Sure.  And Jack the Ripper was a good samaritan,  and Hitler was a humanitarian.

Is the USCG engaged in piracy when they seize vessels off our coast?

Words have meanings. You can facepalm all you want, but it doesn't make you correct.

Yes, their legal justifications are sometimes pretty damn thin. (Sometimed they aren't, as I explained above) but they do exist.

But here's the real, no bullshit bottom line. Do you want to kick the ground war in Iraq back off and expand it threefold or so? We are in a medium intensity proxy war with Iran. Their proxys (Horthi, ISIS, Hezbollah)  fight our proxys (Arab partner states) and we throw economic sanctions at them.

If we escalate, or push them too far into a corner so they escalate, they will try to Pearl Harbor 5th fleet, and ramp their proxys in Iraq back up to 2007-2008 levels. Plus add Yeman, KSA, and Kuwait  to the target list. We'd be in for 15 more years of war in the Mideast.

So maybe we stop pretending we can do whatever we want with no consequences?

[dogmush]

I'm not trying to be a dick, but it seems like we talk a big game of not wanting a war, then advocate actions that will lead to one.

You would think we'd have learned our lesson about picking fights with religious fanatics.

I haven't even mentioned that Iran has reasonably decent ties with both Russia and the PRC.

[TommyGunn]

Is the USCG engaged in piracy when they seize vessels off our coast?

Words have meanings. You can facepalm all you want, but it doesn't make you correct.

Yes, their legal justifications are sometimes pretty damn thin. (Sometimed they aren't, as I explained above) but they do exist.

But here's the real, no bullshit bottom line. Do you want to kick the ground war in Iraq back off and expand it threefold or so? We are in a medium intensity proxy war with Iran. Their proxys (Horthi, ISIS, Hezbollah)  fight our proxys (Arab partner states) and we throw economic sanctions at them.

If we escalate, or push them too far into a corner so they escalate, they will try to Pearl Harbor 5th fleet, and ramp their proxys in Iraq back up to 2007-2008 levels. Plus add Yeman, KSA, and Kuwait  to the target list. We'd be in for 15 more years of war in the Mideast.

So maybe we stop pretending we can do whatever we want with no consequences?

So Iran takes ....4? British tankers hostage ... and ...their legal justification is "pretty damn thin?? ?? "

Really?

Can Iran do whatever it wants with no consequences?


I guess so....they already export butt-loads of terrorism .....

If they try to Pearl Harbor the fifth fleet,  it will not end well for Iran.  

I find it difficult to believe anyone on this forum would attempt to defend or justify Iran's actions .... perhaps I accidentally fell through a spacewarp  into an evil mirror universe .....

[TommyGunn]

I'm not trying to be a dick, but it seems like we talk a big game of not wanting a war, then advocate actions that will lead to one.

You would think we'd have learned our lesson about picking fights with religious fanatics.

I haven't even mentioned that Iran has reasonably decent ties with both Russia and the PRC.

Picking fights with religious fanatics?   Oh.  You must mean September 11, 2001.... when the Twin Trade Towers viciously swatted a couple of planes being flown by JihadI nutcakes when their pilots died of natural causes  --

No.  Just. NO.   I am not going to continue this idiocy with someone who thinks WE  attacked THEM.

[bedlamite]

https://apnews.com/65890b80d403489c8b1b249cdc954857

No guarantte they will, but it's aout time someone other than the US stepped up.

[Ron]

Rumor has it Turkish President Erdogan has died of a heart attack, interesting times ...

At this time it's just a rumor.

[WLJ]

interesting times ...

SNAFU