Options limited in Iran stand-off - Page 2

elSicomoro · 03-29-2007, 08:41 AM

That's getting a lot of press with the 25th anniversary of the war coming up.

tw · 03-29-2007, 11:09 PM

I was waiting for anyone to post what should have been obvious. First, Iran is not monolithic. It should have been obvious from details - even Iranians are infighting about what to do with these 15 Brits. Good reason to believe this was a minority response to point two.

Those in power who saw this could use it to settle early. But then we have 'big dic' attitude (ie Cheney) where the neighborhood bully must get what he wants. Upper are what strategic thinkers see. Lower 'big dics' can only see tactically and have no idea that their attitude only makes things worse.

Strategically, this trivial problem will go away with time. But if 'big dics' are not aggressively quashed, then this problem will fester.

Want to see how this plays out? Remember a silly spy plane incident? What happened once the 'big dics' were silenced? It took months because the 'big dics' in America started saber rattling.

Second, do you think this incident is isolated? Remember, the US kidnapped some Iranians who were invited into Iraq by Iraqi's government to setup what eventually was to be an emissary office (ie where Kurds can get Iranian visas). You may have forgotten them because Rush Limbaugh types were not promoting hate for their release. Iran has not forgotten their hostages held by America. Iran now has hostages to get their hostages released. This was going to happen because of American attitudes. A hostage trade that may eventually happen once the 'big dics' are held quiet long enough and so that you have forgotten about these hostages.

But again, this is really a non-event where people see a bigger picture (a strategic perspective) and saw the foolishness of America kidnapping those Iranian diplomats.

glatt · 03-30-2007, 07:50 AM

I heard this story on the radio this morning, nothing much new was said, and then the announcer said almost offhandedly that the US has sent two aircraft carrier groups into the gulf in response to this. Are there even two aircraft carrier groups in the region?

glatt · 03-30-2007, 07:57 AM

And after doing a quick google news search, I see that there are now 2 US carriers in the gulf, and a third is on its way to relieve one. There's also a French carrier there. The headlines of the mideast papers showing up in google news ask questions like, "will the US launch its attack on Iran when the 4th carrier arrives in the region?"

Griff · 03-30-2007, 08:21 AM

Yep, a nut couldn't hardly fire a missile without hitting something, something big, expensive, and flying a flag.

When Bush invaded Iraq it suited his and bin Laden's interests. It suits Ahmadinejad's interests to crank up the East / West tension to keep his people in line and I suppose the neo-cons want a mushroom cloud as well.

tw · 03-30-2007, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glatt

And after doing a quick google news search, I see that there are now 2 US carriers in the gulf, and a third is on its way to relieve one. There's also a French carrier there.

Posted in What are we doing in Iraq?.

Meanwhile an Aircraft carrier task force is really quite impotent. Its more about hype. Its attack abilities without air tanker support (land bases) is short. Its influence is mostly emotional hype - little actual destructive power. Therefore the target must be small and especially important.

elSicomoro · 03-30-2007, 08:23 AM

But notice that Mahmoud has not been running his mouth at all during this stand-off.

Griff · 03-30-2007, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sycamore

But notice that Mahmoud has not been running his mouth at all during this stand-off.

Has he figured out that our nuts are as crazy as his nuts?

elSicomoro · 03-30-2007, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Griff

Has he figured out that our nuts are as crazy as his nuts?

I think I was reading about this on the BBC yesterday. I think the Ayatollah knows that he has to keep Mahmoud muzzled for now to prevent a full-scale blow up. Deep down, I think they're afraid that the Americans/British will whoop their asses and so they're trying to be somewhat civil.

TheMercenary · 03-30-2007, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sycamore

I think I was reading about this on the BBC yesterday. I think the Ayatollah knows that he has to keep Mahmoud muzzled for now to prevent a full-scale blow up. Deep down, I think they're afraid that the Americans/British will whoop their asses and so they're trying to be somewhat civil.

Yea, I read that too, here is the link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6507451.stm

President missing

Iran officially says there is no connection between the detention of the British personnel and its own grievances.

But some hardline elements make a link between their release and other issues.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has faced domestic criticism
The Iranian authorities themselves are under mounting pressure domestically to ensure the release of the five Iranians held by the US military in Iraq, and hardliners are arguing that any release of the British sailors should be conditional on the release of the Iranians.

Noticeable by his absence in all this is Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

From the Iranian side, the crisis has been managed by the country's Supreme National Security Council, the highest body dealing with such important matters.

Its decisions are approved by Ayatollah Khamenei, and all senior officials take part in its meetings.

President Ahmadinejad's silence may suggest that the clerical leadership is deliberately keeping him out of this matter in order to ensure that situation is not inflamed by his usual hardline rhetoric.

glatt · 03-30-2007, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Griff

Yep, a nut couldn't hardly fire a missile without hitting something, something big, expensive, and flying a flag.

Reminds me of a line from Hunt For Red October "Your aircraft have dropped enough sonar buoys so that a man could walk from Greenland to Iceland to Scotland without getting his feet wet..."

I'd love to see a high res picture of the gulf once 4 carrier groups are packed into it. Not to mention the commercial traffic and other military vessels.

Here's the Abraham Lincoln battle group during exercises in 2000.

DanaC · 03-30-2007, 10:36 AM

I really think this is one of those times when diplomacy, rather than the threat of force, has more chance of resolving the issue.

glatt · 03-30-2007, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanaC

I really think this is one of those times when diplomacy, rather than the threat of force, has more chance of resolving the issue.

Good thing the Bush administration has placed such an emphasis on diplomacy and has assembled such a large group of skilled diplomats it can choose from.

DanaC · 03-30-2007, 10:47 AM

Well quite.

TheMercenary · 03-30-2007, 08:19 PM

http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...605487,00.html

03-30-2007, 08:21 AM	#5
Griff still says videotape Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 26,813	Yep, a nut couldn't hardly fire a missile without hitting something, something big, expensive, and flying a flag. When Bush invaded Iraq it suited his and bin Laden's interests. It suits Ahmadinejad's interests to crank up the East / West tension to keep his people in line and I suppose the neo-cons want a mushroom cloud as well. __________________ If you would only recognize that life is hard, things would be so much easier for you. - Louis D. Brandeis

03-30-2007, 08:19 PM	#15
TheMercenary “Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo” Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Savannah, Georgia Posts: 21,393	http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...605487,00.html __________________ Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!

03-29-2007, 08:41 AM	#1
elSicomoro Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 12,486	That's getting a lot of press with the 25th anniversary of the war coming up.

03-29-2007, 11:09 PM	#2
tw Read? I only know how to write. Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 11,933	I was waiting for anyone to post what should have been obvious. First, Iran is not monolithic. It should have been obvious from details - even Iranians are infighting about what to do with these 15 Brits. Good reason to believe this was a minority response to point two. Those in power who saw this could use it to settle early. But then we have 'big dic' attitude (ie Cheney) where the neighborhood bully must get what he wants. Upper are what strategic thinkers see. Lower 'big dics' can only see tactically and have no idea that their attitude only makes things worse. Strategically, this trivial problem will go away with time. But if 'big dics' are not aggressively quashed, then this problem will fester. Want to see how this plays out? Remember a silly spy plane incident? What happened once the 'big dics' were silenced? It took months because the 'big dics' in America started saber rattling. Second, do you think this incident is isolated? Remember, the US kidnapped some Iranians who were invited into Iraq by Iraqi's government to setup what eventually was to be an emissary office (ie where Kurds can get Iranian visas). You may have forgotten them because Rush Limbaugh types were not promoting hate for their release. Iran has not forgotten their hostages held by America. Iran now has hostages to get their hostages released. This was going to happen because of American attitudes. A hostage trade that may eventually happen once the 'big dics' are held quiet long enough and so that you have forgotten about these hostages. But again, this is really a non-event where people see a bigger picture (a strategic perspective) and saw the foolishness of America kidnapping those Iranian diplomats.

03-30-2007, 07:50 AM	#3
glatt ™ Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Arlington, VA Posts: 27,717	I heard this story on the radio this morning, nothing much new was said, and then the announcer said almost offhandedly that the US has sent two aircraft carrier groups into the gulf in response to this. Are there even two aircraft carrier groups in the region?

03-30-2007, 07:57 AM	#4
glatt ™ Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Arlington, VA Posts: 27,717	And after doing a quick google news search, I see that there are now 2 US carriers in the gulf, and a third is on its way to relieve one. There's also a French carrier there. The headlines of the mideast papers showing up in google news ask questions like, "will the US launch its attack on Iran when the 4th carrier arrives in the region?"

03-30-2007, 08:23 AM	#7
elSicomoro Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 12,486	But notice that Mahmoud has not been running his mouth at all during this stand-off.

03-30-2007, 10:36 AM	#12
DanaC We have to go back, Kate! Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Yorkshire Posts: 25,964	I really think this is one of those times when diplomacy, rather than the threat of force, has more chance of resolving the issue.

03-30-2007, 10:47 AM	#14
DanaC We have to go back, Kate! Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Yorkshire Posts: 25,964	Well quite.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)