DarloRich
Veteran Member
the problem is I don't think ANYONE knows! You kind of hope the USA military might but it seems not! There seems to be no plan or even an objective.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
The Middle East conflict
- Thread starter Killingworth
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Gloster
Veteran Member
There were two objectives: to distract from the Epstein Files (remember them?) and to allow a small bunch of crooks, sorry, go-getting businessmen to profit from speculation. So it succeeded, but there might be more to come. As for a plan, that’s for losers.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
If they had done this before the war it would have brought down the wrath of the US - and of other nations too.
Now the wrath of the US has come down anyway, and Iran has mostly survived it, and other nations are less likely to want to get involved. So considering (as mentioned above) that Iran can hit ships even if 99% of their military power has been obliterated, why not just levy the tolls (or protection racket fees) regardless?
That's a very fair point, but it ignores a couple of things IMO.
The first is the reason why other nations don't want to get involved; it's not just that the world is angry at Trump (although that's part of it), it's also there's a free rider problem to efforts to reopen the strait, in that the costs are incurred by the intervening nations but the benefits are enjoyed by the entire world. Maritime security is a global public good.
The second is that although Iran may seek to blockade/extort indefinitely, it's inconceivable that the war would be over without this point being resolved. Walking away without doing so would cause Trump's popularity to drop even further. Rather scarily, solely in terms of US domestic popularity, I suspect that Trump's least attractive option is to walk away, his moderate option is to continue as present, and his best option is to escalate.
While I wouldn't dismiss gambling speculation / insider trading going on, it seems conspiratorial to think that is the primary cause of the war. If an opportunity to make money or cause a distraction were wanted, there are plenty of other options with far less downside; and in any case, there are multiple parties who could have inside information about US strategy and seek to gamble on it.
I think the more likely possibility is that US/Israel was already on the fence about action given Iran's nuclear programme (which is effectively a closing window of opportunity to ever take action). I would estimate that the January protests were seen as an additional window of opportunity, but they took place at a time not militarily convenient to the US, and while they considered acting then, it took a month to discuss, move troops and equipment over there, and then actually strategise and start the war. While this was a likely miscalculation in terms of outcomes, it makes sense in terms of the pieces coming together and two windows both closing at the same time.
Annetts key
Established Member
IMHO Trumps approval rating is likely to continue dropping the longer that the war goes on. For both the continued high price or rising prices of fuel and other products affected by the oil market and because many who voted for Trump were against "forever" overseas wars.
And remember, the Republican party don't want this going on and on, they will already be worried about the effect on special elections (which they mostly keep losing) and the upcoming November elections.
The trouble is, (a) under the previous leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei, it's said that Nuclear weapon development was either "paused" or only proceeding slowly because of his religious views (and there was a fatwa), (b) the U.S.A. had according to Trump, already destroyed Iran's nuclear weapon development programme, and (c) Israel has been crying wolf about Iran's nuclear weapon development programme for many, many years, saying that they are one week / one month / whatever, away from Iran having a viable nuclear weapon, but we know that this is nonsense, as actually making a viable nuclear weapon is more complex than just having enough enriched uranium.
And Trump, not being a details man and with his lack of understanding and his lack of listening to and taking advice from experts, means that it's very likely he's been manipulated by Israel. Israel having been itching to have a go at Iran for years.
In regards to the protests in Iran earlier in the year, well, Trump is just using that as a reason. He doesn’t IMHO care about anyone other than himself and maybe his family. He doesn’t care about looking after American's so why would he care about Iranians? They are just a tool for him in that he hoped that they would cause the collapse of the Irian regime.
There's a compilation video making the rounds of Bibi Netanyahu saying that Iran was on the verge of/months away from having nuclear weapons for over thirty years.
Edit: Not the one I saw, but the same clips.
There are SO many reasons Trump might have thought this a good idea (but it's clear that one reason is that Netanyahu finally found someone gullible enough to believe the 'weeks away' line) but I do wonder if Trump was hoping and expecting the world to come together to assist the USA and Israel. Now they're clearly not going to, he's basically screwed.
He wants out, but I am sure Israel has a timeline and plan of its own. Increasing prices will not help Trump or the GOP, but at the same time the plans to impact the mid-terms means that if Trump bails now and claims some false victory, it's not even April.
Long before campaigning starts for the next elections, all talk will be back on the Epstein Files. So what exactly is going to be the plan?
A long drawn out ground battle sounds insane, but it might just be necessary.. or failing that some sort of pause/ceasefire with a plan to do something again in August or September perhaps.
Meanwhile, the GOP can just play around with the markets using social media like Musk perfected years ago. It's hilarious that we're spending days watching the media try to establish whether any talks have indeed taken place or Trump is in fact negotiating with himself.
He wants out, but I am sure Israel has a timeline and plan of its own. Increasing prices will not help Trump or the GOP, but at the same time the plans to impact the mid-terms means that if Trump bails now and claims some false victory, it's not even April.
Long before campaigning starts for the next elections, all talk will be back on the Epstein Files. So what exactly is going to be the plan?
A long drawn out ground battle sounds insane, but it might just be necessary.. or failing that some sort of pause/ceasefire with a plan to do something again in August or September perhaps.
Meanwhile, the GOP can just play around with the markets using social media like Musk perfected years ago. It's hilarious that we're spending days watching the media try to establish whether any talks have indeed taken place or Trump is in fact negotiating with himself.
To (a), perhaps but Iran arguably wanted to get to a place where if the fatwa were rescinded they could pivot reasonably quickly to a nuclear weapon. The US would obviously not want to place their hope in a fatwa not being rescinded; a long development lead time is a better reassurance.
To (b), what Trump said months ago does not affect the way forward with the intelligence now held; maybe he exaggerated/lied, or maybe the situation changed, it is immaterial to us unless we disbelieve the present assertions.
To (c), this is true but my argument is there were two windows of opportunity closing simultaneously on the US. The first is the (longer) window on nuclear development, and the second is the short window of the chance to capitalise on protests. The latter could have caused the US to move now on the former window.
You don't have to agree with the US's action to find my suggested timeline plausible, by the way; simply that these points were credible to the Trump administration.
At this point, depressingly I think this is going to be Trump's best bet (if we define "necessary" as meaning "necessary to save Trump's domestic reputation").
If withdrawing without Iran conceding is a loss in every sense (and therefore off the table), the choice is between continuing the current approach (the conservative, lowest-risk, moderately-high-unpopularity option), or escalating (the high-risk, high-potential-upside option). Escalation could have the opposite effect, but given that the other two options are so dire I think he would want to take the gamble.
There's a lot of don't knows about the sort term goals and outcomes however I suspect that this will significantly harm the US.
Firstly, a lot of the world will be untrusting of the US, which will mean a shift towards European and Canadian command and control as well produced weapons for use within NATO.
Next the desire to go green will be much stronger, as this is the second significant oil related price spike in a reasonably short period, so individuals may not have been able to recover from the previous one.
Linked to it, a lot of people understand that high oil prices help Russia against Ukraine, they want Ukraine to prevail and so are more likely to do things which reduce their need for oil/gas fire that reason (even if they are otherwise untrusting of the green agenda).
The more right leaving parties are therefore going to be facing a bit more of a political headwind - especially those with links to Trump and copying his policy book (drill baby drill and lower taxes for the rich - although obviously they conveniently forget to mention the taxes are likely to be cut the most for the rich).
That could mean that the EU gains more influence with more countries around it and those politically aligned against Trump (the latter including those like Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and maybe even places like South Africa - Australia has already been in the Eurovision Song Contest, so it's likely to have some more interest than others). Such a NATO+ grouping could be quite a useful thing as it could be a third power capable of being a check and balance against China and the US (and others).
Within the US, with high oil and gas prices people are likely to buy solar panels, batteries and EV's (although half will never buy a Tesla) so that's likely to harm US manufacturing (as a lot of businesses are based around oil based need and even their ICE cars are still had guzzlers compared to their imported cars) which will also be harmed by the drop in orders for American made weapons from Europe, Canada, etc.
There's also the risk that this may come at a time when the AI bubble pops (due to the high cost of investment and limited returns being seen). That's not to say that it will disappear, rather like the dot com bubble it will lead to a more gradual move towards it, and it may not get to the hype expected in the next year or two but rather the next decade or two.
Such a bubble popping would significantly harm the US and might push yet more users from other countries away from reliance on US based software and social media.
Whilst the above may happen to some extent, due to events, it's unlikely there'll be a shift towards the US, so even a tiny shift along the lines above would be a quite likely outcome even if its not as significant as could be implied by the above.
Firstly, a lot of the world will be untrusting of the US, which will mean a shift towards European and Canadian command and control as well produced weapons for use within NATO.
Next the desire to go green will be much stronger, as this is the second significant oil related price spike in a reasonably short period, so individuals may not have been able to recover from the previous one.
Linked to it, a lot of people understand that high oil prices help Russia against Ukraine, they want Ukraine to prevail and so are more likely to do things which reduce their need for oil/gas fire that reason (even if they are otherwise untrusting of the green agenda).
The more right leaving parties are therefore going to be facing a bit more of a political headwind - especially those with links to Trump and copying his policy book (drill baby drill and lower taxes for the rich - although obviously they conveniently forget to mention the taxes are likely to be cut the most for the rich).
That could mean that the EU gains more influence with more countries around it and those politically aligned against Trump (the latter including those like Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and maybe even places like South Africa - Australia has already been in the Eurovision Song Contest, so it's likely to have some more interest than others). Such a NATO+ grouping could be quite a useful thing as it could be a third power capable of being a check and balance against China and the US (and others).
Within the US, with high oil and gas prices people are likely to buy solar panels, batteries and EV's (although half will never buy a Tesla) so that's likely to harm US manufacturing (as a lot of businesses are based around oil based need and even their ICE cars are still had guzzlers compared to their imported cars) which will also be harmed by the drop in orders for American made weapons from Europe, Canada, etc.
There's also the risk that this may come at a time when the AI bubble pops (due to the high cost of investment and limited returns being seen). That's not to say that it will disappear, rather like the dot com bubble it will lead to a more gradual move towards it, and it may not get to the hype expected in the next year or two but rather the next decade or two.
Such a bubble popping would significantly harm the US and might push yet more users from other countries away from reliance on US based software and social media.
Whilst the above may happen to some extent, due to events, it's unlikely there'll be a shift towards the US, so even a tiny shift along the lines above would be a quite likely outcome even if its not as significant as could be implied by the above.
brad465
Veteran Member
So another weekend is upon is, what escalation will Trump go for once the markets close?
Gloster
Veteran Member
Perhaps someone has told Trump, Hegseth, etc. about the Second Rule of War, ‘Don’t get involved in a land war in Asia’. Not that they would pay any attention if they could find some advantage in it: only losers will die. (The First Rule of War is ‘Don’t march on Moscow’.)
brad465
Veteran Member
There are reports The Pentagon is looking at redirecting military aid destined for Ukraine to the Middle East, even that which has been paid for by other NATO members. If this materialises this must surely be seen as the death knell of any European trust from in the US again, not just for not aiding Ukraine in this manner, but redirecting already paid for arms is effectively theft:
www.theguardian.com
Ukraine war briefing: Pentagon reportedly considering whether to divert aid from Ukraine to Middle East
US military stockpiles are under strain as a result of Iran war, Washington Post reports; Volodymyr Zelenskyy meets Saudi crown prince in Jeddah. What we know on day 1,493
www.theguardian.com
High Dyke
Established Member
Who knows with the Orange C**kwomble. Seemingly, on social media, he's been trying to negotiate a settlement with the patio umbrellas at the White House.
There are reports The Pentagon is looking at redirecting military aid destined for Ukraine to the Middle East, even that which has been paid for by other NATO members. If this materialises this must surely be seen as the death knell of any European trust from in the US again, not just for not aiding Ukraine in this manner, but redirecting already paid for arms is effectively theft:
Ukraine war briefing: Pentagon reportedly considering whether to divert aid from Ukraine to Middle East
US military stockpiles are under strain as a result of Iran war, Washington Post reports; Volodymyr Zelenskyy meets Saudi crown prince in Jeddah. What we know on day 1,493
I suppose that this isn’t surprising. They’ve been wanting to stitch Ukraine up without looking like they are actually doing it for a long time now.
Dave61
Member
More than just insane, have you seen the mountainous geography of Iran ?
