Let's go to war or not: Iran Edition

[aurelius]

So Iran did a nifty thing. Knocked out half of Saudi Arabia's oil production with a coordinated drone attack. The international shadow war equivalent of pantsing your nemesis.

Now Trump is wagging the dog with hawkish rhetoric. So to all the Exodites: should we unleash the dogs of war?

[omaniphil]

Rubble dont make trouble.

[LexAnderson]

Rubble dont make trouble.

Donald Trump to his speech writer: "Write that down..."

[mgil]

Iran is clever.

[JonA]

Rubble dont make trouble.

Yep. We should finish the job and bomb the rest of the Saudi oil fields and solidify our spot on the top of the oil producing countries. Everybody in North Dakota will be driving F350's and wearing Stetsons. Bonus side effect: Put all those nasty conspiracy theories about the US and Saudi Arabia to bed.

I'm kidding, of course.

[LexAnderson]

I say that we send Bernie over there to spread his tax plan.

But in all seriousness, I'm not sure what to make of the whole Iran issue. Of course if we end up having a real armed conflict with them then it will drag our allies in as well. We would most likely have to go against Putin in that, and Chine and North Korea (I mean really, they wanna piece too?)

Hopefully some cooler heads will prevail to stop any unnecessary deaths, and an all out nuclear war. That'd be nice.

[omaniphil]

Rubble dont make trouble.

Yep. We should finish the job and bomb the rest of the Saudi oil fields and solidify our spot on the top of the oil producing countries. Everybody in North Dakota will be driving F350's and wearing Stetsons. Bonus side effect: Put all those nasty conspiracy theories about the US and Saudi Arabia to bed.

I'm kidding, of course.

I'm not kidding though. Well, maybe a little.

Boots on the ground is a terrible idea, but sanctions probably dont do enough. I think we need to establish deterrence though or else things will get worse. I can't stand the Saudis, but an all out war between Sunni Arabia and Shia Iran will be really terrible. Expect Kuwait, UAE, and possibly Bahrain also joining in if it came to that. We certainly can not let Saudi take the lead on a response, as any kinetic action from them will definitely entertain an additional round of attacks.

There are no good actions here, only bad ones, but I think a US led targeted airstrike as a punishment might be the least bad one.

[bobmen10000]

Good action is to focus on oil and gas in our hemisphere. Support Israel - give them aid /let them "borrow" our secrets and let them be the buffer in the area. The Middle East is fucked. Saudi Arabia is a shitty ally and even their "moderate" current leadership is atrocious. Give the oil companies a few trillion dollars more in subsidies and tell them to focus on North & South America for oil refineries. Or just mandate electric cars and fuck Canada over with more toxic battery sites. Also, fuck birds & quality of life for people nearby, build more wind turbines. Nuclear Power Plants for the win - just don't build one within five hundred miles of me because I played enough Fallout to know what radiation does to people.

[hsilman]

I'm not kidding though. Well, maybe a little.

Boots on the ground is a terrible idea, but sanctions probably dont do enough. I think we need to establish deterrence though or else things will get worse. I can't stand the Saudis, but an all out war between Sunni Arabia and Shia Iran will be really terrible. Expect Kuwait, UAE, and possibly Bahrain also joining in if it came to that. We certainly can not let Saudi take the lead on a response, as any kinetic action from them will definitely entertain an additional round of attacks.

There are no good actions here, only bad ones, but I think a US led targeted airstrike as a punishment might be the least bad one.

How about spending money on aid for the European countries that will receive the refugees from that war, and give them enough time(2-3 generations) to integrate into society? Just a random alternative, haven't put any thought into it.

edit: I mean, if we're going to expend money anyway.

[LexAnderson]

Idc who wins, I just hope all countries have fun.

[quark]

One issue is that Trump's credibility generally and Saudi Arabia's credibility regarding Iran (and many other things) is not very high.

A related issue is cancelling the Iran nuclear treaty and then essentially complaining that they're not complying. Our allies have noticed and are not exactly aligned with us.

No one was hurt in the attack on Saudi Arabia. An attack on Iran that results in injuries or deaths would be an escalation. Also, Iran is large country with one of the more powerful militaries in the area.

How much do you want to rely on Trump's competence to oversee major military action?

[cgeorg]

Trump actually seems pretty hesitant to get involved in wars, probably because wars are bad for the part of the economy that his businesses are in, and I'm fairly ok with that.

[aurelius]

Boots on the ground is a terrible idea, but sanctions probably dont do enough. I think we need to establish deterrence though or else things will get worse. I can't stand the Saudis, but an all out war between Sunni Arabia and Shia Iran will be really terrible. Expect Kuwait, UAE, and possibly Bahrain also joining in if it came to that. We certainly can not let Saudi take the lead on a response, as any kinetic action from them will definitely entertain an additional round of attacks.

I'm interested in this idea the US has some responsibility to prevent a regional conflict in the Middle East. Let's consider your worst case scenario: that the proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia that is currently being fought in Yemen escalates into an all out regional conflict...why should the US intervene to prevent this? And why should the US intervene on Saudi Arabia's behalf?

Good action is to focus on oil and gas in our hemisphere.

The US began exporting oil in 2015 and will become net exporter of oil in 2020. The US does not refine oil in Saudi Arabia. We refine all of our oil in Houston. We don't need to focus on oil and gas supplies outside of Our borders to meet US oil demands.

[quark]

I'm more than ok with not going to war. I'm less ok with running the govt based on what's good for Trump's businesses.

A major war in the mideast would not be good the the US or most other countries

[omaniphil]

Boots on the ground is a terrible idea, but sanctions probably dont do enough. I think we need to establish deterrence though or else things will get worse. I can't stand the Saudis, but an all out war between Sunni Arabia and Shia Iran will be really terrible. Expect Kuwait, UAE, and possibly Bahrain also joining in if it came to that. We certainly can not let Saudi take the lead on a response, as any kinetic action from them will definitely entertain an additional round of attacks.

I'm interested in this idea the US has some responsibility to prevent a regional conflict in the Middle East. Let's consider your worst case scenario: that the proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia that is currently being fought in Yemen escalates into an all out regional conflict...why should the US intervene to prevent this? And why should the US intervene on Saudi Arabia's behalf?

No formal responsibility - I grant that. If you think positively however of the US's role the last few decades since WWII of enforcing international norms to decrease territorial disputes, and to provide safe transit on the seas, to facilitate global trade, etc then I think the answer on what to do here is clear. Iran's seizing of third party tankers this summer shows that any hope of containing spillover to innocent third party countries is probably a pipe dream, further providing some motivation to deter Iran from future actions.

Sorry, I'm on my phone at an all day CLE, so forgive crappy writing.

[BostonRugger]

Privatize the war. Tell the ghost of Rex Tillerson that we’ll look the other way if he builds a private Air Force, subdues Iran and takes their oil.

[mbasic]

EDIT: crassed. I read some shit

[aurelius]

No formal responsibility - I grant that. If you think positively however of the US's role the last few decades since WWII of enforcing international norms to decrease territorial disputes (where it suits are us), and to provide safe transit on the seas, to facilitate global trade, etc then I think the answer on what to do here is clear. Iran's seizing of third party tankers this summer shows that any hope of containing spillover to innocent third party countries is probably a pipe dream, further providing some motivation to deter Iran from future actions.

Sorry, I'm on my phone at an all day CLE, so forgive crappy writing.

This seems very much to be the police the world role for the US. Which I disagree with.

Iran was not seizing oil tankers when it was allowed to be part of the global economy. It would seem that from past history, the solution to encourage a peaceful Iran is not to isolate them with sanctions but include them with free trade.

What I find most interesting is the idea the US should intervene on Saudi Arabia's behalf. I understand historically Saudi Arabia has been a US ally. They are not innocent in this conflict with Iran. Given the revelations in the post 9/11 world about Saudi Arabia and the declining geopolitical importance of this region, I believe the US should redefine our relationship with the Saudis. Now would be a good time.

[cgeorg]

I'm more than ok with not going to war. I'm less ok with running the govt based on what's good for Trump's businesses.

Honestly, on the rare times he manages to do something I think is good, I try not to care why he did them.

[aurelius]

I'll admit, I suck with the foreign affairs.
Other than to draw the USA (western world) into a war, why else is Iran attacking Saudi Arabia exactly?

Iran and Saudi Arabia have been fighting a proxy war in the Middle East since the US collapsed Iraq. Yemen is the main battleground of this war. Yemen controls the exit of the Red Sea. If Iran's support of the Houthi is successful, it would have control over the Strait of Hornuz and Bab el-Mandeb Strait.

Oh...and there is Sunni versus Shiite and Arabic versus Persian religious/cultural stuff too for funsies.

Can't Saudi Arabia kick Iran's ass, without the US putting boots on the ground or US planes in their airspace.

No. Without US intervention on Saudi Arabia's behalf, this is uncertain.

Isn't most of their airpower and whatnot fairly modern.

Iran has demonstrated the ability to shoot down advanced US drones and launch coordinated precision drone/cruise missile strikes. Since the Gulf War 1, US adversaries have devoted considerable time and effort to mitigate that advantages of US air superiority. Which has not been tested since. It would be arrogant and foolish for the Western world to believe a conflict with a determined and advanced nation that has been preparing for the eventuality of war with the US to go so smoothly.

They don't share a (land) border; I guess they'll just bomb and huck missiles at eachother.......not sure, but I think Saudi Arabia is going to be better at that, admittedly this solves nothing and S.A. has much more to loose than Iran I guess.

Iran has built there infrastructure since the 80's on the assumption it would face the US in a war. It is build to withstand a modern air war. Saudi Arabia has been under the assumption the US would have its back...they are less prepared.

Saudi Arabia is not a 'free' country. It is a despotic monarchy that subjugates its population. It is questionable how hard their army would fight* and if they would have to deal with insurgents while their military is otherwise occupied. The rulers of Saudi Arabia have much more to lose in an all out war than Iran does.

*Armies of despots have the tendency to just retreat and surrender when faced with a serious adversary.

Either way, two oil producing two middle east countries warring isn't good, but better than the US bombing Iran.

From the US perspective, who cares? The US can supply and refine all of its oil demand locally.