Gulf of Oman incidents
Discussion
I'm almost sure war will happen. I think there will be continued low-level stuff with tankers, Iran upping the anti in Syria, Lebanon, Gaza & hence Israel. I reckon there will be a few much bigger attacks within the next 6 months, which will trigger war possibly next spring. US is already moving up a gear in the region.
Depressing - watch this space.....
Depressing - watch this space.....
rxe said:
I'm rather with Trump on this one - the problem with the JCPOA is that it simply delays the Iranians getting a nuclear capability. If it carried on, some time between 8 and 15 years from now, Iran gains nuclear weapons capability on the back of a strong economy, and the expiration of restrictions.
The Iranians are in the same box as the North Koreans - they shouldn't have nukes, but at least the Norks seem to just want to be left alone in the main. If the Iranians historically had nukes, they'd have used them on Iraq by now, especially if Iraq didn't have the means to respond. They'd probably not use them on Israel because they know damn fine they'd get nuked back.
If the JCPOA said "you can have reactors, but you'll get the fuel from a controlled source, forever", then fine. What it actually says is "carry on your research, we'll open the taps on your economy and we hope you'll be nice in 15 years".
If you look back at history (say as back as 1953) you would hopefully realise that Iran is far more "sinned against" than "sinner".In summary the CIA overthrew the Iranian Govt and then imposed a puppet ruler. When he was overthrown in 1979 the US and most of the Sunni Gulf states supported/funded Saddam Hussein's 10-year war against Iran. The pressure only stopped (slightly) when Saddam invaded Kuwait.The Iranians are in the same box as the North Koreans - they shouldn't have nukes, but at least the Norks seem to just want to be left alone in the main. If the Iranians historically had nukes, they'd have used them on Iraq by now, especially if Iraq didn't have the means to respond. They'd probably not use them on Israel because they know damn fine they'd get nuked back.
If the JCPOA said "you can have reactors, but you'll get the fuel from a controlled source, forever", then fine. What it actually says is "carry on your research, we'll open the taps on your economy and we hope you'll be nice in 15 years".
You say "problem with the JCPOA" - do you genuinely believe that ANY country (let alone Iran) is going to permanently give up the ability to build nukes when that is one of the few proven methods for not getting invaded? It sounds like you feel that a "fair" JCPOA would be one that involved total capitulation by Iran which was never going to happen. However THEY complied with the terms of the JCPOA, it was the US that walked away, it was the US that imposed sanctions. It's the US that has currently surrounded Iran with numerous military bases.
Damn those pesky Iranians for aggressively trying to protect themselves!
Countdown said:
If you look back at history (say as back as 1953) you would hopefully realise that Iran is far more "sinned against" than "sinner".In summary the CIA overthrew the Iranian Govt and then imposed a puppet ruler. When he was overthrown in 1979 the US and most of the Sunni Gulf states supported/funded Saddam Hussein's 10-year war against Iran. The pressure only stopped (slightly) when Saddam invaded Kuwait.
You say "problem with the JCPOA" - do you genuinely believe that ANY country (let alone Iran) is going to permanently give up the ability to build nukes when that is one of the few proven methods for not getting invaded? It sounds like you feel that a "fair" JCPOA would be one that involved total capitulation by Iran which was never going to happen. However THEY complied with the terms of the JCPOA, it was the US that walked away, it was the US that imposed sanctions. It's the US that has currently surrounded Iran with numerous military bases.
Damn those pesky Iranians for aggressively trying to protect themselves!
I don't expect any country to like it, but the alternative is that everyone has nukes and we let them crack on. Iran wants nuclear weapons, that's why they want reactors, and they can't be trusted with nukes any more than my dog can. If they were offered reactors on a controlled basis, they'd not want them - they'd be using CCGT to generate electricity. You say "problem with the JCPOA" - do you genuinely believe that ANY country (let alone Iran) is going to permanently give up the ability to build nukes when that is one of the few proven methods for not getting invaded? It sounds like you feel that a "fair" JCPOA would be one that involved total capitulation by Iran which was never going to happen. However THEY complied with the terms of the JCPOA, it was the US that walked away, it was the US that imposed sanctions. It's the US that has currently surrounded Iran with numerous military bases.
Damn those pesky Iranians for aggressively trying to protect themselves!
If Iran gets nukes, then the Houthi and Hezbollah will have nukes, and all hell will break loose. This is one of the few issues it is worth protecting. I don't really care how unpleasant they are to their own people, but I do care about nuclear conflict within, and extending beyond the middle east.
rxe said:
I don't expect any country to like it, but the alternative is that everyone has nukes and we let them crack on.
What gives us the right to say who does and doesn't have nukes? the main reason we (and by that I really mean Israel and the US) don't want Iran to have nukes is because they can pretty much do what they like in the ME and Iran is relatively powerless to stop them. Just to give you a few examples, there have been countless incidents of israel attacking Iranian forces in Syria and numerous assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists.rxe said:
Iran wants nuclear weapons, that's why they want reactors, and they can't be trusted with nukes any more than my dog can. If they were offered reactors on a controlled basis, they'd not want them - they'd be using CCGT to generate electricity.
Of course they want nuclear weapons - they've seen exavtly what's happened in Iraq, Syria, and Libya and what hasn't happened in North Korea or Pakistanrxe said:
If Iran gets nukes, then the Houthi and Hezbollah will have nukes, and all hell will break loose. This is one of the few issues it is worth protecting. I don't really care how unpleasant they are to their own people, but I do care about nuclear conflict within, and extending beyond the middle east.
That's just ridiculous scaremongering. Pakistan has nukes and supports the Taliban. the US has nukes and supports various terrorist organisations throughout the world. Not a single nuclear-capable country in the world would supply nukes to a terrorist organisation because THEY would be first in line for reprisals.Let's just cut through the BS - "we" don't want them to have nukes because, at the moment, "we" can give them an occasional slap and there's little they can do about it. If they get nukes we won't be able to.
Countdown said:
rxe said:
I don't expect any country to like it, but the alternative is that everyone has nukes and we let them crack on.
What gives us the right to say who does and doesn't have nukes? the main reason we (and by that I really mean Israel and the US) don't want Iran to have nukes is because they can pretty much do what they like in the ME and Iran is relatively powerless to stop them. Just to give you a few examples, there have been countless incidents of israel attacking Iranian forces in Syria and numerous assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists.rxe said:
Iran wants nuclear weapons, that's why they want reactors, and they can't be trusted with nukes any more than my dog can. If they were offered reactors on a controlled basis, they'd not want them - they'd be using CCGT to generate electricity.
Of course they want nuclear weapons - they've seen exavtly what's happened in Iraq, Syria, and Libya and what hasn't happened in North Korea or Pakistanrxe said:
If Iran gets nukes, then the Houthi and Hezbollah will have nukes, and all hell will break loose. This is one of the few issues it is worth protecting. I don't really care how unpleasant they are to their own people, but I do care about nuclear conflict within, and extending beyond the middle east.
That's just ridiculous scaremongering. Pakistan has nukes and supports the Taliban. the US has nukes and supports various terrorist organisations throughout the world. Not a single nuclear-capable country in the world would supply nukes to a terrorist organisation because THEY would be first in line for reprisals.Let's just cut through the BS - "we" don't want them to have nukes because, at the moment, "we" can give them an occasional slap and there's little they can do about it. If they get nukes we won't be able to.
rxe said:
Countdown said:
If you look back at history (say as back as 1953) you would hopefully realise that Iran is far more "sinned against" than "sinner".In summary the CIA overthrew the Iranian Govt and then imposed a puppet ruler. When he was overthrown in 1979 the US and most of the Sunni Gulf states supported/funded Saddam Hussein's 10-year war against Iran. The pressure only stopped (slightly) when Saddam invaded Kuwait.
You say "problem with the JCPOA" - do you genuinely believe that ANY country (let alone Iran) is going to permanently give up the ability to build nukes when that is one of the few proven methods for not getting invaded? It sounds like you feel that a "fair" JCPOA would be one that involved total capitulation by Iran which was never going to happen. However THEY complied with the terms of the JCPOA, it was the US that walked away, it was the US that imposed sanctions. It's the US that has currently surrounded Iran with numerous military bases.
Damn those pesky Iranians for aggressively trying to protect themselves!
I don't expect any country to like it, but the alternative is that everyone has nukes and we let them crack on. Iran wants nuclear weapons, that's why they want reactors, and they can't be trusted with nukes any more than my dog can. If they were offered reactors on a controlled basis, they'd not want them - they'd be using CCGT to generate electricity. You say "problem with the JCPOA" - do you genuinely believe that ANY country (let alone Iran) is going to permanently give up the ability to build nukes when that is one of the few proven methods for not getting invaded? It sounds like you feel that a "fair" JCPOA would be one that involved total capitulation by Iran which was never going to happen. However THEY complied with the terms of the JCPOA, it was the US that walked away, it was the US that imposed sanctions. It's the US that has currently surrounded Iran with numerous military bases.
Damn those pesky Iranians for aggressively trying to protect themselves!
If Iran gets nukes, then the Houthi and Hezbollah will have nukes, and all hell will break loose. This is one of the few issues it is worth protecting. I don't really care how unpleasant they are to their own people, but I do care about nuclear conflict within, and extending beyond the middle east.
RXE - If Iran wanted to arm those groups with a dirty bomb, then they could have done so quite easily already. The fact is they haven't.
If one looks at it objectively from both an Iranian & USofA POV, then Iran stands to lose the most and the USofA has been the more belligerent of the pair. Neither of them are squeaky clean to be fair.
Piha said:
Good post Countdown.
RXE - If Iran wanted to arm those groups with a dirty bomb, then they could have done so quite easily already. The fact is they haven't.
If one looks at it objectively from both an Iranian & USofA POV, then Iran stands to lose the most and the USofA has been the more belligerent of the pair. Neither of them are squeaky clean to be fair.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I think the principle of nuclear non-proliferation is worth supporting. Of course it is "unfair", but the alternative is worse. If we simply say "any nation state that wants to develop nuclear weapons can have them", then you have no logical method of stopping proliferation. Say Iran is allowed nukes - what logical mechanism is there to say the Palestinians can't have them? They have a country too, and they would use exactly the same argument to justify their acquisition of the technology. RXE - If Iran wanted to arm those groups with a dirty bomb, then they could have done so quite easily already. The fact is they haven't.
If one looks at it objectively from both an Iranian & USofA POV, then Iran stands to lose the most and the USofA has been the more belligerent of the pair. Neither of them are squeaky clean to be fair.
rxe said:
I think the principle of nuclear non-proliferation is worth supporting. Of course it is "unfair", but the alternative is worse. If we simply say "any nation state that wants to develop nuclear weapons can have them", then you have no logical method of stopping proliferation. Say Iran is allowed nukes - what logical mechanism is there to say the Palestinians can't have them? They have a country too, and they would use exactly the same argument to justify their acquisition of the technology.
Agree. Yes the US is partly responsible for the extrema in charge of these regimes but it wouldn't be a good idea for these nutjobs to get hold of WOMD. Though it should be noted that even where the US didn't intervene this has happened. Of course, if you're of the Corbynista-mindset then ignore this logic and take one side completely just because ..fido said:
Agree. Yes the US is partly responsible for the extrema in charge of these regimes but it wouldn't be a good idea for these nutjobs to get hold of WOMD. Though it should be noted that even where the US didn't intervene this has happened. Of course, if you're of the Corbynista-mindset then ignore this logic and take one side completely just because ..
Independent mindsets are always good.Especially if people used them to look at what is currently happening in the Middle East, the types of people "we" are supporting, and the types of people "we" are opposing.
Piha said:
Good post Countdown.
RXE - If Iran wanted to arm those groups with a dirty bomb, then they could have done so quite easily already. The fact is they haven't.
If one looks at it objectively from both an Iranian & USofA POV, then Iran stands to lose the most and the USofA has been the more belligerent of the pair. Neither of them are squeaky clean to be fair.
Perhaps if Iran had a genuine viable nuclear deterrent those groups would have been armed with a dirty bomb before now? RXE - If Iran wanted to arm those groups with a dirty bomb, then they could have done so quite easily already. The fact is they haven't.
If one looks at it objectively from both an Iranian & USofA POV, then Iran stands to lose the most and the USofA has been the more belligerent of the pair. Neither of them are squeaky clean to be fair.
Countdown said:
Especially if people used them to look at what is currently happening in the Middle East, the types of people "we" are supporting, and the types of people "we" are opposing.
Well I don't think anyone is supporting the religious theocracy in Iran. If you look back to the 60s and 70s when they were 'evolving" as a modern state (womens rights, universities) and then the people of Iran decided they didn't want this "westernisation" and brought into power the current mob. You can keep on blaming the past but there is a collective responsiblity to improve oneself despite the situation we may find ourselves in.rxe said:
Piha said:
Good post Countdown.
RXE - If Iran wanted to arm those groups with a dirty bomb, then they could have done so quite easily already. The fact is they haven't.
If one looks at it objectively from both an Iranian & USofA POV, then Iran stands to lose the most and the USofA has been the more belligerent of the pair. Neither of them are squeaky clean to be fair.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I think the principle of nuclear non-proliferation is worth supporting. Of course it is "unfair", but the alternative is worse. If we simply say "any nation state that wants to develop nuclear weapons can have them", then you have no logical method of stopping proliferation. Say Iran is allowed nukes - what logical mechanism is there to say the Palestinians can't have them? They have a country too, and they would use exactly the same argument to justify their acquisition of the technology. RXE - If Iran wanted to arm those groups with a dirty bomb, then they could have done so quite easily already. The fact is they haven't.
If one looks at it objectively from both an Iranian & USofA POV, then Iran stands to lose the most and the USofA has been the more belligerent of the pair. Neither of them are squeaky clean to be fair.
I firmly believe that smaller nations desire for nuclear weapons is to stop perceived threats when confronted by an overly powerful adversial USofA. If the US took a more diplomatic and long term approach (Obama's approach?) to the Iranian problem then I'm sure relations could improve. I doubt Iran wants a war with the US but at the same time Iran doesn't want to be bullied or invaded by the US.
How else does Iran stop the US from the perceived bullying of their country?
I would think that if Iran didn't feel threatened by the USofA then Iran would be less inclined to pursue building a bomb, wouldn't you agree?
Maybe Iran & the US's belligerent relationship has been simmering for so long that it is beyond repair, I certainly hope not.
If we look at the position of North Korea, then the only way they got the USofA to the negotiating table was by the possession of nuclear weapons. And it stopped the US from invading North Korea (assuming that's what NK thought was going to happen). Look at Pakistan, in their eyes they have stopped India from invading their country by the possession and threat of nuclear weapons. Isn't this how the UK/NATO thought we would prevent invasion of western Europe by the USSR?
The subject should not be about the non proliferation of nuclear weapons but how opposing regimes can improve their relationships through dialogue and diplomacy.
nikaiyo2 said:
Perhaps if Iran had a genuine viable nuclear deterrent those groups would have been armed with a dirty bomb before now?
Exactly.Iran probably could build a dirty bomb and transport it to Syria, hand it to Hezbollah and let them get on with it. But as yet they haven't and I hope they don't. Iran feels like it's cornered and has limited options unlike the USofA.
Piha said:
I would think that if Iran didn't feel threatened by the USofA then Iran would be less inclined to pursue building a bomb, wouldn't you agree?
Nope. I suspect the desire is now there irrespective of the actions from the USA. Piha said:
Look at Pakistan, in their eyes they have stopped India from invading their country by the possession and threat of nuclear weapons. Isn't this how the UK/NATO thought we would prevent invasion of western Europe by the USSR?
Strange view on the formation of Pakistan you have there and MAD only works with the word "assured" - do both sides have that capability? fido said:
Countdown said:
Especially if people used them to look at what is currently happening in the Middle East, the types of people "we" are supporting, and the types of people "we" are opposing.
Well I don't think anyone is supporting the religious theocracy in Iran. If you look back to the 60s and 70s when they were 'evolving" as a modern state (womens rights, universities) and then the people of Iran decided they didn't want this "westernisation" and brought into power the current mob. You can keep on blaming the past but there is a collective responsiblity to improve oneself despite the situation we may find ourselves in.And, when you compare the relative democracies in the ME, Iran is head and shoulders above our so-called "allies".
Piha said:
Good reply RXE.
I firmly believe that smaller nations desire for nuclear weapons is to stop perceived threats when confronted by an overly powerful adversial USofA. If the US took a more diplomatic and long term approach (Obama's approach?) to the Iranian problem then I'm sure relations could improve. I doubt Iran wants a war with the US but at the same time Iran doesn't want to be bullied or invaded by the US.
How else does Iran stop the US from the perceived bullying of their country?
I would think that if Iran didn't feel threatened by the USofA then Iran would be less inclined to pursue building a bomb, wouldn't you agree?
Maybe Iran & the US's belligerent relationship has been simmering for so long that it is beyond repair, I certainly hope not.
If we look at the position of North Korea, then the only way they got the USofA to the negotiating table was by the possession of nuclear weapons. And it stopped the US from invading North Korea (assuming that's what NK thought was going to happen). Look at Pakistan, in their eyes they have stopped India from invading their country by the possession and threat of nuclear weapons. Isn't this how the UK/NATO thought we would prevent invasion of western Europe by the USSR?
The subject should not be about the non proliferation of nuclear weapons but how opposing regimes can improve their relationships through dialogue and diplomacy.
I'm absolutely not defending the behaviour of the West in the middle east - our interventions there have been universally disastrous. The first Gulf War was one thing, but the second was insane. Libya was insane. Syria is insane. Iran would be insane. If we haven't learned that regime change is a complete balls up by now, we never will. I firmly believe that smaller nations desire for nuclear weapons is to stop perceived threats when confronted by an overly powerful adversial USofA. If the US took a more diplomatic and long term approach (Obama's approach?) to the Iranian problem then I'm sure relations could improve. I doubt Iran wants a war with the US but at the same time Iran doesn't want to be bullied or invaded by the US.
How else does Iran stop the US from the perceived bullying of their country?
I would think that if Iran didn't feel threatened by the USofA then Iran would be less inclined to pursue building a bomb, wouldn't you agree?
Maybe Iran & the US's belligerent relationship has been simmering for so long that it is beyond repair, I certainly hope not.
If we look at the position of North Korea, then the only way they got the USofA to the negotiating table was by the possession of nuclear weapons. And it stopped the US from invading North Korea (assuming that's what NK thought was going to happen). Look at Pakistan, in their eyes they have stopped India from invading their country by the possession and threat of nuclear weapons. Isn't this how the UK/NATO thought we would prevent invasion of western Europe by the USSR?
The subject should not be about the non proliferation of nuclear weapons but how opposing regimes can improve their relationships through dialogue and diplomacy.
But - I'm not convinced that the solution is giving these states nuclear weapons, any more than I would consider arming schoolkids with 30mm autocannons because someone was being mean to them. Do I trust the current incumbents with WMD? No. In the main, they're deeply unpleasant people for whom murder is pretty much routine. Their successors may be worse. Do I personally trust D.Trump with nukes - no - but I do trust the process that the US has wrapped around it to stop him launching at someone who has pissed him off on twitter.
So if a sensible JCPOA had been agreed, and the Iranians had stopped being dicks (imprisoning random people, shooting s
t down), we'd be looking at the beginnings of an economic miracle now.So, for those in favour of MAD as a deterrent, it only works if the 'right' type of people have it? What nonsense. For nuclear armament to work as a successful holistic deterrent, everyone should have it because, as I have always been told, the threat of imminent destruction will enable an everlasting peace, surely that is the basic tenets. If we expect others to like our apples it is surely part of the deal that we like theirs.
rxe said:
I'm absolutely not defending the behaviour of the West in the middle east - our interventions there have been universally disastrous. The first Gulf War was one thing, but the second was insane. Libya was insane. Syria is insane. Iran would be insane. If we haven't learned that regime change is a complete balls up by now, we never will.
But - I'm not convinced that the solution is giving these states nuclear weapons, any more than I would consider arming schoolkids with 30mm autocannons because someone was being mean to them. Do I trust the current incumbents with WMD? No. In the main, they're deeply unpleasant people for whom murder is pretty much routine. Their successors may be worse. Do I personally trust D.Trump with nukes - no - but I do trust the process that the US has wrapped around it to stop him launching at someone who has pissed him off on twitter.
So if a sensible JCPOA had been agreed, and the Iranians had stopped being dicks (imprisoning random people, shooting st down), we'd be looking at the beginnings of an economic miracle now.
Really? When does loads of sanctions actually work on a country? Not sure I can think of many situations? Generally you want to soften relations at some point so a country can develop itself to a modern democracy. Creating terrible conditions can result in a big change, but to extremists for the most part. That's what was beginning to happen in Iran with the more moderates getting a bit of power, before Trump stepped in. And unlike many countries in the area for the most part the actual general population is far more moderate and closer to our western values, if you want to call them that. But - I'm not convinced that the solution is giving these states nuclear weapons, any more than I would consider arming schoolkids with 30mm autocannons because someone was being mean to them. Do I trust the current incumbents with WMD? No. In the main, they're deeply unpleasant people for whom murder is pretty much routine. Their successors may be worse. Do I personally trust D.Trump with nukes - no - but I do trust the process that the US has wrapped around it to stop him launching at someone who has pissed him off on twitter.
So if a sensible JCPOA had been agreed, and the Iranians had stopped being dicks (imprisoning random people, shooting s
t down), we'd be looking at the beginnings of an economic miracle now.biggbn said:
So, for those in favour of MAD as a deterrent, it only works if the 'right' type of people have it? What nonsense. For nuclear armament to work as a successful holistic deterrent, everyone should have it because, as I have always been told, the threat of imminent destruction will enable an everlasting peace, surely that is the basic tenets. If we expect others to like our apples it is surely part of the deal that we like theirs.
MAD works in a limited set of scenarios. It works really well when you have two sides who are utterly convinced that an act of aggression will lead to the total annihilation of both sides. If one side is convinced it can "win", then MAD is no longer effective. Which is why shield technology (such as Reagan's star wars) is such an issue.
In an asymmetric situation, the stronger party can use nukes without fearing the consequences. We have nukes, in theory we could have used them on Argentina during the Falklands invasion - but we have sufficient stability and process in our chain of command to stop that happening. The US could have used nukes in Vietnam, Iraq, Libya .... but didn't because there are sufficient political and military controls to stop it happening. Even if D.Trump said "nuke the b
ds", it wouldn't happen. What you seem to be proposing is that is OK for a number of countries to have these things, despite being run by despots and a completely unstable chain of command. They wouldn't be able to achieve MAD, because they would not have an arsenal that any other party truly feared - if the Iranians launched at the US, it is highly unlikely that anything would hit, and in response, Iran would be turned to glass. Result - loads of people die.
Clearly it is nominally "unfair" that some countries have them, but you don't fix that by allowing more to proliferate.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff