Iran

Junkyard Tom

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

It was such a waste of plywood!

But sure, propaganda has its value.

Perhaps they were inspired by one of the US's own war games, set in the Persian Gulf, where the bad guys were commanded by retired US Marine Corps Lieutenant General Paul K. Van Riper who adopted an asymmetric strategy.

Unfortunately for the US Navy Gen. Van Riper, in a preemptive strike, managed to launch a 'massive salvo of cruise missiles that destroyed sixteen warships ... An equivalent success in a real conflict would have resulted in the deaths of over 20,000 service personnel'.

Source.

AbusesToilets

It would be interesting to hear what the legal angle the US would claim to operate under if it enacted a blockade and intercepted the Iranian vessels. Are they official Iranian Naval ships or merely flagged in Iran?

IrishTrajan

Gatling wrote: »

You have miss read this .
The only reason Russia is selling the SS300 system has nothing to do with Ukraine or Russia 's actions in Ukraine,
Iran has been on the list to get the S300 missles for 3/4 years at least .
Any how this is aimed at the Arab coalition currently bombing Iranian sponsored groups in Yemen .
Here 's the kicker this may piss off the Israelis to a degree ,
But Iran hasnt taken a delivery of any S300's and seem how well versed the Israeli special forces are at finding and stopping weapons shipments around the globe I'd wouldn't be at all suprised if they ended up been put on display in tel aviv at some stage.
With the added bonus of an Israeli /Saudi group working on an Iran solution pretty soon

Considering the U.S. has an aircraft carrier heading into the Gulf to stop Iran from shipping weapons to the Houthi, I don't think this will make much of a difference.

On topic:

Some S300 variants outperform the US Patriots, but they're quite unlikely to be of any use against US or Israeli strikes. The S300 was originally built in the late 70s, and the U.S. now has F22s in operation, with F35s close behind.

The Israelis have been told by the US quite a few times "don't do it, if it needs to be done, we'll do it" and I don't think the Israelis are stupid enough to try and pull it off themselves.

The US could rip the Iranian Air Force and Air Defences to shreds, and with their Carrier Group that operates in the Gulf capable of getting close to Iran's shores when Israel would need to leap frog to friendly countries (I believe there was talk of them going over the Med to Turkey and Azerbaijan where they'd base their strikes from) makes it more likely that Israel will let the US do it.


I genuinely hope Iran doesn't get nuclear weapons, and that if they do attempt to acquire them, the West turns their enrichment facilities into rubble.

IrishTrajan

Junkyard Cat wrote: »

Perhaps they were inspired by one of the US's own war games, set in the Persian Gulf, where the bad guys were commanded by retired US Marine Corps Lieutenant General Paul K. Van Riper who adopted an asymmetric strategy.

Unfortunately for the US Navy Gen. Van Riper, in a preemptive strike, managed to launch a 'massive salvo of cruise missiles that destroyed sixteen warships ... An equivalent success in a real conflict would have resulted in the deaths of over 20,000 service personnel'.

Source.

If I recall correctly, the AEGIS platform allows for integrated carrier defences, whereas previously each ship had to analyze and defend from threats itself. I might be wrong.

IrishTrajan

Gringo180 wrote: »

They haven't threatened, but have done so. I dont see Palestine anywhere on the atlas.

Did you know that Palestine started the conflict on several occasions? That Israel coming out of the Gaza strip is the first "real" Palestine, since it was Jordan who occupied the West Bank up until 1967?

El_Duderino 09

I know the Iranians are criticised for arming one side or another in these conflicts but that's exactly what any regional power would do.

Imagine if Iran invaded Mexico and Peru on the pretence of self defense. After that more civil wars break out in central and south America and Iran was openly helping one side or the other. Would anyone fault the US for getting involved in those wars? It would be completely reasonable to try to influence the outcome of a war in your geopolitical neighbourhood.

With that said I don't trust the Iranian leadership. I understand that Iran has a large and educated middle class so I have to think that comfort and stability is important to those people in the medium term. It's not like Pakistan with millions of unemployed fighting age men with no education and no prospects.

It's worrying that they are getting this defence system alongside the nuclear weapon. I hope diplomacy prevails.

IrishTrajan

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It's worrying that they are getting this defence system alongside the nuclear weapon. I hope diplomacy prevails.

They're not getting it alongside a nuclear weapon. The deal is, I believe, that Iran will halt its enrichment program for ten years in return for sanctions being lifted. If they attempt enriching, I presume they'll be sanctioned again.

