Iran threatens to block straights of Hormuz - Again

What do you mean by "attack" ? I claim that Iran could possibly cause havoc on the basis of a threat - which is not an attack.

 

Looks like Iran will be hurt even more. Knowing they wont be able to make money off of what the leftness, their Lame Scream Media, and Lindsey Graham caused.

OPEC Sends Oil Prices Higher, Defying Trump With Big Output Cut

 

Iran is doing what it thinks is best. That is to say, Iran is doing what it feels it can enforce doing. Of all the ill deeds the U.S. has committed around the world I think the illegal invasion of Irak was the event that made many "apologists" understand that no one would be exempt from U.S. treachery. Then came Libya and Syria to confirm the accusations. It's an old story, isn't it. The bully gets away with it time after time and eventually thinks he's invincible. And then ... boom - payback.

 

Thingamabob, what you presented is something that sane and rational people have realized since the beginning of the years of treachery oh so many millennia ago, but I digress and should not have said so much. Soz.

 

Iranians should know their leaders are messing with the world economy and we won't let them get away with it. Regime change is not out of the question.

 

That's why I asked the question above.

But would it come to a military conflict? Would Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, or Trump go after them?

 

Iran can makes any threats it wants

But if it carries out those threats it means war

And iran will lose

 

They were very significant and very relevant. You keep denying China was even involved or that these conflicts were even significant. It shows a complete lack of understanding on your part of history.

You also keep moving the goalposts all over the field. I was looking forward to a decent discussion on this topic but you are obviously not educated enough on the subject to make it worthwhile.

 

Perhaps Iran will be hurt more but, if someone is starving they will risk harm to get food - do things they normally wouldn't do - steal bread and so on.

If we managed to completely embargo Iranian oil, this could easily cause Iran to actually take the action it has been threatening. So far we have not been able to and/or we just don't want to - completely turn the tap off.

 

We should bring back our four Iowas class battleships that were turned into museums and put them back to sea.

Problem solved when it comes to Iran and the Straights of Hormuz.

excerpt:

 

I understand.

 

This is all true but the Iranian people are wise. They will go without bread for a little longer and even suck rocks for nourishment if their plan is on a timetable. They are nothing like their neighbours.

 

Well they should rise up and take out those Mullahs. If they can't they best talk to some people that can.


Russia plays deal broker in meetings with Iranians and Saudis …..snip~

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...t?srnd=premium

 

All good except for the fact that the anti ship missile technology has advanced to the point where such ships are obsolete.

The Iranian missile batteries would need to be taken out.

 

The point I was making was that this situation is potentially much different than previous. An all out oil embargo could spur the Iranians into acts that they would not have considered previously.

An all out oil embargo on Iran is pretty much an act of war. This is something that should be kept in mind when considering the possibilities.

So far we are not there yet.

 

Rising up against the Mullah's has little to do with the issue at hand. Your point in relation to the geopolitics surrounding this situation is well founded IMO.

These sanctions and trade wars working in favor of Russia and China - big time.

 

No anti ship missile can sink an Iowa class battleship.

It's why the Soviet Union had a meltdown when President Reagan reactivated the four Iowa's.

The only way you can sink an Iowa class battleship is by breaking its keel which would require 4-6 torpedoes detonating below the keel of an Iowa class battleship.

 

I'm not seeing that they are going to block the straights for the lulz, but for a specific occasion.

 

The threat of blowing up a ship would prevent a ship to pass through. I dunno if you know, but people don't like to risk their lives for being on a ship that will ignite in a massive storm of fire when a lil rocket is dropped on it.

 

They've had nuclear facilities since the 1970s. The US built most of them, like the test reactor at the University of Tehran.

No, it isn't. Nuclear weapons have an infrastructure. That infrastructure is rather expansive. There are always tell-tale signs, and none have ever been seen in Iran.

Those advisors were for the air-defense systems. They help the NVA unpack missile components, assemble missiles, inspect and repair missile components, including missile warheads, assemble, place/site missile radars, inspect, repair and maintain missile radars as well as train NVA to operate missile radars, establish fire control centers, train personnel to operate fire control centers and probably man and operate fire control centers and a number of other related tasks.

It's unlikely the Soviets translated operational, technical, field and service manuals for the SA-2 and other air-defense systems into Vietnamese, and even if they did, it is rather ordinary to send both military and civilian contractors to set and train personnel on those systems.

The US didn't just send HAWKs to Iran. It sent a few thousand military and civilian advisors to help Iran set up HAWK missile facilities and train personnel to operate HAWK missile systems as well as train personnel for HAWK missile batteries and missile battalions.

The US also had several hundred military and civilian contractors assist the German Air Force with their Pershing I missile system.

That's just how it's done.

Yes, it would.

While the Strait is about 21 nautical miles wide at it's widest point, the actual shipping channel is only 2 miles wide.

That's it: just 2 miles wide.

The sinking of a single ship blocks the channel.

Why?

Because unless you know exactly where that ship sank, meaning latitude and longitude coordinates, and unless you have underwater video or photographs of the ship as it rests on the bottom of the channel, you cannot enter the Strait.

If the sunken ship broke up when sinking, you also need to know the exact location of each section of the ship.

The risk of grounding your ship on the sunken ship's bridge, aft or bow section, or middle section if it broke up while sinking is too great.

If the ship sank evenly and then rolled over on its port or starboard side, it probably wouldn't be a big deal, but it will take months before someone figures that out.

 

Yes.

You can elect Hillary, Warren, Sanders, Al Gorebot, Ralph Nader, the leader of the Green Party, the Pope, Lady Gaga....it doesn't matter.

When it is time to initiate conflict with Iran, you will, and it won't matter who is President, because it is part of Geo-Political Strategy and has been for decades.

 

Yes, I understand but I'm not worried. Iran isn't standing alone any longer. They can certainly press harder now but they can also be advised on what strategy might be to their best long-term advantage particularly with a mind to regional cooperation. And on the other side, for all the U.S. tough-guy stance, threats, and bravado they are more than anything else cowards with a superior propaganda machine. The U.S. can back out of a fight and make it seem as though it was their own strategy from the start. Russia is the wild card in the pack that can (and probably will) keep the U.S. at bay. There are so many intimidating but mock superlatives being batted back and forth and Iran's is no less effective than America's.

 

Here is one account from a US soldier of seeing a 'caucasian' soldier with a PAVN/VC unit. There are apparently quite a few others. I don't think there is any doubt that advisers or observers from Russia or Eastern Europe did occasionally wander outside the DRV. The sightings seem to be isolated incidents and very infrequent - a literal handful.

http://www.vietnamgear.com/Article.aspx?Art=98

There is zero doubt there were Russian soldiers stationed in the North as advisers. They themselves have talked about their experiences. All that varies is numbers - I have seen figures of 3000, 11,000 and 15,000 total numbers for the war.

https://www.rt.com/news/ussr-secret-vietnam-soldiers-speak-out/

Russia and China were not on good terms, especially in the late 60s, but they managed to co-operate on Vietnam. In fact, that rivalry was one of the reasons Russia increased its aid to Vietnam - it didn't want that nation falling under Chinese influence. That suited Vietnam just fine. The Vietnamese were uncomfortable with their relationship with China and were keen for a counter balance. Additionally, Chinese troop deployments to Vietnam scaled back dramatically, so by 1967 there were next to none in country. Russian advisers stayed until the early 70s, so the scope for conflict with Chinese was minimal.

 

I'm not convinced Warren and Sanders would deal with Iran shutting down the Strait of Hormuz.

Why would Iran try to hurt the world economy by blocking the Strait and expect we wouldn't be motivated to stop them?

 

Like I said, you didn't know my uncle. The idea he would admire someone who would make the comment you did is laughable.

Iran would be well asvised not to try shutting down the Strait. Regime change would be on the table.