Misunderstanding between USA and Iran the cause of current stand off, I call BS

[James Regan + 1,776]

Now we are being told that the USA and Iran misread each other which lead to where we find ourselves today. The US sends hardware to the Persian Gulf and as a result Iran doubled down and made preparations for preemptive retaliation. Then we saw proxies making soft attempts to disrupt KSAs oil flow.

Trump once again has shown the world he is weak and his only weapon is threats and tweets.

Fair enough he doesn’t want to go to war, so he should stop trying to bully the world into getting his own way. He may find himself involved in something he really didn’t want if he doesn’t stop prodding rattlesnakes.

POTUS is “making America weak again”

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

It reminds me of Winston Churchill and WWI.  Churchill got it into his head that the Royal Navy could bust the blockade of the Dardanelles, and the British Army could beat the Turks in the headlands to the Western side.  It did not quite work out that way;  the mines sank the navy ships, and the Turks, well dug in in their trenches and set up with  machine guns, slaughtered the British.  It was a complete, total disaster. 

Britain never recovered from that failure.  It was not until the Americans showed up that there was enough manpower and hardware to defeat the Germans, Austrians, Hungarians, and Turks on the other side.  Don't start what you cannot finish. 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

So Iran once again threatens to close the Straits of Hormuz, where a significant amount of the GLOBAL oil must pass to get to market.

Perhaps the US should just sit back, let Iran close the Strait, and see which other country or coalition of navies rush in to open it? Would that make you happy? I guarantee you that NOBODY else would make a move and yet again America would be called on to be the 'world's policeman'.

'US sending hardware to the Persian Gulf....?' The Seventh Fleet is based in Bahrain!!!

Before I die I hope I see the day when an international situation arises and the US says 'Screw it, you guys handle it. Call Beijing or Moscow, we're taking our balls (pun intended) and going home.'

[John Foote + 1,135]

On 5/18/2019 at 5:33 AM, Douglas Buckland said:

'US sending hardware to the Persian Gulf....?' The Seventh Fleet is based in Bahrain!!!

So true. However that base is mostly devoid of ships at the port. Ocean going navies loath being trapped in a small bit of water, which the Arabian/Persian Gulf is. 

And Bahrain has a few places for good BBQ and bacon, and that is critical in that part of the world.

The USA has, many times over, the most capable military in the world. But when you have the world's best hammer you forget everything isn't a nail.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

Navies generally try to keep their ships at sea, where they are needed, as opposed to in port. This may explain why that base is devoid of ships. I think the US Navy learned that lesson roughly 80 years ago at a place called Pearl Harbor.

As to your comment, "...you forget everything isn't a nail", let's think about that for a second.

North Korea did not say that they want a ballistic missile delivery system to target Zimbabwe or Malaysia, they specifically stated that the target is the US.

The mullahs in the Middle East rarely call any other country 'the Great Satan' or chant 'Death to Portugal'. The chorus line always targets the US and Israel.

Finally, the US is the only country to date that has had airliners crash into skyscrapers killing roughly the same number of Americans as the other attack at Pearl Harbor.

As a note, that was the second attack on those structures.

Perhaps this is why the US see's alot of nails laying around. It doesn't help the situation that whenever there is a flare-up, anywhere on the planet, that those seeking assistance do not call the EU, NATO, the UN, China or Russia for a little help, it is always the US and their taxpayers dollars.

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

On 5/18/2019 at 10:33 AM, Douglas Buckland said:

So Iran once again threatens to close the Straits of Hormuz, where a significant amount of the GLOBAL oil must pass to get to market.

Perhaps the US should just sit back, let Iran close the Strait, and see which other country or coalition of navies rush in to open it? Would that make you happy? I guarantee you that NOBODY else would make a move and yet again America would be called on to be the 'world's policeman'.

'US sending hardware to the Persian Gulf....?' The Seventh Fleet is based in Bahrain!!!

Before I die I hope I see the day when an international situation arises and the US says 'Screw it, you guys handle it. Call Beijing or Moscow, we're taking our balls (pun intended) and going home.'

I suspect that day is coming soon.  Trump's foreign policy can be interpreted as a retrenchment: the US is largely abandoning influence in China, Africa, and the Middle East.  China because it's proven uncontrollable.  Africa because the corruption and inefficiency aren't worth the natural resources - the only thing of value they're capable of.  The Middle East because its politically, militarily, and financially expensive oil is no longer needed. 

The US will maintain ties with Europe and the Anglo-sphere because those are lucrative markets, they're minimally corrupt, and there are shared values.  The US will strengthen ties with Russia - or at least remain cordial - to help contain China.  I wouldn't be surprised to see Russia and the West recognize their shared values.  Likewise, the US will maintain a presence in SE Asia to contain China and take advantage of lucrative, law-abiding markets. 

China will take care of itself, but what will happen to the Middle East and Africa?  Either they'll rot or China will keep them sufficiently afloat to provide natural resources or the US will actively destabilize them to force Chinese dependence on Russia/The West.  Personally, I don't see China tolerating dependence on indefensible imports any longer than necessary, which tells me Africa and the Middle East are in for a rough ride. 

On that note, Africa has been mined for over a century now.  How much is left to extract?  Have the best resources been consumed yet? 

[John Foote + 1,135]

On 5/19/2019 at 11:44 PM, Douglas Buckland said:

it is always the US and their taxpayers dollars.

And that is a basic problem.

We don't need to spend what we do. Even dropped by 50% we'd outspend the rest.

Nobody in the Middle East is going to fight us, although we may fight them but it always turns out poorly. Iran doesn't really project power outside the region and even in the region it's not with tanks and planes, the kind of fight our military spending is keyed on. Saudi does project power throughout the world, but thru economics, not soldiers though they do spend ludicrous amounts on defense with a real affinity for expensive toys. Give me a A-10 over a F35 everyday of the week for that region.

The fundamental enemy there is stateless, not a country. Who funds radical mosques? Military spending doesn't help fighting that much. Cyberspace matters, but again, buying more F35s doesn't help. And with Cyberspace again we have stateless issues that need attention.

On a positive note KSA has pulled back from their decades of exporting their take on Islam. Iran didn't really do that, they lacked the cash are are too focussed on the region. They do have a serious attitude concerning Israel. 

China is right to fight on economics. That should play to the US's strength, but we've taken our eye off the ball for a long time. Not a fan of some of our methods today, but at least we aren't running up the white flag these days. Taking on our own business behavior is a bigger challenge than what China does in their borders. The old Lenin line, we'll hang the last capitalist with the rope he sold us is still in play.

[Toranaga + 49]

On 5/17/2019 at 9:32 AM, James Regan said:

Now we are being told that the USA and Iran misread each other which lead to where we find ourselves today. The US sends hardware to the Persian Gulf and as a result Iran doubled down and made preparations for preemptive retaliation. Then we saw proxies making soft attempts to disrupt KSAs oil flow.

Trump once again has shown the world he is weak and his only weapon is threats and tweets.

Fair enough he doesn’t want to go to war, so he should stop trying to bully the world into getting his own way. He may find himself involved in something he really didn’t want if he doesn’t stop prodding rattlesnakes.

POTUS is “making America weak again”

James Regan, if you saw a guy raise his hand to hit an old lady and you wanted to stop it from happening you would cry out "That man is going to hit her!" and you would try to get everybody's attention so the guy would feel that everybody was looking at him and he would try to slink away.  That's what Trump is doing.  Don't nitpick the analogy, you get the basic point.  Trump is trying to avoid violence by using the strategy of putting the spotlight on the possible wrongdoing before it happens. It may seem astounding to you that Trump would be trying to avoid warfare, but that is the way he has operated since the 1970s. His foreign policy is not perfect. However, another example of a good outcome is when he ordered the missile strikes on the Syrian airfield in response to Syria's probable use of chemical weapons. I believe that nobody was killed in those strikes (and he didn't hit a pharmaceutical plant like Clinton did in '98).  Got the message across, but nobody died. 

 

@Jan van Eck "It reminds me of Winston Churchill and WWI.  Churchill got it into his head that the Royal Navy could bust the blockade of the Dardanelles, and the British Army could beat the Turks in the headlands to the Western side.  It did not quite work out that way;  the mines sank the navy ships, and the Turks, well dug in in their trenches and set up with  machine guns, slaughtered the British.  It was a complete, total disaster.  Britain never recovered from that failure.  It was not until the Americans showed up that there was enough manpower and hardware to defeat the Germans, Austrians, Hungarians, and Turks on the other side.  Don't start what you cannot finish." 

Trump is not starting anything. Trump clearly has minimal illusions about the power of USA or that actual military violence can be used "neatly." On the contrary, his actions have been relatively carefully measured:  naval ships are passing through South China Sea (but that is all), flights of B-2 bombers near North Korea (but that is all, and it resulted in a summit), measured strikes against Syria to punish them for using chemical weapons (but not degrading Syria's ability to fight ISIS, and to my knowledge killing 0 Syrian soldiers), and so on.  It is a big relief compared to GW Bush (warmonger) and B Obama (Except for getting Bin Laden, he was a 90 pound weakling getting sand kicked in his face by Putin and ISIS.).  

There was a guy who used to work for Bobby Kennedy who publicly stated before the 2016 election that Trump might actually turn out to reduce armed conflict in the world. At this point we can see that Trump's instincts are clearly to get the hell out of foreign wars where USA really has no business.  That's why he jumped when Erdogan inviting the USA to leave cleaning up ISIS to Turkey. Trump's advisors had to remind him that Turkey has a history of massacring the Kurds (who were such good allies in fighting ISIS and Saddam). 

Thanks for reading.  

[Falcon + 222]

On 5/21/2019 at 3:05 PM, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

I suspect that day is coming soon.  Trump's foreign policy can be interpreted as a retrenchment: the US is largely abandoning influence in China, Africa, and the Middle East.  China because it's proven uncontrollable.  Africa because the corruption and inefficiency aren't worth the natural resources - the only thing of value they're capable of.  The Middle East because its politically, militarily, and financially expensive oil is no longer needed. 

The US will maintain ties with Europe and the Anglo-sphere because those are lucrative markets, they're minimally corrupt, and there are shared values.  The US will strengthen ties with Russia - or at least remain cordial - to help contain China.  I wouldn't be surprised to see Russia and the West recognize their shared values.  Likewise, the US will maintain a presence in SE Asia to contain China and take advantage of lucrative, law-abiding markets. 

China will take care of itself, but what will happen to the Middle East and Africa?  Either they'll rot or China will keep them sufficiently afloat to provide natural resources or the US will actively destabilize them to force Chinese dependence on Russia/The West.  Personally, I don't see China tolerating dependence on indefensible imports any longer than necessary, which tells me Africa and the Middle East are in for a rough ride. 

On that note, Africa has been mined for over a century now.  How much is left to extract?  Have the best resources been consumed yet? 

Trump's foreign policy not retrenchment and abandonment. 

It's being realistic.

There is only so much influence any one country can effect around the world.

The number on influence is no longer how many aircraft carriers, F-35's or Virginia Class Subs you have, it is now how strong your economy is .  Military is extremely important, but strong economy wins out in long-term .

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

9 hours ago, Falcon said:

Trump's foreign policy not retrenchment and abandonment. 

It's being realistic.

What's the difference?