World Politics

[Captain_Cavman]

Agree with this. (Of course, you mean 'bottom' line.)

I think that greater integration has to be the way to go now in order to avoid total meltdown...I also believe, as I have mentioned before, that the UK should be set an ultimatum: either all the way in, or all the way out, no more fence sitting while trying to have it both ways.....though I suppose you could argue that in order for the (utopian) Brave New World that Rhubroma and I would both like to see to have any chance of coming about, you first have to let the existing corrupt and economically perverse system implode. But, the possible consequences of such an implosion for ordinary people, are both unforeseeable and incalculable.

Happy ****ing New Year.






http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16377010

Better hope they don't let anyone else in Holland decide then. What was the last vote on further integration of the EU? 62% against?

Why you are so desperate to prop up the French, God only knows. They'll take you down in the end.

 

[Amsterhammer]

Better hope they don't let anyone else in Holland decide then. What was the last vote on further integration of the EU? 62% against?

Why you are so desperate to prop up the French, God only knows. They'll take you down in the end.

Unfortunately, the French are part of the package.

To what vote when are you referring? In case you're not aware, I'm an American, which means that I can only vote in local elections, not in parliamentary ones or in referenda.

Seriously though, I happen to be of the opinion that a fully integrated United States of Europe will, eventually, become seen as an historic inevitability. And no, I don't expect to see this entity come into being in my lifetime, though it might just happen before some of the youngsters here kick the bucket.

 

[El Pistolero]

Unfortunately, the French are part of the package.

To what vote when are you referring? In case you're not aware, I'm an American, which means that I can only vote in local elections, not in parliamentary ones or in referenda.

Seriously though, I happen to be of the opinion that a fully integrated United States of Europe will, eventually, become seen as an historic inevitability. And no, I don't expect to see this entity come into being in my lifetime, though it might just happen before some of the youngsters here kick the bucket.

That's what I think will happen as well, but it's obviously hard to predict the future as there are so many variables. I wouldn't be against it - I'm still regretting the fall of the Roman Empire!

Napoleon came close, but those darn Brits!

 

[Cobblestones]

i was not looking for a comprehensive analysis when i read the article i recommended. i read plenty of analysis that all lacked an answer to the main question in my mind, 'what's likely to happen after iran's oil exports are targeted ?' the article seemed to exposed the options naked.

What do you mean by targeted? The US sanctions are already in place. Do you mean militarily? I don't think the US will do that. What would make you think so?

What is much more likely is that the US (and/or Israel) will engage in very focused strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities or acts of sabotage (think Stuxnet and the assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists). That's why the drones flew over Iran (and I would love to know if they still do). That's going to be the opening act of the drama. The interesting question for me would be how Iran might respond to that. Most analyses I have read agree that Iran has no reason to attempt to block the strait of Hormuz unless it is attacked first.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Seriously though, I happen to be of the opinion that a fully integrated United States of Europe will, eventually, become seen as an historic inevitability.

I always got the impression that when the EU started to come into more power and the Euro was enacted, these were seeds for that happening. Especially as a global economy becomes more of a reality. Despite the recent turmoil, I won't be at all surprised if within the next 30-50 years that Europe ends up a single governed nation with the EU (or whatever it's called) holding banking power, with a broad constitution of laws for all of Europe, with much social autonomy among the "countries", similar to that of Canada for example.

 

[Cobblestones]

Seriously though, I happen to be of the opinion that a fully integrated United States of Europe will, eventually, become seen as an historic inevitability. And no, I don't expect to see this entity come into being in my lifetime, though it might just happen before some of the youngsters here kick the bucket.

The EU so far has been too focused on economic aspects. There is a lot good to be said about that, in particular that economic integration has not lost sight of the individual, meaning it allows not only a common market for goods, but also for labor which allows for much more mobility.

Sadly, the political aspects of the union has been neglected too much. For starters, the EU is in need of true European parties. Why isn't there a European conservative party, or a European social democratic party, or a European green party etc. There should be politicians campaigning not only in their own country. French should have to campaign in Germany, Italy etc. and vice versa for seats in the European parliament.

In the next step, foreign and military policy has to be harmonized. This is going to be a huge stumbling block, so I don't see this to happen any time soon. But clearly, Europe having two (small) nuclear powers and 2/5 of the veto powers in the UN security council will not be a model for the future. The latter might be addressed in a long overdue reform of the security council (if that ever happens). The former could be solved radically today by declaring Europe a nuclear weapon free zone (which ironically might be the only issue for which one could find vast majorities in a pan-European popular vote, so of course it's not going to happen). Anyway, this could be a fruitful issue for the left for promoting true pan-European (not just EU centered) integration. In general, I am astounded why the left does not exploit the total lack of integration on foreign and military policy to further important issues such as reform of the UN security council and disarmament (nuclear and conventional) in Europe.

 

[Captain_Cavman]

Unfortunately, the French are part of the package.

To what vote when are you referring? In case you're not aware, I'm an American, which means that I can only vote in local elections, not in parliamentary ones or in referenda.

Seriously though, I happen to be of the opinion that a fully integrated United States of Europe will, eventually, become seen as an historic inevitability. And no, I don't expect to see this entity come into being in my lifetime, though it might just happen before some of the youngsters here kick the bucket.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_establishing_a_Constitution_for_Europe

Not in your lifetime? It's now or never.

If it's now, it will be without the consent of the people of Europe. This is how it's done...

Following a period of reflection, the Treaty of Lisbon was created to replace the Constitutional Treaty. This contained many of the changes that were originally placed in the Constitutional Treaty but was formulated as amendments to the existing treaties. Signed on 13 December 2007, the Lisbon Treaty entered into force on 1 December 2009.

See, people within the glorious EU reject closer integration, you just impose it on them anyway. Simple. But not necessarily long lasting.

 

[python]

What do you mean by targeted? The US sanctions are already in place.

i meant the set of the new unilateral economic sanctions announced by obama days ago. these were passed as a part of the just passed defence bill. they are specifically designed (for the first time) to go after buyers and exporters of iran's oil (denying them us markets, asset freeze etc)

Do you mean militarily? I don't think the US will do that. What would make you think so?...What is much more likely is that the US (and/or Israel) will engage in very focused strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities

i generally agree but i dont think even the air strikes are now likely. below is a detailed personal analysis why i think so...

in order to rationally entertain the question if the us or israel are going to attack Iranian nuclear installations several sub questions need to be entertained.
(i) is iran working on the nuclear weapon ?
(ii) how close is it to fruition ?
(iii) have sanctions or negotiations exhausted themselves ?
(iv) can the strike be effective and the subsequent mess be controlled/cleaned ?

as I said earlier, i believe around the 2008-2009 time frame due to american policy blunders iran decided to nuclear weaponise. so the (i) is an affirmative imo.

how close ? no one really knows. but if the usual israeli histrionics (9 months now) are extrapolated to a more reasonable timescale, perhaps 2-3 years for a delivery platform and a nuclear warhead both successfully paired and tested. after all, this decades-old nuclear technology simply can not be denied to a determined, oil-rich and enlightened player like iran.

the sanctions road is also a dead end imo. One only needs to look at the un security council circus…there were 4 sets of sanctioning resolutions. all were substantially watered down due to russian and chineses objections. of course they failed. as expected, obama just announced a set of unilateral ‘yet toughest’ sanctions (outside the un framework) that supposedly went for iran’s jugular - cutting off their oil exports. it’s a no brainer that these are also bound to fail - and the us knows this too well as the toothless bill submitted to the congress proves . the bill is full of all sorts of ifs , buts and backpedaling provisions designed to control economic mess through oil price caps. sure it will fail too- mainly because the chinese are too deeply involved with iran economically and the Russians politically and militarily. all this talk about the west choking iranian economy and the ayatollahs blocking the strait in response is little more than a game of brinksmanship designed for domestic grandstanding.

so, what’s left is a military air strike. but that is likely too late now.

firstly, many experts believe that iran already has moved it’s most sensitive parts deep underground. secondly, i don’t believe the us (on balance in the wake of already expanded political capital in iraq and afghanistan) will have the will to risk again. of course, i can be wrong as one can never predict the american right wing arrogance.

this leaves as ever adventurous israel to strike alone. will they ?

firstly, the more they talk about it - and there was a flood of verbosity lately - the less likely it is.

secondly, i believe if the us decided against the strike themselves (and if they can not restrain israel politically) they, the us, have the technical means to deny israelis the execution (withholding satellite intelligence, iraqi airspace control, deliberate sensitive leaks etc).

in summary, unfortunately, i believe iran is going nuclear and we’re not far removed from that fact of the new world order…

 

[rhubroma]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_establishing_a_Constitution_for_Europe

Not in your lifetime? It's now or never.

If it's now, it will be without the consent of the people of Europe. This is how it's done...

Following a period of reflection, the Treaty of Lisbon was created to replace the Constitutional Treaty. This contained many of the changes that were originally placed in the Constitutional Treaty but was formulated as amendments to the existing treaties. Signed on 13 December 2007, the Lisbon Treaty entered into force on 1 December 2009.

See, people within the glorious EU reject closer integration, you just impose it on them anyway. Simple. But not necessarily long lasting.

Now or never? How about when was this ever to be? With a country such as Britain always having been with one foot in, one foot out? Undecided as to whether or not to be full in, or the 51st US state?

Not wanting to get into the constitutional, legal or political aspects of European integration, I have always been of the opinion that the EU as it was originally conceived was simply a pipe dream, because it was a market and economic conception only, which negated every other aspect of culture and those historical forces (in short human) that are far more powerful, and hence decisive, to identify and place. As if the economic integration, partial though this is, and a common currency alone could somehow meld a common identity.

Cobblestoned raised several key issues, though for these things to come to pass, the states must cease from thinking in their own interests and gravitate toward those of the union as a whole. But how is this possible, with the barriers of language, tradition, history - in this sense Europe really is a series of tribes that have merely coexisted, often in great conflict with themselves, over centuries within a broad geographical realm. The fact is that the idea of Europe sharing a common background and a common destiny is just a post-modern ideal, which has little to do with the way the individual governments function or the way the societies perceive things on the streets.

What's needed is another Roman Empire, without though its lingua Latina, or its military might, its civilizing forces and the lex Romana - all of which took centuries to forge and was done within a far less complex social, political, economic and cultural arena. There are no more barbarians to conquer, no more cities to create, just an unwieldy mass of states set adrift amidst the sea of a financial tempest and global unrest.

 

[Cobblestones]

blabla

Huh, nice racks, eh swimsuit models below my post. Does that mean the administrators now fully endorse threads like the BoB? Cool.

 

[blutto]

Huh, nice racks, eh swimsuit models below my post. Does that mean the administrators now fully endorse threads like the BoB? Cool.

...it means that the administration will endorse anything that pays a buck...

...class, nothing but class...

Cheers

blutto

 

[gobuck]

A scary read about how the US got into this mess is "Haliburton's Army". Funny how each political party is connected to it. Follow the money.

 

[Captain_Cavman]

Now or never?...

Clearly, some countries are going to stay out of any integrated EU. Just as some have stayed out of the Eurozone and the EU itself.

Britain will be first country on this list as one of the most Eurosceptic countries and also in terms of its size. But it won't be the only one.

I think that, like you, most Britons felt that EU integration was a pipe dream and that was why we entered. A free trade agreement and not much more. It is with growing alarm that we've realised that the dream, however lacking in realism, is being pursued which ever increasing obsession.

 

[rhubroma]

Another reason why the EU as merely an economic union was a bad idea is the case of Hungary. The protests of hundreds of thousands of Hungarians against the new constitution of Viktor Orban's national-authoritarian government is a request for help from Europe. One asks himself, though, what can Europe do in the concrete sense, which instruments does it have of "surveillance" and "monitoring" regarding the state of democracy among its members? The by now diffused perception as that the super-entity is perennially absorbed by economic questions, fibrillates only to each financial tremor, but is evanescent from the political point of view.

Wanting to be optimistic at all costs, there's hope that the European authorities have it well in mind the direct, historical connection between recession and fascism. That they know that nationalist hysterics, seasoned with xenophobia and anti-Semitism (for this is the stuff of which the Hungarian government is made) prospers during the economic crisis and during times of social unrest and, consequently, the European leaders retain that to combat the recession is the most direct route to safegaurding democracy. The inauspicious hypothesis is, rather, that Europe is merely constrained to occupy itself exclusively of economics because the nature of its sovereignty precludes any other species of authority. Rest assured then that the Hungarian protesters clearly audible voices, which launch an SOS, will only be heard by the public opinion and not by the ministry offices of Strasbourg or Brussels.

 

[Amsterhammer]

It's starting to look like we really can't avoid taking the latest Iran saber rattling 'crisis' seriously. I'd be interested in opinions about what posters think is likely to happen.

I pretty much agree with Python's summary a few posts ago. Despite what several of the Republitard wannabees are saying for electoral consumption now, I believe that there is no way that the US would or could embark on another traditional 'war' like we saw in Iraq and are still seeing to a lesser extent in Afghanistan. Nor do I seriously believe that cruise missile strikes are a viable option to achieve the stated aim of denying Iran a nuclear weapons capability.

We might see minor maritime skirmishes in the Gulf resulting in the loss of Iranian ships and/or oil rigs IF the Iranians seriously try to obstruct the passage of tankers through the Straits. Since anything affecting shipping through the Straits would also negatively impact Iranian oil exports, the liklihood of the current saber-rattling escalating into serious armed conflict is still reasonably remote, imho.

The likliest scenario, in my book, is that the Israelis will undertake targetted covert ops in Iran, thereby maintaining the charade of plausible deniability for the US and Israel. I'm sure that we all hope that the current brinksmanship doesn't escalate into something that could wind up making Iraq look like a picnic.

 

[python]

It's starting to look like we really can't avoid taking the latest Iran saber rattling 'crisis' seriously. I'd be interested in opinions about what posters think is likely to happen...I pretty much agree with Python's summary a few posts ago. Despite what several of the Republitard wannabees are saying for electoral consumption now, I believe that there is no way that the US would or could embark on another traditional 'war' <snip>

i broadly agree as that's what emerges from my own intense following the evens...

in the immediate term, i mean in the next 1-2 weeks, not much is likely to happen b/c everyone is waiting for the outcome of the eu meeting on new iran sanctions set for 31 january. france’s push for stronger sanctions is essentially dovetailing with obama’s plan to hit iran’s oil exports and thus cut off 80% their national income. this is opposed by several members like greece and italy that worry about the increased oil prices making their already dire financial situation worse. my hunch is that the eu will again either come with the diluted (and thus worthless) sanction package wrapped in lots of show verbiage or let the members take care on their own.

either way, the impact of the eu sanctions on iran will be very limited b/c they already switched oil purchases to gulf arab states awhile back.

the next calendar date to watch wrt to iran developments is march-april.

that’s when the eu’s new ‘fiscal compact’ should be finalised (and thus the contours of the higher oil price impact on the euro economy at large can be estimated) and the american sanctions grace period of 90 days (written into the sanction package by the congress) will expire.

then the real bite of the american sanctions will depend on whether the bulk purchasers of iran’s oil - china, india, japan and s. korea - will play along the american plan. again, only s. korea and japan may…in the mean time, the west’s politicians will have a face-saving explanation that they are not sitting on their hands whilst iran, to play for more time, has indicated willingness to negotiate again trying to disunite europe and america even further as to how to proceed.

it’s hard to perceive that during all these political manoeuvres something serious will happen. the us will not be willing to tighten the military screws until april (thus sparking major uncontrollable events if before) or iran intentionally provoking the us or israel by desperate actions. israel, i believe, wont act alone for the reasons i explained above.

so, in my estimation nothing should happen untill april. only then, depending on the bite of the new sanctions, the us may draw a more aggressive stance.

in their turn, china and russia will be weighing their own options as to whether to come to iran’s help more overtly (unlikely) or the opposite, let america get bugged down in yet another middle east morass they seem incapable of avoiding due to their arrogance.

how can iran, china and russia do that is altogether a very different and fascinating subject…

 

[rhubroma]

i broadly agree as that's what emerges from my own intense following the evens...

in the immediate term, i mean in the next 1-2 weeks, not much is likely to happen b/c everyone is waiting for the outcome of the eu meeting on new iran sanctions set for 31 january. france’s push for stronger sanctions is essentially dovetailing with obama’s plan to hit iran’s oil exports and thus cut off 80% their national income. this is opposed by several members like greece and italy that worry about the increased oil prices making their already dire financial situation worse. my hunch is that the eu will again either come with the diluted (and thus worthless) sanction package wrapped in lots of show verbiage or let the members take care on their own.

either way, the impact of the eu sanctions on iran will be very limited b/c they already switched oil purchases to gulf arab states awhile back.

the next calendar date to watch wrt to iran developments is march-april.

that’s when the eu’s new ‘fiscal compact’ should be finalised (and thus the contours of the higher oil price impact on the euro economy at large can be estimated) and the american sanctions grace period of 90 days (written into the sanction package by the congress) will expire.

then the real bite of the american sanctions will depend on whether the bulk purchasers of iran’s oil - china, india, japan and s. korea - will play along the american plan. again, only s. korea and japan may…in the mean time, the west’s politicians will have a face-saving explanation that they are not sitting on their hands whilst iran, to play for more time, has indicated willingness to negotiate again trying to disunite europe and america even further as to how to proceed.

