Nato allies reject Trump’s plea for help in his Iran War

Dutch Uncle said:
While the Iranian mountains offer a lot of cover and concealment of Iranian military equipment, the problem with bombing the shit out of Kharg Island is that it would destroy their own oil export facilities. Rather than attack the Marines on the island, the Iranians would be better off taking out the support ships providing ammo, food, water and medical support.

Another response is to attack the American homeland with drones. Tit-for-tat.

en.wikipedia.org

Kharg Island - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Kharg Island provides a sea port for the export of up to 90% of Iran's oil products, as well as supplying storage for up to 30 million barrels (5 million cubic metres) of oil, and is therefore strategically important.

www.google.com

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.
www.google.com www.google.com
Click to expand...
Phantasmal said:
Remember, he’s smarter than the Generals.

It’s rumored the generals advised them not to do this. Malcolm Nance says if Marines invade the islands, they will be wiped out because Iran has defenses in the mountains above the islands which will make our Marines easy targets.

DonOld has blown this.
Click to expand...
The best defense against being wiped out that Kharg island has is that the US does not want an even more massive disruption of oil shipping capacity and routes that would see global oil prices skyrocket more.

Would the US bombing Kharg into in-operation hurt Iran, yes, BUT it would hurt the US a LOT too, and it would truly put Iran in a 'nothing left to lose' type position, that Ukraine is in, in its fight with Russia.
 
QP! said:
The best defense against being wiped out that Kharg island has is that the US does not want an even more massive disruption of oil shipping capacity and routes that would see global oil prices skyrocket more.

Would the US bombing Kharg into in-operation hurt Iran, yes, BUT it would hurt the US a LOT too, and it would truly put Iran in a 'nothing left to lose' type position, that Ukraine is in, in its fight with Russia.
Click to expand...
Conversely, taking it intact would make Kharg Island a bargaining chip.

OTOH, the risks of US boots on the ground include not only massive US casualties but further uniting the Iranian people against US "invaders".
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Conversely, taking it intact would make Kharg Island a bargaining chip.

OTOH, the risks of US boots on the ground include not only massive US casualties but further uniting the Iranian people against US "invaders".
Click to expand...
Yup.

That is why the US initially was canvassing around for any Saddam Hussain like faction leader in the region, who had a militia force big enough that the US could support and arm and send in as boots on the ground, into Iran.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" or in Trump's case 'those too stupid to learn from the past...'
 
Phantasmal said:
Did you listen to Nance’s report?
Click to expand...
The most recent hour long Malcom Nance report? No, but I doubt the strategic situation has changed much since my days on active duty. It's why no other President was stupid enough to engage Iran directly. Would you please share a synopsis?

The Third Option was working as shown by the fact the Iranian government murdered tens of thousands of their own citizens. By attacking Iran, Trump has distracted the dissidents to focusing upon the destruction Trump is raining down on innocent Iranian citizens including the mass murder of children.
 
Diogenes said:
Is that so, Anchovies?

Please, do explain.
Click to expand...
It was written in the mid 19th Century, applicable to the then rise of nation states at that time, Bismarck applied it extensively leading to the militarism of 20th Century Germany, and we all know how that turned out

Anymore history I can help you with
 
FB_IMG_1773847626036.jpg Gen. Schwartzkopf....."Going to war without France is like going hunting without your accordion".
 
Dutch Uncle said:
The most recent hour long Malcom Nance report? No, but I doubt the strategic situation has changed much since my days on active duty. It's why no other President was stupid enough to engage Iran directly. Would you please share a synopsis?

The Third Option was working as shown by the fact the Iranian government murdered tens of thousands of their own citizens. By attacking Iran, Trump has distracted the dissidents to focusing upon the destruction Trump is raining down on innocent Iranian citizens including the mass murder of children.
Click to expand...
He basically said occupying any island would be suicidal for any American troops. He talked about how they will control the Strait of Hormuz with fake mines, tankers seeing the fake mines, thinking they are real, will avoid the strait.
 
TOP said:
View attachment 78628 Gen. Schwartzkopf....."Going to war without France is like going hunting without your accordion".
Click to expand...
And yet here we are with Trump both begging and threatening France and others to come clean up the war mess he made.

A continuation of Trump and Magats giving France and allies the middle finger and telling them they do not need and then begging for help after while demanding they help and ridiculing them at the same time.

amy6x6.jpg
 
Phantasmal said:
He basically said occupying any island would be suicidal for any American troops. He talked about how they will control the Strait of Hormuz with fake mines, tankers seeing the fake mines, thinking they are real, will avoid the strait.
Click to expand...
Thanks, Phan. Not sure about suicidal, but occupying even a small part of Iran would cause more problems than it solves. History proves that people tend to dislike foreign occupiers. Humorist Will Rogers explained this almost 100 years ago:
www.latimes.com

Will Rogers Explains It All : Foreign policy: The great American humorist discusses moral leadership and where to find a U.S. Marine.

This collage of excerpts from Will Rogers' writings and broadcasts between 1925 and 1935 was compiled by Bryan B.
www.latimes.com www.latimes.com
Now you can’t pick up a paper without reading where our marines have landed to keep some nations from shooting each other, and if necessary we shoot them to keep them from shooting each other. America has a great habit of always talking about protecting American interests in some foreign country. Protect them here at home. There are more American interests right here than anywhere. What would we say if the Chinese was to send a gunboat up the Mississippi?

Will Rogers, U.S.A. | News | The Harvard Crimson

W ILL ROGERS held a special place in the hearts of Americans in the 1920's and 30's. He was a
www.thecrimson.com www.thecrimson.com
Even more apt are his statements on American gunboat diplomacy: "So, we set out helping the world. We will send Marines to any nation that can get ten people to ask us. We're in the humanity business. Look folks, if we had any morals we'd use them ourselves... What would we say if the Chinese sent a gunboat up the Mississippi, you know, with their Marines on it? What if they said they were just protecting their laundries in Memphis?"

Good point about fake mines. Tertia Optio. LOL
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Thanks, Phan. Not sure about suicidal, but occupying even a small part of Iran would cause more problems than it solves. History proves that people tend to dislike foreign occupiers. Humorist Will Rogers explained this almost 100 years ago:
www.latimes.com

Will Rogers Explains It All : Foreign policy: The great American humorist discusses moral leadership and where to find a U.S. Marine.

This collage of excerpts from Will Rogers' writings and broadcasts between 1925 and 1935 was compiled by Bryan B.
www.latimes.com www.latimes.com
Now you can’t pick up a paper without reading where our marines have landed to keep some nations from shooting each other, and if necessary we shoot them to keep them from shooting each other. America has a great habit of always talking about protecting American interests in some foreign country. Protect them here at home. There are more American interests right here than anywhere. What would we say if the Chinese was to send a gunboat up the Mississippi?

Will Rogers, U.S.A. | News | The Harvard Crimson

W ILL ROGERS held a special place in the hearts of Americans in the 1920's and 30's. He was a
www.thecrimson.com www.thecrimson.com
Even more apt are his statements on American gunboat diplomacy: "So, we set out helping the world. We will send Marines to any nation that can get ten people to ask us. We're in the humanity business. Look folks, if we had any morals we'd use them ourselves... What would we say if the Chinese sent a gunboat up the Mississippi, you know, with their Marines on it? What if they said they were just protecting their laundries in Memphis?"

Good point about fake mines. Tertia Optio. LOL
Click to expand...
I trust Nance’s opinions because of his background and current occupation, not that I don’t consider your opinion, but he just has info on current intelligence.
 
Phantasmal said:
I trust Nance’s opinions because of his background and current occupation, not that I don’t consider your opinion, but he just has info on current intelligence.
Click to expand...
Regardless of how we get there, I think you, I and Malcolm are agreed invading Iran, even a small part of it, is a very bad idea.

The ability of Iran to disrupt traffic in the Persian Gulf, specifically the Strait of Hormuz, has been well known for 45 years. I was aboard the Saratoga which, along with two other battlegroups, was going to send a frigate into the Gulf of Sidra, thus crossing Gaddafi's Line of Death. Good news for Gaddafi was that "someone" was laying mines in the shipping lanes of the Persian Gulf.

Rather than have the possibility of two wars at the same time, our operation was canceled while our forces in the Persian Gulf investigated the problem.

For MAGAts, much less the President of the United States and his staff, to claim surprise that Iran could disrupt traffic to and from the Persian Gulf is proof of their stupidity, ignorance and incompetence.

The threat was magnified in 1984, when naval mines were first used in the conflict (although most mine strikes occurred later in 1987).

Prior to U.S. intervention, mines already had damaged several ships, including the Liberian-registered Primrose and the Soviet-flagged Marshal Chuikov. In 1980, President Jimmy Carter made a declaration justifying U.S. force to prevent any power from fully dominating the Gulf. As shipping premiums rose, and the world watched as regional repercussion reverberated through global markets, the United States decided to intervene, committing itself to preventing a dictatorship in either Iran or Iraq from controlling global supply lines in the Gulf.

As the Iran-Iraq War spilled into the sea, other Gulf states sought protection by reflagging their merchant vessels under other nations’ flags. Kuwait was particularly active in seeking to reflag its oil tankers. After learning of a potential Soviet-Kuwaiti reflagging deal, the United States redoubled its diplomatic efforts and offered to protect each tanker that Kuwait desired to reflag. War raged on, both on land and at sea, as the United States and Kuwait reached a deal for the U.S. Navy to ensure safe passage of oil and shipping.

Operation Earnest Will​

In July 1987, the first U.S. escort of reflagged Kuwaiti tankers began.4 Named Operation Earnest Will, the escorting mission would be one of the largest surface warfare operations since World War II, but its first convoy—escorting the tanker Bridgeton—began with three warships, the USS Kidd (DDG-993), Fox (CG-33), and Crommelin (FFG-37).5 On an early morning, well into the convoy’s voyage to Kuwait, percussive shock rippled across the water as an explosion ripped through the Bridgeton’s hull—she had hit a mine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top