The S300 isn't the most terrifying of defence systems, either. A significant boost to their current inventory, yes, but the Russians are already working on the S500 and have S400s in stock, so it's not exactly top of the line stuff.

BoJack Horseman

Junkyard Cat wrote: »

Perhaps they were inspired by one of the US's own war games, set in the Persian Gulf, where the bad guys were commanded by retired US Marine Corps Lieutenant General Paul K. Van Riper who adopted an asymmetric strategy.

Unfortunately for the US Navy Gen. Van Riper, in a preemptive strike, managed to launch a 'massive salvo of cruise missiles that destroyed sixteen warships ... An equivalent success in a real conflict would have resulted in the deaths of over 20,000 service personnel'.

Source.

What a useless war game!

Hell, the Irish navy could cause significant damage to the US navy if the US navy deliberately sat there doing nothing & awaiting death!

At approximately the same time that Red had located Blue forces, operators of the Blue naval simulation were directed incorrectly to turn off all self-defense capabilities by a senior Naval Officer who was not in command of the simulated forces nor current in the scenario. In a preemptive strike, Red launched a massive salvo of cruise missiles that destroyed sixteen warships while the JSAF simulator operators sat and watched without responding defensively or offensively

El_Duderino 09

IrishTrajan wrote: »

They're not getting it alongside a nuclear weapon. The deal is, I believe, that Iran will halt its enrichment program for ten years in return for sanctions being lifted. If they attempt enriching, I presume they'll be sanctioned again.

The S300 isn't the most terrifying of defence systems, either. A significant boost to their current inventory, yes, but the Russians are already working on the S500 and have S400s in stock, so it's not exactly top of the line stuff.

I'll have to defer to you on the technical details. Do you think Iran will honour that agreement and could it be enforced? I mean could they know if Iran were developing the technology in the background?

BoJack Horseman

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I'll have to defer to you on the technical details. Do you think Iran will honour that agreement and could it be enforced? I mean could they know if Iran were developing the technology in the background?

That's the rub.

There is almost zero verification of compliance, there was very little in the past, so past comparison is almost impossible with the IAEA frequently stonewalled.

That's why Israel are apoplectic.
There is no real permanent quid-pro-quo.

Obama's legacy drive will bear bad fruit.


(Courtesy of Washington post)

It was but a year and a half ago that Barack Obama endorsed the objective of abolition when he said that Iran’s heavily fortified Fordow nuclear facility, its plutonium-producing heavy-water reactor and its advanced centrifuges were all unnecessary for a civilian nuclear program. The logic was clear: Since Iran was claiming to be pursuing an exclusively civilian program, these would have to go.

Yet under the deal Obama is now trying to sell, not one of these is to be dismantled. Indeed, Iran’s entire nuclear infrastructure is kept intact, just frozen or repurposed for the length of the deal (about a decade). Thus Fordow’s centrifuges will keep spinning. They will now be fed xenon, zinc and germanium instead of uranium. But that means they remain ready at any time to revert from the world’s most heavily (indeed comically) fortified medical isotope facility to a bomb-making factory.

And upon the expiration of the deal, conceded Obama Monday on NPR, Iran’s breakout time to a nuclear bomb will be “almost down to zero,” i.e., it will be able to produce nuclear weapons at will and without delay.

And then there’s cheating. Not to worry, says Obama. We have guarantees of compliance: “unprecedented inspections” and “snapback” sanctions.

The inspection promises are a farce. We haven’t even held the Iranians to their current obligation to come clean with the International Atomic Energy Agency on their previous nuclear activities. The IAEA charges Iran with stonewalling on 11 of 12 issues.

The IAEA hasn’t been allowed to see the Parchin weaponization facility in 10 years. And the massive Fordow complex was disclosed not by the IAEA but by Iranian dissidents.

Nodin

Gatling wrote: »

This is true to a degree .
The US special forces carried out multiple operations against iranian naval forces in the same period .
In saying that Iran recently carried out a mock battle against a balsa wood minture carrier off its coast a few weeks back showing small craft apparently over whelming the mock carrier before it was sank .
What good it actually did the Iranians I don't know.
But a full carrier group against a handful of fast boats will be a disaster

Well, it does show they're no slackers in the optimism department.

karma_

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

What a useless war game!

Hell, the Irish navy could cause significant damage to the US navy if the US navy deliberately sat there doing nothing & awaiting death!

Perhaps not as useless as you might imagine. The US a few years ago ran a wargame and one of their very talented generals used this among other less conventional methods to win for red team.

Junkyard Tom

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Obama's legacy drive will bear bad fruit.
(Courtesy of Washington post)

Using an opinion piece by pro-Israel, neoconservative Charles Krauthammer?

I guess we should now introduce opinion pieces by a neoconservative Iranian apparatchiks for balance.

Better to attempt to stick to facts than using doom-mongering as a pretext for another military disaster based on the opinions of discredited neocon losers.

BoJack Horseman

Junkyard Cat wrote: »

Better to attempt to stick to facts than using doom-mongering as a pretext for another military disaster based on the opinions of discredited neocon losers.

You can hate on the hammer if you like.

But instead, demonstrate his innacuracy?

You seem certain its thin on facts, please demonstrate how....

Link is here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-iran-deal-anatomy-of-a-disaster/2015/04/09/11bdf9ee-dee7-11e4-a1b8-2ed88bc190d2_story.html

Junkyard Tom

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

You seem certain its thin on facts, please demonstrate how....

It is not the job of others to refute every random opinion that can be dug up. You'd first have to provide evidence that there are any facts at all in the opinion piece for there to be something to be demonstrated wrong.

If you'd like to take the time to check the veracity of Krauthammer's opinions* and return to the discussion with them then feel free.

*inasmuch as neocon prophesying can be posthumously proved to be anything other than the usual WMD doom-mongering that was used to underpin the Iraq invasion in 2003.

Gringo180

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Did you know that Palestine started the conflict on several occasions? That Israel coming out of the Gaza strip is the first "real" Palestine, since it was Jordan who occupied the West Bank up until 1967?

You have just contradicted yourself in your first two sentences.

According to the U.N and international law, the West Bank belongs to the Palestinians along with East Jerusalem as its capital.

Dannyboy83

hfallada wrote: »

I think Israel is ****ting it financial. If Iran makes peace with the US. Its basically peace in the Middle, bar ISIS and the Syrian Civil war. But if Iran enters the 21st Century and becomes a more normal country. Plus there is a huge push within Europe to put an end to the Palestine-Israeli Issue. If Palestine becomes a legit country, which I think is actually years away for once.

I think you can see Israel very nervous, as the endless US money might become tight. Plus all the special Israel US deals on trade/Emigration might be scaled back. When few countries have a favourable opinion about your country and its goods, your economy is extremely fragile.

I have the feeling that if the Iranian thaw had come at the start of Obama's first term, and it had 8 years to solidify, it could hold, or at least be harder to reverse.
But from the limited commentary I've read, they don't seem optimistic about the survival of the US/Cuban thaw, given the the current presidential contenders, i.e. Hillary the Hawk or a Republican Hawk, which I assume makes the US/Iranian prospects even more remote?

El_Duderino 09

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

That's the rub.

There is almost zero verification of compliance, there was very little in the past, so past comparison is almost impossible with the IAEA frequently stonewalled.

That's why Israel are apoplectic.
There is no real permanent quid-pro-quo.

Obama's legacy drive will bear bad fruit.

I'm not having a go at your opinion but when I read 'here's the rub' I think Fox News is involved in the opinion formation process.

Obama got Iran and the US back on speaking terms. The last few presidents have just told Iran they are very naughty boys. I imagined George Bush as Scrappy Doo, saying 'let me at them uncle Scrooby!' All the while Iran were building their nuclear technology.

The idea that this can be all Obama's fault is fairly silly since he's the first one to actually lift the lid and see what's inside.

BoJack Horseman

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I'm not having a go at your opinion but when I read 'here's the rub' I think Fox News is involved in the opinion formation process.

Obama got Iran and the US back on speaking terms. The last few presidents have just told Iran they are very naughty boys. I imagined George Bush as Scrappy Doo, saying 'let me at them uncle Scrooby!' All the while Iran were building their nuclear technology.

The idea that this can be all Obama's fault is fairly silly since he's the first one to actually lift the lid and see what's inside.

What was innacurate about my post?

El_Duderino 09

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

What was innacurate about my post?

I didn't say there was anything inaccurate about it.

The Krauthaumer article which follows is a unlikely to add credibility to anything as it's an attack on a particular person rather than an assessment of the situation. It could be accurate but accuracy would be a happy coincidence to the author. CK, not yourself

BoJack Horseman

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I didn't say there was anything inaccurate about it.

So why criticise it?

The Iran nonproliferation deal may be a good one, time will tell, but I'm sceptical at best.

The reasons for pessimism are there, if they are innacurate then demonstrate how.

El_Duderino 09

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

So why criticise it?

The Iran nonproliferation deal may be a good one, time will tell, but I'm sceptical at best.

The reasons for pessimism are there, if they are innacurate then demonstrate how.

Reading the article it becomes clear that it's about criticising an individual. The author has an agenda which is separate from simply giving an honest account of the facts. Credibility of the author would be a problem for me. It might be accurate but I'll reserve judgement for now.

Iran getting a nuclear weapon might be inevitable. They developed the technology while the last president lobed insults at them from the white house. The current one made a deal which they might use as a shield to continue developing the technology.

We both agree that there's no way to know whether the old approach or the new one is better. The fact that we don't have enough information to make an informed decision didn't stop CK writing an attack piece on Obama. That's my issue and I'll continue gathering information for now

BoJack Horseman

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It might be accurate

But you dismiss it because he's politically different from you.

How closed minded.

I'd love to see some Obama supporter give a convincing argument that the word of an Islamic fundamentalist dictatorship can be trusted.... For all our sakes.... However this "deal" (which no one has yet signed) seems like a giveaway.

El_Duderino 09

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

But you dismiss it because he's politically different from you.

How closed minded.

Ah just reread the posts. We both agree it's too early to tell but CK has decided based on what? I'm not even accusing you of closed mindedness. CK would never write a positive article about Obama because it doesn't suit his agenda. For that reason he's an unreliable source not necessarily wrong.

Do you understand what I'm saying?

El_Duderino 09

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

I'd love to see some Obama supporter give a convincing argument that the word of an Islamic fundamentalist dictatorship can be trusted.... For all our sakes.... However this "deal" (which no one has yet signed) seems like a giveaway.

Are you classing me as an Obama supporter based on what I've said in this thread?

Junkyard Tom

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

I'd love to see some Obama supporter give a convincing argument that the word of an Islamic fundamentalist dictatorship can be trusted....

Your partisanship is clear to see. I'm not an Obama supporter. Afaic he's little more than 'republican lite'. Also, this agreement and talks are happening because of a multiplicity of reasons and not because Obama says so.

Regardless, the current talks, if an agreement is to be concluded, include comprehensive monitoring of the Iranian nuclear programme.

Back to the neocon opinion pieces with you.

BoJack Horseman

Junkyard Cat wrote: »

Your partisanship is clear to see.

I'm an Obama supporter(for the most part)
I didn't vote for him, but my wife & in-laws all did..... I'm wondering why the views of a republican columnist are dismissed as flim-flam.... While refusing to even consider the columnists accuracy!

I'm not an Obama supporter.

Good for you.

if an agreement is to be concluded, include comprehensive monitoring of the Iranian nuclear programme.

Says who?

The 2006 UN resolution failed in its efforts to have full inspection access.
What proof do you have that the Ayatollah has changed his mind?

Back to the neocon opinion pieces with you.

If you can summon the wit (big if), demonstrate your confidence in the Ayatollah's honesty for this deal rather than being bitchy.

El_Duderino 09

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

I'm an Obama supporter(for the most part)
I'm wondering why the views of a republican columnist are dismissed as flim-flam.... While refusing to even consider the columnists accuracy!

I'm wondering why you're still wondering. It's been explained to you a fair few times. I'll give it another go.

Charles Krauthammer writes articles exclusively with an anti-Obama agenda. He's not concerned with giving an impartial overview of the facts. I want an impartial overview of the facts therefore CK is an untrustworthy source of the kind of information I'm looking for.

CK's opposite number who would write from an exclusvely pro-Obama perspective, would be dismissed as an equally untrustworthy source.

Do you understand the reason yet?

Junkyard Tom

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

What proof do you have that the Ayatollah has changed his mind?

Em.. what exactly is it you are seeking to be (dis)proven? Be specific.

If you can summon the wit (big if), demonstrate your confidence in the Ayatollah's honesty for this deal rather than being bitchy.

Please explain to me how anyone on this planet can prove or disprove the honesty, or otherwise, of individuals who've yet to act.

Gatling

US cargo ship has sent out an urgent mayday after coming under fire from an Iranian naval patrol vessel in the strait of hormuz demanding the cargo ship sails into Iranian waters ,
US Navy is responding more to follow