Could Iran really blockade the strait of Hormuz?

The mistake you are making is that this will be an Iranian-US conflict from the start. And this will not.

Iran would not target the US Navy, or US flagged ships. It will be attacking ships that are flagged as from Panama, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and every other nation that operates in the region. They are not stupid, and this served them well in the 1980's.

And they will be able to do quite a bit of damage before the US is able to step in. Because under International Laws, their ability to act militarily is very hazy when the ship attacked does not belong to the US.

That is why the nation of Kuwait paid the US to flag their ships. This automatically entitled them to protection of any US Navy ships in the region.

No, Iran will be able to do quite a bit of damage before either they get stupid and attack a US ship, or some other nation formally requests the protection of the US Navy.

 

Nuclear war? Not likely, unless Iran decided to lob some around.

And "allied powers" in hate with America? Which nations exactly are you talking about? Iran-Venezuela-North Korea-Cuba? Don't make me laugh. There is not one nation that can be considered anywhere near a threat that would allign itself with Iran.

And in case you have not looked at a map of the region during the last 30 years, most of the region is rather firmly allied with the United States. They even build military bases 10 times the size needed for their own nation, in the hopes that they can get the US to move over and occupy the rest of it.

 

Allow me to elaborate. In my opinion, your train of thought is what causes false security. Many nations would side with Iran including China. Vast resources and fast thinking is how we can be trampled. You should have learned that from Iraq, after trillions of dollars what did we really accomplish. Our war would be lost by bankruptcy. We in essence would kill ourselves. There are dirty bombs out there and several ways to obtain them. Who knows honestly what Russia has done with its many lost warheads. The United States is its on worst enemy. Don't be foolish to think that other countries would not occupy those with enormous bases and use them for themselves. Our strategic supplies are limited when it comes to oil. South America is controlled and somewhat neutral but able to choose what side they want, the middle east is not our friend. We are treading on a tight rope and that kind of thinking that you have is the reason why we have false security. We have several options, but how we handle this can be disastrous or glorious. When we as nation believe we are truly invincible is the time in when we we fall and fall hard.

 

What about Russia, China, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Gaza and the west bank. All these nation support Iran, or Iran supports them, plus North Korea with help from China and Russia gave Iran some thinks it needs to make a bomb.

The Iranian missile troop is a big threat, plus if they drop enough mines. But I don't see the small fast boats being a big problem, all the other nations would flag their ship US or some other nation so they get protection, and the other nations in the Gulf have navies and air forces, so they could protect themselves once the US has crush the Iranian navy's main ships.

I am sure the US using satellites and drones could find and kill anybody in Iran who is going to fire something.

If Iran did try anything would the US just take out their whole defence system, like they did with Iran?

 

You are making several major false assumptions here.

For one, that China would risk alienating their #1 customer.

Two, that the war would last long enough for another nation to get involved in the first place (look at the 10 year Iran-Iraq war, then the 2 short wars against Iraq by the US). Odds are that any war in Iran would follow the model of Iraq and Afghanistan. Short and decisive, with a quick fall of the ruling government.

Three, that another nation would willingly join Iran in the first place. Remember, the same thing was said about Iraq (twice) and Libya, and we all know how many nations jumped to their defense.

None.

Read the above.

Iraq? Oh good heavens no! Are you crazy, to think they would ally? About as likely as the US allying with North Korea in an attack against South Korea.

Same goes with Syria. No help from there.

Lebanon? Give me a break, barely a police force. And a very fractured coalition military, where any threat to attack the US and it's allies would see part of the armed forces in revolt against the other part.

Gaza? Oh now I know you are joking. They can attack Israel, that is about it. About the only use they could be to Iran would be sending some more suicide bombers.

Do not confuse Iran support (which it does not), with support for Iran. Iran is an Islamic nation, but it is not an Arab nation. And most of the Arabs treat them with a great degree of distrust, if not outright hostility.

The Iranian missile threat is not as big as most people think, especially against ships. Most of it is geared to strike at land targets, not moving ships.

And do not discount the threat of their boats against unarmed ships so much. It will do a lot of damamge before the countries start to reflag. And as we saw in the Tanker War, most will choose to take their chances, especially the non-gulf ships, like from China, South Korea, Japan, and other nations.

If anything, I expect Russia to also try to be a power in this region, and do the same thing, offering other nations who are hesitant to accept US protection, and have their own Navy protect them.

[/QUOTE]
If Iran did try anything would the US just take out their whole defence system, like they did with Iran?
[/QUOTE]

Well, that is true, if it developed into a coalition dedicated to removing the Iranian regeime. And I do not see that happening at this time. Odds are, it would be more like the 1990 Gulf War. An alliance of nations, which crush their military ability, and impose sanction to prevent them from being a threat in the future.

 

If its their oil then sure, they have that right, but if they are blocking others from transporting then I say "No".

 

Exactly right. And that is the difference between an embargo and a blockade.

Iran can embargo their oil all they want. The y are free to stop all sales, destroy their wells, and go back to being a nation of goat herders. They can even prohibit the transit of all ships through their own territorial waters.

And this is the problem, because they claim all of the Strait of Hormuz. According to their beliefs, the entire strait is theirs, so they can do whatever they want.

Well, time will tell. They tried it before and failed. Libya tried to claim the entire Gulf of Sidra, and failed. And I doubt it will work if they try it again. Because you have other nations in the region like Oman and the UAE which claim parts of it as well, and they will not sit back quietly and let this happen.

 

Top Gun instructors flown in just for the occasion will rip them to shreds, then fly back to the o-club to laugh about it.

 

they can cause trouble but everyone who gets oil will attack their navy and destroy it

 

the UN does not want to pay high oil prices either and they are becoming more conservative in their stances on the middle east rogue nations

 

Col K gets it right in the first page of posts. They have no ability or need to block the straits, they just have to threaten so the price of oil goes up and hurts our economy. As for their vaunted air force, I doubt we would even have to launch aircraft to defeat it, it's more about ordinance than the speed of the aircraft, although we would probably use our drones. Their 3rd generation missiles won't get past our 5th generation defense.

 

They don't need a navy, they can just float them mines out every high tide.

 

You do realize don't you that most mines won't do much more than dent a supertanker?

 

As I have said, "quantity has a quality all it's own".

Your F/A-18 only carries 6 missiles, 4 Sidewinder and 2 Sparrow. So if a flight of 2-4 US fighters run up against a flight of 20 Iranian ones, they are going to be in trouble. Even if they are outdated crates, there will still be more missiles comming at them then thay can hope to evade.

 

In real life, pilots don't keep coming even as large numbers of their fellows are shot down.

Twenty Iranian planes take on 4 U.S. fighters, then in all likelihood once four or five of the Iranians are downed then the rest will turn for home.

 

Worked that way with Iraq and Serbia. I imagine you'd be correct about how it's going to work with Iran, should it ever come to it. A couple of 'aces in a day' and the air war will pretty much end.

 

I don't think the captains of any supertankers will be wanting to take the risk so the mines will do their job even if not one of them explodes.

 

Never heard about the Battle of Britain then.

 

The Germans stopped coming didn't they?

 

They didn't have a problem with it in 1988.

The Bridgeport was actually ordered to steam ahead of U.S. warships to detonate potential mines and the captain complied.

 

No they kept on coming despite heavy losses and the RAF kept going out to meet them despite heavy losses.

That's how wars work.

 

I can't see a ship's insurance company agreeing to that.

Iran might have got some new improved mines since 1988, it would surprise me if they hadn't.

 

Oh nonsense. WWII is full of such examples. Battle of Britton, the US daylight bombing missions over Germany, I can go on and on here.

To give an example, during WWII, a B-17 crew only had to fly 25 combat missions in order to be rotated home. And it took almost a year and a half for a crew to actually survive 25 missions and be entitled to return home, the Memphis Belle.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMDSFAYDV-Y"]The Memphis Belle: A Story of a Flying Fortress - YouTube[/ame]

During one mission alone over Germany, the 8th Air Force lost 60 out of 230 B-17 bombers.

A little over a month later, the US tried again. They lost 77 B-17s the next time.

I don't know what you think of our military pilots, but I have a much higher opinion of their courage and abilities then you do. They are going to do their job and perform their mission to the best of their ability.

And remember, in this scenario, the Iranians would be fighting to protect their home. This will make them even more dangerous.

Who says they will dogfight them? This is where tactics and strategy play a big part. And this is nothing new, this is a tactic discussed for decades now.

You have a large force of fighters take to the air to intercept incomming fighters. You know the enemy is flying a superior fighter, but that does not matter. You outnumber him 10 or 20 to 1, so you use technology.

The minute you come within missile range, you ripplefire all of your missiles, and hit the deck and head for home. It does not matter if the missiles even hit, the incomming aircraft immediately go from offensive to defensive postures, trying to dodge a salvo of a dozen or more missiles for each aircraft. Even if they all miss somehow, the fuel and resources (chaffe, flares) spent trying to get away have made these aircraft no longer capable of doing their mission.

Then if you really want to take them down, have a "back door" group waiting over the horizon. Once the survivors of the missile salvo get a chance to regroup, you hit them yet again. Except now the invaders have even less defensive options.

 

Iran does not have a 10 to one advantage over U.S. air forces in the region that would be available.

 

Depends on if the US would cover any cost of the privately owned ship.