WAR WITH IRAN! OMG…run for cover

by Jack

What would war with Iran look like?   Quick answer, it would be short and violent.

  • If there was a war the Saudi’s would cheering.  They hate Iran and are fighting a proxy war with them right now in Qatar.
  •  In war the Strait of Hormuz would be a likely battle ground.  Iran can launch ship killing missiles and block international oil tankers from passing through.  This is Iran’s only home field advantage.
  • Obviously the Iranians options are fairly limited in a declared war.   They would have to fall back on terrorist type tactics because they don’t have a military that can reach us.
  • The Iranians can void the nuclear treaty, but since they have already done that many times that action has lost any significance.  The old treaty has no value and it didn’t long before Donald Trump took office.
  • If Iran declared war we would have every reason to obliterate their nuclear materials production.  The Israelis’ would love to see that or help us.  They’ve been wanting to  take out Iran’s nuclear capabilities for a long time.  There are many Middle East nations would have be very happy if we did that.
  • In terms of conventional combat Iran can’t attack us with their navy, they can’t reach us with their army or their air force, so what’s left?   Not much.  We would have to sail up to them and let them shoot at us, because they can’t get beyond their territorial waters without being destroyed.   But, we can stand off and shoot at them all day long with almost zero risk.
  • In terms of real harm they can’t do much of anything, but we can.  If they set off an IED or a car bomb, we can flatten their version of the Pentagon or take out a whole squadron of jet aircraft.  In a real shoot out Iran’s military force could be nullified into a broken force of just ground soldiers with small arms and next to no command and control ability.
  • War with Iran would be like sending little Chico High’s JV football team against NFL all stars.



This entry was posted in Military, Politics and Government, World. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to WAR WITH IRAN! OMG…run for cover

  1. J. Soden says:

    Iran has been at war with the US and the West since the US Embassy was stormed and hostages taken during Prez Peanut’s time. Period.
    Kudos to TheDonald for finally taking out a high-value terrorist target.
    I’m thinking about the ending of Tom Clancy’s “Excecutive Decision” as a real possibility now . . . . . . . .

    • Chris says:

      Contrary to your apparent belief, you do not have the power to declare war.

    • Post Scripts says:

      JS, good observation. Yes, since the fall of the Shaw in Iran they have been continually testing us with big and small provocations.

      It’s just my opinion of course, but had we taken decisive action when our embassy was attacked and 52 hostages were taken, we might not be in this situation today. Imagine if Carter had said that for every week that passes without returning our hostages we are going to destroy something of importance to you. We were tested and we failed. We earned the nickname the paper tiger.

  2. Peggy says:

    “The Iranians can void the nuclear treaty, but since they have already done that many times that action has lost any significance. The old treaty has no value and it didn’t long before Donald Trump took office.”

    Just a reminder Obama made a “deal” with Iran not a “treaty,” because he knew he couldn’t get Senate approval for a treaty. So, just like all of the other executive orders done by Obama, Trump was able to reverse them.

    Iran has been “at war” with America since at least 1979 under Jimmy Carter. It may be undeclared, but its existed by deeds and actions. Chanting “death to America,’ taking our citizens hostage, killing hundreds of our soldiers and manning thousand more is IMO a declaration of war.

    What is shocking is seeing the Dems creating a political martyr of Soleimani, while planning to submit a bill to prevent Trump from fulfilling his duties as president to keep America and Americans safe. Even Obama’s Jay Johnson stated Trump was within his power to take out Soleimani. The damage their lack of support has to be hurting our standing in the world and negotiations with China, Korea, EU etc. I see England and Israel support Trump, while Germany and Turkey don’t. The UN ambassadors are meeting today, I believe. It will be interesting to see who they support.

  3. Chris says:

    It’s a good thing there is no recent history of Republicans declaring that a war in the Middle East will be easy and short. Why, for a minute there we were almost in danger of learning something.

    • Post Scripts says:

      Chris, your sarcasm is duly noted and it’s deserved in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Same could be said for Vietnam, except republicans didn’t start that war, they ended it. But, the bigger point to be made is, America must always act prudently to avoid entanglement in a protracted foreign war, right?

      Gen. Soleimani was not in Iraq on a peace mission, he was there to martial his forces in order to attack American targets and empower Shia militias. The Americans currently in Iraq are there to insure ISIS doesn’t reconstitute itself and also to prevent the spread of Iranian sponsored terrorism. Their mission was placed at high risk by Gen. Soleimani. I hope we can agree that a country under the control of ISIS and/or the spread of Iranian terrorism is a bad thing for US security and stability in the Middle East, right? If we can’t agree on that one then I am wasting my time, but I don’t think I am. So, would this situation be one of the exceptions where its ok for the USA to take limited military action in self defense, i.e. kill Gen. Soleimani, the chief architect of Iran’s terrorism?

      • Chris says:

        But, the bigger point to be made is, America must always act prudently to avoid entanglement in a protracted foreign war, right?

        Yes, but this administration is incapable of doing that. I mean, look at this level of buffoonery:


        There was a time we could at least rely on the serious people within the administration to make good decisions and keep the tweeter-in-chief in check…but all of those people have quit, and all that’s left are the toadies and opportunists desperate to profit from the chaos.

        So, would this situation be one of the exceptions where its ok for the USA to take limited military action in self defense, i.e. kill Gen. Soleimani, the chief architect of Iran’s terrorism?

        If that were the only option, sure. The administration has presented no evidence that it was the only option.

      • J. Soden says:

        Don’t even bother reading comments from Chris anymore. Not worth the time.

  4. Peggy says:

    Just another reminder of how differently Trump is treated vs. Obama who managed a “Kill List” for those to be killed by drones, killed four Americans and killed a total of about 4,000 individuals.

    Obama’s Final Drone Strike Data:
    “As Donald Trump assumes office today, he inherits a targeted killing program that has been the cornerstone of U.S. counterterrorism strategy over the past eight years. On January 23, 2009, just three days into his presidency, President Obama authorized his first kinetic military action: two drone strikes, three hours apart, in Waziristan, Pakistan, that killed as many as twenty civilians. Two terms and 540 strikes later, Obama leaves the White House after having vastly expanding and normalizing the use of armed drones for counterterrorism and close air support operations in non-battlefield settings—namely Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia.

    Throughout his presidency, I have written often about Obama’s legacy as a drone president, including reports on how the United States could reform drone strike policies, what were the benefits of transferring CIA drone strikes to the Pentagon, and (with Sarah Kreps) how to limit armed drone proliferation. President Obama deserves credit for even acknowledging the existence of the targeted killing program (something his predecessor did not do), and for increasing transparency into the internal processes that purportedly guided the authorization of drone strikes. However, many needed reforms were left undone—in large part because there was zero pressure from congressional members, who, with few exceptions, were the biggest cheerleaders of drone strikes.

    The 542 drone strikes that Obama authorized killed an estimated 3,797 people, including 324 civilians. As he reportedly told senior aides in 2011: “Turns out I’m really good at killing people. Didn’t know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine.”

    Four U.S. citizens killed in Obama drone strikes, but 3 were not intended targets:
    “On May 22, 2013, the Obama administration “formally acknowledged for the first time that it had killed four American citizens in drone strikes outside the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq” since 2009, The New York Times said in a news story posted online that day.

    The acknowledgement came in a letter signed by U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder sent that day to the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman:

    Since 2009, the United States, in the conduct of U.S. counterterrorism operations against al-Qa’ida and its associated forces outside of areas of active hostilities, has specifically targeted and killed one U.S. citizen, Anwar al-Aulaqi. The United States is further aware of three other U.S. citizens who have been killed in such U.S. counterterrorism operations over that same time period: Samir Khan, ‘Abd al-Rahman Anwar al-Aulaqi, and Jude Kenan Mohammed. These individuals were not specifically targeted by the United States.”

    Where were the articles of impeachment?


    Obama Administration Forced To Release Drone Kill List “Playbook”:
    “In February, U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon ordered the Obama Administration to hand over the PPG and other documents related to the targeted drone assassination program for the court’s review and possible release to the public. The three documents relate to the law and policy that govern the controversial program. The ruling came as a result of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The ACLU has also been fighting to uncover new information related to the so-called Presidential Kill List, also known as the disposition matrix.

    The Washington Post first reported on the disposition matrix in 2012:

    Over the past two years, the Obama administration has been secretly developing a new blueprint for pursuing terrorists, a next-generation targeting list called the ‘disposition matrix.’

    The matrix contains the names of terrorism suspects arrayed against an accounting of the resources being marshaled to track them down, including sealed indictments and clandestine operations. U.S. officials said the database is designed to go beyond existing kill lists, mapping plans for the ‘disposition’ of suspects beyond the reach of American drones.

    Although the matrix is a work in progress, the effort to create it reflects a reality setting in among the nation’s counterterrorism ranks: The United States’ conventional wars are winding down, but the government expects to continue adding names to kill or capture lists for years.”

    • Peggy says:

      From above.

      Obama, “Turns out I’m really good at killing people. Didn’t know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine.”

      • Chris says:

        Tone could mean a lot–I have a hard time imagining Obama saying that with anything other than solemnity and a great degree of guilt. Doesn’t make those civilians any less dead, though.

        Where were the articles of impeachment?

        Unfortunately, no president has ever been impeached for killing civilians, even US citizens. If only! We’d have had a lot more presidents impeached, which to my mind would be a good thing. “The government should be afraid of its people,” and all that. Clinton should have resigned in disgrace or been removed from office, for example.

        You bring up a good point about different media treatment–we hear very little about drone strikes or civilian casualties under Trump compared to Obama, despite the fact that both have increased:


        But this instance–killing Soleimani–doesn’t really reflect a double standard. The Obama administration did not kill any generals working for a foreign country that we had not officially declared war on. That Soleimani was working with terrorists and may have been one himself might make such a killing justified, but it is materially different from the targeted assassinations under Obama. And I say that as someone who strongly opposed such killings of American citizens and any strikes that led to civilian casualties.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.