It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Egypt to let Iranian warships through Suez Canal

page: 1
8

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Egypt to let Iranian warships through Suez Canal


edition.cnn.com

Egypt has agreed to allow two Iranian warships to cross through the Suez Canal in a move that puts the country's new military regime in a prickly position with its Israeli neighbor.

(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   
The approval had been expected. Canal officials say that under international agreements regulating traffic through the waterway, Egypt can only deny transit in case of war or if the ships do not meet safety requirements.

Still, contradictory statements earlier in the week on whether Egypt was considering the request for passage appeared to signal that Egypt's military rulers might be grappling with their first diplomatic dilemma.

Egypt is also wary of Iran's growing influence in the Middle East and has not had diplomatic relations with the country since the 1979 revolution.



edition.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   
I'm not doubting this, but i',m sure I read somewhere that the Iranians had changed their minds regarding the Suez?

I'll try and find the thread. I may be wrong.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by aarys
 




Egypt to let Iranian warships through Suez Canal


As far as I am concerned, The Iranian tugboat federation could sail through the White House bathtub. There is no declaration of hostilities right now and the Suez belongs to Egypt.

But that being noted, Iran has itself warned the Israeli Navy not to sail into the Persian Gulf or the Strait of Hormuz without expecting to be attacked. Turn about being fair play, Iran should expect the same in the Med...



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by redoubt
 


A lot of tit for tat, both are itching to strike the other, and if it where to happen, they would point fingers in opposite directions anyway. Seems pointless to flex different poses in each other's faces, if someone where to punch, they fought because they had differences, not because one country defended from another.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Would be interesting if Egypt "let them through" with or without Mubarak at the helm, eh?

For what it's worth, someone posted this article in a thread of mine a little while ago. It directly relates. tarpley.net...



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 05:03 PM
link   
Someone please explain to me why Iran would need to take warships through the Suez Canal?
Is this a message from Egypt to Israel?
edit on 18-2-2011 by SnakeShot because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   
Just days after Israel threatened to open fire on the iranian fleet if it attempted too. Israel is sat right in the middle of a jew hating muslim uprising accross all of its neighbouring countries.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
Would be interesting if Egypt "let them through" with or without Mubarak at the helm, eh?

For what it's worth, someone posted this article in a thread of mine a little while ago. It directly relates. tarpley.net...


Did you read the op? It says "Egypt to let Iranian warships through Suez Canal."

But I get it, I do. This isn't about your adding to the conversation, it's about you hijacking it.

So now that you know Egypt will let the warships through, pray tell, what do you think happens next?



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Califemme

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
Would be interesting if Egypt "let them through" with or without Mubarak at the helm, eh?

For what it's worth, someone posted this article in a thread of mine a little while ago. It directly relates. tarpley.net...


Did you read the op? It says "Egypt to let Iranian warships through Suez Canal."

But I get it, I do. This isn't about your adding to the conversation, it's about you hijacking it.

So now that you know Egypt will let the warships through, pray tell, what do you think happens next?

Um...yes, I read the OP and yes I addressed it. I think perhaps you've made an error.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity

Originally posted by Califemme

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
Would be interesting if Egypt "let them through" with or without Mubarak at the helm, eh?

For what it's worth, someone posted this article in a thread of mine a little while ago. It directly relates. tarpley.net...


Did you read the op? It says "Egypt to let Iranian warships through Suez Canal."

But I get it, I do. This isn't about your adding to the conversation, it's about you hijacking it.

So now that you know Egypt will let the warships through, pray tell, what do you think happens next?

Um...yes, I read the OP and yes I addressed it. I think perhaps you've made an error.


I've not made an error. You put quotation marks around "let them through."


Quotation marks can also be used to emphasise words, phrases or parts of text by the backing of another sense or meaning by which one wants the reader to interpret the statement or text in a way other than the one initially suggested, such as to convey irony.


Then, you wrote "someone posted this article in a thread of mine a little while ago. It directly relates." I clicked on your link, and there were about 20,000 words on the page. So, you wanted all of us to sit there and read all that? Couldn't you just add the part you liked to your post? That's why I said I thought you were "hijacking" the thread. If that was not your intent I apologise, but it seemed pretty evident from where I sit.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Mubarak. Egypt. Suez Canal Iran.

Directly relates. Yep. Yep.

Let me excerpt it for you since all the words at the link seemed to confuse you so much.

Headline:Mubarak Toppled by CIA Because He Opposed US Plans for War with Iran; US Eyes Seizure of Suez Canal; Was this the Threat that Forced Mubarak to Quit?

On February 11, other reports suggested that, in conjunction with the US moves, the Israelis were seeking to reestablish their siege positions in the so-called Philadelphia corridor in the Sinai between the Gaza strip and Egypt: “Egyptian media sources have confirmed reports from Israeli intelligence agencies that the US has moved some of its naval forces from the Fifth Fleet closer to the Suez Canal. It is feared that the situation in Egypt could spiral out of control and threaten navigation in the Canal.

Directly relates.

Sorry my quotes bothered you so much

edit on 2/18/2011 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by SnakeShot
 

There's such a big US/NATO presence in the Mediterranean, that the Iranian ships are not really a looming threat. However, that being said, they could still pull-off some kind of suprise attack (one-time anyway). They might be going into the Med. to imply to Isreal, that if the Isrealies reach out and bomb Iran's Nuclear facilities (or take some other provactive action), that these ships will be in place to perform some kind of counter-attack against Isreal.

However, I suspect that would just force Isreal (if they are considering any kind of attack on Iran), to also plan to take those ships out - either at the same time as an attack on Iran, or at least watch them closely after any such attack and be ready to take them out at a minute's notice.

That being said, I assume that US submarine(s) shadow Iranian warships whenever they leave the Iranian coastal area. So, there's probably a turpedo tube effectively (if not literally) aimed at them at all times anyway.

Here's a link to information about the current ships of the Iranian Navy:

List of current ships of the Iranian Navy

The break-down is roughly like this:

4x Frigates:
- 3x early 1970's US-built
- 1x recently Iranian-built

3x Larger Submarines
- 3x Russian built (late Soviet-era)

3x Destroyers:
- 1x former British WW2 era
- -2x former US WW2 era

3x Corvettes (all 1960's)
- 2x US-built
- 1x Dutch-built

24x Missle-Boats:
- 10x 1990's Chinese-built
- 10x 1970's/1980's
- 4x 2000's Iranian-built

A bunch of smaller submarines
A bunch of smaller "coastal-patrol" and "in-shore" (harbor-river) boats

It should be noted that while most of the ships are are really old, there are several newer Chinese-built ships, and several of the older ones have been upgraded with Chinese missle systems. This may include "Silkworm" missles.

PS: I suspect this is just posturing on the part of the current Iranian regime, in a (vain) attempt to take attention away from their internal issues. In the end, it probably has less to do with international affairs, and more about internal Iranian politics.

edit on 2011-2-18 by EnhancedInterrogator because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 04:42 AM
link   

The report said Egypt's army had been assured that the vessels, currently in the Red Sea, will not be carrying military equipment, nor nuclear or chemical contents.

The ships are understood to be heading for Syria.

Israel's Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman has described Iran's plans as "provocative."




posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


That site uses infowars as a source so I'm gonna just disregard that article.



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Throwback
 

Certainly your prerogative. That "site" also is a compilation of material from a lot of other sources. I understand that not everyone has the immediate knowledge on hand to discern what's valid and what's not nor the time to research.



new topics

top topics



 
8

log in

join