Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[THE_WIZARD_]

STFU

[Jeff Buchanan]

Who do you think attacked the two tankers?

Houthi's? Maybe but acting in concert with and probably at the direction of the Iranians ....... everything the Mullah's do to stir up trouble involve actions with plausible deniability.

Add to the recent tanker attacks, yesterday (today our time and at such a time that it would hit the early morning news cycle in the US), a Katyusha rocket was fired into the Joint Iraqi - Mobile Oil refinery near Basra in Iraq. There were no injuries. Basra is on the boarder of Iran.

I made a post a month or so ago about the risk of the co-location of Shia Militia units with USA units in Iraq. The reality of this seemingly unrelated circumstance is that these Shia Militia, trained by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard - are in a perfect position to do some damage to these units. The point is that Iran is clearly undertaking a harassment campaign against US interests in the ME in response to international pressures (sanctions) applied to Iran led by the US's actions toward that regime.

I think there will be escalation given the people that are driving the boat in both the US and Iran. When and to what level the conflict will worsen is anyone's guess but it will worsen. What the end result in this potential conflict will be we don't know but I can guarantee you the "dysfunctional Trump administration" can diagram outcomes in a carefully constructed algorithm of them under any number of variable circumstances. That this isn't going on and that people might be led to believe there are a bunch of confused idiots advising the president is sheer folly.

Not everyone is comfortable with an escalation of conflict between Iran and a US led coalition of other countries. I had a bit to say about comfort levels yesterday in that I generally support the US's policy regarding Iran. Not everyone does here but I'm not convinced from what gets posted that a lot of thought, other than that shaped by the negativity of the media, has been given to this. I have also posted links to documents that will show that publicly released documents describing this administration's strategic objectives and defense posture are aligned, for the most part, with everything you hear about goals, objectives and the process of obtaining them from the lips of US government officials.

That Bolton has been characterized as a "POS" here with no place for him at the power table within the US government may be an opinion entirely misplaced given where the situation with Iran seems to headed. He may be the perfect person given his view that in certain times, the need for dismissing the naysayers is high.

This is where character of the President matters. ......... why should anyone believe his rantings and finger pointing? Trump is actively trying to have the Iranian gov't overthrown and given his track record of 'alternative facts', his accusations ring very hollow. Seems like he's twisting any current event to fit what he wants reality to be.

I'm pretty sure you're sensitive to the idea that both sides are trying to do this...... Trump on one and the media on the other. The conscientious among those trying to understand the facts regarding the Iranian matter at hand, absent the two sides trying to create different realities, will work to to find what is very likely a fact based middle ground. I feel very confident that all elements of the US Intelligence community are properly informing various options that the NSC presents to the president - I've seen this process first hand. It is functional, effective and has nothing to do with the Chairman's (John Bolton) character or his personal views. It also has nothing to do with the character, personal views or status of the folks that make-up the NSC (e.g., whether or not members are permanently or temporarily assigned to their various duties within the government).

[froot loops]

I'm the person who characterized Bolton that way because its true, that guy was never been held accountable his ridiculous stance on Iraq and the war that resulted from. If the media is negative towards him and this stupid policy its for good reason, all of the evidence for the war in Iraq was ginned up. But I'm sure he's right this time. The Iran situation is headed the way you think its headed is because the war hawks have always wanted it to head that way.

[froot loops]

[Ghengis Jon]

Yeah, both sides try to do this per their agendas. But the administration just trotted out "news" that the US Navy believe the mines are "very similar" to Iranian limpets, again implying without proof the Iranians are behind the attacks. Where do you think the most logical suspects, the Houthis, got them? Using this logic, any time an M-16 is used overseas in an act of evil, is it proof that the USA is the mastermind of the crime? Again, I don't believe the Iranians would attack Saudi assets, even by proxy. Triggering an all-out war with SA (and especially its big bad ally) would be suicide. Iran may be a despotic, theocratic, dictatorship but they aren't suicidally stupid. The tanker attacks may actually rein in the Houthis a bit, at least in/on external territories/international waters. I'm wondering if the Iranians are now telling the Houthis to settle down a bit as they have no intention of taking the fall for Houthi adventures.

[Whitley]

I have trouble buying Iran went after those tankers. It would be too obvious and Iranian regime does not strike me one that wants to engage the US directly. Especially true when Prime Minister Abe was in Iran at the time the attacks happened.

Could it be Iranian proxies....maybe....

This was a bold reckless attack, one that was done with regards for the fallout. That makes me wonder if the Saudis were behind it in some way.

[Dr. Strangelove]

[Jeff Buchanan]

Here's some other news ........ I read on a comments section of an article on the tanker situation and the rocket being fired into the Iraqi/US Mobile Oil refinery in Basra that a day before the rocket attack, a huge fire had broken out in an Iranian port causing a lot of damage and injuries. I closed that window and don't want to go looking for it but it was noted in that comment that Iran news agencies had the story buried on the back page and apparently the incident was both downplayed (reported as a fire, that is all) and did not become an internationally reported story.

That's very suspicious. My take is that the fire was the result of intentional arson as a means of sabotage undertaken by enemies of Iran ..... that could be almost anyone and the operational plan originating from any number of entities and carried out by any number of the usual suspects aligned against Iran. The rocket attack on the oil refinery and the drone shootdown may have been responses to both these events.

You can bet a response, bi or unilaterally from an international alliance or from the US acting alone, of one sort or another is being contemplated. I would imagine the first response will be an international warning jointly issued from somewhere ..... not the UN. I also think the US will act independently and perhaps surreptitiously to inflict damage on a military target inside Iran. We'll learn of it after the fact unless it involves some kind of cyber attack undertaken by the US. The public is not going to hear about it but Trump might say something. He'll be much better off keeping his yap trap shut.

I would love the IDF to get involved but they won't. The Israeli government is very reluctant to get involved in military action unless their lands or their military assets are attacked. That is not the case here and my sense is that the Iranians have been very careful not to provoke Israel. The last time they did with Ahmadinejad mouthing off about death to Israel the Israeli AF took out an Iranian nuclear reactor and probably other targets that nobody ever knew about.

[Kapture1]

I have trouble buying Iran went after those tankers. It would be too obvious and Iranian regime does not strike me one that wants to engage the US directly. Especially true when Prime Minister Abe was in Iran at the time the attacks happened.

Could it be Iranian proxies....maybe....

This was a bold reckless attack, one that was done with regards for the fallout. That makes me wonder if the Saudis were behind it in some way.

yes because Iran is known for their restraint

[Ghengis Jon]

Global Hawks are high altitude drones. They could monitor a shoreline from international airspace. I'm curious where it was shot down. Obviously not over land or Iran would be parading the wreckage. So assume over sea....good thing so the pieces couldn't be sent to Russia. Must also assume that it was in Iranian airspace over sea - an attack in international airspace would bring forth its own set of problems.

The fact that Dear Leader is not spewing his usual vitriolic drivel is a good sign, and one of the few correct decisions he's made during his presidency. On the other hand, perhaps the Joint Chiefs have him tied to a chair with his mouth and texting fingers taped with duct tape, indicating adults have entered the room.

[Jeff Buchanan]

One of my news feeds is from Al Jazeera. It's a good source of ME news - balanced actually. There are no outward signs of anything drastic going on. From Tehran the female reporter on a video feed reported the facts pretty much as we know them here: A US Navy RQ 4A, Global Hawk was shot down allegedly within Iranian airspace and over the port where the crews from the damaged tankers that Iranian boats picked up were taken. The Iranians have admitted shooting the drone down over Iranian airspace and stating their territory is their red-line. We will defend our boarders. The US Navy is stating the drone was over international waters and in international air-space. The Iranian government ministers are calling for a UN investigation. Good luck with that being fair and impartial.

