I don’t disagree with the list of options, but the thread totally ignores Iran’s strategic objectives and plays into the US implication they’re just evil people hell bent on attacking their interests. They don’t just read off a list of ways to fuck with the US like Dr Evil.
1 Like
What would be the point of Iran invading Iraq? Spend a bunch of money and the US will still control the oil so what can ever be gained besides pissing off Iraqi people and long term you can’t hold the country anyways…
I think another attack on Saudi oil fields and some accidents with tankers in the straight of Hormuz are the most likely responses. Iran can do that basically indefinitely while claiming it is not them and it increases the oil price which helps them and Russia. Cyber warfare is overrated and not that much of a threat.
Dear Ole Joe,
Trump is going to install the best war fighters in all the lands. The kind who lust for brown blood even in captivity.
On one of his points: only if Iran had an ally who excelled at carrying out assassinations in Europe and Abroad.
1 Like
Derek Davison’s take is worth reading. He’s been a Chapo guest a number of times, he is a Middle East expert and a leftist.
3 Likes
Quoted for posterity.
So what do you think Iran is capable of when it comes to cyber warfare? The only meaningfull attack ever was on their centrifuges with help of the manufacturer of those centrifuges. Second after that was some power outages that lasted shorter than your typical California brown outs.
Well, I’d guess that the point of asymmetric attacks is to cause damage to say, the US power grid. Problem with this is that the US can just shrug and turn off the Iranian grid, or as much as they want of if with conventional means (drones/missiles) - and unlike a computer attack, physically destroying the towers/transmission equipment causes longterm problems. Escalation beyond that - pretty much nothing in the world easier to damage than oil refinery equipment - it would royally fuck up the Euro economy, but with the US now being the biggest oil supplier the US could (again) shrug about it, at least for a while - but since essentially the only foreign goods Iran has to trade (over 80%) are oil and gas related, Iran will need to be pretty cautious about pushing things too far. Unless they aren’t, I suppose.
MM MD
1 Like
The hive mind is absolutely orgasming over this
Earlier I was leaning towards thinking this wouldn’t change the overall direction of things much. Iran and the US were already effectively at war in the only way they will go to war in the short to medium term, and Iran doesn’t seem the sort of regime to react hot headedly.
Now I’m not so sure. I think this probably does change things in a couple of important ways. I think Iran’s previous goal was to demonstrate to the US (or really more it’s regional allies) that an escalation of the (for want of a better term) proxy conflict would be very destructive to their countries, and that Iran had already decided that either the sanctions get lifted or they were willing to endure their amount of the pain.
I don’t think they were silly enough to think Trump would reinstate the nuclear deal, but I think they thought they could eventually get a new version (either with him or the next president). There would be some concessions they could live with, and, if it were with Trump, would accept him crowing about it and talking trash about them - even though it would have effectively just been the old deal.
I think this move by the US shows that that plan is dead. Trump will not do any deal with them now, and the statements from Democrats show that they all also consider Iran an enemy to be fought - they just want to quibble tactics. Maybe some kind of deal is possible at some point, but I don’t think Iran can have the time or the confidence in US politicians to keep their word to aim for it any more.
What that means exactly I don’t know. The list of ways they can hurt the US is relatively easy to draw up, but what their new objective to lift the sanctions will be is what will guide the choice. Possibly they now have new internal stability issues as well, it’s tough to really know but the recent protests seemed the most serious since the revolution.
Anyway, that was all just me talking, so I now need to go off and read what actual smart people think.
2 Likes
https://twitter.com/HassanRouhani/status/1213009152093696005
Also mexico clarifying things
https://twitter.com/Cristia91211206/status/1213014253252288512
1 Like
Worth adding that Iraq is getting utterly fucked again. It’s been reported that Pompeo waited a extra day, and had already spoken to the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Israel before he bothered to speak to Iraqi politicians after the previous attacks (which they had opposed).
They’re in the process of negotiations for a new government against the backdrop of ongoing violent street protests that are effectively against all of them - Iraq’s governments post the handover of power from the US are always grand coalitions of the Shia political factions, with their votes helping them in the negotiations to get the best ministries to profit from. The protests are against being ruled by an utterly corrupt political class who use state infrastructure to enrich themselves and their cronies *.
If the US continues to up the ante on their soil it could split that broad coalition of politicians, some of whom are the political wings of armed groups (and who, yes, are sometimes allied with Iran and receive military support from the IRGC). It could send the country back to the utterly awful times a few years after the invasion when Sunni and Shia armed factions fought each other and the occupying force, with effectively no civil infrastructure that reached normal people’s lives. You know, as opposed to the just moderately awful times at the moment.
(* It is more complicated than that, but I think it’s the best short summary. The protestors are currently unhappy that the largest bloc, who gets the right to nominate the PM, is nominating people it already hates. That largest bloc is the one allied with Iran, hence why you can say they are anti Iran protests with a straight face. But here’s a recent statement from the protestors, as you can see it’s not anti Iranian but pro Iraq and anti corruption. They don’t want Iranian puppets - the Iran allied faction isn’t really that, but will get called that in times of strife - but the idea they want US help in any way is laughable.
Tahrir Square Demonstrators Reject Al-Suhail’s Candidacy As Prime Minister)
5 Likes
Al-Sadr has called for the reformation of the Mahdi Army, that’s good right?
2 Likes
Someone linked to it earlier but Millennium Challenge 2002 - Wikipedia is a very interesting read if, like me, you’re not aware of it.
cliffs: US war-gamed an invasion of Iran in 2002 and unsurprisingly it resulted in huge losses for their side, so they rebooted the game and rigged the rules so they won.
The question is, does Trump care whether it results in long term unpopularity after large eventual losses if it gains him short term popularity amongst the deplorable-adjacent? Answer is no.
3 Likes
I was hoping he might be someone Iraq could turn to more and offer a relatively peaceful way out. He seemed to have turned to politics recently, did OK in the elections, and seemed like someone the protestors might look favourably on in a more prominent role. Guess this still doesn’t preclude all that.
He’s also not Iranian linked, he even went to meet MBS a few years back to try and show himself a statesman, and was allied with secular leftist types in the last elections (though dropped them to join the Shia coalition afterwards).
I think most historical precedence is pretty useless when it comes to Trump, and I think America is in a much different place than it has been. War with Iran now would be the equivalent of getting us into another war in southeast Asia fighting Communists after the war had already become super unpopular but before we even got all our troops out of Vietnam.
I popped over to that pro-trump forum I used to post on. Several of the anti-establishment Trump slappies already think this is really bad. Though obviously most of the cult members think this is awesome, and America fuck yeah. But they all also think nothing will come from this and Iran will know its place. Pretty much all of them are against war, the cultists just don’t think it’s gonna happen.
If Trump does go to war obviously the cultists will still back him, but I’m not convinced most Americans will, unless Iran decides to retaliate by killing a lot of American civilians/soldiers.
1 Like