SEALS should storm the vessel and take it out of port.

Assuming they succeeded, Do you seriously think it would make it out of Iranian territory before it was sunk?

SEALS should storm the vessel and take it out of port.

I would guess there would be an ugly end to that. The Iranians are very unpleasant.

I think the Iranians may be near the breaking point as a regime, forced back to renegotiate their JCPOA agreement not to develop nukes. They will have to accept a full and unlimited set of inspections to verify no nuke program. Much like Saddam had.

And Britain standing up to Iran helps make them a key partner, along with the U.S., in any subsequent negotiations with Iran.

The thrust of the article is that Britain is in a position where they can't say no to America on much due to the necessity of U.S. support for Brexit to happen and for a good bilateral trade deal with America and possibly Canada and Mexico as well.

America could make things uncomfortable for France and Germany if they're too harsh with Britain on a Brexit deal. And France and Germany wouldn't like it any better than some of the sanctions we've forced them to observe via our control of the SWIFT international money union. We put a stop to most of their business with Iran in this way. And we have other means of sanctions we could use that they wouldn't like.

Britain as a separate entity politically from the EU also means that NATO policy and strategy will be different. NATO becomes even less relevant, given that Britain and Greece and Turkey were the only countries that spent at or above their commitment to NATO although some of the newest members like Poland and Estonia have had decent spending. It's France (somewhat) and Germany (extremely so) and other old NATO members like Belgium and Italy that have really decided they don't take any NATO obligation seriously. It's only an obligation for America to defend Europe and at American expense. They keep some token armies around because they're handy for staging historical marches in parades on the grand boulevards of Europe's old capital cities. But useful in combat? Well, to find out, America would mostly have to transport them and their equipment to an actual battle since they have no transport, no air transport, scarce meager air refueling resources, etc. and with little more readiness among their naval forces or their armies. Most of the EU considers itself a protectorate of America and that America is responsible for defending them. And America did just cancel Turkey's purchase of the F-35 and their participation in making some of the parts for it, meaning that NATO membership is considered conditional by America when push comes to shove. Turkey's offense to America is acquiring the Russian S-400 missile system. America believed that Turkey would use its hands-on access to the F-35 to sell its secrets to Russia and possibly China.

Anyway, there are changes brewing in the international diplomatic and military scene, strong undercurrents leading us away from the post-Cold War era. And this reckoning with the EU and others is, in fact, overdue.

I think the Iranians may be near the breaking point as a regime

Why do you think so? You mean that the present ruling party (Moderation and Development Party led by Hassan Rouhani, that got 57% in 2017) will lose the next elections and Ahmadinejad returns to power?

You mean that the present ruling party (Moderation and Development Party led by Hassan Rouhani, that got 57% in 2017) will lose the next elections and Ahmadinejad returns to power?

The reporting I've read recently indicates that Iran is drawing back its forces in Syria from the border with northern Israel. They are also not supplying the Houthi rebels in their anti-Saudi rebellion.

Iran is pulling back only because Iran wants to negotiate. This is all a prelude to a re-negotiation of the Iran nuke deal, the JCPOA. America, along with Britain, will press Iran for a full inspections regime.

France takes military obligation seriously. Germany, Belgium, etc. you're right about them, but France is the most powerful military in Western Europe (after the US) and it is deployed all over the world, so it's just not accurate to lump the French in with the Germans.

I rather like the idea, because it would kill two birds with one stone: get that ship out of there, and make it such that the Iranians would have no forces afloat capable of doing it again. It would serve them right.

I think the Iranians were morally justified in taking the tanker, though it was probably illegal to do so. Though they claim technical moving violations as justification. Pretty much like a cop ticketing someone for changing lanes without signalling. Given there is no international police force for monitoring and enforcing sea lane traffic laws it seems the task would have to fall to countries that would volunteer for the duty.

As they say, it's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it! Maybe this is the new Iran trying to show the world they really are a country interested in law and order!

They will have to accept a full and unlimited set of inspections to verify no nuke program. Much like Saddam had.

What may seriously hinder that is memories of what happened to Saddam and Ghadaffi.

Taking the side of the enemy there, bucko? So be it.

Enemy?

I don't recall any declaration of war.

And does your version of patriotism mean blind loyalty to a flag completely disregarding any sense of moral right and wrong?

France's military is not one of those ceremonial forces. It's the most effective deployable navy in Europe, and its army is all over Africa. And the French deployed heavily to Afghanistan.

You'll notice I didn't exactly lump France in with the others.

And Britain was always good about funding its military until the last few years but I think France might be the stronger ally nowadays.

What may seriously hinder that is memories of what happened to Saddam and Ghadaffi.

Yeah. The Iranians seem to be very aware of that.

Knocking off Ghadaffi was a big mistake. Now Iran and the Norks can sit back and say that only nukes will make their regime safe and that complying with international inspections just makes you a patsy in your own country. They're not wrong about that.

Saddam went under the inspections regime under Xlinton, Bush knocked him off. Ghadaffi turned over his entire WMD equipment under Bush, 0bama knocked him off.

