Posted on 01/03/2012 2:22:04 AM PST by Sub-Driver
Iran threatens action if U.S. carrier returns: IRNA Photo 4:49am EST
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran will take action if a U.S. aircraft carrier which left the area because of Iranian naval exercises returns to the Gulf, the state news agency quoted army chief Ataollah Salehi as saying on Tuesday.
"Iran will not repeat its warning ... the enemy's carrier has been moved to the Sea of Oman because of our drill. I recommend and emphasize to the American carrier not to return to the Persian Gulf," Salehi told IRNA.
"I advise, recommend and warn them (the Americans) over the return of this carrier to the Persian Gulf because we are not in the habit of warning more than once," the semi-official Fars news agency quoted Salehi as saying.
Salehi did not name the aircraft carrier or give details of the action Iran might take if it returned.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
Golly!
Are you quite certain that the straits are so narrow that a few hulks could stop it up?
I believe Obama is a Sunni Muslim which would be inline with all the action in North Africa. The worst thing that could happen politically for Republicans would be a very short war with Iran, say ending in October. The worst thing for our country is a long war. The last thing I want to see is a democrat making republicans look impotent in waging war. Bush was certainly impotent. We did not fully destroy our enemy, pay for the wars though spoils, and pound terrorists nations into the 8th century leaving them incapable of any interaction with the civilized world. If Obama does those things he easily wins the election and fascism really takes hold.
You’re welcome. I think it’s important for people to remember that the biggest political con is for people to believe that there’s a difference between the two parties. At every single turn, on virtually every thread, someone bemoans a “RINO” or says “We were betrayed” etc. etc. At some point people need to realize that these aren’t flukes. There is a concerted effort going on, and both establishments are in on in. There really are evil people in the world, even if we don’t like the thought of it.
I agree with everything you just said, but no longer believe that Democrats and Republicans (the politicians, at least) are adversarial in nature. They merely are playing large scale “good cop, bad cop.” I think that the black swans will be the real cogs in the works.
I thought the Koran said you had to warn an enemy twice before attacking.
They are only adversarial in nature with each other, and usually not even based in principle, need we only look at the progressives running as Repuplicans for President this year.
First, Iran wouldn’t be able to export oil by sea, not because of inability to traverse the SOH, but because closing the SOH would ensure a naval blockade on their tankers. They have zero capability to force a blockade.
Second, the SOH are far too wide and deep to close via the scuttling of anything. The channel is about 10 nm wide at its narrowest and 300 ft deep. Not deep water, but enough to swallow a super tanker and leave deep draft overhead without any problem.
My point wasn’t that the PLAN was incapable of taking a pleasure cruise in the IO. My point was that they are logistically incapable of conducting operations there in the face of resistance.
To come and do battle in the IO, the PLAN would have to force the Straits of Malacca (or another) and then hold that strait. After this they would have to protect an 8,000 mile supply line to the Persian Gulf. An impossible task for them if they are fighting the Indians.
Assuming they are doing battle with the United States Navy, they will also have to protect their home waters. They are simply outclassed, and don’t even approach a close second in blue water operations. Yes, I know they are vastly better than they were 20 years, even 10 years ago, but the PLAN isn’t ready to do battle on the high seas yet.
Well that was Bagdad Bob's story.
1. Sadam borrowed money from them and then post facto decided that they owed it to him.
2. There was never any proof that I've seen of slant drilling into Iraqi territory.
3. Screwed him with oil prices? The Kuwaitis? By themselves? Right.
I imagine that if there were an “accidental” sinking to block the Straits of Hormuz, that there might be an accidental sinking/explosion in that South Iran port. Anyone remember the Black Tom explosion in NY Harbor, 1916, I think??
You point out that the Russians were influenced by Chess logic. Americans are influenced by football and poker logic. I understand that the big game in Iran is Backgammon. How would this influence their approach to the world??
Contained within the points (mentioned) is the best analogy I’ve ever seen of the regions approach to a given situation. Well done, and compliments!
I doubt anyone "remembers" the Black Tom event (which was German sabotage), but lots of living Texans still remember the 1946 explosion in Texas City. It killed hundreds, partly because tract housing had been built within a mile of the pier where the cargo ship Grandcamp blew up.
The Iranians suffered a large explosion in one of their missile-producing facilities, a few weeks after the episode in which their IRGC thugs seized a group of British sailors inspecting ships in the Shatt al-Arab for smuggling activity.
Far be it from me, to accuse Her Majesty's Special Boat Service of anything .... but I certainly hope they were responsible!
And what about the Chinese — how does pingpong and Chinese checkers influence their foreign policy? ;’)
Well, I heard it from someone pretty high up in the Middle Eastern food chain.
It’s kinda funny how the Kuwaitis became rich overnight. Remember Sadam took loot and burned their wells.
Sadam “borrowed” the money so he could protect them from Iran. They had agreed to keeep the oil prices where he could make a profit and rebuild his infrastructure after his war. That did not happen.
He took matters into his own hands and the Kuwaitis cried foul.
I've heard that cartoons are acts of war and that Jews are monkeys and or pigs from people pretty high up in the Middle Eastern food chain. Factual information isn't a Middle Eastern strong point.
It’s kinda funny how the Kuwaitis became rich overnight. Remember Sadam took loot and burned their wells.
Funny how? They have massive oil revenue per person income, had vast holdings overseas to draw from, and got the oil well heads capped within 6 months.
Sadam “borrowed” the money so he could protect them from Iran. They had agreed to keeep the oil prices where he could make a profit and rebuild his infrastructure after his war. That did not happen.
Saddam started the war with Iran. They did not attack Iraq. Pretenses of "protection" appeared after the fact in order to garner support. Yes, the Arab states were happy to see Iraq and Iran in a death match and would have loved to see Iran lose, but that does not equate to giving him the money. It was clearly a loan agreed on by all parties at the time.
Per oil prices, Kuwait was, and is, one small player in world oil prices. Hardly THE power broker in OPEC. In any event, braking an implied promise to rig a monopoly's prices doesn't equate to an act of war.
He took matters into his own hands and the Kuwaitis cried foul.
Indeed, countries that are invaded by hostile powers intent on raping their resources often do cry foul.
If Saddam wanted to wage a war to protect all Arabs from Persia, he should have gotten them into a solid alliance before he sent tanks into Iran.
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.