Opinion: Iran’s brazenness is paying off, giving the U.S. few options

Marketwatch ^ | Sept 17, 2019 11:04 a.m. ET | Reva Goujon

[Zhang Fei]

A strategy paying dividends

Ultimately, Iran’s summer brinkmanship paid off. First, Tehran demonstrated that it poses a highly credible military threat to the Strait of Hormuz. Second, it exposed Trump’s extreme reticence about engulfing the United States in another Middle Eastern war. Third, rather than bring European powers closer to the U.S. sanctions strategy on Iran, Tehran’s threat to commerce in one of the world’s busiest shipping lanes sent the Elysee into a diplomatic frenzy, paving the way for Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif’s surprise visit to the G-7 in Biarritz to discuss a French proposal for a $15 billion oil-backed credit line. Fourth, it laid bare the growing skittishness of Trump’s Gulf supporters, who have a lot to lose from an actual war in the Persian Gulf.

And fifth, the United States’ struggle to cobble together a maritime coalition to deter Iranian tanker attacks exposed the diplomatic cost of the White House’s unilateral policies on Iran: Only Australia, Bahrain and the United Kingdom have joined the U.S.-led mission. Japan, for one, says it will run its own patrols in the Bab el-Mandeb strait between Yemen and Djibouti as part of anti-piracy missions, while India is conducting independent patrols. And before Boris Johnson became British prime minister, London boldly said it would launch a European-led mission apart from the U.S.-led undertaking; Johnson has since reversed course to join Washington, but European defense chiefs are still debating an EU-only coalition.

But regardless of which country is part of which mission, there are simply too many vessels transiting the narrow Strait of Hormuz and not enough military escorts to prevent Iran from launching further attacks. In other words, the United States (and its allies) are still faced with a massive dilemma in trying to deter the Islamic republic.

[Zhang Fei]

Deterrence can't exist without punishment. Economic stress without military strikes means Iran develops a nuke, mounts it on ballistic missiles, and starts using them like conventional weapons against its neighbors - possibly against their oil fields. By reducing the supply of oil worldwide and spiking oil prices, it breaks the blockade by creating incentives for other countries to buy Iranian oil on the sly. If Trump isn't going to strike the Iranian nuke program, he might as well end the sanctions and go back to the Obama deal with Iran.

[Jim Noble]

If Trump isn't going to strike the Iranian nuke program

And what, in the US Constitution or the US Code, would give him the authority to do that?

[bert]

Balderdash

The Trump sanctions are infact killing Iran. The Iranian lash out is in response to the sanctions. The lashing out has not had any effect on the sanctions. Iran is still losing and lacks the will to start the all out war that will result in their total destruction

Iran is in a lose, lose , lose position

The coalition is watching Iran die

[mewzilla]

Iran’s brazenness.

And our so-called allies willingness to stab us in the back, sanctions busting and funneling money to Iran...

[EQAndyBuzz]

“If Trump isn’t going to strike the Iranian nuke program, he might as well end the sanctions and go back to the Obama deal with Iran.”

Who said there couldn’t be another Stuxnet? Blowing up and taking ships hostage will only force America to upgrade its refineries and capacities to help meet the reduction in the Gulf.

[DakotaGator]

And fifth, the United States’ struggle to cobble together a maritime coalition to deter Iranian tanker attacks exposed the diplomatic cost of the White House’s unilateral policies on Iran: Only Australia, Bahrain and the United Kingdom have joined the U.S.-led mission.

What nonsense. Look at the force composition for Operation Earnest Will. The United States alone can handily take down Iranian forces in the Persian Gulf any time it wishes.

The rest of the article is equally panty-wetting drivel.

Bottom line here is that as long as we allow Iran to behave irresponsibly, it will.

[HighSierra5]

You could say that keeping Iran from getting nukes would be the duty of the President to defend the U.S.. All you have to do is destroy one of their refineries. You don’t have to go all out. That way all of the anti intervention folks won’t get their panties in a wad. These Mullahs are trying to disrupt the economy and I don’t want to pay $8 per gallon and all of the price increases that go along with that. Oil prices are determined on the global market. Some people have more than one vehicle. When I was in full blown contracting I had five trucks plus my personal vehicles.

[alloysteel]

The Persian godfathers learned their lessons well from the Mafia. Don’t want BAD things to happen, ya know? Just business, nothing personal.

We’ll be back next week, to collect the next installment of protection money. Oh, the base amount is $15 billion, just have it ready.

Have a nice day.

[Zhang Fei]

[All you have to do is destroy one of their refineries.]

---

I’m partial to the destruction of military equipment. SAMs, ships, aircraft, ammo dumps - things that cost more than the munitions used. Heck - take down highways, bridges, power stations, dams, water purification facilities.

[Maris Crane]

Oh Yeah, Reva Goujon (?????) should know all about it.

FRom under what rock do these people come??????

[Zhang Fei]

[Bottom line here is that as long as we allow Iran to behave irresponsibly, it will. ]

---

Without the destruction of some of its expensive military hardware, it will continue acting up. Reagan’s Operation Praying Mantis probably cost Iran hundreds of millions of dollars in hardware. That’s why it backed off attacking Persian Gulf shipping. At that rate, we could have destroyed tens of billions of dollars of hardware, leaving it vulnerable to another Iraqi invasion. Frankly, if we did that today, Iran would be vulnerable to breakup - as its neighbors (Azerbaijan, Pakistan and perhaps even Afghanistan and Iraq) started hacking off pieces of the country based on ethnic ties and American verbal encouragement. And as fully-paid up Muslims, they wouldn’t worry about the Geneva conventions - mass graves for enemy-infested villages the way the Taliban did it.

https://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports98/afghan/Afrepor0.htm

[z3n]

Just the oposite.

Iran is making themselves look bad to the world every time they hijack a tanker, or bomb fuel that hikes up energy costs. The more the US retrains itself from looking like a trigger happy aggressor looking for an excuse, but rather, a reasonable participant in geopolitical discourse, the worse things get for Iran

[nathanbedford]

That is a very good question, what is the state of the president's power to engage in military strikes for a period of time before securing congressional approval? Did not some authorization like this emerge in the wake of 9/11?

Our problem is that technology has overrun the 18th-century concepts of declaring war and securing congressional approval. A nuclear bomb on the tip of a ICBM gives the president minutes, not weeks to react and to seek a declaration of war from Congress.

On the other hand, we see the parallels in the year's long buildup of sanctions against Iran with the sanctions against Japan that precipitated (but did not justify) Pearl Harbor. There is time today for the president to secure authorization for a proactive or, or a more easily obtained, reactive military strike in view of the clearly increasing level of tensions. He probably does not require any congressional authorization if American installations or ships are attacked. Again another problem, the Democrats would eagerly sacrifice national security if that got them Trump's head so there is very little likelihood of a pre-strike authorization coming out of Congress.

Roosevelt was often accused of deliberately provoking both Germany and Japan into war, how will Trump navigate this problem? The author argues that recent events have only illustrated Trump's dilemma: he cannot get either his allies or Congress to authorize a strike, he does not want to strike anyway, but his forbearance allegedly reveals weakness.

One could counter and say that the Iranians lashing out in these various attacks betrays their desperation. I think Trump should continue to emulate the Roosevelt example in the lead up to World War II: apply maximum pressure against Japan, embargo Japan's access to oil and offer every aid and assistance to Germany's enemies. In other words, tighten sanctions, supply Saudi Arabia with the iron Dome, perhaps escort ships through the straits of Hormoz, attend the upcoming UN meeting to ratchet up diplomatic pressure against Iran and saber rattle-that was what John Bolton was good for.

If this sounds like I'm eager to make war, nothing could be further from the truth. However, just as nuclear technology has run past our constitutional concept of declarations of war, so has nuclear technology overrun our historic assumptions of security based on our geographical isolation. Iran with an ICBM with a nuclear warhead is an enemy very much to be feared. We ignore that threat at our peril.

[PIF]

Regardless of “authority”, the Iranian nuke program exist for one purpose: starting a world-wide nuclear war.

Best to wait until they start launching before responding ‘cause like Captain Naught said: we can absorb a few nuclear hits. We wouldn’t want to go against the suicide pact called the US Constitution or stop playing by Marquess of Queensberry Rules! The horror!

[Zhang Fei]

[One could counter and say that the Iranians lashing out in these various attacks betrays their desperation.]

---

That’s like saying Iran killing 200 Marines in Lebanon betrays their desperation. Or al Qaeda’s attack on 9/11 betrayed its desperation. Against an American leader who is unwilling to retaliate, the Iranians are pushing on an open door, much as they did when they took Navy personnel hostage under Obama. Destroying Arab oil fields and jacking up oil prices will help them circumvent the sanctions. The pricier oil is, the greater the incentives to purchase Iranian product on the sly.

[Magnum44]

Agree, Iranian leaders are not desperate. They are being themselves.

[Redwood71]

The only thing in the loop to create an appearance of stopping the president from acting is the War Powers Act, originally from 1973. But it is limited. Except in an emergency, it requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without a Congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States. It does not give congress the authority to stop the president from dispatching troops and using them for up to 60 days with a 30 day withdraw period without their declaration of war.

This has been done by almost every president since Truman. The last one done by Obama sending troops into Lybia without congressional approval. Carter went into Iran, Clinton bombed Yugoslavia, Reagan into Lebanon, Johnson into Vietnam. Factually the only presidents to actually use congress were President George W. Bush who was given the go-ahead by lawmakers for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and President George H.W. Bush received congressional backing for the Gulf War.

The acts of the presidents have been challenged in the supreme court but would not be heard as there was no legal precedence to over rule the existing voted act until after the 90 day period was violated. Then the law could be enforced and troops withdrawn. But it’s never happened.

rwood

[gbaker]

The Trump sanctions are infact killing Iran. The Iranian lash out is in response to the sanctions. The lashing out has not had any effect on the sanctions. Iran is still losing and lacks the will to start the all out war that will result in their total destruction

Iran is in a lose, lose , lose position

The coalition is watching Iran die/////

Yep I thought the freepers were better informed. I guess not judging from the comments.

[CaptainPhilFan]

Just me or does this read as if it’s meant to cheese Trump off and embarrass him into action? The war hawks are desperate.

[gr8eman]

Agreed! The Iranian’s weakness is showing. They’re used to being coddled by the Eurotwits and the likes of John Kerry. They have NO clue how to deal with PDJT! They’re still playing by the old rulebook but now we’re pumping our own oil! It’s the first time in my lifetime and about damn time!