Starting a war with Iran?

[Red Arrow]

Indeed.  But they are still human and are governing humans.  Logic still applies. 

They also have to play the geopolitical game the same way we do:  they bluff, they negotiate, they use international organizations to maneuver good outcomes for their stakeholders; they absolutely must have access to global financial and resource markets. 

Being human, errors in logic may occur.  See Egypt, Lybia..... and even Saddam H.  My guess is that he never really thought he would get invaded and then caught.  Once caught, he probably realized his days were numbered (with small numbers).

[Teatownclown]

Oh, I have no doubt that he would be willing to pull the trigger, but I also understand that he is more politically driven than judiciously driven.  He has learned the value of a strong clandestine system of assassination.  He has been very successful in killing over a hundred terrorists by delivering "death from above," and avoided the mess of capture, rendition and trial.

I think this instance is very different.  Like Egypt, it will be necessary to take unilateral action, but unlike Egypt, NATO may not be an option (because they are not capable of swift action).  This means that the US and Isreal will have to act alone.  1/3 of the worlds oil tankers flow through that corridor, and the slightest instability or halt in that flow will have devastating economic repercussions. The Mullahs know this, they also know that President Obama may be more willing to offer concessions to keep the strait open rather than engage in war when the sale of his re-election is largely based on the success of ending the war in Iraq.

If you think about it from Iran's perspective, it's perfect timing.

I think you are right, but wrong on the Mullah's and Obama (why do you still not see him as a mobster?)....I think they will use the sanctions big time and push the Mullahs up against the wall....(up against the wall,  Mullah's....)

[Conan71]

I think you are right, but wrong on the Mullah's and Obama (why do you still not see him as a mobster?)....I think they will use the sanctions big time and push the Mullahs up against the wall....(up against the wall,  Mullah's....)

David Alan Coe would approve.

[Gaspar]

I think you are right, but wrong on the Mullah's and Obama (why do you still not see him as a mobster?)....I think they will use the sanctions big time and push the Mullahs up against the wall....(up against the wall,  Mullah's....)

I'd like that to be true, but Isreal is tired of ineffective words with Iran, and the US as well as several other countries would face economic hardship if the strait were to be closed for even one day.  There is a very delicate balance right now, and energy prices have the ability to push that one way or another.  Iran may not be able to strike the US or much of Europe,  but they do have their hand firmly around our scrotums.

I can't tell you what he will do, but it will have to be effective this time.  There is nowhere to go for blame, and very little opportunity outside of action.  I prey that Iran backs down, that we have some important bargaining chip that is more important than geopolitical wrangling.

[Gaspar]

From the Street today:

. . .according to Peter Beutel, president of energy trading firm Cameron Hanover. The reason is simple: if Iran ever shuts down the Strait of Hormuz, a third of the world's oil supply is cut. "That causes complete havoc," Beutel said. In fact, just the threat of that havoc will make Iran the biggest swing factor in the direction of crude in the first half of 2012.
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11358486/1/oil-prices-back-under-100-but-iran-will-wreak-havoc-in-2012.html

[we vs us]

Oh, I have no doubt that he would be willing to pull the trigger, but I also understand that he is more politically driven than judiciously driven.  He has learned the value of a strong clandestine system of assassination.  He has been very successful in killing over a hundred terrorists by delivering "death from above," and avoided the mess of capture, rendition and trial.

I think this instance is very different.  Like Egypt, it will be necessary to take unilateral action, but unlike Egypt, NATO may not be an option (because they are not capable of swift action).  This means that the US and Isreal will have to act alone.  1/3 of the worlds oil tankers flow through that corridor, and the slightest instability or halt in that flow will have devastating economic repercussions.  The Mullahs know this, they also know that President Obama may be more willing to offer concessions to keep the strait open rather than engage in war when the sale of his re-election is largely based on the success of ending the war in Iraq.

If you think about it from Iran's perspective, it's perfect timing.

I don't see it.   The "Pacifism at any cost" caucus makes up an infinitesimal part of Obama's possible 2012 coalition (they make up an infinitesimal part of the Democratic party, in any event), and he's shown himself more than willing to chuck much more vocal and influential parts of his constituency overboard when it serves his purposes, so I'm fairly certain he'll do whatever he has to.  And I mean up to and including war, should the Mullahs do something as facepalmingly stupid as block the Strait of Hormuz for any appreciable amount of time.  Obama will have whatever backing he needs from pretty much everyone to do whatever is necessary.    This is why I simply can't believe that the Mullahs are serious at all.  The Strait is of such vital importance globally that to seize it would almost ensure the seize-ee's destruction. 

And, it should be noted, the this is what they fear the most -- the destruction of their regime.  This is why they're hell-bent on joining the nuclear club.  Not to have fissionable material to pass off to terrorists.  They can pretty much do that now if they want.  But instead to have a regional deterrent and to make waging war on them impossible. 

[Conan71]

Did someone say

[Red Arrow]

And, it should be noted, the this is what they fear the most -- the destruction of their regime.  This is why they're hell-bent on joining the nuclear club.  Not to have fissionable material to pass off to terrorists.  They can pretty much do that now if they want.  But instead to have a regional deterrent and to make waging war on them impossible. 

I am not convinced they have the same understanding of Mutually Assured Destruction that we do.  I hope you are correct on this issue but I have some doubts.

[Conan71]

And, it should be noted, the this is what they fear the most -- the destruction of their regime.  This is why they're hell-bent on joining the nuclear club.  Not to have fissionable material to pass off to terrorists.  They can pretty much do that now if they want.  But instead to have a regional deterrent and to make waging war on them impossible. 

I think you must have missed a speech or two by Ajmadinejad (President Asshat) where he says Israel should be blown off the globe.  Iran doesn't seem too concerned about deterrents.  The easiest deterrent would be to play nice with the rest of the world, but I digress.

[we vs us]

I think you must have missed a speech or two by Ajmadinejad (President Asshat) where he says Israel should be blown off the globe.  Iran doesn't seem too concerned about deterrents.  The easiest deterrent would be to play nice with the rest of the world, but I digress.

They're perfectly responsive to deterrents.  Regardless of Ahmedinejad's speechifying, they've approached military action in the middle east solely through surrogates and funding of opposition groups (ie. Hamas, Iraqi opposition, etc).  There's been no overt war of any sort, no land grabs, no attacking the weaker neighbor, no airstrikes against Israel.  They haven't closed Hormuz in recent memory, even though it's right there. This doesn't mean they are negligible opponents but it means that they are very limited in the kind of engagement they can undertake.  It also means that speeches are just speeches and are meaningless unless backed up by concrete action.  So, for all the bluster, Iran remains constrained by the political and military realities of the region. 

[Gaspar]

I don't see it.   The "Pacifism at any cost" caucus makes up an infinitesimal part of Obama's possible 2012 coalition (they make up an infinitesimal part of the Democratic party, in any event), and he's shown himself more than willing to chuck much more vocal and influential parts of his constituency overboard when it serves his purposes, so I'm fairly certain he'll do whatever he has to.  And I mean up to and including war, should the Mullahs do something as facepalmingly stupid as block the Strait of Hormuz for any appreciable amount of time.  Obama will have whatever backing he needs from pretty much everyone to do whatever is necessary.    This is why I simply can't believe that the Mullahs are serious at all.  The Strait is of such vital importance globally that to seize it would almost ensure the seize-ee's destruction. 

And, it should be noted, the this is what they fear the most -- the destruction of their regime.  This is why they're hell-bent on joining the nuclear club.  Not to have fissionable material to pass off to terrorists.  They can pretty much do that now if they want.  But instead to have a regional deterrent and to make waging war on them impossible. 

That's a very optimistic view of them.  I think it offers them too much credit.  Their words, and worse, their continued support of instability in the region, with dollars and weapons, does not indicate that they seek deterrence, peace, or anything short of the destruction of Isreal.  They are a theocracy and the primary edict of that theology, or at least of their twisting of it, is the destruction of the Jewish state.  Faith like that is a hell of a thing to negotiate with.

[we vs us]

I am not convinced they have the same understanding of Mutually Assured Destruction that we do.  I hope you are correct on this issue but I have some doubts.

It's the Muslim thing, isn't it?  You think they're willing to make a bomb vest out of their whole country and detonate themselves in the middle of the global marketplace.

[we vs us]

That's a very optimistic view of them.  I think it offers them too much credit.  Their words, and worse, their continued support of instability in the region, with dollars and weapons, does not indicate that they seek deterrence, peace, or anything short of the destruction of Isreal.  They are a theocracy and the primary edict of that theology, or at least of their twisting of it, is the destruction of the Jewish state.  Faith like that is a hell of a thing to negotiate with.

I'm not suggesting that they're peaceful or harmless, but I am suggesting that we see them in as practical a light as possible. We have to understand their abilities and their limitations and what their words would actually mean if carried out.  Or if they actually have the power to carry out their edicts and still survive as a nation.  It's one thing to say that Israel should be wiped from the earth and entirely another thing to be able to get that done. 

[Red Arrow]

It's the Muslim thing, isn't it?  You think they're willing to make a bomb vest out of their whole country and detonate themselves in the middle of the global marketplace.

Saying it's the Muslim thing is the easy way out but there is something different about the way they (at least the leaders) think compared to Western culture.  I think the general populace would not be willing to make the country into a bomb vest.  I cannot say the same thing for the leadership.  Extreme views in any religion can be very dangerous.   I suppose a case could be made that the west's distrust of Iran's leadership is similar to our Left's distrust and hate for Heiron's RWRE.

[Gaspar]

Last month when Isreal flexed it's muscles with war games, students in Iran surrounded it's nuclear weapons enrichment facilities to form human shields fearing that Isreal was poising for attack. http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/iranian-students-form-human-shield-near-nuclear-site-amid-fears-of-israeli-attack-1.395726

This will likely happen again if they shut down the strait.  Will president Obama have the will to take action if they use children as human shields. 

I must admit, they have him cornered at this point, even if this is just a test to see what his reaction is.