Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Iran Planning To Attack U.S. Warships In The Persian Gulf
Examiner ^ | September 7, 2012

Posted on 09/08/2012 9:46:04 AM PDT by Fennie

A senior commander of the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC) said the US navy is deeply fearful of Iran's naval power in the Persian Gulf, and added that Iran will not leave the US warships undamaged in case of a military move against the country.

"I assure you that if the US warships do a foolish action, they won't leave the area (regional waters) unhurt," Commander of the IRGC Navy Rear Admiral Ali Fadavi said in a gathering in Iran's Northeastern holy city of Mashhad on Wednesday.

(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bho44; bhomiddleeast; hormuz; iran; israel; obama; usnavy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next last

1 posted on 09/08/2012 9:46:09 AM PDT by Fennie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Fennie
Translation: If Israel attacks Iran, the US will provide absolutely no assistance, and Iran will attack US warships in retaliation.

Did I miss anything?

2 posted on 09/08/2012 9:49:11 AM PDT by null and void (Day 1328 of our ObamaVacation from reality - Obama, a queer and present danger)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fennie
BIG MISTAKE if we had a REAL Commander-in-Chief!

Maybe 'hildabeast' will intervene and play the tough guy against OBozo.

3 posted on 09/08/2012 9:49:46 AM PDT by harpu ( "...it's better to be hated for who you are than loved for someone you're not!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fennie

Yea, it will be like Saddam’s “mother of all battles” and the Highway of death.


4 posted on 09/08/2012 9:51:26 AM PDT by Usagi_yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fennie

Well, we’d better get OUT of there! I’m SCARED! Full speed astern!/sarcasm;)


5 posted on 09/08/2012 9:55:33 AM PDT by Frank_2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fennie

Iran “planning” to sink.


6 posted on 09/08/2012 9:58:32 AM PDT by The Toll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fennie

Regarding our Islamic President, it must be tough being Commander-In-Chief of the enemy with an election coming up. What a conundrum! Will he vote ‘present’?


7 posted on 09/08/2012 10:07:15 AM PDT by GeorgeWashingtonsGhost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fennie

All bluster.

Not even Iran is that stupid.


8 posted on 09/08/2012 10:08:15 AM PDT by Skooz (Gabba Gabba we accept you we accept you one of us Gabba Gabba we accept you we accept you one of us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fennie
When was the last time we lost a ship to enemy action? I'm not saying that Iran could pull off that stunt, but if it were to happen it would be quite a blow. I'm thinking of the Battle of Jutland in 1916 -- after that, neither England nor Germany was very interested in using their surface fleet for the rest of the war.

If the US were to suffer a loss, and then take on an overly defensive posture with our naval forces, we'd be owning a very expensive white elephant, floating in a bay somewhere. And the world's shipping lanes would be largely unprotected.

A strong leader would assert our presence before, during, and after a military engagement. But I don't see a strong leader around here.

9 posted on 09/08/2012 10:10:30 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (ua)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

I wouldn’t put it past them to sink a nuke in the straights, and use it as a mine.


10 posted on 09/08/2012 10:13:34 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

John McCain gave it a shot. “;^O


11 posted on 09/08/2012 10:16:52 AM PDT by Past Your Eyes (You knew the job was dangerous when you took it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Skooz
reminds me of the old joke about "why does the new iranian navy have glass bottom boats?"

so they can see the old iranian navy
12 posted on 09/08/2012 10:18:00 AM PDT by The_Sword_of_Groo (My world view is accurately expressed in the lyrics of " The Fightin' Side of Me")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: null and void
If Israel attacks Iran, the US will provide absolutely no assistance, and Iran will attack US warships in retaliation.

Did I miss anything?

Yes, you completely forgot that Barry-O will apologize profusely, in person.

13 posted on 09/08/2012 10:20:36 AM PDT by Izzy Dunne (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: harpu
BIG MISTAKE if we had a REAL Commander-in-Chief!

Hopefully we still have REAL commanders in the field. If attacked, respond with overwhelming force. Remember, it is far easier to get forgiveness than it is to get permission.

Just ask LTC (Ret) Allen West. Sure it cost him his career, but he is OK with that knowing his integrity and steadfast loyalty to his command are secured for all time.

14 posted on 09/08/2012 10:20:52 AM PDT by mazda77 ("Defeating the Totalitarian Lie" By: Hilmar von Campe. Everybody should read it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Fennie

Iran Planning To Attack U.S. Warships In The Persian Gulf

Uh huh... I remember when I was 18 I planned on becoming a millionaire by the time I reached 40. That didn’t happen either...


