|
It appears the IRGC have been active a little closer to home - London. Spreading radicalising, genocidal hate via Islamic Charities. As a UK taxpayer, am I funding this?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68016330 |
Originally Posted by Low average
(Post 11581586)
It appears the IRGC have been active a little closer to home - London. Spreading radicalising, genocidal hate via Islamic Charities. As a UK taxpayer, am I funding this?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68016330 |
How long before Russia slips Iran some Air to Air, we loose a crew and have them paraded on tv?
|
How do you think you are funding it precisely? https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/...os-emerge.html |
Originally Posted by ORAC
(Post 11581659)
The key word is “charities”, they get both tax relief and government grants. e.g.
https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/...os-emerge.html |
Originally Posted by DogTailRed2
(Post 11581654)
How long before Russia slips Iran some Air to Air, we loose a crew and have them paraded on tv?
They are acting through proxies. |
What would they fire it from - IIRC they announced they'd got a single F-5 airborne back in September. The Saudis and the UAE took out a lot of the Houthi/Yemen aircraft in the long war.
|
I should have said ground to air.
|
That’s what the FGR4s were taking out last night with their Paveway IVs.
|
Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50
(Post 11581542)
I don't do short attention span theater. You are free to tell Mr Biden that you disagree. I give less than a **** if you do. Like I said, mail your valid suggestions to Foggy Bottom. I am sure that your amateur input will be given top shelf consideration.
Note that the EU is now joining into the scrum.See ORAC's posts a bit further up. At the moment, the "must be seen to be doing something" bit is underway. (The 90's were filled with crap like that, in part because Bill Clinton could not tell Christiana Amanpour to shut the **** up and piss off). In (x amount of time) that imperative, to be seen as doing something, will be overtaken by ... something else by the policy makers. You have foolishly attempted to apply what we learned in staff college to actual politicians. (As regards a campaign plan, aims, and concrete objectives, all of which we in the armed services insist on being clearly spelled out. In Real Life it's never that clear. Politicians like wiggle room, no matter how much it makes our jobs difficult).(Lord, I am so glad I'm not in that business anymore, it's gotten worse, not better). Politicians have never held themselves to that standard, no matter how much we military sorts wish that they would listen. I remind you, again, to answer the question of "How Many years did the Kuwait tanker reflagging bit go on?" Think in time frames of that order of magnitude, not "a month here and there". You have fallen for the having a short attention span problem. Don't feel bad, you are not alone. I want to point out that I agree with your accurate critique that the whack a mole game doesn't end things quickly. No ****, Sherlock. But what it does do, in the short term, is to sate the political demand that "something be done about this!" But here's the rub: the Houthis are noise, not signal. Been reading a bit about the latest rhetoric from Mr Netanyahu. In the past few days, he appears to be going all in on the "river to the sea" rhetoric. He is drawing a line in the sand as to the West Bank and is talking about the utter rejection of a Two State solution. That development, which everyone in the Mid East (heck anyone in the UN) is hearing is ~ I suspect ~ about to blow up in his face. That particular position is a hell of a lot of a bigger risk for the region than the whack a mole game with the Houthis. Nothing any of the US military services does can mitigate that. A response has to be offered from The White House, and IMO, the answer needs to be something like "no, we don't support that." If that response doesn't come, (Blinken has been making noises about the two state solution) the whole thing turns darker. Not good news, at all. And Iran, who is the topic of this thread, will have more ammo for their next salvo in the Information War. How are the national security interests of the US, today demonstrably furthered by Op Prosperity Guardian ? Just because the US has the capability to something, doesn’t mean it should. The “is this in the national security interests of the US?” is IMHO, a good first test. |
The short attention span answer is:
"To degrade the ability of the Houthi to interdict Red Sea merchant traffic" and "To limit Houthi capacity to act" Who does this benefit? Any of our allies who use those shipping lanes, and in particular Egypt who stands to lose substantial revenue from further Suez diversions. Helping an ally in the region helps the overall posture. At a more fundamental level, the unrestricted flow of international commerce is in America's national security interest. (Has been for well over a century) There is your staff college style answer, for what it's worth. Whether or not that translates into more merchant carriers returning to their normal maritime trade route remains to be seen. The risk analysists at Lloyds and elsewhere, and the shipping companies, are certainly playing their own games on their own terms. The core problem with your question is that it looks at that op through a paper towel roll tube. Seems to me a bit of a category error to assess that in isolation, as though it exists in its own context. Are you familiar with the DIME model? This op, as I assess it, is supporting the "I" in DIME. |
Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50
(Post 11581970)
The short attention span answer is:
"To degrade the ability of the Houthi to interdict Red Sea merchant traffic" and "To limit Houthi capacity to act" Who does this benefit? Any of our allies who use those shipping lanes, and in particular Egypt who stands to lose substantial revenue from further Suez diversions. Helping an ally in the region helps the overall posture. At a more fundamental level, the unrestricted flow of international commerce is in America's national security interest. (Has been for well over a century) There is your staff college style answer, for what it's worth. Whether or not that translates into more merchant carriers returning to their normal maritime trade route remains to be seen. The risk analysists at Lloyds and elsewhere, and the shipping companies, are certainly playing their own games on their own terms. The core problem with your question is that it looks at that op through a paper towel roll tube. Seems to me a bit of a category error to assess that in isolation, as though it exists in its own context. Are you familiar with the DIME model? This op, as I assess it, is supporting the "I" in DIME. Your overtly dismissive attitude towards even contemplating doing anything else, is I would suggest mirrored, throughout the US Government and Military. Supporting Israel is not an option, deterring Iran is not an option, providing a foil for a despotic terrorist group running a section of one of the poorest counties in the world, to ostensibly protect a trade route which has viable alternatives; is a choice. At the end of the day despite everything I said Op Prosperity Guardian may still be worth doing, but I really question whether any alternatives were seriously considered before the haze grey cans of kick ass rolled in. By the way nobody serous talks about DIME anymore. Everyone uses the MIDFIELD model now. |
Originally Posted by Big Pistons Forever
(Post 11581994)
Your answer is the standard default response of the State Department and US Military. Maybe it is time to think differently. The Houthi's publicly stated enemy is the US and Israel. As long as Op Prosperity Guardian is an American op, and lets be clear the other countries assets, including Canada's are window dressing, the US is giving the Houthi's what they want, an enemy to shoot at. Every attack makes them stronger, every failure to degrade their combat capability ( hence my whack a mole comment) makes the US weaker.
No, that is a reasoning error on your part. The problem you seem to be neglecting - by your own choices and biases - is that one cannot 'not respond" to the attacks in maritime shipping. You underestimate, based on what you have posted here, the aspect of "seen to be doing something" as seen by the politicians. In the longer term, I am not sure about the "window dressing" bit you mentioned, given that the EU has chosen to get on board, but as of this writing I think that your assessment meets the 'good enough' standard. So the question is, is this op enhancing or degrading the national security interests of the US ? Attempting to assess it in isolation - when it is a part of a larger regional posture - is another reasoning error. Your overtly dismissive attitude towards even contemplating doing anything else You are the one who says "Do something different." OK, you spell it out, and oh by the way, tie it into the regional effort. Spit it out, man, What's your plan? So far, your answer is "I'll sit here on my couch and criticise, that's my plan.," At the end of the day despite everything I said Op Prosperity Guardian may still be worth doing, Where I think you and I do agree is that there is a limit to what the military element of this can achieve. By the way nobody serous talks about DIME anymore. Everyone uses the MIDFIELD model now You said something weird here: Supporting Israel is not an option , deterring Iran is not an option, How about you do this: explain to me what you mean by deterring Iran I suspect that there's a bit more behind that thought that. Perhaps for the sake of brevity you didn't include it. |
https://www.defensenews.com/congress...ikes-in-yemen/
Senators question legality of Biden’s Houthi strikes in Yemen |
From ORAC's link
The senators in their letter noted it “could also be argued that directing military action to defend U.S. commercial shipping is within this power.” However, “most vessels transiting through the Red Sea are not U.S. ships, which raises questions about the extent to which these authorities can be exercised.” “We support smart steps to defend U.S. personnel and assets, hold the Houthis accountable for their actions and deter additional attacks,” they wrote. “We further believe Congress must carefully deliberate before authorizing offensive military action.” Iran's own limitations are discussed here. https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/01/23...an-iraq-syria/ A summary: (Full article is worth a read) Iran’s proxies can risk limited blowback from the United States and Israel because they have very little to lose. Iran, on the other hand, would have much more to lose if it were to spark a direct conflict with the United States or Israel. Iran could not, for example, replicate the Houthis’ shipping blockade effort in the Strait of Hormuz. It could try, but the risk of sparking direct escalation with the United States, much less the strain that it would place on relations with China and its neighbors, would present significant risk. Seeking to reduce risk is why Iran outsources much of the violence to its clients—and why its clients have taken the lead in military action against foreign adversaries during the current crisis. Funneling its strategic activities through proxies keeps the fight away from Iran’s doorstep and allows others to absorb the costs. In the present context, as Iran and its proxies attempt to assert themselves as the chief countervailing force against Israel and the United States, they have few cards to play. That is especially true in terms of military action, where they are mostly limited to standoff strikes. They can fire at targets from a long distance and use the threat of such as coercion with neighbors and foes, but Iran and its clients cannot do much more. They cannot take their war to Israel or liberate Palestine by force. Instead, they are limited to conducting provocative acts in an attempt to shape the political environment. For Iran, such acts signal both what it can do and the limits of what it’s willing to do for its cause. |
Members of the Biden administration, alongside dllied Defense officials, are reportedly now discussing a possible withdrawal of U.S. and coalition forces from eastern Syria due to ongoing attacks by Iranian-backed forces, alongside a reconsideration of military priorities in the Middle East region.
This withdrawal would likely be a major blow to allied Kurdish forces in Nnrtheastern Syria, as well as the continuation of Operation Inherent Resolve, the fight against the Islamic State (IS). Source: https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/01/24...te-a-disaster/ America Is Planning to Withdraw From Syria—and Create a Disaster |
On Jan. 24 at approximately 2 p.m. (Sanaa time), Iranian-backed Houthi terrorists fired three anti-ship ballistic missiles from Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen toward the U.S.-flagged, owned, and operated container ship M/V Maersk Detroit, transiting the Gulf of Aden.
One missile impacted in the sea. The two other missiles were successfully engaged and shot down by the USS Gravely (DDG 107). There were no reported injuries or damage to the ship. |
Instead, they are limited to conducting provocative acts in an attempt to shape the political environment. For Iran, such acts signal both what it can do and the limits of what it’s willing to do for its cause. |
Reference #898
The U.S-Arm of the Danish Shipping and Logistics Company, Maersk has announced that they will be Halting any further Transits through the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden until further notice, following a Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile Attack earlier today by the Houthi Terrorist Group in Yemen against 2 of their American-Flagged and Owned Cargo Ships, M/V Maersk Detroit and M/V Maersk Chesapeake as they were attempting to enter the Southern Red Sea via the Bab al-Mandab Strait. The Attack on the 2 Ships, which were carrying Equipment for the U.S. Military, is reported to Failed with the nearby USS Gravely (DDG-107) having Shot Down at least 2 of the Ballistic Missiles while another Impacted the Ocean near the Vessels. |
Reuters reports that Chinese officials have asked Iran to 'rein in attacks on ships in the Red Sea by the Houthis or risk harming business relations with Beijing'
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 05:56. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.