Trump takes a calculated risk

Post Reply
User avatar
armchair_pundit
Posts: 326
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:23 pm

Trump takes a calculated risk

Post by armchair_pundit » Fri Jan 03, 2020 12:41 pm

As usual Spengler nails it...

https://www.asiatimes.com/2020/01/artic ... ated-risk/

Trump takes a calculated risk

Will Iran respond with a limited attack or pick a high-value target and invoke the full wrath of the US?

US President Donald Trump’s decision to humiliate Iran with the assassination of a national hero on Jan. 2 is a calculated gamble and probably represents the best of a set of bad alternatives.

Trump inherited a weak hand after the George W. Bush Administration destroyed the century-old balance of power between Sunni and Shia in Western Asia, by replacing Saddam Hussein’s Sunni minority regime with a sectarian Shia government allied to Iran. Bush’s belief in majority rule and nation-building, lauded by his neoconservative advisers, handed Iran an opportunity to dominate the region. Trump pushed back with economic sanctions, which have not dissuaded Iran from extending its reach.

Iran provoked the United States by attacking its embassy in Baghdad after the US launched airstrikes against Iranian-backed militias in Iraq. Iran’s attack on the embassy sought to humble the United States. Trump decided to escalate rather than matching Iran tit-for-tat. Both actions involved high-risk gambles, and require an explanation. Iran crossed a red line by backing a militia attack on the US embassy and Trump crossed a red line by killing General Qasem Soleimani. Nations don’t take actions of this sort capriciously.

Iran’s regional strategy rests on a combination of irregular warfare based on Shia militias in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, and strategic deterrence including intermediate-range missiles and cruise missiles. Iran revealed part of its strategic capability in September when Iranian infiltrators used ground-hugging cruise missiles and autonomous drones to destroy Aramco facilities in Saudi Arabia. Iran tested its “Khorramshahr “ missile with an estimated 2,000-kilometer range in 2017. It is not known how effective the weapon is or how many Iran possesses. It is possible that Iran has enough ordnance to swamp American anti-missile defenses at its Doha airbase or to overcome the air defenses on an American warship in the Persian Gulf.

Persia as such is a declining power. Its strategic position, as I have argued in the past, resembles France on the eve of the First World War. Today Iran has five workers of prime-age (25-64 years) for every citizen over 65. By 2050 the ratio will crash to just 1.8 working-age Iranians per retiree, assuming constant fertility. Iran’s economy will crash. Its pension systems already are bankrupt. Iran’s only hope of maintaining regional hegemony is to expand the Shia presence in Mesopotamia and the Levant, through militias like Lebanon’s Hezbollah and the 80,000-strong mercenary militias it supports in Syria, staffed mainly by Afghan and Pakistani Shia.

Iran’s problem, as Talleyrand told Napoleon, is that you can do anything you want with a bayonet except sit on it. To maintain its credibility in the Shia world Iran must continue to advance, and its advances run up against resistance from the United States in Iraq, and from Israel in Syria. Israel will not tolerate an Iranian proxy presence on its northern border next to the Golan Heights and has conducted thousands of airstrikes against Iranian assets in Syria. Russia recently complained that the intensity of these strikes has sharpened during the past few weeks.

Without attempting to read the minds of Iran’s leaders, one may conjecture that Iran badly needed a moral victory to show that it was not cowed by massive Israeli airstrikes in Syria, nor, indeed, by a deteriorating economy at home. In November, the Iranian regime ruthlessly suppressed anti-regime protests, killing up to 1,000 demonstrators. After the US struck five bases of Iran-backed militias in Iraq on Dec. 30, Iran decided that its credibility required a demonstration of power, and ordered the attack on the US embassy.

