Venezuelan military to escort Iranian oil tankers

I always knew that the propaganda machinery of the US and its media on both sides would make it nearly impossible to prove more complicated things, like how desperate the US has been to hurt Iran by even supporting those who were behind the 9/11 attacks (including Al Queda) against Iran, but until I saw the reactions in America to such things like hydroxychloroquine in relation to medical science and the fight against Covid-19 (where a potentially promising drug was touted by Trump and became a "miracle cure" that its adherents wouldn't give up on even after actual clinical trials showed their efficacy to be very questionable), I never imagined that simple facts and science involved in some of the things we are discussing (such as calculation of CEP of Iranian missiles based on actual use in conflicts) would be the subject of persistent nonsense!

But let me tell you this -- and this one, I can't 'prove' on an internet message board. I can only share with you based on what is common knowledge and supported by those who have tried to do investigative reports as opposed to those who simply broadcast what the US government tells them. To defeat Iran, the US went into bed with Al Queda and company, used them against Iran in places such as Iraq and Syria (where they metamorphised into ISIS), and even used to carry out grotesque attacks inside Iran. This is how desperate the US/Israel have been to defeat Iran. Something that a recent Iranian movie I saw about a terrorist group operating from Pakistani territory and involved in some of the most grotesque acts (including beheading a young Iranian man live on Saudi television and calling his mom beforehand to watch the episode as it will involve her son giving an 'interview') made me want to emphasize more than I have in the past. Shame on the US. Shame on it because I did once eat up its propaganda and lies and lived there and saw it (despite its warts) as a place that might one day serve as that "shinning city on the hill'.

 

Studied what issue .. you are the one that made a false accuracy claim - I never said anything about sinking a tanker one - the topic is closing the Straights - I said you don't need to sink a single tanker - just hit one ... it will have to limp back home - objective solved.

You were going on about some silly nonsense about needing to sink 30 tankers to close the straights and other nonsensical stuff.

All I said was hit one - why would you want to sink an oil tanker in your own back yard ? yet you keep yammering on as if this is the objective or required to effectively close the straights.

Knock Knock -- Is there anybody out there ! full marks if you can name that tune.

 

Has it ever occurred to you that the Trump Admin. in particular and the U.S. in general does not want a war with Iran?

 

Iran can easily close the Straits of Hormuz -- that is not a realistically up for debate, except by those who are paid by some groups to push the US towards war with Iran to serve the interest of America's colonial outpost, namely Israel.

To close the Straits of Hormuz, Iran would simply mine the waters, hit several of the tankers setting them on fire, and block most of the exit routes by sinking some of its own tankers in the shallow waters of the Straits. Not only tanker insurance rates would go off the roof, no one would want to travel through an area knowing Iran can hit them at will.

As for sinking tankers, while not necessary, Iran could do that as well even if the same folks who might have imagined Iran's missiles don't have the necessary accuracy and have a CEP of 500 meters might argue otherwise. But a couple of ballistic missiles hitting a tanker would sink it for sure. Even well placed mines (like the ones Iran put on a tanker without its crew even realizing what was happening) can sink a tanker if that is what you are trying to do. In that case, Iran was intentionally trying to avoid killing the crew but doing enough damage to send a message. That is what those who actually studied the way those mines had been placed on those tankers concluded.

 

What makes you think hitting a single tanker would make a difference? You know full well hit a number of tankers with bombing attacks during the Tanker War did not make any difference in shipping oil through the Straits.

You seriously think shipping companies are going to stop transporting oil from the Gulf just because one tanker (or five or ten) get damaged?

I think you're just trolling now.

Modern Warfare magazine did a thorough analysis six years ago of Iranian sea denial capabilities in the Straits of Hormuz and they concluded that the Iranians would have to sow thousands of mines and sink 15 tankers in each of the shipping lanes through the Straits to block them. They concluded that doing both things would to basically impossible for the Iranians to do while under fire from U.S. and allied military forces.

 

Completely disproven. Modern Warfare analyzed Iranian capabilities and concluded it was not possible.

 

What has occurred to me is that the reason they don't want a war right now, is because Trump is told by the US military the costs of such a war. Otherwise, there are better ways of showing that you don't want war than by doing what the US has been doing -- and then for Trump to make wild threats that he has to find excuses to walk back from.

The US threatened that it would using 'devastating' force against Iran if any interests of the US or its allies was hit by Iran after it send the Abraham Lincoln and other support vessels in the region. Trump went further and promised to "obliterate Iran" and bring about the "official end of Iran". During that time:

1- Iran was blamed for attacks on oil tankers -- the US did nothing but run its mouth.
2- Iran was blamed for the attacks on the Aramco oil facility -- Trump demurred, saying that it is up to the Saudis to request assistance and they haven't.
3- Iran openly seized a British tanker -- Trump said that was a British tanker and up to the Brits to take care of the issue.
4- Iran downed the US Global Hawk -- Trump said he changed his mind about attacking some unit in Iran because it would cause some Iranian casualties!