The shoot down of these drones is not new. There was one a couple of months ago over Yemen and one several years ago in that area as well. It's reported that USN ships are sailing to the debris field and I'm sure we'll continue to see finger pointing and hear contradictory reports about where the drone actually was.

The Global Hawk is huge and easily detectable by even the most unsophisticated SAM acquisition and target tracking radars. The one newsworthy item here is that the USN is not going to operate the drone at an altitude where it is vulnerable to whatever SAMs US intelligence says are in a specific area of responsibility (AOR). Obviously the intell was wrong ..... or ...... the US was trolling.

Either way, although this is an escalation, I don't think it's going to amount to much. My take is that Trump will look for an international response condemning Iran as an aggressor in the region as evidenced by this wanton act. Meanwhile, I'm reasonably confident that there will be some sort of response from the US, probably surreptitiously, carried out to damage military infrastructure in some tit-for-tat or proportional way.

A cyber attack? I don't think that is proportional and you open up another battle field that way. Too soon. Navy Seals deployed on a USN Sub debarking and blowing up an Iranian Fast Boat or two? Maybe. Blowing up a military Iranian oil storage facility at a IRCG port? Also a maybe but not easy - lots of risk to had there. Either way, lots of proportional responses I would think ...... but let's not forget John Bolton is a blithering idiot who controls everything going on at the NSC of which he is the chair. In fact, he controls the entire thing only allowing his warmongering opinion to reach the president while denying any voice suggesting war with Iran is not a good idea to be heard by the president. That according to the article somebody linked from theamericanconservative.com ...... Lol.

[THE_WIZARD_]

shaddup

[froot loops]

Indeed

[Jeff Buchanan]

shaddup

No ......

Speaking alongside

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/tr...ran-2019-06-20

Why would Trump say something like this? COMMINT. SIGINT. The US operates a wide array of sophisticated collection platforms some operating in space but if he has a "big, big feeling," he knows somebody screwed up that's because of voice and data intercepts at the tactical level. That means aircraft (EC135s) and drones (Global Hawk) among others flying within the AOR and operating from bases in the ME or on board carriers (E2Cs) got some good intel.

If there is one thing NSA is good at, it's getting into even the most secure communications systems. I have intimate knowledge of NSA's capability. It would blow your mind ..... and that was based on my association with that agency 25y ago! I cannot even imagine what they've got out there now. Well, yes I can. The biggest change is the integration of collection platforms at a single level and automatic cuing of space based, ground based and tactical airborne collection systems.

Some US analyst at the time of the shoot down having computer aided sorting through all of the data picked out some poor Iranian bastard, now headed for the torture chamber, who fucked up and either initiated or ordered a launch that maybe he should not have. BTW, Global Hawk, depending on what package it was equipped with yesterday has SIGINT and COMMINT capabilities. The operators of this drone, wherever they were, might have followed all the Iranian voice and data transmissions during the entire engagement. Or, even better, the CIA might have a mole inside the IRGC ..... that would be super cool.

Anyway, this is a good sign and the markets returned to an upward climb toward record highs after nearly reaching them then falling back after Trump announced "Iran made a big mistake" and said when asked if the US was planning a military response, Trump replied, "you'll find out soon." It's not a perfect gauge of geopolitical risk to the global economy but it's pretty good and that is becauss of what I mentioned a couple of days ago ......... big fund managers or the bosses of companies that manage them are well connected. One phone call to a well placed source in any number of places that has the kind of information they might be looking for and those funds will sell or buy.

[crashcourse]

--manned drones--drones are by definition unmanned--and if that was out there in intertnational waters how did the Iranians shoot it down much less recover it

I tend to agree with trump--who ever was controlling it did something wrong or m,uch more likely just palin old mechanical failure allowing it to crash inland or close enough it could be recovered

although iran has brought down our drones before...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E...Q-170_incident