Iran’s oil, rail and bridges hit ahead of deadline
Posted by StoopSign@reddit | anime_titties | View on Reddit | 68 comments
Posted by StoopSign@reddit | anime_titties | View on Reddit | 68 comments
imunfair@reddit
Trump will probably "surprise" us by taking the "moderate" approach of seizing Kharg island and the oil he's been saying he wants for a while now, and then play it off like it's a chess move to pressure further negotiation. Iran will attack our troops or just blow the oil facilities across the other gulf nations in response.
NearABE@reddit
Iran’s generals had 30 years of mandated focus on defense against United States military. I have no idea what they did to prepare Kharg Island. I had not even heard the name before a few weeks ago. I feel pretty confident that they considered the possibility that it could be attacked.
Coral outcrops are extremely easy to dig and make very stable tunnels. The battle of Okinawa (USA vs Japan 1945) was not an easy one. Mortar positions on Kharg Island could hit all other positions on Kharg Island. The mainland beach is slightly beyond the range of 152 mm cannons.
Diaperedsnowy@reddit
What would be gained by occupation of this island?
If they destroy the islands ability to export oil then it will be a useless place for anyone to hold.
NearABE@reddit
It is a strategic location. The defense planners would not need to know who is attacking or why. The petroleum is all Iran’s petroleum. Cutting it off would give an enemy leverage over Iran. Other moves like trying to sack Tehran would be difficult to execute and then it would be difficult to hold. Defending Kharg against an Iranian attempt at recapturing it would be much easier than holding Tehran.
Going to war is not gaining USA or the world much. Instead it lost quite a bit. Sometimes politicians try to take anything just to be able to claim they took something. Kharg could actually be used as a bartering tool.
Destroying it is bad for the world’s petroleum consumers including American drivers. Companies that drill for oil make more money if crude prices are higher. I do not have the impression that the White House is trying to make my life easier.
Diaperedsnowy@reddit
Ya good point.
Is that island literally irans only oil export point. I didn't see any other stuff nearby but I was surprised they had nowhere else on the mainland.
NearABE@reddit
I read 90% of Iran’s oil goes there. Several of the Persian Gulf states do things like this. Ships go to something that looks like an offshore drilling platform. Tankers are obnoxiously big and full ones have a deep keel. It is easier to just run a pipeline far out instead of dredging a deeper harbor.
Many tankers cannot even use the Panama Canal. Inuit kayak, Norse longship, and Greek trireme are all superior designs. They can go right up on the beach, easily navigate rivers, and do not stick on sand bars. Putting an outboard motor on an iceberg would be only slightly worse than a modern supertanker.
Diaperedsnowy@reddit
The cost of acquiring rowers is at an all time high.
ANewPlayer_1@reddit
Iran does have other export points, but this island has their deepest-water port from what I remember. This allows really big tankers for oil transport.
Sea ports are only as good as the depth of the water.
travistravis@reddit
Destroy Iran's income, but it would also wreck a lot of the global economy by driving us into an even bigger oil crisis
Firecracker048@reddit
And yet they managed to land 30 miles outside of Isfahan, only of the biggest centers of Irans military might, operate for almost 12 hours, rescued their pilot and got everyone out.
That one was a pretty big embarrassment for Iran
NearABE@reddit
I will be very impressed if blackhawk helicopters get upgraded with the ability to fly through coral.
MettSemmell@reddit
That is an interesting take.
Firecracker048@reddit
How so?
Imagine if iran managed to land a force 30 miles outside of Jerusalem in Israel, operate for 12 hours, get their downed pilot, and get everyone out. That'd be pretty fucking embarrassing for Israel
FormerLawfulness6@reddit
I mean 10/7 happened in Israel. About half of the 30 mile radius of Jerusalem would be in Jordan or the West Bank. Much smaller territory, less than 1/10 the size, with security cooperation from the entire collective West and all its tech firms.
Iran is larger than Mongolia and mountainous that's why it's so hard to properly invade. It shouldn't be all that surprising a small operation was able to be carried out over a few hours during active bombardment.
Firecracker048@reddit
And everyone considers 10/7 to be a massive embarrassment (rightly so)
Considering the location was right outside its 2nd largest city and one of its most heavily militarized while they were already mobilizes in search of a pilot, yeah it's pretty embarrassing
FormerLawfulness6@reddit
30 miles is not "right outside" especially in the middle of a mountain range with few access roads. The US likely sent dozens of aircraft to secure a single person at a masive expense. Attempting to stop the US from spending that much time and resources on a rescue mission would have been a tactical error in itself. What would be the goal from a military strategy standpoint, and how much would a rational strategist be willing to expend to achieve it?
