How do we handle Iran?
- Thread starter BradStevens
- Start date
How do you deal with your kids bully in the school yard, who has proven will kill your kids friends? Or basically anyone, and influence others to do the same. How do you deal with that little punk?
I think the answer is tied up in our long-term view of how we want to engage the middle east going forward. Strictly speaking, we don't have to handle anything, ourselves, if we don't want. If we want to draw down our presence in the region, we could do that. We could make sure allies such as Israel and Saudi Arabia have the material and intelligence support necessary to deal with Iran. We can let the Turks and Russians figure out Syria. Etc.
If that's not our vision for our future in the region, if we're going to keep our own troops and our own assets in the area, then I don't see any way we go forward without taking a much tougher line on Iran, and that tougher line is going to have to include military action.
I think the big question isn't going to be whether or not we strike. I think the big question now is going to be the nature of the strike. Is it something surgical and precise, a "fair" punishment for their transgressions? Or is it something more along the lines of "shock and awe?"
- push Israel into developing a realistic, achievable plan for its security in post 10/7 world -- gotta have something you can sell to the rest of our friends in the region; if it's not statehood, then sell them on a doable alternative
- ask Saudia Arabia for same on Yemen -- ME forever wars no longer serve US interests. end of story
- with casus belli kaput, box Iran into a mini-cold war via limited but decisive direct action and amplified support of allies
- this would ideally be part of a broader post-ukraine effort to box Russia in
- push the EU to accept Turkey; work for moderate leadership post-erdogan
@Aloha Hoosier has suggested in the past that it's long past time to "destroy" the Iranian navy. I assume he means something along the lines of this:
1. We have the capability of completely destroying their navy.
2. We give them notice that we can do that, and in fact intend to. Give them a chance to evacuate sailors. Hell, if we're sure they can't do anything about it, even tell them the date and time.
3. We prove we weren't kidding by literally sinking everything with an Iranian flag. Make them start over with fishing boats.
But I would like to hear Aloha flesh it out in more detail in his own words.
1. We have the capability of completely destroying their navy.
2. We give them notice that we can do that, and in fact intend to. Give them a chance to evacuate sailors. Hell, if we're sure they can't do anything about it, even tell them the date and time.
3. We prove we weren't kidding by literally sinking everything with an Iranian flag. Make them start over with fishing boats.
But I would like to hear Aloha flesh it out in more detail in his own words.
”Iran’s actions have forced the United States to change its position with regard to Iran. We have tried to treat them like a civilized government. They have refused to act accordingly. We will now pursue regime change, and if they attack Israel or participate in one, we will advance to immediate regime change.”
Then sink a ship. Then assassinate a mullah.
Then sink a ship. Then assassinate a mullah.
Yes, we can do all that. We know nearly 100 percent of the time where the ships are. Usually most are in port. We can hit all of them with sea and air launched cruise missiles from outside their defensive missile ranges. Launch simultaneously with surveillance aircraft monitoring situation real time. Launch second attack to destroy any ships not destroyed in first strike. Destroy air defense sites near enough to be a concern then do clean up air strikes if necessary. Destroying air defense sites would be part of first strike. They have a sub or two we might have to track down if not in port. We have the Navy and Air Force power near enough to do all this,
Was I right about warning them first? Like, we have the capability of telling them what's coming and they still can't do anything about it? Because if we can, that's not only badass, but it's a lot more gracious than killing a bunch of sailors who aren't really to blame.
That was what I think we should do just to minimize their deaths and also to send the message there's nothing they can do about it. I'd also tell them if they get their ships underway and try to leave port, they'd immediately be destroyed. More people dead, but also sends the message that it's hopeless.
I think you're spot on. I think in my post above, if we decide to stay in the region, we need to go with shock and awe instead of surgical and precise, and this is exactly the kind of shock and awe we should do, because it flexes maximum muscle while minimizing unnecessary death.
