This is why we are so hosed with King Obama at the helm
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 ...
LLS
True, because either way, it blows.
That is the precise thought I've had for a long time now.Add to that a media of screeching harpies falling over themselves to print "we just can't win this war" by all and any who would utter it and my admiration for your fighting men and women goes up another notch.
God has richly blessed the USA but right now things look ominous.
“How about a giant cartoon Mohamed painted on the landing area :-) “
Love it!
No, not really. Their list of viable options is as follows:
a) Threat posturing - Make credible threats that affect the cost of shipping. This is analogous to a criminal taking out a knife, flicking it about and making sure you see it. That is threat posturing. Any time you see that in the streets it is because the person is either trying to have you give him something (e.g. a wallet) or trying to scare you off. It is not an attack, just some idiot fluffing his chest and showing his knife. Why? Because (to stick with the knife example) real knife attacks do not include posturing. Most people attacked with knives do not even know a knife was in the picture until they have been stabbed several times. Threat posturing can lead to a real attack, but the fact there is threat posturing means that an attack is not the main idea. Looking at Iran launching all of those missiles and making claims about stealthy missile this and cruise missile that looks like posturing. The only real threat from that is increased cost of shipping due to a rise in insurance costs (insurance companies have to adjust their pricing for ships going through the Strait of Hormuz).
b) A direct statement that shipping from Country X to Country Y should stop. Now, things have become more interesting. This is not just someone flicking a balisong and trying to appear tough - this is someone flicking the knife and threatening to use it on your 9 year old daughter. Iran has just said ships from X cannot pass, and if they try there will be 'consequences.' This will have several effects - for one insurance will not just go up but shipping from those countries will stop (not many people will risk a ship to call a bluff, let alone commercial entities). Another effect will be that the USN (and the navies of affected nations - e.g. Saudi Arabia) will be forced to take some action, which at this stage will be to act as escorts for any ships that want to call the bluff and run the gauntlet. Inevitably there will be at least one ship that will try to make it through, and at this point Iran will have to decide whether or not it will act. There is a chance it will do nothing (and make whatever claim it wants to justify the lack of action - maybe saying that for the sake of world peace it opted not to act or some other face saving statement). However, there is a chance it will do something - this could be more threat posturing (maybe another 'exercise' where they launch a missile) or an actual attack. It will not matter whether it is an exercise or real - any action that appears to be a real threat will be taken care of. This will most probably be in the form of limited action by the US (i.e. interception of the missile if it is an actual attack, followed by destruction of the specific missile battery whether or not it is a real attack or an exercise. It will be a limited response because no one is really looking for a full-scale war with Iran no matter what anyone may tell you). This is when it becomes an exercise in ever-greater game theory ...will Iran respond to the limited attack on the specific missile battery with a major offensive, or will it smutter and mutter and let things rest? To use my knife analogy - the perp threatens your daughter, at which point you rush in, disarm the knife, and pummel him with some rather nice punches. Now, the perp has been defeated ...what does he do? Will he take his beating like a man and go, or will he try and escalate? Maybe whip out a gun or have his pals show up? (Again, in the street one of the more dangerous situations is when YOU beat up someone ...I know of a couple of instances when the beaten person calls his friends or pulls a gun. The best thing to do after being victorious in a fight is to go away ...staying can be quite lethal). Anyways, what happens after this depends on what Iran decides to do.
c) Act-the-fool. Here Iran decides to be silly. It uses its D-E submarines to place mines in the Strait, and even does one or two torpedo attacks on commercial shipping. It also sends some missile boats and/or D-E submarines to try and engage USN assets. The missile boats are not much of a threat (and their missiles can be defeated by USN soft kill and hard kill counter-measures), while the D-E submarines are a much greater threat. Anyways, this is an act of war (not just an act of aggression that the US can try and respond to in a limited manner, but rather something that is basically a full blown fight). Basically here the perp has whipped out a wheel-gun and is trying to go all Dirty Harry on you. You have no option but to kill him now. The Iranian navy as well as the Iranian Republican Guard navy do have some dangerous assets (as mentioned the mines as well as the D-E submarines will not be particularly liked by USN planners, especially considering the littoral nature of the Strait), but all the same the USN will win. Definitely win. However, there is a chance that this might a scenario where, for the longest time, a USN ship is sunk. It may be interesting to see how the US media and population digest the sinking of (say) an Arleigh Burke destroyer (note that a good deal of Chinese strategy in the Taiwanese Strait, another area that is 'interesting,' is to make it quite inhospitable to USN assets whereby they run a good chance of being sunk, hence the concentration on asymmetrical means of warfare. Now the Chinese have enough money to spend of more conventional ways of war, but they still have asymmetrical tactics that are geared against specific USN assets). Furthermore, it is quite likely that any anti-Iran strategy by the US will still be limited to naval action (destroy and/or degrade Iranian naval capability) as well as precision strikes on inland targets (the nuclear sites). I would find it quite difficult to believe that the US will pursue a broader strategy that calls for boots on the ground. Now, our game theory experiment continues to expand in binomial fashion ...what does Iran do now? It can, again, take its beating like a man and do nothing, or it can escalate again.
d) Gehenna option: In this option Iran decides to really act the fool. There are various places that are within range of its missiles. It can send some over to Israel, it can target Abu Dhabi (and maybe even Dubai) in the emirates, Saudi Arabia, and there are some reports that they can even reach some parts of Europe. These will be conventional attacks (although, of course, Iran does have chemical and biological agents, but for the sake of keeping this exercise simple let us ignore these for the moment). Please note that the reason for the billions of Dollars spent by the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia on American (and Western) arms technology has been due to one reason ...Iran. There is little love lost between the Persians and the Arabs. The actions of Iran have basically led to a 'regional war.' At this point it becomes harder to game this ...but let it suffice to say that the issue of oil prices will definitely be trending upwards.
Anyways, can Iran close the Strait? Not really ...even though it is a 'narrow' area (the proper shipping lane is around 10 miles across), one would have to sink dozens upon dozens of ships to 'close' it. They can close it through attacks (making ships refuse to risk steaming in the region), but that would bring retribution that Iran may not be willing to take upon. Even though Ahmadenijad is a mad chap, he may opt for a strategy that would alienate him from the Ayatollahs (the real powers in Iran, some of who do not support him) as well as risk the military brass simply killing him (Persians are not stupid people - they simply have stupid leadership. Ahmadenijad may wake up to a lead sandwich if he opted for measures that his Generals believe are suicide).
Thus, this is most likely hot air mixed with some real threat posturing (again, the chap twirling his butterfly knife trying to be all Bruce Lee on you). Hot air with bluster. The problem with threat posturing is that it can very easily lead to a real fight (and more). For instance, if some chap came up to you and whipped out a knife, there is a very good chance that you may take it 'seriously,' and proceed to introduce the chap to your 'pet' .45. Especially if he starts flipping that blade towards your 9 year old daughter.
It is threat posturing, but the moment you put certain things into play the world becomes a casino.
The FFGs were never the most robost ships, usually referred to has having the Helen Keller weapons system, but using their CIWS would have been a whole lot preferable to not using it.
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
This is why we are so hosed with King Obama at the helm
pretty easy to figure out....the Idiots in Iran have plenty of oil but no refineries. Thats why I doubt they will close the Straights. Once the gasoline and diesel fuel run out their economy is toast. Like kicking one’s self in the nads.
Well thanks for putting my mind at ease. :(
BRAVO. THAT post is worthy of being incorporated into an NSC briefing IF we had a Commander-in-Chief capable of fully understanding the issues and factors you have raised.
It has long been my view that the critical mistake many people make is to equate the bellicose posturing of the Iranians with that of the defunct Soviet Union, even during the worst days of the Cold War, Moscow approached most if not all situations and confrontations with cold, chess-playing logic. If they perceived any given ‘game’ as being unfavorable, they would resign the game or at least try to play to a stalemate.
Not so the Iranians. They are in the grip of Islamic fantasies and apocalyptic fury tales and believe in their so-called ‘Mahdi’ hiding in some damn well, who will crawl out one day soon and lead them to world wide victory. They would LOVE to provoke a major confrontation or war in the region because for them, it would represent taking a step forward to the fulfillment of their nonsensical prophecies, no logic required, just religious fanaticism.
There are two kinds of global nation-state ‘assassins’, one cool, calculating and absolutely lethal should they pull the trigger, the other a mad dog foaming at the mouth with a figurative AK-47 being swung around, screaming “ALLAHU AKBAR!!” as they fire wildly in all directions. The first type of assassin WILL hit their target if they open fire. The second kind, it’s uncertain but all they need is to get off one lucky shot.
Iran is that second type.
1. They must export oil via the Gulf and import gasoline (no refineries of their own) in order to survive economically. They have little ability to meet requirements overland.
2. They will lose most of their status weapons, such as ships, submarines, and aircraft if they attack shipping. You can talk a great fight to make yourself appear the champion, but getting your butt kicked puts the truth to the matter.
3. China's oil supply would be hit hard, and China is one of their major protectors.
4. If strikes on Iran commence, their nuclear production facilities will be tops on the list, and that deprives them of their international dance card.
5. It might just trigger a serious armed revolt within Iran.
Excellent points, thanks for the expanded analysis and now the $64 dollar question:
Are there any conditions in which you (or our esteemed fellow FReeper Spetznaz) could foresee the ChiComs taking any sort of direct military action either in the Persian Gulf region itself (something I doubt very much) or in the Pacific as a ‘tit-for-tat’ strike?
It also occurs to me that a serious U.S./Iran military confrontation could open the political door to a possible forced annexation of Taiwan by Beijing.
I respectfully advise Iran not to mess with the U S Navy.
However, in my mind they have no intentions of engaging the US Navy, They are playing mind games with BO
China is not yet ready to take the stage. It is rapidly getting there (check out some of Jeff Head’s work on China - Jeff Head has a nice website that tracks China’s modernization programs), but it is not yet there. For China to make a major move now would be moving too fast too soon. The Chinese strategy (based on what they are currently doing, as well as their history that shows a lot of strategic patience) will be to build up their capabilities (which they are doing, whether it be AEGIS-esque phased-array radar destroyers, improved avionics, integrated tactics, etc) until they are able to not only keep off the US (which they already can do if one looks at specific loci like the Taiwan Strait) but to also be able to project strength viably (albeit in a more limited manner than the US at its end-of-the-cold-war peak before the Peace Dividend) on a global basis. China has absolutely nothing to gain from mucking about in the Persian Gulf. It doesn’t need to prove anything, and it has been diversifying its sources of oil (most of China’s oil comes from Angola and the Sudan, one reason it has been reaching out to the newly created Southern Sudan). China will not make a move in the Persian Gulf. Furthermore, it will not make a move on Taiwan now. (A discussion for another day would be why Taiwan is as good as China’s ...but that’s for another day).
FYI on the basis of decorum - I referenced you on this post.
IMO, the carrier had no choice but to get to open sea to put some manuvering area around it rather than get bottled up in some narrow bottleneck.
Iran can waive its arms and shout victory.
Now comes the real test, do we send surface ships with air cover to convoy tankers through the straits and do the Persians do something really stupid. If they do, they lose.
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.