it’s hard to perceive that during all these political manoeuvres something serious will happen. the us will not be willing to tighten the military screws until april (thus sparking major uncontrollable events if before) or iran intentionally provoking the us or israel by desperate actions. israel, i believe, wont act alone for the reasons i explained above.

so, in my estimation nothing should happen untill april. only then, depending on the bite of the new sanctions, the us may draw a more aggressive stance.

in their turn, china and russia will be weighing their own options as to whether to come to iran’s help more overtly (unlikely) or the opposite, let america get bugged down in yet another middle east morass they seem incapable of avoiding due to their arrogance.

how can iran, china and russia do that is altogether a very different and fascinating subject…

I think that China (which gets something like 30% of its oil from Iran) and India, both of which are in dire need of fuel to spawn further economic growth, won't go along with any US initiatives to turn off the Iranian faucets. No way. And this will make totally irrelevant and futile any attemps by the West to cripple Iran, being saved as it will by an oriental lifeline as it were.

Russia, too, will relish any prospect of seeing US regional influence made further insignificant, while Israel can not halt Iran's bid to join the atomic club alone, having no capicity for a ground invasion.

Who winds up making check mate then in this scenario?

 

[Amsterhammer]

I think that China (which gets something like 30% of its oil from Iran) and India, both of which are in dire need of fuel to spawn further economic growth, won't go along with any US initiatives to turn off the Iranian faucets. No way. And this will make totally irrelevant and futile any attemps by the West to cripple Iran, being saved as it will by an oriental lifeline as it were.

Russia, too, will relish any prospect of seeing US regional influence made further insignificant, while Israel can not halt Iran's bid to join the atomic club alone, having no capicity for a ground invasion.

Who winds up making check mate then in this scenario?

By the same reasoning, China will certainly not want the free passage of shipping through the Straits to be obstructed by anyone, including their buddies the Iranians.

To continue with your chess analogy, I believe we are likely to witness a perpetual repetition of moves, leading to no other conclusion than a stalemate.

 

[rhubroma]

By the same reasoning, China will certainly not want the free passage of shipping through the Straits to be obstructed by anyone, including their buddies the Iranians.

To continue with your chess analogy, I believe we are likely to witness a perpetual repetition of moves, leading to no other conclusion than a stalemate.

I can only quote Yogi Berra: "It's difficult to make predictions, especially about the future."

 

[Amsterhammer]

I can only quote Yogi Berra: "It's difficult to make predictions, especially about the future."

And he was so right!

 

[ramjambunath]

The Iran India pipeline topic was recently discussed in talks between the two nations. The fact is that there is no reticence from the Indian side to import Iranian oil. Iran is the most suitable country to import oil from due to its geographic proximity to India and India in turn is an ideal nation for the Iran to export oil to- energy hungry and not rich in fossil fuels. The problem has been the transit country and the existing tensions between the countries (India and Pakistan). The Indian side has lobbied in the past for an undersea pipeline and hence bypassing Pakistan. These plans never came to fruition as it's not very viable to bypass another potential customer.

India has also rejected the latest round of sanctions against Iran (and expectedly so due to similarities with India's own situation not long ago) claiming that every country has the inherent right to develop a peaceful civilian nuclear programme.

An article on this recently
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2742561.ece
could've worked better on the title

Both sides would go through with the project but it won't be happening in the near future due to existing situations with Pakistan.

 

[Amsterhammer]

The Iran India pipeline topic was recently discussed in talks between the two nations.

Ah, Ramjam returns just in time to add a different slant to this discussion. Where the hell have you been?

 

[ramjambunath]

New year's break Been popping in and out every now and then.

 

[Amsterhammer]

Your input on this will be interesting, Ramjam. I tend to think that this will prove to be a non-starter. You can't just 'negotiate' with the most reactionary of medieval fundamentalists.

Taliban leaders held at Guantánamo Bay to be released in peace talks deal

US agrees in principle to releasing top officials from Afghanistan insurgent group in exchange for starting process of negotiations

The US has agreed in principle to release high-ranking Taliban officials from Guantánamo Bay in return for the Afghan insurgents' agreement to open a political office for peace negotiations in Qatar, the Guardian has learned.

According to sources familiar with the talks in the US and in Afghanistan, the handful of Taliban figures will include Mullah Khair Khowa, a former interior minister, and Noorullah Noori, a former governor in northern Afghanistan.

More controversially, the Taliban are demanding the release of the former army commander Mullah Fazl Akhund. Washington is reported to be considering formally handing him over to the custody of another country, possibly Qatar.

The releases would be to reciprocate for Tuesday's announcement from the Taliban that they are prepared to open a political office in Qatar to conduct peace negotiations "with the international community" – the most significant political breakthrough in ten years of the Afghan conflict.

The Taliban are holding just one American soldier, Bowe Bergdahl, a 25-year-old sergeant captured in June 2009, but it is not clear whether he would be freed as part of the deal.

"To take this step, the [Obama] administration have to have sufficient confidence that the Taliban are going to reciprocate," said Vali Nasr, who was an Obama administration adviser on the Afghan peace process until last year. "It is going to be really risky. Guantánamo is a very sensitive issue politically."

Nasr, now a professor at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, said the Taliban announcement on the opening of an office in Qatar was a dramatic breakthrough.

"If it had not happened then the idea of reconciliation would have been completely finished. The Qatar office is akin to the Taliban forming a Sinn Féin, a political wing to conduct negotiations," Nasr said, but added: "The next phase will need concessions on both sides. This doesn't mean we are now on autopilot to peace."

more here - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/03/taliban-leaders-guantanamo-bay-deal

 

[Amsterhammer]

Some interesting input on the Straits of Hormuz issue by retired Royal Saudi Navy Commodore Abdulateef Al-Mulhim

Strait of Hormuz and Iranian threats

They don’t have the military capability to close the world’s most important waterway

Every five years, the Iranians would threaten the whole world that they would close the Strait of Hormuz. They never did. They simply can’t do it and they are not capable of doing it even if they wanted to do it.

The Strait of Hormuz is the most important waterway in the world. It is about 35 miles wide. And an average of 15 oil tankers pass through it each day. Most people associate the Strait of Hormuz’s width with the navigation channel and the traffic separation scheme. This is a normal maritime procedure to separate inbound and outbound traffic. The width of the navigation channel is only six miles including the traffic separation scheme. The traffic is monitored by the Sultanate of Oman by radar located on an Omani island. Ships do eventually pass thorough Omani and Iranian territorial waters. A two-mile wide navigation channel is very narrow in maritime terms. And the strait is very shallow.

In military sense, Iran could dump empty barrels in the middle of the navigation channel and declare to the world, it is mining the strait. Mariners take these threats at face value and treat the empty barrels as active mines. But, it is unlikely for Iran to declare anything in this nature. And if Iran announces an official declaration to close the Strait of Hormuz, then, Iran is committing a political and military suicide. The Iranians will not know what hit them. We all know what happened to Jamal Abdul Nasser when he closed the Strait of Tiran in 1967.

Iran doesn’t have the military capability to close the strait. About three years after the 1988 battle with the Iranians, the US Navy aircraft carrier USS Nimitz, while patrolling the Arabian Gulf, launched F-14, F-18 and E-2 aircraft day and night.

The Nimitz was cruising at a speed of 2 knots (3.7 kilometers per hour). So, if the Nimitz can launch planes at this speed, this means it can cruise for three straight hours crossing the Strait of Hormuz six-mile navigation channel in perpendicular fashion and not worry about any maneuver. The Iranians knew about what the USS Nimitz can do. The Iranians later on decided to use a safer approach to defend the Iranian shores. They installed Silkworm Anti-Ship Missiles. But, later on they realized they can’t protect these missiles. They remembered what happened to the Syrians when they had their missiles in the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon without air superiority.

The Iranians don’t have the sophisticated torpedoes, sophisticated surface to air missiles and they don’t have any airborne radar (AWACS) capability. As for their outdated diesel submarine, the Iranians are not well trained for sophisticated under-water operations and their submarines have a very limited underwater capabilities. And the weakest Iranian military point is that they don’t have an air force. The F-14 (Tomcat) and F-4 (Phantom), the Iranian high-tech planes are very old and their radar system, like the F-14’s AWG9 radar is not working because of lack of maintenance, spare parts and age. Their pilots are always operating in the dark because they have no command and control. The only strength the Iranian have is the land forces. They could mass hundreds of thousands of soldiers. But, these forces will be useless for sea battles. And these land forces have no air support.

And believe me, I have nothing against Iran. But, why doesn’t Iran try to get closer to its neighbors? And haven’t they learned from the lost hundreds of thousands of lives during the Iraq-Iran War? It is easy to start a war, but difficult to end it. The Iranian military does not want any new encounter with Americans. They simply want to live in peace and harmony.

Rest of the article here - http://arabnews.com/opinion/columns/article558030.ece