100 Marines to Baghdad (Iran conflict discussion)(Reopened & Merged) (1 Viewer)

[superchuck500]

We’re gonna try to stay on point in this one - .

After the Iranian admission of shooting down the Ukrainian 737, which was carrying 82 Iranian passengers, protests against the Supreme Leader have broken out.

The UK ambassador to Iran has been arrested for talking photos of the protests. President Trump has tweeted support for the protesters in English and Farsi.

 

[superchuck500]

I didn't realize there was an almost 3 hr. time discrepancy, I thought they occurred at roughly the same time.

So what, if any, is the connection to the missile attack?

Seems to me that it's likely a missile battery operator on alert for possible US response - at that time the Iranians likely didn't know if we were going to start raining in the drones and cruise missiles. Perhaps a misinterpreted radar?

 

[Archies Ghost]

If Iran misfired that missile and it took out the passenger airline, I think that's probably the reason they laid off the attack so quickly and sent all of the cables through other nations that they were done.

I don't actually think they were scared of US retaliation, but rather knew they'd seriously screwed up and needed to put out the flames quickly, so they'd have a chance to cover this up. This mistake by them has much bigger and long term ramifications (in terms of relations with other country and possible fall out), than current hostility with the US. I'd kind of been thinking that all this time, but wanted to wait and see if there were stronger suspicion that it was an errant missile.

Also, Wow.

A lot of mental gymnastics necessary for that line of reasoning.

 

[coldseat]

Also, Wow.

A lot of mental gymnastics necessary for that line of reasoning.

Mental gymnastics? Not quite, just pure speculation.

But given that time difference, my reasoning doesn't make any sense.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

So I obviously don't know the long-term ramifications of all this or if there was actually an imminent threat, however I tend to believe this was a calculated strategic move and the situation actually played out about how the administration hoped and thought it would.

I doubt Iran would have been (as) willing to publicly stand down (or call off the militias they support if Pence is to be believed) if this had been a more run of the mill bombing as opposed to an assassination of a high-level figure. I don't imagine that Iran anticipated the assassination and as it caught them off guard It also boxed them in to a large degree into a no win situation: either strongly retaliate and be blown off the face of the Earth or don't and look extremely weak. So they chose to try and thread that needle by responding with their intentional without a casualty bombings that could be spun back home.

If nothing else it certainly had to put the thought in the heads of other Iranian leaders that Trump is more than willing to take them out too if things don't change, and hopefully they'll conclude that a change in their actions is necessary to prevent their own deaths.

There is no evidence that this was a calculated and strategic move.

All the evidence we have out of the administratio, from sources like The Times to the WSJ, speaks to this entire excercise being haphazardly fallen into by the president blindly going back and forth and then picking the most controversial of a set of options he had little deeper understanding of.

And the result so far it should be reminded is still a defiant Iran that has now accelerated the nuclear activities this “strategy” was designed to hault, while also defying more than ever any attempt at incorporating a broader hault to their asymmetrical statecraft and terrorism. On our front it simply further weakens are standing in the region. It may raise fears that Trump may strategically assassinate, but likewise it also signals Trump doesn’t have an appetite for the escalation he threatens(something Republicans were quick to criticize the last president for). And is more bluster than threat. While being incredibly tactically shortsighted in the larger regional chess board.

 

[superchuck500]

Also, Wow.

A lot of mental gymnastics necessary for that line of reasoning.

He already pulled that back, no need to push it.

 

[Archies Ghost]

Seems to me that it's likely a missile battery operator on alert for possible US response - at that time the Iranians likely didn't know if we were going to start raining in the drones and cruise missiles. Perhaps a misinterpreted radar?

The SA-15 is a short range missile system designed to be effective against a wide range of objects. It is a fully automated system. It is likely all of Tehran's air defenses were active and the Ukrainian airliner failed an automated IFF (Identification Friend or Foe) check and the system fired.

There should not have been civilian flight operations in the firing envelope of active anti-aircraft batteries.

 

[Farb]

https://apnews.com/f53aeebcb0f64b76a2e2a54b2b002dad

Info on the money to Iran, I have heard several things in the last few days that don't add up, this is a short explanation. Iran paid 400 million to the US for weapons back in the 70s. Iran government overthrown, weapons not delivered. After the Iran Nuc deal, Iranian assets were unfrozen and the US paid back the 400 million and also included 1.3 billion in interest and that was sent via cargo plan as cash. I am not good in math, so I have no idea what interest rate was used.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

Also, Wow.

A lot of mental gymnastics necessary for that line of reasoning.

You’re one to talk

 

[superchuck500]

The SA-15 is a short range missile system designed to be effective against a wide range of objects. It is a fully automated system. It is likely all of Tehran's air defenses were active and the Ukrainian airliner failed an automated IFF (Identification Friend or Foe) check and the system fired.

There should not have been civilian flight operations in the firing envelope of active anti-aircraft batteries.

Indeed - the commercial airport (IKA) was "open" at the time but it was really early, not sure if any other flights had departed that morning.

So your scenario is purely electronic, doesn't even involve a human error (at least not in the firing) . . . that seems most sensible.

 

[bdb13]

There is no evidence that this was a calculated and strategic move.

All the evidence we have out of the administratio, from sources like The Times to the WSJ, speaks to this entire excercise being haphazardly fallen into by the president blindly going back and forth and then picking the most controversial of a set of options he had little deeper understanding of.

And the result so far it should be reminded is still a defiant Iran that has now accelerated the nuclear activities this “strategy” was designed to hault, while also defying more than ever any attempt at incorporating a broader hault to their asymmetrical statecraft and terrorism. On our front it simply further weakens are standing in the region. It may raise fears that Trump may strategically assassinate, but likewise it also signals Trump doesn’t have an appetite for the escalation he threatens(something Republicans were quick to criticize the last president for). And is more bluster than threat. While being incredibly tactically shortsighted in the larger regional chess board.

You're saying that the reporting indicates that Trump made the decision without being briefed on the ramifications and likelihood of Iranian responses to the assassination?

It's certainly alarming if that's the way this decision was reached.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

You're saying that the reporting indicates that Trump made the decision without being briefed on the ramifications and likelihood of Iranian responses to the assassination?

It's certainly alarming if that's the way this decision was reached.

According to reports, he was given a menu of options and the Soleimani option was the far out option meant to encourage him to choose the more sensible ones.

Discouraged for all the reasons that came about. It wasn’t going to strategically alter Iran’s capacity to operate their statecraft machine, while it risked fallout with our allies while escalating tensions with Iran in a less controllable way.

 

[JimEverett]

https://apnews.com/f53aeebcb0f64b76a2e2a54b2b002dad

Info on the money to Iran, I have heard several things in the last few days that don't add up, this is a short explanation. Iran paid 400 million to the US for weapons back in the 70s. Iran government overthrown, weapons not delivered. After the Iran Nuc deal, Iranian assets were unfrozen and the US paid back the 400 million and also included 1.3 billion in interest and that was sent via cargo plan as cash. I am not good in math, so I have no idea what interest rate was used.

It is also worth pointing out that we had/have claims against Iran that total more than the principal (and perhaps even the interest) that was paid. So, it is technically untrue that we "owed" Iran money. In fact, at least one of those claims was codified into law with the 2000 Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act which required the U.S. to pursue claims against Iran and offset the claims to any claims Iran had against the U.S.

 

[Archies Ghost]

Indeed - the commercial airport (IKA) was "open" at the time but it was really early, not sure if any other flights had departed that morning.

So your scenario is purely electronic, doesn't even involve a human error (at least not in the firing) . . . that seems most sensible.

Plenty of human error.

Allowing civilian operations in the vicinity of active air defenses. Fault Iran for that.

Ukrainian International Airlines decision to operate in Iran places some of the blame on them. The FAA had restricted US operations over Iran and Iraq on January 7. While not compelled to abide by those restrictions, it is surprising Ukraine did not follow suit immediately.

It is unlikely the SA-15 fired without ANY human input but the input required is very minimal and the training would be to manually confirm the highest priority threat with no delay.

In a strike, the attack sequence is suppress enemy air defenses (SEAD), hit the target and get out. So the first wave of any serious attack is aimed directly at the SA-15 battery. Those guys are highly motivated to respond quickly.

 

[superchuck500]

Plenty of human error.

Allowing civilian operations in the vicinity of active air defenses. Fault Iran for that.

Ukrainian International Airlines decision to operate in Iran places some of the blame on them. The FAA had restricted US operations over Iran and Iraq on January 7. While not compelled to abide by those restrictions, it is surprising Ukraine did not follow suit immediately.

It is unlikely the SA-15 fired without ANY human input but the input required is very minimal and the training would be to manually confirm the highest priority threat with no delay.

In a strike, the attack sequence is suppress enemy air defenses (SEAD), hit the target and get out. So the first wave of any serious attack is aimed directly at the SA-15 battery. Those guys are highly motivated to respond quickly.

Agree, I just meant that if people presume some Iranian battery officer or operator pressed a "FIRE" button, that's not accurate - at least in the scenario you presented.

 

[insidejob]

Seems to me that it's likely a missile battery operator on alert for possible US response - at that time the Iranians likely didn't know if we were going to start raining in the drones and cruise missiles. Perhaps a misinterpreted radar?

I just heard this reported as the most likely scenario. They didn't know what kind of response to expect and accidentally shot down the airliner thinking it was an incoming attack. The person being interviewed said there's a lot of military technology being used by Iran and other states in the region that they don't really fully understand how to operate.

 

[Archies Ghost]

Agree, I just meant that if people presume some Iranian battery officer or operator pressed a "FIRE" button, that's not accurate - at least in the scenario you presented.

It probably is essentially accurate but that decision is the least troublesome for me.

Relying on an operator sitting in a mobile battery that would be the priority target in any strike to NOT fire is a bit silly.

SA-15 GAUNTLET / 9K331 Tor

www.globalsecurity.org

 

[bdb13]

According to reports, he was given a menu of options and the Soleimani option was the far out option meant to encourage him to choose the more sensible ones.

Discouraged for all the reasons that came about. It wasn’t going to strategically alter Iran’s capacity to operate their statecraft machine, while it risked fallout with our allies while escalating tensions with Iran in a less controllable way.

His administration has to know by now that nothing is that far out there for Trump. Seems crazy to me that they would have presented that to him and thought that he was most unlikely to choose that option.

 

[superchuck500]

It probably is essentially accurate but that decision is the least troublesome for me.

Relying on an operator sitting in a mobile battery that would be the priority target in any strike to NOT fire is a bit silly.

SA-15 GAUNTLET / 9K331 Tor

www.globalsecurity.org

I'm with you. This cost 176 innocent lives - if the damn commercial airport was open, precautions had to be taken to keep this from happening. It's crazy that IKA would be open under such circumstances. You can see why FAA had ordered US flights deviate (about an hour before the incident, I believe).