For those of you keeping score, the Iranians have now shot
at three US UAV drones this month, downing two of them.
6-Jun-2019 – Destroyed;
MQ-9 Reaper; shot by SA-6
13-Jun-2019 – Miss; MQ-9
Reaper; shot at by SA-7
19-Jun-2019 – Destroyed;
Navy MQ-4C Triton (BAMS) (variously reported as RQ-4A Global Hawk)
This is in addition to at least six tanker minings attributed
to Iran in the last few weeks.
You’ll also recall the 2011 capture by Iran of an RQ-170
Sentinel that may have had its control communications hacked.
Does allowing a country to conduct this many attacks seem
like a good idea?
These incidents illustrate a couple points we’ve made.
- UAVs are not survivable over the modern battlefield. These UAVs are flying in a very permissive air space (surface to air shots notwithstanding!) and are being attacked by a third rate (if that) military. Imagine the life expectancy of such UAVs against China.
- These UAVs are just promoting incidents. If we’re not going to respond aggressively and stomp on Iran HARD, then we should pull back and leave the area. At the moment, all we’re doing is antagonizing Iran to no good purpose and wearing out our men and equipment, in addition to losing expensive drones.
This is the ‘shit or get off the pot’ moment. We need to respond FORCEFULLY or leave.
"These UAVs are just promoting incidents. If we’re not going to respond aggressively and stomp on Iran HARD, then we should pull pack and leave the area. At the moment, all we’re doing is antagonizing Iran to no good purpose and wearing out our men and equipment, in addition to losing expensive drones."
ReplyDeleteYup. The US claims they were 20-ish miles off the coast. Territorial waters/airspace would be 12 miles. Hard to say who's right without more data.
Still, that's a fairly big aircraft to have lurking off my coast (140' wingspan) and I wouldn't care to bet whether it was armed or not. Do recon drones have filed flight plans?
As Iran correctly points out, at the narrowest part of the Straight there is NO international water. Its all either Iran or Oman.
Excellent point. Let's fly an RQ-4A off of the Russian or Chinese coast at that range, or even Israel for that matter.
DeleteShame that there wasn't a modern CA or BB around to lay waste to that SAM site. We may just get to see how poorly Tomahawks do against real air defenses.
Interesting. I wasn't really considering the NORAD ADIZ when I was thinking about the drone and supposed international airspace.
Deletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Defense_Identification_Zone_(North_America)
My guess is a big foreign-power-owned drone is going to be positively identified by interceptors and either escorted out of the area or splashed. We play these games all the time with Russian Bears.
I recall China is trying to establish something similar in the South China Sea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Defense_Identification_Zone_(North_America)
Whether the drone was in International airspace is actually irrelevent. Iran has the right to self defense under international law/ UN Charter. The US has made multiple threats and then parked forces off the coast of Iran. If a foreign force made threats and then parked forces in International waters off New York, it would be considered self defense if the US attacked.
DeleteReading between the lines on this one. Trump talks about proportionate response. This to is covered under article 51. There is no legal basis for the US to attack Iran as I see it unless the US can provoke an attack against its forces (human). I think Trump has been very wise or more likely one of his advisers has explained the legal position they are in. There is currently no legal justification for a military attack. If the US attacks without legal justification it opens the floodgates for attacks in countries by Iran harbouring US forces.
Delete"Whether the drone was in International airspace is actually irrelevent. If a foreign force made threats and then parked forces in International waters off New York, it would be considered self defense if the US attacked."
DeleteYou are just flat out wrong. No country can attack another in international air/water. The Soviets flew aircraft up to our borders and sailed ships up to our borders all the time during the Cold War. We had no right to attack them.
"There is no legal basis for the US to attack Iran as I see it unless the US can provoke an attack against its forces (human)."
DeleteThere is no 'human' clause in any self-defense law or doctrine. You're just making this one up. Iran attacked US forces twice (more, if you go back through recent events) so an armed response has been justified.
Beyond that, I've laid out the case for attacking countries that have forfeited their international rights through irresponsible behavior.
"As Iran correctly points out, at the narrowest part of the Straight there is NO international water. Its all either Iran or Oman."
DeleteThat's not quite right. UNCLOS makes provision for international shipping passage through exactly those kind of overlapping borders.
As far as airspace, I have no idea what the international laws are regarding that.
On NPR this morning, Genl. Petraeus said one of these drones costs more than an F-35. No idea if it's true, but I guess he knows more than me. If true, it raises an awful lot of questions.
ReplyDeleteAs per this post, of course, why do we the hell is something that vulnerable and expensive flying around in Iranian SAM range at this point?
But also, what is the rationale for spending that much of the US military budget on unarmed, vulnerable surveillance platforms?
If CIA wants that, maybe they can buy it. But it's not a military asset in any way I understand the military.
The complacency that makes us think we can rely on huge sitting-duck surveillance drones just flying around everywhere we want is scary.
If it's important intel-gathering, it ought to be on a satellite (and, of course, even then be ready for it to get shot down in a war)
MQ9s are fairly cheap, but the 4's are very well specced surveilance assets.
DeleteWe can safely assume its the M4 that recording Iran mining the ships
Agreed. I think that as long as weve stuck to the high ground and stayed in International airspace, we have a solid case. Its time to put manned platforms in the air, and any subsequent attacks on them will be the trigger for a widespread elimination of SAM sites, for starters. Any Navy assets should as of now have serious gloves-off ROEs... Any attacks or provocation of manned assets should be dealt with savagely...
ReplyDelete"Any attacks or provocation of manned assets should be dealt with savagely..."
DeleteExactly! You've got it right. For example, if those Iranians dare to, say, seize some US boats and crews, we'll just have to show them … uh … how sorry we are? Okay, that's a bad example. But if they try to go around sticking mines on ships then we'll really … uh … okay, that's another bad example cause they've done that and we did nothing. But, by God, if they hack a drone and capture it, then we'll … uh … well, crap, that's another bad example cause we won't do anything. Seriously, though, if they try to send their own drones out to interfere in our carrier air operations then we ought to … uh … well we won't do anything. You know, I'm starting to run out of examples.
Okay, it looks like, no matter what they do, we'll just meekly accept it. Darn, you had me fired up there, for a moment but I'm back to the normal appeasement mindset, now. I'll just go work on composing a savagely worded apology note to send to Iran ...
Dont write that apology just yet....
DeleteWhile someone mentioned we actually started a strike and recalled it, frankly that seems like a smooth move of sorts. It at least says that the round is chambered, safetys off, and does it in a better way than a talking head saying it. While generally I do fall into "hawk" mode pretty easilly, Id still rather avoid a fight...any fight. But, the fears of "neverending war" with Iran is baseless to me. We wont declare war. We wont invade. This will just be a matter of eliminating most of their naval and military capabilities, and throw in as much destruction of any potential nuclear sites for icing on the cake. When we control Irans airspace, and weve destroyed any credible defense (or offense), we call it a day and sail away. Sure the cost of all the ordinance will be expensive, but nothing like an invasion/occupation, especially in American lives. Simply remove any credible threats and walk away. Let the military dogs off the chain to do what they do, unrestricted. Then call it a day. Maybe the people rise up and effect regime change. Maybe not. Frankly i dont care. But lets make an example and prove a point. I tire of this country not being taken seriously. Its time to spread a lil bit of Yamamotos fear of a "sleeping giant" to the world...
Their apparently claiming responsibility for the attacks now.
ReplyDeleteNow is the time to sink all Iranian military vessels. If they wish to escalate things further after that, they have only themselves to blame for starting it.
Latest news? coming from Mitch McConnell saying administration is looking at a "measured response"...whatever that means. I'm guessing at least taking out a SAM site or 2, maybe sinking a few Iranian ships? What's a measured response?
ReplyDeleteWait and see...
" What's a measured response?"
DeleteA measured response is what you do when you don't have the guts to stomp the other guy so that he'll never sneeze your way again.
Saw a thread earlier, damn it cant find it now BUT the assertion (which sounded incredible to me at first) is that USA traditionally never responds to shoot downs of its spy assets. North Korea and Soviets shot down quite a few recc planes during Cold War, China collided with a P3 forcing it to land, Iran has shown it's not afraid of shooting at our drones....thinking about it, I cant come up with an example of USA taking a shot back after losing a spy asset.
DeleteKorea seized the Pueblo and we did nothing. The Chinese have seized unmanned underwater vehicles. And so on. America has been restrained in the extreme.
Deleteoften the real reason for 'restraint' is the initial reports can be wrong .
DeleteAdmiral Crowe used to say 'on the first day 80% is wrong , the second day 50% ...etc'
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1993/august/vincennes-case-study
interesting case study from 'Proceedings' on the USS Vincennes incident- although there the US Navy shot down a civilian airliner. The derails of what happened as seen in hindsight and from others present shows not all the information given at the time by Vincennes CO Rogers was correct. Changing facts seemed to re-occur in Rogers later book.
"At about 0940, the Vincennes and Elmer Montgomery crossed the 12-mile line into Iranian territorial waters. There is no mention of this crossing in the unclassified version of the official report of investigation."
"often the real reason for 'restraint' is the initial reports can be wrong ."
DeleteNo, that's a reason for not embarking on an instantaneous response but that's not a reason for no response.
Also, the subsequent refinement in details usually (not always) has nothing to do with the heart of the matter. For example, in your example, whether the ships crossed the boundary had nothing to do with the heart of the matter and whether they did or did not cross had no impact on the other events.
A better example is this
ReplyDelete"Then Vice President George Bush had gone before the United Nations on 14 July and declared, "One thing is clear, and that is that USS Vincennes acted in self-defense…It occurred in the midst of a naval attack initiated by Iranian vessels against a neutral vessel and subsequently against the Vincennes when she came to the aid of the innocent ship in distress."
As it came to pass, none of this was true."
In the current shootdown, Iran would be entitled to shoot down a plane in its airspace. I suppose I was thinking about the Vincennes, its a tricky location to know where you exactly you are in relation to international/territorial waters or airspace, and same could occur with the drone.
This all had happened some weeks after 'Operation Praying Mantis' the planned attacks against Iranian navy assets in the Gulf after a series of smaller incidents.
They shot down an airline because they pannicked. The us never apologised for that snafu.
Delete"The us never apologised for that snafu."
DeleteYou are incorrect. Here are some sentences from a public letter from Ronald Reagan:
"This is a terrible human tragedy. Our sympathy and condolences go out to the passengers, crew, and their families. … We deeply regret any loss of life."
Additionally, the US sent a message of "deep regret" to Iran. I have not seen a public display of the full text of that message.
Finally, the US agreed to pay $62M in compensation to the families.
None of that excuses the incident in any way but it does demonstrate that you statement is factually false.
The standards of this blog insist on facts and logic. You appear to have authored several comments on the Vincennes incident and all of them have been factually incorrect. Another incorrect comment will not be allowed.
"As it came to pass, none of this was true."
ReplyDeleteNot quite correct. The Vincennes believed they were acting in self-defense. Their helo had been fired on by an Iranian vessel and the Vincennes believed the airliner was an attacking plane. That they were mistaken about the plane's action and identity doesn't alter the fact that they acted in what they believed to be self-defense.
" its a tricky location to know where you exactly you are in relation to international/territorial waters or airspace"
No, not in the least. We have all manner of navigational aids to exactly pinpoint our platform's locations. We know exactly where our drones were. The only question is whether we're being given the correct information or being fed a story.
The Proceedings story picks those claims apart.
DeleteThe helo incident was on another date to the shoot down. Thats not important now but that helicopter shouldnt have been there.
As for the 'F14 Diving'
" Admiral Fogarty's investigation accepts the testimony of console operators in the Vincennes' combat information center who said the supposed F-14 was diving. However, one officer, Lieutenant William Montford, who was standing right behind Captain Rogers and testified that he never saw indications that the aircraft was descending. At about 0951, Montford warned Captain Rogers that the contact was "possible COMAIR."25
The Aegis data tapes agree with his view. Beyond doubt, the console operators' electronic displays showed the aircraft ascending throughout. Admiral Fogarty chalked up the disparity in the statements of the majority to "scenario fulfillment" caused by "an unconscious attempt to make available evidence fit a preconceived scenario." He offered no opinion regarding the veracity of the console operators' statements.[26]
Its a real problem when the COs mindset is against the evidence that those around him could see.