Side note: we also need to start getting into questions of presidential authority. What Aloha and I are discussing right now might not technically be constitutional without a declaration of war or a very specific grant of authority from Congress.
Then occupy their ports and cut off all exports, starving them out.
Maybe. We do have the right of self defense and could strike them now without a declaration of war. Might able to do all the warnings indirectly. Not as dramatic though. I’m not a diplomat and I think Iran is long overdue for a serious military setback.
Now N Korea is shooting shit off. My god. Is our military any better than the cdc? NIH? Might not be a bad idea to revisit diplomacy by way of the worm. Send him over there to distract them again
There probably won’t be strikes on Iran itself, though I really hope I’m wrong on that.
This is the serious thread. Don't be stupid.
It needs to be on Iran directly, accompanied by a warning that more is coming if the Houthis persist in the Red Sea or with any further attacks by Iranian surrogates on US personnel.
The 6 tankers hold out hope that this retaliation will include Houthi targets as well as targets in Syria to emphasize that we consider all Iranian proxies to be the same.
Ideally, we’d blast the Iranian spy ship in the Gulf of Aden, but that ain’t happening.
I think Iran is goading the US into a strike to justify another terrorist act they have planned. Could be via the terrorists they've snuck across our southern border.
Dirty nuke? 10/7-style assaults on schools and hospitals?
Before we do anything, we need to harden some targets, because I think the Iranians have plans after any strike on their homeland. That's not a reason not to do it, but our national guards and police better be on high alert. And if the FBI is tracking anyone on the watch list, they need to be rounded up.
Dirty nuke? 10/7-style assaults on schools and hospitals?
Before we do anything, we need to harden some targets, because I think the Iranians have plans after any strike on their homeland. That's not a reason not to do it, but our national guards and police better be on high alert. And if the FBI is tracking anyone on the watch list, they need to be rounded up.
Reinstate the sanctions that were enforced under Trump and which are still in place though not enforced under our current regime. Iran was completely broke under Trumps enforcement but prospers and funds their tribes with the money we should be denying. I'd destroy a LOT of their military/industrial/terrorist operations as well beginning with all their command and control centers. Iran is nothing without oil sold so, remove their ability to sell it completely. The plan is pretty easy to implement unless the goal is to appease the world's largest supporter of terrorism.
They were pretty quick to deny responsibility.
Iran denies role in deadly drone attack on U.S. troops in Jordan as Iran-backed group claims strikes nearby
Iran denies any role in the deadly attack on U.S. troops in Jordan, but an Iranian proxy group says it targeted U.S. troops nearby.
www.cbsnews.com
Did you miss the part of Iranian proxy group taking responsibility?They were pretty quick to deny responsibility.
Iran denies role in deadly drone attack on U.S. troops in Jordan as Iran-backed group claims strikes nearby
Iran denies any role in the deadly attack on U.S. troops in Jordan, but an Iranian proxy group says it targeted U.S. troops nearby.
No. I'm just wondering why they bother with the denial if they are trying to provoke a response.
I highly doubt Iran has plans for attacks on US soil. they know that would bring a 9/11-type response. that would run counter to their goal of being a player in the ME.
Because they won't come right out and say it. They want to look like the victims when we strike back.
How many Iranian-sponsored terrorists do you think have walked in across the open southern border?
none. if Iran was going to go through all the trouble and risk to get terrorists into the country, then they aren't going to drop them in northern Mexico and tell them to walk north.
but Iran isn't going to do that. again, doesn't serve their purpose. they don't want the US motivated to a degree that we actually invade Iran. they want the pot to simmer just enough for them to gain influence in the ME, gain partners, foster radicalism.
Why not just drop them in Canada and walk south?
Given the record breaking number of apprehensions on the southern border, I would say the fearmongering is overblown.
Most experts think the number of encounters at the southern border is a better proxy for how many are crossing than it is for how many we are stopping. So this argument you keep making didn't really do much. It also has nothing to do with Iran.
Similar threads
