Iran under Sanction Pressures – Reaction?


View Poll Results: Oil Sanction
Is the West right to impose sanctions -Morally -Legally 5 29.41%
Is the West wrong to impose sanctions-Morally -Legally 4 23.53%
Will this cause War 1 5.88%
Will this force/persuade Iran to negotiate Nuke Program 1 5.88%
Iran will find other markets-India-China etc 7 41.18%
This will lower the price for Iranian Oil exports 3 17.65%
Is this a positive step by the West 7 41.18%
Is this a negative step by the West 3 17.65%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 17. You may not vote on this poll

Goober
+1
#361
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsidesView Post

Who says anyone will die because of the sanctions, no country has not even suggested a total blockade of Iran. Just cut their ability to sell oil. That but it will kill little baby's and baby chicks just won't do it. New question, who is the government?

Strait of Hormuz not Iran's only way to harass the West, experts say | News | National Post
Few intelligence, military and security experts contacted by Reuters either in or outside government, however, believe that is genuinely likely. Instead, they say, Iran’s leaders will be looking for ways to harass enemies and cause disruption while falling short of triggering a massive U.S.-led retaliation.

Possible Iranian gambits could include harrying tanker traffic in the Gulf with fast attack boats, seizing uninhabited Gulf islands claimed by other states, grabbing hostages from passing civilian or military ships, stoking trouble in Sunni Muslim-ruled Arab states with restive Shi’ite Muslim communities and orchestrating attacks on U.S. forces in Afghanistan or elsewhere using militant “proxies” such as Hezbollah.

The risk inherent in all this, however, is that someone on either side miscalculates and triggers a full-blown conflict.

“These scenarios make sense as likely actions falling short of actively blocking the Strait — but they will certainly raise tensions,” says Nikolas Gvosdev, professor of national security studies at the U.S. Naval War College in Rhode Island.

“Iran’s goal in raising tensions in the Gulf may be to get other countries to put pressure on the United States to show restraint [and] as a way to create some breathing room for Tehran to maneuver.”

It could add to the growing sense of regional confrontation arising from Iran’s defiance of several U.N. resolutions demanding that it suspend its atomic energy program, seen in the West as a camouflaged bid for nuclear weapons capability, and engage in negotiations with world powers on a solution.

Washington seems keen to stress its resolve and showcase its military strength. This week, the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln passed through Hormuz flanked by British and French warships – in open defiance of Tehran’s warning earlier this month that Washington should keep its carriers out of the Gulf.

In reality, naval sources say the move was likely planned months or longer in advance – every time a giant U.S. carrier docks anywhere, dozens of contracts need to be in place for it to be serviced and supplied.

But this time, given the Iranian threat and the heightened tension, the warships’ entry would have been approved at the highest level and deliberately publicized to an unusual degree.

“Both sides are engaged in heavy posturing right now,” said Reva Bhalla, director of strategic intelligence for U.S.-based consultancy Stratfor. “Iran is focused right now on highlighting its deterrence tools in the Persian Gulf … This, of course, increases the risk of miscalculation.”

Whilst some analysts believe the Islamic Republic may already worry it has overreached itself, others worry that pulling back may become increasingly difficult politically.
 
Spade
#362
Analysis: Iran has options apart... JPost - Iranian Threat - News (external - login to view)
 
ironsides
#363
Aircraft carriers can remain at sea for 50 years, they are floating islands that can be re-supplied by air, other ships. Yes Iran can close the gulf without triggering an all out war. Insurance companies alone will stop ships from passing through the gulf based upon a serious threat only. Then laws of the sea take over and those effected open the gulf up with any non-nuclear means possible. Iran loses in the long run.
 
Goober
#364
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsidesView Post

Aircraft carriers can remain at sea for 50 years, they are floating islands that can be re-supplied by air, other ships. Yes Iran can close the gulf without triggering an all out war. Insurance companies alone will stop ships from passing through the gulf based upon a serious threat only. Then laws of the sea take over and those effected open the gulf up with any non-nuclear means possible. Iran loses in the long run.

Look to after the elections in Nov for responses.Unless Iran acts up before then.
 
earth_as_one
#365
The Persian Gulf is a bath tub. Carrier groups can be sunk...

No doubt Iran will respond... most likely by making Gulf States choose sides. Those who choose the US will be legally hostile vessels and not afforded right of “innocent passage” in territorial waters. Ships which harvest natural resources must apply for permission from the littoral state, as must ships on military exercises. Iran has a right to refuse their application and declare the ships hostile. When a hostile ship enters the territorial waters of a nation, the government reserves the right to fire on them without warning; likewise for enemy aircraft and submersibles.

Gulf states can still pass though the Straight of Hormuz on the UAE side. How deep is that side anyway? Since the main route hugs Iran's coast, I'd say its deeper on that side. Some tankers might have to cross Iranian waters...
 
L Gilbert
#366
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

The Persian Gulf is a bath tub. Carrier groups can be sunk...

Vastly easier said than done. For instance, the Roosevelt by itself has more aerial firepower than most nations' air forces (certainly Iran's) and it's one of the older ships. There are 11 carriers in total, all of the Nimitz class. And as far as I know. all are standalone craft. Good luck on that venture.
BTW, Iran's air force is mostly made of other nations' antique leftovers.
Last edited by L Gilbert; Jan 25th, 2012 at 08:27 PM..
 
MHz
#367
Where is the safest place for them to rearm, north or south of the Straits?
Should an extended conflict occur and Iran has a healthy defense the base in Bahrain would become a very expensive place to defend, Carriers south of the Straits can operate safer than 'in the bathtub' if resupply (north of the Straits) is inhibited.
 
darkbeaver
#368
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

Vastly easier said than done. For instance, the Roosevelt by itself has more aerial firepower than most nations' air forces (certainly Iran's) and it's one of the older ships. There are 11 carriers in total, all of the Nimitz class. And as far as I know. all are standalone craft. Good luck on that venture.
BTW, Iran's air force is mostly made of other nations' antique leftovers.

Iran don't have to fly Lester. The games give the water to Iran every time. And every time the fleets sink. No Iranian has to leave the ground. Besides if it gets that far every body will target Israel, including China and Russia and Pakistan and India. It will spread to North America in the first ten minutes. The day of the big ship was over with the day of the big anti ship missile. An aircraft carrier is good for frightening unarmed peasants these guys got loads of prepositioned ship crippling weapons and they brag about their subs. just what you read you know a full nuclear high density first strike would take out Iran but the retaliation would happen five or six minutes later. I think the atmospheric radiation load is going to get very heavy. The controllers know that in the long run that might not be so bad, from their perspective,and that's all that really matters. IMO
Last edited by darkbeaver; Jan 25th, 2012 at 10:13 PM..
 
earth_as_one
#369
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

Vastly easier said than done. For instance, the Roosevelt by itself has more aerial firepower than most nations' air forces (certainly Iran's) and it's one of the older ships. There are 11 carriers in total, all of the Nimitz class. And as far as I know. all are standalone craft. Good luck on that venture.
BTW, Iran's air force is mostly made of other nations' antique leftovers.

That's true. However Iran has focused its military research efforts on missiles:

Sejjil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (external - login to view)

Zelzal-2 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (external - login to view)

IRAN TEST-FIRES SURFACE-TO-SEA MISSILES CCTV News - YouTube



I think Iran could sink every hostile ship in the Persian Gulf as well as damage US military bases throughout the region. I'm sure such action would come at a terrible cost. But Iran would be justified defending themselves from an unprovoked US led war based on unsubstantiated allegations.
 
Goober
#370
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

That's true. However Iran has focused its military research efforts on missiles:

Sejjil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (external - login to view)

Zelzal-2 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (external - login to view)

IRAN TEST-FIRES SURFACE-TO-SEA MISSILES CCTV News - YouTube



I think Iran could sink every hostile ship in the Persian Gulf as well as damage US military bases throughout the region. I'm sure such action would come at a terrible cost. But Iran would be justified defending themselves from an unprovoked US led war based on unsubstantiated allegations.