15 posted on 09/08/2012 10:21:56 AM PDT by Common Sense 101 (Hey libs... If your theories fly in the face of reality, it's not reality that's wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

We lost lots of ships in WWII.


16 posted on 09/08/2012 10:22:44 AM PDT by Ecliptic (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Fennie
"I assure you that if the US warships do a foolish action, they won't leave the area (regional waters) unhurt," Commander of the IRGC Navy Rear Admiral Ali Fadavi said

True. Decimating an overmatched enemy does cause some people some temporary emotional discomfort. Our swabbies will have some sympathy for the poor dolts who have to obey their moronic commanders in Iran.

17 posted on 09/08/2012 10:24:31 AM PDT by Teacher317 ('Tis time to fear when tyrants seem to kiss.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ecliptic
We lost lots of ships in WWII.

Yeah, I think I remember that. So to speak.

My point was that I cannot remember losing a ship in combat since FDR was president. Psychologically, if Iran were to take out one of ships, it would be a blow.

18 posted on 09/08/2012 10:27:07 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (ua)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Fennie
All examiner.com articles should come with a “grain of salt” alert...especially ones like this one that cite other examiner.com articles for source material.
19 posted on 09/08/2012 10:30:49 AM PDT by Tex-Con-Man (T. Coddington Van Voorhees VII 2012 - "Together, I Shall Ride You To Victory")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fennie

“Iran Planning To Attack U.S. Warships In The Persian Gulf”

Isn’t that the reason Obama put them there...so they can be destroyed?


20 posted on 09/08/2012 10:33:30 AM PDT by ryderann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fennie
A senior commander of the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC) said the US navy is deeply fearful of Iran's naval power

hee hee hee

21 posted on 09/08/2012 10:40:13 AM PDT by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fennie

Just xap their ass with a laser right on the mullahs nose. They will get the message.


22 posted on 09/08/2012 10:44:37 AM PDT by eyedigress ((zOld storm chaser from the west)/?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fennie

He’s right, of course.

In the event of a conflict, our Navy will suffer severe damage to its bombs and rockets, many of which will be destroyed sending Iran back to the stone age.


23 posted on 09/08/2012 10:45:19 AM PDT by Jack Hammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil
Iran did attack the oil platforms and the Navy during R. R's term. They paid a heavy toll.
Google it
24 posted on 09/08/2012 10:48:42 AM PDT by reefdiver (zer0 One and Done)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Fennie

Oh! Obama will lose no time in gifting them with harpoons! Not down the smokestack, but delivered in crates.


25 posted on 09/08/2012 10:52:03 AM PDT by Hardraade (http://junipersec.wordpress.com (I will fear no muslim))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reefdiver

Reagan had a pair of balls.

Congress/Senate have been neutered. The President is a Traitor who wants the Muzzies to Win.

FUBO!

Remember, November is Coming. And Obozo Must GO!


26 posted on 09/08/2012 10:54:32 AM PDT by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

Truman - from 12-Apr-1945 through 14-Aug-1945, including USS Indianapolis (CA-35) 30-Jul-1945, and quite a few more.


27 posted on 09/08/2012 11:02:42 AM PDT by reg45 (Barack 0bama: Implementing class warfare by having no class!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

The British lose the destroyer HMS Sheffield in the Falkland’s war against Argentina. It’s entirely possible that the Iranians could manage a similar “lucky” attack.


28 posted on 09/08/2012 11:04:18 AM PDT by Johnny B.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
The last major warship lost to enemy action was the submarine Bullhead, which was caught on the surface by a Japanese bomber on August 6, 1945. The last surface ship to be sunk by enemy action was the heavy cruiser Indianapolis, which was torpedoed by a Japanese submarine on July 30, 1945.

Since World War Two, only six major US warships have been heavily damaged by enemy action (there were others that only suffered light damage). Three were damaged by mines (frigate Samuel B. Roberts during the Tanker Wars, and cruiser Princeton and amphibious assault ship Tripoli during Operation Desert Storm), two were hit by air attack (destroyer Higbee off Vietnam and frigate Stark during the Tanker Wars), and one by suicide boat (destroyer Cole in the Port of Aden). Not included in this list are the intelligence ships Pueblo (captured by North Korea) and Liberty, which was attacked and nearly sunk by Israeli aircraft and torpedo boats during the Six Days War.

29 posted on 09/08/2012 11:06:52 AM PDT by Stonewall Jackson ("I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Fennie

The Iranians want to sink an aircraft carrier. Such a sinking would be a propaganda coup of major proportions. Americans have not lost a capital ship since WWII. The sight of one of the great carriers listing, smoke bellowing from the ship, sailors going over the side by rope would have a vast negative impact upon the present American public and vastly raise the morale of the “Third World.”


30 posted on 09/08/2012 11:10:31 AM PDT by AEMILIUS PAULUS (It is a shame that when these people give a riot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Johnny B.

During the Falklands War, the British Navy lost two destroyers, two frigates, two amphibious assault vessels, and an aircraft transport. A number of other vessels were damaged but later repaired.


31 posted on 09/08/2012 11:11:09 AM PDT by Stonewall Jackson ("I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Stonewall Jackson
thxs, for the info. :)

32 posted on 09/08/2012 11:12:05 AM PDT by skinkinthegrass (WA DC E$tabli$hment; DNC/RNC/Unionists...Brazilian saying: "$@me Old $hit; w/ different flie$" :^)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; ...

Thanks Fennie. on the ball: Media peace offensive:
33 posted on 09/08/2012 11:14:03 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: null and void

Make my Day.

Obama will be forced to go against Muslims that day.


34 posted on 09/08/2012 11:16:21 AM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Fennie
A senior commander of the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC) said the US navy is deeply fearful of Iran's naval power in the Persian Gulf...

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.....

35 posted on 09/08/2012 11:20:05 AM PDT by jeffc (The U.S. media are our enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

I rather doubt he will.


36 posted on 09/08/2012 11:24:24 AM PDT by null and void (Day 1328 of our ObamaVacation from reality - Obama, a queer and present danger)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
When was the last time we lost a ship to enemy action? I'm not saying that Iran could pull off that stunt, but if it were to happen it would be quite a blow. I'm thinking of the Battle of Jutland in 1916

???Ever hear of WWII?

37 posted on 09/08/2012 11:28:17 AM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Fennie

I don’t think our Navy is fearful of a piss ant Iranian Naval assault. It would certainly be a fiasco if they did. Of course even one of our sailors being harmed by these ignorant freaks is a horrible act that we don’t want to happen. But it’s a pretty sure thing the Iranian Navy would cease to exist if they did do something so stupid. That idea is a clear bluster pluck, by the Iranians.


38 posted on 09/08/2012 11:29:55 AM PDT by RowdyFFC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AEMILIUS PAULUS
The sight of one of the great carriers listing, smoke bellowing from the ship, sailors going
over the side by rope would have a vast negative impact upon the present American public
and vastly raise the morale of the “Third World.”
isn't that, why the "cruise missile" were developed?..
they have some use, in over-the-horizon ops. operations
Other "tools" could be used, if we had real C-in-C who wasn't a Muslim.

39 posted on 09/08/2012 11:34:00 AM PDT by skinkinthegrass (WA DC E$tabli$hment; DNC/RNC/Unionists...Brazilian saying: "$@me Old $hit; w/ different flie$" :^)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard
Clearly my post was not well written, because a number of people have "informed" me that we once fought a thing called WWII and that, yes, some naval action was involved, and yes, some ships were lost.

Apparently my post opened me up to such "schooling".

I was attempting to say that I believe the US is currently psychologically fragile in matters of war. Yes, in WWII we were willign to do what was necessary. We lost ships, planes, tanks, and people. We knew why we were fighting. We took the losses and we kept on fighting.

Now, another time, another country -- Great Britain in 1916. The fought the Battle of Jutland. It was a psychological blow. Same on the other side -- it staggered the Imperial Germany navy. Their armies had taken losses on land and their armies kept struggling, but the navies on both sides became gun-shy and did little (I won't say "nothing") for the rest of the war. Ships were expensive and they didn't want to lose any more of them.

I see the US navy (potentially) as fragile as the British and German navies in 1916. If we lost an expensive ship, we might elect to "play it safe" at a time when that would be a bad strategy.

War-fighting is politics and our political leaders lack the gumption to order our forces to keep on fighting in some tough situations. The men and women in the ranks would -- but our politicians are afraid of losses. That's all I'm saying.

40 posted on 09/08/2012 11:53:14 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (ua)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Venturer
Obama will be forced to go against Muslims that day.

Don't bet on it.

41 posted on 09/08/2012 11:54:33 AM PDT by dearolddad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

don’t you remember the Obama quote - if things get tough he’d side with the Muslims.

This huge error of 2008 MUST be removed from the White House and take his disgusting staff with him. Holder, Jarrett, Pluff, Tax cheat Geitner, czars et al.

