An update for ShockForce just got more relevant!

[Ithikial_AU]

There's also the issue that the majority of NATO and the US Governments have crippling levels of debt. Could they even afford to go to war? Look at the rate of debt rise under Pres. Bush Junior during Iraq. As mentioned above, going into Iran would be a much larger venture due to terrain and population.

Unless Iran actually launched some kind of attack that was successful on a Western target, I don't think you'll see another war in the near future.

[Boche]

debt wise, I think the west cant choose to go to war (one of the reasons bieng economical), but it can be forced into it (IMO a conflict takes immediate presedence over anything else).

if you can and if you havnt yet, I would suggest you read the "War with Iran" section of the first source. Found it very very interesting.

[dan/california]

If the Iranians try to close the straight the bill for the war to open it will be about #137 on the discussion list. It would simply guarantee a conflict, perhaps a VERY broad one.

[Erwin]

I think a broad conflict highly unlikely for all of the above reasons. Iran doesn't want to end up like Iraq, and the west can't afford to be even more bankrupt. We really could be at the tipping point of the collapse of the west with all the economic tidal waves swooshing around from coast to cost etc. <That was a sp error but I'll leave it.>

Many years ago I read that one of Osama's or Al Q's strategies was to draw the west into an non-winnable war that would bankrupt us and bring about the demise of the western hegemony. We've made a huge error in depicting these people as stone age tribesmen with stone age thinking.

[YankeeDog]

It's also important to factor in the effect of what's going on in Syria right now. The current Syrian regime is probably Iran's closest regional ally, and if the Assad government falls, it's a pretty safe bet that whatever replaces it will not be anywhere near as friendly to Iran. I personally doubt any new Syrian government will be particularly pro-Western, but I also think the people getting shot at by tanks in the streets of Homs are going to remember the material and diplomatic support that Tehran has lent to the Assad regime if they come into power.

Of course, events in Syria don't have any direct, immediate effect on shipping in the Gulf, but I think they further contribute to Iran's sense of isolation and crisis, and this has to be kept in mind when conjecturing what the mullahs may do next. While I don't *think* Iran will do anything so stupid as to initiate a full-out shooting war in the Gulf, the combination of international sanctions and the Arab Spring uprisings may be creating a feeling among Iranian hardliners that they are being backed into a corner, which could increase the chances of them doing something irrational.

[noxnoctum]

I think a broad conflict highly unlikely for all of the above reasons. Iran doesn't want to end up like Iraq, and the west can't afford to be even more bankrupt. We really could be at the tipping point of the collapse of the west with all the economic tidal waves swooshing around from coast to cost etc. <That was a sp error but I'll leave it.>

Many years ago I read that one of Osama's or Al Q's strategies was to draw the west into an non-winnable war that would bankrupt us and bring about the demise of the western hegemony. We've made a huge error in depicting these people as stone age tribesmen with stone age thinking.

Ya and we're falling right into it. Pretty depressing .

[black_prince]

To be honest, I think that your giving a bit too much credit to Osama. I would put the cost of the war on terror way down the list of factors which caused the current economic crisis. Ahead of them I would put inadequate regulation of the financial sector, misconcieved government interference in the housing sector (Freddie and Fannie), China's currency policy, the Euro etc.... etc.....

I don't know the exact percentage of government spending the war on terror has made up in the US over the last decade but certainly in Europe it has been a negligable part and yet many European countries are not in a better position than the US when it comes to soveriegn debt.

In terms of the long term relative decline of the West I would go so far as saying that Al-Qaeda is more accurately described as a symptom than a cause.

Economy wise, Iran is certainly not in any position of advantage. Inflation and unemployment are rampant and the exchange value of the Riyal is at record lows, so much so that the government has imposed draconian exchange controls. The anouncement of sanctions aimed at Iran's central bank by the US almost instantly caused the Riyal to lose 10% against the Dollar.

Personally, the more they rant, the more I'm convinced they don't want to go to war (at least for the time being). Having said that, there is always the danger of people coming to believe their own propaganda.

[LongLeftFlank]

Great post. I agree -- OBL and Salafism have far more in common with Che Guevara and his urban guerrilla theories of the 1960s -- romanticized saint/hero figures "fighting the Imperialsts" but essentially ineffective, easily coopted and above all incapable of articulating an attractive alternative vision for economy and society other than to wind back the clock to some fuzzy idealized notion of the Prophet's First Caliphate. Their attempts to establish a base of support in any "developed" area of the Islamic world have been dismal failures -- Chechnya, Bosnia, Algeria, Iraq and now (it seems) Libya have failed simply because the local rulers see them for the naive crackpots they are and generally kill them.

Even worse for them, the only places these folks have been able to last any length of time amidst are failed societies like "Pushtunistan" (AfPak), Sudan or Somalia. The Taliban, a semi-illiterate rural movement whose non-philosophy is akin to that of Pol Pot has made a pretty uncomfortable bedfellows. Even the ailing OBL himself found himself unable to endure their lifestyle and ended up hiding back in civilzation. Typical -- Guevara was also busted once he tried to come out of the jungle, having hit his bourgeois limit on virtuous rural privation.

Absent the continued presence of a foreign force to keep stirring up the natives, these people will eventually either wear out their welcome, intermarry and melt into the tribal pastoral tribes, or retire into either impotent obscurity or police custody.

[black_prince]

Thanks for that LLF, pretty much agree with what you say above as well.

Coming back to Iran, the EU has now agreed in principal to embargo Iranian oil. Iran imports only a fraction of its oil to Europe although not a completely insignificant fraction (about 15% or 20% I believe), the major European customers being Greece and Italy.

Iran's response? They say they will 'work around' the embargo. Still defiant, granted but compare that with:

"If they impose sanctions on Iran's oil exports, then even one drop of oil cannot flow from the strait of Hormuz,"

So far it looks as though Iran's bluff has been well and truly called and what everyone has been saying in this thread regarding the likelyhood of Iran taking action to close the straits has been vindicated.