Wary of conflict with Iran, Trump takes go-slow approach to attack on Saudi oil

[Morch]

8 hours ago, billd766 said:

Many Americans could't even find Iran on a world map. Iran doesn't really threaten the USA, although the USA threatens Iran and by extension the Gulf area.

 

Iran doesn't currently pose much of a direct threat to the USA (although some, like @spidermike007 appear to try and claim the opposite). Iran does, however, represent a serious threat to USA interests (that's not a dirty word, all countries got them, including Iran).

 

As for the "...and by extension the Gulf Area" - if so, then Iran is a threat to the very same. Directly, not by extension.

[Morch]

7 hours ago, scorecard said:

Well said, from a Vietnam veteran who realized very quickly that the war machine is nothing less than grosely evil and has very little upside. The world desperately needs to ensure the greedy unethical barons can't make big money from war, and start a completely different approach to dialogue which is respected. 

 

Step 1 - cancel the UN which in terms of stopping / reducing war has basically achieved nothing in 100 years.

 

Also I ask 'what has the UN done to ensure every person on this planet has citizenship?

 

The answer is close to zero. Just disgusting. 

 

What "completely different approach to dialogue" would that be? Even if one agrees the UN is so useless as to require disbanding, it's worth considering that this imperfect organization is the best that the World managed and managed to agree on. The prospects of an undetermined, superior alternative to come about are rather low.

[bristolboy]

6 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Iran doesn't currently pose much of a direct threat to the USA (although some, like @spidermike007 appear to try and claim the opposite). Iran does, however, represent a serious threat to USA interests (that's not a dirty word, all countries got them, including Iran).

 

As for the "...and by extension the Gulf Area" - if so, then Iran is a threat to the very same. Directly, not by extension.

I guess that depends on who is deciding what the US interests in that part of the world actually are. If there was anything close to unanimity on that score you might have a better point. Or do you believe that there is some objective way of ascertaining this?

[mikebike]

19 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Nothing in MbS' record suggests that he wants to be portrayed as anything but a strong and competent leader. Keep in mind that there are factions in the Saudi Royal Family who would like nothing better than to have him seen as weak and unable to defend SA.

SA would be hard pressed to defend itself against Iran without US assistance. Most people globally can see behind the veil of the S.A. royal family and their authoritarian grip on the country and their need for strong ties to the US to protect their regime.

[DLock]

Why would Trump rush to protect Saudi - when 15 of the 9/11 Hijackers were from Saudi?

 

Oil? No, because US oil reserves are plenty, and I'm sure he doesn't mind the 20% increase in price.

 

I think his "go slow" is the right strategy. I also don't know why everyone looks to the USA to solve world problems anyway, and then blames them for being the worlds protectors. If Saudi are too weak to defend themselves, then better pull out the cheque book and pay someone to defend them,...

[bristolboy]

30 minutes ago, DLock said:

Why would Trump rush to protect Saudi - when 15 of the 9/11 Hijackers were from Saudi?

 

Oil? No, because US oil reserves are plenty, and I'm sure he doesn't mind the 20% increase in price.

 

I think his "go slow" is the right strategy. I also don't know why everyone looks to the USA to solve world problems anyway, and then blames them for being the worlds protectors. If Saudi are too weak to defend themselves, then better pull out the cheque book and pay someone to defend them,...

His "go slow" policy? You mean sending a flotilla to the Gulf? Increasing American troop presence there? If he doesn't want everyone looking to the USA to solve the world's problems why send that flotilla and those troops in the first place?

[DLock]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

His "go slow" policy? You mean sending a flotilla to the Gulf? Increasing American troop presence there? If he doesn't want everyone looking to the USA to solve the world's problems why send that flotilla and those troops in the first place?

"Go slow", as in he didn't bomb the <deleted> our of Iran that day as he is prone to do.

[bristolboy]

10 minutes ago, DLock said:

"Go slow", as in he didn't bomb the <deleted> our of Iran that day as he is prone to do.

Actually, he is not "prone to do" at all. He is prone to making military threats and also prone to not following through on them. At this point his act is getting old.

[spidermike007]

15 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Iran doesn't currently pose much of a direct threat to the USA (although some, like @spidermike007 appear to try and claim the opposite). Iran does, however, represent a serious threat to USA interests (that's not a dirty word, all countries got them, including Iran).

 

As for the "...and by extension the Gulf Area" - if so, then Iran is a threat to the very same. Directly, not by extension.

To even consider the possibility that Iran does not pose a direct threat to the US, is the very embodiment of the kind of hubris that got us involved in countless wars, of questionable merit. Iran could inflict massive damage upon the US, with a proxy terror campaign, the disruption of the world economy, which a conflict in the region would certainly cause, and many other factors. Though I am sure they are not contemplating a boots on the ground campaign at this time, it could easily escalate into one. That could be an unmitigated disaster for the US. Cyber related damage, terrorism, the economy, and a dogmatic nation willing to spend it's treasure on making life miserable for the US is just scratching the surface. Underestimate Iran at your own peril. Israel and the US certainly do. 

[Morch]

3 hours ago, DLock said:

Why would Trump rush to protect Saudi - when 15 of the 9/11 Hijackers were from Saudi?

 

Oil? No, because US oil reserves are plenty, and I'm sure he doesn't mind the 20% increase in price.

 

I think his "go slow" is the right strategy. I also don't know why everyone looks to the USA to solve world problems anyway, and then blames them for being the worlds protectors. If Saudi are too weak to defend themselves, then better pull out the cheque book and pay someone to defend them,...

 

"Oil? No, because US oil reserves are plenty, and I'm sure he doesn't mind the 20% increase in price."

 

Messing with oil supply and price messes with World economy. And even MAGA fans could figure that a poorer World is less beneficial for the USA.

[Morch]

33 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

To even consider the possibility that Iran does not pose a direct threat to the US, is the very embodiment of the kind of hubris that got us involved in countless wars, of questionable merit. Iran could inflict massive damage upon the US, with a proxy terror campaign, the disruption of the world economy, which a conflict in the region would certainly cause, and many other factors. Though I am sure they are not contemplating a boots on the ground campaign at this time, it could easily escalate into one. That could be an unmitigated disaster for the US. Cyber related damage, terrorism, the economy, and a dogmatic nation willing to spend it's treasure on making life miserable for the US is just scratching the surface. Underestimate Iran at your own peril. Israel and the US certainly do. 

 

Yawn.

 

Iran does not pose a direct threat to the USA - either than in alarmist/scaremongering rants. It's a threat, alright, but nothing on the scale your routinely hype it to be. You have no idea what Iran could or could not do. Other than the same three assessment you sometimes link and cherry pick from - there's not much actual evidence regarding Iran's alleged capabilities, or the USA's implied helplessness.

 

Neither "proxy terror campaign" nor "disruption of the World economy" are direct threats to the USA (or at least, not solely the USA), and "many other factors" is...what, exactly?

 

That you co-opt the entire Iranian nation in the manner suggested is not based on anything much but your imagination. I don't think all Iranians are "dogmatic", or that all would have signed up to "spend it's treasure on making life miserable for the US". I'm guessing you don't actually know any Iranians much.

 

Wouldn't know what "underestimating" you're on about. By the "standard" set in your rants, it would include anything not making Iran into some almighty super foe. It's a regional power. The USA league is China and Russia. Look up "balance", and maybe "perspective". That you announce Iran is "certainly" underestimated relies on nothing.

 

Exaggerating and hyping Iran and it's supposed capabilities as a major threat might have the unwanted effect of encouraging "removal" of the threat, rather than the determent you wish to promote. I'm pretty certain Iran's leadership is nowhere as confident about these matters as you are.