Iran under Sanction Pressures – Reaction?

[MHz]

Perhaps the war game is a cover for sending Syria the armaments that are supposedly going to be used will really be sent to Syria to aid them in their upcoming war for the sea and skies.
Everything that could be used in a sea war can be used in a land war except the hi-speed torpedoes. Terrain-hugging supersonic cruise missiles designed to be a one-punch solution to anything smaller than an aircraft carrier would certainly work against supply depots on land.

Why wouldn't you also defend in the direction the captured drone originally came from? (perhaps even more-so) Radar and missiles no longer have to be sitting next to each other to be working together.

What Libya went through and what Syria will be going through will be proof enough for Iran to never give up once they come under actual attack.

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.

You sound like a recruiting station. Didn't see hospital ship(s) listed, are drone attacks hazard free business?

 

[ironsides]

You sound like a recruiting station. Didn't see hospital ship(s) listed, are drone attacks hazard free business?

Can you name one ship that is part of the 5th fleet today? Hospital ships??, carriers have a full hospital, as do assault ships..

 

[Goober]

Can you name one ship that is part of the 5th fleet today? Hospital ships??, carriers have a full hospital, as do assault ships..

I think the West will speed up implementation of sanctions

Iran’s nuclear progress spurs sanctions - The Globe and Mail

The UN Security Council has already imposed four rounds of global sanctions on Iran, but Russia and China have refused to back sanctions that would seriously affect Iran’s oil industry, so the EU and United States have taken measures on their own.

Just how far the latest U.S. measures will go could depend on how Mr. Obama decides to implement them.

The U.S. defence funding bill, approved by Congress last week, aims to reduce the oil revenues that make up the bulk of Iran’s export earnings. Mr. Obama signed it in Hawaii on Saturday, where he was spending the Christmas holiday.

If enforced strictly, the sanctions could make it nearly impossible for most refiners to buy crude from Iran, the world’s fourth biggest producer.

However, Mr. Obama asked for scope to apply the measures flexibly, and will have discretion to waive penalties. Senior U.S. officials said Washington was consulting foreign partners to ensure the new measures did not harm global energy markets.

Despite its missile tests, war games and threats to close the Hormuz Strait, Iran has also made conciliatory gestures, saying it wants to resume talks with major powers, stalled for a year, about its nuclear research program.

Western officials suggest the offer may be a stalling tactic to avert sanctions and buy time for more nuclear progress.

Iranian media reported on Saturday that nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili would write to the EU foreign policy chief to say Iran was ready for talks.

A senior Western diplomat in Tehran, who asked not to be identified, said the stepped-up Iranian threats show “that they are worried about losing petrodollars, on which more than 60 per cent of the economy depends.”

The rising tensions are having an impact at home. Iran’s currency has nosedived in recent weeks as ordinary Iranians have moved money from savings accounts into gold or foreign currency.

The price of staple foods has increased by up to 40 per cent in recent months and many critics have put the blame on increasing isolation brought about by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s economic and foreign policies.

 

[earth_as_one]

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.

Iran stated that in the event of conflict, they would respect the Law of the Sea. Iran would only close the strait to belligerents. China would be a neutral nation.

 

[ironsides]

Sanctions from the west alone should be enough to bring Iran to their senses. Russia and China may protest, but neither of them want serious trouble with us. (Plus Russia and China have enought problems with each other)

 

[Goober]

Iran stated that in the event of conflict, they would respect the Law of the Sea. Iran would only close the strait to belligerents. China would be a neutral nation.

International waters - Read the law please. They first stated if sanctions were imposed. Sanctions are not an act of war - If they were Iran would have acted. Oil sanctions will cripple their economy.
China and India would also be pressured by Saudi to buy as little as possible.

 

[earth_as_one]

Bring Iran to their senses? Or illegally interfere with Iran's NPT right to peaceful nuclear technology...

Q&A
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11709428
Developing states rap "interference" in Iran deal
http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/09/11/us-nuclear-iaea-idUSL1154089720070911

The countries violating the NPT are the ones interfering with Iran's legal and peaceful nuclear program.

Countries which possess nuclear weapons are supposed to reduce and eliminate their nuclear arsenals. They are not allowed to research and develop new types of nuclear weapons, and they aren't supposed to threaten non-nuke weapon nations with nuclear attack. The US has violated all of their NPT obligations. Meanwhile Iran hasn't violated a single mandatory NPT obligation, despite attempts by the MSM to make unsubstantiated allegations to sound like proof of violations. Iran refuses to sign voluntary confidence building protocols which would also assist US/Israel efforts to spy on and sabotage Iran's nuclear program as well as assassinate Iranian scientists. Given the number of unexplained explosions and unsolved murders... I'd say Iran isn't being paranoid:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,777899,00.html

http://www.richardsilverstein.com/t...onfirms-mossad-sabotage-behind-missile-blast/

Iran has stated that despite sanctions, murder and sabotage, they won't be deterred from pursuing their right to peaceful NPT compliant nuclear technology. Iran is not known to currently possess weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and has signed treaties repudiating the possession of weapons of mass destruction including the Biological Weapons Convention, the Chemical Weapons Convention, and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Over 100,000 Iranian troops and civilians were victims of chemical weapons during the 1980s Iran–Iraq War. (eao: with the assistance of the US They Said It: The Iran-Iraq War: This Far and No Further ). Iran is not known to have resorted to using chemical weapons in retaliation for Iraqi chemical weapons attacks during the Iran–Iraq War, though it would have been legally entitled to do so under the then-existing international treaties on the use of chemical weapons which only prohibited the first use of such weapons.

en.wikipedia.org/a/Iran_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

 

[Goober]

Bring Iran to their senses? Or illegally interfere with Iran's NPT right to peaceful nuclear technology...

Not according to the UN IAEA. But then the IAEA was your fount of protection of your opinion - now they are not.
Try to keep current. I have little time / patience to bring your mediocre knowledge level up to the minimum required for informed and accurate discussion.

 

[earth_as_one]

International waters - Read the law please. They first stated if sanctions were imposed. Sanctions are not an act of war - If they were Iran would have acted. Oil sanctions will cripple their economy.
China and India would also be pressured by Saudi to buy as little as possible.

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.

Law of the Sea: Territorial waters
Out to 12 nautical miles from the baseline, the coastal state is free to set laws, regulate use, and use any resource. Vessels were given the right of innocent passage through any territorial waters, with strategic straits allowing the passage of military craft as transit passage, in that naval vessels are allowed to maintain postures that would be illegal in territorial waters. "Innocent passage" is defined by the convention as passing through waters in an expeditious and continuous manner, which is not "prejudicial to the peace, good order or the security" of the coastal state. Fishing, polluting, weapons practice, and spying are not "innocent", and submarines and other underwater vehicles are required to navigate on the surface and to show their flag. Nations can also temporarily suspend innocent passage in specific areas of their territorial seas, if doing so is essential for the protection of its security.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea#UNCLOS_III

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]

 

[Goober]

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

Hormuz is classed as international waters - transit is authorized thru internal waters.

Iran now is now considering Nuke talks. It has been a year. Oil sanctions - we do not have to buy their oil - is not an Act of War - Closing the strait is an Act of War.
And they would lose, the people would riot, their capability to produce oil for export would be delayed for years.

 

[earth_as_one]

Transit passage is a concept in Law of the Sea which allows for a vessel and aircraft in accordance with United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Part III) of the freedom of navigation and overflight solely for the purpose of continuous and expeditious transit of the strait between one part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone and another part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone. However, the requirement of continuous and expeditious transit does not preclude passage through the strait for the purpose of entering, leaving or returning from a state bordering the strait, subject to the conditions of entry to that state[1].

...Hormuz is classed as international waters - transit is authorized thru internal waters.

According to the Law of the Sea, anything within 12 miles of Iran's coast is territorial waters, even the Strait of Hormuz. Military vessels can pass through the strait using transit passage rules. But transit passage rules can be suspended for national security reasons, such as during a war or self defense.

If the US or Israel attacks Iran, of course Iran would be completely justified in defending itself.

 

[Goober]

Transit passage is a concept in Law of the Sea which allows for a vessel and aircraft in accordance with United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Part III) of the freedom of navigation and overflight solely for the purpose of continuous and expeditious transit of the strait between one part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone and another part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone. However, the requirement of continuous and expeditious transit does not preclude passage through the strait for the purpose of entering, leaving or returning from a state bordering the strait, subject to the conditions of entry to that state[1].

According to the Law of the Sea, anything within 12 miles of Iran's coast is territorial waters, even the Strait of Hormuz. Military vessels can pass through the strait using transit passage rules. But transit passage rules can be suspended for national security reasons, such as during a war or self defense.

If the US or Israel attacks Iran, of course Iran would be completely justified in defending itself.

But not for oil sanctions.

 

[earth_as_one]

The US and Europe are free to not buy oil from Iran. They are free to use economic means against Iran through economic sanctions. I suspect that most non-aligned nations and China will do as they please.

Sure Iran, can't block the strait in response to US led economic sanctions. But a military blockade of Iran ports would be an act of war. Vessels from belligerent nations would become fair game. Vessels from neutral nations would need to transit permission from both sides.

 

[Goober]

The US and Europe are free to not buy oil from Iran. They are free to use economic means against Iran through economic sanctions. I suspect that most non-aligned nations and China will do as they please.

Sure Iran, can't block the strait in response to US led economic sanctions. But a military blockade of Iran ports would be an act of war.

Where has the US stated this. It is only Iran that has made threats about closing the Strait.

 

[earth_as_one]

The US has at various times threatened to attack Iran, including a thinly veiled threat to use nuclear weapons... yet another US violation of the NPT:

Iran has been repeatedly threatened with a nuclear first strike by the United States. The U.S. Nuclear Posture Review made public in 2002 specifically envisioned the use of nuclear weapons on a first strike basis, even against non-nuclear armed states.[154] Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh has reported that the Bush administration has been planning the use of nuclear weapons against Iran[155] When specifically questioned about the potential use of nuclear weapons against Iran, President Bush claimed that "All options were on the table". According to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, "the president of the United States directly threatened Iran with a preemptive nuclear strike. It is hard to read his reply in any other way."[156]
Iran and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Meanwhile:
Iran backs off threat to close Strait of Hormuz
December 31, 2011

TEHRAN, Iran—Talk of blocking the strategic oil route through the Strait of Hormuz is a discussion of the past, a commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guard said Saturday in comments that seemed to back away from an earlier threat. But he said Iran had other, unspecified strategies for reacting to any Western aggression.

"Discourse about closing the Strait of Hormuz belongs to five years ago. Today's debate in the Islamic Republic of Iran contains new layers and the time has not come to raise it," Gen. Masoud Jazayeri said in comments posted Saturday on the Guard's website, sepahnews.com.

Jazayeri did not elaborate.

Vice President Mohamed Reza Rahimi threatened on Tuesday to close the strait, cutting off oil exports, if the West imposes sanctions on Iran's oil shipments.

Iran's navy chief Adm. Habibollah Sayyari warned on Wednesday that his country can easily close the strategic oil route at the mouth of the Persian Gulf, the passageway through which a sixth of the world's oil flows.

He took a slightly more conciliatory tone Friday, saying Iran can choke off the vital waterway but it has no intention to do so at this point.

The U.S. has strongly warned Iran against closing the vital waterway, saying it won't tolerate it.

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2011/12/31/iran_backs_off_threat_to_close_strait_of_hormuz/

 

[gerryh]

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?

 

[MHz]

Do you mean specifically the oil tankers of any nation if Iran is 'sanctioned' from having any ships carry her oil rather than closing the straits to any/all traffic?
As that is a natural bottleneck warships would then be considered legit targets

Here is a question for you. If the sanctions are enforced by the US being able to 'çontrol' how other Nations 'vote' is it truly an international backed 'solution' or is it another example of a temper tantrum by a few spoiled children?

 

[gerryh]

Do you mean specifically the oil tankers of any nation if Iran is 'sanctioned' from having any ships carry her oil rather than closing the straits to any/all traffic?
As that is a natural bottleneck warships would then be considered legit targets

Here is a question for you. If the sanctions are enforced by the US being able to 'çontrol' how other Nations 'vote' is it truly an international backed 'solution' or is it another example of a temper tantrum by a few spoiled children?

We'll wait for eao's answer. Then I'll answer your questions.

Ahhhhhhh.... it's a bitch when your called on your bullshyte. Isn't eao?

 

[gopher]

I don't see how the US or Israel could possibly act militarily against Iran and not sustain serious damage or risk dragging most of the world into the conflict.

Wealthy elites in the USA will be only too happy to start yet another war if it will mean more war profits. Iran is no threat to world peace as the threats being made here are by the USA.

 

[petros]

International waters - Read the law please. They first stated if sanctions were imposed. Sanctions are not an act of war - If they were Iran would have acted. Oil sanctions will cripple their economy.
China and India would also be pressured by Saudi to buy as little as possible.

You can't sail a full tanker through the Straits without going through Irainian waters. If they say no they say no. If tankers can't get into the gulf but can fill at Kish they have one hell of an oil economy.