US blames Iran for oil tanker attack in Gulf of Oman amid rising tensions

[The Lawspeaker]

You have no idea what you are talking about. USSR was a weak entity compared to present day Russia. USSR literally got beaten by Afghan Mujaheddin forces and collapsed despite having 10000 nukes and 8000 fighter jets. Federation Russia on the other hand has won series of wars. Its more practical and stronger entity than USSR ever was.

Full blown war is different than localized operations. Russia and Iran bombed the hell out of Western supported Anti Assad armies in Syria just recently (political goals were aligned). US military despite being present in the region could not do anything. Israel tried its best to not let Iranian IRGC setup bases in Syria but failed. Assad is still sitting in Damascus and Iran is still practically ruling that country. Do you know why ? because political circumstances define the results of war not who got the bigger gun. If bombs were that effective then US would not have been talking with Afghan Taliban to set up new government in Kabul these days. Same Taliban that US tried to annihilate for last 16 years and failed.

Full blown war means US will bomb Iranian cities, try to occupy Iran and install a new government in Tehran like how it tried in Iraq before. Iran in return will leave NPT, IRGC, its proxies will go guerrilla in the region and make sure that every state bleeds to destabilize the global businesses, political alliances like how they did before in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen. They will develop fusion warheads for missiles (may take 2 to 3 weeks), destroy worlds oil supplies with thermobaric warheads, may even launch few smaller tactical warheads at KSA, Israel to lure them into war because well what would we have to lose if we are to be invaded and massacred. Your logic is not practical. This is not how world works. I am a scientist with 18 years training on my subject. There are thousands like me in Iran. How much time do you think it will take Iran as a nation to create strategic warheads for IRGC? I am not saying I personally would (I want regime change) but I can, there are many like me with vast experience. Nuclear Iran means nuclear KSA, Egypt, Turkey. Pakistan is already a possessor of 150 warheads. No one wants a nuclear armed Muslim world in future right? Wars are fought to protect interests and currently US as a country has minimal interest in Middle east.

There will be no full war.. and no: Soviet military capabilities are at least 10 times that of modern Russia. I think you shouldn't believe the propaganda of the Teheran regime anymore than one should believe what comes out of Washington. The Americans don't have a reason (and nothing to gain) to invade Iran. They would get nothing for it. Now.. bombing the absolute shit out of your air force, air defence, nuclear reactors, research facilities, naval basis and overall industrial capability and infrastructure (particularly electrical infrastructure and communications), now that's rational and that's, very likely, what would happen. In other words: putting an end to Iran's capabilities of destabilising the area around the Strait of Hormuz.

Total warfare is yesterday's news. We're in an era of limited warfare with limited goals. As a scientist, you should be able to understand rational goals in foreign policy.

[War Chef]

If bombs were that effective then US would not have been talking with Afghan Taliban to set up new government in Kabul these days.

But Iranians are notorious guerrilla fighters like the Pashtuns.
Pashtuns are battle-hardened vets who survived the Soviets. Allota them are old guys from the 80's.
Iranian civilians are probably softer than Afghanis.

[The Lawspeaker]

It's amazing how 90% of 9/11 hijackers were Saudi Arabian but still to this day Saudi Arabia is calling the shots and shaking hands, making deals (Iran is their rival). I guess though an invasion of Saudi Arabia would be a declaration of war to all the Islamic World, because their holy places are located there.

I think the U.S should have bombed Saudi Arabia back to the year dot as far back as 2003 (instead of Iraq). But that's me. But then again: Saudi Arabia, year dot. It wouldn't make much of a difference. Mentally, they are already there.

[War Chef]

I think the U.S should have bombed Saudi Arabia back to the year dot as far back as 2003 (instead of Iraq). But that's me.

Same. But there's a few reasons why they didn't.

1. Declaration of war to entire Muslim world, nobody wants that
2. At the time, before U.S. became really self-sufficient in fuel Saudi Arabia was main exporter of oil to U.S.
3. Saudi Arabia is bu$ine$$, Trump didn't put it on the travel ban for a reason https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/asse...xlarge-169.png

[The Lawspeaker]

Same. But there's a few reasons why they didn't.

1. Declaration of war to entire Muslim world, nobody wants that
2. At the time, before U.S. became really self-sufficient in fuel Saudi Arabia was main exporter of oil to U.S.
3. Saudi Arabia is bu$ine$$, Trump didn't put it on the travel ban for a reason https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/asse...xlarge-169.png

1. Back in 2003, maybe. When I speak to Muslims (and even I speak to them on occasion), I notice how very little love there is for the Saudi Royal Family or even for Saudi Arabia. Let's not forget how the "Protectors of the Holy Sites" destroyed much of both Mecca and Medina. Including many old Islamic holy sites.
2. So that would no longer be an issue.
3. That's corruption for you.

[KMack]

It's amazing how 90% of 9/11 hijackers were Saudi Arabian but still to this day Saudi Arabia is calling the shots and shaking hands, making deals (Iran is their rival). I guess though an invasion of Saudi Arabia would be a declaration of war to all the Islamic World, because their holy places are located there.

Can you blame their government for that? If drunk Brits run around naked at some Spanish resort is that the fault of the British government?

[Armenian Bishop]

This false flag tactic goes back to the Spanish Civil War. It was repeated in Nam.

You're basically right, especially about Vietnam and the Gulf of Tonkin (1964); but, your other example made reference to the wrong war, because it wasn't the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939), it was the Spanish American War (1898), when accusations about the sinking of the Maine got us into that war. Other blatant examples include Iraq in 2003, and Syria in 2017, both of which involved fraudulent accusations about weapons of mass destruction (WMD). In 2003, George W Bush & Collin Powell falsely accused Saddam Hussein of concealing WMDs; and, in 2017, Donald Trump & Nikki Haley falsely accused Syria's Assad of using chemical weapons.

[War Chef]

Can you blame their government for that? If drunk Brits run around naked at some Spanish resort is that the fault of the British government?

The Saudi govt. are stealthy, and probably two-faced. Oil friends on one face and on the other pulling the strings for global terrorist funding. They are just discrete about it but I don't trust them at all. But yeah I get your point, it wasn't their government that orchestrated 9/11. I still think the fact 90% of 9/11 hijackers were Saudi + Osama was a Saudi is a good reason SA should've been bombed and not Afghanistan. Also where was Al-Qaeda getting it's funding? Also Saudi Arabia.

[Dick]

Can you blame their government for that? If drunk Brits run around naked at some Spanish resort is that the fault of the British government?

No it's the fault of alcohol just like islam is at fault for terrorism

[War Chef]

The main problem with bombing Saudi Arabia is you will have Chechens, Hazaras, Uzbeks, you name it at your throat for touching their holy place. Terrorist acts everywhere.