Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!

Iran Threatens the U.S. with "Consequences" for Israel Support

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by chemgator, Nov 29, 2023.

  1. tampagtr

    tampagtr VIP Member

    17,634
    2,881
    1,618
    Apr 3, 2007
    Passing on what I see

     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. exiledgator

    exiledgator Gruntled

    11,284
    2,019
    3,128
    Jan 5, 2010
    Maine
    I want to give this post a dislike, but I'll just write it out and not give you neg rep
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  3. tampagtr

    tampagtr VIP Member

    17,634
    2,881
    1,618
    Apr 3, 2007
    Kevin Drum makes a lot of sense today, and he's not even that well read on this specific issue.

    The Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen have been attacking Western shipping in the Red Sea. Over at National Review, Charles Cooke says we need to teach them a lesson:

    We’re trying to get on with our lives peacefully, and they’re interrupting it. And if the consequence of us dealing with it is that they escalate it, then we escalate it further until we blow them out of the water. It’s just very simple. This is statecraft 101.

    Well, maybe not quite so simple. Most of the Houthi attacks are coming from ground-based drones and missiles, not ships on the sea. We're trying to destroy this capability, but it's virtually impossible to get it done solely via air attacks. To truly eliminate the threat you have to eliminate the Houthis, and that means boots on the ground.

    And even that might not work. After all, Saudi Arabia has been fighting the Houthis for close to a decade with no apparent effect. The Houthis continued lobbing missiles into the Kingdom the entire time until a precarious truce was negotiated in 2022. The Saudis never even came close to destroying Houthi missile capability.

    This is the problem with the default conservative position on war, which is basically "Hulk smash." It sounds good, but even the US has limits. We can't escalate every conflict infinitely, and the last couple of decades have surely taught us that even when we try it doesn't always work. Who runs Afghanistan these days after 20 years of American war and 2,400 American dead?


    Should we declare all-out war on the Houthis? - Kevin Drum
     
  4. tampagtr

    tampagtr VIP Member

    17,634
    2,881
    1,618
    Apr 3, 2007
    FYI

     
  5. tampagtr

    tampagtr VIP Member

    17,634
    2,881
    1,618
    Apr 3, 2007
    They found a vulnerability, likely because it was in Jordan. Maybe we didn't consider that a likely target. Either way, the war we've been trying to avoid is being thrust upon us. Too bad there's not a way to avoid it because it's hard to imagine it ends well for us in terms of our overall strategic goals. It may have been the Republican Guard acting rogue but it doesn't matter. It happened

     
  6. uftaipan

    uftaipan GC Hall of Fame

    9,234
    2,165
    1,483
    May 31, 2007
    Fresno, CA
    I know this base well. The unit I came from before school has people there right now. Waiting to hear if it was any of them.
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 5
    • Informative Informative x 1
  7. tampagtr

    tampagtr VIP Member

    17,634
    2,881
    1,618
    Apr 3, 2007
    God Bless. So sorry. Hoping
     
  8. duggers_dad

    duggers_dad GC Hall of Fame

    16,799
    1,240
    2,088
    Jan 5, 2022
    Pictured: a Starbucks in Tehran …

    upload_2024-1-28_15-41-49.jpeg
     
  9. G8trGr8t

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    32,721
    12,211
    3,693
    Aug 26, 2008
    proportionate response options?

    disproportionate response scenario that is past due?
     
  10. uftaipan

    uftaipan GC Hall of Fame

    9,234
    2,165
    1,483
    May 31, 2007
    Fresno, CA
    Wish I knew enough to give you an unemotional response.
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  11. ATLGATORFAN

    ATLGATORFAN Premium Member

    3,770
    989
    2,153
    Aug 10, 2015
    There’s a phrase nobody in or intimately involved with kinetic operations ever says. “ was our response proportional?” Stunningly naive and exceptionally dangerous
     
    • Disagree Bacon! Disagree Bacon! x 1
  12. G8trGr8t

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    32,721
    12,211
    3,693
    Aug 26, 2008
    they need to hurt the IGRC and quit playing whack a mole with the proxy of the day. it doesn't need to be spectacular, just efficient. plausible deniability isn't a bad thing imo
     
  13. uftaipan

    uftaipan GC Hall of Fame

    9,234
    2,165
    1,483
    May 31, 2007
    Fresno, CA
    No, but it is something with which civilian policy makers need to be concerned. And they should be as emotionally detached as possible when considering responses. When you do something just to do something, you get what happened after that suicide bombing at HKIA during the strategic retreat from Afghanistan. We “struck back” in a manner that I thought was awfully fast (since I’ve seen in previous cases that it usually takes a lot longer to build up an intelligence and strike package) and “called it even,” just to learn we killed a humanitarian aid worker who delivered water around Kabul. Jake Sullivan et al felt real good about delivering swift justice until the smoke cleared.

    Newly Declassified Video Shows U.S. Killing of 10 Civilians in Drone Strike (Published 2022).
     
  14. gatorios24

    gatorios24 All American

    453
    19
    243
    Apr 3, 2007
    Gainesville, FL
    Joe Biden's Neville Chamberlain appeasement approach is not working
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Come On Man Come On Man x 1
  15. ATLGATORFAN

    ATLGATORFAN Premium Member

    3,770
    989
    2,153
    Aug 10, 2015
    100% agreement. When you do something to do it it’s usually a poor choice. Tactically and strategically. I was referencing being the guy on the ground….on the receiving end of bad guys doing bad guys things, then getting knee capped and tasked with sending a ‘proportional response’. Of course that order was originated from someone 6,000 miles away
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. G8trGr8t

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    32,721
    12,211
    3,693
    Aug 26, 2008
    it isn't appeasement as much as it is smallball
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. uftaipan

    uftaipan GC Hall of Fame

    9,234
    2,165
    1,483
    May 31, 2007
    Fresno, CA
    I have to agree. There has been a fair amount of failed appeasement toward Iran in this administration, especially in 2021 through roughly summer 2022, but I cannot think of any examples since October 7th.
     
  18. AlfaGator

    AlfaGator VIP Member

    50,117
    129,027
    14,355
    Aug 31, 2007
    Don't. Don't. Don't.....
     
    • Wish I would have said that Wish I would have said that x 1
  19. okeechobee

    okeechobee GC Hall of Fame

    10,918
    1,427
    678
    Sep 11, 2022
    Isn't it normalization that got us here? If you don't hit back and hit back hard, they'll just keep doing it. While I agree Iran wants American troops involved, I'm not sure how that accomplishes much for their overall agenda. I mean, don't we already have huge bases and large amounts of troops in Jordan, Qatar, several other spots in the region? Yes, I realize we aren't returning fire for the most part, but the allowance of small attacks here and there is likely what led us to this point. Iran testing how far they can push us. I don't think the rest of the ME is going to turn on the U.S. if we carry out justice.
     
  20. okeechobee

    okeechobee GC Hall of Fame

    10,918
    1,427
    678
    Sep 11, 2022
    Part of the problem. The administration is going to be forced to do a complete about face and that has its own risks at home politically. Frankly, I don't think Biden/Sullivan will do much about this and it will be left to Herr Trump to lay the hammer down. Many around Biden consider him a lame duck already, whether they admit to it or not.