Red Sea / Houthi rebels situation

Soldato
Joined
12 May 2014
Posts
5,291
So you would see America essentially go to war with Iran over this? Given the recent ‘success’ of American military interventions can you see why they maybe reluctant to commit themselves to another?
I'm curious, what do you think the appropriate response looks like that doesn't mean "essentially" going to war with Iran?
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Mar 2010
Posts
14,410
Location
5 degrees starboard
So you would see America essentially go to war with Iran over this? Given the recent ‘success’ of American military interventions can you see why they maybe reluctant to commit themselves to another?

It would be amusing for the entire Iranian treasury to disappear and emerge stateside as some kind of involuntary fine.
 
Soldato
Joined
25 Nov 2005
Posts
12,486
So you would see America essentially go to war with Iran over this? Given the recent ‘success’ of American military interventions can you see why they maybe reluctant to commit themselves to another?
There's a whole lot of response between what we currently have and going to war with Iran, remember those Iranian proxies, Iran denies involvement with them, so it would be perfectly okay for the US to wipe them out of existence and Iran would do nothing because they're not associated with them (the reality is Iran would do nothing because it would be scared ********)

Why with people like yourself, it's either do the bare minimum to avoid causing a fuss or turn the dial to 11 for all out war, death and destruction, like what happened to 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 on the dial of things you can do
 
Soldato
Joined
13 Jan 2003
Posts
23,790
I suspect that given the regional politics, the US is looking at a surgical strike. That may, in public, look like lobbing a couple of missiles.. but it’s better if the covert side does ten times more damage.

Remember Iran is China’a oil lantern and well under the influence.. tap the influence and starve the logistics whilst publically lobbying a few missiles.
I suspect it will be just waiting.. then the individuals will ensup falling out of open windows.

It does smell like something going on.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
26 May 2009
Posts
22,106
So you would see America essentially go to war with Iran over this? Given the recent ‘success’ of American military interventions can you see why they maybe reluctant to commit themselves to another?
In fairness the last military intervention that the USA (or the west in general) took part in (Libya) was a monumental success.

We basically designated some Islamic extremists in Libya as "rebels", ordered the Libyan government to not fly any planes, shot down the planes they attempted to fly, then conducted a massive bombing campaign that eradicated all resistance while our guys drove pickups across Libya planting flags. We even managed to take out Gaddafi.

Pretty sure we could find some Iranian "rebels" if we really wanted to...
 
Soldato
Joined
25 Nov 2007
Posts
5,581
Location
London
I'm curious, what do you think the appropriate response looks like that doesn't mean "essentially" going to war with Iran?

Iran is developing nuclear weapons, for that reason alone, i would invade, reduce the probability of nukes being developed to zero. Then leave. Then monitor its at 0% forever.

I would also invade north Korea for this reason.

All this "proxy" stuff is meh, basically.
 
Soldato
Joined
26 May 2009
Posts
22,106
An adult who really should be in a care home not the White House
Apparently the main problem Biden is having ordering a response is that by the time they get him up and explain that the Shah is no longer in power, Ayatollahs, USSR collapsed, Iraq became a US ally then stopped then got invaded twice, etc. It's time for him to go to bed.
 
Associate
Joined
24 Oct 2013
Posts
399
Iran is developing nuclear weapons, for that reason alone, i would invade, reduce the probability of nukes being developed to zero. Then leave. Then monitor its at 0% forever.

Israel will take care of any nuclear ambitions Iran have, should they be become realistically possible.
 
Soldato
Joined
14 Mar 2005
Posts
16,951
Location
Here and There...
In fairness the last military intervention that the USA (or the west in general) took part in (Libya) was a monumental success.

We basically designated some Islamic extremists in Libya as "rebels", ordered the Libyan government to not fly any planes, shot down the planes they attempted to fly, then conducted a massive bombing campaign that eradicated all resistance while our guys drove pickups across Libya planting flags. We even managed to take out Gaddafi.

Pretty sure we could find some Iranian "rebels" if we really wanted to...
Sounds like a rip roaring success we definitely aced fixing that countries problems!
 
