Ed Israel/US Attacks Iran /Yet Another Country/Iran

[Ziggurat]

Because it is a religious duty.

Bwahahahahahaha! No.
The mullahs have not hoarded the wealth of Iran because it's a religious duty.

Maybe because they are patriots. Maybe seeking revenge for the deaths of iranian children.

Dude. They just killed more of their own people than we have.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Yes, Iran will ignore Trump, and for obvious reasons:

- twice now, the US has used the pretense of negotiations to launch a sneak attack. That makes any agreement worthless
- Trump never respects anyone who does what he wants. Opposing him is the best way to get what you want, as he will find someone else he can bully
- twice now the US has admitted that it's Israel, not the US that decides what to strike when, so there is no point in negotiations until the US reigns in Netanjahu.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Pentagon is asking Trump to ask Congress for an extra $200 billion to pay for the war on Iran.

To put that into perspective: since the invasion of Crimea up until now, the US has spent $50 billion on Ukraine.

 

[Planigale]

Iran doesn't control the straits. They threaten the straits. That's a major difference. Threatening the strait is enough to keep civilian ships from risking transit, but Iran cannot block the US navy.

There is no air defense on Kharg anymore, and as we've seen with Venezuela, it's not much of an obstacle anyways. Supply, not air defense, is the issue with an airborne assault.

It might not be able to block the USN, but I suspect the USN would lose one or more ships. Mines are pretty effective. You could have a picket of air defence destroyers sitting along the striaght providing cover for mine sweepers and escorts for the amphibious warfare vessels and supply ships. Along with some tugs to tow away any of the destroyers that bumped into each other or a submerged rock, or hit a mine. I don't think it would be as pain free as you think.

Attacking Venezuela came as a surprise, attacking Kharg island won't. A machine gun, or an RPG could be effective against helicopters landing troops. Setting fire to oil would drop visibility, and impair IR vision, causing problems.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Seems Donald doesn't want to risk an American ship in the straits.

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump

Without the U.S.A., NATO IS A PAPER TIGER! They didn’t want to join the fight to stop a Nuclear Powered Iran.
Now that fight is Militarily WON, with very little danger for them, they complain about the high oil prices they are forced to pay, but don’t want to help open the Strait of Hormuz, a simple military maneuver that is the single reason for the high oil prices.
So easy for them to do, with so little risk. COWARDS, and we will REMEMBER!"

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes, Iran will ignore Trump, and for obvious reasons:

- twice now, the US has used the pretense of negotiations to launch a sneak attack. That makes any agreement worthless

Negotiations and agreements are not the same thing, and it's weird that you're treating them as if they were. No agreements were reached in the previous negotiations with Trump. Negotiations which don't reach an agreement might be worthless, but that doesn't mean an agreement is.

- Trump never respects anyone who does what he wants. Opposing him is the best way to get what you want, as he will find someone else he can bully

How's that working for Khamenei?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Trump: "I want to begin by just saying we're doing extremely well in Iran"

https://twitter.com/x/status/2035007557408849960

 

[Andy_Ross]

Trump: "When I mentioned the navy that we just destroyed, I said, 'Are they good ships.' 'Yeah, they're great ships.' Then I said, 'Why didn't we save them? We could've used them ourselves.'"

https://twitter.com/x/status/2035007907918381372

 

[Planigale]

Bwahahahahahaha! No.
The mullahs have not hoarded the wealth of Iran because it's a religious duty.

Dude. They just killed more of their own people than we have.

The US has killed 5,000,000 muslims since 9/11, (admittedly mostly Sunni). Just because the Catholic church is wealthy doesn't mean the clergy are all wealthy, and it certainly doesn't mean people don't believe, if you don't think the back bone of the IRGC aren't commited believers in Islam you are misled. Do you think that the Shia militias in Iraq and Lebannon only fight because they are paid to?

 

[Resume]

 

[Ziggurat]

It might not be able to block the USN, but I suspect the USN would lose one or more ships.

What do you base that on? I don't think we lost a single ship during the 1980's tanker war.

Mines are pretty effective.

If you can lay them. Iran is running out of boats with which to do that. They've reportedly laid a few mines, but not many.

You could have a picket of air defence destroyers sitting along the striaght providing cover for mine sweepers and escorts for the amphibious warfare vessels and supply ships.

You don't need a picket, just an escort. A picket is what you would want to protect civilian shipping because there's too many civilian ships to escort. But there aren't too many naval ships to escort.

Attacking Venezuela came as a surprise, attacking Kharg island won't.

We didn't take out Venezuela's air defense assets beforehand either. We have been taking out Iran's (and specifically Kharg's) air defenses. And the exact timing on an air assault actually would be a surprise.

 

[Ziggurat]

The US has killed 5,000,000 muslims since 9/11

No, we have not. That attribution is the number of dead in the conflict, NOT the number WE killed. And do you really think Iran cares about that? They don't.

(admittedly mostly Sunni).

And Arab. Don't forget the Arab v. Persian angle.

Just because the Catholic church is wealthy doesn't mean the clergy are all wealthy

The mullahs are individually wealthy. Did you not know this?

, and it certainly doesn't mean people don't believe

Were you aware that Iranian people have been attacking mosques? They may believe in Islam, but that doesn't mean they believe in the mullahs.

if you don't think the back bone of the IRGC aren't commited believers in Islam you are misled.

The backbone isn't enough to run a country.

Do you think that the Shia militias in Iraq and Lebannon only fight because they are paid to?

I never said anything about "only". I'm sure they don't fight only because of the pay. But that doesn't mean that the pay isn't still a requirement. I think most US military personnel fight because they believe in protecting our country. But that doesn't mean they'd all keep fighting if we stopped paying them.

 

[Andy_Ross]

.

You don't need a picket, just an escort. A picket is what you would want to protect civilian shipping because there's too many civilian ships to escort. But there aren't too many naval ships to escort.

No, it's a ship placed in a position between your main units and the expected direction of attack by an enemy. It extends radar coverage and disrupts incoming attacks either by interception or becoming a target.
The Destroyer HMS Sheffield was acting as an AA Picket for the Carriers when it was hit by an Excocet missile.

If you are operating in narrow waters or close inshore you have to be prepared to lose ships., there's no manoeuvre space in the Straits.

I don't think the American public would stand for the loss of a ship. Trump would be ◊◊◊◊◊◊.

 

[Ziggurat]

View attachment 69776

Do you think this is peculiar to Americans? It isn't. Most members of the EU parliament can't either.

 

[Ziggurat]

No, it's a ship placed in a position between your main units and the expected direction of attack by an enemy. It extends radar coverage and disrupts incoming attacks either by interception or becoming a target.

Planigale described a picket line, not just a picket as you describe. We don't need a picket line.

 

[jimbob]

Someone doesn't understand how a threat works. The threat of taking Kharg is leverage. Because your logic works both ways: if Iran keeps the straits closed, what incentive do we have to not take Kharg?

Furthermore, if we were to take Kharg, Iran only has no incentive to open the strait IF you assume that Kharg is lost to them forever. Remove that assumption, and Kharg becomes a bargaining chip, and a valuable one at that.

Furthermore, the loss of Kharg makes it harder for Iran to keep the straits closed. The IRCG isn't actually a charity. Its members don't work for free. They have to be paid. And when your ability to keep paying them (including expectations of future pay) gets undercut, your ability to keep commanding them does too.

But why do that? What would capturing Kharg island achieve? It would obviously prevent Iran from using it to load oil onto tankers, but the USN can do that far easier from the Gulf of Oman, without any boots on the ground and without the risk of damaging a facility that Trump will want his future client to have access to (if he forces regime change) or if he decides a modulation of any economic blockade as a tactic.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Negotiations and agreements are not the same thing, and it's weird that you're treating them as if they were. No agreements were reached in the previous negotiations with Trump. Negotiations which don't reach an agreement might be worthless, but that doesn't mean an agreement is.

How's that working for Khamenei?

that was Israel, not the US that managed to kill a really old person with terminal cancer, plus his family and children and grandchildren, with nothing but a massive US supported military - you think that's something to brag about?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Planigale described a picket line, not just a picket as you describe. We don't need a picket line.

Well usually a line of ships would be placed across an anticipated direction of attack or ahead of a fleet. A single ship could only cover a fixed circle of sea.
Although in narrow waters like the Straits a single ship would be able to cover it.
Visual lookout would be the main thing, Radar won't pick up small objects in the water or even sea skimming missiles until they are too close to react to. That's what got Sheffield. Sea skimmers were still a relatively novelty at the time and hadn't been used in combat before. Ironically the Batch Two County Class destroyers and half of the Leander Frigates got Exocet launchers as part of their midlife refit in the late 70s

 

[Ziggurat]

that was Israel, not the US that managed to kill a really old person with terminal cancer, plus his family and children and grandchildren, with nothing but a massive US supported military - you think that's something to brag about?

You seem to have forgotten your own argument. Let me remind you. You said, "Opposing [Trump] is the best way to get what you want, as he will find someone else he can bully." Khamenei opposed Trump. How'd that work out for him? Your response doesn't address my question. This has nothing to do with whether Khamenei's killing was a good thing or a bad thing, who exactly did it, how impressive it was, or what it accomplished. It's entirely a question of whether your own claim is supported by the evidence.

Although to play devil's advocate, I suppose you could argue that Trump DID have to find another mullah to bully since he can't bully Ali Khamenei anymore. Because he's dead. I don't think that's really what you meant, though.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

you, like Trump, think that Countries are just companies run and owned by their nominal leaders - hence the total insanity that was the Maduro abduction.
But Khamenei got absolutely everything he could have ever wanted from Trump: being made a Martyr when it very much looked only recently that he would become a deposed tyrant.

And if Trump wants another Mullah, he better tell Israel - they have vowed to kill anyone with a shot at the top spot, and keep on killing the people Trump wanted as replacement.