Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Iranian official: UN sanctions may lead us to seal off Persian Gulf
www.haaretz.com ^ | 09:26 24/01/2006 | Yossi Melman

Posted on 01/24/2006 5:58:58 AM PST by Esther Ruth

Last update - 09:26 24/01/2006

Iranian official: UN sanctions may lead us to seal off Persian Gulf

By Yossi Melman, Haaretz Correspondent

A senior Iranian official threatened that Tehran may forcibly prevent oil export via the Straits of Hormuz if the UN imposed economic sanctions due to Iran's nuclear program, an Iranian news Web site said on Monday.

This is the first time an Iranian official makes military threats in a public statement on Tehran's recent disagreements with the West.

The news site, affiliated with the radical student movement in which President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was once a member, quoted Mohammed-Nabi Rudaki, deputy chairman of the Iranian parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Commission.

(Excerpt) Read more at haaretz.com ...


TOPICS: Israel; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: axisofevil; iran; iranian; israel; persian; persiangulf; sanctions; un; zot; zotiran
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-124 next last
To: Esther Ruth
Even the Saudis will be willing to drop bombs on them. Brilliant, just brilliant.
101 posted on 01/24/2006 10:55:57 AM PST by John Lenin (I came from a real tough neighborhood. I bought a waterbed and found a guy at the bottom of it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: penelopesire
Don't forget their 'new' submarine......(grin)

That link is hilarious! That sub looks like something you'd find out on a city playground that has an artifact donated by the local VFW or something...I had never seen it! Amazing.

102 posted on 01/24/2006 11:02:25 AM PST by 101st-Eagle (An appeaser is one who feeds his friends to a crocodile hoping to be eaten last-W. Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: dennisw; Cachelot; Nix 2; veronica; Catspaw; knighthawk; Alouette; Optimist; weikel; Lent; GregB; ..
If you'd like to be on this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.

Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel.

..................

103 posted on 01/24/2006 11:21:03 AM PST by SJackson (Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants to see us happy. B. Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vn_survivor_67-68

It is a death wish. There is no surplus oil production in the world and blackmail by either nuclear weapons or threatening the tankers will earn them swift destruction.


104 posted on 01/24/2006 11:55:09 AM PST by Blood of Tyrants (G-d is not a Republican. But Satan is definitely a Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Westbrook

They will most likely threaten shipping from shore launched missile batteries and then try to hide because they know that the US Navy will annihilate them if they get more than 20 feet from the dock.


105 posted on 01/24/2006 11:59:56 AM PST by Blood of Tyrants (G-d is not a Republican. But Satan is definitely a Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jdege

Depends on how long it takes to find them. I would bet that many days before any possible conflict (probably started several weeks ago) that the US Navy would be taking extra measures to know exactly where all of Iran's missile boats were. After they are located, they will be eradicated within minutes.


106 posted on 01/24/2006 12:05:26 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (G-d is not a Republican. But Satan is definitely a Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: MaDuce

Trolling? Or did you forget the sarcasm tag?


107 posted on 01/24/2006 12:15:37 PM PST by Chena (I'm not young enough to know everything.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Esther Ruth

They'd never get away with it.


108 posted on 01/24/2006 12:16:30 PM PST by Chena (I'm not young enough to know everything.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo

its not a naval issue. iran has mobile silkworm missile launchers hidden all along the southern coast. they can pop up from anywhere and take a shot at a super tanker. they could create havoc in the gulf with just a handful of these.


109 posted on 01/24/2006 12:24:55 PM PST by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Chena

"Trolling? Or did you forget the sarcasm tag?"

Whats a sarcasm tag? (I've only been here for a few weeks.)

Only the minds of people like Harry Reed, Klinton, and Kennedy would completly believe my previous post.


110 posted on 01/24/2006 1:55:57 PM PST by MaDeuce (Do it to them, before they do it to you!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: MaDuce
A simple notation indicates sarcasm, and often a simple wink ;) will indicate sarcasm to the reader. You said, "Only the minds of people like Harry Reed, Klinton, and Kennedy would completely believe my previous post". Unfortunately, FR is often plagued with DU'ers and "trolls" who post insane comments. The best way for someone to know that you are not one of them, is to simply add the sarcasm tag. Welcome to Free Republic! :)
111 posted on 01/24/2006 2:21:40 PM PST by Chena (I'm not young enough to know everything.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: ChinaThreat
10 combattante II and 10 chinese missile boats, the rest of the surface fleet is glorified dingies and freighters. The 3 Kilos are the best, and their best role is just to lay mines. On shore missiles might require our own missile and air strikes. The actual navy is a joke that the USN would evaporate in hours.
112 posted on 01/24/2006 4:02:20 PM PST by JasonC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner; Esther Ruth

<< That is a laugh BUMP! We will decimate them when they try it. >>

Decimate?

ill one in ten?

Reduce them in number by 10%?

Nah.

If the Iraqis [Or their Indian and/or any other of their erstwhile and/or effective allies] ever bring their fizzers to our fireworks night, we will effectively annihilate them.

Decimation won't get a look in.

They'll be lucky if ten per cent of them survive.


113 posted on 01/24/2006 4:03:50 PM PST by Brian Allen (How arrogant are we to believe our career political-power-lusting lumpen somehow superior to theirs?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ChinaThreat
A "modern missile cruiser", in contrast, has about 200 general purpose missiles that can destroy anything on sea or in the air out to more than 50 miles, all coordinated by an integrated radar and computer system. And Iran doesn't have 20 of them, they don't have 20 of them on order, they don't have 1 of them on order, they don't have a prayer of ever having one.

The USN on the other hand has the -

Bunker Hill
Mobile Bay
Antietam
Leyte Gulf
San Jacinto
Lake Champlain
Philippine Sea
Princeton
Normandy
Monterey
Chancellorsville
Cowpens
Gettysburg
Chosin
Hue City
Shiloh
Anzio
Vicksburg
Lake Erie
Cape St. George
Vella Gulf
Port Royale

Every one of which is an actual "modern missile cruiser". Oh and also another 50 modern missile destroyers with roughly equal capability, just slightly smaller missile magazines.

Any one of which, let alone any fraction of them working together, would reduce all of Iran's surface ships to scrap at the flick of a switch. And we don't even rely on this for our main striking power. That's in the carrier and the nuclear submarines.

Get a grip people. Iran's navy is a threat to the USN like Daffy Duck is a threat to the Marine Corps.

114 posted on 01/24/2006 4:17:14 PM PST by JasonC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: JasonC

No modern navy has entered a significant nautical engagement in over 40 years with the exception of the Falklands.

The Argentine air force managed to do quite a bit of damage with air-2-surface missles. There have been many naval studies conducted regarding closue of the Hormuz Straits, as well as the Mallaca Straits, and in every simulation blue forces take considerable losses.

I'm not suggesting the USN would not suceed. However, people need to understand the reality of the situation. These are not blue water operations. The Hormuz is extremely narrow and there are 100s of miles of coast line for silkworm batteries as well as portable fired surface to surface platforms.

In addition, our air force would need at least 1-3 weeks to establish clear approach lanes for our air assets to handle surface interdicition from the air. You do not want to bring cruisers or even frigates into such a confined area. That would be insane. I don't know if you remember the Stark incident, but this debacle shows the complexity of operating in such a tight environment and the quick decision making required for operations like this.

If you remember the Falklands campaign by the Royal Navy, you might remember that a few Argentian Mystres wewre able to breach the air cordone and do quite a bit of damage to her Majesties fleet using anti-shipping missles. When you have a sub-sonic, extremely small cylinder traveling in terms of meeters off the water, they are very hard to detect. And the warheads in these devices are extremely powerful.

One of a captains worst night mare is a small attack craft close to the shore and unvisible due to land and small craft clutter to be firing these types of weapon systems.

I can assure that any sea-2-sea engagements inside the straight would be spearheaded by subsurface systems and air. An Arleigh Burke will be hard pressed to utilize its full capabilities in such a tight cordone of operations.

An all out attempt to close the Hormuz straigts by Iran should not be brushed off ligthly. It will be a costly and potentially protracted effort that will require our political leaders to pull out a lot of stops and dispense with our reluctance to use a wide array of high tech classified technologies.


115 posted on 01/24/2006 8:10:15 PM PST by ChinaThreat (s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Esther Ruth

Sadly, Russia and/or China may veto any sanctions, and sanctions are not likely to come sooner than Iran's first mounted warheads. UN people and leaders of nations have intentionally delayed the process for the purpose of giving Iran time to build the weapons.


116 posted on 01/24/2006 8:30:07 PM PST by familyop ("Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." --President Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rutles4Ever

Even the PR China has reservations about Pakistan going Islamofascist.


117 posted on 01/24/2006 8:36:15 PM PST by Thunder90
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Esther Ruth
Iran would truly be declaring war in this activity and it wouldn't just be on the United States. This would truly be madness from their point of view.

Our own response would begin as Reagan's did with the removal of all major Iranian surface units. They have nowhere to hide and their air won't last a day. Subsurface units will either be sunk in blue water or stuck in the Gulf, at the mercy of our air when they do have to surface.

At that point the major danger will be from land-based Silkworm missiles (Styx missiles to us old sailors). We have already some experience in covert operations in the area and every country in the extensive coalition would have SF operating on the mainland.

I do not think the current Iranian government has sufficient resources to secure that area as well as guard all possible lines of advance from their neighbors, every one of whom will be determined to overturn the offending government. If Ahmadinejad wants to kindle a revolution with most of the world supporting the rebels this would be the way to do it.

I don't think he'll really try it, personally. He doesn't have a bomb yet to back him up and this would precipitate extreme actions to keep him from obtaining one that are not at the moment imminent. He's playing for time until he can set off the first device. The rules change at that point, or so he is calculating. Personally I don't think they change at all in reality.

118 posted on 01/24/2006 8:36:46 PM PST by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rutles4Ever

Even Saddam was thinking about allying with Iran to get rid of Israel.


119 posted on 01/24/2006 8:38:47 PM PST by Thunder90
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
"No one will be allowed to block commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz."

That's the bottom line. No-one, period.

120 posted on 01/24/2006 8:52:02 PM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-124 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson