| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
 |
|
| Eight countries condemn Israeli landgrab on the West Bank. Agencies |
'Israeli ambassador?'
'Speaking.'
'We're condemning your land grab on the West Bank.'
'Righty-ho.'
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| The Guardian wrote: | | Former British and French diplomats urge action over Israel’s ‘erasure’ of Palestine In a letter to Macron and Burnham, more than 100 senior figures accuse Israel of ethnic cleansing and call for measures including a trade ban |
That should do it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
The talking heads are unanimous that Trump's new and sweeping economic sanctions won't make Iran budge and that therefore the war will go on. This is perfectly true but what the experts are ignoring is that sanctions are not the issue. Iran can always ride them out, they've been demonstrating it for fifty years.
What the Iranians haven't been tested on is not having any seaborne trade. The effect of this makes sanctions of any sort extremely small beer.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
One just have to look at the impact that the sanctions had on Iraq, after Saddam invaded and was then defeated by the U.S. and allies' in the 1991 Gulf War.
Operation Desert Storm, drove Saddam out of Kuwaiit, but it included an intense 42-day air campaign on Iraq. Civilian facilities such as highways, power plants, and water purification plants, were hit to encourage Iraqi discontent, but still, the war ended and Saddam survived both this and the subsequent local uprisings.
So now Western UN sanctions were stregthened, in order to pressure Saddam to abandon his weapons of mass destruction programs, and pay Kuwaiti war reparations.
Thse sanctions stopped all outside trade with Iraq, there were no fly zones across Iraq. A total embargo prohibited the Saddam government from selling its oil on the global market, which generated most of its revenue. Iraq’s GDP plummeted, and there was then a period of hyperinflation and mass poverty/hunger.
Did this force regime change. No.
The devastation was such that by 1995 the UN had to allow Iraq to sell some of its oil to the UN in exchange for humanitarian food. This still did produce Iraq regime change.
What did for Saddam finally, was actually 13 years of sanctions...... followed by a well organised invasion.
Realistically. If you are after regime change in Iran you are looking at years of sanctions, followed then by invasion.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
One difference between Mullahite Iran and Saddam's Iraq is that the former is a genuine democracy, if only at the street level. Another difference is that Iranians are full of bourgeois pretensions. If only at the urban level.
Iraq did not require a burning sense of injustice to keep it altogether. Saddam's internal security organs did that. Iranians, sans the creature comforts, will be too much for street-patrolling Decency Police. You must have noticed that Iranian women are no longer bound to the chador. Once fundamentalism is gone, the fundamentalists won't be far behind.
In short, in my opinion, the IRGC are aware of the need to get the ships rolling, whatever the cost. If only Trump will allow them to do it. But he's become a bit of a fundamentalist himself, drunk on his own rhetoric.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and three co-conspirators will now stand trial. A U.S. Air Force judge has ordered their military tribunal to begin on June 5, 2028.
This is far from ideal, but looking at the positive side for the defence, their client has now ammassed a lot of time served, to subtract from any future sentence.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | One difference between Mullahite Iran and Saddam's Iraq is that the former is a genuine democracy, if only at the street level. Another difference is that Iranians are full of bourgeois pretensions. If only at the urban level.
Iraq did not require a burning sense of injustice to keep it altogether. Saddam's internal security organs did that. Iranians, sans the creature comforts, will be too much for street-patrolling Decency Police. You must have noticed that Iranian women are no longer bound to the chador. Once fundamentalism is gone, the fundamentalists won't be far behind.
In short, in my opinion, the IRGC are aware of the need to get the ships rolling, whatever the cost. If only Trump will allow them to do it. But he's become a bit of a fundamentalist himself, drunk on his own rhetoric. |
Saddam was able to keep the internal security on side, despite a total embargo, he found ways to pay those who were willing to repress anyone who was a threat.
The IRGC are likely going to be able to do that, they are experienced in evading sanctions, they have support from proxies, a large land border, to smuggle goods in and out. Before the war they controlled an estimated 114 ports and 25 airports. They were already taking a cut. They are used to bypassing official customs to bring in sanctioned goods, by the use of their own front companies.
The US blockade wont be able to stop all of this....
The US plan to stop other countries doing business with Iran has already been vetoed by China, its not going to get through the UN. I cant see China, Russia, or India helping the US.
As soon as MOU was signed the IRGC ensured large cargoes of Iranian oil to China were rushed out, giving the IRGC a massive quick windfall. The IRGC are starting the latest blockade from a reasonable position. It is of course looking bad for the general populace......but many of these, whether fanatic or moderate, will primarily blame the US and Isreal for all the bombings and the killing of their spiritual leader.
I cant see why Operation Economic D-Day, is going to bring any more sucess than Operation Epic Fury or Operation Project Freedom.
Possibly I am being too glum.....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Wiley wrote: | | Saddam was able to keep the internal security on side, despite a total embargo, he found ways to pay those who were willing to repress anyone who was a threat. |
Agreed.
| The IRGC are likely going to be able to do that, they are experienced in evading sanctions, they have support from proxies, a large land border, to smuggle goods in and out. Before the war they controlled an estimated 114 ports and 25 airports. They were already taking a cut. They are used to bypassing official customs to bring in sanctioned goods, by the use of their own front companies. |
As I have said, sanctions have always been, and will always be, non-decisive.
| The US blockade wont be able to stop all of this.... |
They may not be able to prevent this kind of top-up evasion. But like I also said, a blockade is an order of magnitude different from sanctions.
| The US plan to stop other countries doing business with Iran has already been vetoed by China, its not going to get through the UN. I cant see China, Russia, or India helping the US. |
Agreed.
| As soon as MOU was signed the IRGC ensured large cargoes of Iranian oil to China were rushed out, giving the IRGC a massive quick windfall. |
Windfalls don't last. I still don't know whether they shot themselves in the foot when they fired on the ships after the signing of the MoU or it was a calculated action designed to scupper the MoU.
| The IRGC are starting the latest blockade from a reasonable position. It is of course looking bad for the general populace...... |
That is not a light matter in Iran.
| but many of these, whether fanatic or moderate, will primarily blame the US and Isreal for all the bombings and the killing of their spiritual leader. |
I'm sure all Iranians will. It being true and all. The question is whether they will support the IRGC in their à outrance posture.
| I cant see why Operation Economic D-Day, is going to bring any more sucess than Operation Epic Fury or Operation Project Freedom. |
You can scarcely argue that in the very long run the US naval blockade will make Iran ungovernable. The question is how long Trump is prepared to let it run.
| Possibly I am being too glum..... |
No. About right, in my estimation.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
A new twist -- or, as may be, the same twist twisted -- occurred yesterday. After several weeks of peaceable stalemate, the Americans suddenly launched airstrikes on several Iranian military sites bordering on the Strait of Hormuz.
The Iranians immediately retaliated by sending missiles towards Arab countries with US military bases. All the latter were intercepted and initial reports suggest the exchange will be the end of this particular episode.
| So, what just happened? There are two possibilities on offer: |
(1) The US explanation is correct. The Iranians were preparing to launch missiles/ drones from those sites designed to lay mines in the Strait of Hormuz
(2) The Iranian explanation is correct. The US got fed up with Iran's ability to withstand the blockade and have decided to bring the stalemate to an end.
| Which is the more likely? |
(1) Mines are the one factor that would stymie any attempts by the Americans to open the Strait for improvised attempts to get non-Iranian favoured shipping through on a substantial scale, something that would be of great help to them in a number of ways. On the other hand it is difficult to see that airstrikes would be able to prevent such an Iranian mining campaign.
(2) Iran seems marginally ahead in the who'll-blink-first stakes and it would be rational for the US to want to bring it to an end. On the other hand, both the initial US strikes and the Iranian counter-strikes have more 'warning shots' characteristics than presaging a change of policy by either side.
Can't say on this one. Either early-doors or non-doors.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Some interesting military information from a talking head (for a change). He pointed out the US can never guarantee the Strait of Hormuz is free of Iranian mines. Mines, he pointed out, are still being encountered in the Baltic that were laid in World War One!
More locally, he added, there are plentiful amounts of sub-sea ordnance left over from the Iran/Iraq War of the nineteen-seventies.
Further discussions led to further (for me) enlightenment. The Americans have been busy converting Omani coastal waters into reasonably safe routes for oil tankers. Including dredging out a channel less than a kilometre wide between two Omani islands.
Normally 'reasonably safe' is enough to deter ordinary mercantile traffic but an unholy alliance between American military assets and Greek ship-charterers of elderly VLCC tankers earning enough to pay for new VLCCs has ensured a steady flow of oil from Arab Gulf states, through the Strait and trans-shipped to waiting oil tankers in the Indian Ocean for delivery to a waiting world.
There is propaganda battle going on between American sources ("Amounts are nearing pre-war levels") and Iranian sources ("You must be joking, we've just taken out two of them with drones"). I am inclined to the US version being truer on this occasion. Though they are strangely quiet on numbers of tankers going into the Gulf.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
So there is evidence. You probably mean 'proof'.
| Oman and Iran have been in negotations to open a safe corridor and a joint plan to remove mines from the Strait. |
My information is that Oman is under such pressure from the other Arab Gulf states--as well as America--that these negotiations are something of a dead letter.
| During these negotitions Iran was not trying to take out tankers with drones, it has been allowing some tankers out, in the spirit of the MOU whilst not allowing the numbers out that existed pre war, so negotiating and yet still draining world reserves. |
None of this was in the MoU, which specifically says that all tankers would have free passage for sixty days.
| The numbers for August were roughly 7 million barrels per day, that is down from 17 million barrels per day in January. |
Nobody knows what the true figures are but if it were seven million this would, with the Saudi diversions to the Red Sea and other dibs and dobs, go a long way to reaching the status quo ante.
| After more US strikes the Iranians will stop more tankers leaving. |
True, but we're in a new ball game. Now that it is question of freelancers willing to take the risk vs Iran not getting any tankers out, it is all over bar the shouting.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
None of this was in the MoU, which specifically says that all tankers would have free passage for sixty days.
|
This is what it says.
| 5. Upon the signing of this MoU, the Islamic Republic of Iran will make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels, with no charge for 60 days only, from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman, and vice versa. The traffic of commercial vessels will immediately start, and considering the need for removing the technical and military obstacles, and de-mining by the Islamic Republic of Iran, will be instated within 30 days. The Islamic Republic of Iran will conduct dialogue with the Sultanate of Oman, to define the future administration and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz, in discussions with other Persian Gulf Littoral States, in line with applicable international law and the sovereign rights of coastal states of the Strait of Hormuz. |
Wiley can only see safe passage, without charge.
Safe passage in wartime is not an automatic right, it is a special dispensation, agreement, issued by an authorized commander or government of a warring party.
Maybe the US interpretation was that this MOU equated to free passage for shipping. That interpretation is certainly what most folks want to see as the outcome, but is it actually in the MOU?
Clearly vessels are wise to heed communication from warring parties, whether Iranian or US, that is if they have not been granted safe passage, as both belligerants are now launching missiles at unarmed tankers carrying fuel.
Not good.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Wiley can only see safe passage, without charge. |
OK
| Safe passage in wartime... |
It is not 'wartime'. The MoU has just been signed.
| ...is not an automatic right |
Yes, it is.
| it is a special dispensation, agreement, issued by an authorized commander or government of a warring party. |
OK, if you insist. The USA and Iran are 'warring parties', their authorised commanders/governments have issued authorisation by signing the MoU.
| Maybe the US interpretation was that this MOU equated to free passage for shipping. |
It was your 'interpretation' a few minutes ago.
| That interpretation is certainly what most folks want to see as the outcome, but is it actually in the MOU? |
You said it was.
| Clearly vessels are wise to heed communication from warring parties |
OK
OK
| that is if they have not been granted safe passage |
They had been. Both Iran and US had signed an MoU to that effect.
| as both belligerants are now launching missiles at unarmed tankers carrying fuel. |
A bogus list. Only Iran is launching missiles at unarmed tankers carrying fuel 'from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman, and vice versa', as per the MoU.
OK
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| "The United States never targets civilians in combat. We never will and we never have." |
That was J D Vance conducting a press conference at the White House yesterday, pending the appointment of a new press secretary. 'Apart from Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki,' he didn't add.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
