Thread: Iran Reiterates Threat To Close Strait of Hormuz If Attacked

I just went through your post, as well as all older versions of it (those before each edit) and I don't see any double "we" anywhere (except for "we WElcome", but I assume that is not what you are talking about). Can you give more details, because currently I just don't see the problem (In my defense it is 4 am here)

Originally Posted by RoccoR

Not one of those countries is going to come to our aid - in any substantive way, should be need it.

None of the Persian Gulf States or Arabian Sea Neighbors wants us there. The Fifth Fleet is there because we wanted a Naval Support Base in the region, assuming our plans in Iraq worked-out. But they haven't. We could save a lot of money if we abandon the entire region and let the indigenous populations settle their own affairs.

Indeed, as Parihaka stated, the Gulf States know exactly who and what is keeping the Persian Gulf open and available for the commerce that is their very lifeblood.

They know what the U.S. did during the "Tanker War" of the Eighties and they are more than happy to have a bulwark against Shi'ite-Persian Iran today...something they are deathly afraid of.

As for coming to our aid, that's simply wrong. One small example would be the $5 million worth of free fuel per month the Kuwaitis provided the USN during the Tanker War to defray the cost of escorting the re-flagged tankers.

As for abandoning the area and leaving things to the indigs to sort out...that would unquestionably cause a worldwide financial panic. Middle Eastern oil reserves affect not only the price of Middle Eastern oil but also the price of global oil.

Furthermore, the United States has spent billions of dollars and decades of effort to build an infrastructure, a presence and long-term partnerships in the Gulf. Casually throwing that away would be catastrophic on so many levels that it boggles the mind.

It's a nice fantasy to be able to walk away from the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, giving them the finger on the way out the door. But realpolitik says otherwise.

"...Middle Eastern oil reserves affect not only the price of Middle Eastern oil but also the price of global oil."

Correctimundo. That's only the beginning of the story, however. Access to market-priced oil by any and all is critical to sustaining the global economy. It is unquestionably in America's self-interest to assure that any nat'l economy, whether it be Ghana, Luxembourg, Bolivia or America, can access that oil on the global market. Doing so assures their economic prosperity and growth, provides us with markets for our products and enables us to, in turn, purchase their products.

America's departure from the Persian gulf would leave Iran as the de facto regional hegemon. In THAT region it would mean, without question, control of the oil spigot.

"There is no question that The Persian Gulf Nations and the Gulf of Oman/Arabian Sea neighbors have the money to acquire the resources to protect this little maritime passage."

This has to be one of the most laughably naive comments I've read in five years at this board. Since when did money, by itself, defend anybody? The KSA and G.C.C. are vulnerable to attack across the entire spectrum of conflict-from subversion to major regional conventional war- from Iran RIGHT NOW in our absence. Possessing the means to defend themselves while providing secured access by all others to their energy largesse is decades away...if the GCC and KSA truly committed themselves to such today.

Nevermind that generating competing militaries across a very short strait of water might be a somewhat self-fulfilling prophecy of doom. Let me ask what a militarily powerful KSA and G.C.C. might see as their heriditary right? How powerful, btw, might they wish to be in our absence? Nuclear weapons? Surely if Iran has such their desire for the same can't be far behind. Fortunately matching desire, whether conventional force projection or nuclear capability, to manifested capability takes some considerable ratcheting up to achieve.

Iran has a considerable intellectual, population, and military head-start in that direction. It's only America's presence that's kept their ambitions in check to date.

America's presence in the gulf makes perfect sense to any prudent observer of the global economy. No other nation is as committed to the global economic architecture as currently constructed nor has the means to assure its maintenence where it tangibly matters most.



I wish Shek would provide a lecture on the mechanisms which make "comparative advantage" critical to sustaining an interdependant global economy.

Originally Posted by S2

America's departure from the Persian gulf would leave Iran as the de facto regional hegemon. In THAT region it would mean, without question, control of the oil spigot.

So they control the oil spigot. And you do not. A lot coming through that spigot is THEIRS.

S2, I ask you this as a serious question.

WHY do you believe that Iran would be any different from you, America, when it comes to oil trade?

Please answer the question more from a GLOBAL rather than an AMERICAN/WESTERN perspective. It would be GREATLY appreciated.

"So they control the oil spigot. And you do not..."

In 1988 at the request of the Kuwaiti government we escorted any and all ships bearing oil from their ports while also reflagging their vessels to assure the likes of you and many, many others had access to the energy they needed.

The threat to such energy came not from America but your friends, the Iranians. Perhaps you were still wearing diapers?

You'll be very hard-pressed to make any case that the American government and the U.S. Navy as its prime instrument have worked against the interests of all nations needing unfettered access to market-priced oil from the Persian Gulf.

Our livelihood depends upon the healthy economies of our global trading partners. That, btw, would be virtually every nation on this planet. Their economies depend upon unfettered access to market-priced oil. Our self-interests, therefore, are firmly grounded in the self-interests of all nations comprising the global marketplace. You have consistently proven unable to grasp that salient point. I challenge you to make a lucid argument to that end.

"...A lot coming through that spigot is THEIRS..."

More is not although they'd like to change such given help by you.

"...S2, I ask you this as a serious question.

WHY do you believe that Iran would be any different from you, America, when it comes to oil trade?"

1988. Iran has proved by their actions to view the Straits of Hormuz as a point of vulnerability they'd be willing to exploit to their purposes. That's an irrefutable historical fact.

The Iranian government and military have subsequently done all they can militarily to build forces and capabilities directed specifically to that objective should their policies again suggest the viability of such at some undetermined point in the future.

That undetermined future may be more close than any of us realize.

A member of their parliament, Parviz Sarvari had this to say on Monday-

"Soon we will hold a military manoeuvre on how to close the Strait of Hormuz. If the world wants to make the region insecure, we will make the world insecure."

Iran Threatens To Shut Straits Of Hormuz-Daily Mail Dec. 14, 2011

I do hope you're able to understand that's not America threatening such.

I understand you, vsdoc. Your perspective on this issue is sufficiently myopic to preclude any understanding of the danger to India posed by Iran. Either that or you cravenly pray that Iran might honor some side-deal cut by India to assure a continued supply of energy.

Either way, fine. It ignores, however, that your economy will choke on that oil if your global customers are denied the same.

To keep it simple.There is a GLOBAL perspective because the WESTERN perspective allows it,made it came to existence and it worked fine for half a millenia.Having your way would lead to dissapearance of this way of doing things.That's the bigger picture,above Iran,oil and the rest of the actors there.
Iranians are more worthy than the pathetic Arab elite to rule the place and that's the reason they have to be stopped.
Here's the answer,in terms that you'll hate and the only terms you'll understand,IMO.

"Iranians are more worthy than the pathetic Arab elite to rule the place and that's the reason they have to be stopped."

Unless you can show me where the Iranian governing elite have risen beyond the same patheticism I wouldn't embrace your view. By itself, a leadership bearing a legacy to the overthrowers of the Shah has proven no virtue for the Iranian people.

S2, please do not talk down to me with your diapers BS. I am father of a teenager and in 1988 I was finishing my 12th grade and running around the country giving entrance exams to get into Med school. That you may possibly be further along into geriatric free-fall does not make me a snot dripping spring chicken.

Please also do not insult our collective intelligence again (as you and others have been doing on the Falklands thread) that 1988 was about coming to the rescue of Kuwait and other countries around the world like mine.

It was about maintaining your global hegemony by control world oil trade. By controlling who bought how much from whom for what amount and in return for what - be it money, arms, trade, contraband, drugs, regime change, or geopolitical influence.

The Iran Bourse threatens America's grip on the world and American economy.

Both of which are probably on the brink of a very steep slope right now.

You threaten Iran, Iran will use what it can to threaten back. You and I would do the same. So please do not paint Iran as the villain here. They are in this for the same thing as you are. And the rest of us paying through our arses to keep our cars and bikes running have you to thank for, as you run gas-guzzling SUVs at some of the lowest gas prices in the world.

So please get off your savior to the world white horse and admit that you are holding the world to ransom and using your allies' blood and treasure to keep your Imperialistic grip on the world as foreign policy.

You have my reply before you. You asked why Iran would be different from America. In the face of Iran's demonstrated desire in 1988 to control the flow of oil from the gulf, it would seem to any impartial observer that you either have a decidedly skewed vison of the world that pointedly ignores historical fact or...are a child ignorant of such.

Diapers? That was the benefit of doubt. You've disabused the notion of youth as an excuse.

"It was about maintaining your global hegemony by control world oil trade. By controlling who bought how much from whom for what amount and in return for what - be it money, arms, trade, contraband, drugs, regime change, or geopolitical influence."

What's this nonsense? I suppose all those oil brokers in A-dam and elsewhere are secretly manipulated by the evil merchants of death lurking behind the screen in the White House pulling the levers of power?

"The Iran Bourse threatens America's grip on the world and American economy.

Both of which are probably on the brink of a very steep slope right now."

Pray that's not the case.

U.S. Balance Of Trade With India

"All figures are in millions of U.S. dollars on a nominal basis..."

Please add SIX zeros to the numbers.

You really are poorly-versed on this issue. Again, read more and write less. You'll be better-served. So will the rest of us.

"So please get off your savior to the world white horse and admit that you are holding the world to ransom and using your allies' blood and treasure to keep your Imperialistic grip on the world as foreign policy."

Control yourself.

I challenge you to show ANY ally of America that's shed more blood or spent more of their treasure on our behalf than we've been prepared to do so.

If you cannot, I'll be happy to accuse you of gross distortion and flame-baiting.

Originally Posted by S2

You have my reply before you.

I have a response. Not a reply that answers my question.

You asked why Iran would be different from America. In the face of Iran's demonstrated desire in 1988 to control the flow of oil from the gulf

Versus the US doing so. Hence my question. From a WORLD perspective (NOT a US/Western one), how do you feel Iran would differ from the US as oil hegemon?

Not to bring into account the small trifle that its THEIR oil, and its not YOURS.

You talk of the "world"?

China and India are two of Iran's biggest oil customers. That alone is more than a third of the world - if not close to HALF.

The world's second and fourth largest economies.

Originally Posted by S2

I challenge you to show ANY ally of America that's shed more blood or spent more of their treasure on our behalf than we've been prepared to do so.

You spending your own blood and treasure to serve you is not the same as allies spending ANY of their blood and treasure in doing the same.

You will now say that by them serving you, they "ultimately" serve themselves.

As other threads indicate, that holds true only as long and as far as America decides it does. In their own interest.

If you cannot, I'll be happy to accuse you of gross distortion and flame-baiting.

Accuse away. Gross distorter and flame baiter are pretty insipid compared to brown-shirt fascist anyways.

"China and India are two of Iran's biggest oil customers..."

America is your leading export market. China leads those whom import to India. Guess who is second? UAE. Third? KSA.

WHAT, pray tell, do you imagine the UAE and KSA import to your marketplace? Allow me to offer a clue- it starts with O and ends with L.

I daresay that your views do a decided disservice to two countries right now that are extremely worried about Iranian hegemonistic ambitions in the Persian gulf.

Oh, your fourth largest importer? That would be your local "imperialistic grip[pers]".

Originally Posted by S2

"China and India are two of Iran's biggest oil customers..."

America is your leading export market. China leads those whom import to India. Guess who is second? UAE. Third? KSA.

WHAT, pray tell, do you imagine the UAE and KSA import to your marketplace? Allow me to offer a clue- it starts with O and ends with L.

I daresay that your views do a decided disservice to two countries right now that are extremely worried about Iranian hegemonistic ambitions in the Persian gulf.

Oh, your fourth largest importer? That would be your local "imperialistic grip[pers]".

So what you are saying is that India is really good (thus far) at doing business concurrently with mutual enemies.

Not so different from the US trying to pull India into bed for a threesome with Pakistan is it?