Just because the operation was impressive does not mean it would have been a high priority for the defending military. So, I'm not sure where the embarassment would come in. That implies failing to do something they otherwise needed to or could have done. The fact that the US can spend almost infinite resources on operations that don't significantly affect the war is entirely expected. Exhausting America's willingness to pour endless resources into an unwinnable quagmire has been the main strategy against the US military since the 1950s.
It's kind of like jumping off a cliff to avoid the embarassment of being shown up by a paraglider. A pointless waste for the sake of vanity, you'd be a bigger fool for agreeing to the competition.
NearABE@reddit
Hamas really did actually do that to Israel. They did not get “everyone out” but they did take a large number of hostages and many militants did get back to Gaza. Many were on mopeds, some on paragliders.
Hopefully the voters remember how utterly embarrassed Netanyahoo’s government should be.
MettSemmell@reddit
That is another interesting take.
imunfair@reddit
I doubt we'd go in by water, they'd try to take it by landing troops from the air at key positions first. The main question is whether Iran would blow up their own island if we took it, or if they'd play the long game and blow up everyone else's oil in the gulf while leaving their own untouched with the expectation that we'd have to give it back and wouldn't be able to use it for our own benefit with the strait closed.
Illiander@reddit
Or both.
June1994@reddit
I don’t envy the people who have to keep 5,000 marines on that island supplied. Have fun dodging drones, missiles, and artillery.
lidsville76@reddit
Strategically stupid.
NearABE@reddit
So you air drop on a coral outcrop. Then what? Most of the defenders still have 100 feet of coral between the assault troops and their position.
The tunnel networks in France’s Maginot line had escape wells. These were filled with gravel. On the tunnel floor there was a grate and an empty volume larger than the escape tunnel. From below a soldier could easily vacate that volume. From above you would need to excavate or blast through a huge mass of soil and gravel.
Even the medieval church monastery probably has catacombs that would be a nightmare for modern infantry even without modern updates.
nikmah@reddit
You do realize that the oil in Kharg Island comes via pipeline ? It's just a hub, an important hub, no doubt about that but it would be no problem for Iran and shut the pipeline and the US wouldn't be seizing no oil.
And yes, US troops would probably be sitting ducks for fpv drones and missile attacks.
imunfair@reddit
It's their main terminal, so yes we're effectively seizing their oil if we take it. It would take a long time to rebuild if they destroyed it trying to attack our troops, whether the pipeline is open or closed doesn't really change the equation.
nikmah@reddit
Nah, I doubt that there's much oil in storage there now and no, you're not seizing their oil if you take the island. You're seizing their export hub with little oil.
imunfair@reddit
If we take it I guarantee Trump will give a speech about how we took their oil, regardless of whatever distinction you want to make. And like I said, it makes no difference strategically.
nikmah@reddit
Perhaps he will, but their oil fields and their oil production takes place in the province of Khuzestan and I'm not sure who Trump would think he would be fooling.
CoffeeWorldly9915@reddit
Well, see...
Nobody knows.
bownt1@reddit
losing their export hub makes no difference?
imunfair@reddit
Reading the conversation rather than trying to guess the context will help you immensely.
bownt1@reddit
how will they export oil and make money?
pass_nthru@reddit
the point is to cause global economic pressure, iran hasnt been selling oil to anyone who cared about us sanctions but if the supply they do contribute and the effective closing of the strait is still a thing say hello to $200+ a barrel and they win even if their infrastructure is in flames
bownt1@reddit
your bar for winning is very low
pass_nthru@reddit
not my bar, but the US has a lot more to lose if our economy craters because nothing can fucking move vs iran’s…hell we can’t win even if we drop every single nuke in our arsenal, hell we lost as soon as they didn’t back down from Tbags empty threats
bownt1@reddit
you should look into some kind of therapy
pass_nthru@reddit
you should look into some form of remedial education
bownt1@reddit
remind me next year. if the economy collapsed because of this i will take some community college classes. if it didnt collapse you have to start taking lexapro.
Illiander@reddit
It's the storefront, not the warehouse.
Moikanyoloko@reddit
Trump giving a speech doesn't make something the truth. Often its quite the opposite.
Taking the island just means that Iran, like the rest of gulf countries, is unable to export their oil.
Bigote_de_Swann@reddit
We We hehe
MWAH_dib@reddit
I mean they had a tonne of B-52's take off and fly towards Iran at the exact time Trump was announcing a 2 week ceasefire
If you weren't aware, Trump is a compulsive liar
imunfair@reddit
Two weeks is just a good amount of time to restock on interceptors for both Israel and our Gulf allies, and to locate new Iranian targets to bomb since clearly they've run out of military items to hit and are reaching for anything tangentially related they can find out of desperation to apply more pressure.
_Antitese@reddit
dude, interceptors take months to be done...
nudelsalat3000@reddit
Iran will pull the surprise and close with their allies the second straight (Bab al-Mandab Strait)
Can't wait to see my wallet drained deeper than any oil field.
kolitics@reddit
What kind of chess move puts a bunch of mans on the exposed flammable oil island in the middle of the drone targeted sea?
imunfair@reddit
The same kind of chess move that launches decapitation strikes on Iran, killing the moderate anti-nuclear head of state and causes them to pull their strait card that their government passed a resolution about during the first round.
StoopSign@reddit (OP)
I really fear the worst
Moikanyoloko@reddit
The current US is so eager to always attack in the middle of negotiations, that they even attack midway through pretend negotiations.
Curious what will be the Iranian reaction. Its truly wonderful to live in such interesting times.
StoopSign@reddit (OP)
Due Dissidence podcast reports Iran has commanded their people to make human chains around power plants.
No fear.
MoltenCopperEnema@reddit
That's horrible. What does this accomplish besides getting more Iranians killed? Human shields are a war crime for a reason (so is striking civilian infrastructure, I know).
FormerLawfulness6@reddit
Human shielding is a crime because it involves forcing people by threat or deception to stay near a legitimate target. Calling for volunteers to make a show of national courage in the face of an enemy that claims to be the global enforcer of international law would probably not qualify. For the same reason having armed security at a hospital doesn't qualify as using the hospital for military purposes.
MoltenCopperEnema@reddit
Any sane country would be telling civilians to take shelter, not stand where the bombs are going to be, as if a show of national courage is worth more than their lives.
FormerLawfulness6@reddit
It's still not human shielding. It's also possible to do both, but when the world's largest bomb producer is promising to depopulate the country by hitting their food, fuel, energy, transportation, urban centers, water treatment, hospitals, and emergency services taking shelter is kind of moot. They're just denying America the optics of blaming mis-governance for the deaths related to bombing power plants. The deaths would have to be counted immediately rather than ignored as part of the indirect body count.
The whole reason attacking infrastructure is a war crime is that it's impossible to shelter or flee from the effects when the means of survival are systematically destroyed
It's effectively the same logic as protest, strikes, or forming a human chain. Knowing that the enemy is willing to kill unarmed peaceful protesters and facing them down anyway is usually seen as an act of courage. Ghandi literally led unarmed men, women, and children into gunfire to make a statement about the brutality of colonial rule. This is not new or unique to Iran.
SpontaneousFlame@reddit
It's still not human shielding.
This is something I’ve not come across before. Is that because hitting the target is a war crime, so surrounding it with civilians doesn’t transfer blame to the side being bombed?
Don’t get me wrong, it’s a shitty thing for Iran to do, but I think what you are saying makes sense.
And that is why Israel has done what it did then sent an army of propagandists to deny everything.
I think you’ll find that Muslim majority states occupy a special tier in western governments’ interpretation of international law such that the rules that protect others don’t protect the people in those states…
FormerLawfulness6@reddit
There's that. But also the war crime of human shielding is defined by force, coercion, or deception. A public statement calling for voluntary action is generally not going to qualify.
Evacuation under threat may be a good idea, but help the attacker's moral aesthetic while under an existential threat to their civilization by an enemy with effectively limitless firepower.
SpontaneousFlame@reddit
Very interesting. Thank you. Do you have a source on the web for this? I’m interested in finding out more.
FormerLawfulness6@reddit
From the International Committee of the Red Cross Casebook. TLDR, the idea that civilians voluntarily standing around a civilian object counts as the crime of human shielding is legally incoherent and would effectively nullify the protection for civilians. Something we have seen repeatedly in Gaza as Israel effectively claims that all infrastructure is a legitimate military objective and therefore all civilians are being used as human shields no matter where they are, which has effectively eliminated even the possibility of distinction.
Some consider that acting as voluntary human shields constitutes direct participation in hostilities, which would cause the persons concerned to lose protection against the effects of hostilities while they act as human shields. Others object, first, that in order to classify an act as direct participation, the act must provoke, through a physical chain of causality, harm to the enemy or its military operations. Human shields are a moral and legal rather than physical means to an end: to hinder the enemy from attacking. Second, the theory considering voluntary human shields as civilians directly participating in hostilities is self-defeating. If it were correct, the presence of human shields would not have any legal impact on the ability of the enemy to attack the shielded objective – but an act which cannot have any impact whatsoever upon the enemy cannot possibly be classified as direct participation in hostilities. Third, the distinction between voluntary and involuntary human shields refers to a factor, i.e. the voluntary involvement of the target, which is very important in criminal law and, to a lesser extent, in law enforcement operations, but is completely irrelevant in IHL. A soldier of a country with universal compulsory military service is just as much (and for just as long) a legitimate target as a soldier who is a member of an all-volunteer army. Fourth, the distinction is not practicable. How can a pilot or soldier launching a missile know whether the civilians he observes around a military objective are there voluntarily or involuntarily? What counts as a voluntary presence? Fifth, in a self-applied system like that of IHL during armed conflict, the suggested loss of protection against attacks may prompt an attacker to invoke the prohibition to use human shields abusively, as an alibi, as a mitigating circumstance or “to ease his conscience”.
https://casebook.icrc.org/law/conduct-hostilities#ii_8
SpontaneousFlame@reddit
Thank you for that.
amphibia__enjoyer@reddit
Well, they made a volunteer drive, how voluntary being up for debate, and apparently 14 million people volunteered. Honestly, once you threaten to make life hell for 90+ million people and take away their means to live in quasi-genocidal social media statements, I'd wager that you could probably find enough to volunteer as human shields without too much coercion, especially after we got the whole black rain in Tehran and highly publicized strike on the elementary school. It is much easier to sell this as a war against the people of Iran, due to preceding actions by Israel and the USA, in many ways it has already escalated into that. Add to that, that we don't know whether they would actually authorize a strike, despite these human chains and neither do the Iranians volunteering or "volunteering". It is a form of deterrence, especially as the war is causing domestic political issues in the US, essentially forcing the attackers to either commit atrocities or not strike the targets, that should be obvious. It makes these strikes, which are already atrocities due to more abstract knock-on effects, cost more political capital. I don't know whether this is a good tactic, I don't like the potential consequences, but honestly, I have no idea how I would react to the threat of running water and electricity being gone for a while, all the bridges or how voluntary this really is.
MoltenCopperEnema@reddit
You believe that?
amphibia__enjoyer@reddit
Note the phrasing. Let's just say I have no idea whether these people got pressured, whether the number is actually correct ("apparently") etc. I was corroborating the scarce info given (by the iranian gov, thus grain of salt) and giving some commentary as to how feasible they seem to me.
SpontaneousFlame@reddit
The whole human chain thing only works if the enemy cares about the number of civilian deaths. Israel doesn’t - we saw that over the last two and a half years. Even if the US blinks Israel won’t and will bomb everything anyway.
Hertigan@reddit
At least he didn’t nuke anyone
He’s still a terrible, horrible person, and this war is still senseless and wholly unnecessary
But at least he didn’t nuke anyone
I didn’t realize that the bar for the IS was THIS LOW
RalphTheIntrepid@reddit
Hasn't nuked anyone yet. Keep in mind that a few neutron bombs would depopulate wide areas.
SpontaneousFlame@reddit
Let’s not give anyone ideas about genocide.
jenny_905@reddit
No surprise that Israel would attempt to escalate things even further, the dirty fucking rats.
Looks like the USA is considering a request from Pakistan to extend whatever idiotic deadline they've supposedly set but Israel is determined for even more chaos.
AutoModerator@reddit
The link you have provided contains keywords for topics associated with an active conflict, and has automatically been flaired accordingly. If the flair was not updated, the link submitter MUST do so. Due to submissions regarding active conflicts generating more contrasting discussion, comments will only be available to users who have set a subreddit user flair, and must strictly comply with subreddit rules. Posters who change the assigned post flair without permission will be temporarily banned. Commenters who violate Reddiquette and civility rules will be summarily banned.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.