Iran To Block Strait of Hormuz

JONJO THE MISER

:eek: Just on RTE news now, for anybody that does not know, 40% of all oil goes by the strait of hormuz.
It seems a war between Iran and the U.S.A is Imminent.

Chuck Stone

I can see the TV and write on forums too you know?

mikom

What does aertel have to say about this?

red menace

From Bloomberg

Iran has the ability to block the Strait of Hormuz “for a period of time,” and the U.S. would take action to reopen it, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman General Martin Dempsey said.
“They’ve invested in capabilities that could, in fact, for a period of time block the Strait of Hormuz,” Dempsey said in an interview aired yesterday on the CBS “Face the Nation” program. “We’ve invested in capabilities to ensure that if that happens, we can defeat that.”
Should Iran try to close Hormuz, the U.S. “would take action and reopen” the waterway, said Dempsey, President Barack Obama’s top military adviser.
Blocking the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic shipping lane linking the Gulf of Oman with the Persian Gulf, would constitute a “red line” for the U.S., as would Iranian efforts to build a nuclear weapon, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said on the same program.
The U.S. tightened economic sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program on Dec. 31, and the European Union is weighing a ban later this month on purchases of Iranian crude.
Iranian Threat

Iran threatened last month to shut the Strait of Hormuz, a transit point for a fifth of oil traded worldwide, if sanctions are imposed on its crude exports. Iran held 10 days of naval maneuvers east of the strait ending Jan. 3. The country plans even bigger military maneuvers in the area next month, the state-run Fars news agency reported on Jan. 5.
U.S. sanctions imposed last year seek to cut off dealings with Iran’s banking system, making it difficult for consumers to buy the country’s oil.
Iran has also started to enrich uranium at its Fordo production facility, according to the official Kayhan newspaper.
The existence of the Fordo plant, built into the side of a mountain near the Muslim holy city of Qom, south of Tehran, was disclosed in September 2009, heightening concern among the U.S. and its allies who say Iran’s activities may be a cover for the development of atomic weapons. The Persian Gulf country says it needs nuclear technology to secure energy for its growing population.
Pressure on Iran

Continued pressure, rather than threats of air strikes, is the best way to forestall Iran from developing nuclear weapons, Panetta said.
While the U.S. shouldn’t “take any option off the table,“ Panetta said “the responsible thing to do right now is to keep putting diplomatic and economic pressure on them to force them to do the right thing, and to make sure that they do not make the decision to proceed with the development of a nuclear weapon.”
Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum said Jan. 1 on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that he would use air strikes against Iran unless the country dismantled its nuclear program or allowed inspectors to verify that the work isn’t aimed at making a weapon.
Dempsey suggested that curbing Iran’s nuclear work by bombing its facilities would be difficult.
“I’d rather not discuss the degree of difficulty and in any way encourage them to read anything into that,” Dempsey said. “My responsibility is to encourage the right degree of planning, to understand the risks associated with any kind of military option.”
Israeli Strike

Should Israel decide to undertake a unilateral military strike against Iran, the U.S. priority would be protecting American troops in the region, Panetta said.
Dempsey and Panetta sought on CBS to provide assurances that the new U.S. military strategy, announced last week, won’t limit the U.S. ability to stop aggressors.
“What we’re looking to do here is not constrain ourselves to a two-war construct, but rather build a force that has the kind of agility” needed to adapt to any scenario, Dempsey said. Previous U.S. war planning called for preparing to fight two conventional wars simultaneously.
The plan was driven by the need to cut almost $490 billion from projected Pentagon spending through 2021, including about $261 billion through 2017. Panetta said last week the details won’t be released until the Pentagon presents its 2013 budget request to Congress by early February.

TeddyTedson

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

:eek: Just on RTE news now, for anybody that does not know, 40% of all oil goes by the strait of hormuz.
It seems a war between Iran and the U.S.A is Imminent.

Que WWIII fanatics

Sunnyisland

mikom wrote: »

What does aertel have to say about this?

I am going out for the herald

ROFLcopter

Oil will rise sharply, expect 9 grand a litre at the pumps tomorrow

red menace

Oil rose today for the first time in four days on concern that geopolitical tension in the Middle East may disrupt supply and as higher stock markets raised economic optimism. Crude for February delivery climbed $1.67, or 1.7 percent, to $102.98 a barrel at 10:02 a.m. on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Prices have surged 21 percent in the past three months.

TeddyTedson

ROFLcopter wrote: »

Oil will rise sharply, expect 9 grand a litre at the pumps tomorrow

and that's just the budgie

Sunnyisland

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056484130


Better insight here :-)

Morlar

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

winston82

Iran don't have the balls to close it.

I can see this ending well.

Also while ye are at it I would suggest watching a film called Threads.

Zebra3

What is it with the Americans and their lust for war?

They've invaded two of Iran's neighbours, they allied themselves with Iraq when Iraq was gassing Iranian and Kurdish civilians.

And they bankroll Israel's ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

Sick, sick b*****ds. :mad:

Spread

Iran only ramp up the argument. It would be political suicide fot their leaders.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2012/01/09/Western-forces-react-to-Irans-Strait-of-Hormuz-threat/UPI-34161326140146/

matt-dublin

What's their stance on the bisexuals of hormuz???

dvpower

realies wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056484130


Better insight here :-)

And a more accurate thread title.

Morlar

Spread wrote: »

Iran only ramp up the argument. It would be political suicide fot their leaders.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2012/01/09/Western-forces-react-to-Irans-Strait-of-Hormuz-threat/UPI-34161326140146/

.

...Israeli military intelligence Web site DEBKAfile reported Monday.

TeddyTedson

matt-dublin wrote: »

What's their stance on the bisexuals of hormuz???

That's only a western phenomenon.

marcsignal

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ma_j6-9Wqc

Sindri

Don't worry.

Israel will give flu shots to the people responsible and this will all go back to normal.

Benny_Cake

I'm off to smash open my head and feast on the goo inside.

johngalway

winston82 wrote: »

Iran don't have the balls to close it.

They surely won't have any balls left if they do try Sod them, bunch of lunatics.

Que ranting Anti types....

Sunnyisland

Iran To Block Strait of Hormuz

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

:eek: Just on RTE news now, for anybody that does not know, 40% of all oil goes by the strait of hormuz.
It seems a war between Iran and the U.S.A is Imminent.

Bit slow there Rte as its on boards being discussed since

14-12-2011,@ 20:36. :pac::D:)



http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056484130

Iphonehelp

Zebra3 wrote: »

What is it with the Americans and their lust for war?

They've invaded two of Iran's neighbours, they allied themselves with Iraq when Iraq was gassing Iranian and Kurdish civilians.

And they bankroll Israel's ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

Sick, sick b*****ds. :mad:

LOL I knew someone would try to blame America for this. America have made it perfectly clear that if Iran does this then it will be war. This is Iran's doing if Iran go ahead and block the strait.

Iran has absolutely no right to block the flow of 40% of the world's oil. This will cripple economies including Iran's own.

Also America allied themselves with Iran as well during the Iran-Iraq war it was a policy of dual-containment. Furthermore, Sadaam gassed Kurdish civilians at the end of war, the US didn't support him after that and went to war with Sadaam only 12 months later. But don't let facts get in the way. The fact is America has done some bad things but some of the ****e is completely over the top by misinformed people who probably dont know a thing about international relations and history.

irelandspurs

where do i sign up

MagicSean

The only way Iran can succeed in this is by using nuclear weapons. Otherwise they will be completely outgunned.

marcsignal

irelandspurs wrote: »

where do i sign up

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f41TzAa9loM

Slozer

Iphonehelp wrote: »

LOL I knew someone would try to blame America for this.

Well they have instigated sanctions against Iran which in itself is an act of war. The USA have gone to war for lesser acts against them.

IMO I don't think Iran will attempt closing the strait as it would risk alienating China who have indicated that they will not support the current sanctions.

Mr Benevolent

Edz87 wrote: »

I would suggest watching a film called Threads.

Seen it. Terrifying. Anyway, there are no nuclear targets in Ireland (except Bantry Bay - like the rest of us, the Russians really don't like Cork people).

Undercover FBI Agent

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

:eek: Just on RTE news now, for anybody that does not know, 40% of all oil goes by the strait of hormuz.
It seems a war between Iran and the U.S.A is Imminent.

Bit late there Jonjo. When i seen the thread title I taught that Iran had actually gone ahead and done it

woodoo

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I can see the TV and write on forums too you know?

Why are the first few posts to any new thread mainly smartarsery? Its one of the great mysteries of boards.

fungun

sure it would impact them more than anyone. And with the current sanctions it would be like extra sanctions that really bite on themselves and slightly inconvenience America. If they do this, its only to antagonise America and try to ignite an issue

starbelgrade

It's about time we had a good war to watch on TV again.

Also, the gaming & film industries are going to need some new material to go on once the Iraqi war stuff has dried up.

Chuck Stone

woodoo wrote: »

Why are the first few posts to any new thread mainly smartarsery? Its one of the great mysteries of boards.

Welcome to AH. Enjoy your stay.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVESMxs4rbA

Plautus

It's not the first time Iran has threatened to close the straits, and yet they never do. Partly because it would only hurt themselves in the medium to long term and partly because, for all the bluster, I don't think they like the idea of a confrontation with the U.S. Fifth Fleet or a NATO sponsored shipping convoy system. And on their eastern flank, the Chinese would be very disturbed by anything that depressed Western consumer demand (a third oil shock would accomplish that.)

The gambit has a certain amount of logic if it's done to galvanise the Iranian 'home front'. With the regime reminding everyone of Anglo-Iranian Oil (BP to you) and what happened to Prime Minister Mossadegh in 1953. Perfidious westerners! Job done.

Beyond that, they may be pursuing nuclear weapons but they certainly don't have them yet. So they know they've not got many chips to throw up in this game.

Outside bet: I did hear that the Iranians are quite good at interdicting aircraft carriers with ... inflatable dinghies.

RichieC

Only yesterday the Americans said they saw no moves by Iran to block the straights..

marcsignal

Edz87 wrote: »

I can see this ending well.

Also while ye are at it I would suggest watching a film called Threads.

Check out the film THREADS was based on.

The War Game - 1965

Due to be broadcast on 6th August 1965 (The 20th anniversary on Hiroshima), it was deemed to be "too horrifying for the medium of broadcasting" by the BBC, and was never shown.

Chuck Stone

Plautus wrote: »

It's not the first time Iran has threatened to close the straits, and yet they never do ... I don't think they like the idea of a confrontation with the U.S. Fifth Fleet

Iran may not like the idea of a confrontation but there are plenty of 'special interests' who would in the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Even on these boards there seems to be plenty of wartard and chickenhawk types beguiled by the the idea of having a good ol' war on the TV.

TheZohanS

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

:eek: Just on RTE news now, for anybody that does not know, 40% of all oil goes by the strait of hormuz.
It seems a war between Iran and the U.S.A is Imminent.

Never before have I read such in-depth analysis in an opening post.


Mind. Blown.

hatrickpatrick

Iphonehelp wrote: »

LOL I knew someone would try to blame America for this. America have made it perfectly clear that if Iran does this then it will be war. This is Iran's doing if Iran go ahead and block the strait.

Iran has absolutely no right to block the flow of 40% of the world's oil. This will cripple economies including Iran's own.

Also America allied themselves with Iran as well during the Iran-Iraq war it was a policy of dual-containment. Furthermore, Sadaam gassed Kurdish civilians at the end of war, the US didn't support him after that and went to war with Sadaam only 12 months later. But don't let facts get in the way. The fact is America has done some bad things but some of the ****e is completely over the top by misinformed people who probably dont know a thing about international relations and history.

Simple question. If Israel is "allowed" to have a nuclear deterrent then why isn't Iran? Israel has been far, far more aggressive towards its neighbours in recent history than Iran has. If people threaten Iran of course Iran is going to threaten back.

NB: I do NOT want ANYONE to have nuclear weapons. However, if one side in a conflict - in this case the far more aggressive side - has them, it makes perfect logical sense for the other side to want a level playing field.

And before anyone throws up that "wipe them off the map" garbage it's been fairly well documented by now that the original remark was horrifically mistranslated and was more likely referring to the regime rather than the country itself.

I for one have no time whatsoever for double standards in the 21st century. If, as the US declaration of Independence suggests "all men are created equal", then there is no excuse whatsoever for turning a blind eye to one bully but clamping down on another.

EDIT: Let me make what I'm implying here very clear. I do not believe Iran will commit suicide by launching nukes at its neighbours. They are simply not that insane even if the media tries to paint them as such. Nukes are a deterrent - Mutually Assured Destruction. As far as I'm concerned, the point of building nukes from their point of view is to make sure nobody tries to f*ck with them again. Don't forget that the current regime in Iran got to power essentially because the West decided their own self interest mattered more than the citizens of Iran and forced the overthrowing of a popular domestic regime.

The amount of hypocrisy and backstabbing involved here is absolutely staggering.

Mark200

Zebra3 wrote: »

What is it with the Americans and their lust for war?

They've invaded two of Iran's neighbours, they allied themselves with Iraq when Iraq was gassing Iranian and Kurdish civilians.

And they bankroll Israel's ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

Sick, sick b*****ds. :mad:

How does Iran threatening to block this thing off make the US "sick, sick bastards"?

Orando Broom

TeddyTedson wrote: »

Que WWIII fanatics

I'd worry not. It will be a quick one.

Mark200

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Iphonehelp wrote: »

LOL I knew someone would try to blame America for this. America have made it perfectly clear that if Iran does this then it will be war. This is Iran's doing if Iran go ahead and block the strait.

Iran has absolutely no right to block the flow of 40% of the world's oil. This will cripple economies including Iran's own.

Also America allied themselves with Iran as well during the Iran-Iraq war it was a policy of dual-containment. Furthermore, Sadaam gassed Kurdish civilians at the end of war, the US didn't support him after that and went to war with Sadaam only 12 months later. But don't let facts get in the way. The fact is America has done some bad things but some of the ****e is completely over the top by misinformed people who probably dont know a thing about international relations and history.

Simple question. If Israel is "allowed" to have a nuclear deterrent then why isn't Iran? Israel has been far, far more aggressive towards its neighbours in recent history than Iran has. If people threaten Iran of course Iran is going to threaten back.

NB: I do NOT want ANYONE to have nuclear weapons. However, if one side in a conflict - in this case the far more aggressive side - has them, it makes perfect logical sense for the other side to want a level playing field.

And before anyone throws up that "wipe them off the map" garbage it's been fairly well documented by now that the original remark was horrifically mistranslated and was more likely referring to the regime rather than the country itself.

I for one have no time whatsoever for double standards in the 21st century. If, as the US declaration of Independence suggests "all men are created equal", then there is no excuse whatsoever for turning a blind eye to one bully but clamping down on another.

EDIT: Let me make what I'm implying here very clear. I do not believe Iran will commit suicide by launching nukes at its neighbours. They are simply not that insane even if the media tries to paint them as such. Nukes are a deterrent - Mutually Assured Destruction. As far as I'm concerned, the point of building nukes from their point of view is to make sure nobody tries to f*ck with them again. Don't forget that the current regime in Iran got to power essentially because the West decided their own self interest mattered more than the citizens of Iran and forced the overthrowing of a popular domestic regime.

The amount of hypocrisy and backstabbing involved here is absolutely staggering.

While I don't think Israel should have Nukes, I think it's important that the West (and the rest of the world) does everything possible to stop Iran from getting them. Iran is far more unstable. The Iranian President is a nutter.

Anyway, imo these latest threats show that the latest sanctions are working. It also shows the huge importance of moving asap to renewable energy so that the EU doesn't even have to hesitate in banning all Iranian oil imports.

RichieC

Orando Broom wrote: »

I'd worry not. It will be a quick one.

Do explain, Professor Broom, how it would be a quick one.

Plautus

Just to run slightly counter to the accusation that the Americans behave like bastards in the region (they certainly do but ...), the Arab countries would be delighted to have the Yanks do the dirty work of confronting the Ayatollah's regime. Sectarianism at its finest.

Orando Broom

RichieC wrote: »

Do explain, Professor Broom, how it would be a quick one.

The best fighting force in the world has just fought in two wars. A subjugated nation who have the same technology as a GAA club to fight a war.

It will be an absolute rout. You have half a million battle hardened yanks who'll have to be dug out of an army that haven't fought a war since the 80's. I'd give it six weeks.


This time there is no nation building or occupation. Iran will be flattened and they can go and **** themselves with a forty year old SAM 7.

Plautus

Orando Broom wrote: »

The best fighting force in the world has just fought in two wars. A subjugated nation who have the same technology as a GAA club to fight a war.

It will be an absolute rout. You have half a million battle hardened yanks who'll have to be dug out of an army that haven't fought a war since the 80's. I'd give it six weeks.


This time there is no nation building or occupation. Iran will be flattened and they can go and **** themselves with a forty year old SAM 7.

Their navy could probably be interdicted successfully. Boots on the ground would be an unmitigated quagmire. The country is built for insurgency.

namloc1980

Orando Broom wrote: »

The best fighting force in the world has just fought in two wars. A subjugated nation who have the same technology as a GAA club to fight a war.

It will be an absolute rout. You have half a million battle hardened yanks who'll have to be dug out of an army that haven't fought a war since the 80's. I'd give it six weeks.


This time there is no nation building or occupation. Iran will be flattened and they can go and **** themselves with a forty year old SAM 7.

Wow seems you slept through the last decade. You obviously missed the fact that the Yanks are still buried in the middle of a war in Afghanistan with a snowball's chance in hell of winning. And that's before we get to the fiasco of the Iraq War. They've pulled out of there, meanwhile people continue to be killed in the ongoing insurgency/guerilla war.

Going into Iran would be a military nightmare for the Americans.

Orando Broom

namloc1980 wrote: »

Wow seems you slept through the last decade. You obviously missed the fact that the Yanks are still buried in the middle of a war in Afghanistan with a snowball's chance in hell of winning. And that's before we get to the fiasco of the Iraq War. They've pulled out of there, meanwhile people continue to be killed in the ongoing insurgency/guerilla war.

Going into Iran would be a military nightmare for the Americans.

Explain to me how you think it will be fought? I'll then you then you are wrong.

Hande hoche!

Orando Broom wrote: »

Explain to me how you think it will be fought? I'll then you then you are wrong.

To be fair the Iranians have probably being extensively studying the Americans in particular through their proxy groups in Iraq. Arms transfers to various elements in Afghanistan could also make NATO's job in the country much harder. That being said the Americans would still probably annihilate Iran. Casualties would be high if it went Allied boots on ground.