No doubt. It is what all aggression is about these days: oil, dollars and who has the biggest dick.
Iran under Sanction Pressures – Reaction?
- Thread starter Goober
- Start date
Yup.
Israel wants a bourse too. Jordan and Saudis are in on it too. Pipelines are cheaper to run than tankers through canals.
Israel wants a bourse too. Jordan and Saudis are in on it too. Pipelines are cheaper to run than tankers through canals.
Transit thru internal waters in cicumstances as you describe is legal under the various treaties. Iran would be in violation of the law if they interfere - hinder - close - prevent - vessels from transiting those waters.
Ships moving through the Strait follow a Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS), which separates inbound from outbound traffic to reduce the risk of collision. The traffic lane is six miles (10 km) wide, including two two-mile (3 km)-wide traffic lanes, one inbound and one outbound, separated by a two-mile (3 km) wide separation median.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait_of_Hormuz
To traverse the Strait, ships pass through the territorial waters of Iran and Oman under the transit passage provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.[1] Although not all countries have ratified the convention,[3] most countries, including the U.S.,[4] accept these customary navigation rules as codified in the Convention. Oman has a radar site LQI to monitor the TSS in the strait of Hormuz. This site is located on a small island on the peak of Mussandam Peninsula.
Last edited:
And it's all in Iranian waters where it's deep enough to sail a full supertanker. Pop one of those open with a cruise missle can opener and the straits are closed until it all burns off. A couple at once would really work wonders.
Double hulled tankers- The crude absorbs a large part of the blast - difficult to ignite as well.
And in the meantime, Iranians would use inlets etc, mobile missile crews – fast attack boats- - The US would have at least 3 to 5 carrier groups in the area – Out of Iranian range – The Iranian boats – missile crews would be working under complete US air superiority - their naval and what air assets they have would be toast - their pipelines - refineries - Ports - well they would be toast as well.
The old US Military axiom – If you can see it – you can hit it – if you can hit it – you can kill it –
It would all be over in 2-4 weeks.
Then no cash coming in – Guess what – Regime change.
Yeah right! It'll be a cakewalk like A-Stan and Iraq?
Iran has some fancy schmancy anti-missle missles from the Ruskies that are better than the Patriot. And this really made me chuckle. Iran Claims It Hacked Into U.S. Drone And Forced It To Land
Yeah right! It'll be a cakewalk like A-Stan and Iraq?
Iran has some fancy schmancy anti-missle missles from the Ruskies that are better than the Patriot. And this really made me chuckle. Iran Claims It Hacked Into U.S. Drone And Forced It To Land
It will be quick and unlike Astan or Iraq - They ain't staying.
This isn't going to be against just Iran and where the hell is the money going to come from? Can't borrow from China or Japan for this one.
The same place that Turkey will get it when they roll into Syria to protect the people.
Yeah, about 35 smugglers - Mostly family member of Kurds that are friendly - work for the Army.
So who else will be dragged into an Iran War - aside from the Sunni across the strait? And western Europe- NATO -
Angry Kurds bury victims of Turkish attack - YouTube
Either side can close the Persian Gulf and interfere with regional trade and commerce.
Pipelines take years to build and are difficult to protect.
Nations in the region will have to make pragmatic decisions. Most couldn't defend themselves from Iran on their own. Likely many will try to remain neutral. Saudi Arabia and a few emirates will probably side with the US/Israel...probably causing internal dissent and civil war in some countries.
Certainly China would like to keep this war below the threshold where it interferes with their ability to buy oil from either side. Other than that, I doubt they care. China and Russia both sell arms to Iran and are interested in American technology. Iran has oil and access to secret American technology.
I wouldn't be surprised if Iran had help when they captured a US drone recently.Most countries including the U.S. and Iran accept the Law of the Sea. However...
Is Iran legally permitted to close Strait of Hormuz to countries that impose sanctions against Iran's oil?
By Bahman Aghai Diba, PhD
International Law of the Sea
The Strait of Hormuz is the narrow sea passage that connects the Persian Gulf to the Oman Sea. This is the only sea-passage for the export of oil from the Persian Gulf states. (1) Recently, due to the revival of the possibility of new sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran, which may include sanctions against the purchase of oil and the sale of petroleum products to Iran, the issue of Iran’s reactions, especially the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, has turned into a hot topic. Some Iranian officials have recently claimed that according to the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Law of the Sea, Iran can suspend the passage from the Strait of Hormuz for the countries that impose sanctions against the Iranian oil and gas imports and exports. This is a piece on the legal, political, military and practical aspects of this issue.
Is Iran legally permitted to close Strait of Hormuz to countries that impose sanctions against Iran's oil?
(Iranian source)
Anyone who chooses sides would be fair game. Belligerent war ships of either side would be fair game. Neutral countries would require both sides grant passage and take their chances.
Last edited:
Easy to close - But how long can they close it is the critical question
Check the last time that Iran tried to close the strait - It is in an earlier link I believe.
2-4 weeks - Yes some damage would occur to the UAE – Qatar, Saudi etc pipelines - that is a given.
Iranian capacity to pump, refine, and export oil would be destroyed. It would take many years to rebuild – and where are they going to buy the equipment- the parts – Yes Russian and China would be in -
Each of these countries (Not including Iran) have high value targets – refineries for one that would have substantial protection. Anti Missile batteries etc.
Massive launches of Iranian missiles could occur and a percentage would hit their targets – Most would not
The Iranians still have problems with their guidance systems for missiles. Would some hit the targets – Yes –
Cruise missiles are slow movers and can also be targeted by aircraft –
Their Naval assets – mainly fast attack boats would be sitting ducks for Allied air power – as I mentioned – See it – Hit it – Kill it. And the US and others would have planes in the air – 7 -24
The Iranian Air assets are a joke.
And in the end – Iran’s ability to generate revenues would be destroyed. I would imagine the average Iranian would be somewhat pissed with the Thugs at the top.
Civil unrest would result – Civil War would be high on the list. And you can bet the Saudi’s, UAE, Qatar etc would be helping.
From Goober's links:
Even during the 1980–88 Iran-Iraq War, when Iran sought to block the
passage of oil tankers to and from the Arab states, it exercised restraint. It attacked
shipping primarily in the western gulf, closer to the Shatt al-Arab. Only
there and in United Arab Emirate waters did Iran lay mines, and not in large
numbers. Its activities in and around the strait were conªned to intrusive ship
boardings and inspections of cargo bound for Iraq.
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/IS3301_pp082-117_Talmadge.pdf
If Iran wanted to shutdown the Gulf back then, they could have. Instead they exercised restraint, restricting their activities to near Iraq only. Iran continued to export oil from terminals out of reach of Iraq. In exchange, Iran didn't close the strait. If the US/Israel shut down Iran's ability to export oil, (something Iraq never did) Iran would shut down the Persian Gulf for everyone who sides with the US/Israel in response.
China's interests in the region have little in common with US/Israeli interests. Likely China would try to remain neutral and send a naval force to the region to escort their ships.
If the US/Israel bombs Iranian infrastructure, they'd better be extremely careful Chinese companies own a good portion of Iran's oil infrastructure, and thousands of Chinese nationals work in Iran's oil industry. China has invested tens of billions in Iran. Also China is Iran's biggest trading partner.
Even during the 1980–88 Iran-Iraq War, when Iran sought to block the
passage of oil tankers to and from the Arab states, it exercised restraint. It attacked
shipping primarily in the western gulf, closer to the Shatt al-Arab. Only
there and in United Arab Emirate waters did Iran lay mines, and not in large
numbers. Its activities in and around the strait were conªned to intrusive ship
boardings and inspections of cargo bound for Iraq.
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/IS3301_pp082-117_Talmadge.pdf
If Iran wanted to shutdown the Gulf back then, they could have. Instead they exercised restraint, restricting their activities to near Iraq only. Iran continued to export oil from terminals out of reach of Iraq. In exchange, Iran didn't close the strait. If the US/Israel shut down Iran's ability to export oil, (something Iraq never did) Iran would shut down the Persian Gulf for everyone who sides with the US/Israel in response.
China's interests in the region have little in common with US/Israeli interests. Likely China would try to remain neutral and send a naval force to the region to escort their ships.
If the US/Israel bombs Iranian infrastructure, they'd better be extremely careful Chinese companies own a good portion of Iran's oil infrastructure, and thousands of Chinese nationals work in Iran's oil industry. China has invested tens of billions in Iran. Also China is Iran's biggest trading partner.
Nobody wants a war with China, but right now China is not that invincible power some here think it is. China would back off if Iran tried blocking the straits. If Iran did attempt to block the strait, it would be Europe who would feel the effects first and yes the priceof oil we use would rise. During the Iran-Iraq war there was no need by either side to block the straits and bring outher countries into the conflict.
You're really turning into a mission analyst specialist. lol Does that also consider that the recent war games Iran held was letting loose with the óld stock and making room for the new?
The straits being closed to all shipping would mean the naval base in Bahrain would have to be abandoned, not a big deal if Turkey becomes the alternative pipeline for goods. Even capturing it (the naval base in Bahrain) would be a waste of energy and the waterways benefit a select number of Nations and Kuwait was sacrificed once so closing the waterway would only hurt themselves. Opening the route to more tankers that carry oil sold for non US $ would be a better way to fight a war with the US. Offer it cheap enough and others will buy it. A tanker sunk on the high seas carrying under-priced oil would not be blamed on the Nation selling the oil.
By air-force are you referencing the anti-aircraft defensive systems or the long-range bomber squadrons they have? It must be the former because they do not have the latter.
Being on the defensive is almost infinitely easier and cheaper and if your main defensive systems are made in-house you can wage a long active war.
As for the civilians rising up in 'revolt', ... they would rise up alright, just like the population did in response to the 'surprise of Pearl Harbor'. A Nation will gladly run themselves on war rations if they have a 'righteous cause' and defending from invasion usually tops the list. Being a spy or such would be a lot more dangerous in a time of actual war so recruiting the locals to fight against their Gov would be harder. I could be wrong as Libya and Syria could be test-beds for that part of 'revolution from within by outside help'. Egypt is just getting around to arresting some from the various international NGO's so the 'revolution may not actually move much faster than any other legal matter. Not a big deal if it takes a long time as the goal is to do it once and that is enough to make keeping it on track for a long period of time relatively easy.
The price the invaders are willing to pay would be just about equal to what the oil resources are worth. Even this war would not see the creation of jobs that WWII saw in North America, the oil would not be brought here 'refined' and shipped back to the war zone, they would get it from any OPEC spout and the bill would be sent to the US taxpayer. After a successful invasion the oil would still not flow to the US, it would be sold by the US on the 'open market' to Nations that actually have some credits left.
Invading them, or even treating others like Cuba has been treated for the last 50 years, is not the best way to ensure your own survival on a National level. Doing a poor job on foreign relations can bring revolt from within as well as from without the borders. Even the 'we lied to you for your own good' line doesn't always supply an exit route.
An attack on Iran would be a good idea if the goal was to see what North America looks like as a 5th world country. (not by a military defeat by Iran but by the rest of the world shutting them out)
No one noted that Iran stated they would respond to threats with threats.
But Obama just signed off on a new bill.
Read both links
Iran delays planned missile tests, indicates willingness for fresh talks about its nuclear program | News | National Post
Separately, Iranian media reported that nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili would write to the EU foreign policy chief to say Iran was ready for fresh talks on its nuclear program, which it says is aimed exclusively at power generation.
“Jalili will soon send a letter to Catherine Ashton over the format of negotiations … then fresh talks will take place with major powers,” the semi-official Mehr news agency quoted Iran’s ambassador to Germany, Alireza Sheikh Attar, as saying.
Negotiations between Iran and the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council – the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France – plus Germany (P5+1) stalled in January.
Despite ‘reservations', Obama signs wide-ranging defence bill - The Globe and Mail
The bill also applies penalties against Iran’s central bank in an effort to hamper Tehran’s ability to fund its nuclear enrichment program. The Obama administration is looking to soften the impact of those penalties because of concerns that they could lead to a spike in global oil prices or cause economic hardship on U.S. allies that import petroleum from Iran.
The administration also raised concerns about an amendment in the bill that goes after foreign financial institutions that do business with Iran’s central bank, barring them from opening or maintaining correspondent operations in the United States. It would apply to foreign central banks only for transactions that involve the sale or purchase of petroleum or petroleum products.
Officials worry that the penalties could lead to higher oil prices, damaging the U.S. economic recovery and hurting allies in Europe and Asia that purchase petroleum from Iran.
The penalties do not go into effect for six months. The president can waive them for national security reasons or if the country with jurisdiction over the foreign financial institution has significantly reduced its purchases of Iran oil.
The State Department has said the U.S. was looking at how to put them in place in a way that maximized the pressure on Iran, but meant minimal disruption to the U.S. and its allies.
In response to the threatened penalties, Iran warned this past week that it may disrupt traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, a vital Persian Gulf waterway. U.S. officials say that while they take all threats from Iran seriously, they view this latest warning as little more than saber rattling because disrupting the waterway would harm Iran’s economy.
But Obama just signed off on a new bill.
Read both links
Iran delays planned missile tests, indicates willingness for fresh talks about its nuclear program | News | National Post
Separately, Iranian media reported that nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili would write to the EU foreign policy chief to say Iran was ready for fresh talks on its nuclear program, which it says is aimed exclusively at power generation.
“Jalili will soon send a letter to Catherine Ashton over the format of negotiations … then fresh talks will take place with major powers,” the semi-official Mehr news agency quoted Iran’s ambassador to Germany, Alireza Sheikh Attar, as saying.
Negotiations between Iran and the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council – the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France – plus Germany (P5+1) stalled in January.
Despite ‘reservations', Obama signs wide-ranging defence bill - The Globe and Mail
The bill also applies penalties against Iran’s central bank in an effort to hamper Tehran’s ability to fund its nuclear enrichment program. The Obama administration is looking to soften the impact of those penalties because of concerns that they could lead to a spike in global oil prices or cause economic hardship on U.S. allies that import petroleum from Iran.
The administration also raised concerns about an amendment in the bill that goes after foreign financial institutions that do business with Iran’s central bank, barring them from opening or maintaining correspondent operations in the United States. It would apply to foreign central banks only for transactions that involve the sale or purchase of petroleum or petroleum products.
Officials worry that the penalties could lead to higher oil prices, damaging the U.S. economic recovery and hurting allies in Europe and Asia that purchase petroleum from Iran.
The penalties do not go into effect for six months. The president can waive them for national security reasons or if the country with jurisdiction over the foreign financial institution has significantly reduced its purchases of Iran oil.
The State Department has said the U.S. was looking at how to put them in place in a way that maximized the pressure on Iran, but meant minimal disruption to the U.S. and its allies.
In response to the threatened penalties, Iran warned this past week that it may disrupt traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, a vital Persian Gulf waterway. U.S. officials say that while they take all threats from Iran seriously, they view this latest warning as little more than saber rattling because disrupting the waterway would harm Iran’s economy.
Your link says, "Salami made the remarks in response to the warning issued by the U.S. Fifth Fleet on December 28, in which it said that it would not allow any disruption of traffic in the Strait of Hormuz. “Anyone who threatens to disrupt freedom of navigation in an international strait is clearly outside the community of nations; any disruption will not be tolerated,” the Bahrain-based fleet said in an e-mail, according to Reuters.
The warning came a day after the commander of the Iranian Navy, Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari, in an interview with Press TV''
Salami followed up on what Sayyari said if Tehran deems it necessary BECAUSE IT IS THREATENED.
Isn't this exactly what my earlier link shows as well? Clearly he is saying, you take the first move and we will retaliate. Is he contradicting Sayyari? Doesn't quite seem that way though it appears this is the spin you want to put on it.
How's that again, tough guy?
Last edited:
When we determine the seriousness of these actions we should ask the all
important question about gun boat diplomacy. Where is the Aircraft Carrier
Kitty hawk? That ship precedes all serious actions and is not only a fighter
carrier it is the coordination ship for the sixth fleet and has been for at least
two decades. If that ship is in the appropriate waters there could be hell to
pay. Noticed lately no one is talking about that ship?
important question about gun boat diplomacy. Where is the Aircraft Carrier
Kitty hawk? That ship precedes all serious actions and is not only a fighter
carrier it is the coordination ship for the sixth fleet and has been for at least
two decades. If that ship is in the appropriate waters there could be hell to
pay. Noticed lately no one is talking about that ship?
The United States 5th Fleet can pop up almost any where in the Mid-East. We have not heard from a couple of carrier groups lately, are they joining up with the 5th fleet, we will never know till something happens.
U.S. Fifth Fleet (C5F), an Echelon III command, supports all naval operations in the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) area of responsibility (AOR). It encompasses about 7.5 million square miles and includes the Arabian Gulf, Red Sea, Gulf of Oman, and parts of the Indian Ocean. This expanse, comprised of 25 countries, includes Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, and Somalia.
The usual force of 20-plus ships, with about 1,000 people ashore and 15,000 afloat, consists of a Carrier Battle Group, Amphibious Ready Group, combat aircraft, and other support units and ships. Fifth Fleet exemplifies the Department of the Navy's strategic concept "Forward... From the sea," by providing the ability to respond immediately to any emerging crisis from peace-keeping and humanitarian missions to asserting necessary force in regional conflicts.
U.S. Fifth Fleet (C5F), an Echelon III command, supports all naval operations in the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) area of responsibility (AOR). It encompasses about 7.5 million square miles and includes the Arabian Gulf, Red Sea, Gulf of Oman, and parts of the Indian Ocean. This expanse, comprised of 25 countries, includes Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, and Somalia.
The usual force of 20-plus ships, with about 1,000 people ashore and 15,000 afloat, consists of a Carrier Battle Group, Amphibious Ready Group, combat aircraft, and other support units and ships. Fifth Fleet exemplifies the Department of the Navy's strategic concept "Forward... From the sea," by providing the ability to respond immediately to any emerging crisis from peace-keeping and humanitarian missions to asserting necessary force in regional conflicts.