Iran under Sanction Pressures – Reaction?

Oil Sanction


  • Total voters
    17

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
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.
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
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

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
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

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
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

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
70
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
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:

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
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

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
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:

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
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

Zelzal-2 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
That's true. However Iran has focused its military research efforts on missiles:

Sejjil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Zelzal-2 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
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

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
70
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
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.

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.

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

Sejjil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Zelzal-2 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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?
I'm sure such action would come at a terrible cost.
Me, too ...... to Iran.
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.

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

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
192
63
Nakusp, BC
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

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
70
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
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. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html

Critics Still Wrong on What
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
192
63
Nakusp, BC

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
192
63
Nakusp, BC
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

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
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

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
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.