Opinion: Iran’s brazenness is paying off, giving the U.S. few options

Marketwatch ^ | Sept 17, 2019 11:04 a.m. ET | Reva Goujon

[Zhang Fei]

A strategy paying dividends

Ultimately, Iran’s summer brinkmanship paid off. First, Tehran demonstrated that it poses a highly credible military threat to the Strait of Hormuz. Second, it exposed Trump’s extreme reticence about engulfing the United States in another Middle Eastern war. Third, rather than bring European powers closer to the U.S. sanctions strategy on Iran, Tehran’s threat to commerce in one of the world’s busiest shipping lanes sent the Elysee into a diplomatic frenzy, paving the way for Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif’s surprise visit to the G-7 in Biarritz to discuss a French proposal for a $15 billion oil-backed credit line. Fourth, it laid bare the growing skittishness of Trump’s Gulf supporters, who have a lot to lose from an actual war in the Persian Gulf.

And fifth, the United States’ struggle to cobble together a maritime coalition to deter Iranian tanker attacks exposed the diplomatic cost of the White House’s unilateral policies on Iran: Only Australia, Bahrain and the United Kingdom have joined the U.S.-led mission. Japan, for one, says it will run its own patrols in the Bab el-Mandeb strait between Yemen and Djibouti as part of anti-piracy missions, while India is conducting independent patrols. And before Boris Johnson became British prime minister, London boldly said it would launch a European-led mission apart from the U.S.-led undertaking; Johnson has since reversed course to join Washington, but European defense chiefs are still debating an EU-only coalition.

But regardless of which country is part of which mission, there are simply too many vessels transiting the narrow Strait of Hormuz and not enough military escorts to prevent Iran from launching further attacks. In other words, the United States (and its allies) are still faced with a massive dilemma in trying to deter the Islamic republic.

[gaijin]

Sans fracking I haven’t the tiniest doubt their War Ploy would work.

With fracking..?

Hmmmm....

Adulterated in a fell way, US politics are such that I must conceed Iran might still succeed, to the great benefit of more than two major foreign entities.

[Zhang Fei]

[Just me or does this read as if it’s meant to cheese Trump off and embarrass him into action?]

---

The author supports Obama’s deal with Iran. He is pointing out that if Trump proves unwilling to strike Iran regardless of what it does to its Arab neighbors, Iran will complete its nuclear weapon and start using it to improve its situation in the region. For instance, a nuclear attack on neighboring oil fields will spike oil to $200, thereby making it a lot easier to sell sanctioned Iranian oil to desperate 3rd World countries looking to keep their economies from going into depression.

[V V Camp Enari 67-68]

Finally! I have been thinking the same but haven’t recognized the opportunity to write it in a thread. Been really busy outside getting things ready for the coming winter. Thanks!

[BenLurkin]

HEADLINE: “Tulsi Gabbard says U.S. should re-enter Iran nuclear deal, end sanctions in response to Saudi Arabia drone attack”

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3779965/posts

[datricker]

I half wonder if the Israel sold them and stole their nuclear program - it seems very mossad

[datricker]

Its not that. Its how we intervene. Rather than do the right thing and carpet bomb Tehran with napam telling them next time we turn this place to glass bitch. We send people to die an hold land.

we do tactical reciprocal strikes. You want it to stop use weapons on the population centers and the strategic targets.

Until then we don't need this crap about how we got to do something. All that does is end up killing more people over a longer period of time and nobody gets the message.

Get rid of your damn Mullahs - we're done next time we end civilization here for awhile

[jdsteel]

“The Trump sanctions are infact killing Iran.“

Iran is suffering 40% inflation and 40% unemployment, almost no oil revenue and weekly protests.

Of course, the Mullahs won’t go down quietly. But all we need to do is keep ‘em in the stranglehold.

[nathanbedford]

the Iranians are pushing on an open door,

The Iranians are pushing but the door is hardly open. The sanctions have had remarkable effect on on the Iranian economy, unemployment is approaching 40%, inflation exceeds 50%, unrest in the streets is chronic.

The question is why are they pushing against any door, open or closed? One would think that they would be far more preoccupied with the survival of their regime than with whatever satisfaction they gain from random acts of terror, piracy or aggression against Saudi Arabia.

When an adversary acts contrary to customary expectations as Iran has been doing, one must ask, why?

We cannot entirely discount that Iran is a theocratic regime bent on Armageddon. But why would they want to bring it on now before they have the bomb? The timing is wrong so I think their motivation lies elsewhere.

Another real, very real possibility: they are in fact desperate and are desperate to change the game. They are hoping to have some sort of a limited military exchange, preferably with the United States, that might lose Trump's reelection, terrify Europe into withdrawing from the sanctions, shore up crumbling domestic support for the regime, somehow change the game before the regime crumbles.

Another possibility which we ought not to discount out of hand: the Russians are pulling the strings for a number of reasons beyond their chronic desire to frustrate the United States, the Russians really need the price of oil to go up, hence the pirating of ships, the attack on the Saudi oil refineries. Russians are historical allies of convenience with Iran and some sort of coordination might be the key to understanding.

For the Iranians to raise the price of oil in this fashion courts increased sanctions and decreased ability by the Iranians to evade the sanctions. Therefore, I have not much confidence in this theory that you have expressed. One of the ones posed above seems to be far more likely.

[rdcbn]

Patience

President Trump is going to act at the time and place of his choosing

Now is not a good time, especially in light of the ongoing Israeli election drama.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

I’m a strong believer in both unconventional operations and “plausible deniability”. Iran has major vulnerabilities that could throw a monkey wrench into their schemes, severely foul their economy, and strongly undermine their regime.

A major element of such an unconventional element would be with the US and two allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia, each of whom have very different capabilities that could work in concert.

The US could take out much of Iran’s surface and submarine fleet, all at once, perhaps using Chinese made limpet mines and other weapons. Israel could sabotage or even destroy several major hydroelectric dams, costing them a lot of electricity and water.

And the Saudi army would act as an active threat to keep the Iranian army out in the field and out of the cities. This would just require a mobilization and staging area, as well as deploying anti-missile defenses.

[Jim Noble]

This has been done by almost every president since Truman

And you can judge the practice by its results.

[buckalfa]

You do not post often, but when you do I find your message to be well reasoned.

[Kazan]

And what, in the US Constitution or the US Code, would give him the authority to do that?

The same one that has justified every single military action taken by a President.

An Iran with nuclear weapons is grave threat to the this country and the world.

You sound like Valerie Jarrett or Susan Rice.

[Kazan]

The Trump sanctions are infact killing Iran. The Iranian lash out is in response to the sanctions.

Pooor Iran! Let's reinstate Obama's nuclear deal with Iran!

Are we dealing with Russian trolls here?

[GOPJ]

The Iranians believe the US will back off when American blood is spilled... and they’re pushing to get to that point.

We can’t do this on their time schedule.

Our plan is to assume this could be a long and deadly war.. and to make plans to ‘win on first strike’ IF we must go to war with Iran. NOT slowly escalate... IF we must go to War with them have it over on Day 2...

[Kazan]

Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBGPw_LBiRA

[Jim Noble]

The President has never had authority to take the States and the People to a pre-emptive war.

[Jim Noble]

Rather than do the right thing and carpet bomb Tehran

We bombed Germany for years, including what is now called "carpet bombing", and the resistance of their population AND their weapons production increased.

[Kazan]

The more the US retrains itself from looking like a trigger happy aggressor

Like Bill Clinton did with Al Qaeda? Or like the approach Obama took to ISIS?

At some point, not acting is seen as weakness and the Iranians will use that to their advantage.

[Kazan]

The only thing in the loop to create an appearance of stopping the president from acting is the War Powers Act, originally from 1973.

Which every President has used since 1973.