JT

Reasons why an all-out war against Iran is unlikely

Recommended Posts

There has been much recent hype around the issue of Iran, but an all-out war remains unlikely. Militarily, Iran would be hard to dominate. This challenge exceeds any the US and the West have faced in many decades. Ever since the Iranian revolution in 1979, the Middle-Eastern country has been preparing for war. Iran is far more powerful than Iraq, Syria and even Saudi Arabia. The Iranian military capabilities were shown recently when Iranians shot down a $100k state-of-the-art RQ-4A Global Hawk surveillance "stealth" drone. That fact alone proved two things: that the Iranian radars are far more advanced than previously believed and that their domestic-made missiles are accurate enough to shoot down an advanced flying machine. Moreover, just two weeks ago, what are believed to be Iranian-made drones originating from Yemen, hit two key Saudi oil installations, with the Saudi multi-billion dollar defence system ineffective at protecting the site. This left the Middle-Eastern kingdom reduced to 50 per cent of its oil production. To put this in context, that same week, the Aussie media was in a state of panic, upon realising that the oil reserves of the country, which imports 90 per cent of its oil from the Middle East, would last as little as 27 days! But Iranian radars, missiles and drone attacks are not the only troubles America has to contend with. NATO's Turkey and Iraq have stated that they won't permit any attack to Iran from their territory, leaving the U.S. military without essential allies in the region.  Furthermore, up until this week, only one out of ten American aircraft carriers is in the Middle East, with most of them undergoing maintenance.  It is noteworthy that two military hits from Iran were carried out without response from the U.S., and that is most likely because Trump is more likely to be reelected if he maintains peace rather that starting another war, with the potential to halve the oil transit through the Strait of Hormuz. While the US already struggles to manage the Sino-American trade war and situations in the South China Sea, Hong Kong, Ukraine, North Korea, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen and Venezuela, a war with Iran would be more than it could handle.  In light of all this, the U.S. will have to abstain from starting another war, one that certainly wouldn't be winnable or short, with China and Russia on the outskirts, not simply watching from behind the fence, but actively participating, supplying weaponry, intelligence and even funding. Let's not forget that for China, if its trillion-dollar Belt and Road Initiative were a chessboard, Iran would be the bishop, and for Russia, Iran is a key ally, right under its southern flank, beyond the Caspian Sea.

israel-palacio-IprD0z0zqss-unsplash.jpg

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, shooting down an unarmed, non-stealthy, slow moving drone which was incapable of evading proves that the Iranian air defense radar system and indigenous air defense missile systems...can hit unarmed, non-stealthy, slow moving drones. A far cry from downing attack aircraft.

But on to your post. There is absolutely no need for all out war against Iran, and Trump is apparently not considering it.

The Iranian theocracy is it’s own worst enemy. Even they realize that if tactical strikes weakened their command and control structure AND that the people were ‘somehow’ getting weapons and training, either in-country or abroad, that a coup becomes a very real possibility. Absolutely no need for foreign boots on the ground.

As for the Belts and Road Initiative... history has shown us again and again that you can’t buy friends, especially those willing to die for your gold.

  • Like 3
  • Great Response! 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shooting down Global Hawk is the same difficulty as U-2, Russians succeeded in 1960, about 59 years ago. But to inflict massive casualties on US or Middle Eastern military powers Iran does not need sophisticated gear. A swarm of balistic missiles skimming Persian Gulf or the desert plus heavy drones have 100% probability to sink a few destroyers or even aircraft carrier. And at this moment Trump is toast, very low chances for reelection, US society does not like military casualties. And Trump knows that, and Iran knows that, and also Russia & China.

Conclusion: no shoting at least till spring 2021 and China openly defying US oil sanctions on Iran.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not only China is defying sanctions on Iran, Turkey, Irak, Syria, Russia the same. That, officially, not officially, India, Pakistan and Turkmenistan are doing the same. Honestly, who would deny getting oil at a discount price?

No shooting war not even after 2021, unless a hot head appears in scene. My guess only

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

''All out war'' instigated by who?

12 hours ago, Jorge Trevino said:

In light of all this, the U.S. will have to abstain from starting another war

Trump has. And technically, especially if more attacks, the accused are the ones who 'started war', on an oil facility ....

12 hours ago, Jorge Trevino said:

It is noteworthy that two military hits from Iran were carried out without response from the U.S., and that is most likely because Trump is more likely to be reelected if he maintains peace rather that starting another war

I'd like to think it's nothing to do with a re-election and more ''this is not our problem''. Let the ME sort their own shit out for once? Have an all out war, crack on, you have all the weaponry you need. The region has been poison for centuries. China wants this oil right? Invite them to fight? Why is the USA the world's policeman? So the world can bitch about the USA for years after? 

12 hours ago, Jorge Trevino said:

But Iranian radars, missiles and drone attacks are not the only troubles America has to contend with. NATO's Turkey and Iraq have stated that they won't permit any attack to Iran from their territory, leaving the U.S. military without essential allies in the region. 

Then USA should get out. Let them destroy themselves? I'm sure the world will breath a sigh of relief. Why is any of this something for only the USA to 'contend with'? Iran will have back up and USA will be without allies? So get out. F*** them.

Shove their 'kingdom' and their IPO. This whole situation stinks. 

I'll say what you're all thinking, don't worry.

And I've had a good day Doug lol, before you say it (rode GBP/USD up then down).

Just bored for you guys of USA having to be policeman, and not only that, the world's policeman that's told how to do their job and when.

Edited by DayTrader
  • Like 3
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, DayTrader said:

''All out war'' instigated by who?

Trump has. And technically, especially if more attacks, the accused are the ones who 'started war', on an oil facility ....

I'd like to think it's nothing to do with a re-election and more ''this is not our problem''. Let the ME sort their own shit out for once? Have an all out war, crack on, you have all the weaponry you need. The region has been poison for centuries. China wants this oil right? Invite them to fight? Why is the USA the world's policeman? So the world can bitch about the USA for years after? 

Then USA should get out. Let them destroy themselves? I'm sure the world will breath a sigh of relief. Why is any of this something for only the USA to 'contend with'? Iran will have back up and USA will be without allies? So get out. F*** them.

Shove their 'kingdom' and their IPO. This whole situation stinks. 

I'll say what you're all thinking, don't worry.

And I've had a good day Doug lol, before you say it (rode GBP/USD up then down).

Just bored for you guys of USA having to be policeman, and not only that, the world's policeman that's told how to do their job and when.

The problem now as I see it is that Saudi is a big customer of US and UK arms systems worth $ billions to the economy. It now looks like some of the weapons ( missile defence systems ) aren't up to the job, and with China and mother Russia flaunting their latest tech it seems to me like there is a hard decision to be made.

I also note the amount of thick black smoke coming from the High speed rail 'fire' in saudi. I'm no expert on fires but it didn't look like a usual building fire.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For goodness sake Auson! Any weapons system is only as good as the people operating it! Even if the Saudis had deployed US systems...the operators were Saudis!!!

Are you trying to make the point that US weapon systems are inferior to those fielded by China and Russia? If so....JUST SAY IT!

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

The Saudi using US built weapons/aircraft could take out Iran’s missile factories and a refinery or two with the promise of more if Iran doesn’t slow its role. That’s my plan, lol.  Then Israel could fly in with those F-35’s and hit the same targets tying those countries together against Iran. Then the US could hit the same targets showing the world we don’t take Iran supported terrorism lightly and obviously support the Saudi and Israel in the region.

Edited by Boat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Auson said:

looks like some of the weapons ( missile defence systems ) aren't up to the job

Or they don't know how to use them, rather than the US supplied them some kinda duds. 

The image in my head is one of the USA supplying all this stuff and it all just came with some kind of instruction pamphlet. It wasn't in Arabic so they just plonked these things in the sand and assumed they were protected.

''MBS must fire defence minister! Oh MBS is the defence minister. Never mind''

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Marcin said:

Shooting down Global Hawk is the same difficulty as U-2, Russians succeeded in 1960, about 59 years ago. But to inflict massive casualties on US or Middle Eastern military powers Iran does not need sophisticated gear. A swarm of balistic missiles skimming Persian Gulf or the desert plus heavy drones have 100% probability to sink a few destroyers or even aircraft carrier. And at this moment Trump is toast, very low chances for reelection, US society does not like military casualties. And Trump knows that, and Iran knows that, and also Russia & China.

Conclusion: no shoting at least till spring 2021 and China openly defying US oil sanctions on Iran.

Okay, the Russians shot down a U2 59 years ago...so what? The U2 has been obsolete for decades and the technology to shoot them down, as you said, has been around for the past 59 years! I do not see where it is a great technological feat to shoot down an aircraft similar to a U2.

I assume that you know what a Lockheed SR71 Blackbird aircraft in. It first flew in 1964 and it is also obsolete. It routinely overflew China and the USSR. How many of those were ever shot down? The answer is NONE!

I do not know where you get your news from, but I am assuming the biased, liberal, mainstream media. Trump has a very good chance of winning re-election by a landslide!

Where did you come up with the idea that Iranian drones or missiles have a 100% chance of sinking a US naval vessel? These are much harder targets than a stationary refinery. Furthermore, if they did manage to damage a US vessel, Bandar Abbas would cease to exist a few hours later.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To inflict massive casualties on Iran, the US doesn’t need ANYTHING - they already have it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps you could ask Saddam about American ‘shock & awe’.....oh, that’s right, he’s dead...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cue the anti-US brigade ... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Jorge Trevino said:

Not only China is defying sanctions on Iran, Turkey, Irak, Syria, Russia the same. That, officially, not officially, India, Pakistan and Turkmenistan are doing the same. Honestly, who would deny getting oil at a discount price?

No shooting war not even after 2021, unless a hot head appears in scene. My guess only

The US should over time slow trade dramatically with China, Syria, N Korea, Russia, Iran and any other country that refuses to abide by basic rules of the road. Ask Japan and S Korea how that works.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

Cue the anti-US brigade ... 

Heh heh, you are really begging to get swatted by the pro China bunch.  Carry on.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah they read their own history in the 70 year thread and went quiet.

Just think Doug mentions Saddam (and so previous ME conflict), it's like on a plate for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The anti-US brigade is lurking in the background all the time. I’ve remained as courteous as possible for months. The gloves are off.

If the pro-China contingent want to get involved...bring it on.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

Nah they read their own history in the 70 year thread and went quiet.

Just think Doug mentions Saddam (and so previous ME conflict), it's like on a plate for them.

But in YOUR historical timeline you graciously left out when the first McDonald’s and KFC franchises opened in China....

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

But in YOUR historical timeline you graciously left out when the first McDonald’s and KFC franchises opened in China....

There was an economic theory that no two countries with McDonald's would openly attack each other. Once you get deep in bed with each other economically war becomes self defeating. I don't think theory that has held up, but there is a more than a grain of truth to it. 

So I had to check, and confirmed, no McDonald's in Iran. 

Despite the lack of American brand franchises Trump will not march into war with Iran. He knows a losing proposition. Squeeze them as you can, plenty of bellicose rhetoric, but no American red corpuscles.  KSA, for the record, has deeply embraced American franchises. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Douglas Buckland said:

The anti-US brigade is lurking in the background all the time. 

LOL. 

And pro-US brigade sets the agenda.... 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

1 hour ago, Douglas Buckland said:

But in YOUR historical timeline you graciously left out

C'mon Doug, enough of the snide comments.

*coffee time

#womp

Edited by DayTrader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

But in YOUR historical timeline you graciously left out when the first McDonald’s and KFC franchises opened in China....

DT's  timeline is Nelson and the Battle of Trafalgar......

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, we can hope for no war. But the post above assumes Trump is in control. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, DayTrader said:

Or they don't know how to use them, rather than the US supplied them some kinda duds. 

The image in my head is one of the USA supplying all this stuff and it all just came with some kind of instruction pamphlet. It wasn't in Arabic so they just plonked these things in the sand and assumed they were protected.

''MBS must fire defence minister! Oh MBS is the defence minister. Never mind''

Day Trader,

Your probably not far from the truth although the sellers do send people to train them how to use such weapons. Not to mention the black ops from their supporting military.

Hows the day trading going, looking very bumpy out there ! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Not to mention the black ops from their supporting military.”

What is this comment supposed to refer to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.