The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewThe Saker Archive
The End of the "Wars on the Cheap" for the United States
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_596417738

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

With the Neocon coup against Trump now completed (at least in its main objective, that is the neutralization of Trump, the subsidiary objective, impeaching Trump and removing him from office remains something for the future) the world has to deal, yet again, with a very dangerous situation: the AngloZionist Empire is on a rapid decline, but the Neocons are back in power and they will do anything and everything in their power to stop and reverse this trend. It is also painfully obvious from their rhetoric, as well as from their past actions, that the only “solution” out the Neocons see is to trigger some kind of war. So the pressing question now becomes this: “where will the Empire strike next?”. Will it be the DPRK or Syria? Iran or Venezuela? In the Ukraine, maybe? Or do the Neocons seek war with Russia or China?

Now, of course, if we assume that the Neocons are completely crazy, then everything is possible, from a US invasion of Lesotho to a simultaneous thermonuclear attack on Russia and China. I am in no way dismissing the insanity (and depravity) of the Neocons, but I also see no point in analyzing that which is clearly irrational, if only because all modern theories of deterrence always imply a “rational actor” and not a crazy lunatic on a suicidal amok run. For our purposes, therefore, we will assume that there is a semblance of rational thinking left in Washington DC and that even if the Neocons decide to launch some clearly crazy operation, somebody in the top levels of power will find the courage prevent this, just like Admiral Fallon did it with his “not on my watch!” which possibly prevented a US attack on Iran in 2007). So, assuming a modicum of rationality is still involved, where would the Empire strike next?

The ideal scenario

We all by now know exactly what the Empire likes to do: find some weak country, subvert it, accuse it of human right violations, slap economic sanctions, trigger riots and militarily intervene in “defense” of “democracy”, “freedom” and “self-determination” (or some other combo of equally pious and meaningless concepts). But that is only the ‘political recipe’. What I want to look into is what I call “the American way of war”, that is the way US commanders like to fight.

During the Cold War, most of the US force planning, procurement, doctrine and training was focused on fighting a large conventional war against the Soviet Union and it was clearly understood that this conventional war could escalate into a nuclear war. Setting aside the nuclear aspect for a while (it is not relevant to our discussion), I would characterize the conventional dimension of such a war as “heavy”: centered on large formations (divisions, brigades), involving a lot of armor and artillery, this kind of warfare would involve immense logistical efforts on both sides and that, in turn, would involve deep-strikes on second echelon forces, supply dumps, strategic axes of communications (roads, railways, bridges, etc.) and a defense in depth in key sectors. The battlefield would be huge, hundreds of kilometers away on both sides of the FEBA (Forward Edge of Battle Area, or “front line”). On all levels, tactical, operational and strategic, defenses would be prepare in two, possibly three, echelons. To give you an idea of the distances involved, the Soviet 2nd strategic echelon in Europe was deployed as far back as the Ukraine! (this is why, by the way, the Ukraine inherited huge ammo dumps from the Soviet Union, and why there never was a shortage of weapons on any side for the conduct of the Ukrainian civil war).

With the collapse of the Soviet Union’s Empire, this entire threat disappeared, if not overnight, then almost overnight. Of course, the Gulf War provided the US armed forces and NATO one last, but big, “goodbye party” (against an enemy which had absolutely no chance to prevail), but soon thereafter it became pretty clear to US strategists that the “heavy war” was over and that armored brigades might not be the most useful war-fighting tool in the US arsenal.

This is when US strategists, mostly from Special Operation Forces, developed what I like to call “war on the cheap”. It works something like this: first, get the CIA to fund, arm and train some local insurgents (if needed, bring some from abroad); next embed US Special Forces with these local insurgents and provide them with FACs (forward air controllers, frontline soldiers specially trained to direct close support fixed and rotary wing aircraft to strike at enemy forces in direct contact with US and “friendlies”); finally, deploy enough aircraft in and around the combat zone (on aircraft carriers, in neighboring countries or even on seized local airstrips) to support combat operations day and night. The key notion is simple: provide the friendly insurgents with an overwhelming advantage in firepower. You have all seen this on YouTube: US and “coalition” forces advance until they get into a firefight and, unless they rapidly prevail, they call in an airstrike which results into a huge BOOM!!! following by cheering Americans and friendlies and the total disappearance of the attackers. Repeat that enough times, and you get an easy, cheap and rapid victory over a completely outgunned enemy. This basic approach can be enhanced by various “supplements” such as providing the insurgents with better gear (antitank weapons, night vision, communications, etc.) and bringing in some US or allied forces, including mercenaries, to take care of the really tough targets.

ORDER IT NOW

While many in the US armed forces were deeply skeptical of this new approach, the dominance of the Special Forces types and the success, at least temporarily, of this “war on the cheap” in Afghanistan made it immensely popular with US politicians and propagandists. Best of all, this type of warfare resulted in very few casualties for the Americans and even provided them with a high degree of “plausible deniability” should something go wrong. Of course, the various three letter spooks loved it too.

What so many failed to realize in the early euphoria about US invincibility was that this “war on the cheap” made three very risky assumptions:

First and foremost, it relied on a deeply demoralized enemy who felt that, like in the series “Star Trek”, resistance to the Borg (aka the USA) was futile because even if the actual US forces deployed were limited in size and capabilities, the Americans would, no doubt, bring in more and more forces if needed, until the opposition was crushed.

Second, this type of warfare assumes that the US can get air superiority over the entire battlefield. Americans do not like to provide close air support when they can be shot down by enemy aircraft or missiles.

Third, this type of warfare requires the presence of local insurgents who can be used as “boots on the ground” to actually occupy and control territory. We will now see that all three of these assumptions are not necessarily true or, to put it even better, that the AngloZionists have run out of countries in which these assumptions still apply. Let’s take them one by one.

Hezbollah, Lebanon 2006

Okay, this war did not officially involve the USA, true, but it did involve Israel, which is more or less the same, at least for our purposes. While it is true that superior Hezbollah tactics and preparation of the battlefield did play an important role, and while it is undeniable that Russian anti-tank weapons gave Hezbollah the capability to attack and destroy even the most advanced Israeli tanks, the single most important development of this war was that for the first time in the Middle-East a rather small and comparatively weak Arab force showed no fear whatsoever when confronted with the putatively “invincible Tshahal”. The British reporter Robert Fisk was the first person to detect this immense change and its tremendous implications: (emphasis added)

You heard Sharon, before he suffered his massive stroke, he used this phrase in the Knesset, you know, “The Palestinians must feel pain.” This was during one of the intifadas. The idea that if you continue to beat and beat and beat the Arabs, they will submit, that eventually they’ll go on their knees and give you what you want. And this is totally, utterly self-delusional, because it doesn’t apply anymore. It used to apply 30 years ago, when I first arrived in the Middle East. If the Israelis crossed the Lebanese border, the Palestinians jumped in their cars and drove to Beirut and went to the cinema. Now when the Israelis cross the Lebanese border, the Hezbollah jump in their cars in Beirut and race to the south to join battle with them. But the key thing now is that Arabs are not afraid any more. Their leaders are afraid, the Mubaraks of this world, the president of Egypt, King Abdullah II of Jordan. They’re afraid. They shake and tremble in their golden mosques, because they were supported by us. But the people are no longer afraid.

This is absolutely huge and what the “Divine Victory” of the Party of God first achieved in 2006 is now repeated in Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq and elsewhere. The fear of the “sole superpower” is finally gone, replaced by a burning desire to settle an infinite list of scores with the AngloZionists and their occupation forces.

Hezbollah also proved another very important thing: the winning strategy when faced against a superior enemy is not to try to protect yourself against his attacks, but to deny him a lucrative target. Put simply: “a cammo tent is better than a bunker” or, if you prefer “if they can spot you, they can kill you”. The more academic way to put is would be this: “don’t contest your enemy’s superiority – make it irrelevant”.

Looking back it is quite obvious that one of the most formidable weapons in the AngloZionist arsenal was not the nuclear bomb or the aircraft carrier, but a propaganda machine which for decades successfully convinced millions of people around the globe that the US was invincible: the US had the best weapons, the best trained soldiers, the most advanced tactics, etc. Turns out this is total nonsense – the US military in the real world was nothing like its propaganda-world counterpart: when is the last time the US actually won a war against an adversary capable of meaningful resistance? The Pacific in WWII?

[Sidebar: I chose the example of Hezbollah in 2006 to illustrate the collapse of the “scared into surrender” paradigm, but to illustrate the “don't contest your enemy's superiority – make it irrelevant” the better, and earlier, example would be Kosovo in 1998-1999 when a huge operation involved the entire NATO air forces which lasted for 78 days (the Israeli aggression against Lebanon lasted only 33 days) resulted in exactly nothing: a few destroyed APCs, a few old aircraft destroyed on the ground, and a Serbian Army Corps which was unscathed, but which Milosevic ordered to withdraw for personal, political reasons. The Serbs were the first ones to prove this “target denial” strategy as viable even against an adversary with advanced intelligence and reconnaissance capabilities]

Russians task force, Syria 2015

As I have always insisted that the Russian operation in Syria was not a case of “the Russians are coming” or “the war is over”. The reality is that the Russians sent is a very small force and that this force did not so much defeat Daesh as it changed the fundamental character of the political context of the war: simply put – by going in the Russians not only made it much harder politically for the Americans to intervene, they also denied them the ability to use their favorite “war on the cheap” against the Syrians.

When the Russians first deployed their task force to Syria they did not bring with them anywhere near the kind of capabilities which would deny the Americans the use of the Syrian air space. Even after the shooting down of the Russian SU-24 by the Turks, the Russians only deployed enough air-defenses and air superiority fighters to protect themselves from a similar attack by the Turks. Even today, as I write these words, if the USAF or USN decided to take control of the Syrian airspace they could undoubtedly do it simply because in purely numerical terms the Russians still do not have enough air defenses or, even less so, combat aircraft, to deny the Syrian airspace to the Americans. Oh sure, such a US attack would come at a very real costs for the Americans, both militarily and politically, but anybody who really believes that the tiny Russian air contingent of 33 combat aircraft (of which only 19 can actually contest the Syrian airspace: 4 SU-30, 6 SU-34, 9 Su-27) and an unknown number of S-300/S-400/S-1 Pantsir batteries can actually defeat the combined airpower of CENTCOM and NATO is delusional to the extreme or simply does not understand modern warfare.

The problem for the Americans is formed by a matrix of risks which, of course, includes Russian military capabilities, but also includes the political risks of establishing a no-fly zone over Syria. Not only would such a move be another major escalation in the already totally illegal US intervention in this war, but it would require a sustained effort to suppress the Syrian (and, potentially, Russian) air defenses and that is something the White House is not willing to do right now, especially when it remains completely unclear what such a risky operation would achieve. As a result, the American did strike here and there, just like the Israelis, but in reality their efforts are pretty much useless.

Even worse is the fact that the Russians are now turning the tables on the Americans and providing the Syrian forces with FACs and close air support, especially in key areas. The Russians have also deployed artillery controllers and heavy artillery systems, including multiple-rocket launchers and heavy flamethrowers, which are all giving the firepower advantage to the government forces. Paradoxically, it is the Russians who are now fighting a “war on the cheap” while denying this options to the Americans and their allies.

Good terrorists, aka “FSA”, Syria 2017

The main weakness of the Free Syrian Army is that it does not really exist, at least not on the ground. Oh sure, there are plenty of FSA Syrian exiles in Turkey and elsewhere, there are also plenty of Daesh/al-Qaeda types who try hard to look like an FSA to the likes of John McCain, and there are a few scattered armed groups here and there in Syria who would like to be “the FSA”. But in reality this was always an abstraction, a purely political concept. This virtual FSA could provide many useful things to the Americans, a narrative for the propaganda machine, a pious pretext to send it in the CIA, a small fig leaf to conceal the fact that Uncle Sam was in bed with al-Qaeda and Daesh and a political ideal to try to unify the world against Assad and the Syrian government. But what the FSA could never provide, was “boots on the ground”. Everybody else had them: Daesh and al-Qaeda for sure, but also the Syrians, the Iranians and Hezbollah and, of course, the Turks and the Kurds. But since the Takfiris were officially the enemy of the USA, the US was limited in the scope and nature of the support given to these Wahabi crazies. The Syrians, the Iranians and Hezbollah were demonized and so it was impossible to work with them. That left the Turks, who had terrible relations with the USA, especially after the US-backed coup against Erdogan, and the Kurds who were not too eager to fight and die deep inside Iraq and whose every move was observed with a great deal of hostility by Ankara. As the war progressed the terrible reality finally hit the Americans: they had no “boots on the ground” to embed their Special Ops with or to support.

The best illustration of this reality is the latest American debacle in the al-Tanf region near the Jordanian border. The Americans, backed by the Jordanians, quietly invaded this mostly empty part of the Syrian desert with the hope of cutting off the lines of communications between the Syrians and the Iraqis. Instead, what happened was that the Syrians cut the Americans off and reached the border first, thereby making the American presence simply useless (see here and here for details). It appears that the Americans have now given up, at least temporarily, on al-Tanf, and that US forces will be withdrawn and redeployed elsewhere in Syria.

So who is next – Venezuela?

A quick look back in history shows us that the Americans have always had problem with their local “allies” (i.e. puppets). Some were pretty good (South Koreans), others much less so (Contras), but all in all each US use of local forces comes with an inherent risk: the locals often have their own, sometimes very different, agenda and they soon come to realize that if they depend on the Americans, the Americans also depend on them. Add to this the well-known fact that Americans are not exactly known for their, shall we say, “multi-cultural sensitivity and expertise” (just see how few of them even know the local language!) and you will see why US intelligence usually becomes aware of this problem by the time it is way too late to fix it (no amount of fancy technology can be substituted for solid, expert human intelligence). The reality is that Americans are typically clueless about the environment they operate in. The US debacle in Syria (or in Libya or the Ukraine, for that matter) is an excellent illustration of this.

Now that we have identified some of the doctrinal and operational weaknesses of the US “war on the cheap” approach, let’s apply them to a list of potential target countries:

Assumption Demoralized enemy Air superiority Boots on the ground
North Korea ? Yes No
Syria No No No
Iran No Yes No
Venezuela ? Yes Yes?
Russia No No No
The Ukraine No No Yes
China No No No
ORDER IT NOW

Notes: “demoralized enemy” and “air superiority” are my best guesstimate, I might be wrong; “boots on the ground” refers to to a indigenous and combat capable force already inside the country (as opposed to a foreign intervention) capable of seizing and holding ground, and not just some small insurgent group or a political opposition.

If my estimates are correct, then the only candidate for a US intervention would be Venezuela. However, what is missing here is the time factor: a US intervention, to be successful, would require a realistic exit strategy (the US is already overextended and the very last thing the Empire needs would be getting bogged down in another useless and unwinnable war à la Afghanistan. Also, while I gave the Venezuelan opposition a tentative “yes” for its ability to play the “boots on the ground” role (especially if backed by Colombia), I am not at all sure that the pro-American forces in Venezuela have anywhere near the capabilities of the regular armed forces (which, I believe, would oppose a US invasion) or the various Leftist guerrilla groups who tolerated the Chavez-Maduro rule but who have kept their weapons “just in case”. Furthermore, there is the issue of terrain. While Caracas might be easy to seize in an optimistic scenario, the rest of the country would be difficult and dangerous to try to operate in. Finally, there is the issue of staying power: while Americans like quick victories, Latin American guerrillas has already proven many times over that they can fight for decades. For all these reasons, while I do think that the US is capable of intervening in Venezuela and messing it up beyond all recognition, I don’t see the US as capable of imposing a new regime in power and imposing their control over the country.

Conclusion – Afghanistan 2001-2017

Afghanistan is often called the “graveyard of Empires”. I am not so sure that Afghanistan will ever become the graveyard of the AngloZionist Empire, but I do think that Afghanistan will become the graveyard of the “war on the cheap” doctrine, which is paradoxical since Afghanistan was also the place were this doctrine was first applied with what initially appeared to be a tremendous success. We all remember the US Special Forces, often on horseback, directing B-52 airstrikes against rapidly retreating Afghan government forces. Sixteen years later, the Afghan war has dramatically changed and US forces are constantly fighting a war in which 90% of the casualties come from IEDs, where all the efforts at some kind of political settlement have miserably failed and where both victory and withdrawal appear as completely impossible. The fact that now the US propaganda machines has accused Russia of “arming the Taliban” is a powerful illustration of how desperate the AngloZionists are. Eventually, of course, the Americans will have to leave, totally defeated, but for the time being all they are willing to admit is that they are “not winning” (no kidding!).

The US dilemma is simple: the Cold War is long over, and so is the Post Cold War, and a complete reform of the US armed forces is clear long overdue and yet also politically impossible. Right now the US armed forces are the bizarre result of the Cold War, the “war on the cheap” years and of failed military interventions. In theory, the US should begin by deciding on a new national security strategy, then develop a military strategy in support of this national security strategy, followed by the development of a military doctrine which itself would then produce a force modernization plan which would affect all aspects of military reform from training to force planning to deployment. It took the Russians over a decade to do this, including a lot of false starts and mistakes, and it will take the Americans at least as long, or even more. Right now even the decision to embark on such a far reaching reform seems to be years away. For the time being, garden variety propaganda (“we’re number one, second to none!!”) and deep denial seem to be the order of the day. Just as in Russia, it will probably take a truly catastrophic embarrassment (like the first Russian war in Chechnya) to force the US military establishment to look reality in the eye and to actually act on it. But until that happens, the ability of US forces to impose their domination on those countries which refuse to surrender to various threats and sanctions will continue to degrade.

So is Venezuela next? I hope not. In fact, I think not. But if it is, it will be one hell of a mess with much destroyed and precious little achieved. The AngloZionists have been punching above their real weight for decades now and the world is beginning to realize this. Prevailing against Iran or the DPRK is clearly beyond the actual US military capabilities. As for attacking Russia or China – that would be suicidal. Which leaves the Ukraine. I suppose the US might send some weapons to the junta in Kiev and organize some training camps in the western Ukraine. But that’s about it. None of that will make any real difference anyway (except aggravating the Russians even more, of course).

The era of “wars on the cheap” is over and the world is becoming a very different place than it used to be. The USA will have to adapt to this reality, at least if it wants to retain some level of credibility, but right now it does not appear that anybody in Washington DC – except Ron Paul – is willing to admit this. As a result, the era of major US military interventions might well be coming to an end, even if there will always be some Grenada or Panama size country to triumphantly beat up, if needed. This new reality, of course, immediately raises the issue of what/how the US Dollar will be backed by in the future (until now, it was only really “backed” by US military power), but that is a very different topic.

 
Hide 232 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. A discussion of the same basic problem – choosing the war that is the best of all possible wars at this juncture in history – has already been under way at Fred Reed’s “Milk-bar Clausewitzes and bean curd Napoleons”

    http://www.unz.com/freed/milk-bar-clausewitzes-bean-curd-napoleons/

    I would note that there is at least one great advantage in choosing the war with the DPRK: if we lose, we would not bring down the whole world with us. If we win, we would have a tremendous opportunity to exit Asia for ever (militarily or imperially speaking). And we could leave with our heads held high.

    Of course, if we lose, we could also begin one or another ten-year project, either rearranging the USA to be a central force for peace and reform, or, less ambitiously, to undertake what the Saker proposes:

    “US should begin by deciding on a new national security strategy, then develop a military strategy in support of this national security strategy, followed by the development of a military doctrine which itself would then produce a force modernization plan which would affect all aspects of military reform from training to force planning to deployment.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Get out of your mom's basement Charlie and quit posting here. This isn't a place for kids. N Korea is actually the most dangerous option because of how many troops we have on the land and sea. Easy for you to talk about low cost when you are not in danger yourself.

    A victory in N Korea would not mean a US exit in Asia stupid. It would mean more troops as we want to use N Korea as a base to attack Russia and China.

    Russia and China know this of course, so they will intervene in the war.

    So your quick and easy war is now WW3.
    , @restless94110
    There is no discussion going on here or in the Fred Reed article about which war to "choose". What discussion there was consisted of just you, in 5 posts, giving your theories, all of which, including in this comment completely disregard the basic analysis of both Fred Reed's and the Saker's articles.

    The US is not in front of a screen looking at a list of shoes on Amazon from which they will choose to buy and wear to their sister's wedding.

    And losing any war at this point would not just cause a trifling humiliation to the United States and then a quiet "rebuilding" of the armed forces, possibly in the way that the Saker suggests.

    A loss now, would make ultra clear to the entire world what many of us know already (and which was a strong component of both Reed's and the Saker's articles that you have not mentioned): that America is unable to do what it brags it can do.

    And if it is unable to do what it says it can do? Poof goes many things, grampa, many things.

    Be careful of what you wish for (suggest), you just might get it.

    , @Stripes Duncan
    A war with DPRK would likely draw in Japan to fight with the US and ROK. The prospect of US forces on the Yalu River won't sit any better with China than it did in 1950. This is the most likely flashpoint for the next world war.
    , @Joe Wong
    The fat boy will bomb the USA homeland in addition to bomb the South Korea and the Japan if the American launch attack on North Korea. Bombing the USA is the only way to bring China and Russia in to stop North Korea from capitulation and preserve the regime. Bombing USA homeland will destroy the USA's international standing and completely ruin USA's credibility of a global hegemony the American have spent so much energy to cultivate and nurture since WWII, it is a good price to ask the American to pay for their reckless mischief. American will not show mercy once they start the assault as they have shown in the Vietnam War, wars in Iraq; there is nothing for the fat boy to lose.

    As the probability the American attacking NK is reasonably high, because the American figures that the destruction will be happened in Korea and Japan only, the ones get killed is Koreans and Japanese, meanwhile they can get away the crime by recycling the Sadden Hussein's WMD plot on NK. It is a complete a harmless and profitable venture.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /tsaker/the-end-of-the-wars-on-the-cheap-for-the-united-states/#comment-1955529
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. I dunno, Lesotho sounds like the kind of shot in the arm we might need to get out of this defeatist funk. In fact, nearly all of Africa provides the sort of regime-change and social-welfare-democracy-project opportunities the US military has been redesigned to accommodate. Plus you have the benefit of potentially chasing the Chicoms away. Surprised we aren’t there already… oh, wait!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Wong
    AFRICOM already costed China tens of billions in Mali, Lybia and Sudan. China can be tolerant, but there is a limit.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. dearieme says:

    Who will take first pop at a big US nuclear-powered aircraft carrier?

    Read More
    • Replies: @El Dato
    Maersk maybe?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. Turns out this is total nonsense – the US military in the real world was nothing like its propaganda-world counterpart: when is the last time the US actually won a war against an adversary capable of meaningful resistance? The Pacific in WWII?

    The Saker gets it. The Russians, Chinese, Iranians get it. Nobody, but nobody, in the USA in any important position, gets it. Maybe Trump does, we’ll see.

    http://robertmagill.wordpress.com

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    The German generals rightfully had low opinion of the quality of the American military, which of course was quite different from the ability of the American political-economic system to effectively wage war (which was obviously quite great). Even in Korea, a Chinese peasant army (barely WW1 caliber) was able to drive the Americans (unscathed by the horrors of WW2) sufficiently far from their borders until their logistics reached their limit.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. Randal says:

    Prevailing against Iran or the DPRK is clearly beyond the actual US military capabilities.

    Only in the same sense as a rational analysis presented to the US President in 1940 would have said “prevailing against Japan is beyond US military capabilities”, given the assumption (implicit here in the mention of Iran and DPRK) that what is meant by “prevailing” is imposing unconditional surrender and occupation, because the target country will not make peace in response to mere military defeats or economic blockades. The political will is not there to use the kind of methods (WW2 wholesale slaughter bombing of enemy cities) and bear the kinds of costs (full mobilisation of the economy and populace for war, for years) that would be required, as it was not there in respect of Japan in 1940.

    The distinction is vital, because unlike conventional military balances which change only very slowly, over decades, the political will can change overnight. A Pearl Harbor or 9/11 situation (real or manufactured) convincingly attributed to Iran or to DPRK would suddenly render both Iran and DPRK open to US military occupation, albeit at appalling costs to both sides (but mostly to the target side and its neighbours, as usual with the US’s remote wars).

    Does the US regime retain the credibility to apply such a pretext to justifying another war of wholesale aggression, after all the lies of recent years? Perhaps, perhaps not. I wouldn’t bet against the patriotic gullibility of a population that has suffered a humiliating and murderous attack. Humanity seems almost infinitely manipulable in those terms.

    This is not really a disagreement with Saker’s analysis, which implicitly assumes no such dramatic events that change the strategic context fundamentally, but rather a caution against relying too heavily on predictions based upon such analysis.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Grandpa Charlie
    Randal says that a Pearl Harbor event "would suddenly render both Iran and DPRK open to US military occupation." I don't know if that is true or not, and I don't know if the statement is really meaningful. Myself, I do not believe that the USA has any casus belli to go to war with Iran, so I don't discuss that. As for the DPRK, I believe the USA has, over the years, tried peaceful negotiations to end the war but all those attempts have been frustrated by the despotic leaders of the DPRK ( the Kim dynasty). In any event, I would never advocate USA military occupation of any part of Korea. I advocate for the peaceful occupation of the North of Korea by the military of the ROK, but only until such time as all-Korea elections could be held, in order to incorporate the North of Korea into the ROK.

    In my opinion, the case of Korea is similar to the case of Germany and the government of the DPRK is no more legitimate or viable (without subjecting it to cruel and despotic methods led by the Kim dynasty) than was the old government of East Germany before reunification. So, no military occupation by the USA, and only a temporary and benign occupation by the army of the ROK - which is anyway the legitimate government all of Korea.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. Sunbeam says:

    Why are you so certain the US could achieve air superiority in Iran?

    Carrier aviation is essentially useless, at least for a target like this (it would work just fine against Somalis but whatever). Additionally the carriers would have to operate so far from Iran’s shores that I imagine carrier aircraft have a very limited area of targets (coastal though that has to be important) and limited time in the air to accomplish it.

    Air Force planes… even with refueling they don’t have infinite range. Sure the B-52′s (whatever we have left) and the Stealth bombers can operate from reasonably far away.

    But the tactical and ground assault aircraft? I’d have to check the map but I don’t think they are doing it from Diego Garcia.

    Which leaves you with the option of operating from Iraq, Qatar, both problematic. Or some cooperative Arab entity across the straits of Hormuz.

    This is going to take some time to build up. I really don’t think the Iranians are going to twiddle their thumbs acquiring antiaircraft defense from the Russians while this is going on.

    Personally this looks like a lot tougher operating environment than Serbia was for air operations.

    And there is an elephant in the room. We’ve seen various accounts of stealth aircraft showing up on various radar systems for decades now. This isn’t some casual passing of internet BS, if you google you can find creditable accounts of this (I remember one was a British destroyer with a relatively antique radar system).

    Stealth has been around for a while. How much work do you think the Russians, Chinese, heck the Iranians and Americans have put into how to beat what the 1990′s had to say about how to avoid radar?

    And B-52′s… I can’t see these things surviving against an opponent with relatively modern antiaircraft missiles. They’ve had a long run, but against someone who can shoot back at all I think they are done.

    If anyone is really knowledgeable about modern aviation feel free to shoot my argument full of holes. Personally I’d think the US would have a better chance of achieving Air Superiority in the Ukraine than Iran, and I don’t like their odds there. At least they could operate from Germany and no doubt the Poles would cooperate (bless their little Russophobe hearts). Plus we could call the whole thing “Operation Winged Hussar” or something.

    One other thing. With modern MANPADS (stupid acronym they need a better one), and the way RPG rounds can be built to produce flak designed to enter and destroy turbines, helicopter operations are a heck of a lot dicier than during Vietnam for example.

    All you need are a lot of relatively cheap weapons to field, and a slightly suicidal guy to use them (I hear the Iranians have some, or did a couple decades ago). As the Marine Corp says “Hunting Tanks is Fun and Easy.”

    Just saying I can easily imagine an environment where helicopter operations are like assaulting hell.

    But again, this is an armchair, Cheeto munching, War Nerd reading, take on things. If someone who actually has any experience with this stuff knows better I don’t mind getting my chops busted.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    Comment #9 was intended as a reply to your comment, Sunbeam. Not sure why it came out as a general post to the thread.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Grandpa Charlie
    A discussion of the same basic problem - choosing the war that is the best of all possible wars at this juncture in history - has already been under way at Fred Reed's "Milk-bar Clausewitzes and bean curd Napoleons"

    http://www.unz.com/freed/milk-bar-clausewitzes-bean-curd-napoleons/

    I would note that there is at least one great advantage in choosing the war with the DPRK: if we lose, we would not bring down the whole world with us. If we win, we would have a tremendous opportunity to exit Asia for ever (militarily or imperially speaking). And we could leave with our heads held high.

    Of course, if we lose, we could also begin one or another ten-year project, either rearranging the USA to be a central force for peace and reform, or, less ambitiously, to undertake what the Saker proposes:

    "US should begin by deciding on a new national security strategy, then develop a military strategy in support of this national security strategy, followed by the development of a military doctrine which itself would then produce a force modernization plan which would affect all aspects of military reform from training to force planning to deployment."

    Get out of your mom’s basement Charlie and quit posting here. This isn’t a place for kids. N Korea is actually the most dangerous option because of how many troops we have on the land and sea. Easy for you to talk about low cost when you are not in danger yourself.

    A victory in N Korea would not mean a US exit in Asia stupid. It would mean more troops as we want to use N Korea as a base to attack Russia and China.

    Russia and China know this of course, so they will intervene in the war.

    So your quick and easy war is now WW3.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Wong
    Grandpa Charlie may be the wanmongers in the Washington beltway who is testing water about the theory that mini-nukes are said to be "harmless to the surrounding civilizn population," and pre-emptive nuclear war can be protrayed as a "humanitarian undertaking."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. @Grandpa Charlie
    A discussion of the same basic problem - choosing the war that is the best of all possible wars at this juncture in history - has already been under way at Fred Reed's "Milk-bar Clausewitzes and bean curd Napoleons"

    http://www.unz.com/freed/milk-bar-clausewitzes-bean-curd-napoleons/

    I would note that there is at least one great advantage in choosing the war with the DPRK: if we lose, we would not bring down the whole world with us. If we win, we would have a tremendous opportunity to exit Asia for ever (militarily or imperially speaking). And we could leave with our heads held high.

    Of course, if we lose, we could also begin one or another ten-year project, either rearranging the USA to be a central force for peace and reform, or, less ambitiously, to undertake what the Saker proposes:

    "US should begin by deciding on a new national security strategy, then develop a military strategy in support of this national security strategy, followed by the development of a military doctrine which itself would then produce a force modernization plan which would affect all aspects of military reform from training to force planning to deployment."

    There is no discussion going on here or in the Fred Reed article about which war to “choose”. What discussion there was consisted of just you, in 5 posts, giving your theories, all of which, including in this comment completely disregard the basic analysis of both Fred Reed’s and the Saker’s articles.

    The US is not in front of a screen looking at a list of shoes on Amazon from which they will choose to buy and wear to their sister’s wedding.

    And losing any war at this point would not just cause a trifling humiliation to the United States and then a quiet “rebuilding” of the armed forces, possibly in the way that the Saker suggests.

    A loss now, would make ultra clear to the entire world what many of us know already (and which was a strong component of both Reed’s and the Saker’s articles that you have not mentioned): that America is unable to do what it brags it can do.

    And if it is unable to do what it says it can do? Poof goes many things, grampa, many things.

    Be careful of what you wish for (suggest), you just might get it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. Randal says:

    Why are you so certain the US could achieve air superiority in Iran?

    Saker’s assumption there is pretty much conventional wisdom.

    Iran certainly has no air force that could contest the skies meaningfully, so the only way Iran could achieve any degree of air neutrality would be by denying the US and its allies bases (including carriers) close enough, and maintaining sufficient ground-based air defences in being, to prevent the US and allied air forces from operating effectively over Iran.

    Absent direct and very significant Russian support, there’s no reason to believe Iran could do either. Granted Iranian missile attacks on bases and threats to carriers can make life difficult for the US and its allies, but it seems unlikely they could do so sufficiently to prevent effective operations. Iran is not China and it has no plausible way to locate and target carriers sufficiently far away to preclude air-refuelled operations, and the US has bases throughout the ME, and additional basing in Israel would undoubtedly be made available, with refuelling over Saudi Arabia.

    Meanwhile, there’s no reason to suppose Iran’s ground-based air defences would be any more effective than Yugoslavia’s in the Kosovo war – able to survive to keep US pilots minimally honest only by being hidden and not used except in ideal situations or to make the occasional point that they are still around. While Iran is bigger and it has some more modern systems, it’s unlikely they will be more competently operated than Serbia’s were, and they will be equally vulnerable to US SEAD operations any time they are used. US air operations would also be far more aggressive from the start over Iran than they were over Serbia, and with far less restrictive targeting requirements.

    There are too may unknowns to make predictions with certainty, but the assumption that the US would quickly achieve air superiority over Iran, and probably a degree of air supremacy once SEAD has been applied for a while, is not unreasonable imo. It’s likely there would be some US losses involved, but that’s war.

    None of this should be mistaken for advocacy of a US attack on Iran, which would be disastrous for the US imo. Air superiority is only one small part of such a war, and far from the most important.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Simplyamazed
    It might be possible for the U.S. to establish air superiority over Iran for a period of time. Maintaining it would be a wholly different issue. You assume all things remain simple - an attack on Iran that resembles the attacks on Serbia or Libia. Imagine the consternation in Russia and China when the U.S. seems to be attacking a major ally on their respective doorsteps. Kind of like the reaction the U.S. would have if Iran attacked Canada or Mexico or took over the Dominican Republic and installed a military presence. Imagine the impact on air superiority of a major missile attack on a carrier group. War is not a simple, two dimensional game. It is complex and multifaceted. The costs would be horrendous. Not just military costs are involved: the damage to the world economy, world trade and to the post World War II system of international law would be beyond imagination.

    Is proving military power and dominance really about pride and holding your head high? Is unleashing huge destructive power on a predominately civilian population, like occurred in Vietnam or in Iraq, a way to prove U.S. moral superiority? Shock and Awe was a great promo for the Iraq war if. like so many, we forget that it was a bombing campaign aimed at civilians in a major city. The kind of thing Nazi were tried and hung for.
    , @Anonymous
    Agreed on US Air superiority, but I also think both China and Russia would have a big incentive to help out Iran with air defense.

    A big deployment like we saw in Desert Storm would give Iran enough time to smuggle in more S400's.

    Anything less than Desert Storm 2 Iran would be able to control the skies.
    , @TheJester
    The US is already militarily overextended. The US would quickly lose control in trying to play a game of global "whack-a-mole" against the world's asymmetric responses to its aggressions.

    For example, it makes no sense to respond to a US strength that one cannot counter. Like the Russians, the rest of the world would look for asymmetric responses to US aggression.

    If the US attacked Iran, the Iranians would almost certainly destroy the Saudi oil field and tanker complexes on the other side of the Gulf with tactical missiles ... as well as perhaps pre-planned local sabotage on the part of the Shiite majority in the Eastern Province to threaten the Saudis with a geopolitical implosion.

    If the US attacked the Russian bases in Syria to protect its flank, the Russians could destroy the same-said Saudi complexes with cruise missiles. Some commentators have related that the Russians made this threat when it launched cruise missile assaults on ISIS in Syria from the safety of their southern river systems. Their cruise missiles have the range ... just a slight change in targeting coordinates.

    The world without Saudi and Iranian oil at the same time would take it to the brink. The Europeans, Chinese, and Indians would likely politically press the US for a militarily stand down, which would be interpreted as an Iranian/Russian victory. If the US refused, I suspect the US would experience a further global explosion in asymmetric responses from the rest of the world, not to mention the political chaos likely to ensue in the United States.

    The US military against a global coalition of refuseniks ... the last gasp of a dying empire.
    , @Kiza
    You have no idea what you writing about, but you do look learned. Although you are not, lots of wrong info fed into you, the armchair general. Plus the immense self-confidence of a US ignoramus.

    You are not worthy a debate, so I am not to criticize your individual points of ignorance as others appear to be trying. It is all rubbish.

    , @utu
    Your comment will not be popular here. But what you describe seems to be the most realistic scenario. Sympathies and wishful thinking have to be put aside when thinking about war outcomes. It is not about what is just or not or who deserves to win or not in the real world. The overwhelming force wins every times. The US has overwhelming military advantage over Iran. End of discussion.
    , @Avery
    Agree with [Randal] and disagree with [Kiza].

    Despite what people here - including myself - feel about the criminal warmongering US/Neocons, we have to look at things with a cold, calculating heart.
    At present US has no peers when it comes to offensive air campaign. None.

    Whatever S-300s IRI has will not be enough to stop USAF. Yes, many US bombers will be lost to the capable S-300, but there is a limited number of S-300 missiles in IRI possession. Eventually Iran will run out of defensive anti-air missiles. Also, many anti-air installations will be defeated by swarms of anti-anti-air missile missiles. USAF has practically unlimited assets. At some point, assuming RF does not get directly involved, USAF will be flying all over Iran at will.

    The next question is to what end?

    There will be a lot of devastation after the USAF carpet bombing, but Iran will never capitulate and US boots cannot possibly occupy Iran.
    Iran will absorb the blows, and immediately embark on developing nukes.
    Then everybody and his brother (e.g. KSA) will try to obtain nukes (from Paks, for example).

    Iran also has tremendous asymmetric advantages: its neighborhood, particularly Iraq, is target-rich; the target being American troops. As soon as USAF starts bombing Iran, all restrains will come off of Iran's military: all US bases and troops in Iran's vicinity will be legitimate targets. Including Gulf states' oil infrastructure. US, and possibly the whole West, might very well plunge into a deep economic depression, with devastating consequences. Stock market crash, massive unemployment, spike in food prices,.....all very, very bad.


    My guess is despite Trump public rhetoric, and the foaming-at-the-mouth Nimrata Haley, there are at least some cooler heads in the Pentagon that will stop the self-defeating insanity.

    Nothing in it for America or the American people/taxpayer.

    , @DannyMarcus
    The question here is; what goal the American air superiority over Iran is to serve? Is it at all likely that the Islamic regime will collapse under the pressure of air assaults? Certainly not.
    There is no point in discussing US air dominance over Iran without knowing what Americans want to achieve with it. Saker has pointed out the US military targeting Iran will not have the benefit of boots on the ground. Without boots on the ground in Iran, American assets in the region would be at the mercy of Iran's escalation on land. US air superiority over Iran cannot answer Iranian escalations taking place on the ground all over the region. In conventional warfare Iran will possess the lever of military escalation. America's choice in that case would be 1) cut losses, cease hostilities and admit defeat, or 2) resort to nuclear option.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. @Randal

    Why are you so certain the US could achieve air superiority in Iran?
     
    Saker's assumption there is pretty much conventional wisdom.

    Iran certainly has no air force that could contest the skies meaningfully, so the only way Iran could achieve any degree of air neutrality would be by denying the US and its allies bases (including carriers) close enough, and maintaining sufficient ground-based air defences in being, to prevent the US and allied air forces from operating effectively over Iran.

    Absent direct and very significant Russian support, there's no reason to believe Iran could do either. Granted Iranian missile attacks on bases and threats to carriers can make life difficult for the US and its allies, but it seems unlikely they could do so sufficiently to prevent effective operations. Iran is not China and it has no plausible way to locate and target carriers sufficiently far away to preclude air-refuelled operations, and the US has bases throughout the ME, and additional basing in Israel would undoubtedly be made available, with refuelling over Saudi Arabia.

    Meanwhile, there's no reason to suppose Iran's ground-based air defences would be any more effective than Yugoslavia's in the Kosovo war - able to survive to keep US pilots minimally honest only by being hidden and not used except in ideal situations or to make the occasional point that they are still around. While Iran is bigger and it has some more modern systems, it's unlikely they will be more competently operated than Serbia's were, and they will be equally vulnerable to US SEAD operations any time they are used. US air operations would also be far more aggressive from the start over Iran than they were over Serbia, and with far less restrictive targeting requirements.

    There are too may unknowns to make predictions with certainty, but the assumption that the US would quickly achieve air superiority over Iran, and probably a degree of air supremacy once SEAD has been applied for a while, is not unreasonable imo. It's likely there would be some US losses involved, but that's war.

    None of this should be mistaken for advocacy of a US attack on Iran, which would be disastrous for the US imo. Air superiority is only one small part of such a war, and far from the most important.

    It might be possible for the U.S. to establish air superiority over Iran for a period of time. Maintaining it would be a wholly different issue. You assume all things remain simple – an attack on Iran that resembles the attacks on Serbia or Libia. Imagine the consternation in Russia and China when the U.S. seems to be attacking a major ally on their respective doorsteps. Kind of like the reaction the U.S. would have if Iran attacked Canada or Mexico or took over the Dominican Republic and installed a military presence. Imagine the impact on air superiority of a major missile attack on a carrier group. War is not a simple, two dimensional game. It is complex and multifaceted. The costs would be horrendous. Not just military costs are involved: the damage to the world economy, world trade and to the post World War II system of international law would be beyond imagination.

    Is proving military power and dominance really about pride and holding your head high? Is unleashing huge destructive power on a predominately civilian population, like occurred in Vietnam or in Iraq, a way to prove U.S. moral superiority? Shock and Awe was a great promo for the Iraq war if. like so many, we forget that it was a bombing campaign aimed at civilians in a major city. The kind of thing Nazi were tried and hung for.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    You assume all things remain simple
     
    I certainly don't, which is one reason why my view is that an attack on Iran by the US regime would be even more stupid, and likely even more costly overall (I don't mean just in terms of military losses), than was the attack on Iraq.

    For the purposes of this particular question, though (would the US likely achieve air superiority over Iran), clearly it presumes reasonable predictability in the events setting the scene.

    Would China or Russia openly intervene in support of Iran, or intervene "covertly" on a sufficiently large scale to make a difference? Difficult to predict. On the one hand, obviously there are costs to them of watching yet another independent force getting destroyed by the US regime. On the other hand, the risks and costs of publicly backing Iran (even "covert" backing would be well known, if it were done on a sufficient scale to make a difference, which is why I put the term in quotes). Much might depend on the pretext used for the attack.


    The costs would be horrendous. Not just military costs are involved: the damage to the world economy, world trade and to the post World War II system of international law would be beyond imagination.
     
    I agree entirely (except for the "beyond imagination" bit). About the only good argument for it is the one that says those costs might be worth paying if they resulted in the final political destruction of the interventionist elites in the US sphere. (And of course such an argument is easy to make when its not your own relatives, allies and nationals getting blown apart. "A price worth paying" is always an easy judgement when someone else is picking up the tab.)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. bjondo says:

    Neocons are not in control.
    They have loud mouths and lies.
    soon they will have Guantanamo to call home.

    The Neocons are insane, lunatic, depraved, if considered from the “what is good for America” perspective.

    The neocons are rational, aggressive, and still depraved, if considered from ‘what is good for Israel’ perspective.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Why do you refuse to call the "neocons" what they are?

    Immoral Zionist Jews and their paid shills is what they are.

    The True Cost of Parasite Israel
    Forced US taxpayers money to Israel goes far beyond the official numbers.
    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-true-cost-of-israel/

    Israel's Dirty Little Secret
    How it drives US policies exploiting a spineless Congress and White House
    http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/israels-dirty-little-secret/

    How to Bring Down the Elephant in the Room
    http://www.unz.com/tsaker/how-to-bring-down-the-elephant-in-the-room/

    Israeli occupied territories
    https://codoh.com/media/files/cartoon24s.png

    'Join the US army, Fight for Israel
    http://68.media.tumblr.com/639563970a638b606f4adb0ef05c778b/tumblr_inline_o7t4eewwJn1r75mb5_500.jpg
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. Randal says:
    @Simplyamazed
    It might be possible for the U.S. to establish air superiority over Iran for a period of time. Maintaining it would be a wholly different issue. You assume all things remain simple - an attack on Iran that resembles the attacks on Serbia or Libia. Imagine the consternation in Russia and China when the U.S. seems to be attacking a major ally on their respective doorsteps. Kind of like the reaction the U.S. would have if Iran attacked Canada or Mexico or took over the Dominican Republic and installed a military presence. Imagine the impact on air superiority of a major missile attack on a carrier group. War is not a simple, two dimensional game. It is complex and multifaceted. The costs would be horrendous. Not just military costs are involved: the damage to the world economy, world trade and to the post World War II system of international law would be beyond imagination.

    Is proving military power and dominance really about pride and holding your head high? Is unleashing huge destructive power on a predominately civilian population, like occurred in Vietnam or in Iraq, a way to prove U.S. moral superiority? Shock and Awe was a great promo for the Iraq war if. like so many, we forget that it was a bombing campaign aimed at civilians in a major city. The kind of thing Nazi were tried and hung for.

    You assume all things remain simple

    I certainly don’t, which is one reason why my view is that an attack on Iran by the US regime would be even more stupid, and likely even more costly overall (I don’t mean just in terms of military losses), than was the attack on Iraq.

    For the purposes of this particular question, though (would the US likely achieve air superiority over Iran), clearly it presumes reasonable predictability in the events setting the scene.

    Would China or Russia openly intervene in support of Iran, or intervene “covertly” on a sufficiently large scale to make a difference? Difficult to predict. On the one hand, obviously there are costs to them of watching yet another independent force getting destroyed by the US regime. On the other hand, the risks and costs of publicly backing Iran (even “covert” backing would be well known, if it were done on a sufficient scale to make a difference, which is why I put the term in quotes). Much might depend on the pretext used for the attack.

    The costs would be horrendous. Not just military costs are involved: the damage to the world economy, world trade and to the post World War II system of international law would be beyond imagination.

    I agree entirely (except for the “beyond imagination” bit). About the only good argument for it is the one that says those costs might be worth paying if they resulted in the final political destruction of the interventionist elites in the US sphere. (And of course such an argument is easy to make when its not your own relatives, allies and nationals getting blown apart. “A price worth paying” is always an easy judgement when someone else is picking up the tab.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. Randal says:
    @Sunbeam
    Why are you so certain the US could achieve air superiority in Iran?

    Carrier aviation is essentially useless, at least for a target like this (it would work just fine against Somalis but whatever). Additionally the carriers would have to operate so far from Iran's shores that I imagine carrier aircraft have a very limited area of targets (coastal though that has to be important) and limited time in the air to accomplish it.

    Air Force planes... even with refueling they don't have infinite range. Sure the B-52's (whatever we have left) and the Stealth bombers can operate from reasonably far away.

    But the tactical and ground assault aircraft? I'd have to check the map but I don't think they are doing it from Diego Garcia.

    Which leaves you with the option of operating from Iraq, Qatar, both problematic. Or some cooperative Arab entity across the straits of Hormuz.

    This is going to take some time to build up. I really don't think the Iranians are going to twiddle their thumbs acquiring antiaircraft defense from the Russians while this is going on.

    Personally this looks like a lot tougher operating environment than Serbia was for air operations.

    And there is an elephant in the room. We've seen various accounts of stealth aircraft showing up on various radar systems for decades now. This isn't some casual passing of internet BS, if you google you can find creditable accounts of this (I remember one was a British destroyer with a relatively antique radar system).

    Stealth has been around for a while. How much work do you think the Russians, Chinese, heck the Iranians and Americans have put into how to beat what the 1990's had to say about how to avoid radar?

    And B-52's... I can't see these things surviving against an opponent with relatively modern antiaircraft missiles. They've had a long run, but against someone who can shoot back at all I think they are done.

    If anyone is really knowledgeable about modern aviation feel free to shoot my argument full of holes. Personally I'd think the US would have a better chance of achieving Air Superiority in the Ukraine than Iran, and I don't like their odds there. At least they could operate from Germany and no doubt the Poles would cooperate (bless their little Russophobe hearts). Plus we could call the whole thing "Operation Winged Hussar" or something.

    One other thing. With modern MANPADS (stupid acronym they need a better one), and the way RPG rounds can be built to produce flak designed to enter and destroy turbines, helicopter operations are a heck of a lot dicier than during Vietnam for example.

    All you need are a lot of relatively cheap weapons to field, and a slightly suicidal guy to use them (I hear the Iranians have some, or did a couple decades ago). As the Marine Corp says "Hunting Tanks is Fun and Easy."

    Just saying I can easily imagine an environment where helicopter operations are like assaulting hell.

    But again, this is an armchair, Cheeto munching, War Nerd reading, take on things. If someone who actually has any experience with this stuff knows better I don't mind getting my chops busted.

    Comment #9 was intended as a reply to your comment, Sunbeam. Not sure why it came out as a general post to the thread.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. @Randal

    Prevailing against Iran or the DPRK is clearly beyond the actual US military capabilities.
     
    Only in the same sense as a rational analysis presented to the US President in 1940 would have said "prevailing against Japan is beyond US military capabilities", given the assumption (implicit here in the mention of Iran and DPRK) that what is meant by "prevailing" is imposing unconditional surrender and occupation, because the target country will not make peace in response to mere military defeats or economic blockades. The political will is not there to use the kind of methods (WW2 wholesale slaughter bombing of enemy cities) and bear the kinds of costs (full mobilisation of the economy and populace for war, for years) that would be required, as it was not there in respect of Japan in 1940.

    The distinction is vital, because unlike conventional military balances which change only very slowly, over decades, the political will can change overnight. A Pearl Harbor or 9/11 situation (real or manufactured) convincingly attributed to Iran or to DPRK would suddenly render both Iran and DPRK open to US military occupation, albeit at appalling costs to both sides (but mostly to the target side and its neighbours, as usual with the US's remote wars).

    Does the US regime retain the credibility to apply such a pretext to justifying another war of wholesale aggression, after all the lies of recent years? Perhaps, perhaps not. I wouldn't bet against the patriotic gullibility of a population that has suffered a humiliating and murderous attack. Humanity seems almost infinitely manipulable in those terms.

    This is not really a disagreement with Saker's analysis, which implicitly assumes no such dramatic events that change the strategic context fundamentally, but rather a caution against relying too heavily on predictions based upon such analysis.

    Randal says that a Pearl Harbor event “would suddenly render both Iran and DPRK open to US military occupation.” I don’t know if that is true or not, and I don’t know if the statement is really meaningful. Myself, I do not believe that the USA has any casus belli to go to war with Iran, so I don’t discuss that. As for the DPRK, I believe the USA has, over the years, tried peaceful negotiations to end the war but all those attempts have been frustrated by the despotic leaders of the DPRK ( the Kim dynasty). In any event, I would never advocate USA military occupation of any part of Korea. I advocate for the peaceful occupation of the North of Korea by the military of the ROK, but only until such time as all-Korea elections could be held, in order to incorporate the North of Korea into the ROK.

    In my opinion, the case of Korea is similar to the case of Germany and the government of the DPRK is no more legitimate or viable (without subjecting it to cruel and despotic methods led by the Kim dynasty) than was the old government of East Germany before reunification. So, no military occupation by the USA, and only a temporary and benign occupation by the army of the ROK – which is anyway the legitimate government all of Korea.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Levantine
    "So, no military occupation by the USA, and only a temporary and benign occupation by the army of the ROK – which is anyway the legitimate government all of Korea."
    It is not for anyone to fantasize about the legitimacy of any government as it is the people only who have the right to declare a government legitimate or not. And let us not bring the argument that the North Korean government does not have recourse to Western representative democracy as a reason to justify its illegitimacy for the cloak of democracy in the West is a perfect excuse to oligarchic rule.
    As The Saker argues, trying to beat an enemy who is not intimidated by superior forces is an exercise in futility.
    , @Joe Wong
    North Korean views South Korean just like the North Vietnamese viewed South Vietnamese, they are the lackeys of the western colonial imperialists, they are traitors, they disgrace the Korean and Vietnamese, and they make the Korean and Vietnamese cannot stand up to be an independent and proud nation that can hold their heads up high and be respected.

    North Vietnamese paid very high price to achieve their united, indpendent and proud nation dream, and North Korean wants to achieve the same. Who is East Germany? Is it someone like the Japanese who views licking American behind as their honour and duty like the Indian?
    , @annamaria
    Would you recommend an occupation of Palestine by the benevolent US military forces? Or, perhaps, an occupation of Israel by some benevolent and benign power would be much more rational and beneficial for the planet?
    Currently, the US is stomping on its European vassals in order to improve a base line for the US energy companies. Take note that the US wants to continue a cooperation with Russians when it is profitable for the US -- for example, the International Space Programme (where is the moral indignation of Ms. Lindsey Graham..?.): "After the US Space Shuttle programme ended in 2011, Soyuz rockets became the only provider of transport for astronauts at the International Space Station..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station
    Meanwhile, for the people of the world, the US is the greatest threat to peace: https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/08/07/polls-us-greatest-threat-to-peace-world-today.html
    We really, really need "the final political destruction of the interventionist elites in the US sphere" (post 12 by Randal), the sooner the better.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. Randal says:

    Randal says that a Pearl Harbor event “would suddenly render both Iran and DPRK open to US military occupation.”

    That was in direct response to Saker’s assertion that “prevailing against Iran and DPRK is beyond US military capabilities”, with the implicit assumption that what is meant by “prevailing” is imposing unconditional surrender and occupation, because the target country will not make peace in response to mere military defeats or economic blockades.

    Myself, I do not believe that the USA has any casus belli to go to war with Iran, so I don’t discuss that.

    Rather quaint of you. The US regime didn’t have any legitimate casus belli against Yugoslavia either. They just made one up wholesale.

    To judge from the rest of your childish comment, you represent exactly the target audience that swallowed that fabricated casus belli wholesale, with your naïve and profoundly ignorant ideas of the US having supposedly done everything possible to make peace, democratist ideologues like yourself being the only rightful judges of governmental legitimacy, and the target country’s population being secretly desperate to welcome US (or US proxy) occupiers with open arms.

    It’s exactly the kind of ignorant juvenilia that brought us claims that the invasion of Iraq would be a “cakewalk” and that US and its proxy soldiers would be welcomed with flowers. It should be treated appropriately.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Grandpa Charlie
    By way of calling my comment "childish," you assign me to some "target audience" ("you represent") and then find me guilty by association with whatever you assign to that "target audience". And somehow I am supposed to have been an advocate of the Yugoslav War (?). Is that the best you can do?

    Well. it would to be several steps up for you to represent the audience of the "Weird Al Show", but it would probably all go over your head. BTW: what dictionary gave you your definition of "prevail"?

    'what is meant by “prevailing” is imposing unconditional surrender and occupation"

    Once again, just for the record, I have never here advocated for USA occupation of any country, anywhere, any time, any circumstances Although I did once serve in US Army of Occupation, after WW II, but that was in a previous lifetime and in a world that no longer exists.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. @Randal

    Randal says that a Pearl Harbor event “would suddenly render both Iran and DPRK open to US military occupation.”
     
    That was in direct response to Saker's assertion that “prevailing against Iran and DPRK is beyond US military capabilities”, with the implicit assumption that what is meant by “prevailing” is imposing unconditional surrender and occupation, because the target country will not make peace in response to mere military defeats or economic blockades.

    Myself, I do not believe that the USA has any casus belli to go to war with Iran, so I don’t discuss that.
     
    Rather quaint of you. The US regime didn't have any legitimate casus belli against Yugoslavia either. They just made one up wholesale.

    To judge from the rest of your childish comment, you represent exactly the target audience that swallowed that fabricated casus belli wholesale, with your naïve and profoundly ignorant ideas of the US having supposedly done everything possible to make peace, democratist ideologues like yourself being the only rightful judges of governmental legitimacy, and the target country's population being secretly desperate to welcome US (or US proxy) occupiers with open arms.

    It's exactly the kind of ignorant juvenilia that brought us claims that the invasion of Iraq would be a "cakewalk" and that US and its proxy soldiers would be welcomed with flowers. It should be treated appropriately.

    By way of calling my comment “childish,” you assign me to some “target audience” (“you represent”) and then find me guilty by association with whatever you assign to that “target audience”. And somehow I am supposed to have been an advocate of the Yugoslav War (?). Is that the best you can do?

    Well. it would to be several steps up for you to represent the audience of the “Weird Al Show”, but it would probably all go over your head. BTW: what dictionary gave you your definition of “prevail”?

    ‘what is meant by “prevailing” is imposing unconditional surrender and occupation”

    Once again, just for the record, I have never here advocated for USA occupation of any country, anywhere, any time, any circumstances Although I did once serve in US Army of Occupation, after WW II, but that was in a previous lifetime and in a world that no longer exists.

    Read More
    • Replies: @restless94110
    Finding it mildly interesting that you have nothing to say when your representations are challenged by me.

    It's childish.

    If you were in WWII then you are at least 90.

    Did you forget why we fought WWII? What war since then has been justified as that war was?

    There have been none, Grampa. And there are none now.

    We have no justification for engaging in wars, delcared or undeclared.

    You fought in the last war that had any justification.
    , @Randal

    By way of calling my comment “childish,” you assign me to some “target audience” (“you represent”) and then find me guilty by association with whatever you assign to that “target audience”.
     
    Approximately so, yes.

    And somehow I am supposed to have been an advocate of the Yugoslav War (?).
     
    I didn't write that, merely that you (to judge from your previous comment, which is the only evidence to hand) are evidently the kind of person who would have been expected to swallow the "R2P" and other nonsense that was used to justify that war.

    BTW: what dictionary gave you your definition of “prevail”?

     

    I used the term as it was used in the comment to which I was replying, as I explained.

    calling my comment “childish,”
     
    Asserting that the US has tried peaceful means to end the war in Korea but been frustrated by the evil NK government is the very definition of childishness, as is the idea that the "peaceful occupation of the north by the ROK government" is a plausible and desirable policy, and the attitude that says you (and by extension, in practice, the US regime) have the right to declare foreign governments legitimate or illegitimate by judging their form of government.

    If you don't want to be thought a child, don't make such childishly naïve assertions about the world.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Randal

    Why are you so certain the US could achieve air superiority in Iran?
     
    Saker's assumption there is pretty much conventional wisdom.

    Iran certainly has no air force that could contest the skies meaningfully, so the only way Iran could achieve any degree of air neutrality would be by denying the US and its allies bases (including carriers) close enough, and maintaining sufficient ground-based air defences in being, to prevent the US and allied air forces from operating effectively over Iran.

    Absent direct and very significant Russian support, there's no reason to believe Iran could do either. Granted Iranian missile attacks on bases and threats to carriers can make life difficult for the US and its allies, but it seems unlikely they could do so sufficiently to prevent effective operations. Iran is not China and it has no plausible way to locate and target carriers sufficiently far away to preclude air-refuelled operations, and the US has bases throughout the ME, and additional basing in Israel would undoubtedly be made available, with refuelling over Saudi Arabia.

    Meanwhile, there's no reason to suppose Iran's ground-based air defences would be any more effective than Yugoslavia's in the Kosovo war - able to survive to keep US pilots minimally honest only by being hidden and not used except in ideal situations or to make the occasional point that they are still around. While Iran is bigger and it has some more modern systems, it's unlikely they will be more competently operated than Serbia's were, and they will be equally vulnerable to US SEAD operations any time they are used. US air operations would also be far more aggressive from the start over Iran than they were over Serbia, and with far less restrictive targeting requirements.

    There are too may unknowns to make predictions with certainty, but the assumption that the US would quickly achieve air superiority over Iran, and probably a degree of air supremacy once SEAD has been applied for a while, is not unreasonable imo. It's likely there would be some US losses involved, but that's war.

    None of this should be mistaken for advocacy of a US attack on Iran, which would be disastrous for the US imo. Air superiority is only one small part of such a war, and far from the most important.

    Agreed on US Air superiority, but I also think both China and Russia would have a big incentive to help out Iran with air defense.

    A big deployment like we saw in Desert Storm would give Iran enough time to smuggle in more S400′s.

    Anything less than Desert Storm 2 Iran would be able to control the skies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    I also think both China and Russia would have a big incentive to help out Iran with air defense
     
    Indeed. But would it be enough of an incentive to make them act strongly enough to make a difference? And it would really have to be Russia to make a military difference, though China could help out diplomatically and perhaps economically for the longer term. A lot might depend on relations between the US and Russia at the time of the attack, as well as between Russia and Israel, in particular, and other likely parties to an attack such as the Gulf states, but Russia/Iran relations have never been particularly warm even if they have cooperated very effectively in Syria.

    A big deployment like we saw in Desert Storm would give Iran enough time to smuggle in more S400′s.
     
    I don't think just bringing S400 systems into the country is going to make any difference on its own. These are sophisticated and complicated systems. You need the crews to operate them, which means Russians in practice unless you have years to train and drill Iranian crews, and you need to integrate them effectively into an air defence system. Without that, they're just going to get blown up by SEAD without having any real effect.

    Anything less than Desert Storm 2 Iran would be able to control the skies.
     
    Iran can't "control the skies", because it doesn't have any noticeable air force. At most it might be able to impose a degree of air neutrality over Iran itself, if its air defences work a lot better than expected and if they stand up to the massive EAD effort that will be directed at it in the first hours and days of any attack. It would certainly need to be a much faster and harder effort than the Kosovo campaign, in air terms, and I have no doubt it would have much less restrictive targeting rules applied.

    There's not a lot Iran can do to prepare that it presumably hasn't already been doing, unless the crisis triggers much more open support from Russia.
    , @Astuteobservor II
    I am 100% sure china or russia will step in for iran's defense in case of usa attack. who will be on friendly terms with these 2 countries if they offers no protection?

    the only reason there was a nuclear deal with iran was because russia + china were about to ignore the us sanctions. that was a usa move to keep up the facade of dominance.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Sunbeam says:

    “Agreed on US Air superiority, but I also think both China and Russia would have a big incentive to help out Iran with air defense.

    A big deployment like we saw in Desert Storm would give Iran enough time to smuggle in more S400′s.

    Anything less than Desert Storm 2 Iran would be able to control the skies.”

    How many years has something like this been talked about? How many times has it been done to to different countries around the world?

    Iran has done nothing to get ready for something like this? Maybe.

    But I imagine both them and North Korea have been working on surprises, studying what has occurred elsewhere, and buying what they can … for years.

    I also think that the geography of this place hasn’t been discussed as much as it should. It is a relative long way from anyplace the US might base. If EVERY mission over Iran required refueling (except for long range bombers), that is a heck of a lot of operations to execute… for what exactly?

    Can the US really make it safe to fly tons of missions by something with enough payload to pack a punch like a B-52?

    Is anyone that confident that there isn’t a nasty surprise waiting for stealth aircraft? We aren’t the only nation in the world with some sharp people. And this has been of interest to lots of people for a long time.

    Hopefully we never see something like this happen. But the US reliance on Air Power (for understandable reasons given it’s unwillingness to commit ground troops to situations where they might suffer significant casualties) seems like a debacle waiting to happen with the right opponent.

    Personally I’d say Iran is more likely to get foreign help if they already aren’t capable of making themselves a poison pill for air raids. North Korea seems to give the whole world the creeps. I think everyone would be happy to see that regime go. Just not by unilaterally handing it over to the US. If

    And actually just thinking things through… who the heck would want to occupy and run North Korea even if they managed to cakewalk their military somehow?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  19. @Grandpa Charlie
    By way of calling my comment "childish," you assign me to some "target audience" ("you represent") and then find me guilty by association with whatever you assign to that "target audience". And somehow I am supposed to have been an advocate of the Yugoslav War (?). Is that the best you can do?

    Well. it would to be several steps up for you to represent the audience of the "Weird Al Show", but it would probably all go over your head. BTW: what dictionary gave you your definition of "prevail"?

    'what is meant by “prevailing” is imposing unconditional surrender and occupation"

    Once again, just for the record, I have never here advocated for USA occupation of any country, anywhere, any time, any circumstances Although I did once serve in US Army of Occupation, after WW II, but that was in a previous lifetime and in a world that no longer exists.

    Finding it mildly interesting that you have nothing to say when your representations are challenged by me.

    It’s childish.

    If you were in WWII then you are at least 90.

    Did you forget why we fought WWII? What war since then has been justified as that war was?

    There have been none, Grampa. And there are none now.

    We have no justification for engaging in wars, delcared or undeclared.

    You fought in the last war that had any justification.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Grandpa Charlie
    The Korean war was (and is) a continuation of WW II. It has yet to end. In that regard, I'm just saying that I have never here advocated for USA occupation of any country, anywhere, any time, any circumstances - and certainly not Korea. I would like to see peaceful reunification of Korea, but what I see Kim Jong-Un doing is preventing that and trying to lock the whole thing up in a nuclear holocaust.

    However, just today, China has stepped in to nix the whole nuclear thing. According to Reuters (dateline Beijing, 24 June 2017):

    QUOTE
    BEIJING (Reuters) - China and the United States agreed that efforts to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula should be "complete, verifiable and irreversible", Chinese state media said on Saturday, reporting the results of high level talks in Washington this week.

    "Both sides reaffirm that they will strive for the complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula," a consensus document released by the official Xinhua news agency said. UNQUOTE
    , @Anonymous
    Grandpa Charlie is probably a teenager living in his mom's basement.

    You're wasting your time engaging with him.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. It seems our next war is Yemen. We provided air refueling and merc American pilots to the Saudis for their terror bombing from the air. But now we have lots of American boots on the ground fighting “terrorists” of course.

    http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/08/04/us-troops-ground-yemen-aqap-terror-group.html

    That group is better known as the former army of Yemen, who refused to support the Saudi puppet after he was voted out of office and refused to relinquish power.

    Saker is correct that the US military only has plans to fight poor “rebels” aka patriots armed only with pre-World War I weaponry. Look at the mighty US Marine Corps’ silly new operational concept. Use rubber boats and huge vulnerable helicopters and tiltrotors to land troops, which is only possible if an enemy lacks basic AAA and SAMs.

    https://www.dvidshub.net/video/541676/marine-corps-operating-concept-moc

    This video describes how the Marine Corps will continue to transition from a serious warfighting organization to a worldwide police force. All this assumes that Marines will only encounter poorly armed nationalists who oppose imperialism and have no advance weaponry; meaning advanced beyond World War I.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  21. @restless94110
    Finding it mildly interesting that you have nothing to say when your representations are challenged by me.

    It's childish.

    If you were in WWII then you are at least 90.

    Did you forget why we fought WWII? What war since then has been justified as that war was?

    There have been none, Grampa. And there are none now.

    We have no justification for engaging in wars, delcared or undeclared.

    You fought in the last war that had any justification.

    The Korean war was (and is) a continuation of WW II. It has yet to end. In that regard, I’m just saying that I have never here advocated for USA occupation of any country, anywhere, any time, any circumstances – and certainly not Korea. I would like to see peaceful reunification of Korea, but what I see Kim Jong-Un doing is preventing that and trying to lock the whole thing up in a nuclear holocaust.

    However, just today, China has stepped in to nix the whole nuclear thing. According to Reuters (dateline Beijing, 24 June 2017):

    QUOTE
    BEIJING (Reuters) – China and the United States agreed that efforts to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula should be “complete, verifiable and irreversible”, Chinese state media said on Saturday, reporting the results of high level talks in Washington this week.

    “Both sides reaffirm that they will strive for the complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula,” a consensus document released by the official Xinhua news agency said. UNQUOTE

    Read More
    • Replies: @Grandpa Charlie
    Oooops! Senior moment. Actually, the good news from meeting of USA and China was two months ago today!

    Instead, we have a report today about China, Japan and South Korea, meeting in Tokyo, agreed today to "urge North Korea to refrain from provocation and follow U.N. Security Council Resolutions."

    QUOTE
    TOKYO (Reuters) - Japan, China and South Korea agreed to urge North Korea to refrain from provocation and follow U.N. Security Council resolutions, after its latest missile launch towards Japan early on Wednesday.

    Foreign ministers from the three Asian neighbours also sought to soothe their often-testy relations, and have reached an understanding on a trilateral summit meeting in Japan this year, a Japanese official said.

    "We have confirmed that we will urge North Korea to exercise self-restraint regarding its provocative action, and to observe the U.N. Security Council's resolutions," Japanese Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida told a news conference after hosting the meeting with his Chinese and South Korean counterparts UNQUOTE

    So, it's samo samo. What did they call it at the beginning of WW II in Europe? Oh yeah, "the phoney war".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. @Grandpa Charlie
    The Korean war was (and is) a continuation of WW II. It has yet to end. In that regard, I'm just saying that I have never here advocated for USA occupation of any country, anywhere, any time, any circumstances - and certainly not Korea. I would like to see peaceful reunification of Korea, but what I see Kim Jong-Un doing is preventing that and trying to lock the whole thing up in a nuclear holocaust.

    However, just today, China has stepped in to nix the whole nuclear thing. According to Reuters (dateline Beijing, 24 June 2017):

    QUOTE
    BEIJING (Reuters) - China and the United States agreed that efforts to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula should be "complete, verifiable and irreversible", Chinese state media said on Saturday, reporting the results of high level talks in Washington this week.

    "Both sides reaffirm that they will strive for the complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula," a consensus document released by the official Xinhua news agency said. UNQUOTE

    Oooops! Senior moment. Actually, the good news from meeting of USA and China was two months ago today!

    Instead, we have a report today about China, Japan and South Korea, meeting in Tokyo, agreed today to “urge North Korea to refrain from provocation and follow U.N. Security Council Resolutions.”

    QUOTE
    TOKYO (Reuters) – Japan, China and South Korea agreed to urge North Korea to refrain from provocation and follow U.N. Security Council resolutions, after its latest missile launch towards Japan early on Wednesday.

    Foreign ministers from the three Asian neighbours also sought to soothe their often-testy relations, and have reached an understanding on a trilateral summit meeting in Japan this year, a Japanese official said.

    “We have confirmed that we will urge North Korea to exercise self-restraint regarding its provocative action, and to observe the U.N. Security Council’s resolutions,” Japanese Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida told a news conference after hosting the meeting with his Chinese and South Korean counterparts UNQUOTE

    So, it’s samo samo. What did they call it at the beginning of WW II in Europe? Oh yeah, “the phoney war”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @restless94110
    I have no idea what a samo samo is.

    But I do not agree with you that the Korean war was a continuation of World War II. That war ended in 1945.

    What happened then, is that certain state actors in the US and UK immediately began propagating what became the Cold War. Now that the Nazis and the Japs had been defeated, the spectre of the Commies had to be fought against.

    And that is the essence of the Korean War, then and still today.

    I just had the chance to watch Medea Benjiamin explain in graphic detail that the United States has 83 military bases surrounding North Korea and they have frequent war games all around North Korea that include the simulation of a nulcear attack on North Korea. This is true, but not reported in the United States.

    Now, I don't care if Kim Jong-Un is the worst dictator in recorded history (he isn't, by a long, long, long shot). If I'm Kim Jong and the United States is behaving as such (83 military bases, war games), and they have a history of doing regime change all over the world, from the end of WWII to last week?

    I'm gonna hold on to whatever I got, Grampa.

    Your quotes of the news articles and the statements by the leaders of the nations around North Korea sound like diplomatic-speak to me: they are really saying little, just generally agreeing with the very belligerent, strident, demanding United States.

    This is not a smart move by the United States. Attacking North Korea would be a catastrophe!!

    Not for North Korea (though it might be for them, too). For the United States!

    The Saker sees that. Fred Reed sees that. I see that. Grampa, why are you grasping at straws, printing some diplo-speak nonsense from a Chinese or Japanese "leader?" These leaders are looking at the US with fear and trepedation.

    And the reason is: you. People like you. Who think it's A-OK to bomb another country unilaterally over some puffed up made up bullshit.

    Just like the Nuremburg Trials--under the auspices of the United States--tried, convicted, and hanged the leaders of another nation who did exactly the same thing as the United States is doing now.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. Randal says:
    @Grandpa Charlie
    By way of calling my comment "childish," you assign me to some "target audience" ("you represent") and then find me guilty by association with whatever you assign to that "target audience". And somehow I am supposed to have been an advocate of the Yugoslav War (?). Is that the best you can do?

    Well. it would to be several steps up for you to represent the audience of the "Weird Al Show", but it would probably all go over your head. BTW: what dictionary gave you your definition of "prevail"?

    'what is meant by “prevailing” is imposing unconditional surrender and occupation"

    Once again, just for the record, I have never here advocated for USA occupation of any country, anywhere, any time, any circumstances Although I did once serve in US Army of Occupation, after WW II, but that was in a previous lifetime and in a world that no longer exists.

    By way of calling my comment “childish,” you assign me to some “target audience” (“you represent”) and then find me guilty by association with whatever you assign to that “target audience”.

    Approximately so, yes.

    And somehow I am supposed to have been an advocate of the Yugoslav War (?).

    I didn’t write that, merely that you (to judge from your previous comment, which is the only evidence to hand) are evidently the kind of person who would have been expected to swallow the “R2P” and other nonsense that was used to justify that war.

    BTW: what dictionary gave you your definition of “prevail”?

    I used the term as it was used in the comment to which I was replying, as I explained.

    calling my comment “childish,”

    Asserting that the US has tried peaceful means to end the war in Korea but been frustrated by the evil NK government is the very definition of childishness, as is the idea that the “peaceful occupation of the north by the ROK government” is a plausible and desirable policy, and the attitude that says you (and by extension, in practice, the US regime) have the right to declare foreign governments legitimate or illegitimate by judging their form of government.

    If you don’t want to be thought a child, don’t make such childishly naïve assertions about the world.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Randal says:
    @Anonymous
    Agreed on US Air superiority, but I also think both China and Russia would have a big incentive to help out Iran with air defense.

    A big deployment like we saw in Desert Storm would give Iran enough time to smuggle in more S400's.

    Anything less than Desert Storm 2 Iran would be able to control the skies.

    I also think both China and Russia would have a big incentive to help out Iran with air defense

    Indeed. But would it be enough of an incentive to make them act strongly enough to make a difference? And it would really have to be Russia to make a military difference, though China could help out diplomatically and perhaps economically for the longer term. A lot might depend on relations between the US and Russia at the time of the attack, as well as between Russia and Israel, in particular, and other likely parties to an attack such as the Gulf states, but Russia/Iran relations have never been particularly warm even if they have cooperated very effectively in Syria.

    A big deployment like we saw in Desert Storm would give Iran enough time to smuggle in more S400′s.

    I don’t think just bringing S400 systems into the country is going to make any difference on its own. These are sophisticated and complicated systems. You need the crews to operate them, which means Russians in practice unless you have years to train and drill Iranian crews, and you need to integrate them effectively into an air defence system. Without that, they’re just going to get blown up by SEAD without having any real effect.

    Anything less than Desert Storm 2 Iran would be able to control the skies.

    Iran can’t “control the skies”, because it doesn’t have any noticeable air force. At most it might be able to impose a degree of air neutrality over Iran itself, if its air defences work a lot better than expected and if they stand up to the massive EAD effort that will be directed at it in the first hours and days of any attack. It would certainly need to be a much faster and harder effort than the Kosovo campaign, in air terms, and I have no doubt it would have much less restrictive targeting rules applied.

    There’s not a lot Iran can do to prepare that it presumably hasn’t already been doing, unless the crisis triggers much more open support from Russia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Agree with all your posts in this thread so far.

    Just to add that, politically, for US administration, the attack on Iran would be more beneficial than the rest (Israel lobby.....).

    I just feel that the war with Iran, in the current paradigm, is more than likely.

    , @Anonymous
    China helping economically and Russia providing military support would be a huge benefit to Iran.

    I think enough to withstand just about anything thrown at it from the west. Keep in mind a war with Iran would probably be followed by sanctions from the rest of the ME and Europe. So Chinese trade would be of vital importance.

    I think Russian tech and military support could help Iran control it's skies even without an airforce just like Syria is controlling it's airspace.

    What it comes down to, is that just as the Saker referenced, I don't think America wants or can fight a war that requires a lot of resources.

    America could have gone all in with Syria and controlled the skies there but did not because it would have been to expensive. America is looking for cheap ways to win wars such as color revolutions in Venezuela and China taking care of N Korea.

    If we really want the job done in Iran, it will mean going all in, and will also mean we aren't going to be able to do anything elsewhere which the elites don't want.
    , @Joe Wong
    Majority of USSR weapons shipped thru China during the Vietnam War, China will ship all its weapons thru Russia to Iran on all those high speed rails. China has larger industrial capacity than the USA right now, it is indeed another test of industrial capacity between the opposit rivals in Iran.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. The fact that now the US propaganda machines has accused Russia of “arming the Taliban”

    I’ve been expecting this for some time. Funny how the blame falls on the Russians–without proof as usual. Little if any mention of the 16 years of U.S. occupation.

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/25/asia/taliban-weapons-afghanistan/index.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  26. El Dato says:
    @dearieme
    Who will take first pop at a big US nuclear-powered aircraft carrier?

    Maersk maybe?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. @Grandpa Charlie
    Randal says that a Pearl Harbor event "would suddenly render both Iran and DPRK open to US military occupation." I don't know if that is true or not, and I don't know if the statement is really meaningful. Myself, I do not believe that the USA has any casus belli to go to war with Iran, so I don't discuss that. As for the DPRK, I believe the USA has, over the years, tried peaceful negotiations to end the war but all those attempts have been frustrated by the despotic leaders of the DPRK ( the Kim dynasty). In any event, I would never advocate USA military occupation of any part of Korea. I advocate for the peaceful occupation of the North of Korea by the military of the ROK, but only until such time as all-Korea elections could be held, in order to incorporate the North of Korea into the ROK.

    In my opinion, the case of Korea is similar to the case of Germany and the government of the DPRK is no more legitimate or viable (without subjecting it to cruel and despotic methods led by the Kim dynasty) than was the old government of East Germany before reunification. So, no military occupation by the USA, and only a temporary and benign occupation by the army of the ROK - which is anyway the legitimate government all of Korea.

    “So, no military occupation by the USA, and only a temporary and benign occupation by the army of the ROK – which is anyway the legitimate government all of Korea.”
    It is not for anyone to fantasize about the legitimacy of any government as it is the people only who have the right to declare a government legitimate or not. And let us not bring the argument that the North Korean government does not have recourse to Western representative democracy as a reason to justify its illegitimacy for the cloak of democracy in the West is a perfect excuse to oligarchic rule.
    As The Saker argues, trying to beat an enemy who is not intimidated by superior forces is an exercise in futility.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Since getting burned in Vietnam the US has been careful to use others as cannon fodder since Americans don’t give a hoot about anyone else getting killed as long as it’s not them. The standard formula, as outlined in the article, has been used successfully against smaller, weaker countries. The Gene Sharp handbook of subverting countries with ‘color revolutions’ has been a useful tool in some cases. The US doesn’t miss any tricks in it’s campaigns. Against Iran and DPRK though the easy ride ends. In all this blustery and contentious environment it seems that the voice of the S Koreans is conspicuously absent. What do they think about this confrontation with the DPRK? It’s them who would catch the brunt of it, not the US. It’s their soldiers that will probably be asked to be the bulk of the casualties, it’s the ROK that would suffer the greatest amount of destruction. Yet we hear nothing about what they may want, only about what the US may or may not decide to do. This is one of the central hallmarks of the American mentality, that they care nothing about the lives of anyone else on the planet, it’s all about them.

    Read More
    • Agree: Beefcake the Mighty
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  29. Turns out this is total nonsense – the US military in the real world was nothing like its propaganda-world counterpart: when is the last time the US actually won a war against an adversary capable of meaningful resistance? The Pacific in WWII?

    Desert Storm? The scale of its success there took even US generals by surprise.

    It is also important to note that Iraq performed considerably better than Iran during the Iran-Iraq war (when thinking about Iran’s capacity for “meaningful resistance”).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    The scale of its success there took even US generals by surprise.
     
    Which pretty much summarizes the "quality" of an opponent, referencing whom Douglas Macgregor mentioned "a modicum of military capability", or rather lack thereof.

    It is also important to note that Iraq performed considerably better than Iran
     
    The same as it is important to note that Iraq had the assistance pretty much from everybody--from USSR to even the US, Iran didn't.
    , @Anonymous
    Desert Storm was pretty much an ideal scenario for US military. Open desert, surrounding the country with bases, ample time to build up overwhelming force, Iraq had no reference to learn how to fight against the US and it's modern tech, a fractured ethnic populace, and no allies to help militarily or economically.

    Basically, none of this will apply to any other war we will face going forward. Also, this was before our military was infected with SJW and Millenials.
    , @anonymous

    It is also important to note that Iraq performed considerably better than Iran
     
    Totally unfair comparison. The Iranian government of the Shah had been overthrown barely a year before. Their military had fallen apart under those circumstances. The officer class were Shah people and so were mostly gone, dead or fled, the generals in particular. In contrast the Iraqi military was at it's peak and they struck at the moment the Iranians were at their weakest. Iraq had massive backing and credit for weaponry of every kind, received advice and things like satellite intelligence in contrast to the Iranians who were relatively isolated and did not have rich backers. Because of the emergency the Iranians resorted to using human wave attacks with untrained volunteers. Despite all this the Iranians managed to prevail and go on the offense, taking it to the Iraqis who began to flounder and ask their supporters for greater help and intervention. The US was drawn in, one infamous incident being the downing of Iran Air Flight 655 by the USS Vincennes. The Iranians accomplished this against all the odds.
    , @MEexpert
    I am totally surprised by Anatoly Karlin's ignorant comments. It seems he has absolutely no knowledge of the Middle East and the events that have tanspired in that area.

    Desert Storm? The scale of its success there took even US generals by surprise.
     
    Apparently, Anatoly Karlin didn't read Saker's comments carefully. There was a qualifier in his statement.

    when is the last time the US actually won a war against an adversary capable of meaningful resistance? The Pacific in WWII?
     
    The qualifier was "meaningful resistance." In Desert Storm, with massive "shock and awe" bombing of Iraq for several hours, Iraq did not offer meaningful resistance. So, yes, the US has not won any war since WWII.

    It is also important to note that Iraq performed considerably better than Iran during the Iran-Iraq war (when thinking about Iran’s capacity for “meaningful resistance”).
     
    At the time, Iran was still going through the revolutionary stage. There were several terrorist attacks inside Iran, including the one where 73 leading members of the Islamic Republic were killed. Iraq invaded Iran with the help of her Arab allies and the US with US supplying weapons including the chemical weapons to Iraq. It were those chemical weapons that US later used as a pretext to invade Iraq in 2003. Iran was battling both the internal enemies (MEK) as well as external ones. Iran was alone at the time without any meaningful resistance.
    , @Beefcake the Mighty
    Desert Storm was fought against an opponent possessing antiquated Soviet weaponry employing a "strategy"' tailored perfectly to facilitate the opponents strengths. If American planners were indeed surprised, this says more about their ability to believe their own super-villain propaganda.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. @Anatoly Karlin

    Turns out this is total nonsense – the US military in the real world was nothing like its propaganda-world counterpart: when is the last time the US actually won a war against an adversary capable of meaningful resistance? The Pacific in WWII?
     
    Desert Storm? The scale of its success there took even US generals by surprise.

    It is also important to note that Iraq performed considerably better than Iran during the Iran-Iraq war (when thinking about Iran's capacity for "meaningful resistance").

    The scale of its success there took even US generals by surprise.

    Which pretty much summarizes the “quality” of an opponent, referencing whom Douglas Macgregor mentioned “a modicum of military capability”, or rather lack thereof.

    It is also important to note that Iraq performed considerably better than Iran

    The same as it is important to note that Iraq had the assistance pretty much from everybody–from USSR to even the US, Iran didn’t.

    Read More
    • Agree: Dan Hayes
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Maybe of interest for the topic.

    A Colonel in charge of a course I was attending had heard an Egyptian officer, being in the field with Iraqis at the time, describing Iranian attacks.
    Word "unbelievable" was repeated several times.
    Infantry WOULD penetrate all layers of static defense. Only massed Iraqi artillery/MSLR fires followed by armored counterattack would destroy them.
    Moral was, apparently, not of this world.

    Now, with those men no invader can hope to win.

    The thing is, though, those men are either dead or old.

    I just doubt that the current crop of Iranians is made of the same material.
    , @Alden
    As I remember, the Iraqs just fled the Anerican troops in desert storm, more a rout than any kind of organized retreat.

    At the time, I suspected the Iraqi army was subverted in advance to just surrender.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. gT says:

    An attack on either Iran or North Korea would definitely not be cheap considering the counter strikes those countries could undertake – North Korea by attacking South Korea, even Japan, with all its got, and Iran by taking out all the Saudi oil infrastructure and any ships in the Persia gulf; causing the oil price to sky rocket.

    Probably North Korea is the cheapest option, with the bonus being that China could then take over the devastated peninsular and make in 100% Han in no time, just like they did in Tibet. China would be most grateful to the US, forgive some debt$ maybe.

    But it would make sense for Iran to go on the war path if North Korea is attacked, because Iran would be attacked afterwards anyway. The whole Middle East could go up in flames.

    So the US must be careful about playing with matches near bone dry tinder next to leaky gas tanks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    I didn't know that the word careful was in the US dictionary. Thanks.
    , @Grandpa Charlie
    "Probably North Korea is the cheapest option, with the bonus being that China could then take over the devastated peninsular and make in 100% Han in no time, just like they did in Tibet. China would be most grateful to the US, forgive some debt$ maybe.

    "But it would make sense for Iran to go on the war path if North Korea is attacked, because Iran would be attacked afterwards anyway." --- gT

    You really seem to understand what I have been trying to say, but you take it a ways further, to valid points that I had not considered.

    I really don't understand the rationale for any attack on Iran, except that it's the apparent strategic goal of Israel. Being a veteran, born-in-the-USA and all, I just don't like to think of my country as a kind of mad dog, chained out for hire.

    You, gT, at least understand the nature of the rulers of the PRC and of the DPRK. It's amazing to me the opposition that I get, name-calling and all, by people who find the opportunist bosses of the Communist Party to be worthy of empathy, while I am considered as stupid and childish because I suggest that maybe someone could or should stand up to the bullying and corrupt billionaires (literally) of post-Cold-War Communism. (BTW: Putin's not a Communist at all, although he once was, years ago ... where "Communist" really means "member of the "Communist Party" and a true-believer in Stalinism, but I expect that you know that.)

    Anyway, Trump says that he is leaving it all up to "the generals" - let them decide where to attack or not to attack. I guess he means that he is leaving all global-strategy decisions up to the JCS, to be rubber-stamped by the NSC. It seems that one of those guys, an Admiral in the Persian Golf, reined in the neocons when an attack on Iran was about to go off.

    So we shall see how that works out. It has to be better than it would have been in another Clinton administration.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. @gT
    An attack on either Iran or North Korea would definitely not be cheap considering the counter strikes those countries could undertake - North Korea by attacking South Korea, even Japan, with all its got, and Iran by taking out all the Saudi oil infrastructure and any ships in the Persia gulf; causing the oil price to sky rocket.

    Probably North Korea is the cheapest option, with the bonus being that China could then take over the devastated peninsular and make in 100% Han in no time, just like they did in Tibet. China would be most grateful to the US, forgive some debt$ maybe.

    But it would make sense for Iran to go on the war path if North Korea is attacked, because Iran would be attacked afterwards anyway. The whole Middle East could go up in flames.

    So the US must be careful about playing with matches near bone dry tinder next to leaky gas tanks.

    I didn’t know that the word careful was in the US dictionary. Thanks.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. peterAUS says:
    @Randal

    I also think both China and Russia would have a big incentive to help out Iran with air defense
     
    Indeed. But would it be enough of an incentive to make them act strongly enough to make a difference? And it would really have to be Russia to make a military difference, though China could help out diplomatically and perhaps economically for the longer term. A lot might depend on relations between the US and Russia at the time of the attack, as well as between Russia and Israel, in particular, and other likely parties to an attack such as the Gulf states, but Russia/Iran relations have never been particularly warm even if they have cooperated very effectively in Syria.

    A big deployment like we saw in Desert Storm would give Iran enough time to smuggle in more S400′s.
     
    I don't think just bringing S400 systems into the country is going to make any difference on its own. These are sophisticated and complicated systems. You need the crews to operate them, which means Russians in practice unless you have years to train and drill Iranian crews, and you need to integrate them effectively into an air defence system. Without that, they're just going to get blown up by SEAD without having any real effect.

    Anything less than Desert Storm 2 Iran would be able to control the skies.
     
    Iran can't "control the skies", because it doesn't have any noticeable air force. At most it might be able to impose a degree of air neutrality over Iran itself, if its air defences work a lot better than expected and if they stand up to the massive EAD effort that will be directed at it in the first hours and days of any attack. It would certainly need to be a much faster and harder effort than the Kosovo campaign, in air terms, and I have no doubt it would have much less restrictive targeting rules applied.

    There's not a lot Iran can do to prepare that it presumably hasn't already been doing, unless the crisis triggers much more open support from Russia.

    Agree with all your posts in this thread so far.

    Just to add that, politically, for US administration, the attack on Iran would be more beneficial than the rest (Israel lobby…..).

    I just feel that the war with Iran, in the current paradigm, is more than likely.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I also agree with this sentiment.

    A war with N Korea might mean America will be tar pitted for the next decade dealing with the aftermath. I don't think it will be a surgical strike and that's it.

    This will take the focus away from Iran and the interests there are beyond Isreal. Saudi Arabia, other ME countries, US oil interests, and Europe all have an interest in controlling Iran. We are talking about the petrodollar dollar at stake here. So the Iran issue has a lot at stake for pretty much all the important players. Hitting Iran also blocks China's One Belt One Road initiative.

    N Korea just isn't as important as Iran is geopolitically.

    I can see Trump bungling things though and trying to cheaply deal with N Korea first, and getting tar pitted with a much larger war.

    God help us all!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Why would anyone want a reformed US Military…leaner and meaner……Let the rot and decay fester and continue apace.

    What is needed is the total and complete collapse of the US so the long overdue race war can commence…….

    The racial transformation of the US is driving US foreign policy and military policy…invade the world invite the world….And what drives this is the wage slave labor policy for Native Born White American Workers.

    If the Democratic Party gets away with it…West Point will be transformed into Sheboon Stench Point on the toilet bowl Hudson…..with a raised Black Power salute…

    So what Comrade Saker leaves out in his analysis is this:for 52 years….1965….gasoline has been poured into the basement of the US….it will take only one match to ignite it…just one match….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  35. peterAUS says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    The scale of its success there took even US generals by surprise.
     
    Which pretty much summarizes the "quality" of an opponent, referencing whom Douglas Macgregor mentioned "a modicum of military capability", or rather lack thereof.

    It is also important to note that Iraq performed considerably better than Iran
     
    The same as it is important to note that Iraq had the assistance pretty much from everybody--from USSR to even the US, Iran didn't.

    Maybe of interest for the topic.

    A Colonel in charge of a course I was attending had heard an Egyptian officer, being in the field with Iraqis at the time, describing Iranian attacks.
    Word “unbelievable” was repeated several times.
    Infantry WOULD penetrate all layers of static defense. Only massed Iraqi artillery/MSLR fires followed by armored counterattack would destroy them.
    Moral was, apparently, not of this world.

    Now, with those men no invader can hope to win.

    The thing is, though, those men are either dead or old.

    I just doubt that the current crop of Iranians is made of the same material.

    Read More
    • Agree: Andrei Martyanov
    • Replies: @Alden
    The Iranians may have had commissars/ MPs behind the lines ready to kill anyone who didn't charge forward. Lots of armies have used that tactic.
    , @A.B. Prosper
    They certainly are not. Iran's total fertility rate is slightly above that of Germany at 1.68 .
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. @Grandpa Charlie
    Oooops! Senior moment. Actually, the good news from meeting of USA and China was two months ago today!

    Instead, we have a report today about China, Japan and South Korea, meeting in Tokyo, agreed today to "urge North Korea to refrain from provocation and follow U.N. Security Council Resolutions."

    QUOTE
    TOKYO (Reuters) - Japan, China and South Korea agreed to urge North Korea to refrain from provocation and follow U.N. Security Council resolutions, after its latest missile launch towards Japan early on Wednesday.

    Foreign ministers from the three Asian neighbours also sought to soothe their often-testy relations, and have reached an understanding on a trilateral summit meeting in Japan this year, a Japanese official said.

    "We have confirmed that we will urge North Korea to exercise self-restraint regarding its provocative action, and to observe the U.N. Security Council's resolutions," Japanese Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida told a news conference after hosting the meeting with his Chinese and South Korean counterparts UNQUOTE

    So, it's samo samo. What did they call it at the beginning of WW II in Europe? Oh yeah, "the phoney war".

    I have no idea what a samo samo is.

    But I do not agree with you that the Korean war was a continuation of World War II. That war ended in 1945.

    What happened then, is that certain state actors in the US and UK immediately began propagating what became the Cold War. Now that the Nazis and the Japs had been defeated, the spectre of the Commies had to be fought against.

    And that is the essence of the Korean War, then and still today.

    I just had the chance to watch Medea Benjiamin explain in graphic detail that the United States has 83 military bases surrounding North Korea and they have frequent war games all around North Korea that include the simulation of a nulcear attack on North Korea. This is true, but not reported in the United States.

    Now, I don’t care if Kim Jong-Un is the worst dictator in recorded history (he isn’t, by a long, long, long shot). If I’m Kim Jong and the United States is behaving as such (83 military bases, war games), and they have a history of doing regime change all over the world, from the end of WWII to last week?

    I’m gonna hold on to whatever I got, Grampa.

    Your quotes of the news articles and the statements by the leaders of the nations around North Korea sound like diplomatic-speak to me: they are really saying little, just generally agreeing with the very belligerent, strident, demanding United States.

    This is not a smart move by the United States. Attacking North Korea would be a catastrophe!!

    Not for North Korea (though it might be for them, too). For the United States!

    The Saker sees that. Fred Reed sees that. I see that. Grampa, why are you grasping at straws, printing some diplo-speak nonsense from a Chinese or Japanese “leader?” These leaders are looking at the US with fear and trepedation.

    And the reason is: you. People like you. Who think it’s A-OK to bomb another country unilaterally over some puffed up made up bullshit.

    Just like the Nuremburg Trials–under the auspices of the United States–tried, convicted, and hanged the leaders of another nation who did exactly the same thing as the United States is doing now.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dearieme
    "certain state actors in the US and UK immediately began propagating what became the Cold War": the post-collapse access to the archives of the USSR knocks that silly idea on the head.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. anon says: • Disclaimer

    My insane strategy for safeguarding America. Deploy American military forces within the ACTUAL boundaries of the USA. End all immigration to America.

    Read More
    • Agree: Alden
    • Replies: @War for Blair Mountain
    Yes...that's the right idea. Who would be opposed to this? The Chinese in California?


    The US has already devolved into two race-based nations...perhaps even three to four....

    The real conflict with China will come when the Historic Native Born White American Majority Working Class starts repelling and expelling the Chinese Colonizers out of Native Born White American Living and Breeding Space.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. @gT
    An attack on either Iran or North Korea would definitely not be cheap considering the counter strikes those countries could undertake - North Korea by attacking South Korea, even Japan, with all its got, and Iran by taking out all the Saudi oil infrastructure and any ships in the Persia gulf; causing the oil price to sky rocket.

    Probably North Korea is the cheapest option, with the bonus being that China could then take over the devastated peninsular and make in 100% Han in no time, just like they did in Tibet. China would be most grateful to the US, forgive some debt$ maybe.

    But it would make sense for Iran to go on the war path if North Korea is attacked, because Iran would be attacked afterwards anyway. The whole Middle East could go up in flames.

    So the US must be careful about playing with matches near bone dry tinder next to leaky gas tanks.

    “Probably North Korea is the cheapest option, with the bonus being that China could then take over the devastated peninsular and make in 100% Han in no time, just like they did in Tibet. China would be most grateful to the US, forgive some debt$ maybe.

    “But it would make sense for Iran to go on the war path if North Korea is attacked, because Iran would be attacked afterwards anyway.” — gT

    You really seem to understand what I have been trying to say, but you take it a ways further, to valid points that I had not considered.

    I really don’t understand the rationale for any attack on Iran, except that it’s the apparent strategic goal of Israel. Being a veteran, born-in-the-USA and all, I just don’t like to think of my country as a kind of mad dog, chained out for hire.

    You, gT, at least understand the nature of the rulers of the PRC and of the DPRK. It’s amazing to me the opposition that I get, name-calling and all, by people who find the opportunist bosses of the Communist Party to be worthy of empathy, while I am considered as stupid and childish because I suggest that maybe someone could or should stand up to the bullying and corrupt billionaires (literally) of post-Cold-War Communism. (BTW: Putin’s not a Communist at all, although he once was, years ago … where “Communist” really means “member of the “Communist Party” and a true-believer in Stalinism, but I expect that you know that.)

    Anyway, Trump says that he is leaving it all up to “the generals” – let them decide where to attack or not to attack. I guess he means that he is leaving all global-strategy decisions up to the JCS, to be rubber-stamped by the NSC. It seems that one of those guys, an Admiral in the Persian Golf, reined in the neocons when an attack on Iran was about to go off.

    So we shall see how that works out. It has to be better than it would have been in another Clinton administration.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. TG says:

    Interesting thoughts.

    I do, however, suggest that there is a second kind of ‘war on the cheap’ that the US employs.

    You say that the Serbian army was withdrawn by Milosovec for ‘personal reasons.’ No. It is true, the US army could not really damage the regular Serbian army from the air. So instead that US started bombing civilian infrastructure in Serbia, and threatened: do what we want or we turn you back to the 9th century. Which the United States can still do, even without boots on the ground.

    So if the neocons only want to trash a country into collapse, or force it into giving up territory, that is still very much on the table.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Exactly.

    Also, what was left out of the article is the fact that the regime in Moscow promised to protect Serbian interests in Kosovo.

    The drunkard, naturally, couldn't follow on his promise.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. @Grandpa Charlie
    A discussion of the same basic problem - choosing the war that is the best of all possible wars at this juncture in history - has already been under way at Fred Reed's "Milk-bar Clausewitzes and bean curd Napoleons"

    http://www.unz.com/freed/milk-bar-clausewitzes-bean-curd-napoleons/

    I would note that there is at least one great advantage in choosing the war with the DPRK: if we lose, we would not bring down the whole world with us. If we win, we would have a tremendous opportunity to exit Asia for ever (militarily or imperially speaking). And we could leave with our heads held high.

    Of course, if we lose, we could also begin one or another ten-year project, either rearranging the USA to be a central force for peace and reform, or, less ambitiously, to undertake what the Saker proposes:

    "US should begin by deciding on a new national security strategy, then develop a military strategy in support of this national security strategy, followed by the development of a military doctrine which itself would then produce a force modernization plan which would affect all aspects of military reform from training to force planning to deployment."

    A war with DPRK would likely draw in Japan to fight with the US and ROK. The prospect of US forces on the Yalu River won’t sit any better with China than it did in 1950. This is the most likely flashpoint for the next world war.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. notice says:

    Dear Saker,
    I hope I’m wrong, but in the future our Deep State might be willlling to grasp at all kinds of “human rights”-straws as cassus belli: not treating sexual minorities good enough (in Our opinion), not letting in enough refugees, etc. There doesn’t seem to be many lies their mouthpieces aren’t willing to go on television and spew out (with actors studio enthusiasm).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  42. fffddd says:

    I dont believe US can defeat Iran or North Korea, you must remember that North Korea has spent over half a century preparing for a invasion of USA, backed up with resources from USSR and China, they have more ammo and missiles then they know what to do with and as much tunnels as 70 years of preparing to fight an enemy with air superiority will give you.

    When it comes to the military they have millions of fanatic troops, over 200 000 special forces, and millions upon millions of militias to draw upon, they have population that has been heavily indoctrinate from birth for generations to fight off an USA invasion.. Some may argue that NK would fall like Iraq did, but I really dont think it is accurate to compare east asians to arabs. North Koreans will likely throw their babies at American baynets just to give their men a few seconds more to get closer, you are talking about the most indoctrinate population on earth.

    Imagine how hard USA hade taking Fallujah from a few hundred terrorists, imagen then same but with millions of troops that has hade over half a century to prepare. Or Imagine if ISIS got ~70 years to prepare for an USA invasion, backed up by two superpowers flooding it with material, technology and other resources.

    Also, likely, the only way for USA to actually defeat NK would be a full-scale occupation, I doubt the NK leadership would ever surrender no matter what military or civilian casualties they suffered.. While the NK leadership would never surrender and would need to be destroyed, also know that a USA invasion, is exactly what they want. And they will force USA to invade.

    NK pretty much has the capabilities to shutdown South Korea and Japan. From the moment the war starts, Sarin gas will rain over all major Japanese and South Korean cities, everyday, for weeks, and weeks, and months, and years. NK likely has more missiles and more nerve gas stockpile then they know what to do with, and it is all hidden deep within a colossal tunnel network.. Can you imagine it, you could not walk thru Tokyo without the fear that you suddenly would start to cough your lungs out… South Korea and Japan’s economies would suffer hugely, and their governments might even collapse.. South Korea capital is within artillery range of NK, so without NK sending its army, it will be able to hit the SK capital with 500 000 rounds of artillery, every hour, there lives around 10 million in SK, needless to say every single individual in the SK capital would want to leave the first 1hours of the war, so millions of millions of SK would be walked on the roads, blocking all traffics, all trainfs, and 80% of all South korans in cities bordering NK would want to leave as well, the entire transport system of South Korea would collapse within the first 24h, there would be lying thousands of dead South Korean children in the streets and ditches, that has died from exposure and lack of water on the roads.

    And NK has the capacity to keep this up pretty much indefinitely, so a US invasion and occupation would be necessary, and while USA has more tanks and planes and better tech, they would be fighting a fanatic population, in the forests and in the mountains and in the cities, and tunnels, and the enemy would never give up unless they were totally destroyed, and the local population would be 95% hostile and riddled with special forces and agents and partisans. And NK would likely get a constant support from China.

    Read More
    • Replies: @prusmc
    That is why, this attack on or by the DPRK business is an exercise in fantasy. If there was any serious possibility of actual hostilities, South Korea would give the US thirty dsys notice to get out.
    , @AP
    For these reasons I would assume that a US attack, should it occur, would either be an assassination of the Leader in order to foster some transition, or a massive nuke strike involving killing millions of people ( a 21st century version of nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki to avoid a costly invasion of Japan). The latter is probably unlikely.

    I can't imagine the USA allowing the scenarios you describe, which would be the result of a conventional invasion.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @restless94110
    Finding it mildly interesting that you have nothing to say when your representations are challenged by me.

    It's childish.

    If you were in WWII then you are at least 90.

    Did you forget why we fought WWII? What war since then has been justified as that war was?

    There have been none, Grampa. And there are none now.

    We have no justification for engaging in wars, delcared or undeclared.

    You fought in the last war that had any justification.

    Grandpa Charlie is probably a teenager living in his mom’s basement.

    You’re wasting your time engaging with him.

    Read More
    • Replies: @restless94110
    Since Grampa has claimed that he actually fought in WWII, that would make him 90 plus years old (1945 was 72 years ago, thus an 18 year old in 1945, the lowest eligibility for the Army, would now be 90), so I think it is more likely that he is living in the basement of his own home (perhaps inherited from his Mom), and smoking weed 24/7 for his Alzheimer's condition.

    I engaged with him because I was sincerely surprised that there are still armchair warriors around despite the astonishing number of defeats and failures by the US military in just the past 17 years, let alone the past 70.

    I think if you were an ACW (arm chair warrior) in the late 60s before Vietnam ended in total defeat you might have been looked upon as sane. If you were an ACW right after the Gulf War when we destroyed the inept military of Iraq after encouraging them through diplomatic channels to invade Kuwait, you could have been looked upon as mildly dillusional.

    But to be an ACW now? How could you be? Engaging with him was a great excercise in writing for me. Thus not a waste of time.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. It’s such a given here that the FSA is a collection of small groups at best and so doesn’t really exist and many of these groups have liquid identities with the hardcore terrorists like the Al-Qadea affiliate and ISIS that no one even bothers to post reference links anymore. This is not good as those arguing these points will always be challenged as making stuff up.

    Can anyone post a few authoritative links that strong back up the claims about the FSA and their connection to hardcore terrorists?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  45. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Randal

    I also think both China and Russia would have a big incentive to help out Iran with air defense
     
    Indeed. But would it be enough of an incentive to make them act strongly enough to make a difference? And it would really have to be Russia to make a military difference, though China could help out diplomatically and perhaps economically for the longer term. A lot might depend on relations between the US and Russia at the time of the attack, as well as between Russia and Israel, in particular, and other likely parties to an attack such as the Gulf states, but Russia/Iran relations have never been particularly warm even if they have cooperated very effectively in Syria.

    A big deployment like we saw in Desert Storm would give Iran enough time to smuggle in more S400′s.
     
    I don't think just bringing S400 systems into the country is going to make any difference on its own. These are sophisticated and complicated systems. You need the crews to operate them, which means Russians in practice unless you have years to train and drill Iranian crews, and you need to integrate them effectively into an air defence system. Without that, they're just going to get blown up by SEAD without having any real effect.

    Anything less than Desert Storm 2 Iran would be able to control the skies.
     
    Iran can't "control the skies", because it doesn't have any noticeable air force. At most it might be able to impose a degree of air neutrality over Iran itself, if its air defences work a lot better than expected and if they stand up to the massive EAD effort that will be directed at it in the first hours and days of any attack. It would certainly need to be a much faster and harder effort than the Kosovo campaign, in air terms, and I have no doubt it would have much less restrictive targeting rules applied.

    There's not a lot Iran can do to prepare that it presumably hasn't already been doing, unless the crisis triggers much more open support from Russia.

    China helping economically and Russia providing military support would be a huge benefit to Iran.

    I think enough to withstand just about anything thrown at it from the west. Keep in mind a war with Iran would probably be followed by sanctions from the rest of the ME and Europe. So Chinese trade would be of vital importance.

    I think Russian tech and military support could help Iran control it’s skies even without an airforce just like Syria is controlling it’s airspace.

    What it comes down to, is that just as the Saker referenced, I don’t think America wants or can fight a war that requires a lot of resources.

    America could have gone all in with Syria and controlled the skies there but did not because it would have been to expensive. America is looking for cheap ways to win wars such as color revolutions in Venezuela and China taking care of N Korea.

    If we really want the job done in Iran, it will mean going all in, and will also mean we aren’t going to be able to do anything elsewhere which the elites don’t want.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    I think Russian tech and military support could help Iran control it’s skies even without an airforce just like Syria is controlling it’s airspace.
     
    Syria does not control its airspace. The Israelis and US conduct airstrikes on Syrian territory practically at will. The only constraint seems to be when the Russians occasionally put their foot down and veto particular locations or kinds of strike.

    But that situation only exists because of the polite fiction that Russia and the US are there on the same side and fighting the same enemy, and the US is supposedly not at war with the Syrian government. The same would certainly not be the case in Iran, and Russian threats to US aircraft attacking Iranian targets would be dismissed as a threat of war, and the bluff called (assuming Russia is not prepared to start WW3 over Iran, which seems unlikely),
    , @Wally
    And what "job" is to be "done in Iran"?

    Kill Iranians for "that shitty little country" Israel?

    Do you think Iran will just sit back and allow it to occur?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Turns out this is total nonsense – the US military in the real world was nothing like its propaganda-world counterpart: when is the last time the US actually won a war against an adversary capable of meaningful resistance? The Pacific in WWII?
     
    Desert Storm? The scale of its success there took even US generals by surprise.

    It is also important to note that Iraq performed considerably better than Iran during the Iran-Iraq war (when thinking about Iran's capacity for "meaningful resistance").

    Desert Storm was pretty much an ideal scenario for US military. Open desert, surrounding the country with bases, ample time to build up overwhelming force, Iraq had no reference to learn how to fight against the US and it’s modern tech, a fractured ethnic populace, and no allies to help militarily or economically.

    Basically, none of this will apply to any other war we will face going forward. Also, this was before our military was infected with SJW and Millenials.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    I might be wrong, but I don't think any SJWs and White millennials join the military? Seems to me the SJW stuff comes from the top.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. Comments to this Saker article are the illumination of a drunk leaning on a lamp-post.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  48. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @peterAUS
    Agree with all your posts in this thread so far.

    Just to add that, politically, for US administration, the attack on Iran would be more beneficial than the rest (Israel lobby.....).

    I just feel that the war with Iran, in the current paradigm, is more than likely.

    I also agree with this sentiment.

    A war with N Korea might mean America will be tar pitted for the next decade dealing with the aftermath. I don’t think it will be a surgical strike and that’s it.

    This will take the focus away from Iran and the interests there are beyond Isreal. Saudi Arabia, other ME countries, US oil interests, and Europe all have an interest in controlling Iran. We are talking about the petrodollar dollar at stake here. So the Iran issue has a lot at stake for pretty much all the important players. Hitting Iran also blocks China’s One Belt One Road initiative.

    N Korea just isn’t as important as Iran is geopolitically.

    I can see Trump bungling things though and trying to cheaply deal with N Korea first, and getting tar pitted with a much larger war.

    God help us all!

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    My sentiments exactly.

    God helps Iranian people over there.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. Greg Bacon says: • Website

    The point of this new sanctions law is revealed simply. If AIPAC controls the Unites States Congress, and if the President of the United States has surrendered his executive authority to that body, then the Israeli lobby controls the Government of the United States – lock stock and barrel. In other words, a foreign sovereign nation and ideology rules America – and it rules it with impunity.

    https://journal-neo.org/2017/08/04/how-donald-trump-threw-peace-and-prosperity-under-an-aipac-bus/

    The US will go to war where ever its Overlord Israel, tells it to. The way Drumpf has been making noises about Iran means they’re next to be Shocked and Awed to desolation.

    But Iran is not Iraq or Syria, the neoCONs stupidity and arrogance will get them in deep doo-doo if they attack Iran
    One way to rouse Americans into action is to increase the price of heating oil, NG and gasoline to astronomical highs and a war against Iran will do exactly that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  50. …but a propaganda machine which for decades successfully convinced millions of people around the globe that the US was invincible: the US had the best weapons, the best trained soldiers, the most advanced tactics, etc. Turns out this is total nonsense – the US military in the real world was nothing like its propaganda-world counterpart: when is the last time the US actually won a war against an adversary capable of meaningful resistance? The Pacific in WWII?

    It’s all propaganda, including the enemy in the Pacific in WW2. The Japanese couldn’t even control coastal China or Manchukuo, and were beaten from the get-go. Any claims beyond that are war time BS, so your contention that the US only picks on smaller “enemies” holds. (Same with Germany).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  51. dearieme says:
    @restless94110
    I have no idea what a samo samo is.

    But I do not agree with you that the Korean war was a continuation of World War II. That war ended in 1945.

    What happened then, is that certain state actors in the US and UK immediately began propagating what became the Cold War. Now that the Nazis and the Japs had been defeated, the spectre of the Commies had to be fought against.

    And that is the essence of the Korean War, then and still today.

    I just had the chance to watch Medea Benjiamin explain in graphic detail that the United States has 83 military bases surrounding North Korea and they have frequent war games all around North Korea that include the simulation of a nulcear attack on North Korea. This is true, but not reported in the United States.

    Now, I don't care if Kim Jong-Un is the worst dictator in recorded history (he isn't, by a long, long, long shot). If I'm Kim Jong and the United States is behaving as such (83 military bases, war games), and they have a history of doing regime change all over the world, from the end of WWII to last week?

    I'm gonna hold on to whatever I got, Grampa.

    Your quotes of the news articles and the statements by the leaders of the nations around North Korea sound like diplomatic-speak to me: they are really saying little, just generally agreeing with the very belligerent, strident, demanding United States.

    This is not a smart move by the United States. Attacking North Korea would be a catastrophe!!

    Not for North Korea (though it might be for them, too). For the United States!

    The Saker sees that. Fred Reed sees that. I see that. Grampa, why are you grasping at straws, printing some diplo-speak nonsense from a Chinese or Japanese "leader?" These leaders are looking at the US with fear and trepedation.

    And the reason is: you. People like you. Who think it's A-OK to bomb another country unilaterally over some puffed up made up bullshit.

    Just like the Nuremburg Trials--under the auspices of the United States--tried, convicted, and hanged the leaders of another nation who did exactly the same thing as the United States is doing now.

    “certain state actors in the US and UK immediately began propagating what became the Cold War”: the post-collapse access to the archives of the USSR knocks that silly idea on the head.

    Read More
    • Replies: @restless94110
    Churchill started making speeches; the recent book on the brothers Dulles documents extensively Allen Dulles' extreme beliefs about Communism, so radical that he favored fascism and Nazis over the Commies. He became the father of the CIA, and made sure that many in the Nazi spy apparatus found homes in the United States, then went on a decade long crusade to crush communism in Italy and several other countries.

    It is you who is silly. Writing some nonsense about something in the archives somewhere when there is evidence in the West that's been right in front of your face? You couldn't be that stupid, could you?

    And by the way, do you know the difference between Trotsky and Stalin? Trotsky wanted world-wide revolution; Stalin wanted communism in the USSR, no world-wide revolution. Do you know who won that argument?

    You problaby don't. Stalin did.

    Furthermore, are you familiar with the Game theory basis for the Cold War? It was the lunatic schizoprhenic John Nash, who was certifiably insane when he cooked it up, and years later, when he his schizophrenia was on the wane, repudiated his own theory!

    The Cold War was cooked up in the West by state actors. Don't talk your nonsense.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. @anon
    My insane strategy for safeguarding America. Deploy American military forces within the ACTUAL boundaries of the USA. End all immigration to America.

    Yes…that’s the right idea. Who would be opposed to this? The Chinese in California?

    The US has already devolved into two race-based nations…perhaps even three to four….

    The real conflict with China will come when the Historic Native Born White American Majority Working Class starts repelling and expelling the Chinese Colonizers out of Native Born White American Living and Breeding Space.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. @dearieme
    "certain state actors in the US and UK immediately began propagating what became the Cold War": the post-collapse access to the archives of the USSR knocks that silly idea on the head.

    Churchill started making speeches; the recent book on the brothers Dulles documents extensively Allen Dulles’ extreme beliefs about Communism, so radical that he favored fascism and Nazis over the Commies. He became the father of the CIA, and made sure that many in the Nazi spy apparatus found homes in the United States, then went on a decade long crusade to crush communism in Italy and several other countries.

    It is you who is silly. Writing some nonsense about something in the archives somewhere when there is evidence in the West that’s been right in front of your face? You couldn’t be that stupid, could you?

    And by the way, do you know the difference between Trotsky and Stalin? Trotsky wanted world-wide revolution; Stalin wanted communism in the USSR, no world-wide revolution. Do you know who won that argument?

    You problaby don’t. Stalin did.

    Furthermore, are you familiar with the Game theory basis for the Cold War? It was the lunatic schizoprhenic John Nash, who was certifiably insane when he cooked it up, and years later, when he his schizophrenia was on the wane, repudiated his own theory!

    The Cold War was cooked up in the West by state actors. Don’t talk your nonsense.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greg Bacon
    I agree. No sooner had WW II ended than the West started on the Cold War, designed to create fear, panic and hysteria in the US--and Europe--so the Deep State types could regal Americans with tales of a nuclear weapons, missiles, bombers and the like 'gaps' that those devious Rooskies had on the US and we just had to spend all sorts of money to build machines of death to keep 'Old Glory' flying high. And use that excuse to go after people and head-hunt those who didn't goose step to this new artificial reality.

    When the Iron Curtain fell, within 18 months, the West had a new boogeyman, Saddam and on 9/11, that was enlarged to include the Islamic world, who we just have to fight over there so we don't fight them in Baltimore, not that any sane nation would want to invade most of our big cities, it's too dangerous.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. @Anonymous
    Grandpa Charlie is probably a teenager living in his mom's basement.

    You're wasting your time engaging with him.

    Since Grampa has claimed that he actually fought in WWII, that would make him 90 plus years old (1945 was 72 years ago, thus an 18 year old in 1945, the lowest eligibility for the Army, would now be 90), so I think it is more likely that he is living in the basement of his own home (perhaps inherited from his Mom), and smoking weed 24/7 for his Alzheimer’s condition.

    I engaged with him because I was sincerely surprised that there are still armchair warriors around despite the astonishing number of defeats and failures by the US military in just the past 17 years, let alone the past 70.

    I think if you were an ACW (arm chair warrior) in the late 60s before Vietnam ended in total defeat you might have been looked upon as sane. If you were an ACW right after the Gulf War when we destroyed the inept military of Iraq after encouraging them through diplomatic channels to invade Kuwait, you could have been looked upon as mildly dillusional.

    But to be an ACW now? How could you be? Engaging with him was a great excercise in writing for me. Thus not a waste of time.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. TheJester says:
    @Randal

    Why are you so certain the US could achieve air superiority in Iran?
     
    Saker's assumption there is pretty much conventional wisdom.

    Iran certainly has no air force that could contest the skies meaningfully, so the only way Iran could achieve any degree of air neutrality would be by denying the US and its allies bases (including carriers) close enough, and maintaining sufficient ground-based air defences in being, to prevent the US and allied air forces from operating effectively over Iran.

    Absent direct and very significant Russian support, there's no reason to believe Iran could do either. Granted Iranian missile attacks on bases and threats to carriers can make life difficult for the US and its allies, but it seems unlikely they could do so sufficiently to prevent effective operations. Iran is not China and it has no plausible way to locate and target carriers sufficiently far away to preclude air-refuelled operations, and the US has bases throughout the ME, and additional basing in Israel would undoubtedly be made available, with refuelling over Saudi Arabia.

    Meanwhile, there's no reason to suppose Iran's ground-based air defences would be any more effective than Yugoslavia's in the Kosovo war - able to survive to keep US pilots minimally honest only by being hidden and not used except in ideal situations or to make the occasional point that they are still around. While Iran is bigger and it has some more modern systems, it's unlikely they will be more competently operated than Serbia's were, and they will be equally vulnerable to US SEAD operations any time they are used. US air operations would also be far more aggressive from the start over Iran than they were over Serbia, and with far less restrictive targeting requirements.

    There are too may unknowns to make predictions with certainty, but the assumption that the US would quickly achieve air superiority over Iran, and probably a degree of air supremacy once SEAD has been applied for a while, is not unreasonable imo. It's likely there would be some US losses involved, but that's war.

    None of this should be mistaken for advocacy of a US attack on Iran, which would be disastrous for the US imo. Air superiority is only one small part of such a war, and far from the most important.

    The US is already militarily overextended. The US would quickly lose control in trying to play a game of global “whack-a-mole” against the world’s asymmetric responses to its aggressions.

    For example, it makes no sense to respond to a US strength that one cannot counter. Like the Russians, the rest of the world would look for asymmetric responses to US aggression.

    If the US attacked Iran, the Iranians would almost certainly destroy the Saudi oil field and tanker complexes on the other side of the Gulf with tactical missiles … as well as perhaps pre-planned local sabotage on the part of the Shiite majority in the Eastern Province to threaten the Saudis with a geopolitical implosion.

    If the US attacked the Russian bases in Syria to protect its flank, the Russians could destroy the same-said Saudi complexes with cruise missiles. Some commentators have related that the Russians made this threat when it launched cruise missile assaults on ISIS in Syria from the safety of their southern river systems. Their cruise missiles have the range … just a slight change in targeting coordinates.

    The world without Saudi and Iranian oil at the same time would take it to the brink. The Europeans, Chinese, and Indians would likely politically press the US for a militarily stand down, which would be interpreted as an Iranian/Russian victory. If the US refused, I suspect the US would experience a further global explosion in asymmetric responses from the rest of the world, not to mention the political chaos likely to ensue in the United States.

    The US military against a global coalition of refuseniks … the last gasp of a dying empire.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sarah Toga

    The US is already militarily overextended.
     
    The most important fact.

    We are way, way, way overextended. In every regard. A few strategic hits on the home front, our economy collapses. Water, food supplies disrupted. Electricity disrupted. Millions of Americans starve.

    Think that can't happen? Just remember all that "diversity" we've imported. Think they are here to become like Americans?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. Us$ is being main focal point. While wrong perception maintained about usa military conventional superiority over anyone was critical to mantain us$ status, us$ status as major reserve currency is the only thing that allowing united States to mantain her military at current levels and basically USA status as major global power. Take us$ status away and the king is naked USA would become very local power with vastly reduced if not ruined military and great issues at home. Everything that undermines us$ status is well come including showing USA military impotence vs major nations that are challenging the status quo.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    Take us$ status away and the king is naked USA would become very local power with vastly reduced if not ruined military and great issues at home.
     
    Very true. In fact, US military (in its conventional iteration) is one of the main (if not the main) pillar of the US Dollar as a main reserve currency, hence of US economy. It is, in effect, a business enterprise--that is why US strategic (and military-doctrinal) though becomes increasingly incoherent--one can formulate "global power" memes only for so long, at some point the sheer idiocy and futility of such "thinking" becomes evident even to those who believe in it. Only complete crazies remain. Plus, inability to realize itself as a real continental power is akin to acute sexual frustration.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Turns out this is total nonsense – the US military in the real world was nothing like its propaganda-world counterpart: when is the last time the US actually won a war against an adversary capable of meaningful resistance? The Pacific in WWII?
     
    Desert Storm? The scale of its success there took even US generals by surprise.

    It is also important to note that Iraq performed considerably better than Iran during the Iran-Iraq war (when thinking about Iran's capacity for "meaningful resistance").

    It is also important to note that Iraq performed considerably better than Iran

    Totally unfair comparison. The Iranian government of the Shah had been overthrown barely a year before. Their military had fallen apart under those circumstances. The officer class were Shah people and so were mostly gone, dead or fled, the generals in particular. In contrast the Iraqi military was at it’s peak and they struck at the moment the Iranians were at their weakest. Iraq had massive backing and credit for weaponry of every kind, received advice and things like satellite intelligence in contrast to the Iranians who were relatively isolated and did not have rich backers. Because of the emergency the Iranians resorted to using human wave attacks with untrained volunteers. Despite all this the Iranians managed to prevail and go on the offense, taking it to the Iraqis who began to flounder and ask their supporters for greater help and intervention. The US was drawn in, one infamous incident being the downing of Iran Air Flight 655 by the USS Vincennes. The Iranians accomplished this against all the odds.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    Yes. It should also be noted that it was Iraq who initiated peace offerings to Iran, not long after their attack turned into a quagmire, but absurdly insisted on keeping the territory they had managed to occupy (the UN, doubtless under US influence, refused to broker more realistic terms and hence played a role in prolonging the bloodshed and suffering).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. Wars on the Cheap? ….. not to an American taxpayer!!!!!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  59. Essentially, speculation. It seems to be just a rather long-winded way of saying the US can’t beat Putin in Ukraine and attacking him (or Assad) in Syria won’t advance that goal. That’s standard war propaganda: “don’t bother fighting, you have no chance of winning!” The author is Russian and I suppose he’s just trying to defend his country from the consequences of Putin’s blundering but there’s no gainsaying the fact that the disturber of the peace in modern Europe is Putin and the lesson of history is if the Russian elite don’t find a way to remove him from power, there will eventually be a war. I don’t see how Russia could win that war, not just because of its technologically backward military but also because I don’t see why young Russians would fight for a gangster regime that has been robbing them blind for over 25 years. In addition, why would Russian soldiers obey an order to launch a nuclear device when to do so would risk bringing down nuclear retaliation on their own families? The author is trading on the cold war image of the Russian soldier as a blind fanatic. I don’t think that was ever true but it certainly isn’t true now.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    I commend you on presenting this comment, it is indeed rare for such total ignorance to be so proudly displayed, however, anyone who could claim the following probably needs psychiatric help. Are you really that crazy, stupid or just a typical troll?

    "The author is Russian and I suppose he’s just trying to defend his country from the consequences of Putin’s blundering but there’s no gainsaying the fact that the disturber of the peace in modern Europe is Putin and the lesson of history is if the Russian elite don’t find a way to remove him from power, there will eventually be a war."

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. MEexpert says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Turns out this is total nonsense – the US military in the real world was nothing like its propaganda-world counterpart: when is the last time the US actually won a war against an adversary capable of meaningful resistance? The Pacific in WWII?
     
    Desert Storm? The scale of its success there took even US generals by surprise.

    It is also important to note that Iraq performed considerably better than Iran during the Iran-Iraq war (when thinking about Iran's capacity for "meaningful resistance").

    I am totally surprised by Anatoly Karlin’s ignorant comments. It seems he has absolutely no knowledge of the Middle East and the events that have tanspired in that area.

    Desert Storm? The scale of its success there took even US generals by surprise.

    Apparently, Anatoly Karlin didn’t read Saker’s comments carefully. There was a qualifier in his statement.

    when is the last time the US actually won a war against an adversary capable of meaningful resistance? The Pacific in WWII?

    The qualifier was “meaningful resistance.” In Desert Storm, with massive “shock and awe” bombing of Iraq for several hours, Iraq did not offer meaningful resistance. So, yes, the US has not won any war since WWII.

    It is also important to note that Iraq performed considerably better than Iran during the Iran-Iraq war (when thinking about Iran’s capacity for “meaningful resistance”).

    At the time, Iran was still going through the revolutionary stage. There were several terrorist attacks inside Iran, including the one where 73 leading members of the Islamic Republic were killed. Iraq invaded Iran with the help of her Arab allies and the US with US supplying weapons including the chemical weapons to Iraq. It were those chemical weapons that US later used as a pretext to invade Iraq in 2003. Iran was battling both the internal enemies (MEK) as well as external ones. Iran was alone at the time without any meaningful resistance.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. headrick says:

    I look around in the USA today and I don’t see the ability to fill out a assault force and the
    occupation force to occupy any large foreign country. I certainly could be wrong but just
    looking around, I don’t see a presidential call to arms would result in a flood of eager and capable armed force recruits like we had in 1941. Maybe if the economy collapsed and there
    were huge numbers youth in the streets anyway like the post 1929 gen, maybe things would change. People are more cynical now, and a naive call to arms over a state controlled media
    to avenge some great false flag atrocity would be met with cries of derisive laughter. “Wholesome farm boys angered over the unprovoked Jap attack on the US” would not be lining up. The ability to Marshall a huge effective army, and to provide them all with modern
    arms and support, – well that is a neocon wet dream.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  62. Interesting and quite persuasove about the developments which have diminished America over the last 25 years. But pls give up the (in this context anyway) uninformative cant “Anglo-Zionist”. And for real info please name those neo-cons you say are so powerful.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    Are you in a cuck competition with Corvinus? (Try saying that five times fast!)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. Kiza says:
    @Randal

    Why are you so certain the US could achieve air superiority in Iran?
     
    Saker's assumption there is pretty much conventional wisdom.

    Iran certainly has no air force that could contest the skies meaningfully, so the only way Iran could achieve any degree of air neutrality would be by denying the US and its allies bases (including carriers) close enough, and maintaining sufficient ground-based air defences in being, to prevent the US and allied air forces from operating effectively over Iran.

    Absent direct and very significant Russian support, there's no reason to believe Iran could do either. Granted Iranian missile attacks on bases and threats to carriers can make life difficult for the US and its allies, but it seems unlikely they could do so sufficiently to prevent effective operations. Iran is not China and it has no plausible way to locate and target carriers sufficiently far away to preclude air-refuelled operations, and the US has bases throughout the ME, and additional basing in Israel would undoubtedly be made available, with refuelling over Saudi Arabia.

    Meanwhile, there's no reason to suppose Iran's ground-based air defences would be any more effective than Yugoslavia's in the Kosovo war - able to survive to keep US pilots minimally honest only by being hidden and not used except in ideal situations or to make the occasional point that they are still around. While Iran is bigger and it has some more modern systems, it's unlikely they will be more competently operated than Serbia's were, and they will be equally vulnerable to US SEAD operations any time they are used. US air operations would also be far more aggressive from the start over Iran than they were over Serbia, and with far less restrictive targeting requirements.

    There are too may unknowns to make predictions with certainty, but the assumption that the US would quickly achieve air superiority over Iran, and probably a degree of air supremacy once SEAD has been applied for a while, is not unreasonable imo. It's likely there would be some US losses involved, but that's war.

    None of this should be mistaken for advocacy of a US attack on Iran, which would be disastrous for the US imo. Air superiority is only one small part of such a war, and far from the most important.

    You have no idea what you writing about, but you do look learned. Although you are not, lots of wrong info fed into you, the armchair general. Plus the immense self-confidence of a US ignoramus.

    You are not worthy a debate, so I am not to criticize your individual points of ignorance as others appear to be trying. It is all rubbish.

    Read More
    • Replies: @for-the-record
    Plus the immense self-confidence of a US ignoramus.

    If you think Randal is American, then perhaps it is not he who is the ignoramus...
    , @peterAUS
    Randal feels as a Brit gentleman so probably won't reply.

    Personally, I read his comments here twice and found them the best in this thread so far.

    Had to be said....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. utu says:
    @Randal

    Why are you so certain the US could achieve air superiority in Iran?
     
    Saker's assumption there is pretty much conventional wisdom.

    Iran certainly has no air force that could contest the skies meaningfully, so the only way Iran could achieve any degree of air neutrality would be by denying the US and its allies bases (including carriers) close enough, and maintaining sufficient ground-based air defences in being, to prevent the US and allied air forces from operating effectively over Iran.

    Absent direct and very significant Russian support, there's no reason to believe Iran could do either. Granted Iranian missile attacks on bases and threats to carriers can make life difficult for the US and its allies, but it seems unlikely they could do so sufficiently to prevent effective operations. Iran is not China and it has no plausible way to locate and target carriers sufficiently far away to preclude air-refuelled operations, and the US has bases throughout the ME, and additional basing in Israel would undoubtedly be made available, with refuelling over Saudi Arabia.

    Meanwhile, there's no reason to suppose Iran's ground-based air defences would be any more effective than Yugoslavia's in the Kosovo war - able to survive to keep US pilots minimally honest only by being hidden and not used except in ideal situations or to make the occasional point that they are still around. While Iran is bigger and it has some more modern systems, it's unlikely they will be more competently operated than Serbia's were, and they will be equally vulnerable to US SEAD operations any time they are used. US air operations would also be far more aggressive from the start over Iran than they were over Serbia, and with far less restrictive targeting requirements.

    There are too may unknowns to make predictions with certainty, but the assumption that the US would quickly achieve air superiority over Iran, and probably a degree of air supremacy once SEAD has been applied for a while, is not unreasonable imo. It's likely there would be some US losses involved, but that's war.

    None of this should be mistaken for advocacy of a US attack on Iran, which would be disastrous for the US imo. Air superiority is only one small part of such a war, and far from the most important.

    Your comment will not be popular here. But what you describe seems to be the most realistic scenario. Sympathies and wishful thinking have to be put aside when thinking about war outcomes. It is not about what is just or not or who deserves to win or not in the real world. The overwhelming force wins every times. The US has overwhelming military advantage over Iran. End of discussion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    Sympathies and wishful thinking have to be put aside when thinking about war outcomes. It is not about what is just or not or who deserves to win or not in the real world.
     
    I think you put your finger on the key point there.

    Wishful thinking is the bane of analysis. Age and experience can help to counter it, but will not help unless there is a basic internal honesty which is surprisingly rare, I think. You have to, as commenter ThomasT put it in a comment here on Unz that I read earlier today, have "enough respect for history to actually listen to it instead of just wishing it away".

    Of course, the inevitable and unanswerable response to making that point is always "of course that applies to you too". All I can say is that I think I am guarded against it as well as it's possible to be. Age and experience is on my side, I'm very aware of its dangers, and a healthy dose of both innate and learned pessimism helps as well.

    I'd love to be able to say that a war of aggression waged by the US regime against Iran for the benefit of Israel and Saudi Arabia would result in the US air force getting humiliatingly shot down. And perhaps that will happen. I just don't see any honest justification for expecting it, and most of those claiming it will happen seem to be engaging in wishful thinking, choosing to believe only those sources and opinions that back up their hopes.
    , @Kiza
    End of discussion, it is settled science, right? Where did you people purchase your brains, Walmart or https://www.yelp.com/search?find_desc=jewish+market&find_loc=Los+Angeles%2C+CA?
    Please let me know to avoid buying anything there. Even the best laid plans seldom survive engagement with the enemy. As most US Zionist craps, you truly have no contact with reality, you constantly wallow in your own pig poop.

    How about US using nuclear weapons on Iran on Israel's behalf? Would that be the overwhelming enough fire power for you? Iran is watching the US cowardice against North Korea (talking endless bull about intervening) and will realize eventually that only having nuclear weapons will protect it from the Zionist crazies.

    You and Randal are Zionist trolls pushing for war on Iran. Let us see how dumb the US people are to listen to you (well, most are).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. Joe Hide says:

    Good article Saker. 90+% in agreement. Fact loaded, conclusions largely based on those facts, and still just enough disputable personal opinion to rile up the reader and get him thoroughly engaged.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  66. Miro23 says:

    Setting aside the nuclear aspect for a while (it is not relevant to our discussion), I would characterize the conventional dimension of such a war as “heavy”: centered on large formations (divisions, brigades), involving a lot of armor and artillery, this kind of warfare would involve immense logistical efforts on both sides and that, in turn, would involve deep-strikes on second echelon forces, supply dumps, strategic axes of communications (roads, railways, bridges, etc.) and a defense in depth in key sectors.

    I’m trying to imagine the US making a massive WW2 type military effort and I just can’t.

    “Wars on the cheap” are wars that do not touch most Americans directly (paid on credit) such as Afghanistan or Libya.

    Another category are Iraq style “Wars on the not-so-cheap” (involving a land invasion) that have probably become impossible in today’s ambience.

    That just leaves an ambiguous something in between type of warfare involving destruction by bombing (without a land invasion), which could still effectively flatten a country like Iran and make it economically and militarily irrelevant – which would be enough for the Neo-cons.

    However, since Iran lacks any real insurgency, and taking into account the size and location of the country, this could easily slide into a “War on the not-so-cheap” given the scale of the air campaign and the cost in logistics and munitions.

    So the weak point could in fact be economic – $ trillions more debt and a destabilized oil market, but the Neo-cons aren’t going to lose any sleep over that, and if things turn really messy with Russian and Chinese involvement then they can finally get their “National Emergency” and throw out Trump.

    What is 100% sure is that the USA is in a mess.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sunbeam
    I’m trying to imagine the US making a massive WW2 type military effort and I just can’t.

    “Wars on the cheap” are wars that do not touch most Americans directly (paid on credit) such as Afghanistan or Libya.


    I can't imagine it either. I can't imagine the US undertaking anything as large scale as the Vietnam War either, because no way are they asking the nation to become involved and adopt this struggle as their own.

    If the US can't do it with the land forces they have now, they aren't doing it.

    Which brings us to the point of this whole article. If you can't intimidate them, blackmail them with air power, or bring them to their knees with sanctions...

    What exactly does the US have in the way of a Steel Fist in the glove?

    I imagine a country like Venezuela would be ripe for unleashing havoc upon. But how many countries that really matter to us strategically can we control with the threat of force?

    I guess if you believe in domino theories, sure. But I imagine the Chinese would observe us dick waving against Nicaragua or Cuba with a puzzled look "Am I missing something? Why does that matter? At all?"
    , @Randal

    I’m trying to imagine the US making a massive WW2 type military effort and I just can’t.
     
    See my point in post 5 about national will and the possibility of events fundamentally changing the strategic context.

    I agree with you (and Saker) that in the current political and strategic context it's impossible to imagine the US bearing the costs of the kind of effort needed to force Iran to surrender. But I can imagine that situation changing overnight, in the right context, because the economic and military fundamentals are there to allow it, given the national will.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. @Kiza
    You have no idea what you writing about, but you do look learned. Although you are not, lots of wrong info fed into you, the armchair general. Plus the immense self-confidence of a US ignoramus.

    You are not worthy a debate, so I am not to criticize your individual points of ignorance as others appear to be trying. It is all rubbish.

    Plus the immense self-confidence of a US ignoramus.

    If you think Randal is American, then perhaps it is not he who is the ignoramus…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. @Anonymous
    Agreed on US Air superiority, but I also think both China and Russia would have a big incentive to help out Iran with air defense.

    A big deployment like we saw in Desert Storm would give Iran enough time to smuggle in more S400's.

    Anything less than Desert Storm 2 Iran would be able to control the skies.

    I am 100% sure china or russia will step in for iran’s defense in case of usa attack. who will be on friendly terms with these 2 countries if they offers no protection?

    the only reason there was a nuclear deal with iran was because russia + china were about to ignore the us sanctions. that was a usa move to keep up the facade of dominance.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    I am 100% sure china or russia will step in for iran’s defense in case of usa attack.

    I think China and Russia must step in earlier to prevent the attack. But if the attack begins they won't step in though they may offer Iran support to make it harder for the US.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. Broos says:

    LOOK$ Like $ERIAL U$’ QUAGMIRE$ From here ta tomorra ta me!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  70. Greg Bacon says: • Website
    @restless94110
    Churchill started making speeches; the recent book on the brothers Dulles documents extensively Allen Dulles' extreme beliefs about Communism, so radical that he favored fascism and Nazis over the Commies. He became the father of the CIA, and made sure that many in the Nazi spy apparatus found homes in the United States, then went on a decade long crusade to crush communism in Italy and several other countries.

    It is you who is silly. Writing some nonsense about something in the archives somewhere when there is evidence in the West that's been right in front of your face? You couldn't be that stupid, could you?

    And by the way, do you know the difference between Trotsky and Stalin? Trotsky wanted world-wide revolution; Stalin wanted communism in the USSR, no world-wide revolution. Do you know who won that argument?

    You problaby don't. Stalin did.

    Furthermore, are you familiar with the Game theory basis for the Cold War? It was the lunatic schizoprhenic John Nash, who was certifiably insane when he cooked it up, and years later, when he his schizophrenia was on the wane, repudiated his own theory!

    The Cold War was cooked up in the West by state actors. Don't talk your nonsense.

    I agree. No sooner had WW II ended than the West started on the Cold War, designed to create fear, panic and hysteria in the US–and Europe–so the Deep State types could regal Americans with tales of a nuclear weapons, missiles, bombers and the like ‘gaps’ that those devious Rooskies had on the US and we just had to spend all sorts of money to build machines of death to keep ‘Old Glory’ flying high. And use that excuse to go after people and head-hunt those who didn’t goose step to this new artificial reality.

    When the Iron Curtain fell, within 18 months, the West had a new boogeyman, Saddam and on 9/11, that was enlarged to include the Islamic world, who we just have to fight over there so we don’t fight them in Baltimore, not that any sane nation would want to invade most of our big cities, it’s too dangerous.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. @Sergey Krieger
    Us$ is being main focal point. While wrong perception maintained about usa military conventional superiority over anyone was critical to mantain us$ status, us$ status as major reserve currency is the only thing that allowing united States to mantain her military at current levels and basically USA status as major global power. Take us$ status away and the king is naked USA would become very local power with vastly reduced if not ruined military and great issues at home. Everything that undermines us$ status is well come including showing USA military impotence vs major nations that are challenging the status quo.

    Take us$ status away and the king is naked USA would become very local power with vastly reduced if not ruined military and great issues at home.

    Very true. In fact, US military (in its conventional iteration) is one of the main (if not the main) pillar of the US Dollar as a main reserve currency, hence of US economy. It is, in effect, a business enterprise–that is why US strategic (and military-doctrinal) though becomes increasingly incoherent–one can formulate “global power” memes only for so long, at some point the sheer idiocy and futility of such “thinking” becomes evident even to those who believe in it. Only complete crazies remain. Plus, inability to realize itself as a real continental power is akin to acute sexual frustration.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. Avery says:
    @Randal

    Why are you so certain the US could achieve air superiority in Iran?
     
    Saker's assumption there is pretty much conventional wisdom.

    Iran certainly has no air force that could contest the skies meaningfully, so the only way Iran could achieve any degree of air neutrality would be by denying the US and its allies bases (including carriers) close enough, and maintaining sufficient ground-based air defences in being, to prevent the US and allied air forces from operating effectively over Iran.

    Absent direct and very significant Russian support, there's no reason to believe Iran could do either. Granted Iranian missile attacks on bases and threats to carriers can make life difficult for the US and its allies, but it seems unlikely they could do so sufficiently to prevent effective operations. Iran is not China and it has no plausible way to locate and target carriers sufficiently far away to preclude air-refuelled operations, and the US has bases throughout the ME, and additional basing in Israel would undoubtedly be made available, with refuelling over Saudi Arabia.

    Meanwhile, there's no reason to suppose Iran's ground-based air defences would be any more effective than Yugoslavia's in the Kosovo war - able to survive to keep US pilots minimally honest only by being hidden and not used except in ideal situations or to make the occasional point that they are still around. While Iran is bigger and it has some more modern systems, it's unlikely they will be more competently operated than Serbia's were, and they will be equally vulnerable to US SEAD operations any time they are used. US air operations would also be far more aggressive from the start over Iran than they were over Serbia, and with far less restrictive targeting requirements.

    There are too may unknowns to make predictions with certainty, but the assumption that the US would quickly achieve air superiority over Iran, and probably a degree of air supremacy once SEAD has been applied for a while, is not unreasonable imo. It's likely there would be some US losses involved, but that's war.

    None of this should be mistaken for advocacy of a US attack on Iran, which would be disastrous for the US imo. Air superiority is only one small part of such a war, and far from the most important.

    Agree with [Randal] and disagree with [Kiza].

    Despite what people here – including myself – feel about the criminal warmongering US/Neocons, we have to look at things with a cold, calculating heart.
    At present US has no peers when it comes to offensive air campaign. None.

    Whatever S-300s IRI has will not be enough to stop USAF. Yes, many US bombers will be lost to the capable S-300, but there is a limited number of S-300 missiles in IRI possession. Eventually Iran will run out of defensive anti-air missiles. Also, many anti-air installations will be defeated by swarms of anti-anti-air missile missiles. USAF has practically unlimited assets. At some point, assuming RF does not get directly involved, USAF will be flying all over Iran at will.

    The next question is to what end?

    There will be a lot of devastation after the USAF carpet bombing, but Iran will never capitulate and US boots cannot possibly occupy Iran.
    Iran will absorb the blows, and immediately embark on developing nukes.
    Then everybody and his brother (e.g. KSA) will try to obtain nukes (from Paks, for example).

    Iran also has tremendous asymmetric advantages: its neighborhood, particularly Iraq, is target-rich; the target being American troops. As soon as USAF starts bombing Iran, all restrains will come off of Iran’s military: all US bases and troops in Iran’s vicinity will be legitimate targets. Including Gulf states’ oil infrastructure. US, and possibly the whole West, might very well plunge into a deep economic depression, with devastating consequences. Stock market crash, massive unemployment, spike in food prices,…..all very, very bad.

    My guess is despite Trump public rhetoric, and the foaming-at-the-mouth Nimrata Haley, there are at least some cooler heads in the Pentagon that will stop the self-defeating insanity.

    Nothing in it for America or the American people/taxpayer.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein

    USAF has practically unlimited assets.
     
    What kind of rat poison have you been smoking and what planet are you doing it on? Less than 1/3 of our "unlimited assets" are currently combat ready and there is no chance of deploying it to Iran anyway.
    , @Randal

    My guess is despite Trump public rhetoric, and the foaming-at-the-mouth Nimrata Haley, there are at least some cooler heads in the Pentagon that will stop the self-defeating insanity.
     
    This has certainly been the case in the past. Whether it remains the case depends upon the personnel at the top. My impression is that they are even more anti-Iranian (remarkably) than previous generations, perhaps from experience in Iraq. That doesn't mean they will necessarily let their emotions colour their professional judgement and advice, but it can't be ruled out entirely.
    , @Kiza
    I can only guess that some Zionist troll has overtaken Avery's tag. Because this is a totally stupid sh**. As the other guy asked: what rat poison have you been smoking?

    But I can understand if you are a Zionist troll, a part of the team stalking unz.com and shoveling poop, who is paid to convince US morons that Iran is an easy target. US has no beef with Iran, it is purely the Zionists who are pushing for war. Then what? The US will lose planes and pilots and it will continue fighting on Israel's behalf? Yeah, for the Zionists the US goyim (cattle) lives are worthless but what about their goyim families? And you Zionist craps would not be chased and hung off the lampposts after US goyim die big time for your ilk? Do you think that the police will protect you? Tell me the secret, what do you think will save you? Your Hasbara leaders will run and hide into their rat holes, but where will you hide?

    , @Joe Wong
    "USAF has practically unlimited assets." If Chinese put a brake on the supply of rare earth to the USA and its minions, that unlimited assets pretty soon will be as scarce as Exocet to the Argentinean during the Falklands War.
    , @pogohere
    This war is being fought in the White House right now. And it is about Iran. McMaster et al (the Petraeus gangster) vs Flynns embeds in the NSC. etc. And maybe vs Israel, eh?

    The Man McMaster Couldn't Fire
    7-23-17

    Thirty-one-year-old Ezra Cohen-Watnick holds the intelligence portfolio on the National Security Council—but almost everything about him is a mystery.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/ezra-cohen-watnick/534615/



    Senior director Ezra Cohen-Watnick out at National Security Council

    8-2-17

    The senior director for intelligence on the National Security Council left the agency, the White House confirmed Wednesday.

    A White House official said Ezra Cohen-Watnick, who was hired during the brief tenure of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, “has left the National Security Council [NSC].”


    "[National Security Advisor] Gen. McMaster appreciates the good work accomplished in the NSC's Intelligence directorate under Ezra Cohen's leadership,” a White House official said.

    “He has determined that, at this time, a different set of experiences is best-suited to carrying that work forward," the official continued. "Gen. McMaster is confident that Ezra will make many further significant contributions to national security in another position in the administration."

    Cohen-Watnick's departure is the latest in a string of exits from the National Security Council under H.R. McMaster, who has reportedly sought to purge Flynn appointees.

    Another Flynn hire, retired Army intelligence officer Derek Harvey, was ousted from the NSC last week. He had been working as a senior Middle East adviser.

    Cohen-Watnick's removal is the second significant personnel change at the White House since Retired Gen. John Kelly took over as chief of staff.

    A few hours after Kelly was sworn in on Monday, the White House announced the departure of Anthony Scaramucci as communications director.

    http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/345042-ezra-cohen-watnick-out-at-nsc



    McMaster is a Petraeus protege. Petraeus is on the board of the Atlantic Council, some of whose members you will recognize (http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/about/board-of-directors). Jon M. Huntsman, Jr., the chairman, has been selected to be the US Amb to Russia (not confirmed by the senate yet). Petraeus is also a member of Kohlberg Kravis Roberts as of May 2013.

    Flynn was and is anti-Iran. That would make him a zionist-symp. It's his appointees/proteges, such as Cohen-Watnick, who have held out at the NSC up to now, but who are being picked off by the Petraeus cabal. Bannon and Kushner have supported Flynn's people. B/K are losing these battles. They have failed to protect Cohen-Watnick and Harvey.

    Israel is pissed that the US is supplying the Lebanese army--which means Hezbollah--as it roots out the al-Nusra gang in southwest Syria on the Golan border. Israel, by inference, is losing the battle in the White House. And that means Kushner.

    I suspect that it's Kissinger who is directing the Petraeus cabal in realpolitik here by blocking anti-Iran action--get rid of the Flynnsters-- and thereby throwing Israel under the bus. The K man hasn't managed to split the Russians from the Chinese and that was the only way to take down Iran. Wasn't ever gonna work, but what the hell. Therefore, Israel becomes the hindmost to be taken by youknowwho.

    My speculation is that the Kushners are in deep shit and they are the Anglo-Zionist aces in the hole. Trump always throws people under the bus when it's him or them. Look for the eclipse of the Kushners and Bannon following 21 Aug. (:>) Early September is my best guess.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. utu says:
    @Astuteobservor II
    I am 100% sure china or russia will step in for iran's defense in case of usa attack. who will be on friendly terms with these 2 countries if they offers no protection?

    the only reason there was a nuclear deal with iran was because russia + china were about to ignore the us sanctions. that was a usa move to keep up the facade of dominance.

    I am 100% sure china or russia will step in for iran’s defense in case of usa attack.

    I think China and Russia must step in earlier to prevent the attack. But if the attack begins they won’t step in though they may offer Iran support to make it harder for the US.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II

    I think China and Russia must step in earlier to prevent the attack. But if the attack begins they won’t step in though they may offer Iran support to make it harder for the US.
     
    what difference is there? usa ignored the UN and attacked iraq. what is there to stop usa from doing the same with iran? usa will attack when it wants to, there is no such thing as prevention unless willing to go to war. so when and if usa decides to attack, that means usa is willing to go to war with all 3. when that happens, if china and russia is not willing, they have already lost. their elites should just pull their pants down and bend over, they are about to get fuck in the a .
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. Sunbeam says:
    @Miro23

    Setting aside the nuclear aspect for a while (it is not relevant to our discussion), I would characterize the conventional dimension of such a war as “heavy”: centered on large formations (divisions, brigades), involving a lot of armor and artillery, this kind of warfare would involve immense logistical efforts on both sides and that, in turn, would involve deep-strikes on second echelon forces, supply dumps, strategic axes of communications (roads, railways, bridges, etc.) and a defense in depth in key sectors.
     
    I'm trying to imagine the US making a massive WW2 type military effort and I just can't.

    "Wars on the cheap" are wars that do not touch most Americans directly (paid on credit) such as Afghanistan or Libya.

    Another category are Iraq style "Wars on the not-so-cheap" (involving a land invasion) that have probably become impossible in today's ambience.

    That just leaves an ambiguous something in between type of warfare involving destruction by bombing (without a land invasion), which could still effectively flatten a country like Iran and make it economically and militarily irrelevant - which would be enough for the Neo-cons.

    However, since Iran lacks any real insurgency, and taking into account the size and location of the country, this could easily slide into a "War on the not-so-cheap" given the scale of the air campaign and the cost in logistics and munitions.

    So the weak point could in fact be economic - $ trillions more debt and a destabilized oil market, but the Neo-cons aren't going to lose any sleep over that, and if things turn really messy with Russian and Chinese involvement then they can finally get their "National Emergency" and throw out Trump.

    What is 100% sure is that the USA is in a mess.

    I’m trying to imagine the US making a massive WW2 type military effort and I just can’t.

    “Wars on the cheap” are wars that do not touch most Americans directly (paid on credit) such as Afghanistan or Libya.

    I can’t imagine it either. I can’t imagine the US undertaking anything as large scale as the Vietnam War either, because no way are they asking the nation to become involved and adopt this struggle as their own.

    If the US can’t do it with the land forces they have now, they aren’t doing it.

    Which brings us to the point of this whole article. If you can’t intimidate them, blackmail them with air power, or bring them to their knees with sanctions…

    What exactly does the US have in the way of a Steel Fist in the glove?

    I imagine a country like Venezuela would be ripe for unleashing havoc upon. But how many countries that really matter to us strategically can we control with the threat of force?

    I guess if you believe in domino theories, sure. But I imagine the Chinese would observe us dick waving against Nicaragua or Cuba with a puzzled look “Am I missing something? Why does that matter? At all?”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. @Robert Magill

    Turns out this is total nonsense – the US military in the real world was nothing like its propaganda-world counterpart: when is the last time the US actually won a war against an adversary capable of meaningful resistance? The Pacific in WWII?
     
    The Saker gets it. The Russians, Chinese, Iranians get it. Nobody, but nobody, in the USA in any important position, gets it. Maybe Trump does, we'll see.


    http://robertmagill.wordpress.com

    The German generals rightfully had low opinion of the quality of the American military, which of course was quite different from the ability of the American political-economic system to effectively wage war (which was obviously quite great). Even in Korea, a Chinese peasant army (barely WW1 caliber) was able to drive the Americans (unscathed by the horrors of WW2) sufficiently far from their borders until their logistics reached their limit.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. I am surprised that neither the Saker nor the people who have written comments, have mentioned the Iranian threat that if they are attacked, they will flatten Israel. Since they seem to have a considerable ability to make surface-to-surface missiles and are not very far from Israel and have had time to prepare, I would have thought that this threat was relevant to this discussion.

    Apart from that I agreed with most of what the Saker wrote. As usual.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    Israel would doubtless retaliate with nukes, assuming their fifth column couldn't persuade the US to do it for them. An offensive strike on Israel (leaving aside Israeli provocations and agitation for war) would also likely engender some European support for US military action which would otherwise be muted if not absent.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. @Anatoly Karlin

    Turns out this is total nonsense – the US military in the real world was nothing like its propaganda-world counterpart: when is the last time the US actually won a war against an adversary capable of meaningful resistance? The Pacific in WWII?
     
    Desert Storm? The scale of its success there took even US generals by surprise.

    It is also important to note that Iraq performed considerably better than Iran during the Iran-Iraq war (when thinking about Iran's capacity for "meaningful resistance").

    Desert Storm was fought against an opponent possessing antiquated Soviet weaponry employing a “strategy”‘ tailored perfectly to facilitate the opponents strengths. If American planners were indeed surprised, this says more about their ability to believe their own super-villain propaganda.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
    I did not know about so called monkey versions then, but my dad Soviet colonel did tell me two things that Iraqi T-72 were not same as those in the park near our house and Iraqies shells were pre 1973 unable to penetrate Abrams armor. There were Soviet massive The West 1981 exercises of which I was aware than but due to age not getting importance despite watching Serve the Soviet Union every weekend. US land forces were not even on the same page as Soviet army. No wonder NATO had so many nukes in Europe and now I know that those excercices were about getting so close to our partners that there would be no chance to use tactical nukes and power, speed and coordination of Soviet strikes would be such that NATO forces would seaze to exist within 1-2 days. Gorbachov betrayal allowed USA to live in illusion of own making which is only now is being dispelled.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. @anonymous

    It is also important to note that Iraq performed considerably better than Iran
     
    Totally unfair comparison. The Iranian government of the Shah had been overthrown barely a year before. Their military had fallen apart under those circumstances. The officer class were Shah people and so were mostly gone, dead or fled, the generals in particular. In contrast the Iraqi military was at it's peak and they struck at the moment the Iranians were at their weakest. Iraq had massive backing and credit for weaponry of every kind, received advice and things like satellite intelligence in contrast to the Iranians who were relatively isolated and did not have rich backers. Because of the emergency the Iranians resorted to using human wave attacks with untrained volunteers. Despite all this the Iranians managed to prevail and go on the offense, taking it to the Iraqis who began to flounder and ask their supporters for greater help and intervention. The US was drawn in, one infamous incident being the downing of Iran Air Flight 655 by the USS Vincennes. The Iranians accomplished this against all the odds.

    Yes. It should also be noted that it was Iraq who initiated peace offerings to Iran, not long after their attack turned into a quagmire, but absurdly insisted on keeping the territory they had managed to occupy (the UN, doubtless under US influence, refused to broker more realistic terms and hence played a role in prolonging the bloodshed and suffering).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. @Wizard of Oz
    Interesting and quite persuasove about the developments which have diminished America over the last 25 years. But pls give up the (in this context anyway) uninformative cant "Anglo-Zionist". And for real info please name those neo-cons you say are so powerful.

    Are you in a cuck competition with Corvinus? (Try saying that five times fast!)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Who's Corvinus (crow? but Hungarian?). What's he say?
    , @Kiza
    Same story over and over, just ignore him. As a regular troll on unz the Wiz still makes himself read stupid in order to push Zionist bunkum.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. Randal says:
    @utu
    Your comment will not be popular here. But what you describe seems to be the most realistic scenario. Sympathies and wishful thinking have to be put aside when thinking about war outcomes. It is not about what is just or not or who deserves to win or not in the real world. The overwhelming force wins every times. The US has overwhelming military advantage over Iran. End of discussion.

    Sympathies and wishful thinking have to be put aside when thinking about war outcomes. It is not about what is just or not or who deserves to win or not in the real world.

    I think you put your finger on the key point there.

    Wishful thinking is the bane of analysis. Age and experience can help to counter it, but will not help unless there is a basic internal honesty which is surprisingly rare, I think. You have to, as commenter ThomasT put it in a comment here on Unz that I read earlier today, have “enough respect for history to actually listen to it instead of just wishing it away”.

    Of course, the inevitable and unanswerable response to making that point is always “of course that applies to you too”. All I can say is that I think I am guarded against it as well as it’s possible to be. Age and experience is on my side, I’m very aware of its dangers, and a healthy dose of both innate and learned pessimism helps as well.

    I’d love to be able to say that a war of aggression waged by the US regime against Iran for the benefit of Israel and Saudi Arabia would result in the US air force getting humiliatingly shot down. And perhaps that will happen. I just don’t see any honest justification for expecting it, and most of those claiming it will happen seem to be engaging in wishful thinking, choosing to believe only those sources and opinions that back up their hopes.

    Read More
    • Agree: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @utu
    "just wishing it away”

    This is very understandable and I appreciate where this is coming from. However displaying it might be appropriate at uncle Vanya's birthday party after several shots of vodka but not disguising it as factual and objective analysis. The wishful thinking often seeps from Saker's articles then it is mixed with pretentious bravado of commenters like Andrei Martyanov. There is no parity between the US and the rest of the world in conventional abilities of combined air and naval forces. The ground troops is a different story but the US will not commit them unless they clear out their enemies air force completely. This was the case in Desert Storm in 1991 and Iraq invasion in 2003. In both cases the US was overly cautious and continued the air campaigns for much longer time than it was necessary.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. @Avery
    Agree with [Randal] and disagree with [Kiza].

    Despite what people here - including myself - feel about the criminal warmongering US/Neocons, we have to look at things with a cold, calculating heart.
    At present US has no peers when it comes to offensive air campaign. None.

    Whatever S-300s IRI has will not be enough to stop USAF. Yes, many US bombers will be lost to the capable S-300, but there is a limited number of S-300 missiles in IRI possession. Eventually Iran will run out of defensive anti-air missiles. Also, many anti-air installations will be defeated by swarms of anti-anti-air missile missiles. USAF has practically unlimited assets. At some point, assuming RF does not get directly involved, USAF will be flying all over Iran at will.

    The next question is to what end?

    There will be a lot of devastation after the USAF carpet bombing, but Iran will never capitulate and US boots cannot possibly occupy Iran.
    Iran will absorb the blows, and immediately embark on developing nukes.
    Then everybody and his brother (e.g. KSA) will try to obtain nukes (from Paks, for example).

    Iran also has tremendous asymmetric advantages: its neighborhood, particularly Iraq, is target-rich; the target being American troops. As soon as USAF starts bombing Iran, all restrains will come off of Iran's military: all US bases and troops in Iran's vicinity will be legitimate targets. Including Gulf states' oil infrastructure. US, and possibly the whole West, might very well plunge into a deep economic depression, with devastating consequences. Stock market crash, massive unemployment, spike in food prices,.....all very, very bad.


    My guess is despite Trump public rhetoric, and the foaming-at-the-mouth Nimrata Haley, there are at least some cooler heads in the Pentagon that will stop the self-defeating insanity.

    Nothing in it for America or the American people/taxpayer.

    USAF has practically unlimited assets.

    What kind of rat poison have you been smoking and what planet are you doing it on? Less than 1/3 of our “unlimited assets” are currently combat ready and there is no chance of deploying it to Iran anyway.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {What kind of rat poison have you been smoking and what planet are you doing it on? }

    You seem to be the expert at it, so you tell me
    Apparently your rat-poison addled brain can't tell the obvious difference between 'practically' unlimited and unlimited.

    {Less than 1/3 of our “unlimited assets” are currently combat ready....}

    Unless you are a member of a select few in US Gov (military and civilian) who would be in a position to know, you are blowing smoke. And if you were a such a person, you would not be commenting @UNZ.com.

    {..... and there is no chance of deploying it to Iran anyway.}

    Aaaaaand....you know this how, General.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. Randal says:
    @Avery
    Agree with [Randal] and disagree with [Kiza].

    Despite what people here - including myself - feel about the criminal warmongering US/Neocons, we have to look at things with a cold, calculating heart.
    At present US has no peers when it comes to offensive air campaign. None.

    Whatever S-300s IRI has will not be enough to stop USAF. Yes, many US bombers will be lost to the capable S-300, but there is a limited number of S-300 missiles in IRI possession. Eventually Iran will run out of defensive anti-air missiles. Also, many anti-air installations will be defeated by swarms of anti-anti-air missile missiles. USAF has practically unlimited assets. At some point, assuming RF does not get directly involved, USAF will be flying all over Iran at will.

    The next question is to what end?

    There will be a lot of devastation after the USAF carpet bombing, but Iran will never capitulate and US boots cannot possibly occupy Iran.
    Iran will absorb the blows, and immediately embark on developing nukes.
    Then everybody and his brother (e.g. KSA) will try to obtain nukes (from Paks, for example).

    Iran also has tremendous asymmetric advantages: its neighborhood, particularly Iraq, is target-rich; the target being American troops. As soon as USAF starts bombing Iran, all restrains will come off of Iran's military: all US bases and troops in Iran's vicinity will be legitimate targets. Including Gulf states' oil infrastructure. US, and possibly the whole West, might very well plunge into a deep economic depression, with devastating consequences. Stock market crash, massive unemployment, spike in food prices,.....all very, very bad.


    My guess is despite Trump public rhetoric, and the foaming-at-the-mouth Nimrata Haley, there are at least some cooler heads in the Pentagon that will stop the self-defeating insanity.

    Nothing in it for America or the American people/taxpayer.

    My guess is despite Trump public rhetoric, and the foaming-at-the-mouth Nimrata Haley, there are at least some cooler heads in the Pentagon that will stop the self-defeating insanity.

    This has certainly been the case in the past. Whether it remains the case depends upon the personnel at the top. My impression is that they are even more anti-Iranian (remarkably) than previous generations, perhaps from experience in Iraq. That doesn’t mean they will necessarily let their emotions colour their professional judgement and advice, but it can’t be ruled out entirely.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. Randal says:
    @Miro23

    Setting aside the nuclear aspect for a while (it is not relevant to our discussion), I would characterize the conventional dimension of such a war as “heavy”: centered on large formations (divisions, brigades), involving a lot of armor and artillery, this kind of warfare would involve immense logistical efforts on both sides and that, in turn, would involve deep-strikes on second echelon forces, supply dumps, strategic axes of communications (roads, railways, bridges, etc.) and a defense in depth in key sectors.
     
    I'm trying to imagine the US making a massive WW2 type military effort and I just can't.

    "Wars on the cheap" are wars that do not touch most Americans directly (paid on credit) such as Afghanistan or Libya.

    Another category are Iraq style "Wars on the not-so-cheap" (involving a land invasion) that have probably become impossible in today's ambience.

    That just leaves an ambiguous something in between type of warfare involving destruction by bombing (without a land invasion), which could still effectively flatten a country like Iran and make it economically and militarily irrelevant - which would be enough for the Neo-cons.

    However, since Iran lacks any real insurgency, and taking into account the size and location of the country, this could easily slide into a "War on the not-so-cheap" given the scale of the air campaign and the cost in logistics and munitions.

    So the weak point could in fact be economic - $ trillions more debt and a destabilized oil market, but the Neo-cons aren't going to lose any sleep over that, and if things turn really messy with Russian and Chinese involvement then they can finally get their "National Emergency" and throw out Trump.

    What is 100% sure is that the USA is in a mess.

    I’m trying to imagine the US making a massive WW2 type military effort and I just can’t.

    See my point in post 5 about national will and the possibility of events fundamentally changing the strategic context.

    I agree with you (and Saker) that in the current political and strategic context it’s impossible to imagine the US bearing the costs of the kind of effort needed to force Iran to surrender. But I can imagine that situation changing overnight, in the right context, because the economic and military fundamentals are there to allow it, given the national will.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. Randal says:
    @Anonymous
    China helping economically and Russia providing military support would be a huge benefit to Iran.

    I think enough to withstand just about anything thrown at it from the west. Keep in mind a war with Iran would probably be followed by sanctions from the rest of the ME and Europe. So Chinese trade would be of vital importance.

    I think Russian tech and military support could help Iran control it's skies even without an airforce just like Syria is controlling it's airspace.

    What it comes down to, is that just as the Saker referenced, I don't think America wants or can fight a war that requires a lot of resources.

    America could have gone all in with Syria and controlled the skies there but did not because it would have been to expensive. America is looking for cheap ways to win wars such as color revolutions in Venezuela and China taking care of N Korea.

    If we really want the job done in Iran, it will mean going all in, and will also mean we aren't going to be able to do anything elsewhere which the elites don't want.

    I think Russian tech and military support could help Iran control it’s skies even without an airforce just like Syria is controlling it’s airspace.

    Syria does not control its airspace. The Israelis and US conduct airstrikes on Syrian territory practically at will. The only constraint seems to be when the Russians occasionally put their foot down and veto particular locations or kinds of strike.

    But that situation only exists because of the polite fiction that Russia and the US are there on the same side and fighting the same enemy, and the US is supposedly not at war with the Syrian government. The same would certainly not be the case in Iran, and Russian threats to US aircraft attacking Iranian targets would be dismissed as a threat of war, and the bluff called (assuming Russia is not prepared to start WW3 over Iran, which seems unlikely),

    Read More
    • Agree: utu
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I guess the point I was making is that America could control the Syrian airspace through overwhelming force, but chooses not to for a variety of reasons.

    Russian presence militarily is a big factor, as is America's reluctance to go "all in" lest the war turn into something that is no longer a "cheap war."

    But America and Isreal are definately taking a back seat militarily bevause they dont control the airspace. Airstrikes in Syrian territory are definately still happening. But Russia is helping Syria control the important airspace to help win the war like near Allepo and protecting the Capital which prevents decapitation of the leadership.

    American and Israeli strikes are limited to minor counter attacks. No doubt if Russian tech and miltary presence were not there, American and Israeli strikes would be much larger in scope. America and Isreal did lose in Syria afterall.

    With Iran, I think something similar would happen. They already have S400's and can defend themselves against air strikes. So only overwhelming force would control the Iranian airspace, and that would not be a cheap war.

    I think both Russia and China would be much more aggressive helping Iran than Syria. It is a much larger chess piece for them. So what makes you think Russia would be bluffing when they are clearly not bluffing in Syria? That's why America does not challenge Russia there, because they know that Russia is not bluffing.
    , @Andrei Martyanov

    The same would certainly not be the case in Iran, and Russian threats to US aircraft attacking Iranian targets would be dismissed as a threat of war, and the bluff called (assuming Russia is not prepared to start WW3 over Iran, which seems unlikely),
     
    I am not exactly sure I follow your train of thought but in what sense Russia should threaten US aircraft hypothetically attacking Iranian targets? From where, by what, under what conditions? From Iranian territory? It is a very broad statement.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. peterAUS says:
    @TG
    Interesting thoughts.

    I do, however, suggest that there is a second kind of 'war on the cheap' that the US employs.

    You say that the Serbian army was withdrawn by Milosovec for 'personal reasons.' No. It is true, the US army could not really damage the regular Serbian army from the air. So instead that US started bombing civilian infrastructure in Serbia, and threatened: do what we want or we turn you back to the 9th century. Which the United States can still do, even without boots on the ground.

    So if the neocons only want to trash a country into collapse, or force it into giving up territory, that is still very much on the table.

    Exactly.

    Also, what was left out of the article is the fact that the regime in Moscow promised to protect Serbian interests in Kosovo.

    The drunkard, naturally, couldn’t follow on his promise.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. peterAUS says:
    @Anonymous
    I also agree with this sentiment.

    A war with N Korea might mean America will be tar pitted for the next decade dealing with the aftermath. I don't think it will be a surgical strike and that's it.

    This will take the focus away from Iran and the interests there are beyond Isreal. Saudi Arabia, other ME countries, US oil interests, and Europe all have an interest in controlling Iran. We are talking about the petrodollar dollar at stake here. So the Iran issue has a lot at stake for pretty much all the important players. Hitting Iran also blocks China's One Belt One Road initiative.

    N Korea just isn't as important as Iran is geopolitically.

    I can see Trump bungling things though and trying to cheaply deal with N Korea first, and getting tar pitted with a much larger war.

    God help us all!

    My sentiments exactly.

    God helps Iranian people over there.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. peterAUS says:
    @Kiza
    You have no idea what you writing about, but you do look learned. Although you are not, lots of wrong info fed into you, the armchair general. Plus the immense self-confidence of a US ignoramus.

    You are not worthy a debate, so I am not to criticize your individual points of ignorance as others appear to be trying. It is all rubbish.

    Randal feels as a Brit gentleman so probably won’t reply.

    Personally, I read his comments here twice and found them the best in this thread so far.

    Had to be said….

    Read More
    • Agree: for-the-record
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. @Foolisholdman
    I am surprised that neither the Saker nor the people who have written comments, have mentioned the Iranian threat that if they are attacked, they will flatten Israel. Since they seem to have a considerable ability to make surface-to-surface missiles and are not very far from Israel and have had time to prepare, I would have thought that this threat was relevant to this discussion.

    Apart from that I agreed with most of what the Saker wrote. As usual.

    Israel would doubtless retaliate with nukes, assuming their fifth column couldn’t persuade the US to do it for them. An offensive strike on Israel (leaving aside Israeli provocations and agitation for war) would also likely engender some European support for US military action which would otherwise be muted if not absent.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. hey, here’s an idea. no more wars. wars waste money; wars destroy; wars kill; wars are a combination of evil & ignorance in action.
    our current wars are bankrupting us both morally and financially.
    remember: those to whom evil is done do evil in return.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  90. Avery says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    USAF has practically unlimited assets.
     
    What kind of rat poison have you been smoking and what planet are you doing it on? Less than 1/3 of our "unlimited assets" are currently combat ready and there is no chance of deploying it to Iran anyway.

    {What kind of rat poison have you been smoking and what planet are you doing it on? }

    You seem to be the expert at it, so you tell me
    Apparently your rat-poison addled brain can’t tell the obvious difference between ‘practically’ unlimited and unlimited.

    {Less than 1/3 of our “unlimited assets” are currently combat ready….}

    Unless you are a member of a select few in US Gov (military and civilian) who would be in a position to know, you are blowing smoke. And if you were a such a person, you would not be commenting @UNZ.com.

    {….. and there is no chance of deploying it to Iran anyway.}

    Aaaaaand….you know this how, General.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. utu says:
    @Randal

    Sympathies and wishful thinking have to be put aside when thinking about war outcomes. It is not about what is just or not or who deserves to win or not in the real world.
     
    I think you put your finger on the key point there.

    Wishful thinking is the bane of analysis. Age and experience can help to counter it, but will not help unless there is a basic internal honesty which is surprisingly rare, I think. You have to, as commenter ThomasT put it in a comment here on Unz that I read earlier today, have "enough respect for history to actually listen to it instead of just wishing it away".

    Of course, the inevitable and unanswerable response to making that point is always "of course that applies to you too". All I can say is that I think I am guarded against it as well as it's possible to be. Age and experience is on my side, I'm very aware of its dangers, and a healthy dose of both innate and learned pessimism helps as well.

    I'd love to be able to say that a war of aggression waged by the US regime against Iran for the benefit of Israel and Saudi Arabia would result in the US air force getting humiliatingly shot down. And perhaps that will happen. I just don't see any honest justification for expecting it, and most of those claiming it will happen seem to be engaging in wishful thinking, choosing to believe only those sources and opinions that back up their hopes.

    “just wishing it away”

    This is very understandable and I appreciate where this is coming from. However displaying it might be appropriate at uncle Vanya’s birthday party after several shots of vodka but not disguising it as factual and objective analysis. The wishful thinking often seeps from Saker’s articles then it is mixed with pretentious bravado of commenters like Andrei Martyanov. There is no parity between the US and the rest of the world in conventional abilities of combined air and naval forces. The ground troops is a different story but the US will not commit them unless they clear out their enemies air force completely. This was the case in Desert Storm in 1991 and Iraq invasion in 2003. In both cases the US was overly cautious and continued the air campaigns for much longer time than it was necessary.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Actually

    the US will not commit them unless they clear out their enemies air force completely
     
    it won't commit them until it creates favorable conditions for deployment of ground forces.
    Air superiority is just a part of those conditions.
    Or, in simple language, it would hammer, from the air, Iranian fighting capability into dust.
    From pure military targets through core infrastructure to terror attacks to destroy population morale.

    It's not important what we feel or want.
    Or the rest of the world for that matter.
    Only what matters is what Neocons want.

    And the only obstacle on their path is, as Randal elaborated before, the will of the nation. Or, better, the will of an average American.
    That's what this ...."effort"...hinges on.
    , @Andrei Martyanov

    There is no parity between the US and the rest of the world in conventional abilities of combined air and naval forces. The ground troops is a different story
     
    It is a really sad state of the affairs when amateurs who do not understand a iota on how modern forces are deployed try to play strategists. So please, pray tell what is this "different story" with ground troops. And I don't mean any platitudes typical of most your "thoughts" but at least solid 4-5 points of said difference.

    This was the case in Desert Storm in 1991 and Iraq invasion in 2003.
     
    I don't type this for your ignorant benefit but for others who read this. Here is US Army's Colonel Daniel Davies:

    In the aftermath of Operation Desert Storm in 1991, there was great celebration in America that the crushing military victory over Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, “kicked the Vietnam syndrome once and for all” and demonstrated the United States was now the world’s sole military superpower. That was no empty bluster. Even Beijing and Moscow were impressed and openly lamented they were militarily inferior. Americans across the board were optimistic and proud. However justified that pride might have been at the time, it quickly mutated into distasteful arrogance. Now, it is an outright danger to the nation. Perhaps nothing exemplifies this threat better than the Pentagon’s dysfunctional acquisition system.
     
    Anyone who draws any serious strategic and operational lessons from Iraqi campaigns (turkey shoots) against a third rate military. I challenge Davies even here that even then it "was justified" since it was not and I know Soviet military way better than Daniel Davies.

    Below is the phrase that shows what an ignorant hack you are:

    In both cases the US was overly cautious and continued the air campaigns for much longer time than it was necessary.
     
    I will give you only one point out of very many others specifically related to USAF--3M14 and X-101. United States has NO experience of having its staging areas and air bases being subjected to strikes by stand off weapons. If you want to insist on operational tempo remaining the same after air bases are attacked, well--there you are, a fiction writer.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. Wally says:
    @bjondo
    Neocons are not in control.
    They have loud mouths and lies.
    soon they will have Guantanamo to call home.

    The Neocons are insane, lunatic, depraved, if considered from the "what is good for America" perspective.

    The neocons are rational, aggressive, and still depraved, if considered from 'what is good for Israel' perspective.

    Why do you refuse to call the “neocons” what they are?

    Immoral Zionist Jews and their paid shills is what they are.

    The True Cost of Parasite Israel
    Forced US taxpayers money to Israel goes far beyond the official numbers.

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-true-cost-of-israel/

    Israel’s Dirty Little Secret
    How it drives US policies exploiting a spineless Congress and White House

    http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/israels-dirty-little-secret/

    How to Bring Down the Elephant in the Room

    http://www.unz.com/tsaker/how-to-bring-down-the-elephant-in-the-room/

    Israeli occupied territories

    ‘Join the US army, Fight for Israel

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. peterAUS says:
    @utu
    "just wishing it away”

    This is very understandable and I appreciate where this is coming from. However displaying it might be appropriate at uncle Vanya's birthday party after several shots of vodka but not disguising it as factual and objective analysis. The wishful thinking often seeps from Saker's articles then it is mixed with pretentious bravado of commenters like Andrei Martyanov. There is no parity between the US and the rest of the world in conventional abilities of combined air and naval forces. The ground troops is a different story but the US will not commit them unless they clear out their enemies air force completely. This was the case in Desert Storm in 1991 and Iraq invasion in 2003. In both cases the US was overly cautious and continued the air campaigns for much longer time than it was necessary.

    Actually

    the US will not commit them unless they clear out their enemies air force completely

    it won’t commit them until it creates favorable conditions for deployment of ground forces.
    Air superiority is just a part of those conditions.
    Or, in simple language, it would hammer, from the air, Iranian fighting capability into dust.
    From pure military targets through core infrastructure to terror attacks to destroy population morale.

    It’s not important what we feel or want.
    Or the rest of the world for that matter.
    Only what matters is what Neocons want.

    And the only obstacle on their path is, as Randal elaborated before, the will of the nation. Or, better, the will of an average American.
    That’s what this ….”effort”…hinges on.

    Read More
    • Agree: utu
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. Alden says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    The scale of its success there took even US generals by surprise.
     
    Which pretty much summarizes the "quality" of an opponent, referencing whom Douglas Macgregor mentioned "a modicum of military capability", or rather lack thereof.

    It is also important to note that Iraq performed considerably better than Iran
     
    The same as it is important to note that Iraq had the assistance pretty much from everybody--from USSR to even the US, Iran didn't.

    As I remember, the Iraqs just fled the Anerican troops in desert storm, more a rout than any kind of organized retreat.

    At the time, I suspected the Iraqi army was subverted in advance to just surrender.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. Alden says:
    @peterAUS
    Maybe of interest for the topic.

    A Colonel in charge of a course I was attending had heard an Egyptian officer, being in the field with Iraqis at the time, describing Iranian attacks.
    Word "unbelievable" was repeated several times.
    Infantry WOULD penetrate all layers of static defense. Only massed Iraqi artillery/MSLR fires followed by armored counterattack would destroy them.
    Moral was, apparently, not of this world.

    Now, with those men no invader can hope to win.

    The thing is, though, those men are either dead or old.

    I just doubt that the current crop of Iranians is made of the same material.

    The Iranians may have had commissars/ MPs behind the lines ready to kill anyone who didn’t charge forward. Lots of armies have used that tactic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    No, they did not.

    True, some armies had that.

    Also, some armies had morale an average citizen of consumer society simply can't comprehend.
    , @MEexpert

    The Iranians may have had commissars/ MPs behind the lines ready to kill anyone who didn’t charge forward. Lots of armies have used that tactic.
     
    Some people know how to fight for a just cause. A concept totally alien to you.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Randal

    I think Russian tech and military support could help Iran control it’s skies even without an airforce just like Syria is controlling it’s airspace.
     
    Syria does not control its airspace. The Israelis and US conduct airstrikes on Syrian territory practically at will. The only constraint seems to be when the Russians occasionally put their foot down and veto particular locations or kinds of strike.

    But that situation only exists because of the polite fiction that Russia and the US are there on the same side and fighting the same enemy, and the US is supposedly not at war with the Syrian government. The same would certainly not be the case in Iran, and Russian threats to US aircraft attacking Iranian targets would be dismissed as a threat of war, and the bluff called (assuming Russia is not prepared to start WW3 over Iran, which seems unlikely),

    I guess the point I was making is that America could control the Syrian airspace through overwhelming force, but chooses not to for a variety of reasons.

    Russian presence militarily is a big factor, as is America’s reluctance to go “all in” lest the war turn into something that is no longer a “cheap war.”

    But America and Isreal are definately taking a back seat militarily bevause they dont control the airspace. Airstrikes in Syrian territory are definately still happening. But Russia is helping Syria control the important airspace to help win the war like near Allepo and protecting the Capital which prevents decapitation of the leadership.

    American and Israeli strikes are limited to minor counter attacks. No doubt if Russian tech and miltary presence were not there, American and Israeli strikes would be much larger in scope. America and Isreal did lose in Syria afterall.

    With Iran, I think something similar would happen. They already have S400′s and can defend themselves against air strikes. So only overwhelming force would control the Iranian airspace, and that would not be a cheap war.

    I think both Russia and China would be much more aggressive helping Iran than Syria. It is a much larger chess piece for them. So what makes you think Russia would be bluffing when they are clearly not bluffing in Syria? That’s why America does not challenge Russia there, because they know that Russia is not bluffing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    With Iran, I think something similar would happen. They already have S400′s and can defend themselves against air strikes.
     
    Iran doesn't have S400s, as far as we know. They have an unknown number of S300 systems, which were only declared operational earlier this year (Russia kowtowed to US and Israeli pressure by delaying them for nearly a decade). How effective they will be in practice remains to be seen, bearing in mind Iran was reportedly complaining about their ineffectiveness against Israeli aircraft in Syria back in March, according to a JP report sourced to "Kuwaiti daily Al Jarida":

    REPORT: IRAN ACCUSES RUSSIA OF GIVING ISRAEL CODES FOR SYRIAN AIR DEFENSES

    Whether there's any truth in that report, I have no idea, but there doesn't appear to have been a halt to Israeli strikes in Syria when the problem was supposedly solved.

    So what makes you think Russia would be bluffing when they are clearly not bluffing in Syria? That’s why America does not challenge Russia there, because they know that Russia is not bluffing.
     
    The point is that there is no Russian presence in Iran (indeed the Iranian constitution admirably forbids foreign military bases on its territory - something we in Britain ought to have enacted in 1990 imo), and no plausible pretext for one except to fight a US attack. I don't see it as likely that Russia will extend a defensive guarantee to Iran in that way, and if they were to do so (imagine the hysteria the Israeli and Saudi agents of influence in the US media and legislature would kick up in response) then the US regime would likely see it as an open challenge and call what they would probably correctly believe to be a bluff. Which is one reason why Russia won't do it, imo. If they are going to fight the US, they will do so in the Ukraine where they have all the advantages, not in Iran where the US does.
    , @Anonymous

    I think both Russia and China would be much more aggressive helping Iran than Syria. It is a much larger chess piece for them.
     
    All of their chess pieces are indispensable now. They simply can't back down and betray any of their friendlies or semi-friendlies. It's a matter of trust and credibility. They'll either stay untied or die alone.

    Unfortunately, the globalist Tribe will not stop poking on its own so there's a very real possibility of World-ending outcomes.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. @Randal

    I think Russian tech and military support could help Iran control it’s skies even without an airforce just like Syria is controlling it’s airspace.
     
    Syria does not control its airspace. The Israelis and US conduct airstrikes on Syrian territory practically at will. The only constraint seems to be when the Russians occasionally put their foot down and veto particular locations or kinds of strike.

    But that situation only exists because of the polite fiction that Russia and the US are there on the same side and fighting the same enemy, and the US is supposedly not at war with the Syrian government. The same would certainly not be the case in Iran, and Russian threats to US aircraft attacking Iranian targets would be dismissed as a threat of war, and the bluff called (assuming Russia is not prepared to start WW3 over Iran, which seems unlikely),

    The same would certainly not be the case in Iran, and Russian threats to US aircraft attacking Iranian targets would be dismissed as a threat of war, and the bluff called (assuming Russia is not prepared to start WW3 over Iran, which seems unlikely),

    I am not exactly sure I follow your train of thought but in what sense Russia should threaten US aircraft hypothetically attacking Iranian targets? From where, by what, under what conditions? From Iranian territory? It is a very broad statement.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    My comment was in direct response to the assertion by the anonymous commenter that: "Russian tech and military support could help Iran control it’s skies even without an airforce just like Syria is controlling it’s airspace", and my point was that there is no comparison between the situations.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Love the Saker’s framework here with “cheap wars.” What a terrific way to frame the geopolitical risks going forward.

    One thing I haven’t seen mention of is the risk to aircraft carriers, and what getting one sunk would do to America in real terms and psychologically.

    It is possible that America would keep its carriers far from either N Korea or Iran. But maybe not. What other means would America have to launch many sortiies than to bring it’s carriers within range of attack. That would mean that American carriers would be at risk of not only missle attacks but also sub attacks.

    The loss of a carrier would be devastating to America on so many levels. But almost seems unavoidable in modern warfare.

    Also, Iran could shut down the Straits Of Hormuz. What greater way to attack it’s enemies than to attack the petrodollar dollar itself?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sunbeam
    One thing I haven’t seen mention of is the risk to aircraft carriers, and what getting one sunk would do to America in real terms and psychologically.

    It is possible that America would keep its carriers far from either N Korea or Iran. But maybe not. What other means would America have to launch many sortiies than to bring it’s carriers within range of attack. That would mean that American carriers would be at risk of not only missle attacks but also sub attacks.

    This is one of those $64 dollar questions.

    Look the US had a relatively glorious WWII. Some... let's call them tropes emerged from that war.

    Naval Aviation is one. "Air Force Wings are made of Lead, Navy Wings are made of gold."

    Carriers are really kind of useless against an opponent who can actually hit back. (Like China with all those missiles with male porn star names I think Fred Reed has mentioned a time or two).

    You have a whole gaggle of ships with the carrier whose purpose is to... protect the carrier. That's it. You have spent a lot of money, and have a lot of manpower devoted to protecting that carrier, which costs a lot of money in its own right along with the aircraft and roughly 5000 sailors on board.

    Up until the F-18 it was pretty simple. You had a couple helicopters, a few S-2 (think that is the nomenclature ) planes for anti-sub activities, 24 A-6 attack aircraft, with the rest being F-14's whose main job was to provide air superiority, thus protecting the carrier.

    All that was basically just so 24 attack aircraft could do something. That is a heck of a pricetag for blowing up a bridge somewhere.

    So why did we have them, besides a "send a gunboat" kind of thing? Well some places are hard to get to with Air Force planes. You could park a carrier off the west coast of Africa, or some way off place in the South Pacific in a couple of weeks at the most. Whereas having a base for some Air Force planes took a lot more logistics and time.

    But the big thing is Aviation is one of the big 3 communities in the Navy (Subs, Surface, and Aviation). It is a vested interest in the military sense, and besides Hollywood just loves them. Along with Congress and the defense industry.

    It may not make as much sense to do this as it did in 1945 or even 1952 or 1966. But it is still a strong constituency, and that is a truth, regardless of relative usefulness in the modern world.

    The F-18 fills both roles now (air superiority and attack). Some cynics say it does neither well. But against the kinds of opponents you actually want to risk a carrier against (I.E. opponents who have no possible way to threaten the carrier) it really doesn't matter. And I guess all the F-18's can be configured to carry ground attack loads, so you really have 3 to 4 times as many attack aircraft available as say the Nimitz had in the 80's.

    Anyway:

    1) Carrier aviation in no way is going to be as useful as the Air Force. But they are going to show up and say "We did our part. Fund us."

    2) They are going to have to stand off a long way from the Iranian coast. No one has any real idea if the Iranians have a land based missile that can sink a carrier, or if they managed to buy one from Russia or the Chinese. But I don't think the Navy wants to find out.

    Which means Naval Aircraft are going to have a really constrained envelope of areas they can actually hit in Iran.

    Which brings us to a couple of other points.

    3) Mines are cheap. Mines are effective. Even if you have invested in mineclearing ships, this is expensive and takes time. One of those asymmetrical weapons.

    If you were Iran, and the US attacked you, what would you do?

    Me I'm saying something like "Release the Kraken." Then I put enough mines in the water off my coast to totally shutdown the Stratits of Hormuz to ALL tanker and cargo ship traffic.

    Guaranteed to piss off tons of people. But I have to wonder who they blame in the end?

    Anyway, trust me, one way or another a US carrier is not going to want to be anywhere close enough to my coast to be effective.

    And any kind of amphibious invasion? Uh, that isn't happening.

    4) Assuming you actually want to invade Iran, as opposed to just bombing it so they capitulate like Milosevic did (if they do)...

    How are you going to get anyone there? I really can't see an Armored Division moving across the mountains to Iran's west (those things are tall). That would require you coming from Iraq or maybe Turkey in either case.

    Good luck with an amphibious assault. There is a marsh area between Iraq and Iran. I don't think you are moving Armor through that, nor Mechanized Infantry (do we have any straight leg infantry anymore?).

    5) Refueling, refueling, refueling.

    I'm pretty sure one of the dicier aspects of something you guys are postulating will never come up. Because I can't imagine Iran being able to mount an interception mission even 40 or 50 miles outside their borders.

    But that is one heck of a lot of refueling missions, since pretty much every one is going to need refueling (unless you guys are a lot more confident than I would be about staging a mass Air operation from Iraq ). Lot of flight hours, lot of stress and strain.

    Plus I can think of eleventy-seven different cool things to try with semi-autonomous drones (they'd be aerial mines of a sort really) just to exploit the refueling operation the US is going to have to do a lot of.

    Anyway, my take is this whole thing is utter BS and has debacle written all over it. If somehow my country can pull something like this off, and I am a fool for doubting them, then I'm a fool.

    Or maybe the Iranians are morons, dunno. But I'd sure hate to face Serbs that had all the cards to play that Iran does currently.

    I wouldn't touch this with Billy Kristol's dick.

    , @Andrei Martyanov

    Also, Iran could shut down the Straits Of Hormuz
     
    Uhmmm, certainly an interesting question to ponder but let's not jump to the conclusions just yet. In related news, on Friday Iran refused to buy SU-27SM, they really want SU-35 with ll bells and whistles. In general, it will be very interesting to observe Iran's procurement of the hardware from Russia and how US and Israel will react to this.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. @utu
    "just wishing it away”

    This is very understandable and I appreciate where this is coming from. However displaying it might be appropriate at uncle Vanya's birthday party after several shots of vodka but not disguising it as factual and objective analysis. The wishful thinking often seeps from Saker's articles then it is mixed with pretentious bravado of commenters like Andrei Martyanov. There is no parity between the US and the rest of the world in conventional abilities of combined air and naval forces. The ground troops is a different story but the US will not commit them unless they clear out their enemies air force completely. This was the case in Desert Storm in 1991 and Iraq invasion in 2003. In both cases the US was overly cautious and continued the air campaigns for much longer time than it was necessary.

    There is no parity between the US and the rest of the world in conventional abilities of combined air and naval forces. The ground troops is a different story

    It is a really sad state of the affairs when amateurs who do not understand a iota on how modern forces are deployed try to play strategists. So please, pray tell what is this “different story” with ground troops. And I don’t mean any platitudes typical of most your “thoughts” but at least solid 4-5 points of said difference.

    This was the case in Desert Storm in 1991 and Iraq invasion in 2003.

    I don’t type this for your ignorant benefit but for others who read this. Here is US Army’s Colonel Daniel Davies:

    In the aftermath of Operation Desert Storm in 1991, there was great celebration in America that the crushing military victory over Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, “kicked the Vietnam syndrome once and for all” and demonstrated the United States was now the world’s sole military superpower. That was no empty bluster. Even Beijing and Moscow were impressed and openly lamented they were militarily inferior. Americans across the board were optimistic and proud. However justified that pride might have been at the time, it quickly mutated into distasteful arrogance. Now, it is an outright danger to the nation. Perhaps nothing exemplifies this threat better than the Pentagon’s dysfunctional acquisition system.

    Anyone who draws any serious strategic and operational lessons from Iraqi campaigns (turkey shoots) against a third rate military. I challenge Davies even here that even then it “was justified” since it was not and I know Soviet military way better than Daniel Davies.

    Below is the phrase that shows what an ignorant hack you are:

    In both cases the US was overly cautious and continued the air campaigns for much longer time than it was necessary.

    I will give you only one point out of very many others specifically related to USAF–3M14 and X-101. United States has NO experience of having its staging areas and air bases being subjected to strikes by stand off weapons. If you want to insist on operational tempo remaining the same after air bases are attacked, well–there you are, a fiction writer.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. Alden says:
    @Anonymous
    Desert Storm was pretty much an ideal scenario for US military. Open desert, surrounding the country with bases, ample time to build up overwhelming force, Iraq had no reference to learn how to fight against the US and it's modern tech, a fractured ethnic populace, and no allies to help militarily or economically.

    Basically, none of this will apply to any other war we will face going forward. Also, this was before our military was infected with SJW and Millenials.

    I might be wrong, but I don’t think any SJWs and White millennials join the military? Seems to me the SJW stuff comes from the top.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hibernian
    Many women officers are SJWs.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. As far as my own impressions with Iranians go:

    1: Iran Iraq war happened after the Iranian armies (as well as much of its economy)were affected by severe purges and was in Chaos.
    They eventually got their shit together. And began to rip Iraq a new one. Then they settled for a white peace because the US blew up a civilian Iranian airliner, and Iran, while confident about its chances to defeat Sadamn at that point, did not want a long war with the USA on top.
    2: Iran at that time had no allies.
    3: Iranian internally regard not getting rid of Sadamn as a defeat, this btw. means that they dont have victory disease right now.
    4: Incidentaly, Sadamn purged a lot of his generals, many of whom questioned his strategy skills, after the Iraq Iran war. This adversely affected Iraqi performance later on.
    5: Todays Iraqis will fight smarter then those of the Iran Iraq war, but with somewhat less fanaticism. On balance, I think this may well make them more dangerous.
    6: Iran knows the USA a lot better then vice versa.
    7: In the case of a US attack, about 50-70% of the current “liberals” in Iran will be loyal to Iran. 20-30% will be neutral. Only a very small proportion would be US quisling.

    tldr: extrapolating from Irans performance in the Iran-Iraq war is akin to extrapolating Russias current military capabilities from either the winter war, the opening stages of Barbarossa, or the Polish Soviet war.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  102. peterAUS says:

    There has been a puzzling element in all this Internet jawboning in the last couple of years.

    True, most of it is a good old Soviet/Russian “maskirovka”. Or “perception management” of voting populace.
    The rest is, mostly, a therapy for the people who just can’t stand The Empire.
    But, every now and then, one could come across a nugget of thinking to help getting all this around us, and the most important, where this could be leading.

    That element is a loss of quality of personnel in US/West armed forces. Or, how the modern culture destroyed true fighting capability there.
    There are no more people of Iwo Jima character in US military.

    Be that as it may, why we do not apply the same principle to the opponents/enemies of The Empire?

    Do we REALLY believe that the current Russian man is of the same character as an assaulter in Stalingrad?

    Or, for this discussion, the current Iranian man is of the same character as those Pasdaran/Basij of Iraqi-Iranian war?

    Let’s analyse what has happened so far since ’90.
    Desert Storm. I remember the thinking before the war. Blop…..
    Serb effort in Balkans. For those who don’t know, read up about Tito Partisans a bit. But, then…blop again…..
    Taliban after 9/11…..
    Iraq 2003……..
    Tamil Eelam…
    Libya…..
    Syria…….I mean, once upon a time they were giving Israel a bit of a headache.
    And, yes, why not, Ukraine. Do we really see Stalingrad/Berlin/countless other examples, there in fighting for Donbass?

    So, for Iran…why not the same pattern there?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza

    Do we REALLY believe that the current Russian man is of the same character as an assaulter in Stalingrad?
     
    Why do you do drugs when they do you so much damage? The Russians assaulting their own beautiful city?
    , @anonymous

    That element is a loss of quality of personnel in US/West armed forces. Or, how the modern culture destroyed true fighting capability there.
     
    It's true that people have gotten softer and also that they're more likely to question why they're being told to fight. It's all directly proportionate to their actual stake in it, how close to home it is. American troops in Afghanistan know it's a hopeless issue and just want to get through their tour. There's nothing there that anyone wants. On the other hand the Iranians would be extremely motivated by any attack upon their country since after all they live there. That's the general principle: morale is highest when defending one's own home territory and drops the further away one gets. Hezbollah did well against Israel because they live there and the Israeli reservists didn't but were waiting to get back home to their jobs and families. The various actors on the list of 'blops' were very small entities who were overwhelmed by the sheer scale of their enemies, particularly the terroristic air attacks unleashed upon them. I would not list the Taliban since they're still around and are resurgent despite everything thrown at them by the US. They've only had small arms and IEDs against jets, helicopters, armored vehicles and the much ballyhooed special forces super-soldiers.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. peterAUS says:
    @Alden
    The Iranians may have had commissars/ MPs behind the lines ready to kill anyone who didn't charge forward. Lots of armies have used that tactic.

    No, they did not.

    True, some armies had that.

    Also, some armies had morale an average citizen of consumer society simply can’t comprehend.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    Also, some armies had morale an average citizen of consumer society simply can’t comprehend.
     
    The issue of exertion. The subject US military will not even touch. Albeit latest (not completely agreeable) interview by Douglas Macgregor mentions part of the issue and combat effectiveness (or rather its precipitous decline) once soldiers begin to ask Why this war. That is start question it--a scenario reserved mostly for expeditionary warfare nations detached from the continental realities, mostly what used to be known as Anglo-Saxon sphere.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. @peterAUS
    No, they did not.

    True, some armies had that.

    Also, some armies had morale an average citizen of consumer society simply can't comprehend.

    Also, some armies had morale an average citizen of consumer society simply can’t comprehend.

    The issue of exertion. The subject US military will not even touch. Albeit latest (not completely agreeable) interview by Douglas Macgregor mentions part of the issue and combat effectiveness (or rather its precipitous decline) once soldiers begin to ask Why this war. That is start question it–a scenario reserved mostly for expeditionary warfare nations detached from the continental realities, mostly what used to be known as Anglo-Saxon sphere.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    Every Hasbara troll needs to read what Andrei is writing: what is combat effectiveness once soldiers begin to ask Why this war? Do you think that goyim will keep gladly dying for you even after you have been milking them with your financial schemes for hundreds of years?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. Randal says:
    @Anonymous
    I guess the point I was making is that America could control the Syrian airspace through overwhelming force, but chooses not to for a variety of reasons.

    Russian presence militarily is a big factor, as is America's reluctance to go "all in" lest the war turn into something that is no longer a "cheap war."

    But America and Isreal are definately taking a back seat militarily bevause they dont control the airspace. Airstrikes in Syrian territory are definately still happening. But Russia is helping Syria control the important airspace to help win the war like near Allepo and protecting the Capital which prevents decapitation of the leadership.

    American and Israeli strikes are limited to minor counter attacks. No doubt if Russian tech and miltary presence were not there, American and Israeli strikes would be much larger in scope. America and Isreal did lose in Syria afterall.

    With Iran, I think something similar would happen. They already have S400's and can defend themselves against air strikes. So only overwhelming force would control the Iranian airspace, and that would not be a cheap war.

    I think both Russia and China would be much more aggressive helping Iran than Syria. It is a much larger chess piece for them. So what makes you think Russia would be bluffing when they are clearly not bluffing in Syria? That's why America does not challenge Russia there, because they know that Russia is not bluffing.

    With Iran, I think something similar would happen. They already have S400′s and can defend themselves against air strikes.

    Iran doesn’t have S400s, as far as we know. They have an unknown number of S300 systems, which were only declared operational earlier this year (Russia kowtowed to US and Israeli pressure by delaying them for nearly a decade). How effective they will be in practice remains to be seen, bearing in mind Iran was reportedly complaining about their ineffectiveness against Israeli aircraft in Syria back in March, according to a JP report sourced to “Kuwaiti daily Al Jarida”:

    REPORT: IRAN ACCUSES RUSSIA OF GIVING ISRAEL CODES FOR SYRIAN AIR DEFENSES

    Whether there’s any truth in that report, I have no idea, but there doesn’t appear to have been a halt to Israeli strikes in Syria when the problem was supposedly solved.

    So what makes you think Russia would be bluffing when they are clearly not bluffing in Syria? That’s why America does not challenge Russia there, because they know that Russia is not bluffing.

    The point is that there is no Russian presence in Iran (indeed the Iranian constitution admirably forbids foreign military bases on its territory – something we in Britain ought to have enacted in 1990 imo), and no plausible pretext for one except to fight a US attack. I don’t see it as likely that Russia will extend a defensive guarantee to Iran in that way, and if they were to do so (imagine the hysteria the Israeli and Saudi agents of influence in the US media and legislature would kick up in response) then the US regime would likely see it as an open challenge and call what they would probably correctly believe to be a bluff. Which is one reason why Russia won’t do it, imo. If they are going to fight the US, they will do so in the Ukraine where they have all the advantages, not in Iran where the US does.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    they will do so in the Ukraine where they have all the advantages, not in Iran where the US does.
     
    I beg to differ--and what are those US advantages of fighting Iran? Corridor from Russia proper, through Dagestan along Caspian shore right up to Astara is an excellent rail line of communications. Baku's plans in case of attack on Iran will matter little, not to mention that it will be forced to make a choice. So, in the end, nobody prevents Anzali from becoming a main shipping (receiving) terminal of some "supplies" from some many nations located at the shores of Caspian Sea. Then comes the issue of Iran being "suddenly" admitted to SCO if push comes to shove.

    https://financialtribune.com/articles/national/66082/china-reaffirms-backing-for-irans-sco-membership

    So, there are very many things which have to be considered before any "attacks" on Iran are planned. Of course, the fact that Iran's population is 80+ million with a huge percentage of youth above 25 y.o. can not be ignored at all. Boy, talk about mobilization potential. Iran is a different game altogether, especially where it matters the most--ground invasion. I now also reiterate a small point I was making for the last... many years: Russia, for all problems with Iran, will not allow any US presence on Caspian shores. This is not even a viable option, so yes, God forbids, any invasion of Iran actually occurs--the dynamics will be very different even when compared with Syria.

    , @Joe Wong
    In case you forget, China sent hundreds of thousand of troops to mount AA guns, repair infrastructures, and supply food for the North Vietnamese during the Vietnam War even during the chaos of Culture Revolution. Image what China can do for Iran with all its industrial capacity bigger than the USA.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. Sunbeam says:
    @Anonymous
    Love the Saker's framework here with "cheap wars." What a terrific way to frame the geopolitical risks going forward.

    One thing I haven't seen mention of is the risk to aircraft carriers, and what getting one sunk would do to America in real terms and psychologically.

    It is possible that America would keep its carriers far from either N Korea or Iran. But maybe not. What other means would America have to launch many sortiies than to bring it's carriers within range of attack. That would mean that American carriers would be at risk of not only missle attacks but also sub attacks.

    The loss of a carrier would be devastating to America on so many levels. But almost seems unavoidable in modern warfare.

    Also, Iran could shut down the Straits Of Hormuz. What greater way to attack it's enemies than to attack the petrodollar dollar itself?

    One thing I haven’t seen mention of is the risk to aircraft carriers, and what getting one sunk would do to America in real terms and psychologically.

    It is possible that America would keep its carriers far from either N Korea or Iran. But maybe not. What other means would America have to launch many sortiies than to bring it’s carriers within range of attack. That would mean that American carriers would be at risk of not only missle attacks but also sub attacks.

    This is one of those $64 dollar questions.

    Look the US had a relatively glorious WWII. Some… let’s call them tropes emerged from that war.

    Naval Aviation is one. “Air Force Wings are made of Lead, Navy Wings are made of gold.”

    Carriers are really kind of useless against an opponent who can actually hit back. (Like China with all those missiles with male porn star names I think Fred Reed has mentioned a time or two).

    You have a whole gaggle of ships with the carrier whose purpose is to… protect the carrier. That’s it. You have spent a lot of money, and have a lot of manpower devoted to protecting that carrier, which costs a lot of money in its own right along with the aircraft and roughly 5000 sailors on board.

    Up until the F-18 it was pretty simple. You had a couple helicopters, a few S-2 (think that is the nomenclature ) planes for anti-sub activities, 24 A-6 attack aircraft, with the rest being F-14′s whose main job was to provide air superiority, thus protecting the carrier.

    All that was basically just so 24 attack aircraft could do something. That is a heck of a pricetag for blowing up a bridge somewhere.

    So why did we have them, besides a “send a gunboat” kind of thing? Well some places are hard to get to with Air Force planes. You could park a carrier off the west coast of Africa, or some way off place in the South Pacific in a couple of weeks at the most. Whereas having a base for some Air Force planes took a lot more logistics and time.

    But the big thing is Aviation is one of the big 3 communities in the Navy (Subs, Surface, and Aviation). It is a vested interest in the military sense, and besides Hollywood just loves them. Along with Congress and the defense industry.

    It may not make as much sense to do this as it did in 1945 or even 1952 or 1966. But it is still a strong constituency, and that is a truth, regardless of relative usefulness in the modern world.

    The F-18 fills both roles now (air superiority and attack). Some cynics say it does neither well. But against the kinds of opponents you actually want to risk a carrier against (I.E. opponents who have no possible way to threaten the carrier) it really doesn’t matter. And I guess all the F-18′s can be configured to carry ground attack loads, so you really have 3 to 4 times as many attack aircraft available as say the Nimitz had in the 80′s.

    Anyway:

    1) Carrier aviation in no way is going to be as useful as the Air Force. But they are going to show up and say “We did our part. Fund us.”

    2) They are going to have to stand off a long way from the Iranian coast. No one has any real idea if the Iranians have a land based missile that can sink a carrier, or if they managed to buy one from Russia or the Chinese. But I don’t think the Navy wants to find out.

    Which means Naval Aircraft are going to have a really constrained envelope of areas they can actually hit in Iran.

    Which brings us to a couple of other points.

    3) Mines are cheap. Mines are effective. Even if you have invested in mineclearing ships, this is expensive and takes time. One of those asymmetrical weapons.

    If you were Iran, and the US attacked you, what would you do?

    Me I’m saying something like “Release the Kraken.” Then I put enough mines in the water off my coast to totally shutdown the Stratits of Hormuz to ALL tanker and cargo ship traffic.

    Guaranteed to piss off tons of people. But I have to wonder who they blame in the end?

    Anyway, trust me, one way or another a US carrier is not going to want to be anywhere close enough to my coast to be effective.

    And any kind of amphibious invasion? Uh, that isn’t happening.

    4) Assuming you actually want to invade Iran, as opposed to just bombing it so they capitulate like Milosevic did (if they do)…

    How are you going to get anyone there? I really can’t see an Armored Division moving across the mountains to Iran’s west (those things are tall). That would require you coming from Iraq or maybe Turkey in either case.

    Good luck with an amphibious assault. There is a marsh area between Iraq and Iran. I don’t think you are moving Armor through that, nor Mechanized Infantry (do we have any straight leg infantry anymore?).

    5) Refueling, refueling, refueling.

    I’m pretty sure one of the dicier aspects of something you guys are postulating will never come up. Because I can’t imagine Iran being able to mount an interception mission even 40 or 50 miles outside their borders.

    But that is one heck of a lot of refueling missions, since pretty much every one is going to need refueling (unless you guys are a lot more confident than I would be about staging a mass Air operation from Iraq ). Lot of flight hours, lot of stress and strain.

    Plus I can think of eleventy-seven different cool things to try with semi-autonomous drones (they’d be aerial mines of a sort really) just to exploit the refueling operation the US is going to have to do a lot of.

    Anyway, my take is this whole thing is utter BS and has debacle written all over it. If somehow my country can pull something like this off, and I am a fool for doubting them, then I’m a fool.

    Or maybe the Iranians are morons, dunno. But I’d sure hate to face Serbs that had all the cards to play that Iran does currently.

    I wouldn’t touch this with Billy Kristol’s dick.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    Then I put enough mines in the water off my coast to totally shutdown the Stratits of Hormuz to ALL tanker and cargo ship traffic.

    Guaranteed to piss off tons of people. But I have to wonder who they blame in the end?
     
    Well the Iran-Iraq war was an act of blatant aggression by Iraq, and furthermore the "Tanker War" itself was kicked off by Iraq attacking Kharg Island. But guess who mostly got blamed for attacks on shipping in the Persian Gulf?

    Here's a clue: it wasn't Iraq.

    The US and its regional allies continued to actively support Iraq, and escorted shipping headed for Iraq whilst ignoring Iraqi attacks on Iranian shipping.

    The sheer manipulative power of the US sphere elite propaganda machine and its firm grip on the gullible masses, especially in times of war, should not be underestimated.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. Randal says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    The same would certainly not be the case in Iran, and Russian threats to US aircraft attacking Iranian targets would be dismissed as a threat of war, and the bluff called (assuming Russia is not prepared to start WW3 over Iran, which seems unlikely),
     
    I am not exactly sure I follow your train of thought but in what sense Russia should threaten US aircraft hypothetically attacking Iranian targets? From where, by what, under what conditions? From Iranian territory? It is a very broad statement.

    My comment was in direct response to the assertion by the anonymous commenter that: “Russian tech and military support could help Iran control it’s skies even without an airforce just like Syria is controlling it’s airspace”, and my point was that there is no comparison between the situations.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    and my point was that there is no comparison between the situations.
     
    Thank you for clarification. And I agree, there is no comparison between situations since unlike any Arab countries, Iran has indigenous, sort of (of course it is Soviet-derived), long range TLAM based on famed RK-55 design. The missile has a strategic reach of 2000+ kilometers and, combined with other long to medium range, means is completely capable of striking both staging areas and air fields from which theoretical air-strikes will be launched against Iran. Here is one of those:

    https://missilethreat.csis.org/missile/soumar/

    Those capabilities haven't been left unnoticed:

    http://breakingdefense.com/2017/03/white-house-needs-to-curb-irans-cruise-missiles/

    and for a good reason. US Armed Forces are not used to fighting under the condition of their rear echelons (not to speak of front lines) and air bases being attacked. Good size salvo of land-attack cruise missiles is a really nasty thing to deal with and, unlike flat Iraq, Iran has actual forests and mountains. If Mosul is any indication, taking such colossal city as Tehran could be a rather suicidal effort on part of US military. Hopefully we will not have to see that. But in the end, it is always a combination of forces and means which fights a real war. Iran lacks good Air Force.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. Sunbeam says:

    Crap I wanted to put in some stuff about how the Navy has to be afraid of diesel submarines even from Iran.

    But whatever.

    Personally I think we should keep the carriers (well some of them). They are very useful in certain situations, and if we ever do need to do some activity in a place that is far away from everything, but had an ocean nearby, well they come in handy.

    But I wouldn’t build any new ones, and I don’t think we need as many as we have.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  109. @Anonymous
    Love the Saker's framework here with "cheap wars." What a terrific way to frame the geopolitical risks going forward.

    One thing I haven't seen mention of is the risk to aircraft carriers, and what getting one sunk would do to America in real terms and psychologically.

    It is possible that America would keep its carriers far from either N Korea or Iran. But maybe not. What other means would America have to launch many sortiies than to bring it's carriers within range of attack. That would mean that American carriers would be at risk of not only missle attacks but also sub attacks.

    The loss of a carrier would be devastating to America on so many levels. But almost seems unavoidable in modern warfare.

    Also, Iran could shut down the Straits Of Hormuz. What greater way to attack it's enemies than to attack the petrodollar dollar itself?

    Also, Iran could shut down the Straits Of Hormuz

    Uhmmm, certainly an interesting question to ponder but let’s not jump to the conclusions just yet. In related news, on Friday Iran refused to buy SU-27SM, they really want SU-35 with ll bells and whistles. In general, it will be very interesting to observe Iran’s procurement of the hardware from Russia and how US and Israel will react to this.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
    I am uncofortable with Russia selling latest gear to such famous copy cats as Chinese... I am not aware if Iranians are good at coping but I would have never allowed such sensitive equipment to go abroad unless it is monkey versions. It looks very careless.
    , @Anonymous
    Why do you say shutting down the Straights of Hormuz is interesting to ponder but to not jump to conclusions?

    Isn't this basically Iran's plan if they are bombed?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. Wally says:
    @Anonymous
    China helping economically and Russia providing military support would be a huge benefit to Iran.

    I think enough to withstand just about anything thrown at it from the west. Keep in mind a war with Iran would probably be followed by sanctions from the rest of the ME and Europe. So Chinese trade would be of vital importance.

    I think Russian tech and military support could help Iran control it's skies even without an airforce just like Syria is controlling it's airspace.

    What it comes down to, is that just as the Saker referenced, I don't think America wants or can fight a war that requires a lot of resources.

    America could have gone all in with Syria and controlled the skies there but did not because it would have been to expensive. America is looking for cheap ways to win wars such as color revolutions in Venezuela and China taking care of N Korea.

    If we really want the job done in Iran, it will mean going all in, and will also mean we aren't going to be able to do anything elsewhere which the elites don't want.

    And what “job” is to be “done in Iran”?

    Kill Iranians for “that shitty little country” Israel?

    Do you think Iran will just sit back and allow it to occur?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Why don't you ditch the "Zionist" and say plainly that it Jews you hate? Seems no less weasly than "neocon," frankly.
    , @Anon
    Why is your use of "Zionist" any less weasly than bjondo's use of "neocon"?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Anonymous
    I guess the point I was making is that America could control the Syrian airspace through overwhelming force, but chooses not to for a variety of reasons.

    Russian presence militarily is a big factor, as is America's reluctance to go "all in" lest the war turn into something that is no longer a "cheap war."

    But America and Isreal are definately taking a back seat militarily bevause they dont control the airspace. Airstrikes in Syrian territory are definately still happening. But Russia is helping Syria control the important airspace to help win the war like near Allepo and protecting the Capital which prevents decapitation of the leadership.

    American and Israeli strikes are limited to minor counter attacks. No doubt if Russian tech and miltary presence were not there, American and Israeli strikes would be much larger in scope. America and Isreal did lose in Syria afterall.

    With Iran, I think something similar would happen. They already have S400's and can defend themselves against air strikes. So only overwhelming force would control the Iranian airspace, and that would not be a cheap war.

    I think both Russia and China would be much more aggressive helping Iran than Syria. It is a much larger chess piece for them. So what makes you think Russia would be bluffing when they are clearly not bluffing in Syria? That's why America does not challenge Russia there, because they know that Russia is not bluffing.

    I think both Russia and China would be much more aggressive helping Iran than Syria. It is a much larger chess piece for them.

    All of their chess pieces are indispensable now. They simply can’t back down and betray any of their friendlies or semi-friendlies. It’s a matter of trust and credibility. They’ll either stay untied or die alone.

    Unfortunately, the globalist Tribe will not stop poking on its own so there’s a very real possibility of World-ending outcomes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    All of their chess pieces are indispensable now. They simply can’t back down and betray any of their friendlies or semi-friendlies.
     
    Well arguably they just did exactly that in the UNSC, by voting for the US's latest sanctions aggression against North Korea.

    Now ok you can argue that NK is not nowadays a particularly close "friendly" for the Russians, but it certainly is one of the few remaining points of resistance against US power. The Russians and Chinese supposedly learned their lesson about cooperating with the US's manipulative games in the UNSC when they were betrayed over Libya, but it seems not. Russia, of all people, ought to understand how important it is to resist the US's use of sanctions as economic warfare. The Chinese are probably still a bit sore about the NKs refusing to kowtow to them recently.

    Imo the correct position to have taken would have been to stand on the point Russia and China made recently in their joint statement on NK last month: namely, that the US is largely to blame for NK's entirely understandably uncooperative stance on acquiring a nuclear deterrent against US aggression, by its continuously menacing tone and behaviour towards the country, and that they would veto any sanctions resolutions until the US first ends its joint exercises with SK and agrees to end the deployment of THAAD to the peninsular.

    Instead they've needlessly given the US more ammunition for its propaganda campaign to justify military aggression against NK, and they've both limited their own options in dealing unilaterally with NK and (to the extent the sanctions are enforced and have any real effect) contributed to making the NK government even more defensive. They've effectively sabotaged their own preferred program of economic engagement with NK.

    Sometimes, as with the Russian decision to refuse air defences to Iran in 2007 (that were finally delivered only last year), you almost have to wonder if their regime really is still naïve about the real nature of the US problem.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. @Beefcake the Mighty
    Desert Storm was fought against an opponent possessing antiquated Soviet weaponry employing a "strategy"' tailored perfectly to facilitate the opponents strengths. If American planners were indeed surprised, this says more about their ability to believe their own super-villain propaganda.

    I did not know about so called monkey versions then, but my dad Soviet colonel did tell me two things that Iraqi T-72 were not same as those in the park near our house and Iraqies shells were pre 1973 unable to penetrate Abrams armor. There were Soviet massive The West 1981 exercises of which I was aware than but due to age not getting importance despite watching Serve the Soviet Union every weekend. US land forces were not even on the same page as Soviet army. No wonder NATO had so many nukes in Europe and now I know that those excercices were about getting so close to our partners that there would be no chance to use tactical nukes and power, speed and coordination of Soviet strikes would be such that NATO forces would seaze to exist within 1-2 days. Gorbachov betrayal allowed USA to live in illusion of own making which is only now is being dispelled.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    Yes, the Soviets would not have given the Arabs their very best stuff. And yes, American forces in Western Europe were just for show, Warsaw Pact forces would have easily overrun them, I believe NATO planners acknowledged this, their plans were to win a long-term, economic war the Soviets could not match.

    I hope you are right about American megalomania being dispelled, but sadly I am pessimistic.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. @Andrei Martyanov

    Also, Iran could shut down the Straits Of Hormuz
     
    Uhmmm, certainly an interesting question to ponder but let's not jump to the conclusions just yet. In related news, on Friday Iran refused to buy SU-27SM, they really want SU-35 with ll bells and whistles. In general, it will be very interesting to observe Iran's procurement of the hardware from Russia and how US and Israel will react to this.

    I am uncofortable with Russia selling latest gear to such famous copy cats as Chinese… I am not aware if Iranians are good at coping but I would have never allowed such sensitive equipment to go abroad unless it is monkey versions. It looks very careless.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. Kiza says:
    @utu
    Your comment will not be popular here. But what you describe seems to be the most realistic scenario. Sympathies and wishful thinking have to be put aside when thinking about war outcomes. It is not about what is just or not or who deserves to win or not in the real world. The overwhelming force wins every times. The US has overwhelming military advantage over Iran. End of discussion.

    End of discussion, it is settled science, right? Where did you people purchase your brains, Walmart or https://www.yelp.com/search?find_desc=jewish+market&find_loc=Los+Angeles%2C+CA?
    Please let me know to avoid buying anything there. Even the best laid plans seldom survive engagement with the enemy. As most US Zionist craps, you truly have no contact with reality, you constantly wallow in your own pig poop.

    How about US using nuclear weapons on Iran on Israel’s behalf? Would that be the overwhelming enough fire power for you? Iran is watching the US cowardice against North Korea (talking endless bull about intervening) and will realize eventually that only having nuclear weapons will protect it from the Zionist crazies.

    You and Randal are Zionist trolls pushing for war on Iran. Let us see how dumb the US people are to listen to you (well, most are).

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    You and Randal are Zionist trolls pushing for war on Iran.

    All this for trying to adhere to sober realism? I did not know that you are so emotional and can loose temper that easily. Is it possible that you know that Randal's and mine evaluations are correct and your wishful thinking does not make this go away.

    Let me tell you what I believe:

    (1) If Russia and/or China stick with Iran, then there will be no attack on Iran. Is Russia and/or China ready to do so? I do not know.

    (2) If however Iran remains w/o powerful allies only then US may decide to attack it and if so, then Iran will be defeated and possibly devastated but not necessarily occupied. Will US decide to attack Iran? I do not know.

    Kiza, by saying that US will not prevail in the possible war with Iran you are not affecting the outcome of that war. Do not engage in magical thinking. Don't be childish.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. @Sergey Krieger
    I did not know about so called monkey versions then, but my dad Soviet colonel did tell me two things that Iraqi T-72 were not same as those in the park near our house and Iraqies shells were pre 1973 unable to penetrate Abrams armor. There were Soviet massive The West 1981 exercises of which I was aware than but due to age not getting importance despite watching Serve the Soviet Union every weekend. US land forces were not even on the same page as Soviet army. No wonder NATO had so many nukes in Europe and now I know that those excercices were about getting so close to our partners that there would be no chance to use tactical nukes and power, speed and coordination of Soviet strikes would be such that NATO forces would seaze to exist within 1-2 days. Gorbachov betrayal allowed USA to live in illusion of own making which is only now is being dispelled.

    Yes, the Soviets would not have given the Arabs their very best stuff. And yes, American forces in Western Europe were just for show, Warsaw Pact forces would have easily overrun them, I believe NATO planners acknowledged this, their plans were to win a long-term, economic war the Soviets could not match.

    I hope you are right about American megalomania being dispelled, but sadly I am pessimistic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
    Neither in economic nor in military term USA and allies presented any danger and had any chance. Would have been buried in gear. Soviet military producing capacity was enormous and USSR did not depend upon anyone and had all resources at hand. If WW2 did not teach anything what else can ?
    We frankly did not need that much military power after what we know about US military and yes economy. It was overreaction due to enormous damage suffered in WW2. But things like this happen once in millennia. USA safe nukes never presented any danger on the order of magnitude that Nazi Germany did.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. Randal says:
    @Anonymous

    I think both Russia and China would be much more aggressive helping Iran than Syria. It is a much larger chess piece for them.
     
    All of their chess pieces are indispensable now. They simply can't back down and betray any of their friendlies or semi-friendlies. It's a matter of trust and credibility. They'll either stay untied or die alone.

    Unfortunately, the globalist Tribe will not stop poking on its own so there's a very real possibility of World-ending outcomes.

    All of their chess pieces are indispensable now. They simply can’t back down and betray any of their friendlies or semi-friendlies.

    Well arguably they just did exactly that in the UNSC, by voting for the US’s latest sanctions aggression against North Korea.

    Now ok you can argue that NK is not nowadays a particularly close “friendly” for the Russians, but it certainly is one of the few remaining points of resistance against US power. The Russians and Chinese supposedly learned their lesson about cooperating with the US’s manipulative games in the UNSC when they were betrayed over Libya, but it seems not. Russia, of all people, ought to understand how important it is to resist the US’s use of sanctions as economic warfare. The Chinese are probably still a bit sore about the NKs refusing to kowtow to them recently.

    Imo the correct position to have taken would have been to stand on the point Russia and China made recently in their joint statement on NK last month: namely, that the US is largely to blame for NK’s entirely understandably uncooperative stance on acquiring a nuclear deterrent against US aggression, by its continuously menacing tone and behaviour towards the country, and that they would veto any sanctions resolutions until the US first ends its joint exercises with SK and agrees to end the deployment of THAAD to the peninsular.

    Instead they’ve needlessly given the US more ammunition for its propaganda campaign to justify military aggression against NK, and they’ve both limited their own options in dealing unilaterally with NK and (to the extent the sanctions are enforced and have any real effect) contributed to making the NK government even more defensive. They’ve effectively sabotaged their own preferred program of economic engagement with NK.

    Sometimes, as with the Russian decision to refuse air defences to Iran in 2007 (that were finally delivered only last year), you almost have to wonder if their regime really is still naïve about the real nature of the US problem.

    Read More
    • Agree: utu, for-the-record
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    Ironically, as much as US neocons and war liberals (to the extent there's any difference) try to demonize Putin by comparing him to Hitler, he indeed does have similarities there in not completely grasping the hostility of the forces arrayed against him. E.g. just as Hitler seemed to believe the British would eventually come to their senses, so too does Putin seem to take the Americans as honest players.

    To be fair, unlike Hitler, Putin is not allowing his country to be rushed into a war they are not yet ready for, but sometimes you wonder.
    , @Anonymous
    I agree with this.

    I am puzzled at to why China and Russia are capitulating to America with N Korea.

    I am sure they don't want N Korea to have nukes, but they definately don't want America to have a base right next to their borders.

    So why back down and sanction N Korea?

    At this point America is bluffing on direct actions against N Korea and Iran. They are just putting pressure on client states to take out these countries such as the Arab states with Iran and Russia and China with N Korea.

    Showing weakness to America now just encourages them to keep on pushing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. @Randal
    My comment was in direct response to the assertion by the anonymous commenter that: "Russian tech and military support could help Iran control it’s skies even without an airforce just like Syria is controlling it’s airspace", and my point was that there is no comparison between the situations.

    and my point was that there is no comparison between the situations.

    Thank you for clarification. And I agree, there is no comparison between situations since unlike any Arab countries, Iran has indigenous, sort of (of course it is Soviet-derived), long range TLAM based on famed RK-55 design. The missile has a strategic reach of 2000+ kilometers and, combined with other long to medium range, means is completely capable of striking both staging areas and air fields from which theoretical air-strikes will be launched against Iran. Here is one of those:

    https://missilethreat.csis.org/missile/soumar/

    Those capabilities haven’t been left unnoticed:

    http://breakingdefense.com/2017/03/white-house-needs-to-curb-irans-cruise-missiles/

    and for a good reason. US Armed Forces are not used to fighting under the condition of their rear echelons (not to speak of front lines) and air bases being attacked. Good size salvo of land-attack cruise missiles is a really nasty thing to deal with and, unlike flat Iraq, Iran has actual forests and mountains. If Mosul is any indication, taking such colossal city as Tehran could be a rather suicidal effort on part of US military. Hopefully we will not have to see that. But in the end, it is always a combination of forces and means which fights a real war. Iran lacks good Air Force.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. Kiza says:
    @Avery
    Agree with [Randal] and disagree with [Kiza].

    Despite what people here - including myself - feel about the criminal warmongering US/Neocons, we have to look at things with a cold, calculating heart.
    At present US has no peers when it comes to offensive air campaign. None.

    Whatever S-300s IRI has will not be enough to stop USAF. Yes, many US bombers will be lost to the capable S-300, but there is a limited number of S-300 missiles in IRI possession. Eventually Iran will run out of defensive anti-air missiles. Also, many anti-air installations will be defeated by swarms of anti-anti-air missile missiles. USAF has practically unlimited assets. At some point, assuming RF does not get directly involved, USAF will be flying all over Iran at will.

    The next question is to what end?

    There will be a lot of devastation after the USAF carpet bombing, but Iran will never capitulate and US boots cannot possibly occupy Iran.
    Iran will absorb the blows, and immediately embark on developing nukes.
    Then everybody and his brother (e.g. KSA) will try to obtain nukes (from Paks, for example).

    Iran also has tremendous asymmetric advantages: its neighborhood, particularly Iraq, is target-rich; the target being American troops. As soon as USAF starts bombing Iran, all restrains will come off of Iran's military: all US bases and troops in Iran's vicinity will be legitimate targets. Including Gulf states' oil infrastructure. US, and possibly the whole West, might very well plunge into a deep economic depression, with devastating consequences. Stock market crash, massive unemployment, spike in food prices,.....all very, very bad.


    My guess is despite Trump public rhetoric, and the foaming-at-the-mouth Nimrata Haley, there are at least some cooler heads in the Pentagon that will stop the self-defeating insanity.

    Nothing in it for America or the American people/taxpayer.

    I can only guess that some Zionist troll has overtaken Avery’s tag. Because this is a totally stupid sh**. As the other guy asked: what rat poison have you been smoking?

    But I can understand if you are a Zionist troll, a part of the team stalking unz.com and shoveling poop, who is paid to convince US morons that Iran is an easy target. US has no beef with Iran, it is purely the Zionists who are pushing for war. Then what? The US will lose planes and pilots and it will continue fighting on Israel’s behalf? Yeah, for the Zionists the US goyim (cattle) lives are worthless but what about their goyim families? And you Zionist craps would not be chased and hung off the lampposts after US goyim die big time for your ilk? Do you think that the police will protect you? Tell me the secret, what do you think will save you? Your Hasbara leaders will run and hide into their rat holes, but where will you hide?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    To truncate a previous post....All the US needs to do is have some senior military person tell an open Congressional committee that it his understanding that there will be no attack on Iran if it doesn't attack others except that if it tests a nuclear weapon successfully or announces that it has one it will be bombed until every possible place of manufacture and for missile launch is destroyed regardlesz unfortunately of what else may have to be destròyed.

    Absent any other reasonable explanation or contradiction I remain with my inference that any other possibility of war with Iran would have to be the result of Israel's fear of an Iran supported Hezbollah. Hence the aim of breaking the link through Syria.
    , @Avery
    {I can only guess that some Zionist troll has overtaken Avery’s tag. Because this is a totally stupid sh**. As the other guy asked: what rat poison have you been smoking?}

    Wow, Kiza: what has happened to you?
    Have you lost your mind?
    Did you read my post? All of it?
    Where in my post do you see me advocating US attack on Iran?
    (and, No, nobody has taken over my tag: UNZ.com has pretty robust defenses against that sort of thing)

    Hiding your head in the sand is not going to change reality.
    Calling everybody and his brother, quote, ' Zionist trolls' is not going to change the reality of Iran not having an AF and not having adequate defenses against a USAF massed attack. Not ground troops: AF. OK?

    And here is more reality for you:

    Republic of Armenia is right next door to Iran. I am sure you know.
    Any massive USAF attack on Iran's installations will most likely 'accidentally' hit all of Iran's NPPs. The released nuclear contamination will most likely drift over to RoA as well.
    I have blood relatives and in-laws living in RoA today: lots of them.
    I also have distant relatives, Iranian-Armenians, living in Iran.
    How many relatives do you have living in or nearby Iran?

    A devastated Iran will massively affect RoA's economy and its people: IRI and RoA have close and thriving economic ties.

    So give me a break.
    And chill out.
    You are not the only one who knows about Hasbara, Zionists, Israel-firsters,.....

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. Joe Wong says:
    @Anonymous
    Get out of your mom's basement Charlie and quit posting here. This isn't a place for kids. N Korea is actually the most dangerous option because of how many troops we have on the land and sea. Easy for you to talk about low cost when you are not in danger yourself.

    A victory in N Korea would not mean a US exit in Asia stupid. It would mean more troops as we want to use N Korea as a base to attack Russia and China.

    Russia and China know this of course, so they will intervene in the war.

    So your quick and easy war is now WW3.

    Grandpa Charlie may be the wanmongers in the Washington beltway who is testing water about the theory that mini-nukes are said to be “harmless to the surrounding civilizn population,” and pre-emptive nuclear war can be protrayed as a “humanitarian undertaking.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. @Randal

    All of their chess pieces are indispensable now. They simply can’t back down and betray any of their friendlies or semi-friendlies.
     
    Well arguably they just did exactly that in the UNSC, by voting for the US's latest sanctions aggression against North Korea.

    Now ok you can argue that NK is not nowadays a particularly close "friendly" for the Russians, but it certainly is one of the few remaining points of resistance against US power. The Russians and Chinese supposedly learned their lesson about cooperating with the US's manipulative games in the UNSC when they were betrayed over Libya, but it seems not. Russia, of all people, ought to understand how important it is to resist the US's use of sanctions as economic warfare. The Chinese are probably still a bit sore about the NKs refusing to kowtow to them recently.

    Imo the correct position to have taken would have been to stand on the point Russia and China made recently in their joint statement on NK last month: namely, that the US is largely to blame for NK's entirely understandably uncooperative stance on acquiring a nuclear deterrent against US aggression, by its continuously menacing tone and behaviour towards the country, and that they would veto any sanctions resolutions until the US first ends its joint exercises with SK and agrees to end the deployment of THAAD to the peninsular.

    Instead they've needlessly given the US more ammunition for its propaganda campaign to justify military aggression against NK, and they've both limited their own options in dealing unilaterally with NK and (to the extent the sanctions are enforced and have any real effect) contributed to making the NK government even more defensive. They've effectively sabotaged their own preferred program of economic engagement with NK.

    Sometimes, as with the Russian decision to refuse air defences to Iran in 2007 (that were finally delivered only last year), you almost have to wonder if their regime really is still naïve about the real nature of the US problem.

    Ironically, as much as US neocons and war liberals (to the extent there’s any difference) try to demonize Putin by comparing him to Hitler, he indeed does have similarities there in not completely grasping the hostility of the forces arrayed against him. E.g. just as Hitler seemed to believe the British would eventually come to their senses, so too does Putin seem to take the Americans as honest players.

    To be fair, unlike Hitler, Putin is not allowing his country to be rushed into a war they are not yet ready for, but sometimes you wonder.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    A fair point. I think they genuinely hoped for a switch to sanity from Trump, but even after that disappointment we still get decisions like voting for this UNSC resolution. I think there's been a noticeable maturing of the Russian elite's thinking in particular on this point over the past two decades, but decisions like the ones I referred to above do raise questions as to how solid it really is.

    Of course, as always when second guessing decisions by national leaders (except where, as with the US elites, there is a long track record of consistent gross incompetence and dual loyalty to base judgements upon) the usual caveats apply - speculating based upon incomplete information, etc.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. Kiza says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    Also, some armies had morale an average citizen of consumer society simply can’t comprehend.
     
    The issue of exertion. The subject US military will not even touch. Albeit latest (not completely agreeable) interview by Douglas Macgregor mentions part of the issue and combat effectiveness (or rather its precipitous decline) once soldiers begin to ask Why this war. That is start question it--a scenario reserved mostly for expeditionary warfare nations detached from the continental realities, mostly what used to be known as Anglo-Saxon sphere.

    Every Hasbara troll needs to read what Andrei is writing: what is combat effectiveness once soldiers begin to ask Why this war? Do you think that goyim will keep gladly dying for you even after you have been milking them with your financial schemes for hundreds of years?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
    LOL, man, I am as goy as they come, I am Russian. And I mean Russian-Russian, I don't think I even have any Tatar bloods in me;-) I guess it is the issue of software which misdirected your comment.
    , @Beefcake the Mighty
    To be fair, when will the white remnants of the West ask these questions? They have yet to do so, despite being given every opportunity and more than abundant evidence.
    , @Anonymous
    It's not just that. The globalist machine is relying on countless cogs of all sizes (and influence) who will happily do their part as long as it's easy. How many will stay the course when it gets hard? How many politicians, media personalities, think-tankers and generals are willing to put their own skins in the path of nuclear fire?

    Everything changes when the goyim in the trenches reach the same survivability as the masters of the universe.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. Kiza says:
    @peterAUS
    There has been a puzzling element in all this Internet jawboning in the last couple of years.

    True, most of it is a good old Soviet/Russian "maskirovka". Or "perception management" of voting populace.
    The rest is, mostly, a therapy for the people who just can't stand The Empire.
    But, every now and then, one could come across a nugget of thinking to help getting all this around us, and the most important, where this could be leading.

    That element is a loss of quality of personnel in US/West armed forces. Or, how the modern culture destroyed true fighting capability there.
    There are no more people of Iwo Jima character in US military.

    Be that as it may, why we do not apply the same principle to the opponents/enemies of The Empire?

    Do we REALLY believe that the current Russian man is of the same character as an assaulter in Stalingrad?

    Or, for this discussion, the current Iranian man is of the same character as those Pasdaran/Basij of Iraqi-Iranian war?

    Let's analyse what has happened so far since '90.
    Desert Storm. I remember the thinking before the war. Blop.....
    Serb effort in Balkans. For those who don't know, read up about Tito Partisans a bit. But, then...blop again.....
    Taliban after 9/11.....
    Iraq 2003........
    Tamil Eelam...
    Libya.....
    Syria.......I mean, once upon a time they were giving Israel a bit of a headache.
    And, yes, why not, Ukraine. Do we really see Stalingrad/Berlin/countless other examples, there in fighting for Donbass?

    So, for Iran...why not the same pattern there?

    Do we REALLY believe that the current Russian man is of the same character as an assaulter in Stalingrad?

    Why do you do drugs when they do you so much damage? The Russians assaulting their own beautiful city?

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Oh, man.........

    When studying that battle, as a part of curriculum, the angle was:
    Among other mistakes Germans did was not to adapt to urban combat. As...the only thing they did was to shorten the front of units. I assume you do know that, say, infantry company in attack had, sort of, around several hundreds meters of front to advance, on open ground. All Germans did was to shorten that front considerably.
    Soviets did much better. They reorganized their formations into ASSAULT units; from battalion size ASSAULT unit to a platoon ASSAULT unit. In platoon assault unit you'd have ASSAULTERS and support/firebase.
    Soviet assaulters were famous for their submachine gun and plenty of hand grenades.
    Germans also deployed, later on, ASSAULT engineers. They also had assaulters etc....etc...etc...

    Makes sense now?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. @Randal

    With Iran, I think something similar would happen. They already have S400′s and can defend themselves against air strikes.
     
    Iran doesn't have S400s, as far as we know. They have an unknown number of S300 systems, which were only declared operational earlier this year (Russia kowtowed to US and Israeli pressure by delaying them for nearly a decade). How effective they will be in practice remains to be seen, bearing in mind Iran was reportedly complaining about their ineffectiveness against Israeli aircraft in Syria back in March, according to a JP report sourced to "Kuwaiti daily Al Jarida":

    REPORT: IRAN ACCUSES RUSSIA OF GIVING ISRAEL CODES FOR SYRIAN AIR DEFENSES

    Whether there's any truth in that report, I have no idea, but there doesn't appear to have been a halt to Israeli strikes in Syria when the problem was supposedly solved.

    So what makes you think Russia would be bluffing when they are clearly not bluffing in Syria? That’s why America does not challenge Russia there, because they know that Russia is not bluffing.
     
    The point is that there is no Russian presence in Iran (indeed the Iranian constitution admirably forbids foreign military bases on its territory - something we in Britain ought to have enacted in 1990 imo), and no plausible pretext for one except to fight a US attack. I don't see it as likely that Russia will extend a defensive guarantee to Iran in that way, and if they were to do so (imagine the hysteria the Israeli and Saudi agents of influence in the US media and legislature would kick up in response) then the US regime would likely see it as an open challenge and call what they would probably correctly believe to be a bluff. Which is one reason why Russia won't do it, imo. If they are going to fight the US, they will do so in the Ukraine where they have all the advantages, not in Iran where the US does.

    they will do so in the Ukraine where they have all the advantages, not in Iran where the US does.

    I beg to differ–and what are those US advantages of fighting Iran? Corridor from Russia proper, through Dagestan along Caspian shore right up to Astara is an excellent rail line of communications. Baku’s plans in case of attack on Iran will matter little, not to mention that it will be forced to make a choice. So, in the end, nobody prevents Anzali from becoming a main shipping (receiving) terminal of some “supplies” from some many nations located at the shores of Caspian Sea. Then comes the issue of Iran being “suddenly” admitted to SCO if push comes to shove.

    https://financialtribune.com/articles/national/66082/china-reaffirms-backing-for-irans-sco-membership

    So, there are very many things which have to be considered before any “attacks” on Iran are planned. Of course, the fact that Iran’s population is 80+ million with a huge percentage of youth above 25 y.o. can not be ignored at all. Boy, talk about mobilization potential. Iran is a different game altogether, especially where it matters the most–ground invasion. I now also reiterate a small point I was making for the last… many years: Russia, for all problems with Iran, will not allow any US presence on Caspian shores. This is not even a viable option, so yes, God forbids, any invasion of Iran actually occurs–the dynamics will be very different even when compared with Syria.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    I beg to differ–and what are those US advantages of fighting Iran?
     
    Please note that nowhere have I argued that a US attack on Iran would be anything other than a catastrophe for the US. I just doubt that it will be a disaster because Russia or China will openly go to war with the US over it , or because the US air force will be destroyed in the skies above Iran.

    As to your specific question, my comment related to advantages for the US in fighting Russian forces in Iran as opposed to in the Ukraine, not advantages in fighting against Iran.

    Those advantages are proximity to numerous very large frontline US military bases with well drilled and experienced top line air and missile defences, located in depth, and several US allies who will actively cooperate in an attack on Iran, along with accessibility from the Indian Ocean, together with geographical remoteness from Russian territory.

    Russia, for all problems with Iran, will not allow any US presence on Caspian shores. This is not even a viable option, so yes, God forbids, any invasion of Iran actually occurs–the dynamics will be very different even when compared with Syria.
     
    Actually when you think about it Russia's best option if the US really went for it with an actual invasion of Iran would probably be to oppose it diplomatically but not openly militarily. Supply the Iranian resistance to any US invasion forces with all the basic technical assistance and any military equipment they need, but not the high profile AA stuff that would be immediately attributed to active Russian intervention, and watch the US regime doing to itself what the Soviets did to themselves in Afghanistan, but without even the pretence of being present to support an existing government.
    , @Anonymous
    Andrei.

    Why won't Russia allow a US presence on the Caspian shore.

    Why is this a redline for Russia?

    So are you saying that Russia would most likely intervene in a significant way if Iran was under threat of being over thrown?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. utu says:
    @Kiza
    End of discussion, it is settled science, right? Where did you people purchase your brains, Walmart or https://www.yelp.com/search?find_desc=jewish+market&find_loc=Los+Angeles%2C+CA?
    Please let me know to avoid buying anything there. Even the best laid plans seldom survive engagement with the enemy. As most US Zionist craps, you truly have no contact with reality, you constantly wallow in your own pig poop.

    How about US using nuclear weapons on Iran on Israel's behalf? Would that be the overwhelming enough fire power for you? Iran is watching the US cowardice against North Korea (talking endless bull about intervening) and will realize eventually that only having nuclear weapons will protect it from the Zionist crazies.

    You and Randal are Zionist trolls pushing for war on Iran. Let us see how dumb the US people are to listen to you (well, most are).

    You and Randal are Zionist trolls pushing for war on Iran.

    All this for trying to adhere to sober realism? I did not know that you are so emotional and can loose temper that easily. Is it possible that you know that Randal’s and mine evaluations are correct and your wishful thinking does not make this go away.

    Let me tell you what I believe:

    (1) If Russia and/or China stick with Iran, then there will be no attack on Iran. Is Russia and/or China ready to do so? I do not know.

    (2) If however Iran remains w/o powerful allies only then US may decide to attack it and if so, then Iran will be defeated and possibly devastated but not necessarily occupied. Will US decide to attack Iran? I do not know.

    Kiza, by saying that US will not prevail in the possible war with Iran you are not affecting the outcome of that war. Do not engage in magical thinking. Don’t be childish.

    Read More
    • Agree: Randal
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. Joe Wong says:
    @The Alarmist
    I dunno, Lesotho sounds like the kind of shot in the arm we might need to get out of this defeatist funk. In fact, nearly all of Africa provides the sort of regime-change and social-welfare-democracy-project opportunities the US military has been redesigned to accommodate. Plus you have the benefit of potentially chasing the Chicoms away. Surprised we aren't there already... oh, wait!

    AFRICOM already costed China tens of billions in Mali, Lybia and Sudan. China can be tolerant, but there is a limit.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    And 30,000 Chinese workers evacuated from Libya.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. @Kiza
    Every Hasbara troll needs to read what Andrei is writing: what is combat effectiveness once soldiers begin to ask Why this war? Do you think that goyim will keep gladly dying for you even after you have been milking them with your financial schemes for hundreds of years?

    LOL, man, I am as goy as they come, I am Russian. And I mean Russian-Russian, I don’t think I even have any Tatar bloods in me;-) I guess it is the issue of software which misdirected your comment.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    Common, man, (to use your language) you reread my comment. Where did I call you anything but Russian? I quoted your words as smart words of caution on the willingness of US goyim to keep dying for Israel before stringing them up the lampposts and trees.

    What is it with people on unz today?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. Randal says:
    @Sunbeam
    One thing I haven’t seen mention of is the risk to aircraft carriers, and what getting one sunk would do to America in real terms and psychologically.

    It is possible that America would keep its carriers far from either N Korea or Iran. But maybe not. What other means would America have to launch many sortiies than to bring it’s carriers within range of attack. That would mean that American carriers would be at risk of not only missle attacks but also sub attacks.

    This is one of those $64 dollar questions.

    Look the US had a relatively glorious WWII. Some... let's call them tropes emerged from that war.

    Naval Aviation is one. "Air Force Wings are made of Lead, Navy Wings are made of gold."

    Carriers are really kind of useless against an opponent who can actually hit back. (Like China with all those missiles with male porn star names I think Fred Reed has mentioned a time or two).

    You have a whole gaggle of ships with the carrier whose purpose is to... protect the carrier. That's it. You have spent a lot of money, and have a lot of manpower devoted to protecting that carrier, which costs a lot of money in its own right along with the aircraft and roughly 5000 sailors on board.

    Up until the F-18 it was pretty simple. You had a couple helicopters, a few S-2 (think that is the nomenclature ) planes for anti-sub activities, 24 A-6 attack aircraft, with the rest being F-14's whose main job was to provide air superiority, thus protecting the carrier.

    All that was basically just so 24 attack aircraft could do something. That is a heck of a pricetag for blowing up a bridge somewhere.

    So why did we have them, besides a "send a gunboat" kind of thing? Well some places are hard to get to with Air Force planes. You could park a carrier off the west coast of Africa, or some way off place in the South Pacific in a couple of weeks at the most. Whereas having a base for some Air Force planes took a lot more logistics and time.

    But the big thing is Aviation is one of the big 3 communities in the Navy (Subs, Surface, and Aviation). It is a vested interest in the military sense, and besides Hollywood just loves them. Along with Congress and the defense industry.

    It may not make as much sense to do this as it did in 1945 or even 1952 or 1966. But it is still a strong constituency, and that is a truth, regardless of relative usefulness in the modern world.

    The F-18 fills both roles now (air superiority and attack). Some cynics say it does neither well. But against the kinds of opponents you actually want to risk a carrier against (I.E. opponents who have no possible way to threaten the carrier) it really doesn't matter. And I guess all the F-18's can be configured to carry ground attack loads, so you really have 3 to 4 times as many attack aircraft available as say the Nimitz had in the 80's.

    Anyway:

    1) Carrier aviation in no way is going to be as useful as the Air Force. But they are going to show up and say "We did our part. Fund us."

    2) They are going to have to stand off a long way from the Iranian coast. No one has any real idea if the Iranians have a land based missile that can sink a carrier, or if they managed to buy one from Russia or the Chinese. But I don't think the Navy wants to find out.

    Which means Naval Aircraft are going to have a really constrained envelope of areas they can actually hit in Iran.

    Which brings us to a couple of other points.

    3) Mines are cheap. Mines are effective. Even if you have invested in mineclearing ships, this is expensive and takes time. One of those asymmetrical weapons.

    If you were Iran, and the US attacked you, what would you do?

    Me I'm saying something like "Release the Kraken." Then I put enough mines in the water off my coast to totally shutdown the Stratits of Hormuz to ALL tanker and cargo ship traffic.

    Guaranteed to piss off tons of people. But I have to wonder who they blame in the end?

    Anyway, trust me, one way or another a US carrier is not going to want to be anywhere close enough to my coast to be effective.

    And any kind of amphibious invasion? Uh, that isn't happening.

    4) Assuming you actually want to invade Iran, as opposed to just bombing it so they capitulate like Milosevic did (if they do)...

    How are you going to get anyone there? I really can't see an Armored Division moving across the mountains to Iran's west (those things are tall). That would require you coming from Iraq or maybe Turkey in either case.

    Good luck with an amphibious assault. There is a marsh area between Iraq and Iran. I don't think you are moving Armor through that, nor Mechanized Infantry (do we have any straight leg infantry anymore?).

    5) Refueling, refueling, refueling.

    I'm pretty sure one of the dicier aspects of something you guys are postulating will never come up. Because I can't imagine Iran being able to mount an interception mission even 40 or 50 miles outside their borders.

    But that is one heck of a lot of refueling missions, since pretty much every one is going to need refueling (unless you guys are a lot more confident than I would be about staging a mass Air operation from Iraq ). Lot of flight hours, lot of stress and strain.

    Plus I can think of eleventy-seven different cool things to try with semi-autonomous drones (they'd be aerial mines of a sort really) just to exploit the refueling operation the US is going to have to do a lot of.

    Anyway, my take is this whole thing is utter BS and has debacle written all over it. If somehow my country can pull something like this off, and I am a fool for doubting them, then I'm a fool.

    Or maybe the Iranians are morons, dunno. But I'd sure hate to face Serbs that had all the cards to play that Iran does currently.

    I wouldn't touch this with Billy Kristol's dick.

    Then I put enough mines in the water off my coast to totally shutdown the Stratits of Hormuz to ALL tanker and cargo ship traffic.

    Guaranteed to piss off tons of people. But I have to wonder who they blame in the end?

    Well the Iran-Iraq war was an act of blatant aggression by Iraq, and furthermore the “Tanker War” itself was kicked off by Iraq attacking Kharg Island. But guess who mostly got blamed for attacks on shipping in the Persian Gulf?

    Here’s a clue: it wasn’t Iraq.

    The US and its regional allies continued to actively support Iraq, and escorted shipping headed for Iraq whilst ignoring Iraqi attacks on Iranian shipping.

    The sheer manipulative power of the US sphere elite propaganda machine and its firm grip on the gullible masses, especially in times of war, should not be underestimated.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {The US and its regional allies continued to actively support Iraq, and escorted shipping headed for Iraq whilst ignoring Iraqi attacks on Iranian shipping.}

    Right.

    And US manufactured an excuse to directly attack Iranian assets*, in support of Iraq.

    {The attacks began when six American ships destroyed two Iranian oil platforms in what the Reagan Administration said was retaliation for the mining that damaged a Navy vessel last week.} (April 1988).

    And of course US Navy directly meddling in Iranian waters and spoiling for a fight resulted in the tragic shootdown of Iran Air Flight 655. (Jul 1988)


    ___________
    *
    http://www.nytimes.com/1988/04/19/world/us-strikes-2-iranian-oil-rigs-hits-6-warships-battles-over-mining-sea-lanes-gulf.html?pagewanted=all
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. Kiza says:

    Saker still writes good analytical articles, although sometimes he is still basing them on wrong information. But the comments have been completely overtaken by the trolls: I went back through the comments and about half of them are by Hasbara trolls or a single troll with sock puppets. These trolls are obviously paid to sell a war on Iran and that is what they are doing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  129. Randal says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty
    Ironically, as much as US neocons and war liberals (to the extent there's any difference) try to demonize Putin by comparing him to Hitler, he indeed does have similarities there in not completely grasping the hostility of the forces arrayed against him. E.g. just as Hitler seemed to believe the British would eventually come to their senses, so too does Putin seem to take the Americans as honest players.

    To be fair, unlike Hitler, Putin is not allowing his country to be rushed into a war they are not yet ready for, but sometimes you wonder.

    A fair point. I think they genuinely hoped for a switch to sanity from Trump, but even after that disappointment we still get decisions like voting for this UNSC resolution. I think there’s been a noticeable maturing of the Russian elite’s thinking in particular on this point over the past two decades, but decisions like the ones I referred to above do raise questions as to how solid it really is.

    Of course, as always when second guessing decisions by national leaders (except where, as with the US elites, there is a long track record of consistent gross incompetence and dual loyalty to base judgements upon) the usual caveats apply – speculating based upon incomplete information, etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    "there’s been a noticeable maturing of the Russian elite’s thinking in particular on this point over the past two decades"

    I would hope so. But you know how it is with the elites. Loyalty to whom or what? Perhaps some still reminisce the time of the El Dorado under Yeltsin. I suspect there is a significant segment among the elites who would like Putin to go and end the posturing about patriotism and nationalism and the Orthodox faith. They are the cynics of the cynics and opportunist and all they know is how to count their money and care about vacations in the West which is the best school in the West to send their children to. With Putin and sanctions the West is not that friendly to them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. @Kiza
    Every Hasbara troll needs to read what Andrei is writing: what is combat effectiveness once soldiers begin to ask Why this war? Do you think that goyim will keep gladly dying for you even after you have been milking them with your financial schemes for hundreds of years?

    To be fair, when will the white remnants of the West ask these questions? They have yet to do so, despite being given every opportunity and more than abundant evidence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    "Do you think that goyim will keep gladly dying for you even after you have been milking them with your financial schemes for hundreds of years?"

    I made a mistake, I should have written "thousands of years". Even Jesus Christ overthrew their greedy and filthy money changing tables.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. “So the pressing question now becomes this: “where will the Empire strike next?”. Will it be the DPRK or Syria? Iran or Venezuela? In the Ukraine, maybe? Or do the Neocons seek war with Russia or China?”

    You don’t say the Venezuala, the Iran, the Mexico, or the Canada. There is no “the Ukraine”, it’s just Ukraine.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  132. Joe Wong says:
    @Grandpa Charlie
    Randal says that a Pearl Harbor event "would suddenly render both Iran and DPRK open to US military occupation." I don't know if that is true or not, and I don't know if the statement is really meaningful. Myself, I do not believe that the USA has any casus belli to go to war with Iran, so I don't discuss that. As for the DPRK, I believe the USA has, over the years, tried peaceful negotiations to end the war but all those attempts have been frustrated by the despotic leaders of the DPRK ( the Kim dynasty). In any event, I would never advocate USA military occupation of any part of Korea. I advocate for the peaceful occupation of the North of Korea by the military of the ROK, but only until such time as all-Korea elections could be held, in order to incorporate the North of Korea into the ROK.

    In my opinion, the case of Korea is similar to the case of Germany and the government of the DPRK is no more legitimate or viable (without subjecting it to cruel and despotic methods led by the Kim dynasty) than was the old government of East Germany before reunification. So, no military occupation by the USA, and only a temporary and benign occupation by the army of the ROK - which is anyway the legitimate government all of Korea.

    North Korean views South Korean just like the North Vietnamese viewed South Vietnamese, they are the lackeys of the western colonial imperialists, they are traitors, they disgrace the Korean and Vietnamese, and they make the Korean and Vietnamese cannot stand up to be an independent and proud nation that can hold their heads up high and be respected.

    North Vietnamese paid very high price to achieve their united, indpendent and proud nation dream, and North Korean wants to achieve the same. Who is East Germany? Is it someone like the Japanese who views licking American behind as their honour and duty like the Indian?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. @Beefcake the Mighty
    Are you in a cuck competition with Corvinus? (Try saying that five times fast!)

    Who’s Corvinus (crow? but Hungarian?). What’s he say?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. @Kiza
    I can only guess that some Zionist troll has overtaken Avery's tag. Because this is a totally stupid sh**. As the other guy asked: what rat poison have you been smoking?

    But I can understand if you are a Zionist troll, a part of the team stalking unz.com and shoveling poop, who is paid to convince US morons that Iran is an easy target. US has no beef with Iran, it is purely the Zionists who are pushing for war. Then what? The US will lose planes and pilots and it will continue fighting on Israel's behalf? Yeah, for the Zionists the US goyim (cattle) lives are worthless but what about their goyim families? And you Zionist craps would not be chased and hung off the lampposts after US goyim die big time for your ilk? Do you think that the police will protect you? Tell me the secret, what do you think will save you? Your Hasbara leaders will run and hide into their rat holes, but where will you hide?

    To truncate a previous post….All the US needs to do is have some senior military person tell an open Congressional committee that it his understanding that there will be no attack on Iran if it doesn’t attack others except that if it tests a nuclear weapon successfully or announces that it has one it will be bombed until every possible place of manufacture and for missile launch is destroyed regardlesz unfortunately of what else may have to be destròyed.

    Absent any other reasonable explanation or contradiction I remain with my inference that any other possibility of war with Iran would have to be the result of Israel’s fear of an Iran supported Hezbollah. Hence the aim of breaking the link through Syria.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. Randal says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    they will do so in the Ukraine where they have all the advantages, not in Iran where the US does.
     
    I beg to differ--and what are those US advantages of fighting Iran? Corridor from Russia proper, through Dagestan along Caspian shore right up to Astara is an excellent rail line of communications. Baku's plans in case of attack on Iran will matter little, not to mention that it will be forced to make a choice. So, in the end, nobody prevents Anzali from becoming a main shipping (receiving) terminal of some "supplies" from some many nations located at the shores of Caspian Sea. Then comes the issue of Iran being "suddenly" admitted to SCO if push comes to shove.

    https://financialtribune.com/articles/national/66082/china-reaffirms-backing-for-irans-sco-membership

    So, there are very many things which have to be considered before any "attacks" on Iran are planned. Of course, the fact that Iran's population is 80+ million with a huge percentage of youth above 25 y.o. can not be ignored at all. Boy, talk about mobilization potential. Iran is a different game altogether, especially where it matters the most--ground invasion. I now also reiterate a small point I was making for the last... many years: Russia, for all problems with Iran, will not allow any US presence on Caspian shores. This is not even a viable option, so yes, God forbids, any invasion of Iran actually occurs--the dynamics will be very different even when compared with Syria.

    I beg to differ–and what are those US advantages of fighting Iran?

    Please note that nowhere have I argued that a US attack on Iran would be anything other than a catastrophe for the US. I just doubt that it will be a disaster because Russia or China will openly go to war with the US over it , or because the US air force will be destroyed in the skies above Iran.

    As to your specific question, my comment related to advantages for the US in fighting Russian forces in Iran as opposed to in the Ukraine, not advantages in fighting against Iran.

    Those advantages are proximity to numerous very large frontline US military bases with well drilled and experienced top line air and missile defences, located in depth, and several US allies who will actively cooperate in an attack on Iran, along with accessibility from the Indian Ocean, together with geographical remoteness from Russian territory.

    Russia, for all problems with Iran, will not allow any US presence on Caspian shores. This is not even a viable option, so yes, God forbids, any invasion of Iran actually occurs–the dynamics will be very different even when compared with Syria.

    Actually when you think about it Russia’s best option if the US really went for it with an actual invasion of Iran would probably be to oppose it diplomatically but not openly militarily. Supply the Iranian resistance to any US invasion forces with all the basic technical assistance and any military equipment they need, but not the high profile AA stuff that would be immediately attributed to active Russian intervention, and watch the US regime doing to itself what the Soviets did to themselves in Afghanistan, but without even the pretence of being present to support an existing government.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    As to your specific question, my comment related to advantages for the US in fighting Russian forces in Iran as opposed to in the Ukraine, not advantages in fighting against Iran.
     
    That is rather a far fetched scenario but I think if this comes to that, there will be no avoiding fighting Iranian forces, while also fighting Russia forces in Iran. In this scenario the issue of:

    Those advantages are proximity to numerous very large frontline US military bases with well drilled and experienced top line air and missile defences, located in depth, and several US allies who will actively cooperate in an attack on Iran,
     
    with US actually fighting Russian forces in Iran will be resolved by a massive cruise missile attacks to a strategic depth and with serious damage to all those bases and whatever will be stored or deployed there. You have to understand and I repeat it yet again: a real hysteria in US started not with Russian Air Space Forces small contingent deploying to Syria in 2015, the start of massive mass media hysteria coincided with first salvos (precisely October 7, 2015) of 3M14s when the whole US media world, including a truck load of its "military analysts" went total ape-shit. The reason being that it was (as I predicted earlier--it is well-documented in my blog) that 3M14 (and X-101s) will fly at some point of time and sure as hell they did. It seems this simple point is constantly missing from any of these discussions and I have to repeat it all over again: On 7 October 2015 it was shown to NATO (US) that ANY of its bases be in Europe, ME or even most of lower 48 is within the reach of a salvo of cruise missiles. With their CEP at that time being around 3 feet (today it is even smaller--which really makes no difference), with inertial guidance with GLONASS correction and other sneaky things any, I underscore it, any US assets anywhere capable to threaten Russia and her vicinity will be attacked. Believe me, those missiles are extremely difficult to intercept even by PATRIOT PAC-3 . US Armed Forces never fought under the condition of their rear bases being attacked, air-fields and assets there destroyed or disabled, C4 partially suppressed or completely disabled--that is what this hypothetical (and for now, hopefully it stays this way, fictional Clanciesque) scenario means. That is what also gives a stability to Russian bases in Syria, not just S-400 or even S-800 or even 1200 but a direct threat to any asset(s) which would decide to do real stupid thing, because the attack on any Russian installation in Syria automatically launches a response at whatever the bases and specialists or whatever there are anywhere.

    Now, US didn't fight real peer since Pacific War (WW II). There is only one country in the world which can actually massively retaliate conventionally against any US targets--a thing long ago considered to be exclusively "US only" shtick (right, that is why Granat cruise missiles went under the knife during Perestroika among the first) this is not the case anymore. Moreover, with every passing day this stock of very impressive missiles (some of them are currently beyond US technological capability) grows in numbers. This is one of the major factors which is behind increasing desperation on neocon (or whatever the hell one calls them today, ZOG etc.) side. The window is closing really fast. I think cool heads in Pentagon (and there are many good level professionals left there still) understand that. So, hopefully all this armchair strategists (I am a consummate one, so I don't exclude myself) contingency "planning" will remain just that--a vain conversation about, as they say it in Russia, spherical horses in vacuum.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. utu says:
    @Joe Wong
    AFRICOM already costed China tens of billions in Mali, Lybia and Sudan. China can be tolerant, but there is a limit.

    And 30,000 Chinese workers evacuated from Libya.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. Avery says:
    @Randal

    Then I put enough mines in the water off my coast to totally shutdown the Stratits of Hormuz to ALL tanker and cargo ship traffic.

    Guaranteed to piss off tons of people. But I have to wonder who they blame in the end?
     
    Well the Iran-Iraq war was an act of blatant aggression by Iraq, and furthermore the "Tanker War" itself was kicked off by Iraq attacking Kharg Island. But guess who mostly got blamed for attacks on shipping in the Persian Gulf?

    Here's a clue: it wasn't Iraq.

    The US and its regional allies continued to actively support Iraq, and escorted shipping headed for Iraq whilst ignoring Iraqi attacks on Iranian shipping.

    The sheer manipulative power of the US sphere elite propaganda machine and its firm grip on the gullible masses, especially in times of war, should not be underestimated.

    {The US and its regional allies continued to actively support Iraq, and escorted shipping headed for Iraq whilst ignoring Iraqi attacks on Iranian shipping.}

    Right.

    And US manufactured an excuse to directly attack Iranian assets*, in support of Iraq.

    {The attacks began when six American ships destroyed two Iranian oil platforms in what the Reagan Administration said was retaliation for the mining that damaged a Navy vessel last week.} (April 1988).

    And of course US Navy directly meddling in Iranian waters and spoiling for a fight resulted in the tragic shootdown of Iran Air Flight 655. (Jul 1988)

    ___________
    *

    http://www.nytimes.com/1988/04/19/world/us-strikes-2-iranian-oil-rigs-hits-6-warships-battles-over-mining-sea-lanes-gulf.html?pagewanted=all

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. Joe Wong says:
    @Randal

    I also think both China and Russia would have a big incentive to help out Iran with air defense
     
    Indeed. But would it be enough of an incentive to make them act strongly enough to make a difference? And it would really have to be Russia to make a military difference, though China could help out diplomatically and perhaps economically for the longer term. A lot might depend on relations between the US and Russia at the time of the attack, as well as between Russia and Israel, in particular, and other likely parties to an attack such as the Gulf states, but Russia/Iran relations have never been particularly warm even if they have cooperated very effectively in Syria.

    A big deployment like we saw in Desert Storm would give Iran enough time to smuggle in more S400′s.
     
    I don't think just bringing S400 systems into the country is going to make any difference on its own. These are sophisticated and complicated systems. You need the crews to operate them, which means Russians in practice unless you have years to train and drill Iranian crews, and you need to integrate them effectively into an air defence system. Without that, they're just going to get blown up by SEAD without having any real effect.

    Anything less than Desert Storm 2 Iran would be able to control the skies.
     
    Iran can't "control the skies", because it doesn't have any noticeable air force. At most it might be able to impose a degree of air neutrality over Iran itself, if its air defences work a lot better than expected and if they stand up to the massive EAD effort that will be directed at it in the first hours and days of any attack. It would certainly need to be a much faster and harder effort than the Kosovo campaign, in air terms, and I have no doubt it would have much less restrictive targeting rules applied.

    There's not a lot Iran can do to prepare that it presumably hasn't already been doing, unless the crisis triggers much more open support from Russia.

    Majority of USSR weapons shipped thru China during the Vietnam War, China will ship all its weapons thru Russia to Iran on all those high speed rails. China has larger industrial capacity than the USA right now, it is indeed another test of industrial capacity between the opposit rivals in Iran.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. @Michael Kenny
    Essentially, speculation. It seems to be just a rather long-winded way of saying the US can’t beat Putin in Ukraine and attacking him (or Assad) in Syria won’t advance that goal. That’s standard war propaganda: “don’t bother fighting, you have no chance of winning!” The author is Russian and I suppose he’s just trying to defend his country from the consequences of Putin’s blundering but there’s no gainsaying the fact that the disturber of the peace in modern Europe is Putin and the lesson of history is if the Russian elite don’t find a way to remove him from power, there will eventually be a war. I don’t see how Russia could win that war, not just because of its technologically backward military but also because I don’t see why young Russians would fight for a gangster regime that has been robbing them blind for over 25 years. In addition, why would Russian soldiers obey an order to launch a nuclear device when to do so would risk bringing down nuclear retaliation on their own families? The author is trading on the cold war image of the Russian soldier as a blind fanatic. I don’t think that was ever true but it certainly isn’t true now.

    I commend you on presenting this comment, it is indeed rare for such total ignorance to be so proudly displayed, however, anyone who could claim the following probably needs psychiatric help. Are you really that crazy, stupid or just a typical troll?

    “The author is Russian and I suppose he’s just trying to defend his country from the consequences of Putin’s blundering but there’s no gainsaying the fact that the disturber of the peace in modern Europe is Putin and the lesson of history is if the Russian elite don’t find a way to remove him from power, there will eventually be a war.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. utu says:
    @Randal
    A fair point. I think they genuinely hoped for a switch to sanity from Trump, but even after that disappointment we still get decisions like voting for this UNSC resolution. I think there's been a noticeable maturing of the Russian elite's thinking in particular on this point over the past two decades, but decisions like the ones I referred to above do raise questions as to how solid it really is.

    Of course, as always when second guessing decisions by national leaders (except where, as with the US elites, there is a long track record of consistent gross incompetence and dual loyalty to base judgements upon) the usual caveats apply - speculating based upon incomplete information, etc.

    “there’s been a noticeable maturing of the Russian elite’s thinking in particular on this point over the past two decades”

    I would hope so. But you know how it is with the elites. Loyalty to whom or what? Perhaps some still reminisce the time of the El Dorado under Yeltsin. I suspect there is a significant segment among the elites who would like Putin to go and end the posturing about patriotism and nationalism and the Orthodox faith. They are the cynics of the cynics and opportunist and all they know is how to count their money and care about vacations in the West which is the best school in the West to send their children to. With Putin and sanctions the West is not that friendly to them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. Avery says:
    @Kiza
    I can only guess that some Zionist troll has overtaken Avery's tag. Because this is a totally stupid sh**. As the other guy asked: what rat poison have you been smoking?

    But I can understand if you are a Zionist troll, a part of the team stalking unz.com and shoveling poop, who is paid to convince US morons that Iran is an easy target. US has no beef with Iran, it is purely the Zionists who are pushing for war. Then what? The US will lose planes and pilots and it will continue fighting on Israel's behalf? Yeah, for the Zionists the US goyim (cattle) lives are worthless but what about their goyim families? And you Zionist craps would not be chased and hung off the lampposts after US goyim die big time for your ilk? Do you think that the police will protect you? Tell me the secret, what do you think will save you? Your Hasbara leaders will run and hide into their rat holes, but where will you hide?

    {I can only guess that some Zionist troll has overtaken Avery’s tag. Because this is a totally stupid sh**. As the other guy asked: what rat poison have you been smoking?}

    Wow, Kiza: what has happened to you?
    Have you lost your mind?
    Did you read my post? All of it?
    Where in my post do you see me advocating US attack on Iran?
    (and, No, nobody has taken over my tag: UNZ.com has pretty robust defenses against that sort of thing)

    Hiding your head in the sand is not going to change reality.
    Calling everybody and his brother, quote, ‘ Zionist trolls’ is not going to change the reality of Iran not having an AF and not having adequate defenses against a USAF massed attack. Not ground troops: AF. OK?

    And here is more reality for you:

    Republic of Armenia is right next door to Iran. I am sure you know.
    Any massive USAF attack on Iran’s installations will most likely ‘accidentally’ hit all of Iran’s NPPs. The released nuclear contamination will most likely drift over to RoA as well.
    I have blood relatives and in-laws living in RoA today: lots of them.
    I also have distant relatives, Iranian-Armenians, living in Iran.
    How many relatives do you have living in or nearby Iran?

    A devastated Iran will massively affect RoA’s economy and its people: IRI and RoA have close and thriving economic ties.

    So give me a break.
    And chill out.
    You are not the only one who knows about Hasbara, Zionists, Israel-firsters,…..

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    Well, even if you are the real Avery, and unz does not have a perfect defense as you describe (this may be tipping off who you are), then you still write total rubbish. Just read my other comments to understand where you are totally wrong, you are typing irrelevant stuff. All you Hasbara trolls assume that US people will keep gladly dying for you. Let one US$ person die per 1,000 killed Iranians and you bastards could have your air-superiority by swinging in the wind.

    Anyway, I do not know why I am wasting time on trolls and their poop.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Wally
    And what "job" is to be "done in Iran"?

    Kill Iranians for "that shitty little country" Israel?

    Do you think Iran will just sit back and allow it to occur?

    Why don’t you ditch the “Zionist” and say plainly that it Jews you hate? Seems no less weasly than “neocon,” frankly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Are you saying that all Jews are Zionists?

    Certainly all 'neocons' are.

    Is that your best shot?


    The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the 'holocaust' scam debunked here:
    http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here:
    http://forum.codoh.com
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. Hibernian says:
    @Alden
    I might be wrong, but I don't think any SJWs and White millennials join the military? Seems to me the SJW stuff comes from the top.

    Many women officers are SJWs.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. @Beefcake the Mighty
    Yes, the Soviets would not have given the Arabs their very best stuff. And yes, American forces in Western Europe were just for show, Warsaw Pact forces would have easily overrun them, I believe NATO planners acknowledged this, their plans were to win a long-term, economic war the Soviets could not match.

    I hope you are right about American megalomania being dispelled, but sadly I am pessimistic.

    Neither in economic nor in military term USA and allies presented any danger and had any chance. Would have been buried in gear. Soviet military producing capacity was enormous and USSR did not depend upon anyone and had all resources at hand. If WW2 did not teach anything what else can ?
    We frankly did not need that much military power after what we know about US military and yes economy. It was overreaction due to enormous damage suffered in WW2. But things like this happen once in millennia. USA safe nukes never presented any danger on the order of magnitude that Nazi Germany did.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
    I wonder, even in case of some superior economic potential what and how could it have been brought to bear with USA losing European base and basically place to safely land. Otherwise, Soviet mobilization speed was such that NATO would have no time to even react. With what happened at the very top of Soviet leadership I understand perfectly why panic spreaders were usually either shot or decimated as in Rome and why fool is more dangerous than an enemy
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. Joe Wong says:
    @Randal

    With Iran, I think something similar would happen. They already have S400′s and can defend themselves against air strikes.
     
    Iran doesn't have S400s, as far as we know. They have an unknown number of S300 systems, which were only declared operational earlier this year (Russia kowtowed to US and Israeli pressure by delaying them for nearly a decade). How effective they will be in practice remains to be seen, bearing in mind Iran was reportedly complaining about their ineffectiveness against Israeli aircraft in Syria back in March, according to a JP report sourced to "Kuwaiti daily Al Jarida":

    REPORT: IRAN ACCUSES RUSSIA OF GIVING ISRAEL CODES FOR SYRIAN AIR DEFENSES

    Whether there's any truth in that report, I have no idea, but there doesn't appear to have been a halt to Israeli strikes in Syria when the problem was supposedly solved.

    So what makes you think Russia would be bluffing when they are clearly not bluffing in Syria? That’s why America does not challenge Russia there, because they know that Russia is not bluffing.
     
    The point is that there is no Russian presence in Iran (indeed the Iranian constitution admirably forbids foreign military bases on its territory - something we in Britain ought to have enacted in 1990 imo), and no plausible pretext for one except to fight a US attack. I don't see it as likely that Russia will extend a defensive guarantee to Iran in that way, and if they were to do so (imagine the hysteria the Israeli and Saudi agents of influence in the US media and legislature would kick up in response) then the US regime would likely see it as an open challenge and call what they would probably correctly believe to be a bluff. Which is one reason why Russia won't do it, imo. If they are going to fight the US, they will do so in the Ukraine where they have all the advantages, not in Iran where the US does.

    In case you forget, China sent hundreds of thousand of troops to mount AA guns, repair infrastructures, and supply food for the North Vietnamese during the Vietnam War even during the chaos of Culture Revolution. Image what China can do for Iran with all its industrial capacity bigger than the USA.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. @Sergey Krieger
    Neither in economic nor in military term USA and allies presented any danger and had any chance. Would have been buried in gear. Soviet military producing capacity was enormous and USSR did not depend upon anyone and had all resources at hand. If WW2 did not teach anything what else can ?
    We frankly did not need that much military power after what we know about US military and yes economy. It was overreaction due to enormous damage suffered in WW2. But things like this happen once in millennia. USA safe nukes never presented any danger on the order of magnitude that Nazi Germany did.

    I wonder, even in case of some superior economic potential what and how could it have been brought to bear with USA losing European base and basically place to safely land. Otherwise, Soviet mobilization speed was such that NATO would have no time to even react. With what happened at the very top of Soviet leadership I understand perfectly why panic spreaders were usually either shot or decimated as in Rome and why fool is more dangerous than an enemy

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. MEexpert says:
    @Alden
    The Iranians may have had commissars/ MPs behind the lines ready to kill anyone who didn't charge forward. Lots of armies have used that tactic.

    The Iranians may have had commissars/ MPs behind the lines ready to kill anyone who didn’t charge forward. Lots of armies have used that tactic.

    Some people know how to fight for a just cause. A concept totally alien to you.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. Joe Wong says:
    @Avery
    Agree with [Randal] and disagree with [Kiza].

    Despite what people here - including myself - feel about the criminal warmongering US/Neocons, we have to look at things with a cold, calculating heart.
    At present US has no peers when it comes to offensive air campaign. None.

    Whatever S-300s IRI has will not be enough to stop USAF. Yes, many US bombers will be lost to the capable S-300, but there is a limited number of S-300 missiles in IRI possession. Eventually Iran will run out of defensive anti-air missiles. Also, many anti-air installations will be defeated by swarms of anti-anti-air missile missiles. USAF has practically unlimited assets. At some point, assuming RF does not get directly involved, USAF will be flying all over Iran at will.

    The next question is to what end?

    There will be a lot of devastation after the USAF carpet bombing, but Iran will never capitulate and US boots cannot possibly occupy Iran.
    Iran will absorb the blows, and immediately embark on developing nukes.
    Then everybody and his brother (e.g. KSA) will try to obtain nukes (from Paks, for example).

    Iran also has tremendous asymmetric advantages: its neighborhood, particularly Iraq, is target-rich; the target being American troops. As soon as USAF starts bombing Iran, all restrains will come off of Iran's military: all US bases and troops in Iran's vicinity will be legitimate targets. Including Gulf states' oil infrastructure. US, and possibly the whole West, might very well plunge into a deep economic depression, with devastating consequences. Stock market crash, massive unemployment, spike in food prices,.....all very, very bad.


    My guess is despite Trump public rhetoric, and the foaming-at-the-mouth Nimrata Haley, there are at least some cooler heads in the Pentagon that will stop the self-defeating insanity.

    Nothing in it for America or the American people/taxpayer.

    “USAF has practically unlimited assets.” If Chinese put a brake on the supply of rare earth to the USA and its minions, that unlimited assets pretty soon will be as scarce as Exocet to the Argentinean during the Falklands War.

    Read More
    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. Kiza says:
    @Andrei Martyanov
    LOL, man, I am as goy as they come, I am Russian. And I mean Russian-Russian, I don't think I even have any Tatar bloods in me;-) I guess it is the issue of software which misdirected your comment.

    Common, man, (to use your language) you reread my comment. Where did I call you anything but Russian? I quoted your words as smart words of caution on the willingness of US goyim to keep dying for Israel before stringing them up the lampposts and trees.

    What is it with people on unz today?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. @TheJester
    The US is already militarily overextended. The US would quickly lose control in trying to play a game of global "whack-a-mole" against the world's asymmetric responses to its aggressions.

    For example, it makes no sense to respond to a US strength that one cannot counter. Like the Russians, the rest of the world would look for asymmetric responses to US aggression.

    If the US attacked Iran, the Iranians would almost certainly destroy the Saudi oil field and tanker complexes on the other side of the Gulf with tactical missiles ... as well as perhaps pre-planned local sabotage on the part of the Shiite majority in the Eastern Province to threaten the Saudis with a geopolitical implosion.

    If the US attacked the Russian bases in Syria to protect its flank, the Russians could destroy the same-said Saudi complexes with cruise missiles. Some commentators have related that the Russians made this threat when it launched cruise missile assaults on ISIS in Syria from the safety of their southern river systems. Their cruise missiles have the range ... just a slight change in targeting coordinates.

    The world without Saudi and Iranian oil at the same time would take it to the brink. The Europeans, Chinese, and Indians would likely politically press the US for a militarily stand down, which would be interpreted as an Iranian/Russian victory. If the US refused, I suspect the US would experience a further global explosion in asymmetric responses from the rest of the world, not to mention the political chaos likely to ensue in the United States.

    The US military against a global coalition of refuseniks ... the last gasp of a dying empire.

    The US is already militarily overextended.

    The most important fact.

    We are way, way, way overextended. In every regard. A few strategic hits on the home front, our economy collapses. Water, food supplies disrupted. Electricity disrupted. Millions of Americans starve.

    Think that can’t happen? Just remember all that “diversity” we’ve imported. Think they are here to become like Americans?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. Kiza says:
    @Avery
    {I can only guess that some Zionist troll has overtaken Avery’s tag. Because this is a totally stupid sh**. As the other guy asked: what rat poison have you been smoking?}

    Wow, Kiza: what has happened to you?
    Have you lost your mind?
    Did you read my post? All of it?
    Where in my post do you see me advocating US attack on Iran?
    (and, No, nobody has taken over my tag: UNZ.com has pretty robust defenses against that sort of thing)

    Hiding your head in the sand is not going to change reality.
    Calling everybody and his brother, quote, ' Zionist trolls' is not going to change the reality of Iran not having an AF and not having adequate defenses against a USAF massed attack. Not ground troops: AF. OK?

    And here is more reality for you:

    Republic of Armenia is right next door to Iran. I am sure you know.
    Any massive USAF attack on Iran's installations will most likely 'accidentally' hit all of Iran's NPPs. The released nuclear contamination will most likely drift over to RoA as well.
    I have blood relatives and in-laws living in RoA today: lots of them.
    I also have distant relatives, Iranian-Armenians, living in Iran.
    How many relatives do you have living in or nearby Iran?

    A devastated Iran will massively affect RoA's economy and its people: IRI and RoA have close and thriving economic ties.

    So give me a break.
    And chill out.
    You are not the only one who knows about Hasbara, Zionists, Israel-firsters,.....

    Well, even if you are the real Avery, and unz does not have a perfect defense as you describe (this may be tipping off who you are), then you still write total rubbish. Just read my other comments to understand where you are totally wrong, you are typing irrelevant stuff. All you Hasbara trolls assume that US people will keep gladly dying for you. Let one US$ person die per 1,000 killed Iranians and you bastards could have your air-superiority by swinging in the wind.

    Anyway, I do not know why I am wasting time on trolls and their poop.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    Yeah, yeah, yeah: we got it.
    Everybody is a Troll, except you.
    You are the only genuine article.

    {Anyway, I do not know why I am wasting time on trolls and their poop.}

    Maybe because you like wallowing in poop, taking a bath in poop, playing around in poop? Your posts are filled to the brim with the word: you must really like it.

    {...and unz does not have a perfect defense as you describe (this may be tipping off who you are),}

    Pay attention now: this is neat.
    Has it occurred to you, or your troll alter ego, that you are not the real Kiza?
    You know, if unz.com defenses are not perfect, as you say, who is to know who is who?
    Maybe you are the real troll.
    See how that works?
    You were saying something about drinking rat poison or something?
    Evaluation based on your own personal experience, no doubt.

    {All you Hasbara trolls...... Let one US$ person die per 1,000 killed Iranians and you bastards could have your air-superiority by swinging in the wind.}

    Projecting again?

    As I asked you above: how many kin do you have living in Iran or in nearby areas that you give yourself airs of presuming to care more about Iranians than me?
    Writing hysterical posts and calling everybody names certainly will impress a few readers @unz, but it won't change reality.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. Kiza says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty
    To be fair, when will the white remnants of the West ask these questions? They have yet to do so, despite being given every opportunity and more than abundant evidence.

    “Do you think that goyim will keep gladly dying for you even after you have been milking them with your financial schemes for hundreds of years?”

    I made a mistake, I should have written “thousands of years”. Even Jesus Christ overthrew their greedy and filthy money changing tables.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. Kiza says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty
    Are you in a cuck competition with Corvinus? (Try saying that five times fast!)

    Same story over and over, just ignore him. As a regular troll on unz the Wiz still makes himself read stupid in order to push Zionist bunkum.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. @Randal

    I beg to differ–and what are those US advantages of fighting Iran?
     
    Please note that nowhere have I argued that a US attack on Iran would be anything other than a catastrophe for the US. I just doubt that it will be a disaster because Russia or China will openly go to war with the US over it , or because the US air force will be destroyed in the skies above Iran.

    As to your specific question, my comment related to advantages for the US in fighting Russian forces in Iran as opposed to in the Ukraine, not advantages in fighting against Iran.

    Those advantages are proximity to numerous very large frontline US military bases with well drilled and experienced top line air and missile defences, located in depth, and several US allies who will actively cooperate in an attack on Iran, along with accessibility from the Indian Ocean, together with geographical remoteness from Russian territory.

    Russia, for all problems with Iran, will not allow any US presence on Caspian shores. This is not even a viable option, so yes, God forbids, any invasion of Iran actually occurs–the dynamics will be very different even when compared with Syria.
     
    Actually when you think about it Russia's best option if the US really went for it with an actual invasion of Iran would probably be to oppose it diplomatically but not openly militarily. Supply the Iranian resistance to any US invasion forces with all the basic technical assistance and any military equipment they need, but not the high profile AA stuff that would be immediately attributed to active Russian intervention, and watch the US regime doing to itself what the Soviets did to themselves in Afghanistan, but without even the pretence of being present to support an existing government.

    As to your specific question, my comment related to advantages for the US in fighting Russian forces in Iran as opposed to in the Ukraine, not advantages in fighting against Iran.

    That is rather a far fetched scenario but I think if this comes to that, there will be no avoiding fighting Iranian forces, while also fighting Russia forces in Iran. In this scenario the issue of:

    Those advantages are proximity to numerous very large frontline US military bases with well drilled and experienced top line air and missile defences, located in depth, and several US allies who will actively cooperate in an attack on Iran,

    with US actually fighting Russian forces in Iran will be resolved by a massive cruise missile attacks to a strategic depth and with serious damage to all those bases and whatever will be stored or deployed there. You have to understand and I repeat it yet again: a real hysteria in US started not with Russian Air Space Forces small contingent deploying to Syria in 2015, the start of massive mass media hysteria coincided with first salvos (precisely October 7, 2015) of 3M14s when the whole US media world, including a truck load of its “military analysts” went total ape-shit. The reason being that it was (as I predicted earlier–it is well-documented in my blog) that 3M14 (and X-101s) will fly at some point of time and sure as hell they did. It seems this simple point is constantly missing from any of these discussions and I have to repeat it all over again: On 7 October 2015 it was shown to NATO (US) that ANY of its bases be in Europe, ME or even most of lower 48 is within the reach of a salvo of cruise missiles. With their CEP at that time being around 3 feet (today it is even smaller–which really makes no difference), with inertial guidance with GLONASS correction and other sneaky things any, I underscore it, any US assets anywhere capable to threaten Russia and her vicinity will be attacked. Believe me, those missiles are extremely difficult to intercept even by PATRIOT PAC-3 . US Armed Forces never fought under the condition of their rear bases being attacked, air-fields and assets there destroyed or disabled, C4 partially suppressed or completely disabled–that is what this hypothetical (and for now, hopefully it stays this way, fictional Clanciesque) scenario means. That is what also gives a stability to Russian bases in Syria, not just S-400 or even S-800 or even 1200 but a direct threat to any asset(s) which would decide to do real stupid thing, because the attack on any Russian installation in Syria automatically launches a response at whatever the bases and specialists or whatever there are anywhere.

    Now, US didn’t fight real peer since Pacific War (WW II). There is only one country in the world which can actually massively retaliate conventionally against any US targets–a thing long ago considered to be exclusively “US only” shtick (right, that is why Granat cruise missiles went under the knife during Perestroika among the first) this is not the case anymore. Moreover, with every passing day this stock of very impressive missiles (some of them are currently beyond US technological capability) grows in numbers. This is one of the major factors which is behind increasing desperation on neocon (or whatever the hell one calls them today, ZOG etc.) side. The window is closing really fast. I think cool heads in Pentagon (and there are many good level professionals left there still) understand that. So, hopefully all this armchair strategists (I am a consummate one, so I don’t exclude myself) contingency “planning” will remain just that–a vain conversation about, as they say it in Russia, spherical horses in vacuum.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    It crossed my mind that you might be actually working for American MIC. They want Americans to hear all about Russian weapon superiority and cruise missile gap. That's how they work to make Congress let them have more money. You see it works differently in America than in Russia. Here in the US they inflate their enemies and there in Russia they deflate their enemies and boast about their capabilities.

    But if you do not work for the MIC you definitively should consider this. However you should tone down some of your rhetoric particularly in the parts when it comes across like a boast because this undercuts your credibility.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Kiza
    Every Hasbara troll needs to read what Andrei is writing: what is combat effectiveness once soldiers begin to ask Why this war? Do you think that goyim will keep gladly dying for you even after you have been milking them with your financial schemes for hundreds of years?

    It’s not just that. The globalist machine is relying on countless cogs of all sizes (and influence) who will happily do their part as long as it’s easy. How many will stay the course when it gets hard? How many politicians, media personalities, think-tankers and generals are willing to put their own skins in the path of nuclear fire?

    Everything changes when the goyim in the trenches reach the same survivability as the masters of the universe.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    If I understand Saker correctly, you perfectly sum up his article: the easy versus the hard. The system that the Zionists control would start loosing wheels very soon after the going gets tough.

    Some things look great when going is easy. This creates appetite to go for higher and harder, until SHTF. The Zionists have a tendency to be the finest crop of armchair generals in the World, but not so good at dying when the missiles start flying.

    I do not know if Saker mentioned it, but the marketing of US military and "special" forces as the greatest in the World is only exceeded by the marketing of the Israeli military. Oh, the endless braying about the 1972 Munich Olympics anti-terrorist action by the Israelis, it was just endless at the time, just endless, all media, all channels, absolutely everywhere. The whole Western World was covered in Zionist propaganda poo.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Randal

    All of their chess pieces are indispensable now. They simply can’t back down and betray any of their friendlies or semi-friendlies.
     
    Well arguably they just did exactly that in the UNSC, by voting for the US's latest sanctions aggression against North Korea.

    Now ok you can argue that NK is not nowadays a particularly close "friendly" for the Russians, but it certainly is one of the few remaining points of resistance against US power. The Russians and Chinese supposedly learned their lesson about cooperating with the US's manipulative games in the UNSC when they were betrayed over Libya, but it seems not. Russia, of all people, ought to understand how important it is to resist the US's use of sanctions as economic warfare. The Chinese are probably still a bit sore about the NKs refusing to kowtow to them recently.

    Imo the correct position to have taken would have been to stand on the point Russia and China made recently in their joint statement on NK last month: namely, that the US is largely to blame for NK's entirely understandably uncooperative stance on acquiring a nuclear deterrent against US aggression, by its continuously menacing tone and behaviour towards the country, and that they would veto any sanctions resolutions until the US first ends its joint exercises with SK and agrees to end the deployment of THAAD to the peninsular.

    Instead they've needlessly given the US more ammunition for its propaganda campaign to justify military aggression against NK, and they've both limited their own options in dealing unilaterally with NK and (to the extent the sanctions are enforced and have any real effect) contributed to making the NK government even more defensive. They've effectively sabotaged their own preferred program of economic engagement with NK.

    Sometimes, as with the Russian decision to refuse air defences to Iran in 2007 (that were finally delivered only last year), you almost have to wonder if their regime really is still naïve about the real nature of the US problem.

    I agree with this.

    I am puzzled at to why China and Russia are capitulating to America with N Korea.

    I am sure they don’t want N Korea to have nukes, but they definately don’t want America to have a base right next to their borders.

    So why back down and sanction N Korea?

    At this point America is bluffing on direct actions against N Korea and Iran. They are just putting pressure on client states to take out these countries such as the Arab states with Iran and Russia and China with N Korea.

    Showing weakness to America now just encourages them to keep on pushing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Andrei Martyanov

    they will do so in the Ukraine where they have all the advantages, not in Iran where the US does.
     
    I beg to differ--and what are those US advantages of fighting Iran? Corridor from Russia proper, through Dagestan along Caspian shore right up to Astara is an excellent rail line of communications. Baku's plans in case of attack on Iran will matter little, not to mention that it will be forced to make a choice. So, in the end, nobody prevents Anzali from becoming a main shipping (receiving) terminal of some "supplies" from some many nations located at the shores of Caspian Sea. Then comes the issue of Iran being "suddenly" admitted to SCO if push comes to shove.

    https://financialtribune.com/articles/national/66082/china-reaffirms-backing-for-irans-sco-membership

    So, there are very many things which have to be considered before any "attacks" on Iran are planned. Of course, the fact that Iran's population is 80+ million with a huge percentage of youth above 25 y.o. can not be ignored at all. Boy, talk about mobilization potential. Iran is a different game altogether, especially where it matters the most--ground invasion. I now also reiterate a small point I was making for the last... many years: Russia, for all problems with Iran, will not allow any US presence on Caspian shores. This is not even a viable option, so yes, God forbids, any invasion of Iran actually occurs--the dynamics will be very different even when compared with Syria.

    Andrei.

    Why won’t Russia allow a US presence on the Caspian shore.

    Why is this a redline for Russia?

    So are you saying that Russia would most likely intervene in a significant way if Iran was under threat of being over thrown?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    So are you saying that Russia would most likely intervene in a significant way if Iran was under threat of being over thrown?
     
    Yes, especially if by that time, which is highly likely, Iran becomes a full member of Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

    Why won’t Russia allow a US presence on the Caspian shore.
     
    Historically, Caspian Sea was Russian/Soviet-Iranian internal lake in Soviet times it was defined by mutual treaties of 1920 and 1940. Today, with significant oil and gas reserves (not to speak of being a main area for black caviar and other fish resources) Caspian Sea is a highly desirable piece of real estate. If Iranian regime is overthrown by US (NATO, whatever), despite a low probability of this happening, Russia can not allow military bases on the shores of Caspian Sea, thus opening (what is called in military a directrice) Russia's Southern underbelly to a potential attack plus, knowing a surprising (not really) US love for Islamic jihadists vulnerable Russian Caucasus becomes even more vulnerable. Even what I listed (there is much more to it) is enough to make Russia to seriously consider strengthening Iran militarily in different ways.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Andrei Martyanov

    Also, Iran could shut down the Straits Of Hormuz
     
    Uhmmm, certainly an interesting question to ponder but let's not jump to the conclusions just yet. In related news, on Friday Iran refused to buy SU-27SM, they really want SU-35 with ll bells and whistles. In general, it will be very interesting to observe Iran's procurement of the hardware from Russia and how US and Israel will react to this.

    Why do you say shutting down the Straights of Hormuz is interesting to ponder but to not jump to conclusions?

    Isn’t this basically Iran’s plan if they are bombed?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    Why do you say shutting down the Straights of Hormuz is interesting to ponder but to not jump to conclusions? Isn’t this basically Iran’s plan if they are bombed?
     
    Yes, it is their plan but a lot will depend on pre-positioning of forces prior to hostilities. That goes back not so much to Iran but to US Navy and how they envision it--too many variables. The whole system may go completely haywire if, as an example, US Navy will have one of its prized assets sunk (say some Arleigh Burke-class DDG) and other damaged at the onset. This could become a completely different dynamics as opposed to slow and measured escalation. Then again, will Iran have P-800 (Onyks) or 3M54 by that time? Do they have then now? Who knows. But if they have those--yes, life for US Navy becomes extremely difficult there.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. peterAUS says:
    @Kiza

    Do we REALLY believe that the current Russian man is of the same character as an assaulter in Stalingrad?
     
    Why do you do drugs when they do you so much damage? The Russians assaulting their own beautiful city?

    Oh, man………

    When studying that battle, as a part of curriculum, the angle was:
    Among other mistakes Germans did was not to adapt to urban combat. As…the only thing they did was to shorten the front of units. I assume you do know that, say, infantry company in attack had, sort of, around several hundreds meters of front to advance, on open ground. All Germans did was to shorten that front considerably.
    Soviets did much better. They reorganized their formations into ASSAULT units; from battalion size ASSAULT unit to a platoon ASSAULT unit. In platoon assault unit you’d have ASSAULTERS and support/firebase.
    Soviet assaulters were famous for their submachine gun and plenty of hand grenades.
    Germans also deployed, later on, ASSAULT engineers. They also had assaulters etc….etc…etc…

    Makes sense now?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. utu says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    As to your specific question, my comment related to advantages for the US in fighting Russian forces in Iran as opposed to in the Ukraine, not advantages in fighting against Iran.
     
    That is rather a far fetched scenario but I think if this comes to that, there will be no avoiding fighting Iranian forces, while also fighting Russia forces in Iran. In this scenario the issue of:

    Those advantages are proximity to numerous very large frontline US military bases with well drilled and experienced top line air and missile defences, located in depth, and several US allies who will actively cooperate in an attack on Iran,
     
    with US actually fighting Russian forces in Iran will be resolved by a massive cruise missile attacks to a strategic depth and with serious damage to all those bases and whatever will be stored or deployed there. You have to understand and I repeat it yet again: a real hysteria in US started not with Russian Air Space Forces small contingent deploying to Syria in 2015, the start of massive mass media hysteria coincided with first salvos (precisely October 7, 2015) of 3M14s when the whole US media world, including a truck load of its "military analysts" went total ape-shit. The reason being that it was (as I predicted earlier--it is well-documented in my blog) that 3M14 (and X-101s) will fly at some point of time and sure as hell they did. It seems this simple point is constantly missing from any of these discussions and I have to repeat it all over again: On 7 October 2015 it was shown to NATO (US) that ANY of its bases be in Europe, ME or even most of lower 48 is within the reach of a salvo of cruise missiles. With their CEP at that time being around 3 feet (today it is even smaller--which really makes no difference), with inertial guidance with GLONASS correction and other sneaky things any, I underscore it, any US assets anywhere capable to threaten Russia and her vicinity will be attacked. Believe me, those missiles are extremely difficult to intercept even by PATRIOT PAC-3 . US Armed Forces never fought under the condition of their rear bases being attacked, air-fields and assets there destroyed or disabled, C4 partially suppressed or completely disabled--that is what this hypothetical (and for now, hopefully it stays this way, fictional Clanciesque) scenario means. That is what also gives a stability to Russian bases in Syria, not just S-400 or even S-800 or even 1200 but a direct threat to any asset(s) which would decide to do real stupid thing, because the attack on any Russian installation in Syria automatically launches a response at whatever the bases and specialists or whatever there are anywhere.

    Now, US didn't fight real peer since Pacific War (WW II). There is only one country in the world which can actually massively retaliate conventionally against any US targets--a thing long ago considered to be exclusively "US only" shtick (right, that is why Granat cruise missiles went under the knife during Perestroika among the first) this is not the case anymore. Moreover, with every passing day this stock of very impressive missiles (some of them are currently beyond US technological capability) grows in numbers. This is one of the major factors which is behind increasing desperation on neocon (or whatever the hell one calls them today, ZOG etc.) side. The window is closing really fast. I think cool heads in Pentagon (and there are many good level professionals left there still) understand that. So, hopefully all this armchair strategists (I am a consummate one, so I don't exclude myself) contingency "planning" will remain just that--a vain conversation about, as they say it in Russia, spherical horses in vacuum.

    It crossed my mind that you might be actually working for American MIC. They want Americans to hear all about Russian weapon superiority and cruise missile gap. That’s how they work to make Congress let them have more money. You see it works differently in America than in Russia. Here in the US they inflate their enemies and there in Russia they deflate their enemies and boast about their capabilities.

    But if you do not work for the MIC you definitively should consider this. However you should tone down some of your rhetoric particularly in the parts when it comes across like a boast because this undercuts your credibility.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    It crossed my mind that you might be actually working for American MIC.
     
    Yes, I am also working for CIA, NSA, BND and part-time for Mossad. I also consult defense contractors in Lesotho and Kenya. So, no specifics on ground forces "differences" as I asked you about above, right?

    You see it works differently in America than in Russia. Here in the US they inflate their enemies and there in Russia they deflate their enemies and boast about their capabilities.
     
    You wouldn't know what they do in Russia because you have no clue about how things work in Russia. You good, though, with platitudes and avoiding any specifics. It crossed my mind that you are a troll.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. Kiza says:
    @Anonymous
    It's not just that. The globalist machine is relying on countless cogs of all sizes (and influence) who will happily do their part as long as it's easy. How many will stay the course when it gets hard? How many politicians, media personalities, think-tankers and generals are willing to put their own skins in the path of nuclear fire?

    Everything changes when the goyim in the trenches reach the same survivability as the masters of the universe.

    If I understand Saker correctly, you perfectly sum up his article: the easy versus the hard. The system that the Zionists control would start loosing wheels very soon after the going gets tough.

    Some things look great when going is easy. This creates appetite to go for higher and harder, until SHTF. The Zionists have a tendency to be the finest crop of armchair generals in the World, but not so good at dying when the missiles start flying.

    I do not know if Saker mentioned it, but the marketing of US military and “special” forces as the greatest in the World is only exceeded by the marketing of the Israeli military. Oh, the endless braying about the 1972 Munich Olympics anti-terrorist action by the Israelis, it was just endless at the time, just endless, all media, all channels, absolutely everywhere. The whole Western World was covered in Zionist propaganda poo.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    endless braying about the 1972 Munich Olympics anti-terrorist action by the Israelis

    There was no anti-terrors action by Israelis in Munich.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. utu says:
    @Kiza
    If I understand Saker correctly, you perfectly sum up his article: the easy versus the hard. The system that the Zionists control would start loosing wheels very soon after the going gets tough.

    Some things look great when going is easy. This creates appetite to go for higher and harder, until SHTF. The Zionists have a tendency to be the finest crop of armchair generals in the World, but not so good at dying when the missiles start flying.

    I do not know if Saker mentioned it, but the marketing of US military and "special" forces as the greatest in the World is only exceeded by the marketing of the Israeli military. Oh, the endless braying about the 1972 Munich Olympics anti-terrorist action by the Israelis, it was just endless at the time, just endless, all media, all channels, absolutely everywhere. The whole Western World was covered in Zionist propaganda poo.

    endless braying about the 1972 Munich Olympics anti-terrorist action by the Israelis

    There was no anti-terrors action by Israelis in Munich.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    The Hasbara Central is not paying you to educate yourself, only to crap here? Of course there was an "anti-terrorist" operation after the Munich Olympics in 1972, where some 12 Israelis got knocked off. The Israeli state went on secret and not so secret global hunt for those who did the deed, Mossad in the lead. Then they bragged to the end of everybody's patience how they killed all the "terrorists", how perfect their special forces were etc.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. @utu
    It crossed my mind that you might be actually working for American MIC. They want Americans to hear all about Russian weapon superiority and cruise missile gap. That's how they work to make Congress let them have more money. You see it works differently in America than in Russia. Here in the US they inflate their enemies and there in Russia they deflate their enemies and boast about their capabilities.

    But if you do not work for the MIC you definitively should consider this. However you should tone down some of your rhetoric particularly in the parts when it comes across like a boast because this undercuts your credibility.

    It crossed my mind that you might be actually working for American MIC.

    Yes, I am also working for CIA, NSA, BND and part-time for Mossad. I also consult defense contractors in Lesotho and Kenya. So, no specifics on ground forces “differences” as I asked you about above, right?

    You see it works differently in America than in Russia. Here in the US they inflate their enemies and there in Russia they deflate their enemies and boast about their capabilities.

    You wouldn’t know what they do in Russia because you have no clue about how things work in Russia. You good, though, with platitudes and avoiding any specifics. It crossed my mind that you are a troll.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. @Anonymous
    Andrei.

    Why won't Russia allow a US presence on the Caspian shore.

    Why is this a redline for Russia?

    So are you saying that Russia would most likely intervene in a significant way if Iran was under threat of being over thrown?

    So are you saying that Russia would most likely intervene in a significant way if Iran was under threat of being over thrown?

    Yes, especially if by that time, which is highly likely, Iran becomes a full member of Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

    Why won’t Russia allow a US presence on the Caspian shore.

    Historically, Caspian Sea was Russian/Soviet-Iranian internal lake in Soviet times it was defined by mutual treaties of 1920 and 1940. Today, with significant oil and gas reserves (not to speak of being a main area for black caviar and other fish resources) Caspian Sea is a highly desirable piece of real estate. If Iranian regime is overthrown by US (NATO, whatever), despite a low probability of this happening, Russia can not allow military bases on the shores of Caspian Sea, thus opening (what is called in military a directrice) Russia’s Southern underbelly to a potential attack plus, knowing a surprising (not really) US love for Islamic jihadists vulnerable Russian Caucasus becomes even more vulnerable. Even what I listed (there is much more to it) is enough to make Russia to seriously consider strengthening Iran militarily in different ways.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. @Anonymous
    Why do you say shutting down the Straights of Hormuz is interesting to ponder but to not jump to conclusions?

    Isn't this basically Iran's plan if they are bombed?

    Why do you say shutting down the Straights of Hormuz is interesting to ponder but to not jump to conclusions? Isn’t this basically Iran’s plan if they are bombed?

    Yes, it is their plan but a lot will depend on pre-positioning of forces prior to hostilities. That goes back not so much to Iran but to US Navy and how they envision it–too many variables. The whole system may go completely haywire if, as an example, US Navy will have one of its prized assets sunk (say some Arleigh Burke-class DDG) and other damaged at the onset. This could become a completely different dynamics as opposed to slow and measured escalation. Then again, will Iran have P-800 (Onyks) or 3M54 by that time? Do they have then now? Who knows. But if they have those–yes, life for US Navy becomes extremely difficult there.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @peterAUS
    There has been a puzzling element in all this Internet jawboning in the last couple of years.

    True, most of it is a good old Soviet/Russian "maskirovka". Or "perception management" of voting populace.
    The rest is, mostly, a therapy for the people who just can't stand The Empire.
    But, every now and then, one could come across a nugget of thinking to help getting all this around us, and the most important, where this could be leading.

    That element is a loss of quality of personnel in US/West armed forces. Or, how the modern culture destroyed true fighting capability there.
    There are no more people of Iwo Jima character in US military.

    Be that as it may, why we do not apply the same principle to the opponents/enemies of The Empire?

    Do we REALLY believe that the current Russian man is of the same character as an assaulter in Stalingrad?

    Or, for this discussion, the current Iranian man is of the same character as those Pasdaran/Basij of Iraqi-Iranian war?

    Let's analyse what has happened so far since '90.
    Desert Storm. I remember the thinking before the war. Blop.....
    Serb effort in Balkans. For those who don't know, read up about Tito Partisans a bit. But, then...blop again.....
    Taliban after 9/11.....
    Iraq 2003........
    Tamil Eelam...
    Libya.....
    Syria.......I mean, once upon a time they were giving Israel a bit of a headache.
    And, yes, why not, Ukraine. Do we really see Stalingrad/Berlin/countless other examples, there in fighting for Donbass?

    So, for Iran...why not the same pattern there?

    That element is a loss of quality of personnel in US/West armed forces. Or, how the modern culture destroyed true fighting capability there.

    It’s true that people have gotten softer and also that they’re more likely to question why they’re being told to fight. It’s all directly proportionate to their actual stake in it, how close to home it is. American troops in Afghanistan know it’s a hopeless issue and just want to get through their tour. There’s nothing there that anyone wants. On the other hand the Iranians would be extremely motivated by any attack upon their country since after all they live there. That’s the general principle: morale is highest when defending one’s own home territory and drops the further away one gets. Hezbollah did well against Israel because they live there and the Israeli reservists didn’t but were waiting to get back home to their jobs and families. The various actors on the list of ‘blops’ were very small entities who were overwhelmed by the sheer scale of their enemies, particularly the terroristic air attacks unleashed upon them. I would not list the Taliban since they’re still around and are resurgent despite everything thrown at them by the US. They’ve only had small arms and IEDs against jets, helicopters, armored vehicles and the much ballyhooed special forces super-soldiers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    That’s the general principle: morale is highest when defending one’s own home territory and drops the further away one gets.
     
    Well………..oversimplified I think.
    I’d say the general principle is how good the effort is going for own side and how badly is going for the other side.

    The various actors on the list of ‘blops’ were very small entities who were overwhelmed by the sheer scale of their enemies, particularly the terroristic air attacks unleashed upon them.
     
    Not quite.
    Actually, not at all. Hint: some of those blops happened when an average trooper/citizen/ihabitant lost confidence in own leadership.
    Which brings us back to the same issue I mentioned before: how, REALLY, an average Iranian feels about the current regime? Now, thankfully, there is no way to know that for sure (to look at a man’s soul and heart), but, that is The Question here.
    True, there was a religious fervour once, and great self-sacrifice. Since then, a lot of things changed. Another hint: corruption, often, eats such societies from inside.
    There is where I’d agree:

    particularly the terroristic air attacks unleashed upon them
     
    Say….2 months of relentless strategic bombing of key Iranian infrastructure.

    Maybe Iran is, internally, more brittle than we’d like to believe.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. Kiza says:
    @utu
    endless braying about the 1972 Munich Olympics anti-terrorist action by the Israelis

    There was no anti-terrors action by Israelis in Munich.

    The Hasbara Central is not paying you to educate yourself, only to crap here? Of course there was an “anti-terrorist” operation after the Munich Olympics in 1972, where some 12 Israelis got knocked off. The Israeli state went on secret and not so secret global hunt for those who did the deed, Mossad in the lead. Then they bragged to the end of everybody’s patience how they killed all the “terrorists”, how perfect their special forces were etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    So we agree that not in Munich, right? In the future be more precise; not like in your #161 comment.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. Joe Wong says:
    @Grandpa Charlie
    A discussion of the same basic problem - choosing the war that is the best of all possible wars at this juncture in history - has already been under way at Fred Reed's "Milk-bar Clausewitzes and bean curd Napoleons"

    http://www.unz.com/freed/milk-bar-clausewitzes-bean-curd-napoleons/

    I would note that there is at least one great advantage in choosing the war with the DPRK: if we lose, we would not bring down the whole world with us. If we win, we would have a tremendous opportunity to exit Asia for ever (militarily or imperially speaking). And we could leave with our heads held high.

    Of course, if we lose, we could also begin one or another ten-year project, either rearranging the USA to be a central force for peace and reform, or, less ambitiously, to undertake what the Saker proposes:

    "US should begin by deciding on a new national security strategy, then develop a military strategy in support of this national security strategy, followed by the development of a military doctrine which itself would then produce a force modernization plan which would affect all aspects of military reform from training to force planning to deployment."

    The fat boy will bomb the USA homeland in addition to bomb the South Korea and the Japan if the American launch attack on North Korea. Bombing the USA is the only way to bring China and Russia in to stop North Korea from capitulation and preserve the regime. Bombing USA homeland will destroy the USA’s international standing and completely ruin USA’s credibility of a global hegemony the American have spent so much energy to cultivate and nurture since WWII, it is a good price to ask the American to pay for their reckless mischief. American will not show mercy once they start the assault as they have shown in the Vietnam War, wars in Iraq; there is nothing for the fat boy to lose.

    As the probability the American attacking NK is reasonably high, because the American figures that the destruction will be happened in Korea and Japan only, the ones get killed is Koreans and Japanese, meanwhile they can get away the crime by recycling the Sadden Hussein’s WMD plot on NK. It is a complete a harmless and profitable venture.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. Ben Frank says:

    When should USA go to war?
    When we’re invaded.
    It’s gonna be a long wait.

    Attacking DPRK would be stupid beyond the level of Bush II. He at least picked enemies that could not hit back.

    The best case result would be what happened in 1953, armistice and partition. But we ALREADY HAVE THAT.

    The cities of South Korea and Japan would be hostages. China would never allow USA control near its borders. People are talking crazy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    When should USA go to war?
    When we’re invaded.
     
    This is the war you're losing:


    American Babies Are No Longer Mostly White (2015): http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-25/american-babies-are-no-longer-mostly-white
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. peterAUS says:
    @anonymous

    That element is a loss of quality of personnel in US/West armed forces. Or, how the modern culture destroyed true fighting capability there.
     
    It's true that people have gotten softer and also that they're more likely to question why they're being told to fight. It's all directly proportionate to their actual stake in it, how close to home it is. American troops in Afghanistan know it's a hopeless issue and just want to get through their tour. There's nothing there that anyone wants. On the other hand the Iranians would be extremely motivated by any attack upon their country since after all they live there. That's the general principle: morale is highest when defending one's own home territory and drops the further away one gets. Hezbollah did well against Israel because they live there and the Israeli reservists didn't but were waiting to get back home to their jobs and families. The various actors on the list of 'blops' were very small entities who were overwhelmed by the sheer scale of their enemies, particularly the terroristic air attacks unleashed upon them. I would not list the Taliban since they're still around and are resurgent despite everything thrown at them by the US. They've only had small arms and IEDs against jets, helicopters, armored vehicles and the much ballyhooed special forces super-soldiers.

    That’s the general principle: morale is highest when defending one’s own home territory and drops the further away one gets.

    Well………..oversimplified I think.
    I’d say the general principle is how good the effort is going for own side and how badly is going for the other side.

    The various actors on the list of ‘blops’ were very small entities who were overwhelmed by the sheer scale of their enemies, particularly the terroristic air attacks unleashed upon them.

    Not quite.
    Actually, not at all. Hint: some of those blops happened when an average trooper/citizen/ihabitant lost confidence in own leadership.
    Which brings us back to the same issue I mentioned before: how, REALLY, an average Iranian feels about the current regime? Now, thankfully, there is no way to know that for sure (to look at a man’s soul and heart), but, that is The Question here.
    True, there was a religious fervour once, and great self-sacrifice. Since then, a lot of things changed. Another hint: corruption, often, eats such societies from inside.
    There is where I’d agree:

    particularly the terroristic air attacks unleashed upon them

    Say….2 months of relentless strategic bombing of key Iranian infrastructure.

    Maybe Iran is, internally, more brittle than we’d like to believe.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. Avery says:
    @Kiza
    Well, even if you are the real Avery, and unz does not have a perfect defense as you describe (this may be tipping off who you are), then you still write total rubbish. Just read my other comments to understand where you are totally wrong, you are typing irrelevant stuff. All you Hasbara trolls assume that US people will keep gladly dying for you. Let one US$ person die per 1,000 killed Iranians and you bastards could have your air-superiority by swinging in the wind.

    Anyway, I do not know why I am wasting time on trolls and their poop.

    Yeah, yeah, yeah: we got it.
    Everybody is a Troll, except you.
    You are the only genuine article.

    {Anyway, I do not know why I am wasting time on trolls and their poop.}

    Maybe because you like wallowing in poop, taking a bath in poop, playing around in poop? Your posts are filled to the brim with the word: you must really like it.

    {…and unz does not have a perfect defense as you describe (this may be tipping off who you are),}

    Pay attention now: this is neat.
    Has it occurred to you, or your troll alter ego, that you are not the real Kiza?
    You know, if unz.com defenses are not perfect, as you say, who is to know who is who?
    Maybe you are the real troll.
    See how that works?
    You were saying something about drinking rat poison or something?
    Evaluation based on your own personal experience, no doubt.

    {All you Hasbara trolls…… Let one US$ person die per 1,000 killed Iranians and you bastards could have your air-superiority by swinging in the wind.}

    Projecting again?

    As I asked you above: how many kin do you have living in Iran or in nearby areas that you give yourself airs of presuming to care more about Iranians than me?
    Writing hysterical posts and calling everybody names certainly will impress a few readers @unz, but it won’t change reality.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    Whoever you are, you are beyond repair. The problem of unz is that it has been taken over by the sick and the demented. The quality of the discussion has sunk terribly from the early days. Almost all of the original first-class commenters are gone and only the trolls and people like you have overtaken. There are only a few bright sparks here, the rest of comments are like watching Talmud Vision and other MSM. This is why I come here rarely now and only for the articles. You can have this comments board all to yourself, blast it away with your shallowness and stupidity. I will not tell you where there is a much better one or you may wish to come pollute there too.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. @peterAUS
    Maybe of interest for the topic.

    A Colonel in charge of a course I was attending had heard an Egyptian officer, being in the field with Iraqis at the time, describing Iranian attacks.
    Word "unbelievable" was repeated several times.
    Infantry WOULD penetrate all layers of static defense. Only massed Iraqi artillery/MSLR fires followed by armored counterattack would destroy them.
    Moral was, apparently, not of this world.

    Now, with those men no invader can hope to win.

    The thing is, though, those men are either dead or old.

    I just doubt that the current crop of Iranians is made of the same material.

    They certainly are not. Iran’s total fertility rate is slightly above that of Germany at 1.68 .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. what about Africa??? lots of potential war on the cheap there and plenty of resources for reward.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  174. utu says:
    @Kiza
    The Hasbara Central is not paying you to educate yourself, only to crap here? Of course there was an "anti-terrorist" operation after the Munich Olympics in 1972, where some 12 Israelis got knocked off. The Israeli state went on secret and not so secret global hunt for those who did the deed, Mossad in the lead. Then they bragged to the end of everybody's patience how they killed all the "terrorists", how perfect their special forces were etc.

    So we agree that not in Munich, right? In the future be more precise; not like in your #161 comment.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. @utu
    I am 100% sure china or russia will step in for iran’s defense in case of usa attack.

    I think China and Russia must step in earlier to prevent the attack. But if the attack begins they won't step in though they may offer Iran support to make it harder for the US.

    I think China and Russia must step in earlier to prevent the attack. But if the attack begins they won’t step in though they may offer Iran support to make it harder for the US.

    what difference is there? usa ignored the UN and attacked iraq. what is there to stop usa from doing the same with iran? usa will attack when it wants to, there is no such thing as prevention unless willing to go to war. so when and if usa decides to attack, that means usa is willing to go to war with all 3. when that happens, if china and russia is not willing, they have already lost. their elites should just pull their pants down and bend over, they are about to get fuck in the a .

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    what difference is there? what is there to stop usa

    The difference is that in 2003 there were no Russians or Chinese in Iraq. It is not about UN. You are right that US will do what it wants but only if other powers like Russia or China remain on sidelines like in 2003. You are correct. If China or Russia are not willing... My comment implies it. So, you agree with me, right? Just the tone of your comment suggest that you do not.

    So, one again. Russia and China can stop US by committing themselves. If they do not commit themselves the US may act and once it acts Russia and China will not step in to stop the US. It would be too risky then and the US knows it.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. @Randal

    Why are you so certain the US could achieve air superiority in Iran?
     
    Saker's assumption there is pretty much conventional wisdom.

    Iran certainly has no air force that could contest the skies meaningfully, so the only way Iran could achieve any degree of air neutrality would be by denying the US and its allies bases (including carriers) close enough, and maintaining sufficient ground-based air defences in being, to prevent the US and allied air forces from operating effectively over Iran.

    Absent direct and very significant Russian support, there's no reason to believe Iran could do either. Granted Iranian missile attacks on bases and threats to carriers can make life difficult for the US and its allies, but it seems unlikely they could do so sufficiently to prevent effective operations. Iran is not China and it has no plausible way to locate and target carriers sufficiently far away to preclude air-refuelled operations, and the US has bases throughout the ME, and additional basing in Israel would undoubtedly be made available, with refuelling over Saudi Arabia.

    Meanwhile, there's no reason to suppose Iran's ground-based air defences would be any more effective than Yugoslavia's in the Kosovo war - able to survive to keep US pilots minimally honest only by being hidden and not used except in ideal situations or to make the occasional point that they are still around. While Iran is bigger and it has some more modern systems, it's unlikely they will be more competently operated than Serbia's were, and they will be equally vulnerable to US SEAD operations any time they are used. US air operations would also be far more aggressive from the start over Iran than they were over Serbia, and with far less restrictive targeting requirements.

    There are too may unknowns to make predictions with certainty, but the assumption that the US would quickly achieve air superiority over Iran, and probably a degree of air supremacy once SEAD has been applied for a while, is not unreasonable imo. It's likely there would be some US losses involved, but that's war.

    None of this should be mistaken for advocacy of a US attack on Iran, which would be disastrous for the US imo. Air superiority is only one small part of such a war, and far from the most important.

    The question here is; what goal the American air superiority over Iran is to serve? Is it at all likely that the Islamic regime will collapse under the pressure of air assaults? Certainly not.
    There is no point in discussing US air dominance over Iran without knowing what Americans want to achieve with it. Saker has pointed out the US military targeting Iran will not have the benefit of boots on the ground. Without boots on the ground in Iran, American assets in the region would be at the mercy of Iran’s escalation on land. US air superiority over Iran cannot answer Iranian escalations taking place on the ground all over the region. In conventional warfare Iran will possess the lever of military escalation. America’s choice in that case would be 1) cut losses, cease hostilities and admit defeat, or 2) resort to nuclear option.

    Read More
    • Agree: Kiza, L.K
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    In conventional warfare Iran will possess the lever of military escalation. America’s choice in that case would be 1) cut losses, cease hostilities and admit defeat, or 2) resort to nuclear option.
     
    You made some very good points in your post. As for quote and pp.2 United States CAN NOT (as in can not ALLOW) to lose or be seen as losing conventionally since consequences could be catastrophic for US across the board. Heavy losses in personnel in a short time, or loss of one of the aircraft carriers (as an example)--those things are so "no-no" in modern US military that response, indeed, can be nuclear. That is the danger (the point I make for years now) globally--that it is US who will go nuclear, not somebody else. In some sense US put itself into this vulnerable situation completely out of own volition. Again, once one considers what Ivashov and Kokoshin disclosed about aggression against Serbia, a lot becomes very clear.
    , @Anonymous
    You have to look at the big picture.

    America is not going to just bomb Willie Nillie.

    They are going to do the typical American playbook. First they will choke off Iran economically. The attack against Qatar is an attack to weaken Iran. As is the war against Yemen.

    Then they will go back to pressuring China and Russia to put sanctions back on Iran. I would have thought this to be impossible, but then again Russia and China capitulated on N Korean sanctions.

    Then they will try to build up an Arab Nato. This was promoted while Trump was in the ME. This will serve as the cannon fodder on the ground.

    This way America gets to topple Iran cheaply without having to give up too many resources.

    Easier said than done of course. I don't think Arabs will be effective ground troops and I think Russia and China will both help Iran, but that is the game plan anyway.
    , @peterAUS
    Randal probably won't reply for obvious reasons.

    I will, because you got it so wrong that some sort of reply is needed.

    The question here is; what goal the American air superiority over Iran is to serve?
     
    I'll go from the best case scenario to the worst (best for USA that is).
    1. Regime change in Iran. When people have enough of misery they could do something about it. Or regime itself simply quits because can't stand all that destruction and killings.
    2. Create permanent chaos in Iran.
    3. Destroy Iran's infrastructure so bad that it will cease to be any threat for years to come (threat to US interests that is).

    Is it at all likely that the Islamic regime will collapse under the pressure of air assaults? Certainly not.
     
    Nobody knows.

    There is no point in discussing US air dominance over Iran without knowing what Americans want to achieve with it.
     
    Read 1, 2 and 3.

    Saker has pointed out the US military targeting Iran will not have the benefit of boots on the ground.
     
    Nobody knows.
    Randal did elaborate on that in this thread. Maybe you could take a look. Hint:US general populace didn't want to get involved in WW2.

    Without boots on the ground in Iran, American assets in the region would be at the mercy of Iran’s escalation on land. US air superiority over Iran cannot answer Iranian escalations taking place on the ground all over the region.
     
    Yes it can if it destroys all that on the ground; or destroys all logistical infrastructure for those forces; or destroys all communication infrastructure; etc...

    In conventional warfare Iran will possess the lever of military escalation.
     
    No it will not if, in simple language, bombing from far away is effective.

    America’s choice in that case would be 1) cut losses, cease hostilities and admit defeat, or 2) resort to nuclear option.
     
    And maybe it can simply keep bombing and bombing........why not? Just.....keep........bombing..........

    Who/what is to stop Americans from keeping bombing?
    Russians...Chinese?
    How?
    Ah, yes...no more bombs in stocks, tired pilots/crews, spent technique requiring repairs/overhauls. Well....wouldn't that be exactly what MIC want?
    And, BTW, what could bring jobs.....back....?

    I do know that all above is crude oversimplification, but, sometimes it helps to cut to the chase.
    , @utu
    Iran’s escalation on land

    Where? Iraq or Afghanistan? In two weeks they will run out of supplies. And in the meantime main cites in Iran will be w/o electricity and water.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. @DannyMarcus
    The question here is; what goal the American air superiority over Iran is to serve? Is it at all likely that the Islamic regime will collapse under the pressure of air assaults? Certainly not.
    There is no point in discussing US air dominance over Iran without knowing what Americans want to achieve with it. Saker has pointed out the US military targeting Iran will not have the benefit of boots on the ground. Without boots on the ground in Iran, American assets in the region would be at the mercy of Iran's escalation on land. US air superiority over Iran cannot answer Iranian escalations taking place on the ground all over the region. In conventional warfare Iran will possess the lever of military escalation. America's choice in that case would be 1) cut losses, cease hostilities and admit defeat, or 2) resort to nuclear option.

    In conventional warfare Iran will possess the lever of military escalation. America’s choice in that case would be 1) cut losses, cease hostilities and admit defeat, or 2) resort to nuclear option.

    You made some very good points in your post. As for quote and pp.2 United States CAN NOT (as in can not ALLOW) to lose or be seen as losing conventionally since consequences could be catastrophic for US across the board. Heavy losses in personnel in a short time, or loss of one of the aircraft carriers (as an example)–those things are so “no-no” in modern US military that response, indeed, can be nuclear. That is the danger (the point I make for years now) globally–that it is US who will go nuclear, not somebody else. In some sense US put itself into this vulnerable situation completely out of own volition. Again, once one considers what Ivashov and Kokoshin disclosed about aggression against Serbia, a lot becomes very clear.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
    Andrei, could you provide the source regarding Ivashov and Kokoshin?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. utu says:
    @Astuteobservor II

    I think China and Russia must step in earlier to prevent the attack. But if the attack begins they won’t step in though they may offer Iran support to make it harder for the US.
     
    what difference is there? usa ignored the UN and attacked iraq. what is there to stop usa from doing the same with iran? usa will attack when it wants to, there is no such thing as prevention unless willing to go to war. so when and if usa decides to attack, that means usa is willing to go to war with all 3. when that happens, if china and russia is not willing, they have already lost. their elites should just pull their pants down and bend over, they are about to get fuck in the a .

    what difference is there? what is there to stop usa

    The difference is that in 2003 there were no Russians or Chinese in Iraq. It is not about UN. You are right that US will do what it wants but only if other powers like Russia or China remain on sidelines like in 2003. You are correct. If China or Russia are not willing… My comment implies it. So, you agree with me, right? Just the tone of your comment suggest that you do not.

    So, one again. Russia and China can stop US by committing themselves. If they do not commit themselves the US may act and once it acts Russia and China will not step in to stop the US. It would be too risky then and the US knows it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II

    I think China and Russia must step in earlier to prevent the attack. But if the attack begins they won’t step in though they may offer Iran support to make it harder for the US.
     
    no, your comment implies that once usa attacks, it is too late for china or russia. I am refuting that claim. your comment suggests that china or russia can prevent the attack. I am refuting this too. usa will do what it wants as long as it thinks it can win. what usa thinks =/= what china or russia thinks. this is like a full circle that goes back to your first point.

    there is a clear difference with both. hope this explains it.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. @Andrei Martyanov

    In conventional warfare Iran will possess the lever of military escalation. America’s choice in that case would be 1) cut losses, cease hostilities and admit defeat, or 2) resort to nuclear option.
     
    You made some very good points in your post. As for quote and pp.2 United States CAN NOT (as in can not ALLOW) to lose or be seen as losing conventionally since consequences could be catastrophic for US across the board. Heavy losses in personnel in a short time, or loss of one of the aircraft carriers (as an example)--those things are so "no-no" in modern US military that response, indeed, can be nuclear. That is the danger (the point I make for years now) globally--that it is US who will go nuclear, not somebody else. In some sense US put itself into this vulnerable situation completely out of own volition. Again, once one considers what Ivashov and Kokoshin disclosed about aggression against Serbia, a lot becomes very clear.

    Andrei, could you provide the source regarding Ivashov and Kokoshin?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
    https://youtu.be/WfrzVwU5P2k

    Starts at 2 hr 47 min, Ivashov speaks. Solovyov's Evening from 04/12/2015
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. @utu
    what difference is there? what is there to stop usa

    The difference is that in 2003 there were no Russians or Chinese in Iraq. It is not about UN. You are right that US will do what it wants but only if other powers like Russia or China remain on sidelines like in 2003. You are correct. If China or Russia are not willing... My comment implies it. So, you agree with me, right? Just the tone of your comment suggest that you do not.

    So, one again. Russia and China can stop US by committing themselves. If they do not commit themselves the US may act and once it acts Russia and China will not step in to stop the US. It would be too risky then and the US knows it.

    I think China and Russia must step in earlier to prevent the attack. But if the attack begins they won’t step in though they may offer Iran support to make it harder for the US.

    no, your comment implies that once usa attacks, it is too late for china or russia. I am refuting that claim. your comment suggests that china or russia can prevent the attack. I am refuting this too. usa will do what it wants as long as it thinks it can win. what usa thinks =/= what china or russia thinks. this is like a full circle that goes back to your first point.

    there is a clear difference with both. hope this explains it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. Kiza says:
    @Avery
    Yeah, yeah, yeah: we got it.
    Everybody is a Troll, except you.
    You are the only genuine article.

    {Anyway, I do not know why I am wasting time on trolls and their poop.}

    Maybe because you like wallowing in poop, taking a bath in poop, playing around in poop? Your posts are filled to the brim with the word: you must really like it.

    {...and unz does not have a perfect defense as you describe (this may be tipping off who you are),}

    Pay attention now: this is neat.
    Has it occurred to you, or your troll alter ego, that you are not the real Kiza?
    You know, if unz.com defenses are not perfect, as you say, who is to know who is who?
    Maybe you are the real troll.
    See how that works?
    You were saying something about drinking rat poison or something?
    Evaluation based on your own personal experience, no doubt.

    {All you Hasbara trolls...... Let one US$ person die per 1,000 killed Iranians and you bastards could have your air-superiority by swinging in the wind.}

    Projecting again?

    As I asked you above: how many kin do you have living in Iran or in nearby areas that you give yourself airs of presuming to care more about Iranians than me?
    Writing hysterical posts and calling everybody names certainly will impress a few readers @unz, but it won't change reality.

    Whoever you are, you are beyond repair. The problem of unz is that it has been taken over by the sick and the demented. The quality of the discussion has sunk terribly from the early days. Almost all of the original first-class commenters are gone and only the trolls and people like you have overtaken. There are only a few bright sparks here, the rest of comments are like watching Talmud Vision and other MSM. This is why I come here rarely now and only for the articles. You can have this comments board all to yourself, blast it away with your shallowness and stupidity. I will not tell you where there is a much better one or you may wish to come pollute there too.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {The problem of unz is that it has been taken over by the sick and the demented.}

    Indeed: hysterical, delusional, sick, and demented posters like you.


    {The quality of the discussion has sunk terribly from the early days.}

    Sure has: whose posts are amply filled with scatology again?
    You consider filling your posts with scatology 'quality discussion'?
    You _are_ demented.

    {Almost all of the original first-class commenters are gone and only the trolls and people like you have overtaken. }

    Yes, very sad indeed: the rest of us are trying to have a level discussion, but paranoid, delusional nuts like you start throwing s___ around. Sorry, should use your favourite word "....nuts like you start throwing poop around".

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @DannyMarcus
    The question here is; what goal the American air superiority over Iran is to serve? Is it at all likely that the Islamic regime will collapse under the pressure of air assaults? Certainly not.
    There is no point in discussing US air dominance over Iran without knowing what Americans want to achieve with it. Saker has pointed out the US military targeting Iran will not have the benefit of boots on the ground. Without boots on the ground in Iran, American assets in the region would be at the mercy of Iran's escalation on land. US air superiority over Iran cannot answer Iranian escalations taking place on the ground all over the region. In conventional warfare Iran will possess the lever of military escalation. America's choice in that case would be 1) cut losses, cease hostilities and admit defeat, or 2) resort to nuclear option.

    You have to look at the big picture.

    America is not going to just bomb Willie Nillie.

    They are going to do the typical American playbook. First they will choke off Iran economically. The attack against Qatar is an attack to weaken Iran. As is the war against Yemen.

    Then they will go back to pressuring China and Russia to put sanctions back on Iran. I would have thought this to be impossible, but then again Russia and China capitulated on N Korean sanctions.

    Then they will try to build up an Arab Nato. This was promoted while Trump was in the ME. This will serve as the cannon fodder on the ground.

    This way America gets to topple Iran cheaply without having to give up too many resources.

    Easier said than done of course. I don’t think Arabs will be effective ground troops and I think Russia and China will both help Iran, but that is the game plan anyway.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. @Sergey Krieger
    Andrei, could you provide the source regarding Ivashov and Kokoshin?

    Starts at 2 hr 47 min, Ivashov speaks. Solovyov’s Evening from 04/12/2015

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. For all the rancor that has proliferated on this thread, we need to keep our minds on the essentials. The bottom line is that the USA doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in Hades of taking Iran, or North Korea, or Ukraine, or even Venezuela. We’ve got nothing left but the bluff, and if somebody decides to call it, it’s all over. Everything else is just academic.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  185. Kiza says:

    Saker: …example would be Kosovo in 1998-1999 when a huge operation involved the entire NATO air forces which lasted for 78 days … resulted in exactly nothing: a few destroyed APCs, a few old aircraft destroyed on the ground, and a Serbian Army Corps which was unscathed, but which Milosevic ordered to withdraw for personal, political reasons.

    I do not know what Ivashov and Kokoshin disclosed, but Saker is somewhat wrong in the above. Firstly, the NATO bombing of Serbia was not a huge operation, they actually started at relatively low intensity expecting Milosevic to fold quickly and had to quickly bring in more resources (planes and crews mainly to Italy and Hungary). Even then the number of sorties was relatively modest and mainly because Serbia is a very small country (not much to bomb). A Spanish pilot is remembered for saying – you blink and you are already in Romania or Bulgaria. Secondly, and much more importantly Milosevic did not order withdrawal from Kosovo because of “personal and political reasons”. Saker has some local fool feeding him such rubbish (this is not the first time). This is what really happened:

    US, Canada and Britain started openly blasting civilian object (e.g. double-tapping the Varvarin bridge full of people in the middle of a market day) and killing tens of civilians by each bombing, whilst openly promising carpet bombing justified by the usual MSM stories of hundreds of thousands of Albanians killed. The goal of such war crimes was to demoralize Serbia and terminate the resistance: help is coming from nowhere and we can do whatever we like. We have to remember that this was the time soon after the collapse of the Soviet Union when SU/Russia was in total chaos (e.g. stories in the Western MSM about the Russian soldiers growing cabbage to survive) and under the thumb of the US-Russian Jewish mafia. Also, the Chinese Embassy has just been bombed, thus China was unlikely to provide any more support, when Milosevic was desperately looking for someone to help. The Chinese gave him a little bit of money in return for the US technology he delivered to them (stealth plane and several drones shot-down) and that was all.

    In other words, the bombing of Serbia happened in the middle of the peak hubris of the West (we won and our Reich will last forever) and Serbia and Milosevic were just the unluckiest people in the world at the time, chosen to be thrown up against the wall just to show the World who is the boss now, SU/Russia down and China rising but still too small. For US, Serbia was not important, it was only important to show that nobody can help you if you do not do what you are told by the Empire, even if you are in Europe.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    The Global Zionism Inc later showed the same attitude towards the rest of Europe by forced immigration, emptying the lands surrounding Israel of military age men and dumping millions of them all over Europe.
    , @peterAUS
    Pretty much agree with all of it.

    Saker really got that paragraph badly wrong.

    But, also, there was an issue of promise, by current regime in Moscow (that drunkard in Kremlin....) that they'd protect Serbian interests in Kosovo.

    Milosevic just run out of his luck.
    Actually, he run out of his luck when he, conveniently, died in Hague.
    Natural causes, of course......................................................................

    On a sidenote, it's interesting that none of Clinton team (and The Bitch was part of it then)...."mistakes"....were brought up during the last elections. Waco included.
    Makes you think.........
    , @Ivan K.

    For US, Serbia was not important, it was only important to show that nobody can help you if you do not do what you are told by the Empire, even if you are in Europe.
     
    Also:
    o During the mid-to-late nineties' negotiations with the Serbian side, the American side showed striking interest in something that had NOthing to do with the Balkan issues. They would repeatedly bring up their interest in keeping their troops in Germany. War in former Yugoslavia? Leave that alone, our troops in Germany, they'd say, we have to publicly justify our military presence in the heart of Europe. (This information was relayed by people without the slightest special sympathy for Germany.)
    o And of course having Kosovo as a base: military, for trafficking, for economic plunder, and as a stage for finishing off with Serbia as a serious player, thus ensuring balkanisation and instability, as a precondition for their dominance.

    technological secrets to the Chinese for a US$300M (ostensibly) loan.
     
    I thought it uncontroversial that the B-52 went back to the US, as Washington had sent a message that it would cost Belgrade dearly if it starts playing WW3 on its own by delivering Pentagon's precious technological secrets to a third party.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. Kiza says:
    @Kiza

    Saker: ...example would be Kosovo in 1998-1999 when a huge operation involved the entire NATO air forces which lasted for 78 days ... resulted in exactly nothing: a few destroyed APCs, a few old aircraft destroyed on the ground, and a Serbian Army Corps which was unscathed, but which Milosevic ordered to withdraw for personal, political reasons.
     
    I do not know what Ivashov and Kokoshin disclosed, but Saker is somewhat wrong in the above. Firstly, the NATO bombing of Serbia was not a huge operation, they actually started at relatively low intensity expecting Milosevic to fold quickly and had to quickly bring in more resources (planes and crews mainly to Italy and Hungary). Even then the number of sorties was relatively modest and mainly because Serbia is a very small country (not much to bomb). A Spanish pilot is remembered for saying - you blink and you are already in Romania or Bulgaria. Secondly, and much more importantly Milosevic did not order withdrawal from Kosovo because of "personal and political reasons". Saker has some local fool feeding him such rubbish (this is not the first time). This is what really happened:

    US, Canada and Britain started openly blasting civilian object (e.g. double-tapping the Varvarin bridge full of people in the middle of a market day) and killing tens of civilians by each bombing, whilst openly promising carpet bombing justified by the usual MSM stories of hundreds of thousands of Albanians killed. The goal of such war crimes was to demoralize Serbia and terminate the resistance: help is coming from nowhere and we can do whatever we like. We have to remember that this was the time soon after the collapse of the Soviet Union when SU/Russia was in total chaos (e.g. stories in the Western MSM about the Russian soldiers growing cabbage to survive) and under the thumb of the US-Russian Jewish mafia. Also, the Chinese Embassy has just been bombed, thus China was unlikely to provide any more support, when Milosevic was desperately looking for someone to help. The Chinese gave him a little bit of money in return for the US technology he delivered to them (stealth plane and several drones shot-down) and that was all.

    In other words, the bombing of Serbia happened in the middle of the peak hubris of the West (we won and our Reich will last forever) and Serbia and Milosevic were just the unluckiest people in the world at the time, chosen to be thrown up against the wall just to show the World who is the boss now, SU/Russia down and China rising but still too small. For US, Serbia was not important, it was only important to show that nobody can help you if you do not do what you are told by the Empire, even if you are in Europe.

    The Global Zionism Inc later showed the same attitude towards the rest of Europe by forced immigration, emptying the lands surrounding Israel of military age men and dumping millions of them all over Europe.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Ben Frank
    When should USA go to war?
    When we're invaded.
    It's gonna be a long wait.

    Attacking DPRK would be stupid beyond the level of Bush II. He at least picked enemies that could not hit back.

    The best case result would be what happened in 1953, armistice and partition. But we ALREADY HAVE THAT.

    The cities of South Korea and Japan would be hostages. China would never allow USA control near its borders. People are talking crazy.

    When should USA go to war?
    When we’re invaded.

    This is the war you’re losing:

    American Babies Are No Longer Mostly White (2015): http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-25/american-babies-are-no-longer-mostly-white

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. peterAUS says:
    @DannyMarcus
    The question here is; what goal the American air superiority over Iran is to serve? Is it at all likely that the Islamic regime will collapse under the pressure of air assaults? Certainly not.
    There is no point in discussing US air dominance over Iran without knowing what Americans want to achieve with it. Saker has pointed out the US military targeting Iran will not have the benefit of boots on the ground. Without boots on the ground in Iran, American assets in the region would be at the mercy of Iran's escalation on land. US air superiority over Iran cannot answer Iranian escalations taking place on the ground all over the region. In conventional warfare Iran will possess the lever of military escalation. America's choice in that case would be 1) cut losses, cease hostilities and admit defeat, or 2) resort to nuclear option.

    Randal probably won’t reply for obvious reasons.

    I will, because you got it so wrong that some sort of reply is needed.

    The question here is; what goal the American air superiority over Iran is to serve?

    I’ll go from the best case scenario to the worst (best for USA that is).
    1. Regime change in Iran. When people have enough of misery they could do something about it. Or regime itself simply quits because can’t stand all that destruction and killings.
    2. Create permanent chaos in Iran.
    3. Destroy Iran’s infrastructure so bad that it will cease to be any threat for years to come (threat to US interests that is).

    Is it at all likely that the Islamic regime will collapse under the pressure of air assaults? Certainly not.

    Nobody knows.

    There is no point in discussing US air dominance over Iran without knowing what Americans want to achieve with it.

    Read 1, 2 and 3.

    Saker has pointed out the US military targeting Iran will not have the benefit of boots on the ground.

    Nobody knows.
    Randal did elaborate on that in this thread. Maybe you could take a look. Hint:US general populace didn’t want to get involved in WW2.

    Without boots on the ground in Iran, American assets in the region would be at the mercy of Iran’s escalation on land. US air superiority over Iran cannot answer Iranian escalations taking place on the ground all over the region.

    Yes it can if it destroys all that on the ground; or destroys all logistical infrastructure for those forces; or destroys all communication infrastructure; etc…

    In conventional warfare Iran will possess the lever of military escalation.

    No it will not if, in simple language, bombing from far away is effective.

    America’s choice in that case would be 1) cut losses, cease hostilities and admit defeat, or 2) resort to nuclear option.

    And maybe it can simply keep bombing and bombing……..why not? Just…..keep……..bombing……….

    Who/what is to stop Americans from keeping bombing?
    Russians…Chinese?
    How?
    Ah, yes…no more bombs in stocks, tired pilots/crews, spent technique requiring repairs/overhauls. Well….wouldn’t that be exactly what MIC want?
    And, BTW, what could bring jobs…..back….?

    I do know that all above is crude oversimplification, but, sometimes it helps to cut to the chase.

    Read More
    • Troll: L.K
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    No it will not if, in simple language, bombing from far away is effective.
     
    Disagree here. Iran does have a foot on escalation pedal and aerial bombing alone, for all the bluster of American (mostly) proponents of Duhe, never won on its own any serious campaign, let alone war. No boots on the ground--nothing happens in purely military terms. Well, other than bombing a shit out of some civilian infrastructure and out of the "integrated and sophisticated enemy's air defense"--I deliberately use a favorite propaganda shtick of US media circa 2003. Last time USAF encountered something even remotely comparable to a second tier Air Defense was in Vietnam and it didn't end well. Since then, USAF never fought in E(C)CM environment, it simply wasn't there.
    , @Aren Haich
    Your points 1, 2 and 3 do not hold water.
    --- US bombing Iran will not cause the demise of the regime. Just the opposite will be the case. Bombing will solidify people’s resistance.
    --- Iranians united and fought Iraq for 8 years despite the chaos created by the Saddam invasion in 1980.
    --- America and the world order depending on stability of the region will pay a very high price for every infrastructure destroyed by the US bombings. Iran will have the ability of mercilessly attacking American personnel and assets, which there are plenty of in the region.
    The whole point here is why should Americans risk so much to topple a regime thousands of miles from their shore? Would you do it?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. Wally says:
    @Anon
    Why don't you ditch the "Zionist" and say plainly that it Jews you hate? Seems no less weasly than "neocon," frankly.

    Are you saying that all Jews are Zionists?

    Certainly all ‘neocons’ are.

    Is that your best shot?

    The ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the ‘holocaust’ scam debunked here:

    http://codoh.com

    No name calling, level playing field debate here:

    http://forum.codoh.com

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    No, but you are equating belief in the Holocaust with being a Zionist, and there is zero connection between the two.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. utu says:
    @DannyMarcus
    The question here is; what goal the American air superiority over Iran is to serve? Is it at all likely that the Islamic regime will collapse under the pressure of air assaults? Certainly not.
    There is no point in discussing US air dominance over Iran without knowing what Americans want to achieve with it. Saker has pointed out the US military targeting Iran will not have the benefit of boots on the ground. Without boots on the ground in Iran, American assets in the region would be at the mercy of Iran's escalation on land. US air superiority over Iran cannot answer Iranian escalations taking place on the ground all over the region. In conventional warfare Iran will possess the lever of military escalation. America's choice in that case would be 1) cut losses, cease hostilities and admit defeat, or 2) resort to nuclear option.

    Iran’s escalation on land

    Where? Iraq or Afghanistan? In two weeks they will run out of supplies. And in the meantime main cites in Iran will be w/o electricity and water.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    Where? Iraq or Afghanistan? In two weeks they will run out of supplies.
     
    Pray tell, what is your estimate of Iran's "supplies". I assume you have access to Iran's logistics, so you can enlighten everyone here on a daily rationing. Obviously you have to ask a question on how this very same Iran, at that time completely exhausted from Iraq-Iran War managed to supply and then re-supply, and repeatedly do the same her own factions in Afghanistan. Mind you, at that time Iran was much-much weaker economically than it is today.

    And in the meantime main cites in Iran will be w/o electricity and water.
     
    You, evidently, have no concept of how people survived and continue to survive as I type it w/o electricity, not to mention things specific to the region as a whole, including what used to be former Soviet republics from Azerbaijan to Turkmenistan (served in both) and how people handled there the water issue. I am really fascinated--all ears (or eyes, or whatever).
    , @Aren Haich
    I remember when Iraq invaded Iran in 1980, vast majority of Western military experts predicted that the war will last only a few weeks, 3 months at most. Because both sides would run out of weapons and ammunitions. That war lasted 8 years.
    Saudi Arabia has been bombing Yemen for over 2 years, AND has boots on the ground there. Can you tell us when will Saudis achieve their aims in Yemen and stop bombing?
    Without even being present in Iraq, Iran made it hell for Americans fighting there. Iran with vast resources at its disposal in the Gulf, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Afghanistan and elsewhere in the region will cause enough US casualties for Americans to probably decide to leave the Middle East for good.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. peterAUS says:
    @Kiza

    Saker: ...example would be Kosovo in 1998-1999 when a huge operation involved the entire NATO air forces which lasted for 78 days ... resulted in exactly nothing: a few destroyed APCs, a few old aircraft destroyed on the ground, and a Serbian Army Corps which was unscathed, but which Milosevic ordered to withdraw for personal, political reasons.
     
    I do not know what Ivashov and Kokoshin disclosed, but Saker is somewhat wrong in the above. Firstly, the NATO bombing of Serbia was not a huge operation, they actually started at relatively low intensity expecting Milosevic to fold quickly and had to quickly bring in more resources (planes and crews mainly to Italy and Hungary). Even then the number of sorties was relatively modest and mainly because Serbia is a very small country (not much to bomb). A Spanish pilot is remembered for saying - you blink and you are already in Romania or Bulgaria. Secondly, and much more importantly Milosevic did not order withdrawal from Kosovo because of "personal and political reasons". Saker has some local fool feeding him such rubbish (this is not the first time). This is what really happened:

    US, Canada and Britain started openly blasting civilian object (e.g. double-tapping the Varvarin bridge full of people in the middle of a market day) and killing tens of civilians by each bombing, whilst openly promising carpet bombing justified by the usual MSM stories of hundreds of thousands of Albanians killed. The goal of such war crimes was to demoralize Serbia and terminate the resistance: help is coming from nowhere and we can do whatever we like. We have to remember that this was the time soon after the collapse of the Soviet Union when SU/Russia was in total chaos (e.g. stories in the Western MSM about the Russian soldiers growing cabbage to survive) and under the thumb of the US-Russian Jewish mafia. Also, the Chinese Embassy has just been bombed, thus China was unlikely to provide any more support, when Milosevic was desperately looking for someone to help. The Chinese gave him a little bit of money in return for the US technology he delivered to them (stealth plane and several drones shot-down) and that was all.

    In other words, the bombing of Serbia happened in the middle of the peak hubris of the West (we won and our Reich will last forever) and Serbia and Milosevic were just the unluckiest people in the world at the time, chosen to be thrown up against the wall just to show the World who is the boss now, SU/Russia down and China rising but still too small. For US, Serbia was not important, it was only important to show that nobody can help you if you do not do what you are told by the Empire, even if you are in Europe.

    Pretty much agree with all of it.

    Saker really got that paragraph badly wrong.

    But, also, there was an issue of promise, by current regime in Moscow (that drunkard in Kremlin….) that they’d protect Serbian interests in Kosovo.

    Milosevic just run out of his luck.
    Actually, he run out of his luck when he, conveniently, died in Hague.
    Natural causes, of course…………………………………………………………….

    On a sidenote, it’s interesting that none of Clinton team (and The Bitch was part of it then)….”mistakes”….were brought up during the last elections. Waco included.
    Makes you think………

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza

    But, also, there was an issue of promise, by current regime in Moscow (that drunkard in Kremlin….) that they’d protect Serbian interests in Kosovo.
     
    I am not sure what you are referring to, but maybe it was some internal Russian political thing. I do not think that Serbians were holding their breath waiting for Yeltsin to deliver, a fart highly likely, military help not at all.

    Actually, he (Milosevic) run out of his luck when he, conveniently, died in Hague. Natural causes, of course
     
    It was only natural that the killers killed somebody who delivered their technological secrets to the Chinese for a US$300M (ostensibly) loan.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. Kiza says:
    @peterAUS
    Pretty much agree with all of it.

    Saker really got that paragraph badly wrong.

    But, also, there was an issue of promise, by current regime in Moscow (that drunkard in Kremlin....) that they'd protect Serbian interests in Kosovo.

    Milosevic just run out of his luck.
    Actually, he run out of his luck when he, conveniently, died in Hague.
    Natural causes, of course......................................................................

    On a sidenote, it's interesting that none of Clinton team (and The Bitch was part of it then)...."mistakes"....were brought up during the last elections. Waco included.
    Makes you think.........

    But, also, there was an issue of promise, by current regime in Moscow (that drunkard in Kremlin….) that they’d protect Serbian interests in Kosovo.

    I am not sure what you are referring to, but maybe it was some internal Russian political thing. I do not think that Serbians were holding their breath waiting for Yeltsin to deliver, a fart highly likely, military help not at all.

    Actually, he (Milosevic) run out of his luck when he, conveniently, died in Hague. Natural causes, of course

    It was only natural that the killers killed somebody who delivered their technological secrets to the Chinese for a US$300M (ostensibly) loan.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. @utu
    Iran’s escalation on land

    Where? Iraq or Afghanistan? In two weeks they will run out of supplies. And in the meantime main cites in Iran will be w/o electricity and water.

    Where? Iraq or Afghanistan? In two weeks they will run out of supplies.

    Pray tell, what is your estimate of Iran’s “supplies”. I assume you have access to Iran’s logistics, so you can enlighten everyone here on a daily rationing. Obviously you have to ask a question on how this very same Iran, at that time completely exhausted from Iraq-Iran War managed to supply and then re-supply, and repeatedly do the same her own factions in Afghanistan. Mind you, at that time Iran was much-much weaker economically than it is today.

    And in the meantime main cites in Iran will be w/o electricity and water.

    You, evidently, have no concept of how people survived and continue to survive as I type it w/o electricity, not to mention things specific to the region as a whole, including what used to be former Soviet republics from Azerbaijan to Turkmenistan (served in both) and how people handled there the water issue. I am really fascinated–all ears (or eyes, or whatever).

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    It is all about what you go after in air campaign. You go after supplies, right?

    When supplying faction in Afghanistan were Iran supply columns attacked by enemy air force?

    continue to survive as I type it w/o electricity - Fine, so they won't miss it. But it won't be the case in large cities of Iran which have modern infrastructure unlike some post Soviet dumps in Azerbaijan to Turkmenistan .
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. @peterAUS
    Randal probably won't reply for obvious reasons.

    I will, because you got it so wrong that some sort of reply is needed.

    The question here is; what goal the American air superiority over Iran is to serve?
     
    I'll go from the best case scenario to the worst (best for USA that is).
    1. Regime change in Iran. When people have enough of misery they could do something about it. Or regime itself simply quits because can't stand all that destruction and killings.
    2. Create permanent chaos in Iran.
    3. Destroy Iran's infrastructure so bad that it will cease to be any threat for years to come (threat to US interests that is).

    Is it at all likely that the Islamic regime will collapse under the pressure of air assaults? Certainly not.
     
    Nobody knows.

    There is no point in discussing US air dominance over Iran without knowing what Americans want to achieve with it.
     
    Read 1, 2 and 3.

    Saker has pointed out the US military targeting Iran will not have the benefit of boots on the ground.
     
    Nobody knows.
    Randal did elaborate on that in this thread. Maybe you could take a look. Hint:US general populace didn't want to get involved in WW2.

    Without boots on the ground in Iran, American assets in the region would be at the mercy of Iran’s escalation on land. US air superiority over Iran cannot answer Iranian escalations taking place on the ground all over the region.
     
    Yes it can if it destroys all that on the ground; or destroys all logistical infrastructure for those forces; or destroys all communication infrastructure; etc...

    In conventional warfare Iran will possess the lever of military escalation.
     
    No it will not if, in simple language, bombing from far away is effective.

    America’s choice in that case would be 1) cut losses, cease hostilities and admit defeat, or 2) resort to nuclear option.
     
    And maybe it can simply keep bombing and bombing........why not? Just.....keep........bombing..........

    Who/what is to stop Americans from keeping bombing?
    Russians...Chinese?
    How?
    Ah, yes...no more bombs in stocks, tired pilots/crews, spent technique requiring repairs/overhauls. Well....wouldn't that be exactly what MIC want?
    And, BTW, what could bring jobs.....back....?

    I do know that all above is crude oversimplification, but, sometimes it helps to cut to the chase.

    No it will not if, in simple language, bombing from far away is effective.

    Disagree here. Iran does have a foot on escalation pedal and aerial bombing alone, for all the bluster of American (mostly) proponents of Duhe, never won on its own any serious campaign, let alone war. No boots on the ground–nothing happens in purely military terms. Well, other than bombing a shit out of some civilian infrastructure and out of the “integrated and sophisticated enemy’s air defense”–I deliberately use a favorite propaganda shtick of US media circa 2003. Last time USAF encountered something even remotely comparable to a second tier Air Defense was in Vietnam and it didn’t end well. Since then, USAF never fought in E(C)CM environment, it simply wasn’t there.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sunbeam

    Last time USAF encountered something even remotely comparable to a second tier Air Defense was in Vietnam and it didn’t end well. Since then, USAF never fought in E(C)CM environment, it simply wasn’t there.
     
    I've always found Vietnam to be fascinating, not from the sociological standpoint (though that is there in spades), but from the military standpoint.

    It seems to me that was the last major conflict in which Air Power alone could have been decisive. The last one before all these AA missiles started getting good, and radar widespread. Not mention things like MANPADS.

    Yet it wasn't. As you mention Vietnam did involve some air defense and the North Vietnamese occasionally did mount an air operation. We did lose planes and helicopters.

    But it was still a significant conflict with some foreign involvement (aside from the US), and the US could operate with relative impunity in the air. Yet that jungle cover defeated all the temporary advantages the US had in that conflict.

    If Vietnam had Iraq's geography, there is a good chance it could have ended differently (and that isn't jingoism). The US went all out in that one in a way it hasn't done since WWII, and is unlikely to do in the future. Korea may have been more intense at times, but Vietnam went on and on and on, and the US kept trying.

    I also think someone needs to discuss what the Serbs managed to do against modern air power during Clinton's bombing campaign. Those guys were very clever. I'm sure we studied what went wrong in that, but the same could be said for Iran or North Korea. Not to mention I imagine both Russia and China will give Iran at least, all the free tactical advice they could ever want.
    , @peterAUS
    Well.........this is why Internet forums are bad for serious discussion.

    We know how this is done on a bloody company level, let alone at policy/strategy level.

    We play a game. Which we can not do here.

    And we also know that much better men (and some women I'd imagine) have been doing this for months now in all major power centers of this world.
    And definitely the best and brightest in Iran.
    I mean, if we were that good, we'd be working for either of them and collecting huge paychecks.

    So...if our methodology (or lack thereof) is wrong, effort and result can't be good. Let alone total lack of access to proper data.
    At the other hand we aren't, say, "directed" in a certain direction by our political masters, so...who's to say that our conclusions are THAT bad.
    And, well....if things were simple, we would already see some outcome (at least preparations for a conflict, deployments etc...).

    So, here is the briefest and very crude chain of my thinking.

    Trump administration: bring back jobs, please certain parts of Deep State->a decent regional war would be a good option.

    Iran would please Zionists and weaken Russia. Let's go for it.

    The most important, the war effort, on that level, will rejuvenate the economy and bring back those jobs the voters lost. THAT is the primary goal here. Also, could help with internal dissent and anti-immigration effort.

    Objective is to, at least, weaken the current regime in Iran to the level of inability to project power in the region.
    Again, the war is for DOMESTIC use first and foremost, Iran is just the most convenient.

    That's for policy, now pass to the generals to create strategy.

    Simple: off-stand engagement; simply bomb the country into stone age.
    One problem: Hormuz. Possible solution: occupy that area ONLY if necessary.

    The rest is, then, what professionals do when playing war games.
    I am sure that some of us here could hammer, working together, several options in a couple of weeks (just with home networks...).

    Personally, I believe, if the war is sold to an average American, it could deliver the goals and objective I mentioned above.

    Now, no plan survives, COMPLETELY, a first shot, but, that's what history, leadership, fate, God and karma are all about.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Wally
    And what "job" is to be "done in Iran"?

    Kill Iranians for "that shitty little country" Israel?

    Do you think Iran will just sit back and allow it to occur?

    Why is your use of “Zionist” any less weasly than bjondo’s use of “neocon”?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. utu says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    Where? Iraq or Afghanistan? In two weeks they will run out of supplies.
     
    Pray tell, what is your estimate of Iran's "supplies". I assume you have access to Iran's logistics, so you can enlighten everyone here on a daily rationing. Obviously you have to ask a question on how this very same Iran, at that time completely exhausted from Iraq-Iran War managed to supply and then re-supply, and repeatedly do the same her own factions in Afghanistan. Mind you, at that time Iran was much-much weaker economically than it is today.

    And in the meantime main cites in Iran will be w/o electricity and water.
     
    You, evidently, have no concept of how people survived and continue to survive as I type it w/o electricity, not to mention things specific to the region as a whole, including what used to be former Soviet republics from Azerbaijan to Turkmenistan (served in both) and how people handled there the water issue. I am really fascinated--all ears (or eyes, or whatever).

    It is all about what you go after in air campaign. You go after supplies, right?

    When supplying faction in Afghanistan were Iran supply columns attacked by enemy air force?

    continue to survive as I type it w/o electricity – Fine, so they won’t miss it. But it won’t be the case in large cities of Iran which have modern infrastructure unlike some post Soviet dumps in Azerbaijan to Turkmenistan .

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    unlike some post Soviet dumps in Azerbaijan
     
    Here is some post-Soviet "dump" of Baku--the capitol of Azerbaijan:

    http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=821848&page=161

    Just browse some pages. Baku was always a stunning city, starting from late 1960s. Water supply, however, for a number of brand new and remote sites was always problematic. People just got used to it. How--is a separate issue. Turkmenistan, however , was always a dump and if not for the USSR which pushed them to civilization more or less--it would have been another Afghanistan of sorts. So, Baku as a city, while still huge but smaller than Tehran, is in no way inferior in terms of infrastructure than Tehran. Having said that, Iran's country side and many smaller cities are different. But then again, whenever anyone starts speaking about electricity and water--the first question must be how many, of diesel-generators and pumps with tubing long enough to reach to the nearest stream. This is not discuss the issues of repairs--it is a separate topic. To deny such country as Iran electricity on a permanent bases--good luck with that.

    When supplying faction in Afghanistan were Iran supply columns attacked by enemy air force?
     
    I can return the question, when were attacking enemy air forces have been subjected to at least semi-competent and decently equipped air defense? Dropping one-two stand-off munition will do very little unless, depending on the supply streams, low flying CAS aircraft are in the vicinity. Who said that Verba will not appear in Iran? Can you give these guarantees? I can't. Just a small example. After all, Kornets ended up in Hizbullah hands.

    You go after supplies, right?
     
    Right. You just didn't specify what part of this supply chain--if those are merely lines of communications, again--good luck with that, if for storage facilities? Completely different game. Mind you, BGM -109 TLAM's range is about 1000 kilometers. There are extended range versions in works but other than that (apart from the limited numbers of TLAMs) combat aviation's use can not be avoided and that is when the game starts to become really interesting. If we are talking about Iran proper and Eastern Iraq--you can easily access Google Earth (or whatever) satellite imagery of the area and see for yourself what a wonderful landscape it is for precisely caravan operations. Now, when one looks at US "success" in Afghanistan in interdicting Taleban's supply lines, one has to ask the question: and in why those "operations" in Iran should be "successful"? Based on what?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  197. Sunbeam says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    No it will not if, in simple language, bombing from far away is effective.
     
    Disagree here. Iran does have a foot on escalation pedal and aerial bombing alone, for all the bluster of American (mostly) proponents of Duhe, never won on its own any serious campaign, let alone war. No boots on the ground--nothing happens in purely military terms. Well, other than bombing a shit out of some civilian infrastructure and out of the "integrated and sophisticated enemy's air defense"--I deliberately use a favorite propaganda shtick of US media circa 2003. Last time USAF encountered something even remotely comparable to a second tier Air Defense was in Vietnam and it didn't end well. Since then, USAF never fought in E(C)CM environment, it simply wasn't there.

    Last time USAF encountered something even remotely comparable to a second tier Air Defense was in Vietnam and it didn’t end well. Since then, USAF never fought in E(C)CM environment, it simply wasn’t there.

    I’ve always found Vietnam to be fascinating, not from the sociological standpoint (though that is there in spades), but from the military standpoint.

    It seems to me that was the last major conflict in which Air Power alone could have been decisive. The last one before all these AA missiles started getting good, and radar widespread. Not mention things like MANPADS.

    Yet it wasn’t. As you mention Vietnam did involve some air defense and the North Vietnamese occasionally did mount an air operation. We did lose planes and helicopters.

    But it was still a significant conflict with some foreign involvement (aside from the US), and the US could operate with relative impunity in the air. Yet that jungle cover defeated all the temporary advantages the US had in that conflict.

    If Vietnam had Iraq’s geography, there is a good chance it could have ended differently (and that isn’t jingoism). The US went all out in that one in a way it hasn’t done since WWII, and is unlikely to do in the future. Korea may have been more intense at times, but Vietnam went on and on and on, and the US kept trying.

    I also think someone needs to discuss what the Serbs managed to do against modern air power during Clinton’s bombing campaign. Those guys were very clever. I’m sure we studied what went wrong in that, but the same could be said for Iran or North Korea. Not to mention I imagine both Russia and China will give Iran at least, all the free tactical advice they could ever want.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    If Vietnam had Iraq’s geography, there is a good chance it could have ended differently (and that isn’t jingoism)
     
    Of course, but that is why in any serious military academy there is a courses called military topography and geography, which deal with precisely these issues (in naval sciences, of course, courses on naval hydro-meteorology and naval geography are added). It is one thing to run armored division across hard sands of the desert, totally another to do so in and around swamps and forests. Not to speak of targeting, of course. Zelenka (PeterAUS knows this first hand), that is Green, is a game changer, even with modern technology at hand. Landscape, weather, natural features are immensely importnat tactical and operational factors which must be constantly considered and accounted for while making a commanding decision.
    , @headrick
    Milosevic was a modern man, and he broke because he could not flush hit toilet, use the elevator or air conditioner. If you go after a more primitive enemy like Iran in the countryside or North Korea, or Afghanistan, these people will not be crushed if denied modern convenience.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. annamaria says:
    @Grandpa Charlie
    Randal says that a Pearl Harbor event "would suddenly render both Iran and DPRK open to US military occupation." I don't know if that is true or not, and I don't know if the statement is really meaningful. Myself, I do not believe that the USA has any casus belli to go to war with Iran, so I don't discuss that. As for the DPRK, I believe the USA has, over the years, tried peaceful negotiations to end the war but all those attempts have been frustrated by the despotic leaders of the DPRK ( the Kim dynasty). In any event, I would never advocate USA military occupation of any part of Korea. I advocate for the peaceful occupation of the North of Korea by the military of the ROK, but only until such time as all-Korea elections could be held, in order to incorporate the North of Korea into the ROK.

    In my opinion, the case of Korea is similar to the case of Germany and the government of the DPRK is no more legitimate or viable (without subjecting it to cruel and despotic methods led by the Kim dynasty) than was the old government of East Germany before reunification. So, no military occupation by the USA, and only a temporary and benign occupation by the army of the ROK - which is anyway the legitimate government all of Korea.

    Would you recommend an occupation of Palestine by the benevolent US military forces? Or, perhaps, an occupation of Israel by some benevolent and benign power would be much more rational and beneficial for the planet?
    Currently, the US is stomping on its European vassals in order to improve a base line for the US energy companies. Take note that the US wants to continue a cooperation with Russians when it is profitable for the US — for example, the International Space Programme (where is the moral indignation of Ms. Lindsey Graham..?.): “After the US Space Shuttle programme ended in 2011, Soyuz rockets became the only provider of transport for astronauts at the International Space Station…” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station
    Meanwhile, for the people of the world, the US is the greatest threat to peace: https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/08/07/polls-us-greatest-threat-to-peace-world-today.html
    We really, really need “the final political destruction of the interventionist elites in the US sphere” (post 12 by Randal), the sooner the better.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  199. @utu
    It is all about what you go after in air campaign. You go after supplies, right?

    When supplying faction in Afghanistan were Iran supply columns attacked by enemy air force?

    continue to survive as I type it w/o electricity - Fine, so they won't miss it. But it won't be the case in large cities of Iran which have modern infrastructure unlike some post Soviet dumps in Azerbaijan to Turkmenistan .

    unlike some post Soviet dumps in Azerbaijan

    Here is some post-Soviet “dump” of Baku–the capitol of Azerbaijan:

    http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=821848&page=161

    Just browse some pages. Baku was always a stunning city, starting from late 1960s. Water supply, however, for a number of brand new and remote sites was always problematic. People just got used to it. How–is a separate issue. Turkmenistan, however , was always a dump and if not for the USSR which pushed them to civilization more or less–it would have been another Afghanistan of sorts. So, Baku as a city, while still huge but smaller than Tehran, is in no way inferior in terms of infrastructure than Tehran. Having said that, Iran’s country side and many smaller cities are different. But then again, whenever anyone starts speaking about electricity and water–the first question must be how many, of diesel-generators and pumps with tubing long enough to reach to the nearest stream. This is not discuss the issues of repairs–it is a separate topic. To deny such country as Iran electricity on a permanent bases–good luck with that.

    When supplying faction in Afghanistan were Iran supply columns attacked by enemy air force?

    I can return the question, when were attacking enemy air forces have been subjected to at least semi-competent and decently equipped air defense? Dropping one-two stand-off munition will do very little unless, depending on the supply streams, low flying CAS aircraft are in the vicinity. Who said that Verba will not appear in Iran? Can you give these guarantees? I can’t. Just a small example. After all, Kornets ended up in Hizbullah hands.

    You go after supplies, right?

    Right. You just didn’t specify what part of this supply chain–if those are merely lines of communications, again–good luck with that, if for storage facilities? Completely different game. Mind you, BGM -109 TLAM’s range is about 1000 kilometers. There are extended range versions in works but other than that (apart from the limited numbers of TLAMs) combat aviation’s use can not be avoided and that is when the game starts to become really interesting. If we are talking about Iran proper and Eastern Iraq–you can easily access Google Earth (or whatever) satellite imagery of the area and see for yourself what a wonderful landscape it is for precisely caravan operations. Now, when one looks at US “success” in Afghanistan in interdicting Taleban’s supply lines, one has to ask the question: and in why those “operations” in Iran should be “successful”? Based on what?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  200. @Sunbeam

    Last time USAF encountered something even remotely comparable to a second tier Air Defense was in Vietnam and it didn’t end well. Since then, USAF never fought in E(C)CM environment, it simply wasn’t there.
     
    I've always found Vietnam to be fascinating, not from the sociological standpoint (though that is there in spades), but from the military standpoint.

    It seems to me that was the last major conflict in which Air Power alone could have been decisive. The last one before all these AA missiles started getting good, and radar widespread. Not mention things like MANPADS.

    Yet it wasn't. As you mention Vietnam did involve some air defense and the North Vietnamese occasionally did mount an air operation. We did lose planes and helicopters.

    But it was still a significant conflict with some foreign involvement (aside from the US), and the US could operate with relative impunity in the air. Yet that jungle cover defeated all the temporary advantages the US had in that conflict.

    If Vietnam had Iraq's geography, there is a good chance it could have ended differently (and that isn't jingoism). The US went all out in that one in a way it hasn't done since WWII, and is unlikely to do in the future. Korea may have been more intense at times, but Vietnam went on and on and on, and the US kept trying.

    I also think someone needs to discuss what the Serbs managed to do against modern air power during Clinton's bombing campaign. Those guys were very clever. I'm sure we studied what went wrong in that, but the same could be said for Iran or North Korea. Not to mention I imagine both Russia and China will give Iran at least, all the free tactical advice they could ever want.

    If Vietnam had Iraq’s geography, there is a good chance it could have ended differently (and that isn’t jingoism)

    Of course, but that is why in any serious military academy there is a courses called military topography and geography, which deal with precisely these issues (in naval sciences, of course, courses on naval hydro-meteorology and naval geography are added). It is one thing to run armored division across hard sands of the desert, totally another to do so in and around swamps and forests. Not to speak of targeting, of course. Zelenka (PeterAUS knows this first hand), that is Green, is a game changer, even with modern technology at hand. Landscape, weather, natural features are immensely importnat tactical and operational factors which must be constantly considered and accounted for while making a commanding decision.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  201. peterAUS says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    No it will not if, in simple language, bombing from far away is effective.
     
    Disagree here. Iran does have a foot on escalation pedal and aerial bombing alone, for all the bluster of American (mostly) proponents of Duhe, never won on its own any serious campaign, let alone war. No boots on the ground--nothing happens in purely military terms. Well, other than bombing a shit out of some civilian infrastructure and out of the "integrated and sophisticated enemy's air defense"--I deliberately use a favorite propaganda shtick of US media circa 2003. Last time USAF encountered something even remotely comparable to a second tier Air Defense was in Vietnam and it didn't end well. Since then, USAF never fought in E(C)CM environment, it simply wasn't there.

    Well………this is why Internet forums are bad for serious discussion.

    We know how this is done on a bloody company level, let alone at policy/strategy level.

    We play a game. Which we can not do here.

    And we also know that much better men (and some women I’d imagine) have been doing this for months now in all major power centers of this world.
    And definitely the best and brightest in Iran.
    I mean, if we were that good, we’d be working for either of them and collecting huge paychecks.

    So…if our methodology (or lack thereof) is wrong, effort and result can’t be good. Let alone total lack of access to proper data.
    At the other hand we aren’t, say, “directed” in a certain direction by our political masters, so…who’s to say that our conclusions are THAT bad.
    And, well….if things were simple, we would already see some outcome (at least preparations for a conflict, deployments etc…).

    So, here is the briefest and very crude chain of my thinking.

    Trump administration: bring back jobs, please certain parts of Deep State->a decent regional war would be a good option.

    Iran would please Zionists and weaken Russia. Let’s go for it.

    The most important, the war effort, on that level, will rejuvenate the economy and bring back those jobs the voters lost. THAT is the primary goal here. Also, could help with internal dissent and anti-immigration effort.

    Objective is to, at least, weaken the current regime in Iran to the level of inability to project power in the region.
    Again, the war is for DOMESTIC use first and foremost, Iran is just the most convenient.

    That’s for policy, now pass to the generals to create strategy.

    Simple: off-stand engagement; simply bomb the country into stone age.
    One problem: Hormuz. Possible solution: occupy that area ONLY if necessary.

    The rest is, then, what professionals do when playing war games.
    I am sure that some of us here could hammer, working together, several options in a couple of weeks (just with home networks…).

    Personally, I believe, if the war is sold to an average American, it could deliver the goals and objective I mentioned above.

    Now, no plan survives, COMPLETELY, a first shot, but, that’s what history, leadership, fate, God and karma are all about.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Miro23

    The most important, the war effort, on that level, will rejuvenate the economy and bring back those jobs the voters lost. THAT is the primary goal here. Also, could help with internal dissent and anti-immigration effort.

    Personally, I believe, if the war is sold to an average American, it could deliver the goals and objective I mentioned above.
     
    This is something new. The killing of 100's of thousands of Iranians as a Job Creation Scheme to be "sold" to the US public.

    Apart from the amazing lack of morality, is this the best way to invest a trillion dollars? What about spending it instead on rebuilding decayed US infrastructure (as Trump once suggested to get some extra votes)?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  202. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Wally
    Are you saying that all Jews are Zionists?

    Certainly all 'neocons' are.

    Is that your best shot?


    The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the 'holocaust' scam debunked here:
    http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here:
    http://forum.codoh.com
     

    No, but you are equating belief in the Holocaust with being a Zionist, and there is zero connection between the two.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    Perhaps. But as a general rule, the less openly one is willing to look at the fate of Jews in WW2, the more willing one is going to be in supporting most Jewish political interests, including unfettered support for Israel.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  203. Miro23 says:
    @peterAUS
    Well.........this is why Internet forums are bad for serious discussion.

    We know how this is done on a bloody company level, let alone at policy/strategy level.

    We play a game. Which we can not do here.

    And we also know that much better men (and some women I'd imagine) have been doing this for months now in all major power centers of this world.
    And definitely the best and brightest in Iran.
    I mean, if we were that good, we'd be working for either of them and collecting huge paychecks.

    So...if our methodology (or lack thereof) is wrong, effort and result can't be good. Let alone total lack of access to proper data.
    At the other hand we aren't, say, "directed" in a certain direction by our political masters, so...who's to say that our conclusions are THAT bad.
    And, well....if things were simple, we would already see some outcome (at least preparations for a conflict, deployments etc...).

    So, here is the briefest and very crude chain of my thinking.

    Trump administration: bring back jobs, please certain parts of Deep State->a decent regional war would be a good option.

    Iran would please Zionists and weaken Russia. Let's go for it.

    The most important, the war effort, on that level, will rejuvenate the economy and bring back those jobs the voters lost. THAT is the primary goal here. Also, could help with internal dissent and anti-immigration effort.

    Objective is to, at least, weaken the current regime in Iran to the level of inability to project power in the region.
    Again, the war is for DOMESTIC use first and foremost, Iran is just the most convenient.

    That's for policy, now pass to the generals to create strategy.

    Simple: off-stand engagement; simply bomb the country into stone age.
    One problem: Hormuz. Possible solution: occupy that area ONLY if necessary.

    The rest is, then, what professionals do when playing war games.
    I am sure that some of us here could hammer, working together, several options in a couple of weeks (just with home networks...).

    Personally, I believe, if the war is sold to an average American, it could deliver the goals and objective I mentioned above.

    Now, no plan survives, COMPLETELY, a first shot, but, that's what history, leadership, fate, God and karma are all about.

    The most important, the war effort, on that level, will rejuvenate the economy and bring back those jobs the voters lost. THAT is the primary goal here. Also, could help with internal dissent and anti-immigration effort.

    Personally, I believe, if the war is sold to an average American, it could deliver the goals and objective I mentioned above.

    This is something new. The killing of 100′s of thousands of Iranians as a Job Creation Scheme to be “sold” to the US public.

    Apart from the amazing lack of morality, is this the best way to invest a trillion dollars? What about spending it instead on rebuilding decayed US infrastructure (as Trump once suggested to get some extra votes)?

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Am I sensing some 'virtue signalling' here (rhetorical question)?

    You have read "The Prince" I hope.
    Because that's how people in power operate most of the time.
    Not people like you...or me for that matter.
    Those who rule over us.

    Anyway....a couple of comments.

    This is something new.

     

    You mean the statement that "War is good for business"?
    Yeah......

    The killing of 100′s of thousands of Iranians as a Job Creation Scheme to be “sold” to the US public.
     
    No comment really.

    Apart from the amazing lack of morality, is this the best way to invest a trillion dollars? What about spending it instead on rebuilding decayed US infrastructure (as Trump once suggested to get some extra votes)?
     
    Yes....yes....that's how the world works.
    Exactly that way.
    Lucky us.
    , @annamaria
    "Apart from the amazing lack of morality, is this the best way to invest a trillion dollars?"

    Mending infrastructure does not pay much and puts the "contractors" under too much light. Compare the building efforts - whether building the new subway lines or super fast train tracks or providing all bright students with the free graduate education - the "defense of Patria" has become a much better area of profiteering. This is why the war profiteering, under the name "defense of Patriae," has become the bestest resort for the major scoundrels. For example, the Pentagon is not able to explain where the missing $6 trillions (six million million million dollars) gone missing. This is not a joke. http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/6-5-trillion-missing-from-defense-department/
    Some well-connected people have become very wealthy with the bloody money. Look at Wolfowitz, Cheney, Kristol, and Condi Rice - they are congenital psychopaths with a complete atrophy of empathy for other human beings. Same can be said about Obama, Clinton, Kagans clan, and likes. The pictures of dead children, the victims of the war profiteering, are of no concern for these influential deciders. The deciders want money and power, by any means. https://www.google.com/search?q=murdered+children+in+Syria&client=safari&rls=en&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwijv7vWjsvVAhUH2oMKHT_SBYgQ_AUICygC&biw=1323&bih=661

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  204. ritzl says:

    Leaving Saker’s (absolutely correct) observation of total neocon insanity/psychopathy aside for a second, an air war or invasion of Iran would destroy the world (or certainly “Western”) economy. No tankers transiting the Persian Gulf. Limited production on the Saudi side of the Gulf. The oil shock would crumble the economic structure as we know it.

    No, even marginally rational, policymaker would risk that.

    But then, factor back in a “We got ours…”-based psychopathy and it’s anyone’s guess what might happen. Phrases like “It won’t be so bad…” would start to be mouthed and repeated ad nauseam and would signal a run up to apocalypse. Military planning in support of such a monstrously oblivious undertaking would likely also suffer from similar delusions and/or unreality (as Saker also points out).

    Disaster.

    Heh, just occurred to me that this whole need for a Saudi pipeline through Syria might be a way to counter the complete vulnerability of Gulf oil supplies to regional war (with Iran).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  205. prusmc says:
    @fffddd
    I dont believe US can defeat Iran or North Korea, you must remember that North Korea has spent over half a century preparing for a invasion of USA, backed up with resources from USSR and China, they have more ammo and missiles then they know what to do with and as much tunnels as 70 years of preparing to fight an enemy with air superiority will give you.

    When it comes to the military they have millions of fanatic troops, over 200 000 special forces, and millions upon millions of militias to draw upon, they have population that has been heavily indoctrinate from birth for generations to fight off an USA invasion.. Some may argue that NK would fall like Iraq did, but I really dont think it is accurate to compare east asians to arabs. North Koreans will likely throw their babies at American baynets just to give their men a few seconds more to get closer, you are talking about the most indoctrinate population on earth.

    Imagine how hard USA hade taking Fallujah from a few hundred terrorists, imagen then same but with millions of troops that has hade over half a century to prepare. Or Imagine if ISIS got ~70 years to prepare for an USA invasion, backed up by two superpowers flooding it with material, technology and other resources.

    Also, likely, the only way for USA to actually defeat NK would be a full-scale occupation, I doubt the NK leadership would ever surrender no matter what military or civilian casualties they suffered.. While the NK leadership would never surrender and would need to be destroyed, also know that a USA invasion, is exactly what they want. And they will force USA to invade.

    NK pretty much has the capabilities to shutdown South Korea and Japan. From the moment the war starts, Sarin gas will rain over all major Japanese and South Korean cities, everyday, for weeks, and weeks, and months, and years. NK likely has more missiles and more nerve gas stockpile then they know what to do with, and it is all hidden deep within a colossal tunnel network.. Can you imagine it, you could not walk thru Tokyo without the fear that you suddenly would start to cough your lungs out... South Korea and Japan's economies would suffer hugely, and their governments might even collapse.. South Korea capital is within artillery range of NK, so without NK sending its army, it will be able to hit the SK capital with 500 000 rounds of artillery, every hour, there lives around 10 million in SK, needless to say every single individual in the SK capital would want to leave the first 1hours of the war, so millions of millions of SK would be walked on the roads, blocking all traffics, all trainfs, and 80% of all South korans in cities bordering NK would want to leave as well, the entire transport system of South Korea would collapse within the first 24h, there would be lying thousands of dead South Korean children in the streets and ditches, that has died from exposure and lack of water on the roads.

    And NK has the capacity to keep this up pretty much indefinitely, so a US invasion and occupation would be necessary, and while USA has more tanks and planes and better tech, they would be fighting a fanatic population, in the forests and in the mountains and in the cities, and tunnels, and the enemy would never give up unless they were totally destroyed, and the local population would be 95% hostile and riddled with special forces and agents and partisans. And NK would likely get a constant support from China.

    That is why, this attack on or by the DPRK business is an exercise in fantasy. If there was any serious possibility of actual hostilities, South Korea would give the US thirty dsys notice to get out.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  206. Iasi says:

    @ ritzl the Syria pipeline is to immunize world more from OPEC problems and to help Israel with Golan Heights oilfields. Syria is keystone asset in west plan to hold on as China expands Silk Road route for world trade. Oil control keeps leverage in west but costs many innocent lives.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  207. RBHoughton says: • Website

    I wish to ask the Saker for the follow-up to this.

    If we are witnessing the end of wars on the cheap, what comes next?

    How will North America and Europe enforce their will on the rest of the world if we are denied the use of force?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  208. AP says:
    @fffddd
    I dont believe US can defeat Iran or North Korea, you must remember that North Korea has spent over half a century preparing for a invasion of USA, backed up with resources from USSR and China, they have more ammo and missiles then they know what to do with and as much tunnels as 70 years of preparing to fight an enemy with air superiority will give you.

    When it comes to the military they have millions of fanatic troops, over 200 000 special forces, and millions upon millions of militias to draw upon, they have population that has been heavily indoctrinate from birth for generations to fight off an USA invasion.. Some may argue that NK would fall like Iraq did, but I really dont think it is accurate to compare east asians to arabs. North Koreans will likely throw their babies at American baynets just to give their men a few seconds more to get closer, you are talking about the most indoctrinate population on earth.

    Imagine how hard USA hade taking Fallujah from a few hundred terrorists, imagen then same but with millions of troops that has hade over half a century to prepare. Or Imagine if ISIS got ~70 years to prepare for an USA invasion, backed up by two superpowers flooding it with material, technology and other resources.

    Also, likely, the only way for USA to actually defeat NK would be a full-scale occupation, I doubt the NK leadership would ever surrender no matter what military or civilian casualties they suffered.. While the NK leadership would never surrender and would need to be destroyed, also know that a USA invasion, is exactly what they want. And they will force USA to invade.

    NK pretty much has the capabilities to shutdown South Korea and Japan. From the moment the war starts, Sarin gas will rain over all major Japanese and South Korean cities, everyday, for weeks, and weeks, and months, and years. NK likely has more missiles and more nerve gas stockpile then they know what to do with, and it is all hidden deep within a colossal tunnel network.. Can you imagine it, you could not walk thru Tokyo without the fear that you suddenly would start to cough your lungs out... South Korea and Japan's economies would suffer hugely, and their governments might even collapse.. South Korea capital is within artillery range of NK, so without NK sending its army, it will be able to hit the SK capital with 500 000 rounds of artillery, every hour, there lives around 10 million in SK, needless to say every single individual in the SK capital would want to leave the first 1hours of the war, so millions of millions of SK would be walked on the roads, blocking all traffics, all trainfs, and 80% of all South korans in cities bordering NK would want to leave as well, the entire transport system of South Korea would collapse within the first 24h, there would be lying thousands of dead South Korean children in the streets and ditches, that has died from exposure and lack of water on the roads.

    And NK has the capacity to keep this up pretty much indefinitely, so a US invasion and occupation would be necessary, and while USA has more tanks and planes and better tech, they would be fighting a fanatic population, in the forests and in the mountains and in the cities, and tunnels, and the enemy would never give up unless they were totally destroyed, and the local population would be 95% hostile and riddled with special forces and agents and partisans. And NK would likely get a constant support from China.

    For these reasons I would assume that a US attack, should it occur, would either be an assassination of the Leader in order to foster some transition, or a massive nuke strike involving killing millions of people ( a 21st century version of nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki to avoid a costly invasion of Japan). The latter is probably unlikely.

    I can’t imagine the USA allowing the scenarios you describe, which would be the result of a conventional invasion.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  209. peterAUS says:
    @Miro23

    The most important, the war effort, on that level, will rejuvenate the economy and bring back those jobs the voters lost. THAT is the primary goal here. Also, could help with internal dissent and anti-immigration effort.

    Personally, I believe, if the war is sold to an average American, it could deliver the goals and objective I mentioned above.
     
    This is something new. The killing of 100's of thousands of Iranians as a Job Creation Scheme to be "sold" to the US public.

    Apart from the amazing lack of morality, is this the best way to invest a trillion dollars? What about spending it instead on rebuilding decayed US infrastructure (as Trump once suggested to get some extra votes)?

    Am I sensing some ‘virtue signalling’ here (rhetorical question)?

    You have read “The Prince” I hope.
    Because that’s how people in power operate most of the time.
    Not people like you…or me for that matter.
    Those who rule over us.

    Anyway….a couple of comments.

    This is something new.

    You mean the statement that “War is good for business”?
    Yeah……

    The killing of 100′s of thousands of Iranians as a Job Creation Scheme to be “sold” to the US public.

    No comment really.

    Apart from the amazing lack of morality, is this the best way to invest a trillion dollars? What about spending it instead on rebuilding decayed US infrastructure (as Trump once suggested to get some extra votes)?

    Yes….yes….that’s how the world works.
    Exactly that way.
    Lucky us.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  210. Avery says:
    @Kiza
    Whoever you are, you are beyond repair. The problem of unz is that it has been taken over by the sick and the demented. The quality of the discussion has sunk terribly from the early days. Almost all of the original first-class commenters are gone and only the trolls and people like you have overtaken. There are only a few bright sparks here, the rest of comments are like watching Talmud Vision and other MSM. This is why I come here rarely now and only for the articles. You can have this comments board all to yourself, blast it away with your shallowness and stupidity. I will not tell you where there is a much better one or you may wish to come pollute there too.

    {The problem of unz is that it has been taken over by the sick and the demented.}

    Indeed: hysterical, delusional, sick, and demented posters like you.


    {The quality of the discussion has sunk terribly from the early days.}

    Sure has: whose posts are amply filled with scatology again?
    You consider filling your posts with scatology ‘quality discussion’?
    You _are_ demented.

    {Almost all of the original first-class commenters are gone and only the trolls and people like you have overtaken. }

    Yes, very sad indeed: the rest of us are trying to have a level discussion, but paranoid, delusional nuts like you start throwing s___ around. Sorry, should use your favourite word “….nuts like you start throwing poop around”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  211. @Anon
    No, but you are equating belief in the Holocaust with being a Zionist, and there is zero connection between the two.

    Perhaps. But as a general rule, the less openly one is willing to look at the fate of Jews in WW2, the more willing one is going to be in supporting most Jewish political interests, including unfettered support for Israel.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  212. headrick says:
    @Sunbeam

    Last time USAF encountered something even remotely comparable to a second tier Air Defense was in Vietnam and it didn’t end well. Since then, USAF never fought in E(C)CM environment, it simply wasn’t there.
     
    I've always found Vietnam to be fascinating, not from the sociological standpoint (though that is there in spades), but from the military standpoint.

    It seems to me that was the last major conflict in which Air Power alone could have been decisive. The last one before all these AA missiles started getting good, and radar widespread. Not mention things like MANPADS.

    Yet it wasn't. As you mention Vietnam did involve some air defense and the North Vietnamese occasionally did mount an air operation. We did lose planes and helicopters.

    But it was still a significant conflict with some foreign involvement (aside from the US), and the US could operate with relative impunity in the air. Yet that jungle cover defeated all the temporary advantages the US had in that conflict.

    If Vietnam had Iraq's geography, there is a good chance it could have ended differently (and that isn't jingoism). The US went all out in that one in a way it hasn't done since WWII, and is unlikely to do in the future. Korea may have been more intense at times, but Vietnam went on and on and on, and the US kept trying.

    I also think someone needs to discuss what the Serbs managed to do against modern air power during Clinton's bombing campaign. Those guys were very clever. I'm sure we studied what went wrong in that, but the same could be said for Iran or North Korea. Not to mention I imagine both Russia and China will give Iran at least, all the free tactical advice they could ever want.

    Milosevic was a modern man, and he broke because he could not flush hit toilet, use the elevator or air conditioner. If you go after a more primitive enemy like Iran in the countryside or North Korea, or Afghanistan, these people will not be crushed if denied modern convenience.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  213. @utu
    Iran’s escalation on land

    Where? Iraq or Afghanistan? In two weeks they will run out of supplies. And in the meantime main cites in Iran will be w/o electricity and water.

    I remember when Iraq invaded Iran in 1980, vast majority of Western military experts predicted that the war will last only a few weeks, 3 months at most. Because both sides would run out of weapons and ammunitions. That war lasted 8 years.
    Saudi Arabia has been bombing Yemen for over 2 years, AND has boots on the ground there. Can you tell us when will Saudis achieve their aims in Yemen and stop bombing?
    Without even being present in Iraq, Iran made it hell for Americans fighting there. Iran with vast resources at its disposal in the Gulf, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Afghanistan and elsewhere in the region will cause enough US casualties for Americans to probably decide to leave the Middle East for good.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  214. @peterAUS
    Randal probably won't reply for obvious reasons.

    I will, because you got it so wrong that some sort of reply is needed.

    The question here is; what goal the American air superiority over Iran is to serve?
     
    I'll go from the best case scenario to the worst (best for USA that is).
    1. Regime change in Iran. When people have enough of misery they could do something about it. Or regime itself simply quits because can't stand all that destruction and killings.
    2. Create permanent chaos in Iran.
    3. Destroy Iran's infrastructure so bad that it will cease to be any threat for years to come (threat to US interests that is).

    Is it at all likely that the Islamic regime will collapse under the pressure of air assaults? Certainly not.
     
    Nobody knows.

    There is no point in discussing US air dominance over Iran without knowing what Americans want to achieve with it.
     
    Read 1, 2 and 3.

    Saker has pointed out the US military targeting Iran will not have the benefit of boots on the ground.
     
    Nobody knows.
    Randal did elaborate on that in this thread. Maybe you could take a look. Hint:US general populace didn't want to get involved in WW2.

    Without boots on the ground in Iran, American assets in the region would be at the mercy of Iran’s escalation on land. US air superiority over Iran cannot answer Iranian escalations taking place on the ground all over the region.
     
    Yes it can if it destroys all that on the ground; or destroys all logistical infrastructure for those forces; or destroys all communication infrastructure; etc...

    In conventional warfare Iran will possess the lever of military escalation.
     
    No it will not if, in simple language, bombing from far away is effective.

    America’s choice in that case would be 1) cut losses, cease hostilities and admit defeat, or 2) resort to nuclear option.
     
    And maybe it can simply keep bombing and bombing........why not? Just.....keep........bombing..........

    Who/what is to stop Americans from keeping bombing?
    Russians...Chinese?
    How?
    Ah, yes...no more bombs in stocks, tired pilots/crews, spent technique requiring repairs/overhauls. Well....wouldn't that be exactly what MIC want?
    And, BTW, what could bring jobs.....back....?

    I do know that all above is crude oversimplification, but, sometimes it helps to cut to the chase.

    Your points 1, 2 and 3 do not hold water.
    — US bombing Iran will not cause the demise of the regime. Just the opposite will be the case. Bombing will solidify people’s resistance.
    — Iranians united and fought Iraq for 8 years despite the chaos created by the Saddam invasion in 1980.
    — America and the world order depending on stability of the region will pay a very high price for every infrastructure destroyed by the US bombings. Iran will have the ability of mercilessly attacking American personnel and assets, which there are plenty of in the region.
    The whole point here is why should Americans risk so much to topple a regime thousands of miles from their shore? Would you do it?

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    Would you do it?
     
    Curious. Why are you so interested in what I would do?
    I am not at all interested in what ANY of posters here would do.
    But, if it helps, sure, you, morally, are totally superior to me. OK now? Feeling better? We can move on back to the topic?

    What I am interested in is what the people who rule over us would do.
    US administration in particular (because the rest of West will simply line up when told).
    And, watching what's been happening since elections my take is "yes".

    As for the rest:
    1. Being in war against Iraq just after the revolution is not the same as being smashed into pieces by western forces now.
    2. As above, plus "divide and impera" has been optimized since Iraq-Iranian war.
    3. That's what the war games all about. I believe that the reward (for US) outweighs the risk. Or, gains outweigh loses.
    4.As for why I do believe that I've made it clear.

    Now, when you are on the topic, what do you think?
    Would a war against, say, Iran, bring back jobs to USA (working class and lower middle class jobs that is)? Imagine rearming/resupplying western armed forces and war effort in general.
    Would the same/similar war help Trump to silence all that dissent?
    And, would the same war help Trump administration to proceed with immigration issue as promised?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  215. Ivan K. says:
    @Kiza

    Saker: ...example would be Kosovo in 1998-1999 when a huge operation involved the entire NATO air forces which lasted for 78 days ... resulted in exactly nothing: a few destroyed APCs, a few old aircraft destroyed on the ground, and a Serbian Army Corps which was unscathed, but which Milosevic ordered to withdraw for personal, political reasons.
     
    I do not know what Ivashov and Kokoshin disclosed, but Saker is somewhat wrong in the above. Firstly, the NATO bombing of Serbia was not a huge operation, they actually started at relatively low intensity expecting Milosevic to fold quickly and had to quickly bring in more resources (planes and crews mainly to Italy and Hungary). Even then the number of sorties was relatively modest and mainly because Serbia is a very small country (not much to bomb). A Spanish pilot is remembered for saying - you blink and you are already in Romania or Bulgaria. Secondly, and much more importantly Milosevic did not order withdrawal from Kosovo because of "personal and political reasons". Saker has some local fool feeding him such rubbish (this is not the first time). This is what really happened:

    US, Canada and Britain started openly blasting civilian object (e.g. double-tapping the Varvarin bridge full of people in the middle of a market day) and killing tens of civilians by each bombing, whilst openly promising carpet bombing justified by the usual MSM stories of hundreds of thousands of Albanians killed. The goal of such war crimes was to demoralize Serbia and terminate the resistance: help is coming from nowhere and we can do whatever we like. We have to remember that this was the time soon after the collapse of the Soviet Union when SU/Russia was in total chaos (e.g. stories in the Western MSM about the Russian soldiers growing cabbage to survive) and under the thumb of the US-Russian Jewish mafia. Also, the Chinese Embassy has just been bombed, thus China was unlikely to provide any more support, when Milosevic was desperately looking for someone to help. The Chinese gave him a little bit of money in return for the US technology he delivered to them (stealth plane and several drones shot-down) and that was all.

    In other words, the bombing of Serbia happened in the middle of the peak hubris of the West (we won and our Reich will last forever) and Serbia and Milosevic were just the unluckiest people in the world at the time, chosen to be thrown up against the wall just to show the World who is the boss now, SU/Russia down and China rising but still too small. For US, Serbia was not important, it was only important to show that nobody can help you if you do not do what you are told by the Empire, even if you are in Europe.

    For US, Serbia was not important, it was only important to show that nobody can help you if you do not do what you are told by the Empire, even if you are in Europe.

    Also:
    o During the mid-to-late nineties’ negotiations with the Serbian side, the American side showed striking interest in something that had NOthing to do with the Balkan issues. They would repeatedly bring up their interest in keeping their troops in Germany. War in former Yugoslavia? Leave that alone, our troops in Germany, they’d say, we have to publicly justify our military presence in the heart of Europe. (This information was relayed by people without the slightest special sympathy for Germany.)
    o And of course having Kosovo as a base: military, for trafficking, for economic plunder, and as a stage for finishing off with Serbia as a serious player, thus ensuring balkanisation and instability, as a precondition for their dominance.

    technological secrets to the Chinese for a US$300M (ostensibly) loan.

    I thought it uncontroversial that the B-52 went back to the US, as Washington had sent a message that it would cost Belgrade dearly if it starts playing WW3 on its own by delivering Pentagon’s precious technological secrets to a third party.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    If you are trying to say that the US troops in Germany were looking for a new home in Kosovo, you are right. The US knows that its bases in Germany are on a borrowed time, the bases in Eastern Europe and in the Balkans are closer to Russia and its future needs in Europe.

    Also, it is impressive how the drug trafficking, sex-slave and human organ trafficking tend to follow US military bases. And the US soldiers and mercenaries (one and the same) are usually only the muscle for such trade, someone else operates the trade. Afghanistan, Kosovo etc.

    Finally, whatever the US bombing of the Chinese embassy did not destroy was taken apart and transferred to China on direct commercial flights which operated at the time. Such tech transfer helped China save about 10 years in military development. It is the best revenge Milosevic could have on the Anglo-Zionist scumbags beyond his grave, 10 years less of the Scumbag Empire.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  216. peterAUS says:
    @Aren Haich
    Your points 1, 2 and 3 do not hold water.
    --- US bombing Iran will not cause the demise of the regime. Just the opposite will be the case. Bombing will solidify people’s resistance.
    --- Iranians united and fought Iraq for 8 years despite the chaos created by the Saddam invasion in 1980.
    --- America and the world order depending on stability of the region will pay a very high price for every infrastructure destroyed by the US bombings. Iran will have the ability of mercilessly attacking American personnel and assets, which there are plenty of in the region.
    The whole point here is why should Americans risk so much to topple a regime thousands of miles from their shore? Would you do it?

    Would you do it?

    Curious. Why are you so interested in what I would do?
    I am not at all interested in what ANY of posters here would do.
    But, if it helps, sure, you, morally, are totally superior to me. OK now? Feeling better? We can move on back to the topic?

    What I am interested in is what the people who rule over us would do.
    US administration in particular (because the rest of West will simply line up when told).
    And, watching what’s been happening since elections my take is “yes”.

    As for the rest:
    1. Being in war against Iraq just after the revolution is not the same as being smashed into pieces by western forces now.
    2. As above, plus “divide and impera” has been optimized since Iraq-Iranian war.
    3. That’s what the war games all about. I believe that the reward (for US) outweighs the risk. Or, gains outweigh loses.
    4.As for why I do believe that I’ve made it clear.

    Now, when you are on the topic, what do you think?
    Would a war against, say, Iran, bring back jobs to USA (working class and lower middle class jobs that is)? Imagine rearming/resupplying western armed forces and war effort in general.
    Would the same/similar war help Trump to silence all that dissent?
    And, would the same war help Trump administration to proceed with immigration issue as promised?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Aren Haich
    I asked, “Would you do it?” because your answers smack of so much ‘wishful thinking’.
    Your wishful thinking leads to imagine that America can “smash to pieces” a country the size of Western Europe with 80 million people living in it - without resorting to nuclear weapons.
    The US and its allies despite boots on the ground, and using more bombs than all the explosive power used in WWII could not even “smash to pieces” Vietnam.
    Your wishful thinking and without having any basis in facts, somehow sees a resilient country with advanced indigenous military infrastructure falling apart under bombing campaigns conducted from aircraft carriers a long way from targets.
    You might imagine these scenarios at your leisure; but American generals actually in charge have long ago conducted war games on this subject and have come up empty.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  217. annamaria says:
    @Miro23

    The most important, the war effort, on that level, will rejuvenate the economy and bring back those jobs the voters lost. THAT is the primary goal here. Also, could help with internal dissent and anti-immigration effort.

    Personally, I believe, if the war is sold to an average American, it could deliver the goals and objective I mentioned above.
     
    This is something new. The killing of 100's of thousands of Iranians as a Job Creation Scheme to be "sold" to the US public.

    Apart from the amazing lack of morality, is this the best way to invest a trillion dollars? What about spending it instead on rebuilding decayed US infrastructure (as Trump once suggested to get some extra votes)?

    “Apart from the amazing lack of morality, is this the best way to invest a trillion dollars?”

    Mending infrastructure does not pay much and puts the “contractors” under too much light. Compare the building efforts – whether building the new subway lines or super fast train tracks or providing all bright students with the free graduate education – the “defense of Patria” has become a much better area of profiteering. This is why the war profiteering, under the name “defense of Patriae,” has become the bestest resort for the major scoundrels. For example, the Pentagon is not able to explain where the missing $6 trillions (six million million million dollars) gone missing. This is not a joke. http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/6-5-trillion-missing-from-defense-department/
    Some well-connected people have become very wealthy with the bloody money. Look at Wolfowitz, Cheney, Kristol, and Condi Rice – they are congenital psychopaths with a complete atrophy of empathy for other human beings. Same can be said about Obama, Clinton, Kagans clan, and likes. The pictures of dead children, the victims of the war profiteering, are of no concern for these influential deciders. The deciders want money and power, by any means. https://www.google.com/search?q=murdered+children+in+Syria&client=safari&rls=en&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwijv7vWjsvVAhUH2oMKHT_SBYgQ_AUICygC&biw=1323&bih=661

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  218. Kiza says:
    @Ivan K.

    For US, Serbia was not important, it was only important to show that nobody can help you if you do not do what you are told by the Empire, even if you are in Europe.
     
    Also:
    o During the mid-to-late nineties' negotiations with the Serbian side, the American side showed striking interest in something that had NOthing to do with the Balkan issues. They would repeatedly bring up their interest in keeping their troops in Germany. War in former Yugoslavia? Leave that alone, our troops in Germany, they'd say, we have to publicly justify our military presence in the heart of Europe. (This information was relayed by people without the slightest special sympathy for Germany.)
    o And of course having Kosovo as a base: military, for trafficking, for economic plunder, and as a stage for finishing off with Serbia as a serious player, thus ensuring balkanisation and instability, as a precondition for their dominance.

    technological secrets to the Chinese for a US$300M (ostensibly) loan.
     
    I thought it uncontroversial that the B-52 went back to the US, as Washington had sent a message that it would cost Belgrade dearly if it starts playing WW3 on its own by delivering Pentagon's precious technological secrets to a third party.

    If you are trying to say that the US troops in Germany were looking for a new home in Kosovo, you are right. The US knows that its bases in Germany are on a borrowed time, the bases in Eastern Europe and in the Balkans are closer to Russia and its future needs in Europe.

    Also, it is impressive how the drug trafficking, sex-slave and human organ trafficking tend to follow US military bases. And the US soldiers and mercenaries (one and the same) are usually only the muscle for such trade, someone else operates the trade. Afghanistan, Kosovo etc.

    Finally, whatever the US bombing of the Chinese embassy did not destroy was taken apart and transferred to China on direct commercial flights which operated at the time. Such tech transfer helped China save about 10 years in military development. It is the best revenge Milosevic could have on the Anglo-Zionist scumbags beyond his grave, 10 years less of the Scumbag Empire.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ivan K.

    If you are trying to say that the US troops in Germany were looking for a new home in Kosovo, you are right.
     
    Plausibly they did. For the record, I wanted to make a different point: that, arguably, US sought any crisis in Europe in order to use it as a justification for keeping its troops in Germany.

    Finally, whatever the US bombing of the Chinese embassy did not destroy was taken apart and transferred to China on direct commercial flights which operated at the time.
     
    Ah, I see.

    Such tech transfer helped China save about 10 years in military development.
     
    I guess transfer of information from USSR was much more massive and useful:

    Andrei Martyanov: literally plane loads of technical documentation were taken out of former USSR by Chinese.
    https://www.unz.com/freed/china-tech-interesting-bits-and-pieces/#comment-1921874

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  219. Ivan K. says:
    @Kiza
    If you are trying to say that the US troops in Germany were looking for a new home in Kosovo, you are right. The US knows that its bases in Germany are on a borrowed time, the bases in Eastern Europe and in the Balkans are closer to Russia and its future needs in Europe.

    Also, it is impressive how the drug trafficking, sex-slave and human organ trafficking tend to follow US military bases. And the US soldiers and mercenaries (one and the same) are usually only the muscle for such trade, someone else operates the trade. Afghanistan, Kosovo etc.

    Finally, whatever the US bombing of the Chinese embassy did not destroy was taken apart and transferred to China on direct commercial flights which operated at the time. Such tech transfer helped China save about 10 years in military development. It is the best revenge Milosevic could have on the Anglo-Zionist scumbags beyond his grave, 10 years less of the Scumbag Empire.

    If you are trying to say that the US troops in Germany were looking for a new home in Kosovo, you are right.

    Plausibly they did. For the record, I wanted to make a different point: that, arguably, US sought any crisis in Europe in order to use it as a justification for keeping its troops in Germany.

    Finally, whatever the US bombing of the Chinese embassy did not destroy was taken apart and transferred to China on direct commercial flights which operated at the time.

    Ah, I see.

    Such tech transfer helped China save about 10 years in military development.

    I guess transfer of information from USSR was much more massive and useful:

    Andrei Martyanov: literally plane loads of technical documentation were taken out of former USSR by Chinese.

    https://www.unz.com/freed/china-tech-interesting-bits-and-pieces/#comment-1921874

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    I personally know a guy who has sold the Russian advanced ceramics technology for bullet proof vests to the Chinese for one good salary over two years. Tens of millions, possibly a hundred for $500K.

    The whole Chinese space program is of Russian origin.

    Even to this day, China is buying the most bleeding-edge Russian tech for a few billion in small-series purchases of planes, radars and similar to copy.

    Russia is the main source of the military tech for the whole BRICS, except that each member wants to copy it on its own, no cooperation.

    Yet, my main point was that Milosevic took revenge on the Anglo-Zionists beyond his grave by shortening the life of their evil empire which killed him.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  220. Kiza says:
    @Ivan K.

    If you are trying to say that the US troops in Germany were looking for a new home in Kosovo, you are right.
     
    Plausibly they did. For the record, I wanted to make a different point: that, arguably, US sought any crisis in Europe in order to use it as a justification for keeping its troops in Germany.

    Finally, whatever the US bombing of the Chinese embassy did not destroy was taken apart and transferred to China on direct commercial flights which operated at the time.
     
    Ah, I see.

    Such tech transfer helped China save about 10 years in military development.
     
    I guess transfer of information from USSR was much more massive and useful:

    Andrei Martyanov: literally plane loads of technical documentation were taken out of former USSR by Chinese.
    https://www.unz.com/freed/china-tech-interesting-bits-and-pieces/#comment-1921874

    I personally know a guy who has sold the Russian advanced ceramics technology for bullet proof vests to the Chinese for one good salary over two years. Tens of millions, possibly a hundred for $500K.

    The whole Chinese space program is of Russian origin.

    Even to this day, China is buying the most bleeding-edge Russian tech for a few billion in small-series purchases of planes, radars and similar to copy.

    Russia is the main source of the military tech for the whole BRICS, except that each member wants to copy it on its own, no cooperation.

    Yet, my main point was that Milosevic took revenge on the Anglo-Zionists beyond his grave by shortening the life of their evil empire which killed him.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  221. @peterAUS

    Would you do it?
     
    Curious. Why are you so interested in what I would do?
    I am not at all interested in what ANY of posters here would do.
    But, if it helps, sure, you, morally, are totally superior to me. OK now? Feeling better? We can move on back to the topic?

    What I am interested in is what the people who rule over us would do.
    US administration in particular (because the rest of West will simply line up when told).
    And, watching what's been happening since elections my take is "yes".

    As for the rest:
    1. Being in war against Iraq just after the revolution is not the same as being smashed into pieces by western forces now.
    2. As above, plus "divide and impera" has been optimized since Iraq-Iranian war.
    3. That's what the war games all about. I believe that the reward (for US) outweighs the risk. Or, gains outweigh loses.
    4.As for why I do believe that I've made it clear.

    Now, when you are on the topic, what do you think?
    Would a war against, say, Iran, bring back jobs to USA (working class and lower middle class jobs that is)? Imagine rearming/resupplying western armed forces and war effort in general.
    Would the same/similar war help Trump to silence all that dissent?
    And, would the same war help Trump administration to proceed with immigration issue as promised?

    I asked, “Would you do it?” because your answers smack of so much ‘wishful thinking’.
    Your wishful thinking leads to imagine that America can “smash to pieces” a country the size of Western Europe with 80 million people living in it – without resorting to nuclear weapons.
    The US and its allies despite boots on the ground, and using more bombs than all the explosive power used in WWII could not even “smash to pieces” Vietnam.
    Your wishful thinking and without having any basis in facts, somehow sees a resilient country with advanced indigenous military infrastructure falling apart under bombing campaigns conducted from aircraft carriers a long way from targets.
    You might imagine these scenarios at your leisure; but American generals actually in charge have long ago conducted war games on this subject and have come up empty.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    Your wishful thinking leads to imagine that America can “smash to pieces” a country the size of Western Europe with 80 million people living in it – without resorting to nuclear weapons.
     
    Correction: Western powers, with local allies, can destroy Iranian infrastructure without resorting to nuclear weapons.

    The level of PRECISION power wasn't the same in Vietnam.
    Plus, more importantly, it was Soviet ...anyway....if you don't get the difference I give up on "Vietnam thing".

    Your wishful thinking and without having any basis in facts, somehow sees a resilient country with advanced indigenous military infrastructure falling apart under bombing campaigns conducted from aircraft carriers a long way from targets.
     
    Correction: Iran infrastructure destroyed by stand-off effort by West and its allies in the region.
    I get that people get fixated to aircraft carriers, but, OBVIOUSLY, there is much more to that.

    American generals actually in charge have long ago conducted war games on this subject and have come up empty.
     
    Aha.
    Source, please.
    , @peterAUS
    Clicked on "Publish..." too early.

    Further to my previous post, I guess I tried to clarify my thoughts.

    Now, would you indulge me in clarifying yours on related issues?
    I'll repeat them, for clarity.

    Would a war against, say, Iran, bring back jobs to USA (working class and lower middle class jobs that is)? Imagine rearming/resupplying western armed forces and war effort in general.
    Would the same/similar war help Trump to silence all that dissent?
    And, would the same war help Trump administration to proceed with immigration issue as promised?

    Three simple questions.
    Yes/no/maybe/no idea/nobody knows, would suffice.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments