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 ...
Did I miss anything?
Maybe 'hildabeast' will intervene and play the tough guy against OBozo.
Yea, it will be like Saddam’s “mother of all battles” and the Highway of death.
Well, we’d better get OUT of there! I’m SCARED! Full speed astern!/sarcasm;)
Iran “planning” to sink.
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’?
All bluster.
Not even Iran is that stupid.
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.
I wouldn’t put it past them to sink a nuke in the straights, and use it as a mine.
John McCain gave it a shot. “;^O
Did I miss anything?
Yes, you completely forgot that Barry-O will apologize profusely, in person.
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.
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...
We lost lots of ships in WWII.
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.
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.
“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?
hee hee hee
Just xap their ass with a laser right on the mullahs nose. They will get the message.
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.
Oh! Obama will lose no time in gifting them with harpoons! Not down the smokestack, but delivered in crates.
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!
Truman - from 12-Apr-1945 through 14-Aug-1945, including USS Indianapolis (CA-35) 30-Jul-1945, and quite a few more.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
Make my Day.
Obama will be forced to go against Muslims that day.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.....
I rather doubt he will.
???Ever hear of WWII?
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.
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.
Don't bet on it.
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
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.