Utopia Talk / Politics / Houthis control the Red Sea

Allahuakbar Member	Sun Dec 03 23:25:47 Jews and their enablers have to stay out! http://apn...6770f0a780160e9abed98d3c48fbde 3 commercial ships hit by missiles in Houthi attack in Red Sea, US warship downs 3 drones December 4, 2023 DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — Ballistic missiles fired by Yemen’s Houthi rebels struck three commercial ships Sunday in the Red Sea, while a U.S. warship shot down three drones in self-defense during the hourslong assault, the U.S. military said. The Iranian-backed Houthis claimed two of the attacks. The strikes marked an escalation in a series of maritime attacks in the Mideast linked to the Israel-Hamas war, as multiple vessels found themselves in the crosshairs of a single Houthi assault for the first time in the conflict. The U.S. vowed to “consider all appropriate responses” in the wake of the attack, specifically calling out Iran, after tensions have been high for years now over Tehran’s rapidly advancing nuclear program. “These attacks represent a direct threat to international commerce and maritime security,” the U.S. military’s Central Command said in a statement. “They have jeopardized the lives of international crews representing multiple countries around the world.” It added: “We also have every reason to believe that these attacks, while launched by the Houthis in Yemen, are fully enabled by Iran.” The attack began around 9:15 a.m. local time (0615 GMT) in Houthi-controlled Sanaa, Yemen’s capital, Central Command said. The USS Carney, a Navy destroyer, detected a ballistic missile fired from Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen at the Bahamas-flagged bulk carrier Unity Explorer. The missile hit near the ship, the U.S. said. Shortly afterward, the Carney shot down a drone headed its way, although it’s not clear if the destroyer was the target, Central Command said. About 30 minutes later, the Unity Explorer was hit by a missile. While responding to its distress call, the Carney shot down another incoming drone. Central Command said the Unity Explorer sustained minor damage from the missile. Two other commercial ships, the Panamanian-flagged bulk carriers Number 9 and Sophie II, were both struck by missiles. The Number 9 reported some damage but no casualties, and the Sophie II reported no significant damage, Central Command said. While sailing to assist the Sophie II around 4:30 p.m. local time (1330 GMT), the Carney shot down another drone heading in its direction. The drones did no damage. The Carney, an Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer, has shot down multiple rockets the Houthis have fired toward Israel during that nation’s war against Hamas in the Gaza Strip. It hasn’t been damaged in any of the incidents and no injuries have been reported on board. The Defense Department initially described the assault as simply an attack on the Carney before providing more details. Houthi military spokesman Brig. Gen. Yahya Saree claimed two of Sunday’s attacks, saying the first vessel was hit by a missile and the second by a drone while in the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, which links the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden. Saree did not mention any U.S. warship being involved. “The Yemeni armed forces continue to prevent Israeli ships from navigating the Red Sea (and Gulf of Aden) until the Israeli aggression against our steadfast brothers in the Gaza Strip stops,” Saree said. “The Yemeni armed forces renew their warning to all Israeli ships or those associated with Israelis that they will become a legitimate target if they violate what is stated in this statement.” Saree also identified the first vessel as the Unity Explorer, which is owned by a British firm that includes Dan David Ungar, who lives in Israel, as one of its officers. The Number 9 is linked to Bernhard Schulte Shipmanagement. The Sophie II had been linked to Japan’s Kyowa Kisen Co. Ltd., though the company on Monday said it no longer was involved with the vessel. Managers for the three ships could not be immediately reached for comment. Israeli media identified Ungar as being the son of Israeli shipping billionaire Abraham “Rami” Ungar.
murder Member	Mon Dec 04 19:13:11 Joe Biden seems to live with the fear that any action taken by the US in response to anything "risks a wider war".
Sam Adams Member	Mon Dec 04 21:26:49 Biden is a collosal loser. To be fair most dems are weak on foreign security. Still helps trump.
Seb Member	Tue Dec 05 07:01:17 Murder: Well, he's right. Once the US takes action, if it kicks off a wider war then it's committed to that theatre which decreases deterrence elsewhere. The flip side is non-response can embolden and invite challenge though. But given the US / allies are being challenged in at least four theatres we know of right now (North Africa, Ukraine, Balkans and Middle East) his refusal to be drawn into committing US forces to any one looks wise to me. You know this is likely being instigated by Russia. They want to try and draw the US into high intensity war, and stretch your munitions to reduce what is available for Ukraine. You either need to go back to the two theatres doctrine or, if I were Biden, commit strongly to Ukraine. A decisive defeat of Russia at this point is worth it. It will make everyone else think twice. The US should have used the window opened up during the Wagner rebellion to decisively up the quality of equipment given to Ukraine, and the foot dragging on f-16s & ATACM was terrible. The EU and the US need to dramatically up shell production and start transferring better tech to Ukraine on a forward look basis: start training now even if the pipeline is 12 to 18 months - you can make the go/no go call then.
jergul large member	Tue Dec 05 07:08:49 "A decisive defeat of Russia at this point is worth it." That option has never been on the table.
jergul large member	Tue Dec 05 07:26:57 You are missing the lynchpin. Counters to air launched stand-off munitions. Russia is inches away from being able to drop 45 tons of glide bomb payloads on Ukrainian frontline positions. Game over when that starts.
Seb Member	Tue Dec 05 08:43:15 Jergul: "That option has never been on the table" Yes, it absolutely has. "Counters to air launched stand-off munitions" Yes, a lot more longer range air defences, providing Ukraine with modern fighters and long range air to air missiles, and their own standoff munitions.
jergul large member	Tue Dec 05 09:47:39 Seb No, it has not outside of feverish dreams of addled folk. I think it is time to just start cutting losses. The hubris of thinking Ukraine could decisively defeat Russia has gone on long enough. I let the counteroffensive play out like I said, but I am calling it now. Ukraine is not longer waging a just war and will not be waging a just war before it explores a negotiated settlement with Russia. Check out the criteria for a just war if you have forgotten. It will lose less, with less human costs though negotiations than it will through fighting.
Seb Member	Tue Dec 05 12:01:04 "let". Russia isn't offering a negotiated settlement, and any deal it is likely to offer would justify (in both senses) continued resistance.
murder Member	Tue Dec 05 13:39:20 "Once the US takes action, if it kicks off a wider war then it's committed to that theatre which decreases deterrence elsewhere. The flip side is non-response can embolden and invite challenge though." How is it going to kick off a wider war, Seb? And how are would we be committing to anything? I simply don't understand this mindset of helplessness that grips people when they start talking about wars with outmatched opponents. There's absolutely nothing that prevents the US from loading up a B-52 and dropping 70,000 lbs of bombs on the Houthis' stupid heads. There's nothing that prevents us from doing that every single damn day. And it doesn't commit us to anything. We can do it. We can do it every single day or every other day or once a week or once a month, or we can stop anytime we choose ... and then start again because Taylor Swift hit the top of the charts again. Who the fuck is going to stop us? What, is Iran going to come out and fight? If they could do that, Israel wouldn't exist anymore. But if they want to try, I say go for it. We'll see how well they fight abroad while trying to keep control of their population at home after we wreck their domestic security services. The only real danger Iran poses is if we stupidly decide to invade. That's it. Aside from that they are outmatched everywhere in every way possible and can sustain an offensive even with irregular forces. The US military was built to fight Russia and China. Iran is a nuisance and nothing more. We're not in the same weight class. We could beat their heads in all day without breaking a sweat ... unless someone is stupid enough to send ground troops in to patrol the streets and maintain civil order and keep the banks from getting robbed and the museums from getting pilfered. If we get bored, we stop. If we get tired of being bored we can start again. Iran only exists for the same reason the (Castro?) regime is still in power in Cuba, Maduro is running Venezuela, and Ortega is in power in Nicaragua ... because we've never decided to end the regime.
murder Member	Tue Dec 05 13:51:54 "A decisive defeat of Russia at this point is worth it." It was worth it from day #1. But ... it risks a wider war and WWIII!!!!!! *picture Biden running around with his 3 hairs on fire* "It will make everyone else think twice." It would have made everyone think twice. In fact it would have stopped everyone cold. But you know why he didn't. Because someone suggested that Russia attacking Ukraine was a ploy to get us tied up there so China could invade Taiwan. That's the great thing about being chickenshit. You can always stack irrational fears on top of irrational fears. We should have kicked Russia in the teeth. We should have kicked them in the teeth when they first invaded Ukraine. We should have kicked them in the teeth when they invaded Georgia while Georgia had troops in Iraq at our request. But everyone is too fucking scared to stand up to the crazy man ... and lets face it, we really don't care about any of these countries anyway. As I've said before, everyone east of Poland should be rethinking their reliance on NATO, because if the shit ever hits the fan, NATO ain't coming. The Baltics better understand that they have to plan their defense while only being able to count on assistance from Poland, Finland, and Sweden, and they will help only because they are next if they don't.
murder Member	Tue Dec 05 14:04:42 "The US should have used the window opened up during the Wagner rebellion to decisively up the quality of equipment given to Ukraine, and the foot dragging on f-16s & ATACM was terrible." Yes, that was terrible. But you know why that happened. Giving them the F-16s and the ATACMs would have been an escalation. Or I guess it would have been an escalation then, but it's OK now because reasons. It's obvious that we don't really want Ukraine to win the war. We just want Russia to exhaust itself trying to control it. Unfortunately Biden is massively overestimating everyone desire to keep pouring weapons and funds into Ukraine. Pretty soon it's all going to dry up, and Biden will be sure that it's everyone's fault but his own. "The EU and the US need to dramatically up shell production and start transferring better tech to Ukraine on a forward look basis: start training now even if the pipeline is 12 to 18 months - you can make the go/no go call then." What we need to do is what we should have done from the start. Walk the Russians back to their own side of the border and place Ukraine under NATO protection ... even if it's not a member ... and extend the same protection to Sweden until they are accepted.
Seb Member	Tue Dec 05 15:30:54 Murder: "How is it going to kick off a wider war, Seb?" There are US bases etc throughout the region and Iran has a network of proxy groups like the Houthi's. They aren't necessarily under Iranian control per-se, they can jump the gun so to speak. So if the US were to engage in a major bombing campaign against the Houthi's, it's possible other groups might retaliate in sympathy elsewhere in the same way the Houthi's are causing trouble. Also the Houthi's have shot down Saudi jets iirc, so I doubt you'd want to use B-52s with dumb bombs. Standoff I think. Losing a b-52 would be a fantastic way to go into an election. But that's not really the point - yes, you could bomb the Houthi's to bits, it's what happens elsewhere that matters. However, it's politically hard and costly for Iran - every time they leave a proxy group hoist on their own petard, their network of influence is getting burned and their strategic position unravels. So you have the risk of a use it or lose it moment. It's analogous to ww1, minor allies drag the big powers to war because to *not* go to war risks the balance of power being disrupted, and there's a perceived last mover disadvantage. The nightmare scenario is that Hezbollah or even a faction of Hezbollah decides that because US air forces in the region are partly committed to a bombing campaign against the Houthi's, and Israel is committed to Gaza, they have the best chance ever to hit Israel. But honestly I think Hezbollah isn't that fragmented or dumb. But if they were, Iran (or rather the irgc) might find it very hard not to go all in at that point. And if you did have Iran, Hezbollah, the Houthi's, Gaza, Iraq and Syria all going off at once: a. There's going to be Benghazi like issues across the region b. The USN will need to commit the bulk of its active carriers to effectively respond ć. Ukraine can forget about ammo deliveries d. China might then go for Taiwan It's *much* easier for the US to pursue containment than military defeat/degrade the entire Iranian network simultaneously. Especially when the best the Houthi missiles can do is do minor damage to commercial ships. That's far easier to deal with than embassies getting stormed or shit like that. It helps enormously that Iran clearly doesn't want any of this either. It's the wrong time for them, but like I said, their network of groups each have their own view of the world and many are dumb and can miscalculate, and while the US would undoubtedly win a broader regional war, it would be a pyrric victory if it strengthened Russia in Ukraine or China in Taiwan, it would cost a lot of money, and it would be politically risky (and the way Russia and China really win is if your idiot countrymen elect Trump)
Seb Member	Tue Dec 05 15:31:55 And a really expensive regional war with a few setbacks on the ground, say Americans taken hostage, a jet downed, an embassy set on fire, that's going to mean a Trump victory.
Seb Member	Tue Dec 05 15:36:34 "Giving them the F-16s and the ATACMs would have been an escalation." Nah, by that point they already had storm shadows, and we'd given them jets too. Managing the escalation in baby steps by to small for any one to be a trigger has necessary and worked well. The problem is that Biden admin hasn't caught up. And an escalation made while Putin can't respond is best time to do it. "What we need to do is what we should have done from the start." We probably could do that now without much risk of escalation.. But it would mean casualties and the internal political risk to that is still huge.
jergul large member	Tue Dec 05 16:05:41 Seb Russia is already waging an unjust war. Now so is Ukraine. The only way out of it is for Ukraine to make serious, good faith attempts at reaching a negotiated settlement with Russia. It will take a long time to gain a ceasefire or settlement in any event. The Vietnam war took more than 300 face to face meetings. It is more than semantic. Just wars provide a huge boost to morale and unity. Unjust wars lose that buff. Expect to see more political infighting, higher corruption, and much higher Ukrainian surrenders, desertions and draft avoidance in varioius ways. Why? Because Ukraine is no longer waging a just war, it is waging a pointless war. And people know that intuitively.
Seb Member	Tue Dec 05 16:32:02 Jergul: "The only way out of it is for Ukraine to make serious, good faith attempts at reaching a negotiated settlement with Russia." Or, to put it another way, the only morally justified Ukrainian is one that has agreed to be a Russian apparently. I used to run games of Diplomacy with colleagues when I was doing my PhD, and I remember during a protracted negotiation phase that one excitable fellow who convinced himself that France was inevitably going to win. The trouble was it was the first go and nobody had moved yet. You remind me a bit of this "Russia will inevitably win, therefore the only moral thing to do is surrender to Russia. Failure to surrender pre-emptively will only further guarantee Russian victory". This, bluntly, is logically absurd. It is also not correct. Lets say that Russia kindly agrees to offer a peace settlement where Ukraine surrenders even more territory (in order that it can be morally superior) in exchange for peace. Ukraine has had peace deals with Russia before - and Russia never stuck to them. Why will it do so now? The moral justification for pursuing a negotiated settlement when Russia is not presently interested in one collapses. It will be seen as weakness, exploited by Russia to annex further territory it currently has no hope of annexing militarily, banked, and then hostilities resumed at a later date when convenient to Russia. Ukraine's only option is to fight until Russia opens negotiations because it has all become too costly for Russia. And for the West, it is increasingly clear that Russia does not subscribe to the underpinning assumptions of European security we all depend on. It is increasingly clear we are going to end up in some form of conflict with Russia at some point, the choice is to ensure Russia is defeated here, or prepare to confront it later (in which case why give it a chunk of Ukraine in the meantime). And if the West commits to Ukraine fully, there is no reason why it cannot defeat Russia. The justification for Ukraine's continued resistance is simply that only through fighting now does it have any long term survival as an independent country. The justification for western support for Ukraine is the similar - a failure of deterrence now means war later.
jergul large member	Tue Dec 05 16:47:09 Seb Shrug, Ukraine no longer meeets the criteria for waging a just war. It has immediate consenquences for the the trajectory towards an inevitable outcome. So, yah. This is over. We are just watching it play out.
Forwyn Member	Tue Dec 05 19:28:26 "self-defense" lol
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Dec 06 06:28:33 Seb "But if they were, Iran (or rather the irgc) might find it very hard not to go all in at that point." You are correct, conceptually, that there is a threshold for pain here, but where ever that red line is, it is far lower than the pain the Islamic republic is willing to tolerate from the USA and Israel. They have attacked US forces dozens of times, 0 kills. Meanwhile US and Israel attacks, since October 7th, has killed dozens of Iranian allied militias. Hezbollah itself has lost a few dozen. I have been following Iranian news for some time and my assessment is that the Islamic republic is going to do absolutely nothing over the Houthis. The reporting on this conflict has ticked off all the states of grief in Islamic republic reporting, there is a lot of delusion involved as well. You can juxtapose the recent weeks of backtracking quotes like "throw them into the sea" (we never said that! coming from Khamenei's lips) with Khamenei saying a few years ago "if they slip up, we will level Tel Aviv and Haifa with the ground". This has been the season of reckoning for the Islamic republic with regards to their 40+ year policy and huffing and puffing over Palestine. It's an endline on many levels. It does not get any more clear cut than their response to the assassination of Suleimani, what was their response? Oh right, giving a heads up and then shooting a couple of missiles at an empty base. Suleimanis position in Iranian society, even outside the Shia jihadi circles, can not be understated, he was The Hero, the national champion and bulwark against "takfiri terrorists" and ISIS beheaders. And then there was all that waaa waaaing that American presence in Iraq an the region must be removed. Was it removed, oh wait it was actually expanded into Syria. So, Houthis, shmooties. Islamic republic is hanging by a thread due to record low support and historically high anti-Islamic sentiments since death of Mahsa Amini, they know this. They also know any conflict with Israel or USA will cost them a lot more and bring even greater instability to an already precarious situation domestically. Imagine public sentiment around the Vietnam war, but it is taking place during the great depression, 10 years before the US civil war. That is the situation the Islamic republic is facing in Iran and with it's place in the world. The only positive thing of note is that discourse has opened up significantly. I am hearing debates, discussion and opinions being aired that would have landed you in prison a year ago. And that is that, as they say. This opening up of discourse, *when it is too late*, is the first sign of collapse. This is exactly what the Shah did, and curiously Gorbatchev. The rest is history.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Dec 06 06:29:14 it is far *higher* than the pain the Islamic republic is willing to tolerate from the USA and Israel **fixed
Seb Member	Wed Dec 06 07:01:13 Nim: "I have been following Iranian news for some time and my assessment is that the Islamic republic is going to do absolutely nothing over the Houthis." That wasn't what I suggested the risk was.
Seb Member	Wed Dec 06 07:14:23 What the US needs to worry about is another proxy doing something in sympathy with the Houthi's in the same way the Houthi's are doing something in sympathy with Hamas, and then that potentially snowballing. Firstly there's undoubtedly points of physical vulnerability that even small actors might be able to exploit, things like US hostages or facilities being attacked, which are points of acute, strategic political vulnerability for the Biden admin. And theres the risk that if enough of the Iranian network of allies are in open conflict with the US Iran feels it has to get involved because if they don't then, then immediately afterwards, they are utterly isolated and disarmed and facing a US/Israeli/Arab alliance. Their obvious current fear of a war actually exacerbates this kind of risk: once you believe it's inevitable then it's best to go early if you think your position is poor and will deteriorate. And I think Iran's leadership do believe the US would absolutely see coercive regime change if became an option. The Houthi's aren't the tipping point for Iran, but they might be the first domino that leads to a tipping point. And containing them is trivial. Especially if Iran is bricking itself about a conflict. That's the cold blooded calculation in Washington. Maintaining a predictable and controlled situation on theatre and preserving maximum degrees of freedom for US action in theatre and globally.
jergul large member	Wed Dec 06 08:50:52 US/Israeli/Arab alliance That combination has been rendered moot for a generation by recent events.
Seb Member	Wed Dec 06 09:32:00 jergul: "That combination has been rendered moot for a generation by recent events." Maybe, maybe not. Nobody thinks this is an alliance of love and respect. Saudi would leap at the chance to neutralise Iran as a regional rival; Iran will be paranoid about that.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Dec 06 09:59:25 Seb "That wasn't what I suggested the risk was." It's ok, my answer was in terms general enough to address what you said and meant. "and then that potentially snowballing." Is extremely low, is what I am saying. The Islamic republic can't afford anything snowballing. If proxies ramp up their attacks over the Houthis or for whatever reason, they will, as they have done with Hamas, distance themselves from their actions and even backtrack on words they have uttered themselves in previous years.
Seb Member	Wed Dec 06 10:05:06 Nim: I am glad for you that you believe you are omniscient and there is absolutely no risk of snowballing. We can all be confident that there is no risk of a regional war breaking out, as of course we could all be sure in 1910 that war between major European powers was impossible to the shared assessment by all the major powers governments that such a war would bring incalculable costs and no possible benefit.
Seb Member	Wed Dec 06 10:05:30 Biden is clearly being reckless.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Dec 06 10:09:43 Islamic republic's idea of jihad has been clear since the latter half of the war with Iraq. They want jihad as a side thing, it works well with their revolutionary founded ideology, a small conflict of some sort to talk about and give martyrs for, but at the same time govern the country and be Islamic and stuff. Not an existential Jihad, that they will lose. This Hamas attack was in some sense the worse thing an Islamic republic connected group could have done, it forced their hand and their hand was a bluff. Look at the other things they have done, hijacking and attacking ships, effectively kidnapping western citizens in Iraq. Weak targets that can't do anything and that are of such low dignity international that no one will bomb you over it. It's a weak and cowardly regime, that can really only beat their own female population upside the head. Calculated, but weak.
Seb Member	Wed Dec 06 10:13:22 Nim: Biden isn't worried that Iran or proxies can defeat the US. Biden is worried that a conflict with Iran or proxies would embarrasses him enough that Trump wins the next election.
Seb Member	Wed Dec 06 10:20:41 Nim: "it forced their hand and their hand was a bluff" I am not sure that is true, rather it was in the balance now is a terrible time for Iran to get into a conflict; and Hamas in the end isn't worth it and isn't so damaging if lost. I'm not sure you could rely on that being the assessment if most of it's network including Hezbollah got sucked in.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Dec 06 10:21:53 Seb "I am glad for you that you believe you are omniscient and there is absolutely no risk of snowballing." There is absolutely some risk as I said agreeing with you in my first post, just not very high. But you already understood what I said.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Dec 06 10:23:05 "Seb Member Wed Dec 06 10:13:22 Nim: Biden isn't worried that Iran or proxies can defeat the US. Biden is worried that a conflict with Iran or proxies would embarrasses him enough that Trump wins the next election." It's great that you are clairvoyant and read Biden's mind. :)
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Dec 06 10:25:39 Seb "I am not sure that is true" That's fair, but I am pretty sure, not because of omniscient or clairvoyance, but because I have been following news out of Iran and watching events unfold.
Seb Member	Wed Dec 06 10:38:27 Nim: Is it really possible that the US, a nuclear power that comfortably outspends the next n rivals on defence could lose an open conflict against Iran? Ok, it's true I don't know for certain but it would be an odd thing for him to worry about.
Seb Member	Wed Dec 06 10:44:06 Nim: There's a bunch of things Iran could do, we can see what capabilities it's lending to Russia. Suggesting it is a bluff (which to me implies they fundamentally don't have capabilities to wreak absolute havock) seems too much - it's a risk calculation. Hamas is expendable, as are the Houthi's - but Hezbollah, or their entire network on the other hand is a clearly different proposition. It amounts to strategic defeat. I could see they might blink, but if I was Biden I wouldn't risk it if I didn't need to. Iran can't defeat America, but they might be able to secure Trump a second term cf. Jimmy Carter.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Dec 06 13:06:22 Seb "Ok, it's true I don't know for certain but it would be an odd thing for him to worry about." I have not commented on what really motivates people because it doesn't really interest me. I have just taken a basic checklist over what people have said they would do if shit hit the fan and compared it with what they have actually done when the shit hit the fan. Based on that, I made a prediction about future actions. It will be more of the same. "Suggesting it is a bluff (which to me implies they fundamentally don't have capabilities to wreak absolute havock) seems too much" That it *was* a bluff has already been laid bare. The bluff comment was in relation to their 40 years of thumping their chest and chanting slogans like "the road to Jerusalem goes through Iraq," and then fart noise. It was quite clearly, unequivocally a bluff. Regarding their capabilities broadly, you are familiar with the concept of "a fleet in being," where you have capabilities, but once that hand is played, you don't really have the capability to follow it up with anything, not even more of the same. You know, you have prepared this 1-2 combo against an opponent that is highly unlikely to succumb to your flimsy punches, and then what? Your wreck some havoc mess up the region, then what? Oh your military infrastructure is reduced to ashes? Oh your ports are bombed and there is nothing you can do? More sanctions?! Oh look your population are not rallying behind you. Very sad. Very predictable, so predictable even they know about it. They are not as longing for martyrdom as they repeatedly claim they are. I mentioned in one of the Gaza threads that the head of the IRGC missile forces gave their internal assessment had they engaged in a war with the US over Suleimani, 15-20k dead, and the country thrown back 1-2 decades; which they thought was too high of a cost for the death of the second-highest-ranking official and hero of the nation. Nothing has changed. Well, that is not true; the calculus is even worse now, as people had consolidated around fighting the Islamic State when Suleimani was killed. He was very popular, and the anti-regime sentiment was low.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Dec 06 13:32:16 So, my prediction is, Israel will remove Hamas from Gaza, dead or alive, that will be the end of that mission. It will be done under a flurry of rebukes from the rest of the world. The Islamic republic will on the flip side talk a lot, but do nothing, beyond what has been done so far. And I am abusing the phrase "has been done so far". I have no idea how to convey to you the distance between the way they have talked for 40 years and now this, there are MMA video clips of shit talking gone wrong, this is the geopolitical version of the "shit talking gone wrong" meme. This has become it's own version of that meme on Iranian social media.
jergul large member	Wed Dec 06 15:55:01 Seb Putin and the Saudi Crown Prince are in a meeting right now. I am certain they are discussing your US-Israel-Saudi alliance. The crown prince and relatively young and far from stupid. He has seen what happens when an arab ally outplays its utility. See Saddam or Ghadaffi for details. I dont think he wants to be sodomized by a combat knife. Having Iran as a permanent fixture that irritates the US is of critical security importance for Saudi and other emiratii regimes.
Habebe Member	Wed Dec 06 20:34:30 "Joe Biden seems to live with the fear that any action taken by the US in response to anything "risks a wider war"." I pray you are right. Our country has bled enough, fighting in other man's wars. I'll give him credit he has not got us too involved so far.
Seb Member	Thu Dec 07 04:17:01 Nim: "I have not commented on what really motivates people because it doesn't really interest me." LOL! That's hilarious. "regarding their capabilities broadly, you are familiar with the concept of "a fleet in being,"" I would think so given I've just spent a thread outlined why the US is likely to be reluctant to trigger something that would concentrate and committing such a dispersed force. "Very sad. Very predictable, so predictable even they know about it." Yup, but if you *also* think that you are facing an inevitable strategic defeat, then you have "desperate roll of the dice". Nim: "So, my prediction is" completely irrelevant to the discussion between Murder and I - is it wise for Biden to not begin an air war against the Houthis right now? Jergul: They have shared interests with Russia - around Oil. They have shared interests with Israel and the US with regard to Iran. Their flexibility on this point is precisely why Iran is likely to be concerned. Saudi's utility is absolutely not "to balance Iran" - Saudi's utility is oil, and it has been a consumer of US political capital and military security to protect it from Iran. Removal of Iran gives Saudi more degrees of freedom with respect to their relationship with the US, not fewer.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Dec 07 05:21:36 Seb "Yup, but if you *also* think that you are facing an inevitable strategic defeat, then you have "desperate roll of the dice"." It's elementary my dear seb. Suffer military defeat and destruction now, as well as the strategic defeat and really fuck up the mood of your own people. OR! Don't do that and maybe you can rescue this some way. They can't IMO, but the latter ihas hopium in it and potentially leaves you more options further down the road. It's just the psychologically more palatable option to defer the inevitable. "completely irrelevant to the discussion between Murder and I" Your discussion with murder is irrelevant to what I responded to. Specific assertions: >>But if they were, Iran (or rather the irgc) might find it very hard not to go all in at that point.<< And that things can snowball and somehow push the Islamic republic to go all crazy and wreck havoc in a suicidal manner. I mean by all means have at it, but FYI the scenarios you are entertaining are from a Tom Clancy novel, alt-history, it's not grounded in reality and facts.
jergul large member	Thu Dec 07 05:26:25 They have shared interests in making sure Western abuses of D2P do not result in combat knives up their asses. Iran is incredibly useful in deflecting Western regime change adventurism. Worst case? Iran actively develops nuclear weapons which in turn allows Saudi Arabia to do the same. A complete nuclear programme dovetails nicely with Saudi ambitions of diversifying away from oil, while permanently resolving security threats to its regime. Saudis and the Emiratis are not the unsophisticated leaders of yonder year. You had a few 100d years of divide and conquer, but that era is over.
jergul large member	Thu Dec 07 05:28:03 Eradicating Hezb is not on the table. Israel can barely deal with Hamas.
Seb Member	Thu Dec 07 06:37:30 Nim: The difference is I'm outlining a risk calculation - I'm not saying it is inevitable, I'm saying it is a credibly possible outcome. Whether you've appreciated it or not, by entering this conversation and taking the position in the context you have, you are arguing that the only rational position for the Biden admin to hold is that Iran certainly will do nothing if it's proxy network decides to jump the gun and a regional conflict breaks out. That's an unrealistically strong position to take. I think that's cavalier, even if it is likely that you are correct and Iran won't jump. It is not sufficiently low, and the consequences so bad for Biden, that it would be stupid to risk it if he doesn't have to. And he doesn't. so if you are putting this option out as a contrary you are arguing the risk doesn't exist.
Seb Member	Thu Dec 07 06:42:18 Jergul: Ah, back to form of pretending it is the west that is the big threat to global stability rather than Putin and the regimes he props up. I guarantee MBS and Putin aren't discussing the fear of Western military intervention against each others regime. Sanctions maybe. Most likely arms deals and oil production quotas and their respective red lines on Iran. "A complete nuclear programme dovetails nicely with Saudi ambitions of diversifying away from oil" Yes, I'm sure MBL is begging Putin to persuade Iran to announce it has a bomb so he can build one too. Nothing he would like more in the world than a nuclear Iran. He's just dying to sink billions and billions into weapons programmes as opposed to his economic development plans that he's been so keen on to date, and which are predicted on food relations with the west.
jergul large member	Thu Dec 07 07:23:00 Seb Russia is at worst a threat to regional stability. The West is demonstratably a threat to the stability in all regions of the globe. A rules based order valid only for regimes claiming to hold Western ideals and subject to novel interpretations of when violent overthrow of government is justified remains a threat to most countries. The talks are mainly rotating around economic development and enhancing economic ties. I think Saudi Arabia is fine with Iran getting nukes for the reasons given. It provides cover to gain deterrent parity with Israel. Israel is a bit rogueish. You never know how it might play its cards. Saudi Arabia has sunk billion and billions (as if that is a lot of money) in defence. A full nuclear programme moving somewhat beyond civilian capabilities is fully in line with economic development plans. Read up on the military industrial complex if you feel unclear about how it bolsters economic development. Your problem is you think Arab leaders are stupid. Kind of racist of you frankly. Many of them have a better education from a better English private school than you do.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Dec 08 10:11:32 Seb "Whether you've appreciated it or not, by entering this conversation and taking the position in the context you have, you are arguing that the only rational position for the Biden admin to hold is that Iran certainly will do nothing if it's proxy network decides to jump the gun and a regional conflict breaks out." "so if you are putting this option out as a contrary you are arguing the risk doesn't exist." "The only," "certainly," "risk doesn't exist" are not words I used, but that you put in to create your strawman. Whether you appreciate it or not, you are outlining the draft of a Tom Clancy novel—a scenario that, while possible (many things are possible, Russia could get involved and nuke Israel!), has a very low probability given recent historical priors and the current state of affairs in each country and what motivates them in this current conflict. Quite clearly, you are perfectly clueless about almost all of those factors. Predictably weak comeback. Neither Hezbollah nor the Islamic Republic are going to destroy themselves over Hamas; the risk for events to snowball in some uncontrolled manner is extremely low, as I said earlier. The Islamic Republic, for reasons I already explained, and Hezbollah because they hold legitimate political power in Lebanon, and Lebanon is in an even shittier position domestically than Iran is. Revolutionary movements all seem to go calm the fuck down as soon as they have a stake. It's a textbook example of skin in the game/ass on the line making you more conservative with risk-taking. It is a failure to empathize with the Islamic Republic on your part and also your broken appreciation for risk and ruin, something we have covered in other topics and threads.
Seb Member	Fri Dec 08 13:38:34 Nim: What precisely do you disagree with the post I made Tue Dec 05 15:30:54 to Murder? Do you think any of those things are risks (and they were always couched as such) that are so implausible that the US shouldn't really take them into consideration? If the answer is "yes" then we have something to discuss. If the answer is "no" then you are just finding unreasonably and antagonistic ways of agreeing with me.
Seb Member	Fri Dec 08 13:53:08 Hezbollah, by the way, has shot at Israel, though they've kept it low key. Israel shoots at it, of course. The question is whether you think it's impossible for hard-line factions to decide enough is enough and start a conflict that the leadership correctly assess as stupid and wouldn't have done. I agree it's unlikely. But they are risks and unnecessary ones for the US to take. You seem to be treating these as predictions and certainties. Learn to read.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Dec 08 13:58:24 Seb "What precisely do you disagree with" You suffer from tiktok brain, you have not actually read anything I have written. I suggest you do that or ask chatgpt to summarize the thread for you in 5 tweets.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Dec 08 14:07:15 Seb "The question is whether you think it's impossible for hard-line factions to decide enough is enough" This specific thing is arguable the least probably thing you have said so far. The Islamic republic's shia hegemony doesn't function like this. Any elements operating outside the commands of the Imam would be dealt with harshly, as has been done in Iran in the past. You would essentially be saying the Imam is incompetent and weak, sowing the seeds of civil war. You are mixing it up with how sunni Islam is structured (de-centralized).
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Dec 08 14:20:39 10-15 years ago, I would have gone on about the apocalyptic Shia death cult wanting to usher in the second coming of their Messiah, crazy people that could wreak havoc, and so on. However, new facts have emerged that put into question the regime's commitment to Jihad, martyrdom, and the apocalypse, so my position has changed. Being immune to new facts is a terrible affliction. The Islamic Republic wants a low-intensity forever jihad, so they will take it up the ass to preserve their reign and tell you, 'Patience, patience; victory will come.' This has not always been apparent to me, but I have put two and two together, listening to interviews of generals from the Iran-Iraq war. It was the same thing back then. They wanted a war on the side, even as Iran was no longer in a position to wage a war in Iraq. When Khomeini famously said he had 'to swallow the bitter pill,' do you remember what had happened just prior to that? The USA had de facto been pulled into the war and attacked the Islamic Republic's navy, shot down a civilian airliner, attacked installations in the Persian Gulf. When the risk was no longer a border war but annihilation, the bitter pill tasted much sweeter. These people have no shame or honor. One day they are all prepared to become martyrs for the children of Gaza; the next day, they are saying Israel is no match for Hamas, and Hamas doesn't need us. Real words from real people. What did Nasrallah say: Be patient; victory will take time. And now is not that time. That time is never, but they don't know about that part yet.
Seb Member	Fri Dec 08 17:22:10 Nim: "It's ok, my answer was in terms general enough to address what you said and meant." How does you initial response address my point? You clearly think it does. But your post is your assessment (as mine) that Iran wouldn't want to fight the US. This is not the same thing as "there is no remotely plausible situation that US can discount the possibility of a regional war". You aren't really adding anything here, your fishing around for a point of difference when there isn't one. "This specific thing is arguable the least probably thing you have said so far. The Islamic republic's shia hegemony doesn't function like this" Really? Do you think Iran instructed Hamas to begin this war? It is incredibly odd in the current situation to assume that Tehran can control all its proxies and all its proxies are utterly unified.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Dec 09 05:54:44 Seb I am not sure how else to convey what I think in more detail than I already have or as succinctly as calling it a Tom Clancy novel. The things you say are not in any way anchored in reality or grounded in facts; they are not even wrong, making it impossible to take them seriously as part of "risk calculation" and somehow debate and discuss them with you. I have tried my best to correct you and educate you in the right direction, but you are immune to reason and facts. You are the same guy who wondered, "Do we want Ahmadinejad to have nukes?"*, not grasping that it's like asking, "Do we want the Swedish king to have nukes?" It's that bad, Seb, and the more I explain to you how wrong the things you say are, the more Cathy Newman you become. * http://utopiaforums.com/boardthread?id=politics&thread=7343
Seb Member	Sat Dec 09 06:57:49 Nim: "The only," "certainly," "risk doesn't exist" are not words I used, but that you put in to create your strawman" You seem to have trouble sticking to a line. If you sincerely believe what you say in the last post, that there's so small a chance of an escalatory spiral that Iran can't wholly control, is it not fair to say it follows that it is wholly unreasonable to base any risk calculation on it and Biden's admin should not fear regional conflict? If not unreasonable, again, I don't see why you have bothered entering this thread. You agree with me, despite your attempts to present what I have set out as low probability risks as high probability events. If unreasonable, and the terms you are throwing around certainly suggest that, then I'll just point out that the Biden admin have telegraphed their position regarding absolute concern not to spark a regional war. I also think you are being a bit ridiculous in your certainty here. Yes these are low probability events, but the consequences short, medium and long are significant and restraint is wise. I'll just remind you again that European powers in the early 1910s were very confident war in Europe between the major powers was now impossible for much of the same reasons you set out here. Then someone shot an arch duke. Like something out of the plot of a Tom Clancy novel. I think I've covered off all angles now, and it doesn't look like you have anything to contribute really. Certainly you haven't so far. You sound like you are spoiling for a fight and clearly need to blow off some steam - so maybe do that instead of trying to manufacture points of disagreement with strangers on the internet.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Dec 09 07:17:02 "Then someone shot an arch duke." Just as I thought you were done being foolish, you tell me you have analyzed through analogy, e.g "the world can be understood through the lens of our conflict with the Irish". Anyway, good luck with your novel.
Seb Member	Sat Dec 09 14:03:00 Nim, I don't think *you* even know what you are arguing against. Go have a drink or a wank or something.
Allahuakbar Member	Fri Dec 15 09:30:43 Houthis rule the sea! http://www...b-al-mandab-strait-2023-12-15/ December 15 DUBAI/LONDON, Dec 15 (Reuters) - Attacks from Houthi-controlled Yemen struck two Liberian-flagged ships in the Bab al-Mandab Strait on Friday, a U.S. defence official said, underlining the threat to vessels in shipping lanes being targeted by the Iran-aligned group. A projectile, believed to be a drone, struck one of the vessels, the German-owned Al Jasrah, causing a fire but no injuries, the official said. Two ballistic missiles were fired in the second attack, one of which struck a vessel, causing a fire which the crew was working to extinguish, the official said. A U.S. Navy destroyer was on its way to aid the vessel, the official said, without naming the vessel. The Houthis said in a statement that they had fired missiles at two ships - the MSC Alanya and MSC Palatium III. Their statement made no mention of Al Jasrah. An MSC spokesperson said there had been no attack on the Alanya. Asked about the Houthi claim of an attack on the Palatium III, the spokesperson provided no further comment. The Houthis said both vessels had been heading to Israel. However, Alanya and Palatium III both listed Jeddah in Saudi Arabia as their destination, according to data from ship tracking and maritime analytics provider MarineTraffic. "We will continue to prevent all ships heading to Israeli ports until the food and medicine our people need in the Gaza Strip is brought in," the Houthi statement said. "We assure all ships heading to all ports of the world apart from Israeli ports that they will suffer no harm and they must keep their identification device on," it said. 'ADDITIONAL MEASURES' Part of the Iran-aligned "Axis of Resistance", the Houthis have been attacking vessels in Red Sea shipping lanes and firing drones and missiles at Israel, saying they aim to support the Palestinians as Hamas and Israel wage war. A spokesperson for Hapag-Lloyd, the company that owns Al Jasrah, said it was attacked while sailing near the Yemeni coast. "Hapag-Lloyd will take additional measures to secure the safety of our crews," the spokesperson added, declining further comment. British maritime security firm Ambrey said the Liberia-flagged container ship MSC Alanya was ordered to alter course towards Yemen by people aboard a small craft believed to be members of Yemen's Houthi movement, forcing it take evasive measures. Ambrey said the MSC Alanya was warned by the Houthis not to proceed northbound, and quoted them addressing the crew: "Captain you are not allowed to proceed to the Red Sea. Alter your course to the south side, now". In another incident, Ambrey reported that the Liberia-flagged, Swiss-owned containership MSC Palatium III was targeted while sailing northbound some 23 miles southwest of the Mokha. Ambrey said the vessel had received the same warning as the Alanya. The Houthis, who rule much of Yemen, have vowed they will continue with their attacks until Israel stops its offensive in the Gaza Strip Late on Thursday, the Houthis claimed to have carried out a military operation against a Maersk container vessel, directly hitting it with a drone. The Danish shipping company denied the claim and said the vessel was not hit. The U.S. Special Envoy for Yemen, Tim Lenderking, said on Thursday that Washington wanted the "broadest possible" maritime coalition to protect ships and signal to the Houthis that attacks would not be tolerated. Iran warned that the proposed multi-national naval force would face "extraordinary problems" and nobody "can make a move in a region where we have predominance".
