391–400 of 737 posts
Much of the post-WW2 American-led world order was founded partially on the United States using its military to keep international waters open. It would be quite stunning Iran defeated the united states in this sense. The military might is there, but this administration clearly had no idea what they were getting themselves into and did not plan accordingly. (and does not have the will or public support to do so) The b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think "Iran was considering a peace deal" is a bit of a stretch here. Iran was considering a peace deal. I agree that the most plausible was they would reject it. > What does Iran still have to lose? Well, a lot. The US could do this, sure, but then Iran would have even less to lose. This might work if the US started small and threatened escalation to try to compel Iran, but the US started at massive escalation s…
The Iran/Iraq war is why I made the edit about US vs. Iraq. Just because Iran and Iraq fought for years does not mean Iran or Iraq are able to fight a super power. They can not. Iran does not think they are dealing with a madman. I don't believe for a second that they think that if all the demands made of them are met someone will harm them just for the fun of it. The maximalists demands. The problem is those maximal…
The "enemy of my enemy" concept suggests that even if the people hate their government, their immediate pain is being caused by the United States and Israel, so I'm less confident about that.
> Iran does not think they are dealing with a madman.
Iran does think they are dealing with a mad man, or at least a government practicing a policy (as the US administration's apologists have termed it) "intentional volatility".
A far more interesting issue here is the oil supplies available in the Pacific. Brunei, Malaysia, Vietnam, Indonesia, Australia, and others are all ramping up production capacity. Non-OPEC oil production is increasing generally in response. This is likely to undermine the Middle East's ability recovery from current constraints as non-OPEC players gain clout in the markets.
Right now people are talking about China and California have limited supplies. But those are enormous, powerful entities that are deploying multi-pronged strategies to secure energy resources. Look at what they're doing and bet there. You also see developing countries retooling to support less oil-intensive economies, like increasing work-from-home options. Solar and wind are currently feeling weak without their subsidies but are exhibiting staying power as people look to move off more petroleum-dependent energy resources.
As for the tactical issue, the concept people seem to be trying to get at is "cost-per-kill". That needs to come down. Yes, we can kill drones with supersonic interceptors. But spending $6M to shoot down a $6K drone has terrible long-term economics.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As I said I'm only a software engineer but didn't Ukraine revolutionize the rules of asymetric warfare by drone iteration? Your statement rings true but I wonder if there are aspiring rocket engineers that really want to test their totally unproven new ideas without the constraint of a military hierarchy in peacetime.
The thing is, Iran doesn’t need to. US maybe can defend their ships, but they can’t defend commercial ships well enough for them to resume regular operations. Even unsuccessful attacks would cause insurance to make it not possible. Houthis closed their straight some years ago and US wasn’t able to do anything about that neither. And Houthis are nowhere near as capable as Iran. US gambled on decapitation strike and fa…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with bitcoin for this-it is very traceable. The US government can declare paying Iran Hormuz “insurance” to be a sanctions violation (they probably already have). Any Western company - even non-US - paying this “insurance” will be faced with the full ire of the US government. I guess it might work if shipping company is non-Western (such as Chinese or Russian) - but I’m not sure what the advantage of bitc…
How does it matter that it's traceable? Everyone knows the ships going in and out thanks to AIS. Many of these ships are already either falsely flagged, sanctioned, or just Iranian flagged. And as far as paying in rubles or yuan, this tells me that Iran doesn't think the shipping companies are willing to pay in either or think there's a safe/effective way to accept payment through those currencies. I'm curious what m…
Whereas if it's not traceable then all that others know is that your ship got through the strait and there's at least some plausible deniability of why it got through
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, so just de facto iranian. However, I believe Oman also collects fees. So in practice the distinction wrt shipping is moot
Oman doesn't collect fees... > Ok, so just de facto iranian. No, the route is entirely outside of Iranian waters. They attacked ships that were in Oman waters and put mines in Oman waters and now shoot at anyone trying to removing those mines in Oman waters. Nobody, not even the Iranian government, claims that is their water.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
equally unobtainium as the 1 M missiles aimed at the ship.
Is it? Russia’s making 60k Shaheds a year, and they are in the middle of an active conflict that has other needs.
there are so many options from coil guns, to lasers, to jammers, to non-nuclear EMP's, ... that don't involve the caricature of a million dollar missile intercepting it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Iran/Iraq war is why I made the edit about US vs. Iraq. Just because Iran and Iraq fought for years does not mean Iran or Iraq are able to fight a super power. They can not. Iran does not think they are dealing with a madman. I don't believe for a second that they think that if all the demands made of them are met someone will harm them just for the fun of it. The maximalists demands. The problem is those maximal…
> I think the regime is very weak. The "enemy of my enemy" concept suggests that even if the people hate their government, their immediate pain is being caused by the United States and Israel, so I'm less confident about that. > Iran does not think they are dealing with a madman. Iran does think they are dealing with a mad man, or at least a government practicing a policy (as the US administration's apologists have t…
We're going to agree to disagree. I know this is what "people" are saying about the US. But it's not what Iran thinks and it's not what the US is actually doing. This is what Iran wants you to think, as it weakens the US, and what it's going to say. Are you saying that the US will go to war with Iran if all the demands I listed were fully and transparently met? A by the way there is that Europe and Canada (e.g.) also don't think the US administration is "mad". Everyone is playing their little geopolitical and local political games.
I also doubt Iranians think their immediate pains are caused by the US and Israel. Some might but most don't.
I agree with you the energy crisis aspect is overblown (I think that's what you're saying). Supply increases in other places and alternative power sources can displace some usage- certainly over time. The other thing that's going to happen are more strait bypassing pipelines.
EDIT: So the problem isn't mad people or rationality. The problem now, as before, is simply that the Iranian regime is religiously and ideologically unable to give in. Giving in will likely result in their fall even if they were able to give in. This is what's driving the main dynamics here. It's not Iranian negotiation tactics or the US supposed not negotiating in good faith or being "mad". The "mad man" are those that believe that Iran is interested in giving in on its exporting the revolution and the destruction of Israel.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does it matter that it's traceable? Everyone knows the ships going in and out thanks to AIS. Many of these ships are already either falsely flagged, sanctioned, or just Iranian flagged. And as far as paying in rubles or yuan, this tells me that Iran doesn't think the shipping companies are willing to pay in either or think there's a safe/effective way to accept payment through those currencies. I'm curious what m…
The significance of being traceable is simply that US could tell you to not abide by Iran's insurance scheme by threatening sanctions if you do. Whereas if it's not traceable then all that others know is that your ship got through the strait and there's at least some plausible deniability of why it got through
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The bigger issue is the tankers. The US Navy isn't going to be happy patrolling the strait sure, but even if they did they wouldn't be able to protect the tankers enough for it to make sense for tankers to take the risk. The last time this happened the US opened the strait by accidentally shooting down an Iranian passenger plane after sinking a large chunk of Iranian navy. The Iranians assumed the US shoot the passen…
> This is why decapitation strikes are generally not done. They remove options and they undermine deterrence and paint belligerents into a corner. You don't think autocrats have a strong incentive to not die?