Later, after the US decided to fix its image of impotence by assassinating General Soleimani on a diplomatic mission in Iraq, Trump threatened to 'immediately' attack Iran, including 52 targets, if Iran responded against any US "assets". Iran hit the Al Assad air base, in volleys of missiles, during the entire episode, when the US could have tried to attack the launching sites before the missiles were fired, tried to hit them during each volley being fired, tried to retaliate after the missiles had been fired, he walked back on the threats and said "everything is fine, no damage, no one was hurt'.

Anyway, you aren't going to prove anything to me by beating your chest. You don't need to even go far: the US did live fire exercises not too far from Venezuela (as part of a sudden 'drug interdiction' exercise) using weapons and systems which have nothing to do with drug interdiction, used its mouthpieces to create some worry that it might take military action (to be fair, it didn't threaten to do so openly), and when all was ignored, the US didn't find the guts to try to even stop these tankers from delivering fuel to Venezuela. It didn't because it knows what would happen elsewhere.

 

"Completely disproven" because some magazine told you otherwise

Here is how you prove or disprove things. Iran can prove (what I am sure it will be able to prove easily) by closing the Strait of Hormuz. The US can disprove it by preventing Iran doing it when Iran tries. For me, it is not EVEN a question of whether, the same way it is not for the US military even, but for how long? And the answer to that is speculative as it will be based on a host of things we can't predict, including if and when the whole dynamic sets off a war and how that goes and such.

 

The idea that a tanker that has been damaged by a cruise missile - is going to continue out into the open ocean - is loony ... why are you persisting in this obvious silliness ...

You don't have to physically block the lanes .. or sink ships - to cause serious disruption -
Nor do you even have to block all traffic to cause major disruption.

Where did the "While under fire from the US" come from ? Who said anything about that ? You are adding things to the story and moving the goal posts.

The disruption comes first - then comes the US fire. You have the order of events mixed up.

 

You think the U.S. and its allies is simply going to sit back and do nothing while Iran sows mines and sinks tankers to block the Straits of Hormuz? A process that would take days at least and probably weeks.

Why wouldn't a damage tanker continue on its voyage? Where else is it going to go? During the Tanker War many damage tankers did just that.

You've got to do something to cause major disruption.

 

Not sure why you continue to make up stuff and move the goal posts. I did not say anything about mines - do try to stay on the same page.

Then you come up with a doozie "Why wouldn't a damaged tanker continue on its voyage"

Because you don't send a damaged tanker on a long sea journey in the Open Ocean - never mind one that has been hit by a cruise missile - Oil contamination being just one thing - Safety and Insurance being a few others. The first think you would need to do is immediately head to the nearest port to assess the damage.

Been awhile since you have been in the workforce I take it ? Things have changed since the roaring 70's

 

I teach history. In particular world history. And I continually research modern world history.

When I talk about mines and sinking ships in the Straits of Hormuz to block shipping lanes I'm not coming up with it on my own. I'm repeating information from writers who have thoroughly researched the issue.

I find it utterly ridiculous (and bordering on trolling) that you think a single tanker hit by a missile in the Strait of Hormuz and an Iranian threat would be remotely sufficient to impact oil shipping in the region.

 

Hopefully the US navy will not shoot down another passenger plane, same with the Iranians. If the US will leave Venezuela alone all would be well...

 

Problem is that Iran is only trying to prove something about themselves at this point. Trump is trying to be professional...not so with the Iranians.

 

You will need to explain what you mean, especially the last part which I have highlighted. I have a hard time putting together "Trump" and "trying to be professional" together and am not sure how Iran is trying to be unprofessional?

 

You can blubber on all you like about mines all you like - just don't attribute your gibberish to me and pretend that this has something to do what I was talking about.

It is you that is making utterly ridiculous claims - like claiming that a tanker hit by a missile would just continue out onto the open Ocean to a remote destination. This is complete and utter nonsense.

Without a basic understanding of simple realities of shipping - it is no wonder you are so confused. If hitting one El Saud Tanker did not stop El Saud from sending tankers through the straights - they would hit another one .. and so on.

 

And if those tankers did not sink and were still mobile?
Besides, what do you think the U.S. is going to be doing once Iran starts firing missiles at tankers? Sit on its ass? Get real. The U.S. would be flattening those launch sites with airstrikes of its own. Pretty soon Iran wouldn't have any launch platforms left.

And what makes you any kind of expert on oil shipping anyway?

 

I shudder to think what you are teaching to kids in America's public schools!