VOTE R/R Nov. 6


42 posted on 09/08/2012 12:08:00 PM PDT by WaterWeWaitinFor (Paul Ryan clings to his gun, sits in his deer stand and is going to be our next VP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Ecliptic
We lost lots of ships in WWII.

to nations that actually had a somewhat comparable naval force.....Iran has two row boats and several kayaks. The attack on the ship in Yeman should have NEVER happened. When our ships are deployed anywhere, there should be an inviolable perimeter around them....that should be enforced either by on board firepower or our own small craft. It's time to stop fooling around with the idiots of the world...I think Romney will do that and I don't think Obama will (hasn't yet)

43 posted on 09/08/2012 12:58:01 PM PDT by terycarl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
When was the last time we lost a ship to enemy action? I'm not saying that Iran could pull off that stunt, but if it were to happen it would be quite a blow. I'm thinking of the Battle of Jutland in 1916 -- after that, neither England nor Germany was very interested in using their surface fleet for the rest of the war.

You should be thinking "Battle of Salamis." This is what the Iranians are attempting to do, IMO. Lure the large US blue water fleet close to the coast so that they can whack them with all manner of asymmetrical threats - everything from anti-ship missles, mines and agile speedboats.

The USN wargamed this a few years ago by putting a Marine general in charge of the Green Force (Iran). The USN lost by its own assessment of the wargame. Not saying that this will happen in real life. One of the reasons that you wargame is to expose holes in you own warplan. Evidently the Marine, thinking unconventionally, did just that.

44 posted on 09/08/2012 1:05:04 PM PDT by Tallguy (It's all 'Fun and Games' until somebody loses an eye!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: AEMILIUS PAULUS

An aircraft carrier would be incredibly difficult to actually sink. They could manage a “mission kill”, inflicting lots of casualties while knocking a major ship out of action for many years.


45 posted on 09/08/2012 1:09:50 PM PDT by Tallguy (It's all 'Fun and Games' until somebody loses an eye!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Stonewall Jackson

If the Argentines had properly fused their bombs several of those RN ships on the damaged list would have been sunk. One of those vagaries of war.


46 posted on 09/08/2012 1:11:47 PM PDT by Tallguy (It's all 'Fun and Games' until somebody loses an eye!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Tallguy

if we have ships in the persian gulf, not outside but within air strike range, and if the iranians are willing to take severe losses just in the attack. it’s easy to sink a us naval vessel.
1. put a submarine in the area. doesn’t have to be close but a diesel boat in gulf waters is hard to detect so 1D has to be covered.
2. put some planes in the AO, just outside shipboard SAM range and carrying ASMs. 2D has to be covered.
3. attack from a 3rd, 4th, and 5th axis with multiple surface missile boats and suicide boghammers. 3D has to be covered.
4. wake up one morning and do it. no advanced warning, no threats.
5. go for the outriders and not the main target. sinking any us navy ship is a major coup.
6. screw any geopolitical consequences or loss of iranian civilians.
one ship or even a couple of ships without air cover cannot cover all 3 sectors adequately if attacked on multiple axis simultaneously. even a 90% success rate will have leakers.
this is basically how the PLAN (chinese navy) pland to attack our carrier battle groups. even eliminating a couple of escorts seriously weakens the overal defense plan.


47 posted on 09/08/2012 1:20:51 PM PDT by bravo whiskey (if the little things really annoy you, maybe it's because the big things are going well.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: bravo whiskey
That would be how you'd do it (attack a carrier group). My point is just that CVA's would continue to float and that the Iranians wouldn't be likely to be able to mount a quick followup attack to actually sink a damaged carrier. Once they lost the element of surprise the CVA gets towed out of the threat area.

It's possible my analysis might be wrong. We recently expended the USS Armerica in a major SinkEx. The old carrier was subjected to several attackes before it went down. But the results are classified, so we're all pretty much guessing.

The USN does push CVA's and LHA/LHD's into the Gulf. If we were looking for an attack we might pull the flattops out. But my guess is that the Iranian's would be allowed the first shot.

48 posted on 09/08/2012 1:50:09 PM PDT by Tallguy (It's all 'Fun and Games' until somebody loses an eye!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: WaterWeWaitinFor

If American ships are attacked by Iran Obama will have no choice but to counter-attack or be besieged in his own White House.

The American people would not put up with that BS even if Obama is Muslim and Black.


49 posted on 09/08/2012 2:18:39 PM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Tallguy
Yes, they had a few issues with that. They also had a limited number of Exocet missiles to use.

The mission to deny the Argentinians access to additional Exocets is one of the greatest intelligence victories of that era. The British government convinced the French to provide them with data on the missiles' codes and homing radar (which allowed the Brits to decoy a number of them away from their targets) and they established dummy international arms dealerships to lure the Argentinians away from real dealers who might have access to Exocets. The French also came through by "delaying" a shipment of Exocets to Peru after learning that the missiles were to be resold to Argentina.

50 posted on 09/08/2012 2:59:36 PM PDT by Stonewall Jackson ("I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson