Will Iran make good on its threat to the US?

[ivanm]

• Tweet

http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/03/9924640-will-iran-make-good-on-its-threat-against-us

This is pretty good analysis on the part of  both men.  Either way, the price of gasoline will go up.

I look for Obama to get us into this one.  Will it work for him or against him?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Should the United States blink with Iran? Tehran has warned Washington against returning an aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf. The White House contends Tehran’s threat is just an attempt to deflect attention from the Islamic republic’s domestic problems and says the Navy will continue operations in the Gulf.

What happens next?

We turned to Graham T. Allison, a leading analyst of U.S. national security and defense policy in nuclear weapons and terrorism at Harvard, and Qamar-ul Huda, a scholar of Islam and theology, from the U.S. Institute of Peace. In emails to msnbc.com, they shared some thoughts on Iran's war of words -- and the possibility of an escalation.


Iran has threatened to take military action if the U.S. keeps sending aircraft carriers into the Gulf. What is the probability Iran would make good on its threat?

ALLISON: Low. Iran must be aware that the U.S. will continue to send aircraft carriers into international waters regardless of Iranian threats, and that any direct military confrontation would not end well for Tehran. However, we face the risk of unauthorized or low-level skirmishes between U.S. and Iranian naval forces escalating into a broader conflict.

HUDA: In March 2007, Iran captured 15 British sailors and marines from the Strait of Hormuz, and the government allowed the British embassy to be ransacked by protesters. Since the November 2011 United Nations report found that Iran has worked and may be working on attaining nuclear weapons, the United States and its allies are pressing harder to enforce sanctions against Iran. Essentially, relations with Iran have gone from bad to worse in a matter of five months.


Qamar-ul Huda of the U.S. Institute of Peace.

If the recent past is any indicator of events, Iran's threats must be taken seriously. A military attack by Iran against the U.S. would have a devastating strategic consequence for Iran. About less than 25 percent of U.S. imported oil comes from the Gulf region; however, China's oil supplies would be significantly threatened by a military conflict.

Iran's threats are not only directed at the U.S., but to the already unstable global economy. With the uncertainty of EU financial industry and U.S.'s weak economy, Iran is using this moment to test Western interests in the region.

What does Iran have to gain from a military confrontation with the U.S.?

ALLISON: It is certainly not in the rational self-interest of the Iranian state to provoke a confrontation with America, whose military dwarfs that of Iran. However, it is likely that certain elements within the regime would welcome such a confrontation, as they feel that American military action could bolster support for their government and distract the Iranian people from growing economic problems.

HUDA: Iran's military confrontation with the U.S. allows them to rein in dissenters, reformers and liberals, and embolden the power of the hardliners in Iran, namely the Revolutionary Guard institutions. Iranian hardliners welcome an escalation of conflict with the U.S. and the West because it allows them to consolidate their internal power. The elite of hardliners are still from the 1979 revolution period, and they understand that an anti-Western narrative is their core asset. With the recent shooting down of a U.S. spy drone near the Iran-Afghanistan border, and the capture of an [alleged] Afghan-American spy in Iran, Iranian hardliners in the government are trying to deflect the nuclear issue and simultaneously make a case of preventing a U.S.-led confrontation. Internally, Iran is using recent political events, including the Arab Spring protests, as justification to defend national sovereignty.
 
...

[vel]

Have you met Schlomoe yet?

[Sassy]

IMO...Here are some of the problems I see with the conclusions of the analysts...

http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/03/9924640-will-iran-make-good-on-its-threat-against-us

Iran has threatened to take military action if the U.S. keeps sending aircraft carriers into the Gulf. What is the probability Iran would make good on its threat?

...ALLISON: Low. Iran must be aware that the U.S. will continue to send aircraft carriers into international waters regardless of Iranian threats, and that any direct military confrontation would not end well for Tehran. However, we face the risk of unauthorized or low-level skirmishes between U.S. and Iranian naval forces escalating into a broader conflict.

They are neglecting to mention that both Russia and China are in bed with Iran.  THAT is no small issue.  They will not allow "a broader conflict" to arise.

...If the recent past is any indicator of events, Iran's threats must be taken seriously. A military attack by Iran against the U.S. would have a devastating strategic consequence for Iran. About less than 25 percent of U.S. imported oil comes from the Gulf region; however, China's oil supplies would be significantly threatened by a military conflict.

Iran's threats are not only directed at the U.S., but to the already unstable global economy. With the uncertainty of EU financial industry and U.S.'s weak economy, Iran is using this moment to test Western interests in the region.

...ALLISON: It is certainly not in the rational self-interest of the Iranian state to provoke a confrontation with America, whose military dwarfs that of Iran. However, it is likely that certain elements within the regime would welcome such a confrontation, as they feel that American military action could bolster support for their government and distract the Iranian people from growing economic problems.

Again...China and Russia will not allow this to happen.  While our "military" may indeed "dwarf that of Iran"...China is not going to sit idly by while their oil supply is disrupted. Also...Russia has way to much invested in Iran to stay on the sidelines.  They have too much at risk to allow this to spiral into WW3.

If this were simply a conflict between the U.S. and Iran...There would be no contest.  However...In today's global dependance/society that is no longer the case.  Allies have been formed that are the worst possible scenario.

[ivanm]

IMO...Here are some of the problems I see with the conclusions of the analysts...

They are neglecting to mention that both Russia and China are in bed with Iran.  THAT is no small issue.  They will not allow "a broader conflict" to arise.

Again...China and Russia will not allow this to happen.  While our "military" may indeed "dwarf that of Iran"...China is not going to sit idly by while their oil supply is disrupted. Also...Russia has way to much invested in Iran to stay on the sidelines.  They have too much at risk to allow this to spiral into WW3.

If this were simply a conflict between the U.S. and Iran...There would be no contest.  However...In today's global dependance/society that is no longer the case.  Allies have been formed that are the worst possible scenario.

Good thinking.  

If we went to war, would the disruption of oil be long term or could it resume flowing in a short time?  Iranian oil may not flow, which would interest China, but the other oil patches in the Gulf region would still be able to ship thru the Straits of Hormuz once the situation stabilized.
 
I like the idea of pipelines to skirt or avoid the need to tanker the oil out to open waters.  Perhaps more should be built.

As to not risking investments because of war, I think nations are like dogs in heat when it comes to this.  They'll do it anyway, as if some compulsion is driving them.
The US is a prime example of this.  To hell with the American consumer and higher fuel prices.

Gasoline has risen substantially here in the last few weeks, about 15 cents per gallon I'd say, and the Christmas holiday driving seems to have had little impact on the price. It was the hoggish traders in the trading pits that saw a chance to capitalize on the Iranian confrontation and drove up the prices.  So they got their blood whether or not anything materializes in the way of armed conflict.

[IM2]

As long as the nuts are talking about war with iran, the guy in Iran gets attention. Fuck him, let him eat his oil.