The Situation With Iran and the Strait of Hormuz

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
1. I don’t understand your question. Israel does not intend to use the Samson Option unless in defeat. Currently, as long as they have make their own tanks, have ammo and conscription, the IAF can’t be easily defeated by any Arab or Persian army. However, their population centres can be destroyed (or made uninhabitable), if some of their religiously motivated enemies attack them with nuclear weapons.

2. It is quite clear that Iran has exercised some level of influence or even actual control over its proxies to attack the US embassy, recently.
Q1: Are you talking about Iranian proxies in Iraq and Syria?​
OR​
Q2: Are you talking about IRGC launching small explosive-laden delta-wing drones from Iraq into Saudi Arabia at ranges of 600-700 kilometers—first in May 2019 against the East-West oil pipeline, and again that Sep 2019 against the Abqaiq oil processing plant?​

3. Iran is now attacking more than just Saudi oil production facilities. See link on Jan 2021 attacks: Drones Over Riyadh: Unpacking the Iran Threat Network’s Tactics. That is undeniable.


4. This I agree. Especially on the need to question some American talking points.
My question about subterfuge prefers specifically to the Iranian nuclear weapons program. Since @Big_Zucchini has provided an independent source in answer to my question, I am happy. I am quite aware of its actions against other nations and its piracy in waters adjacent to its territorial waters. I have no sympathy for them, but I do not accept that their enemies claims be accepted on face value, because both Israel and the Trump Administration went out of their way to sabotage the JPCOA. So that is why independent sources are important in this particular matter. And you are right,this all has played into the PRC's and Russia's hands.
 

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
@ngatimozart Some of Trump's actions may have played into the hands of China and Russia, but I disagree with the notion it applies to his middle east policy.
With most of the Arab states already under the influence of the west, be it the US, France, or anyone else, Israel firmly in the middle, there are only a few that are a problem, if we disregard Turkey which I see as a separate topic:
1. Iraq - US ally but not dominated, sees contact with Iran as legitimate, as well as with Russia and China.
2. Lebanon - mostly dominated by France but still out of the west's grip as long as Iran-controlled Hezbollah exists.
3. Syria - Under Russian influence, trying but unlikely to reduce Iranian influence anytime soon.
4. Iran - influences and destabilizes others, is main ally of Russia and China in the region. Can exert influence for Russia and China.

So Iran is a common denominator. What's my end game for Iran? Some regime change that will allow the secular movement to take control and realign Iran back to the west.
For that I think it's best to apply maximum pressure to get the government to go bankrupt. Or any other feasible strategy that ISN'T changed every 4 years because of the inherent flaws of democracy (not anti-democracy, just stating its flaws).

If we do that, suddenly it will be very difficult for Russia and China to keep their grip on the above mentioned states.

@OPSSG The Samson Option is a myth that was never verified and does not seem to have a single source as far as I know. It asserts that Israel will nuke every country on earth if it falls, but it doesn't make sense on any level.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group

This old article always remind me on the problem with Nuclear proliferation. Shah definitely knows about existence of nuclear Israel. He has relative good relationship with Israel, perhaps he doesn't strive to have it right away, but decided to build Iran nuclear Technology to keep the options open.

What if Iranian revolution can be pacified by Shah? Will West especially US will in the end let Iran having nuclear weapon capabilities? Knowing Shah potentially will then told US; if you let Israel own that, why you want to block that capabilities from us ?

Perhaps Saudi if all the rumours on their involvement with Pakistan nuclear program true, already have the options to get warheads from Pakistan for their Chinese IRBM. After all those IRBM is nuclear capable.

My point is, when one in region already have nuclear, sooner or later someone else in region will going all the way to have it.

There's a reason for US nuclear umbrella for Japan and South Korea. Both have very advance nuclear program and tech capabilities. It won't be difficult for both of them to go nuclear weaponised in very short term. US guarantee is one of main thing that keep them from developing themselves.

Trump stupid diplomatic plays on threatening both South Korea and Japan for less US defense umbrella, already prompt some Nationalist hard liners in both countries to think for developments of their own nuclear capabilities against both China and DPRK.
It was not only Trump wrt stupid polices about SK and Japan, he had lots of enablers in the GOP that still are around along with some new ones that are likely to be a problem for both parties. Both Japan and SK have no doubt dusted off their “just in case” nuclear plans. Needless to say where one goes the other is sure to follow.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
1. I don’t understand your question. Israel does not intend to use the Samson Option unless in defeat. Currently, as long as they have make their own tanks, have ammo and conscription, the IAF can’t be easily defeated by any Arab or Persian army. However, their population centres can be destroyed (or made uninhabitable), if some of their religiously motivated enemies attack them with nuclear weapons.
Sorry, but defeat is contingent on the objectives. I'm assuming you meant "unless Israel is going to be wiped out". I would be very shocked if Israel were defeated in a conventional hypothetical conflict in Lebanon, and would subsequently use nukes. On the flip side, I think a defeat for Israel is quite possible, though far from likely, in a hypothetical conventional war, under certain circumstances. Again I think it depends on the objectives of the conflict for both sides. I can certainly see a situation where Israel, despite considerable conventional superiority, nonetheless fails to achieve its objectives and is forced to withdraw due to mounting costs, both human and material.

2. It is quite clear that Iran has exercised some level of influence or even actual control over its proxies to attack the US embassy, recently.
Q1: Are you talking about Iranian proxies in Iraq and Syria?​
OR​
Q2: Are you talking about IRGC launching small explosive-laden delta-wing drones from Iraq into Saudi Arabia at ranges of 600-700 kilometers—first in May 2019 against the East-West oil pipeline, and again that Sep 2019 against the Abqaiq oil processing plant?​

3. Iran is now attacking more than just Saudi oil production facilities. See link on Jan 2021 attacks: Drones Over Riyadh: Unpacking the Iran Threat Network’s Tactics. That is undeniable.
This is part of a general war in Yemen, in which Iran is quite actively participating. It would be like getting mad at Soviet SAM operators in Vietnam for firing on US aircraft (well, it does go a little beyond that, since the strikes are carried out against targets on Saudi territory, but I'm not sure that makes a principal distinction here). I don't recall strikes against Saudi oil infrastructure (or any infrastructure for that matter) prior to their invasion of Yemen. Given their behavior in this conflict, and their profound incompetence, I personally have no sympathy for the Saudis. They should have stayed out.
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
On the flip side, I think a defeat for Israel is quite possible, though far from likely, in a hypothetical conventional war, under certain circumstances.
I am thinking of the desperate fighting on 6 Oct 1973, when partial tank units were thrown into battle during the Yom Kippur War (as they were unable to be mobilised in time). 80% of the IDF was reservists who had to be mobilized to fight. The intelligence service was supposed to provide at least two days’ warning of an attack to allow time for the reserves to be called up, mobilized. Instead, the warning was a few hours.
 
Last edited:

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
I am thinking of the desperate fighting on 6 Oct 1973, when partial tank units were thrown into battle during the Yom Kippur War (as they were unable to be mobilised in time). 80% of the IDF was reservists who had to be mobilized to fight. The intelligence service was supposed to provide at least two days’ warning of an attack to allow time for the reserves to be called up, mobilized. Instead, the warning was a few hours.
I guess, but that was only made possible by titanic quantities of Soviet aid in what was at the time quite modern military hardware. Modern day Russia is certainly not going to be able to put Israel on the defensive like that. Maybe China, in the future, but not today or tomorrow. And neither Russia nor China have reason for this, at least now.
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
@Big_Zucchini I have posted a link in the Japan Korea China thread in the Geopolitical group that provides some recent disputes between Japan and SK
Agrees that it is off topic; and all can agree to move on.

We have 2 related Korea & Japan threads and the discussion is relevant to both. Given that most of it is about the Korea’s political establishment desire to hate the Japanese, I moved it. The off-topic posts here are moved to: Korean Peninsula Developments
 
Last edited:

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
Some new developments, apparently.

Biden seeks to revoke terrorist designation for Iran-backed Houthis, apparently unfazed by their official flag that literally has "death to america" written on it, white on black.
Could be to provide humanitarian aid as per the article - but that doesn't really require anything so I assume it's not it.
Could also be simply undoing Trump, or trying to appease Iran before the talks. If it's the latter, then the middle east is back into its usual death spiral - you don't show weakness to someone who only speaks in terms of strength. And if it's undoing Trump, then that's just equally childish as Trump's desire to undo Obama.


Next, Macron says Israel and KSA need to be in the talks with Iran. Hopefully the KSA will represent all gulf nations in this, but otherwise I think the UAE should also be included.
Their exclusion in the 2016 agreement was a key factor in what ultimately shut the deal down.


Iran's concealing even more stuff from the IAEA, and there are now samples of radioactive materials where they shouldn't be. Diplomats weren't yet briefed on the findings.


All articles are from ToI because that's my personal favorite source. They are highly regarded in Israel for avoiding the political inclinations from which most other news sources suffer in Israel, and are highly regarded abroad for a high professional journalistic standard and credibility.
A sizable portion of their articles are written either in cooperation with other agencies, or entirely, such as AP or AFP, therefore similar articles can be found elsewhere, in websites of sources you may be more familiar with, and more trusting.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
It appears that the Ayatollahs weren't the ones to kick start the Iranian nuclear program. They have the Shah to thank for that, not that they will ever admit it of course. So he was causing problems well before the Ayatollahs even thought about it.

