Iran is threatening to close off the world's most important oil shipping lane

RobitTV

Iran is threatening to close off the world's most important oil shipping lane as tensions between it and the West mount following the capture of an unmanned American spy plane.

Parviz Sarvari, a member of the Iranian parliament's National Security Committee, said his country was preparing to close off the crucial Strait of Hormuz as part of a military exercise.

Around a third of all shipped oil passes through the four mile-wide Strait between Oman and Iran and U.S. warships patrol the area to ensure safe passage.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2073769/Iran-threatens-shut-Straits-Hormuz-military-manoeuvre.html

JustinDee

This is the Daily Mail. Wait and see if actually true.

To quote 'The Thick of It':

- "It was in today's Mail. Didn't you read it?"
- "Nope. I'm under 40 and have a penis"

I am pie

They threatened to close it off in 2008 also (actually i wouldn't be surprised if this had be dug up again and rehashed by the Fail) without doing much about it.

They haven't the naval strength to seal the strait of hormuz off.

Fratton Fred

They tried it before and got a bloody nose from the yanks, so they will probably not rush into it.

OS119

I am pie wrote: »

...They haven't the naval strength to seal the strait of hormuz off.

they don't need to close it off, they just need to make it sufficiently risky so as to drive insurance premiums for shipping through the roof.

Iran is, as far as i can see, is running an exercise - it has not disclosed the nature of that exercise - so it could be putting forth its total maritime capabilities in to the straits or it could be conducting a 'table top' exercise in JHQ in Tehran without a single boat getting wet.

there are, imv, two ways of looking at this that are both correct, but depend on your view. firstly that exercises exist to develop, maintain and display military capability - and the fact that a politico is talking about an exercise, rather than the normal, dry Notices to Airmen and Mariners (NOTAMS) published by the relevent maritime and aviation bodies is an indication of the 'display' element of this exercise. the second way of looking at it is that, for instance, the UK hosts a bi-annual maritime exercise called 'JOINT WARRIOR' in which most of NATO practices closing off the North East Atlantic and bombing the crap out of Garvie Island - yet no-one gets excited about such an exercise, even though it can only really be aimed at one country.

its probably both - Iran has the absolute right to undertake military exercises in its terratorial waters and international waters - but its probably not a coincidence that they are talking about it in the way they are, and that its the political side talking about the exercise, rather than the military.

JustinDee

A blockade is an act of war.
They won't do it.

Thanks to the Daily Mail for the pot-stirring entertainment, all the same.

OS119

JustinDee wrote: »

A blockade is an act of war.
They won't do it.

Thanks to the Daily Mail for the pot-stirring entertainment, all the same.

i think the interpretation is that the 'closing' of the straits would be an action that Iran would attempt were it to be attacked - ergo it would already be at war.

its a non-to-sublte suggestion that countries who rely on oil that passes through the straits should 'air their concerns' to the US over such an attack, therefore (theoretically) making such an attack less likely. its a grown up version of 'if you let X hit me, i won't invite you to my party'.

Border-Rat

Fratton Fred wrote: »

They tried it before and got a bloody nose from the yanks, so they will probably not rush into it.

They tried it before after coming out of 8 years of war, against a superpower in its prime. Today is different. Today, they have the weapons and motive to do it. Besides, after Bushehr is bombed it'll interfere with shipping.

Unless you're telling me a nuclear reactor that has been bombed right next to Persian Gulf shipping won't affect the decision making of the insurance companies of oil tankers?

V_Moth

RobitTV wrote: »

Iran is threatening to close off the world's most important oil shipping lane as tensions between it and the West mount following the capture of an unmanned American spy plane.

Parviz Sarvari, a member of the Iranian parliament's National Security Committee, said his country was preparing to close off the crucial Strait of Hormuz as part of a military exercise.

Around a third of all shipped oil passes through the four mile-wide Strait between Oman and Iran and U.S. warships patrol the area to ensure safe passage.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2073769/Iran-threatens-shut-Straits-Hormuz-military-manoeuvre.html

Yes, this can only mean one thing: WAR. The people in Iran are literally bursting with war.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3BO6GP9NMY

snafuk35

Border-Rat wrote: »

They tried it before after coming out of 8 years of war, against a superpower in its prime. Today is different. Today, they have the weapons and motive to do it. Besides, after Bushehr is bombed it'll interfere with shipping.

Unless you're telling me a nuclear reactor that has been bombed right next to Persian Gulf shipping won't affect the decision making of the insurance companies of oil tankers?

What weapons? The Americans have complete air superiority. The Iranian Air Force is a flying junkyard, their navy is a collection of patrol boats and speed boats. They couldn't close a swimming pool let alone the Hormuz Strait. The American 5th Fleet probably has enough firepower to destroy the Iranian threat all on its own.

RichieC

snafuk35 wrote: »

Border-Rat wrote: »

They tried it before after coming out of 8 years of war, against a superpower in its prime. Today is different. Today, they have the weapons and motive to do it. Besides, after Bushehr is bombed it'll interfere with shipping.

Unless you're telling me a nuclear reactor that has been bombed right next to Persian Gulf shipping won't affect the decision making of the insurance companies of oil tankers?

What weapons? The Americans have complete air superiority. The Iranian Air Force is a flying junkyard, their navy is a collection of patrol boats and speed boats. They couldn't close a swimming pool let alone the Hormuz Strait. The American 5th Fleet probably has enough firepower to destroy the Iranian threat all on its own.

Fox news has spoken.

OS119

RichieC wrote: »

Fox news has spoken.

which bit do you think is untrue?

Border-Rat

snafuk35 wrote: »

What weapons? The Americans have complete air superiority. The Iranian Air Force is a flying junkyard, their navy is a collection of patrol boats and speed boats. They couldn't close a swimming pool let alone the Hormuz Strait. The American 5th Fleet probably has enough firepower to destroy the Iranian threat all on its own.

EM-52 rocket mines supplied by China. Anti-ship cruise missiles supplied by Russia and China. Radiation from Bushehr. Hijackings. Suicide bombings. These will close the Strait of Hormuz, as envisaged by the Millenium US Wargames. And even if they didn't, such is the threat that tanker insurance companies will not stand for it. So feeble is your understanding of asymmetry, you don't even realise that jet-fighters and destroys are useless against missiles being launched from random locations inland.

Border-Rat

OS119 wrote: »

which bit do you think is untrue?

His assertion is that the US Airforce and US Navy being superior to the Iranian Airforce and Sea fleet is true. However, thats where his understanding ends. For a start, the Iranian Airforce will practically play zero role in shutting the Strait of Hormuz, the same for their Navy. The only way to re-open Hormuz is to invade Iran and deploy an occupation force so huge as to secure every possible launch site for harrassment missiles.

The Americans are in no position to invade Iran. The Iranians will launch a missile then retreat. The US airforce will look for them and find nothing. The Iranians will launch another random missile, from another random spot, then retreat. This is all that'll be required for tanker insurance companies to withdraw. A superior airforce and Navy is useless against this type of harassment, such is said posters almost cartoon-level understanding. The only way to cease it is to invade or negotiate. Besides, Bushehr was built deliberately close to shipping. If its bombed, it'll contaminate the Gulf. It'll be worse than Fukushima.

BluePlanet

JustinDee wrote: »

A blockade is an act of war.
They won't do it.

It's not a blockade.
It would be just closing a specific trade route.
It's only cost is in dollars and cents.

Threatening to wage war on Iran would involve mass casualties.

RichieC

OS119 wrote: »

RichieC wrote: »

Fox news has spoken.

which bit do you think is untrue?

whod of thought a few tramps up a mountain could bring down the towers..aye.

johngalway

Border-Rat wrote: »

The Americans are in no position to invade Iran. The Iranians will launch a missile then retreat. The US airforce will look for them and find nothing. The Iranians will launch another random missile, from another random spot, then retreat.

So you find their missiles and missile infrastructure and bomb the living daylights out of it.

Given the world dependency on oil I cannot see the world resistance to such a response.

Who needs to invade.

BluePlanet

Strait of Hormuz is hardly the only way to move oil.
Why can't the yanks just move it thru their little pet project Iraq and then Turkey?

No, it's too important to keep oil prices low so the west can live in bling. So if mass numbers of Iranians have to die then i guess that's the price the Yanks will pay.
American "way of life" and all..

Manic Moran

Border-Rat wrote: »

So feeble is your understanding of asymmetry, you don't even realise that jet-fighters and destroys are useless against missiles being launched from random locations inland.

Wasn't HMS Gloucester a destroyer which shot down an anti-ship cruise missile fired from a random location inland against shipping in the Persian Gulf?
The US has developed entire classes of warship whose primary purpose in life is dealing with anti-ship missiles with short reaction times. The missiles are nowhere near the problem that the mines are.

That said, I also doubt that the US Navy, which has been putting a lot of emphasis on brown-water capabilities in the last decade or so, is going to be soiling itself over the concept of mines which have been on open sale for 20 years. I'm fairly sure they've been applying themselves to the problem.

I'll give the Iranians about a week of the Straits being closed before they're forced open again and tankers brought out under close escort. I also think that one week is going to prove somewhat expensive.

NTM

Jonny7

It's been reported elsewhere now.

The threat has not affected the price of oil, so markets obviously aren't taking it too seriously.

OPEC members (read Saudi) have said they'll ramp up oil availability, if in the unlikely event it does happen.

Still it would be a pretty major event, expect posturing from both sides.

Jonny7

BluePlanet wrote: »

No, it's too important to keep oil prices low so the west can live in bling. So if mass numbers of Iranians have to die then i guess that's the price the Yanks will pay.
American "way of life" and all..

Don't get carried away or anything.

Border-Rat

Manic Moran wrote: »

Wasn't HMS Gloucester a destroyer which shot down an anti-ship cruise missile fired from a random location inland against shipping in the Persian Gulf?
The US has developed entire classes of warship whose primary purpose in life is dealing with anti-ship missiles with short reaction times. The missiles are nowhere near the problem that the mines are.

I know this is difficult for you, but there happens to be quite a bit of difference between a tanker and a destroyer.

That said, I also doubt that the US Navy, which has been putting a lot of emphasis on brown-water capabilities in the last decade or so, is going to be soiling itself over the concept of mines which have been on open sale for 20 years. I'm fairly sure they've been applying themselves to the problem.

I'll give the Iranians about a week of the Straits being closed before they're forced open again and tankers brought out under close escort. I also think that one week is going to prove somewhat expensive.

NTM

After your week has passed, missiles will continue to target anything passing the narrow Strait. The Iranians have large stockpiles of missiles. In 2006 the Iranians had a test run of this. Hezbullah targeted and hit one of the most advanced warships in the World, a stealth German frigate with the latest Phalanx and anti-missile defences. This was fired from a mobile civilian truck. The missiles was a C-802. And the Iranians have others, thats a Chinese missile. The Iranians have plenty of the Russian variant, too. And what an area to target, the Hormuz is a narrow gap. If it can hit a state-of-the-art [Stealth] German frigate, it can hit anything in the water. The best part is, they can fire these from basically anywhere. Apartments, caves, pickups, whatever. This is asymmetry and the only way to subdue it is massive deployment in all possible launch areas. Which is a massive part of Iran.

They will shoot-and-scoot these missiles, randomly and at will. It is proven that they can hit the most advanced warships, even Stealth German frigates. They will have no problem hitting tankers, and the insurance companies will recognise this. Apparently, through witchcraft possibly, the Iranians will be forced to cease these random launches 'after a week'. Well, no. In the non-cartoon world, things work a little differently.

Jonny7

Border-Rat wrote: »

After your week has passed, missiles will continue to target anything passing the narrow Strait. The Iranians have large stockpiles of missiles. In 2006 the Iranians had a test run of this. Hezbullah targeted and hit one of the most advanced warships in the World, a stealth German frigate with the latest Phalanx and anti-missile defences. This was fired from a mobile civilian truck. The missiles was a C-802.

Hezbollah hit a German stealth frigate? Do you have a link for that?

I remember Hezbollah striking an Israeli ship (which has its countermeasures switched off) in the recent Lebanon conflict.

The Outside Agency

The zionist criminal enterprise stirring **** in the middle east again....so what's new?

Manic Moran

Jonny7 wrote: »

Hezbollah hit a German stealth frigate? Do you have a link for that?

I remember Hezbollah striking an Israeli ship (which has its countermeasures switched off) in the recent Lebanon conflict.

He's referring to INS Hanit. It's a corvette, of lesser tonnage than the Irish Navy's P51 class patrol vessels. Made in Mississippi, not Germany, as it happens, and yes, the radar and some other components were switched off due to complacency. Not quite the same as trying to flog missiles at an Aegis cruiser which strongly believes that the enemy have missiles to flog. Incidently, one of these wonder-missiles managed to completely miss the unprepared corvette and sank a Cambodian merchantman.

The Iranians have large stockpiles of missiles

That's OK. So do the Americans. Supposedly the Iranians bought 60 C802s. One Burke class destroyer carries just as many anti-air missiles. (More, if you count point defence)

I know this is difficult for you, but there happens to be quite a bit of difference between a tanker and a destroyer

Type 42s are area defence destroyers. The missile she shot down was heading for a different ship. Though originally built to protect aircraft carriers from anti-ship missiles, they'll protect tankers just as well.

Apparently, through witchcraft possibly, the Iranians will be forced to cease these random launches 'after a week'

I never said they would stop launches. I said the straits would be forced, and tankers escorted out. Though it's far more efficient to kill the launchers, the ultimate criterion for 'success' is that the tankers make it out. If it means killing the missiles and not the people launching them, so be it.

NTM

snafuk35

Border-Rat wrote: »

EM-52 rocket mines supplied by China. Anti-ship cruise missiles supplied by Russia and China. Radiation from Bushehr. Hijackings. Suicide bombings. These will close the Strait of Hormuz, as envisaged by the Millenium US Wargames. And even if they didn't, such is the threat that tanker insurance companies will not stand for it. So feeble is your understanding of asymmetry, you don't even realise that jet-fighters and destroys are useless against missiles being launched from random locations inland.

If oil prices were to sky rocket due an Iranian attempt to plug the straits, any international sympathy would evaporate instantly. The West would respond with overwhelming force, hammer the hell out of the Iranian military.

spank_inferno

The point is, its not the reality of closing the straight, more the threat that would cause the problem.

We all know a barrel of oil is bought & sold 50 times before it is consumed. Every commodity trade taking their cut.

When supply is restricted or there is a strike at a refinery, these commodity rats know how to ramp up the price causing consumer chaos.

Now that I think of it, the commodity traders do more to heighten oil prices than war does.

,....... However, if there was some sort of limited conflict, the companies that underwrite the tankers will pull the plug, forcing those tankers to remain in port.

Manic Moran

spank_inferno wrote: »

The point is, its not the reality of closing the straight, more the threat that would cause the problem.

We all know a barrel of oil is bought & sold 50 times before it is consumed. Every commodity trade taking their cut.

When supply is restricted or there is a strike at a refinery, these commodity rats know how to ramp up the price causing consumer chaos.

Now that I think of it, the commodity traders do more to heighten oil prices than war does.

,....... However, if there was some sort of limited conflict, the companies that underwrite the tankers will pull the plug, forcing those tankers to remain in port.

Why should this be any different to the Tanker War? In three years over 500 merchant ships in the Gulf were damaged. They even put a couple of Exocet missiles into the largest ship (a tanker) ever built and knocked her out.

Despite this, the oil kept flowing.

NTM

spank_inferno

Manic Moran wrote: »

Why should this be any different to the Tanker War? In three years over 500 merchant ships in the Gulf were damaged. They even put a couple of Exocet missiles into the largest ship (a tanker) ever built and sank her.

Despite this, the oil kept flowing.

NTM

that still caused an increase in the price of oil.
Consumption is far greater now than in '87, and the worlds dependence that much greater.

Oil could indeed keep flowing, but a run on the markets could result in the price to the consumer increasing a lot.

RichieC

our well being and way of life is second to americas preeminence in global military and economic spheres and of course the ever beligerent israels security..

guarenteed we will all be on breadlines collecting rations and sending our kids to die to protect it in our life times.

Mr.Micro

snafuk35 wrote: »

If oil prices were to sky rocket due an Iranian attempt to plug the straits, any international sympathy would evaporate instantly. The West would respond with overwhelming force, hammer the hell out of the Iranian military.

For the moment though, its only on your wish list.

RobitTV

BREAKING: US warships cross Hormuz despite Iran threats

Two American warships have crossed through the Strait of Hormuz without incident despite Iranian threats to close the strategic oil route, the US Navy said Thursday.

The aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis and the guided-missile cruiser USS Mobile Bay "conducted a pre-planned, routine transit through the Strait of Hormuz" on Tuesday, said Fifth Fleet spokeswoman Lieutenant Rebecca Rebarich.

The US military reported no friction with Iran's naval forces after Iranian leaders warned of possibly shutting down the vital strait if the West went ahead with more punitive sanctions over its suspect nuclear program.

"Our interaction with the regular Iranian Navy continues to be within the standards of maritime practice, well-known, routine and professional," Rebarich said in an email from Fifth Fleet headquarters in Bahrain.

The US warships paid a visit to the port of Jebel Ali in the United Arab Emirates before traveling through the strait to the Arabian Sea, where the vessels will provide air power for NATO-led forces in Afghanistan, she said.
In response to Tehran's threats, the US military said Wednesday that any attempt to disrupt shipping in the Strait of Hormuz would not be tolerated.

The US aircraft carrier and cruiser made their through the narrow channel as Iran's navy was carrying out war games to the east of the Strait of Hormuz in a show of military might.

article

Cardinal Richelieu

Mr.Micro wrote: »

For the moment though, its only on your wish list.

Sky need a good war for the ratings figures,:D Surprised anyone hasn't suggested a tactical nuke in this thread so far.

eire.man

RobitTV wrote: »

[SIZE="2"]BREAKING:
In response to Tehran's threats, the US military said Wednesday that any attempt to disrupt shipping in the Strait of Hormuz would not be tolerated.

The US aircraft carrier and cruiser made their through the narrow channel as Iran's navy was carrying out war games to the east of the Strait of Hormuz in a show of military might.

article

will not be tolerated eh? would this be the same kind of tolerance as given to Ghadaffi who was talking about changing the African payments for oil away from the dollar?

they dealt with that little problem handy enough, time will tell how an attack on Iran will play out

Jonny7

eire.man wrote: »

will not be tolerated eh? would this be the same kind of tolerance as given to Ghadaffi who was talking about changing the African payments for oil away from the dollar?

they dealt with that little problem handy enough, time will tell how an attack on Iran will play out

Oh yeah I remember that nonsense theory being the "reason" for war.. want to post up the Russian TV propaganda video to remind us?

Next up : Syria was about to start trading their oil in euros and facilitate world peace and release the '47 Roswell files

Manic Moran

would this be the same kind of tolerance as given to Ghadaffi who was talking about changing the African payments for oil away from the dollar?

More like the same kind of tolerance as given to Ghadaffi when he was talking about his Line of Death in the Gulf of Sidra. Claiming the whole gulf as Libyan waters, whilst the US preferred the more commonly accepted 12-mile-limit.

The US Navy would routinely ignore the line and cross over. On rare occasions, the Libyans would challenge this, and send aircraft or ships out to try to force the issue. When the shooting finally started, the result was inevitable.



NTM

Overheal

In other words global oil interests are making grandiose gestures to make populaces complacent to consistently high or increasing gas prices. Just when I was looking forward to tanking up for $2.99 per.

Cork boy 55

Hit them and hit them hard.

Chuck Stone

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

Hit them and hit them hard.

Not you though, right?

Someone else's kid/brother/father/uncle just not any of yours or you, yeah?

snafuk35

Mr.Micro wrote: »

For the moment though, its only on your wish list.

It should be on your wish list too unless you want to start knitting a new prayer mat, grow a full beard and pray slavishly to Mecca everyday in return for affordable heating oil for your home.
I don't want to live in a world where bronze age religious fanatics call the shots.
Fight a short sharp war now or fight a long destructive war later.

snafuk35

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Not you though, right?

Someone else's kid/brother/father/uncle just not any of yours or you, yeah?

The reason you are well fed, live in a freedom and sleep peacefully in your bed is because rough men are prepared to do violence on your behalf. Your freedom aint free. In case you haven't realised, the fuel that powers your car, heats your home and the goods that you use, gets to you via secure sea routes that facilitate global trade. The firepower of the US Navy keeps those trade routes open.

johngalway

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Not you though, right?

Someone else's kid/brother/father/uncle just not any of yours or you, yeah?

Maybe they thought they were applying for a job in a playschool, or McDonalds, or maybe as a petrol pump attendant.

Military people going to war, stop the presses! :rolleyes:

Chuck Stone

johngalway wrote: »

Maybe they thought they were applying for a job in a playschool, or McDonalds, or maybe as a petrol pump attendant.

Military people going to war, stop the presses! :rolleyes:

And how often is it privileged chicken-hawks with ill-thought out fantasies of glory who make these decisions?

Or idiot generals marching thousands of people to their deaths and then having it called a 'blunder'.

All too often.

Chuck Stone

snafuk35 wrote: »

The reason you are well fed, live in a freedom and sleep peacefully in your bed is because rough men are prepared to do violence on your behalf. Your freedom aint free. In case you haven't realised, the fuel that powers your car, heats your home and the goods that you use, gets to you via secure sea routes that facilitate global trade. The firepower of the US Navy keeps those trade routes open.

I live in the world I live in but not because I choose to send people to die for my privileges.

Moreover, if you think war is about making life good for the maximum amount of ordinary folks then you are living in a war comic.

Enjoy.

johngalway

Chuck Stone wrote: »

And how often is it privileged chicken-hawks with ill-thought out fantasies of glory who make these decisions?

Or idiot generals marching thousands of people to their deaths and then having it called a 'blunder'.

All too often.

Welcome to the real world.

Chuck Stone

johngalway wrote: »

Welcome to the real world.

If you're going to support sending people to their demise in a war for obtuse reasons then I think you should have more to lose than your time spent viewing it from your living room chair.

Watching embedded journalists on CNN =/= real world.

johngalway

Chuck Stone wrote: »

If you're going to support sending people to their demise in a war for obtuse reasons then I think you should have more to lose than your time spent viewing it from your living room chair.

Watching embedded journalists on CNN =/= real world.

I wouldn't throw that stone if I were you.

The real world equals one run on oil and oil products. The real world equals a place full of the Ahmadinejad's and people like him. It's a nasty place where the person with the biggest gun or bomb get's to call the shots. And I for one am very glad that the USA is one of those with the biggest gun/bomb and not the likes of Iran.

I FULLY support countries sending their military into harms way when it's of benefit to the world.

There's nothing obtuse about it.

RichieC

snafuk35 wrote: »

Mr.Micro wrote: »

For the moment though, its only on your wish list.

It should be on your wish list too unless you want to start knitting a new prayer mat, grow a full beard and pray slavishly to Mecca everyday in return for affordable heating oil for your home.
I don't want to live in a world where bronze age religious fanatics call the shots.
Fight a short sharp war now or fight a long destructive war later.

oh dear o' dear.. you snapped and let what you really think through. this isnt about defending the mighty america at all. just your lust for the blood of muslims...

regi

RichieC wrote: »

our well being and way of life is ...

Our current well being and and way of life is oil based.

RichieC

regi wrote: »

RichieC wrote: »

our well being and way of life is ...

Our current well being and and way of life is oil based.

yep. not americas dominence on the world stage.

Geekness1234

RichieC wrote: »

oh dear o' dear.. you snapped and let what you really think through. this isnt about defending the mighty america at all. just your lust for the blood of muslims...

He has a right to an opinion regardless of what you may think of it.You ever heard of article 40.6.1.i?
What he is trying to get at is he doesn't want religious extremists minipulating the cost of oil against people/countries that don't hold the same views.