Now I’m not 100% sure it isn’t happening, but WHY aren’t weapons being delivered? There is universal conscription so I would think just about any adult male in Iran has at least rudimentary weapon training. I don’t understand.
A weakened Iran isn’t good enough. We’ve come this far, leaving the regime intact (however shaken up) is only gonna be a ticket to vengeance in the coming years. The Iranian people were always going to be the “final solution”, but without weapons it won’t happen. We as a nation, and me personally, don’t want an OIF-style, 100K+ troop invasion. We can prep the battlefield so to speak, but it will ultimately come down to the people.
If this was a “punitive expedition” then it will have to be done every 5 or so years. They will be itching for revenge, and if they do get a nuke you can count on them using it, especially against Israel.
I’ve said before in this thread, if the Iranian people don’t take action—whether they win or lose—when they get uppity next time and the regime begins murdering people I don’t want to hear any whining. Assuming we have provided weaponry, we will have set the battlefield for them….failure to take advantage of this means we do a Pontius Pilate and wash our hands of them in the future. It would also loosen our targeting a bit for future “punitive expeditions” as now we wouldn’t be tip-toeing around hitting something because it would harm the people. Maybe the lights/power/water/bridges go first next time.
100%. The problem is that this doesn’t fit the idiot narrative on either side. Its been stated many times that regime change was not a primary objective, though the admin was open to it. People are crying that we did anything or didn’t do enough, and most have ignorantly narrow views. a Delaying action is not an automatic loss and the mindset that it is is the same mindset that leads to appeasement or forever wars, just on opposite sides of the spectrum.
Well if all we had to do was supply small arms then it wouldn’t further our involvement beyond what it already is. I mean we bombed the shit out of them for almost 6 weeks. If dropping a shitload of old AK’s to the people results in “regime change” then that’s gravy. It wasn’t our stated goal (wisely), but if it happens no one is gonna lose any sleep over it. Look at it as a side benefit, not an ultimate objective. Hell, even if it resulted in a fragmented Iran that is better than what we have now.
True, but seriously, how much worse can it get? A fanatical theocratic regime that murders it’s own people wholesale is pretty high on the list of douchebaggery. Can’t think of anything worse, or at least just as bad. Decentralizing power in Iran (assuming there is no “uprising”) would be the #2 prize. Chaos reigning, instead of a strengthened psychotic central government armed with all kinds of Russian and ChiCom goodies (perhaps even a nuke) is preferable to what we have now. I mean I’ll take it.
Not if what we have now are the remnants of the old regime, just strong enough to prevent the country from falling into mass chaos and bolstering the next ISIS/AQ like VEO but so badly damaged that those surviving never again threaten US interests.
That’s walking a pretty thin line of “success”. It assumes that the remnants/survivors of the regime don’t have an enormous hard-on for us and Israel as a result of Epic Fury. I suspect they will, therefore I’d prefer them overthrown, but shy of that I’d settle for turbulence and instability in a fractured Iran. Personally I don’t see much difference between the mullah regime in Iran and ISIS/AQ, other than one is stateless and the other is a bona fide country with armed forces and the fanatical SS-like IRGC in control of beaucoup missiles and drones while controlling one of the world’s most important waterways. A Balkanized Iran with an ISIS-like group controlling one of it’s fragments seems to me to be preferable to the current situation.
Civil war morphing into proxy wars, destabilizing the region resulting in $200 oil and encouraging ME countries to seek nuclear weapons. Things could be much worse.
I don’t pretend to know how things might develop in Iran or what Trump may ultimately do beyond stated objectives. However, America has a long history plagued by mission creep.
Trump has had a hard-on for Iran since they took Hastages during the revolution; Historical Fact.
A couple of things I learned growing up, It’s a lot easier to hold a grudge than it is to let it go. Once you’ve got your foot on their neck you have to go through with it.
So if you’ve got a problem that leads to a fight, the loser will always remember and plot his revenge and Unless you want to fight this same bastard again and again, you’ll just have to end him.
Regarding oil, the USA from what I understand is self sufficient in oil. If I am correct it is very simple de-couple the price of oil used in the USA from the world market.
No there has only been a single ship burned up since the beginning of the conflict, and that one was at an Iraqi port, a couple others may have had small fires near the beginning (unconfirmed causation) when Iran still had some missile/drone capacity. Now Iran is completely unable to hit moving targets as their only remaining weaponry is the limited supply of gps targeted fire and forget drones which mostly get intercepted over Iranian airspace anyway.
That’s like a 3rd graders understanding of the Constitution, maybe take a Constitutional Law class before yelling about Article I, Section 8, part 11… there is and always has been much dispute over what “The Congress shall have Power To… declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;” actually means when all command of the armed forces of the United States is vested in a unitary executive, the President, in Article II. The last time Congress approved a formal declaration of war was in 1942, Presidents have fought many, many “wars” since then.
If you want to argue the deployment of troops requires the assent of Congress through legislation (which is undocumented in the Constitution), the 2001 AUMF has never been rescinded and is basically an open-ended authorization of military force where “the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.” Any one of the bolded may qualify. However, if you still quibble, like I said, the War Powers Act came up for a vote and Congress refused to deny the President the authority to (continue to) act against Iran, twice.
I argue, along with many others, that Congress is only required to vote for a formal Declaration of War but the President decides how and where to use the forces of the United States. If Congress has a problem with it, they can defund or Impeach and ultimately if the people don’t agree they will vote for the other guy the next election, it is in fact the ultimate political question.
That’s crossed my mind but would require a government/private partnership where government dictates limits on exports and guarantees domestic price to oil producers. Not so sure that would ultimately be a good thing. Moving toward socialism can be seductive in theory but not so much in real life. That said, being held hostage to global events affecting the price of oil certainly has a downside.
Burned up and struck are different things. A ship doesn’t have to be completely destroyed for the IRGC to claim control over the straight, which is exactly what is happening right now.
I’m aware of all those things but despite not being rescinded, its easier to argue that the 2001 law is unconstitutional than the executive having such wide authority for deployments. If POTUS can do that without any Congressional authorization, what is the point of them having the Constitutional authority to declare war? Why even write that in if the President can do whatever he wants? I understand its how things have gone for some time but I don’t believe its what was intended by the Founders.
They also intended a functional Congress, Senators appointed by state legislatures and an electorate of white, male property owners… how’s all that working out?
So what do you think the other ME countries are gonna seek to do if the mullah regime gets a nuke? Also, “mission creep” only becomes a fact if/when we let it. If Trump has no intention of invading Iran en masse (which he doesn’t and I agree with that), then encouraging the population and giving them weapons to overthrow the regime is about as “clean” for us as it gets. No mission creep, either they succeed or they don’t.
“Destabilizing” the region….you think it’s “stable” now, or has been? You somehow think that the theocratic regime is/was a stabilizing force for the rest of the ME? Like they’re some pillar of virtue and calmness all the muzzies looked up to?
$200 a barrel oil is only if we allow those shitheads to run the Strait. That must not be allowed to continue.
As long as we clean up the Strait of Hormuz, then the rest of it can’t get worse than it has been for the last 47 years. I stand by that.
We already took down Iran’s short/medium term ability to build a nuclear bomb. It was among the objectives listed by POTUS. Regime change was not, much less actively arming Iranians to do so. In fact, Trump has publicly stated that regime change was not an official goal of his administration. Remember, Trump had been trying to make a deal with the then regime leaders to satisfy the aforementioned objectives and avoid military action. Negotiations continue with what Trump has stated a changed regime due to new leaders.
America arming Iranians to overthrow the regime is mission creep by definition. It can be among the most insidious mission creeps by creating a new objective without being in control of outcome.
Mission creep is involving us gradually getting more and more involved. Arming the populace and letting them go to town isn’t mission creep. It costs us nothing. They do the dying. I really don’t GAF about them. ANY of them. If they do our bidding so be it, if not we’re no worse off than we are now. But it isn’t our troops involved in a ground war.
So it looks like Iran is violating the cease-fire, and has been doing so, specifically regarding the SoH. What would you suggest Trump’s next course of action be? Ignore it?
You are correct, regime change was not one of Trump’s goals (at least publicly). Sound decision. That said, regime change for the cost of some old AK’s and ammo would be a nice side benefit. If it would fail then Iran is still in turmoil, still unable to consolidate. I like that. The more they are pre-occupied internally the less they can fvck around externally. I want Iran to be in turmoil, that is as long as the mullahs are running it anyway.
