FBI stops Iran assasination attempt on Saudi Amb. to US

[K. A. Pital]

Yeah, the "cut off aid" is nonexistent because the US doesn't give them any, option "lodge protest" is the same as option "do nothing", break off diplomatic relations isn't cool because the USA trades oils with the Middle East.

[PeZook]

Wait,so you can't break off relations because OMG THE OIL, yet you can wage war?

I wonder how amiable Iran will be to selling you guys oil after you bomb the shit out of it!

[K. A. Pital]

Because breaking off relations achieves nothing from a cost/benefit thing, that's pretty much in the same vein as "do nothing" - it wll complicate diplomatic contact, sure, but what else?

War is simultaneously breaking relations and destroying enemy shit. War is obviously a total break of any relations except flying JDAMRAAMs.

From America's point of view, what is the benefit from just breaking off relations? None. Of course, war is actively counterbeneficial, but that's another question alltogether.

[Broomstick]

I wonder how amiable Iran will be to selling you guys oil after you bomb the shit out of it!

I suspect the amount of oil Iran sells to the US is pretty minor.

The key problem is not "does the US piss off Iran" - the people running Iran already hate us. The problem is if the US alienates the rest of the Mid East, which does supply a significant amount of US oil.

[PeZook]

I suspect the amount of oil Iran sells to the US is pretty minor.

Well, it's apparently significant enough to warrant problems due to oil rig contracts not being fulfilled

And of course they supply copious oil to world markets, which will take a hit with supply inevitably dwindling due to the war.

[Col. Crackpot]

But consequeces beyond the fuckall uselessness of UN sanctions are needed.

I already said that there's only two options: sanctions and war. And a "do nothing" option. Yes, there's also "assassinate Iranian politicians" option, too. You can try that and see what happens.

Nonsense, there are many options between sanctions and war. There are liberal democracy and secular groups inside Iran we can offer funding and intel to for starters.

[Col. Crackpot]

I suspect the amount of oil Iran sells to the US is pretty minor.

Well, it's apparently significant enough to warrant problems due to oil rig contracts not being fulfilled

And of course they supply copious oil to world markets, which will take a hit with supply inevitably dwindling due to the war.

Funny thing about Iran... they need the hard currency from oil sales as badly as 'we' need the oil.

[K. A. Pital]

But consequeces beyond the fuckall uselessness of UN sanctions are needed.

I already said that there's only two options: sanctions and war. And a "do nothing" option. Yes, there's also "assassinate Iranian politicians" option, too. You can try that and see what happens.

Nonsense, there are many options between sanctions and war. There are liberal democracy and secular groups inside Iran we can offer funding and intel to for starters.

You're already funding them. Are you really thinking the US intelligence is not funding all anti-government groups it finds useful in potentially hostile nations? Please.

[PeZook]

Funny thing about Iran... they need the hard currency from oil sales as badly as 'we' need the oil.

Well, in case of war, reserves of hard currency will be the least of their problems. America will probably still be able to buy all the oil it needs, just at grossly inflated prices.

[MKSheppard]

Sounds like it's time for Operation PREYING MANTIS II; where the U.S. Navy fights it's largest surface engagement since Operation PREYING MANTIS, which was in turn the largest surface engagement since WWII.

Though if we do that; we'd have to wait for 'special assets' to be in the area -- read: a LCS, so we could validate the design; by having a LCS sprint in at 40 knots, shoot off some 57mm gunfire and then run away.

[Mr Bean]

Funny thing about Iran... they need the hard currency from oil sales as badly as 'we' need the oil.

Well, in case of war, reserves of hard currency will be the least of their problems. America will probably still be able to buy all the oil it needs, just at grossly inflated prices.

Not exactly since Iran is within striking range of all the oil we would be buying. Standard war gaming assumes that any war with Iran there's a 50/50 chance they attack every oil facility with in range of their missiles and bombers, focusing most strikes at transport rather than production areas which is must fewer targets with very little quick backup. The US can and will have to drain the strategic reserve but after that things get dicey.

[Zaune]

I find it interesting that you seem to think the Iranians want a war. I tend to think they are not completely suicidal.

I don't think the Iranian people want a war at all. For one thing, they'd be the ones doing the brunt of the dying.

The Iranian government is another matter. It's hardly unknown for a government to start a war for political ends, to distract from domestic problems, and to inspire loyalty and sacrifice in the citizenry. If the big boys think they can keep themselves safe they might be willing to start some sort of conflict. Or the could simply misjudge the reaction to a provocation.

Since you bring it up... how do we know it's the Iranian government that's trying to provoke a war here? I mean, we've got documented cases of the FBI all but manufacturing terrorist plots out of whole cloth, what's a little hyperbole and bullshit by comparison? I can't imagine what the Obama administration would gain by it, unless they're delusional enough to think they could have the tanks rolling across the Iranian border in a week and be handing over power to a new democratic government just in time for the next election, and in any case I can't really see Obama mustering the necessary level of cartoon supervillainy to sign off on a stunt like that.
But then, does this interpretation make any less sense than the Iranians deciding to pick a fight with the US and Saudia Arabia simultaneously, and before they've tested a nuclear warhead? Okay, they'd only have to actively resist long enough for the US economy to collapse under the strain of fighting all three wars of occupation at once, but they wouldn't have much of a country left at the end of it. Talk about mutually assured destruction.

I dunno, maybe either Obama or Ahmadinejad has just gone completely cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs and this was all Mr Flibble's idea. Or did I fall through a rift in spacetime overnight and wake up in a Tom Clancy novel?

[Shroom Man 777]

Why would an Iranian operative go to a Mexican for explosives advice? That's like an IRA man going to Greenland for a mass and communion or some shit.

[ChaserGrey]

break off diplomatic relations isn't cool because the USA trades oils with the Middle East.

And, more to the point, the U.S. hasn't had diplomatic relations with Iran since 1979. Which seems to have escaped multiple people, here.

[MarshalPurnell]

I was wondering how long it would be before "maybe's it's all a government conspiracy" would be broached. It actually took longer than I expected, so there is that. On the other hand Shroom's trolling once again goes without repercussions.

The United States does not have diplomatic relations to sever with Iran. Sanctions are also a very limited tool because the US has criminalized trade with Iran already. There is something to be said for making sure a very public trial puts forward all kinds of embarrassing information about the Republican Guard, but that can and will be ignored by the Iranian government. War, on the other hand, is a costly option unlikely to accomplish anything worth the exertion, and a military strike of lesser strength could start a war anyway and would certainly bring on some form of Iranian retaliation.

The best option then is to make Iran pay a price with other governments. The Saudis are highly influential in the Gulf region and can lead other governments in the area to downgrade ties with Iran. We can make sure the Gulf Cooperation Council states are even better armed to fight Iran and that the islands claimed by Iran in the Persian Gulf are more heavily fortified. We can put pressure on Oman to choose between friendship with Iran and relations with Saudi Arabia and the West and on the Iraqi government to reduce the influence Iran enjoys there. We can also use this incident to encourage the European Union to levy tougher sanctions on Iran, since this is an escalation of Iran's assassinations against dissidents that have usually been carried out on European soil. There may also be a window to put pressure on Japan and other Asian states to limit technology transfers to Iran, leaving them more reliant on China which at least has a considerable interest in restraining Iranian behavior.

And we can provide Voice of America, the BBC Persian Service, and other sources of dissident news with more powerful transmitters to overcome the increasingly routine jamming done by the Iranian authorities. The Iranian authorities are obviously very nervous about the potential challenge posed by their own opposition so we should stoke those fears without becoming overtly involved.

Granted, Iran's behavior may very well lead to war anyway. This kind of reckless behavior on the part of the Revolutionary Guard suggests either that the government does not have full control over its security services (likely) and/or that someone in high positions of authority endorsed this (less likely). The growing power and prominence of the Revolutionary Guard, and its decoupling from Ahmadinejahd in favor of Ayatollah Khamenei, does not bode well for it being reined in anytime soon. There is also the Iranian nuclear program which probably should be stopped from coming to fruition by whatever means are necessary lest the Middle East explode in a proliferation of nuclear weapons. But there is nothing to gain by speeding up the day that reckoning comes and certainly right now the US is poorly placed to fight another big regional war and will probably be for years.

[K. A. Pital]

On the other hand Shroom's trolling once again goes without repercussions.

Trolling mindless patriotic drones who are wishing war due to an averted terrorist act is not punishable. In fact, it is commendable, because it brings the stupid out of people. You feel offended by the fact that patriotic morons who casually write about "sinking their navy and WAR WAR WAR" and later retract their position saying "Well, I obviously meant..." are going to get trolled? Get real.

If people respond to the OP with stupid - which warmongering is, warmongering is always stupid unless Nazis are invading your nation and slaughtering everyone upwards from 10 years old - that is not going to pass without mockery.

[TheHammer]

All of the trolling and parody aside which quite frankly I'm not going to dignify by responding to directly, the reason you must respond to an attack like this with force is because of the precedent it sets. Applying the same sanctions that have failed to evoke any changes in Iran's nuclear program clearly were not a detterent to them plotting acts of terrorism on American soil. Acts which would have claimed American lives had they been successful. Apparently they feared no retalation. They could blow up the Saudi Ambassador, an American restaurant and we would do nothing of serious harm. Sanctions? OH NOEEES NOT SANCTIONS! they must have thought.

Failing to respond with force will only be viewed as weakness. Other nations with potential gripes against the US, say Syria or Pakistan would see that they could get away with similar action. No one is calling for a "shep solution". But a measured military response, say wiping a major airbase off the map, sinking some of their navy, cruise missile to the offending agency's HQ or whathave you would let them and anyone else with similar ideas know you really don't want to fuck with us. If you want to call it "war mongering" so be it. But I've always lived by this philosophy: don't start shit won't be shit.

[Shroom Man 777]

I was wondering how long it would be before "maybe's it's all a government conspiracy" would be broached. It actually took longer than I expected, so there is that.

Yeah, it took way longer than I expected for "maybe's it's all a government conspiracy". I mean, if they broached that in 2003...

Oops.

And what you (or the media, or the US government) are alleging is a government conspiracy. A conspiracy to murder on part of the Iranian government.

An Iranian government that's also allegedly, and obviously is, stirring shit up in the Middle East. And has been said to be teaching insurgents how to make IEDs and EFPs to turn US GIs into KIAs in the WOT in the ME in OIF and all of the USA's other TLAs made of ABCs.

Yet an Iranian operative goes to Mexico for explosives expertise? From a cartel? What?

Gasp. Maybe you're right. Maybe it's not a government conspiracy. I mean, how stupid of me to go on about "government conspiracies". There IS the possibility that it's not a a conspiracy by the government.

Not a conspiracy by the government of Iran.

Could be some asshole was being stupid and his half-brained scheme got him in Mexico and into all sorts of trouble.

It's not like lone psychos peripherally associated with "bad nations" haven't gone and tried to do stupid things by their own stupid selves. Didn't Lee Harvey Oswald defect to the Soviet Union before he KIA'ed JFK? Wasn't that guy who mailed anthrax spores also working for another bad government before he went psycho and did it himself, without any part of any government conspiracy?

Be that as it may, it's still highly likely that Iran is involved in this. There's no illusion that Iran doesn't support terrorist actions. They might not be doing it with JDAMRAAMs or drone strikes, and maybe people would think they were more hip if they tried doing this with a Predator loaded with Hellfires, and that might've made them more popular (and successful?). For all we know, the Iranian President or the Ayatollah himself might've approved of this planned human drone strike after meeting and discussing with Iranian intelligence in a closed secret session to absolutely ascertain their guilt. But even then, what can be done?

That question's apparently stumped a lot of guys, short of ole Hammer here.

Other nations with potential gripes against the US, say Syria or Pakistan would see that they could get away with similar action. No one is calling for a "shep solution". But a measured military response, say wiping a major airbase off the map, sinking some of their navy, cruise missile to the offending agency's HQ or whathave you would let them and anyone else with similar ideas know you really don't want to fuck with us. If you want to call it "war mongering" so be it. But I've always lived by this philosophy: don't start shit won't be shit.

I don't know, man. I said the exact same thing, but they didn't seem to like it very much.

I mean, I'm all for sinking air bases and blowing up ships and destroying government buildings as a completely proportionate response to an assassination attempt that never bore any fruition at all because the planner(s) got stopped long before they even implemented any of their schemes.

[Alkaloid]

but that can and will be ignored by the Iranian government

Unlikely, because the Iranian government is mostly made up of crazy people, as evidenced by the fact that they thought blowing up a restaurant in the US to kill a Saudi diplomat is a good plan. They are crazy fundy dickheads who want to look powerful, and embarrassing them with a fancy show trial where their agents are exposed, their histories are exposed and how silly their plan was makes them look like inept and powerless crazy fundy dickheads, which they hate. There are really only two things the US can actually take away from the ruling council that they actually care about, their lives or their dignity. Lives involves war, dignity a trial and some good press management.

[Siege]

No one is calling for a "shep solution". But a measured military response, say wiping a major airbase off the map, sinking some of their navy, cruise missile to the offending agency's HQ or whathave you would let them and anyone else with similar ideas know you really don't want to fuck with us.

So let me get this straight, some fuckwit conspires to blow up a dude in a restaurant and fails miserably in the planning stages... And "wiping a major airbase off the map" in your world qualifies as a "measured" response to that? What world of utter destructive insanity do you inhabit, precisely?

[Shroom Man 777]

Alkaloid, what is the level of involvement of the Iranian government in this?

Crazy fundie dickheads who want to look more powerful is also an apt description for the leadership of a nation that's invaded or attacked like half a dozen nations over the span of half a century, in fact they may even be more dangerous than the fundie dickheads who've never invaded any other nation ever since their revolutionary inception in the late 70s, and whose most major military action involved getting attacked by a Donald Rumsfeld-handshaking Saddam and nerved gassed to fuck.

[Alkaloid]

Alkaloid, what is the level of involvement of the Iranian government in this?

At this point I'm taking it at face value, an unofficially sanctioned Iranian plot to turkey slap a hungry bear or something. The point was more that public humiliation is an excellent response to people like this (from any country) because they can't leverage it against you, and no one gets blown up.

[Shroom Man 777]

Well, I won't disagree to that and it would certainly cause less of an international shitfit or ruckus than the USA reciprocating through overt military action. There are multitudes of methods at international humiliation that don't involve violence or loss of life.

Why, Block's Tehran airborne porkdrop idea is another excellent thing, if not realistically (unfortunately).

[Simon_Jester]

So where was all this outrage when TheHammer advocated the exact same things Shroom wants done to Iran?

I, for one, was not watching this thread at the time.

So where was all this outrage when TheHammer advocated the exact same things Shroom wants done to Iran?

Flagg called him out for being a warmonger, I said he was being over the top and rediculous. was that not enough?

You went from "Hammer was just being over the top" to "RAGHR I HOPE YOU DIE". I am just wondering why the difference is so pronounced when it's some Filipino saying warmongering things instead of an American.

Ham did it because he's an American Power fanboy, and kind of a dim one. Shroom did it because he's trolling, and so was happy to mock-suggest things in bad faith which everyone knows would be disastrous. This isn't worse than being a warmongering dimwit, but it is more annoying, especially from the point of view of people who know damn well that a war with Iran would be a bad idea, and know Shroom knows this.

I really think a huge public trial of the ones responsible (well, the ones you can try for this anyways ; We don't know if the guys involved are legal or illegal operatives) would do far more political damage to Iran than a limited bombing campaign ever could.

That would be great. I am all in favor of making the Iranians look like fools for this, and trying to put indirect passive-aggressive pressure on them by encouraging third parties to snub them.

Shroom massively trolled the thread with the typical Shep-style approach. I can only weep at the lack of understanding demonstrated by some of the posters. When you are being trolled and you respond seriously, that means something's really wrong.

In my case, it's because I'm bloody tired of warmongering, and respond accordingly. Of course, I'm also chronically easy to troll.

I understand that of course: blowing up one extra person is not the same as blowing up ten or twenty extra persons. However, from a strict "don't kill our citizens!" point of view even one murdered citizens in a foreign government operation is an act of war. I just demonstrated the absurdity of this. Sometimes even several killed citizens are not enough to start a war (Cole bombing).

Personally, I think that killing citizens of a foreign government gives that government justification to declare war. But a government which is anywhere near as wise or prudent as governments ought to be will not always declare war every time it would be justified in doing so, because of the many innocent people who will be hurt or killed, and because of the great costs.

Just because you have justification for doing something, does not mean that you should do it- I might be justified in losing my temper but try not to, or justified in asking for something but choose not to, or the like.

[Thanas]

Failing to respond with force will only be viewed as weakness.

Yeah, god forbid a country
- which wasted tons of national resources in an aggressive war based upon bad fabrications
- which claimed to support the palaestinians in their peace process and then conveniently forgot said speech when it matters
- which is regularly schooled by Israel when it comes to the middle east
might look weak and foolish.