Iran under Sanction Pressures – Reaction?

[earth_as_one]

I'm curious eao. If Iran decided to close the straight because of the imposed sanctions, and the u.s. and allies decided to use that as an excuse to intervene. Where would you stand?

Iran can't legally close the strait due to US endorsed economic sanctions. The US has a sovereign right to choose their trading partners. That not only includes Iran, but any nation or organization which does business with Iran. Iran is free to impose its own punitive sanctions against the US in response...

If Iran decided to close the strait illegally and the US and allies used that as an excuse to intervene.. I'd buy shares in Cenovus.
Cenovus Energy Inc: TSE:CVE quotes & news - Google Finance
Yes the US and other countries would have a right to bomb Iran, but I doubt Iran would be that dumb... Iran doesn't want a direct conflict either. I'm not sure what was behind that recent Iranian statement, but Iran also profits from high oil prices.

Pragmatically, Iran has no interest in shutting down the gulf, while they continue to sell oil. Most Iranian oil terminals are in the Persian Gulf and indefensible. A war would be extremely destructive for everyone including Iran.

Iran can only close the strait legally to belligerents in response to an act of war. Economic sanctions and trade embargoes aren't acts of war. IMO these types of punitive measure are a legitimate means for one nation to apply pressure on another which could avert or cause war.

BTW, any nation including Iran could covertly close the Persian Gulf to tankers using floating mines deployed by commercial vessels. Even if the mines never hit a single tanker, the gulf would close immediately based on insurance rates. The US and other nations could go in and clean it up, but a month later and a few more mines would close the gulf again... the source of the disruptions could be difficult to prove... even potentially false flag (Iranian deployed American made mines?) In the current volatile situation, a relatively small terrorist or militant group could spark a world war with a few floating mines and a lucky hit.

Iran is a threat to Israel, but they don't need nukes to defeat Israel. Iran's leaders probably intend to a fight proxy war.

Iran's domestic arms industry:
List of military equipment manufactured in Iran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Misagh 2
man-portable surface to air missile
fire and forget infrared
Effective range: 5000 m
Warhead weight: 1.42 kg

Fajr-5
Rocket artillery
15,000 kg (System)
90 kg (HE Content)
175 kg (Warhead)
915 kg (Rocket)[3]
Effective range 68-75 km
Haifa Attack 6 aug 2006 - YouTube

Toofan (Storm) 5 Missile, Anti Tank/Aircraft with counter electronic warfare systems
Iranian - Toofan (Storm) 5 Missile, Anti Tank/Aircraft with counter electronic warfare systems. - YouTube

A Russian viewpoint of the 2006 Israel/Hezbollah skirmish... re: anti-tank weapons and other man portable munitions:
Hezbollah

Likely Iranian defense strategies based on military capabilities
Iran's Military Doctrine | The Iran Primer

 

[gerryh]

didn't answer the question. Try again.

 

[earth_as_one]

Doesn't this answer you?

...If Iran decided to close the strait illegally and the US and allies used that as an excuse to intervene..
Yes the US and other countries would have a right to bomb Iran ...

Like I said, I doubt Iran would be that dumb. More likely if Iran couldn't sell its oil due to a US led embargo, they'd covertly shut the gulf down with American made naval mines or replicas.

 

[petros]

Even without Iran Cenovus is a no brainer. Their CO2 oil extraction process technology is priceless.

 

[MHz]

Like I said, I doubt Iran would be that dumb. More likely if Iran couldn't sell its oil due to a US led embargo, they'd covertly shut the gulf down with American made naval mines or replicas.

Who makes up for the oil that Iran currently sells? OPEC (or others) may not be able to fill all those orders so would the embargo not be an act of war by the US on those Nations?
If Iran decided offer it's oil at a discount to certain countries (everybody but the G-20) could their oil even be shut off without a war crime being committed?
When Venezuela delivers free heating oil to Miami does the 'diesel' get delivered directly to the homes from the tanker or does the tanker unload into a common tank? If it is the common tank then do the 'needy' ever see that amount of free oil??

Iran doesn't need to close down the strait, they only need to be able to get at ships that use that same strait when they are in a war. That means war ships so it is the interest of the US (and their Military partners) to get the International community to foot the bill for having the UN supply the order that gives military force the funding to the 'solution' of keeping the straits open. Let it be closed, other routes could be found to get the current level of goods in and out. If Berlin could be saved via air drops Kuwait could be saved by land caravans and pipelines to Saudi ports. Merchant vessels won't be allowed in by their insurance companies.
The US would have to abandon Bahrain if Iran does have supersonic cruise missiles that could get the ships while still in harbor. (and hi-speed torpedoes once they were away from port) The air campaign could be better fought from land bases further to the west who would be resupplied from new ports on the Red Sea (if it was to be a long and active war, if the S-series air defense system works then cruise missiles would be the next hope and barring that long range 'artillery' that get targeted via laser pointed by boots on the ground or from satellites. Anything larger or slower is going to get detected and destroyed before it gets to it's destination.)

 

[ironsides]

Iran has stated that if they are attacked, they will attack their attackers. Iran has not threatened neutral nations.

I have read the law and you are wrong. Iran has the right to control navigation within its territorial waters.

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]

Iran has just fired its so called 1st nuclear capable rocket. They will be stopped soon, just not sure just how yet. But before they can hurt others.

 

[MHz]

Iran has just fired its so called 1st nuclear capable rocket. They will be stopped soon, just not sure just how yet. But before they can hurt others.

Stopped using the same methods, and worse, on them, how is that system 'better'? Something closer to the truth is the Nations that have nuclear weapons are the biggest bullies on the block already, the ones getting them now are only getting them as a form of protection. (not that it actually works so the whole expense of the Cold War was one big false flag operation played against the taxpayers of many countries. What a shock, ..... not.

Does Iran's 'navy' really look like it is out for world domination? (twin out-boards?? I can see the attraction from the repair angle but I was expecting to see some all weather skinny, dive into the wave, turbine-powered, missile launch platform of the jump and fire variety.
They do look like they could get to most places in that closed body of water let alone cause havoc in the chicane at the 90deg bend though especially if their machine guns have stabilization similar to an M-1 tank and it's main gun. Just like the Apache mini-gun where the pilot looking at the target is the way it is aimed except in a bucking boat you may be better off low in the boat looking at a targeting screen which is click to lock

That leaves the air for any serious containment in the whole Gulf and the summer for replacing the routes lost to that waterway (20%). Rationing gasoline would be nothing new for mainline North America and the Gov doesn't really require the public have the gas to drive around. One of the 'rewards' offered to the public was 'free/cheap gas' if Iraq was conquered via the lie of WMD's, that false promise (being false when it was even first floated) silenced the masses more than anything else and it has kept the masses close to being obedient sheep.

If that same promise is made to the public again the odds are it will be just as effective and since it is never a 'front running issue' it gets disappeared quite quickly when it fails to manifest itself. After all that would put the 'little American' as being the reason the top is so greedy, when push comes to shove everybody has a point where they start to push just for themselves. Letting millions of civilians die or suffer so your gas is $2/gal cheaper might be seen as being a tad shallow by a (much larger) population who are still waiting for electricity to manifest itself in their lives.
If the illegality of the occupation was ever going to be acknowledged (in the hopes of preventing similar situations) then something would be before the UN already.

 

[gerryh]

Doesn't this answer you?


Like I said, I doubt Iran would be that dumb. More likely if Iran couldn't sell its oil due to a US led embargo, they'd covertly shut the gulf down with American made naval mines or replicas.

I asked where you would stand..... who would you support. You still have not answered.

 

[Goober]

I asked where you would stand..... who would you support. You still have not answered.

Gerry - EAO has a habit of strictly avoiding hard questions. The reaction is similar to Holy Water and Vampires.

 

[MHz]

Gerry - EAO has a habit of strictly avoiding hard questions. The reaction is similar to Holy Water and Vampires.

My what big teeth you have Grandma.

Can a myth about a myth be the best example to use in this situation? How about, can OPEC blackmail a fellow member? Or, can OPEC cross a picket line where that goods in question are not classified as a 'humanitarian aid' Kuwait, Iraq, Saudi would be declaring war on Iran if they crossed a line that Iran called a blockade on, those same Nations voted to curb Iran's right to sell oil on the open market. Would they have voted that way if they were also told that defending the tankers that come to their ports will be at their expense? So the first blow in the war with Iran would be a 20% reduction of oil available to the world and that oil would also be considerably more expensive and there could be a big drop in availability for the first few years once the bullets started to fly. That doesn't sound like Iran is getting the worst of the deal. Try this, Iran offers their oil at a 20% (non-US funds only) discount to any Nation not aligned with NATO, who is going to close the Strait down then?

 

[Goober]

My what big teeth you have Grandma.

Can a myth about a myth be the best example to use in this situation? How about, can OPEC blackmail a fellow member? Or, can OPEC cross a picket line where that goods in question are not classified as a 'humanitarian aid' Kuwait, Iraq, Saudi would be declaring war on Iran if they crossed a line that Iran called a blockade on, those same Nations voted to curb Iran's right to sell oil on the open market. Would they have voted that way if they were also told that defending the tankers that come to their ports will be at their expense? So the first blow in the war with Iran would be a 20% reduction of oil available to the world and that oil would also be considerably more expensive and there could be a big drop in availability for the first few years once the bullets started to fly. That doesn't sound like Iran is getting the worst of the deal. Try this, Iran offers their oil at a 20% (non-US funds only) discount to any Nation not aligned with NATO, who is going to close the Strait down then?

Curbing their right, no. Countries can purchase from whatever country they wish to. It is not a blockade as that is an Act of War.
Many in the West do not trust Iran, neither it appears does the UN, IAEA either believe they are gaining all the facts from Iran.
The decision to make a nuk was during the Iraq- Iran War.

The West I believe would be prepared to offer security guarantees, much like Cuba recieved from the US.
But they do not want a Nuk armed Iran.

 

[Cliffy]

Curbing their right, no. Countries can purchase from whatever country they wish to. It is not a blockade as that is an Act of War.
Many in the West do not trust Iran, neither it appears does the UN, IAEA either believe they are gaining all the facts from Iran.
The decision to make a nuk was during the Iraq- Iran War.

The West I believe would be prepared to offer security guarantees, much like Cuba recieved from the US.
But they do not want a Nuk armed Iran.

Really, who cares what others think. I doubt Iran does. If they are in pursuit of a nuclear weapon, it would seem justified considering the amount of hate propaganda coming from the west. It would be seen as a threat to their sovereignty. I may no like nukes but I sure as hell understand why they think they would need one, if in fact that is what they are doing. But like many other things that are going on, we are captive to our own personal and media bias.

Yup, Iran is an insane theocracy! Well, I got news for ya. So is the US. It is just not commonly known what that theocracy is, but you might start looking at the Pentagon for that answer.

 

[MHz]

Curbing their right, no. Countries can purchase from whatever country they wish to.

I'm not sure if it currently works like that. Can OPEC boycott another member country and make money off the affair or would they have to waiver collecting the 'rewards' of higher oil prices because of their political 'beliefs'. If Iran's membership was cancelled as part of a boycott that saw her ability to sell oil to feed her people then would she come under the same 'rule' that Iraq did, all oil coming and going was on the books of a foreign Nation's military and corporations entities. The same oil for food program that Iraq saw would be the very best that Iran could hope for should she again come under control of US lead doctrine.
END WAR: Madeleine Albright Says Deaths Of 500,000 Iraqi Children Is Worth It; UN Sanction Genocide - YouTube
In the end, the sanctions against Iraq hurt the lest powerful of the population, the same would be no different with Iran other than Iran would not have been disarmed to for all intensive purposes like Iraq was after Gulf I.

It is not a blockade as that is an Act of War.

I'm pretty sure even saying military force use by 'your side' is considered an act of war and as such action can be taken against that threat.
How can the UN support a boycott of Iranian oil when the Iranian Govt can show that the income is spent on the needs of the population in terms of health and prosperity. That comes with first having an abundant supply of electricity, perhaps even enough to export some. If the N-Option was the real issue some alternative would have been floated around by now so a deeper root cause is Iran is meant to be kept in poverty by the collective that the US runs with. That isn't a choice that has to be allowed to happen.

Many in the West do not trust Iran, neither it appears does the UN, IAEA either believe they are gaining all the facts from Iran.
The decision to make a nuk was during the Iraq- Iran War.

In the last 100 years who has lied to the world more, the US or Iran? You must be referencing the 'laptop' that was found some months back. How long did the US have custody before it's contents were revealed? How many days did the IDF have control of the burned out flour-mill before rifle casings were found on the roof? Both questions have the same answer, without some tests that match the casings to a specific weapon or a specific slug the 'evidence' is suspect at best. If the 'tests' showed the casings belonged to a bullet that hit an IDF person when they were in view of that tower then the case for the tower being a sniper-tower. If no such injuries happened or the casings could be traced to a another location then the case for the destruction of the flour-mill was unjustified and compensation and repairs are due.

The West I believe would be prepared to offer security guarantees, much like Cuba recieved from the US.

Isn't Cuba still under some sort 'émbargo' by the US Gov for events that happened back in 1960? Perhaps the US should offering alternatives to N-fuel for Iran, and even offering to pick up a good portion of the costs. No alternatives have even been suggested including new refineries to make better use of the local products or develop an engine that will run on the local product so they do not have to import gasoline. If the US had reservations about it's support it should have said so back when it supported Iran having nuclear power when it was under the thumb of their Shaw, squawking about it later and offering no solutions is a deception for being as pissed off as they are at Cuba in that the affair is not forgotten by the American side. If you call that equality then you need a new definition for who a human is in 'human rights'.

But they do not want a Nuk armed Iran.

'They' being the ones that have more than enough nuclear weapons themselves, ....... to use on you should you be much weaker than they are and they decide you have something they want under their conditions. Let them have an open defense/offense nuclear facility manned and supplied by Russian or Chinese Forces if threats from the US and Israel go on unabated. Protection while having a 3rd party have a key to the launch command. Iran might be a bigger threat to the cash strapped West by having electricity and money once the two reactors are running close to capacity. Tourism in Persia could include an Alibaba Ski Resort that has a capacity to host 10,000's daily under conditions that modern Europe would find 'liberal' while keeping that whole scene away from the local populations (ultra conservative) which would be involved in the accounting ad servicing the mechanical aspects of the industry. The ones that would be the 'aids' to would be migrant workers that come from the same nations as the tourists themselves.
The West doesn't want a vibrant and thriving Iran either especially one that offers a 40 day tour of a skiing facility where you sleep at a different facility every night and travel between facilities is by skiing for the person and monorail for your bags and such. The same mag-lev monorail that picks you up at a sea-side retreat just a few hours earlier.

 

[darkbeaver]

A definition of the west is needed.

 

[ironsides]

.

Who said anything about "world domination"? Iran is the N. Korea of the Mid-East, just a loose cannon that must be plugged.

 

[Cliffy]

Who said anything about "world domination"? Iran is the N. Korea of the Mid-East, just a loose cannon that must be plugged.

And who is controlling the US canon? The US is the loose canon of the world. Who is going to pug that puppy up?

 

[earth_as_one]

Iran has just fired its so called 1st nuclear capable rocket. They will be stopped soon, just not sure just how yet. But before they can hurt others.

Yeah right. Iran also has nuke cable airliners, transport trucks and tugboats too.

Iran has a right to space program, just like they have a right to a peaceful nuclear program.

I asked where you would stand..... who would you support. You still have not answered.

I'm a proud patriotic Canadian, but I disagree with getting closer to Israel and encouraging more US conquests. I don't support Canada getting involved in a shooting war with Iran. The middle east's problems aren't our business.

If Iran shuts down the Persian gulf, Canada as an energy exporter would benefit. Please explain why Canadians should get their panties in a knot over higher global energy prices...

 

[ironsides]

And who is controlling the US canon? The US is the loose canon of the world. Who is going to pug that puppy up?
[/FONT]

Name one place we are in without UN sanction at this moment?

Yeah right. Iran also has nuke cable airliners, transport trucks and tugboats too.

Iran has a right to space program, just like they have a right to a peaceful nuclear program.


I'm a proud patriotic Canadian, but I disagree with getting closer to Israel and encouraging more US conquests. I don't support Canada getting involved in a shooting war with Iran. The middle east's problems aren't our business.

If Iran shuts down the Persian gulf, Canada as an energy exporter would benefit. Please explain why Canadians should get their panties in a knot over higher global energy prices...

yup you can watch my back anytime. :roll:

 

[Goober]

Yeah right. Iran also has nuke cable airliners, transport trucks and tugboats too.

Iran has a right to space program, just like they have a right to a peaceful nuclear program.


I'm a proud patriotic Canadian, but I disagree with getting closer to Israel and encouraging more US conquests. I don't support Canada getting involved in a shooting war with Iran. The middle east's problems aren't our business.

If Iran shuts down the Persian gulf, Canada as an energy exporter would benefit. Please explain why Canadians should get their panties in a knot over higher global energy prices...

Deflection again, and as per the norm hate the Jews. My opinion- Iran would be Freaks with Nukes.

 

[MHz]

Please explain why Canadians should get their panties in a knot over higher global energy prices...

You first, on Jan 1st you get your new heating bill $500/room. A 3br with kitchen and dining and living would be $3000/mo. Your response, .......

Mine would be to insulate the floor to the max and move everything into the basement where it is an R-60 roof and walls. Move back to those other rooms as the summer months returned.

My opinion- Iran would be Freaks with Nukes.

Is that from an cold analytical mind or do you have human emotions involved?