Posted on 01/16/2012 4:01:25 PM PST by Dysart
During the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, the United States "reflagged" a number of Kuwaiti oil tankers passing through the narrow and dangerous Strait of Hormuz. The confidence inspired by that action encouraged other tankers to make the trip, and the U.S. Navy was the guarantor of millions of barrels of oil. Today the question of security for tankers in the Strait arises again, with Iran threatening to block the waterway.
How might Iran accomplish this, and what resources could the U.S. bring to counter what would be understood internationally as an act of war? (The Egyptian closure of the Straits of Tiran in May 1967 was the act of war to which Israel responded in June -- the Six-Day War.)
Iran-watchers lean heavily on the argument that Iran will not mine or otherwise damage the Strait because then Iranian oil won't be able to pass through either. They posit that the Iranians are unlikely to take an approach that costs them oil revenue, particularly now. But there is another possibility -- Iran can pose a threat not to the physical passageway, but to passing tankers and their crews. And the United States Navy is not in a position to protect them. Under that circumstance, Iranian ships could pass, but the ships of other Gulf countries could be deterred/dissuaded from trying. The result would make Iranian oil more valuable as others withheld their supplies.
Iran could be in the catbird seat while Western navies, including the U.S. Navy, are at a considerable disadvantage even with aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines.
Over the past decade Iran has built up a naval capability that, while not "heavy" in terms of firepower, is nonetheless stealthy and dangerous.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/could_iran_close_the_strait.html#ixzz1jfUItvXf
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
I’ll be they do, just cause that’s the sort of things muslims do — annoy and destroy.
And play golf.
L.O.L.
I might be wrong, but I think the Keystone XL pipline goes right through this area. Better not build it, its too unsafe.
no, really. I’m still laughing.
Of course they could close it, but the consequences would be too high of a price for them to pay. They much better at proxy wars with plausible denial. By funding covert attacks, they’ve managed to get away with killing Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan, Iraqis in Iraq, Lebanese, Jordanians, Palestinians, and Israelis. But their apologists would have a tough time convincing everyone that we can negotiate with Iran if the mad mullahs closed the straits. It’s an idiotic threat that they’re making to scare the timid. Damn the torpedoes. Full speed ahead.
If Iran tries to attack tankers in the straits all their international assets and whatever tankers are carrying “their” oil will be seized. The Saudis, Omanis, and the UAE can all stop tanker traffic too, and have much better international leverage.
And I doubt they can seriously interfere with the tanker traffic if the US Navy puts in a reasonable effort to suppress the Iranians.
You know what’s really funny, I just noticed something. I didn’t even catch that you left off the “t” in “bet” the first time; my mind just filled it in subconsciously.
Well that's it. If they've been so successful with proxy attacks, the next step is to get more audacious.
A blockade is an act of war, most certainly so if enforced.
Once a state of war exists, America would foolish if it did not take the opportunity to nuke Tehran and any other city where Ahmadidyerdog and the rest of MadMo’s whacko ‘government’ officials dwell.
The key is insurance rates. Drive up insurance rates and no ship will move whether Iran is “blocking’ the straights or not. All it will take is one mine. The mine won’t even need to sink the ship; just damage it. The uncertainty over whether or not the straights are mined will do the rest.
To date, Iran has complied with the mine treaty (the name and date of which escape me at the moment) but in essence the treaty requires notice. The notice can be vague; we’ve mined the straights, or it can say we’ve mined the shipping channel from X to Z. Mostly, they’re vague. In WWII England announced it had mined The North Sea, The French Coast, etc.
This approach requires the United States (most likely) to sweep the area and become, in effect, the guarantor that the area is mine free. But, any fishing boat can deploy another mine and one more explosion will undermine the guarantor’s reassurances and raise the rates again.
Given the relative cheapness of mines, it wouldn’t even take a state actor to do this. A mine generally costs 1% or so of the cost of finding it and neutralizing it. The latter process is always unfortunately reactive.
that's nothing. my "mind" does that with entire words sometimes.
If it was that easy, it would have been done long ago.
Actually the question the Iranians should be asking
themselves is “Could the Americans close the Strait
and what would that do to Iran.
I guess I’m just tired of being reactionary.
Actually, if you look on a map, the Keystone XL is a little to the right and up a little from the Strait of Hormuz.
I agree that their proxy wars are much safer for them and we’re likely to see them continue. The authors argue that they could indirectly shut things down without closing it but it would be treated by Europe and us the same as a transit closure. Meanwhile, through continued proxy battles, Iran can accomplish its objectives with minimal risk. Why change?
Obozo will let them, he is a mole.
Oops, you're right. But it will still have to sneak past all those Canadian pirates.
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.