Iran Reiterates Threat To Close Strait of Hormuz If Attacked

**Doktor** · 18 Dec 11,, 13:27

Originally Posted by Ryan_TUK

Its not the US you need to worry about Israel is in more immediate danger should Iran succeed in its nuclear ambitions and so they wont allow it. The US is not going to engage a nuclear power to protect a small nation like Israel alliance or not and they will have recognized this, therefore its in their interests to remove the nuclear threat with or without US support.

Welcome Ryan,

Care to introduce yourself? http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/wab...-thread-6.html

As per your remark, I thought the USA told the Soviets to stay at home or else - with regard to Israel (ally) as well as China (non-ally).

In my view, for Israel it is enough to send few sorties over Iran and you will have USA all over the place.

S2 · 18 Dec 11,, 13:40

"...The US lost all credibility after Iraq and the so-called WMD. No one buys their line anymore - including a large number of their own citizens burdened by years of war..."

Only among those whose fatuous thinking required the presence of nuclear weapons sitting upon a shelf ready for use. I'm wondering right now whether you're acquainted with Dr. Mahdi Obeidi. If not, you might find his particular story interesting. Among those with expertise, he is more than interesting. He is credible-

In The Garden Of Armageddon-Kurt Pitzer Mother Jones September 2005

Those "...so-called WMDs..." used upon the Kurds were real enough. That, alone, established the means to create such and the determination to use them.

Not surprisingly, I consider Iraq an unmitigated victory. The Baath party was destroyed. Its Tikriti ruling clique and their leader, Saddam Hussein, obliterated. Iraq's irridentist ambitions of regional hegemony-twice manifested in wars of conquest- reversed. It's latent and dormant capabilities and intent to produce those designs via the acquisition of WMD irrevocably stopped. Its suppression of its Kurdish minority and shia majority turned on its head.

Without question, all of those accomplishments are for the good. Finally, the establishment of institutions able to nurture forth democratic values of governance an altogether pleasing cherry at the top of the cake.

America did not prepare well for an insurrection. America did not prepare well for the ravages of historic tribal feudalism and corruption. America did not prepare well for the cycle of revenge motivated by ancient shia/sunni enmity.

Too bad that we didn't account adequately for the failings of others but none of those outcomes need occur within Iraq but for the insistance of Iraqis. Whether new evil shall arise is yet to be determined by Iraqis. Without question, though, old evil was banished. How Iraq manages its future will be upon Iraqis...not Americans.

I don't carry one iota of regret for our decision to dismantle Saddam's regime. Given his history of unacceptable conduct and our capability to reverse such it was a thoroughly excellent choice.

"It is an irony not lost on most that it is the US and its policies and conduct around the world that is the catalyst that pushes countries to go nuclear."

Really?

India? Pakistan? Israel? France? Great Britain?

I'll agree regarding the Soviet Union and the PRC. I'll find no fault, though, that America represented the antithesis of all that was held dear in Stalinist Russia or Maoist China. Therefore forgive us, please, that we didn't surrender to their pre-ordained ascendency.

DPRK? Will you ascribe their decision to go nuclear as the product of rational governance thwarted by evil American designs?

vsdoc, you would suggest you're no enemy of America yet the above comment is laced with an anti-American vitriol bearing no foundation in considered thought. I wish that weren't the case but the dude can't abide your unvarnished and thoughtless B.S.

**Ryan_TUK** · 18 Dec 11,, 13:52

Making a lot of noise and actually following through are two very different things. Don't get me wrong if Israel makes a move before Iran achieves its goal the US will be right there beside them, but if they don't stop the program I doubt they will offer much bar logistic and intelligence intel support. Attacking a nuclear power especially one that can affect the worlds oil supply by such a degree risks too much for the US or any nation, except Israel who are in danger whether they act or not.

**snapper** · 18 Dec 11,, 15:06

Originally Posted by vsdoc

And achieve it they will.

And the world will come to realise how it is business as usual in spite of that.

The US lost all credibility after Iraq and the so-called WMD. No one buys their line anymore - including a large number of their own citizens burdened by years of war.

It is an irony not lost on most that it is the US and its policies and conduct around the world that is the catalyst that pushes countries to go nuclear.

The US recognizes and takes seriously, in fact appeases, only those nations that have the ability to land nukes on its soil.

Once that happens, all else is forgotten.

It thus provides added impetus for nations to first protect themselves and then leapfrog the global pecking order by fast-tracking their research from achieving just that. No matter the cost to be paid in the interim as the final aim justifies the means.

The last 100 years saw the world becoming a smaller place.

The next 20 will see the pond/s shrinking with regard to ballistic capabilities. That is a foregone conclusion. And the US has only itself to thank for that.

You seem to have swallowed some kind of Iranian Djin-pill that makes the US the sole baddies of the last 20yrs. Saddam HAD WMD, as S2 points out. Nor did the US invade Iraq alone. Many supported the action - including Iraqs Arab neighbours! Nor woud ANYONE wish Saddam back again.

Do you realy believe that the US acts alone? The closer Iran gets to a nuclear weapon the more the Arabs beg them to do something (as do reformist or democratic Iranians). My dear fellow in your portrayal of the US as Satan you seem to have blinded as to what the rest of the world would risk with a nuclear weapon in Iran.

Just because the US usualy contributes the largest numbers doesn't mean that they act without the tacit or explicit support of many others. You seem to misunderstand the true nature of the politics that makes a coalition or an alliance.

**Parihaka** · 18 Dec 11,, 16:38

Originally Posted by vsdoc

I am suggesting that when it comes to oil, dealing with the US will be no different to dealing with Iran. The US is a middleman between me and the original source of the oil. When you get rid of the middleman, you bring down prices. 10th grade economics. India has been trading with Iran from when the US was still dormant genetic code in British and Dutch and Irish DNA.

Firstly, you don't deal with the US. You deal with international oil bourse's that handle their clients (oil producers) product, or directly with the producers.
Secondly, if Iran (and you) wish to close down the flow of oil from those producers, in what world does that bring down prices?
Third, US citizens are not a distinct genetic race nor their various ancestors dormant 'genetic code'.

**Parihaka** · 18 Dec 11,, 16:50

Originally Posted by snapper

You seem to have swallowed some kind of Iranian Djin-pill that makes the US the sole baddies of the last 20yrs. Saddam HAD WMD, as S2 points out. Nor did the US invade Iraq alone. Many supported the action - including Iraqs Arab neighbours! Nor woud ANYONE wish Saddam back again.

As stated elsewhere he is very proud of his Persian ancestry and regards his Persian genetic line as undiluted despite his tribes centuries-long holiday in India.
This and the following posts are to say the least illuminating

**RoccoR** · 18 Dec 11,, 18:00

Parihaka, et al,

Yes this is correct. The ships assignment, can go back to the Command & Control structure that was in effect prior to the first Gulf War. (This is sometimes referred to as the "Sail Away Doctrine.") They would either be assigned to the Middle Eastern Fleet (COMMIDEASTFOR), or the Pacific Fleet (USPACFLT).

Originally Posted by Parihaka

So you discount the forces actually based in the area to protect the straits of Hormuz and focus on a few shore personnel that will have nothing to do with the possible conflict.
The fleet, including the NATO and ABCA components are there to protect the worlds vital interests, including all the gulf states except Iran. Namely the ability for the free and unimpeded flow of energy from those who wish to sell it to those who wish to buy it.
As you apparently consider this mere flag waving I'm agog to hear what you consider to be a more useful task than keeping open the most important trade route in the world?
Protecting the Bay of Biscay from the Barbary Pirates?

(COMMENT)

The US could fall back on the tenants outlined in the Treaty of Tripoli, set by the founders. While the treaty itself is long lost, the concepts and ideas can be resurrected.

While the idea of maintaining the freedom of navigation is very noble, the original founders promoted it to protect US Commerce, and not the commerce of other nations (World Police Authority). Of the 4000+ oil tankers at sea today, only about 60 (there is constant re-flagging) are US Flag Carriers (about 1% - to - 2%). Global Security estimates that by the year 2020, about 66% of the US needs will be imported by tanker. (This is a separate topic as to the implication of the infrastructure and security that reduces this vulnerability.)

The US needs to scale-back Maritime Route Security to pre-Gulf War I, Congress should issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal (Article I, Section 8, US Constitution) against Pirates and Ports/Nations that harbor Pirates, with fleet assets concentrating on reducing those threats - as may be identified by the Admiralty Court (Circuit Court Admiralty). Congress must specify High Seas Authority on US Lanes of Commerce.

Hence, with a little administrative juggling, the need for the HQ 5th Fleet (NSA Manama, Bahrain) would become unnecessary. The US Naval Footprint should be reduced to fit the threat, risk and proportional contribution (NATO or otherwise).

Most Respectfully,
R

**Parihaka** · 18 Dec 11,, 18:19

Hmmmm.
So you'd deactivate the 5th fleet, give over control of the area to 7th fleet, only protect US flagged tankers in the straits of Hormuz whilst somehow magically keeping those straits open (protecting US commerce on the high seas) and outsource any other combat/policing role to private contractors which you would license to kill.
Okay.
This specifically at a time when Iran is once again threatening to close those straits.

Tell me: how would you propose to de-mine the straits and prevent rocket attacks against US tankers?

**RoccoR** · 18 Dec 11,, 20:05

S-2, et al,

I respect this opinion, but find it troubling in some regards.

Originally Posted by S2

Only among those whose fatuous thinking required the presence of nuclear weapons sitting upon a shelf ready for use. I'm wondering right now whether you're acquainted with Dr. Mahdi Obeidi. If not, you might find his particular story interesting. Among those with expertise, he is more than interesting. He is credible-

(COMMENT)

It was never about them actually having a Nuclear Weapon, or even being close to it. The Iraqis did not even have a working centrifuge (supported by Dr Obeidi). And we knew that. Even the case for the Aluminum Tubes was fallacious.

No, the "Smoking Gun coming in the form of a Mushroom Cloud" defense doesn't work. In defense of this concept, with each passing decade - the proliferation of knowledge on critical nuclear weapons design is greater, thus shortening the time interval between desire and realization. But at at the time, even Dr Obeidi will concede that the Iraq's Nuclear Centrifuge Program was merely on paper - (buried in his back yard)[/QUOTE][/INDENT]and at least three years away from development (once dug-up). But the UN Inspectionss were preventing a re-start.

This also put the Iraq's Nuclear Centrifuge Program nearly a decade behind the newer LASAR Isotope Separation Process (what is done today in CNWDI).

Again, this also does not take into account, in order to make a working weapon, the testing, the packaging, guidance and launch vehicle development. From purely an objective technical view, Iraq was at least a decade away from having even a rudimentary tactical nuclear weapon; let alone a strategic weapon that would threaten the US.

Originally Posted by S2

Not surprisingly, I consider Iraq an unmitigated victory. The Baath party was destroyed. Its Tikriti ruling clique and their leader, Saddam Hussein, obliterated. Iraq's irridentist ambitions of regional hegemony-twice manifested in wars of conquest- reversed. It's latent and dormant capabilities and intent to produce those designs via the acquisition of WMD irrevocably stopped. Its suppression of its Kurdish minority and shia majority turned on its head.

(COMMENT)

Your definition of a "victory" is probably better than the official definition. But none the less, the standard and metric by which we measure this success is clearly outlined by the Bush Administration National Security Council.

"The Baath party was destroyed. Its Tikriti ruling clique and their leader, Saddam Hussein, obliterated."
- (CMT 1) The Baath Party is not destroyed. It is merely pushed back to the Syrian Border, and in some cases - just - renamed. But what is worse is what replaced it. Constitutionally, Iraq is now an "ISLAMIC STATE" - which it was not under Saddam. And the Iranians have a foot hold in the government. Is that a success? I'm not sure. Did we merely replace one evil with another?
"Iraq's irridentist ambitions of regional hegemony-twice manifested in wars of conquest- reversed."
- (CMT 2) Again, did we merely replace one, with another evil. The Iraqis may become an Iranian surrogate. Iranian expansionist eyes are already in place. The Iranian Ambassador to Iraq is a member of the Quds Force. Did we suppress one in order to allow another the competitive advantage? Is this a success?
"It's latent and dormant capabilities and intent to produce those designs via the acquisition of WMD irrevocably stopped."
- (CMT 3)Yes, what did we do here? Had the US allowed UN Inspections to continue, would there have been any difference in the outcome. And what of Iran?
"Its suppression of its Kurdish minority and shia majority turned on its head."

(CMT 4) Yes, well this might be a positive outcome. We don't know.hey may go to blows yet.

Originally Posted by SAMEER N. YACOUB, Associate Press

In the morning, a bomb hidden under a pile of trash exploded on a street of spare car parts stores in a mainly Shiite district of eastern Baghdad, killing two people and wounding four others. It was the latest in the near daily shootings and bombings — low-level but still deadly — that continue to bleed the country and that many fear will increase with the Americans gone.
The Associated Press: Iraqis celebrate US exit, but worry for future

OUR NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR VICTORY IN IRAQ: http://merln.ndu.edu/archivepdf/nss/...y_20051130.pdf

Helping the Iraqi People Defeat the Terrorists and Build an Inclusive Democratic State

(CMT 5) Constitution of Iraq
Article 2:

First: Islam is the official religion of the State and is a foundation source of legislation:

A. No law may be enacted that contradicts the established provisions of Islam
B. No law may be enacted that contradicts the principles of democracy.
C. No law may be enacted that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms
stipulated in this Constitution.

