British PM warns Iranians only have a few days, page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 24 times


reply posted on 26-3-2007 @ 08:43 AM by JacKatMtn
I found this article saying acces to prisoners will be granted after investigations. Just posting FYI

Access To British Detainees In Iran After Investigations

Iran will grant British diplomats access to the 15 British detainees in Tehran after the end of investigations, the website of state-television IRIB quoted Monday Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki as saying.

Mottaki said in a phone conversation with his British counterpart Margaret Beckett from New York, that the marines would be allowed to meet British diplomats after investigations were concluded.

The British detainees are reportedly held in a secret place where even British diplomats had no access so far.

IRIB further quoted Mottaki as denying speculations over Iran's intention to exchange the British detainees with Iranian diplomats arrested by the United States in Iraq.




reply posted on 26-3-2007 @ 08:44 AM by WestPoint23
Originally posted by JacKatMtn
How would this affect the price per barrel, could we be looking at $6+ per gallon of gas?


Well, the US does not directly import crude form Iran, we have not done so for a long time. Currently we only import roughly 22% of our oil from the Persian Gulf with 90% of that coming from Iraq and Saudi Arabia. However given that you have a least a half dozen countries in the area producing and shipping 90% of their oil through the Straight of Hormuz the situation logistically and military could get messy. Western Europe, Japan and now Asia make up the bulk of the ME oil importers, they won't be too happy if that flow is disrupted and they will be affected a lot more than we will.

Iran only produces about, 2.6 million bbl/d or about 15% of the exports coming for the Persian Gulf area, statistically not that significant on the larger world scale. But because the way the market is structured and run (by speculative investors) the price of crude will inevitable go up and the effect on the global economy will not be pretty. How bad it gets depends on a lot of things namely time, effect on other gulf exporters and domestic government action.

It could work however since the vast majority of Iran's economy is based around their oil and natural gas exports... Out of all the non-diplomatic options available now I personally prefer this one over direct military action which this might lead to anyway. But at least we wont have to initiate it.


reply posted on 26-3-2007 @ 09:32 AM by WestPoint23
Originally posted by gottago
If there is an attack on Iran, it has to be launched by sea, and there the West is outgunned.


The bulk of it will be launched from the sea but not all of it, look at the map and notice all the USAF bases in the region not to mention we have CONUS reach anyway.

USAF Bases
USAF Instillations

Originally posted by gottago
We'd see some major naval hardware at the bottom of the Gulf in short order.


Yup, mostly likely Iranian (see Operation Praying Mantis).

Originally posted by gottago
Putin has given the Iranians and the Syrians the Sizzler/Sunbeam missile system...


It is not confirmed that Iran has either, they probably have a limited number of Sunburn (SS-N-22) missiles but no "Sizzler" (SS-N-27B) missiles.

Originally posted by gottago
...which the US Navy itself has admitted it is defenseless against.


I'll take those assumptions with a grain of salt, given that neither of these missile systems has ever seen combat their performance against US systems (SM-2ER, AEGIS, Phalanx, RAM, ESSM etc...) is questionable.

Originally posted by gottago
These missiles travel at Mach 2.5, fly about 40 feet above sea level, and have a range of about 200 miles.


Not all of them, they come in distinct variants and specifications. Have a read.

Originally posted by gottago
They can be land or sea based.


Again depending on the version...

Originally posted by gottago
They have such velocity that they can sink a Nimitz class carrier with a conventional warhead.


Uhh... no. A Nimitz class super carrier is the most survivable large military (surface) ship afloat. If (big IF) some missiles hit it would take several just to achieve a mission kill (meaning flight ops are canceled). I'm not even sure if you could sink a Nimitz class with only conventional cruise missile hitting above the waterline (you probably could but it would take a ridiculously high number).

Anyway, a few missiles are not going to win you a war and if the carriers are used/positioned correctly within the protection envelop of her escorts ships and fighters the risk of any missile attack can be greatly negated. These are just the defensive options, given that these coastal/ship batteries will be high on the list they will be some of the first to be disposed of.

Originally posted by gottago
This is why the Times (n.b. London) reported two weeks ago that at least a half-dozen senior US military will resign in protest if the go order is given on Iran.


Eh, I'm not much for sensational journalism, still Leavenworth has room for more people and the US military will not be greatly affected by any such loss. Anyway if I recall correctly those in question were in conflict over moral and personal beliefs not because Iran has ASCM's.

Originally posted by gottago
You'll see quite some Iranian arrogance; they'll try to humiliate the UK as much as possible, because they've got this up their sleeves. But in the end they'll let the Brits go and things will return to stalemate.


Yup, nothing but grandstanding and propaganda on Iran's part but their arrogance is due to their blinding ideology not secret technology. Iran's military (given it's not an occupation) stands no chance against the West whatsoever. Their efforts will be akin to giving someone with a sledgehammer a bee sting before they come down on you...

[edit on 26-3-2007 by WestPoint23]
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>    ^^TOP^^