Our Undeclared Wars

[a fan]

Instead of troops, I should have written "an increase in US military presence in the general region to protect the shipping lanes from these attacks".

My point is, it's patently absurd to think that these attacks would make it MORE likely for the US to relieve sanctions, not far LESS.

No one is that stupid.

[old salt]

Instead of troops, I should have written "an increase in US military presence in the general region to protect the shipping lanes from these attacks".

My point is, it's patently absurd to think that these attacks would make it MORE likely for the US to relieve sanctions, not far LESS.

No one is that stupid.

I disagree. The Iranians are trying to divide us from our nervous allies.
I don't think Trump will take unilateral military action unless a US Navy ship or US flagged ship is attacked or damaged by a mine.
Iran is being careful not to sink these tankers, just damage them.

Additional US forces are being sent to protect the air & ground forces & diplomats we have already have in the region, from attacks by Iranian proxies, as well as potential missile attacks from Iran. Our 5th Fleet already has a significant naval presence.

At this point, I'm not sure convoy's are the appropriate defense for this. These aren't swarms of IRGC high speed craft or seeded minefields, as in the Tanker Wars of the '80's. This is more a physical security challenge, keeping the mines from being affixed in port or when underway.
Drones & ISR aircraft can help monitor surface traffic & warn ships.

A multinational naval task force might become appropriate if the IRGC escalates, or now -- as a deterrent & show of solidarity that a closing of the Strait will not be tolerated.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Instead of troops, I should have written "an increase in US military presence in the general region to protect the shipping lanes from these attacks".

My point is, it's patently absurd to think that these attacks would make it MORE likely for the US to relieve sanctions, not far LESS.

No one is that stupid.

I disagree. The Iranians are trying to divide us from our nervous allies.
I don't think Trump will take unilateral military action unless a US Navy ship or US flagged ship is attacked or damaged by a mine.
Iran is being careful not to sink these tankers, just damage them.

Additional US forces are being sent to protect the air & ground forces & diplomats we have already have in the region, from attacks by Iranian proxies, as well as potential missile attacks from Iran. Our 5th Fleet already has a significant naval presence.

At this point, I'm not sure convoy's are the appropriate defense for this. These aren't swarms of IRGC high speed craft or seeded minefields, as in the Tanker Wars of the '80's. This is more a physical security challenge, keeping the mines from being affixed in port or when underway.
Drones & ISR aircraft can help monitor surface traffic & warn ships.

A multinational naval task force might become appropriate if the IRGC escalates, or now -- as a deterrent & show of solidarity that a closing of the Strait will not be tolerated.

Taking a page out of the Trump / Russian play book!

[OCanada]

Lololol. Sorry. That dog don’t hunt as a motive OS. The loopy conspiracy theory is yours. Iran as perp makes no sense. The administration has been very free with using falsified informational to further their narratives. Iran not so much. Iran has been a paragon of virtue compared to the USA and SA in the Middle East.

Photos are meaningless regardless. Now a series of them would be very helpful and they must have them but they haven’t released any of them. Be interesting to see SAT photos too.

Who benefits ? Not Iran. Your theory fits Russia pretty well go a motive.

Not buying the1,000 troops theory. Some on in the WH was part of that discussion imo

[old salt]

Maybe we need Mueller to mount a "wag the dog" investigation to check out your false flag conspiracy theories.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Maybe we need Mueller to mount a "wag the dog" investigation to check out your false flag conspiracy theories.

[MDlaxfan76]

Maybe we need Mueller to mount a "wag the dog" investigation to check out your false flag conspiracy theories.

Seriously, the shame is that we really can't trust what the White House tells us these days.

Perhaps we should have been more skeptical in prior periods as well, certainly we've learned that what we've been told at various points has been 'shaped' or downright falsehoods to bolster a desired narrative.

However, the constant mendacity of this crew is breathtaking. It's almost to the point that the best predictor of truth is to look to the opposite of what Trump or his crew says. That's brutal, but unfortunately where we find ourselves.

[a fan]

I disagree. The Iranians are trying to divide us from our nervous allies.

Disagree completely. So do you, if you read your sentence below....

A multinational naval task force might become appropriate if the IRGC escalates, or now -- as a deterrent & show of solidarity that a closing of the Strait will not be tolerated.

See? Even you know this will strengthen the relationship with nervous allies. That's the most likely outcome.

So either something else is at work (e.g., a rogue element in Iranian military), or the Iranians are morons.

I don't think Trump will take unilateral military action unless a US Navy ship or US flagged ship is attacked or damaged by a mine.
Iran is being careful not to sink these tankers, just damage them.

Disagree. If these ships, regardless of origin, keep hitting these mines, Trump will eventually hit an Iranian military target.

We'll see. I hope you're right, and I'm wrong.

[old salt]

I disagree. The Iranians are trying to divide us from our nervous allies.

Disagree completely. So do you, if you read your sentence below....

A multinational naval task force might become appropriate if the IRGC escalates, or now -- as a deterrent & show of solidarity that a closing of the Strait will not be tolerated.

See? Even you know this will strengthen the relationship with nervous allies. That's the most likely outcome.
Really ? Who's sending ships to the region to join us in convoy duty ? Who's augmenting the standing CTF 150 or CTF 152 ? Are the Japanese, French or Germans sending warships ? A Spanish frigate that was sailing around the world as part of the Lincoln carrier strike group, detached & went to India for a port visit when the Lincoln CSG diverted to the Gulf of Oman.

So either something else is at work (e.g., a rogue element in Iranian military), or the Iranians are morons.
The IRGC is independent of the Iranian military, but they're not a rogue element. They still answer to the Supreme Leader.

I don't think Trump will take unilateral military action unless a US Navy ship or US flagged ship is attacked or damaged by a mine.
Iran is being careful not to sink these tankers, just damage them.

Disagree. If these ships, regardless of origin, keep hitting these mines, Trump will eventually hit an Iranian military target.
They're not hitting mines. These are limpet mines which are being affixed to the ships, at or above the waterline. They're not random targets, hitting them while transiting minefields. The ships are being selectively targeted by the IRGC. The Strait or it's approaches have not been mined (yet).


We'll see. I hope you're right, and I'm wrong.

[foreverlax]

I disagree. The Iranians are trying to divide us from our nervous allies.

Disagree completely. So do you, if you read your sentence below....

A multinational naval task force might become appropriate if the IRGC escalates, or now -- as a deterrent & show of solidarity that a closing of the Strait will not be tolerated.

See? Even you know this will strengthen the relationship with nervous allies. That's the most likely outcome.
Really ? Who's sending ships to the region to join us in convoy duty ? Who's augmenting the standing CTF 150 or CTF 152 ? Are the Japanese, French or Germans sending warships ? A Spanish frigate that was sailing around the world as part of the Lincoln carrier strike group, detached & went to India for a port visit when the Lincoln CSG diverted to the Gulf of Oman.

So either something else is at work (e.g., a rogue element in Iranian military), or the Iranians are morons.
The IRGC is independent of the Iranian military, but they're not a rogue element. They still answer to the Supreme Leader.

I don't think Trump will take unilateral military action unless a US Navy ship or US flagged ship is attacked or damaged by a mine.
Iran is being careful not to sink these tankers, just damage them.

Disagree. If these ships, regardless of origin, keep hitting these mines, Trump will eventually hit an Iranian military target.
They're not hitting mines. These are limpet mines which are being affixed to the ships, at or above the waterline. They're not random targets, hitting them on minefields. The ships are being selectively targeted by the IRGC.


We'll see. I hope you're right, and I'm wrong.

And who is pulling the IRGC strings?

Putin.

[a fan]

A multinational naval task force might become appropriate if the IRGC escalates, or now -- as a deterrent & show of solidarity that a closing of the Strait will not be tolerated.

Really ? Who's sending ships to the region to join us in convoy duty ? Who's augmenting the standing CTF 150 or CTF 152 ? Are the Japanese, French or Germans sending warships ? A Spanish frigate that was sailing around the world as part of the Lincoln carrier strike group, detached & went to India for a port visit when the Lincoln CSG diverted to the Gulf of Oman.

Having an argument with yourself, are we?

Tell you what, pick which of the above statements you believe, and get back to me. It seems that your second statement is taking issue with your first one.

[old salt]

I disagree. The Iranians are trying to divide us from our nervous allies.

Disagree completely. So do you, if you read your sentence below....

A multinational naval task force might become appropriate if the IRGC escalates, or now -- as a deterrent & show of solidarity that a closing of the Strait will not be tolerated.

See? Even you know this will strengthen the relationship with nervous allies. That's the most likely outcome.
Really ? Who's sending ships to the region to join us in convoy duty ? Who's augmenting the standing CTF 150 or CTF 152 ? Are the Japanese, French or Germans sending warships ? A Spanish frigate that was sailing around the world as part of the Lincoln carrier strike group, detached & went to India for a port visit when the Lincoln CSG diverted to the Gulf of Oman.

So either something else is at work (e.g., a rogue element in Iranian military), or the Iranians are morons.
The IRGC is independent of the Iranian military, but they're not a rogue element. They still answer to the Supreme Leader.

I don't think Trump will take unilateral military action unless a US Navy ship or US flagged ship is attacked or damaged by a mine.
Iran is being careful not to sink these tankers, just damage them.

Disagree. If these ships, regardless of origin, keep hitting these mines, Trump will eventually hit an Iranian military target.
They're not hitting mines. These are limpet mines which are being affixed to the ships, at or above the waterline. They're not random targets, hitting them on minefields. The ships are being selectively targeted by the IRGC.


We'll see. I hope you're right, and I'm wrong.

And who is pulling the IRGC strings?

Putin.

What's your basis for that assertion ? More likely, he's watching & enjoying.

[foreverlax]

I disagree. The Iranians are trying to divide us from our nervous allies.

Disagree completely. So do you, if you read your sentence below....

A multinational naval task force might become appropriate if the IRGC escalates, or now -- as a deterrent & show of solidarity that a closing of the Strait will not be tolerated.

See? Even you know this will strengthen the relationship with nervous allies. That's the most likely outcome.
Really ? Who's sending ships to the region to join us in convoy duty ? Who's augmenting the standing CTF 150 or CTF 152 ? Are the Japanese, French or Germans sending warships ? A Spanish frigate that was sailing around the world as part of the Lincoln carrier strike group, detached & went to India for a port visit when the Lincoln CSG diverted to the Gulf of Oman.

So either something else is at work (e.g., a rogue element in Iranian military), or the Iranians are morons.
The IRGC is independent of the Iranian military, but they're not a rogue element. They still answer to the Supreme Leader.

I don't think Trump will take unilateral military action unless a US Navy ship or US flagged ship is attacked or damaged by a mine.
Iran is being careful not to sink these tankers, just damage them.

Disagree. If these ships, regardless of origin, keep hitting these mines, Trump will eventually hit an Iranian military target.
They're not hitting mines. These are limpet mines which are being affixed to the ships, at or above the waterline. They're not random targets, hitting them on minefields. The ships are being selectively targeted by the IRGC.


We'll see. I hope you're right, and I'm wrong.

And who is pulling the IRGC strings?

Putin.

What's your basis for that assertion ? More likely, he's watching & enjoying.

Because that is what he does.

[old salt]

A multinational naval task force might become appropriate if the IRGC escalates, or now -- as a deterrent & show of solidarity that a closing of the Strait will not be tolerated.

Really ? Who's sending ships to the region to join us in convoy duty ? Who's augmenting the standing CTF 150 or CTF 152 ? Are the Japanese, French or Germans sending warships ? A Spanish frigate that was sailing around the world as part of the Lincoln carrier strike group, detached & went to India for a port visit when the Lincoln CSG diverted to the Gulf of Oman.

Having an argument with yourself, are we?

Tell you what, pick which of the above statements you believe, and get back to me. It seems that your second statement is taking issue with your first one.

I said that it might become appropriate. That does not mean that other nations will choose to participate.

Did I miss something ? Have we requested other nations join us in convoy duty or that they augment CTFs 150/152 ?

I don't expect anything more, unless/until another ship is damaged or Iran further escalates in some fashion.

IMHO, convoy's are not yet necessary or appropriate. That does not preclude the US from urging allies to start sending warships to the region as a signal to Iran, but I'm not sure who would respond, if any, without an increased threat.

Like Japan, our E3 allies are sending diplomats, rather tha warships, ...for now.

[foreverlax]

A multinational naval task force might become appropriate if the IRGC escalates, or now -- as a deterrent & show of solidarity that a closing of the Strait will not be tolerated.

Really ? Who's sending ships to the region to join us in convoy duty ? Who's augmenting the standing CTF 150 or CTF 152 ? Are the Japanese, French or Germans sending warships ? A Spanish frigate that was sailing around the world as part of the Lincoln carrier strike group, detached & went to India for a port visit when the Lincoln CSG diverted to the Gulf of Oman.

Having an argument with yourself, are we?

Tell you what, pick which of the above statements you believe, and get back to me. It seems that your second statement is taking issue with your first one.

I said that it might become appropriate. That does not mean that other nations will choose to participate.

Did I miss something ? Have we requested other nations join us in convoy duty or that they augment CTFs 150/152 ?

I don't expect anything more, unless/until another ship is damaged or Iran further escalates in some fashion.

IMHO, convoy's are not yet necessary or appropriate. That does not preclude the US from urging allies to start sending warships to the region as a signal to Iran, but I'm not sure who would respond, if any, without an increased threat.

Like Japan, our E3 allies are sending diplomats, rather tha warships, ...for now.

SENATOR WARNS THAT TRUMP IS BEING 'BOXED IN' BY BOLTON, POMPEO SO HE FEELS HE HAS TO STRIKE IRAN
https://www.newsweek.com/senator-warns- ... an-1444775

This is the problem I see....

[CU88]

Iran has Territorial Rights to those waters, imagine the uproar if Iran had warships within 20 miles of USA!

So what ? That does not matter. Right of Transit Passage / Innocent Passage applies.

https://viewfromll2.com/2012/01/07/is-t ... ional-law/

...as the Strait of Hormuz does not belong to Iran alone, and Iran’s sovereign claims over the Strait are limited by Oman’s own claims to its territorial seas, any action taken by Iran to close the entirety of the Strait will necessarily be an act of force prohibited by the UN Charter, and unquestionably a violation of international law.

If the US were threatening Transit/Innocent Passage within 20 miles of US, we should expect foreign warships.

Oh bother, really?

From your link:

"But ignoring the reality of the situation for a moment, and pretending as if international law actually possessed the power to effect state’s actions in the Gulf, ..."

Are you telling us all that you now want to rely on the UN for guidance to US Policy, again from your link:

"United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (“UNCLOS")" Something that the USA has never supported.

Ask your hero o d what he thinks of UNCLOS, and get back to us.

Also, your hero o d said this today, on the matter, "Trump characterizes alleged attacks by Iran on tankers as ‘very minor’". Nothing Burger, of course...

You have weaponized stupidity. You're just trolling & wasting band width.
Right of Transit Passage pertains in Territorial Waters.
Established International Law upholds this everywhere.
UNCLOS & standing International Law agree on this.
https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/16 ... ck-passage

True, but you are the kettle calling the pot black.

Answer me these two questions:

1. Do you believe that the USA must follow UN "Laws"?
2. When did the US ratify UNCLOS?

Shocker, crickets from o s...

[old salt]

Iran has Territorial Rights to those waters, imagine the uproar if Iran had warships within 20 miles of USA!

So what ? That does not matter. Right of Transit Passage / Innocent Passage applies.

https://viewfromll2.com/2012/01/07/is-t ... ional-law/

...as the Strait of Hormuz does not belong to Iran alone, and Iran’s sovereign claims over the Strait are limited by Oman’s own claims to its territorial seas, any action taken by Iran to close the entirety of the Strait will necessarily be an act of force prohibited by the UN Charter, and unquestionably a violation of international law.

If the US were threatening Transit/Innocent Passage within 20 miles of US, we should expect foreign warships.

Oh bother, really?
From your link:

"But ignoring the reality of the situation for a moment, and pretending as if international law actually possessed the power to effect state’s actions in the Gulf, ..."

Are you telling us all that you now want to rely on the UN for guidance to US Policy, again from your link:

"United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (“UNCLOS")" Something that the USA has never supported.

Ask your hero o d what he thinks of UNCLOS, and get back to us.

Also, your hero o d said this today, on the matter, "Trump characterizes alleged attacks by Iran on tankers as ‘very minor’". Nothing Burger, of course...

You have weaponized stupidity. You're just trolling & wasting band width.
Right of Transit Passage pertains in Territorial Waters.
Established International Law upholds this everywhere.
UNCLOS & standing International Law agree on this.
https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/16 ... ck-passage

*
True, but you are the kettle calling the pot black.

Answer me these two questions:

1. Do you believe that the USA must follow UN "Laws"?
2. When did the US ratify UNCLOS?

Shocker, crickets from o s...

Pardon me. I missed this amidst all the other chaff.
You already have my answer. Read the link I posted.*
The US is in compliance with these provisions of UNCLOS because they're were already part of established Intl Law long before the UN existed.
The links in my previous posts lay out why the US has not ratified it.

* On the other side of that argument is the United States, which, despite its somewhat contentious and complicated relationship with UNCLOS, has long held that the bulk of UNCLOS’s provisions are merely a codification of customary international law. This includes UNCLOS’s provisions regarding transit passage, as U.S. authorities have repeatedly asserted these norms to be a component of CIL:

…the United States…particularly rejects the assertions that the…right of transit passage through straits used for international navigation, as articulated in the [LOS] Convention, are contractual rights and not codification of existing customs or established usage. The regimes of…transit passage, as reflected in the Convention, are clearly based on customary practice of long standing and reflects the balance of rights and interests among all States, regardless of whether they have signed or ratified the Convention… (Diplomatic Note of August 17, 1987, to the Democratic and Popular Republic of Algeria (intermediary for Iran)).

And,

…the regime [of transit passage] applies not only in or over the waters overlapped by territorial seas but also throughout the strait and in its approaches, including areas of the territorial sea that are overlapped. The Strait of Hormuz provides a case in point: although the area of overlap of the territorial seas of Iran and Oman is relatively small, the regime of transit passage applies throughout the strait as well as in its approaches including areas of the Omani and Iranian territorial seas not overlapped by the other. (Navy JAG, telegram 061630Z June 1998).

[old salt]

https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-po ... story.html

https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle- ... et-tankers

[holmes435]

Short answer is that we can protect a lot of tankers, but we can't protect them all.

In any case, since Trump pulled out of the deal, Iran is more dangerous and prone to lashing out in the region and is saying it is going to resume its pursuit of nuclear weapons. The Obama deal wasn't perfect, but it was working on the nuclear front and pressuring on others, and we still had leverage to yield if we wanted.

Trump, in his pursuit to dismantle anything Obama did, has made us and the world more vulnerable. He's a disaster.

[old salt]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/allies-tru ... 1560897659

A not-insubstantial portion of Europe’s reaction to the attacks reflects reluctance among their governments to abandon business in Iran. And with the exceptions of France and the U.K., European countries have no alternative to conciliatory diplomacy because they lack the capacity to project force, or even defend themselves. As former German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel once put it, Europe is “a vegetarian in a world of carnivores,” dependent on the U.S. to avoid being eaten alive, resentful of its dependence, and in turn resented for what Mr. Trump is hardly the first American president to castigate as free-riding.

Despite these differences, there is a way forward that should command broad support. Last December Iranian President Hassan Rouhani warned that if Iran were prevented from exporting its oil, his state would allow no oil to pass through the Persian Gulf. Mr. Rouhani should be prevented from making good on his threat, which contradicts the principle of freedom of navigation that our allies and the world at large endorse. The U.S. has long acted as the guarantor of this principle, and it should continue to do so.

During the Iran–Iraq war, Iran attacked Kuwaiti vessels in the Persian Gulf in retaliation for the aid Kuwait was giving Iraq. In response, the Reagan administration authorized the reflagging of Kuwaiti oil tankers as U.S. vessels, entitling the tankers to U.S. naval protection. The Trump administration should make clear its willingness to proceed along similar lines, a task that would probably require the participation of allied naval assets.

This course of action is not risk-free. When the U.S. Navy began protecting Kuwaiti ships in 1986, large numbers of mines appeared in the Persian Gulf and were identified as being of Iranian origin. U.S. Special Forces then attacked an Iranian ship unloading mines into an international shipping lane. Though no one knows what would happen if a similar attack were launched today, the U.S. and its allies agree that the Islamic Republic cannot be allowed to erode a key principle of international law.