ADVERTISEMENT

Iran could be in danger of having some warships sunk.

Ronald Reagan’s approach was to make sure the response was more than the anticipated retaliation.
And that’s how it should be. Always. The anticipated response is already baked in to Iran’s calculus here.
 
How much is more than anticipated? And how would you know that?
Well to be accurate, the Anticipated response from Briben is no response, while potentially letting someone else do it for him, while sending some MIC $ back to him.
SO, to answer your question, 1 large Iranian ship, holding down the dirt on the bottom, is a startling, start.
Call it a "Simmer down" message.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mas-sa-suta
So what do they anticipate?
Probably nothing beyond what's already happened. We prevented them from taking either ship, and they disengaged and went away. If they try again, they'll expect us to do the same. If we want to escalate the response, we need to change the rules these ships' commanders are playing by.

Of course, we don't want to dramatically overreact, either. Giving them a good smack to remind them to behave makes sense, but sending a ship and 100+ Iranian sailors to the bottom of the Gulf of Oman is probably too much.
 
So what do they anticipate?
Not sure, if I am escalating though I would hit the boats involved and attack their fleet HQ at Bandar Abbas. I would also do as much damage as possible to the port their Navy is using to base the ships. If they responded my next attack would be directly on their leadership. I wouldn't be interested in occupation or even really concerned with the power vacuum. It would be a direct attack on wherever I thought Khamenei was holed up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joe_Hoopsier
Probably nothing beyond what's already happened. We prevented them from taking either ship, and they disengaged and went away. If they try again, they'll expect us to do the same. If we want to escalate the response, we need to change the rules these ships' commanders are playing by.

Of course, we don't want to dramatically overreact, either. Giving them a good smack to remind them to behave makes sense, but sending a ship and 100+ Iranian sailors to the bottom of the Gulf of Oman is probably too much.
Nah, they respond to violence. One of best things Trump did was dropping a missile on Soleimani's head. Killing 100 of them is a start.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joe_Hoopsier
Nah, they respond to violence. One of best things Trump did was dropping a missile on Soleimani's head. Killing 100 of them is a start.
Big difference between taking out leadership, especially leaders who are quasi-terrorists at best, and taking out frontline grunts. Moral high ground and all that.
 
How much is more than anticipated? And how would you know that?
Well armchair quarterbacks can start with the list from Jane’s Fighting Ships, as it used to be known, or this list of commissioned vessels.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_ships_of_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran_Navy

Iran has a squadron of guided missile frigates/corvettes. This makes them better than most in the region.

Start by taking out the 2 most recently commissioned capital ships and the drone mother ship.
Another approach would be to sink all the LSTs in their harbors.
They aren’t needed to defend the coast line.
 
Last edited:
Big difference between taking out leadership, especially leaders who are quasi-terrorists at best, and taking out frontline grunts. Moral high ground and all that.
I think you come pretty hard out the gate or don't do anything at all. If I am taking a shot I am looking to deter much of a response. They lobbed some missiles and injured a few of our soldiers and did some property damage in response to Soleimani, I think you hit the Naval facilities and if they respond too harshly you go right for the leadership. Like, we aren't interested in blowing your country ro bits. Our problem is with leadership so if you respond, that is who we plan on targeting.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT