Skip to comments.Iran threatens action if U.S. carrier returns: IRNA
Posted on 01/03/2012 2:22:04 AM PST by Sub-Driver
Iran threatens action if U.S. carrier returns: IRNA Photo 4:49am EST
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran will take action if a U.S. aircraft carrier which left the area because of Iranian naval exercises returns to the Gulf, the state news agency quoted army chief Ataollah Salehi as saying on Tuesday.
"Iran will not repeat its warning ... the enemy's carrier has been moved to the Sea of Oman because of our drill. I recommend and emphasize to the American carrier not to return to the Persian Gulf," Salehi told IRNA.
"I advise, recommend and warn them (the Americans) over the return of this carrier to the Persian Gulf because we are not in the habit of warning more than once," the semi-official Fars news agency quoted Salehi as saying.
Salehi did not name the aircraft carrier or give details of the action Iran might take if it returned.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
Can Iran actually close the straight? Or is this just more hot air mother of all blah blah blah?
They could, but for how long? Even Obama would be forced to take action. This is just a ploy on their part to see if hot air will give them what they want.
Obama is chomping at the bit. He knows that a war is the best cover for him to get away with a power grab. Don’t forget, it was Biden who wrote the Patriot Act. A war is exactly what they want, and they’re attempting to bait one.
With enough bluster and some wild acts on the Iranians part, the insurance companies will see to it, that no ships pass through.
This is all starting to look like an open case of dynamite next to a campfire on a windy day.
sure they could. the question is, how would Iran’s oil exporting neighbors respond to such an act.
>>Can Iran actually close the straight?
Someone else (who appeared to be knowledgeable) posted in an earlier thread that they could - easily. Attack ships passing through with Silkworm anti-ship missiles.
Not only would the hulks block the strait, insurance companies would no longer insure tankers which means they would not chance passing through.
The latter is the real issue, the former pretty unlikely.
The Mouse that Roared?
Maybe the ins. companies would jack the price up to stratospheric levels and we end up paying $15 a gallon for gas.I know that probably sounds ludicrous but the middle east is becoming a hornet’s nest lately and it’s prone to boggling my mind.
Go ahead, punks, take a shot at a Carrier
Make our day- hell, make our entire year
As long as they don't do anything between this afternoon and Saturday, I'll be fine.
Leaving this frigid, Socialist Republic of Utopian Moonbats (Vermont) this p.m. for the warmer, sunnier (and saner) climes of Clearwater FL and expect to land on Saturday.
Ben checking Gas Buddy and the prices seem to be holding fairly steady (close to $3.00/gal) in most of the states I'll be traversing.
Personally, I wish the Mad Mullahs and I'm-a-Nut-Job would make the mistake of doing something stoopid as that could be the catalyst we could use to take decisive action and kick some Iranian butt.....that is, IF we had a CIC who was not an Islamic-Jihadist-Appeaser, even if that meant we had to pay a little more for our gas.
O Man, remember when they released the US hostages the very minute Reagan was sworn into office?
Imagine Iran with a GOP President who signs us up for domestic “Drill Baby Drill” his first hour in office, drives the price of oil below $50 barrel, and has the mullahs on the phones to their German bankers begging for loans to feed the Iranian army
With either scenario, war erupts as the other Gulf States will act against Iran for its belligernace. The problem is the Iranian regime thinks their neighbors will act against the US because of our belligerence to call them on their threat by sending the Stennis back to its station port of Bahrain. Either way, it will be going back through soon unless Pantload Obama acts true to form. If he does, the area will take care of their neighborhood problem themselves, further relegating the US to more slippage in its stature.
When it does happen, oil will go up. Everyone here, save the typical few, will finally wake up and Obama’s perfect plan will blow up in his face, bigtime. Then, a real leader will emerge who has a pair and we will be on our way to even greater stature
The last time this happened the US Navy escorted the ships through the straits.
“The last time this happened the US Navy escorted the ships through the straits.”
This time, SOS Rodham Clinton will negotiate our carrier’s surrender to an Iranian dinghy on behalf of B. Hussein Obama (P*ss be upon him) and his Taliban buddies.
We will also be treated to more teleprompter speeches about the why we must buy taxpayer-subsidized electric cars as the solution to soaring gas prices.
Boy would that ever chaff Iran's hide.You might as well paint a thirty foot high middle finger on the side of the hull.
I think the USS Stennis CVN 74 is in that area.
FWIW, in this kind of situation where it's a personal ball-buster/toe-to-toe, I'd bet on Hitlery vs. Mullahs. She's dirty, dirty pool. Whenever the Clintons' political whims happen to align with what's best for the country, look out.
That is a GREAT video for dog lovers! First time ever I used Google image matching to find it.
Seeing how incompetent this administration is, and how hostile they are towards our own military, I get the distinct feeling, they could lose a shooting war with Iraq.
Where else, but in our great democracy can a common
paper hanger community organizer rise to become both a military and naval genius?
I suspect it is just as easy for the USA to take care of these rag heads from wherever they are, our only problem is wimpy mac daddy.
Yes, It’s extremely cute :-)
Welcome to sunny and warm Clearwater. It’ll be around 70 on Saturday and breezy. Us locals will be wearing our winter coats for such inclimate weather. Enjoy.
That would be some show right in the middle of the current Arab spring.I know Arabs aren't exactly enamored with Persians but I'm just thinking there are way more and better equipped 'rage-boys' in that region now than there were 25 odd years ago.
Obviously I'm not well versed in these things just thinking out loud I suppose.
The only way to sink a modern american aircraft carrier is with a nuke.....
They can certainly close it, which only initially requires that Lloyds substantially raise their rates.
That said, they can't keep it closed very long, but shy of invading Iran, they could continue to launch shore based anti-ship missiles at will.
The biggest reason why they won't, is that they will be hurt worse than anyone else by a closure.
From here in Oz it looks a lot like you folks have little confidence your current admin could do much other than give aid and comfort to your enemies.It makes me nervous.
The 2012 war with Iran has been predestined since November 2008. War with Iran is the only possible event that could cause the re election of Obama.
So saith bert
How about a giant cartoon Mohamed painted on the landing area :-)
Iran and Iraq were both shooting at the others' tankers. And the Gulf countries supported Iraq not Iran. Outstanding Iraqi debt to Kuwait was one of Saddam's likely reasons for invading.
I am serious. The current administration is the one giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
They are hostile to the U.S. military and sympathetic to countries that wish us harm. They will impose so many restrictions on U.S. forces that they will be getting people killed. Moderation in warfare is the height of folly, as a certain British admiral said at the start of World War I concerning the U-Boats. (He correctly warned that the Germans would not long restrain their U-Boats, and he was right.)
Since Korea, the U.S. has fought our wars with one hand tied behind our backs. At some point it has to stop.
Or,if you prefer, with him bent over the business end of a 20" gun turret.
True, because either way, it blows.
That is the precise thought I've had for a long time now.Add to that a media of screeching harpies falling over themselves to print "we just can't win this war" by all and any who would utter it and my admiration for your fighting men and women goes up another notch.
God has richly blessed the USA but right now things look ominous.
“How about a giant cartoon Mohamed painted on the landing area :-) “
No, not really. Their list of viable options is as follows:
a) Threat posturing - Make credible threats that affect the cost of shipping. This is analogous to a criminal taking out a knife, flicking it about and making sure you see it. That is threat posturing. Any time you see that in the streets it is because the person is either trying to have you give him something (e.g. a wallet) or trying to scare you off. It is not an attack, just some idiot fluffing his chest and showing his knife. Why? Because (to stick with the knife example) real knife attacks do not include posturing. Most people attacked with knives do not even know a knife was in the picture until they have been stabbed several times. Threat posturing can lead to a real attack, but the fact there is threat posturing means that an attack is not the main idea. Looking at Iran launching all of those missiles and making claims about stealthy missile this and cruise missile that looks like posturing. The only real threat from that is increased cost of shipping due to a rise in insurance costs (insurance companies have to adjust their pricing for ships going through the Strait of Hormuz).
b) A direct statement that shipping from Country X to Country Y should stop. Now, things have become more interesting. This is not just someone flicking a balisong and trying to appear tough - this is someone flicking the knife and threatening to use it on your 9 year old daughter. Iran has just said ships from X cannot pass, and if they try there will be 'consequences.' This will have several effects - for one insurance will not just go up but shipping from those countries will stop (not many people will risk a ship to call a bluff, let alone commercial entities). Another effect will be that the USN (and the navies of affected nations - e.g. Saudi Arabia) will be forced to take some action, which at this stage will be to act as escorts for any ships that want to call the bluff and run the gauntlet. Inevitably there will be at least one ship that will try to make it through, and at this point Iran will have to decide whether or not it will act. There is a chance it will do nothing (and make whatever claim it wants to justify the lack of action - maybe saying that for the sake of world peace it opted not to act or some other face saving statement). However, there is a chance it will do something - this could be more threat posturing (maybe another 'exercise' where they launch a missile) or an actual attack. It will not matter whether it is an exercise or real - any action that appears to be a real threat will be taken care of. This will most probably be in the form of limited action by the US (i.e. interception of the missile if it is an actual attack, followed by destruction of the specific missile battery whether or not it is a real attack or an exercise. It will be a limited response because no one is really looking for a full-scale war with Iran no matter what anyone may tell you). This is when it becomes an exercise in ever-greater game theory ...will Iran respond to the limited attack on the specific missile battery with a major offensive, or will it smutter and mutter and let things rest? To use my knife analogy - the perp threatens your daughter, at which point you rush in, disarm the knife, and pummel him with some rather nice punches. Now, the perp has been defeated ...what does he do? Will he take his beating like a man and go, or will he try and escalate? Maybe whip out a gun or have his pals show up? (Again, in the street one of the more dangerous situations is when YOU beat up someone ...I know of a couple of instances when the beaten person calls his friends or pulls a gun. The best thing to do after being victorious in a fight is to go away ...staying can be quite lethal). Anyways, what happens after this depends on what Iran decides to do.
c) Act-the-fool. Here Iran decides to be silly. It uses its D-E submarines to place mines in the Strait, and even does one or two torpedo attacks on commercial shipping. It also sends some missile boats and/or D-E submarines to try and engage USN assets. The missile boats are not much of a threat (and their missiles can be defeated by USN soft kill and hard kill counter-measures), while the D-E submarines are a much greater threat. Anyways, this is an act of war (not just an act of aggression that the US can try and respond to in a limited manner, but rather something that is basically a full blown fight). Basically here the perp has whipped out a wheel-gun and is trying to go all Dirty Harry on you. You have no option but to kill him now. The Iranian navy as well as the Iranian Republican Guard navy do have some dangerous assets (as mentioned the mines as well as the D-E submarines will not be particularly liked by USN planners, especially considering the littoral nature of the Strait), but all the same the USN will win. Definitely win. However, there is a chance that this might a scenario where, for the longest time, a USN ship is sunk. It may be interesting to see how the US media and population digest the sinking of (say) an Arleigh Burke destroyer (note that a good deal of Chinese strategy in the Taiwanese Strait, another area that is 'interesting,' is to make it quite inhospitable to USN assets whereby they run a good chance of being sunk, hence the concentration on asymmetrical means of warfare. Now the Chinese have enough money to spend of more conventional ways of war, but they still have asymmetrical tactics that are geared against specific USN assets). Furthermore, it is quite likely that any anti-Iran strategy by the US will still be limited to naval action (destroy and/or degrade Iranian naval capability) as well as precision strikes on inland targets (the nuclear sites). I would find it quite difficult to believe that the US will pursue a broader strategy that calls for boots on the ground. Now, our game theory experiment continues to expand in binomial fashion ...what does Iran do now? It can, again, take its beating like a man and do nothing, or it can escalate again.
d) Gehenna option: In this option Iran decides to really act the fool. There are various places that are within range of its missiles. It can send some over to Israel, it can target Abu Dhabi (and maybe even Dubai) in the emirates, Saudi Arabia, and there are some reports that they can even reach some parts of Europe. These will be conventional attacks (although, of course, Iran does have chemical and biological agents, but for the sake of keeping this exercise simple let us ignore these for the moment). Please note that the reason for the billions of Dollars spent by the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia on American (and Western) arms technology has been due to one reason ...Iran. There is little love lost between the Persians and the Arabs. The actions of Iran have basically led to a 'regional war.' At this point it becomes harder to game this ...but let it suffice to say that the issue of oil prices will definitely be trending upwards.
Anyways, can Iran close the Strait? Not really ...even though it is a 'narrow' area (the proper shipping lane is around 10 miles across), one would have to sink dozens upon dozens of ships to 'close' it. They can close it through attacks (making ships refuse to risk steaming in the region), but that would bring retribution that Iran may not be willing to take upon. Even though Ahmadenijad is a mad chap, he may opt for a strategy that would alienate him from the Ayatollahs (the real powers in Iran, some of who do not support him) as well as risk the military brass simply killing him (Persians are not stupid people - they simply have stupid leadership. Ahmadenijad may wake up to a lead sandwich if he opted for measures that his Generals believe are suicide).
Thus, this is most likely hot air mixed with some real threat posturing (again, the chap twirling his butterfly knife trying to be all Bruce Lee on you). Hot air with bluster. The problem with threat posturing is that it can very easily lead to a real fight (and more). For instance, if some chap came up to you and whipped out a knife, there is a very good chance that you may take it 'seriously,' and proceed to introduce the chap to your 'pet' .45. Especially if he starts flipping that blade towards your 9 year old daughter.
It is threat posturing, but the moment you put certain things into play the world becomes a casino.
The FFGs were never the most robost ships, usually referred to has having the Helen Keller weapons system, but using their CIWS would have been a whole lot preferable to not using it.
If youd like to be on or off, please FR mail me.