Then the useless Obama hands them our top-secret stealth drone...
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 ...
“If it was that easy, it would have been done long ago.”
It is that easy, but Iran hasn’t elected to take this path for numerous reasons. Firstly, they’re not nearly the crazy nut-nicks they sound like. Anything involving the Iranian Navy (that I’m aware of) has been handled by all applicable maritime laws and conventions. It’s only the Revolutionary Guards who seem to be loose cannons. And, yes the Guards do have naval assets.
Further, Iran is a huge exporter and would be vulnerable to like retaliation. It’s rather similar to poison gas use in WWII. There wasn’t any. Both sides had it but the sword cut so broadly on both ends of the stroke they didn’t use it.
Having said that, mines can be fabricated like big waterproof IED’s. Iran could use a front group to take the political hit. They haven’t and perhaps this is an arrow reserved for when the others have been shot. But a desperate regime will do anything.
The statement on insurance rates is accurate. Drive them up and the straights are closed whether there is a real reason or not.
“And play golf.
L.O.L.”
Double-dog LOL!
Zatso?
An eternity in that whorehouse-in-the-sky they call paradise with literal fountains of milk and honey, 72 female virgins and 28 tight-butted little boys-like-pearls to satisfy their every carnal desire?
That consequence?
The one you only get if you die in jihad. That one?
The real question is: Can they keep it closed?
Then the useless Obama hands them our top-secret stealth drone...
My ex used to fill in whole conversations with what she’d imagine I’d said...
The total destruction of their military capabilities is more what I had in mind.
One could argue it’s the same thing...
I think Obama is on their side.
even a fishing float with “Mine” scribbled on it would suffice. Underwriters will adjust rates as if a real one was
deployed.
Now, could we express the total time requirement for that...in minutes?
It really just depends on what tools we’d choose to use. The other thing is that there’d be a lot of countries wanting to contribute to the downfall of Shiite and Persian chauvinism. This would be the perfect opportunity to eliminate the mad mullahs, and despite the claptrap about the people uniting around the mullahs, the Iranians would be happy to see these fools eliminated.
they will make a lot of noise, but not actually do anything because they would be sunk immediately
the kenyan usurper would NOT even be involved in the decision, just like he was not involved in the killing of OBL (thank Leon Panetta)
Saudi and the Gulf guys can self-insure, as Iraq and Iran did back in the 80’s. The producers will occasionally have to swallow a loss out of their enormous income, but they are not going to be seriously constrained by a lack of insurance coverage.
Their profit margins on oil are too big to risk on the limitations of the low-margin insurance industry. A lost tanker or ten is nothing.
The problem would getting someone to give the orders.
Destroying Iranian forces based inland would take a great deal longer and would require a forward operating base on [former] Iranian territory held by US ground forces.
That would take more than just giving some orders. It would required unrestricted rules of engagement and exclusion of the press from the war zone. I doubt that we have political leaders capable of such actions. We would also need a lot more US forces in the area than we currently have available.
And of course the domestic support for another large-scale war is just about zero.
Many plans are made, few are executed. No plan survives contact with the enemy.
You know, the world is just filled with people like that.
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.