Second: This Constitution guarantees the Islamic identity of the majority of the
Iraqi people and guarantees the full religious rights to freedom of religious belief
and practice of all individuals such as Christians, Yazidis, and Mandean Sabeans.

The underlined passage, essentially states that the Religion of Islam set the source of all legislation; noting that it is through legislation that laws are made (Islamic Laws). This is the ticking time bomb. All it will take is a deeply religious leader to take hold and the Constitution will be behind him.

Victory in Iraq is Defined in Stages

• Short term, Iraq is making steady progress in fighting terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, and standing up security forces.
• Medium term, Iraq is in the lead defeating terrorists and providing its own security, with a fully constitutional government in place, and on its way to achieving its economic potential.
• Longer term, Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism.

I am not sure that we can all agree on where we are here. Clearly we have not reach the long-term objective (even after a decade). But there are arguments to be made as to whether we are still in the short-term; or, have advanced to the medium-term.

Originally Posted by S2

Without question, all of those accomplishments are for the good. Finally, the establishment of institutions able to nurture forth democratic values of governance an altogether pleasing cherry at the top of the cake.

(COMMENT)

Yes, there are many accomplishments that have been for the better. But we are not at all sure of the outcome; and neither are the Iraqis.

Originally Posted by S2

America did not prepare well for an insurrection. America did not prepare well for the ravages of historic tribal feudalism and corruption. America did not prepare well for the cycle of revenge motivated by ancient shia/sunni enmity.

(COMMENT)

Yes, this was a rush be the Military Decision Making Process to please the Bush Administration. There was a Plan that included a Phase IV, but the decision was made to scrap it.

Originally Posted by S2

Too bad that we didn't account adequately for the failings of others but none of those outcomes need occur within Iraq but for the insistance of Iraqis. Whether new evil shall arise is yet to be determined by Iraqis. Without question, though, old evil was banished. How Iraq manages its future will be upon Iraqis...not Americans.

(COMMENT)

Evil is not a true product of "brainwashing." A people or a culture are evil - it is a personal vice. If your culture demonstratives an approval of stoning women, and cutting heads off, then it is intellectually medieval. If it the culture and the people take pleasure in it and religiously approve of these actions, then it is evil. And so, it is the people that need changed because the take religious pleasure in it.

Originally Posted by S2

I don't carry one iota of regret for our decision to dismantle Saddam's regime. Given his history of unacceptable conduct and our capability to reverse such it was a thoroughly excellent choice.

(COMMENT)

Ah, the choice. Yes, the question becomes was it in "self defense" that the US did this thing --- OR --- was it a international vigilante action lead by the US.

Take a few moments to watch the movie: Clint Eastwood and Pat Hingle in Hang 'Em High

Most Respectfully,
R

**RoccoR** · 18 Dec 11,, 20:41

Parihaka, et al,

You start with Kings Point, New York.

Originally Posted by Parihaka

Tell me: how would you propose to de-mine the straits and prevent rocket attacks against US tankers?

(COMMENT)

It is not as if it is without precedence.

Originally Posted by Merchant Marine Act of 1936

"It is necessary for the national defense... that the United States shall have a merchant marine of the best equipped and most suitable types of vessels sufficient to carry the greater portion of its commerce and serve as a naval or military auxiliary in time of war or national emergency..."

During World War II the fleet was in effect nationalized, that is, the U.S. Government controlled the cargo and the destinations, contracted with private companies to operate the ships, put guns and Navy personnel (Armed Guard) on board. The Government trained the men to operate the ships and assist in manning the guns through the U.S. Maritime Service.
Frequently Asked Questions about the Merchant Marine

I would probably use a Alta Class. I understand that the Royal Norwegian Navy has two in retirement that could be refit.

Just a thought.

Most Respectfully,
R

**Dreadnought** · 18 Dec 11,, 20:50

Originally Posted by vsdoc

And achieve it they will.

And the world will come to realise how it is business as usual in spite of that.

The US lost all credibility after Iraq and the so-called WMD. No one buys their line anymore - including a large number of their own citizens burdened by years of war.

It is an irony not lost on most that it is the US and its policies and conduct around the world that is the catalyst that pushes countries to go nuclear.

The US recognizes and takes seriously, in fact appeases, only those nations that have the ability to land nukes on its soil.

Once that happens, all else is forgotten.

It thus provides added impetus for nations to first protect themselves and then leapfrog the global pecking order by fast-tracking their research from achieving just that. No matter the cost to be paid in the interim as the final aim justifies the means.

The last 100 years saw the world becoming a smaller place.

The next 20 will see the pond/s shrinking with regard to ballistic capabilities. That is a foregone conclusion. And the US has only itself to thank for that.

*A slight disagreement with you there. All depends upon if you want to give a vast rationalization or you really want to dig deeper and find there was indeed those weapons used by Saddam against his own people. When you shell villages of your own people with mustard gas and other, in many eyes and opinions that accounts as a weapon of mass destruction and he very much both used them and had more. When many claim he didnt, they were being very chosey of those words due to political means. On the ground it was far different. The proof is there.

Both those villagers know that and so do the Iranain troops that Europe treated during the Iran/Iraq war of the 1980's for those same wounds.

It is an irony not lost on most that it is the US and its policies and conduct around the world that is the catalyst that pushes countries to go nuclear.

*Easier for them to go to a nuclear program then step aside, give up their lavish lifestyle and power, give the people their god given rights and let them have an actual say in their own government and how it is run. Easier to just take their money and give them nothing in return except for more rules of life to live by or you disappear or someone close to you will. Dealing with an in adamant object is far easier then hundreds of thousands of people in the streets calling for your head if they dont fear you or what will happen in reprisal.

A shining example of this right now is Assad. Both himself and Iran attempted to go nuclear before with NK help. The Israeli's destroyed it. He doesnt have control anymore. He is still sitting, but for how long? Even the Arabs are calling for him to step aside. Daffy was another and he had to die before stepping aside. He went nuclear. History repeats itself and the US had no hand in its beginning but later offered support to the people after France and the Brits intervened and then NATO.

The US is constantly on China and Russia as well about the Rights issue. And they can land nukes on American soil. No offense Doc but that negates that comment.

IMO, The decades of the "dictators", "regimes" and "strongmen" are slowly but surely coming to an end. Time tells.

S2 · 18 Dec 11,, 22:27

I wrote a good portion of a point-by-point reply to you but, really, it's unnecessary. Until the current Iraqi regime, minimally, kills Kurds by the thousands, invades its neighbors at least twice, and engages to produce nuclear, chemical and biological weapons you can rest assured knowing your government has done a good thing given the alternative.

**Dreadnought** · 19 Dec 11,, 00:25

1) Why would the US start purchasing ships outside of their own builds when they have spent hundreds of millions on their own mine sweepers and the LCS SHIPS. If you want to keep your yards open and up to date, you design and build your own. Not buy another countries tech.

2) Disolve the Fifth Fleet? Outside of the obvious problems with that, what are you going to do with well over 16,000 sailors. You still have to pay them and their benefits and their training has cost millions in defence budgets. Their commitments and contracts must be honored otherwise you set a bad president for all of the services. Not to mention the 20 ships, subs, jets etc that are stationed there which is a few billion in itself. Its not like you can "shelf" them until you need them.

You cannot just "lay them off" and retraining them would cost even millions more in defense budgets.

There are far to many more reasons for both their need and existence then you are possibly going to offer logical opposition too. Of that I am convinced.

**~~vsdoc~~** · 19 Dec 11,, 06:08

Originally Posted by RoccoR

S-2, et al,

I respect this opinion, but find it troubling in some regards ...... Take a few moments to watch the movie: Clint Eastwood and Pat Hingle in Hang 'Em High

Most Respectfully,
R

Classic sir! A post most appreciated.

Most respectfully,

Doc

**~~vsdoc~~** · 19 Dec 11,, 09:03

Originally Posted by Doktor

How is the US a middleman? Stock Exchange?

I would recommend you read "The Hidden Hand of American Hegemony : Petrodollar Recycling and International Markets" by David E. Spiro.

In retrospect, with regard to the naivete/ignorance exhibited in post #38, I would strongly recommend that DE do the same.

Oil has been one of the US's most potent weapons in becoming and sustaining itself as a superpower. And the dollar as global currency (manipulation which China has been a good student of).

That hegemony is fast waning. Iran will be the final nail in that particular coffin.

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

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Rate This Thread

Display

vsdoc Reply

RoccoR Reply

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Similar Threads

Shutting Down the Strait of Hormuz: A Red Team Exercise on Iran's Naval Capabilities

Can Iran actually block the Straits of Hormuz simply by sinking a tanker there?

Iran on Taiwan Strait

Shots close UK Iran embassy

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions