Iran

[PointMergeArrival]

Doha seems to be closed and several QTR flights appear to be diverting while enroute. Seems like it is about to go bang. Crazy, scary times.
Where will all the aircraft inbound to DXB, AUD and DOH land if they all close? Some airports are about to break records in terms of arrivals.

[Steepclimb]

Originally Posted by Video Mixdown

Standing on a bridge or next to a power station in your own country a war crime? If US crews attack them, knowing they are there, it will be them who are the criminals.

It's a propaganda ploy. No one is going to attack the people who were misguidedly told by their masters to turn up and be a martyr.

Except it won't happen.

[KiloB]

Strange that the Media made no mention of War Crimes when Iran was firing random missiles into Countries not even involved in the war, but now it’s the expression of the week.

[fdr]

Originally Posted by DogTailRed2

All this talk of war crimes. How would you enforce it?

The U.S. withdrew from the Rome Statute (correction thanks to Chronic Snoozer) on 6 May 2002. UCMJ applies however, and that then hangs on a tenuous distinction on what constitutes legitimate targets, which the rhetoric from Sec Def and POTUS are making fairly clearly to be untenable defences. That then places every single service person in the unfortunate position of being given a potentially unlawful command to carry out.

Only a problem outside of the U.S., but it may have the same sort of long term trauma as prior wars have when the moral justification is ambiguous, which is one of the factors in the level of suicide that is prevalent in vets.

Sad thing is, not much of this is surprising, yet POTUS was considered the best choice; Faust would have smiled at this as it plays out.

[Steepclimb]

Originally Posted by fdr

The U.S. withdrew from the Rome Treaty on 6 May 2002. UCMJ applies however, and that then hangs on a tenuous distinction on what constitutes legitimate targets, which the rhetoric from Sec Def and POTUS are making fairly clearly to be untenable defences. That then places every single service person in the unfortunate position of being given a potentially unlawful command to carry out.

Only a problem outside of the U.S., but it may have the same sort of long term trauma as prior wars have when the moral justification is ambiguous, which is one of the factors in the level of suicide that is prevalent in vets.

Sad thing is, not much of this is surprising, yet POTUS was considered the best choice; Faust would have smiled at this as it plays out.

Totally agree. Unfortunately US service personnel having to carry out unlawful commands isn't new.

The suicide rate as you say reflects that. Decent American veterans who realised their country wasn't quite what they thought.

Unfortunately the current regime is only going to reinforce that.

[RatherBeFlying]

How Trump Took the U.S. to War With Iran

In the Situation Room on Feb. 11, Mr. Netanyahu made a hard sell, suggesting that Iran was ripe for regime change and expressing the belief that a joint U.S.-Israeli mission could finally bring an end to the Islamic Republic.At one point, the Israelis played for Mr. Trump a brief video that included a montage of potential new leaders who could take over the country if the hard-line government fell. Among those featured was Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of Iran’s last shah, now a Washington-based dissident who had tried to position himself as a secular leader who could shepherd Iran toward a post-theocratic government.

Mr. Netanyahu and his team outlined conditions they portrayed as pointing to near-certain victory: Iran’s ballistic missile program could be destroyed in a few weeks. The regime would be so weakened that it could not choke off the Strait of Hormuz, and the likelihood that Iran would land blows against U.S. interests in neighboring countries was assessed as minimal.

General Caine shared with Mr. Trump and others the alarming military assessment that a major campaign against Iran would drastically deplete stockpiles of American weaponry, including missile interceptors, whose supply had been strained after years of support for Ukraine and Israel. General Caine saw no clear path to quickly replenishing these stockpiles. He also flagged the enormous difficulty of securing the Strait of Hormuz and the risks of Iran blocking it. Mr. Trump had dismissed that possibility on the assumption that the regime would capitulate before it came to that. The president appeared to think it would be a very quick war — an impression that had been reinforced by the tepid response to the U.S. bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities in June.

[NutLoose]

The deployment of a nuclear weapon is now a distinct possibility. Madness.

X - Formerly Twitter

[gums]

Salute!

Yep, Iran considering a pause that Pakistan proposes.
Just like Paris in 1972 and a misguided pause by U.S.
Vee then had Christmas Day to better checkout their missile system and be ready for us next day. So 26 Dec was second most losses day/night. Closest a SA-2 came to me and only missed flight in front by a hundred yards, so jamming pods worked. That's another tape I would love to play for all, as it has great RHAW audio and such.
So now Iran has more time to squirrel their rich U-235 somewhere else,

Gums sends...

[visibility3miles]

Originally Posted by PukinDog

This, of course, is a war crime.

Yes, providing human shields to defend basic infrastructure may be very regrettable, but it is definitely a war crime to target power plants and desalination plants and bridges. (And schools full of young children, but that was probably a mistake.)

Iran may be trying to get the maximum press and social media points out of this, but it is entirely on Trump and Israel as to how this plays out.

They are both trying to score political points. Israel may know what it wants to accomplish, but I have no idea what Trump thinks is a “win” or an endpoint.

[Steepclimb]

Quote:
The deployment of a nuclear weapon is now a distinct possibility. Madness.

And entirely implausible.

You need to calm down

[dga718]

Originally Posted by KiloB

Strange that the Media made no mention of War Crimes when Iran was firing random missiles into Countries not even involved in the war, but now it’s the expression of the week.

I dont recall any mention of War Crimes during the aerial campaigns of both Gulf Wars either; power plants, bridges, and other civil infrastructure was destroyed in the opening days of those wars. The strategy of denying your adversary power and transportation can be debated - hearts and minds were not won - but, asked in earnest, what has changed since those conflicts that would have this fairly conventional strategy now considered a War Crime?

[T28B]

Originally Posted by visibility3miles

Yes, providing human shields to defend basic infrastructure may be very regrettable

My apologies for interrupting the conversation. What PukinDog referred to was probably this:
The Law of Shielding Generally

It is unquestionable that LOAC prohibits human shielding as a general matter.

Spoiler

 

 

Indeed, numerous LOAC treaty provisions expressly ban such practice.
Of key relevance during international armed conflict is Article 28 of Geneva Convention IV (GC IV), which prohibits the use as shields of “protected persons,” a term encompassing civilians “who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals” (art. 4).
As explained in the article itself, “[t]he presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.”

Article 28 was a response to the widespread use of civilians as shields in occupied territory during the Second World War.
A 1958 Commentary to the article offers the examples of “belligerents compelling civilians to remain in places of strategic importance (such as railway stations, viaducts, dams, power stations or factories), or to accompany military convoys, or again, to serve as a protective screen for the fighting troops.”
Because all three examples involve “compelled” actions, as distinct from merely taking advantage of the presence of civilians, they constitute active shielding akin to the incidents highlighted in the introduction to this post.

Not only does the prohibition bind parties to GC IV, it is recognized as reflecting customary international law. Indeed, the International Court of Justice has labeled the fundamental rules set forth in the 1949 Geneva Conventions as “intransgressible principles of international law” (Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion, para. 79; see also Israeli Supreme Court, Public Committee against Torture, para. 4). While the Court was not addressing human shielding as such, it appears clear that using those individuals qualifying as protected persons under GC IV in that manner undeniably violates the article’s customary LOAC rule counterpart.

As with most legal matters, it is complicated.
If one does not conduct operations within the general boundaries of the LOAC, in the longer term various consequences will happen.

Carry on.

[GlobalNav]

Per NYT:
Trump Announces Two-Week Cease-Fire, Backing Down From Threats of Imminent Devastation

President Trump announced a deal with Iran shortly before his deadline for Iran to agree to reopen the Strait of Hormuz or face the death of a “whole civilization.”

[Steepclimb]

The 'human shield' thing is all very well but it's largely a stunt. Aimed at the western media who Iran believes is on their side. This is hardly surprising given their coverage.

Nevertheless given the precision of the usual attacks it's likely that the flag waving citizens are in limited danger. They'll just have a grand stand seat of the destruction of their facilities.

[NutLoose]

Originally Posted by KiloB

Strange that the Media made no mention of War Crimes when Iran was firing random missiles into Countries not even involved in the war, but now it’s the expression of the week.

I thought Iran had only threatened to hit the infrastructure in the Middle East on a tit for tat basis, as in, you destroy our desalination plants and we will react against your Gulf Allies and do the same to dissuade America or Israel attacking.

[T28B]

Originally Posted by Steepclimb

The 'human shield' thing is all very well but it's largely a stunt. Aimed at the western media who Iran believes is on their side. This is hardly surprising given their coverage.

Nevertheless given the precision of the usual attacks it's likely that the flag waving citizens are in limited danger. They'll just have a grand stand seat of the destruction of their facilities.

Again, I apologize for intruding upon the conversation.

More recently, the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions bans the practice...

The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations

.

How this applies to a bridge or a power plant I'll leave to someone far better informed in military law than I am, or ever was.

[Steepclimb]

Originally Posted by NutLoose

I thought Iran had only threatened to hit the infrastructure in the Middle East on a tit for tat basis, as in, you destroy our desalination plants and we will react against your Gulf Allies and do the same to dissuade America or Israel attacking.

You assume they are actually capable of it.
In reality the damage they've done so far is negligible. In fact less than negligible.
​​​​They don't have the capability.

They're bluffing

[BBadanov]

Originally Posted by Steepclimb

You assume they are actually capable of it.
In reality the damage they've done so far is negligible. In fact less than negligible.

Yes, but you a forgetting what they have been doing over the past 47 years.

[cavuman1]

Trump and Iran have agreed to a two-week bilateral cease-fire to include an immediate opening of the Strait of Hormuz.

- Ed

[fdr]

Originally Posted by cavuman1

Trump and Iran have agreed to a two-week bilateral cease-fire to include an immediate opening of the Straight of Hormuz.

- Ed

if the is is reality, might be a time to have a serious sit down without all the BS, and deal with the concerns of the parties. Israel has had an existential threat for 70 years. Iran has internal instabilities, and the US has added real existential threats. Iran may become a threat to the US in time.