CNN: Iran moving ballistic missiles by boat, US officials say
Intelligence showing that Iran is likely moving short-range ballistic missiles aboard boats in the Persian Gulf was one of the critical reasons the US decided to move an aircraft carrier strike group and B-52 bombers into the region, according to several US officials with direct knowledge of the situation.
The concerns over the movement of the missiles was one of multiple threads of intelligence from various sources that led the US to believe Iran had a capability and intention to launch strikes against US targets.
On Tuesday US Central Command spokesperson Capt. Bill Urban said they had seen "indications that Iranian and Iranian proxy forces were making preparations to possibly attack US forces in the region."
Read more ....
Update #1: US official: Intel indicates Iran moved missiles by boat (AP)
Update #2: US deployment a response to Iran moving ballistic missiles by boat: report (The Hill)
WNU Editor: An Iranian missile strike on U.S. and/or allied assets in the Middle East would mean war. Are the Iranians that foolish? My gut says no.
26 comments:
The Iranian Ian won't have a functioning country to govern so if you poke a even a old sick tiger long enough it will bite.
Why do we assume the Iranians are necessarily "foolish?" You overestimate American capabilities while underestimating those of adversaries. US foreign policy has been in terrible shape for a long time largely IMHO because American leaders continually do just this refusing to learn.
Of course an attack of this type on US interests means war. Iran calculates that they can win and they calculate correctly. It would be "foolish" on the part of us as Americans and our leaders to assume Iran cannot win. Should Iran attack and we retaliate beyond conventional means Iran has very powerful allies who are fully capable of thwarting our attack and can definitely respond in kind.
This is NOT to say Iran would win but they are definitely capable and it would be "foolish" to think otherwise. Furthermore American casualties would likely be massive in such a war and it seems unlikely they'd be limited to military personnel in the middle east. I'd expect Iranian forces and/or their proxies to bring the fight to our homeland inflicting massive casualties here.
American political and military leaders need to be very circumspect here. I think a case can be made that we need to confront Iran but it would be "foolish" to assume that this is going to be an easy foe to defeat or that victory is by any means certain.
...
We did get to see Iranian forces get cut to pieces in Syria for a few years, heavy TOW/ATGM bait.
@B poster... The US would finish a conventional war with Iran with ease. Whether subsequent occupation would be a problem etc. can be discussed, but it is ridiculous to even compare the US military and the Iranians. The US would establish air superiority within 72 hours and from there... do whatever the hell they want to.
The problem with Iran is not to win or lose a war. The fear of a regime change because economy trouble can push the Iran Power to "reunite" the people for a common goal: having a war against an enemy.
Anon (12:08),
Thanks for the reply. Very respectfully the first thought that comes to mind when reading your post is "hubris." The second thought is "pride comes before a fall."
Essentially your analysis rests on assumptions that aren't "known" and cannot be "known" without an actual military conflict. Iran certainly can be defeated. After all there is no such thing as an unbeatable enemy but it would likely be much tougher than you realize.
We may need to fight them!! If so and we enter into it with the blythe assumptions you seem to have, I suspect the action will be an unmitigated disaster for us.
Assuming we get to the "subsequent occupation" I think this would be a huge problem. I'm thinking Iraq on steroids, Libya after Khaddaffi, or worse. Essentially the military would need to be completely restructured and the approaches taken by our military and civilian leaders would need to be radically changed.
Anon (11:57),
There influence in Syria exceeds ours. As such, I think reports of their forces getting "cut to pieces" may be embelished. Even if true, we'd expect an enemy to learn from previous encounters as I'd expect us to as well. They haven't been able to defeat us. Maybe they are training us!! The point is it would be "foolish" IMHO to expect a war with Iran would be easy or guaranteed.
Victory is possible and the fight may be necessary. Our leaders will need to be very prudent and will need to avoid rash actions.
I wouldn't expect a land war, just the loss of their big navy ships and of course their air force...sad to see the Tomcats go.
Iran will win?, nothing of the sort, they will sue for a ceasefire within a week.
This would be operation mantis again x 10. Yes Irans capabilities have grown but so has the USN and USAF by a much greater margin, unless you are talking asymmetric warefare and terrorism.
If you were talking a land invasion then again the U. S would probably not be prepared to absorb the casualties of a falujah on steroids.
However you cut it you are looking Iranian air and naval assets destroyed in short order, the real ace is the Iranian midget subs and mines.
You don't need to have driven a chevy impala to know a 911 is better.
I am certain the US would secure the air space over Iran in 72 hours, I mean there has to be some payback for the money spent on that kind of weaponry. The issue of course is how to protect Israel. Should the Iranians launch say 200 missiles at once aimed at Israel would the Israelis be able to defend themselves? You know it might take only a dozen or so to get through and hit key facilities.
Trump is pushing now so hard for a war with Iran, perhaps in the hope he will get his two year extension.
Trump Admin Inflated Iran Intel, U.S. Officials Say
John Bolton and other Team Trump hawks are trumpeting intelligence that Tehran is readying attacks on U.S. forces. They’re exaggerating the threat, officials tell The Daily Beast.
Is it just me or is this story about moving ballistic missiles by boat just strange?
Hey if comrade BS poster tells you America is weak, you better believe him!
*yawwwn
Fazman,
I like the optimism unfortunately it's based on questionable assumptions at best. As for operation Mantis, this was back in the 80s. Iran is most likely considerably stronger today than it was then. As such, those assumptions aren't valid. As I've stated, pride comes before a fall. Of course your Aussie. Your loved ones aren't in danger. It's easy to cheer on an action when you have no skin in it.
The US can win. Assuming Russia and China stay out of it which I would not assume I'd put the odds at about 55/45 for an American win. Regardless the casualties on our side are going to be massive in such a conflict.
God, Bposter will you never stop? Your argument is: "that was in the 80s Iran is now stronger".
No shit, sherlock! -- but in your hyper Russian world (where you jerk off to putin posters on your wall while claiming to be a concerned American) you always portray Russians and their friends as super heroes. News flash: America too is stronger today than it was in the 80s ffs. A war against Iran would lead to air supremacy in a matter of days, and from then on its not about military but humanity. Many of America's wars -including Vietnam-could have been militarily won but they chose not to do so. That's democracy not a fault of military. Get it in your head, comrade. Also your dear Russians lost militarily heavily against Germany back then but every year -for now almost 80 years -they portray it as grandios victory while the numbers beg to differ. Also, if I remember correctly Russians were so afraid to face Germans you shot your own people in the back. So much for the Russian myth and love for country. Ask any Russian in the west and they'll tell you what a shit hole it truly is. So please stop your BS. You're doing it for years now and are clearly working for Russia or are some retarded troll who doesn't know fact from fiction
Mike, it is not just you. History has shown that there is no limit to which the intelligence community and by extension the government will go to put the lives of its military personnel in danger, whether it is to propagate fake information, or, to suppress legitimate information as long as in the end, it furthers the WIC.
Bob (7:52AM),
Assuming the US can secure control of Iranian airspace which is a questionable assumption at best IMHO to assume we could do so in 72 hours is overly optimistic. Remember the area is going to be heavily defended by Russian and Chinese military defenses and air defense systems. At a minimum, US casualties and loss of military assets would be massive including many aircraft.
This is a very capable enemy. We may need to fight this. Hysterical anti-Americanism and overly Pollyannish views of this situation are not going to be helpful.
As for protecting Israel, its never been a top priority. The best thing we could do for them is to get out of their way.
Iran "death to America" has been "pushing hard" for this war for a long time. What we are seeing here by Trump is a reaction. The primary course of action appears to be sanctions. Will this work? Based upon history the answer would seem to be no. It may buy us time to get ready for the fight should it be necessary.
War with Iran will not get Trump a "tow year extension." Such a war would all but guarantee his removal from office greasing his way out so to speak and should America be attacked by Iran he will bear the blame for it even more so. IMHO to assume otherwise is a fundamental misread of the American people.
Anon (7:52AM),
The tendency among "US officials" is to overstate our capabilities while simultaneously underestimating those of adversaries and potential adversaries. As such, for them to make such a statement is hardly surprising and, given their history, their statements should be treated with extreme skepticism.
IF US forces are attacked, Trump takes the blame. If other US assets including the US mainland are attacked, Trump takes the blame. Hatred for Trump seems to run high among "US officials." Oftentimes people who hate don't think properly. If such people are acting on hate and have lost rational judgment, then this would explain why they would run to the Daily Beast to breathlessly Claim Trump and his team are overstating the threat.
Mike and Bob (regarding the movement of ballistic missiles),
This does seem perhaps a bit strange. My first thought on this is it is being done this way to throw off the US. There's no way we attack them unless they attack first and surely they know this. They also likely understand that overly Pollyannish assessments and hysterical anti-Americanism are huge benefits to them. Moving the weapons in this way feeds both. At least this is my "take" on this.
Doing it in such a manner that is unexpected also enhances the chances of success as it is not expected lessening the chances of someone finding out and perhaps getting "trigger happy" and trying to stop the shipment. As I understand it, we had to learn this form Israel. Our own intel was likely caught off guard yet again.
Anon (8:44AM),
I never said America is "weak." Please reread the posts before commenting. What I have stressed is Iran is a very capable enemy who has very capable allies. Iran is capable of beating the US in a military conflict with or without these allies. With the allies the situation becomes even more dicey. To assume otherwise is hubris and hubris comes before a fall.
We may need to fight them. We need to be prepared. False narratives are not helpful and only make things worse. As Sun Tzu stated to roughly paraphrase, know your enemy, know yourself, and you prevail every time. Understand neither yourself nor your adversary you lose every time. If there a silver lining, it seems highly likely based upon observation that Iran does not understand us either. Maybe this allows us some hope.
Anon (9:41AM),
Iran is stronger now than it was in the 80s. To argue against this would be a bit like trying to argue that jumping out of a three story window headfirst onto the concrete below would not lead to a serious head injury. Also, I look at the alliances. Iran has forged tight relations with Russia, Russia, China, and a number of European countries. US alliances are much weaker now than in the 80s and where they do exist are often like parasites feeding on their American host. As such, the conclusion that this would be a very difficult fight is a sound one. Iran is stronger relative to America today than it was in the 80s. To assume otherwise is at best extremely dangerous and at worst is a blithe assumption that is almost guaranteed to lead to defeat should it come to war.
After this you launch into insults accusing me of being Russian and supporting Russia which is false as you would know if you read my posts in their entirety. I suspect you do know this and are hoping to discredit me by wild accusations. From here you are all over the place talking about Vietnam and WW2. You may be hoping to distract from a weak argument by smearing the messenger. This is a very common tactic employed by someone whose position is unsupportable or their position rests on questionable assumptions.
Anyway back to the topic at hand that you were hoping to distract from. Iran is a very capable adversary who is fully capable of defeating America in a war. Military and civilian leaders need to plan as though this is the case. We may need to fight this. If so, prudent, circumspect, and sober analysis is what we are going to need. Hysterical anti-Americanism and Pollyanna are not helpful and only undermine us. As Sun Tzu stated to paraphrase, know your enemy, know yourself, and you prevail every time. Overestimating your capabilities while underestimating those of an adversary as we tend to do equals neither understanding yourself nor your enemy which according to Sun Tzu means loosing every time. With that said there seems a real possibility that Iran does not understand us very well either. This may offer some hope.
As I am very busy at work now and a close friend of my family has passed away, this will probably be my last post here today. If time permits, I will try and reply to any responses that advance the discussion. If time does not permit, we may have to continue this discussion at another time and on another thread.
How do you define capable the US did to Iraq what Iran couldn't achieve in years.
72 hours is the US worst case scenario, Iranian missile silos are another story.
You do realise that aussie have been the first to sign up to us adventures for over 40 years?
Iran today is going to be much more capable than the 72 hours of Iraq. You could examine the swarms of speedboats and anti-ship missiles and stop there.
The close relations with Russia and China will need to be factored in. They aren't going to just sit around and do nothing. Iran also likely has Russia's top air defense system and Russian and Chinese military assets are already going to be in the region ready to assist Iran. Bottom line: this is a VERY tough adversary. Victory is possible but far from certain at this point and American casualties would be extremely high. Furthermore unless steps are taken to properly secure the American mainland these heavy casualties will include Americans on our homeland. To assume otherwise js hubris and hubris precedes a fall.
"You do realise that aussie have been the first to sign up to us adventures for over 40 years?" I do realize this. Much of what you refer to as "adventures" I would call "contrary to American interests," "stupid," or worse. By "signing on" the Aussie government and by extensions Aussies become accessories to actions contrary to American interests and that which is stupid. I wouldn't expect to be rewarded for such things. Besides the Aussie government didn't do this for free. Getting the token support no doubt came at a price. You've already received your reward in this regard. To ask for more very respectfully is looking like naked greed and could be viewed as disrespectful. As I do respect, I would prefer not to view your comment in that manner.
As with most US "allies," the US does the heavy lifting and if it goes well, pose for pictures and enjoy the perks. If it doesn't go well, America bears the costs anyway. No real loss to you and the Aussie homeland is not threatened by any of this. Your loved ones are safe. Mine are not. If Iran or any of these other actions go awry, it's American heads who are on the chopping block, not Aussies.
There probably have been instances where Australia "signed on" becsuse Aussie interests and American interests meshed in such a way that such involvement made sense for Australia. In such cases, it would be unreasonable to expect America and the American people to bear an even greater burden by providing additional benefits to Australia or any other country who is in a similar situation.
If there is a eilver lining here, in the case of North Korea in September 2017 war with North Korea seemed inevitable with victory for us being far from certain. Now fast forward to today, while the the North Korean situation is far from solved, we have had some setbacks, and there is still much that can go wrong, we are in a MUCH better situation today than we were then.
The rhetoric between Iran and the US is intense now. Victory for America is far from certain should war ensue. Perhaps 20 months from now we can be in a similar situation with regards to Iran that we are in with regards to North Korea today.
Post a Comment