View Poll Results: Who do you believe is the perpetrator?

Voters
30. You may not vote on this poll
  • Houthis

    4 13.33%
  • Iran

    10 33.33%
  • Other (please, specify)

    5 16.67%
  • Don't know.

    11 36.67%
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 134

Thread: Saudi Arabia: Drone attack against world's largest crude oil refinery

  1. #41
    Legio_Italica's Avatar Lost in Limbo
    Civitate Praefect

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    3,693

    Default Re: Saudi Arabia: Drone attack against world's largest crude oil refinery

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    So I'm getting a sense that we've given too many toys to our cats' paws and they are using them more effectively than we'd like? I have no sympathy for the cruel Saudi regime, but lets not kick off WW III until we're ready.
    With this latest attack, Iran has reminded the world they have networks all over the world with the ability to strike any time, anywhere. Iran and the Saudis are the original ISIL. Iran has also been leveraging potential nuclear capabilities, given to them by US/European allies during the Cold War, to extort what they want from other nations (cue the JCPA). Now that Trump canceled the least bad option the west had available to deal with Iran diplomatically, then failed to follow it up with anything other than macho tweets and more sanctions, Iran is free to hold the other cosigners hostage while playing the victim to cover for its continued shadow war tactics.

    If the problem could be solved with war, the US would have Iraq’d or Libya’d these places by now. Unfortunately, war would only spread the disease of Islamism, now with dirty bombs courtesy of the Ayatollah. Only Republicans on the take from Israel and/or the defense industry are really pushing for conventional war, and the only way it would actually happen is if Iran finally does something that causes an irreversible miscalculation by other stakeholders. That’s what makes attacks like this one so dangerous. It’d be great if the Iranians and Saudis managed to mutually weaken each other to the point of irrelevance, but such is wishful thinking as long as the world runs on fossil fuels. The rest of the world will continue to suffer in the company of Iranian and Saudi terrorist regimes for the foreseeable future, no matter what happens.

  2. #42
    B. W.'s Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Bayou country
    Posts
    2,498

    Default Re: Saudi Arabia: Drone attack against world's largest crude oil refinery

    Whoever it was that said that Iran was trying to provoke a war was probably right. It would further destabilize Iraq which has a large Shia population and as has been stated Saudi Arabia is militarily weak. A war right now would be to Iran advantage and the middle east would consume itself making any oil exports practically impossible.

    The leftist news media has portrayed Trump as a war hawk, but nothing could be further from the truth. He has spent his life building things. Those sorts of people are reluctant to engage in activities that bring about destruction. His inclination to increase sanctions instead of retaliating is in character. However, in the world of finance Trump is known as something of a street fighter who punches back hard. With this in mind, I wouldn't be surprised if some Iranian swift boats that venture into the shipping lanes get destroyed just to make a point. Don't be surprised if it happens. It won't be an escalation as the news media will inevitably portray it, just a little tit for tat.

    This article, written by a former NATO strategist gives a good insight into the present situation in Iran:

    https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...eds_to_go.html

  3. #43
    Abdülmecid I's Avatar ¡Ay Carmela!
    Moderation Overseer Civitate Moderation Mentor

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    4,688

    Default Re: Saudi Arabia: Drone attack against world's largest crude oil refinery

    Of course Iran does not want to provoke a war, since the outcome would be obvious. If Tehran indeed played a role in the affair, her intention is pretty clear: To warn its enemies of its capabilities and to therefore discourage them from becoming too aggressive. The article's assumption that Iranian foreign policy is determined by Messianic expectations about the arrival of the Mahdi is pretty awkward and probably influenced by a conflation on part of the author of the Iranian clergy with Evangelical extremists. By the way, Heinsohn is not a NATO strategy, but just a preacher of the power of demographics with a brief presence in the NATO college of Rome, who bizarrely believes that Middle Eastern and Egyptian history began in 1.200 B.C..
    Quote Originally Posted by Legio_Italica View Post
    With this latest attack, Iran has reminded the world they have networks all over the world with the ability to strike any time, anywhere. Iran and the Saudis are the original ISIL. Iran has also been leveraging potential nuclear capabilities, given to them by US/European allies during the Cold War, to extort what they want from other nations (cue the JCPA). Now that Trump canceled the least bad option the west had available to deal with Iran diplomatically, then failed to follow it up with anything other than macho tweets and more sanctions, Iran is free to hold the other cosigners hostage while playing the victim to cover for its continued shadow war tactics.
    Even before the agreement, there had been no credible claim that Iran aimed to produce nuclear weapons. After all, Ayatollah Khamenei has published a fatwa forbidding the acquisition or manufacture of nuclear weapons, which is not surprising, considering that means of mass destruction are ideologically opposed by the revolutionary regime, as it can be noticed by Iran's refusal to retaliate in kind to Saddam's use of chemical warfare, with the implicit approval, of course, of the United States. Now, even if all this is wrong, there's still no indication that Iran would use nuclear weapons in a blackmailing manner, and not simply keep them as a desperate deterrent, including the Saudi Kingdom. To be sincere, your description gives me the impression of a caricature evil adversary of the "free world".
    Quote Originally Posted by Legio_Italica View Post
    If the problem could be solved with war, the US would have Iraq’d or Libya’d these places by now. Unfortunately, war would only spread the disease of Islamism, now with dirty bombs courtesy of the Ayatollah. Only Republicans on the take from Israel and/or the defense industry are really pushing for conventional war, and the only way it would actually happen is if Iran finally does something that causes an irreversible miscalculation by other stakeholders. That’s what makes attacks like this one so dangerous. It’d be great if the Iranians and Saudis managed to mutually weaken each other to the point of irrelevance, but such is wishful thinking as long as the world runs on fossil fuels. The rest of the world will continue to suffer in the company of Iranian and Saudi terrorist regimes for the foreseeable future, no matter what happens.
    The problem of Iranian opposition to American geopolitical interests can be easily solved with war, but what prevents it from occurring are the inevitable financial sacrifices and the political repercussions in the domestic front. The disintegration of Iran will not necessarily lead to the rise of Islamism and, in any case, Islamism should not be automatically viewed as hostile to American interests in the region. Washington has a history of a very fruitful cooperation with religious extremists dating from the Cold War and Afghanistan. Islamists were largely successful at withholding the rise of socialist and progressive movements in the Arab societies, while even recently, Sunni sectarianism has proven to be an invaluable and reliable ally of the West in the Syrian Civil War. Not to mention the religiously intolerant and extremely authoritarian monarchies of Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, which have contributed crucially to the containment of Iran. Therefore, it's safe to suppose that a sufficiently flexible American administration could productively collaborate with Islamists in, for instance, Iranian Kurdistan or Baluchistan, to prevent an obviously hostile democratically elected government in Iran from emerging from her ashes.

    Finally, in what concerns the moral judgements and the labeling of the Iranian government as a terrorist regime, I personally strongly disagree and consider Iran's sphere of influence significantly more benign than, let's say, the economic strangulation of Syria or the support of Jundallah and Al-Qaeda, but I understand that it essentially depends on our subjective perspectives, so there's probably little point in debating this aspect.
    Last edited by Abdülmecid I; September 18, 2019 at 04:26 PM. Reason: Citations added.

  4. #44
    Ἀπολλόδοτος Α΄ ὁ Σωτήρ's Avatar Yeah science!
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Άργος - Ἑλλάς
    Posts
    1,248

    Default Re: Saudi Arabia: Drone attack against world's largest crude oil refinery

    Quote Originally Posted by Abdülmecid I View Post
    Ayatollah Khamenei has published a fatwa forbidding the acquisition or manufacture of nuclear weapons, which is not surprising, considering that means of mass destruction are ideologically opposed by the revolutionary regime, as it can be noticed by Iran's refusal to retaliate in kind to Saddam's use of chemical warfare,
    Just shows how maniacally fundamentalist the Iranians are, alongside their death to America chants. Why can't they be like Saudi Arabia, their leaders politely smile to US despite their form of Islam calling for outright annihilation of infidels, and only secretly fund terrorism in the ME and Islamic fundamentalism in Europe. This is why, if Iran is proven to be behind these attacks, the West must defend Saudi civilized politeness, against Iranian uncivilized honest dislike of the West.
    "First get your facts straight, then distort them at your leisure." - Mark Twain

    οὐκ ἦν μὲν ἐγώ, νῦν δ' εἰμί· τότε δ' ούκ ἔσομαι, ούδέ μοι μελήσει

  5. #45
    Legio_Italica's Avatar Lost in Limbo
    Civitate Praefect

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    3,693

    Default Re: Saudi Arabia: Drone attack against world's largest crude oil refinery

    Quote Originally Posted by Abdülmecid I View Post
    Of course Iran does not want to provoke a war, since the outcome would be obvious. If Tehran indeed played a role in the affair, her intention is pretty clear: To warn its enemies of its capabilities and to therefore discourage them from becoming too aggressive. The article's assumption that Iranian foreign policy is determined by Messianic expectations about the arrival of the Mahdi is pretty awkward and probably influenced by a conflation on part of the author of the Iranian clergy with Evangelical extremists. By the way, Heinsohn is not a NATO strategy, but just a preacher of the power of demographics with a brief presence in the NATO college of Rome, who bizarrely believes that Middle Eastern and Egyptian history began in 1.200 B.C..


    Even before the agreement, there had been no credible claimthat Iran aimed to produce nuclear weapons. After all, Ayatollah Khamenei has published a fatwa forbidding the acquisition or manufacture of nuclear weapons, which is not surprising, considering that means of mass destruction are ideologically opposed by the revolutionary regime, as it can be noticed by Iran's refusal to retaliate in kind to Saddam's use of chemical warfare, with the implicit approval, of course, of the United States. Now, even if all this is wrong, there's still no indication that Iran would use nuclear weapons in a blackmailing manner, and not simply keep them as a desperate deterrent, including the Saudi Kingdom.
    The idea that the country sitting on some of the world’s largest oil and gas reserves “needs” a relatively more expensive and physically dangerous resource like nuclear power solely for “energy production” is logically suspect. Even if the Shah’s forward-thinking post-fossil fuels justification for pursuing the technology is to be taken at face value (nuclear energy was widely considered the wave of the future in the 50s), subsequent nuclear proliferation in the region would undoubtedly have driven a secular Iran to pursue weapons.


    Moreover, the most powerful nations in the world, with vastly conflicting interests, all agreed in writing that verifiable international controls on Iran’s nuclear program are a necessary precondition for Iran’s equitable participation in the global economy. That alone hardly supports the assertion that Iran’s insistence of strictly peaceful pursuits related to nuclear technology can be regarded as even remotely credible. Add to the mix Iran’s pursuit of ballistic weapons development in the hands of a jihadist regime bent on “global Islamic Revolution,” and the risks are obvious. Therein lies the problem. It’s the sum total situation that is dangerous, not the pursuit of nuclear tech and stockpiles in and of itself; not even Iran’s run-of-the-mill medieval repression of its own people. It’s also why Trump potentially breaking the law just to give nuclear tech to the Saudis is arguably the most damaging move possible against the US position on Iran.


    To be sincere, your description gives me the impression of a caricature evil adversary of the "free world".
    More accurately, “the” world. Iran and its proxies have and continue to launch attacks around the world, regardless of the political leanings of the governments in the affected countries. These attacks, and the threat of a nuclear Iran, are how the regime ensures its continued existence, and projects power and influence far beyond what it would otherwise be capable of conventionally. The most powerful countries on earth sat down with Iran, and the latter was able to extract material concessions and guarantees from them. Most countries with similar geopolitical profiles to Iran can’t even dream of commanding that kind of influence.


    The problem of Iranian opposition to American geopolitical interests can be easily solved with war, but what prevents it from occurring are the inevitable financial sacrifices and the political repercussions in the domestic front. The disintegration of Iran will not necessarily lead to the rise of Islamism and, in any case, Islamism should not be automatically viewed as hostile to American interests in the region. Washington has a history of a very fruitful cooperation with religious extremists dating from the Cold War and Afghanistan. Islamists were largely successful at withholding the rise of socialist and progressive movements in the Arab societies, while even recently, Sunni sectarianism has proven to be an invaluable and reliable ally of the West in the Syrian Civil War. Not to mention the religiously intolerant and extremely authoritarian monarchies of Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, which have contributed crucially to the containment of Iran. Therefore, it's safe to suppose that a sufficiently flexible American administration could productively collaborate with Islamists in, for instance, Iranian Kurdistan or Baluchistan, to prevent an obviously hostile democratically elected government in Iran from emerging from her ashes.
    US economic exposure to war with Iran is secondary or tertiary in order of magnitude. Iran can’t attack the US directly unless it theoretically arranges for one of its terror cells to launch attacks within the US - certainly possible, but the more immediate risk is to our allies in Europe and the Middle East. Our exposure to energy supply shocks through the Straight of Hormuz can be compensated for, as the vast majority of flows there are not bound for the US. There again, avoidance of disruptions has more to do with protecting our allies and preserving the regional security mandate which justifies US presence in the region. Lastly, there is of course the externalities of war and societal collapse in a true death match with Iran, which would spill over onto our allies. Iran knows all this full well, which is why it is able to carry out its shadow war tactics and regional power games with relative impunity. At the end of the day, it would require a calamity of biblical proportions to convince the US that sending Iran back to the stone age is worth the consequences. In the meantime, the regime’s bellicose threats and chest thumping against the “Great Satan America” are primarily designed for domestic purposes.
    Finally, in what concerns the moral judgements and the labeling of the Iranian government as a terrorist regime, I personally strongly disagree and consider Iran's sphere of influence significantly more benign than, let's say, the economic strangulationof Syria or the support of Jundallahand Al-Qaeda, but I understand that it essentially depends on our subjective perspectives, so there's probably little point in debating this aspect.
    I’m not sure what the externalities inherent to economic sanctions, or Israeli espionage, have to do with the US or with Iran’s use of terrorism as a foreign policy tool. If Iran’s government doesn’t qualify as a terrorist regime, despite carrying out and/or directly and deliberately sponsoring acts of terrorism, then the whole concept is functionally useless. If Iran is “benign” by any metric, the whole post-WW2 consensus built on US policies to control or quarantine authoritarian regimes which threaten our allies cannot exist beyond abstract theory. The US’ status on the world stage is built on soft power as much or more than on traditional power. The idea that the US could or should compromise on its core foreign policy mandate is about as likely as Rocket Man Kim voluntarily stepping down to make way for democratic elections.

  6. #46

    Default Re: Saudi Arabia: Drone attack against world's largest crude oil refinery

    Quote Originally Posted by Legio_Italica View Post

    There seems to be a bizarre narrative that Trump has a hand in US energy independence, or that he’s some kind of shrewd isolationist carefully extricating the US from foreign wars. Trump is no evil genius, but he is certainly an imbecile acting in bad faith who wants to be perceived as a “tough, stable genius.” He fired Bolton because Bolton dared to contradict God Emperor Trump at least one too many times. There is no other reason.

    The result has been that Trump routinely fuels existing trends of destabilization of entire regions and blindsides our allies without actually following a non-interventionist policy platform or a coherent strategy as commander in chief. He pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal to look “tough,” but then failed to follow up and actually be “tough” on Iran. He now wants to make the same nuclear deal with Iran in exchange for relieved sanctions. This arguably leaves Iran in a stronger geopolitical position than they’ve ever been in, having been “victimized” by US sabotage of an agreement that, as it turns out, was in the US’ interest to maintain.

    Same goes for Syria, Afghanistan, Korea, etc. We still have troops there, but no coherent strategy for our leaders or allies to rally behind. It’s the worst of both worlds. Trumpism is far worse than the most hawkish neocon policy narrative, if only because Trump has no policy narrative at all.
    I never get tired from "an accomplished billionaire who got himself elected to most powerful political office in the world against wishes of establishment is an idiot for disagreeing with my ideology" narrative.
    In any case, Trump has to balance between his constituents (who obviously are there for his less belligerent stance on foreign policy or just simply in favor of being taxed into oblivion to fund globalist wet dreams) and neocon fifth column within GOP. Latter is why he lets folks like Bolton to foam out of their mouths from time to time as part of "good cop-bad cop" routine.
    It is safe to say American presence in Middle East has been a mistake form the very beginning. Hopefully, this presence will seize to be throughout Trump's second term.

  7. #47
    Legio_Italica's Avatar Lost in Limbo
    Civitate Praefect

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    3,693

    Default Re: Saudi Arabia: Drone attack against world's largest crude oil refinery

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    I never get tired from "an accomplished billionaire who got himself elected to most powerful political office in the world against wishes of establishment is an idiot for disagreeing with my ideology" narrative.
    In any case, Trump has to balance between his constituents (who obviously are there for his less belligerent stance on foreign policy or just simply in favor of being taxed into oblivion to fund globalist wet dreams) and neocon fifth column within GOP. Latter is why he lets folks like Bolton to foam out of their mouths from time to time as part of "good cop-bad cop" routine.
    It is safe to say American presence in Middle East has been a mistake form the very beginning. Hopefully, this presence will seize to be throughout Trump's second term.
    Anyone can disagree with my observations by way of opinion, and Trump’s observable stupidity is in no way predicated on ideology. Perhaps your ideology precludes your assumptions and predictions. I’m sure you can come up with plenty of reasons why what we’re all seeing and reading isn’t what’s happening. I’m even willing to believe those reasons made sense when you explained them to the mirror this morning. The question is, how many dimensions of chess do you plan on conjuring from the ether in order to maintain your cognitive dissonance?

  8. #48
    Cookiegod's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    In Derc's schizophrenic mind
    Posts
    1,616

    Default Re: Saudi Arabia: Drone attack against world's largest crude oil refinery

    Quote Originally Posted by Legio_Italica View Post
    The idea that the country sitting on some of the world’s largest oil and gas reserves “needs” a relatively more expensive and physically dangerous resource like nuclear power solely for “energy production” is logically suspect. Even if the Shah’s forward-thinking post-fossil fuels justification for pursuing the technology is to be taken at face value (nuclear energy was widely considered the wave of the future in the 50s), subsequent nuclear proliferation in the region would undoubtedly have driven a secular Iran to pursue weapons.
    No, it's not illogical for an oil rich country to pursue nuclear power. It does make sense, including for Iran.

    Quote Originally Posted by Legio_Italica View Post
    Moreover, the most powerful nations in the world, with vastly conflicting interests, all agreed in writing that verifiable international controls on Iran’s nuclear program are a necessary precondition for Iran’s equitable participation in the global economy. That alone hardly supports the assertion that Iran’s insistence of strictly peaceful pursuits related to nuclear technology can be regarded as even remotely credible. Add to the mix Iran’s pursuit of ballistic weapons development in the hands of a jihadist regime bent on “global Islamic Revolution,” and the risks are obvious. Therein lies the problem. It’s the sum total situation that is dangerous, not the pursuit of nuclear tech and stockpiles in and of itself; not even Iran’s run-of-the-mill medieval repression of its own people. It’s also why Trump potentially breaking the law just to give nuclear tech to the Saudis is arguably the most damaging move possible against the US position on Iran.
    You draw false conclusions from indications that have little to do with that. The most powerful countries did not agree that the Iranians pursue nuclear power.

    Iran pursuing ballistic missiles has very sound reasons: 1) It has no air power except for what the Shah left them with. 2) It's only part of their missile programs and has very sound reasons.
    Just because a ballistic missile could in THEORY be used for nukes as well, doesn't mean they already do.

    Then you call it a "jihadist regime", which is more than just disingenuous. Iran doesn't wage jihad upon others. The US do. It shows remarkable restraint, in spite of everything that has been done to them.
    Poison gas used against them with Western support? Still refused to use them themselves, even though they were offered to them by other western powers.
    Civilian airliner shot down by the US? Didn't do the same to them.
    Is it arming and supporting a radical terrorist group in the USA? Nope, the US is doing that to Iran.

    As for religious freedoms in Iran: I'm no fan of theocratic government. But apart from the fact that once again: The US made that the only viable option by deposing the democratically president of Iran Mossadegh with the help of the CIA; you have lots of freedom in Iran. Especially as a woman. In most other gulf states, they do not have those.

    Wahhabi islamist extremism was a niche thing in the Muslim world, until the West came along. The ideology itself was directly inspired by protestant missionaries, Brits helped the Sauds win against the kingdom that had helped them in the fight against the Ottoman empire (Hedjaz), the US have since Eisenhower in the 1950's supported and fueled radical islamism across the world.

    Iran on the other hand has a moderating influence. Syria is secular, Hezbollah, though Shiite, is committed to the secular state of Lebanon. The PMU in Iraq are a bit more icky, but that's more got to do with the situation in Iraq than Iranian influence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Legio_Italica View Post
    More accurately, “the” world. Iran and its proxies have and continue to launch attacks around the world, regardless of the political leanings of the governments in the affected countries. These attacks, and the threat of a nuclear Iran, are how the regime ensures its continued existence, and projects power and influence far beyond what it would otherwise be capable of conventionally. The most powerful countries on earth sat down with Iran, and the latter was able to extract material concessions and guarantees from them. Most countries with similar geopolitical profiles to Iran can’t even dream of commanding that kind of influence.
    Oh really? Did Iranians send those planes into the WTC? No wait, those were Sauds. Does Iran arm Islamist groups, such as the mujahedeen in Afghanistan who then became the Taliban, or the various al-Qaeda aligned groups in Syria and Libya? Oh no wait, that's the US. On whose side is al-Qaeda in Yemen fighting on? Oh wait, against the Houthis. What a surprise.

    My offer to you from a different thread still stands: For every terrorist group supported by the Iranians you can name, I can name you 2 American ones. Oh heck. Let's make it 5.

    Quote Originally Posted by Legio_Italica View Post
    US economic exposure to war with Iran is secondary or tertiary in order of magnitude. Iran can’t attack the US directly unless it theoretically arranges for one of its terror cells to launch attacks within the US - certainly possible, but the more immediate risk is to our allies in Europe and the Middle East. Our exposure to energy supply shocks through the Straight of Hormuz can be compensated for, as the vast majority of flows there are not bound for the US. There again, avoidance of disruptions has more to do with protecting our allies and preserving the regional security mandate which justifies US presence in the region. Lastly, there is of course the externalities of war and societal collapse in a true death match with Iran, which would spill over onto our allies. Iran knows all this full well, which is why it is able to carry out its shadow war tactics and regional power games with relative impunity. At the end of the day, it would require a calamity of biblical proportions to convince the US that sending Iran back to the stone age is worth the consequences. In the meantime, the regime’s bellicose threats and chest thumping against the “Great Satan America” are primarily designed for domestic purposes.
    A collapse of worldwide oil supply would crash the US economy as well. Claiming otherwise is beyond naive.

    Iran isn't your typical victim. It'd take a ground invasion with hundreds of thousands of troops to secure the strait of Hormuz, any American naval presence in the PERSIAN gulf would suffer greatly, and the financial exertion would be immense. Though obviously nowhere nearly as immense as the repercussions from it. Since countries such as China depend on the oil from Hormuz, you'd risk seeing China intervene in the conflict as well, and likely not on the side you're on.

    Iran has the ability to act with impunity because the US doesn't have any cards left. Any harm the US can inflict on Iran, it already does.

    Given that it can't be punished much more, what follows is that Iran doesn't have to give a and can do what it wants. In spite of that it's still behaving much more civilised and with more restraint than the US does.
    Do a global poll where you'd say "impunity", and "bellicose" and ask them which country they associate most strongly with those words. I guarantee you Iran wouldn't be anywhere near the top of the list, but a flag with stars and stripes.

    The wifebeater mentality "See what you made me do to you?!" really reaches its epitomy when you have the gall to talk about the "regime's" (translation: Country we don't like and want to replace with our puppets) "bellicose threats".
    Want me to give you a best of of Trump, Bolton, Clinton, etc. talking points? Or some from the Sauds?
    Quote Originally Posted by Legio_Italica View Post
    I’m not sure what the externalities inherent to economic sanctions, or Israeli espionage, have to do with the US or with Iran’s use of terrorism as a foreign policy tool. If Iran’s government doesn’t qualify as a terrorist regime, despite carrying out and/or directly and deliberately sponsoring acts of terrorism, then the whole concept is functionally useless. If Iran is “benign” by any metric, the whole post-WW2 consensus built on US policies to control or quarantine authoritarian regimes which threaten our allies cannot exist beyond abstract theory. The US’ status on the world stage is built on soft power as much or more than on traditional power. The idea that the US could or should compromise on its core foreign policy mandate is about as likely as Rocket Man Kim voluntarily stepping down to make way for democratic elections.
    If anything makes a term concept, it's the misuse of it. Terrorism has a definition. Iran doesn't fit it. Nor does the Hezbollah, nor the Iranian revolutionary guard. The CIA on the other hand... OH BOY!

    Rocket man Kim would be an idiot, were he to give up on nukes. Because nothing guarantees an American attack more than relying on a promise by them that they won't.
    "Something funny."
    - not me.







    Quote Originally Posted by Derc View Post
    No one cares what Derc has to say.

  9. #49
    Abdülmecid I's Avatar ¡Ay Carmela!
    Moderation Overseer Civitate Moderation Mentor

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    4,688

    Default Re: Saudi Arabia: Drone attack against world's largest crude oil refinery

    Quote Originally Posted by Legio_Italica View Post
    Moreover, the most powerful nations in the world, with vastly conflicting interests, all agreed in writing that verifiable international controls on Iran’s nuclear program are a necessary precondition for Iran’s equitable participation in the global economy. That alone hardly supports the assertion that Iran’s insistence of strictly peaceful pursuits related to nuclear technology can be regarded as even remotely credible. Add to the mix Iran’s pursuit of ballistic weapons development in the hands of a jihadist regime bent on “global Islamic Revolution,” and the risks are obvious. Therein lies the problem. It’s the sum total situation that is dangerous, not the pursuit of nuclear tech and stockpiles in and of itself; not even Iran’s run-of-the-mill medieval repression of its own people. It’s also why Trump potentially breaking the law just to give nuclear tech to the Saudis is arguably the most damaging move possible against the US position on Iran.
    As Cookiegod explained, missiles are pretty much the only alternative to a state deprived of the ability to modernise and equip its air-force. The propagation of the Islamic Revolution has stopped being the goal of Iranian foreign policy at least since the early stages of the war with Iraq. The Iranian Republic is a pragmatic actor, who successfully cooperates with several sovereign entities that do not endorse her ideology, like the coalition, democratically elected and authoritarian governments of Lebanon, Iraq and Syria, not to mention the cordial relationship with the Russian Federation, the Republic of Pakistan or the Omani monarchy. Investment on nuclear energy is a necessary measure for every administration with coherent, long-term plans and, in any case, the contradiction between Iranian nuclear facilities and ample oil resources does not really negate the counter-arguments I mentioned above, including IAEA's report. In my opinion, it's unreasonable to claim that the Iranian government is genuinely inspired from jihadist and fundamentalist policies and then reject the leadership's edict against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction as insincere.
    Quote Originally Posted by Legio_Italica View Post
    More accurately, “the” world. Iran and its proxies have and continue to launch attacks around the world, regardless of the political leanings of the governments in the affected countries. These attacks, and the threat of a nuclear Iran, are how the regime ensures its continued existence, and projects power and influence far beyond what it would otherwise be capable of conventionally. The most powerful countries on earth sat down with Iran, and the latter was able to extract material concessions and guarantees from them. Most countries with similar geopolitical profiles to Iran can’t even dream of commanding that kind of influence.
    To what terrorist tactics on behalf of Iran are you referring? The only somewhat recent one I can think of is the bombing in Bulgaria, but even there, the perpetrator was allegedly Hezbollah and was never implied that Iran had been involved. If your comment actually concerned some failed or successful assassination attempts that occurred in Denmark and France, it should be noted that the targets were not civilians, but leaders of terrorist groups (People's Mujaheddin and Khuzestan separatists). Rather ironically, the former, together with Kurdistan Free Life Party have received support from the United States, despite Washington itself labeling them as terrorists.

    From all the above, I cannot personally conclude that Iran is an exceptionally aggressive player, whose strategy and methods are especially egregious, from a moralist perspective. It looks like a typical case of an average power that tries to safeguard its sphere of influence and financial interests in the area surrounding its borders, in spite of the opposition of several other countries, whose hostility stems from economic clashes, diplomatic antagonism, lobbying and the sour feelings caused caused by the rupture and large-scale nationalisations of the great 1979 Revolution.

  10. #50

    Default Re: Saudi Arabia: Drone attack against world's largest crude oil refinery

    How exactly are ballistic missiles a replacement for an air force? What is the goal of either capability?

  11. #51
    Centenarius
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    810

    Default Re: Saudi Arabia: Drone attack against world's largest crude oil refinery

    Quote Originally Posted by Sukiyama View Post
    How exactly are ballistic missiles a replacement for an air force? What is the goal of either capability?
    I would say in Irans context ballistic missiles are a substitute for stratetic bombers.

  12. #52
    Carmen Sylva's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Palace of Neuwied
    Posts
    2,179

    Default Re: Saudi Arabia: Drone attack against world's largest crude oil refinery

    Quote Originally Posted by Sukiyama View Post
    How exactly are ballistic missiles a replacement for an air force? What is the goal of either capability?
    Iran is since Reagan the target of US sanctions, they hadn't the means to build up a modern airforce. They need an instrument for the destruction of distant military facilities as deterrence.

    Finally i agree with Cookiegod and Abdülmecid. Iran is a quite moderate islamic regime in comparison to Saudi Arabia or the Isis state in Syria.

    Sorry, Legio i don't believe your anti iranian propaganda, reminds me of Greuel propaganda of WW I against German Empire.
    Christ was crucified, Socrates was poisoned, Phidias was accused of theft - it is almost an honor to be abused by contemporaries.

    Carmen Sylva (1843 - 1916), actually Princess Elisabeth Pauline Ottilie Luise zu Wied VA (Royal Order of Victoria and Albert), German writer and lyricist, by marriage Queen Elizabeth of Romania

    Proud Non-Citizen / End of Time / Unschuldsengel / My Mods

  13. #53

    Default Re: Saudi Arabia: Drone attack against world's largest crude oil refinery

    Cui bono?
    Optio, Legio I Latina

  14. #54
    Vanoi's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    15,232

    Default Re: Saudi Arabia: Drone attack against world's largest crude oil refinery

    There's nothing moderate about a theocratic government that supports militants and terror groups against its neighbors.

  15. #55
    Miles
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Wales... New South Wales.
    Posts
    357

    Default Re: Saudi Arabia: Drone attack against world's largest crude oil refinery

    Quote Originally Posted by Sukiyama View Post
    How exactly are ballistic missiles a replacement for an air force? What is the goal of either capability?
    Crafty buggers. Iran using unmanned munitions as kamikaze pilots.

  16. #56
    Ἀπολλόδοτος Α΄ ὁ Σωτήρ's Avatar Yeah science!
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Άργος - Ἑλλάς
    Posts
    1,248

    Default Re: Saudi Arabia: Drone attack against world's largest crude oil refinery

    Quote Originally Posted by Cookiegod View Post
    No, it's not illogical for an oil rich country to pursue nuclear power. It does make sense, including for Iran.

    Oh, really, ever heard of fuel and gas generators, any fossil fuel power stations? Iran can surely power their factories, home appliances and air conditioning, by burning some of that black gold they have. So what about air pollution, I'm sure their forests will absorb the impurities. Instead they keep constructing dams for hydroelectricity and suffering water shortages just so they could trick the Free World into thinking they need more power. Can't fool me twice!
    They only have 80 milion people how much energy do they need?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cookiegod View Post
    Poison gas used against them with Western support? Still refused to use them themselves, even though they were offered to them by other western powers.

    Like I said previously, it just shows that they're crazy fundamentalists, normal people would use chemical weapons.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cookiegod View Post
    snip*

    The rest of the post is just too much unnecessary historical context. We already know they hate the Free World for our freedoms, therefore, we know we're the good guys, they're the bad guys. Keep it simple, sanctions, bomb their navy. Keep it simple!
    Last edited by Ἀπολλόδοτος Α΄ ὁ Σω September 19, 2019 at 08:45 AM.
    "First get your facts straight, then distort them at your leisure." - Mark Twain

    οὐκ ἦν μὲν ἐγώ, νῦν δ' εἰμί· τότε δ' ούκ ἔσομαι, ούδέ μοι μελήσει

  17. #57
    conon394's Avatar hoi polloi
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Colfax WA, neat I have a barn and 49 acres - I have 2 horses, 15 chickens - but no more pigs
    Posts
    12,939

    Default Re: Saudi Arabia: Drone attack against world's largest crude oil refinery

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanoi View Post
    There's nothing moderate about a theocratic government that supports militants and terror groups against its neighbors.
    C'mon Vanoi - If asymmetric warfare is all you can afford and allows plausible deniability its what you roll with. Is Iran Theocratic sure, does that stop the US from loving it some house of Saud, or ever bringing the hammer down on them for regurgitating its nasty brand of fundamentalism all over the world... And well I guess the US does not need terror group (except for The contra's or maybe the dictatorships in how many South American countries in the last 100 years or so) because MD hello we tend to just do things out in the open in our back yard.

    OK so Iran is Theocratic. I honestly don't see that as a factor in international relations. It may mean the US and it will never best f'ing friends but again if we can deal with the House of Saud, we can deal with Iran. If the the US can turn a blind eye the messy war of Terror the house of Saud is running in Yemen I pretty sure we can ignore what exact vast web of anti US attacks Iran has launched recently?
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites

    'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'

    But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.

    Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.

  18. #58
    Vanoi's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    15,232

    Default Re: Saudi Arabia: Drone attack against world's largest crude oil refinery

    Quote Originally Posted by conon394 View Post
    C'mon Vanoi - If asymmetric warfare is all you can afford and allows plausible deniability its what you roll with. Is Iran Theocratic sure, does that stop the US from loving it some house of Saud, or ever bringing the hammer down on them for regurgitating its nasty brand of fundamentalism all over the world... And well I guess the US does not need terror group (except for The contra's or maybe the dictatorships in how many South American countries in the last 100 years or so) because MD hello we tend to just do things out in the open in our back yard.
    Iran can fight conventionally. Its army outclasses most of its neighbors. Conducting asymmetrical warfare is not an excuse for your proxies to target civilians like Hezbollah did in 1994 in Argentina.

    OK so Iran is Theocratic. I honestly don't see that as a factor in international relations. It may mean the US and it will never best f'ing friends but again if we can deal with the House of Saud, we can deal with Iran. If the the US can turn a blind eye the messy war of Terror the house of Saud is running in Yemen I pretty sure we can ignore what exact vast web of anti US attacks Iran has launched recently?
    Can't call Iran moderate if its a theocracy. International relations are irrelevant in regards to its government type.

    Iran doesn't need to directly attack the US to be a problem or threat. Its actions alone regarding Israel and ships in the Strait of Hormuz make it a threat.

  19. #59

    Default Re: Saudi Arabia: Drone attack against world's largest crude oil refinery

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanoi View Post
    Iran doesn't need to directly attack the US to be a problem or threat. Its actions alone regarding Israel and ships in the Strait of Hormuz make it a threat.
    From a realpolitik perspective, Iran's recent maneuvering against Israel has only really resulted in us getting an opportunity to see our equipment tested in combat without risking our own guys. The biggest threat is actually to Lebanon. Israel has a very low tolerance for civilian casualties so they're not going to let those rocket stockpiles build up to the point Hezbollah can easily overwhelm the Iron Dome. Eventually the Israelis are going to destroy them where they're hidden, in places like Beirut.
    Last edited by sumskilz; September 19, 2019 at 10:43 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  20. #60
    Vanoi's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    15,232

    Default Re: Saudi Arabia: Drone attack against world's largest crude oil refinery

    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    From a realpolitik perspective, Iran's recent maneuvering against Israel has only really resulted in us getting an opportunity to see our equipment tested in combat without risking our own guys. The biggest threat is actually to Lebanon. Israel has a very low tolerance for civilian casualties so they're not going to let those rocket stockpiles build up to the point Hezbollah can easily overwhelm the Iron Dome. Eventually the Israelis are going to destroy them where they're hidden, in places like Beirut.
    I was actually referring to the recent incident involving an Iranian drone entering Israeli airspace. But yes Iran has been steadily supplying Hezbollah while Israel has been hitting their shipments.

    I'm absolutely sure Israel is using its F-35s in Syria now considering there are almost daily airstrikes against pro-Iranian militias in Dier Ezzor and the Syrians don't seem to be detecting the aircraft or even trying to shoot back.

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •