Iran Threatens to Close Strait of Hormuz
No mention has been given to the other side of the Strait i.e. the Musandam Peninsular, which is sovereign territory belonging to the Sultanate of Oman. There are defensive facilities there, and the Sultan has more friends than Iran ....
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
The Corner: Krauthammer’s Take
From Fox’s Special Report with Bret Baier. Thursday, Dec. 29, 2011
On Iran’s threats to close the Strait of Hormuz:
From Fox’s Special Report with Bret Baier. Thursday, Dec. 29, 2011
On Iran’s threats to close the Strait of Hormuz:
Iran could be making a huge mistake here, because if the bluff is called, if it actually interrupts shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, the United States Navy will respond, it will reopen the Strait and it could destroy the Iranian navy.
But worse than that is this. There’s been a huge debate, of course, in the U.S. and the West about… whether anybody should attack the military facilities, the nuclear facilities, in Iran. And of course the risks are high and reluctance is great in the United States because it would effectively start a war.
However, if the Iranians block an international strait, that’s a breach of the most elementary rules of international law. It is an act of war. And if America reopens the Strait and the Iranian navy attacks America, that’s essentially a declaration of war on us. And then the idea of declaring war is moot. And then it opens the chance that the United States might actually strike more widely than simply the Iranian navy and would hit other military facilities, and possibly nuclear [facilities].
Saddam in 1991 was a year or two away from acquiring nuclear weapons, and he made a mistake of starting a war in Kuwait. And as a result he never achieved that. If he had waited two years, he would have been [a] nuclear [power]. The Iranians are close. If they provoke a war here, they could be de- nuclearized and lose their entire strategic objective of becoming the hegemonic element in the region.
On the $29 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia:But worse than that is this. There’s been a huge debate, of course, in the U.S. and the West about… whether anybody should attack the military facilities, the nuclear facilities, in Iran. And of course the risks are high and reluctance is great in the United States because it would effectively start a war.
However, if the Iranians block an international strait, that’s a breach of the most elementary rules of international law. It is an act of war. And if America reopens the Strait and the Iranian navy attacks America, that’s essentially a declaration of war on us. And then the idea of declaring war is moot. And then it opens the chance that the United States might actually strike more widely than simply the Iranian navy and would hit other military facilities, and possibly nuclear [facilities].
Saddam in 1991 was a year or two away from acquiring nuclear weapons, and he made a mistake of starting a war in Kuwait. And as a result he never achieved that. If he had waited two years, he would have been [a] nuclear [power]. The Iranians are close. If they provoke a war here, they could be de- nuclearized and lose their entire strategic objective of becoming the hegemonic element in the region.
It’s an old issue. When Reagan wanted to sell AWACS, there was a huge argument in the U.S. that it could be used against Israel or, if the regime changed and becomes radical, then ultimately against us. Nonetheless, the answer today as it was in Reagan’s day is: You want to — you have to — arm the Saudis and the Gulf states who are allies because the threat is Iran. And Iran as the hegemon in the region would be… hugely dangerous to the United States and all its allies.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You want to — you have to — arm the Saudis and the Gulf states who are allies because the threat is Iran.
You think the Saudis would do much actual fighting? I don't.
Saudi purchases of F-15's, M1 tanks, etc., is a means of buying the protection
of Uncle Sugar's armed forces. ... S.A has beaucoup M1 tanks, probably parked nose to tail in warehouses and brought out only for occasional parades ... Not got going to hurt anybody with 'em, except maybe Saudi dissidents.
One good thing that can be said for Saudi A. as opposed to Israel -- at least the Saudis pay for their American weapons, and don't resell American military technology to China.
You think the Saudis would do much actual fighting? I don't.
Saudi purchases of F-15's, M1 tanks, etc., is a means of buying the protection
of Uncle Sugar's armed forces. ... S.A has beaucoup M1 tanks, probably parked nose to tail in warehouses and brought out only for occasional parades ... Not got going to hurt anybody with 'em, except maybe Saudi dissidents.
One good thing that can be said for Saudi A. as opposed to Israel -- at least the Saudis pay for their American weapons, and don't resell American military technology to China.
Last edited by Modern Elmo; 31st Dec 2011 at 16:00.
You want to — you have to — arm the Saudis and the Gulf states who are allies because the threat is Iran.
You think the Saudis would do much actual fighting? I don't.
Saudi purchases of F-15's, M1 tanks, etc., is a means of buying the protection
of Uncle Sugar's armed forces. ... S.A has beaucoup M1 tanks, probably parked nose to tail in warehouses and brought out only for occasional parades ... Not got going to hurt anybody with 'em, except maybe Saudi dissidents.
One good thing that can be said for Saudi A. as opposed to Israel -- at least the Saudis pay for their American weapons, and don't resell American military technology to China.
You think the Saudis would do much actual fighting? I don't.
Saudi purchases of F-15's, M1 tanks, etc., is a means of buying the protection
of Uncle Sugar's armed forces. ... S.A has beaucoup M1 tanks, probably parked nose to tail in warehouses and brought out only for occasional parades ... Not got going to hurt anybody with 'em, except maybe Saudi dissidents.
One good thing that can be said for Saudi A. as opposed to Israel -- at least the Saudis pay for their American weapons, and don't resell American military technology to China.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Asia Times - Asia's most trusted news source for the Middle East
I think it depends what news report you read. US said it was in contravention of agreements, Israel said it was a routine upgrade approved by the US, discussions have been going on about it for years.
I think it depends what news report you read. US said it was in contravention of agreements, Israel said it was a routine upgrade approved by the US, discussions have been going on about it for years.
Scuttled - try researching USS Liberty sinking if you want some more background into Israel's attitude to their milk-cow benefactor. Israel would stab the USA in the back again, if it suited them.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Deutsche.Welle: Obama signs 'toughest yet' Iran sanctions
Mounting tensions between the United States and Iran are likely to flare even further after US President Barack Obama has signed new sanctions against Iran's financial and oil sectors.
US President Barack Obama has signed into law tough new sanctions targeting Iran's banking and oil sectors. Effectively, the measures will force companies and financial institutions throughout the world to choose between the United States and Iran as their business partner. The sanctions, conceived to punish Iran for its nuclear program, are part of a $662 billion (511 billion-euro) defense spending bill Obama signed on Saturday, December 31, during his vacation to Hawaii.
Firms and financial institutions, including foreign central banks, could be barred from trading on US financial markets if they continue ties with Iran's central bank or oil industry. Iran's central bank is essential to processing income from Iranian oil exports.
'Toughest sanctions yet'
The Obama administration has called the sanctions America's toughest yet against Tehran. Until now, most sanctions have focused on preventing nuclear industry products from entering Iran. "Our intent is to implement this law in a timed and phased approach so that we avoid repercussions to the oil market and ensure that this damages Iran and not the rest of the world," said an unnamed senior US official quoted by Reuters news agency.
The measures have sparked fears that Washington could damage ties with Iranian trade partners China and Russia, and that global markets could reel if Iran fires back, sending oil prices sky-high. However, the measures will not go into effect for 180 days, giving Obama's administration nearly half a year to consider how to implement them. The president will also be granted discretion to give temporary waivers from the sanctions if he judges them to be in US national interest.
Securing oil
The international dispute over Iran's nuclear program - which the West suspects is bent on developing weapons capabilities - currently threatens to impact global oil supply. Iran announced earlier this week that it would begin testing missiles in the Strait of Hormuz, a move the US warned against. Iran also threatened that, if the US passed new sanctions, it would block the Strait, through which over a third of the world's oil tankers pass.
The US responded to the threats on Friday by announcing a $3.45 billion arms deal with Iran's neighbor across the Strait, the United Arab Emirates, in an effort to build up defenses against Iran. During 2011, the US also sold billions of dollars worth of missiles to neighbors Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
The Wall Street Journal reported in December that the US and European officials were seeking assurances from other major oil producers including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates that they would up their imports to the West and Asia if Tehran's energy sector came under tighter sanctions..............
Mounting tensions between the United States and Iran are likely to flare even further after US President Barack Obama has signed new sanctions against Iran's financial and oil sectors.
US President Barack Obama has signed into law tough new sanctions targeting Iran's banking and oil sectors. Effectively, the measures will force companies and financial institutions throughout the world to choose between the United States and Iran as their business partner. The sanctions, conceived to punish Iran for its nuclear program, are part of a $662 billion (511 billion-euro) defense spending bill Obama signed on Saturday, December 31, during his vacation to Hawaii.
Firms and financial institutions, including foreign central banks, could be barred from trading on US financial markets if they continue ties with Iran's central bank or oil industry. Iran's central bank is essential to processing income from Iranian oil exports.
'Toughest sanctions yet'
The Obama administration has called the sanctions America's toughest yet against Tehran. Until now, most sanctions have focused on preventing nuclear industry products from entering Iran. "Our intent is to implement this law in a timed and phased approach so that we avoid repercussions to the oil market and ensure that this damages Iran and not the rest of the world," said an unnamed senior US official quoted by Reuters news agency.
The measures have sparked fears that Washington could damage ties with Iranian trade partners China and Russia, and that global markets could reel if Iran fires back, sending oil prices sky-high. However, the measures will not go into effect for 180 days, giving Obama's administration nearly half a year to consider how to implement them. The president will also be granted discretion to give temporary waivers from the sanctions if he judges them to be in US national interest.
Securing oil
The international dispute over Iran's nuclear program - which the West suspects is bent on developing weapons capabilities - currently threatens to impact global oil supply. Iran announced earlier this week that it would begin testing missiles in the Strait of Hormuz, a move the US warned against. Iran also threatened that, if the US passed new sanctions, it would block the Strait, through which over a third of the world's oil tankers pass.
The US responded to the threats on Friday by announcing a $3.45 billion arms deal with Iran's neighbor across the Strait, the United Arab Emirates, in an effort to build up defenses against Iran. During 2011, the US also sold billions of dollars worth of missiles to neighbors Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
The Wall Street Journal reported in December that the US and European officials were seeking assurances from other major oil producers including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates that they would up their imports to the West and Asia if Tehran's energy sector came under tighter sanctions..............
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yup Biggus -and it was oil that was the issue then too. With the Americans embargoing oil supplies to Japan, the Japanese were placed in a position of backing down completely in China (unthinkable at the time to a very proud nation) or 'going for broke' while they still had credible oil reserves. The only extraordinary thing was that the Americans were apparently caught unawares by the very predictable Japanese response.
One can only hope the Americans are not caught unawares by the (let's face it) equally predictable Iranian response. With the Americans (in Iranian eyes) not far from to bankruptcy and unable to pay to maintain a credible presence in the region into the future, the Iranians see themselves filling the power vacuum - and are every bit as proud as the Japanese were in 1941.
The Iranians also see themselves as having been main players in 'seeing the Americans off' from Iraq, in much the same role the Americans played in supporting the Afghans in 'seeing off' the Soviets from Afghanistan. (It doesn't matter if many Americans will disagree with that assessment - that's how the Iraqi - yes, Iraqi - and Iranian propagandists will sell it to their people, who'll gleefully believe every word of it.)
Obama also needs to look presidential as the November election approaches - and there's nuthin' quite like an attack on a already demonised enemy to make a man look presidental. The Americans are also just begging for an excuse they can sell to the rest of the world to clean up the Iranian nuke programme.
Interesting times ahead for all of us, I fear.
One can only hope the Americans are not caught unawares by the (let's face it) equally predictable Iranian response. With the Americans (in Iranian eyes) not far from to bankruptcy and unable to pay to maintain a credible presence in the region into the future, the Iranians see themselves filling the power vacuum - and are every bit as proud as the Japanese were in 1941.
The Iranians also see themselves as having been main players in 'seeing the Americans off' from Iraq, in much the same role the Americans played in supporting the Afghans in 'seeing off' the Soviets from Afghanistan. (It doesn't matter if many Americans will disagree with that assessment - that's how the Iraqi - yes, Iraqi - and Iranian propagandists will sell it to their people, who'll gleefully believe every word of it.)
Obama also needs to look presidential as the November election approaches - and there's nuthin' quite like an attack on a already demonised enemy to make a man look presidental. The Americans are also just begging for an excuse they can sell to the rest of the world to clean up the Iranian nuke programme.
Interesting times ahead for all of us, I fear.
^^^^^^^^
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In transit
Age: 70
Posts: 3,052
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They've fired off a couple of test missiles today and clearly indicated that Israel is within range. **** is on the horizon and it's now only a matter of time before a live missile is fired in one or both directions and will home on to a target.
This time last year I was preparing to go to Iran on a business trip in February - I went feeling quite comfortable about it. I've just been asked to go again and do some work for the same company - this time I've said no, with some reluctance, as I don't feel it's safe.
This time last year I was preparing to go to Iran on a business trip in February - I went feeling quite comfortable about it. I've just been asked to go again and do some work for the same company - this time I've said no, with some reluctance, as I don't feel it's safe.
I don't think there is anytime during the last 33 years during which I would have felt comfy about going to Iran. It's all to easy to all foul of the inflexibility of the rules in such a place, with drastic consequences likely. I spent two years in Saudi Arabia, that was enough for one life time!
Every time I took to the road, I was ashen with fear at the prospect of running one of them over, an all to likely prospect, given their own lack af attention to road safety, both on foot and behind the wheel.
FB
Every time I took to the road, I was ashen with fear at the prospect of running one of them over, an all to likely prospect, given their own lack af attention to road safety, both on foot and behind the wheel.
FB
I doubt that Iran would close the Strait, any Iranian response to tougher sanctions or an attack would be far more subtle. I would suggest that:
1. Blocking the Strait of Hormuz would be a highly provocative act, it would destroy any goodwill towards Iran by other Middle Eastern nations, particularly the Gulf states. Similarly Russia and China are unlikely to have anything other than an extremely dim view.
2. This type of extreme action would force the West to act. Strikes against targets on the Iranian mainland might become an option. Prudence will demand that Iranian naval, air, and missiles forces are hunted and destroyed.
3. Concentrating large proportions of Iranian forces around or in the Strait will make the task of finding and destroying them easier.
4. The Iranian coast is over 1200 miles long, so why make things easy for the US/West? Why not attack over a larger area? The Kilo submarines, for instance, would be more likely to survive in the Gulf of Oman or Iranian sea. Dispersed attacks would make things harder to counter.
5. More targeted actions, using weapons aimed an individual ships (tankers going to/from a certain nation, or with a certain nation of registration/flag, or the naval forces of the US or allies). Whilst still an act of war, international opinion will resist an all out assault against Iranian forces. The non reaction to North Korea's sinking of the South Korean warship Cheonan demonstrates this.
6. If international opinion prevents offensive responses against Iranian forces, Western forces will be on the back foot in defensive roles with restricted ROE.
7. The amount of Host Nation Support provided to the West may be limited, either due to politics (Israeli/US strike first) or for fear of Iranian reprisals - Iran has lots of surface to surface missiles, and has various terrorists as proxies.
There are a lot of open source articles regarding these issues:
Closing Time
US-Iranian Confrontation at Sea
Iranian Mining of the Strait of Hormuz – Plausibility and Key Considerations
A list of vessels attacked during the tanker war
THE TANKER WAR AND THE LESSONS OF NAVAL CONFLICT
Expansion of the tanker war in the Gulf to include Western navies....
1. Blocking the Strait of Hormuz would be a highly provocative act, it would destroy any goodwill towards Iran by other Middle Eastern nations, particularly the Gulf states. Similarly Russia and China are unlikely to have anything other than an extremely dim view.
2. This type of extreme action would force the West to act. Strikes against targets on the Iranian mainland might become an option. Prudence will demand that Iranian naval, air, and missiles forces are hunted and destroyed.
3. Concentrating large proportions of Iranian forces around or in the Strait will make the task of finding and destroying them easier.
4. The Iranian coast is over 1200 miles long, so why make things easy for the US/West? Why not attack over a larger area? The Kilo submarines, for instance, would be more likely to survive in the Gulf of Oman or Iranian sea. Dispersed attacks would make things harder to counter.
5. More targeted actions, using weapons aimed an individual ships (tankers going to/from a certain nation, or with a certain nation of registration/flag, or the naval forces of the US or allies). Whilst still an act of war, international opinion will resist an all out assault against Iranian forces. The non reaction to North Korea's sinking of the South Korean warship Cheonan demonstrates this.
6. If international opinion prevents offensive responses against Iranian forces, Western forces will be on the back foot in defensive roles with restricted ROE.
7. The amount of Host Nation Support provided to the West may be limited, either due to politics (Israeli/US strike first) or for fear of Iranian reprisals - Iran has lots of surface to surface missiles, and has various terrorists as proxies.
There are a lot of open source articles regarding these issues:
Closing Time
US-Iranian Confrontation at Sea
Iranian Mining of the Strait of Hormuz – Plausibility and Key Considerations
A list of vessels attacked during the tanker war
THE TANKER WAR AND THE LESSONS OF NAVAL CONFLICT
Expansion of the tanker war in the Gulf to include Western navies....
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 2nd Jan 2012 at 21:23.
I'm an optimist on these things - I think it is all positioning on the part of the Iranians, before sitting down to talk (again).
The US response has also been remarkably restrained, so far, perhaps indicating a readiness to negotiate. However, having been burned by Iran in the past.....
Tehran - Iran declared Saturday its readiness to resume talks about its contested nuclear programmes with world powers, but the European Union reacted with caution.
Foreign Minister Ali-Akbar Salehi said in a meeting with a visiting Chinese official in Tehran that Iran was ready to resume talks with the six world powers over its nuclear programmes.
Foreign Minister Ali-Akbar Salehi said in a meeting with a visiting Chinese official in Tehran that Iran was ready to resume talks with the six world powers over its nuclear programmes.
One side can sit down at negotiations and appear ready and willing to talk, even if they have absolutely no intention of actually making any form of compromise...
Why?
Well it buys time, it gives you a chance for events to move on (world recession, collapse of the Euro) so you are no longer a high priority in world events, possibly in this case until US electioneering issues ties Obama's hands. It also buys you world opinion, after all, you aren't "being difficult", you are trying to be co-operative as best you can, you're the little downtrodden guy in all this....
It can be nothing more than another stratagem or ploy.....
Why?
Well it buys time, it gives you a chance for events to move on (world recession, collapse of the Euro) so you are no longer a high priority in world events, possibly in this case until US electioneering issues ties Obama's hands. It also buys you world opinion, after all, you aren't "being difficult", you are trying to be co-operative as best you can, you're the little downtrodden guy in all this....
It can be nothing more than another stratagem or ploy.....
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The US response has also been remarkably restrained, so far, perhaps indicating a readiness to negotiate.
I think WE Branch Fanatic's assessment is about as close to the money as anyone's likely to get. I agree they will try something far more subtle than blocking the straits to all traffic. However, the wild card is how much the recently-introduced sanctions will hurt them, or more particularly, how long they can bear them? (The Japanese situation after the oil sanctions in late 1941 again come to mind.)
Unless the new sanctions have changed the whole shootin' match (or time line), the one thing the Iranians want is to stall any US/NATO move until they have their nukes up and running - and about one nanosecond after that, "negotiations" take on a whole new meaning.
But let no one understate the importance of the November US elections and what they may 'force' the Obama administration to do to get Barry re-elected.