No, but I suspect that is about as fun as the mountainous geography of Afghanistan to fight in
Not that I've seen the latter either, but that's why it wasn't an easy ground war and was why the US pulled out of that war, which for some reason didn't go down well with their allies who went in to help them (one might say that was an early red flag on direction of travel which had only been confirmed again and again since).
Forget about me, has Trump seen it?
Last edited:
It is worth highlighting that the NATO chief Mark Rutte spoke pretty strongly in support of the action in Iran a few days ago.
From the transcript, 22 March:
The fundamental tension is that, despite this, Europe has not assisted in any meaningful way with the Iran war. Rutte obviously cannot speak for European nations, but their inaction suggests they don't believe Rutte's words. I suspect the current US administration views Ukraine as equivalent in the sense that defending it doesn't directly concern NATO and their assistance is similarly discretionary.
I would argue that Europe is correct to diverge from the US, given the widely diverging perspectives on what is in the global interest. However, this is an expected consequence of that divergence and Europe clearly needs to directly and entirely fund the actions that are most important to us.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
It seems Europe wasn't consulted in advance so didn't get any chance to assist, and I'd like to think allies would have wanted to see a coherent plan before they agreed to anything.
The quote suggests Rutte is endorsing the objective (if that is indeed what the objective is) but doesn't indicate any agreement with the means. He's quite possibly sweet-talking Trump and his private opinions may be different.
Annetts key
Established Member
Yes, exactly. Mark Rutte, the secretary general of NATO and the NATO organisation don't have any power to help the USA with the war with Iran. Because firstly, it is a war of aggression started by Israel and the USA. But also, it's in an area of the world that NATO does not cover. Really, NATO helps countries coordinate if a member country is attacked.
So, it's purely up to the individual NATO member countries to decide if they want to help or not. And as all the other NATO member countries have leaders and governments with people that have working brain cells, they have concluded that they don't want to get involved.
For the same reason, NATO cannot help Ukraine. It's the choice of each country on what help they give to Ukraine. However, there is a big difference. Ukraine is fighting to defend itself.
You can get a general view of what the governments of the world think by the votes in the UN. Often, under Trump, the USA is voting the same way as Russia with the vast majority of the other democratic countries voting the opposite way...
Peter Mugridge
Veteran Member
Would this situation change if Iran did deliberately fire a missile at a European capital as per last week's hyped up media speculation? In such an instance, would NATO be legally able to unleash itself in return?
Annetts key
Established Member
Maybe. But only if the member involved invoked the appropriate clause (Article 5). But how other members decide to help is up to them. So you are far more likely to see assistance with air defence rather than anything else.
Though Article 5 is not the only mechanism for NATO to intervene. Famously, Afghanistan is the only time it’s actually been invoked. Perhaps Rutte is looking more towards Kosovo as a precedent, where NATO bombed without being attacked or having a UN mandate.
The US didn't exactly fail to occupy Afghanistan. They withdrew under an agreement with the Taliban. I don't know whether or not that considered them retaking the country at a later date, but while the mountainous terrain wasn't a picnic and gave a homeland advantage to guerilla fighters, it wasn't so much on obstacle that they couldn't occupy the country initially. Iran will be considerably harder and costlier of course because of it's size and population.
With any potential boots-on-the-ground situation in Iran I can see it being like a combination of Afghanistan and Vietnam. Under conventional tactics I have no doubt the US Army and Marine Corps will be able to win most of the battles and potentially occupy the country, but in a war of attrition with guerilla tactics the US will struggle, and long-term will be unable to achieve it's strategic objectives. That said do we even know what they are?
edwin_m
Veteran Member
The Afghanistan operation was originally badged as NATO despite it being well away from the North Atlantic. I assume this is because it was triggered by 9/11 which was within NATO's sphere.
Dave61
Member
I think more a combination of Afghanistan and Iraq might be a bit closer but yeah a bit of Vietnam thrown in.
Much more like Iraq that Vietnam. Remember that the USA wasn't (technically) fighting a war in Vietnam, they were assisting the Republic of Vietnam fighting off an insurgency by the Viet Cong / war against the People's Republic of Vietnam (who were being assisted by the USSR).
Given the amount of infrastructure so far destroyed and the low likelihood of a peaceful resolution in the near term, I wonder how long it'll be before public transport staff become "key workers" once again? If we have car fuel rationing of any sort there will presumably be significant demand that will have to be somehow managed.