Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I have always looked upon the issue of the Straits of Hormuz as a wonderful bluff by iran. Basically if your response the the US destroying your nuclear weapons programme (or part thereof) is to fire a couple of missiles at random targets in the Hormuz then, tbh, you've already lost.

I would imagine that Iran, if it had any sense (debatable I know) would already have retaliatory capability in place within the USA for massive overwhelming counterstrike.

But i thought Iraq would do the same thing and they didn't.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Wed Feb 15th, 2012 at 02:49:50 PM EST
I would imagine that Iran, if it had any sense (debatable I know) would already have retaliatory capability in place within the USA for massive overwhelming counterstrike.

That would entail existential risks for Iran. If WMDs were found in the possession of Iranians in the USA there would be unbearable pressure to retaliate against Iran with 'regime change' as the goal. Absent a clear Iranian provocation against domestic US targets the situation is much cloudier. None of the recent retaliations against Israel have been in countries that could hurt Iran.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2012 at 07:40:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No it doesn't have to be like that at all. I really don't want to get into any sort of detail online but you don't need much of anything to really hurt any western country if you target imaginatively enough and what you do need can very happily sit undisturbed until required.

And if Iran can't find some clean (non-persian looking) skins somewhere, then they really aren't very bright.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Thu Feb 16th, 2012 at 05:38:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Deterrence is useless if no one knows about it. Yet successful sabotage demands total secrecy. It will also change nothing about the ultimate outcome of any conflict.
So why bother at all?
by generic on Thu Feb 16th, 2012 at 07:15:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I can't answer for the Iranians, I'm simply here outlining what I would do in their place.

A country like Iran cannot threaten the US openly; the nature of asymmetric warfare demands subterfuge and hidden intent. Such a strategy depends primarily on the idea that the US and Israel cannot mount a killer first strike within the first 24 hours, which gives it time to mobilise and effect its sleeper response.

however, this response must be capable of delivering a catastrophic blow to the enemy at one stroke or it is inviting Dresdenisation upon the entire country. We're not talking about a 9-11 here, we're talking about something that would neuter their ability to maintain military action against the homeland.

This can be done and quite straightforwardly, but i don't think these people think like that.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Thu Feb 16th, 2012 at 08:34:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And I'd like to make it quite clear right now that I am not advocating that Iran should do this, or that I want the West to lose.

I am simply saying that, if I was in their place, I'd view rattling sabres about Hormuz as a good distracting bluff to cover preparations for a more effective retaliation. Cos if your retaliation consists of sinking ships in hormuz, you've already lost.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Thu Feb 16th, 2012 at 08:45:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Occasional Series