Iran warnes US to not return carrier to Persian Gulf

(COMPLEMENT)

You would make a great Senior Foreign Service Officer (FSO). Over the last decade, I have had the opportunity to speak with and listen to a number of Senior FSO (Negroponte, Khalilzad, Crocker, Butenis, Hill, Jeffrey) and, Senior military Field Grade Officers of major Commanders (Sanchez, Casey, Petraeus, Odierno). They all have a very similar outlook. You are in very good company. I am well aware that I hold a minority view.


Thank you for the complement. I always enjoy talking with you as well. Those are indeed some big names, and I was lucky enough to attend graduate school with a list of professors that is equally notable -- which no doubt helped shape my viewpoints.


I do not see the current (or recent past) leadership operating in America's best interest. I see their decision making processes and outcomes seriously flawed.

Well -- I don't dispute this -- but I would think our definitions of what is in our interest might differ. :)

(Expanded SOURCE DATA)

The following are links that pertains to the analysis (Charts) I posted previously.
Thanks for this -- I look forward to reading through it.

(COMMENT)

The US is a "military based hegemony." For decades the mantra was: "Persuasive in Peace - Invincible in War."
The US military cannot support its political, economic, commercial, industrial, or military interests without a strong economy that is capable of supporting the effort; -- including a strong defense. As the movie (The Right Stuff) said: "No Bucks - No Buck Rogers." When the Chairman is concerned, and calls it a problem, then it is a problem.

www.zimbio.com/.../Joint+Chiefs+Chairman+Debt+Top+Security+Th...
Jan 5, 2012 – Adm. Mike Mullen, the nation's senior military official, recently described the national debt as America's “biggest national security threat. ...
Yes, we are damaged to a degree greater than most people think.

There is no doubt the national debt is a defense issue. But think it is an issue mostly because of procurement. The more money we have to pay in interest will ultimately mean cuts -- which always typically target the Pentagon first.

That said -- I don't think we will have a financing issue should a real war erupt....I do think we will undergo a slow decline as we continue to borrow and don't pay down our debts -- but I think this can be managed. We need to be smarter at the Pentagon, there is waste in the defense department that can be cut -- we can restructure our forces to meet old and new challenges in new ways. However, we can of course go to far -- if we try to solve our deficit issues on the backs of the Pentagon -- we will indeed be in a lot of trouble.


If we are to be the leader, then we need to be benevolent in the eyes of the world. We don't have so many allies that we can afford to be arrogant and pushy - fostering greater ill-will against Americans or American Interests.

We cannot be benevolent and pursue our interests -- at some point, to pursue our goals it will come at the expense of someone else.
 
Werbung:
Rob, for whatever reason you equate ending Iran's nuclear program with "delaying" the program... I don't see these as being the same thing. Iraq - We went in there to END Saddam's pursuit of WMD. Libya - We provided air support to the rebel forces already engaged in a civil war against the Pro-Government forces. Since there is no rebel force fighting against the government in Iran, equating Iran with Libya is laughable. Iraq is the more appropriate comparison.

Now, what happens to the price of oil if we INVADE Iran, Iraq style full invasion?
What effect does the price of oil have on our economy? The world economy?
How high would oil prices have to go in order to turn our "recovery" into a recession?
What's going to happen to the Eurozone economies?
How much additional money are we going to spend not only in a BS war with Iran but also in BS government welfare and "stimulus" packages? (we've spent far more on those in the last decade than both our wars put together).
What caused our AAA credit rating to be downgraded for the first time in history?
What affect would all the additional spending have on our credit rating?
What impact does our current policy of monetizing US debt have domestically and around the world?
What happens when the dollar is no longer the international standard?
You admit a full invasion of Iran is not popular... What would the political blowback look like domestically?

I've asked myself all these questions and more, and they all have very bad answers that lead to the worst possible conclusion. If our economy were on fire, we could probably handle it...AND... If our economy didn't run on oil, we could probably handle it...AND... If we weren't already racking up debt to the tune of $1.5 trillion a year, we could probably handle it. However, our economy is in the crapper, barely holding onto the rim... AND... oil is the life blood of our economy, higher prices suck the life out of economic growth... AND... the additional expenditures not only in expanding warfare but also expanded welfare will balloon the debt with record levels of deficit spending. So it's not just about spending... However, I am curious... Do you really believe that we cannot be destroyed by our own overspending?
 
Rob, for whatever reason you equate ending Iran's nuclear program with "delaying" the program...

I don't see them as the same thing -- I simply think the only real option we have is to seek to delay their program. I don't think we have the capability (given our political climate etc) to "end" it.

I don't see these as being the same thing. Iraq - We went in there to END Saddam's pursuit of WMD. Libya - We provided air support to the rebel forces already engaged in a civil war against the Pro-Government forces. Since there is no rebel force fighting against the government in Iran, equating Iran with Libya is laughable. Iraq is the more appropriate comparison.

This is simply not true -- there are rebel groups (plural) inside of Iran that seek to overthrow the government -- and would stand a much better chance with our air power.

Additionally -- you again assume that regime change will be the goal -- perhaps the goal is simply the destruction of key facilities throughout the country -- in which case -- who cares what the ground game looks like?

Now, what happens to the price of oil if we INVADE Iran, Iraq style full invasion?
Well -- the short term is of course it rises -- after that it depends on varying other factors. How fast can production be brought back online, will other nations increase their production capacity -- but we can generally agree it will rise in the short term for sure.

What effect does the price of oil have on our economy? The world economy?

Well -- it depends on the price of course.
How high would oil prices have to go in order to turn our "recovery" into a recession?

I don't know -- how high would prices have to go before demand falls? At some point -- you can ask $200 for a barrel of oil, but if demand doesn't meet your supply, you end up with excess inventories and the price comes down. That is a good way to tell when oil is overvalued. I know we have had this discussion before, but demand meets supply at $125 (or whatever) then the price of oil is valid.

Now -- as for what the exact number is in the short term that will hurt our recovery -- I don't know -- I am not an economist.
What's going to happen to the Eurozone economies?

Short term -- they are hurt -- same as ours.
How much additional money are we going to spend not only in a BS war with Iran but also in BS government welfare and "stimulus" packages? (we've spent far more on those in the last decade than both our wars put together).

Again -- I don't know -- it depends on the war.
What caused our AAA credit rating to be downgraded for the first time in history?

Frankly -- I think politics did. The S&P seemed to say as much in their report on the matter.
What affect would all the additional spending have on our credit rating?

That depends on the level of spending, our growth rates, the relative strength of the dollar etc.
What impact does our current policy of monetizing US debt have domestically and around the world?

Impact in regards to what? This is quite a broad question.

What happens when the dollar is no longer the international standard?

Then we become less able to monetize our debt for the same price we are now.
You admit a full invasion of Iran is not popular... What would the political blowback look like domestically?

I think whichever party starts the war will be swept from power in the next election. However, if the action is nothing more than airstrikes -- I think the political blowback is lessened, and can be overcome.

I've asked myself all these questions and more, and they all have very bad answers that lead to the worst possible conclusion. If our economy were on fire, we could probably handle it...AND... If our economy didn't run on oil, we could probably handle it...AND... If we weren't already racking up debt to the tune of $1.5 trillion a year, we could probably handle it. However, our economy is in the crapper, barely holding onto the rim... AND... oil is the life blood of our economy, higher prices suck the life out of economic growth... AND... the additional expenditures not only in expanding warfare but also expanded welfare will balloon the debt with record levels of deficit spending. So it's not just about spending... However, I am curious... Do you really believe that we cannot be destroyed by our own overspending?

My point is not that ultimately we cannot be destroyed by our own overspending. My point is simply that we are not there yet. Yes, we got downgraded (but not by all agencies), but the market still says our debt is the best around -- just look at the Treasury yields. When you can borrow money at 2% for a long term rate, you are not on the verge of collapse. It is when the market starts to demand 6%-7% for that borrowing power that you are in real trouble.

In my opinion -- borrowing an additional two trillion dollars at this point is not going to ruin the country. Does that mean we should do it? No. Does that mean we should not worry about the debt and paying it down? No. It just means that if push comes to shove -- I think we can handle it.
 
steve, et al,

I have learned over the years, to never say never. But this is "highly improbably."

When U.S Attacks IRAN this is how WWIII Starts!

(COMMENT)

There are multiple levels to this question of War with Iran. It is multifaceted in both the scope and dimension of this hypothetical conflict. Back in the late 1970's, I participated in an exercise called "Positive Leap." With my time in Vietnam still (relatively) fresh in my mind, I studied the War Gamers and the considerations they took into account and the assumptions they made in the Military Decision Making Process (MDMP). Granted, some three decades later, there are new capabilities and limitations to consider. Yet, even today, after having been to theater level operations centers in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the basic obstacles - and how to overcome them - still haunt us.

America is very afraid (politically and militarily) to use its nuclear arsenal. This has an extremely low probability of actually occurring.

Having said that, to consider putting ground forces anyway in Iran is a perilous venture. Such an action would have the gravest of consequences. In a conventional setting, this too is highly unlikely. The terrain is simply all wrong given the complexion of our military force structure and basic numbers.

Thus: The US is limited in the number of viable options it has to select. Most probably, a complex air - sea campaign.

In contemplating a "worst case scenario," certainly a WWIII might be among them, but one would have to conceive of a cascade of events that would force other world players to enter the fray. And on entering the fray, who is going to align themselves with whom. And to figure that out, you have to understand what is in each participants best interest.

Within each scenario, there are incidental fallout consequences. In the last half of the last century, terrorism and asymmetric warfare have emerged as a new tool; along with Third Generation Warfare (Proxy Combatants).

It is more likely that any engagement of substance (air, land, or sea) between the US and the Forces of Iran, will result in a two-tier unintended asymmetric consequence; one of direct alignment and one of sympathetic alignment. And this is more likely than the others because of the reputation the US has with regional indigenous populations and standing anti-American alliances.

Most Respectfully,
R
 
Why should the US attack Iran when Israel is more than capable of doing the job? We should support their attack with intel, but refrain from any hard actions. Let Israel do the job just as they did the job against Iraq back in the 80s.

Most of the nations of the gulf are afraid of a nuclear Iran. They know the kooks running the Iranian government want an empire. Those nations will not support an Israeli attack, but it seems unlikely they will try to stop it or escalate events after the attack.

The Iranian military is a paper tiger. They are completely outclassed by the technology and hardware we and the Israelis have. Their only strength is their army and it is highly unlikely we will fight them in a ground campaign.
 
Why should the US attack Iran when Israel is more than capable of doing the job? We should support their attack with intel, but refrain from any hard actions. Let Israel do the job just as they did the job against Iraq back in the 80s.

Most of the nations of the gulf are afraid of a nuclear Iran. They know the kooks running the Iranian government want an empire. Those nations will not support an Israeli attack, but it seems unlikely they will try to stop it or escalate events after the attack.

The Iranian military is a paper tiger. They are completely outclassed by the technology and hardware we and the Israelis have. Their only strength is their army and it is highly unlikely we will fight them in a ground campaign.


looks like Israel realizes they'll be taking care of this cleanup on aisle four. good thing we sold them those super duper bunker busters what, a year 18 months ago...
 
dogtowner, et al,

We don't know enough information to definitively say: who did it. The general technique is practiced throughout the troubled countries of the Middle East.

looks like Israel realizes they'll be taking care of this cleanup on aisle four. good thing we sold them those super duper bunker busters what, a year 18 months ago...
(COMMENT)

This is a trap. The Israelis know that for them to be tied to -- or associated with -- and extraterritorial strike (conventional or asymmetrical --classic military action or assassination) against Iran or Iranian interests, only further inflames the struggles prompted by religious divisions and the territorial dispute over the establishment of Israel and the administration of the Occupied Territories.

(SIDEBAR)

The Israelis know that containment by treaties on Non-Proliferation is a failed concepts. They, themselves, don't believe or participate in the fantasy. They know that, eventually, a non-allied nation is going to develop a nuclear weapons system. Any attempt to retard development will only create more animosity between the governments and further turmoil on radical elements inside the Islamic community.

Most Respectfully,
R
 
dogtowner, et al,

We don't know enough information to definitively say: who did it. The general technique is practiced throughout the troubled countries of the Middle East.