Troubling was also the definite attempt the blame the A300 airliners captain.
Get the facts correct. The helo incident began the whole affair. Vincennes' helo reported receiving gunfire from small craft that it was investigating. Vincennes moved to pursue and attack the boats.
DeleteAs that happened, the airliner took off and was eventually shot down when the Vincennes believed it was an F-14 descending to attack them. That they completely misinterpreted the data and had no need to defend themselves does not change the fact that they believed they were acting in self-defense when they launched their missile.
The US spokesmen initially made claims that were later demonstrated to be incorrect.
The details of the incident are now pretty well known and documented.
Returning to the original point, I'll repeat, the usual inaccuracy of initial reports is reason for initial restraint but not for a complete lack of response.
Well it all comes back to 'belief' . Rogers on Vincennes, in spite of the evidence in front of him, fired his missiles in the belief he was under aerial attack.
DeleteIm sure you wouldnt accept an Iranian missile battery commander firing his missiles at a high altitude drone in the belief it was inside Iranian airspace, but wasnt.
Im not so sure about the earlier reference to advanced equipment which can precisely provide navigation references. Theres always the human factor as 2 USN destroyers and a Norwegian frigate collisions can show.
But back to the Boghammer speedboats, the story describes, Vincennes passing 2 of these vessels then...
"At about 0940, the Vincennes and Elmer Montgomery crossed the 12-mile line into Iranian territorial waters. .....According to the investigation report, at 0941 Captain Rogers was given permission to open fire. Note, he was now inside Iranian territorial waters and ready to engage boats that had not fired at him.
From the data extracted from the Vincennes’ Aegis combat system, the Iranian gunboats did not turn toward the cruiser until 0942—after Captain Rogers had been given permission to fire. Time 0942 is the vital piece of information that destroys the myth that the Vincennes and Elmer Montgomery were under direct attack by a swarm of gunboats.....At about 0943, the Vincennes’ forward five-inch gun mount commenced to lob shells at the Iranian gunboats.14
From the videotape recorded on Vincennes’ bridge that day, the gunboats, seen as mere specks in the distance, returned fire; they did not initiate the shooting. The Iranian gunboats’ light weapons were greatly outranged by the heavier ordnance on the Vincennes"
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1993/august/vincennes-case-study
The Vincennes captain acted in self-defense based on the evidence he saw. Sadly, what he saw did not match reality but that doesn't change his motivation which was self-defense.
DeleteThe gunboat aspect was initiated by the Vincennes helo taking fire from the boats. Vincennes pursued, crossed territorial waters, and engaged as you and all the reports describe. Go back and research the gun engagement and you'll see it starting with the boat firing on the helo.
The captain of the vincennes lied to save face. He committed a warcrime against civilians.A warcrime that was covered up. The other possibility is that he was incompetent as you often point out in this blog.
Delete"He committed a warcrime against civilians."
DeleteOh good grief. Dial the vitriole down a bit. He committed a mistake, not a crime - a tragic, avoidable mistake, to be sure, but a mistake none the less. He believed, wrongly as it turned out, that he was acting in the best interests of his ship, crew, and country.
"The other possibility is that he was incompetent as you often point out in this blog."
With 100% certainty he was incompetent. He failed to train his CIC crew to function under pressure. He instilled a reckless attitude in his crew. He failed to train and hold his crew to combat standards - numerous examples of violated standards occurred during the course of the incident.
"A warcrime that was covered up."
Once again, try for just a bit of fact and objectivity. Yes, the US initially reported the events incorrectly - initial events are always incorrectly reported for any event. The US then attempted to spin the story - as happens for every story from every country. Finally, and this is the key point that you are willfully ignoring, the Navy performed a thorough investigation, found the facts, AND MADE THOSE FACTS PUBLILC. That's the exact opposite of covering up. That it took some time to get to the complete and open version of events is simply the nature of how events occur, are reported, and ultimately investigated and publicized.
Before you post a reply, be warned that I will not allow inaccurate postings. They will be deleted. I gave you some latitude on this one so use it wisely.
"We need to respond FORCEFULLY or leave."
ReplyDeleteHow about respond forcefully AND leave.
I'd destroy their naval base at Bandar Abbas and sink every ship there. And as soon as possible, I would withdraw from the region. Israel and Saudi, you have carte blanche.
China, if you want to secure your oil supply, you need to get over there and do it.
We don't need the oil, and we don't need the loss of life and limb. We've wasted enough time, money, and manpower there. Get out and stay out, but not without making sure that everybody there knows that if they don't behave, we will be back to kill them.
Couldn't read the whole article but as of tonight, 20th June, New York Times was reporting that Trump had authorized some strikes on Iran, assets were in the air and he called it off at the last minute. Somehow, this sounds even worse than actually just going for it, starting then STOPPING the strike just sounds and looks very weak and indecisive. If this is true, I fully expect Iran to go for even more aggressive moves, POTUS flinched tonight. This is not good if true....
ReplyDeletehttps://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/20/world/middleeast/iran-us-drone.html
Dont need the Oil ?
DeleteFor all 2018 there was 0.5- 1 mill barrels per day of Saudi Oil shipped to US
Where are you going to replace that from . Venezuela?
Trump has suddenly realized he has has too many balls in the air and hes a deal maker not a juggler
"Where are you going to replace that from ."
DeleteWell, in 2018, the United States exported about 7.59 MMb/d of petroleum to 190 countries and 4 U.S. territories, of which about 26% was crude oil and 74% was non-crude oil petroleum. So, we could make up the 0.5-1 mmb/d by simply cutting exports back a bit. So, that's one way.
We could authorize increasing domestic oil production a bit. That's another way.
We could permit additional drilling for domestic oil. That's another way.
In 2018, the United States imported about 9.93 million barrels per day (MMb/d) of petroleum from about 86 countries so we could slightly increase imports from any of the 86 other countries. That would be another way.
Did that answer your question?
One caveat is that oil is a fungible commodity--if a large chunk of the global market is taken offline, thus raising prices dramatically, most of that rise will be reflected in domestic costs regardless of whether it's produced here.
DeleteClearly policies could be put in place to restrict the market and control domestic prices--but does anyone really think the govt. would stop big oil from reaping a windfall profit?
Iran produces around 5% of the worlds oil, but it consumes about half of that internally.
DeleteSo, if Irans oil industry was completely knocked out, it would reduce world supply by about 2.5%
If I get up early and set off for work on time, I increase my fuel economy from 50mpg to 60mph, and 20% improvement.
If you use oil for heating, thats not quite so easy, but it would take a massive supply disruption to cause real problems.
Roughtly, Iran's oil exports go 1/3 to China, 1/3 to India, and the remainder to various Asian nations. A complete cessation in Iranian oil exports would hurt China but would have little effect on Western countries. We could offer to aid India, if need be.
DeleteThe fact that China would be hurt seems almost too good to pass up!
I think the much bigger issue is the potential closure of the Strait of Hormuz. That would have an enormous effect on world energy prices, because of huge amounts of both oil and LNG being orphaned.
DeleteOffshore energy infrastructure, including loading terminals, is notoriously fragile. Quite a lot of Gulf production comes from offshore, including the vast bulk of Qatar's LNG production (that fuels a big chunk of Asia). It wouldn't take much to disrupt that. The Gulf isn't very big.
Delete"I think the much bigger issue is the potential closure of the Strait of Hormuz."
DeleteWho's going to close the strait and how are they going to do it?
Iran has repeatedly promised to try to close the Strait. Whether they actually can is problematic, but I have no doubt at all they can scare the markets enough to cause lots of economic woes.
DeleteDecent article on the subject here. Suggests that the confluence of greatly improved Iranian mine warfare capability, coupled with the paucity of US anti-mine capability may become an issue.
https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/files/publication/IS3301_pp082-117_Talmadge.pdf
You're missing the point of my question. If the US decides that Iran will not be allowed to mine the strait, then any boat/ship that moves towards the area would be engaged and sunk and there's nothing Iran could do to prevent it. So, if the US opted not to allow it, there's zero chance.
DeleteOn the other hand, if we stand back, as we usually do, and allow unknown Iranian boats/ships to sail back and forth across the area then, yes, a lot of mines can get laid.
The answer to oil production- because thats what we are talking about - is that for 2018 , US production was 18.7 mill bbl per day. Consumption was 20.5 mill. Thats accounting for exports, which arent internal consumption.
DeleteThe nett result is around 2 mill bbl per day, some of which comes from Saudi Arabia.
This story in Forbes picks apart those production, imports , exports etc.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2018/12/09/no-the-u-s-is-not-a-net-exporter-of-crude-oil/#39888dc14ac1
@CNO
DeleteOil is fungible
If China cant buy Iranian oil, it'll buy other peoples.
Saudi isnt going to sell to Botswana if China offers a dollar more.
@George
Ok, Iran tries to close the Strait, and succeeds, what then?
They wreck the world economy.
And what, do you think that makes them any friends?
50 million Indians die in a famine because they cant afford oil to run irrigation pumps.
Iran would be begging the US to occupy them before India decides it wants to kill 50 million Iranians in payback.
Who's going to stop India doing a live test of a few nukes on Tehran? Will Sweden send a strongly worded letter?
Shouting, "I'm angry and I'm going to burn this place to ground" is all well and good, until the rest of the people in that place decide they arent happy being collateral damage and kick the **** out of you.
"You're missing the point of my question. If the US decides that Iran will not be allowed to mine the strait, then any boat/ship that moves towards the area would be engaged and sunk and there's nothing Iran could do to prevent it. So, if the US opted not to allow it, there's zero chance."
DeleteI'm not missing your point at all. I'm using a reference that is a lot better informed than I am. I am however aware of how much boat/ship traffic there is in the Gulf having spent many evenings offshore watching it.
I wouldn't expect a direct path if someone wanted to lay mines. Just sayin...
"Well, in 2018, the United States exported about 7.59 MMb/d of petroleum to 190 countries and 4 U.S. territories, of which about 26% was crude oil and 74% was non-crude oil petroleum. So, we could make up the 0.5-1 mmb/d by simply cutting exports back a bit. So, that's one way."
DeleteBTW, I completely agree with you here. The oil market in the domestic US doesn't need Gulf oil at all. A small upward price tick will boost domestic production almost immediately.
The 2015 price collapse improved the technology in shale and other unconventional wells bigly. They can knock a new well out in just a few days.
And unlike us, you already have the necessary transport infrastructure in place.
"Shouting, "I'm angry and I'm going to burn this place to ground" is all well and good, until the rest of the people in that place decide they arent happy being collateral damage and kick the **** out of you."
DeleteThen perhaps all y'all should settle down and stop prodding the snake for no reason. Or you may get bit.
Don't assume that Iran is automatically going to get blamed for what looks a lot like unprovoked US aggression.
"If China cant buy Iranian oil, it'll buy other peoples."
DeleteThis is where international politics comes in. We put pressure on other countries not to sell oil to China. For example, we can remind Saudi Arabia that continued military sales would be greatly aided by not selling to China and that, possibly, we might offer increased military sales if they agree to cooperate. International politics!
@George
DeleteYep, Iran blows up a Vietnamese tanker and Vietnam will blame America....
"This is the ‘shit or get off the pot’ moment. We need to respond FORCEFULLY or leave. "
ReplyDeleteI rather disagree. That kind of thinking has JFK invoke the SIOP.
So we lost drones that are I assumed disposable, no man lost since they seemly carry no counter measures as well. Good lesson learned we need them made a lot more and cheaper and have to have a shat more in anyplace the locals can shoot back.
A couple drones downed is like a small kid throwing rocks I see no reason to act at this point - see below.
Are we certain this is all Iran Bolton a Pompeo (of course they will never pay the cost of that ) have hard on for regime change and there is nobody of stature to have contrary view in the Admin.
I can think of two particular states in the region who have a vested interest in some kind of US/Iran conflict and I trust neither of them to care about American blood and treasure spent.
Iran is not really a monolithic government and it would serve hardliners to see a US attack - betting on a Syria style one and best or maybe something like Serbia at worst. If they get lucky we bomb a school or shoot an air liner. In any case they would not be wrong in thinking it would galvanize support to them saying see we can't trust the US they overthrew our democracy and imposed a dictator and they are going to do it again...
We already have been war too long while our infrastructure crumbles. Are we going to let Iran sucker into a war with no foreseeable end that really only servers its own purposes.
Play the old game re flag all the ships with American flags and escort them too bad we don't any Frigates. But show restraint after Iraq the US really needs a something more solid than a grainy video to galvanize broader action and keep Russia and China from sticking their noses in the affair. Funny plan ask China to re-flag some ship they want to a world power so prove they care about the security of their oil shipments. In any case measure responses mine some military harbors, declare a shipping exclusion zone a blow away any Iranian boat that violates it, etc. But let Iran look like the loose cannon. Is not that more risky that some massive action
I completely disagree with you but that's okay. You presented your view well so it's a good counterpoint for readers.
DeleteA few thoughts to factor into your thinking:
1. Historically, from the schoolyard bully on up to nations, allowing a bad actor to get away with bad acts inevitably leads to more and worse bad acts. How do you reconcile that in your thinking, knowing with 100% certainty that you are promoting more and worse bad acts? When Iran shoots down a manned aircraft or kills someone in a ship mining, that will all be on you. Are you good with that, knowing you could have prevented it but chose not to?
2. "Are we going to let Iran sucker into a war with no foreseeable end" Let's be realistic, at least. A simple proportional strike, if that's our option, is not in any way an endless war. If we opted to commit to a full war, it would last 4 weeks (2 actually, but I'm being conservative). Iran has no military capable of resisting longer than that.
3. "the US really needs a something more solid than a grainy video" We undoubtedly have radar tracking data on the drones and missiles and likely additional surveillance data that leaves no doubt about the events. Little or none of that will be shared publicly. If we choose, we can provide that to allies to garner support but the public will never see it.
4. Do you have the slightest doubt that Iran is continuing to work towards a nuclear bomb? If you opt not to stop them now, are you comfortable with them eventually getting a bomb? This is an opportunity that they've handed us to use this incident as an excuse to put a serious hurt on their plans, if we choose. Choosing not to act has consequences just like acting does. Which is worse in the long run? Have you thought through the consequences of not acting, like endless terrorism support, endless harassment of shipping, eventual nuclear bomb, endless destabilization of the region, endless threats to stable oil supplies from the region, etc.? Have you really thought through the consequences of inaction?
"I completely disagree with you but that's okay. You presented your view well so it's a good counterpoint for readers."
DeleteI kinda figured you say that.
Have a busy day today and would like post a sold reply so maybe tomorrow.
But I did in doing some research come across this:
https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2019/01/17/war-game-if-china-or-russia-downed-an-isr-aircraft-how-would-the-us-really-respond/
and the published paper
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3288988
It would seem the ex military officers involved general felt some kind of reply was necessary but it should proportional and that a drone was not a pretext for excessive action. The real issue is it public. It would seem the US has ignored misses and those doing the missing are not eager to talk. To say what I going to post in a longer reply I am cool with a strike on say missile sites and radars out of this.
Our Iran policy is a total mess, thanks both to Obama's policy of appeasement and Trump's erratic and indecisive behavior.
ReplyDeletePoop or get off the pot indeed. This sort of half-hearted posturing and lots of forces in the region but a lack of willingness to respond to repeated enemy acts of aggression just makes us look weak, like a paper tiger that the Iranians can attack at will knowing we won't respond because we've got too many forward deployed units within enemy striking range. If we are going to forward deploy, those forces need to be hardened and ready for combat at a moment's notice.
Forward presence is a joke. We should concentrate our forces at home like COMNAVOPS has been saying, but be ready to move out with overwhelming force when needed. The sheer level of incompetence and dereliction of duty on display from both the civilian leadership and the military establishment is infuriating.
Although I already said I don't the need to create some kind binary choice here leave or rashly escalate to something like a war.
DeleteMentioning the drone lost in Yemen, I would support leave off are involvement there and cut the house of Saud. There is no need for us to associate ourselves with their reckless brutal adventure and humanitarian nightmare in Yemen.
IN keeping with your Total Victory posting, you should be calling for the draft to be re-instated, taxes to be raised, and the aircraft, ship, tank/AAPC and ammunition lines to start running 24/7.
ReplyDeleteIf you think defeating a country of 82M (twice Iraq), who perfected asymmetric warfare in Iraq is going to be easy, guess again W. It will take millions of troops to defeat them and occupy the country. And thanks to our previous "This is a slam dunk" WMD claims I don't see many countries willing to help.
Strategy, what is the strategy? Destroying a religion (Shite)? That has never worked. Regime change? Probably 10% of the population gets benefits from the entwined IRC and Religious Leaders. That is 8M people you have to kill or re-educate. Good luck with that also.
The best comments I have seen here are Get outta there and let them sort it out themselves. If Russia or Chana want to back a nuclear armed Iran let them deal with it.
"If you think defeating a country of 82M (twice Iraq), who perfected asymmetric warfare in Iraq is going to be easy, guess again "
DeleteTry to apply just a bit of objectivity. The vast majority of Iranian citizens would probably welcome US occupation to get rid of the current regime. We've seen exactly that a few times with widespread anti-government protests that came close to revolution. So, your claim of 82M highly trained practitioners of asymmetric warfare (wouldn't half of those 82M be women? wouldn't half of the male population be underage and unfit for military duty? do you really believe that all military aged males are high trained asymmetric warriors? do you really believe that all 82M people are rabid dogs just salivating at the chance to fight Americans?) is utterly false. There's a core of pro-government supporters but they are few relative to the total population.
Iran has no credible military. A war would last 2-4 weeks.
The same claims you're making about the prowess of Iranian military was made about the prowess of Sadaam's Iraqi military. They were supposedly masters of desert warfare and the US was untrained, inexperienced, and would be sent home in body bags. Of course, we saw what happened. The Desert Storm experience shows you what to expect in a war with Iran.
"It will take millions of troops to defeat them and occupy the country."
I'm not even going to bother pointing out the falseness of that statement. Look at the history of occupied Japan, Desert Storm troop levels, the Iraq 2003 conflict and occupation and then try to write something semi-realistic.
I'll leave this post for a while to serve as an example of inaccurate writing and then I'll likely remove it, not because I disagree with it but because it's not based on even a shred of objectivity, historical foundation, or logic.
Iran is not Iraq, it is a unitary state that has existed for a couple thousand years. So at least you won't get the instant civil war like Iraq, if you should knock over the government.
DeleteThe US forces are now veteran, unlike the Iraq War.
The Iranians last conventional fight was WWI re-enactment vs. Iraq. So I agree a short victorious war.
Then the after war portion, that was screwed up in both Afghanistan & Iraq, Iran's unitary nature gives us much better starting point.
CNO brought up Japan, do have nominations for the Iranian MacArthur ?
I don't know the individual Generals so I can't say. After Desert Storm I would have said General Schwarzkopf but, of course, he's long since retired.
DeleteI remember Paul Wolfowitz and Doug Feith saying similar things. Along with Gen Shinseki being rebuked for saying it would take more troops.
DeleteThe Millions I refer to are not just for Iran. We had 162,000 in Irag at the height of the surge. 2x size = 350K boots on the ground to occupy it. That is almost the entire Army size. What is the logistics tail going to look like? And how big the does the Army have to grow to to maintain readiness in other areas of the World?
I could easily see an Army going to 1.5M to support 350k in Iran rotating and maintaining our commitments elsewhere. Otherwise it would be a great time to be Putin and grab the Baltic States back.
Tactical victory is relatively easy, it is the plan after you win that is difficult. EXACTLY what we didn't account for in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Delete at your own peril of not having a balanced discussion.
Iraq is actually fairly flat until you get into the North and West. Iran starts like North West Iraq and gets much much worse as you get into the mountains.
DeleteI think ground operations are going to be more difficult in Iran, by what percentage I don't know.
Why do we need to station troops in Iran? It's better if we don't engage in rebuilding operations... the more time we spend on the Iranians, the less time we have to get ready for China.
DeleteSmash their military and be done with them.
"Iran is not Iraq, it is a unitary state that has existed for a couple thousand years. So at least you won't get the instant civil war like Iraq, if you should knock over the government."
DeleteAbout 60% of the Iranian populace are ethnically Persians and Shiite Muslims, so there is already a pretty solid base from which to tear the place down.
The Kurds, Balochs and Azeri can all easily be convinced their futures are in Kurdistan,, Balochistan and Azerbaijan.
"I think ground operations are going to be more difficult in Iran, by what percentage I don't know."
Conventional wisdom say so, but why?
If Iranians dig in at the top of a hill, the US isn't going to deploy the 10th mountain to fight up the hill on foot, at least not unsupported, airpower will fly over and
drop bombs in those careful dug fighting positions. The person with the high ground generally wins, the highest peak in Iran is 18,000ft, the Apache will kick teeth in from 21,000ft,
Dug in Iranians will fair no better than dug in Iraqis, possibly worse if they are less inclined to throw down their rifles and run.
They can retreat to the cities and FIBUA, but that only works if the US follows them in, the US can maintain a siege of Iranian cities for years, how many days do you think it will be until money/food/water runs out in those cities?
""I think ground operations are going to be more difficult in Iran, by what percentage I don't know."
DeleteConventional wisdom say so, but why?"
For the same reason that oilfield operations are more difficult in parts of Iran than they are in the river valleys in Iraq.
You need to move a lot of heavy equipment over poor-to-no roads with some upset people trying to make your life difficult at the same time.
That's why I wouldn't put a number on it. But the terrain and road system in a lot of Iran is pretty miserable.
If you assume that "winning" means a boots on the ground occupation, I don't think its going to be a walk in the park. My estimate would rate as significantly more difficult than Afghanistan.
Persians, better educated, higher tech base. Lousy terrain. Next door to Russia and a bunch of the 'stans.
"You need to move a lot of heavy equipment over poor-to-no roads with some upset people trying to make your life difficult at the same time."
DeleteYep, the US has no off road vehicles, whilst Iran appears to have teleporters...
How does Iran move an army from Shiraz to Tabriz if the US blows up all the bridges and roads in the way?
What does the IrRG engineer corps bridging capacity look like? How quickly can they clear land slides from valley roads?
"You need to move a lot of heavy equipment over poor-to-no roads"
DeleteIn Desert Storm, it was the ability to travel through the road-less and feature-less desert that allowed the coalition forces to achieve much of their success. Ironically, the Iraqis believed that desert navigation would be as difficult for the US as it was for them. This turned out to be a major miscalculation on their part.
"In Desert Storm, it was the ability to travel through the road-less and feature-less desert that allowed the coalition forces to achieve much of their success. Ironically, the Iraqis believed that desert navigation would be as difficult for the US as it was for them. This turned out to be a major miscalculation on their part."
DeleteSeriously, there are a number of people on this thread that need to break out Google Maps in sat mode and have a look about what they are really talking about.
I gave up with Domo after his 3 day transit post for a major army.
This is NOT desert. It is mountains with a desert climate. This is the worst of both worlds. The ideal all terrain vehicle is a 14 year old kid on a donkey. Been there, seen that.
We are not talking about anything resembling desert storm, and its really important that we start to talk about how the potential scenarios differ.
""You need to move a lot of heavy equipment over poor-to-no roads with some upset people trying to make your life difficult at the same time."
DeleteYep, the US has no off road vehicles, whilst Iran appears to have teleporters...
How does Iran move an army from Shiraz to Tabriz if the US blows up all the bridges and roads in the way?
What does the IrRG engineer corps bridging capacity look like? How quickly can they clear land slides from valley roads?"
Dono, this is why I'm not going to play any more.
Seriosly, have you ever spent any time in the area you are berating me about.
I post based on my own Geo-political experiences. I like to consider myself well educated and well experienced in the world outside the military. But I have experience in the military and continue my interest, both Navy and Air Force.
Cause in my industry, we surely need to understand the consequences of our actions as we don't have an Air Force to call on.
So I understand the relationships between Iran and the Gulf nations. Because I was the guy who had to make hiring decisions on the basis of who the guy was, his nationality and the nature of the position, and could he possibly get a visa.
I also spent some years on the ground in a number of places in the Middle East where you really don't want your kids to hang out. Not one of them was a military compound.
The US service people from Al Udeid are never, ever seen in Doha. Give or take 10,000 of them depending on the day.