Soldato
Joined
14 Mar 2005
Posts
16,951
Location
Here and There...
There's a whole lot of response between what we currently have and going to war with Iran, remember those Iranian proxies, Iran denies involvement with them, so it would be perfectly okay for the US to wipe them out of existence and Iran would do nothing because they're not associated with them (the reality is Iran would do nothing because it would be scared ********)

Why with people like yourself, it's either do the bare minimum to avoid causing a fuss or turn the dial to 11 for all out war, death and destruction, like what happened to 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 on the dial of things you can do
So instead of war with Iran you are having us invade the Yemen which is the only real way you stop the Houthis either way a massive escalation, I'm sure the US and allies will continue to bomb targets in the Yemen while beefing up defences at US military bases in the region (Probably a wise thing today before escalating the situation and not something you can do overnight) to thrown your pointless rhetoric back at you why is it people like you always want ever increasing military response and for it to be immediate rather than calculated, proportionate and well timed?
 
Soldato
Joined
14 Mar 2005
Posts
16,951
Location
Here and There...
I'm curious, what do you think the appropriate response looks like that doesn't mean "essentially" going to war with Iran?
The best real solution is to stop Israel systematically levelling Gaza, beyond that the response depends on your aims and your willingness to escalate the situation. If the aim is to stop the Houthis firing rockets into the red sea then the only real answer is an invasion of Yemen, boots on the ground would likely be required which would massively annoy Iran who would likely use on of there other proxies like Hezbollah to further destabilise the region forcing an even larger scale military response from the US and UK which then leads likely to the point where direct action against Iran is required which massively annoys Russia and China and then you have the potential for proxy wars popping up all over the place. There is always a bigger picture.

Personally if it was my decision, I'd take a little time and beef up air defences at US/other bases across the region (an Iranian response is inevitable) and then bomb the absolute hell out of the Houthis in Yemen in a massive demonstration of power knowing full well it won't actually stop them. Pretty similar to what the US government is doing, moving directly to a strike would leave US and other allied troops on the ground vulnerable to inevitable Iranian response which would then require further escalation from the West beefing up air defences makes it harder for Iran to kill US/allied forces calming the situation.
 
Soldato
Joined
25 Nov 2005
Posts
12,486
So instead of war with Iran you are having us invade the Yemen which is the only real way you stop the Houthis either way a massive escalation
So it's impossible for the US & UK to use their navy to blockade Yemen and stop weapons getting into country whilst also performing strikes on all known Houthi hideouts ?

Again I ask, why do people like you jump to extremes when there's a whole lot in between doing piecemeal strikes that we're currently doing and total destruction via invasion and all out war

There's a great many things the US & UK could do to halt Iranian operations in the region without going full retard and invading countries, even though technically they've already invaded Syria, setting up bases uninvited
 
Soldato
Joined
14 Mar 2005
Posts
16,951
Location
Here and There...
So it's impossible for the US & UK to use their navy to blockade Yemen and stop weapons getting into country whilst also performing strikes on all known Houthi hideouts ?

Again I ask, why do people like you jump to extremes when there's a whole lot in between doing piecemeal strikes that we're currently doing and total destruction via invasion and all out war

There's a great many things the US & UK could do to halt Iranian operations in the region without going full retard and invading countries, even though technically they've already invaded Syria, setting up bases uninvited
Ok so now we are setting up a naval blockade of a country to target a rebel faction within it and blowing the hell out of it without any sort of international mandate kind of extreme don’t you think? The Saudi blockade clearly hasn’t stopped the arrival of weapons even if it is starving the population. Have you any idea of the amount of assets that would need to be committed to ‘blockade Yemen’ effectively without further starving the populations? let me guess you were one of those who though a couple of frigates with phalanx could cover every ship in the Red Sea?
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
12 Jul 2007
Posts
8,074
Location
Stoke/Norfolk
The best real solution is to stop Israel systematically levelling Gaza,

And there it is :rolleyes:

Notice how it's never, ever "stop Hamas killing Israeli civilians in the first place which causes Israel to level places" but its always "stop Israel retaliating after its civilians are murdered by terrorists" instead, sickening really but not a surprise.
 
Back
Top Bottom