Mr. President, I believe that the Iranians will fight us with everything they have if we go to war with them.
- You have several thousand soldiers in Iraq and Syria. These countries have large proxy forces of Iran's allies in the form of Shia militias in Iraq and actual Iranian Quds Force troops in Syria. These forces will be used to attack and kill our soldiers.
- The Iranians have significant numbers of ballistic missiles which they have already said will be used against our forces
- The US Navy has many ships in the Gulf and the Arabian Sea. The Iranian Navy and the IRGC Navy will attack our naval vessels until the Iranian forces are utterly destroyed. In that process the US Navy will loose men and ships.
- In direct air attacks on Iran we are bound to lose aircraft and air crew.
- The IRGC and its Quds Force will carry out terrorist attacks across the world.
Do you really want to be a one term president?
Pompeo can talk big now and then go back to Kansas to run for senator.
Where will you be able to take refuge?
Don't let the neocons like Pompeo sell you on war.
Make the intelligence people show you the evidence in detail. Make your own judgments. pl
I'm curious Col, pushing you, I know, forgive me. But what if.....granted, big if, but what if it was proven to YOUR satisfaction this was Iran's doing. And they then did it again. What would you suggest? With all due respect. That is the question on my mind. Those same vulnerable troops you rightly are concerned about are still going to be there after a second strike.
But for one strike...I say put the plants back together and move on. But it's the theoretical next one I wonder about.
Just for the record....my option would be to get the hell out of the ME...and let the chips fall where they may. We don't understand the territory. We have our oil. I wish everyone best of luck.
Posted by: jonst | 17 September 2019 at 07:52 PM
+++
Posted by: Jose | 17 September 2019 at 08:18 PM
Whatever else he knows, Trump knows that he can't sell a war to the American people.
Posted by: Vegetius | 17 September 2019 at 08:37 PM
jonst
We have been so thoroughly indoctrinated with the idea that Iran and Russia are intrinsically and immutable evil and hostile that the thought of actual two sided diplomacy does not occur. IMO neither of these countries are what we collectively think them. So, we could actually give it a try rather than trying to beggar them and destroy their economies. If all fails than we have to be prepared to defend our forces. DOL
Posted by: turcopolier | 17 September 2019 at 09:31 PM
There are times -- many times -- when my gratitude to Col. Lang know no bounds. This is one of them. And thinking of the thread right below this one, among others, I want to add TTG to the list.
Posted by: Larry Kart | 17 September 2019 at 11:02 PM
I agree with your reply 100%
Iranophobia goes back to 1979,
Russophobia goes back to at least 1917 if not further, especially in the UK,
Sinophobia for the US reaches back to the mid to late 1800's
these phobias are so entrenched now they're a huge obstacle to overcome,
Mark Twain: “It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”
William Casey: "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false"
Posted by: Matt | 18 September 2019 at 12:54 AM
Vegetius,
re "Trump knows that he can't sell a war to the American people"
Are you sure? I am not.
Reflection, self criticism or self restraint are not exactly the big strengths of Trump. He prefers solo acts (Emergency! Emergency!) and dislikes advice (especially if longer than 4 pages) and the advice of the sort "You're sure? If you do that the the shit will fly in your face in an hour, Sir".
A good number of the so called grownups who gave such advice were (gameshow style) fired, sometimes by twitter.
Trump can order attacks and I don't expect much protest from Mark Esper and it depends on the military (which likely will obey).
These so called grownups have been replaced by (then still) happy Bolton (likely, even after being fired, still war happy) and applauders like Pompeo and his buddy Esper.
Israel could, if politically just a tad more insane, bomb Iran and thus invite the inevitable retaliation. When that happens they'll cry for US aid, weapons and money because they alone ~~~
(a) cannot defeat Iran (short of going nuclear) and ...
(b) Holocaust! We want weapons and money from Germany, too! ...
(c) they know that ...
(d) which does not lead in any way to Netanyahu showing signgs of self restraint or reason.
Netanyahu just - it is (tight) election time - announced, in his sldedge hammer style subtlety, that (he) Israel will annect the palestinian west jordan territory, making the Plaestines an object in his election campaign.
IMO that idea is simply insane and invites more "troubles". But then, I didn't hear anything like, say, Trump gvt protests against that (and why expect that from the dudes who moved the US embassy to Jerusalem).
Posted by: confusedponderer | 18 September 2019 at 03:51 AM
I'm curious why you have excluded the Iranian army from your calculations.
That's half a million men at arms.
Surely the Iranians can find some use for them, especially as CENTCOM has.... nothing like 500,000 ground troops in theatre.
Posted by: Yeah, Right | 18 September 2019 at 05:03 AM
I hope your president reads your blog.
Posted by: Paco | 18 September 2019 at 05:12 AM
The 'ivestigations are a formality. The Saudis (with U.S. backing) are already saying that the missiles were Iranian made and according to them, this proves that Iran fired them. The Saudis are using the more judicious phrase 'behind the attack' but Pompeo is running with the fired from Iran narrative.
How can we tell the difference between an actual Iranian manufactured missile vs one that was manufactured in Yemen based on Iranian designs? We only have a few pictures Iranian missiles unlike us, the Iranians don't toss them all over the place so we don't have any physical pieces to compare them to.
Perhaps honest investigators could make a determination but even if they do exist they will keep quiet while the bible thumping Pompeo brays and shamelessly lies as he is prone to do.
Posted by: Christian Chuba | 18 September 2019 at 05:22 AM
1. I am still waiting to read some informed discussion concerning the *accuracy* of the projectiles hitting their targets with uncanny precision from hundreds of miles away. What does this say about the achievement of those pesky Eye-rainians?https://www.moonofalabama.org/images9/saudihit2.jpg
2. "The US Navy has many ships in the Gulf and the Arabian Sea. The Iranian Navy and the IRGC Navy will attack our naval vessels until the Iranian forces are utterly destroyed.: Ahem, Which forces are utterly destroyed? With respect colonel, you are not thinking straight. An army with supersonic land to sea missiles that are highly accurate will make minced meat of any fool's ship that dare attack it. The lesson of the last few months is that Iran is deadly serious about its position that if they cannot sell their oil, no one else will be able to either. And if the likes of the relatively broadminded colonel have not yet learned that lesson, then this can only mean that the escalation ladder will continue to be climbed, rung by rung. Next rung: deep sea port of Yanbu, or, less likely, Ra's Tanura. That's when the price of oil will really go through the roof and the Chinese (and possibly one or two of the Europoodles) will start crying Uncle Scam. Nuff Sed.
Posted by: Nuff Sed | 18 September 2019 at 07:22 AM
Vegetius,
as for Trump and Netanyahu ... policy debate ... I had that here in mind, which pretty speaks for itself. And I thought Trumo is just running for office in the US. Alas, it is a Netanyaho campaign poster from the current election:
https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/a6e60efd3bde0befbcb8b0a95a42bf4c2624e017/57_296_5123_3074/master/5123.jpg?width=1920&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=1958b9e7cf24d7a3a7b024845de08f7e
As a thank you to Trump calling the Israel ocupied Golan a part of Israel Netanyahu called an (iirc also illegal) new Golan settlement "Ramat Trump"
https://cdn.mdr.de/nachrichten/mdraktuell-golan-hoehen-trump-hights-100-resimage_v-variantSmall24x9_w-704.jpg?version=0964
I generously assume that things like that only happen because of the hard and hard
lywork of Kushner on his somewhat elusive but of course GIGANTIC and INCREDIBLE Middle East peace plan.Kushner is probably getting hard and hard
lysupported by Ivanka who just said that she inherited her moral compass from her father. Well ... congatulations ... I assume.Posted by: confusedponderer | 18 September 2019 at 07:28 AM
nuff Sed
It sounds like you are getting a little "help" with this. You statement about the result of a naval confrontation in the Gulf reflects the 19th Century conception that "ships can't fight forts." that has been many times exploded. You have never seen the amount of firepower that would be unleashed on Iran from the air and sea. Would the US take casualties? Yes, but you will be destroyed.
Posted by: turcopolier | 18 September 2019 at 08:07 AM
3. Also, I can't imagine this event as being a very welcome one for Israeli military observers, the significance of which is not lost on them, unlike their US counterparts. If Yemen/ Iran can put the Abqaiq processing plant out of commission for a few weeks, then obviusly Hezbollah can do the same for the giant petrochemical complex at Haifa, as well as Dimona, and the control tower at Ben Gurion Airport.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/239251
https://www.timesofisrael.com/haifa-municipal-workers-block-refinery-access-for-2nd-day/
These are the kinds of issues which are germane: the game has changed. What are the implications?
Posted by: Nuff Sed | 18 September 2019 at 08:07 AM
nuff sed
I have said repeatedly that Hizbullah can destroy Israel. Nothing about that has changed.
Posted by: turcopolier | 18 September 2019 at 08:08 AM
Yeah, right
It was late at night when I wrote this. Yeah, Right. the Iranians could send their massive ground force into Syria where it would be chewed up by US and Israeli air. Alternatively they could invade Saudi arabia.
Posted by: turcopolier | 18 September 2019 at 08:17 AM
We will have to agree to disagree. But unless I am quite mistaken, the majority view if not the consensus of informed up to date opinion holds that the surest sign that the US is getting ready to attack Iran is that it is withdrawing all of its naval power out of the Persian Gulf, where they would be sitting ducks.
Besides, I don't think it will ever come to that. Not to repeat myself, but taking out either deep sea ports of Ra's Tanura and/ or Yanbu (on the Red Sea side) will render Saudi oil exports null and void for the next six months. The havoc that will play with the price of oil and consequently on oil futures and derivatives will be enough for any president and army to have to worry about. But if the US would still be foolhardy enough to continue to want to wage war (i.e. continue its strangulation of Iran, which it has been doing more or less for the past 40 years), then the Yemeni siege would be broken and there would be a two-pronged attack from the south and the north, whereby al-Qatif, the Shi'a region of Saudi Arabia where all the oil and gas is located, will be liberated from their barbaric treatment at the hands of the takfiri Saudi scum, which of course is completely enabled and only made possible by the War Criminal Uncle Sam.
Go ahead, make my day: roll the dice.
Posted by: Nuff Sed | 18 September 2019 at 08:18 AM
I disagree. Trump maybe the only person who could sell a war with Iran. What he has cultivated is a rabid base that consists of sycophants on one extreme end and desperate nationalists on the other. His base must stick with him...who else do they have?
The Left is indifferent to another war. Further depleting the quality stock of our military will aid there agenda of international integration. A weaker US military will force us to collaborate with the world community and not lead it is their thinking.
The rest of the nation will follow.
Posted by: Stueeeeeeee | 18 September 2019 at 08:31 AM
Thank you for the reply but actually I was thinking that an invasion of Afghanistan would be the more sensible ploy.
To my mind if the Iranian Army sits on its backside then the USAF and IAF will ignore it to roam the length and breadth of Iran destroying whatever ground targets are on their long-planned target-list.
Or that Iranian Army can launch itself into Afghanistan, at which point all of the USA plans for a methodical aerial pummelling of Iran's infrastructure goes out the window as the USAF scrambles to save the American forces in Afghanistan from being overrun.
Isn't that correct?
So what incentive is there for that Iranian Army to sit around doing nothing?
Iran will do what the USAF isn't expecting it to do, if for no other reason that it upsets the USA's own game-plan.
Posted by: Yeah, Right | 18 September 2019 at 08:38 AM
There seems to be a bit of a hiatus in proceedings - not in these columns but on the ground in the ME.
Everyone seems to be waiting for something.
Could this "something" be the decisive word fron our commander in chief Binyamin Netanyahu?
The thing is he has just pretty much lost an election. Likud might form part of the next government of Israel but most likely not with him at its head.
Does anyone have any ideas on what the future policy of Israel is likely to be under Gantz or whoever? Will it be the same, worse or better?
Posted by: johnf | 18 September 2019 at 08:41 AM
Yeah Right
The correct US move would be to ignore an Iranian invasion of Afghanistan and continue leaving the place. The Iranian Shia can then fight the Sunni jihadi tribesmen.
Posted by: turcopolier | 18 September 2019 at 08:51 AM
Stueee
A flaw in your otherwise sound argument is that the US military has not been seriously engaged for several years and has been reconstituting itself with the money Trump has given them.
Posted by: turcopolier | 18 September 2019 at 08:53 AM
Nuff Sed
Re-positioning of forces does not indicate that a presidential decision for war has been made. The navy will not want to fight you in the narrow, shallow waters of the Gulf.
Posted by: turcopolier | 18 September 2019 at 08:57 AM
Oh, I completely agree that if the Iranians launch an invasion of Afghanistan then the only sensible strategy would be for the US troops to pack up and get out as fast as possible.
But that is "cut and run", which many in Washington would view as a humiliation.
Do you really see the beltway warriors agreeing to that?
Posted by: Yeah, Right | 18 September 2019 at 09:29 AM
I would think that Mr. Trump would have a hard time sell a war with Iran over an attack on Saudi Arabia. The good question about how would that war end will soon be raised and I doubt there are many good answers.
The US should have gotten out of that part of the world a long time ago, just as they should have paid more attention to the warnings in President Eisenhower's farewell address.
Posted by: Lars | 18 September 2019 at 09:53 AM