It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Iran plans to shut down Persian Gulf, strike USN & Saudi if attacked

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 01:38 AM
A former Iranian intelligence official has obtained recent Iranian Naval documents which state that if attacked by the US or Isreal Iran plans to immediately block the Straits of Hormuz, attack US carrier battle groups, stop all Gulf oil exports and attack Saudi oil facilities.

Specifically, it states that it would use Chinese anti shipping missiles and Shahab long range missiles to achieve these objectives.

How would the U.S. navy react to several CBG's being trapped in the gulf and under attack from Iranian anti-ship missiles?

Excerpt from:

Iran Readies Plan to Close Strait of Hormuz

Kenneth R. Timmerman,

Wednesday, March 1, 2006

Iran's Revolutionary Guards are making preparations for a massive assault on U.S. naval forces and international shipping in the Persian Gulf, according to a former Iranian intelligence officer who defected to the West in 2001.

The plans, which include the use of bottom-tethered mines potentially capable of destroying U.S. aircraft carriers, were designed to counter a U.S. land invasion and to close the Strait of Hormuz, the defector said in a phone interview from his home in Europe.

Copy/paste edited to a two paragraph snippit

[edit on 2-3-2006 by Thomas Crowne]

mod edit: added external quotes

[edit on 2-3-2006 by UK Wizard]

posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 02:58 AM
You should know that the document obtained could be a disinformation document right? It could be just a false flag and I don't think anyone would be that dumb to take the bait as simply as that. However, this is not the first time I heard that Iran will attack the U.S naval fleet in the region first and that'll be their primary move if war is to break out.

Anyways, I don't assume they'll use the tactics that has been leaked out to the media. Once the enemy(U.S and allies) knows their plan, it's all downhill from there. Either way, Iran probably can hold them off for at least a few week or so before they're doom. Well, that's unless of course Syria doesn't back them up.

[edit on 1/3/06 by Heartagram]

posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 12:23 PM
This is going to be intresting if not deadly.

Take a look at my postings in other rooms about the merchants of the world including bankers , insurance companys, and the producers of raw materials/finished products....including energy resources/oil.
These companys as a matter of historical record do not brook interferences with their trade. IN this manner they are governments unto themselves.
When a 10,000 foot runway was built in the small island of Grenada in the 1980s they arranged a invasion through the US Government. Nothing would be allowed to threaten any commerce coming out of the Panama Canal. This involved not just US companys but many others world wide who also shipped through this canal.
It is one thing to threaten the US Government is another and much more serious offense to threaten world trade and also world trading routes. This is not the version you will hear on the evening news..including those networks who are "looking out for you " This fight may appear to be religious in nature but dont let this fool you is about merchantilism. The religion of the merchants which is the religion that will never be discussed by "experts." Those "looking out for you."

This kind of fight will reduce itself to stone knives and bear clubs if necessary to protect the merchants. Think long and hard on this will be hard on the west and also hard on the Iranians. The change will be when other nations get involved on either side.

So ...which merchants do you want to support...the Iranian merchants and whatever governments support them ..or the western merchants and the governments who also support them. Think long and hard on this one.


posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 02:09 PM
Nothing new here.

IRan's most probable plans in the event of a war are made pretty clear by what weapons she posseses, and the local geography. There are a lot of land based anti-ship missiles in the world, and quite a few of them are in Iran. One look at a map reveals just how easily and clearly Iran CAN threaten to cut all movement in and out of the gulf. A look at Iran's geography gives a pretty good indication just how well she could withstand a war, or at least last a while. And lastly, a look at relative force sizes and sophistication, as well as arsenals reveals just how much damage each side could do to the other. I say "each side" because, although I often disagree with Orangetoms's opinions on global market forces, I think he's dead on this time. Iran would find few freinds if it attempted a war like that.

That said, it's no secret that all countries make war plans against all of thier potential adversaries. It's not an overt act of aggression so much as simply trying to be prepared. Going to war, (or having one brought to you) without a plan is the doom of nations.

The listed goals are all things which could hope to be accomplished in the short term, but have questionable sustainability. Wars these days seem to be fought almost more in the political arena than on battlefields, with peace talks occuring almost before hostilities comence. War, or the threat of war, is the biggest bargining chip. If a nation can accomplish three things on day one, and is willing to trade two of them for peace, it still comes out ahead. On the other hand, attacking the USN, closing the straits, or attacking Saudi Arabia are not ends in themselves, ut means to an end.

In summery, in the event of war, Iran would:
-Close the straits of hormuz as long as they could,
-Engage USN assets in the area,
-Threaten or attack Saudi Arabia to try and pressure the U.S. out
-Probrably be aiming for a very short war, and start negotiating for peace talks by the end of week one.

posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 02:25 PM
I recieved a document that the Iranians were going to come to the straights beaches and moon the US en masse , then they would throw rasberries and flip the bird...
disinfo or info... it sounds like a feasable plan... I can think of worse ones...

So what is the problem?
Does it surprise you that a potential enemy is actually
planning a defense and counterstrike?
it would be ignorant to think they weren't.

posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 03:32 PM
Hmmm...Have the Iranians been informed that we have an airforce yet?

Reading that whole article I was just thinking about how much of their military assets are going to be bombed to pieces within a few hours of declaration of war, including most of what they've included in this "plan". You know, like their ships and artillery sites that are mentioned over and over again.

Sooooo...that leaves mines and anti-ship missles.

posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 03:38 PM
Doubtless the Iranians are promising a "Mother of All Battles", just as Iraq did, I'm equally certain that all we'll see is a mother of all blown up nuclear reactor, accompanied by lots of random anti aircraft fire and video of soldiers firing AK47s out to sea followed by a Photoshop image of a World War II carrier sinking, and a large rent-a-mob burning US flags.

Without wanting to make light of a very dangerous situation, I would guess that as I type, an entire fleet of Tomahawk armed attack subs is preparing for action just outside the Straights of Hormuz. Let's say six subs with 16 VLS Tomahawks a piece, I would say that a night launch of 96 Tomahawk LAMs would put that main facility out of action for quite some time. The only problem is that the Navy is still somewhat conscious about showing that we don't always need carriers with expensive F/A18-Es to bomb things, so they tend to prefer a combined approach - let's call it dual justification of submarine and carrier borne assets.

But with subs only - there are no carriers to shoot at, no downed pilots to rescue, and no nuclear reactor.

I guess we'll see.

posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 04:06 PM
Winchester, that statement about the "rent-a-mob burning U.S. flags" almost made me fall out of my chair. Reminds me of the "How to Become a Member of Al-Queda in 5 Easy Steps" and "Terrorism for Dummies."

posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 09:12 PM
This is one reason Iranians dislike the US Government. Among others.

Iran Air Flight 655 (IR655) was a commercial flight operated by Iran Air that flew on a Tehran-Bandar Abbas-Dubai route. On July 3, 1988, the flight was shot down by the USS Vincennes on the Bandar Abbas-Dubai leg, resulting in 290 civilian fatalities from six nations including 66 children. There were 38 non-Iranians aboard.

The plane, an Airbus A300B2, registered EP-IBU, left Bandar Abbas at 10:17 am Iran Time (UTC+0330) that day, 27 minutes after its scheduled departure time of 9:50 am. It would have been a 28-minute flight. At that same time, the U.S. Navy guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes, fitted with the AEGIS combat system, was nearby in the Strait of Hormuz, which the commercial airliner, flown by captain Mohsen Rezaian, would pass over. In command of the Vincennes was Captain William C. Rogers III.

The event is related to the US response to the Iran-Iraq War; at the time of the incident, the Vincennes, in support of Operation Earnest Will, was within Iranian territorial waters, following combat with and pursuit of Iranian gunboats.

John Barry and Roger Charles, of Newsweek, wrote that Commander Rogers acted recklessly and without due care. Their report further accused the U.S. government of a cover-up. An analysis of the events by the International Strategic Studies Association described the deployment of an Aegis cruiser in the zone as irresponsible and felt that the expense of the ship had played a major part in the setting of a low threshold for opening fire. On November 6, 2003 the International Court of Justice concluded that the U.S. Navy's actions in the Persian Gulf at the time had been unlawful.

Three years after the incident, Admiral William Crowe admitted on Nightline that the Vincennes was inside Iranian territorial waters at the time of the shoot-down. This directly contradicted the official Navy claims of the previous years.

Captain David Carlson, commander of the USS Sides, the warship stationed nearby the Vincennes at the time of the incident, is reported to have said that the destruction of the aircraft "marked the horrifying climax to Captain Rogers' aggressiveness, first seen four weeks ago" - referring to incidents on June 2, when Rogers had sailed the Vincennes too close to an Iranian frigate undertaking a lawful search of a bulk carrier, launched a helicopter within 2-3 miles of an Iranian small craft despite rules of engagement requiring a four-mile separation, and opened fire on a number of small Iranian military boats.

Of those incidents, Carlson commented, "Why do you want an Aegis cruiser out there shooting up boats? It wasn't a smart thing to do." At the time of Rogers' announcement to higher command that he was going to shoot down the plane, Carlson is reported to have been thunderstruck: "I said to folks around me, 'Why, what the hell is he doing?' I went through the drill again. F-14. He's climbing. By now this damn thing is at 7,000 feet." However, Carlson thought the Vincennes might have more information, and was unaware that Rogers had been wrongly informed that the plane was diving.

Radio frequencies
Throughout its final flight IR655 was in radio contact with various air traffic control services using standard civil aviation frequencies, and had spoken in English to Bandar Abbas Approach Control seconds before the Vincennes launched its missiles. The Vincennes at that time had no equipment suitable for monitoring civil aviation frequencies, other than the International Air Distress frequency, despite being a sophisticated anti-aircraft warship. Subsequently U.S. Navy warships in the area were equipped with dialable VHF radios, and access to flight plan information was sought, to better track commercial airliners.

posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 09:28 PM
How close in would the LACM subs need to be to hit strategic targets in Iran.
Could they launch from the Mediterrenean to cover all of Iran?

This war a is big no no for the US, big ass Air Force or not.

I didn't know Iran had 3 Kilo Class subs(Proj 877EKM).
Yup..If they have decent submariners, we're in for a real naval war.
The first one since...since when?!

However the current state of these kilos is unknown.
Maybe one of the Iranian guys like Mehran can update us?

[edit on 1-3-2006 by Daedalus3]

posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 10:09 PM
If it was me I’d just send in an Ohio Class SSGN with 150 Tomahawks, I'd put her near the merger of the Gulf of Oman and the Persian Gulf and let her Tomahawks with 1000 mile range go to work. SSN’s could be sent in farther up of the Persian Gulf but I wouldn't recommend it. Combing this with the two land bases of the USAF on both sides of Iran and you have a vast amount of missile pouring in. Just in case you’re wandering the water is around 3000 meters deep at the mouth of the Persian gulf.

posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 12:34 AM
our seawolf class subs are probably right now trailing those 3 iranian subs. actually they are probably doing laps around them. some sailers probably mooning them as we speak.

doesn't a carrier battle group include at least one if not two attack subs. btw they can communicate with all the surface ships in real time.

posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 01:29 AM

Originally posted by bigx01
our seawolf class subs are probably right now trailing those 3 iranian subs. actually they are probably doing laps around them. some sailers probably mooning them as we speak.

Da...amerinietze!! tavarrish..

posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 04:44 AM
Could Iran's Kilo class subs evade US attack subs and anti-sub ships and torpedo a ship or carrier in a CBG? What are a CBG's anti submarine defences like? I've been told stories by former Aussie submariners about Aussie subs following undetected several hundred feet behind a CVN for hours at a time in quiet diesel subs during naval exercises with the USN. I'm relatively ignorant about this subject so would interested to hear what others have to say.

[edit on 2-3-2006 by JamesinOz]

posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 04:57 AM
Well Kilo class subs are supposed to be the quietest diesl subs out there.
They're really good no doubt.
But how well kept/operable the Iranian ones are, is debatable

posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 05:00 AM

anywhere yet, even though the accusation is deemed to be fabrication
The defector, Hamid Reza Zakeri, warned the CIA in July 2001 that Iran was preparing a massive attack on America using Arab terrorists flying airplanes, which he said was planned for Sept. 11, 2001. The CIA dismissed his claims and called him a fabricator.

I have never seen any reference to Iran/911 anywhere...even though this accusation is dismissed as fabrication. Someone could be planting a seed here!

Anyway, if this guy is a fabricator, why is this being treated as newsworthy??

posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 08:51 AM
Russia will also equip them with club-s anti-ship cruise missiles.
good for Iran

MOSCOW — Russia is reportedly in talks to upgrade three Iranian submarines, a $270 million deal that could revive the bilateral arms trade but further irritate the United States.

Rosoboronexport, the state-owned arms selling agency, is in negotiations to refurbish three Kilo-class diesel submarines and equip them with Club-S anti-ship missiles , Kommersant reported Monday, citing unidentified sources.

posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 09:35 AM
Some of you guys need to think this buisness about the Persian Gulf and the straights through alot more.

What you are intrested in is the depth of the water in the Gulf. The soundings. By this I mean the navigatable usable area with any depth to it for deep draft ships including submarines. THere is not that much usable area in the Gulf. It is a navigatable nightmare for submarines. Not that much deep water for maneuvering ..carriers either. Anyone in the Military buisness knows this.

What you are looking for is the operational patterns of diesel class submarines..when they must come up and snort to recharge. This is one of the times they are very vulnurable even if all they do is stick a snorkle up and mostly stay submerged. When they must come back to the piers..and where. This information is undoubtedly known already particularly about the kilo class boats. You can put the submarines up somewhere first on the list of numero uno. Why ...because the pucker factor in the event of a loose submarine is like numero uno also.."any type of submarine." This lesson has been brought home to many nations....explicitly by history.
Docking facilities are undoubtedly on the list also. Any drydocks...shipyards..Wharehousing et al. Dont you think this information is already known and catalogued??

Also I dont know the status as far as development of the Tomahawk missles far as deep penetration abilities. I am thinking this is better done by certain Aircraft...particularly stealth aircraft carrying specialized ordinance. Obviously any deep penetration warheads are specialilzed ordinance compared to point or surface detonation types.
The range I know about concerning submarine launched Tomahawk missles is about 800 to 1000 miles. This information may be out of date depending on what updates or modifications are current.


posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 09:37 AM
The tomahawk class cruise missles are not limited to being launched from submarines. They can also be launched from a variety of aircraft and surface ships. Many destroyers are modified for launch of these weapons.
We just often think of them being launched from submarines but this is not necessarily so.


posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 09:57 AM

Originally posted by orangetom1999
The tomahawk class cruise missles are not limited to being launched from submarines. They can also be launched from a variety of aircraft and surface ships. Many destroyers are modified for launch of these weapons.
We just often think of them being launched from submarines but this is not necessarily so.

just wondering if they could be launched from ground bases?


top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in