Iran: In Trump's Crosshairs

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
82

First of all, the purpose of the Iran Nuclear Deal was to prevent Iran from getting the bomb without having to resort to a full scale military confrontation.

Don’t forget that before negotiations the US engaged in massive intelligence and sabotage efforts to thwart the program and only managed to slow it down, not stop it. So if further nuclear proliferation is a red line, then military action is the only option left on the table.

However, it seems that the regime dispersed the effort in many secure locations and couldn’t be taken out with a surgical strike like the Israelis took out Saddam’s nuclear reactor. So if a limited military action was viable, Obama would have probably taken it. It’s not like he was shy when it came to involving US troops in foreign wars.

Which brings us to the second problem - full scale military engagement. Beside the fact that there ten times more Iranians than Iraqis, the former can and will fight. In the Iraq-Iran war Saddam couldn’t defeat the new regime at it’s weakest, despite having the best equipped Arab army and liberally using chemical warfare agents against human waves of Iranian fanatics.

Although Iranians proper are not that effective on foreign soil - the regime had to resort to press ganging Afghan migrants as cannon fodder in Syria to save as much as possible precious Revolutionary Guardsmen - when it comes to fighting on home turf the fanaticism dial is turned to eleven, using both religious fervor and the rich history of an empire that used a captured Roman Emperor as a living stool.

Even the most ardent opponents of the regime in Iran lose their shit on the anniversary of the battle of Khorramshahr in which a vastly outnumbered detachment of Iranian marines, soldiers and policemen held off two Iraqi armored divisions, destroying hundreds of tanks.

So any military action would result in a quagmire of all quagmires because unlike Iraq and Syria you couldn’t recruit an oppressed ethnic minority to help in the fighting.

In that sense, the Deal was a triumph of diplomacy, especially when the US and allies had to deal with a culture pathologically obsessed with the loss of face and under constant pressure from hardliners who were itching for the final reckoning with the Saudis.

Sure, nasty compromised were made, including turning a blind eye to Hezbollah money laundering and arms trafficking schemes, among other things but it was the best deal available and per IAEA Iran was respecting it until Trump unilaterally withdrew from it

3 Likes
83

First of all…thanks (as always) for the summary, @loppar, and for your insights @Legalsteel (i.e. having congressional backing vs. not).

That was the point I was trying to make, @loppar. International agreements are messy, with often terrible compromises that may effect whole nations of peoples. If someone expects them to be neat and clean, with everyone singing Kumbaya when they are signed…then Welcome to our Messy World.

For me; Trump’s motivation is what it’s been since before he officially announced his run for President; erase anything and everything remotely related to President Obama, and to set himself up to be the greatest President ever.

The man has a gutted State Department…and I don’t think the man could negotiate a treaty if his Life depended on it.

84

I was originally against the Deal, although I changed my stance in no small part due to loppar’s excellent arguments (as well as others). I still had major concerns after the fact, but this is one of the more horrible unintended consequences of backing out. Encouraging the closest things Iran has to secular and moderate factions (granted, they don’t really fit either definition as we see it in the west) would have been helpful.

85

Didn’t the treacherous Persians bust a peace-deal with Valerian way back when?

86

Correct me if I’m wrong, @loppar…

But this was another loss. The “Iran Deal” involved more than just the United States. There were agreements made with Iran and other countries. My understanding is that other countries are trying to keep parts of the agreement intact; but that it has become almost impossible without the support of the main player, the United States.

87

Yeah they did, but glory seeking Roman aristocrats - first consuls then emperors - were often starting wars against Persia for the sake of glory and conquest, including Crassus. Interestingly, Persia’s geopolitical aims haven’t changed in 2300 years - a land bridge to the Mediterranean.

It has also other long term consequences - how will any future potentially belligerent state actor sign any kind of a written deal with the US, knowing that it can been ripped up when the White House occupant changes.

Hyper partisanship in US politics has long term negative consequences not only by involving other nations in domestic squabbles (see Ukraine) but also reducing the impact of US foreign policy. Why bother with pleasing the US when the new administration will not honor existing obligations by default?

3 Likes
88

Thoughts?

89

@Legalsteel:

Good article…but one HUGE assumption that always bothers me.

That somehow you can push these regimes to some economic “breaking point” and they will capitulate to your will.

Also; look at the economic, social, military…you name it…bloodbath that Syria was. Was there ever a capitulation? Are people as proud as the Persians going to capitulate?

Contain; maybe.
Bend them to our will because we were “tough” economically?

Highly doubtful. (IMO).

@loppar?

2 Likes
90

Short answer - no. Especially since around half of the population saw the Nuclear Deal as capitulation.

The problem is that I could see the Iranians gnawing their teeth and asking to have a go at a country that, despite being labeled a “regional power” which spends billions upon billions on expensive hardware doesn’t have a functioning army.

You know, “if we’re going down let’s take the Saudis down with us” mentality.

1 Like
91

The bombing of the Saudi oil fields just seems fishy to me.

92

To me too, @FrozenNinja.

Maybe its just me; but it is more likely to me that the Saudi’s are trying to instigate conflict between us and Iran.

Ask yourself this question; who would benefit the most from some targeted B-1 , F-35 and Cruise Missile strikes on Iranian targets?

93

Boeing, Northrap Gruman and OPEC prices?

1 Like
94

And Saudia Arabia.

1 Like
95

Nothing quite says war on terror quite like coming to the rescue of the sponsors of 9/11 because another terror sponsoring country is being mean to them.

Hail the war hawks that is the GOP. May we never see a time without an active war again!

3 Likes
96

The most ridiculous part is how the official reason for the US alliance with Saudi Arabia is that they’re a “regional power”.

Yet this “regional power”, despite having spent tens of billions on US hardware has virtually no functioning army units as the fight against literally barefoot Houthis had to be outsourced to Sudanese child soldiers for the tune of one billion a year.

And after what was basically a glorified act of sabotage Saudi Arabia had to ask Trump for US specialists to operate their expensive AA systems. So much for a “regional power”.

2 Likes
97

Question @loppar . Why does the Saudi military suck so much? The Arabian peninsula was home to some pretty violent tribesmen (Muhammed) throughout history. They took everything from the Spanish coast to India from 622-750. They were part of the Ottoman empire for a long time. The military history is there.

The Saudi wahabbist schools turn death-cult determination level fighters that will fight their enemies with bolt action ww2 rifles whilst wearing sandals and not eating. But their citizens don’t want to serve in their own military?

Are they spoiled by the oil money and gone soft?

1 Like
98

They’re arrogant. Above the dirty work. They shop all labor out to non Arabs from around the world.

Like us.

4 Likes
99

Yes, they’re basically a slave society with fat rich Saudis at the top. Also, understand that they have a significant Shiite minority in the country (one quarter or one third of the population, they’re keeping it a secret) living exactly where the oil is and they have to spend significant resources policing and beheading them (35 this summer). The pathetic state of Saudi armed forces was perfectly illustrated with the Najran revolt where at first signs of uprising the scrambled their F-16 and bomber what they were nominally their citizens.

Here’s an old John Dolan article I’ve probably linked a dozen times on here that neatly explains the whole issue:

2 Likes
100

Who eat pork; drink alcohol; and have a thing for Western and Russian Hookers…

101

So how would one apply to become a rich Saudi Sheikh? Asking for a friend.

2 Likes