Quantcast

Is Iran the smarter terrorist regime?

X3pilot

Texans fan - LOL
Aug 13, 2007
5,860
1
SoMD
Oil Trades Near Six-Week High on Iran Threat to Crude Transport

Certainly not the first time they've done this, nor the last, but thinking about it, does Iran have the smarter way to wage a possible war against the West? Control economic factors by remote, push it far enough and draw the Seventh Fleet into a shooting war, expending resources from a defense department that is still wrapping up from Iraq and has several years left in Afghanistan. At worse, bluster enough and stop further sanctions, while driving up the price of oil that helps them but ultimately causes a backlash against the OPEC cartel, forcing Saudis to have to try and control them, furthering their martyr complex. Add this with the fact that they could be closer to a nuke weapon than we think.

Interesting.
 

dante

Unabomber
Feb 13, 2004
8,807
9
looking for classic NE singletrack
Doubtful they even have to go as far as war... They know that they have a freer hand since the US/Nato is pretty much sick and tired of paying for military incursions elsewhere, so they can push just a bit harder than they would otherwise. They don't have to go to war (which would be economically devastating for them), they just have to rattle their saber a bit and watch as they get 15%+ more on each and every barrel that they sell. OPEC doesn't care since then *they* get an additional 15% more as well. Sure, world stocks will decline a bit, and consumers might opt for more efficiency, but why should they care?
 

sanjuro

Tube Smuggler
Sep 13, 2004
17,373
0
SF
I hope people understand the concept of terrorist state.

Terrorists choose their method of combat because they cannot beat modern militaries with fleets of tanks, ships, and planes.

A country, which all have a military as well, may "sponsor" terrorism. Afghanistan, which simply allowed Bin Laden to chill for probably a hefty sum, is a good example. Libya also sponsored the bombing of Pan Am 103.

The US responded to Afghanistan by invading and we are still at war there. We also bombed Libya in an unsuccessful attempt to get Gaddafi.

Now is Iran trying to f*** with us? Possibly. We did hack up their nuclear weapon PC's. But America is not tired of war, and Obama, seeing the positive results that declaring war had for Bush's career, will certainly go in if there is good justification.
 

Pesqueeb

bicycle in airplane hangar
Feb 2, 2007
42,358
19,883
Riding past the morgue.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Dear God, do you really think Obama might declare war on Iran to boost his poll numbers? As completely disconnected as I believe the American People are, I have a hard time thinking Americans will swallow another war short of a Pearl Harbor/9-11 type attack.
 

dante

Unabomber
Feb 13, 2004
8,807
9
looking for classic NE singletrack
Obama declaring war on another country (especially one like Iran who *can't* attack us physically) would be political suicide. He'd completely alienate his core supporters while getting absolutely nothing with regards to support from the (normally war-like) right wing. No Democratic president that I can remember has gotten a political boost (maybe Johnson in Vietnam when we originally went in). Obama didn't get a boost from a very sensible, limited and highly successful operation in Libya. Same with Clinton and Kosovo *and* Bosnia. GWB actually had the audacity to run against "nation-building" in 2000. Fox News criticized Obama heavily with regards to Libya, and compared to the quagmires of Iraq and Afghanistan it was a walk in the park. There is NO way Obama's going to declare war in the hopes that it boosts his poll numbers.

Ain't. Gonna. Happen.
 

sanjuro

Tube Smuggler
Sep 13, 2004
17,373
0
SF
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Dear God, do you really think Obama might declare war on Iran to boost his poll numbers? As completely disconnected as I believe the American People are, I have a hard time thinking Americans will swallow another war short of a Pearl Harbor/9-11 type attack.
Really, the issue is whether Iran will push themselves to the brink of war by miscalculating American's willingness to fight.

If there is a wide scale terrorist attack linked to Iran on American soil, it is a guarantee we are going to war.

If Iran invades Iraq, guaranteed US counter-response.

But if it is small scaled terrorist attack, an ally's embassy seized, or even a popular uprising/revolution, I don't know what is the level of our response.

When Iran arrested 3 American hikers, it was strictly an diplomatic resolution.
 

X3pilot

Texans fan - LOL
Aug 13, 2007
5,860
1
SoMD
OK, I stand corrected on my titles of states and regimes. I still can't figure out exactly what Iran's play is and why now? Oil prices are reacting as expected, but having a hard time keeping the traction. We just sold F-5s to the Saudis. If they are baiting the US, the Navy will react exactly as they would expect. What would Iran gain from a shooting war with us? Do we need their oil that bad? Would the rest of OPEC step up to cover and shun their partner?
 

dante

Unabomber
Feb 13, 2004
8,807
9
looking for classic NE singletrack
OK, I stand corrected on my titles of states and regimes. I still can't figure out exactly what Iran's play is and why now? Oil prices are reacting as expected, but having a hard time keeping the traction. We just sold F-5s to the Saudis. If they are baiting the US, the Navy will react exactly as they would expect. What would Iran gain from a shooting war with us? Do we need their oil that bad? Would the rest of OPEC step up to cover and shun their partner?
I'm almost positive that Iran *doesn't* want a shooting war. What they want to prove is that they can still inflict economic harm on Western countries. Every dollar that a barrel of oil goes up inflicts a (small) percentage of damage on our GDP, so when we threaten sanctions, they respond by trying to hurt our recovery or at the very least proving that they still have (economic) weapons of their own.

As for OPEC, as of 12-18(?) months ago they were pretty much at capacity, although I'm not sure where they are now. I'd bet at or close to capacity with the possible exception of Saudi Arabia who might have a bit of headroom. Also, if a shooting war happens, 20% of the world's oil immediately stops getting shipped since it would have to go through the Straight of Hormuth. Nobody's going to risk trying to get super-tankers through that section if all Iran threatens to lob a few missiles at the large, slow-moving ships. 20% reduction in the world's oil supply when oil prices are extremely inelastic would probably triple price of a barrel of oil, if not more.

Basically both Iran and the US have their fingers on a mutually-assured-destruction button, and each side will rattle sabers and threaten to push it...
 

Pesqueeb

bicycle in airplane hangar
Feb 2, 2007
42,358
19,883
Riding past the morgue.
I'm almost positive that Iran *doesn't* want a shooting war. What they want to prove is that they can still inflict economic harm on Western countries. Every dollar that a barrel of oil goes up inflicts a (small) percentage of damage on our GDP, so when we threaten sanctions, they respond by trying to hurt our recovery or at the very least proving that they still have (economic) weapons of their own.
I'll have to see if I can find it again, but I remember reading somewhere sometime back that $1 increase in oil resulted in xx% of loss in GDP. I recall being quite surprised by how high the figure was.
 

jimmydean

The Official Meat of Ridemonkey
Sep 10, 2001
43,510
15,720
Portland, OR
Just by TALKING about the straight of hormuz (I hate that f-ing place, had to drive through it 6 times) they put the west pac on alert and that costs $$$. And it costs them nothing to do it.