 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
With this i am sure that the Iranian Navy is one of the largest navies in the world!
These boats will pose a substantial threat in the Str of Hormuz and the Gulf.
We often see swarm boat exercises with two or three attackers but with numbers and each boat loaded with explosives and a suicide driver that threat amplifies and all ships, both navy and civilian are vulnerable.
 

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
Weird. I was sure one of their tactics was to use light boats to launch anti ship missiles to amplify the swarm. These, however, appear rigged for interdiction of cargo ships, and kamikaze in some cases. Although we are seeing only 3 out of 5 mentioned classes in the photos.

EDIT: Should have opened the photos in Twitter. All classes are shown, but only very few are capable of carrying drones. Another dangerous class is capable of using an MLRS.
 
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #274
@ngatimozart Some of Trump's actions may have played into the hands of China and Russia, but I disagree with the notion it applies to his middle east policy.
With most of the Arab states already under the influence of the west, be it the US, France, or anyone else, Israel firmly in the middle, there are only a few that are a problem, if we disregard Turkey which I see as a separate topic:
1. Iraq - US ally but not dominated, sees contact with Iran as legitimate, as well as with Russia and China.
2. Lebanon - mostly dominated by France but still out of the west's grip as long as Iran-controlled Hezbollah exists.
3. Syria - Under Russian influence, trying but unlikely to reduce Iranian influence anytime soon.
4. Iran - influences and destabilizes others, is main ally of Russia and China in the region. Can exert influence for Russia and China.

So Iran is a common denominator. What's my end game for Iran? Some regime change that will allow the secular movement to take control and realign Iran back to the west.
For that I think it's best to apply maximum pressure to get the government to go bankrupt. Or any other feasible strategy that ISN'T changed every 4 years because of the inherent flaws of democracy (not anti-democracy, just stating its flaws).

If we do that, suddenly it will be very difficult for Russia and China to keep their grip on the above mentioned states.

@OPSSG The Samson Option is a myth that was never verified and does not seem to have a single source as far as I know. It asserts that Israel will nuke every country on earth if it falls, but it doesn't make sense on any level.
I think your end game stinks and it hope it never happens. Colour revolutions are the most arrogant, despicable policy I can imagine. It is for the Citizens of each nation to determine what form of Government they want and how they are going to get it. It's not for smart*** from think tanks on the other side of the world to determine who and how the People of the world are ruled. Granted the ME is littered with Dictators and Despots whom the World would be better off without but every Western attempt to "liberate" these Countries so far has only made matter worse and I don't see that changing.

Your suggestion to put "maximum pressure on the Government" sucks. It will only mean more sanctions and more poverty for millions of innocent Iranis.

As if there is anything wrong with Russia and China "having a grip" on a few Countries! The West, notably the USA, has a grip on just about every other Country by fair means or foul. Heaven forbid we deteriorate to an even more mono-centric Universe where one Country controls everything and that Country is led by some lunatic by like DT.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I think your end game stinks and it hope it never happens. Colour revolutions are the most arrogant, despicable policy I can imagine. It is for the Citizens of each nation to determine what form of Government they want and how they are going to get it. It's not for smart*** from think tanks on the other side of the world to determine who and how the People of the world are ruled. Granted the ME is littered with Dictators and Despots whom the World would be better off without but every Western attempt to "liberate" these Countries so far has only made matter worse and I don't see that changing.
I think that you will find that it is the citizenry within the country who initiate and lead the colour revolutions.
Your suggestion to put "maximum pressure on the Government" sucks. It will only mean more sanctions and more poverty for millions of innocent Iranis.

As if there is anything wrong with Russia and China "having a grip" on a few Countries! The West, notably the USA, has a grip on just about every other Country by fair means or foul. Heaven forbid we deteriorate to an even more mono-centric Universe where one Country controls everything and that Country is led by some lunatic by like DT.
I presume by the DT that you mean Trump. I forgot that his intials are DT. However as much as we may loathe that individual, and I do, he isn't responsible for the colour revolutions. It's not for us to cast aspersions against think tanks because of what they do and we don't happen to agree it. They don't formulate and determine a country's foreign policy, but they may try to influence it. To take your thought to its logical conclusion, trying to muzzle think tanks because you don't agree with them is dangerous because you are restricting democracy and freedom of speech. That is already happening now with the cancel culture that is occurring in the western world.

Both Israel and Iran have blood on their hands in this dispute and one's as bad as the other. Netanyahu found an ally in Trump and egged Trump on, playing him like a fiddle. Netanyahu is a far right pollie in Israeli terms and he has never had any intention of settling the Palestinian situation or with Iran. So when Trump came along, Bibi saw him as mana from heaven.

The real sad story is that this whole mess is the fault of the British, French in 1919 with the Sykes - Picot Agreement, and the British and Americans with the overthrow of the legally elected Iranian government in 1953 and the subsequent installation of the Shah on the Peacock Throne. This was because the Iranian government nationalised oil companies in order to gain control of the immense wealth that the oil companies were taking out of the country and paying a mere pittance in royalties. The Shah was hated by his people by the 1970s, because of his autocratic and authoritarian rule, and especially the Savak, his secret police. So no wonder the mullahs were able to incite a successful revolution.
 
Last edited:

Rob c

Well-Known Member
I think that you will find that it is the citizenry within the country who initiate and lead the colour revolutions.

I presume by the DT that you mean Trump. I forgot that his intials are DT. However as much as we may loathe that individual, and I do, he isn't responsible for the colour revolutions. It's not for us to cast aspersions against think tanks because of what they do and we don't happen to agree it. They don't formulate and determine a country's foreign policy, but they may try to influence it. To take your thought to its logical conclusion, trying to muzzle think tanks because you don't agree with them is dangerous because you are restricting democracy and freedom of speech. That is already happening now with the cancel culture that is occurring in the western world.

Both Israel and Iran have blood on their hands in this dispute and one's as bad as the other. Netanyahu found an ally in Trump and egged Trump on, playing him like a fiddle. Netanyahu is a far right pollie in Israeli terms and he has never had any intention of settling the Palestinian situation or with Iran. So when Trump came along, Bibi saw him as mana from heaven.

The real sad story is that this whole mess is the fault of the British, French in 1919 with the Sykes - Picot Agreement, and the British and Americans with the overthrow of the legally elected Iranian government in 1953 and the subsequent installation of the Shah on the Peacock Throne. This was because the Iranian government nationalised oil companies in order to gain control of the immense wealth that the oil companies were taking out of the country and paying a mere pittance in royalties. The Shah was hated by his people by the 1970s, because of his autocratic and authoritarian rule, and especially the Savak, his secret police. So no wonder the mullahs were able to incite a successful revolution.
I agree with this and would expand it to include all the major powers of the past and peasant that have tried to shape a region in away that they perceived at the time, was to their advantage. The arbitrary drawing of borders with out due regard to the natural ethnic or religious or cultural groupings of an area, the wealth stripping of countries or areas over long periods of time and the support of despotic governments or rulers as they were seen as in the best interests of the supporting countries interest with no regard to what was in the best interest of the people of that country. This has gone on for millennia and no country that was a significant power whether on a regional or global scale during a period can claim to be totally innocent of this.
This is one of the major reasons that we have so much conflict on both a national regional and international scale at present along with other pressing reasons
 

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
I think your end game stinks and it hope it never happens. Colour revolutions are the most arrogant, despicable policy I can imagine. It is for the Citizens of each nation to determine what form of Government they want and how they are going to get it. It's not for smart*** from think tanks on the other side of the world to determine who and how the People of the world are ruled. Granted the ME is littered with Dictators and Despots whom the World would be better off without but every Western attempt to "liberate" these Countries so far has only made matter worse and I don't see that changing.

Your suggestion to put "maximum pressure on the Government" sucks. It will only mean more sanctions and more poverty for millions of innocent Iranis.

As if there is anything wrong with Russia and China "having a grip" on a few Countries! The West, notably the USA, has a grip on just about every other Country by fair means or foul. Heaven forbid we deteriorate to an even more mono-centric Universe where one Country controls everything and that Country is led by some lunatic by like DT.
So what's your preference? To genuinely make the world a better place, or to stick it to the west?
 

2007yellow430

Active Member
So what's your preference? To genuinely make the world a better place, or to stick it to the west?
how about not supplying each side with arms? How about not interfering with their governance. A lot of our need to be there is a result of their attempting to get even with what we’ve done. Eliminate our interference, and perhaps their revenge stops. An interesting concept?

Art
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
So what's your preference? To genuinely make the world a better place, or to stick it to the west?
I suspect this is a false dichotomy. Not to mention that the idea of "better" needs some serious unpacking given the context. There is a certain hypocrisy with getting mad at Russian influence in countries, while shamelessly engaging in similar behavior on a bigger scale. It certainly doesn't help that the consequences of most such interference (especially recently, Iraq, Syria, Libya, etc.) has been disastrous for the population living there.

And to bring this back ground to the topic at hand, often times heavy-handed interference is what gives openings for opportunistic players like Russia, or Iran, to make moves and gain influence. Why is it that Russia can simultaneously have advantageous dealings with Iran, Israel, Syria, Turkey, and the UAE, while the US has had trouble even with its traditional allies in NATO, and the Middle East (the phrase herding cats comes to mind)?

In my opinion Iran isn't really that strong. They're far weaker military and economically then not only the US, but also many other countries. Which means their success (at least in large part) must derive from mistakes or opportunity costs imposed by the policy choices made. Perhaps a lighter touch would give better results?
 
Top