Two Tankers Damaged Near Strait of Hormuz; One Suffers ‘Suspected Attack’

[Kellhound]

Interloping on someone and getting justifiably bopped on the nose and then punching them. Kinda affirms my assessment of bullying.

The UAV was in international airspace, so there was no justification in shooting it down.

[Theodarzna]

The UAV was in international airspace, so there was no justification in shooting it down.

I'd shoot down some countries metal death bot flying nearby, especially knowing that country is plotting an invasion.

As far as I can tell, even if Iran had an invasion plan for the US it is about as realistic a threat as an invasion plan for the moon.

[Kellhound]

I'd shoot down some countries metal death bot flying nearby, especially knowing that country is plotting an invasion.

As far as I can tell, even if Iran had an invasion plan for the US it is about as realistic a threat as an invasion plan for the moon.

There is no evidence the US is plotting an invasion of Iran. Also, the Global Hawk is unarmed.

[Theodarzna]

There is no evidence the US is plotting an invasion of Iran. Also, the Global Hawk is unarmed.

How, or why, should they assume it isn't a threat?

Second, you are joking right?

[Kellhound]

How, or why, should they assume it isn't a threat?

Second, you are joking right?

Because it was in international airspace.

No I am not joking. There is no evidence that the US is planning on invading Iran.

[Theodarzna]

Because it was in international airspace.

No I am not joking. There is no evidence that the US is planning on invading Iran.

Given how frequently calls for war are made, how many advisors to the president call for it. The idea that there isn't a plan; more over America could actually carry it out. Given also the number of army bases basically surrounding the country.

Don't pull my chain.

[Kellhound]

Given how frequently calls for war are made, how many advisors to the president call for it. The idea that there isn't a plan; more over America could actually carry it out. Given also the number of army bases basically surrounding the country.

Don't pull my chain.

The US does not have even a fraction of the resources in place to conduct an invasion. Do you not understand that almost half a million soldiers/airmen/marines/sailors were deployed in theater (mostly in Kuwait) for the 2003 invasion of Iraq? There is no such build up of troops. The Army has not deployed any armored divisions, the Marines only have a normal amount of MEUs deployed, the Air Force has not deployed fighter wings, and the Navy only has one carrier in the region. The US has the ability to conduct offensive air operations against Iran, but has no ability now or in the near future to conduct any conventional ground attack on them.

[Skroe]

The US does not have even a fraction of the resources in place to conduct an invasion. Do you not understand that almost half a million soldiers/airmen/marines/sailors were deployed in theater (mostly in Kuwait) for the 2003 invasion of Iraq? There is no such build up of troops. The Army has not deployed any armored divisions, the Marines only have a normal amount of MEUs deployed, the Air Force has not deployed fighter wings, and the Navy only has one carrier in the region. The US has the ability to conduct offensive air operations against Iran, but has no ability now or in the near future to conduct any conventional ground attack on them.

And to further your point, Iran's military leaders - emphatically not stupid people - are well aware of this reality too. They've seen a US invasion force in their neighborhood twice in the past 30 years. They know what it looks like. They know what an RQ-4 is too.

Even @Theodarzna ridiculous "army bases" internet factoid. Because that's what it is. An internet "gotcha" point weaponzed by bad faith arguers for most of the past 20 years about US activities in the Middle East.

An Iranian general would see one thing and just one thing compared to the US presence in the Middle East a decade ago: an immense cut in bases and troop numbers and overall logistics activity, as the US occupation of Iraq ended. A decade ago between the Iraq occupation and wider regional commitments, there were probably close to 200,000 US service members, of all branches, between Turkey and Oman spread across hundreds upon hundreds of facilities. Today it's probably what... about 10,000, not including those at sea, plus about 14,000 in Afghanistan? At a couple dozen locations in the Gulf Region?

[Theodarzna]

Some really great points and I agree. Trump made the right call. Even the former CIA boss under Obama commended him for making that decision. That is saying something knowing how much he hates Trump.

In reality, who knows how many lives Tucker Carlson might have saved. If indeed the talk of him being what convinced Trump to not do the dumbest thing ever to avenge a flying robot.

- - - Updated - - -

And to further your point, Iran's military leaders - emphatically not stupid people - are well aware of this reality too. They've seen a US invasion force in their neighborhood twice in the past 30 years. They know what it looks like. They know what an RQ-4 is too.

Even @Theodarzna ridiculous "army bases" internet factoid. Because that's what it is. An internet "gotcha" point weaponzed by bad faith arguers for most of the past 20 years about US activities in the Middle East.

An Iranian general would see one thing and just one thing compared to the US presence in the Middle East a decade ago: an immense cut in bases and troop numbers and overall logistics activity, as the US occupation of Iraq ended. A decade ago between the Iraq occupation and wider regional commitments, there were probably close to 200,000 US service members, of all branches, between Turkey and Oman spread across hundreds upon hundreds of facilities. Today it's probably what... about 10,000, not including those at sea, plus about 14,000 in Afghanistan? At a couple dozen locations in the Gulf Region?

One base is too many and given the US military industrial complex is filled with legions of people whom share your peculiar lurid fantasies about annihilating Iran among other Middle Eastern countries for rather dubious reasons, If I were them I would always treat Americans as suspect threats.

Always point a gun at the psychotic bully who both threatens you and can actually make good on their threats.

[Skroe]

One base is too many and given the US military industrial complex is filled with legions of people whom share your peculiar lurid fantasies about annihilating Iran among other Middle Eastern countries for rather dubious reasons, If I were them I would always treat Americans as suspect threats.

Always point a gun at the psychotic bully who both threatens you and can actually make good on their threats.

Yeah that's some weak ass shit right there Theo, even for you.

Point is, Iran's military leaders - ideological but repeatedly illustrated to be highly rational and, you know, not morons - have to make the security decisions for their regime based on what is real versus what is not. And what is factual versus what is emotive.

Fact is, Iran's leaders have had a pretty good decade in the wider Middle East and they see a US presence that is about 1/14th what it was back in 2009. Emotionally, yeah, they certainly don't want any US troops in the region. Factually, they're 13/14ths the way there, and a reversal on that isn't exactly happening. Hell, we're so much more focused on Europe and Asia-Pacific we don't even send carriers into the Gulf back to back, like we did for pretty much 25 years until a few years back.

Your threshold is objectively and obviously not their threshold, because the entirety of their security operations haven't been about pushing the US out of the region (as it was during the Iraq War when they helped the Shia insurgency) but rather to make sure they and their proxies control as much of the region among the people actually living there as possible, at the expense of the Sunni Saudi-led Arab coalition. Compared to the games they're playing with the Saudis in Yemen and Syria, we're barely on their radar.

I know it's important for you to live these fantasies whereby I want to bomb Iran, or the US is going to invade Iran. But the point is, for that to be have a realistic chance of happening, certain things would have to happen which aren't remotely close to happen. The Iranians know it. Everyone in the region knows it.

So at this point, you really can just continue to lie to yourself in thinking an internet meme, like this dumb as rocks one:



is the actual stuff that informs the very serious people who run the IRGC's policy.

Modern Iran's foreign and security policy has been extremely conservative (in the sense of, not taking dumb risks) for nearly 30 years. They've successfully managed it because they take a sober view of their near broad, and don't let hyperbole - like that map and the message behind it - drive their policy making.

and their policy making direction is quite clear: steer generally clear of the US, who is not going to do anything dramatic and is not positioned to change that any time soon, and focus on messing with the Saudis.


We're not going to invade Iran. Period. The US knows that. Iran knows that. The Saudis know that. The Israelis know that. Everyone knows that, except folks who perversely want us to in order to fit another agenda.

[Svifnymr]

How, or why, should they assume it isn't a threat?

Second, you are joking right?

Iran has said they saw the manned plane also in the air with the drone, they targeted the drone because they new it was unmanned and they knew exactly what it was.

[Ghostpanther]

In reality, who knows how many lives Tucker Carlson might have saved. If indeed the talk of him being what convinced Trump to not do the dumbest thing ever to avenge a flying robot.

- - - Updated - - -

What talk? First time I heard that. I seriously do not think Tucker has a hot line to the President.

[Shalcker]

What talk? First time I heard that. I seriously do not think Tucker has a hot line to the President.

Tucker is on Fox, and we've seen plenty of examples that Trump watches Fox; that works as one-way "hot line".

[Canpinter]

I'd shoot down some countries metal death bot flying nearby, especially knowing that country is plotting an invasion.

As far as I can tell, even if Iran had an invasion plan for the US it is about as realistic a threat as an invasion plan for the moon.

its international waters, you don't get to shoot down other countries stuff in international waters and not expect a response.

[Ghostpanther]

Tucker is on Fox, and we've seen plenty of examples that Trump watches Fox; that works as one-way "hot line".

Not really. They set up phone interviews at times, but that does not mean he can just call the President at will and he will answer at a moment's notice. But, if I am wrong, I would like to see proof I am with this supposedly claim Tucker called Trump to call off the strike.

[JohnBrown1917]

Actually, most advanced limpet mines have anti-tampering devices that make removing an unknown mine very hazardous.

And they still need to be removed

That was an accident....

One the US refuses to apologize for.
But no, a military drone flying into iranian space clearly matters more.


But then, what else should we expect from a country running concentration camps?

[Svifnymr]

And they still need to be removed

If you've never watched a bomb disposal unit, I'll spoil it for you. They don't ride up in a boat full of people and pull it off.

One the US refuses to apologize for.
But no, a military drone flying into iranian space clearly matters more.

It would be nice if some other countries had information about the actual location of the drone. Somehow I doubt the USA and Iran are the only countries watching that area of sky or where the drones are. Assuming the Iranian account is correct seems pointless, and even if you do assume that the drone was in Iran airspace and they had a RIGHT to shoot it down, the action is still done as a provocation. There are many borders in the world, how often is "shoot first" the answer?

But then, what else should we expect from a country running concentration camps?

I do wonder why "internment camps" wasn't enough for the hyperbole machines. Had to invoke nazi's and make sure to estrange more moderates.

[ghotihook]

It would be nice if some other countries had information about the actual location of the drone. Somehow I doubt the USA and Iran are the only countries watching that area of sky or where the drones are. Assuming the Iranian account is correct seems pointless, and even if you do assume that the drone was in Iran airspace and they had a RIGHT to shoot it down, the action is still done as a provocation. There are many borders in the world, how often is "shoot first" the answer?

This is what I don't understand too. Surely someone outside the USA and Iran know if the drone was in Iran airspace right?
The way I see it, if it can be proven that it was in Iran airspace, I have zero problems with them shooting it down.
If it's proven otherwise, I am not sure what you do. I don't think bombing them is the right choice nor do I think more sanctions is going to do anything.

[Ihavewaffles]

Where it was when it got hit and where it crashed can give different answers..

Example, accident yesterday involving 2 german euro-fighters, one hit but end up in different places.

[Kellhound]

And they still need to be removed



One the US refuses to apologize for.
But no, a military drone flying into iranian space clearly matters more.


But then, what else should we expect from a country running concentration camps?

It was removed far too glibly.

The drone was in international air space, not Iranian.