"What Are The U.S. And Iranian Strategies?" Topic

"The Trump administration's willingness to take on Iran, China and Russia -- in the economic and diplomatic sphere at least -- raises the question of whether even low-intensity conflict can eventually lead to a crisis. The apparent abolition of war in our globalized world has been replaced by what Austin Bay called in his book Cocktails from Hell "a hazardous form of peace". The danger is that such conflicts may boil over. The first flashpoint may be Iran…"

link

Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Doesn't seem there is a REAL strategy on Iran.

Clearly, some token measures, but not a real one to make things better any time soon.

Sadly, many/most nations don't seem willing to support us with sanctions either, compounding the issue(s) further.

I don't know. Seems par for the course for Trump.

Push the other side back, posture, and then see what happens. Generally negotiate and seek a better "deal". I guess it's Iran's turn since he's already worked on China, North Korea, Mexico/Canada, and Russia (to some degree).

As for Trump's strategy regarding Iran? It's this model. Scrap the old "deal", then apply pressure against the other side using critical points (Mexico and China were tariffs, etc), and then get the other side to renegotiate for something he thinks is a better "deal". It's Trump 101 and he's had some relative levels of success with it.

Iran is a bit of a wildcat because both sides have done some "real" damage to each other- Iran's economy is tanking due to reinstated sanctions while Iran has shot down a US drone and has, possibly, attacked shipping in the Gulf. I think Trump is getting the better of the exchange, so why bother attacking? Just tighten the screws? I guess we will see how this pans out.

For additional fun, Trump seems to playing the Iran situation against the Democrats in internal US politics, letting them look stupid (criticizing T for attacking, then when T decides that there was too many civilian casualties likely for a 'measured response' they start criticizing for NOT attacking…)

At least he seems to be trying more than the last guy….

Excellent points Tgunner and Lion.

The Iranian strategy is for the regime to hold onto power. I believe they tried to provoke a US military response to rally support for themselves by appealing to their people's pride in country. Young Iranians want change and freedom; and that is very worrisome to the old regime, so they project outwards.

US strategy, no matter how effective or not, will always be criticized by those of the opposite party for political reasons.

I think the Iranians are trying to provoke us, so they can claim to be the poor, over matched, innocent people, while like you said, hoping to distract from domestic issues at home.

They'll probably use that as a pretext to use their proxies, or to conduct direct attacks on Israel and others in the region, too.

Then they'll claim they are just defending their country, despite damaged tankers and downed $200 USD MILLION dollar drones demonstrating evidence to the contrary.

I'm sure the recriminations at the UN will be most entertaining for some.

My thoughts are that Iran had a huge influx of money from BHO as part of the gentleman's agreement (I don't think any country ratified it, so it was not a treaty) and spent a lot of it upgrading missile technology and funding foreign wars in Syria, Iraq and Yemen.

They spent very little internally during the prosperous years and now the money is gone, sanctions are back and oil prices are low. They need to do something to keep the populace happy and get income to grow, so they do small scale things to get oil prices up and get the people back to chanting the slogans of the revolution against their arch enemy.

Their key is to not go too far, but go far enough to show strength and get some kind type of agreement where they can save face and say the US flinched first.

Sadly, they CAN plausibly do that now.

All interesting points. But one thing is not mentioned.
Which is WHY?
Why does the US need to be toying with provoking a war with Iran?
Why was it necessary to scrap the nuclear deal, thus increasing tensions, and making necessary the reimposed sanctions?

I'm sorry, but the best thing we'll get is perhaps a reinstatement of the old agreement, with some small added items. Much like what's occurred with NAFTA.
Then, a certain person will declare he's "winning".

In the meantime, we play with possible war.

Why was it necessary to scrap the nuclear deal

Because it was a really really bad deal which did not stop someone who thinks that winning is martyrdom from nuking up.

Why does the US need to be toying with provoking a war with Iran?

Iran harasses naval forces of the United States YouTube link YouTube link YouTube link
Iran attacks defenseless civilian shipping YouTube link

Why does the US need to be toying with provoking a war with Iran?

'you really that naive?

Walking-

I see that you are firmly convinced by Dear Leader.
The deal was working according to our allies and the IAEA.
Oh yes, a puny Iranian speedboat cut across the path of a full size US warship. You start a war for that?

The recent attacks on ships have "weak like the proof for the Iraq war" proof. One of the ships was Japanese, and they say they were hit by a "flying object", not a mine.

None of this is worth the blood and treasure a war with Iran will cost. None.
Remember, we are not talking about little lead men this time.

link 1 NBC News You know them and their editorial policies?
link 2 Channel TopTop A Turkish YouTube Channel. Not a US friendly nation at this moment.
link 3 ABC News feeding a US Navy recording. Again: You know them and their editorial policies.
link 4 The Guardian showing video from an unnamed US military source. The full article link shows the damage to the Kokuka Courageous. It doesn't look like a high velocity impact.
None of the above cite your so called "Dear Leader". You should get checked for TDS.

The deal was working according to our allies and the IAEA.

Al Aribiya link

puny Iranian speedboat

with weapons uncovered and manned. see link 2

"weak like the proof for the Iraq war"

citation needed

they say they were hit by a "flying object", not a mine.

It has not been reported that they don't say that they saw anyone along side removing that limpet mine. If I had stood so poor a watch that a boat could come along side unseen for any reason, I would say it was something/anything that happened from a distance too.

None of this is worth the blood and treasure a war with Iran will cost. None.

"The commander of the new Iranian army, Major General Abdul Rahim Mousavi… revealing the date of the demise of Israel would be in the next 25 years or even less through a possible action by the Islamic resistance in the region." … "Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei… also threatened that Israel would be wiped off the map within 25 years at the hand of the"Islamic movements" that linked to Iran." TrackPersia link
"Iran's supreme leader today warned Israel that it would be destroyed within 25 years in a chilling outburst that will spark fresh tensions in the Middle East." Daily Mail link
Do you believe that Iran will stop at the Little Satan?

Let's make this simple; this is what matters most to each government.

IRAN strategy: current regime stays in power

US strategy: Iran will never possess nukes

USAF-

But negotiations along those lines will deny the other posters the war they so desperately want.