(COMMENT)

This is a trap. The Israelis know that for them to be tied to -- or associated with -- and extraterritorial strike (conventional or asymmetrical --classic military action or assassination) against Iran or Iranian interests, only further inflames the struggles prompted by religious divisions and the territorial dispute over the establishment of Israel and the administration of the Occupied Territories.

(SIDEBAR)

The Israelis know that containment by treaties on Non-Proliferation is a failed concepts. They, themselves, don't believe or participate in the fantasy. They know that, eventually, a non-allied nation is going to develop a nuclear weapons system. Any attempt to retard development will only create more animosity between the governments and further turmoil on radical elements inside the Islamic community.

Most Respectfully,
R

So, is it your opinion that Israel should do nothing about Iran's quest for nuke weapons?

Iran has stated for years now their intention to destroy Israel. They support terrorist groups who consistently and cowardly murder Israelis.

If I were an Israeli citizen, I would be demanding my government take action. The Jews have been nearly destroyed numerous times throughout history. Why should they set and wait for the mushroom cloud? In my view, they have no options. They must take action or face their demise.
 
dogtowner, et al,

We don't know enough information to definitively say: who did it. The general technique is practiced throughout the troubled countries of the Middle East.


(COMMENT)

This is a trap. The Israelis know that for them to be tied to -- or associated with -- and extraterritorial strike (conventional or asymmetrical --classic military action or assassination) against Iran or Iranian interests, only further inflames the struggles prompted by religious divisions and the territorial dispute over the establishment of Israel and the administration of the Occupied Territories.

(SIDEBAR)

The Israelis know that containment by treaties on Non-Proliferation is a failed concepts. They, themselves, don't believe or participate in the fantasy. They know that, eventually, a non-allied nation is going to develop a nuclear weapons system. Any attempt to retard development will only create more animosity between the governments and further turmoil on radical elements inside the Islamic community.

Most Respectfully,
R


Rocco, is it even possible for everyone to become more inflamed about Israel ? I can buy that it serves arab interests to keep the heat on Israel and so they continue with their endless half hearted sniping of it. It keeps the arab public focused on a perceived enemy which tends to insure that those in power stay that way (so long as it's keeping people in line). And its not as though they've not reached out and touched before.

Obama can ill afford to have Iran carry on with this threat and they know it. So the only question is how willing is he to have Iran play him ? I hope your acquaintances in foreign policy land have the president's ear but Israel is a wildcard we've (needlessly in my mind) lost control over.
 
Gipper, et al,

It is a bad neighborhood.

So, is it your opinion that Israel should do nothing about Iran's quest for nuke weapons?

(COMMENT)

It would be wise if Israel is vigilant and alert, but not actively defensive. Like any bad neighborhood, where the neighbors are offensive, rude, rough and intimidating, you don't go out of your way to poke the bear. But you do have to maintain the bravery to walk down the street.

Iran has stated for years now their intention to destroy Israel. They support terrorist groups who consistently and cowardly murder Israelis.

(COMMENT)

For now, Iran is a "hot air diplomat." It talks tough, but the rhetoric is not credible. Iran doesn't have a weapon system yet. It may never have a weapons system. Iran is the "Mouse that Roars." It doesn't have a capability that can impact Israel. And, you cannot use deadly force against someone that talks tough - but has no real ability to hurt you.

Terrorism is a different animal all together. In respect to Iran, terrorist organizations came first. Iran is not the father of any one particular terrorist scheme. It looks for an existing aggressor or belligerent and then provides support some limited support.

The US, and other nations, think of Iran as a shadow benefactor and banker for the Hezbollah, and (anti-American) insurgents in Iraq. It was only in March 2006 that the US labeled Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism; which mostly related to activities in Iraq and Lebanon. But if you ask the question: Which terrorist Organisations were created by or operate out of Iran, you hear the sound of silence. The IRGC (in particular the Quds Force element) operations much on the mission order as any Clandestine Service (US, Russian, French, China, etc). It conducts operations on a limited scale, usually in suggested or manipulative manner. But we don't refer to these other nations as conducting terrorist activity. The IRGC-QF provides training, weapons, and monetary support to allied activities in much the same fashion as the US did with the Mojahedin (Afghan) Islamic resistance fighters against the Russians.

If I were an Israeli citizen, I would be demanding my government take action. The Jews have been nearly destroyed numerous times throughout history. Why should they set and wait for the mushroom cloud? In my view, they have no options. They must take action or face their demise.

(COMMENT)

What would you have them do?

You are suggesting that Israel is under threat from an imminent Iranian transgression, the potential transgression is credible and lethal. So you advocate:

Vigilante Activism: Israel taking the World Police Powers into their own hands and assaulting Iran; preemptively.

Yeah, when the US claimed Iarq had WMD, and we invaded Iraq -- how did that workout?

Do you wait for the Mushroom Cloud? In essence, YES! Before Iran can have a working weapon, it must test it; it is only prudent to see if it works. That is substantial evidence, and now begins to alter the paradigm. Once Iran has passed this threshold, then they can no longer be protected under the "Hot Air" scenario. The threat becomes credible and that signals the time to strike.

Iran may NOT in fact be building a weapon, but instead, playing a game to get world attention. It appears that Iran has hit a nerve and has a non-existent bargaining chip that it can trade. It is diplomatic blackmail using technology. And the US will give them just about anything in order for the US to limit further proliferation.

Most Respectfully,
R
 
Iran may NOT in fact be building a weapon, but instead, playing a game to get world attention. It appears that Iran has hit a nerve and has a non-existent bargaining chip that it can trade. It is diplomatic blackmail using technology. And the US will give them just about anything in order for the US to limit further proliferation.

they've spent quite a lot of money just to get medical equipment or the like which had been offered and rejected. unless they think they can blackmail the US into throwing Israel under the busI cannot imagine any other purpose than weapons.
 
dogtowner, et al,

Good question!

Rocco, is it even possible for everyone to become more inflamed about Israel ? I can buy that it serves arab interests to keep the heat on Israel and so they continue with their endless half hearted sniping of it. It keeps the arab public focused on a perceived enemy which tends to insure that those in power stay that way (so long as it's keeping people in line). And its not as though they've not reached out and touched before.

(COMMENT)

It has been more than half a century, that Israel has established itself. And a number of Arab-Israeli Wars have been fought. You would think, by now, that the a new generation of Arabs would have adapted to the change in geography. But they have not. However, the frequency between wars has lengthened. There is light at the end of the tunnel. Both sides need to lighten-up a little. Neither side is without blame.

IMO, you are correct. The entire affair keeps the animosity between the cultures aflame. But if it can be reduced to a war of words, as opposed to a blood letting scourge --- then something useful was accomplished.

Obama can ill afford to have Iran carry on with this threat and they know it. So the only question is how willing is he to have Iran play him ? I hope your acquaintances in foreign policy land have the president's ear but Israel is a wildcard we've (needlessly in my mind) lost control over.

(COMMENT)

Whether Israel was ever under our influence is a question, in and by itself. The approach to take is to have convinced the Middle East/Persian Gulf neighborhood that Iran is a problem that they have to face and deal. The key here is for the Arab World to understand that Iran might inadvertently light the fuse that ignites the region. It is up to America to stay out of the fight, and not provocatively promote a confrontation for which we will all be sorry for in the end.

BUT, if the US has to engage Iran --- we will have to make it a swift and lethal blow for which there is no recovery. Otherwise, the problem will reemerge for our next generation to deal with. This was the mistake we made with the Israel in 1948, and it is the mistake that keeps on giving. We cannot use the same logic and diplomatic think that has turn into dogma over the last half-century to fix the problems of the 21st Century. We don't want the same results --- we want a better world.

Most Respectfully,
R
 
Werbung:
dogtowner, et al,

You cannot think like a mid-20th Century American Diplomat that still thinks it is a Super Power. In order to understand Iran's Leadership, you have to think more like a medieval theif something on the order of --- Ali Baba.

they've spent quite a lot of money just to get medical equipment or the like which had been offered and rejected. unless they think they can blackmail the US into throwing Israel under the busI cannot imagine any other purpose than weapons.

(COMMENT)

Iran wants to be the "Regional Hegemony." It wants to be the Lord Protector of the Persian Gulf (its cultural name sake). It wants Power and Glory --- the Islamic State that made good. It wants the Persian Fleet to be in Bahrain, not the 5th US Fleet.

Most Respectfully,
R
 
Back
Top