Why would any sane dictator trust us at this point?

OTOH, I think Iran may have no choice at all at this point. Either they get the sanctions off their backs or their entire regime will fall. Those sanctions may bring them to their knees.

I think the Iranians were morally justified in taking the tanker, though it was probably illegal to do so. Though they claim technical moving violations as justification. Pretty much like a cop ticketing someone for changing lanes without signalling. Given there is no international police force for monitoring and enforcing sea lane traffic laws it seems the task would have to fall to countries that would volunteer for the duty.

In that part of the Gulf, they do actually have lanes. There's some puny island out there and inbound tankers stay on one side, outbound tankers on the other side. One of the ships the Iranians grabbed a few weeks back on suspicion of piracy came inbound in the wrong "lane" (the outbound lane). Or say the Iranians say.

So there are traffic lanes in those straits. It's not like open ocean.

In that part of the Gulf, they do actually have lanes. There's some puny island out there and inbound tankers stay on one side, outbound tankers on the other side. One of the ships the Iranians grabbed a few weeks back on suspicion of piracy came inbound in the wrong "lane" (the outbound lane). Or say the Iranians say.

So there are traffic lanes in those straits. It's not like open ocean.

Yes, that's what I read. It's quite credible that the traffic rules exist, and also believable that tankers would only treat them, as per the Pirate Code, as mere "guidelines". I could also see a UK tanker captain traveling on the wrong side of the island if it meant staying farther away from Iranian waters given the tensions.

But obviously the seizing of the tanker by Iran on those grounds would only be a pretense to retaliating against the UK.

The UK, on the other hand, according to one report I read that was UK based, claimed the Iranian supertanker which may not even be Iranian but just under contract with Iran, made port in Gibraltar for provisions and parts which is where it was seized, and that it was not in the international waters of the Gibraltar straits when it was taken. No idea how true or not that is.

A lot of he said/she said. About the only thing we can be sure of is that the UK struck first.

"Either they get the sanctions off their backs or their entire regime will fall. "

Putting aside the fact that there were sanctions on Iran before for several years with no effect, and that lately trade with China increased, how do you imagine this "regime fall"?

A popular uprising demanding return of the shah?

Yes, that's what I read. It's quite credible that the traffic rules exist, and also believable that tankers would only treat them, as per the Pirate Code, as mere "guidelines". I could also see a UK tanker captain traveling on the wrong side of the island if it meant staying farther away from Iranian waters given the tensions.

I think this is the kind of thing that landlubbers don't "get". And I know I'm a landlubber. You can only know so much from reading, and the rapidly sinking quality of reporting from overseas (or across town in NYC) gives you little confidence in the facts as reported.

The UK, on the other hand, according to one report I read that was UK based, claimed the Iranian supertanker which may not even be Iranian but just under contract with Iran, made port in Gibraltar for provisions and parts which is where it was seized, and that it was not in the international waters of the Gibraltar straits when it was taken. No idea how true or not that is.

I saw video at the Guardian or Independent. It showed a tanker ship underway apparently at sea and a helicopter and a few smaller Brit ships/boats and the chopper dropped at least one guy on the deck by rope in the video. So I assume that is how it started. I also saw some conflicting reports and accusations.

In that part of the Gulf, they do actually have lanes.

Note that at their narrowest parts, the straits of Hormuz and Gibraltar have no international water, it is all territorial water. Navigation through the straits is impossible without passing through territorial water.

For navigation in the straits, loaded tankers have quite a deep draft, and the usable channel is not very wide.

Putting aside the fact that there were sanctions on Iran before for several years with no effect, and that lately trade with China increased, how do you imagine this "regime fall"?

China has to obey our sanctions on the Norks and Iran and can only hedge those a little. Or they'll get sanctioned too. They won't risk it. And China has no interest in anything except Iran's oil. Iran wants to, for instance, make money by being one of the biggest almond growers in the world, bigger than CA even. Sanctions put a stop to that.

A popular uprising demanding return of the shah?

Popular uprising seems the most likely. I see Junior Pahlevi is still prancing around at various anti-mullah meetings (outside Iran, of course). I don't see the Iranians wanting a shah again. Why would they?

I don't see the Iranians wanting a shah again.

So what system would they want, to replace present regime? Like in Iraq or Afghanistan?

Why would they?

Not to suffer sanctions, remember?

So what system would they want, to replace present regime? Like in Iraq or Afghanistan?

I thought of that earlier today. Look around the region, the problems with the various attempts at some sort of democratic government.

Turkey succumbed to Islamism after its military finally got tired of knocking off one government after the next to preserve a secular state.

And you have Saddam in Iraq. Saddam was part of the Sunni minority since Iraq is over 60% Shi'a as I recall. (Iran is also a Shi'a majority country but it has an aggressive Shi'a leadership by the mullahs and Republican Guard.) Saddam's Iraq was multicultural. His foreign minister was Christian, for instance. Iraq's sizable Christian community lived quietly and peacefully throughout the country. The Sunni minority and even the very ancient Jews of Iraq (and Babylon and Mesopotamia) lived safely in neighborhoods of mixed groups, all largely without problems. Baghdad has a reputation of being a bit like a Las Vegas of the Mideast, a party town for people around the region and a Muslim could get away with a lot of stuff there that they couldn't in their home countries. What happened in Baghdad, stayed in Baghdad. Until America invaded.

So what other examples of governance of modern Arab or Muslim regimes in the region?

Well, Egypt's Mubarek was a general who ruled for decades until he was deposed by Morsi, an Islamist of the Muslim Brotherhood. Then the riots in Cairo against Morsi as he attempted to...yep, change the constitution to give him dictatorial powers. And so Morsi got knocked off by al-Sisi, a general who is starting to look like Mubarek 2.0.

Libya can't provide much example. An inhabited coastline with some medium sized cities, but generally a big desert with one bunch of hostile clans on the east site of the big desert and another hostile clan on the west side of the desert. Within each of these clans that are hostile to each other, they also fight for position within their faction. A big giant mess. Crazy as he was, Ghaddafi did a lot to make Libya a real country in terms of housing, education, fresh water access, elements of modern government services, like his regular elimination of locusts which had devastated the region for years, not just in Libya but in neighboring countries.

Lebanon went down the tubes decades ago and is now being absorbed politically by Hizbollah, an Iranian puppet group. So that example doesn't help Iran's reformers.

Beyond Turkey, Iraq, Egypt, and Libya, you only have the oil sheiks of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, etc. And they're all essentially monarchs, more or less like Jordan is. The Saudis, as the holy land of Islam, have stricter religious police than the rest of them. Even the Saudis have toned the religious police down, giving women the vote and now allowing women to drive.

You have a handful of other miserable poor nations like Yemen in the region. They offer no economic or political or religious model that could apply to Iran.

So where does Iran look for an example of what kind of government they want if they get rid of the mullah's corrupt theocracy? That's a hard question to answer. The few examples we might have seen in the past didn't work so well over time. Iran did probably fan the flames of unrest in some of these countries. Sometimes you have to think that Iran is more interested in destroying other governments in the region, that they hope to succeed simply by making other regimes fall, causing unrest, foiling attempts at reform, etc. And perhaps that is the only way they think they can prevail. Iran is the Shi'a holy land and the region has a huge Sunni majority and tiny Shi'a minorities. Overall, it's about 90% Sunni and 10% Shi'a.

I think Iran has yet to produce a reformer with a vision of what post-theocracy Iran would look like. And the mullahs would kill any such figure anyway. The mullahs's hold on power is in part because so many are complicit with the regime, so many people have secrets known to the government, etc. Quite often these kinds of factors help keep regimes in power long after they would have otherwise collapsed. So the mullahs do have some incentive to cultivate the citizenry to see the regime as the only hope of stability. And to keep the key mid-level bureaucrats and business people on board through patronage of the mullah political establishment, a very corrupt arrangement comparable to how the Chinese economy has a huge amount of business done overseas via front organizations for the Chinese military. Iran's Revolutionary Guard works that way too, usually pitching corrupt deals to enrich the members of the families of leading mullahs. So all the people capable of reform and revolt are...already co-opted into the theocracy.

I don't think anyone can imagine what government would follow the collapse of the mullahs. And perhaps the only way for the current regime to end is in a complete collapse. Not so different from North Korea or Venezuela, Iran's totalitarian buddies.

 And perhaps the only way for the current regime to end is in a complete collapse

So you think that it is what Iranians will opt for if sanctions are kept in place? Libyan or Somali model?

And I don't recall Libya ever wanting to get rid of Ghaddafi. Odd duck that he was, he was widely recognized with having improved the welfare of every faction in Libya and wasn't excessive about playing favorites. A tolerable level of corruption from Ghaddafi with a rising standard of living for a Third World nation that is little more than a big-ass desert. But the Libyan people did not "choose" the anarchy they've suffered. It hasn't even been good for the warlord-wannabes and their militias.

I think the Iranians will just collapse if they don't agree to a full inspections regime. Because the regime is, in Iran, Too Big To Fail. Until it suddenly does fail spectacularly.

I think the Iranians will just collapse if they don't agree to a full inspections regime.

I think, you engage in wishful thinking.

Townhall: The Royal Navy Will Now Protect Every British Ship Passing Near Iran

Britain has now had time to redeploy its navy and bring enough ships to the Straits to escort each ship. Before this, they didn't have enough ships to protect all their (flagged) tankers.

So Britain won't lose any more tankers to Iran. And Iran's oil shipment to Syria is still locked up in Gibraltar.

Looks like Brittania ruling the waves to me.

So Britain won't lose any more tankers to Iran. And Iran's oil shipment to Syria is still locked up in Gibraltar.

Yes, so they are even. One to one.

Looks like Brittania ruling the waves to me.

Dream on. British fleet in the Persian Gulf, will be like fish in the barrel. It is not XIX century anymore.

Yes, so they are even. One to one.

Iran's navy is actually real pathetic.

The Brit navy can kick sand in their faces any time. The only thing the Iranians could really do is mine the Straits. Which would bring the wrath of the world down on them, not Britain.

British fleet in the Persian Gulf, will be like fish in the barrel. It is not XIX century anymore.

It isn't the nineteenth century. But navies are still useful or countries like Britain wouldn't bother to keep them operating. Britain is a very old hand at conducting foreign policy while their opponents are staring down the barrels of British warships.

I think Iran was angling to improve its position in negotiations. Britain is slamming the door hard on any such hopes. Iran is pulling back across the region, near Israel, in supplying Houthi rebels against the Saudis, etc. And that oil tanker bound for Syria was intended to help prop up their allies in that war. Iran is strongly opposed by America, Israel, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Jordan, and now Britain.

This doesn't end so well for the mullahs IMO. It's either accepting inspections or a complete economic collapse as Iran's economy is nailed to the wall by American sanctions. We're really ratcheting down on them now, a lot like what we did prior to the invasion of Iraq when Saddam was reduced to hauling oil in small trucks with barrels to smuggling ships in Jordan. Just a trickle of moolah to pay the bills in Baghdad. The EU isn't happy with losing the Iranian business and they don't want any invasion of Iran but they don't have much choice about American sanctions. Neither does China. And Russia focuses on preserving its Syrian client, Assad, and looking to pick up other opportunities, possibly with Iran and India.

I don't think you are keeping current with the scale of economic downturn in Iran. They are having multiple domestic policy crises at the same time with the regime looking pretty corrupt. Because they are pretty corrupt.

Power is being concentrated against Iran and its regime and the threat of Iranian nukes. And Iran is not a North Korea. They are far more vulnerable.

It's either accepting inspections or a complete economic collapse ... The EU isn't happy with losing the Iranian business and they don't want any invasion of Iran but they don't have much choice about American sanctions. Neither does China.

American sanctions are truly a wonder weapon. Everyone will submit.

American sanctions are truly a wonder weapon. Everyone will submit.

Watch and learn.

Our SWIFT system is more far-reaching and sophisticated than when we used it against Saddam. The Norks are feeling some real pain as well.

And does your version of patriotism mean blind loyalty to a flag completely disregarding any sense of moral right and wrong?

Oh yeah, sure, because that's OBVIOUSLY me, as anybody will tell you after my - what? decade? - of posting here. I'm just a company man, toeing the party line, agreeing with everything that the sainted Republicans do and upholding every act of government at all times.

Yep, just a mind numbed robot. That's why all of the other right wingers on this site love me so much. I'm just a POSTER BOY Republican loyalist, a regular Boy Scout of the Right.

Mmmmhmmmm. You got me. Jeez oh Pete - this is the way that partisans argue. Direct to the ad hominems, no matter HOW ridiculous. I don't see things in the weird and cranky spider-holey way you do, so OBVIOUSLY I'm just a blind loyalist without any moral sense. Sure, whatever.

Britain has now had time to redeploy its navy and bring enough ships to the Straits to escort each ship. Before this, they didn't have enough ships to protect all their (flagged) tankers.

Reports I read claimed PM Theresa May declined to either insert British ships into the area, or accept a U.S. offer of protection, seeking to appease the Iranians. That worked about as well as May's Brexit without exit. Now there is a new sheriff in town.

When we declared the War On Terror, we were not kidding: we are at war with ALL Islamist terror organizations, and the state that support them. Gadafi was that.

He had the chance to live: repent and hand over the terrorists sheltering in Libya. And sin no more. He did not do that. He laid low. And therefore, he had to die.

Every Islamist nation that shot weapons or launched terrorists at America has been slated for destruction, and every single one of them except Syria (protected by the Russians), and Iran, has been destroyed or changed.

And Syria is having the Golan Heights stripped from it permanently, after having been largely physically destroyed.

We were never joking around when we declared war, we have not changed our minds, and by and large, we have won. Iran is really the only holdout, and we are crushing Iran's economy.

By overthrowing Ghadafi, we did destroy the order in Libya, that's true. Now they live harder lives in a destroyed country. Fuck them. That is the price you pay when you kill Americans in airplanes. And while a few of us die in the terror attack, you and your people keep dying, in large numbers, and you all suffer for the better part of the century. If you're not terrified of provoking the wrath of the United States, because the Americans are ruthless, cruel, unjust and arbitrary, then you haven't been paying attention.

To save his life, Ghadafy had to submit AT ONCE. He did not. Now he's dead. And now the Libyans - same ones who aided and abetted the murder of Westerners in Scotland and Berlin, are living worse lives than they have lived in a half-century, and they can't get back up, because their own bile and poison is turned on each other, and they are eating each other. Good. Fuck them.

It's war. It doesn't end until we say it ends. Their deaths and suffering are a good thing - it is the just punishment for attacking our people 30 years ago. Terror is met with grinding horror. They will never apologize or think they are wrong, therefore, they shall have their faces ground into the mud, and be poor and suffer, for the rest of their lives, and if their children do not submit, theirs, and so on, until they finally have their will broken and change, like the Apache, Cherokee, Sioux, etc.

That's really what the Muslims are - the modern incarnation of the American Indian. And we know how to reduce that sort to nothing and grind them to powder, NEVER to rise again.

Moral: DO NOT MAKE WAR ON AMERICA, because the Americans are not only the most powerful nation in the world, and the richest, but they are remarkably cruel, and they really do not give a shit about the lives of their enemies while the fight is going on. The Americans care about the lives of their own.

Wiping out Ghadafi's Libya and making the LIBYANS live with Islamist barbarism is exactly right. Ditto for Yemen (where they blew up the Cole). Tear apart their civilizations and make the savages eat each other. They deserve everything they are getting.

Want mercy? Then abandon your religion, like the Japanese did, and hand over your terrorists, just like the Japanese handed over their leaders so that we could hang them.

No mercy. No reason for mercy. Yes, Libya is a mess and their lives are wrecked. So what? Who cares. Good. They deserve it. All lands that support terror deserve to live in agony and misery until they change their religion to not support it any more. And if they never change, then beat them down forever, like various of the warlike American Indian tribes, who never made peace, and who now rot in the desert and die at 50.

Engaging America in war is a terrible thing, because, guess what Ayatollah, you're right - as far as you are concerned, we ARE Satan. And you have no weapons that can hurt Satan, but Satan can torture you for eternity, AND WILL.

So get on your knees and surrender. Hand over who we tell you to, and change your religion to outlaw the jihad, or we will keep on killing you, for sport, like boys pulling wings off flies. You're the flies. And you cannot escape your fate.

That's what hatred looks and sounds like. And feels like. You hate us. And we hate you. You're weak. We're strong. You show no mercy. Don't expect any from us. Ghadady didn't get any. Libya's a ruin. Good.

Iran has no power to shoot any fish in the naval barrel. They've got speedboats armed with bazookas, and if they DO ride out and attack a British warship, the US will launch airstrikes that destroy their docks with all of the small Boghammer boats in them.

It is not what I meant. Their fleet is not match and you are right about it. But there is something like asymmetric warfare,

Remember about mountainous Iranian coast with thousands of missiles. They have several types and look up this one example, please:

Khalij Fars - nationalinterest.org/blog...ould-strike-us-navy-57832

guess what Ayatollah, you're right - as far as you are concerned, we ARE Satan. And you have no weapons that can hurt Satan, but Satan can torture you for eternity, AND WILL.

So get on your knees and surrender. Hand over who we tell you to, and change your religion to outlaw the jihad, or we will keep on killing you, for sport, like boys pulling wings off flies. You're the flies. And you cannot escape your fate.

That's what hatred looks and sounds like. And feels like. You hate us. And we hate you. You're weak. We're strong. You show no mercy. Don't expect any from us. Ghadady didn't get any. Libya's a ruin. Good.

Perhaps you need to see a doctor?

Taking out Ghadafi was not a mistake. He was responsible for blowing up a British Airways flight over Lockerbie, Scotland, and killing US forces in Berlin. Terrorists he paid for, trained, sheltered and supported did that.

A Pyrrhic victory at best.

Wiping out Ghadafi's Libya and making the LIBYANS live with Islamist barbarism is exactly right. Ditto for Yemen (where they blew up the Cole). Tear apart their civilizations and make the savages eat each other. They deserve everything they are getting.

Want mercy? Then abandon your religion, like the Japanese did, and hand over your terrorists, just like the Japanese handed over their leaders so that we could hang them.

You can't seriously expect that to happen.

We'll bring our full weight to bear, from all directions, and they will be torn apart, just as Iraq was. And that will be that. Case closed, game over.

Experience has taught us that there will be a guerilla afterwards, so THIS TIME we'll keep sufficient forces deployed to manage the transition.

The Iranians would greatly simplify our strategic situation if they went ahead and outright attacked the US Fleet, Pearl Harbor style.

Hate is a disease?

No, it is not. But some ravings might be symptom of a disease. There are pills that can calm fellow down.

The Iranians would greatly simplify our strategic situation if they went ahead and outright attacked the US Fleet, Pearl Harbor style.

But they won't. Persians are an ancient race, very sly.

Iran has no power to shoot any fish in the naval barrel. They've got speedboats armed with bazookas, and if they DO ride out and attack a British warship, the US will launch airstrikes that destroy their docks with all of the small Boghammer boats in them.

Wargaming by Marine Lt. Gen. Paul Van Riper demonstrated otherwise.

https://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/that-time-a-marine-general-led-a-fictional-iran-against-the-us-military-and-won

Blake Stilwell
We Are The Mighty
Sep. 19, 2017 11:20AM EST

That time a Marine general led a fictional Iran against the US military – and won

In 2002, the U.S. military tapped Lt. Gen. Paul Van Riper to lead the red opposing forces of the most expensive, expansive military exercise in history. He was put in command of an inferior Middle Eastern-inspired military force. His mission was to go against the full might of the American armed forces. In the first two days, he sank an entire carrier battle group.

The exercise was called Millennium Challenge 2002. It was designed by the Joint Forces Command over the course of two years. It had 13,500 participants, numerous live and simulated training sites, and was supposed to pit an Iran-like Middle Eastern country against the U.S. military, which would be fielding advanced technology it didn't plan to implement until five years later.

The war game would begin with a forced-entry exercise that included the 82nd Airborne and the 1st Marine Division.

When the Blue Forces issued a surrender ultimatum, Van Riper, commanding the Red Forces, turned them down. Since the Bush Doctrine of the period included preemptive strikes against perceived enemies, Van Riper knew the Blue Forces would be cominfor him. And they did.

But the three-star general didn't spend 41 years in the Marine Corps by being timid. As soon as the Navy was beyond the point of no return, he hit them and hit them hard. Missiles from land-based units, civilian boats, and low-flying planes tore through the fleet as explosive-ladened speedboats decimated the Navy using suicide tactics. His code to initiate the attack was a coded message sent from the minarets of mosques at the call to prayer.

In less than ten minutes, the whole thing was over and Lt. Gen. Paul Van Riper was victorious.

How did 19 ships and some 20,000 U.S. troops end up at the bottom of the Persian Gulf? It started with the OPFOR leadership. Van Riper was the epitome of the salty Marine Corps general officer. He was a 41-year veteran, both enlisted and commissioned, serving everywhere from Vietnam to Desert Storm. Van Riper attended the Marine Corps Amphibious Warfare School, The College of Naval Command and Staff, Army War College, and the Army's Airborne and Ranger Schools.

In fact, the three-star general had been retired for some five years by the time he led the Red Forces of Millennium Challenge. He was an old-school Marine capable of some old-school tactics and has insisted that technology cannot replace human intuition and study of the basic nature of war, which he called a "terrible, uncertain, chaotic, bloody business."

When Van Riper told the story of Millennium Challenge to journalist Malcolm Gladwell, he said the Blue Forces were stuck in their own mode of thinking. Their vastly superior technology included advanced intelligence matrices and an Operational Net Assessment that told them where the OPFOR vulnerabilities were and what Van Riper was most likely to do next out of a range of possible scenarios. They relied heavily on that. When the Blue took out Red's microwave towers and fiber optics, they expected his forces to use satellite and cell phones that could be monitored.

Not a chance. Van Riper instead used motorcycle couriers, messages hidden in prayers, and even coded lighting systems on his airfields — tactics employed during World War II.

"I struck first," he said in "Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking," written by Gladwell in 2005. "We did all the calculations on how many cruise missiles their ships could handle, so we simply launched more than that."

In fact, Van Riper hated the kind of analytical decision making the Blue Forces were doing. He believed it took far too long. His resistance plan included ways of getting his people to make good decisions using rapid cognition and analog but reliable communications.

The other commanders involved called foul, complaining that a real OPFOR would never use the tactics Van Riper used — except Van Riper's flotilla used boats and explosives like those used against the USS Cole in 2000.

"And I said 'nobody would have thought that anyone would fly an airliner into the World Trade Center,'" Van Riper said in reply. "But nobody [in the exercise] seemed interested."

In the end, the Blue Forces were all respawned and Van Riper was prevented from making moves to counter the Blue Forces' landing. He had no radar and wasn't allowed to shoot down incoming aircraft he would have otherwise accurately targeted. The rest of the exercise was scripted to let the Blue Force land and win. Van Riper walked out when he realized his commands were being ignored by the exercise planners. The fix was in.

The three-star wrote a 21-page critique of the exercise that was immediately classified. Van Riper spoke out against the rigged game anyway.

"Nothing was learned from this," he told the Guardian in 2002. "A culture not willing to think hard and test itself does not augur well for the future."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

Millennium Challenge 2002

Millennium Challenge 2002 (MC02) was a major war game exercise conducted by the United States Armed Forces in mid-2002. The exercise, which ran from July 24 to August 15 and cost $250 million, involved both live exercises and computer simulations. MC02 was meant to be a test of future military "transformation"—a transition toward new technologies that enable network-centric warfare and provide more effective command and control of current and future weaponry and tactics. The simulated combatants were the United States, referred to as "Blue", and an unknown adversary in the Middle East, "Red", which can be Iran or Iraq.

Constraints

Since the wargame allowed for a ship-to-shore landing of ground troops at some (unknown) point during the 14 day exercise, and because the naval force was substantial, the force was positioned on the shore-side of the region's active shipping lanes to keep them from impacting commerce during the exercise. This placed them in close proximity to the Red shore rather than at a "standoff" distance. Conducting the wargames during peacetime also meant that there were a large number of friendly/unaligned ships and aircraft in the zone, restricting the use of automated defense systems and more cautious Rules of Engagement. Red's tactics took full advantage of these factors, and to great effect. Exercise action

Lt. Gen. Paul Van Riper

Red, commanded by retired Marine Corps Lieutenant General Paul K. Van Riper, adopted an asymmetric strategy, in particular, using old methods to evade Blue's sophisticated electronic surveillance network. Van Riper used motorcycle messengers to transmit orders to front-line troops and World-War-II-style light signals to launch airplanes without radio communications.

Red received an ultimatum from Blue, essentially a surrender document, demanding a response within 24 hours. Thus warned of Blue's approach, Red used a fleet of small boats to determine the position of Blue's fleet by the second day of the exercise. In a preemptive strike, Red launched a massive salvo of cruise missiles that overwhelmed the Blue forces' electronic sensors and destroyed sixteen warships. This included one aircraft carrier, ten cruisers and five of six amphibious ships. An equivalent success in a real conflict would have resulted in the deaths of over 20,000 service personnel. Soon after the cruise missile offensive, another significant portion of Blue's navy was "sunk" by an armada of small Red boats, which carried out both conventional and suicide attacks that capitalized on Blue's inability to detect them as well as expected. Exercise suspension and restart

At this point, the exercise was suspended, Blue's ships were "re-floated", and the rules of engagement were changed; this was later justified by General Peter Pace as follows: "You kill me in the first day and I sit there for the next 13 days doing nothing, or you put me back to life and you get 13 more days' worth of experiment out of me. Which is a better way to do it?" After the reset, both sides were ordered to follow predetermined plans of action.

After the war game was restarted, its participants were forced to follow a script drafted to ensure a Blue Force victory. Among other rules imposed by this script, Red Force was ordered to turn on their anti-aircraft radar in order for them to be destroyed, and was not allowed to shoot down any of the aircraft bringing Blue Force troops ashore.[3] Van Riper also claimed that exercise officials denied him the opportunity to use his own tactics and ideas against Blue Force, and that they also ordered Red Force not to use certain weapons systems against Blue Force and even ordered the location of Red Force units to be revealed.

Aftermath

This led to accusations that the war game had turned from an honest, open, free playtest of U.S. war-fighting capabilities into a rigidly controlled and scripted exercise intended to end in an overwhelming U.S. victory, alleging that "$250 million was wasted". Van Riper was extremely critical of the scripted nature of the new exercise and resigned from the exercise in the middle of the war game. Van Riper later said that the Vice Admiral Marty Mayer altered the exercise's purpose to reinforce existing doctrine and notions of infallibility within the U.S. military rather than serving as a learning experience.

Van Riper also stated that the war game was rigged so that it appeared to validate the modern, joint-service war-fighting concepts it was supposed to be testing.[4] He was quoted in the ZDF–New York Times documentary The Perfect War (2004) as saying that what he saw in MC02 echoed the same view promoted by the Department of Defense under Robert McNamara before and during the Vietnam War, namely that the U.S. military could not and would not be defeated.

Responding to Van Riper's criticism, Vice Admiral Mayer, who ran the war game and who was charged with developing the military's joint concepts and requirements, stated the following:

“Gen. Van Riper apparently feels he was too constrained. I can only say there were certain parts where he was not constrained, and then there were parts where he was in order to facilitate the conduct of the experiment and certain exercise pieces that were being done.”
—Vice Admiral Marty Mayer

Navy Captain John Carman, Joint Forces Command spokesman, said the war game had properly validated all the major concepts which were tested by Blue Force, ignoring the restrictions placed on Van Riper's Red Force that led them to succeed. Based on these findings, Carman stated that recommendations based on the war game's result on areas such as doctrine, training and procurement would be forwarded to General Richard Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Taking out Ghadafi was not a mistake. He was responsible for blowing up a British Airways flight over Lockerbie, Scotland, and killing US forces in Berlin. Terrorists he paid for, trained, sheltered and supported did that.

. . .

By overthrowing Ghadafi, we did destroy the order in Libya, that's true. Now they live harder lives in a destroyed country. Fuck them. That is the price you pay when you kill Americans in airplanes. And while a few of us die in the terror attack, you and your people keep dying, in large numbers, and you all suffer for the better part of the century. If you're not terrified of provoking the wrath of the United States, because the Americans are ruthless, cruel, unjust and arbitrary, then you haven't been paying attention.

To save his life, Ghadafy had to submit AT ONCE. He did not. Now he's dead. And now the Libyans - same ones who aided and abetted the murder of Westerners in Scotland and Berlin, are living worse lives than they have lived in a half-century, and they can't get back up, because their own bile and poison is turned on each other, and they are eating each other. Good. Fuck them.

It's war. It doesn't end until we say it ends. Their deaths and suffering are a good thing - it is the just punishment for attacking our people 30 years ago. Terror is met with grinding horror. They will never apologize or think they are wrong, therefore, they shall have their faces ground into the mud, and be poor and suffer, for the rest of their lives, and if their children do not submit, theirs, and so on, until they finally have their will broken and change, like the Apache, Cherokee, Sioux, etc.

That's really what the Muslims are - the modern incarnation of the American Indian. And we know how to reduce that sort to nothing and grind them to powder, NEVER to rise again.

Wiping out Ghadafi's Libya and making the LIBYANS live with Islamist barbarism is exactly right. Ditto for Yemen (where they blew up the Cole). Tear apart their civilizations and make the savages eat each other. They deserve everything they are getting.

Want mercy? Then abandon your religion, like the Japanese did, and hand over your terrorists, just like the Japanese handed over their leaders so that we could hang them.

No mercy. No reason for mercy. Yes, Libya is a mess and their lives are wrecked. So what? Who cares. Good. They deserve it. All lands that support terror deserve to live in agony and misery until they change their religion to not support it any more. And if they never change, then beat them down forever, like various of the warlike American Indian tribes, who never made peace, and who now rot in the desert and die at 50.

So get on your knees and surrender. Hand over who we tell you to, and change your religion to outlaw the jihad, or we will keep on killing you, for sport, like boys pulling wings off flies. You're the flies. And you cannot escape your fate.

My GOD!!!! This is a submit or suffer death and destruction missive that would exceed the worst any ISIS member could present for radical Islam. If they find it, they may well adopt it after swapping out some of the nouns.

What religion are you again? I seem to remember it was some variant of "Christian" but I suppose I must have been mistaken. Or perhaps you consider the USA to be God's kingdom. Maybe it's in the original Greek translation somewhere that Bibles missed somehow.

Seriously, Vic, you need help.

I'm confident that in a real shooting war, our navy would be very cautious about exposing itself to Iran's weapons.

Iran loves its missiles, much as Russia does. So I can't rule out a massive missile attack. But I think closing the Straits with mines would be the far more likely tactic the Iranians would take.

Iran loves its missiles, much as Russia does. So I can't rule out a massive missile attack.

Russians and Persians will use missiles because they love them? How infantile of you.

But I think closing the Straits with mines would be the far more likely tactic the Iranians would take.

Yeah, sure, they will do what you expect them to do, because they are stupid and you are smart.

Russians and Persians will use missiles because they love them? How infantile of you.

Well...yes, yes they really do love rockets more than the rest of us. For the Russians, their love of military rockets goes back a century. It's a bit like how much the Turkish military was known for loving its artillery pieces. And they had a lot of artillery.

Yeah, sure, they will do what you expect them to do, because they are stupid and you are smart.

Not at all.

Iran has considerable territorial waters covering most of the Straits at one point. They can choose lawfully to mine their own territorial waters. And then it isn't their fault if someone's ships or boats get destroyed by mines.

It's kind of passive-aggressive. Force your opponent to sink his own ships by running them into your mines located inside your territory.

That's very different from directly attacking America's or Britain's oil tankers or military vessels in the Straits.

But I think closing the Straits with mines would be the far more likely tactic the Iranians would take.

I do not see the Iranian leaders initiating a suicide action which includes themselves. Nor can they easily give up power. In that neck of the woods, they tend to wind up dying with a broomstick up their butt, or some such thing.

If they chose to block the straits, mines would one method, and another would be to take a few large tankers and scuttle them in the narrow channel. It might be easier to get rid of mines than to get rid of sunken tankers.

Frankly, I think the US has, due to overconfidence, national pride and a self-interested military industrial complex not spent money so wisely as Russia has, which is why we got things like the F-35 way over budget and way behind schedule, and may be a boondoggle project due to wanting to make a single super-fighter/bomber for all branches of the military.

So the Russians have the S-400 and I think the S-500 which may even be able to take out inbound ballistic nukes. They have an underwater nuke drone which could potentially wipe out an entire US task force, and I recall a torpedo capable of about 200 MPH underwater. They have advanced their strategic missiles, if their latest brag is true with virtually unlimited range and the ability to steer around known defensive areas.

Focusing on those projects serves their defensive interests. Trying to out build the US with ships and subs is futile.

Iran is in the same position so, likewise, should be focusing on anti-aircraft and anti ship/missile systems. The more advanced and the cheaper they can mass produce such weapons, the greater the deterrent power they have to US strikes.

All of these appeals to force that are made throughout all of the daily anti-American rants I read.

I like appeals to force. America wins that game. So, since my enemy has resorted to force, I am happy to do so myself. And I have so very much more on tap.

Endgame, therefore: what does Iran WANT? And how compatible is what Iran wants with peace in the region, and with what we want.

So far, you're telling me in no uncertain terms that Iran is going to get nukes and there's nothing we can do about it. I'm telling you that you are dead wrong, and that you have no idea what you are doing when you talk to Americans like that.

As far as the "You're a BAD MAN!" histrionics. Tell it to the Marines. You're right, I AM a bad man. An intelligent, evil monster, as are so many of us here in the USA. We don't like being told what we will and will not do any more than Iranians do, but we can do something about it, and they can't. Which means it's too bad for them. And too bad for you if you hitch your star to them.