Iran 2019

M9Powell

Ad Honorem
Oct 2014
4,451
appalacian Mtns
Which interest is that specifically. Two Saudi and a Norwegian ships were attacked in the gulf. How does that affect US interests?
International free passage through the gulf insures American oil supply. The Iranians have a long history of impeding passage .
 
Mar 2019
1,859
Kansas
International free passage through the gulf insures American oil supply. The Iranians have a long history of impeding passage .
International free passage is none of the US business. Remember that is one of the terms of the Law of the Sea treaty. And the US has been a net exporter of oil for 4 years now.
 

JoanOfArc007

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
3,813
USA
One can only hope. A war between Iran and the USA is in the interest of neither country. However, with historically high inflation rates, high unemployment, and irrational statements by Iran regarding Israel and the U.S., I wouldn't rely on rationality to rule the day, particularly in Iran.
Israel and Saudi Arabia for that matter have a equal opposition to Iran and both countries are attempting to get the US more involved against Iran.

What of the age old lesson of let them settle there matter. US Society and law structure is in a different catagory compared to the strict intolerant system we see from US allies in Saudi and Israel as well as opponents in Iran.
 

pikeshot1600

Ad Honorem
Jul 2009
9,958
@JoanOfArc007,

Per your post #64, Saudi Arabia and Israel have both been US proxies in other cases. Israel has been a potential strategic bridgehead in the M.E. since the Oil Shock of the early 1970s. There have been, and there continue to be, reasons to support and to use both countries.

What may be of concern is that both of those countries "attempting to get the US more involved against Iran" puts the US into a position similar to Germany and Austria-Hungary in WW I. The stronger power became too entangled with the interests of its lesser partner - with no advantage to itself.

The US has less need of the oil from the Gulf. Its trading partners have that need; its potential strategic partners (India in particular) have that need. It is not in the interests of the United States to make war on Iran. In Washington, D.C., there are at the moment reckless and unstable personalities (more than one) who think being seen as the toughest bully is a foreign policy solution to many issues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JoanOfArc007
Mar 2019
1,859
Kansas
Article 43 of the Hague Convention.

Art. 43.The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country

In a nutshell. You break it, you own it.

It was one of the reasons the coalition had to stick around in Iraq so long after the regime had been toppled.
 

pikeshot1600

Ad Honorem
Jul 2009
9,958
Article 43 of the Hague Convention.

Art. 43.The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country

In a nutshell. You break it, you own it.

It was one of the reasons the coalition had to stick around in Iraq so long after the regime had been toppled.
^^ Some persons in D.C. are not so concerned about laws, and about treaties negotiated by others ;). Guys like Mr. Bolton just want to kick butt. And others, like Mr. Cheney, never gave a thought to such mundane considerations in 2003. All he saw was Halliburton's profits going up. I'll say no more.
 

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
13,815
Its a good time for a reminder of a few basic facts

Iran is quite mountainous , contray to Iraq which is very flat....

Iran is quite a large country with some 1.65 mio km2 (roughly 4 times the size of Iraq, 2.5 times the size of Afghanistan, about 20% the size of the US and 3 times the size of France for ww2 reference enthousiasts)

Its also more populous with 81 mio people (vs 38 in Iraq and 35 in Afghanistan)

Contrary to Afghanistan , where the taliban had a number of heavily armed adversaries and local loyalties can relatively easily be bought, Iran is a strong state with no military opposition to speak of....Contrary to Iraq where Saddam and the baas had a very authoritarian approach to government , there are some elements of democracy in Iran, even though its far from ideal... Also Iran has fairly good relations with neighboring Turkey and Pakistan. And it seems very good relations with Iraq

All of this makes a military campaign against Iran a difficult proposition IF one intends to send in any ground troops... If one does NOT intend to send in ground troops then Iran will retain the possibility to close the Hormuz straits (some 70 km wide) by making navigation there too dangerous for slow and vulnerable oil tankers

Sending in ground troops is a risky proposition... The iranian trained hezbollah made a very good showing against the very capable israelis during the 2006 lebanon war, inflicting unexpected level of casualties on the IDF... In defense, in difficult terrain, iranian troops (or some of them at least) will be difficult to deal with. Going to war , without sending in ground troops, is probably not going to achieve much politically speaking (of course there will be a lot of destroyed infrastructure but how does that help ?)





 

Linschoten

Ad Honoris
Aug 2010
16,211
Welsh Marches
You're wasting your time, there is no question of the Americans invading Iran, it would be absurd thing to do in just about every way.
 

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
13,815
The Iranian Army: Tasks and Capabilities

A bit dated (8 years old)...... However, not much has changed since then...

In short the army's equipment is inadequate and makes it unfit for offensive warfare. Numbers are not that impressive given Iran's long borders and large territory....