« "Detailed satellite photos show extent of ‘surgical’ attack damage to Saudi Aramco oil facilities" CNBC | Main | Robert C. O'Brien is appointed to be the new National Security Advisor »

17 September 2019


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


You may be correct regarding selling the American people on Just One More War:



You have been reading his blog for about 2 decades and you want to buy him a drink? I would suggest a juicy medium rare rib eye, and a bottle of Amarone.


yeah right

No combatnt command has troops permanently assigned. It is a C&C facility to which forces are temporarily assigned as necessary. BTW, nobody in the US intends to invade Iran on the ground. pl



You think they were launched from somewhere in the Saudi desert. Look at the distances.


Does it matter?
KSA and the US are going to blame Iran regardless of how or by whom it was done. If it was local Shia, Houtis, UAE, Iraqi or Qataris they will all be deemed to be Iranian proxies.


You mean the old lands of Aran and Nakhcevan? Renamed by Stalin to Azerbaijan?

Not even fantasy.


I think you are not looking at this the right way. There is nothing in Afghanistan worth going to war over - including US basis and soldiers.

The Iran-US War, in my opinion, will be analogous to North Korea-US War in that it leaves US friends and allies destroyed in any case.


Israel cannot destroy Iran.

"Once sanctions are lifted and Iranian people start developing their economy, the mollahs will spontaneously lose their supremacy."

Another fantasy.

Why does it matter so much to you people under what dispensation Iran is ruled?

You guys did not care about Shah's dictatorship, you do not care about those in Algeria, Morocco, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia.

Why do you care about Iran so much?

Eric Newhill

Yes. I was thinking the same thing. The little winglets are the drones and then there is the wreckage of a missile that didn't reach the target.

I can't imagine those little winglets flying hundreds of miles/KMs. But I'm no expert on this by any measure. It just doesn't seem right. Where would sufficient fuel to make the trip be stored?

Assuming these photos are truly of bits and pieces from this latest attack, perhaps the drones were launched from somewhere near the target and the missile from somewhere farther away. There is no reason I can think of that all of these things had to come from the same launch site.

Aspects of this attack make me think that sowing confusion was important to the attackers and secondary only to hitting the target.


I agree that the Marines or elements of the Army can work in difficult conditions, but is that really true for the airforce (with the exception of the A-10)? We are not talking Viggen's here, we are talking US machines that need a pristine runway.

It would be a gamble for sure.


I would like to serve the good colonel some of the best my country / region of origin has to offer... slow roasted moose with local fingerling potatoes, a creamy morel sauce and home cooked lingonberries on the side. A bottle of Barolo or Chateauneuf du Pape. Cloudberries with whipped cream for dessert. Bourbon ( to celebrate my US side) afterwards...

different clue

Changing the subject to "Afghanistan" could be a clever gambit if it works. Will it work?

The "deeper inner" involvement I speak of Obama having offered us a way out of was ongoing hostility with Iran, maybe even a war with Iran. Since my reply to your reply to my comment still focuses on Iran, it would appear that your effort to trick me into following your change of subject has not worked.

Just as " you don't need a weathermarx to know which way the cash flows", you also "don't need a leftist to know which way the bias falls." Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and then. Eeeven a leftist blind squirrel. And Trump's obvious racial bias, revealed several times in several situations, is an acorn the leftist squirrels have happened to find. Even if I were to spare you that" Trump is a racist" line from the left, reality will inflict it on you over and over again.

So I will again note that Trump could walk this all backwards by claiming that "new information" shows the JCPOA is actually a decent first-step deal under the circumstances. He could persuade his base to accept that. But he won't do it, because of his racial animus against Obama revealed in his long-running "birtherism" hoax against Obama, and even more because of his public humiliation at Obama's hands in that White House Correspondents Dinner Roast. Much as he may not want a war between America and Iran, he would rather accept war with Iran than admit that Obama was right and Trump was wrong about JCPOA.

Trump himself could prove me wrong by publicly announcing the discovery of "new information" which leads him re-enter America into the JCPOA and to lift every sanction he imposed on Iran after taking America out of JCPOA. If Trump does that, I will cheerfully admit how wrong my prediction was.

Eric Newhill

Maybe some of those guys are Iranian proxies, sometimes. Maybe Iran is behind the attack to some extent.

different clue

Sanders does not rely on any of these main donors. His failure to make "rejoin the JCPOA" a part of his nomination-campaign is due to his one-eyed focus on domestic concerns and his deep foreign-affairs ignorance. Because after all , the Democrats' main donors are part of the people he is running against. So he already has nothing to lose by offending the main donors with some visionary common sense on Iran.

Likewise, if he were to quietly consult with Tulsi Gabbard and ask how she feels about being named his VP running-mate pick in the event of his getting nominated, and if she says that is okay with her in the event she does not get nominated herself . . . and if she were to give Sanders permission to make that announcement as part of his nomination-campaign; that would be another signal that Sanders intends to wage a political war of political autoclaving and cauterization against the Catfood Democrat elite if he were to be nominated and elected. That too might gain him some support.
Is he prepared to be that hostile to the Catfood Democrats?

different clue

The DNC considers Sanders and Gabbard to be its "real" enemies . . . the "enemies within". The DNC is prepared to throw the election to Trump if that is the price of defeating Sanders and/or Gabbard in their race for the nomination. The DNC would deeply and truly prefer a President Trump to a President Sanders or a President Gabbard, because the DNC knows that a President Sanders or a President Gabbard would give the DNC a good thorough autoclaving and cauterization, followed by extensive political chemotherapy and political radiation treatment.

So I am driven to offer another conditional if-this then-that type of prediction. If the DNC nominates one of its preferred Catfood Democrats, the DNC will lose the election bigly. And the DNC will treasure that outcome as an opportunity to drive the Bernists and the Gabbardists out of the Catfood Democrat Party.

different clue

Lingonberries? Cloudberries? Is this either Norway or Sweden?
Does anyone in Norway or Sweden have a barbecue pit? Has anyone in Norway or Sweden experimented with barbecueing moose?


It would my sincere loss if you were. And the Nation's, to the extent people still read meaningful commentary. But there are some mighty sure people, who talk a good battle. But please, keep at for me Col. You are needed! Sanity and experience are needed. my very best, as always, to you.

Yeah, Right

We seem to be talking at cross-purposes. I am not suggesting that Iran go to war over Afghanistan. As you say, a pointless exercise.

But if Donald Trump starts a war with Iran then that is a different issue altogether - the war has come to Iran, at which point the Iranians would be tempted to push that war as far away from itself as possible.

Starting with Afghanistan. Bag all the US forces there, as quickly as possible, and then that is one less border to worry about.

Yeah, Right

Those are my very points, Colonel.

CENTCOM does not have troops. Iran does.

That "nobody in the US intends to invade Iran on the ground" ensures that it is in the Iranian's interest to launch their soldiers onto the offensive.

After all, they have troops. CENTCOM does not.

I'll go back to my original post: everyone simply ignores the fact that Iran has soldiers. Lots of soldiers. Lots and lots of soldiers.

Nobody factors them into their calculations because if "nobody in the US intends to invade Iran on the ground" then that must mean - how can it not?? - that those Iranian soldiers are irrelevant.

What if the Iranians disagree, and decide to make them very relevant indeed?

If Iran responds to US bombing by launching ground offenses against US forces is CENTCOM anywhere near ready to stand in their way? After all, as you say CENTCOM ground forces will consist of a C&C facility and... not much else.

Yeah, Right

The argument "to some extent" doesn't cut it as a casus belli for going to war with Iran.

Trump would have to demonstrate that Iran ordered the Houthi to launch this attack and, furthermore, that without that order then the Houthi would not have done so.

A tough sell: it is undeniable that the Houthi and the Saudis are already in an armed conflict, so it is axiomatic that if the Houthi receive weapons then they will put them to use.

It is not illegal for Iran to supply weapons to one side of an armed conflict, any more than it is illegal for the USA to arm the other side.

But having armed the Houthi, it is beyond rich to complain when the Houthi use those arms. After all, there is a war on.


yeah right

Why do you have a .is suffix in your email address? I made it clear that there would be adverse consequences for the US in a major war with Iran. You did not read that? In such a war the US would use maximum air against Iran while rushing ground forces to the theater from all over the world. a counter-offensive might have to begin on the west coast of SA and fight its way across the peninsula killing Iranians all the way with kinetic ground and air.. Better to ignore the neocons and make a deal with Iran.



Oh, bullshit. The USAF is very good at operating from minimal basing. they have practised it for decades.


LA Sox Fan

You are wrong we are stronger militarily now than we have been since 1945.


A region called Jamtland,on the border between Norway and Sweden, a free viking republic until 1140 when the Norwegian king decided we needed protection and the privilege of paying taxes. The deciding battle was fought near our parish church, on the ice of a frozen lake. During times of low water I have in vain tried to find lost swords...
As for BBQ pits, in short no - I think the meat is too lean. One good way is to place a frozen chunk of moose/venison/reindeer in the oven at 80C overnight. Slow cooking was always in a moist vessel.


Typical yank not to get "yeah right" .he walked the plank after the ship had sank.scott morrison is visiting trump ,hope he does not sell partliament house for a trump resort.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad