Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
While I wouldn't say NATO wouldn't try something like this, such strategy wouldn't guarantee: a) that the Strait remains open, or at least free of disruption; b) that the Iranian Nuclear programme is halted. In my view this strategy would easily escalate into a full scale conflict.

luis_de_sousa@mastodon.social
by Luis de Sousa (luis[dot]de[dot]sousa[at]protonmail[dot]ch) on Wed Feb 15th, 2012 at 10:45:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think you're right that it's still a risky strategy, but the "serious people" seem to have put a lot of energy into the concept that "Iran is about to become a nuclear power and we have to do something about it..."

So some kind of action is, I suspect, quite a high likelihood.

But I think there's enough opposition (and memories of Iraq and Afghanistan) to keep it to something less than a full scale conflict - at least at first.

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2012 at 10:51:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
On further reflection, one can argue that the elites pretty much always use the template of "the most recent successful intervention" as the basis for their decisions.

Thus we should probably expect the CIA to try to stir up a resistance group in one region of Iran and unofficial action alongside a no-fly zone (a la Libya) to be the approach.

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2012 at 10:53:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The problem with that is that the Iranian dissidents probably remember how the last American-sponsored regime change in Persia turned out.

I wouldn't place any expensive bets on them picking the CIA over the mullahs.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2012 at 11:10:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
They've been supporting various terrorist groups there for ages. As for a no-fly zone, can you get a UN resolution? If not, are you going to start shooting down Chinese and Russian planes?
by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Wed Feb 15th, 2012 at 11:27:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
While I wouldn't say NATO wouldn't try something like this, such strategy wouldn't guarantee: a) that the Strait remains open, or at least free of disruption; b) that the Iranian Nuclear programme is halted. In my view this strategy would easily escalate into a full scale conflict.

Oh, I completely agree on the possibility that such an attack might spiral out of control. Particularly if they hit a target that actually hurts, or if they misjudge the mood of the Iranians, or if the Iranian air defence gets a little too enthusiastic with causing mechanical failures on the Israeli jets. But I'm working under the assumption that the US and Israel (Israel in particular) is run by psychopaths who are perfectly prepared to risk such an escalation to get a good photo-op of a burning building for domestic dick-waving purposes.

It won't stop the nuclear programme, of course - you just can't do that with that sort of limited air war, as has been proven time and time again in theatres ranging from Germany to Kosova. But stopping the Iranian nuclear programme has never been the point, which is why it does not feature in my analysis at all.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2012 at 11:06:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Interesting point, though I would be less strained in using the term psychopath.

One important detail converging with your view is that the sanctions where sort of imposed by the US Congress on Obama, I sometimes wonder if this isn't solely related to the elections there.

luis_de_sousa@mastodon.social

by Luis de Sousa (luis[dot]de[dot]sousa[at]protonmail[dot]ch) on Wed Feb 15th, 2012 at 04:10:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series