Houthis turn pirate

[Derec]

The Houthis are not attacking us.

They are attacking US interests. Free passage for cargo ships through shipping lanes is is US national interest.
They are also attacking US allies. Israel is a US ally, even if you don't like them.

The Shah came into power because we overthrew the elected leader of Ira and installed the Shah.

The Shah was already in power. And the whole Mosaddegh thing is certainly more complex than the simplistic story usually told. For example, he was not the democrat people usually think he was.
In any case, whatever happened in 1953 does not justify Iran and Houthis attacking international shipping in 2023, no matter how much apologetics for the theocratic regime you try to conjure up.

Are you sure about the feasibility of "checking Iranian theocrats" from doing whatever it is you imagine you think they are doing?

Certainly yes in this particular case. It would be easy enough for US to strike Houthi missile and naval capabilities.

It is not hanging anyone out to dry if they can handle it themselves. But I tell you what, if you want charter a boat and hire mercenaries, go ahead.

Israel can handle Hamas. But they need help with the other fronts. Like Houthis attacking shipping. Or US parking carrier groups nearby to deter Hezbollah from opening the northern front.

Why are you so opposed to US securing shipping lanes anyway? Is it your affection for Shiite theocrats or just hostility to Israel?

I think the world would be a better place if the USA and Iran became allies, or at least, non-antagonistic. Your childish comic book view simply prolongs needless posturing, destruction and violence.

US and Iran were allies before the theocrats took over. Iran desperately needs a regime change. I think it is the exact opposite. Your childish apologetics for the theocratic regime prolongs "needless posturing, destruction and violence."

 

[Derec]

You might want to put more effort into learning about the history between the U.S. and Iran, post WWII.

I have. Have you? Not the propaganda version of "US bad, Mosaddeqh good". Not that this ancient history matters for the issue at hand, and is therefore an issue for another thread.

Iran/Houthis attacking shipping is bad and US should do something about it. I am not the only one saying it.
Former CENTCOM Commanders: US Should Consider Strikes Against Houthis
Threats from Yemen are increasing. It’s time to redesignate the Houthis.
The only reason Biden removed the "terrorism" designation was spite.

 

[Derec]

Why do you have forces there in the first place?

Why do your Iranians?

On what authority?

  Authorization for Use of Military Force of 2001

 

[TomC]

Why are you leftists incapable of not engaging in whataboutisms regarding Republicans?

Ha ha... Oh wait, you're serious?

I'm a leftist because I oppose theocratic authoritarianism of any flavor? Especially the ones in power in my home country? A country far more powerful than Iran, which is on the far side of the planet from me?

Here's a huge reason I oppose them. Obama started U.S. on a path towards a peaceful and prosperous relationship with Iran. Teapartiers trashed that before it was even done. The reason we have no soft power in Iran is because people like Trump and Johnson sabotaged it.

That's why I blame them, to a large extent, for yet another mess in the middle east involving Iran.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

Let the Saudis, or better yet, the Yemeni armed forces clean up the area.

They need US help. Had we given them sufficient help in 2015, Houthis would never had become the huge problem they have become.

Unless the Houthis were eliminated, yiu are mistaken. This civil ear is a tribal feud fueled with outside resources.

It is obviously in US national interest to keep international shipping lanes safe.

It is just obvious that it is in every country jn the civilized world to keep it open.

In case you haven’t noticed, the USA cannot even adequately supply Ukraine with the arms they desperately need. We don’t need to be sidetracked into a no win quagmire.

Of course we can. The problem is political. Just like here. Just like there are Putin apologists on the right, there are Ayatollah apologists on the left.

We weren’t providing sufficient arms to Ukraine. Now we are not going to supply any arms in a late manner, let alone in a timely matter. The importance if Ukraine’s defence is magnitudes higher than some minor shipping attacks. The US does not need more distractions and to make more long term enemies at this time.

 

[laughing dog]

The Houthis are not attacking us.

They are attacking US interests. Free passage for cargo ships through shipping lanes is is US national interest.
They are also attacking US allies. Israel is a US ally, even if you don't like them.

They are attacking the civilized world's interest. Free passage for cargo ships through shipping lanes is in Europe's, Asia's, Australia's. Africa's and South America's interests,. There is nothing stopping France or Great Britain or India from stepping in. We are busy,

The Shah came into power because we overthrew the elected leader of Ira and installed the Shah.

The Shah was already in power. And the whole Mosaddegh thing is certainly more complex than the simplistic story usually told. For example, he was not the democrat people usually think he was.

As usual, your ignorance of the situation makes you miss the point. Mossadegh was a duly elected representative in a fair election. The Shah was not. The Shah was a corrupt, venal autocrat. We overthrew the elected gov't and propped up the autocratic.

In any case, whatever happened in 1953 does not justify Iran and Houthis attacking international shipping in 2023, no matter how much apologetics for the theocratic regime you try to conjure up.

No one is justifying anything. This tangent was started and driven by your denial that the US had not done anything to Iran.

Are you sure about the feasibility of "checking Iranian theocrats" from doing whatever it is you imagine you think they are doing?

Certainly yes in this particular case. It would be easy enough for US to strike Houthi missile and naval capabilities.

You mean just like in Afghanistan and Iraq?

It is not hanging anyone out to dry if they can handle it themselves. But I tell you what, if you want charter a boat and hire mercenaries, go ahead.

Israel can handle Hamas. But they need help with the other fronts. Like Houthis attacking shipping. Or US parking carrier groups nearby to deter Hezbollah from opening the northern front.

Why are you so opposed to US securing shipping lanes anyway?

I am not opposed to the general principle of the US or any country securing shipping lanes. I am opposed to the US getting into more than it can handle when there are plenty of other potential actors who can do the job.

Is it your affection for Shiite theocrats or just hostility to Israel?

Neither, as any disinterested reader with minimal reading comprehension would have understood.

I think the world would be a better place if the USA and Iran became allies, or at least, non-antagonistic. Your childish comic book view simply prolongs needless posturing, destruction and violence.

US and Iran were allies before the theocrats took over. Iran desperately needs a regime change. I think it is the exact opposite. Your childish apologetics for the theocratic regime prolongs "needless posturing, destruction and violence.

Clearly you don't know what "apologetics" means, so please stop using it. I have justified nothing Iran or the Houthis have done.

You think more destruction and more killing by the US is necessary to deal with a truly minor commercial issue that can easily be dealt with by others. We have more than enough now on our hands to do. It is time for others to get involved.

 

[TV and credit cards]

CNBC
Maersk to pause all container ship traffic through the Red Sea

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Well, obviously.
If someone hates you, you bomb their home, and then they love you.
Problem solved.

I do not need them to "love" us.
Just hit their forces enough that they are either incapable of hitting shipping traffic or think twice before they attack a ship.
Even better, hit their forces enough that they get defeated by the Yemeni army, and thus deny the Tehran regime a beachhead on the Arabian peninsula, but even the first part would solve the problem at hand (piracy and attacks on shipping through the Red Sea).

It's effectively impossible to hit them enough to keep them from hitting shipping traffic. Anti-ship missiles can be fired from mobile launchers and those can hide very well. Even a third rate power can engage in effective sea denial, the only way to combat them is make the guys not willing to push the button.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Here's a huge reason I oppose them. Obama started U.S. on a path towards a peaceful and prosperous relationship with Iran. Teapartiers trashed that before it was even done. The reason we have no soft power in Iran is because people like Trump and Johnson sabotaged it.

Obama committed the standard mistake of the left--pretend diplomacy works. Iran accepted what we offered and kept on being evil.

 

[TomC]

Here's a huge reason I oppose them. Obama started U.S. on a path towards a peaceful and prosperous relationship with Iran. Teapartiers trashed that before it was even done. The reason we have no soft power in Iran is because people like Trump and Johnson sabotaged it.

Obama committed the standard mistake of the left--pretend diplomacy works. Iran accepted what we offered and kept on being evil.

