Speaking during a cabinet meeting, President Trump once again reiterated
that the US is not in any way seeking regime change in Iran, but rather
that his entire goal is “they can’t have a nuclear weapon.“
Trump further claimed a lot of progress,
as well he might, since Iran wasn’t seeking a nuclear weapon int he
first place, and has repeatedly said as much in recent days. If indeed
that’s the only US goal, it effectively has already been achieved.
Of course, US officials are still pushing the need for talks with Iran,
and Acting Defense Secretary Mark Esper urged the US to get “back on the diplomatic channel”
with Iran. That’s a recurring refrain from officials, even if it’s not
clear what they’ll accept from Iran after the repeated assurances not to
get a nuclear weapon didn’t placate US hawks.
Even where officials see progress they are not very specific on what
that means, or what progress would look like. Iranian officials are also
increasingly vague on what’s going on, some suggesting talks are
possible as others deny it.
I despise the neo-cons as much as anyone, but the whole “Iran isn’t seeking a nuclear weapon” gang seems very naive. Their whole ballistic missile program is practically useless without nuclear warheads!
Really? How many countries in the Middle East have missiles? Try Saudi Arabia and UAE, not to mention Israel. A wise statesmanship in behalf of Western leaders should have insured that the region is not flooded with weapons, and the recipients of such munificence never hid the desirable target — Iran. Unless you think that Iranian children are less deserving of life, then I can see how you are not bothered.
But, alas, there is no such thing as statesmanship in Western capitals. They are akin to mafiosos on street corners (straights, canals, global crossroads) demanding protection money from shopkeepers, that is states.
When and if a global statesmanship prevails in this pathetic world — security from an external attack should be a fundamental right of every country. When and if such global wisdom prevails, there will be no need for every country to fend for itself, and no need to belong to a straight jacket called NATO or any other block, and a global legal system of security and trade should make this globe a confederation. Which should allow for all cultures, languages and ethnic traditions to thrive, as nations would no longer fear secessionism sponsored by its enemies. But such leadership would be alien to majority of Western capitals. Only UK has experience with management of diverse colonial era societies, and initially not heavy handed, but it may not be able to make a leap from colonial supremacism to management of equals. Soviet management was in some ways more advanced in managing equality, and in others primitive. Chinese imperial bureaucracy has much to teach the globe, particularly the concept of meritocracy, but its objectives may not easily translate to todays global needs.
There are really no other countries with traditions that can inspire and advance global management of equals, diverse societies. Shanghai Cooperation Organization has set out principles that are framing such a global community, and they are focusing on Eurasian goals. Primarily Asian, though. But inroads are being made in Central and South Europe through trade and investments.
So if the global leadership could get heads out of the partisan bushes they are defending — stronger ones should provide leadership, not perpetuate divisions, with the hope of “winning” the prize of ruling the world. The only outcome is bankruptcy of those that dream such dreams.
Masterful, Bianca.
I feel like a babbling moron when I read her posts.
* And before anyone says it, I am a babbling moron.
Not at all, wars. To paraphrase Orwell,
“In a time of deceit telling the truth can make you feel like a babbling moron.”
I agree with much of what you wrote so well, except this:
“Only UK has experience with management of diverse colonial era societies, and initially not heavy handed, but it may not be able to make a leap from colonial supremacism to management of equals.”
And that experience led to UK perfection of divide and conquer, leaving many a squalid mess behind when the British physical empire collapsed, leaving The City in place in the financialized world.
Today the UK exercises that policy domestically as its electeds resist the Brexit referendum, while they molest their own parliamentary staff.
Thanks, I did not know that dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were done by missiles…
LOL
ps: Iran would be stupid to not have nukes. Just ask Kim.
That doesn’t make sense.
So Trump is right We have stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb .
No, “we” do not have to stop them from doing something that they’re already stopped from doing both by the Non-Proliferation Treaty and its associated IAEA inspections regime and by their own obvious non-interest in doing.
The MIC is pissed that Iran doesn’t have or want nukes. It’s just good buisness, all those anti-missile systems gotta be produced and shipped. If you want to understand militancy, gotta think crazy.
Ballistic missiles are the poor (and embargoed) country’s air force. If Iran was able to purchase state of the art fighters from the west or the Russians like in the 70s, they would not need a big missile program.
Missiles are defensive, not offensive weapons. Iran’s missiles are furthermore limited to a range barely reaching eastern Europe, so they are of no interest or threat to the US at all (unless we attack them and expose our local soldiers to risk).
No, ballistic missiles are aggressive or retaliatory weapons.
You hardly have ‘defensive’ weapons that have a range of 1,500 kms.
I firmly believe that Iran will never have Nuclear weapons as they have never done anything to acquire or build them. (Israeli laptop notwithstanding)
Iran and Hezbollah have, according to Israel, 150,000 missiles aimed at Israel. They do not need nukes.
Look at Dresden if you want to see what normal explosives can do. Look at NK, not a building taller than 2 floors in the whole country after non-nuclear bombing.
Without Nukes, Iran can and will turn Israel and all ME bases into parking lots.
As for the idiots talking about ballistic missiles attacking the US navy, 10 minutes with Google would show that Surface missiles, subs, boats and planes carry out the attacks.
They could be a defensive determent.
Ridiculous! Iran’s ballistic missiles can sink the entire Fifth Fleet. Surface ships have no defense against ballistic missile attack. Neither do the oilfields or refineries in the Persian Gulf. Iran’s strategic doctrine is based on asymmetric warfare, not nuclear weapons. Their ballistic missiles are intended to defend Iran from any strategic threat within 500 miles of its borders and to neutralize any US surface naval deployment.
But the linchpin of Iran’s strategic doctrine is the ability to make the Strait of Hormuz unnavigable by regular and irregular forces. Even if the US invaded and occupied Iran, guerilla fighters with stinger missiles could make the strait too dangerous for tankers to transit,
As for an Iranian nuclear weapons program, it would be suicidal. It would take several years for Iran to develop nuclear weapons and deploy them. Israel, the US, KSA and UAE would strike before then, And Iran would lose the political support of China and Russia. Cui bono? Iran is as likely to start a nuclear weapons program as Saddam Hussein was to develop WMDs.
The Iranian nuclear threat is a phony canard the Zionists and Neocons have been peddling for over 20 years. The real deal is that Iran is an ascendant power in the ME that is an existential threat to the Zionist regime because of its support for the Palestinian resistance.
“Iran’s ballistic missiles can sink the entire Fifth Fleet.”
Maybe, maybe not. Have any of their ballistic missiles ever been used against a surface ship under actual combat conditions?
That is why they have a ballistic missile test program. My point is that they don’t need nukes. And I trust the Iranian regime’s interest in self preservation to deter them from starting a nuclear weapons development program.
There’s a big difference between a “test program” and the ability to sink the entire US Fifth Fleet.
Actually, the Iranians have deployed their ballistic missiles and are developing better ones. Surface fleets have been an anachronism since WWII. Surface ships may project political power but they have no defense against modern guided ballistic missiles incoming at mach 7 from outer space. These ain’t V2’s with Hail Mary guidance systems. Maybe the USN has classified countermeasures that have never been tested in combat. Maybe some of the Fifth Fleet would survive. I hope we don’t have to find out.
It wasn’t a complicated question, but I’ll rephrase it:
Is there any available evidence — like actual ships in actual combat being actually destroyed — to substantiate the claims you made regarding the capabilities of Iran’s ballistic missiles versus a US fleet?
Here is a video of a test firing of an Iranian “Persian Gulf” ballistic missile destroying a moving naval target.
Here is an article from National Interest assessing the Iranian threat to US naval assets.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/we-need-talk-about-irans-missiles-they-could-strike-us-navy-57832
In 1988 the guided missile frigate USS Stark was struck by two Exocet missiles fired from Iraqi Mirage jets during the Iran-Iraq war. 37 sailors were killed and the Stark was taken out of service listing and in flames. The Iranians have been developing anti-ship missiles for over 30 years. They received anti-ship missiles from China in the early 1990’s and reverse engineered and improved them after sanctions cut off further deliveries. China and Russia have both developed advanced anti-surface ship missile technologies that they may have shared with Iran.
Of course we will never know for sure about US Navy vulnerability to Iran’s ballistic and cruise missiles until an actual test in combat.
But a number of military analysts have maintained that surface fleets became obsolete with the development of ballistic and cruise missile systems with advanced guidance systems after WWII.
The Khalij Fars looks interesting but slow. Slower than a Scud, which the US has been proving it’s able to shoot down for 30 years or so. The Exocet isn’t a ballistic missile. But thanks for the info.
Surface fleets may well be obsolete, both because of anti-ship missile threats and because the carrier/aircraft stuff they’re centered around are becoming less relevant in an age when unmanned drones and submarine-launched cruise missiles can do the same stuff more cheaply and with less risk.
On the other hand, things like “invading Iraq will be a cakewalk,” or “[insert potential enemy here]’s weapons will make short work of US forces” are speculation until they do — or don’t — happen.
The Khalij Fars looks interesting but slow. Slower than a Scud, which the US has been proving it’s able to shoot down for 30 years or so. The Exocet isn’t a ballistic missile. But thanks for the info.
Surface fleets may well be obsolete, both because of anti-ship missile threats and because the carrier/aircraft stuff they’re centered around are becoming less relevant in an age when unmanned drones and submarine-launched cruise missiles can do the same stuff more cheaply and with less risk.
On the other hand, things like “invading Iraq will be a cakewalk,” or “[insert potential enemy here]’s weapons will make short work of US forces” are speculation until they do — or don’t — happen.
You are dating yourself with: “actual ships in actual combat being actually destroyed.” This is no longer a viable risk proposition for the US Navy.
Aircraft Carriers’ Drama
By Andrei Martyanov |
August 28, 2017
This brings up—for dedicated proponents of carrier airpower as the main strike force in any large navy—the horrifying specter of carriers being relegated to niche weapon systems. It also begs the question of what kind of carriers, and at what cost. The issue is the viability of a carrier-centric navy within the modern technological paradigm of antiship cruise missile and of littoral combat.2
This viability was put into question when three major technological conditions for antiship cruise missiles (ASCMs) were met:
ASCMs ranges became comparable to those of carrier aviation
ASCMs became capable of underwater launch
ASCMs became supersonic
All three of these conditions were met in the mid to early 1970s with the early maturing of ASCM technology embodied in the ultimate Soviet, primarily anti-carrier, weapon the P-700 Granit (NATO: SS-N-19 Shipwreck), carried by Soviet nuclear battle cruisers of the Kirov class and the enormous Oscar-class missile submarines. In combination with the Soviet Naval Missile-carrying Aviation (MRA), which by the early 1970s was deploying a Mach 3 capable AS-6 Kingfish missile, cost effectiveness became central to the viability of carriers since they now had to face the possibility of a massive and coordinated ASCM salvo both from underwater and from the air. 3 Losing an enormously expensive ship to a salvo of weapons which constitute a minute fraction of this ship’s cost did finally drive the point home.
https://blog.usni.org/posts/2017/08/28/aircraft-carriers-drama
I’m not the one who claimed that the actual ships would be destroyed in actual combat.
I just pointed out that the test of whether or not the actual ships would be actually destroyed in actual combat would be whether or not the actual ships were actually destroyed in actual combat.
Remember last week you claimed the Brits were probably lying when they made the claim that Iran tried to seize a British ship?
https://abcnews.go.com/International/irans-islamic-revolutionary-guard-corps-seizes-british-flagged/story?id=64445522
Somehow I do not believe that Iranian ballistic missiles would accomplish what you think. First, I do not know what are their missiles for — and I suspect mostly for a purpose of a simple threat to those in the region that would like to destabilize Iran by some limited strikes. Such limited strikes aimed at damaging Iranian infrastructure, military or economy must assume that Iran cannot return in kind. These missiles serve only this purpose. Now, escalation is an entirely different matter. To keep it as simple as I can — escalation at that point is based in a calculation of your enemy’s (and their allies) assumption of invulnerability, hence willingness to escalate the war.
At this stage, it is my assessment of the moment that a limited attack is risky, a retaliation guaranteed — and full blown attack on Iran very, very risky. Why? Not because Iran can wipe out Fifth Fleet, but because US has no allies willing to step up into the breach, risk all — for no identifiable gain.
As for missiles, they are good for surface assets, not for submarines.
But here are the known unknowns — we literally do not know the status of Russia’s Poseidon. And as everyone is obsessing with supersonics, the real war of winners and losers will be fought under and above water. What we know is very little. We know that the nuclear reactor one hundred the size of the one on submarines, was tested in Russia. The autonomous sub is a crossover of an armed drone, a construction capable robot and data collecting probe. It is presumably capable of staying at extreme depths, and is presumably faster then torpedoes or anything on surface. AI based, with big data access/collection and Internet of Things enabled to allow for their mutual autonomous communication as well as surface capabilities — in words of Russian military, has no vulnerabilities.
So, the point is, do we know just what is the status? Was testing just a decoy, to create a false sense of safety, while hundreds are already crawling under oceans? And we know for a fact that Russia and China are collaborating in a lowest key possible. Knowing just how many factory floors exist in China, and knowing that the weapon has been developed in components, transferable by ordinary containers — are we really sure the known unknowns are worth the risk.
And this is just one example. There are other similarly vague technological breakthroughs in alloys that withstand near plasma temperatures at Mach 20+, to allow for remote control of individual MIRVS.
Again, I am taking information from multiple sources, nothing special. But when put together, there is enough of a doubt in a certain and easy project of dismantling Iran. Because THIS is the goal — dismantling. Making it a crippled society without potential for economic growth or sufficient stability to be a reliable node in transit and trade plans.
To do that, however, US — with may be UK at its side — must be certain that neither Russia nor China possess an ace in a sleeve. Because if any loss occurs, then a major escalation with serious consequences to their own population may ensue.
Actions speak louder than words or tweets, numbn*ts. You and your crew of unvetted “acting” Cabinet secretaries and belligerent unelected advisors are swampier than the Everglades in mid August.
Iran must not get a nuclear weapon. So hat do you do? You pull out of an agreement which prevents Iran from getting a nuclear weapon without any suggested replacement.
The agreement did not “prevent” Iran from getting a nuclear weapon … Iran was not working on a nuke prior to the agreement! According to the collective judgement of the US Intelligence agencies (2007 and 2011 NIEs) Iran stopped working on a weapons program (if they ever seriously were working on one) in 2003 once we took care of Saddam. They no longer needed it.
Everything since then has been about placating the Likud and the Saudi princes, not about nukes.
But the JCPOA should have placated those who now insist that Iran mustn’t get a nuke.
Let’s see what Sunkist says tomorrow. As the bard suggested, such a man should be put to sea.
Here is an article that looks at how America’s pro-Israel Christians are being drawn into believing that a war with Iran is essential:
https://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2019/07/christians-united-for-israel-how.html
Thisr “turning of plowshares into swords”, particularly when it comes to Iran, stands in complete opposition to what evangelicals claim to believe in their religious lives.
“Trump further claimed a lot of progress, as well he might, since Iran wasn’t seeking a nuclear weapon int he first place, and has repeatedly said as much in recent days. If indeed that’s the only US goal, it effectively has already been achieved.”
Indeed. Hell, they have met that criteria since 2003. So, “mission accomplished” and “bring the boys home” and “peace and goodwill to all men?” Trump could win a LOT of credit with the majority of the US population who are sick and tired of the Middle East if he really and truly used this opportunity to pull out of the whole mess and restore trade.
Caliman, i wholeheartedly agree with you. Since 2003, Iran hasn’t been seeking a nuke in the first place, and has repeatedly said as much in recent days. If indeed that’s the only US goal, it effectively has already been achieved.
I agree. Heck they’ve met that criteria since 2003. So, “mission accomplished” and bring the troops home” and “peace and goodwill to all men?” DJT could, indeed, win a whole lot of credit with the majority of the US population who are sick and tired of the Middle East if he really and truly used this opportunity to withdraw from the whole mess and restore trade. This would be a whole lot better if he simply pull out ALL US troops out of that volatile region.
Was Justin Raimondo right ? Trump is now looking more and more like a peace maker . He has not started a single new war nor has destroyed one single foreign countries government in 3 years .Comparing to destroying foreign countries governments the previous administration destroyed and average of 2 or 3 foreign governments every single year . This was bound to cause trouble and upset a lot of people .
So when Trump said he would “obliterate” Iran(I count 5 times, once it was “parts” of Iran)does that mean Raimondo was wrong?
And that’s 16 to 24 governments you claim the previous administration has destroyed. Could you name them?
Libya , Egypt , Crimea , Ukraine , Tunisa and all the countries that changed governments in the Arab spring , maybe failed in Syria and Venezuela . Oh shucks you might have caught me in a exaggeration . sorry . Yet we changed the governments in Bosnia Croatia Massadona Kosovo and even Serbia . Yes the Trump administration often times sounds bad when talking about N Korea and Iran . Where as our other administrations both republican and democrat usually sounded more peaceful . But I can’t think of many countries or governments that will allow a foreign country to change their government willingly
Your assessment of the arab spring is wrong. It assumes that all protesters in the ME were somehow organized by Obama himself. Just because American citizens are too apathetic and uneducated to get rid of corrupt government, doesn’t equate with people worldwide, particularly in the ME. I agree, mostly, that Obama intervened poorly in those revolts, but, he was not the cause. The cause lies with the refugee problem caused by US wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and the on going Israeli onslaught of Palestine. Cheney pushed hard to attack Iran in 04, and was thwarted. This is occurring again, trump cannot get enough support to attack Iran. When he does, he will. The trump peace train never existed, never will.
No my assessment of the Arab spring is correct Although not just Obama’s fault . Actually the Bush administration encouraged Egypt to remove the Muslim brotherhood from Egypt’s terrorist classification . This was done and Egypt was to get a wonderful democracy . Which they did get during the Obama administration . Lo and behold the Muslim brotherhood won the election in Egypt . The same Muslim democracy story occurred all though out the M.E at U.S. direction .,
Raimondo did not know what trump might do . He was just hopping for improvement . A Trump hater just made the comment a trained monkey would make a better president . I like Trump but I think even a untrained monkey might make a good president . A monkey would never try to over throw a foreign government
Now Trump is just plain lying. If he says he doesn’t want regime change, has he heard *anything* Bolton has been saying – not to mention all the rest of the neocons? No, Trump is just lying now.