Venezuelan military to escort Iranian oil tankers

Correction, the Bridgeton proceeded after the mine explosion to Kuwait rather than the Indian Ocean.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeton_incident

Please forgive my mistake.

I wasn't the one that claimed a tanker if damaged by a cruise missile would be sent to the open ocean. You claimed that.

But what about a mine? Prior to Operation Praying Mantis when the Iranians were deploying mines in the Persian Gulf a large tanker hit a mine in the Gulf and notified U.S. warships. The U.S. commander on the scene, realizing that the tanker was far more resistant to mine damage than the U.S. warships ordered the tanker to proceed AHEAD of the warships in case there were other mines. IIRC the tanker was sent through the Straits and into the Indian Ocean.

If you have more knowledge of this incident than I and wish to contest the facts then I won't argue.

Correction, the Bridgeton proceeded to Kuwait rather than into the Indian Ocean.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeton_incident

My mistake

 

Wow - just Wow - Now you are trying to attribute your claims to me .

You have been arguing this whole time against my claim that the Tanker would not be sent into the open ocean to continue its mission.

 

Here is someone who definitely has more knowledge about these issues than either of you -- or anyone else you are likely to discuss these issues with. He is chair of Maritime Strategy at the Naval War College. He finished first in his class at that naval academy. He has been an officer in the US navy and served in the region. Now, for me, he is a biased source, but for you, he should be the kind of person you should be listening to.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/us-iran-naval-war-2019-what-it-could-look-57012
The U.S.-Iran Naval War of 2019: What It Could Look Like

 

I can't find anything off hand to disagree with. He says basically that a conflict with Iran in the Persian Gulf/Strait of Hormuz region COULD be difficult for the United States.

Not that it WOULD be difficult.

 

Until the conflict happens, no one can tell what would happen in a war. Or to quote from him in the same article:

 

The US has alleged that Venezuela has paid Iran for the fuel deliveries using gold given that international banks don't transfer funds to Iran due to US sanctions. I don't know if that is true, but I would prefer if Venezuela repaid Iran in part by allowing Iranian experts and technicians to work closely on Venezuela's F-16 and Su-30 aircraft (like the two that were part of the escort for the Iranian tankers once they reached the waters inside Venezuela's exclusive economic zone shown below). Giving Iran full access to both those planes to study them carefully would be valuable for both sides.

 

They are b

Of course it would be difficult and costly as all wars are but the outcome would be determined by the ROE the US chose to restrict itself to.

 

Trump has made it clear that he wants to negotiate with the Iranians. The latter reject talks, which has resulted in Trump giving Iran what it ultimately wants- a world with no America.

The Iranians don’t want to admit however that a world with no America means financial ruin for them, so they’d rather resort to methods that are only used to convey a false representation of power...which does nothing to improve their balance sheets.

 

So we now have a world without America?

Iran doesn't want a world with "no America", or at least I don't, but I do want a world where America isn't dictating how others can or cannot have relations with Iran. Can or cannot engage in trade and commerce with Iran. And that America is still around, more so than ever before.

You are projecting perhaps? I think you are too excited about somethings revolving around the periphery in Syria. That is merely a sideshow. The real show that America, and those who pull its strings, have in mind, will not produce a show anyone in the region -- whether in Iran or Turkey or elsewhere -- should want to see.

There are a lot of misconceptions built into your post and the admittedly unique narrative you seem to gravitate towards. But I will say this: any country that is too invested, and too reliant, on the global economic system, with the US dollar at the center of its structure and the financial institutions carrying its IOUs playing the role of kingmakers in this Ponzi-scheme that has been constructed, will not find itself any room to maneuver much dealing with those on top of the structures that have been built. Iran is not one of them, although there are Iranians (even those working inside Iran's government) who are similarly invested, with ties to the same mafia and groups. For some outside of our region, that reliance on this Ponzi scheme isn't a huge problem in any immediate sense: for now, they too are invested in the Ponzi scheme and benefit from its imaginary gains and profits. But in our region, there is a plan that may be in its advanced stages as it relates to Iran, but most certainly has any other potentially powerful country in its list of targets. And none fit that bill, unfortunately, better than Turkey, which eventually will find PNAC has even less interest in a resurgent Ottoman empire than a Safavid one in Iran. The latter, at least, had more confined ambitions that don't bring it to Europe's shores. The former is different, as it was different when both those two empires existed and foolishly fought one another for someone else to eventually come and claim the spoils.

 

Well, when they chant “death to America” every week, you kinda have to wonder.

In any event, America controls the finances of the world. They have the dollar. Ergo, they have the liberty of doing whatsoever they desire in those capacities. Iran or you may not like that America possesses this power, but it does.

Iran can’t have it both ways. They can’t act like *******s towards the US, and expect America to not react appropriately by using its financial clout. It may have been different under Obama, but clearly not with Trump as President.

Now you’re just relying on hope. For all we know, this “ponzi scheme” will last another 200 years. Either way, it doesn’t spell good news for Iran. Time is not on its side in this case....

 

At least that boat works
https://www.navytimes.com/news/your...arrier-but-the-ship-still-has-serious-issues/
https://www.wired.com/2011/06/shipbuilder-blames-navy-as-brand-new-warship-disintegrates/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...tleship-breaks-down-at-sea-after-20-days.html

 

There is much that I would like to say with regard to what you wrote, but for now, let me just say this instead: they say hope springs eternal. Lets pick up on this conversation when the time you allude to has passed and we are better able to judge whether it was on Iran's side or it wasn't. I can make a case for either proposition, and neither is self-evident in my judgment. Ultimately, time will tell what needs to be told best.

 

2 of the 3 are Obama/Biden's fault, look at the dates.

 

How is Obama responsible for the problems for a 13 Billion dollar aircraft carrier ? that never should have been built to begin with ! - a ship that will be obsolete - prior to getting its sea legs ?

 

Look at the links.

 

I looked at the links .. now answer the question .. you claimed Obama was responsible .. what are you referring to with respect to the 13 Billion dollar aircraft carrier.

 

Iran are testing the water to see if they can export oil without interference. Looks like they can.

 

While most of the tankers have already docked and have begun unloading their fuel, the US is claiming that at least one of them (or maybe two) have been redirected from Venezuela based on pressure applied on Liberia (the place where one of the tankers is registered to). We need more facts to unfold to differentiate facts from propaganda, but regardless, the US is trying to use its 'economic and diplomatic clout' to scare away those who are always ready to be scared away from doing their job and living up to their legal commitments.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/us-disrupts-iranian-fuel-deliveries-venezuela-official-says

 

I should point out, incidentally, that before these reports in FOX and some other media, the headlines from wire services showed the 4th Iranian tanker had already arrived in Venezuela waters as well.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...uelan-port-us-slams-distraction-idUSKBN2342ZT
Fourth Iranian tanker docks at Venezuelan port, U.S. slams 'distraction'

 

You're the one that better wake up to reality. The riots going on in the US are very serious and this time they might not stop. People are frightened, and don't know if they will have a job tomorrow. The American dollar has no value if there isn't any production to back it, and yet we keep printing more and more which means inflation and a higher cost of living.

What happened in Minneapolis could be the turning point, and who knows, this time we might end up in a civil war. Of course it would be well deserved considering how Washington encouraged anti government riots in places like Hong Kong - but I do fear for my country and for my loved one.

 

That's simply insane from "You're" to "one."

 

I never mentioned the USS Gerald Ford, it was started in 2005. The USS Milwaukie was on Obama's watch.

 

Then step up to the plate and tell us which link you are referring to and explain how Obama was responsible ?

 

I already did sparky.

 

No you didn't all you said was "2 of the 3 are Obama/Biden's fault, look at the dates." - you didn't say which links - or state what was Obama's fault.

All the links were about problems with Navel vessels - what did Obama do to cause those malfunctions - make some attempt to clarify what your claim is .. followed by some reason why someone might believe your claim is true.