The Iranians have a second choke point - the Sharjah-owed but Iranian-occuppied island of Abu Musa, located centrally in the Gulf immediately to the north of Dubai. (Most airline pilots who've flown the Iranian routes out of Dubai will be familiar with it, clearly visible at night by the security lighting that lines its coast.)

At one stage, they were said to have Silkworm anti-ship missiles on the island, but they could well have been replaced by something more up to date. I would imagine that the Iranian commandant of the island (and all his men) aren't looking forward to long careers should push ever come to shove in the current standoff, for I woild think they'd be close to #1 on any American hit list.

Grauniad: Iran could face UK military action over nuclear programme, says Hague

Foreign secretary says all options are on table but that aim is to get Tehran round negotiating table over nuclear weapons

Britain has not ruled out military action against Iran but is focused on trying to secure peaceful negotiations, William Hague said.

The foreign secretary insisted all options remained on the table in relation to what he called Tehran's "increasingly dangerous" development of nuclear weapons. But he said the UK was not advocating military action and was instead intensifying sanctions in a bid to bring the Islamic republic to the negotiating table.

"We have never ruled anything out. We have not ruled out any option, or supporting any option. We believe all options should be on the table, that is part of the pressure on Iran," Hague told Sky News.

"But we are clearly not calling for or advocating military action. We are advocating meaningful negotiations, if Iran will enter into them, and the increasing pressure of sanctions to try to get some flexibility from Iran."

Western governments, including Britain, have moved to step up sanctions over Iran's nuclear programme, threatening an embargo on vital oil exports. Tehran has threatened to block the Straits of Hormuz oil shipment route in response.

The prime minister, David Cameron, warned Iran during a visit to Saudi Arabia on Friday that the world would "come together" to ensure the straits remained open.

Hague said: "This is an increasingly dangerous situation that Iran is developing a military nuclear programme. Our sanctions are part of getting Iran to change course and to enter negotiations and we should not be deterred from implementing those."

And in response to Iran's warning to the other Gulf states not to make up for any shortfall due to their sanctions, or suffer the consequences......

Also look at his wording, not if the Strait is shut.....

Boomberg: Saudi Arabia Can Make Up for Iranian Crude Oil Losses, CNN Says

Saudi Arabia can make up for any loss of crude production if sanctions are placed on Iran, CNN said, citing the country’s oil minister Ali al-Naimi.

“I believe we can easily get up to 11.4, 11.8 almost immediately, in a few days,” al-Naimi said in an interview with CNN today. Saudi Arabia has the capacity to produce 12.5 million barrels a day “and we are idling now between 9.4 and 9.8, so we have substantial spare capacity,” he said.

“Our wish and hope is we can stabilize this oil price and keep it at a level around $100,” al-Naimi said, when asked about the outlook for 2012 amid tensions in the Persian Gulf. al-Naimi said he doesn’t expect the Strait of Hormuz to be shut for an extended length of time.

Good spot ORAC

The world uses about 85 million bbl per day and circa 15 million of that comes through the Straits of Hormuz - 2 million of that belongs to Iran

The Saudis could switch some production to their cross country pipelines to the Red Sea and we have Libyan oil coming back - another 1 -2 million bbls a day

It would be a short term price spike but everyone else would be cranking up to max production. The UK Govt for example can instruct the companies to defer summer maintenance etc and go for short term maximum - even at teh cost of long term lower production

Actually two points there, I suspect. (1) Not IF it is shut. (2) for an extended length of time. The latter seems to suggest that it may be reopened somehow. I'm sure, given a free hand, the Iranians would like to keep it closed for as long as they want. So why's it going to open?

Rhetorical.

Exactly how do you think they can shut Hormuz?

They have weapons, but anything that is used against tankers shepherded by warships is dead. Artillery are not going to hit anything before NGS takes them out. Their ASMs should not really be a problem for modern warships.
Aircraft?!! thats a joke.

Tankers have been shot up before and kept going. It is very tricky to mortally hurt something that big. They will do what they did last time. Skeleton crew through the strait, but this time the defenses are much much better.

They can be a pain, but they know full well that this is very different from the tanker wars. This time the US is involved.

My only concern would be mines.. Look at the havoc being caused by these devices on land where there is so much technology to locate them. The fear of these devices MIGHT be enough for insurance companies to either withdraw cover or the premiums be so high as they cannot be paid. Would governments take on the responsibilities?

Note these are questions.

How would you rate this as a threat? Supposedly in "mass production" (whatever that means). Solid fuel, 300km range, 650kg warhead. This video is a couple fo years old, so presumably they've improved the launcher since then
How many of these would it take to cause a problem?. Of course we don't know how the targetting works

Do you really think that Iran will declare war on the whole world minus Russia/China?

I think the better question would be:
"Do you think Iran will declare war on the western world if backed by China and Russia". To which I think the answer is "Probably".

Iran has just had the benefit of 10 years plus asymmetric warfare training in Iraq and Afghanistan. They may not be a match in conventional military firepower, but with their worldwide diaspora they have an ability to undertake insurgencies almost anywhere in the world wherever they fancy.. They could indulge in a level of global terrorism which would make the efforts of the IRA seem like small fry.
Now think what that would mean in terms of breakdown in relations between white and Asian populations in Europe. If the Iranians could generate a pan-European anti-Islamic pogrom they could destabilise the western countries to a point where the rule of law breaks down.

Now. I don't believe that would ever work, but its been a basic tenet of Islamic fundamentalism for years. And unfortunately its the way many of their leaders think.
The problem would be the mess it generates while they try it.

Very good point. The thought that springs into my mind is, would China and Russia want to go declare war on the world because of Iran? Do R & C want to join the capitalist world, or are they willing to thow everything away for a one slightly disturbed, but significantly valuable country? Comapered to the mineral rights in Africa, trade with India and the West, Iran seems a small player to me. Apart from the oil, obviously. Perhaps I need to rethink that.

With Europe and America out of they way, China becomes a monopoly customer for the mineral and food production of South America and Africa.
Remember China is now a net importer of food: without imports of soya from Argentina there would be street riots

As Qatar supplies high proportion of UK LNG then clear why Hague needs to start worrying as there is no alternate way out.

Qatar starting to assume that it has a big position in the world.

Quote from ; COCL2

"Iran has just had the benefit of 10 years plus asymmetric warfare training in Iraq and Afghanistan. They may not be a match in conventional military firepower, but with their worldwide diaspora they have an ability to undertake insurgencies almost anywhere in the world wherever they fancy.. "

May I refer to an earlier post I made as it may be relevant ;

From the US Office of Naval Intelligence ;


http://www.oni.navy.mil/Intelligence...avy_forces.pdf

Although this takes a while to download, the intelligence is still up to date and is well worth a read.

coldair

And if you want specifications for those Iranian built fast patrol boats listed in the article, look here:

MIG

best to view it in IE, Firefox doesn't work properly

I would suspect China to not give a hoot as long as they don't take to much of a resource hit. Not sure if Libya will actually turn out better for them than before so who knows with the Iran scenario. China is going along great guns how things are now, well relativly speaking, so I wouldn't think they would be inclined to upset the western world apple cart.

Russia on the other hand who knows, they wern't to happy about Libya, and they are looking to reassert a bit of influnce. So they may act to limit options in both Syria or Libya, or could trade off one for the other.

The big question I have is in relation to anti ship missiles and defence's. It appears from some past experiance that the capability of your defences in theory is actually less that what you have in practice. Another words when in the heat of the battle you get a lot more stuff ups, failures and the successful intercept rate is a lot lower than in war games. Is this true?

When did Australia stop speaking English?

Whenever did the Aussies start speaking "English"?


A very good article on the Iranian influence on World and Regional events.....

Iran, the U.S. and the Strait of Hormuz Crisis | STRATFOR

glojo:
I will suggest to you that Ohio class submarines generally carry ICBMs. Tomahawks tend to be carried on the Los Angeles, and other, fast attack submarines.
Granted, unclas reports hold 4 of the 18 boomers have been back fitted as SSG(N's) to carry about 150 Tomahawks, but I'll venture a guess that not all four are at sea at a given time, nor are all 4 in a single CINC's AOR at a given time.
I'll suggest to you that the DDG's and CG's carry a mix, weighted to SAMs over Tomahawks for the threats in PG.
The mitigating factor here is the political will to use such power, and for what end. The force you postulate can surely make a lot of rubble, and probably make some of the rubble bounce.

Then what?