Red Sea / Houthi rebels situation

Stu999 said:
Not a very scary threat TBH. I'd imagine the Americans are chuckling at this.
Click to expand...
Troops stationed in bases within the region might not be so dismissive of these threats. Iran, whilst in no position to pose any realistic challenge to US military might, can still strike strategically important bases in the region with significant force, enough to make the impact felt back home (Generally US dont like to see dead troops), and cause considerable disruption in the area. If both sides could kindly refrain from further ******* for the next few weeks that'd be grand.
 
Last edited:
steve45 said:
Troops stationed in bases within the region might not be so dismissive of these threats. Iran, whilst in no position to pose any realistic challenge to US military might, can still strike strategically important bases in the region with significant force, enough to make the impact felt back home (Generally US dont like to see dead troops), and cause considerable disruption in the area. If both sides could kindly refrain from further ******* for the next few weeks that'd be grand.
Click to expand...
I agree, probably wouldn't want to be on the ground in the region but if they did anything like that they'd get absolutely smashed shortly afterwards.
 
Grim5 said:


Click to expand...

That just encourages the Americans more, he should read about operation praying mantis. Plenty of Americans I worked with were not phased by a war and that was from an intellectual pool of people!

steve45 said:
Troops stationed in bases within the region might not be so dismissive of these threats. Iran, whilst in no position to pose any realistic challenge to US military might, can still strike strategically important bases in the region with significant force, enough to make the impact felt back home (Generally US dont like to see dead troops), and cause considerable disruption in the area. If both sides could kindly refrain from further ******* for the next few weeks that'd be grand.
Click to expand...

That’s certainly how a modern Iranian conflict would shape up, but at that point it’s truly over for the Iranian government.
 
Last edited:
"Were not weak... Honest!" :rolleyes:

US is looking rudderless in this whole debacle. I hate the thought of a Trump government. Even though it on face value has little impact on UK life and its not my country, but a weak US has much wider reaching global impact. It leaves me so conflicted...:eek:
 
There other options - US says to China - control your lapdog or it may find itself neutered.

China before Putin’s oil had to safeguard iran is it was their life line to oil.
Now, with putin, China has diversified itself and could open up further discussions with other oil states however for now russian dinosaurs are dirt cheap as china can suck that partnership dry.
 
I'm not seeing this anywhere else yet as its a "Mail Exclusive" so take it with a pinch of salt but they claim to have been briefed that the decision to send one of our Carriers to the Red Sea has "finally" been made -

www.dailymail.co.uk

Ministers FINALLY agree to send £3.5bn aircraft carrier to Middle East

Admiral Sir Tony Radakin urged politicians to deploy one of the Navy's £3.5 billion carriers back in October. Now ministers have agreed to send one to the Middle East as Houthi attacks to continue.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk

The QE is due to leave for NATO exercise "Steadfast Defender" on Sunday so there's already a manpower/equipment push to get her ready for that, meaning diverting her to the Red Sea is plausible, apart from the almost 2 week cruise to get there. If it is a real story then it potentially gets the UK Carrier forces and F-35 a "tick in the box" for carrying out live Ops which both the military and politicians will love, but I wonder how much force protection will be in place, both at sea (UK/USN escorts) and on land (Cyprus etc), for the obvious reprisals that'll be coming their way at some point.
 
Last edited:
bingham67 said:
Click to expand...


From US officials who talked to ABC news:

"Iranian assets outside of Iran could be targets, though most targets are in Syria and Iraq. The operation will be carried out over the course of several days, with a focus on facilities that enable drone strikes. The operation will not be a pin *****"


This sort of telegraphing though sucks because the enemy is warned. In a seperate story, CBS news claims that Iranian and Iranian backed groups inside Iraq and Syria have already started evacuating their bases
 
Last edited:
Grim5 said:
From US officials who talked to ABC news:

"Iranian assets outside of Iran could be targets, though most targets are in Syria and Iraq. The operation will be carried out over the course of several days, with a focus on facilities that enable drone strikes. The operation will not be a pin *****"


This sort of telegraphing though sucks because the enemy is warned. In a seperate story, CBS news claims that Iranian and Iranian backed groups inside Iraq and Syria have already started evacuating their bases
Click to expand...

Maybe telegraphing the targets because they want them to scatter from their bases, while they watch from overhead with satellites and surveillance drones to see where they run off to, so they can add it to the target list?
 
I'm quite surprised at the American response to the base attack tbh. 'Yeah we're gonna do something mate' seems a little weak.
Are they that worried about it all kicking off if they retaliate.
 
Surprisingly I think it`s quite a measured response so far and very un American, which makes me think something else is at play somewhere.
 
Uther said:
I'm quite surprised at the American response to the base attack tbh. 'Yeah we're gonna do something mate' seems a little weak.
Are they that worried about it all kicking off if they retaliate.
Click to expand...
It took the US a while to decide how to strike Iran in 1988 and no American had been killed then, just a ship badly damaged. This time, Iran’s puppets have killed 3 Americans with a number of the 40 wounded being critically injured.

Of course, a certain Ronald Reagan was POTUS back in 1988.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom