US-Iran peace agreement discussion, part 4

[RedTagAlan]

Thread 4 for those following and commenting on the above subject.

Ok so your claim that "none of these claims are backed up by reality/facts" is untroubled by any actual evidence.

End of conversation as far as I'm concerned.

End of conversation as far as you are concerned

okidoki

The United States struck two Iranian launchers on Larak Island in the Strait of Hormuz. This was reported by Axios, citing an American official. The Qatari television channel Al Jazeera also reported the strike, citing a senior American official.

The US launched strikes against Iran on Sunday for the first time in a month, attacking missile launchers in the SoH.

Iranian sources were seen preparing to launch rockets carrying sea mines, according to US Central Command, prompting the pre-emptive attacks.

Iran’s Tasmin news agency said reports indicate that two people were killed and two others injured.

The IRGC then retaliated by launching ballistic missiles at US bases in Jordan. These caused “heavy damage” to American infrastructure, according to the IRGC.

Jordan’s army said that it intercepted eight missiles.

Trump said last week that all mines in the SoH had been detonated or destroyed and Iran had been warned that any ship or boat deploying new mines would be destroyed. Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister had described Trump’s claim as “propaganda” deception.

Sources: The Telegraph & the BBC.

In other news, the Iranian President said on Saturday that foreign trade with Iran is down 35% due to American sanctions & the blockade.

Scott Bessent said that after imposing penalties on UAE branches of Egypt’s Banque Misr, the next step may be cutting off an institution entirely from the US based dollar system.

“You’re going to see a lot more of these every week” he said.

Source: Sky News.

I am not convinced. That is, I am not say I am 100% not buying it, I am about 90% not buying it.

Why use a missile to lay sea mines? Why not just fire the missiles at ships? Maybe because of night time targeting issues against a moving object ?

Anyway, the rocket system Iran uses for sea mines is the Fajr-5 apparently. They done a propaganda claim that they could do it in Jan 2025. Details here

Breaking News: Iran Demonstrates Fajr-5 Rocket Launcher for Sea Mine Laying Threatening Global Maritime Security (armyrecognition.com)

That looks to me like internal propaganda. As in " see what we can do now" sort of thing. And sure, as a last gasp thing, it makes sense.

But look at the size of the rocket. It's pretty big (long). And it would have to be, because sea mines are heavy. This rocket apparently has a range of 75 Km with a 178 Kg payload. That would work. But that is a big old truck setup there. It's not a man portable short range coastal anti ship missile that can be hidden in a shed.

I think the main thing is that any mines this lays would likely be free floating, not placed and tethered. Therefore they would be indiscriminate. I come to that conclusion from looking at this site here that has Iranian mines.

. Guide To Iran’s Naval Mines | Covert Shores (hisutton.com)

See the size of the moored contact mine and the bottom influence mine. Now look at how slender the rocket is in my first link. For sure a very small moored contact mine would fit. But that would be sort of pointless, because that would mean the explosive charge would be too small. It would be nuisance value perhaps ?

And that takes me back to an earlier post. That Iran have been using drones against ships. For nuisance value. That is, they appear to have not tried to actually sink ships.

Could Iran sink a ship ? Sure, just fire a couple of those Fajr-5 missiles at one.

Also, just another thought. Using a missile to deploy a moored mine. A bit pointless in that with Reapers overhead and radar, people will know where it lands. Compare that to a fishing trawler style boat to deploy them. The boat can just sail through dropping them overboard. No ballistic trajectory, and no big splash.

There is also the technical bits about plane v rocket deployed mines. Velocity of impact on the water v terminal velocity when dropping from a low altitude plane.

Oh, just remembered. Acoustic sensors. As in microphones. The whole area will be well covered with them. If a Tuna farts in the SoH. some person with headphones on will know about it.

And nope, I have no idea if the SoH has Tuna. Nor do I know if they fart.

Add to my post above re mines.

I forgot about the area denial factor. Launch a couple of missiles targeting an area of the sea where you want the other side to think there are mines. You don't actually need there to be mines. The other side just thinking there could be mines there is enough to disrupt shipping. And of course it could lead to the minesweepers being diverted.

Mines are not actually needed for mining to be effective. You just need a " BEWARE OF MINES" sign.

I haven't caught up with the thread yet, but woke up to the news that the US had launched "pre-emptive strikes" aka attacks on Iran. I will now go back to pps where no doubt, I shall find out (or not) "How use a missile launcher to mine the SoH.101".

Yup. I have done a sort of technical thing with pictures in the links.

I am convinced the US military is now caught in a top down system. Trump with his planet size brain utters something, and the acolytes he has appointed scramble to "make it so".

Their jobs depend on keeping him happy. And we are in the Trump post truth era.

@RedTagAlan ,

Militaries are top down, pretty much by definition. That’s why they have ranks!

So, yes, if Trump asks the military to do something, as long as it’s not illegal, the only question is how to get it done.

Re ships and the Strait of Hormuz, how are they getting insurance to transit?

I know that was an issue when Iran first started firing on ships. Has it gone away?

Usually it is all done on advice. With information and data leading up to/ and guiding and the final decision.

Trump is doing things the dictator top down way. He says what it is, the fact and data need to be changed to match what he says. Pretty standard in authoritarian states. And of course, Trump has no truth/lie filter. They are both the same to him.

So the US hit Iran. Iran has tried to hit US bases in Jordan and the UAE. So back on the merry-go-round we go. I want to get off!

@RedTagAlan ,

‘Usually it is all done on advice. With information and data leading up to/ and guiding and the final decision.’

I am just not that convinced it is that different, say, to the second Iraq war. I think that came directly from Bush/Cheney. I don’t think many experts were advising the U.S to attack Iraq.

Most U.S presidents have acted, at least to some extent, as elected dictators, especially concerning foreign adventures The difference is that they have to stand on their record for reelection.

It is true that Hegseth is exceptionally weak and shouldn’t be in that position.

I certainly don’t think the military often advise on whether to do an operation. They are asked ro prepare options on achieving a certain goal and then the politicians decide, given the risks and rewards.

@JadeHare ,

‘So the US hit Iran. Iran has tried to hit US bases in Jordan and the UAE. So back on the merry-go-round we go. I want to get off!’

The merry go round is moving slower and slower.

The U.S are gradually gaining control of the Strait of Hormuz and, as noted by some Iranians is a ‘wasting asset’. Equally, the Americans are war-weary and are running out of important munitions, especially defensive missiles.

Trump once again posted AI slop with the caption, “Kharg Island being blown to smithereens!!!”

I don't see how the US is gaining control of the straight. Escorting ships is not a viable long term solution and as Red pointed out, the Straight doesn't actually need to be mined, the insurance company just need to believe it might be and it would be enough to void any claims if a ship tried to traverse the Straight. Before all this started and the Straight was open, tankers used to pull up for weeks just off the coast of Fujeirah while they waited for insurance clearance to enter the Gulf.

Missile production. The US has made some new missiles so it will use them.

This from the CNN feed

"Iran fired missiles toward US military targets in Jordan in retaliation for a strike on Iranian rocket launchers that the US said were trying to launch sea mines into the Strait of Hormuz –– the key shipping route that’s become the center of regional tensions and diplomatic efforts."

So it look's like Iran had not fired the missiles the US said were laying sea mines.

There was a drone intercepted.

CNN - "Later Monday morning, the United Arab Emirates said it had intercepted a drone approaching from Iran over its territorial waters.".

But that was after the US strikes.

The US are not escorting ships though. That never happened. What they are doing is "facilitating". As in, " Your turn tanker number 6. Quick, go as fast as you can".

@RedTagAlan ,

‘Missile production. The US has made some new missiles so it will use them.’

It will take years (!) to replace the ones they have used. They are being very careful.

This from the CNN feed

‘"Iran fired missiles toward US military targets in Jordan in retaliation for a strike on Iranian rocket launchers that the US said were trying to launch sea mines into the Strait of Hormuz –– the key shipping route that’s become the center of regional tensions and diplomatic efforts."

So it look's like Iran had not fired the missiles the US said were laying sea mines.’

You can see missiles being prepared for launch. Far harder to intercept them after firing.

And the U.S will have had to use Patriot or Thaad or similar to intercept the Iranian missiles fired on Jordan.

That may be the case but we are not talking about you, a British person who has very likely not lived under either decades of sanctions or been in a war zone. We are talking about the people in Iran, many of whom have died because of the sanctions.

As I said in a post above. Bit daft to use a missile to deploy sea mines. One can see where they land. Just mark it on a map and send a sweeper.

Quote "It will take years (!) to replace the ones they have used. They are being very careful."

If they were being careful they would have increased production before starting a war.

We just have to take Trump at his word that Iran were preparing to launch sea mines. My alternative thinking is that he had some missiles delivered and Trump said to fire some. Make it about mines. It's not as if he is famous for being honest. It can be a struggle to find anything he says that is not a lie.

@RedTagAlan ,

‘If they were being careful they would have increased production before starting a war.’

Although Trump was warned over this, he thought it was a 4-6 week war. Now they are in real trouble. Even Trump knows denuding the European and Korean theatres of defensive missiles is a problem, which is what they have had to do.

‘As I said in a post above. Bit daft to use a missile to deploy sea mines. One can see where they land. Just mark it on a map and send a sweeper.’

I am not an expert on missiles deploying mines, but I am sure they are cleverer than you are implying!

Quote " I am not an expert on missiles deploying mines, but I am sure they are cleverer than you are implying!"

Just the old physics. Ballistic missiles have a parabolic trajectory. That's how Patriot can intercept them. Unless the Iranian genies have got magic spells that make big flaming ballistic missiles invisible to radar. Also the physics of payload, and what mass a mine must have to be able to sink/damage a ship.

I posted the links in my previous post. But here is a link about Ballistic missiles.

Physics:Ballistic missile - HandWiki

From the WP:

“It was obvious from the start that appointing Pete Hegseth — a former Fox News weekend host — as secretary of defense was a spectacularly bad idea: He was, by far, the least qualified person ever to lead the Pentagon. So, too, was it obvious that Hegseth’s decision to fire more than two dozen senior officers and to block the promotions of at least 45 officers — for reasons he never explained — was a spectacularly bad idea that would deny the armed forces the veteran, apolitical leadership they need.
What was not so apparent, until now, was the consequences of those decisions. They have created a dangers leadership vacuum that is jeopardizing national security and military readiness. Critical posts in the armed forces are either not being filled or are being filled with officers seemingly appointed more for political than professional reasons.
The most alarming evidence is the Iran fiasco. Now six months old, President Donald Trump’s military campaign has failed to end either Iran’s regime or its nuclear program, but it has taken a heavy toll on the world situation and on the U.S. armed forces. Recent Washington Post headlines tell the story: “Putin sees U.S. as weakened by Iran war, intelligence ”
“Trump, of course, bears ultimate responsibility for launching this unsuccessful and unnecessary conflict. Yet the Pentagon leadership can’t escape blame. A Wall Street Journal investigation published last week found that the intelligence community accurately warned of the risks and Vice President JD Vance counseled against the conflict. But Trump was apparently won over by Hegseth, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine and Adm. Brad Cooper, head of U.S. Central Command, who briefed him on plans to cripple Iranian forces. According to the Journal, Hegseth and Caine assured the president “they would navigate any complications.”
I am dead certain that if Jim Mattis,* *one of Trump’s first-term secretaries of defense, and Gen. Mark Milley, his first-term chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, were still in office, we would never have gotten into this quagmire. Both men actively and wisely resisted pressure to attack Iran.”
“But in his second term, Trump made sure to appoint more pliant leaders. He fired the previous chairman of the Joint Chiefs and appointed Caine, a retired three-star, because he had the (probably wrong) impression that Caine was a MAGA supporter. Hegseth chose Cooper to run Centcom over the front-runner — Army Gen. James Mingus — apparently because Mingus had worked for Milley, whom Trump loathes.”
“Hegseth subsequently fired Mingus as Army vice chief of staff and then got rid of his widely respected boss— Gen. Randy George. The Army now has no confirmed chief of staff. The post is filled on an acting basis by Gen. Christopher LaNeve, Hegseth’s former military assistant who won Trump’s favor by calling in to congratulate him on his inauguration. Bipartisan concerns in the Senate are blocking LaNeve’s confirmation to the top job.
The Post just reported that, before George was fired, LaNeve had warned him not to investigate the helicopter pilots who recklessly hovered in front of Trump supporter Kid Rock’s house. Then, one of LaNeve’s first actions as acting chief was to disband a drone battalion that George had organized — a move that former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R) called a “terrible mistake.”
Another terrible mistake was LaNeve’s decision to reassign III Armored Corps — which comprises three heavy divisions — from focusing on the Russian threat in Europe to the new Western Hemisphere Command. Are these armored units supposed to invade Mexico? Greenland? Canada? It makes no sense and sends a dangerous signal of irresolution to Russian President Vladimir Putin.”
“Hegseth’s purges have created a vacuum in Army leadership. As the New York Times notes, the Army has gone from having 10 four-star generals to having only five. Some key jobs have been empty for months. And the vacuum at the top will only get worse because Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, who worked closely with George but clashed with Hegseth, is reportedly leaving.
The Navy is also in dire shape, with Trump’s Iran war rapidly draining its budget and munitions and hurting readiness. The crisis is being exacerbated by Trump’s inexplicable demands to replace electromagnetic catapults with steam catapults and to move the location of the command post on future aircraft carriers. As former naval officer Bryan Clark warned in a Post op-ed, redesigning carriers will be a lengthy and costly process that “risks crippling fleet readiness — already at its lowest point in decades.””
“A normal chief of naval operations should have pushed back strongly against such an ill-considered change. But there is no indication that Adm. Daryl Caudle did so. The New York Times reported that Caudle and his aides lobbied for him to get the post — in breach of military decorum — after Hegseth fired the first female chief of naval operations. The report said that one of Caudle’s officers told Hegseth’s team that the admiral was sympathetic to Hegseth’s anti-“woke” fulminations. Caudle wasn’t recommended by senior Navy officials but got the job anyway.
And then there are the Pentagon’s lawless attacks on alleged drug boats. For the past year, the military has been killing noncombatants without having any appreciable impact in slowing the flow of cocaine into the United States. The previous head of U.S. Southern Command, Adm. Alvin Holsey, expressed concerns about the attacks, so he was forced into early retirement. Hegseth replaced him with the more obliging Marine Gen. Francis L. Donovan. Southern Command announced another boat strike last week, killing four more people without trial.”
“While all this is going on, the administration is trying to expand the defense budget to $1.5 trillion. But all the money in the world can’t make up for the crippling loss of leadership caused by Hegseth’s purges. Trump and Hegseth may be buying more hardware, but they are endangering the apolitical professionalism — the operating system — that once made the U.S. military the envy of the world.”

Excerpt From
“Opinion | Hegseth’s purges are endangering national security”
Max Boot
The Washington Post
https://apple.news/AyPthqdnjR1mrfk4fW71z2A
This material may be protected by copyright.