Utopia Talk / Politics / Trump is in a tough spot with Iran

murder rank	Sun Mar 15 15:13:34 Short of Iran running out of missiles and drones, opening up the Strait of Hormuz is going to require a major deployment of ground troops, not just a Marine Expeditionary Unit. Even if the Marines were able to establish a beachhead on the Iranian coast, Trump would have to deploy Iraq invasion levels of troops to move across the strait from the UAE and Oman to hold and expand that beachhead. That would lead to levels of casualties that he's been allergic to, and would likely be political suicide. The only other path to "victory" I can see is dropping a nuke inside Iran ... likely a nuclear facility ... and hoping that's enough to scare Iran into capitulation. I can't imagine Trump just taking an L and being driven out of US bases in the gulf region. Am I wrong? -
Rugian rank	Sun Mar 15 15:15:44 Uh, we already won the war dude. I'm not sure how you weren't aware of this. Trump tells it to us every day.
Seb rank	Sun Mar 15 15:22:24 There's no way to reopen the straights without regime change or literally bombing Iran into the stone age, and keeping it there forever by bombing any industrial capability of a sophistication capable of producing a petrol lawnmower at scale. Israel's plan is the latter. It has always been the latter. This is why no previous US govt has done this. The sweet spot was the JCPOA which was effective and offered a path for detente. Unfortunately it had a major defect: it was negotiated by a black man so entirely unacceptable to the American right.
Average Ameriacn rank	Sun Mar 15 15:26:56 I think that he will make a deal with Saudia Arabia. If Saudia Arabia invades Iran then they can keep half of the oil. Afghanistan could invade Iran from the north and kill the Kurds if the Kurds do not fight for us. We can offer Afghanistan a somewhat lower tax rate if they do that.
Rugian rank	Sun Mar 15 15:28:15 JCPOA was a kick-the-can-down-the-road act of cowardice by Western leaders who cynically calculated that it wouldn't actually do anything to stop Iran from getting nukes, it would just defer the problem until all of those said leaders were comfortably out of office, leaving it for others to deal with. What a trash deal that was. It'a astounding that RBO stans still defend it.
Seb rank	Sun Mar 15 15:28:39 Murder: A nuke won't work either. That will simply shatter the Iranian regime and it's too easy for small groups to hold ships at risk. Nobody other than Israel wants to turn Iran into another Syria. A nuke also creates further problems elsewhere. What are you going to do if the norms on nuclear weapons are so eroded that Pakistan, India and North Korea decide to sell complete nuclear warheads as an export opportunity?
Seb rank	Sun Mar 15 15:34:41 Rugian: See, exactly what I mean. You have to complain it was terrible even though it worked perfectly until Trump took it to pieces; because it is entirely unacceptable that a black democrat president could have delivered an effective diplomatic solution. But look, here we are, we've tried the military alternative: The strikes last year didn't work. Now we are trying to foment regime change, and that's not working. As warned, Iran is able to attack the gulf states infrastructure, regional US bases and rapidly deplete stockpiles of high end offensive and defensive munitions. As warned, Iran can fuck the global economy. JCPOA worked. The problem is you, and people like you, are dumbasses decided there must be some easy final solution where you take one action and never need to think about the issue again - so that you could attack JCPOA, because you had to, because otherwise a black democrat would have had a win, and that's just unthinkable.
Pillz rank	Sun Mar 15 15:48:56 Nuke is Israel
Hrothgar rank	Sun Mar 15 15:52:40 Saudi Arabia has no where near the population needed to occupy Iran even with US support. You'd need a coalition of the entire middle east to even dream of enough long term troops and logistics to occupy it into a neutral/friendly state with the rest of the region. Perhaps we can talk China into deploying a million troops for 30 years to ensure a compliant and secular Iran? Maybe they could take care of the Holy Land problem while their at it!
Habebe rank	Sun Mar 15 17:18:15 1. Why doesn't Israel have boots on the ground? Other than letting us use their land and airspace, what are the gulf states doing?
Habebe rank	Sun Mar 15 17:28:50 My current theory is this 1. Trump is running the country like he is.playing a game of civilization. A. Securing resources. B. Gaining concessions through tarriff and war. Etc. I think he made sure he secured control of venezuelan oil to help alleviate US supply issues. Then intentionally did this to spike the price of oil, and to force the US military Industrial Complex to work on overdrive. Here in Philly the port is hiring tons of ppl to build submarines I think for South Korea. Then he deports and blocks immigration, to lower the supply of workers, aetificially hires enmasse to boost good payong jobs. I just don't get why we can't dump more of this share into infrastructure. I mean, I do, keeping our MIC keeps our military equipment and skilled labor force at its peak, in theory. That's just how I see it.
williamthebastard rank	Sun Mar 15 18:13:54 Christ man, after all the incredibly obvious evidence that he NEVER thinks in terms of strategy for the country and ALWAYS thinks ONLY in terms of benefits for himself, you STILL actually think he does the aforementioned? It sort of blows my mind, I have to admit without wanting to offend you
williamthebastard rank	Sun Mar 15 18:23:53 He's been conditioned since birth that winners grab every opportunity to profit from any event and losers dont. Empathy is for losers. If you get the chance to grab every single dollar from someone else, grab them. Why? Because they are grabbable. Its nothing personal, just business, the way of the world, the way that csam adamses and Trumps call intelligence, the way winners think. And only losers dont get that. And given that he's lived by that maxim to the hilt for 80 years, he's psychologically completely unable to ever change that.
Sam Adams rank	Sun Mar 15 18:26:50 "JCPOA worked." Yes, an incompetent buerocrat would think that.
jergul rank	Sun Mar 15 18:48:36 JCPOA was in a sense redundant because Iran did not have nuclear weapon ambitions. It gave up nothing. There is no way to perpetually ensure a country refrains from nuclear weapons. It is after all 1940s tech. Murder Forcebuild up, then move in through Iraq. Nab the oil fields. Have minorities in the area kosovo themselves. That has to be the plan for boots on the ground. Let other countries sort out how they can get transit passes through the straight from Iran. The US does not actually need it. Problem is. That kind of escalation would see Iran go full America and start to permanently degrade oil, gas and water infrastructure for any country aiding the US within missile range.
Paramount rank	Sun Mar 15 18:55:04 https://youtu.be/h-VYTKzDMZ0
Seb rank	Sun Mar 15 18:57:00 NaMBLA: Hush silly weather man. Nuclear supply chain is well beyond you.
Sam Adams rank	Sun Mar 15 19:16:00 Kick the can down the road, appease, be a coward. Everything seb loves most in the world all in one treaty. No wonder he defends jcpos
jergul rank	Sun Mar 15 19:48:13 Sammy Everything kicks the can down the road. Belarus got nukes just a few years ago by making an intergovernment deal. You cant stop it if a country is determined to get it.
Sam Adams rank	Sun Mar 15 20:28:54 You say things that are very retarded. Of course we can stop them.
Seb rank	Sun Mar 15 22:50:23 Idiots keep saying "kick the can down the road", but the JCPOA put IAEA inspectors all over Iran's nuclear industry, blended down their stockpile and put their centrifuge count down into the hundreds. Sure, maybe Iran could have secretly produced an entire new nuclear supply chain with hidden production of centrifuge, hidden uranium and hexafluoride streams and hidden centrifuge halls. In practice that would be very hard to for them to do. Of course, if they could do that, they'd also be able to avoid military action because by definition, you'd not know it existed let alone where to target. So no, it wasn't kicking the can down the road. It was a viable and effective solution to Iran's nuclear program. And once the US breached it, they were free to openly build huge enrichment capacity and a significant stock of weapons grade material which the US has been unable to do much about - because hiding a few hundred kilos of HEU is much easier than centrifuge cascades. The bombing is the can kicking. Ever 12 months or so, you need to do it all over again.
jergul rank	Sun Mar 15 23:15:03 Like you stopped India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, or Belarus? Seb Iran could have just done a uranium for nukes swap deal with NK. Still can in fact. If it wants nukes.
jergul rank	Sun Mar 15 23:16:04 Nothing untoward about it. Belgium, Turkey and Italy have nukes with strings attached. Finland is looking into getting some too.
jergul rank	Sun Mar 15 23:17:23 The NPT is all about rewarding countries for not getting nukes. The coercive additional protocol stuff was silly and counterproductive. The US is in gross violation of the NPT for attacking Iran incidentally.
murder rank	Sun Mar 15 23:37:45 "Forcebuild up, then move in through Iraq. Nab the oil fields. Have minorities in the area kosovo themselves. That has to be the plan for boots on the ground." Iraq is not a secure base for a large scale operation. We'd end up in combat in Iran AND Iraq.
Pillz rank	Mon Mar 16 00:00:19 US is already striking pro Iranian security forces in iraq.
jergul rank	Mon Mar 16 00:03:52 Murder Anything is better than supporting combat operations behind a contested seaway.
TheChildren rank	Mon Mar 16 08:55:04 "Sure, maybe Iran could have secretly produced an entire new nuclear supply ch" >> 4 fucks sake man wake da hell up. if iran had nukes, they wuld have neva been attacked da first place dis is wmd all ova again and all yee non magas r fallin 4 da same crap ova and ova and ova again
jergul rank	Mon Mar 16 10:04:12 The problem now is that of course Iran is entirely justified in getting nukes now. It was attacked by two nuclear weapon powers. One of them in gross violation of the NPT (the other one is not a signee). I dont even think it would be a case of profilation beyond noting that nuclear powers cannot attack non-nuclear power if non-profilation is the goal. The same logic applies to Ukraine incidentally. So both Iran and Ukraine deserve security assurances and a significant number of carrots to voluntarily stay nuclear weapons free.
Seb rank	Mon Mar 16 10:51:24 The children: Learn basic comprehension. The sentence in no way suggests I believe Iran has or could have had nukes.
Seb rank	Mon Mar 16 10:56:54 Jergul: India, Israel and Pakistan were never party to the NPT in the first place. And in particular the Pakistan/India arms race is predominantly the reason there is a north Korean bomb and an Iranian nuclear program. Belarus, Belgium and Turkey do not have nuclear weapons. Transfer of operational control would only happen in the event of a open hostilities involving the US or Russia (depending on which country owned the nuclear weapons in question) and another nuclear power, with the expressed and active facilitation of the weapons owners. At that point it would be a breach of the NPT, sure.
jergul rank	Mon Mar 16 11:39:57 Seb Membership in the NPT is voluntary and the treaty is not self-enforcing by design. Countries can withdraw easily without penalty. Theoretically, nuclear powers could withdraw whatever nuclear aid they were providing. The treaty is a carrot-carrot agreement. There is no stick. As you might possibly see now that the US is in gross violation of the treaty again. Or are you ready to roll out sanctions on it? Operational control is a bilateral matter. And Russia might very well withdraw its peaceful nuclear assistance to Turkey if it saw violations. As is its right and only right according to the NPT. The wording is otherwise pretty clear. Any form of nuclear weapons transfer is not permitted "whatsoever". The abovementioned countries are in violation. As is US assistance to Israel for example where the US would be in violation. But its not a big deal in a carrot treaty. You just lose the carrot maybe if anyone feels like taking the carrot away. The only way to encourage countries from aquiring nukes is by a carrot approach. Coercion is by definition counterproductive. As the writers of the NPT knew perfectly well when it was designed.
jergul rank	Mon Mar 16 11:43:30 You counter-argument to come would fall under interpretations for thee, not for me in the name of the greater good (what if everyone just got nukes). Fair enough, but it has nothing to do with the NPT. Maybe offer more carrots? To Ukraine and Iran in particular as those are the countries now with a moral grounds for gaining a nuclear arsenal.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: