Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

LordofHats wrote:
No one actual considers going to war with Syria, even now. Or Sudan. We didn't even get involved during the Darfur genocide. We haven't gone to war with Yemen, and even with all the piracy we aren't at war with Somalia (then again one has to wonder if one can be at war with a non-state). Being Anti-western just means no one in the West likes you which is different from wanting to go to war with you.

There are political figures that have spoken of militarily intervening in all of those nations with roughly the same degree of severity as regards Iran. Hell, there were significant airstrikes in the Sudan under Clinton, in Yemen under Bush and Obama, in Syria under Bush, and in Somalia under Obama.

LordofHats wrote:
Opposition is different from actually talking about war. Look at Zimbabwae. Probably one of the vilest governments on the planet. Anti-western, poised for genocide, and it never gets a mention.

You keep using the word war, and I'm not sure what you mean. Are you talking about military strikes, or full-scale invasion? I've heard plenty of people in position of authority discuss the former, but really only heard the latter from news services in the form of sensationalist headlines.

As for Zimbabwe, it is neither a significant regional power, nor a threat to US interests, both of which Iran is with or without its nuclear program.

Huffy wrote:Why how funny...we don't import oil from Iran..

I know right? I seriously doubt most people realize we get 60% of our oil and petroleum imports from the Americas.

Iraq's contribution: 5%
Iran's: 0%

No, we don't import oil from Iran. They won't sell it to us.

Sure, 60% of our oil comes from the Americas. That is not to say that the contributions from Gulf States is negligible. Saudi Arabia, for example is second on the list. Iraq, Kuwait, and Oman also contribute a good chunk. Want to guess what happens to oil prices if those sources are cut off by Iran closing the Persian Gulf? Want to guess what happens to the American economy if that happens?

The issue is less where our oil comes from and more the price of oil. Anything that happens in Iran will certainly increase oil prices.

You keep using the word war, and I'm not sure what you mean.

I draw a distinction between the rhetoric and a legitimate consideration of action.

Want to guess what happens to oil prices if those sources are cut off by Iran closing the Persian Gulf? Want to guess what happens to the American economy if that happens?

It hurt a little bit but not enough to matter. Were you still able to get to work six month after Katrina? Iran though be missing their Navy and quite a few of the land base force near their coast. There are other countries besides ours that will be effected to.

Given the current weakness of our economy, even a 'little bit' of hurt is going to be quite painful. Given the state of several other economies dependant on oil, it could be devastating.

They release a video..unsure of how accurate it is
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16098562
It should be an interesting situation, but honestly I think it's a bunch of saber rattling, Iran will likely get the bomb and nothing major will happen

Well....guess our R&D dept. have job security for quite a long time.

LordofHats wrote:
I draw a distinction between the rhetoric and a legitimate consideration of action.

Right, but that's not really what I'm asking. When you say "war" do you mean any military action, or some formally declared military action? Is an airstrike war, or does it have to be a series of airstrikes, or an invasion?

The point being, I've heard lots of people talk about a series of airstrikes against Iran, which I'm not sure I would consider war, but no one talk about a ground invasion, which I would consider war.

That is not to say that the contributions from Gulf States is negligible. Saudi Arabia, for example is second on the list. Iraq, Kuwait, and Oman also contribute a good chunk. Want to guess what happens to oil prices if those sources are cut off by Iran closing the Persian Gulf? Want to guess what happens to the American economy if that happens?

No, my point is that the idea that we invaded Iraq for oil is frankly stupid. The amount to what can scientifically be refered to as "dick" in the grand scheme of our oil consumption. If we were going to steam roll someone just for oil there are plenty of places a lot closer with a lot more oil we can bomb. Prettier too.

What happens if Iran closes the Persian Gulf? Iran ceases to exist as a functioning nation. If Iran really tried to put the pinch on the west by "closing" the gulf how long would it take for the west to stage a freedom of navigation exercise that included leveling every SSM launcher and small boat ramp on Iran's coast? Not very long. Iran can't and won't bother trying to close the gulf. They know they can't and that doing so would just give us a reason to open fire.

Tyyr wrote:

That is not to say that the contributions from Gulf States is negligible. Saudi Arabia, for example is second on the list. Iraq, Kuwait, and Oman also contribute a good chunk. Want to guess what happens to oil prices if those sources are cut off by Iran closing the Persian Gulf? Want to guess what happens to the American economy if that happens?

No, my point is that the idea that we invaded Iraq for oil is frankly stupid. The amount to what can scientifically be refered to as "dick" in the grand scheme of our oil consumption. If we were going to steam roll someone just for oil there are plenty of places a lot closer with a lot more oil we can bomb. Prettier too.

What happens if Iran closes the Persian Gulf? Iran ceases to exist as a functioning nation. If Iran really tried to put the pinch on the west by "closing" the gulf how long would it take for the west to stage a freedom of navigation exercise that included leveling every SSM launcher and small boat ramp on Iran's coast? Not very long. Iran can't and won't bother trying to close the gulf. They know they can't and that doing so would just give us a reason to open fire.

Well the Persian Gulf does account 40% of oil..and if there's war no one gonna be willing to risk ships....

dogma wrote:The point being, I've heard lots of people talk about a series of airstrikes against Iran, which I'm not sure I would consider war, but no one talk about a ground invasion, which I would consider war.

I would consider any large scale military action to count (declared or undeclared). What I'm mostly thinking of is the likely hood of it happening. Right now, I look at the situation and I see a very fair chance that something is going to happen. A large scale operation? Maybe not, but Iran is one of the only countries in the world where people talk about large scale actions against it.

For Example: Bosnia counts to me, but not Libya. Bosnia involved a large scale mobilization of numerous countries over a long period of time, while operations in Libya were brief and ended quickly after they began devolving into a no-fly zone enforcement operation.

dogma wrote:

LordofHats wrote:
I draw a distinction between the rhetoric and a legitimate consideration of action.

Right, but that's not really what I'm asking. When you say "war" do you mean any military action, or some formally declared military action?

People have been asking for a definition of that one for millennia, from Cicero to Clausewitz. Good luck getting a definitive answer to it off Dakka.

If there is a war, we would just end up rolling over them, like we did to Iraq, that is if they haven't arm any ICBM's already.

I'm not so sure, Iran is a much tougher prospect than Iraq ever was. It is a much larger country than Iraq, whose army had been smashed ten years earlier. And I would hazard that their soldiers (and perhaps people) would be a great deal more fanatical in terms of defending the state, there isn't the same level of sectarian divide within Iran that the US would be able to exploit. I think undoubtedly the US and allies would ultimately triumph, but I would be very surprised if the cost of men and lives was lower than that experienced in Iraq. Perhaps someone could comment whether or not the US has the capability for this right now as well, with regard to troops being deployed in the middle east for more than ten years now? Certainly I would question whether the UK has the ability to be involved, other than by offering logistical and token support (which would only help to further ossify the opinion of muslims worldwide against the UK government, and confirm that Cameron has followed on from Blaire as the Whitehouse's favourite poodle).

On another point, you could argue that the 'war' has already started in some form: There have been assassinations of scientists, cyber attacks, an Iranian general was killed, several 'accidental' explosions in airports, military bases and the like. I wouldn't be surprised at all if this is the work of Mossad and Israel, but given the state of affairs it is probable that the US (and UK/France?) are involved as well, or at least are aware of what is going on.

Also, the 'smoking gun' stories in the press of Iran's belligerence and the planned assassination of the Saudi ambassador. Remember that things took a very similar turn prior to the invasion of Iraq ten years ago, I think that the ground work is being laid and the pretext of "they did...blah blah blah" prior to the persian gulf filling with aircraft carriers again.

I think the one factor perhaps reducing the likelihood of war (at least for the next 6 or 7 years or so) is the fact that Obama and the Democrats are in office. Unless there is a new 'Pearl Harbor', and something happens that cannot possibly be ignored, then any kind of attack at the moment by the US and its allies would be seen as a flagrant and unwarranted aggression.

Ketara wrote:

dogma wrote:

LordofHats wrote:
I draw a distinction between the rhetoric and a legitimate consideration of action.

Right, but that's not really what I'm asking. When you say "war" do you mean any military action, or some formally declared military action?

People have been asking for a definition of that one for millennia, from Cicero to Clausewitz. Good luck getting a definitive answer to it off Dakka.

In the sense dogma is asking no as I know what I mean and it's either valid or invalid to some degree.

Clausewitz is the best btw "War is the continuation of politics through other means. An act of force to compel our enemy to do our will."

Just war, ethical war, and can all war be avoided are the tricky questions

LordofHats wrote:

Clausewitz is the best btw "War is the continuation of politics through other means. An act of force to compel our enemy to do our will."

What of the logical Leninist extension of Clausewitzian doctrine though?

Funny thing about oil... Green River Basin is the LARGEST oil reserve in the world, yeah, that's right, the US has the largest natural oil reserve in the world. Not to mention the bunch we have up in Alaska. Why the hell don't we drill our own f***ing oil? Oh yeah, it'd take ten years to get plants up and running to start processing the oil shale. WELL GET TO WORK ALREADY!

Anyway with Iran, I have a feeling that for the time being it's going to be our usual shouting match that gets us nowhere but keeps the tensions running a bit high.

King Pariah wrote:Funny thing about oil... Green River Basin is the LARGEST oil reserve in the world, yeah, that's right, the US has the largest natural oil reserve in the world. Not to mention the bunch we have up in Alaska. Why the hell don't we drill our own f***ing oil? Oh yeah, it'd take ten years to get plants up and running to start processing the oil shale. WELL GET TO WORK ALREADY!

Anyway with Iran, I have a feeling that for the time being it's going to be our usual shouting match that gets us nowhere but keeps the tensions running a bit high.

Because the US wants everyone elses oil at a cheap rate now, then the remaining oil is theirs. Its a smart move, its also the reason why Saudi has capped half its wells (and gives reserve figures far lower than they actually are).

Smarter opil countries try and cap their reserves, the exceptions are shared oil basins like the North Sea, with everyone drinking from the same cup saving some for later is the same as doing without.

Ketara wrote:
People have been asking for a definition of that one for millennia, from Cicero to Clausewitz. Good luck getting a definitive answer to it off Dakka.

I'm not asking for an all-encompassing definition of "war", I'm just asking for clarification regarding LordofHats usage because, from where I sit, no one is talking about war with Iran. Air strikes certainly, but not something on the scale of even Bosnia.

They might have it, they might not. The "pristine" aircraft shown on TV may be a model...and may not
http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=15115781
Fulfills my "pics or it never happened" demand.

Notice none of the landing gear was shown. If it was me I be videoing that aircraft from all angles. Including all the avionic bays and maintenance compartments. I even throw up the serial numbers of components to even drive it home. Still though...why no thermite grenades for self destruct?

King Pariah wrote:Funny thing about oil... Green River Basin is the LARGEST oil reserve in the world, yeah, that's right, the US has the largest natural oil reserve in the world. Not to mention the bunch we have up in Alaska. Why the hell don't we drill our own f***ing oil? Oh yeah, it'd take ten years to get plants up and running to start processing the oil shale. WELL GET TO WORK ALREADY!

Just having oil isn't enough, it has to be cheap enough to extract given present market prices in order to make that extraction viable.

And when it doesn't become viable....I be dead and gone by then

Iran would be much much harder than Iraq, because Iranians actually support their government and are willing to fight for it., why no thermite? maybe the value of the drone is greater than the cost of destroying it, after all even having the drone doesn't mean you'll figure out how it works