Iran

[Ninthace]

Originally Posted by tdracer

I don't know about the UK, but it's a well established fact that most members of NATO have frequently failed to meet the treaty obligation of 2% GDP spending on defense - and the US has had to make up for that. Trump brought that up during his first term - that the US couldn't afford to keep doing that - and the rest of NATO blew him off.
You didn't wake up until Putin invaded Ukraine.
The US has also contributed far more in dollar value to Ukraine that any other nation. There is a valid complaint that - as a percentage of the US GDP - it's less than some countries - but that glosses over the fact that we are still sending them more stuff.

The NATO Treaty, does not explicitly contain a binding obligation on member states regarding defense expenditure. However, it establishes the principle of collective defense, which implies a need for adequate military capabilities. Article 3 of the NATO Treaty encourages member nations to maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack. In 2014, NATO members agreed to aim for spending at least 2% of their GDP on defense by 2024 during the Wales Summit. This is more of a guideline than a formal obligation, and adherence is voluntary. There is an emphasis on burden -sharing among member states, promoting equitable contributions to collective defense efforts. Overall, while the treaty itself doesn’t impose strict defense spending requirements, the collective commitment to mutual defense encourages members to invest adequately in their military capabilities.

[West Coast]

In the name of Euro Unity you're quite happy to commit UK blood and treasure to the defense of nation(s) who are lagging on defense spending?

[Thrust Augmentation]

Originally Posted by Hangarless

......hysterical and irrational Trump hatred....

Beyond me why the mods continue to allows you to post your loaded, biased, provocative & politicised bull!!!! on this once decent forum (which you are turning into a joke).

You are initially responsible for most of the closures of the threads that you are active on because of the provocative & politicised nature of the garbage that you post. It's a considerable shame that your worldview is not as advanced as your desire to provoke.

MODS - I'll no doubt get the old "play the ball, not the man" warning or worse, but FFS if your going to continue letting this clown post his poison, just can me for eterninty PLEASE.

[Steepclimb]

Originally Posted by Hangarless

td, I think they are still fast asleep and blissfully dreaming that it is Americas job to defend them.

That's the kind of comment that invalidates most of your statements and comments. No one in Europe thinks it's America's job to defend them. Europe in general is very aware and grateful for the intervention of the United States in Europe. But of course it's entirely in the interests of the the US that Europe hasn't been subsumed into Russia's sphere of influence.

The history of Europe is written in blood. No one wants yet another dictator from the east starting endless conflict.
​​​​​​
Good for business as your current Czar knows all to well. His intervention in Iran isn't a charitable attempt to save the Iranians from their oppressors. The US has bases in all the countries surrounding Iran not because the US wants to preserve their security but it's own security.

The same in Europe.

So perhaps instead of indulging in glib soundbytes. You might want to engage in actual discussion?

You're obviously capable.

[fdr]

Originally Posted by West Coast

We do have an interest which is why Trump is calling out to NATO. The question is who will it have a greater impact on, the US or Europe?

Originally Posted by Bonkey

NATO is a defensive alliance, it's charter is to spring to each other's collective defence after an attack on any one of it's member states. Not an alliance that one member can simply demand at it's will to assist in unilateral foreign adventures when said member acted as the aggressor.

Originally Posted by Hangarless

Matt Whittaker the US NATO Ambassador just a moment ago.

Ukraine is not a NATO issue but rather a European issue in which the US has been more than happy to assist.

Somehow the Europeans and the UK are saying Iran isn't a NATO issue so they won't get involved.

Imagine if the US had said that when Russia invaded the Ukraine.

NATO has been exposed as a one way relationship and I believe we were seeing NATO loosing cohesion as members no longer share the same general political aims.

T.U. 114's "bored of peace" kind of summed it all up nicely.

NATO is a defensive alliance. Always has been. If the USA was attacked by Heard Island, then by golly, the penguins would be in a bit of trouble. The WH was not attacked by Iran in this most recent fraças, the last time it was attacked, or at least the capitol, was in 1812, by irate Canadians, who apparently were still peeved about the whole revolution thing I guess, and having a bit of a squabble with France at that time, excluding 9/11, which definitely was an Art. 5 event, and golly, NATO responded.

US is self sufficient in oil by most counts, or at least most types if not all. Canada exports... The EU is far past the Hibbert peak of North Sea Oil & Gas, but at a pinch, a lot of capacity that has been economically non-viable will start to become of greater interest.

China has issues, as does Japan, (the latter led to the whole East Asia Co-prosperity thing that was not as big a hit with the neighbours as was expected), Malaysia, VietNam, Indonesia are oil exporting nations, Philippines exports... Philippinos'; to the benefit of much of the world. Australia would be able to revert to being self sufficient at $100/bbl, so, yay. NZL, makes manure, lots of it, and that is really good for sheep, cows, and landscape paintings. Also good for Hobbits etc. With a touch of care, NZL could avoid oil other than on their Waldorf salads. Will that happen? nope, oil is easy.

India and China have the largest energy problems, and they also have for different reasons food supply stability issues which also have an oil component.

Africa, well, TIA.

Korea has NPP, as does Japan, Japan has had less success than SK has had.

Mexico, got oil, guacamole, and tequila, and tequila fixes everything. Well played.
Central America, it exports its people to scrabble on the border of the USA, even today.
South America, 5 countries produce 7.5-8 m BPD, which is about 4-5 times Californias daily dose on the 91, 5, and 405 parking lots etc. California produces 0.5 m BPD.

The removal for a period of 20% of the total oil supply will get the price hopping towards 200/bbl, but, then the game will be for how long is that the case, before wells get their mojo on. It is not TEOTWAWKI, but if you peer long enough you can see the road signs pointing the way.

I'm still stuck on the "bored of peace"... ROFL. You can't make this stuff up, no matter what.

The good thing about this day and age is, we do not have to put up with the incessant poetry of yesteryear, instead of Keats inspired poets, like W.B. Yeates, Ivor Gurney, David Jones, etc, we get... 2:00 AM CAPS updates on the progress of peace in our time. (I kind of miss the romance of the Lockheed 14 with R-1820-9's purring & drooling along, in the background cooling off as a clown waves a missive around proclaiming peace, or pieces of Czech and Slovak turf, no matter what).

If the WH wants a coalition to go and smoke out the baddies in Iran, would someone please explain what the casus belli may be, anything, anything at all that gives a cogent argument as to what all the fuss is about in Iran. After all, the "negotiations" were going along swimmingly until the other teams top goalies got capped. That clipping the leaders of a bunch of fruit bats might result in some effluent hitting the actuator disk was probably not difficult to game out, and here we are, 6 months in a leaky boat, deja vu, all over again, again.

The current predicament seems to follow at least one part of Barbara Tuchman's Guns of August, chronology of the prelude to Round 1.0, which makes the point that it became easier to have the war than not, or maybe it was Georges Clemenceau who lamented "Il est beaucoup plus facile de faire la guerre que la paix". Indeed. Whatever, he stood up for Émile Zola, by publishing J'accuse which was probably one of the better moments of a sorry set of moments. Good reading, and with some relevance to how stuff gets... stuffed.

Spoiler

 

 

Anthem for doomed youth,
Wilfred Owen

What passing-bells for these who die as cattle?

— Only the monstrous anger of the guns.

Only the stuttering rifles' rapid rattle

Can patter out their hasty orisons.

No mockeries now for them; no prayers nor bells;

Nor any voice of mourning save the choirs,

—The shrill, demented choirs of wailing shells;

And bugles calling for them from sad shires.



What candles may be held to speed them all?

Not in the hands of boys, but in their eyes

Shall shine the holy glimmers of goodbyes.

The pallor of girls' brows shall be their pall;

Their flowers the tenderness of patient minds,

And each slow dusk a drawing-down of blinds.



[Senior Pilot]

Originally Posted by Thrust Augmentation

Beyond me why the mods continue to allows you to post your loaded, biased, provocative & politicised bull!!!! on this once decent forum (which you are turning it into a joke).

You are initially responsible for most of the closures of the threads that you are active on because of the provocative & politicised nature of the garbage that you post. It's a considerable shame that your worldview is not as advanced as your desire to provoke.

MODS - I'll no doubt get the old "play the ball, not the man" warning or worse, but FFS if your going to continue letting this clown post his poison, just can me for eterninty PLEASE.

Unfortunately you managed to post 30 minutes after I deleted that quote that you referenced.

Moderating many threads throughout the Site all dealing with the same topic is, quite frankly, a thankless task. From a Moderating POV we are as impartial as possible and see as much ranting from both sides of the field, resulting in displeasure from the twitter and bisted amongst us.

As often stated by us Mods, this is a Professional Aviation Forum: life would be better all round if all contributors stuck to that.

[beardy]

Originally Posted by West Coast

We do have an interest which is why Trump is calling out to NATO. The question is who will it have a greater impact on, the US or Europe?

Perhaps, before conducting operations, it would have been wise to gather an alliance of interested parties with an agreed objective.

[West Coast]

FDR

NATO is a defensive alliance. Always has been

Well other than Libya, Afghanistan, Kosovo and Bosnia. That's a pretty stunning oversight of the history of NATO. Perhaps it's just a reflection of me getting older, but those were all fairly recent and would certainly jump out at me if I was going to make a claim such as you did.

[Tu.114]

Regarding the oil issue and the assumption that Europe will run dry without the Strait of Hormuz being open.

Here, prices at the pump have risen noticeably from about 1,60€ per liter to just shy of 2,00 and inflation is expected to be impacted by this. This is rather a market issue caused by global shortage than an immediate danger of being cut off. This graphic shows where European energy has come from in 2024, this link also shows the countries oil is imported from. Note the position of the US in the list of providers.

Iran is an "also ran", and most of the countries in the second link are accessible regardless of how hospitable the Strait of Hormuz may be. A pipeline to alternate ports may be involved on occasion.

While Europe certainly feels the pinch from the latest adventure, it is less of a danger than some on here make it out to be. This may well explain why the European statesmen are rather reluctant to hurry and join the ride.

[West Coast]

Originally Posted by beardy

Perhaps, before conducting operations, it would have been wise to gather an alliance of interested parties with an agreed objective.

No issues with that observation.

[ORAC]

👀👀🤷🙈

Video

https://x.com/wartranslated/status/2...306405353?s=20

​​​​​​​Trump said that kamikaze sea drones do not exist and were created by AI.

Because if they existed, America would have struck them long ago.

[ORAC]

Francis Tusa:

https://x.com/FTusa284/status/2033496912091926543?s=20

Interesting article by @MCABIROL: stocks of MICA AAMs running low not just in UAE (and Jordan..?), but also in France.

MoD/DGA not happy that @MBDAGroup has not upped MICA production - the latter says, "where's the contract?"

UK the same with ASRAAM?

https://www-latribune-fr.translate.g...x_tr_hist=true

Middle East conflict: Paris missile crisis

The high consumption of MICA air-to-air missiles by French Air Force Rafale pilots to intercept Iranian Shahed drones over the United Arab Emirates is creating significant tension in Paris. The Prime Minister has called a crisis meeting for Tuesday to find solutions to maintain long-term capabilities.

​​​​​​​In the skies over the United Arab Emirates (UAE), French Rafale fighter jets are working tirelessly to neutralize missiles and drones launched by Tehran that are striking this Middle Eastern country, located across the border from Iran, as well as American interests based in the emirate.

Under the defense agreements signed between Abu Dhabi and Paris, France is therefore legitimately providing assistance to the UAE. For the past two weeks, French Rafale pilots have intercepted dozens of Shahed drones by firing MICA air-to-air missiles with a very high success rate.

"We have mobilized a number of Rafale aircraft and airborne air defense and radar systems to assist our Gulf partners affected by Iranian attacks ," diplomatic sources cautiously stated.

But beyond the undeniable expertise of the French army, there is a problem. A very big problem, in fact. The stockpile of MICA missiles has dwindled very (too) quickly under the hot UAE sun, despite the much-touted war economy launched more than three years ago by Emmanuel Macron.

While France is helping its grateful Emirati partner as much as it can, this conflict is once again cruelly revealing one of the most glaring vulnerabilities of the French armed forces, including the air force: their stocks of complex munitions are still very limited.

This is the case today with the MICA missiles, manufactured in particular at Selles-Saint-Denis (Loir-et-Cher) by MBDA, a joint venture owned by Airbus (37.5%), the British company BAE Systems (37.5%), and the Italian company Leonardo (25%).

Crisis meeting at Matignon

This situation in the UAE is putting the entire Ministry of the Armed Forces and beyond under strain. It's generating some friction and considerable bad faith between the Joint Chiefs of Staff (EMA) and the Directorate General of Armaments (DGA), as well as between the Ministry of the Armed Forces and MBDA, which has delivery delays of nearly two years for additional MICA missiles.

​​​​​​​The Prime Minister, who previously served as Minister of the Armed Forces and was responsible for the war economy, has decided to get involved. According to multiple sources, Sébastien Lecornu convened all these tense individuals for a crisis meeting on Tuesday at Matignon to find long-term capability solutions.

[ORAC]

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news...-gulf-of-oman/

Indian Warships Escort Indian LPG Tankers in Gulf of Oman

Indian Navy warships escorted Indian LPG tankers in the Gulf of Oman, after they crossed the Strait of Hormuz, on March 14.

The Indian government stated that Indian ships Shivalik and Nanda Devi have crossed the Strait of Hormuz and are now heading towards ports in India, carrying a combined cargo of 92,700 metric tonnes of LPG. Other Indian ships remain on standby in the Gulf region.

Any role of the Indian Navy in assisting the vessels was not mentioned. However, footage on social media has confirmed that the Indian Navy is involved, with a Project 15 destroyer of the Visakhapatnam/ Kolkata class and an MH-60Rhelicopter filmed from Shivalik.

Open source vessel tracking data dated March 14 suggested that at least three Indian Navy vessels were positioned in the Gulf of Oman, in an ideal position to escort Indian commercial shipping crossing the Strait of Hormuz. The accuracy of these publicly seen positions may be affected by GPS fluctuations in the locality.

India, along with several other Asian nations, is heavily dependent on the Strait of Hormuz for its energy requirements. Both tankers are owned by the state owned Shipping Corporation of India and will help assuage domestic concerns over fuel shortage.

The move comes after Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi spoke to Iranian President Dr. Masoud Pezeshkian on March 12, stating that “the safety and security of Indian nationals, along with the need for unhindered transit of goods and energy, remain India’s top priorities.”

About two dozen Indian vessels and hundreds of Indian seafarers were in the Persian Gulf prior to the call. Iranian attacks on commercial shipping have also killed and injured multiple Indian sailors onboard the vessels. The talks between the two leaders appears to have resulted in an understanding to let Indian ships through the strait.

India had earlier granted the request of three Iranian naval vessels to dock in Kochi. However, the light frigate IRIS Dena was sunk by a U.S. Navy submarine off the coast of Sri Lanka, while landing ship IRIS Lavan docked in Kochi and replenishment vessel IRIS Bushehr docked in Colombo, Sri Lanka.

The spokesperson for India’s Ministry of External Affairs stated that on March 14 that a chartered flight departed from Kochi to repatriate stranded Iranian nationals, including tourists, diplomats and non-essential crew of Lavan, which remains docked in Kochi.On March 13, Sri Lanka repatriated remains of the 84 Iranian sailors killed in the US attack on Dena.

Currently 22 Indian vessels are stated to be west of the Strait of Hormuz, with India understood to have sought safe passage for all. U.S. President Donald Trump later expressed hope that global navies will help keep the Strait of Hormuz “open and safe.”

While India was not among the countries named in the post, it is understood that India will independently ensure safe passage of vessels without being a part of any coalition. This is likely to be under the ambit of Operation Sankalp, ongoing since 2019 to secure Indian commercial shipping in the Persian Gulf, Gulf of Oman and Gulf of Aden.

(The Shivalik mentioned in this article should not to be confused with Indian Navy’s frigate INS Shivalik)

[fdr]

Originally Posted by West Coast

FDR
Well other than Libya, Afghanistan, Kosovo and Bosnia. That's a pretty stunning oversight of the history of NATO. Perhaps it's just a reflection of me getting older, but those were all fairly recent and would certainly jump out at me if I was going to make a claim such as you did.

• Libya. was a UN party, which NATO forces agreed to lead. UNSCR 1973. There were non NATO attendees sending their RSVPs.
• Afghanistan. "Graveyard of Empires". way back when, it was Big Al 330–327 BC, not NATO, then 3 centuries of islamic invasion from 7-10 century, not NATO, Genghis Khan waltzed through in the 13th century, and added some more local spices, but no NATO sauce at all. The Mughal Empire and Persian Safavids were obnoxious for the next few centuries until Afghani's objected, and became a state in 1747. The Poms started more poems in 1839-42, and then not being fast learners, when at it again in 1878-80, nothing better to watch on telly, and sub continent food was damned good. No NATO. In 1919-21, third time the charm, more poems, body bits, and the Afghans get a really good dose of independence.. Then the USSR decided to to their bit for world pieces... and capped the management, and invaded, back in 79, and finally ran out of puff, roubles, and bodies in 89. The CIA was doing its bit, after all we armed Bin whatsisname, and set forth future events as unintended consequences. No NATO. USSR, only, with a dash of CIA. Taliban do their bit in 1992-2001, including stuff like the Bamiyan blasting... and then 9/11 comes along. And Art. 5 is called for by... USA. NATO, answers.

• Kosovo. Following the Račak massacre on 15 Jan 99, killing 45 Kosovan Albanians, on 30 Jan 99:"the NATO Secretary General may authorise air strikes against targets on FRY territory" to "[compel] compliance with the demands of the international community and [to achieve] a political settlement". The Rambouillet conference followed, and that dog don't hunt neither. Following that WOFTAM, OSCE withdrew on 22 Mar, to permit some persuasion by NATO to get Milošević's head in the right place. From 24 Mar to 12 Jun things were rowdy, with NATO and some other helping hands rearranging bits of Serbia, holes still visible today in places like Novi Sad. The UNSC did not support the NATO action with a UNSCR, given that Russia was helping Milo the magnificent in his exercise of plinking Kosovo Albanians, hardly a surprise. Boris was still blind drunk for the most part. Serbs are still annoyed and the report on the NATO bombing is an exercise in tortology. KFOR that followed was NATO heavy but included other nations. So, yep, Kosovo is a case where NATO did its stuff, and that was not at the call of Art. 5, it was instead due to the failure of efforts by OSCE to stop ethnic cleansing, and the ambivalence of the UNGA, and the UNSC specifically to do their damned job.

• Bosnia. UNSCR 713 predated NATO action in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and that set up UNPROFOR which was mainly NATO, but under UN sanction. Not NATO overreach to start with, but it sure did get rowdy.

So, NATO got some airplay on Kosovo, some leading to lyrics in James Blunt's songs... That is the only occasion I am familiar with that NATO overran their skis a bit, and they did that to intercede in ethnic cleansing which was occurring in plain sight of the UN, and the UNSC sat and polished chairs with their prodigious butts.

Kosovo does a pretty good steak still, Pristina is not a bad town, and since the airport manager got plinked at his own home some time ago, things have been relatively peaceful. B-H used to build some pretty good airplanes, my old SOKO GALEB had panel tolerances that don't normally occur outside of RTM plastics.

[tdracer]

A surprisingly upbeat analysis of the Iran war from - of all places - Al Jazzera.

The US-Israeli strategy against Iran is working. Here is why | US-Israel war on Iran | Al Jazeera

When you look at what has actually happened to Iran’s principal instruments of power – its ballistic missile arsenal, its nuclear infrastructure, its air defences, its navy and its proxy command architecture – the picture is not one of US failure. It is one of systematic, phased degradation of a threat that previous administrations allowed to grow for four decades.

[West Coast]

Originally Posted by fdr

• Libya. was a UN party, which NATO forces agreed to lead. UNSCR 1973. There were non NATO attendees sending their RSVPs.
• Afghanistan. "Graveyard of Empires". way back when, it was Big Al 330–327 BC, not NATO, then 3 centuries of islamic invasion from 7-10 century, not NATO, Genghis Khan waltzed through in the 13th century, and added some more local spices, but no NATO sauce at all. The Mughal Empire and Persian Safavids were obnoxious for the next few centuries until Afghani's objected, and became a state in 1747. The Poms started more poems in 1839-42, and then not being fast learners, when at it again in 1878-80, nothing better to watch on telly, and sub continent food was damned good. No NATO. In 1919-21, third time the charm, more poems, body bits, and the Afghans get a really good dose of independence.. Then the USSR decided to to their bit for world pieces... and capped the management, and invaded, back in 79, and finally ran out of puff, roubles, and bodies in 89. The CIA was doing its bit, after all we armed Bin whatsisname, and set forth future events as unintended consequences. No NATO. USSR, only, with a dash of CIA. Taliban do their bit in 1992-2001, including stuff like the Bamiyan blasting... and then 9/11 comes along. And Art. 5 is called for by... USA. NATO, answers.

• Kosovo. Following the Račak massacre on 15 Jan 99, killing 45 Kosovan Albanians, on 30 Jan 99:"the NATO Secretary General may authorise air strikes against targets on FRY territory" to "[compel] compliance with the demands of the international community and [to achieve] a political settlement". The Rambouillet conference followed, and that dog don't hunt neither. Following that WOFTAM, OSCE withdrew on 22 Mar, to permit some persuasion by NATO to get Milošević's head in the right place. From 24 Mar to 12 Jun things were rowdy, with NATO and some other helping hands rearranging bits of Serbia, holes still visible today in places like Novi Sad. The UNSC did not support the NATO action with a UNSCR, given that Russia was helping Milo the magnificent in his exercise of plinking Kosovo Albanians, hardly a surprise. Boris was still blind drunk for the most part. Serbs are still annoyed and the report on the NATO bombing is an exercise in tortology. KFOR that followed was NATO heavy but included other nations. So, yep, Kosovo is a case where NATO did its stuff, and that was not at the call of Art. 5, it was instead due to the failure of efforts by OSCE to stop ethnic cleansing, and the ambivalence of the UNGA, and the UNSC specifically to do their damned job.

• Bosnia. UNSCR 713 predated NATO action in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and that set up UNPROFOR which was mainly NATO, but under UN sanction. Not NATO overreach to start with, but it sure did get rowdy.

So, NATO got some airplay on Kosovo, some leading to lyrics in James Blunt's songs... That is the only occasion I am familiar with that NATO overran their skis a bit, and they did that to intercede in ethnic cleansing which was occurring in plain sight of the UN, and the UNSC sat and polished chairs with their prodigious butts.

Kosovo does a pretty good steak still, Pristina is not a bad town, and since the airport manager got plinked at his own home some time ago, things have been relatively peaceful. B-H used to build some pretty good airplanes, my old SOKO GALEB had panel tolerances that don't normally occur outside of RTM plastics.

We're in agreement then that NATO has operated beyond defensive operations as you originally opined. Not saying I disagreed with them in that role, but those operations were counter to the claim of defensive operations only.

[Ninthace]

Originally Posted by West Coast

In the name of Euro Unity you're quite happy to commit UK blood and treasure to the defense of nation(s) who are lagging on defense spending?

I am telling it the way it is without comment. The poster I was responding to was wrong to say the treaty contains a 2% obligation. Just because someone doesn’t approve of the rules of an organisation, that does not give them the right to make up their own rules.

[RatherBeFlying]

Will Bibi step up to the plate?

Trump has been trumpeting Bibi as his very best ally, especially compared to those wimpy Europeans muttering excuses.

Will Bibi jump into the breach by dispatching IDF troops to Hormuz to help Trump get those nasty gas prices back down?

​​​I suspect the Iranians will give the IDF a very hot welcome.

[Ninthace]

An evaluation of the difficulties of opening Strait of Hormuz.

You Tube

[Steepclimb]

Originally Posted by tdracer

A surprisingly upbeat analysis of the Iran war from - of all places - Al Jazzera.

The US-Israeli strategy against Iran is working. Here is why | US-Israel war on Iran | Al Jazeera

Indeed, much has been made of the depletion of defensive missiles. But it's not exactly if the Iranians have an endless supply of missiles and drones.

I keep reading that they're holding back for some form of final defence.

Really? In reality they've been essentially ineffective. Dubai Airport still operates in between minor drone attacks.

I'm not a right wing anti media person but really they spend a lot of time making things up.

OK this Trump ridiculous adventure is crazy but it may work out.

The best result of this is a neutered Iran and his downfall.
​

​​​​​​