What diplomacy?
Congress made it clear, there can be no peace treaty with Iran. Trump put the final nail in the coffin of the peace deal, but the Teapartiers had already made it clear.
No peace deal can last longer than a presidential election cycle.
Tom

 

[Derec]

It's effectively impossible to hit them enough to keep them from hitting shipping traffic.

I disagree.

Anti-ship missiles can be fired from mobile launchers and those can hide very well. Even a third rate power can engage in effective sea denial, the only way to combat them is make the guys not willing to push the button.

That second clause is the key. We do not need to hit every single mobile launcher. But we can sink their naval boats, preventing them from boarding the ships, like they did in a few instances. And we can hit known positions of Houthi launchers, missiles and forces. Pretty soon they will rethink whether it is worth losing men and material on disrupting shipping traffic.
Right now, they are paying no price for their attacks. That needs to change.

 

[Derec]

They are attacking the civilized world's interest. Free passage for cargo ships through shipping lanes is in Europe's, Asia's, Australia's. Africa's and South America's interests,. There is nothing stopping France or Great Britain or India from stepping in. We are busy,

With what? US certainly has military capabilities, and Biden is a CinC who has authority to use military force to combat terrorism (2001 AUMF).
While an international task force would be ideal, there is a lot of inertia with those things, and in any case US would be taking a lead in any such task force.

As usual, your ignorance of the situation makes you miss the point.

No, your ignorance. You thought the Shah was "put in power". In reality, he was the monarch since 1941.

Mossadegh was a duly elected representative in a fair election.

Never claimed he wasn't. But he did not act democratically. He attempted to rule by decree. He tried to stop vote counting in the 1952 elections so he would not lose. That is in addition to him being an ally (some would say puppet) of Moscow and expropriating ($10 word for "stealing") assets of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.

The Shah was not.

The Shah was a corrupt, venal autocrat. We overthrew the elected gov't and propped up the autocratic.

Just because Mossadegh was originally elected does not mean much. He did not act democratically.
Shah wasn't perfect either, but he was 1000x better than what came after. Despite Democrats like Andrew Young thinking that Khomeini was a "saint".

No one is justifying anything. This tangent was started and driven by your denial that the US had not done anything to Iran.

Yes, you are. You are justifying present behavior of the theocratic regime in Tehran with a simplistic version of what happened 70 years ago.

You mean just like in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Both of these wars were mismanaged. And in any case, I am not proposing putting boots on the ground in Yemen.

I am not opposed to the general principle of the US or any country securing shipping lanes. I am opposed to the US getting into more than it can handle when there are plenty of other potential actors who can do the job.

Why do you think air strikes against Houthis is more than US can handle?

Neither, as any disinterested reader with minimal reading comprehension would have understood.

You have been defending the Iranian theocracy, even bringing up ancient history to defend them. You are not fooling anybody.

Clearly you don't know what "apologetics" means, so please stop using it. I have justified nothing Iran or the Houthis have done.

If that was not your intention, I propose you express yourself more clearly next time.

You think more destruction and more killing by the US is necessary to deal with a truly minor commercial issue that can easily be dealt with by others. We have more than enough now on our hands to do. It is time for others to get involved.

Shipping having to go around the Cape of Good Hope instead of through the Suez Canal is surely more than a "minor commercial issue".

Remember when that ship got stuck in the Suez canal a couple of years ago?

 

[Derec]

Unless the Houthis were eliminated, yiu are mistaken. This civil ear is a tribal feud fueled with outside resources.

Weakening them would have worked too. Houthis are an extremist terror group who recruit from among Yemeni Shiites, sure, but those Shiites are a minority of Yemenis and their recruitment efforts would have stalled anyway if not for battlefield victories enabled by Western inaction.

]In case you haven’t noticed, the USA cannot even adequately supply Ukraine with the arms they desperately need. We don’t need to be sidetracked into a no win quagmire.

Ukraine is more of a quagmire (quite literally during the mud season in Spring after snowmelt). It has Russia involved directly rather than Iran indirectly. And a lot less would be needed to cause Houthis to stop attacking ships than is needed to stop Russia attacking Ukraine.
I agree with needing to help Ukraine militarily. That does not mean that's the only thing we can or should do.

We weren’t providing sufficient arms to Ukraine. Now we are not going to supply any arms in a late manner, let alone in a timely matter. The importance if Ukraine’s defence is magnitudes higher than some minor shipping attacks. The US does not need more distractions and to make more long term enemies at this time.

We can walk and chew gum at the same time. And Iran/Houthis are already our enemies. We would not be creating any. Just weakening those we already have.

 

[Derec]

Ha ha... Oh wait, you're serious?

Yes, I am. I am as opposed to Mike Johnson and his allies as anybody here, but there are enough threads on them and they do not belong in this thread, which is about Iran/Houthis attacking shipping through the Red Sea.

I'm a leftist because I oppose theocratic authoritarianism of any flavor? Especially the ones in power in my home country? A country far more powerful than Iran, which is on the far side of the planet from me?

It is the wrong thread for that.

Here's a huge reason I oppose them. Obama started U.S. on a path towards a peaceful and prosperous relationship with Iran.

I disagree. It was a rotten deal. Sanction relief plus pallets of cash for at most a temporary pause on their nuclear weapons program. And no concessions whatsoever on their missile program or their funding and arming of international terrorist groups like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah and Houthis.

Teapartiers trashed that before it was even done. The reason we have no soft power in Iran is because people like Trump and Johnson sabotaged it.

We would not have any soft power regardless. Again, Obama made a bad deal here.

That's why I blame them, to a large extent, for yet another mess in the middle east involving Iran.
Tom

Even if the 2015 deal was still fully in place it would in no way have prevented Iranian machinations in Yemen. Or Gaza and Lebanon, for that matter.

 

[Derec]

US weighs strike options to deter Houthis from more Red Sea attacks

Top Biden administration officials are actively weighing options to strike back at Houthis in Yemen after the Iran-backed group launched new attacks on naval and commercial ships in the Red Sea on Saturday, according to two U.S. officials.
The Pentagon has in recent days moved the Dwight D. Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group from the Persian Gulf into the Gulf of Aden, off the coast of Yemen, to support a potential U.S. response to attacks, said one of the officials, both of whom were granted anonymity to speak about sensitive plans. The military has also provided options to commanders to strike the Houthis, the official said.

They should just do it.

The Biden administration has been reluctant to respond militarily against the Houthi attacks on commercial shipping in recent weeks for fear of provoking Iran, which backs Hamas and Hezbollah in Yemen as well as the Houthis. Previously, the Pentagon had recommended the administration not do so.

Now is not the time for timidity.

 

[laughing dog]

They are attacking the civilized world's interest. Free passage for cargo ships through shipping lanes is in Europe's, Asia's, Australia's. Africa's and South America's interests,. There is nothing stopping France or Great Britain or India from stepping in. We are busy,

With what? US certainly has military capabilities, and Biden is a CinC who has authority to use military force to combat terrorism (2001 AUMF).
While an international task force would be ideal, there is a lot of inertia with those things, and in any case US would be taking a lead in any such task force.

Are you under the delusion that none of those countries has a navy or a military?

As usual, your ignorance of the situation makes you miss the point.

No, your ignorance. You thought the Shah was "put in power". In reality, he was the monarch since 1941.

FFS, by overthrowing the elected government, the Shah gained significantly more power.

Mossadegh was a duly elected representative in a fair election.

Never claimed he wasn't. But he did not act democratically. He attempted to rule by decree. He tried to stop vote counting in the 1952 elections so he would not lose. That is in addition to him being an ally (some would say puppet) of Moscow and expropriating ($10 word for "stealing") assets of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.....

Totally irrelevant. Your opinion of Mossadegh is immaterial to the issue that the US overthrew him which set up a venal corrupt authoritarian with more power (the Shah) who ruled so poorly that he was overthrown and replaced by the theocrats.

The Shah was not.

The Shah was a corrupt, venal autocrat. We overthrew the elected gov't and propped up the autocratic.

Just because Mossadegh was originally elected does not mean much. He did not act democratically.
Shah wasn't perfect either, but he was 1000x better than what came after. Despite Democrats like Andrew Young thinking that Khomeini was a "saint".

No one is justifying anything. This tangent was started and driven by your denial that the US had not done anything to Iran.

Yes, you are. You are justifying present behavior of the theocratic regime in Tehran with a simplistic version of what happened 70 years ago.

As usual, you are wrong. Explaining the chain of events is not justifying anything.

You mean just like in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Both of these wars were mismanaged. And in any case, I am not proposing putting boots on the ground in Yemen.

You recognize the fact that both wars (and aftermaths more so) were mismanaged. Why would you think that we would not mismanage this?

I am not opposed to the general principle of the US or any country securing shipping lanes. I am opposed to the US getting into more than it can handle when there are plenty of other potential actors who can do the job.

Why do you think air strikes against Houthis is more than US can handle?

We have Ukraine, Gaza and now a possible invasion in South America to deal with.

Neither, as any disinterested reader with minimal reading comprehension would have understood.

You have been defending the Iranian theocracy, even bringing up ancient history to defend them. You are not fooling anybody.

As usual, you are dead wrong. No one brought up ancient history, let alone defended Iran. Those claims are outright mischaracterizations. Explaining that Iran has legitimate complaints against the US that give it good reason to distrust us (the overthrow of the elected gov't, and our helping Iraq in their war with Iran) is not defending anyone.

You think more destruction and more killing by the US is necessary to deal with a truly minor commercial issue that can easily be dealt with by others. We have more than enough now on our hands to do. It is time for others to get involved.

Shipping having to go around the Cape of Good Hope instead of through the Suez Canal is surely more than a "minor commercial issue".

Remember when that ship got stuck in the Suez canal a couple of years ago?

Again, a minor commercial issue in the grand scheme of things.

 

[laughing dog]

Unless the Houthis were eliminated, yiu are mistaken. This civil ear is a tribal feud fueled with outside resources.

Weakening them would have worked too. Houthis are an extremist terror group who recruit from among Yemeni Shiites, sure, but those Shiites are a minority of Yemenis and their recruitment efforts would have stalled anyway if not for battlefield victories enabled by Western inaction.

Your argument is devoid of any recognition of the social and cultural context of the area. Unless the Houthis are eliminated, this will not stop. In essence, you are advocating killing for just killing's sake or genocide.

]In case you haven’t noticed, the USA cannot even adequately supply Ukraine with the arms they desperately need. We don’t need to be sidetracked into a no win quagmire.

Ukraine is more of a quagmire (quite literally during the mud season in Spring after snowmelt). It has Russia involved directly rather than Iran indirectly. And a lot less would be needed to cause Houthis to stop attacking ships than is needed to stop Russia attacking Ukraine.
I agree with needing to help Ukraine militarily. That does not mean that's the only thing we can or should do.

We don't have enough supplies for our own defence and sending arms to Ukraine and Israel. And we don't need to get pulled into some minor spat.

We weren’t providing sufficient arms to Ukraine. Now we are not going to supply any arms in a late manner, let alone in a timely matter. The importance if Ukraine’s defence is magnitudes higher than some minor shipping attacks. The US does not need more distractions and to make more long term enemies at this time.

We can walk and chew gum at the same time. And Iran/Houthis are already our enemies. We would not be creating any. Just weakening those we already have.

There is little evidence the US can "walk" effectively in that region, let alone "walk and chew gum". Your comic book view of the world appears to drive your barbaric bloodlust. Thankfully, the neocons and other warmongers are not in power.

 

[ZiprHead]

Just because Mossadegh was originally elected does not mean much. He did not act democratically.
Shah wasn't perfect either, but he was 1000x better than what came after.

That's just our dictators are better than yours.

 

[Patooka]

Why are you leftists incapable of not engaging in whataboutisms regarding Republicans?

How much of this do you go through to keep that glass house of yours squeaky clean?

 

[Derec]

That's just our dictators are better than yours.

Are you claiming the ayatollahs as your dictators?