Sam Adams Member	Fri Dec 15 19:27:15 Its amazing how soft and weak left wing western leaders are. How the fuck are we not slitting throats right now?
jergul large member	Fri Dec 15 20:24:26 To what end`?
Sam Adams Member	Sat Dec 16 10:11:41 If the houthis that attack ships are dead... guess what? They cant attack anymore ships
murder Member	Sat Dec 16 11:59:51 "If the houthis that attack ships are dead... guess what? They cant attack anymore ships" I looked for holes in the logic, but I couldn't find any.
jergul large member	Sat Dec 16 17:11:27 Except demographics. To the last Houthi has a pretty hollow ring to it after nearly two years of outright war in Ukraine.
Sam Adams Member	Sat Dec 16 23:38:59 People generally learn their lesson before you have to kill all of them, but either way works for me.
murder Member	Sun Dec 17 09:44:57 The population of Yemen is ~ 34 million. ~ 35% of that are Iranian backed Shiites, so ~ 12 million About 1/2 of those are women, so ~ 6 million men I figure ~ 1/2 of those are military age, so you probably only have to kill about 3 million. Probably much less since the moment they are weakened enough opposing factions will finish them off.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Dec 18 15:12:43 Some bombing of Yemen will definitely happen. And wow, the stuff coming out of Iran on a daily basis making my jaw drop, from disillusioned Islamists. Not even the way you think. Someone said "Khamenei doesn't feel like our leader, he is the leader of Palestinians, Houthis and Lebanese". And that's from a believer! Fewer and fewer of them can maintain their hallucination anymore. Inflation in Iran is massive, the country is being sidelined economically from every direction, people with skills and means flee and these fuckers have their entire head space occupied with female garments and Jihad, and not even in the badass kind of way. So much potential wasted, just the tourism potential of Iran, tsk tsk tsk. It could have been something like Italy or Greece, but instead it's something like North Korea or Afghanistan. The ways in which the country has been retarded these past 40 years is staring in the face of Iranians everywhere. I think it is difficult for non-Iranians or people not very well read into Iranian history and society, to fully appreciate what a bizarre thing the 1979 revolution is. A living, in color warning to everyone of the how terrible things can go when useful idiot leftist enable Islamists. May they both burn in hellfire. Amen.
Allahuakbar Member	Tue Dec 19 01:45:32 Victory! http://www...pend-red-sea-route-2023-12-18/ Evergreen shipping line to stop accepting Israeli cargo December 18, 2023
Seb Member	Tue Dec 19 01:51:39 The Houthi's will get a bloody nose at some point, when the Pentagon and State dept are convinced they've got the right force disposition to deter and contain any blowback. "No Benghazi's in an election year" is what will be guiding the thinking. Letting the shipping get disrupted a little helps remind China and other powers that they had a dog in this race too.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Dec 19 11:50:35 I think it’s more about getting the Arab states on board. That is the reason it has not happened yet, Saudi Arabia doesn’t want any of it, there is a truce in Yemen and they want to keep it that way.
Seb Member	Sun Dec 24 05:18:55 Hmm, all is not going well with securing international support for escorts. A bit odd as you would think Europe and Asia have a bigger stake in trans Suez shipping than the US.
jergul large member	Sun Dec 24 07:23:09 Not everyone has ships able to trade 2xmillion dollar missiles for each 2000 dollar drone.
murder Member	Tue Dec 26 06:09:30 Also everyone doesn't have confidence in not eating a drone in an embarrassing air defense failure. A lot of money spent on weapon systems is for show, not for actual combat. These ships are a nation's bling.
murder Member	Tue Dec 26 06:10:30 Of course, if we just bombed the fuck out of the Houthis, no one would have to worry about their stupid drones and missiles.
jergul large member	Tue Dec 26 20:16:38 Murder Yah, you definitely should use a lot of Himar missiles and 155 mm arty shells attacking Yemen. Well, assuming you have any to spare.
jergul large member	Tue Dec 26 20:17:57 Here is the problem in its essence. The US has single theater capability. For logistical reasons. Right now, that theater is Ukraine.
murder Member	Wed Dec 27 05:01:41 "Yah, you definitely should use a lot of Himar missiles and 155 mm arty shells attacking Yemen." Why the fuck would we use either of those systems to hit some rabble? That's what bombers and JDAMS are for. Ideally cluster munitions and incendiaries.
murder Member	Wed Dec 27 05:03:41 "Here is the problem in its essence. The US has single theater capability. For logistical reasons. Right now, that theater is Ukraine." That's false in every hilarious way possible. You literally just saw us engaged in two large scale wars to go along with god knows how many smaller operations against al-Qaeda and their kin over a wide area. Did you hit your head?
jergul large member	Wed Dec 27 07:46:06 Murder Taliban resurgence demonstrated the lack of capability. But sure. You can lose conflicts in as many theaters as you like. That is easy.
murder Member	Wed Dec 27 08:42:29 All that demonstrated is that lawyers and humanitarian aid workers shouldn't be in charge.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Dec 27 09:04:13 This has largely gone under the Radar, but Seyyed Razi Mousavi was killed by Israeli airstrike in his home outside Damascus. He was one of the top IRGC commanders, buddies with Suleimani and responsible for Islamic republic relations and efforts in Syria. This guy was completely unknown and belonged to a shadowy group of IRGC officers called "the grey commanders". And the fact that he wasn't killed on the field or at a base, but inside his home, during daytime, while his wife and child were away, is a message. Besides losing another important commander, his death is an intelligence failure for the IRGC.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Dec 27 09:06:32 http://www...ary-official-israel-syria.html
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Dec 27 09:08:18 In real terms, this is the greatest loss since Suleimani.
Allahuakbar Member	Wed Dec 27 09:09:07 Nimatzo Iran will have its revenge! http://www...-killing-of-soleimani-in-2020/ Iran: Oct. 7 attack was revenge for killing of Soleimani in 2020; Hamas: No it wasn’t IRGC also says it is ‘very aware’ why Israel allegedly assassinated another top general in Damascus; Gaza’s terrorist rulers insist vicious massacres were ‘Palestinian resistance’ IRGC spokesman Ramazan Sharif tied the October 7 massacres to Soleimani in remarks he made about the killing of another top officer earlier this week in an airstrike Iran has blamed on Israel. Brig. Gen. Razi Mousavi, who was close to Soleimani, was killed in a strike on his home in Damascus on Monday. Mousavi was responsible for coordinating the military alliance between Iran and Syria and was believed by Israel to have been heavily involved in Tehran’s efforts to supply weapons to terror proxies in the area, including Lebanon’s Hezbollah terror group. Sharif said Hamas’s October attack was “one of the revenges” for the slaying of Soleimani. He also said the IRGC is “well aware” of the reasons Israel killed Mousavi in Damascus but asserted that the assassination would not hinder its campaign “against the Zionist entity.” “We will respond accordingly, directly or indirectly through the resistance axis,” he threatened. The IRGC further called the assassination an “act of terror” and vowed the response “will be decisive at the right time and place.”
jergul large member	Wed Dec 27 09:37:12 Murder I am pretty sure lawyers and humanitarian aid workers were not in charge of Central Command. But sure, feel free to embrace any stab in the back theory you like. I have a feeling you will need a refresher course in that to explain *stuff* soon enough. Nimi Iran does not have nuclear top cover yet. I am sure Israel can goad Iran into getting that if it really tries hard enough.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Dec 27 12:49:15 And then what? Let's assume Islamic republic has 200 war heads, what exactly do you think will happen? Will it stop Iran from imploding right under them? Will the nuclear weapons do anything about the massive conventional advantage of Israel? Will that stop the regime from being so easily infiltrated, because they have created such horrible conditions, even people within their ranks will work for the Mossad? Did nuclear weapons stop the USA from waging proxy war on the Soviets, or vice versa? Someone still lost that war, a regime fell apart and the nuclear weapons did nothing to stop it. I think the Islamic republic are smarter than that. They have boat that is leaking and slapping on a nuclear reactor will not stop it from sinking.
jergul large member	Wed Dec 27 13:14:51 Nimi I think Israel would be deterred from assasinating Iranians. Iran has the conventional advantage it needs. Better force projection than Israel. Two allied buffers between it and Israel and long ranged weapons able to pummel Israel across the buffers. Wah Iron shield? Well, Iran also has proxies with very cheap missiles and shells able to saturate Iron dome defences. That is the problem with missiles costing 60k facing missiles, drones and shells with pricetags a fraction of that cost. The only thing Iran lacks is nuclear topcover.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Dec 27 13:33:34 "I think Israel would be deterred from assasinating Iranians." Does Russia's nuclear weapons keep their officers safe?
jergul large member	Wed Dec 27 13:46:01 In peacetime, yes. I dont think Israel wants to get into a wartime lets lob missiles and drones at each other competition.
jergul large member	Wed Dec 27 13:46:59 It really is just the nukes. Iran has trebled its 60%+ refined uranium production since the 7th of October incidentally.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Dec 27 14:25:16 It's not peacetime between Israel and Iran. It may not tick the entire checklist for the conventional idea of war, like in the Ukraine, but it is very much a war. None of that will stop because the Islamic republic has nuclear warheads. The threats to the regime are of a different nature, unfortunately/luckily depending on how you see it, the regime is not this stupid. Just listen to them. The uranium refinement serves as a great propaganda tool, because you see, the idea of an Islamic republic with nuclear weapons, is much worse than an actual Islamic republic with nuclear weapons.
jergul large member	Wed Dec 27 14:48:24 Well, if Iran is at war with a full nuclear power, then it obviously also should become a full nuclear power. It would be stupid not to. A foreign power assasinating its military leadership seems pretty high up on the list of threats that have to be dealt with. But to do that...well, Iran needs nukes first. Frankly surprising it does not have them already.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Dec 27 14:59:22 I think there is an easy fix here. Just read everything I explained and look at how not surprised I am.
jergul large member	Wed Dec 27 15:06:21 Yes mr. curveball.
murder Member	Wed Dec 27 17:15:14 "I am pretty sure lawyers and humanitarian aid workers were not in charge of Central Command. But sure, feel free to embrace any stab in the back theory you like. I have a feeling you will need a refresher course in that to explain *stuff* soon enough." Yeah, building hospitals and schools and infrastructure was all part of our targeting of the enemy. I'm sure you hit your head.
jergul large member	Thu Dec 28 00:47:15 Murder Hearts and minds was the only way to win the conflicts. Military Command knew that. You did a crap job at it. For proper rebuilding to win hearts and minds, see Grozny or Mariupol.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Dec 28 03:54:05 Jergul "Yes mr. curveball." Remember when you said Israel will bomb Gaza and then back way under pressure? I bask in the glow of your projection. For the Islamic republic nuclear weapons are a nice thing to have, not a need to have. It could serve as a small propaganda victory within their ranks, but as it stands they have far more pressing issues to tend to. People are questioning what will be left of the Axis of resistance after Hamas, given how badly they have failed doing anything in this conflict.
jergul large member	Thu Dec 28 05:23:58 I did not say that. I said that Israel should invade and fully occupy Gaza, but will probably limit itself to incursions with less than 10k dead Palestinians. Remember when I said there is no chance in hell of Ukraine reaching its maximalist objectives? Nukes are nice to have because once you have them, you will not need them. Top cover. Iran could do something in the conflict with nukes. Nothing like a few 1000 airborne weapons of various sorts lobbed from Iran and supported by smaller things from Gaza, Lebanon, Iraq and Syria. Israel could strike back in Gaza, Lebanon, Iraq and Syria.
jergul large member	Thu Dec 28 05:26:22 Curveball was incidentally in reference to that guy in Iraq that fed the US all kinds of fantasies.
murder Member	Thu Dec 28 10:26:26 "Hearts and minds was the only way to win the conflicts." No jergul, the way you win is by slaughtering the enemy. Building schools and hospitals and infrastructure is stuff you put soldiers in charge of when you have hippies running things. "Iran could do something in the conflict with nukes. Nothing like a few 1000 airborne weapons of various sorts lobbed from Iran and supported by smaller things from Gaza, Lebanon, Iraq and Syria." So just to clarify, nukes would make Iran immune from consequences ... but nukes can't keep Israel safe. Is that about right?
	show deleted posts