 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Iran Brinksmanship
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Iran Brinksmanship From: Ebbie Date: 03 Jul 12 - 03:17 PM I looked for previous threads that discussed policy toward Iran and although I found a lot of 'miranda' type titles I didn't find one where this subject fit. Please feel free to combine it with an existing one. That said, here is from today's news: US Adds Gulf Forces for Iran Threat "The United States has quietly moved significant new military forces into the Persian Gulf to discourage an Iranian response to new sanctions imposed on the Islamic Republic. "The American moves are designed to deter Iran from any attempt to shut the Strait of Hormuz and to increase the United States' ability to strike into Iran if necessary, The New York Times reports. The increased American forces include minesweepers and stealth jets. And a Pentagon official warned that if Iran's navy harasses American vessels, "We'll put them on the bottom of the Gulf." More Let me add that I don't see an easy alternative. The strait must not be closed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iran Brinksmanship From: Little Hawk Date: 03 Jul 12 - 03:28 PM It will most certainly be closed in the event of a major war breaking out. Mind you, a great many other things will be closed too. Maybe forever. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iran Brinksmanship From: Jack the Sailor Date: 03 Jul 12 - 03:36 PM If the "war" consisted of Iran mining the gulf, as they have threatened, and US mine sweepers sweeping up the mines and using the jets to protect the mine sweepers, would you consider that "major?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iran Brinksmanship From: Jack the Sailor Date: 03 Jul 12 - 03:44 PM I am not even sure that I would call it "brinksmanship" and much as "insurance." Is a vandal more or less likely to break a window with the police and a repair crew standing by. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iran Brinksmanship From: Amos Date: 03 Jul 12 - 05:16 PM The funny thing is that the majority of Muslims --especially outside Iran--don't think much of the Ayatollah's political posturing and consider the government to be kind of nutty. A lot of their own citizens agree with that opinion. AS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iran Brinksmanship From: Jack the Sailor Date: 03 Jul 12 - 05:24 PM Am I wrong or do certain statements and moves poll well among the general Muslim populations while others do on. That is what I have heard reported. Obviously The Arabian elite, the Saud family and the Gulf Sheiks are are against the Iranian religious leaders. They are a rival sect and rivals for political domination. I guess other Muslims care, but don't have the same vested interests. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iran Brinksmanship From: Richard Bridge Date: 03 Jul 12 - 05:25 PM How about architectural treasures in Africa, Amos? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iran Brinksmanship From: Jack the Sailor Date: 03 Jul 12 - 05:36 PM I heard that explained as the tombs not being in accordance with Islamic law. When we strip mine an Indian burial ground or build a strip mall on a Druid site. Its progress. When they tear the roof off the mausoleum of a Muslim Saint because that is the way their Imam says it should be it is ignorance and evil? OK. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iran Brinksmanship From: Charley Noble Date: 03 Jul 12 - 09:49 PM Given that the Strait in question is only 2-3 miles wide, Iran has a lot of options if they choose to close it. Mines are one. Missiles are another. Hell, artillery can cover that kind of distance even if its WW 1vintage. However, if iran tries to close the Strait, there certainly will be an international coalition to challenge them. I don't think Iran will win. Charley Noble |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iran Brinksmanship From: Beer Date: 03 Jul 12 - 10:12 PM I'm not for any war, but if Iran wants to play hard ball, isn't it in the best interest of the countries that don't want them to develop the nuclear bomb that they start this "war" and now. Makes sense to me. ad. or no sense at all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iran Brinksmanship From: Ebbie Date: 04 Jul 12 - 01:01 AM No. No and No. A war with Iran could/would be a vicious flare sparking who knows what. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iran Brinksmanship From: Richard Bridge Date: 04 Jul 12 - 03:42 AM No Jack - it was that the tombs were not in accordance with the fetishes of a particular sect of Islam. http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2012/jul/02/timbuktu-islamist-tomb-raiders-mali?newsfeed=true Still a cultural disaster (as indeed strip mining or whatever as you said although I'm not sure you were giving real rather than possible scenarios). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iran Brinksmanship From: Jack the Sailor Date: 04 Jul 12 - 01:07 PM Sufism is the small sect. I heard wrong about the saints, if this columnist is to be believed. But if he is this is enlightening. "The Nigerian city of Benin was crushed by a British "punitive expedition" in 1897, its palaces ravaged, their great works of art plundered to become curiosities in museums." Kind of makes my point unless you are saying that the British Army is no better than the particular sect of Islam and monuments were destroyed due to Queen Victoria's punishment "fetish." "fetishes" such a neutral and descriptive word don't you think. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iran Brinksmanship From: Jack the Sailor Date: 04 Jul 12 - 03:50 PM Ebbie, Given the sanctions on and the threats from Iran, I think the minesweepers are more likely to prevent armed conflict than inflame it. If they had made a show of bringing in another aircraft carrier group, or a couple of divisions of Marines with their amphibious attack equipment, I would worry about escalation. BTW, I clicked on your link. It takes me to my Gmail. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iran Brinksmanship From: GUEST,999 Date: 05 Jul 12 - 05:16 AM Ebbie's link corrected--or one just like it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iran Brinksmanship From: gnu Date: 07 Sep 12 - 12:53 PM Canada closes embassy, expels diplomats |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iran Brinksmanship From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 07 Sep 12 - 02:57 PM Now a nuclear free zone in the whole Middle East would be a sensible thing to be trying for. I imagine that just about everyone in the region would welcome that. Apart maybe from Israel. (And perhaps Pakistan, if it didn't apply to India - depends on your definition of the Middle East.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iran Brinksmanship From: Tiger Date: 07 Sep 12 - 04:29 PM Not long ago, we were talking about blockading the Strait as a sanction AGAINST Iran. Despite being a large oil producer, Iran is not a major refiner, and is a huge IMPORTER of gasoline. Theory was, no gas - no economy. So, who's right. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iran Brinksmanship From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 08 Sep 12 - 03:46 AM Ever since the Egyptians threatened to shut the Suez Canal and the Straits of Tiran in the 1950's & 1960's, the United Nations has deemed the closure of an international waterway by any party to be an "Act of War" as basically it threatened a country's trade and economic well being. Counter to what Charlie Noble says the Straits of Hormuz are 21 nautical miles wide at their narrowest point (water depth between 75 and 100 metres). The both shipping separation lanes through the Straits are entirely in Omani territorial waters. Two pipelines by-pass the Straits, one to the Red Sea and another to the coast of Oman, I dare say that in the light of these threats of closure other pipelines would be built making passage through the Straits to load redundant for anything other than Iranian oil. The Iranians have tried using mines in the Gulf before, in April 1988 they damaged a USN Frigate - US response when it was established beyond doubt that the mine was Iranian was the largest surface action fought by the USN since the end of the second world war - It resulted in the loss of one Iranian Frigate and six of their fast patrol boats, another frigate was damaged and two offshore platforms used by the Iranian Navy for command and control purposes were destroyed. IF (and it is a BIG IF) the Iranians were stupid enough to attempt closure of the Straits of Hormuz I think the closure if it succeeded at all would be extremely short lived and that they would be in for the greatest shock of their lives. It is not the movement of US assets into the Arabian Gulf that Iran wants to look to as an indicator in fact quite the reverse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iran Brinksmanship From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 09 Sep 12 - 02:32 AM For those who take an interest in such things - how a preventive strike might come down. ://csis.org/files/publication/120906_Iran_US_Preventive_Strikes.pdf Sincerely, Gargoyle Charley stick to your galley...you are useless with maps |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iran Brinksmanship From: Stringsinger Date: 09 Sep 12 - 11:02 AM Israel could lead us into a third world war. Pre-emptive strikes are a form of madness. I doubt whether Israel or the U.S. would bomb Iran given the capability they have to defend themselves. It would be Netanyhu's and Obama's folly were this to happen. This idea is unAmerican. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iran Brinksmanship From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 09 Sep 12 - 11:03 AM "Iran brinkmanship" - surely the term "brinkmanship" should be applied rather to the governments which are threatening to wage a war of aggression. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iran Brinksmanship From: bobad Date: 10 Sep 12 - 08:08 AM Surely the term should be applied to the government which is not complying with the terms of a treaty to which it is signatory and is defying a UN Secrity Council resolution. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iran Brinksmanship From: Bob the Postman Date: 10 Sep 12 - 02:37 PM It takes two to brink. For the past ten years at least, Western hawks have been eager to put the boots to Iran. I fear that that the Canadian severing of diplomatic relations is the latest step towards engineering an excuse to do so. Iran is not a demonic monolith, it is home to a rich diversity of political and social opinion. Some of the leadership is a bit loopy. So what? Some of Canada's leadership is a bit loopy too. (Enjoying retirement, Stockwell?) We need career diplomats in place to keep lines of communication open with all facets of Iranian opinion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iran Brinksmanship From: gnu Date: 10 Sep 12 - 06:54 PM Yo, Bob! Don't fuck with Doris, man! Be worried about the really loopy fucker that's suckin up to all and sundry in this bullshit and has been for years. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iran Brinksmanship From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 11 Sep 12 - 02:58 AM Would you be so sanguine about those "loopy" leaders if your family lived within range of their loopy missiles and if those loopy leaders kept making loopy threats to kill them all and obsessively worked on making nuclear warheads? Serious nuclear warheads, not loopy ones. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iran Brinksmanship From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 11 Sep 12 - 07:32 AM How about the leaders with the nuclear weapons in place already who keep making threats?... (Leave aside whether they are "loopy" or not.) It seems pretty clear that if there is an attack on Iran with the ostensible aim of stopping that country making the kind of weapons which Israel already possesses, one consequence of that is to ensure that Iran will in fact within a few years develop nuclear weapons. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iran Brinksmanship From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 11 Sep 12 - 07:47 AM How about the leaders with the nuclear weapons in place already who keep making threats?... I am not aware of any making threats to wipe out another country. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iran Brinksmanship From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 11 Sep 12 - 11:43 AM I haven't seen any threats to "wipe out" Israel, as opposed to predictions looking forward to a time when there wouldn't be a country with that name. No one know whether they will turn out to be correct or not. There used to be a country called the USSR, and another which was called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Neither of these exists today. There used to be a regime in South Africa dedicated to preserving it as a White ruled country. That's gone too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iran Brinksmanship From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 12 Sep 12 - 02:48 AM A constant stream of antisemetic hatred pours out of Tehran, including holocaust denial, but you deny there might be a connection with their calls for Israel's destruction, and their race to create weapons capable of doing it. Of course they mean no harm to the people. Again, the luxury of not making that connection is not open to those whose loved ones would all be incinerated if that puerile, Pollyanna perspective allowed a new and terrible holocaust to be unleashed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iran Brinksmanship From: bobad Date: 12 Sep 12 - 07:52 AM "I haven't seen any threats to "wipe out" Israel" With such useful idiots in its corner, Iran can laugh its way straight to the bomb. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iran Brinksmanship From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 12 Sep 12 - 09:54 AM There may have been such threats. But all the claimed examples of them I've seen haven't matched up to the claims. If Iran were to develop the bomb - and there has been no convincing proof that it is trying to do so - it would be for the same reason Israel and other countries have developed it, in the rather questionable belief that it is an effective deterrent against attack. "Mutual deterrence" is a pretty shaky and dangerous doctrine. But unilateral nuclear armament is also pretty dangerous. Both are only too liable to bring about the very disaster they aspire to prevent. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iran Brinksmanship From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 12 Sep 12 - 11:34 AM Why must it be for that reason? Why not for aggressive reasons to match their aggressive rhetoric? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iran Brinksmanship From: Sawzaw Date: 13 Sep 12 - 10:41 AM This is what I believe and it is not Democrat VS Republican. The US supports Israel and that pisses off most of the people in the Muslim countries. We tolerated or supported the dictators in those countries, paid them off because they kept a lid on hatred toward Israel. Muslim extremists have incited and increased the anger in those countries [Iran to begin with] to the point that they are overthrowing those dictators so what does America do then? American government lamely tries to support the overthrow of the dictator and try to be friends of the new government. However the new governments are more friendly to China, Russia, Iran etc and they don't give a shit about the US. It is a lose/lose situation. Somebody is going to have to nuke Iran sooner or later. Probably Israel with support from the US. Once Iran gets nukes it will spread to the other Muslim countries. Not that I am in favor of any of it. Not that Obama or Romney would make a difference. It just seems inevitable based on what has happened so far. The US had better be prepared to get all of its energy, like oil, from within. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iran Brinksmanship From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Sep 12 - 11:25 AM Why not for aggressive reasons to match their aggressive rhetoric? Are you referring to Israel or Iran there, Keith? In both cases I would have the same answer. Because launching a nuclear attack on a neighbour would be a crazy and suicidal thing to do. And while it is fair to see both governments as pretty stupid in some ways, and pretty murderous in some ways as well, there are no grounds for assuming they are crazy and suicidal. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iran Brinksmanship From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 14 Sep 12 - 02:46 AM I am not aware of aggressive rhetoric by Israel against any state. They have threatened Iran's nuclear programme, but not the state or the people. There are two clear precedents. The nuclear programmes of Saddam Hussein and of Basha al Assad were both destroyed by Israel without toppling the government or removing the country from any map. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iran Brinksmanship From: Donuel Date: 15 Sep 12 - 02:01 AM THe Republican National Convention repeated a need to stop Iran's nuclear development by any means. First by Rice and then by Romney. They didn't trot out all the neocons, I suppose having Cheney and Rumsfeld at the podium would be worse than Eastwood. Thats it maybe they were scheduled but Cheney's battery ran down, Rumsfeld got stuck in a verbal loop and Eastwood was a last minute fill in. I mentioned Isreal's urgency to bomb Iran and support for a Romney presidency on other threads. I hope to see other opinions here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iran Brinksmanship From: Donuel Date: 15 Sep 12 - 02:21 PM Both Iran and Isreal know that Obama is not gong to spend political capital on the nuclear Iran controversy prior to the Nov 6th election. Bebe Netanyahu says to his people that the USA is easily led around by the nose. This is certainly applicable regarding his good friend Mitt but Barak is a different kettle of fish. There has been a 20 year evolution of having Isreal as our only democratic ally in the middle east to that of one ally among others like Turkey and less democratic SA UAE Tunisia and yes Libya. In this fight both Isreal and the Islamic goverments are leading with their jabbing right. Barack is bobbing and weaving and defending with his left. |
