Iran, Lame Ducks and the H CH Generation

If Iran had a weak military like Iraq , had no missiles capable of closing Hormuz Strait and Gulf (major oil artery of West ) , had fragmented society like Libya and had no borders with Russia (Azerbeijan is still too tied to Moscow) plus had no commercial ties with China and a network of Shia militants in Middle East and rest of the world and didn't have a wider geography to pacify (too many mountain ranges ) I am sure we would be seeing "Operation Iran Freedom" by now. US Middle East policy uses military force on soft targets. Iran is hard nut to crack with conventional means.

 

Most of this list is supposition.

1. Despite it's numbers, Iran has a relatively weak military.

2. Closing the Persian Gulf/Straits of Hormuz also eliminates much of Iran's ability to export it's own petroleum products. Also, how many anti-ship missiles does Iran have? Given that the Persian Gulf is a high traffic area which will mean a lot of "neutral" shipping" as well as those pesky US warships. So, how long will the Gulf remain blocked?

3. Not exactly sure what Libya has to do with anything?

4. Russian and Chinese political, diplomatic, and economic ties did not stop the US from going into Afghanistan or Iraq.

5. The network of Al Qaeda militants did not stop the US from going into Afghanistan and Iraq(and this was just after they had pulled off the largest terrorism coup so far)

6. The size and geography of Iran is about the only thing I would concur with.

7. The nature and scope of asymmetric warfare means that there are no "soft targets" or "easy nuts."

 

I doubt that he will go after Iran,because, he has become a lame duck (his own fault) and it is duck shooting time.

He is a disaster,he has made a laughing stock of himself and of the US .

Reason : he belongs to the illiterate H CH generation,where arrogance and bias are replacing elementary knowledge (one can't have it all) :

He is convinced that the US must do good ,it must be done publicly (as was doing Geldof) .He is as the dog of Pavlow:

1) A dictator is bad,Assad is a dictator,thus,Assad is bad.Thus,US must eliminate him.

2) Chemical weapons are bad,someone has used chemical weapons,as Assad is bad,it was Assad.Thus,US must eliminate him

3)Moslims are people like us ,they want freedom and happiness,Assad the dictator is blocking this. Thus,Assad must be eliminated

4)If one is saying : Assad is fighting against Al Quaeda (of 9/11),his answer is : what 9/11? (the memory of the H CH boys is short)

5) If one is saying:all this will finish in a catastrophe for the US,his answer is : that's something for my successor.

 

How is being a "lame duck" president Obama's fault? Because he chose to run a second time and won?

And, what is the "H CH generation"...Damned if I know, and my Google-fu fails me.

 

I may not be completely up to date, but I thought most Iranian gas (Iran has more Natural gas than petroleum) is exported across land borders, to China.

Iran has been continuously upgrading its military since the change in world energy prices. They've made some progress, but exactly how much compared to 20 years ago is unclear, at least to me. China is more than willing to sell.

Al Qaeda, are, I believe, distinctly non Shia (aka Sunni), and are not on good terms with Iran. Hezbollah, on the other hand...

With regards to Iranian military, it is clear, that units of the Iranian Republican Guards have been involved in a large number of small scale conflicts in the region over the last twenty years, from Bosnia, to Chechnya, Lebanon, and Iraq (and now Syria). THere is a growing cadre of experienced veterans.

I hope it doesn't come to that. Not because of the inability of American forces to prevail in a conflict, but because of the inability of America to maintain the peace.

Iran is not a homogenous state. Iran has a far larger population than Iraq. It would take much larger numbers of troops to police the peace, and prevent a total collapse of society.

 

As of 2012, Iran's natural gas exports were bringing in about $10 million a day, Iranian oil exports were bringing in about $230 million a day. Somehow, I would think that the Iranian government does not want to see an almost complete cessation of it's oil exports.

China, Russia, US, etc. are always willing to sell arms for the right price, although they usually don't sell off their best weaponry. Hence, the growth of an indigenous Iranian arms production.

With regards to Al Qaeda, you missed my point - which was that the threat of terrorist attack did not stop the United States from landing it's troops in either Afghanistan or Iraq, and it is highly doubtful that whatever threat there is from a "network of Shia militants in Middle East and rest of the world" will not stop the US from invading Iran if it so decides(which I find highly doubtful unless the US is directly attacked).

The counter point to any cadre of experienced Iranian veterans is that the experienced veterans of the United States is also growing. Not to mention that the US is using combat proven modern military technology, as opposed to the largely unproven current military equipment of Iran.

I agree. I doubt the United States would be able to maintain any kind of post-conflict peace in Iran.

 

It looks to me like a non standard notation for some sort of Hydrogen Carbon bond as mentioned in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon%E2%80%93hydrogen_bond
or maybe part of one or one of the component groups pictured below:
http://www.google.com/imgres?start=369&sa=X&biw=1080&bih=1796&tbm=isch&tbnid=BRp4pdlF-tpfIM:&imgrefurl=http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Organic_Chemistry/Hydrocarbons/Alkenes/Naming_the_Alkenes&docid=pENdlGEXrUA0gM&imgurl=http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/%2540api/deki/files/2589/%253Dalkene6.jpg&w=640&h=400&ei=_VA7UoqYJ4ja8wSSq4DAAg&zoom=1&ved=1t:3588,r:87,s:300,i:265&iact=rc&page=10&tbnh=177&tbnw=284&ndsp=31&tx=180&ty=140

http://www.google.com/imgres?start=369&sa=X&biw=1080&bih=1796&tbm=isch&tbnid=tR3D_ko0LCwR-M:&imgrefurl=http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Organic_Chemistry/Organic_Chemistry_With_a_Biological_Emphasis/Chapter__3%253A_Conformations_and_Stereochemistry/Section_3.1%253A_Conformations_of_straight-chain_organic_molecules&docid=E8GXjHOvMhzE_M&imgurl=http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/%2540api/deki/files/8933/%253Dimage024.png&w=1116&h=280&ei=_VA7UoqYJ4ja8wSSq4DAAg&zoom=1&ved=1t:3588,r:99,s:300,i:301&iact=rc&page=10&tbnh=73&tbnw=293&ndsp=31&tx=86&ty=18

 

Maybe,

I was thinking along the lines of Herbert Clark Hoover, our 31st President.

 

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_industry_in_Iran#Trade_in_oil_and_oil_products about a quarter of Irans oil exports go to China.

They may have been trying it's far from clear that they have. At the time the US invaded Iraq they were very likely the stronger of the two. From what I've read the situation in Iran has declined since then as far as their military goes.

From what I've read their relationship has been quite complex. At times they have cooperated very close with each other at other times they have been bitter enemies. At still other times both have been true simultaneously in part because both the Iranian government and Ql Qaeda tend to have sub components that act pretty much on thier own.

That didn't even appear to be a consideration when the US went into Iraq (the military told Rumsfeld they didn't have enough to do it but the Bush administration appeared to consider that "nation building" which they were against at the time) it took the administration a while to catch on that it might be useful. If the US went into Iran would they consider it as one of the goals now or would they learn or would they just do what they wanted to do and get out? I certainly don't know and I'm not sure which would be best (although IMO avoiding going in at all is the prefered option at this time).

 

That works too.

 

We have Kerry who thought that on christmas 1968,Nixon was president.
We have Obama who said in his speech : after WWII,we built a new world order (in his imagination,of which he has a lot):what the US did in 1945(and it was not building a world order),68 years ago,is totally irrelevant for what is happening today in the ME,but,the inhabitant of the house at Pennsylvania Avenue thinks he is the new FDR,or the new WW (my goodness)

 

That is not correct. For instance a one term presdient is not a lame duck until after he looses his election for a second term. FDR was never a lame duck. Not all 2 term presidents were lame ducks either.
Indeed looking at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lame_duck_(politics)
or
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lame+duck
I don't see any cases that differentiate Obama from any other president at this point in his second term.
Now some might argue that one or more of the defintions here apply:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/lame+duck

 

In 1938,at the midterm elections,FDR lost his virtual majority in Congress,and everyone assummed that he would be a lame duck till 1940 (Noone in 1938 ever dared think on a third term).

After 6 years of president,Eisenhower ,Reagan and Bush became lame ducks .

Obama is already a lame duck : in november next year,the Democrats (to survive) all will say :I always disagreed with Obama and will abandon him .

First rule for a president : If you are in trouble,Congress will crush you.

The relations between the President and the Congress are those of the lion-tamer and 538 hungry lionsne moment of inattention,and they are getting you .

 

That may be but he wasn't a lame duck by any accepted defintion that I've seen.

In what way is Obama a lame duck at this point where the other two weren't. Looks to me like you aren't using a consistent defintion of the term. Alternately many Republican may say the Tea Party is destroying us and abandon them. Something in between or some mix is the most likely inspite of your prognosis.

That may be but that doesn't come into the defintion of a "lame duck". It may define and indeed is probably a good MOE for how effective a presidency is but that's a different matter.

 

Thanks for enlightening me on the proportions of export value.

I wasn't actually trying to point a finger at you on Al Qaeda, although, because I quoted you, it sure looked that way, I agree. I should've quoted the original poster on Al-Qaeda, but I haven't come to grips with this forum's multiquote, and you had said so much interesting stuff!

I was more trying to get the message out generally, that Al Qaeda is not really associated with Iran in any way; there are fundamental ideological differences, that actually put them at conflict with one another, and make any form of co-operation exceedingly difficult. The Shia-Sunni schism is every bit as volatile as the protestant-catholic schism was in Ireland, but on a much larger scale.

I also agree on the largely untested quality of larger weapons systems, the reason for growth of the indigenous arms industry in Iran, and of course, America's vast experience in all forms of warfare. In that case, I was trying to point out, that Iranians are not completely unfamiliar with american arms and tactics, and indeed attempted to supply some of the resistance groups in Iraq and Lebanon with arms to defeat western armour. They will have studied the resistance in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. American airpower however, has yet to meet its match in the field

No question that USA could topple the regime. It's winning the peace I worry about.

 

More information on Oil!

The interesting thing about Iranian Oil; they have almost no capacity for refinement; the refineries were almost all destroyed in the original war with Iraq. So although they export large amounts of crude, they also import a large amount of refined petrol, which then gets subsidised.

They have a large conscription based army, with much antiquidated arms. As Takao so correctly pointed out, their larger weapon systems are entirely untested, and in all truth unlikely to better anything the US Armed forces field, in spite of the occasional grumblings of the Marines about "making do". Although the spectacular torpedo tested a few years ago would cause me concern. Undoubtedly, the USN has some countermeasure developed in response by now. If it's declined in comparison to Iraq, it has to be because of the large amount of modern western arms Iraq now possesses.

Sunnis see Shias as heretics, and heresy for them is worse than anything else, even Bhuddists or Hindus (in their PoV). Iranians and Shias are uniformly disliked and discriminated against across the Sunni Arab world. Its actually very, very surprising to see and hear some of the statements I've heard from very moderate, intelligent, well-educated, well-travelled Sunnis. Co-operation can therefore never be sincere and longlasting, and suspicion always foremost.

The way I see the invasion of Iraq; the Politicians tried to ignore what the military told them; a force of 300-500 thousand BotG to maintain the peace. Primarily because of cost issues.

Three ways to go:
1) Remove the regime, stay to enforce peace, rebuild a democratic society; Now we are talking vast sums of money: not feasible, IMO.
2) In-out; destroy the Army, kick the leaders out, whatever; won't achieve a goal of removing the regime; Iranian Republican Guard wouldn't fight, owns more than 50% of industry, and is quite extensive; network of basiji, etc; some Iranians would try to revolt, but the same result as Bush Sr vs Saddam; Regime stays (names may change, but the constitution remains): the opposition is not unified nor co-ordinated.
3) Don't go.

I'm all for option 3. True change needs to come from within: When enough Iranians want change badly enough, it'll happen. An evolution instead of revolution.

 

To be honest any conflict with Iran is highly unlikely for a number of reasons.

While the US military could pull it off, any brass hat in the Pentagon will advise any President that after two fairly high intensity conflicts (Iraq and Afghanistan) they need time to rebuild our forces to the pre-Iraq status.

There is very little support for Missile strikes on Syria, far less for a boots on the ground operation that would be any Iran adventure.

Iran has a new President who, for now at least, seems far more media savvy and seems to be offering a much less confrontational stance.

 

Second rule for a president : do not make promises in public unless ..you are certain for 200 % that you can keep them :thus: do not say on 31 august : read my lips : we will attack Syria.

Third rule for a president : choose an intelligent speech-writer,not a stupid one , otherwise you will say stupid things ;as :hundrerds of children were murdered by CW (31 august)(they were not murdered,but killed),and people will think : he does not know the difference between killing and murdering .


Fourth rule for a president : never say things to the Congress of which you know and they know that they are nonsens (especially if you have been a member of Congress): thus: do not say to the Congress on 31 august :"We can not raise our children in a world where we are not following on the things we are saying."Because,that's what the Congress is doing : saying A and doing B (a certain ex-speaker is an expert in these things).

Fifth rule for the president : there is a limit on the platitudes one can say in public ,things as : "at the ashes of the warwe built an international order and enforce the rules that ...(unintelligible) made it ."Such things are contra-productive .
If you want to impress the generation of the emo-culture,produce some horrible pictures of children suffering from CW.


Sixth rule (the most important) : if you are doing blahblah,limit it to 2 minutes, not 10 (as on 31 august) : no member of the homo sapiens is able to listen more than 2 minutes to a politician

 

Wait...What???

You complain about the "History Channel" Generation", but count yourself as part of the "TLDR/TLDL" Generation.

And people wonder why America is in the shape it's in.