The Situation With Iran and the Strait of Hormuz

[ngatimozart]

The Iranians have signed a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership with the PRC. This means that the PRC are widening their strategic focus to include the Middle East and secure hydrocarbon supplies. For the Iranians it gives them access to a market, funding and arms that circumvents any sanctions that the US put on it. It will also give them a stronger supporter on the UNSC.

The Iran-China Strategic Partnership and Changing Regional Order - Australian Institute of International Affairs

The Sino-Iranian Comprehensive Strategic Partnership is another move by Beijing to extend its power across the globe. For Iran, it is about further strengthening the country’s position in the Middle East.

www.internationalaffairs.org.au

 

[STURM]

I’m getting off topic here. On a number of occasions in the past; Saudi has publicly stated that it would pursue a nuclear option if Iran did so. I could be wrong but the only possible source for the Saudis would be the Chinese (assuming of course they were willing) or possibly Pakistan?

 

[John Fedup]

I’m getting off topic here. On a number of occasions in the past; Saudi has publicly stated that it would pursue a nuclear option if Iran did so. I could be wrong but the only possible source for the Saudis would be the Chinese (assuming of course they were willing) or possibly Pakistan?

I would think Pakistan is the likely “go-to” for nukes.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

I merely posted the link because I felt it was interesting and raised various points which were critical of all the players; at the same time I don’t necessarily agree with everything the writer said; nor did I expect others to.

Per the mod team's request, I will change the course of our argument.
An article does not need to be critical of "both sides" or "all players". Articles that do that, usually appeal to a certain crowd with the mindset of "everyone's equally at fault".
They instead need to be factual.
For example, if a terror attack occurs in Afghanistan, there's no relevance to condemning the Afghan government. Instead what's relevant are the details of the attack and the reaction against Taliban.

Or if an article exposes rampant homophobia in eastern European countries, I'd be interested in that, not in hearing that the US also has cases of homophobia.

And as a general rule of thumb, try to avoid government owned news sources, unless you're interested in that specific government's opinion.
If a story is true, it'll probably be found on many other news sites, of which some will be trustworthy.

The Iranians have signed a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership with the PRC. This means that the PRC are widening their strategic focus to include the Middle East and secure hydrocarbon supplies. For the Iranians it gives them access to a market, funding and arms that circumvents any sanctions that the US put on it. It will also give them a stronger supporter on the UNSC.

But it may lower their standing in the talks with the US.
The US will see that more sanctions will need to be kept as an offset, and the argument that Iran's people need the money and are starving will hold less weight.

 

[STURM]

I will change the course of our argument.

I wasn’t aware it was an argument; I was under the impression we were having a discussion. I’m also surprised you see the need to talk further about the matter.

And as a general rule of thumb, try to avoid government owned news sources, unless you're interested in that specific government's opinion

Maybe but the article in question was a writer’s personal opinions; who is known for his criticism of not just Israel but also various Arab government’s. Nothing of what he wrote (my opinion) gave the impression that it was the opinion of a particular government or was heavily slanted to a particular side.

I get it you have issues with the article and that you're trying to convince me the the article was flawed, doesn’t convey the true picture, is biased, etc, etc.

Like I said : you’re entitled to your opinions and I’m (like I’ve been doing for many years) allowed to post links which I personally feel are of relevance or interest - it’s the Mod team which decides whether what I’ve posted is appropriate or not. Doesn’t mean I think what I post is 100 percent true, is totally objective (what truly is?) and I don’t expect everyone to agree with what I’ve posted ....

 

[ngatimozart]

I’m getting off topic here. On a number of occasions in the past; Saudi has publicly stated that it would pursue a nuclear option if Iran did so. I could be wrong but the only possible source for the Saudis would be the Chinese (assuming of course they were willing) or possibly Pakistan?

I believe that it is Pakistan. IIRC the story goes that the Saudis financed the Pakistani nuclear program and it's thought that the quid pro quo is that Saudi Arabia would own some of the warheads.

 

[Ananda]

believe that it is Pakistan. IIRC the story goes that the Saudis financed the Pakistani nuclear program and it's thought that the quid pro quo is that Saudi Arabia would own some of the warheads.

Not that try to do matching play, but it's interesting that the Dong Feng series balistic missiles that Saudi acquired from China, also become based for Pakistan Balistic Missiles. Thus theoriticaly whatever warheads that Pakistan made for their Missiles can also be fitted on to Saudi's Dong Fengs.

DF-21 (CSS-5) | Missile Threat

The Dongfeng-21(CSS-5) is a Chinese medium-range, road-mobile ballistic missile.

missilethreat.csis.org

 

[STURM]

I would think Pakistan is the likely “go-to” for nukes.

Indeed but it would come under tremendous amount of pressure from Uncle Sam. China would also come under pressure but it’s in a much better position to resist that pressure.

The Saudis don’t necessarily need a nuclear programme per se; merely devices/warheads which they could possibly integrate to their Chinese supplied ballistic missiles.

 

[STURM]

story goes that the Saudis financed the Pakistani nuclear program and it's thought that the quid pro quo is that Saudi Arabia would own some of the warheads.

I have no idea how accurate this is but its been mentioned in an Indian blog that Pakistan’s nuclear capable missiles (like Ghauri) are actually Chinese ones renamed and that China retains some level of operational control over them.

 

[ngatimozart]

I have no idea how accurate this is but its been mentioned in an Indian blog that Pakistan’s nuclear capable missiles (like Ghauri) are actually Chinese ones renamed and that China retains some level of operational control over them.

The thing is how accurate are the Indian defence blogs? Lots of fanbois and others beating their chests.

 

[STURM]

the Saudis financed the Pakistani nuclear program and it's thought that the quid pro quo is that Saudi Arabia would own some of the warheads.

In The Nuclear Jihadist (Frantz & Colin’s) it’s mentioned that Saudi Arabia “helped finance the early stages of Pakistan’s nuclear program and bought nuclear capable missiles from the Chinese. The Saudi defence minister has been one of the few foreigners permitted to tour the inner sanctums of Khan Research Laboratories” (Page 349).

The Nuclear Jihadist: The True Story of the Man Who Sold the World's Most Dangerous Secrets... and How We Could Have Stopped Him by Douglas Frantz, Catherine Collins

In tackling the story of Pakistani nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan, Frantz and Collins (Death on the Black Sea ) are entering a crow...

www.publishersweekly.com

Othe interesting books.

DECEPTION | Kirkus Reviews

British journalists Levy and Scott-Clark (The Amber Room: The Fate of the World’s Greatest Lost Treasure, 2004, etc.) offer persuasive evidence that the United States looked the other way for years while Pakistan developed a nuclear bomb and exported weapons technology to Iran, North Korea and...

www.kirkusreviews.com

Review: Israel has its nuclear demons

The Samson Option by Seymour Hersh, Random House, pp 354, $23 Seymour Hersh stirred up a storm with his book's allegation that Robert Maxwell helped Israeli spies to suppress information about their nuclear arsenal. When it comes to the essential story of how the Israeli arsenal came to be...

www.newscientist.com

SPYING ON THE BOMB | Kirkus Reviews

Bloodless if thorough account of U.S. efforts to find out what its peers in the nuclear arena have been up to over the last half-century.

www.kirkusreviews.com

 

[Big_Zucchini]

I wasn’t aware it was an argument; I was under the impression we were having a discussion. I’m also surprised you see the need to talk further about the matter.

The term "argument" does not need to be seen as anything impolite. If it gave you the wrong impression, I can change my terminology. Keeping it pleasant is in my interest.

Perhaps I misunderstood the tone of your comments so I will reply to them now.
If indeed the US signs a deal with Iran, it can go several ways. Israel is the more daring of Iran's adversaries so I will refer to it alone.
If the deal is principally against Israel's interests and it sees it as dangerous, then it will go rogue and pergaps strike the nuclear facilities. But the US knows that and I believe this influences the American strategy in these negotiations. They will probably not cross Israel's red lines in this deal.

If the deal is hard enough on Iran, Israel may suck it up and endure it to appease the US.

Specifically Saudi Arabia now - they are believed to already have the nuclear option via Pakistan. What they will do with that is beyond me and I won't pretend to know what their interests might be.
But it is interesting, because China's new deal with Iran brings them closer, and we know China is also Pakistan's sponsor.
It might be a pulling game of loyalties.

I get it you have issues with the article and that you're trying to convince me the the article was flawed, doesn’t convey the true picture, is biased, etc, etc.

The author showed poor deduction skills IMO. He claimed the entire conflict with Iran, whether nuclear or conventional, and its other conflicts, can be solved by ending the "occupation of Palestine".

But the two conflicts are totally disconnected. Iran doesn't strive to obtain nukes to "defend the Palestinians", nor does it subjugate other countries for the sake of any nationality.
Not to mention that "ending the occupation" will, in total, increase the magnitude of the conflicts Israel is involved in.

 

[STURM]

In support of my previous argument that a campaign against Iran, focused on its nuclear program, does not necessarily revolve around the much hyped airstrike.

Indeed it doesn’t but ultimately sabotage and cyber attacks can only do so much. They can significantly delay/disrupt Iran’s programme but the main means of actually causing lasting physical/material damage which would lead to long term disruption would be the “much hyped airstrike”; as well as other means Israel might have such as long range missile strikes.

The term "argument" does not need to be seen as anything impolite

Im aware of that thank you but I didn’t see it that way. I merely disagreed with your statement that we had an “argument”; to me it was a “discussion”.

He claimed the entire conflict with Iran, whether nuclear or conventional, and its other conflicts, can be solved by ending the "occupation of Palestine"

I’m sorry : are we even discussing same article here? The article which I posted clearly said that “Israel does have legitimate security concerns, too. But those can only be resolved not by waging more wars, making more enemies, and subjugating more nations to its whims, but by ending its military occupation of Palestine and its illegal expansion into Palestinian and Arab lands”.

The writer was referring to the security situation as a whole and about policies which in the long term don’t resolve anything. It’s very different from your “He claimed the entire conflict with Iran, whether nuclear or conventional, and its other conflicts, can be solved by ending the "occupation of Palestine” ...

But the two conflicts are totally disconnected. Iran doesn't strive to obtain nukes to "defend the Palestinians", nor does it subjugate other countries for the sake of any nationality.

Unless you’re referring to a completely different article the writer didn’t conflate the Palestinian issue with the Palestinian issue - he made mention of both issues yes but in a different context.

Not to mention that "ending the occupation" will, in total, increase the magnitude of the conflicts Israel is involved in.

This is an point of view I’ve heard before ....

 

[Big_Zucchini]

The writer was referring to the security situation as a whole and about policies which in the long term don’t resolve anything. It’s very different from your “He claimed the entire conflict with Iran, whether nuclear or conventional, and its other conflicts, can be solved by ending the "occupation of Palestine” ...

You're only confirming my point. The Palestinians never were the greatest threat to Israel, at any point in time. Addressing that issue will not resolve all of Israel's security issues.

is an argument I’ve heard before ....

Not sure if sarcastic or not, but that's pretty much what happened with Gaza, and what most predict will happen to the West Bank. But this is very off topic right now.

 

[STURM]

You're only confirming my point. The Palestinians never were the greatest threat to Israel, at any point in time. Addressing that issue will not resolve all of Israel's security issues.

Make your mind; first you insisted that the article conflated the Palestinian issue with the Iranian nuclear one (when it clearly didn’t - unless we’re both referring to different articles). Now you’re saying that I’m “reinforcing” your point.

You're right in that a settlement of the Palestinian issue will not resolve all of Israel's security issues (nobody suggested otherwise) but it would resolve a large part of it and the region would become far less instable (to Israel’s benefit too).

Not sure if sarcastic or not, but that's pretty much what happened with Gaza, and what most predict will happen to the West Bank. But this is very off topic right now

Your absolutely right : I was being sarcastic... Yes it is off-topic yet you saw fit to raise the issue in the first place when there was absolutely no reason to ...

BTW as a caveat in case you choose to misinterpret what I meant: I fully realise that Israel (like any other country or people) has legitimate security concerns; has a right to defend itself and faces the constant threat of terrorism. By the same token I subscribe to the belief that until the Palestinian issue is resolved; there will be no peace and it will be detrimental not only to the Palestinians but to Israel as well.

 

[STURM]

Iran's retaliation will come in the form of a coordinated Hezbollah, PIJ, and Hamas attack on Israel, plus whatever militias it has in Syria, as the basis of an attack. Any other additional forces are up to speculation.

In response to the assassination by the U.S. of a top IRGC official on Iraqi soil; Iran retaliated by launching missiles on a U.S. base on Iraqi soil.

Sorry but I disagree with your assumption that in the event of an Israeli strike on Iran itself; that Iranian retaliation will not come in the form of a Iranian missile strike on Israel but will be limited to “a coordinated Hezbollah, PIJ, and Hamas attack”.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

In response to the assassination by the U.S. of a top IRGC official on Iraqi soil; Iran retaliated by launching missiles on a U.S. base on Iraqi soil.

Sorry but I disagree with your assumption that in the event of an Israeli strike on Iran itself; that Iranian retaliation will not come in the form of a Iranian missile strike on Israel but will be limited to “a coordinated Hezbollah, PIJ, and Hamas attack”.

I think the problem with this comment is that the term "limited" is used in the opposite of its meaning.
Let's use an example to demonstrate my point, using your own argument:

"Sorry but I disagree with your assumption that in the event of a Japanese strike on America itself; that American retaliation will not come in the form of an American aerial attack on Japan but will be limited to a full blown invasion into the Japanese islands and then the mainland."

Yeah, let's make a small comparison.
Iran has, at best, hundreds of ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and kamikaze drones, capable of reaching Israel. With such numbers, they cannot overwhelm Israeli IAMD.

Hezbollah, Hamas, and PIJ, on the other hand, can definitely overwhelm Israeli IAMD.
They, together, have roughly 200,000 short ranged artillery munitions capable of reaching cities, and thousands of munitions capable going beyond Israel.
The intensity of such a war would be extremely high, something military planners say was not seen for many decades.
It's estimated that deaths to civilians would be in the thousands in Israel alone, and that excluding estimates that Israel could be hit with chemical weapons.

So Iran could give Israel a mini Iraq scenario, if Iran's very lucky.
Hezbollah, Hamas, and PIJ could give Israel an actual several month high intensity war.

 

[ngatimozart]

@Big_Zucchini and @STURM It's time you two stopped arguing semantics about who's point is better. It's getting very tiresome. Howabouts calling it even and move on. In between the tiresome bits there are some really good nuggets of information coming out and some great discussion surrounding those. Howabouts we concentrate more on those than whose words are longer and dick is bigger.

 

[Feanor]

There information coming out that Russia may participate in protecting Iranian oil tankers headed to Syria. What exact role Russia will take remains to be seen, and it could be little more then information sharing, but could potentially escalate as far as Russian warships escorting groups of tankers.

сми Израиля: корабли ВМФ РФ будут сопровождать иранские танкеры по пути в Сирию (alexvlad7)

Об этом сообщает 9 канал со ссылкой на портал Досье Дебка. В последнее время произошел ряд совместных встреч представителей России, Сирии и Ирана. В ходе переговоров было принято решение о создании совместного военно-морского координационного центра.

aftershock.news

 

[Big_Zucchini]

There information coming out that Russia may participate in protecting Iranian oil tankers headed to Syria. What exact role Russia will take remains to be seen, and it could be little more then information sharing, but could potentially escalate as far as Russian warships escorting groups of tankers.

сми Израиля: корабли ВМФ РФ будут сопровождать иранские танкеры по пути в Сирию (alexvlad7)

Об этом сообщает 9 канал со ссылкой на портал Досье Дебка. В последнее время произошел ряд совместных встреч представителей России, Сирии и Ирана. В ходе переговоров было принято решение о создании совместного военно-морского координационного центра.

aftershock.news

Channel 9 has not proven to be reliable, and it does not provide its source for the information.
Russian navy ships have already been escorting Iranian tankers for many months, including when some of the more recent attacks have occurred.