Anarchon Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 I don't believe it's as straightforward as that author (summarily) puts it, however. More of a catch-22 situation, and the longer the economical crisis endures, the more the balance favours Iran (with China in its back-pocket...or reciprocally anyway) over "the West". Witness the ongoing back-tracking/temporising by the EU about its threatened import ban/boycott. Well obviously, that article was only one view point which doesn't take into account the current political realities. It's purely a military point of view. However, would China seriously risk a confrontation with the West over Iran? I'm not so sure it would. I think the only reason why the EU is back peddling on it's oil embargo threat is because it knows that oil prices would start climbing even higher and would put any economic recovery in the Euro zone at severe risk. Also, if Iran did anything stupid, would it's people undertake a mass uprising a la the Arab Spring and remove the Ayatollahs from power? There were serious disturbances a few years ago caused by the disputed Iran presidential election. Who knows? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ sheffield Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 Another post where checking behind the sofa to see if the brain was left there would be a good idea. The US launch an illegal mission into a foreign country but their drone was captured. You then want the US to start another illegal war to hide their illegal military incursion. Red hot idea.....not If you are ever in Sheffield give me a shout and you can come and look for it for me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 I mean no disrespect to the Yanks, but you've never gone into any of the recent conflicts alone. You have begged the UK and other nato countries to provide soldiers, hardwear etc for your little exploits. Isn't Afghanistan a NATO operation? Which country is doing the bulk of the fighting? Who has taken the most casualties? How many German and French troops have been killed or wounded so far? There are several countries which have sent troops to Afghanistan but they all apppear to be in non-combat support roles. Really, what was the point of (in your words) "begging" for soldiers and hardware" when in reality they provide very little of any value in the long run. It all just boils down to "token support" in the name of "carrrying out a NATO operation" Maybe NATO is at long last reaching it's twilight years, Certainly the presence of US Forces in Europe no longer makes any sense As for Libya it appears that Cameron and Sarkozy were the two who were the most anxious to commence operations to neutralize Ghaddafi's forces. Obama wasn't much in favour of it by all accounts while our German partners didn't even want to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 Aircraft carriers, although highly desirable, aren't strictly necessary for dealing with Iran. The US has a large airbase on the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. Coupled with air to air refueling, they will be able to launch air strikes all over Iran in a matter of days. If the whole of NATO gets involved, then there is the option of using the Incirlik Air Base in Turkey. The US also has a large air presence at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan and no doubt if the shooting starts, it will be firmly within Iran's sights. The Afghanistan will no doubt register a token protest, which the US will ignore. The US would use Bagram to launch air missions deep into Iran. If the UK gets involved, then we'd also be able to use RAF Akrotiri on Cyprus. Again, with mid air to air refueling, and cooperation from Turkey, we'd be able to hit Iran from there. There is an interesting article here outlining the likely events if Iran ever decided to close the Straight of Hormuz. The upshot is that within a short time, the straight would be open again and Iran would have been stripped of it's command & control and naval & air defence capabilities. The subsequent economic damage to Iran (oil blockade etc) would be catastrophic. I can't see Iran ever risking this course of action. The Iranians have threatened to close the Straits of Hormuz before. This is about the only card they have left to play, threats to generate fear in China, Japan and Europe that the oil supplies will be cut off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 How many German and French troops have been killed or wounded so far?Respectively, 56 (5th) and 78 (4th), behind the US (1st), the UK (2nd) and Canada (3rd). It all just boils down to "token support" in the name of "carrrying out a NATO operation"That's not quite how a past US president put it: US President George Bush stated: “There are many examples of commitment: our good ally, France, has deployed nearly one-fourth of its navy to support Operation Enduring Freedom.” All in all, contributions, and casualties, proportional to the respective sizes of the various armed forces in theater. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 Respectively, 56 (5th) and 78 (4th), behind the US (1st), the UK (2nd) and Canada (3rd). That's not quite how a past US president put it:All in all, contributions, and casualties, proportional to the respective sizes of the various armed forces in theater. You're talking about the man who landed on an aircraft carrier and declared "mission accomplished" after the fall of Saddam Iraq was a deadly and costly mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anarchon Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 The Iranians have threatened to close the Straits of Hormuz before. This is about the only card they have left to play, threats to generate fear in China, Japan and Europe that the oil supplies will be cut off. My bold. Not unless they can manufacture a viable nuclear device and place it on one of their long range missiles. They may have threatened to close the Straight of Hormuz before. But fact is they haven't. They know that to do so would be utter suicide. Iran tried to severely disrupt oil tanker shipments in the Gulf during the Iran-Iraq war in the 80s. Did they succeed in driving oil prices into the stratosphere? Not really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 You're talking about the man who landed on an aircraft carrier and declared "mission accomplished" after the fall of SaddamNo, I'm putting your flag-waving "last-US-man-standing" point of view in context Iraq was a deadly and costly mistake.And you think Afghanistan isn't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buck Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 We don't have enough naval power left challenge Luxembourg's navy.I'm a retired RN CPO. We don't have the navy we did while I was in the service, but we still have the professionalism and spirit to take on anybody in the world. In any case, the USN does have everything it needs , and they're on your side. I see no ground war coming against Iran, only a Naval campaign to wipe out any vessels that attempt to close the gulf. One Supercarrier and escorts would do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buck Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 Why don't we just stay out of it. This will result in a lot of deaths. We don't want more blood on our hands after what Blair did in Iraq. No more British deaths fighting for American oil. Whose oil do you use? Not your own I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.