Iran

[Steepclimb]

Originally Posted by dead_pan

Is there any information circulating on the circumstances of the sinking of the Iranian warship i.e. was it instructed to sail to a particular port & surrender (assuming it was being shadowed by more than the sub)? If not it seems a bit unsporting if the sub just let rip w/o giving them a chance to throw in the towel.

That's quite an English perception, unsporting old boy. You do realise it's a war? They're an enemy ship, a legitimate target. Same as the the rest of the navy moored in Bander Abbas. It's their Pearl Harbour.

Besides the wouldn't have simply surrendered. Martyrdom and all that is part of their culture. They'd have gone down fighting. All due respect to them.
​​​​

[ORAC]

Originally Posted by tdracer
Interesting if true...

WH press spokesperson Karoline Leavitt just denied it, so it must be true.

​​​​​​​https://thenewregion.com/posts/4752

[Lonewolf_50]

FWIW, a link to the article in the Kenya times.
The war is spreading, or so it seems.
ORAC, thank you for that link.

Spoiler

 

 

ERBIL, Kurdistan Region of Iraq - White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt on Wednesday said that reports that the US is arming Kurdish dissident groups to incite revolution against the Iranian government are "completely false," insisting that US President Donald Trump's engagement with Kurdish leaders is limited to discussing US military facilities in the Kurdistan Region.

A CNN report on Tuesday asserted that the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has provided backing to Kurdish dissidents, paraphrasing one source as saying, "The idea would be for Kurdish armed forces to take on the Iranian security forces and pin them down to make it easier for unarmed Iranians in the major cities to turn out without getting massacred again as they were during unrest in January."

Trump on Tuesday held a phone call with General Secretary of the Kurdistan Democratic Party of Iran (KDPI) Mustafa Hijri, a KDPI source told The New Region, lending credence to the notion of the US supporting Kurdistan Region-based groups opposed to the Islamic Republic's government.

"Trump did speak to Kurdish leaders with respect to our base that we have in northern Iraq," Leavitt said at a presser when asked about the topic. "But as for any report suggesting that the president has agreed to any such plan, that is completely false and should not be written."

Her comments echoed similar sentiment expressed by US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth earlier in the day, who said, "None of our objectives are premised on the support or the arming of any particular force."

"What other entities may be doing we’re aware of, but our objectives aren’t centered on that."

Article from Newsweek: ISIS may jump into the fray, given their long antipathy for Iran's Shia leadership...

Whatever could go wrong?

[BFM]

I have looked at the impressive if rather unpleasant video of the ship being torpedoed a few times now. I make a couple of observations. Firstly, the video is presumably being taken from the asset tracking the ship as it has static crosshairs. Secondly, the asset is moving to the aft of the ship at pace. Thirdly, at least two separate explosions are visible; the initial strike which raises the stern of the vessel (a lot) and there is then a second flash and column of water just in front of that. I don't know if this is a second strike or a magazine or weapon of some sort that has been detonated, but I'd favour the former.

[JEM60]

According to the U.S. Secretary for War, the sinking of the Iranian warship was the first sinking of a Warship by a submarine torpedo since the 2nd World War. So presumably he had never heard of the Argentinian battleship General Belgrano then, sunk by British submarine torpedos in 1982???.

[dead_pan]

Besides the wouldn't have simply surrendered. Martyrdom and all that is part of their culture. They'd have gone down fighting. All due respect to them.

You don't know this. Its almost a given they weren't afforded the opportunity, given Hegseth's comments today.

[Hangarless]

Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50

FWIW, a link to the article in the Kenya times.
The war is spreading, or so it seems.
ORAC, thank you for that link.

Spoiler

 

 

ERBIL, Kurdistan Region of Iraq - White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt on Wednesday said that reports that the US is arming Kurdish dissident groups to incite revolution against the Iranian government are "completely false," insisting that US President Donald Trump's engagement with Kurdish leaders is limited to discussing US military facilities in the Kurdistan Region.

A CNN report on Tuesday asserted that the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has provided backing to Kurdish dissidents, paraphrasing one source as saying, "The idea would be for Kurdish armed forces to take on the Iranian security forces and pin them down to make it easier for unarmed Iranians in the major cities to turn out without getting massacred again as they were during unrest in January."

Trump on Tuesday held a phone call with General Secretary of the Kurdistan Democratic Party of Iran (KDPI) Mustafa Hijri, a KDPI source told The New Region, lending credence to the notion of the US supporting Kurdistan Region-based groups opposed to the Islamic Republic's government.

"Trump did speak to Kurdish leaders with respect to our base that we have in northern Iraq," Leavitt said at a presser when asked about the topic. "But as for any report suggesting that the president has agreed to any such plan, that is completely false and should not be written."

Her comments echoed similar sentiment expressed by US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth earlier in the day, who said, "None of our objectives are premised on the support or the arming of any particular force."

"What other entities may be doing we’re aware of, but our objectives aren’t centered on that."

Article from Newsweek: ISIS may jump into the fray, given their long antipathy for Iran's Shia leadership...

Whatever could go wrong?

Are you hoping it goes wrong?

[Steepclimb]

Originally Posted by dead_pan

You don't know this. Its almost a given they weren't afforded the opportunity, given Hegseth's comments today.

Of course they weren't given an opportunity. It's war. That's not how it works in war.

I'm puzzled you think they would simply surrender. Those men have been indoctrinated all their lives. Like the Germans and Japanese in WW2.

They are not like the typical European/American citizens who live in freedom, (for now) 🤔 and join the navy for the adventure of their lives.

One of the problems we in free world have is that we believe everyone is just like us.

It's a dangerously naive view of the world.

[Steepclimb]

Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50

FWIW, a link to the article in the Kenya times.
The war is spreading, or so it seems.
ORAC, thank you for that link.

Spoiler

 

 

ERBIL, Kurdistan Region of Iraq - White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt on Wednesday said that reports that the US is arming Kurdish dissident groups to incite revolution against the Iranian government are "completely false," insisting that US President Donald Trump's engagement with Kurdish leaders is limited to discussing US military facilities in the Kurdistan Region.

A CNN report on Tuesday asserted that the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has provided backing to Kurdish dissidents, paraphrasing one source as saying, "The idea would be for Kurdish armed forces to take on the Iranian security forces and pin them down to make it easier for unarmed Iranians in the major cities to turn out without getting massacred again as they were during unrest in January."

Trump on Tuesday held a phone call with General Secretary of the Kurdistan Democratic Party of Iran (KDPI) Mustafa Hijri, a KDPI source told The New Region, lending credence to the notion of the US supporting Kurdistan Region-based groups opposed to the Islamic Republic's government.

"Trump did speak to Kurdish leaders with respect to our base that we have in northern Iraq," Leavitt said at a presser when asked about the topic. "But as for any report suggesting that the president has agreed to any such plan, that is completely false and should not be written."

Her comments echoed similar sentiment expressed by US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth earlier in the day, who said, "None of our objectives are premised on the support or the arming of any particular force."

"What other entities may be doing we’re aware of, but our objectives aren’t centered on that."

Article from Newsweek: ISIS may jump into the fray, given their long antipathy for Iran's Shia leadership...

Whatever could go wrong?

Ironically on the side of the Americans. Having said that ISIS has never been weaker.

[brokenagain]

Given Irans history with state sponsored terrorism, America better not be expecting too much sympathy when this war is inevitably bought to its own streets.

[Hangarless]

Originally Posted by brokenagain

Given Irans history with state sponsored terrorism, America better not be expecting too much sympathy when this war is inevitably bought to its own streets.

I shudder to think what the comments on PPRUNE would be if there were to be such issues.

[tdracer]

One could make a pretty good case that this is a war - one that Iran started 46 years ago when Iran attacked the US Embassy (considered to be US territory) and took hostages. That easily qualifies as "an act of war".
That war has been continuing at a low level (with occasional flare-ups), with Iran mainly using various proxies - ever since.

[Zionstrat2]

Originally Posted by RAFEngO74to09

WSJ - not usually a reliable source - claims a Kuwaiti F/A-18 shot down the 3 x USAF F-15E.

Source not named and CENTCOM declined to comment while under investigation.

I do not understand how this is possible.. how could 3 F 15's not recognize that they are under attack? Do our sensors ignore our own weapons?

I've since read that it could have been an IR attack.. if so IR is even more effective than I imagined..

[petit plateau]

Originally Posted by Steepclimb

That's quite an English perception, unsporting old boy. You do realise it's a war? They're an enemy ship, a legitimate target. Same as the the rest of the navy moored in Bander Abbas. It's their Pearl Harbour.

Besides the wouldn't have simply surrendered. Martyrdom and all that is part of their culture. They'd have gone down fighting. All due respect to them.
​​​​

If there is a war ongoing, then generally it is customary to issue a Declaration of War. If such a Declaration has not been issued then there is no reason to believe that a formal State of War exists. As such, that tends to indicate that actions during the not-a-war need to conform to different modalities than those that might pertain in the case of an actual war. Which would mean that things that on the one hand might be a legitimate target, might on the other hand be an illegitimate target.

We often call those actions, war crimes. Unless of course the laws of war have in fact nonetheless still been observed. On this occasion whilst I can see a lot of grandstanding by all involved, I can see little in the way of pukka formal declarations. Of the sort that I would hope to see, so as to make the situation clear and attributable to all, even if no actual declaration of war or hostilities were to have been made.

Such other non-declarations, which nonetheless make the legal situation clear, can be made in the most difficult of times, there is in fact past form in that area :

https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cg...90&context=ils

(and no, I am in no way suggesting that there have not been plenty of war crimes previously committed in this arena by all involved, which are worthy of prosecution, some much more so than others)

There is a reason that many countries who the USA might wish to offer full and unfettered support in all respects, are on this occasion rather reluctant. Check your news feed of choice to figure out which countries have been paying attention to law.

Personally I can only hope that out of this comes some good.

(This is all a separate matter to the technical professionalism of the people involved in using their respective systems and tools to their best effect in pursuit of their aims, whatever they may be)

(Generally one takes a ship full of cadets to an international naval review. I am sure that there will be evidence in due course as to whether this was so in this case.)

[dogle]

1. The Falklands had its shares of horrific moments, and did make a point about the issues of having iron bombs, aluminium superstructure and drivers of sleds with an abundance of testosterone doing some serious harm to the greatest fleet in Portsmouth in 1982. (once upon a time, it was the best fleet north west of Dunkirk... it was once, and it was a long time ago).

Oh, well said, Sir!

I stand to be corrected, but perceive that following the unpleasantness down south back then their Lordships of the UK Admiralty sought to order 12 Type 45 air defence ships in belated recognition of some past misjudgements.

It seems that only six were actually built, but then - oh, dear! - were found to be short of propulsion in hot places, so the UK is left with only three still in service and not undergoing very lengthy refits.

Now, I have an uncomfortable memory of the reports of Iran’s missile development program a few years ago, when they were test firing goodies from ships in the Caspian .. recent images suggest that their latest toys can easily be launched from a standard 40‘ container (vide Ukraine experience).

What if .. such munitions were to be deployed surreptitiously in the Western Approaches .. or even in the Thames Estuary .. aboard apparenty normal container ships ? .. nasty!

Seems that Dunkin’s belated and now unexpectedly delayed departure for Cyprus is another wrinkle, and I wonder what shape Draggin and Dormless may be in just now --- departure of any of these might significantly weaken UK home air defences, no? - if the IRGC has been a bit smarter than was anticipated.

[GlobalNav]

Originally Posted by tdracer

One could make a pretty good case that this is a war - one that Iran started 46 years ago when Iran attacked the US Embassy (considered to be US territory) and took hostages. That easily qualifies as "an act of war".
That war has been continuing at a low level (with occasional flare-ups), with Iran mainly using various proxies - ever since.

Well we've also "been at war" with North Korea, and its intentions are no less belligerent than Iran's, but we haven't attacked them recently.
I don't love the Iranian regime, nor the North Korean regime, but it's not a reason to suddenly initiate a lethal military action. The cost of this war will no doubt be far greater than any possible benefit to this country.

[Hangarless]

Clearly the Iranians are going to have to make a warranty claim for the failure of their recent purchase of the Chinese HQ-9B system.

There is no report that it worked with any effect.

If deployed and integrated successfully, the system would directly address one of Iran’s most serious vulnerabilities: its difficulty tracking and engaging modern Western fighters such as the U.S. F-35 and F-22.

Why the HQ-9B Matters

The HQ-9B is China’s most capable operational long-range surface-to-air missile system, often compared to Russia’s S-400. With a reported engagement range of up to 250 kilometers and the ability to intercept targets at altitudes approaching 50 kilometers, the system is designed to counter aircraft, cruise missiles, and some ballistic threats.

Unlike earlier generations of Iranian air defenses, the HQ-9B employs active radar homing in the missile’s terminal phase. This allows launch radars to disengage or shift targets after firing, complicating suppression efforts by attacking aircraft. Sources familiar with the reported delivery say the package also includes advanced phased-array surveillance radars, most notably the JY-26 “Skywatch”, which Chinese engineers advertise as optimized for detecting low-observable (stealth) aircraft.

​​​​​​​https://www.thedefensenews.com/news-...-Strike-Fears/

[Lookleft]

When is a war not a war? When its a Special Military Operation. Thankyou Mr Putin for the 21st Century definition of military action that does not require approval by any countries parliament. When the frat boys decide that its time to unleash the dogs of SMO why do they need to justify it to anyone?

[LongTimeInCX]

In fairness to Hegseths slight oversight, he was rather busy beating his puffed out chest, and I believe simply didn’t read, or accidentally omitted a clarifying word, that would have made his assertion of “first time since ww2 a war canoe has become a dive attraction courtesy of a torpedo” correct.

Clearly the more measured and articulate General Caine, chose to reiterate more accurately the clarifiers of the sinking, while delicately correcting Hegseth’s verbal gaff.

As for previous comments as to whether the Iranians on that war canoe should have been given the opportunity to surrender, absolutely and 100% not. One only has to look at that vessels weapons capability, and its proximity to FJDG, to realise they were a clear and present danger.
Even a Pawn in a chess game can cause untold grief.
In my personal view, it was a good decision, despite the sad deaths of the sailors.


On a separate note, it seems the recently dead Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, will be buried in the holy city of Mashhad, according to Fars News Agency. As there may be a very enticing guest list attending the event, I wonder what kind of bad feeling it would incur from the other Muslim states, were such a target rich environment to appear in the crosshairs of a B2.
Somewhat of a quandary for those who make such decisions.

[BBadanov]

Originally Posted by LongTimeInCX

Clearly the more measured and articulate General Caine, chose to reiterate more accurately the clarifiers of the sinking, while delicately correcting Hegseth’s verbal gaff.

Well, he is an Air Force chap.