Lets see if Hezbollah becomes active again soon...

Yes, they are rumbling. A few rockets were fired at northern Israel last week for the first time in years.

And they have had a few explosions happen in Lebanon, one of which they blamed on Israel detonating a spy device, and one of which they blamed on a leftover Israeli bomb. Neither explanation is all that credible. The first happened near a Hizb arms depot. Here's guessing they were really "work accidents" of the type that happen often in Gaza, where inexperienced bomb handlers routinely blow themselves up. These things happen when there is hasty gearing up for activity...

The previous week they hinted they would take over Beirut if Assad falls in Syria.

And they have been systematically dismantling our spy ring in their midst. Hezbollah has been too successful lately.

The British Embassy in Tehran was attacked by a rent-a-crowd this Tuesday following notice of EU sanctions. Result, all staff sent home. And William Hague (Foreign Minister) gave the Iranians 48 hours to leave their London Embassy .

Not sure this helps anyone, but I suppose we get to say "They started it!" because at least we didn't storm their Embassy. This time ;)

I'm a little more concerned about the American sanctions proposed. Controlling much?
"Experts" here suggest refusing to allow foreign companies to trade with the Iranian Central bank might lead to further disruption in the markets and higher oil prices. Which would benefit Iran, at least short term.

What with this and killing Pakistani soldiers by mistake, it's not a golden time for American diplomacy at present.

It might end up being good for Iranian banks to be isolated from the next monetary bubble...

This won't help relations right now....

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/globa...liation/45708/

US response: "What drone?"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45541622.../#.Ttwo-WMr2nA

:eyebrow:

Sure it was. Like a lost puppy.

Color me skeptical.

US response: "OK, it's a drone. But have fun trying to learn anything from it."

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/...st_of_kandahar

and yet from Wiki ...
hmm

Stealth can mean a lot of things.

Have you ever seen one of those unmarked state patrol cars? It screams "COP" but it's not black and white (or blue and white or whatever your local coloration may be). That's stealth. Low profile light bar? Stealth technology. It doesn't mean invisible or flying ninjas or HP's cloak, necessarily. It may be that all sides are telling the "truth". I am curious if it was downed by hostile action or not.

Are you kidding me?!?!? The god damm Chinese or Russians are writing them a check for 1 billion US dollars for it right now. The Iranians can't make heads or tails of it but there are a few others out there that would sell your sister to get at it.

That was the news at the time Merc. Information of this story was released in intervals...

Maybe Iran does not have that much to learn from the drone.
They may already know a great deal....

Tonight on CNN, the Iranian Ambassador to the UN, Mohammad Khazaee,
was being interviewed and answering questions about the drone.
The TV showed an Iranian solder standing in front of what appeared
to be an undamaged "flying wing" kind of aircraft with very smooth contours.

When asked directly "Did Iran shoot down the drown" his reply was quite startling.
He said "Well, they did not directly shoot it down. They brought it down"
He refrained from saying how they brought it down, stating simply "They have their ways."

I think this may well be major revelation for the US.
For example, if Iran can electronically gain control of the US stealth drones
and bring them to ground without extensive damage,
it would be a remarkable achievement by Iran and setback for the US.
.

It was also reported that they fly similar to a radio controlled airplane. The US knew of this weakness and intentionally did not put anything in them that would be compromised "when" one went down. According to the US.
Also - from PH's link:
And another link

If we are to avoid war with these assholes, we need to remember that what seems like sociopathic bravado and lying is actually a cultural difference.

Iran: "We shot down your drone."
US: "What drone?"
Iran: "The one we shot down."
US: "We have no evidence of a drone being shot down... we did lose one. That happens from time to time, they are flown by people 4000 miles away."
Iran: "Well we shot it down."
US: "Can we see it?"
Iran: "Here it is."
US: "But... that's obviously not shot down, there's no damage to it. If a drone got hit by any proper anti-aircraft gun there would be practically nothing left of it!"
Iran: "I didn't say we shot it down. We have ways."

:rolleyes:

Pretty interesting read.

Downed US drone: How Iran caught the 'beast'

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middl...ught-the-beast

Based on more information in Merc's link above, UT's dialog needs to be extended

Don't miss the bit at the end

I think they had help from the Russians. Either the Chinese or the Russians would pay a pretty penny to have Iran sell it to them.

Well, for the good for everyone, we are lucky it was unmanned drone and not a manned aircraft. If so, we would probably be on the brink of war right now...

After Action Review comment: Damn why didn't we put a self destruct thingy on those drones...you mean that if they loose contact with the operator they just fly level and land themselves????

I was thinking that too but I'm guessing they don't want to put a self-destruct device on a $6 million drone in case they lose contact in airspace where the drone could easily be recovered.

Voice of America
12/12/11

US Asks Iran to Return Lost Drone

Based on more information in the link above, UT's dialog needs to be extended yet again.

They should have dropped a freaking cruise missile on it when they had a chance.

Why destroy it when we've laced it with malware for them to download that will hibernate in their systems until we're ready for activation. Operation Trojan Drone is proceeding as planned, we just let them think they won a prize 'cause we knew they'd be suspicious of a gift. Now, they're too full of themselves to ever believe that we let them have it. Asking for it back was not only part of the ruse, it indemnifies us from claims of subsequent damage to their property. We expended one drone to "stray" over their border and land completely intact, able to deliver its virtual payload, at a reasonable cost to the taxpayers as these things go.

That said, who'd like to buy some beachfront property in Nevada for when California falls into the ocean?

Iran: "We shot down your drone."
US: "What drone?"
Iran: "The one we shot down."
US: "We have no evidence of a drone being shot down... we did lose one. That happens from time to time, they are flown by people 4000 miles away."
Iran: "Well we shot it down."
US: "Can we see it?"
Iran: "Here it is."
US: "But... that's obviously not shot down, there's no damage to it. If a drone got hit by any proper anti-aircraft gun there would be practically nothing left of it!"
Iran: "I didn't say we shot it down. We have ways."
US: "Of course it's not damaged. We programmed it to fly level and find a flat place to land"
Iran: "Here's a nice picture for you"
US: "Please give it back. Pretty please... Pretty please, with sugar on it."

Iran: Hey, be careful with that thing. There's this Dwellar guy saying that...

Iran: "We shot down your drone."
US: "What drone?"
Iran: "The one we shot down."
US: "We have no evidence of a drone being shot down... we did lose one. That happens from time to time, they are flown by people 4000 miles away."
Iran: "Well we shot it down."
US: "Can we see it?"
Iran: "Here it is."
US: "But... that's obviously not shot down, there's no damage to it. If a drone got hit by any proper anti-aircraft gun there would be practically nothing left of it!"
Iran: "I didn't say we shot it down. We have ways."
US: "Of course it's not damaged. We programmed it to fly level and find a flat place to land"
Iran: "Here's a nice picture for you"
US: "Please give it back. Pretty please... Pretty please, with sugar on it."
Iran: "Before we even consider your request, you must say you're sorry. ... But our final decision will be no, we're keeping it."

snickered at this part.
Yeh, we got it and its costing us money to get all the info out of it so we want you to pay for that too.

We could have paid with a laser guided missile. That would have been great.

Ron Paul gets it right.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain...par-over-iran/

What a great quote....

CBSNews

OK - now what?

Interesting. Whether Iran is bluffing or not, this proves that sanctions are starting to take it's toll against Iran. Also, by threatening to take the Straight of Hormuz, it implies that Iran would prefer conflict, or threat of conflict, with the West over giving up it's nuclear weapon program. Since neither Israel and the US or Iran is going to back off the nuclear weapon standoff, this could mean there is a higher probability that some larger conflict may erupt in the future.

My guess is that Iran is bluffing. Iran really has no means to hold the straight and the US Navy would quickly retake it by military force. It would cause chaotic oil prices for a bit, pissing everyone off, but I doubt would have any lasting effect. I just don't see the point.

Either sanctions are really hurting Iran or politicians are just beating their chests for the upcoming elections in March.

Which Iran made that statement? A common mistake by many is to assume same military officer making an off hand comment represents Iranian power brokers.

Newt Gringrich also said he would nuke Iran. Maybe Iran is replying with the same empty threat? Maybe Iran is mocking Newts?

Report is about as important as an article in People Magazine since required and relevant facts were not provided. Hearsay, reported because it was a slow newsday, is better ignored.

Lots of Republican dick waving going on, seems like Paul is the only one with confidence in his manhood.

It was Iranian Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi.

Close but no cookie there Otis, he said he would bomb Iran's nukes.

you just got the words in the wrong order or something

easy mistake to make

And the only weapon available to do that is a nuke. To keep the naive naive, Newt just forgot to mention that action is called a unilateral nuclear surprise attack. Something more despicable than the attack on Pearl Harbor. So why is Newt dic waving while forgetting to mention that important little fact. He wants to Pearl Harbor Iran with nukes?

The Iranian VP does not represent opinions of those who hold the power. Even Ahmadinejad depends on those power brokers to remain in office. The VP is a minor player who does not represent the opinion of Iran's major power brokers.

Griff has accurately summarized the topic. Inventing bogeymen gains Tea party to support. Honesty is not relevant here. Be more worried about extremists on both sides using fear and military taunting to manipulate the most naive among us.

Most serious threats are not so obvious. That naval threat was long too obvious to be a concern.

Obama and Clinton seem to have a strong hand to play in 2012,
as a result of Obama signing US sanctions on Iran and it's
nuclear program into law on New Years Day.

Reuters
By Robin Pomeroy
TEHRAN | Thu Jan 5, 2012
Screws tighten on Iran as big buyers shun its oil
(Reuters) - Iran's neighbors may appear to be going along with the US sanctions,
but push back may be just behind a curtain.

MIDDLE EAST NEWS
MARC CHAMPION
JANUARY 6, 2012
Turkish Visit Aims to Smooth Ties With Tehran
Caught Between Neighbor and the West, Ankara Seeks to Avoid Sunni-Shia Conflict

Really? How is this any different than all the other times all the other presidents did this type of thing. China is more than willing to buy their oil & France probably, I'm sure.

This one sanction is painful. Nobody wanted to stop 10% of the world's oil. Especially since so much of it is needed in places such as Japan.

All oil transactions go through Iran's Central Bank. So all previous sanctions averted that bank. Placing a world wide embargo on Iran's central bank, essentially, stops oil trade. Something that was not done previously due to objections by so many close American allies who need that oil.

Not reported is an apparent wide world agreement to do something. What most nations previously did not want to do. For example, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Australia, many Persian Gulf states, obviously Britain and France, and maybe even Switzerland would be in on the planning. For these sanctions to work, then countries such as Saudi Arabia, UAW and Oman had to be planning for what would result months ago. News reports give almost no indication of what must be major negotiations, cooperation, and agreements made covertly.

We don’t know if all that was planned. We only know that Iran is truly concerned about this one painful sanction. Many have discussed it previously. But nobody previously had enough willpower to act.

FTFY ... we'll see.

Maybe we are already seeing....

Bloomberg
January 06, 2012, 4:46 AM EST

Iran Central Bank Moves to Rescue Rial as Allies Tighten Net

Well this is a start, EU to impose oil embargo.

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn....n-oil-embargo/

Soft power is looking good so far.

(Backed up by hard power, carrier to Arabian Sea.)

I hope the carrier group missile defense systems are up to snuff.

That continues to worry me. The Chinese and Iran have close ties.

http://the-diplomat.com/china-power/...arrier-killer/

I think they should send another carrier group in addition to the one already in the area, just as back up.

already on their way, I would suspect.

That would be extremely bold of China plus I don't think it is in their best interest. I understand the importance of Iranian gas and oil to China, which explains most of their actions, but I really doubt they would arm Iran with something so powerful because of the repercussions.

Basically, if Iran did use one of those on a US aircraft carrier, it is all-out-war and Iran would lose. Hard. If that happens then no one is getting Iranian gas and oil. China's "loyalty" to Iran is based on Iran's natural resources, not anti-western worldview.

They don't need to actually provide the missile, just the technology as they have done so with the info from Khan and the North Koreans in their nuke program.

Iran has very little ability to produce gas. Hit their refineries and the country would come to a halt in a matter of days.

There continues to be a huge disconnect between Iran's civilian power, military power, and the ruling clerics. That is why it is unstable, unpredictable, and dangerous in it's current form.

That requoted sentence was incorrectly quoted. We know they are concerned. No doubt about it. And no reason to believe otherwise.

Their concern was never in doubt. That quote reposted to subvert reality.

The unknown is what 'they' are willing to do about it. Who 'they' are. And how committed other parties are to those sanctions. We don't even know if and by how much others (ie Russia, Turkmenistan, Pakistan) are onboard. All three questions need be answered.

Military strikes on Iranian refineries would not cause "the country would come to a halt in a matter of days." Those numbers and conclusion are obviously wrong.

UT is 100% on target. Amazing how the most militaristic demonstrate no grasp of basic military concepts. UT has defined how all great powers operate (as opposed to dying powers so ‘George Jr’ and ‘Nixon’ dumb as to waste resources in 'Nam or "Mission Accomplished"). Meanwhile, bad military deployment would have a second carrier enroute to the Gulf. Foolish military deployment would have any carrier task force in the Persian Gulf. Even dumbest are those politicians who advocate a unilateral (Pearl Harbor) attack on Iran with nuclear weapons. Yes, a few that dumb are even trying to become president.

Currently happening is posturing. Rooster huffing up its feathers to intimidate another rooster.

Now, what should concern everyone is 'who in Iran' is actually in power. Again, which "Iran" is capable of converting 'huffed feathers' into action. I still do not see a single post that says 'who in Iran' has the power. There is no monolithic Iran as so many posts assume.

Just another reason why those with better grasp understand well proven concepts from 2,500 years ago - soft power.

Soft power turns out useful -- especially to one Iranian fishing boat taken over by pirates.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/01/06/wo...s-navy-rescue/

Jumping late in this thread, but I say hit Iran and enable a revolution. Also I would seize oil assets to pay for recent war ependitures. Iran is a major supplier of IED technology, components, and training even to Sunnis.

What if the post-revolution Iranian government is worse than the current? How would the Iranian population react to the US taking over oil assets? How would the world react?

just my thoughts, destabilize iran and affect global terrorism. seize the oil, like we should have in iraq. the more oil we control, the less power the wahhabist have. if we gained control and held southwest asia, we would restore our economy and stabilize most of the world.

you know, i have given this topic much thought...

a chinese hagmoney presents problems that the american hagmoney doesn't.

the way companies and organizations lobby the chinese isn't by lobbying them (there's really no campaign money issues), but by lobbyings others [markets] for them.
in receant years the decline in oversea markets (from china's POV) have allowed them to go nationalistic - favoring chinese companies and organizations over international. this might be temporary setback of the current financial world, but it might also be a sign of what's to come as the chinese economy keeps growing.

say what you will about the US as a police force, if you have money you don't need to be american to finance who gets the vote, and as much as we'd like to think that its evil corporations (and us jews), the reality is that almost everyone in the world has an interest group in washington. and its actually not that expansive to lobby congress at all - policies have being passed for as low as 5 grand.

america makes for a better world police because it actually gets to be controled by everyone in the world.in china, the chinese economy is the only interest that is of anyone's concern.

so... yes, what big sarge said. its not a fair world but it is the lesser evil world.

This strategy may have worked....100 years ago. It won't work today, in my opinion.