Ask yourself why?
@George
Delete"Seriously, have you ever spent any time in the area you are berating me about."
I have spent time in mountains, you're going to have to fill me in as to why these specific ones are impassible to Americans but open terrain to Iranians.
"We are not talking about anything resembling desert storm, and its really important that we start to talk about how the potential scenarios differ."
So talk then, be specific,
How many donkey loads does an Iranian division need to transit from Iranshahr to Tabriz? How many Donkeys does the IrRG Logistics Corps possess?
"The US service people from Al Udeid are never, ever seen in Doha. Give or take 10,000 of them depending on the day.
Ask yourself why?"
UK service personnel arent allowed to go to Ayia Napa
I will take the opposite view of what Ive been reading this morning in US media. Trump tweets this morning pretty much confirm that a strike was ordered and called back, Trump didn't like the fact that 150 people would die for a US drone. I don't want to pretend to be some Middle Eastern psychology expert so while I appreciate Trump concern for the loss of life over a drone, I do believe this will be seen as weakness and indecisiveness. The Middle East respects strength, this action/no action by POTUS will be seen and interpreted differently over there than how we will interpret it over here.
ReplyDeleteI fully expect Iran leaders to see this as POTUS backing down, they will be emboldened to do more (maybe as soon as this weekend?), I doubt this will bring them to some sort of "talks"....
Unfortunately I think you're right. Many Middle-Eastern rulers do not think like we do, even the ones who were educated in the West.
DeleteWhat is our goal here? We want regime change in Iran. The Iranian people want regime change in Iran. Their mostly young population listen to western music and wear western clothes inside their walled houses. Every day some brave Iranian women attack the code enforcement witches. We do not need to occupy Iran to have regime change. I believe a kinetic war with Iran would last hours but whether its hours or 2-4 weeks I am not sure that would give us regime change. They would reconstititute and be back at some point. Regime change might occur if we continue our sanctions and possibly increase them. If we add to that non kinetic actions like turning off their power grid that would help undermine any support for the regime. I understand we don't want to show off our good stuff but if we zapped the revolutionary guards motor pools/bases/airports/boat yards the bad guys that run the country would be without transportation. Their only option would be to seize the citizens vehicles/boats, you get the picture. You cannot get a car loan or motorcycle loan in Iran. You pay cash. If you steal a persons ability to make a living you are killing them. If we force the guards to become thieves we will probably get regime change.
ReplyDelete"Their mostly young population listen to western music and wear western clothes inside their walled houses."
ReplyDeleteStandard Middle-Eastern practice, the whole region has a very young demographic. Go cruise a mall in Doha or Abu Dhabi or Dubai. Some of the ladies have 5" red heels peeking out under their Abayas. The market for expensive clothes is huge as the ladies compete with each other just like they do here. They just do it at parties at home or in a private room at a restaurant.
Dress standards have little to nothing to do with a desire for regime change. If you have never seen it, this is well worth watching.
https://www.ted.com/talks/sheikha_al_mayassa_globalizing_the_local_localizing_the_global?language=en
That is Sheikha Al Mayassa bint Hamad Al Thani, a member of the Forbes 100 most powerful women in the world. She controls the largest art buying fund in the world. And she wears an Abaya. As she points out, she can go to work in her pajamas under it and no one will ever know.
The US sanctions on Iran have already stolen the ability for a lot of the middle and working classes to make a living. And guess who's getting the blame??
Personally, I would much prefer we left Iran be and do something about the disgrace that is the House of Saud. For some unfathomable reason America keeps supporting that murderous group. Tens of thousands of dead Yeminis (with American assistance) and no one is prepared to stand up and say "enough!".
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/jun/20/human-cost-of-yemen-war-laid-bare-as-civilian-death-toll-put-at-100000
" I would much prefer we left Iran be and do something about the disgrace that is the House of Saud."
DeleteThere is a difference between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Iran is pursuing a nuclear bomb, SA is not. Iran supports and exports terrorism that is directly harmful to American interests, SA does not (well, not officially and not on a large scale). Iran has vowed genocide against Israel, SA has not. Iran has shot down US drones, SA has not. Iran chants, "death to America", SA does not. And so on.
I am not going to pretend that SA deserves humanitarian awards but there is a distinct difference between the two countries.
The fact is that Iran's activities impact and involve US national strategic interests. That is reason not to walk away and leave them be. How much worse would Iran's actions be if they felt truly free to do as they wished rather then be limited to whatever extent they are by the US presence?
The world kind of walked away from Hitler and let him run amok and you see how that turned out. We have somewhat the same situation here. You don't walk away and ignore a genocidal, homicidal, insanely evil regime that is working on acquiring a nuclear bomb.
I hear you, but I don't agree. Yes, Iran is more adventurist than I would prefer (I suspect that's just a Persian thing), but the nuclear deal was working pretty well and there was serious progress towards re-integration into the world community.
DeleteNow that progress is gone, and here we are on the edge of a war.
As far as Saudi not being interested in becoming a nuclear power, don't bet your last nickle on that one. They are just very quiet in how they go about it.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-saudi-nuclear/us-approved-secret-nuclear-power-work-for-saudi-arabia-idUSKCN1R82MG
As far as Saudi not supporting terrorism? Saudi has funded terrorism all over the world, frequently to the direct detriment of the United States. Very frequently. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-sponsored_terrorism#Saudi_Arabia
Yemen is the most recent large-scale example.
They just have a better PR company than the Iranis and didn't kidnap a bunch of American Embassy employees. That one was a really big mistake.
Saudi has absolutely no need for nuclear energy. None, zero, nada.
As far as Iran being "genocidal, homicidal, insanely evil", yes they are pretty hard-assed, but that's literally what the people asked for when they overthrew the Shah. Since then its kind of bounced back and forth depending on whether the hard-liners or reformers are in power at the time.
I may guess you've never been to the Friday hand-chopping and neck-chopping at the public square in Dammam in Saudi? Great fun for all the family, and if you make the mistake of being in the area on Friday morning, the religious police WILL grab you and all your family and make you watch. Ask me how I know?
Some context? Just search for "Saudi Beheadings" on Google.
And if Yemen isn't genocide, what is it please? I look at Iran and Saudi and my direct experience with both and I see Saudi as being a somewhat worse and more repressive society, although on the Georgetown index for Women Saudi is 99 and Iran is 116 out of 153. So maybe I'm wrong. But we all have our opinions.
"That is Sheikha Al Mayassa bint Hamad Al Thani, a member of the Forbes 100 most powerful women in the world. She controls the largest art buying fund in the world. And she wears an Abaya. As she points out, she can go to work in her pajamas under it and no one will ever know."
DeleteThe old I want to do it so everyone else should be made to do it argument...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5297849/Iran-lawyer-raises-concern-missing-hijab-protester.html
"the nuclear deal was working pretty well"
DeleteNow that's a pretty debatable statement and it depends on what standards you apply. Did Iran slow its production of nuclear materials (they are still allowed to produce them, just in lesser quantities) per the agreement? The answer is maybe to probably. If simply slowing the rush to a nuclear bomb is your goal (but not stopping it) then the agreement was working. If stopping all nuclear work was your goal then the agreement is a failure.
And, even that's based on only limited monitoring. For example, all military installations are off limits from monitoring. You may believe that all military installations are not conducting nuclear work or you may believe that at least some are. I assume that some are given Iran's adamant refusal to allow access despite the language of the agreement that says Iran will allow access to ANY site that inspectors might have reason to suspect. It's like a bank robber saying, yeah you can search my house for the stolen money except for the closet over there. Is there money in the closet? Maybe, maybe not but it sure looks suspicious.
Here's an article detailing some inspection problems.
Iran Inspections
Given all of Iran's other genocidal, homicidal, terrorist activities I guess I don't believe that they're not hiding nuclear work. And then there's the Parchin facility debacle. Pretty convincing evidence of duplicity there.
So, was that agreement really working? I don't think so, at least not in any way or to any extent I consider effective.
The agreement was like agreeing to allow bank robbers to just rob a couple of banks a year instead of lots. Did you achieve anything or did you just sanction a lower level of crime?
I think the point she was trying to make is that covering or not covering should be up to the individual concerned. Also, that at least in some branches of Islam covering is a cultural issue, not a religious one.
Delete"Now that's a pretty debatable statement and it depends on what standards you apply. Did Iran slow its production of nuclear materials (they are still allowed to produce them, just in lesser quantities) per the agreement? The answer is maybe to probably. If simply slowing the rush to a nuclear bomb is your goal (but not stopping it) then the agreement was working. If stopping all nuclear work was your goal then the agreement is a failure."
DeleteI agree with you here. But I suggest the real point of the deal was to bring Iran back into the "Community of Nations" and to a quite significant degree that was beginning to work really well.
If they became sufficiently prosperous, maybe they won't want a bomb as badly. After all, most of neighbors aren't nuclear powers and they're doing just fine.
"real point of the deal was to bring Iran back into the "Community of Nations" and to a quite significant degree that was beginning to work really well."
DeleteReally???! Were they stopping their support of the various terror groups in the region? Were they acknowledging Israel's right to exist? Were they refraining from supplying Hamas and others with advance weaponry? Were they no longer denouncing America on a daily basis? I can list these questions all night and the answer to every one of them is, 'no'. If you think Iran was making significant progress towards becoming a good world neighbor then you need to offer some examples because I sure saw nothing to indicate that. All I saw was them taking advantage of removed sanctions to make more money to fund their evil actions.
"If they became sufficiently prosperous, maybe they won't want a bomb as badly. "
Be honest now. You had to be chuckling as you typed that, right?
"Be honest now. You had to be chuckling as you typed that, right?"
DeleteSomewhat. You have to realize that everyone in the Middle East funds terror groups. Saudi, all the UAE, Qatar, Oman, Iran, Egypt, Syria and on and on.
Either at a national level or an extremely rich individual level, or both.
They always have. The entire Middle East is the best example of "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" I have ever seen.
And we don't generally understand that very well in the west, but we sure like to pretend we do and keep on dabbling away.
I'm pretty sure the best way to deal with Iran is a carrot, not a stick. But I have been wrong too many times before...
"I'm pretty sure the best way to deal with Iran is a carrot, not a stick."
DeleteI've seen too few examples of the carrot working in that region. Honestly, I can't think of any, off hand. Conversely, I've seen plenty of examples of the stick working to achieve at least the minimal immediate objectives.
The region culturally seems not to respect carrots and views them as signs of weakness. Strength seems to be the only currency of value.
"The region culturally seems not to respect carrots and views them as signs of weakness. Strength seems to be the only currency of value."
DeleteThat bears thinking about.
I generally agree with you if we're talking about the Arab Gulf.
Because its so tribal, that is pretty much like herding cats and you need a really big stick in some cases.
Not quite so sure about Iran as they are kind of a different animal.
The current mistrust between Iran and the US took 150 years to create (not entirely our fault, since a lot of the UK's earlier actions transferred into ill-will for us).
DeleteUS memory goes back to 1979 and the hostage crisis. Oh, they just irrationally hate us, right?
Well, no. The hostage crisis was born out of an Iranian political philosophy developed in resistance to the oppressive regime of the Shah. He, of course, had been put in place and propped up by the US, not least to protect American business interests. Iranian memories are just a bit longer; and nothing since 1979 has given their leaders reason to rethink their assumption.
This is not to say that the conflict is set in stone and unalterable. My suspicion is that the Iranian regime could become an "upstanding" actor on the world stage. At least, I do believe their government, while not free by our standards, is not reliant on isolation or fine-grained repression like North Korea or (arguably) China.
But overcoming such deep mutual distrust would be a big change in the political climate of both nations. It would take many years to develop. The JCPOA certainly did not even begin to solve all the mutual doubts, but it felt to me like a first step along that path. Now instead things are worse than ever because we blew our credibility and confirmed their prejudices against us.
I also believe that while the "stick" should not be taken out of our arsenal, it is not very useful to us. Almost any military conflict with Iran (short of occupation), no matter how much of a "defeat" for Iran, works to the government's political advantage. Iranian leaders may not be totally reliant on isolation and repression, but they do benefit by things that distract attention from their failings and enhance popular feelings of patriotism
"The current mistrust between Iran and the US took 150 years to create (not entirely our fault, since a lot of the UK's earlier actions transferred into ill-will for us)."
DeleteWhat a great answer!!
I think establishing control of Iran's airspace would be relatively easy. The result of a month of bombing would be to leave the ayatollahs militarily weakened, but politically strengthened. (And then would Russia and China rearm them?)
ReplyDeleteTo think that some bombing will make people rise up and overthrow the government is, I think, to engage in uninformed wish-fulfillment fantasies.
Effecting regime change would therefore require occupation.
This would be tremendously difficult and costly. Iran has an immense amount of national pride. Yes they have internal divisions, but war/invasion would overcome them. They have a big, mountainous, populous country to operate in. Resistance would be fierce.
Iran paid attention to the 2003 war. It would be foolhardy not to assume that the Republican Guards are well-prepared and equipped to execute a highly effective insurgency/guerrilla program from the outset of any ground war.
A US occupation would therefore be very costly in terms of deployment levels and losses. Iraq surge was 160k, presumably would need *at least* triple in Iran on a sustained basis, i.e. > 500k. Iraq KIA+WIA ~35000. *At least* 100k casualties in occupying Iran?
Would it be worth it? If you look at Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Yemen, we've seen just about the entire range of possible outcomes to regime-change. Very unpredictable what would result, and to what extent that change would benefit US interests at all, let alone to outweigh the costs.
"(And then would Russia and China rearm them?)"
DeleteRussia is an economic basket case, its already cut off most of its support for Venezuala, it might ship over few 1950s tanks, but it isn't going to supply them with a few dozen new build fighters or advanced Radar, it just doesnt have them.
Point well taken, but despite Russia's economic problems, they've still scrounged up a lot of money to put into rebuilding their own armed forces.
DeletePutin wouldn't share his best toys, but setting Iran up with a new kit of SAMs and cruise missiles might strike him as a good investment toward his grand program to destabilize US global dominance...
"A US occupation would therefore be very costly in terms of deployment levels and losses. Iraq surge was 160k, presumably would need *at least* triple in Iran"
DeleteWow. Wow! Wow!! Wow!!! Why not just round it off to an even million troops needed and 500,000 casualties? These are the people couldn't beat Iraq in eight years of war and yet the US bet Iraq in a matter of days. I'll just leave the rest of your prognostication alone. It's too ridiculous to address.
I don't know why you want to occupy Iran. As an alternative, if you'll recall one of my previous posts, I suggested destroying Iran's leadership (a day or two bombing effort) and their military (a couple of weeks) and then leaving. No occupation. Just walk away, having removed Iran as a regional threat and let their people form any government they want - or none. We achieve our goals and they can decide their own future. Not quite as good as total occupation but it achieves the main goal for a lot less cost.
To think that some bombing will make people rise up and overthrow the government is, I think, to engage in uninformed wish-fulfillment fantasies.
DeleteWhile limiting strikes to military targets certainly could fall into that realm, why would we?? If we mount a campaign to eliminate Iran as a credible regional threat, clearly the leadership should be targeted. The more rabid anti-western elements should be eliminated, while sparing the more domestic-oriented legislative bodies so that there is the basis of a govt to rebuild when the bombs stop falling. Sure this isnt foolproof, but by destroying the Iranian military capabilities, any potential nuclear sites, and the majority of the problematic govt, the new leadership that emerges could be a rational one. As the govt is disassembled top-down, we could actually reach out to lower level officials, open channels of communication. Then,as the air campaign winds down, the US could immediately open full diplomatic relations, an easing or elimination of sanctions, etc in a bid to build and support a new US/world-friendly government. While there would certainly be anger and resentment in the population after military action, dangling the carrot of normalized, even friendly relations with the US, along with the economic improvements that come with, could be a huge tool in helping a new government gain the support of its people...
So while in other posts, history has shown invasion/occupation as the only true recipe for success, I really dont want to see troops in Iran. I think that continuing, increased sanctions to continue crippling the economy could create a climate that could grow a reasonable govt in the wake of military action. A lot of well timed and advertised diplomacy (basically propaganda directed at the Iranian people) would be key to it working, but its better than losing American lives on the ground.
And yes, I realize that my suggestion falls into a regime-change category. But if we are already going to embark on a campaign to militarilly disable Iran as a threat, without at least trying to eliminate the most rabid anti-US govt elements, we will certainly have to do it again later. So designating some combat power to do so, coupled with some deft diplimatic moves, and a broad public appeal to the Iranian populace to support a new government that isnt a global pariah, and in fact a potential economic and diplomatic windfall for them has at least a chance of success worth exploring.
DeleteThe second plan being reducing their military capability to a par with say, Jamaica, and walking away...
Your assumption that it is only the leadership that is sensitive to US interference is flawed.
DeleteMosaddegh, democratically elected Prime Minister. CIA and UK intelligence organized a coup in 1953. And the whole thing was over who owned Iran's oil through Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, more well known in the west as BP.
As a result, we got The Shah and SAVAK, his secret police. And finally the 79 revolution.
And we're going back in to play games with the same people that already hate us. The same people who made up a big chunk of the Persian Empire that ruled the world for how many years?
I see this all the time in the oilfield. Everyone lumps the Middle East into one big bucket.
The Persians are completely different to the Gulf Arabs, who have huge variances between their own tribes, who in turn are completely different to the Kurds and the other non-Arab tribes.
Iran and Iraq are not the same thing, and I think Iran is not going to be as much of a push-over as Iraq was.
"I don't know why you want to occupy Iran."
DeletePersonally I don't, but I thought that was the point of the "Total War" post a few days back--that it was unwise to engage in limited actions which left opposing governments in power?
"As the govt is disassembled top-down, we could actually reach out to lower level officials, open channels of communication. Then, as the air campaign winds down, the US could immediately open full diplomatic relations..."
I don't know where there is any historical evidence is that you can achieve lasting political goals by bombing.
Germany was flattened by bombs, and by the end it's war-fighting capacity was affected, but there's no reason to think Hitler was about to be kicked out of power had the Red Army not stormed Berlin. Ditto Japan.
We've been bombing Al Qaeda and ISIS and other militants at will for 18 years, and their operations are impeded, but they haven't given up and gone home.
We bombed ISIS at will, but the Caliphate receded only when Kurdish, Iranian, or Iraqi troops occupied a piece of it.
Our bombing in NVM was reasonably restrained, but they did take about 1 million tons of bombs and several thousand civilians dead in NVM alone (not to mention hundreds of thousands of NVA battlefield casualties) without affecting their resolve or leadership
In 1991 Iraqi military capacity was shredded. Yet still Saddam held power. Then, supposedly, by 2003 he was so dangerous that we had to invade. So then we bombed Iraq again, for a full month. Again the Iraqi army was shredded. But Saddam was still not about to be kicked out had we not invaded. And he was reviled.
Bombing Iran will not cause regime change, and it will not remove them as a "thorn in the side" for more than a period of time. We may decide that's worth it, but let's not fool ourselves about what will be achieved.
And, if we were to try to target government leaders, in any kind of comprehensive way, we are likely to raise the number of civillian casualties, raise greater doubts about the moral justifiability and proportionality of our actions, and engender still more ill-will against us.
"Iran and Iraq are not the same thing, and I think Iran is not going to be as much of a push-over as Iraq was."
DeleteI can only repeat what ComNavOps said
After 8 years of war, Iran managed to occupy a few miles of Iraqi desert,
You cant say Iraq was a push over, if Iran couldnt push it over...
"I can only repeat what ComNavOps said
DeleteAfter 8 years of war, Iran managed to occupy a few miles of Iraqi desert,
You cant say Iraq was a push over, if Iran couldn't push it over..."
Attack in a WWI style war is nothing like defending in an asymmetric environment. Like Iran and Iraq, these are not the same thing. I would also like to make the point that Iran has had a long time to think about what they did wrong with Iraq. I wouldn't necessarily expect them to make the same mistakes...
I understand that previous interventions in Iranian internals have been less than successful, or ideal. Also, they have certainly made military and technical leaps since the Praying Mantis days. But having said that, if the US decides to dismantle the Iranian military, and/or govt, and doesn't hobble itself with ridiculous ROEs and collateral damage rules, itll happen, and there's nothing they can do to stop it. And thats without putting a single pair of boots on their soil.
DeleteCiting their history of Persian empire is irrelevant. The Roman empire, while impressive, is now what?? Even using a more modern example, Britain, shows a past world-dominating history can become largely irrelevant.
And while its a tough thing to measure, the hatred of a populace towards another country (the US in this case) I think is oft overblown. I saw that firsthand in my travels when I was younger. I think that while a theological-based govt certainly has more ability to foster anti-_____ sentiment, at the end of the day, people are most sensitive to their own personal position and well-being of their own families, and thats where economic improvement or degradation will ultimately sway a populations political opinion. Hatred of a rival country doesnt feed children or create a better life. So while anti-US sentiment runs deep, the reality of Iran becoming a responsible member of the world has great enriching potential for its people, and to think that those people dont understand that, in spite of all the rhetoric and nationalist fervor there doesnt give them enough credit...
"I would also like to make the point that Iran has had a long time to think about what they did wrong with Iraq. I wouldn't necessarily expect them to make the same mistakes..."
DeleteYep, they spent 8 years charging headlong in to machine gun fire, but now, in the hard knocks school of relative peace, they have mastered warfare...
"I don't know where there is any historical evidence is that you can achieve lasting political goals by bombing.
DeleteGermany was flattened by bombs, and by the end it's war-fighting capacity was affected, but there's no reason to think Hitler was about to be kicked out of power had the Red Army not stormed Berlin. Ditto Japan."
While I largely agree with the historical examples that show invasion/occupation as the successful ways to avoid a repeat conflict, there were also power struggles and coup attempts in the waning days of both countries. Using attacks against ISIS as an example isnt the same as attacking the upper echelons of an established govt. I cant imagine us not having the ability to localize and specifically target the top few dozen Iranian leaders. Terrorist training camps and established govt buildings are quite different...
"So while anti-US sentiment runs deep, the reality of Iran becoming a responsible member of the world has great enriching potential for its people, and to think that those people dont understand that, in spite of all the rhetoric and nationalist fervor there doesnt give them enough credit..."
DeleteYup. They tried that. Didn't work so well. Context is everything.
https://www.france24.com/en/20190507-feels-terrible-iran-year-after-us-sanctions-reimposed
"at the end of the day, people are most sensitive to their own personal position and well-being of their own families, and thats where economic improvement or degradation will ultimately sway a populations political opinion. Hatred of a rival country doesnt feed children or create a better life."
DeletePoint well taken.
But let's say, for sake of argument, that I was a rabid partisan, who hated either our current or our previous commander-in-chief. Perhaps thought he had been terrible for our country. Maybe believed he had overstepped the bounds of his office, and was so angry I felt he ought to have been impeached!
And suppose while that person was in office, Putin or Xi Jinping helpfully sent some cruise missiles to take out the White House, and maybe bombed a few state capitols of the corresponding Red or Blue color, and also bombed some military bases, and took out a few senator's houses. But didn't even target my city or kill anyone I knew. And then promised to send big boatloads of money to the US to make amends if only we elected a president of the right persuasion.
Would I thank the foreign power for ejecting the hated "regime"? Or just shrug my shoulders? No personal harm, no foul?
No, I'd be trying to figure out how I could serve at my relatively advanced age.
Not a perfect analogy of course, but we should never forget that other nations are stirred by the same kinds of passions that we are.
" I thought that was the point of the "Total War" post a few days back--that it was unwise to engage in limited actions which left opposing governments in power?"
DeleteThat's correct but the caveat is that if occupation is not possible then one must find the next best alternative that achieves as many of one's goals as possible. In this case, the ramifications of occupying Iran may outweigh the benefits - the main ramification being angering the entire Mid East region. Thus, the second best alternative is as I described in a recent post/comment and that is to kill off the leadership and destroy the military and then walk away. That eliminates the country as a threat to the region which is our main objective.
"Yep, they spent 8 years charging headlong in to machine gun fire,"
DeleteYeah, they don't seem like master warriors.
"the second best alternative is ... to kill off the leadership and destroy the military and then walk away. That eliminates the country as a threat to the region which is our main objective.
DeleteOk, I see. Where I think we differ is that I don't think even those goals are achievable by a limited-duration bombing-only campaign.
We could certainly degrade Iranian military assets in a tremendous way. It would be a lot harder to hit the weapons / terror / proxy apparatus that does most of their actual day-to-day provocations.
I'm sure we could kill individual political and military leaders, to some degree. After a few were hit, they would get good at hiding. Those killed would become patriotic martyrs (instead of being the crotchety old men who ban music videos).
Odds are the regime would be strengthened at home, and Iranian people and leaders would be left itching to find some way to strike back. Say what you will about the conduct of the Iraq war, but they kept up the fight despite losing tens of thousands of men, just to preserve a few square miles of territory.
I guess it might work if you did endless bombing--something like a mid-90s Iraq "no fly zone" operation on steroids--as long as you were willing to maintain it in perpetuity
Short of that, I don't see much reason to believe a bombing campaign could eliminate the threat for any significant period of time.
"I don't think even those goals are achievable by a limited-duration bombing-only campaign."
DeleteYou have a tendency to impose conditions and limitations that only you have brought up. To remove the Iranian leadership and destroy the military would, presumably, require intense, day one bombing/missile attacks before the leadership had a chance to disperse, follow up attacks on whoever/wherever we missed, raids to get the stubbornly surviving few, massive bombing of the military, massive bombing of any military related factory so that the military couldn't be rebuilt, complete destruction of every base, depot, and airfield, and so on.
"limited duration bombing"
There would be nothing "limited" about it! It would continue until every objective was achieved.
" It would be a lot harder to hit the weapons / terror / proxy apparatus that does most of their actual day-to-day provocations."
If we are at all competent in our intel, we (aided by the Israelis who are masterfully competent at intel) already know every terror supporting/exporting facility, port, building, person, and factory and they would cease to exist in a matter of days.
"I'm sure we could kill individual political and military leaders, to some degree."
About 100% degree.
"Odds are the regime would be strengthened at home"
There wouldn't be any functioning regime left!
"Say what you will about the conduct of the Iraq war, but they kept up the fight despite losing tens of thousands of men"
You're rewriting history. One of the major, unanticipated problems the Coalition had was how to logistically handle the thousands of Iraqi soldiers who simply surrendered immediately upon sighting Coalition forces. With a very few exceptions, Iraqi units surrendered wholesale!
You seem to lack a grasp of how such a military campaign would be conducted and would play out.
"There would be nothing 'limited' about it! It would continue until every objective was achieved."
DeleteYou said we would "go home"--that implies it would end at some point. My argument is there's no point at time in which Iran will have been removed as a threat by bombing.
"There wouldn't be any functioning regime left!"
OK, this is where I feel you are detached from the reality of all past military campaigns ever. SNAFU is a term of military origins, after all.
Take, for example, Iraq 2003. We were trying like hell to bomb Saddam. Didn't happen. Take Afghanistan 2002. We had every element of surprise and freedom of action. Osama Bin Laden escaped for what, 10 years? And half Al Qaeda leadership?
I find the idea that we will kill every Iranian leader and no juniors will rise up from the ranks to continue the fight naive. Sure we will kill some politicians and generals. As Israel has killed lots of Hamas leaders over the years. They didn't just close up shop and go home. We killed tons of Isis leaders over the years--they kept fighting and we still haven't gotten al-Baghdadi.
And, of course, after the initial surprise, the survivors become much harder to find.
Iranian leaders believe in what they are doing. The Iranian people, though not without complaints, generally give them the benefit of the doubt too. Bombing reinforces those feelings, it doesn't reduce them.
"You're rewriting history."
sorry, I was unclear, I meant the Iran-Iraq war. Iranians proved themselves damn brave, persistent, and patriotic.
I don't think we have the ammo to fight Iran if they prove to be a hard target. And just ask Switerland about hard targets. Mountains, see?
DeleteWe can dump $1M dollar Tomahawks on Iran until we turn blue.
Yes, we're going to get a substantial number of things of interest, but I would be prepared to be some others are underground. That becomes an ISR issue and perhaps bunker busters.
"I find the idea that we will kill every Iranian leader and no juniors will rise up from the ranks to continue the fight naive. "
DeleteAnd this is where the concerted effort to openly, publically announce our ferverent wishes to drop sanctions, restore diplomatic relations, trade, and open up the whole package of economic perks that comes with being a responsible nation and friend (or at least not a rabid enemy) of the US comes in. CNO makes a good point that Israel could be a source of intel, not only for targeting of "unacceptable" leaders, but of identifying junior govt members that might be worth communicating with. Ones that might take the reigns in Iran with an eye towards moving their people and their nation forward. Ones that see their local, personal interests economically damaged by the worlds reaction to the current regimes actions... I believe every country, every group, even Iran, has their own Stauffenbergs and Rommels waiting to try and alter their situation for a greater good. Ensuring that those people are aware that we would very much like to have proper, friendly relations with them, and identifying all the personal-level economic positivity that brings to the population, even as the bombs are falling, has potential, and certainly should be part of a well thought out strategy towards removing Iran from the threat board.
"Ones that might take the reigns in Iran with an eye towards moving their people and their nation forward."
DeleteSome Iranians would prefer a more open and secular model of society. But it's not like they sit around thinking "it's a shame our government is so illegitimate. If only the US would blow up our leaders, things would be so much better. And it's a shame our leaders' motives are so corrupt, whereas I truly believe the US government is purely benevolent and only wants to help us."
Our tendency is to assume (or hope) they believe our best version of ourselves, while we believe the worst version of them.
That is not to say "it's all relative," but to suggest that we should be realistic about what Iranians believe, and thus about the limits of what dropping bombs on them and killing leaders may accomplish.
We can proclaim good intentions all we want, but doing so in the context of past events, while simultaneously dropping bombs, will simply not paint a credible picture to most Iranians.
I understand what you're saying. My thoughts are that an Iranian can have no opinion about international issues, or even dislike the US, but still see the economic benefits that regime change could effect. Becoming a responsible nation, and having that global trade viability again is a very real carrot. I dont expect the next regime to be a US ally... Im realistic. But as long as its not exporting terrorism, actively assaulting or supporting the undermining of western civilization, and becomes a responsible country that isnt a threatening one, mission accomplished...
Delete"Iran will have been removed as a threat by bombing."
DeleteYou're making an argument about something I don't think anyone has said. I'm not (and I don't recall any reader comments) saying that bombing is the only force to be used. By all means, let's use ground troops as necessary. The combat would go much the same as Desert Storm.
You seem to have an extreme view about the loyalty of the populace to the current leadership. I don't think it's even a fraction of what you believe but there's no way to prove it other than have it happen so I'll leave it at that. We've seen the latent uprisings from time to time. That suggests to me that the loyalty doesn't run very deep.
"I don't think we have the ammo to fight Iran if they prove to be a hard target."
DeleteWell, combat stores are a valid issue and potential weakness in any conflict. However, any war with Iran is going to be pretty short - Desert Storm short. The history of combat proves time and again that once casualties in a given unit reach a certain point (trying to recall off the top of my head, something like 30%-40%) the unit invariably becomes combat ineffective. In an Iranian war, Iranian ground troops, being bombed relentlessly with no way to fight back, are going to reach that point pretty quickly and fold up - as happened in Desert Storm.
"You're making an argument about something I don't think anyone has said. I'm not (and I don't recall any reader comments) saying that bombing is the only force to be used. By all means, let's use ground troops as necessary"
DeleteThis is your prior comment that most shaped my assumptions about what you are proposing:
"I suggested destroying Iran's leadership (a day or two bombing effort) and their military (a couple of weeks) and then leaving. No occupation. Just walk away, having removed Iran as a regional threat"
I guess I misconstrued your proposal.
So I now understand the analogy is if, after taking Baghdad in 2003, we had just left. Very unpredictable situation.
"So I now understand the analogy is if, after taking Baghdad in 2003, we had just left. Very unpredictable situation."
DeleteOf course such a scenario would be unpredictable! It's the second best option, not the best option (total occupation). While the future of the country would be unpredictable, the important aspects, from our perspective, would be entirely predictable, having been completely accomplished. I've listed these before so I won't repeat. Thus, the 2nd best option trades the uncertainty of the country for the absolute certainty that our objectives are met. Not a bad trade.
When you think about Morsi in Egypt or Hamas in Gaza, or the evident lack of support for the elected government in Afghanistan, or the fact that ISIS almost overran the Iraq, or the broad popularity of authoritarian-leaning leaders like Putin and Orban and Maduro and Erdogan, one starts to grasp the difficulty and unpredictability of trying to instill the values of stable, peaceful, secular, liberal democracy in a population that has no such traditions, a tendency toward reactionary impulses, a history of violence and failed institutions, and many uneducated.
ReplyDeleteI'm surprised democracy kind-of, sort-of seems to be working in Iraq. But if we invaded Iran, turned out the current leaders, wrote a constitution and held elections, I'm not sure we'd be at all happy with what resulted.
A Catch-22 is that it takes a long occupation to remake the society at a deep level--but as the occupation stretches on, opposition and resentment (not to mention war-weariness at home) are only likely to keep growing
The Shah. SAVAK. The Persian Empire.
DeleteIranians hate Western-imposed so-called solutions at a level most people will never appreciate or understand.
Anyone that thinks regime change in Iran is feasible is less than well informed.
Yes, the chief source of Iranian hostility toward US and UK from 1979 onward was the experience of the century preceding the revolution, when both countries meddled frequently in Iran's internal politics and economy in ways that ran contrary to the wishes and interests of most of the Iranian people, and offended Iran's strongly-held, deeply historically-rooted nationalist sentiments.
DeleteThus, as you say, any system imposed by the US, however benevolent its intentions may be, will be seen as deeply suspect. I have enough reason to question the motives of US officials, but Iranians have much much more...
"But if we invaded Iran, turned out the current leaders, wrote a constitution and held elections"
DeleteWhy would we want to do that? That's the least likely option to succeed.
" as the occupation stretches on, opposition and resentment (not to mention war-weariness at home) are only likely to keep growing"
This is completely at odds with the post-WWII Germany and Japan experience.
"This is completely at odds with the post-WWII Germany and Japan experience."
DeleteBoth nations had fairly well-established (~60 year) democratic traditions to rebuild upon. In recent memory people had seen these institutions be overturned by authoritarian governments. Those governments/leaders were then totally discredited domestically by starting and then losing the war. Their nations were bled white and razed before the occupation started.
My sense is none of those conditions would obtain in Iran.
Like Iraq, the war would really only be starting when the occupation began. The defeated government and political system would not begin by being discredited in the eyes of the people. The war would be fought by guerrilla means.
Of course we would have some advantages--lessons learned from the hard knocks of Iraq, in how to fight insurgents, and what not to do, and so on.
Still, "victory" for the US would require winning the "hearts and minds" by creating long-term economic and political stability for the population, while creating space to inculcate new political values.
We would have to try to do this while being perceived by most people there as the aggressor, and as occupiers bent on repeating past patterns of colonial exploitation. In this context, religious passions could be mobilized against us even more easily than in Iraq.
The job of Iranian insurgents would simply be to keep the pot boiling. Much easier task...
Even in Iraq, Saddam had, by 2003, squandered all his popular legitimacy (by wars of aggression and violence against his own people) in a way that the Iranian government simply hasn't.
"The job of Iranian insurgents would simply be to keep the pot boiling. Much easier task..."
DeleteIts funny how French insurgents couldn't manage it under German Occupation.
Insurgents last until you start slaughtering the population that shelter them.
Love how we got from a downed drone to slaughtering the population...
DeleteBy way of every man woman and child being a die hard insurgent...
Delete"Love how we got from a downed drone to slaughtering the population..."
DeleteHearts and minds, hearts and minds.
The mind boggles.
"every man woman and child being a die hard insurgent"
DeleteNever said that :)
Did say:
- regime change / ending threat of "bad acts" from Iran (if that is the goal) would require occupation
- Iranian government has much more popular support than Saddam had in 2003
- moreover, we would be wise to assume the Republican Guards has prepared for an effective resistance campaign in case of invasion
- and we know that many of the conditions on the ground (population size, mountains, etc.) would aid them in that
- therefore, if we invaded, we could expect to encounter an insurgency substantially worse than that which killed/wounded 35000+ Americans in Iraq
Even so, my assumption is that we still would not (and should not) resort to slaughtering the civilian population
""every man woman and child being a die hard insurgent"
DeleteNever said that"
A statement from 'Unknown' was,
"If you think defeating a country of 82M (twice Iraq), who perfected asymmetric warfare in Iraq is going to be easy, guess again"
This would be the basis of the "every man woman and child being a die hard insurgent" comment.
One of the problems with commenting as 'Unknown' is that there are multiple unknowns and it's difficult to tell whose comment is whose. I encourage you to add a username to the bottom of your comments. That doesn't require a log in but still allows ownership of the comments. Something to think about.
Good point--the "every man" was a different Unknown :)
Deletethis will be my last Unk post
"...The Global Hawk is also equipped with the Raytheon AN/ALR-89 self-protection suite, which consists of the AN/ALR-90 pulsed Radar Warning Receiver (RWR), the AN/AVR-3 Laser Warning System, AN/APR-49 Radar Warning Receiver, a jamming system, and the AN/ALE-50 towed decoy...." just found this.
ReplyDeleteSo if its equipped with all this, why was it shoot down??? If it was turned off,why and who ordered it? Who thought that was a smart idea to have defense systems not working??? And if they were on, what the freak happened???
You just asked exactly what I was thinking. A Global Hawk is supposed to be at least somewhat SAM-resistant.
DeleteI imagine there is some pucker going on in US military planning circles. That wasn't supposed to happen. And if Iran can do that, how does it effect the rest of the air war calculus?
RWR
DeleteMaybe they didnt use a radar guided missile, so all it would have picked up is periodic air traffic control sweeps.
LWS
Again, maybe it wasnt lased, or maybe Iran routinely lases all drones and so the LWS going off is a constant.
Towed Decoy
Only deployed when under confirmed attack, if your sensors didnt ping, or have pinged none stop for the last year, no reason to deploy.
Does the RQ-4 Triton have the same ALR-89 that the Global Hawk does?
DeletePlus I'm assuming the RQ-4 Triton mission control was being done out of Patuxtent River. Is that true?
DeleteIf so, were the armchair drone pilots in Pax up to date on all the latest threat info in the Gulf region?
Hi CNO, do you have any take on Iran's capability to mine that gulf?
ReplyDeleteZero chance if we oppose it. 100% if we stand back and watch as we do with everything else.
DeleteStanding by and watching wouldn't be really smart. Once they're in the water and operating we've got a real problem.
DeleteYou do have to wonder if its maybe too late already. The Strait is narrow and shallow with a lot of traffic in it.
Wouldn't be too difficult to have already laid those mines with remote activation systems in place...
I'm not aware of any remote activation capability for mines. Do you know of any?
DeleteNo, I don't personally, but its really basic network technology. You would run it over some cheap armored fiber because the distances are short and its shallow. It doesn't need a high speed network to make it work, just something slow and reliable.
DeleteThe more I think about that the more it makes sense. Battery technology is good enough now you could have a mine lurking for years, just waiting for a signal to arm it.
Generally speaking, remote activation mines definitely exist, as well as other "smart" varieties (ones that can target specific kinds of ships, hide, etc.)
DeleteI seem to recall reading that most Iranian mines are dumb "iron mines" of WW2 pedigree, but that they have bought some of the more advanced ones from China or Russia. And anyway, this is not rocket science, and since Iran can build rockets, I'm sure they must have some domestic capabilities as well.
"I seem to recall reading that most Iranian mines are dumb "iron mines" of WW2 pedigree, but that they have bought some of the more advanced ones from China or Russia."
DeleteI quoted a paper about closing the Strait that suggest Iranian capability may include mines with 10X destructive power compared to the tanker war.
Enough to seriously damage a tanker or maybe even sink it. The reality is that you only have to do that once before your tanker become un-insurable and the oil market goes insane. The effect may last for months.
"Generally speaking, remote activation mines definitely exist, "
DeleteI'm unaware of any sea mine that can be remotely activated. Do you know of any? I'm not trying to 'get you', I'm genuinely interested about the technology and would like to know if such exist, that you're aware of. Thanks.
I should mention that the insurance risk is not the tanker, its the ecological damage from the spill.
DeleteA somewhat insider oilfield joke is the new BP tagline.
If we can't get you in our Gulf, (Anglo-Iranian), we'll get you in yours (Deepwater Horizon, Gulf of Mexico).
"The reality is that you only have to do that once before your tanker become un-insurable and the oil market goes insane. The effect may last for months."
DeleteWe do have historical precedent about this. The Iran-Iraq tanker war, for example, or the mining of the strait and use of US Navy escorts, for another. In each case, shipments continued. I have no idea what insurance rates did although one would have to assume they spiked upward. Still, the point is that companies kept shipping even while tankers were being targeted and hit repeatedly.
Fascinating to see the interplay of commercial profits and war losses and how companies evaluated those risks versus profits.
"Fascinating to see the interplay of commercial profits and war losses and how companies evaluated those risks versus profits."
DeleteYou're right. But the cost after the Gulf of Mexico disaster makes shipping through a hostile Strait of Hormuz unimaginable. All Iran has to do is sink one tanker and cause a big oil spill. If my dumb azz can figure that out, imagine what they have come up with...
"I'm unaware of any sea mine that can be remotely activated. Do you know of any?"
DeleteThis Proceedings article talked about Chinese mines which can be activated by acoustic signal.
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2016/january/flash-mob-shipping-lane
I know one scenario I've read about is where they turn it off while you sweep, you think things are clear, and then they turn it on to blow up your high-value targets...
"Gulf of Mexico disaster … All Iran has to do is sink one tanker and cause a big oil spill."
DeleteThose are two completely different scenarios. One is caused by negligence (I'm fuzzy on the details) and falls under the legal jurisdiction of the US whereas the other is an Act of War which is excluded from every insurance policy there is. Therefore, there would be no liability, no mammoth impact on insurance - only a giant mess.
"This Proceedings article talked about Chinese mines which can be activated by acoustic signal. "
DeleteI just read the link. Thanks! It doesn't actually say that such mines exist. It only speculates about what could be.
The problem with remote triggering of mines is that they're underwater - generally fairly deeply so. It's very difficult to communicate underwater. It's the same problem we have with trying to communicate with subs. We use ELF to send messages to submerged subs but it requires enormous facilities and can transmit a few characters per hour or some such.
To the best of my knowledge, there is no existing remote controlled mine.
"It doesn't actually say that such mines exist."
DeleteI mean, the proceedings article references this paper:
https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?httpsredir=1&article=1429&context=nwc-review
which says: "China’s remotely controlled mines, such as the EM-53 bottom influence mine,
can be deployed and deactivated by acoustic codes"
so it sounds like they think it exists.
I have no personal knowledge of how accurate their information is, or how well the system works in practice.
As we all know, gee-whiz technology is often not as good in real life as it sounds on paper...
Thanks to your last link, I've now found a single reference to a Te-2 remote activated mine. I can't find any reference to an EM-53 designation, though. So, it appears that China has some sort of remote activate mine although I was unable to find any definitive information about the mode of activation, communication distance, etc. Well … making progress! Thanks for the link.
DeleteThe Turks claim they that their Stingray naval mine can be activated from safe to armed by acoustic signal.
DeleteAnd there has been suspicion for years that the Russians also have remote activated mines. I have no clue as to whether that is true. But the following statement from a Director of Gidropribor suggests they have that capability:
"Mine barriers permit vast sea and ocean theaters of operations to be kept under control and when the status (armed – unarmed – sterilizer) of the planted mines is controlled remotely, friendly forces can cross the minefield."
http://milit.ru/mines.htm
Gidropribor also hints that their smart mines can operate as a part of an undersea surveillance system.
"I'm unaware of any sea mine that can be remotely activated. Do you know of any? I'm not trying to 'get you', I'm genuinely interested about the technology and would like to know if such exist, that you're aware of. Thanks."
ReplyDeleteBack in my NATO mine warfare days, there were always stories that the Danes, Swedes, and Norwegians had remotely activated mines in the Skaggerak and Kattegat, but I don't have any confirmation.
Remotely activated mines make good sense in narrow, shallow waters, like the Danish or Turkish straits, or harbour entrances. Robert Fulton invented the first ones in about 1812, which were called "torpedoes", hence "damn the torpedoes" during the American Civil War. Those were moored mines detonated by remote command. They were preferred to contact mines, because they were safer for friendly shipping.
DeleteModern ones could easily be built by any state with a modicum of industry, using control cables to connect them to a shore station. My old (1989) copy of World Naval Weapons Systems mentions the US Mark 51 mine, which is bottom-laid, detonated remotely or by magnetic induction, carries 3275lb of TNT, and is usually laid in groups of 13. The book also says that no details of remotely controlled mines built by other nations have emerged, but the Mark 51 has been exported by the US.
One question I hate to ask.
ReplyDeleteWith all our fiascos with the LCS and the Zumwalt and the Ford and now the drones, and with years of tactics based on playing to tie rather than to win, and promotions to leadership based on political correctness rather than war-fighting skills, are we actually worried that we might not actually be able to dominate Iran for a clear victory?
This should be a very one-sided conflict if it gets to that. But I have a distinct fear that all the stupidity we have seen from Navy leaders just might produce a fiasco.
Bingo. I don't see anything as done and gone.
DeleteI would say the foibles of our military lend further weight to my conviction that we would not be able to execute a surprise mass surgical strike to take out every political and military leader in the Islamic Republic :)
DeleteI do think we would easily "win" war with Iran, but I think there is perhaps some modest risk that they'd be able to take down enough missiles, planes and conceivably ships to make it painful for us.
(The real question in my mind is what lasting political benefit we would gain from "winning" though)
"This should be a very one-sided conflict if it gets to that. But I have a distinct fear that all the stupidity we have seen from Navy leaders just might produce a fiasco."
DeleteYour fear is valid, however, the discrepancy in technology and force levels is just too great to produce anything other than an overwhelming US victory no matter how poorly managed. It's analogous to a high school basketball team playing a pro team. No matter how bad the pro team is, they're still many times better than the high school.
"The real question in my mind is what lasting political benefit we would gain from "winning" though"
DeleteThe benefits are clear and immense: an end to terrorism support, end to Hamas support, end to destabilization of the region, end of a threat to close the strait, end of threats to shipping, end of nuclear bomb development, stabilization of oil production and shipping, etc.
"The benefits are clear and immense"
Deletewe're talking past each other at this point--i.e. too far apart on basic assumptions--so I think I will end with the following, and then you can chew me out with the final word :)
Of course the benefits are obvious on paper. Just as were the benefits to defeating Ho Chi Minh or Saddam or the Talaban or Qaddafi, etc. Or indeed, the benefits Hitler expected to gain when he invaded Poland, or Napoleon when he invaded Russia... :)
What comes out of starting a war is almost never what the initiators hoped. The knock-on effects are deeply unpredictable, and this is particularly true in the modern Mideast. Yes we have a huge preponderance of force, but that is not the only variable in play.
Again, this is not to counsel that we be paralyzed by caution, but to treat war as truly a last resort. I don't see us being anywhere close to the point where an attempted mass decapitation strike followed by invasion is the most logical and reasonable course of action.
I sense that you feel our past wars would have had the good effects we hoped, except that we just didn't fight them forcefully enough. Or you might classify some as victories where I would disagree.
Also, my sense of your moral framing is that it is comparatively black and white, with a great deal of faith that the deaths of many many innocents are acceptable given the long term benefits of supporting freedom and removing "bad actors."
My moral posture is different. In Iraq, somewhere between 200,000 and 600,000 people died. In Syria, some 400,000-500,000 have died (thankfully not on our consciences). Though the situations are not identical, I have no reason to think that an invasion of Iran, a still larger country, wouldn't create carnage on a similar scale, if not greater. I'm not comfortable just claiming that any fallout is Khamenei's fault, when I don't see an invasion as either necessary or proportional to the provocations.
Nor do I believe so strongly that the only reason some recent wars did not go our way is that we pursued them in too lily-livered a manner. In particular, with respect to your war plan, I don't see that past history gives any indication that it's possible to take out a decisive proportion of Iran's leadership--though it is true that many could be killed and the others' hold on power weakened.
So when I think about an Iran left flailing, with many of their leaders emerging after going to ground, and a population more embittered against us than ever, the possibility that weill have have spawned still greater and less predictable future violence and terrorism strike me as a very real reason for caution. Throwing out something bad does not preclude creating something worse--and the conditions we would leave on the ground seem the kind that would be likely to do so.
OK, thanks for an interesting conversation--you can chastise me now and we'll have done :)
Actually, a very good and well presented comment. I disagree but that's immaterial. While I may argue you your position, I value a contrary view if it is reasoned and well presented - and you have done that. Your contrary view is an asset to the blog. Thanks for contributing and I look forward to future comments from you whether I agree or disagree!
DeleteGetting so close to the brink of a strike and what sure appears to have been some form of talks through intermediaries plus Trump latest message reiterated he is open to talks, let's see if a little window of opportunity opens up for some deescalation. I would say the ball is in Iran court here...what will be their next move? Will they send some sort of peaceful message/gesture or go back to hitting tankers?
ReplyDeleteDifficult to exactly know what Trump "red line" is but I would say what's OK: tankers and other material objects to be messed with, drones can be shoot down, pretty much anything not human is OK with Iran to mess with. As long As Iran doesn't kill US troops or direct attacks on them, I think Iran is safe.
Let's see what happens, I expect Iran will respond one way or the other soon...
@NICO - "Trump latest message reiterated he is open to talks,"
DeleteThat is not his latest message. He has been saying that since last year: "I do believe that they will probably end up wanting to meet, and I'm ready to meet any time they want to." Trump said that in a July 2018 press conference at the White House.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-prime-minister-conte-italy-joint-press-conference/
The problem is that Iran does not trust him. They believe he is in the pocket of the Saudis, Izzies, and Emiratis. They have repeatedly said 'Never'.
The problem is that he is in the pockets of all three. It would be great to see the US develop a foreign policy in this region that was based on analysis and facts. They should dump the supporters of al quaeda who caused 9-11 rather than protect them.
DeleteThis is not a political blog. If you wish to discuss politics they must be directly tied to a military matter.
Delete"Your fear is valid, however, the discrepancy in technology and force levels is just too great to produce anything other than an overwhelming US victory no matter how poorly managed."
ReplyDeleteOne could have said that about US v. Vietnam, too, but it didn't work out that way. I wouldn't expect an Iran war to be as poorly managed as that one was, but more recently we haven't exactly dominated Afghanistan, either.
I think you are probably right, the discrepancy is just too great, but I just have this nagging fear and doubt.
"One could have said that about US v. Vietnam, too"
DeleteAnd, if we fight another war that we're not really serious about winning then, sure, it could happen again and, yes, our efforts in Afg have been pretty half-assed.
How would basing and logistics for even a limited conflict with Iran look like?
ReplyDelete- Iraq and Afghanistan, at least the most valuable parts of their armed forces, will be de facto Iranian allies in such a conflict.
- Oman and Turkey will be neutral and lock down our bases on their respective territories. Turks are protectors of Qatar and Qataris will follow their suit. Given the current state of relationships with Turks, I would not put it beyond them to forcefully intern all personnel present on D-day in these bases and feed Iranians intelligence throughout the conflict.
- Bahrain and Saudi Eastern Province will be consumed by massive Shia uprising, all already well prepared by IRGC.
- Also on D-day, Iranians will shut down power and water to Dubai and Emirates will cease to exist.
- Pakistanis will be neutral, standing aside while Shia militias clean up all of CIA drone lily pads.
- All of Caspian region will be a protected Sino-Soviet resupply highway for Iranians.
I left out a couple of minor players, such as Lebanon, Syria or Yemen.
Before we engage Iran, are we prepared to fight a major counterinsurgency effort to maintain Saudi stability? Do we have plans for evacuating 50K US civilians from Dubai before they (and any other White or Arab in sight) are eaten alive by millions of starving Bangladeshi slaves? Without access through Persian Gulf, destroyed airports?
Realistically, after the initial Tomahawk wave, we will be reduced to once-per-week strikes of our 8 flyworthy B1s and 10 B2s from Diego Garcia. Maybe some pinpricks from max stand-off carriers. All while we are stripping West Pacific of all munitions and assets that we can not easily replace anymore.
Further engagement in Middle East is neither beneficial nor affordable. Time to start getting serious about the big one with ChiComs.
"How would basing and logistics for even a limited conflict with Iran look like? "
DeleteThat's a valid question, as it is for any conflict throughout history. Logistics are always key.
"are we prepared to fight a major counterinsurgency effort"
Wow. That's quite an imposing hypothetical scenario you put forth - a regional, simultaneous, coordinated Shia uprising across the entire Middle East! Well, let's see if there are any events of actual history that support or refute your proposition.
The US attacked Iraq in Desert Storm and there was no massive, coordinated uprising.
The US again attacked, invaded, and occupied Iraq in 2003 and there was no massive, coordinated uprising.
The US has, multiple times, imposed crippling sanctions on Iran and there has been no massive, coordinated uprising.
The ongoing civil war in Syria has sparked no massive, coordinated uprising.
US attacks on Syrian bases have sparked no massive, coordinated uprising.
Israeli has attacked Iran, Syria, and Iranian forces in Syria and there has been no massive, coordinated uprising.
Iraq and Iran engaged in an eight year war and there was no massive, coordinated uprising.
The US withdrew its support for the JCPOA and reimposed crippling sanctions and there has been no massive, coordinated uprising.
Hmmm … I'm beginning to think your proposition may not be supported by actual history!
Let's look at some other aspects of your proposition.
" Iranians will shut down power and water to Dubai and Emirates will cease to exist."
The UAE obtains 98.8% of its water from the Dubai Electricity and Water Authority desalination plant so Iran would seem to have to ability to shut down water.
The UAE has its own electrical power stations and is part of an electrical grid arrangement with neighboring, friendly states to provide electricity to member states in order to balance loads and mitigate emergencies so electrical power does not seem to be an issue.
As a NATO member, it seems highly unlikely that Turkey would 'forcefully intern' US personnel.
Iraq's government and armed forces have already sided with and operated with US forces in many operations including those involving Shia personnel so your proposition that they would side with Iran seems unbelievable. Having fought an eight year war with Iran, it seems unlikely that Iraqi forces would turn around and fight with them.
I'm beginning to think that few, if any, of your predictions are likely to occur.
In short, you've concocted a fictional supposition (to put it politely) that is completely unsupported by any facts or history and is, in fact, contradicted by all historical events.
Speaking of Iraq, they are a potential peacemaker between Iran and the US.
DeleteIraq is sending a delegation to Iran to try to stop rocket attacks targeting US forces in Iraq. Iraqi government believes Iraqi militia supported by Iran is responsible for attacks. They don't want to be caught in the middle.
Plus Iraqi Army, directed by Prime Minister Abadi, did a large-scale deployment to the vicinity of seven bases to protect US troops from rocket attack. Those forces have surrounded those seven locations at a distance of 15 kilometers which is believed to be outside the range of Katyusha rockets that have been recently targeting US locations. Of course that encirclement could be construed as a siege rather than protection - making sure that no US action in Iraq is directed at Iran or Iranian based militias?
Do I think all of the these elements would come into play on D-day? No. But what contingency planning is there in place if one of them happens? Two? Three? Honestly, are you yourself even remotely confident that people preparing the Iran war made required provisions? Or are we again going into the war planning for a swift and decisive victory by D+14 only?
ReplyDeleteNow into specifics.
Turks. NATO membership as such has little to do with eventual war with Iran. In 2016, Incirlik was shut down, all our flights grounded, personnel removed from facilities under guard and constrained to barracks for two days. Likewise, in 2003 they have denied use of any of bases on against Saddam. Would our forces be interned for the duration of the conflict? How have we recently treated Erdogan? What should we expect him to do?
Likewise, do you really think Qataris will allow us to use Al Udeid? If it was not for Turks and Iranians, they would be long gone already. Even if they do, how do you operate an air base in range of Iranian short-range ballistic missiles that has six small hardened shelters of really dubious quality. Open tarmacs for the rest.
Emirates. They have one interconnect to Oman and one to the Kingdom. None of them is capable of supplying more then 3% to 5% of their average demand. None of them will be functional. All these city states are 90% expats. Millions of slave laborers. Depending on time of year, there are between 50K and 100K U.S. citizen in Dubai alone. How are you going to evacuate them? March them into the desert?
Syria, ISIS, Israeli raids all gave Iranians time, pretext and opportunity to build up a massive network of militias, from Lebanon to Pakistan, staff them with trusted cadre, bloody and train them in working with each other and with IRGC directly. Most importantly, we gave them a shared cause and opportunity to connect that simply was not there in 80s or in 2003 for that matter. Last year, over 30 million Shia made the Arbaeen pilgrimage to Iraq.
BTW, there is an ongoing Shia insurgency in the Eastern Province already. Three quarters of 250-300 people executed in KSA last year were Shia political prisoners. It might ignite with or without our war with Iran.
Logistically, financially, doctrinally we are not prepared, postured, positioned or even capable of fighting a conventional war against Iran or inflicting a lasting damage. Our "allies" contribute nothing. Iranians will not allow us to keep this conflict contained. Such a war will leave us greatly weakened and Russia and China stronger. I still need to learn what the objectives would be in such a war and how they they feature into our Grand Strategy.
Hopefully, Trump's common sense will prevail over plethora of Beltway wormtongues surrounding him.
Well, based on your scenario, the only thing I'm puzzled about is why Iran hasn't taken over the entire Middle East (sounds like it would be an automatic!) and invaded the US yet, given their overwhelming advantages?
DeleteHey, you're entitled to your opinion. I'll leave it at that.
With Trump saying that further sanctions will hit Iran tomorrow, I only see few remaining options long term for the survival of the Iran regime:
ReplyDelete1. Drag this as long as possible, crack down on all dissent, keep the economy going somehow, try to stir up anti Americanism as much as possible with hoping US strikes first to rile up the population. Hoping that US elects a new POTUS in 2020, very tough plan as I really don't think the hawks in WH will let Iran play the long game. Sooner or later, they will convince Trump to use force...
2. The other option is Iran leaders need to understand that going alone isn't possible anymore, they need outside help and lot more "muscle". Iran needs to talk to Chinese leaders and strike a deal, it probably will hurt but without a "big brother" behind them, eventually Iran is toast. Now, if China back stops Iran and moves military hardware in defiance of US sanctions and UN sanctions, that sure complicates the US strategy of regime change and reduces military strikes. I have no clue what Iran could offer China since it would really have to be a sweet deal for XI to go for it but stranger things have happened in history...
"if China back stops Iran and moves military hardware in defiance of US sanctions and UN sanctions, that sure complicates the US strategy of regime change and reduces military strikes."
DeleteChina is not bound by US sanctions, of course. I don't what, if any, UN sanctions exist about transferring Chinese military equipment to Iran but if they did exist and China violated them, there's your built in justification FOR military action.
If china moves military forces into iran that will not change our moves. Even Israel bombs iranian guard depots on russian military bases in Syria. Why would you think we are scared of bombing chinese military positions in iran?
ReplyDeletePeter G -
DeleteWhich Russian military bases in Syria were bombed by Israel? As far as I understand they struck IRGC that were in or near Syrian bases, but not on Russian bases. It is true that the have made several stikes against IRGC bases in Latakia. But that was in Latakia Province, NOT in Latakia City which is near the Russian base at Hmeimim.
"Which Russian military bases in Syria were bombed by Israel?"
DeleteSomewhat along those lines, in April 2018 Israel attacked the T4 airbase which Russian aircraft have reportedly used but that's not a Russian base. It is unknown whether Russian aircraft were present during the attack. Russian reports suggested that Russian advisors were present at the base but that none were hurt in the attack.
Russia's Hmeimim air base in Latakia province has been attacked by mortars and drones although I have not heard that Israel was responsible.
I'm not aware of other Israeli attacks on Russian bases although you need a score card to keep track of who's attacking who!
Not attacking you. Just questioning.
ReplyDeleteYou're fine. Feel free to question politely! For future reference, you might want to include the name/ID of the person you're asking a question of or include a quote that you're asking about just so the person you're asking knows it's them!
DeleteFor instance, I think your question is directed at NICO but I'm not 100% sure.
Yes. Nico.
ReplyDelete