That left Trump with few good choices. After 5,000 dead, 50,000 wounded and trillions of dollars in expenditures in Iraq, the US had succeeded in turning a former counterweight to Iranian ambitions into an Iranian satrapy. The embassy attack was intended by Iran as a public act of ritual humiliation, and the United States had no choice but to respond. Trump chose to respond by subjecting Iran to an even more poignant form of humiliation, by assassinating a national hero, Gen. Qassam Sulemaini. It is easy to criticize the US president, but harder to recommend an alternative course of action. US airpower has limited effectiveness in constraining the diffuse Iranian-backed militias.

Neither Iran nor the US has good choices here. Iran must respond or its credibility will collapse. The question is how. An Iranian attack on an American ally like Israel or Saudi Arabia would not suffice, now that Washington has acted in its own name against a key Iranian leader. The indicated course of action is to attack an American asset. In the extreme case, Iran could use a combination of intermediate-range missiles, cruise missiles and drones to attack the Doha base.

The September attack on Aramco facilities in Saudi Arabia exposed the weakness of US air defenses. The Patriot anti-missile system can’t shoot anything flying lower than 60 meters, and Iran has low-flying cruise missiles. A successful strike against Doha certainly figures in American calculations. In late September, US Central Command temporarily moved command and control of the Doha base to a remote facility in Tampa, Florida, because the base is a “sitting duck” for Iranian missiles.

If Iran were to attack Doha, America’s response likely would be devastating. Two dozen missiles or bombing sorties could wipe out Iran’s economy in a matter of hours. Fewer than a dozen power plants generate 60% of Iran’s electricity, and eight refineries produce 80% of its distillates. A single missile strike could disable each of these facilities, and bunker-buster bombs of the kind that Israel used last month in Lebanon would entirely destroy them. Without much effort, the US could destroy the Port of Kharg from which Iran exports 90% of its hydrocarbons.

More likely is a limited attack, perhaps on a smaller US naval vessel in the Persian Gulf, or on a smaller US base somewhere in the region. That is difficult to calibrate: Iran would have to inflict sufficient damage to restore its credibility without inviting massive US retaliation.

Another consideration for the Trump Administration is the impact of such an exchange on the price of oil and the world economy. Even if the US were to destroy the Iranian economy, Iranian holdouts would remain dug in onshore of the Persian Gulf with enough artillery to shut down the waterway.

It seems clear that Iran was taken aback by the ferocity of America’s response to the embassy attack. If it anticipated this sort of attack, Gen. Sulemaini never would have appeared in person at the Baghdad Airport. Iran now has to devise a response whose outcome is extremely difficult to calculate. There is a significant probability of a major escalation.

Iran well may decide on a limited, symbolic action that fails to restore its credibility after the Sulemaini assassination. If it chooses restraint, its power in the region will diminish, and Trump’s gamble will pay off.

Preemptive strikes may be the most effective, and the most merciful course of action. I wrote in 2015:

“Most of the great wars of the past would have been far less bloody had they begun sooner. That emphatically is true of the First World War: if Germany had launched a preemptive assault on France during the First Morocco Crisis of 1905 before Britain had signed the Entente Cordiale with France and while Russia was busy with an internal rebellion, the result would have been a repeat of the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 rather than the ghastly war of attrition that all but ruined Western civilization. It was a tragedy that the vacillating Kaiser Wilhelm II rejected the counsel of his general staff and kept the peace. I do not mean to impute moral superiority to Wilhelmine Germany, but to argue, simply, that swift victory by one side was preferable to what followed. It is hardly controversial to argue that Britain and France should have prepared for war with Germany and preempted Hitler’s ambitions no later than the 1936 re-occupation of the Rhineland.”

Trump’s preemptive action yet may turn out to be a masterful stroke.


User avatar
Doc
Posts: 4486
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: Trump takes a calculated risk

Post by Doc » Fri Jan 03, 2020 5:48 pm

armchair_pundit wrote:
Fri Jan 03, 2020 12:41 pm
As usual Spengler nails it...

https://www.asiatimes.com/2020/01/artic ... ated-risk/

Trump takes a calculated risk

Will Iran respond with a limited attack or pick a high-value target and invoke the full wrath of the US?

US President Donald Trump’s decision to humiliate Iran with the assassination of a national hero on Jan. 2 is a calculated gamble and probably represents the best of a set of bad alternatives.

Trump inherited a weak hand after the George W. Bush Administration destroyed the century-old balance of power between Sunni and Shia in Western Asia, by replacing Saddam Hussein’s Sunni minority regime with a sectarian Shia government allied to Iran. Bush’s belief in majority rule and nation-building, lauded by his neoconservative advisers, handed Iran an opportunity to dominate the region. Trump pushed back with economic sanctions, which have not dissuaded Iran from extending its reach.

Iran provoked the United States by attacking its embassy in Baghdad after the US launched airstrikes against Iranian-backed militias in Iraq. Iran’s attack on the embassy sought to humble the United States. Trump decided to escalate rather than matching Iran tit-for-tat. Both actions involved high-risk gambles, and require an explanation. Iran crossed a red line by backing a militia attack on the US embassy and Trump crossed a red line by killing General Qasem Soleimani. Nations don’t take actions of this sort capriciously.

Iran’s regional strategy rests on a combination of irregular warfare based on Shia militias in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, and strategic deterrence including intermediate-range missiles and cruise missiles. Iran revealed part of its strategic capability in September when Iranian infiltrators used ground-hugging cruise missiles and autonomous drones to destroy Aramco facilities in Saudi Arabia. Iran tested its “Khorramshahr “ missile with an estimated 2,000-kilometer range in 2017. It is not known how effective the weapon is or how many Iran possesses. It is possible that Iran has enough ordnance to swamp American anti-missile defenses at its Doha airbase or to overcome the air defenses on an American warship in the Persian Gulf.

Persia as such is a declining power. Its strategic position, as I have argued in the past, resembles France on the eve of the First World War. Today Iran has five workers of prime-age (25-64 years) for every citizen over 65. By 2050 the ratio will crash to just 1.8 working-age Iranians per retiree, assuming constant fertility. Iran’s economy will crash. Its pension systems already are bankrupt. Iran’s only hope of maintaining regional hegemony is to expand the Shia presence in Mesopotamia and the Levant, through militias like Lebanon’s Hezbollah and the 80,000-strong mercenary militias it supports in Syria, staffed mainly by Afghan and Pakistani Shia.

Iran’s problem, as Talleyrand told Napoleon, is that you can do anything you want with a bayonet except sit on it. To maintain its credibility in the Shia world Iran must continue to advance, and its advances run up against resistance from the United States in Iraq, and from Israel in Syria. Israel will not tolerate an Iranian proxy presence on its northern border next to the Golan Heights and has conducted thousands of airstrikes against Iranian assets in Syria. Russia recently complained that the intensity of these strikes has sharpened during the past few weeks.

Without attempting to read the minds of Iran’s leaders, one may conjecture that Iran badly needed a moral victory to show that it was not cowed by massive Israeli airstrikes in Syria, nor, indeed, by a deteriorating economy at home. In November, the Iranian regime ruthlessly suppressed anti-regime protests, killing up to 1,000 demonstrators. After the US struck five bases of Iran-backed militias in Iraq on Dec. 30, Iran decided that its credibility required a demonstration of power, and ordered the attack on the US embassy.

That left Trump with few good choices. After 5,000 dead, 50,000 wounded and trillions of dollars in expenditures in Iraq, the US had succeeded in turning a former counterweight to Iranian ambitions into an Iranian satrapy. The embassy attack was intended by Iran as a public act of ritual humiliation, and the United States had no choice but to respond. Trump chose to respond by subjecting Iran to an even more poignant form of humiliation, by assassinating a national hero, Gen. Qassam Sulemaini. It is easy to criticize the US president, but harder to recommend an alternative course of action. US airpower has limited effectiveness in constraining the diffuse Iranian-backed militias.

Neither Iran nor the US has good choices here. Iran must respond or its credibility will collapse. The question is how. An Iranian attack on an American ally like Israel or Saudi Arabia would not suffice, now that Washington has acted in its own name against a key Iranian leader. The indicated course of action is to attack an American asset. In the extreme case, Iran could use a combination of intermediate-range missiles, cruise missiles and drones to attack the Doha base.

The September attack on Aramco facilities in Saudi Arabia exposed the weakness of US air defenses. The Patriot anti-missile system can’t shoot anything flying lower than 60 meters, and Iran has low-flying cruise missiles. A successful strike against Doha certainly figures in American calculations. In late September, US Central Command temporarily moved command and control of the Doha base to a remote facility in Tampa, Florida, because the base is a “sitting duck” for Iranian missiles.

If Iran were to attack Doha, America’s response likely would be devastating. Two dozen missiles or bombing sorties could wipe out Iran’s economy in a matter of hours. Fewer than a dozen power plants generate 60% of Iran’s electricity, and eight refineries produce 80% of its distillates. A single missile strike could disable each of these facilities, and bunker-buster bombs of the kind that Israel used last month in Lebanon would entirely destroy them. Without much effort, the US could destroy the Port of Kharg from which Iran exports 90% of its hydrocarbons.

More likely is a limited attack, perhaps on a smaller US naval vessel in the Persian Gulf, or on a smaller US base somewhere in the region. That is difficult to calibrate: Iran would have to inflict sufficient damage to restore its credibility without inviting massive US retaliation.

Another consideration for the Trump Administration is the impact of such an exchange on the price of oil and the world economy. Even if the US were to destroy the Iranian economy, Iranian holdouts would remain dug in onshore of the Persian Gulf with enough artillery to shut down the waterway.

It seems clear that Iran was taken aback by the ferocity of America’s response to the embassy attack. If it anticipated this sort of attack, Gen. Sulemaini never would have appeared in person at the Baghdad Airport. Iran now has to devise a response whose outcome is extremely difficult to calculate. There is a significant probability of a major escalation.

Iran well may decide on a limited, symbolic action that fails to restore its credibility after the Sulemaini assassination. If it chooses restraint, its power in the region will diminish, and Trump’s gamble will pay off.

Preemptive strikes may be the most effective, and the most merciful course of action. I wrote in 2015:

“Most of the great wars of the past would have been far less bloody had they begun sooner. That emphatically is true of the First World War: if Germany had launched a preemptive assault on France during the First Morocco Crisis of 1905 before Britain had signed the Entente Cordiale with France and while Russia was busy with an internal rebellion, the result would have been a repeat of the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 rather than the ghastly war of attrition that all but ruined Western civilization. It was a tragedy that the vacillating Kaiser Wilhelm II rejected the counsel of his general staff and kept the peace. I do not mean to impute moral superiority to Wilhelmine Germany, but to argue, simply, that swift victory by one side was preferable to what followed. It is hardly controversial to argue that Britain and France should have prepared for war with Germany and preempted Hitler’s ambitions no later than the 1936 re-occupation of the Rhineland.”

Trump’s preemptive action yet may turn out to be a masterful stroke.

Iraq is currently a mess because of Obama.
multigraph.jpg
multigraph.jpg (42.95 KiB) Viewed 1030 times
“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

neverfail
Posts: 5599
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: Trump takes a calculated risk

Post by neverfail » Fri Jan 03, 2020 9:32 pm

Doc wrote:
Fri Jan 03, 2020 5:48 pm


Iraq is currently a mess because of Obama.

Iraq is currently in a mess because of George W Bush, not Barrack Obama:
armchair_pundit wrote:
Fri Jan 03, 2020 12:41 pm
(quoting Spengler)

Trump inherited a weak hand after the George W. Bush Administration destroyed the century-old balance of power between Sunni and Shia in Western Asia, by replacing Saddam Hussein’s Sunni minority regime with a sectarian Shia government allied to Iran. Bush’s belief in majority rule and nation-building, lauded by his neoconservative advisers, handed Iran an opportunity to dominate the region.
Can't you read plain English?

neverfail
Posts: 5599
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: Trump takes a calculated risk

Post by neverfail » Fri Jan 03, 2020 9:37 pm

armchair_pundit wrote:
Fri Jan 03, 2020 12:41 pm


Iran provoked the United States by attacking its embassy in Baghdad after the US launched airstrikes against Iranian-backed militias in Iraq.

Thereby demonstrating utter contempt for Iraq's sovereignty.

I am not even suggesting that the airstrikes were unjustified - only that it exposes Iraq's national sovereignty since the 2003 invasion as something of a fiction.

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 4486
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: Trump takes a calculated risk

Post by Doc » Sat Jan 04, 2020 4:36 am

neverfail wrote:
Fri Jan 03, 2020 9:32 pm
Doc wrote:
Fri Jan 03, 2020 5:48 pm


Iraq is currently a mess because of Obama.

Iraq is currently in a mess because of George W Bush, not Barrack Obama:
armchair_pundit wrote:
Fri Jan 03, 2020 12:41 pm
(quoting Spengler)

Trump inherited a weak hand after the George W. Bush Administration destroyed the century-old balance of power between Sunni and Shia in Western Asia, by replacing Saddam Hussein’s Sunni minority regime with a sectarian Shia government allied to Iran. Bush’s belief in majority rule and nation-building, lauded by his neoconservative advisers, handed Iran an opportunity to dominate the region.
Can't you read plain English?
The balance of power between Shites and Sunnis only occured because of colonialism and their lack of technology to wage large scale war.
“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

neverfail
Posts: 5599
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: Trump takes a calculated risk

Post by neverfail » Sat Jan 04, 2020 2:11 pm

Doc wrote:
Sat Jan 04, 2020 4:36 am

The balance of power between Shites and Sunnis only occured because of colonialism and their lack of technology to wage large scale war.
Thus have you exposed your profound ignorance of the region's history.

User avatar
Alexis
Posts: 288
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2016 2:46 pm

No "calculated risk", but "going all-in"

Post by Alexis » Sat Jan 04, 2020 6:29 pm

armchair_pundit wrote:
Fri Jan 03, 2020 12:41 pm
As usual Spengler nails it...

https://www.asiatimes.com/2020/01/artic ... ated-risk/
Trump takes a calculated risk
That's not "taking a calculated risk", that's "going all-in".

Trump and Khamenei have been playing liar's poker. Now Trump has gone all-in: he wants to obtain immunity for US forces from Iran and its allies whatever the US may do.

1. Khamenei may choose to fold. Which of course would mean Washington would henceforth do... whatever it pleases to Iran and to its allies and protégés.

2. If Khamenei chooses a reprisal in kind, such as e.g. assassination of the US SecDef or some high-placed US general or ambassador, he will in turn force Trump to show its cards, and clarify whether he was bluffing or not. The US president threatened to "target 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture". Obviously, if this was no bluff and Trump really orders such an attack, 2020 will be the onset of a global recession as a result of strong trouble if not outright suspension of Gulf oil exports for an extended time. Also, Trump's reelection chances will be severely damaged.

3. Khamenei may be willing to consider exerting reprisal not directly against the US, but against its main and most vulnerable regional ally, that is Saudi Arabia. Assassination of prince and autocrat Mohammad Ben Salman might be tempting... if it is feasible, that is. Or another attack incapacitating Abqaiq oil refinery and eliminating 5% of global oil supply.

4. Alternatively, he may choose - if he can - to obtain from Iraqi parliament and government that they cancel authorization for the US to station forces in their country and demand US forces to leave. Which would be the smartest reprisal, being the least dangerous for Teheran and the most painful for Washington - at the same time as a posthumous victory for the late Suleimani. But has he got this kind of influence, even with Iraqis being incensed by the US affront against them?

Whatever Khamenei's choice, it's his turn now.

We may not know his choice before quite some time, though.

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 4486
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: No "calculated risk", but "going all-in"

Post by Doc » Sat Jan 04, 2020 8:36 pm

Alexis wrote:
Sat Jan 04, 2020 6:29 pm
armchair_pundit wrote:
Fri Jan 03, 2020 12:41 pm
As usual Spengler nails it...

https://www.asiatimes.com/2020/01/artic ... ated-risk/
Trump takes a calculated risk
That's not "taking a calculated risk", that's "going all-in".

Trump and Khamenei have been playing liar's poker. Now Trump has gone all-in: he wants to obtain immunity for US forces from Iran and its allies whatever the US may do.

1. Khamenei may choose to fold. Which of course would mean Washington would henceforth do... whatever it pleases to Iran and to its allies and protégés.

2. If Khamenei chooses a reprisal in kind, such as e.g. assassination of the US SecDef or some high-placed US general or ambassador, he will in turn force Trump to show its cards, and clarify whether he was bluffing or not. The US president threatened to "target 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture". Obviously, if this was no bluff and Trump really orders such an attack, 2020 will be the onset of a global recession as a result of strong trouble if not outright suspension of Gulf oil exports for an extended time. Also, Trump's reelection chances will be severely damaged.

3. Khamenei may be willing to consider exerting reprisal not directly against the US, but against its main and most vulnerable regional ally, that is Saudi Arabia. Assassination of prince and autocrat Mohammad Ben Salman might be tempting... if it is feasible, that is. Or another attack incapacitating Abqaiq oil refinery and eliminating 5% of global oil supply.

4. Alternatively, he may choose - if he can - to obtain from Iraqi parliament and government that they cancel authorization for the US to station forces in their country and demand US forces to leave. Which would be the smartest reprisal, being the least dangerous for Teheran and the most painful for Washington - at the same time as a posthumous victory for the late Suleimani. But has he got this kind of influence, even with Iraqis being incensed by the US affront against them?

Whatever Khamenei's choice, it's his turn now.

We may not know his choice before quite some time, though.
Obama sent Special forces hundreds of miles into Pakistan to kill bin Laden who was living in hiding right beside Pakistan's military academy Pakistan is known to have Nuclear weapons.

Trump killed Suleimani while he was planning attacks on the US In a foreign country where ha has killed thousands.

He should have been killed long ago. He also killed many Iranian protestors.

He was killed ironically by a drone. The same way Obama killed thousands of civilians in the Middle east and south asia.
“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 4486
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: Trump takes a calculated risk

Post by Doc » Sat Jan 04, 2020 8:38 pm

neverfail wrote:
Sat Jan 04, 2020 2:11 pm
Doc wrote:
Sat Jan 04, 2020 4:36 am

The balance of power between Shites and Sunnis only occured because of colonialism and their lack of technology to wage large scale war.
Thus have you exposed your profound ignorance of the region's history.
You mean like you have exposed your profound ignorance of what you reply to by showing you have not even read it, so many times here?
“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

neverfail
Posts: 5599
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: Trump takes a calculated risk

Post by neverfail » Sat Jan 04, 2020 8:53 pm

Doc wrote:
Sat Jan 04, 2020 8:38 pm
neverfail wrote:
Sat Jan 04, 2020 2:11 pm
Doc wrote:
Sat Jan 04, 2020 4:36 am

The balance of power between Shites and Sunnis only occured because of colonialism and their lack of technology to wage large scale war.
Thus have you exposed your profound ignorance of the region's history.
You mean like you have exposed your profound ignorance of what you reply to by showing you have not even read it, so many times here?
I have read it. Did you?

Post Reply