Still having problems with Iran stating they would close the Strait. That is an act of War.
 
EagleSmack
+1
#371
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

I think Iran could sink every hostile ship in the Persian Gulf as well as damage US military bases throughout the region. I'm sure such action would come at a terrible cost. But Iran would be justified defending themselves from an unprovoked US led war based on unsubstantiated allegations.

What you think and what will happen are night and day. Iran would be crunched. Iran tried attacking the US Navy once and lost 25% of their Navy. They still haven't recovered. They wouldn't sink a thing.

Heck they can't even protect their own sailors from pirates. They needed the US Navy to rescue them. That must have hurt! LMAO
 
L Gilbert
#372
Quote: Originally Posted by MHzView Post

Where is the safest place for them to rearm, north or south of the Straits?
Should an extended conflict occur and Iran has a healthy defense the base in Bahrain would become a very expensive place to defend, Carriers south of the Straits can operate safer than 'in the bathtub' if resupply (north of the Straits) is inhibited.

Well, Turkey is a US ally. If Turkey balks, I doubt Greece would, especially if the USA told Greece that it could throw some business towards Greece. Israel is a US ally, India is an ally, Kuwait is an ally, and Oman seems to be friendly to the US, as well.

Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

Iran don't have to fly Lester. The games give the water to Iran every time. And every time the fleets sink. No Iranian has to leave the ground. Besides if it gets that far every body will target Israel, including China and Russia and Pakistan and India. It will spread to North America in the first ten minutes. The day of the big ship was over with the day of the big anti ship missile. An aircraft carrier is good for frightening unarmed peasants these guys got loads of prepositioned ship crippling weapons and they brag about their subs. just what you read you know a full nuclear high density first strike would take out Iran but the retaliation would happen five or six minutes later. I think the atmospheric radiation load is going to get very heavy. The controllers know that in the long run that might not be so bad, from their perspective,and that's all that really matters. IMO

lol Seems to me, Iran got its peepee smacked by the US before. Besides, The carriers could easily stand away and toss all kinds of misery at Iran. Not only that, but the US has SUBMARINES with missile capabilities. Like I said, good luck to any venture Iran has at causing grief to the US Navy.

Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

That's true. However Iran has focused its military research efforts on missiles:

Sejjil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (external - login to view)

Zelzal-2 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (external - login to view)

I think Iran could sink every hostile ship in the Persian Gulf as well as damage US military bases throughout the region.

I sure don't. Missiles are admittedly, a concern for the US Navy, however it does have its defenses. Besides, as I just mentioned to the dim rodent, the USA also has Boomers. How well can Iranian missiles swim?
Quote:

I'm sure such action would come at a terrible cost.

Me, too ...... to Iran.
Quote:

But Iran would be justified defending themselves from an unprovoked US led war based on unsubstantiated allegations.

lol Well, I am sure the US could come up with some other ideas anyway.

Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Still having problems with Iran stating they would close the Strait. That is an act of War.

That being another substantiated reason.

Besides the US having a few allies strewn around Iran, there's also the fact that other ME countries have stated concerns over Iran's nuclear capabilities and using them against Israel.
 
Cliffy
#373
And in spite of all this chest beating and gnashing of teeth, a war with Iran will be exactly what everybody wants to boost the sagging American economy, exactly as I predicted years ago when everybody insisted that war was not on the table and never would be. Whether or not Iran has or is trying to get nukes is inconsequential. It is not and never has been the reason for hostilities. Like every other war, the reasons given have nothing to do with the real reasons for attacking another country. As Beav said, it is what the controllers want and we will have no choice in the matter anyway. They cut a wet fart and we run to get toilet paper to clean them up.
 
L Gilbert
#374
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

And in spite of all this chest beating and gnashing of teeth, a war with Iran will be exactly what everybody wants to boost the sagging American economy, exactly as I predicted years ago when everybody insisted that war was not on the table and never would be. Whether or not Iran has or is trying to get nukes is inconsequential. It is not and never has been the reason for hostilities. Like every other war, the reasons given have nothing to do with the real reasons for attacking another country. As Beav said, it is what the controllers want and we will have no choice in the matter anyway. They cut a wet fart and we run to get toilet paper to clean them up.

Um, war is a boost the American economy? Iraq sure put the owie in that idea. www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/op...ay/24sun4.html (external - login to view)

Critics Still Wrong on What (external - login to view)
 
Cliffy
#375
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

Um, war is a boost the American economy? Iraq sure put the owie in that idea. www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/op...ay/24sun4.html (external - login to view)

Critics Still Wrong on What (external - login to view)

The only economy that will benefit is that of the controllers. The American economy is just a rallying cry with as much validity as Iranian nukes.

Yup, Blame the Black guy. Bush bankrupted his own companies and yet he was an economic genius as a president. Funny stuff.
 
L Gilbert
#376
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

The only economy that will benefit is that of the controllers. The American economy is just a rallying cry with as much validity as Iranian nukes.

Yup, Blame the Black guy. Bush bankrupted his own companies and yet he was an economic genius as a president. Funny stuff.

huh?
 
Goober
#377
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

huh?

Cliffy as he states operates on a matrix. That said while Cliffy and i do heartily disagree at times, a number of times in fact, if there were more people like Cliffy we would have less violence.
 
Cliffy
#378
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Cliffy as he states operates on a matrix. That said while Cliffy and i do heartily disagree at times, a number of times in fact, if there were more people like Cliffy we would have less violence.

Slight correction there Goobs. I operate outside the Matrix. And everyday, there are many more people coming to this understanding. We are just waiting for critical mass for a world wide shift in consciousness that will bring world wide peace.
 
Goober
#379
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

Slight correction there Goobs. I operate outside the Matrix. And everyday, there are many more people coming to this understanding. We are just waiting for critical mass for a world wide shift in consciousness that will bring world wide peace.

There is always the possibility that you are in another Matrix and have not realized that yet?
 
EagleSmack
+1
#380
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

And in spite of all this chest beating and gnashing of teeth, a war with Iran will be exactly what everybody wants to boost the sagging American economy,

Oh yeah... like the 2.5 wars we've been in lately have really boosted our economy.

The only ones who are aching for a war with Iran in this forum are the EAO types. They dream about it.
 
Spade
+1
#381
"He in his madness prays for storms, and dreams that storms will give him peace." -Lev Tolstoy
 
Just the Facts
#382
lol "extended conflict" "sink every ship in the gulf" some funny stuff. We are talking about the same Iran that fought a stalemate with Iraq for ten years right? The fourth largest army in the world Iraq, the Iraq that had people all worried about getting involved in desert storm. How'd that turn out? This would be much the same. It's one thing to launch a missile, a whole nother thing to hit a target with it.

Iran would have only two hopes if it did come to war....1) getting their nukes ready in time and/or 2) Obama.
 
darkbeaver
#383
The war gaming in this theater time after time spells goodbye for any ships in the way and the pox state of Israel goes stone age.
 
Spade
#384

35 When They Ask Us How Dangerous It Was - YouTube



For nought.
 
EagleSmack
#385
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

The only economy that will benefit is that of the controllers. The American economy is just a rallying cry with as much validity as Iranian nukes.

Yup, Blame the Black guy. Bush bankrupted his own companies and yet he was an economic genius as a president. Funny stuff.

I have to second LG's "huh?"
 
earth_as_one
#386
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

Oh yeah... like the 2.5 wars we've been in lately have really boosted our economy.

The only ones who are aching for a war with Iran in this forum are the EAO types. They dream about it.

Bite me.

I've never promoted war. I'm pointing out that Iran has claws which could scratch the US and its allies, not promoting war or hoping for the US to loose a fight with Iran. I'm just speculating about the possibilities.

I don't think war is necessary or inevitable. But if the US and their allies continues down the current path of covert sabotage and assassinations, then I'd expect a little *** for tat in response.

Also under law of the sea, hostile vessels cannot transit though Iranian waters. Neutral or allied vessels can pass through the strait, so technically the strait would only be closed to vessels Iran deems hostile. Iran can legally sink hostile vessels in their waters without warning. If they launched a massive assault against a US carrier group in the gulf a few seconds after they declared war, they'd probably do a lot of damage. I doubt that would happen. Instead I predict floating naval mines will appear in the strait at inopportune times forcing the US and its allies to close the strait until it was cleared of mines.

Also, Iran can close the strait temporarily for war games. A war game every time a US ally tried to use the strait would also not be closing the strait either, but it would be inconvenient.
 
EagleSmack
+2
#387
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

Bite me.

I've never promoted war. I'm pointing out that Iran has claws which could scratch the US and its allies, not promoting war or hoping for the US to loose a fight with Iran. I'm just speculating about the possibilities.

Dude you've been obsessing over a war with Iran for years now.


Quote:

Also under law of the sea, hostile vessels cannot transit though Iranian waters.
Neutral or allied vessels can pass through the strait, so technically the strait would only be closed to vessels Iran deems hostile. Iran can legally sink hostile vessels in their waters without warning.

The Strait of Hormuz doesn't belong to Iran Brainstorm. They can't sink crap legally.



Quote:

If they launched a massive assault against a US carrier group in the gulf a few seconds after they declared war, they'd probably do a lot of damage. I doubt that would happen. Instead I predict floating naval mines will appear in the strait at inopportune times forcing the US and its allies to close the strait until it was cleared of mines.

Also, Iran can close the strait temporarily for war games. A war game every time a US ally tried to use the strait would also not be closing the strait either, but it would be inconvenient.

They wouldn't be able to sink a thing. They would lose so much in the process. They already tried and their navy was stronger then. As I said... we sank 25% of their the Iranian Navy in an afternoon.
 
earth_as_one
#388
ES, you'll have to quote me. I don't recall ever posting anything on this forum or any other supporting war as a solution. In fact I'm certain I've never done this, because I don't support wars or violence.

Meanwhile back on topic I read this article by Robert Fisk which points out the absurdity of claims that Iran is a few months or years away from building a nuclear weapon, especially when those claims are made by the Israeli government:

Robert Fisk: We've been here before (external - login to view)
...The Israeli President warns us now that Iran is on the cusp of producing a nuclear weapon. Heaven preserve us. Yet we reporters do not mention that Shimon Peres, as Israeli Prime Minister, said exactly the same thing in 1996. That was 16 years ago. And we do not recall that the current Israeli PM, Benjamin Netanyahu, said in 1992 that Iran would have a nuclear bomb by 1999. That would be 13 years ago. Same old story....

Also I'd like to point out the absurdity of countries which have not signed the NPT or are in blantant violation of the NPT who actually have clandestinely built nuclear weapons demanding punitive measures against an NPT compliant country which allows all of its nuclear programs to be inspected and has sworn not to build nuclear weapons because they are "the work of the devil".

For the record, I am against the Theocratic Government of Iran for stuff they've done, not stuff their adversaries claim they've done.
Last edited by earth_as_one; Jan 27th, 2012 at 07:47 AM..
 
EagleSmack
#389
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

ES, you'll have to quote me. I don't recall ever posting anything on this forum or any other supporting war as a solution. In fact I'm certain I've never done this, because I don't support wars or violence.

You just obsess OBSESS obsess about a fictional war with Iran. Joooo hating and war are like fetishes to you.

You simply want there to be a war so you can go on and on about it.
 
mentalfloss
#390
Oil industry sees China winning, West losing from Iran sanctions (external - login to view)



The Dead Zone Christopher Walken - President Martin Sheen starts a nuclear war - YouTube

Last edited by mentalfloss; Jan 27th, 2012 at 08:38 AM..
 

Similar Threads

no new posts