Time to *itch-slap Iran?

[T.Lex]

We don't need another ground war in Asia.

This is true.

But, this shootdown shows Iran has capacity to take out CAPs over the Hormuz and probably even into the Gulf. That's a problem for navies operating in the area that would rely on air support.

I believe the options are less binary than land-war-in-Asia or nothing. Those military options, along with traditional diplomacy, should be on the table.

 

[Alpo]

I wonder how close to the President's ear John (Bomb Bomb Iran) Bolton really is.

The same guy who was a major ****up in Iraq.

 

[BugI02]

Just saw a new report that the SAM was "truck launched" which probably means it was an S-300 (maybe -400, but I don't think Iran has those yet).

In that case, yeah, you'd have to hit the base where it ostensibly resides... or one close to it. Heck, maybe take out some of their fixed SAM positions, even if those weren't the ones that launched.

BTW, if it was an S-300, that makes it more plausible to me that the drone was in Iranian airspace, given the ranges involved and such. Wouldn't necessarily put money on it, but it makes it more plausible.



Oh, indeed, I totally allow that the DOD response is BS about where the lines were in relation to the drone. But I'm just saying that - if I understand "false flag" correctly - that the shoot-down of the drone can't be a false flag.

If we actually shot down our own drone, why would Iran be so quick to claim responsibility?

I guess its time to watch Wag the Dog again....

If it was an S-300, especially truck mounted, it certainly has enough range that I don't understand why you feel it makes it more likely the drone was in IRI airspace. Given the speed differences between the two, I would not think the reaper would be able to run for international airspace successfully from anything more than the slightest infringement of airspace. I think the drone was most likely playing the game as it is played all over, tracking a flight profile just outside Iranian airspace and they just went for it. Again, I'm wondering why the drums of war now when no one was calling for a strike at the Houthis when they shot one down nor when the Iranians fired and missed

It would not surprise me if the 'Remove Trump by any means necessary' crowd would cynically push this in the hope Trump screws up in some way they can leverage. If I'm right, you will see left-wing sources come out behind how Trump should have done something and how we look weak

 

[actaeon277]

depending on the version, it has a range of 90-200 km.

There is also a sea based system. But as far as I can tell, it can only be installed on large craft, like the Kirov class cruiser.

 

[BugI02]

depending on the version, it has a range of 90-200 km.

There is also a sea based system. But as far as I can tell, it can only be installed on large craft, like the Kirov class cruiser.

So 54-120 miles. Truck mount could be 20 to 30 miles inland and still have the reach to get a drone tracking just outside their airspace

 

[actaeon277]

Had it been a shoulder launched missile, that would have been a big reduction in range.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Looks to me like Iran needs another reminder about their place in the Geo-political spectrum.

Maybe, but with the CIA (who has been doing what exactly all this time?), not the military.

 

[T.Lex]

Additional reports - non-western sources, though - say that it was an Iranian home-grown short range missile, not the S-300. Only produced within the last couple years, domestically.

Could be propaganda, though.

 

[avboiler11]

Proportional response would be a half-dozen Tomahawks hitting IADS sites.

 

[BugI02]

Had it been a shoulder launched missile, that would have been a big reduction in range.

The Houthi one was almost certainly a MANPAD, and the ship-based attempt likely was also. My thought that if they could expand the operating envelope of the SA-7 they might catch operators thinking they were safely outside the (old) envelope

 

[T.Lex]

Proportional response would be a half-dozen Tomahawks hitting IADS sites.

Total coincidence that those strikes might open up a lane for IAF runs on nuke sites....

 

[HoughMade]

Seems to me that "taking over", and by that I mean invading, Iran would be unnecessary and ill-advised.

Some sort of limited military action that sets their nuclear program back significantly? Much less ill-advised, maybe advised, and perhaps not unnecessary.

It's not an all-or-nothing proposition. Imagine if a similar tact would have been continued after Gulf I and after 9/11- contain Iraq, but don't invade. It's an interesting thing to think about.

 

[MarkC]

Seems to me that "taking over", and by that I mean invading, Iran would be unnecessary and ill-advised.

Some sort of limited military action that sets their nuclear program back significantly? Much less ill-advised, maybe advised, and perhaps not unnecessary.

It's not an all-or-nothing proposition. Imagine if a similar tact would have been continued after Gulf I and after 9/11- contain Iraq, but don't invade. It's an interesting thing to think about.

We (the western powers) had Saddam Hussein somewhat contained after the first Gulf War, with protection for the Kurds in the north and the yuge no-fly zone. Even a weakened Iraq under Hussein kept the Iranians occupied. Now they have been free to focus their attention elsewhere. Unfortunately, the current situation is the hand we've dealt ourselves, as a nation.

We do not need to get into another unnecessary and ill-advised ground war, especially one where there is no realistic plan beyond regime change. I think we should have learned by now that not everyone is ready to or could even embrace western-style representative government with open arms.

 

[Expat]

I would be okay with a couple missiles on top of the revolutionary guard headquarters. Like someone said, something proportional seems called for.

 

[T.Lex]

Wonder if Trump will be able to gather a coalition of the trolled to assist in our efforts.

 

[HoughMade]

We (the western powers) had Saddam Hussein somewhat contained after the first Gulf War, with protection for the Kurds in the north and the yuge no-fly zone. Even a weakened Iraq under Hussein kept the Iranians occupied. Now they have been free to focus their attention elsewhere. Unfortunately, the current situation is the hand we've dealt ourselves, as a nation.

We do not need to get into another unnecessary and ill-advised ground war, especially one where there is no realistic plan beyond regime change. I think we should have learned by now that not everyone is ready to or could even embrace western-style representative government with open arms.

Well, that's pretty much my point...

 

[MarkC]

Well, that's pretty much my point...

We can see it at this level; hopefully our "leaders" in Washington see it that way, too.

 

[T.Lex]

So, I just saw the Iranian military tweet that supposedly has footage of the missile launch.

The last bit of the vid has a purported track of the drone. It MIGHT have cut the corner a little into the 12 mile line as it transited south and east from UAE, but not by much. Plus, it was hit on the RTB leg and seemed a little further over in international airspace.

IF it crossed into Iranian space, it really wasn't much at all. But, that gave the forces time to set up and launch under preferential parameters.

That's assuming the track in the Iranian-released vid is accurate, of course.

 

[Brad69]

Hmmm,

I wonder if the Iranians power grid might suddenly flicker?
If all the cell phones went down for a few hours it might surprise them?
The Iranian interwebz might just show a Trump rally for a few days.
It would shame if the banking system went crazy and money went missing?

 

[T.Lex]

Hmmm,

I wonder if the Iranians power grid might suddenly flicker?
If all the cell phones went down for a few hours it might surprise them?
The Iranian interwebz might just show a Trump rally for a few days.
It would shame if the banking system went crazy and money went missing?

I'd be happy if their centerfuges just spun too fast for awhile and broke.