But in the context of our discussion, since you like history, let me tell you the military battles from the pages of history that you should study carefully to begin understanding Iran's tactics going against the US today. They will be a lot more telling than America's war against Saddam. These would be the battles to study:

1- Here it is the US, not Iran, that plays the role of the Persian empire while Iran plays the role of the lesser power, Greece. Like the US, hubris was the main reason the Persian empire lost this battle, picking a fight just to show it can fight the enemy anywhere, when there were much better avenues to wage the fight. The battle pitted the nimble and smaller vessels used by the Greeks against the larger vessels of the Persian empire, fighting in narrow straits similar to the Strait of Hormuz.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Salamis
Battle of Salamis

2- You should read about this battle. The US playing the role of Rome, with Trump being very much a character like Crassus. Iran playing the role it played in that Battle.
https://www.historynet.com/roman-persian-wars-battle-of-carrhae.htm
Roman-Persian Wars: Battle of Carrhae

And if you need modern lessons from military battles, I suggest you try to learn from Israel's war against Hezbollah in 2006, and study the Battle of Bint Jbeil, and at sea, the attack against the INS Hanit. Or study the Saudi campaign backed by the US and several other nations against the Houthis. Read about how the Houthis have taken out dozens of US Abrams tanks using Iranian anti-tank missiles HERE. Read about how they have hit naval warships using the kind of unmanned boats Iran has HERE. And add up the number of Saudi sorties backed by US reconnaissance and intelligence against the pace of Houthi missile attacks against the Saudis and see if you can figure out the limits to air power.

 

The above is completely irrelevant to whether or not a tanker damaged by a cruise missile - would continue out onto the open ocean.
Further - the above has already been dealt with. What part of " The US attack happens after the fact ...and so has no bearing on the cruise missile attack on the ship - resulting in disruption of the Straits" did you not understand the first time this was explained to you.

What part of:

"Where did the "While under fire from the US" come from ? Who said anything about that ? You are adding things to the story and moving the goal posts.

The disruption comes first - then comes the US fire. You have the order of events mixed up."

did you not understand the first time - the above was only a few posts ago ? - returning to it - as if this has not been addressed - and you are clearly refuted - is akin to a dog returning to its own vomit.

An oil tanker hit - and damaged by a cruise missile - is going to go directly to the first port it can find to assess the damage - as per protocol.

It is not going out onto the open Ocean - to travel 1000s of miles - then 1000s of miles back - to then assess the damage.

In addition - it would be illegal to go out on the open ocean - into international waters - with a potential oil leak -
And should you allow such a thing to happen - you would be lucky to even get insurance again .. never mind be able to pay for it.

Like I told you before mate - this is the basics of transportation - and general industry practice these days. Things have changed since the 70's when you retired (joke)

but seriously - I remember working in the chemical industry - selling degreaser - when the ban on Chlorinated solvents hit ... That would be roughly 1995. That is when that orange "D Limonene" stuff became the primary substitute. The concern for pollutants into the Ocean did not subside in the 25 years since then. Anyone working a related industry today - knows the basics of spills - enviro regs and so on. It is common knowledge

But since you asked I have worked in and around the oil industry for 40 years - which is a large part of why I favor Trump over Biden - its my business. I have cleaned up hydrocarbon contaminated sites - from pipeline spills - using alternative remediation technologies such as bioremediation - one of my specialties - having worked in that area - as a subject matter expert - for over a decade.

I then switched into crude oil Transportation lines - corrosion - microbiological corrosion - for 15 years.

So I know a little about the subject matter. That the Ship would have to immediately find the nearest port to assess the damage is just how things work .. one does not need to be an expert to know this. This is standard operating proceedure throughout the transportation industry.

Anyone dealing with hazardous material - is trained in spill response - its mandatory - this is for just domestic transport. When you transport hazardous material over a border (international) - the training quadruples. I have shipped hazardous materials across borders - it is a pain.

You need to stop trying to defend this lost position - so we can move on to other issues. We are getting past the point of denial of the obvious here.

 

Why would it matter where damaged tankers went anyway? You really think a few damaged tankers are going to shut down oil shipping out of the Persian Gulf?

Get real.

Your "explanation" is utter foolishness. "disruption" to the shipping in the Strait of Hormuz will not be instantaneous. U.S. response will not take forever.

 

Wow. The Houthis destroying Abrams tanks...being manned by SAUDIS!!!

The Saudis could probably have the starship Enterprise in their military and still lose. They're a level of Iraqi/Iranian incompetence.

 

It doesn't matter who is sitting in those tanks. The missiles taking them out can't distinguish between their crews Ask the Israelis whose Merkava tanks were similarly being taken out by Hezbollah. Read about their level of competence in the Battle of Bint Jbeil, when a force of 5,000 elite Israeli troops couldn't take out a force of 100-200 Hezbollah fighters in a deserted town right at the border with Israel despite heavy artillery and aerial bombardment.

But I know: all you want is confirmation of your beliefs and prejudices. Good thing for you: you live in a world where you will be exposed to a lot of propaganda tailored made for that purpose.

 

You keep digging your hole deeper and deeper ... I explained to you why it matters - in great detail. They are not going to send a tanker damaged by a cruise missile into the open Ocean to drop off the oil .. This is "utter foolishness" -give it up already. You are now way past the point of denial of the obvious.

Never claimed either of the above - so quit attributing made up falsehoods to me.

 

Almost everything you've claimed have been "falsehoods". I can't improve on them.

 

You have sunk into a puddle of mindless babble " Its all falsehood - everything is falsehood"

Any fool can sit in the peanut gallery and spout unsupported claims.

You have had your backside handed to you every step of the way - your claims that you are going to send an taker - damaged by a cruise missile - out on to the open ocean to continue a delivery - is abject nonsense.

Sorry - but, it is what it is.