But yes, they can crow about closing an important waterway for a few days... as long as they don't mind the massive consequences, the regime change, and the reputation for bringing back the US Armed Forces into the region.
Sounds like the horse-hockey we heard about Hussein’s much-vaunted Republican guard.
The only difference between them and the ordinary grunt soldiers is that they surrendered in a more orderly fashion.
The enemy are always 11 foot tall supermen, according to gutless wonders like the author.
IF the Iranians decide to strike first, they might have a chance to get one of our surface ships. However, those ASCMs are on the priority target list, I would think, so in the event of hostilities, the Iranians would not get a shot off.
The sanctions have put our foot on the economic lifeline of the crazy mullahs, our military are about an inch from their beards, Israel can never tolerate a nuclear armed Iran, China and Russia want American influence in the area to end, those big capital ships are operating not in blue water, those sailors and marines are in the narrow confines of the Persian Gulf which is not a good place for a naval fortress far from home,fortresses usually collapse when confronted with superior technology, our “allies” in the area really hate us, shooting will probably start in the spring, those anti ship missiles are lethal. Just hope Obama knows what he is doing.
http://www.n2yo.com/passes/?s=38075
Click all the boxes by the detail buttons.
This satellite is passing over the US several times a day.
And of course it is what our gubmint and their gubmint say it is.
Been doing this for two weeks now.
What I would like to know is who would be the biggest loser if the Straight was closed, the US or Iran. We can and do source oil from many areas, and are developing our own resources again. Plus oil use is significantly dipping right now. But Iran needs the Straight open for exporting their own oil. Do they have pipelines to export without accessing the Strait? If so, those are what we need to close when they close the Straight.
If there goal is to close the straits to merchant shipping, of course they can. All they need do is sink a single merchant ship. And do that from a portable shore-to-ship missile launcher. The kind you can transport on the back of a flatbed truck.
Iran could even do that in such a way as to make it a bit tough to ID who actually fired the missile.
No need to target the US Navy, just sink a merchant ship or two.
Then the straits would close. Because the insurance costs would be prohibitive for any ship to continue sailing there.
Now, would that be to Iran's advantage? That's another story.
All true, but don't forget who is our President. To mollify his left wing base in this election year, Obama will avoid any military action and rely on the UN and others to keep the straits open. Even if a US carrier were attacked by Iranian missiles I would expect our capitulator in chief would do little more than some token military action but he would initially rely on some sanctions and harsh letters to the mad mullahs.
If Iran shoots just one Sunburn toward the Straits, commercial traffic (meaning tankers) will shut down because insurance will be almost impossible to get at any price. International commercial hulls do not move without insurance.
If Iran shoots just one Sunburn toward the Straits, commercial traffic (meaning tankers) will shut down because insurance will be almost impossible to get at any price. International commercial hulls do not move without insurance.
If Iran shoots just one Sunburn toward the Straits, commercial traffic (meaning tankers) will shut down because insurance will be almost impossible to get at any price. International commercial hulls do not move without insurance.
If Iran shoots just one Sunburn toward the Straits, commercial traffic (meaning tankers) will shut down because insurance will be almost impossible to get at any price. International commercial hulls do not move without insurance.