Iran warns oil blockade if sanctions imposed

When you threaten economic sanctions on a country that's already struggling to keep their noses above water, what the hell kind of reaction do you expect from them ?!

"When the people have nothing left to lose, they lose it."

Oil is the only leverage Iran has to fall back on, so they're trying to use it as just that. Unfortunately it'll backfire on them, but as they say: "Desperate times call for desperate measures".

Yup, can't help but feel pity for all those countries that have been cursed with large oil deposits beneath their feet... and we all know how countries with lots of oil and brown people get treated.



We Like War courtesy of George Carlin:

I must be missing something here? They have 3 options that I see:

1. Naval Blockade = too few ships and subs to physically block the 6 mile (normal) lane.
Escort the ships through and force Iran to attack or retreat.

2. Mine the Strait = an inconvenient slowdown/detour while the mines are detonated/removed.
Send in the minesweepers and force Iran to attack or retreat.

3. Threaten to sink shipping from shorebased platforms = Aegis anti-missle systems.
Escort the ships through and force Iran to attack or retreat.

Attack and untold numbers die or retreat and face regime change.

The only way to win the game is not to play.

I believe this whole conflict will come down to Russia... Russia has known interests in Iran and I feel its plausible to think that Iran wouldnt do anything unless they had assurance from Russia that they would intervene in the event a conflict began between the US and Iran...

Originally posted by Bearack

Originally posted by Observor
Funny how everyone of those quotes only refers to the state of Israel or Zionist regime. Don't see them referrong to wiping off Jews

If you still don't get it, may be example will help. The USSR is wiped off the map, but the people are still around.

/double take

Really??? The Soviet Union went into financial turmoil and went back to its original borders, releasing the city states back to their own sovereignty. How in the hell do you get Iran destroying Israel in the same breath of the Soviet Union returning states that we're not rightfully theirs to begin with????

That's the most asinine comparison I think I've ever seen!

It is quite exasperating! The comparison was strictly to the phrase 'wiping off the map', not the manner in which the wiping off happened.

OK. Let me try with another example. German Democratic Republic was wiped off the map in 1989, when it become part of the unified Germany. Similarly Israel can be wiped of the map, by forming a Palestinian state in historic Palestine (that includes Jordan as well) and many other ways that doesn't include killing off the people.

I'd need to see those sources to make my own determination how many nukes Israel has, but I'm fairly sure that a congressman from Texas isn't privy to Israelis classified information. Even if our president had this information, I don't think our congressman would but I could be wrong.

Don't remember claiming it was classified information. Even an internet search will reveal some numbers.

I'm also not advocating the Israel doesn't have nukes. I'm fairly sure they do.

Then Iran can't pose a threat to them, whatever their intentions.

reply to post by jhn7537


One cannot forget China, as well. Both Russia and China have said that they would not allow aggression against Iran. And while the US might make short work of the Iranian Navy (emphasis on "might", due to some weapons provided by the Russians that the US Navy should fear), the combined armed forces of Russia and China are not to be discounted so easily.

Originally posted by aRogue

Originally posted by camaro68ss
are the Iranians High? we can wipe out their whole navy with one sub.

edit on 27-12-2011 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)

Iran is a possible darkhorse. No doubt about that my friend. I wouldn't underestimate them just yet.

Not to mention what China and Russia will do if America flexes it's pill-popping muscles again...

LOL

A darkhorse? i hope you don't mean that they would be a threat of any kind, the US would annihilate the Iranian military within just a few months if that, that is all that's needed to shhh up, no boots on the ground required, just a reset switch for its military, Why should the Iranian people pay for there terrorist funding leaders, just hit the military targets until they couldn't mount a Naval blockade of against Somalian Pirates

I highly doubt China & Russia will get involved should it happen, simply because they are not that stupid and have likely thought things through better then Iran, the combined Navel units of the Western world would annihilate any chance of them ever trying to mount any realistic chance of "winning something they could not finish", sure they could pile troops into Europe over the continent but then they would also need superior air power & in numbers, "which they don't" in which case they only have troop numbers, poorly train at that... it will be lambs to the slaughter, so i highly doubt there going to be voicing much concern, if you think otherwise you're living in a dream world,


Lets all hope Iran gets a new leader soon with less aspiration for nukes & wiping Israel of the face of the earth, one that is also willing to be part of the solution and not the problem

Well if we were to attack them with sanctions, I would definitely consider them attacking back with an oil blockade A ok. There would be no call for attack on them. That is there country and what is in it is theirs. The US needs to learn its place, and that is not with their hands in the pockets of all those they currently steal from, including us and other countries. Honestly our government makes me feel like its one of those things, bullies if you will, that keeps on picking and picking on me and others and its about to get a fist in the balls by the unsuspected little guy. Rightfully so IMO. All this BS coming from all directions is starting to really tick me off.

Originally posted by CrikeyMagnet
reply to post by jhn7537

 

One cannot forget China, as well. Both Russia and China have said that they would not allow aggression against Iran. And while the US might make short work of the Iranian Navy (emphasis on "might", due to some weapons provided by the Russians that the US Navy should fear), the combined armed forces of Russia and China are not to be discounted so easily.

I agree... You never know how a country will react when their oil supplier is being attacked, because its safe to say that a war between US and Iran would likely cost countires like Russia and China a lot more to get their oil... If Russia waged war against say Saudi Arabia, I bet you the US would want to end it immidiately...

Originally posted by Observor

Originally posted by Bearack

Originally posted by Observor
Funny how everyone of those quotes only refers to the state of Israel or Zionist regime. Don't see them referrong to wiping off Jews

If you still don't get it, may be example will help. The USSR is wiped off the map, but the people are still around.

/double take

Really??? The Soviet Union went into financial turmoil and went back to its original borders, releasing the city states back to their own sovereignty. How in the hell do you get Iran destroying Israel in the same breath of the Soviet Union returning states that we're not rightfully theirs to begin with????

That's the most asinine comparison I think I've ever seen!

It is quite exasperating! The comparison was strictly to the phrase 'wiping off the map', not the manner in which the wiping off happened.

OK. Let me try with another example. German Democratic Republic was wiped off the map in 1989, when it become part of the unified Germany. Similarly Israel can be wiped of the map, by forming a Palestinian state in historic Palestine (that includes Jordan as well) and many other ways that doesn't include killing off the people.

Again, you're comparing apples to oranges here. Your talking of a philosophical demise versus a nation wanting to totally obliterate another.

If you’re fishing for a comparison, maybe look to the Rwanda genocide where the Hutus were nearly successful in eliminating an entire culture. Or even if you wanted to bash the US, you could only look at what we did to the Native Americans and the trail of tears.

Originally posted by Observor

Originally posted by Bearack
I'd need to see those sources to make my own determination how many nukes Israel has, but I'm fairly sure that a congressman from Texas isn't privy to Israelis classified information. Even if our president had this information, I don't think our congressman would but I could be wrong.

Don't remember claiming it was classified information. Even an internet search will reveal some numbers.

Yes, we know if it's on the internet, it's true..

Originally posted by Observor

Originally posted by Bearack
I'm also not advocating the Israel doesn't have nukes. I'm fairly sure they do.

Then Iran can't pose a threat to them, whatever their intentions.

Are you aware of the 12th Imam and the 12'ers. Well, it's a facinating story and ole Ahmadinejad just happens to be a 12'er.

Ahmadinejad has now said – and I quote – ‘The final move has begun. We are in the middle of a global revolution managed by the dear 12th Imam. A great awakening is unfolding. One can witness the hand of the Imam in the managing of it,’

War is the best thing to hasten the return of the 12th Imam.

Yup, can't help but feel pity for all those countries that have been cursed with large oil deposits beneath their feet... and we all know how countries with lots of oil and brown people get treated

or is it just countries who try to develop a nuclear weapons program?

There are plenty of other countries with large oil deposits and brown people, who are doing quite well while NOT threatening to wipe other nations off the face of the Earth, and while NOT developing nuke programs.

a) Iran doesn't have the naval power to effect a blockade

b) Iran doesn't have the legal authority to do so, it isn't the sole territorial owner of the waterway

c) They've made this threat in the past, and it's always been an empty one

d) They'd be cutting off their own foot by doing so as it would hamper THEIR ability to export oil (their primary revenue stream).

e) There's enough US firepower in the region to nullify such a threat, let alone any other nations who may join in (and it wouldn't surprise me if one or two carriers weren't on the scene or on the way)

f) there's many more reasons why this simply wouldn't work.

reply to post by jhn7537


The West can impose all the sanctions it likes..but seeing they get most of their stuff from Russia and China it dosn't really bother them. Russia and China might even talk sanctions but they never impose them.

Originally posted by Bearack

Originally posted by ken10

Originally posted by jhn7537

Originally posted by Bearack

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

Originally posted by jhn7537
I think Iran wants this fight and I'm pretty sure they're going to get it....

--------------
Yes, Iran can start a fight in the Strait of Hormuz.

Exactly, how many days could they shut down traffic in the Strait of Hormuz? 4 days?

2 weeks? When the short war is over, Irans navy will be 100% destroyed. Then what?

I think this image tells the story!




US 5th Fleet, mind you.

edit on 28-12-2011 by Bearack because: (no reason given)

And thats just a small part of the US Naval fleet... I honestly will never understand why other countries would want to go toe to toe with the US Military... Do people forget that our country spends nearly $1 trillion each year on building it up???

Yeah, its pretty invincible right.....

The uninvited guest.

That was a flub up for sure. But in fairness, that was the Kitty Hawk which was decommissioned in 2008 (IIRC) and the destroyer class ships that accompanied the Kitty Hawk also had antiquated radar. That was one of the primary reasons for its decommission. It was also not a super carrier class or even a Nimitz class carrier for that matter. Let's see a Chinese sub attempt this with the USS Ronald Reagan.

Here is my take, appologies for any errors as I have to keep it short...

The PLAN has sure gotten a lot of mileage out of the Type 039 Diesel/Electric boat commander having the intestinal fortitude to surface in the same hemisphere as a CVN battlegroup much less within weapons range.

Although ATS would never be accused of letting the facts get in the way of a good story, I would point out a bit more of the obvious that anyone with a passing interest in the subject should know as well.

The USN SOSUS has had the south pacific wired like a pinball machine for decades. Augmented with relevant SPAWAR system integration and heavily invested with new passive acoustic technology over the last decade with an eye towards containing a modern PLAN SSBN threat it is a safe bet that the USN has better intelligence on the disposition and movements of the PLAN submarine fleet at any given time than the PLAN.

As the SSBN leg of the nuclear triad is where the true balance of global power resides, ASW is one of the most highly classified programs in the military. The USN has a long history of keeping tight lipped in all areas concerning submarine operations. What that means in this context is just because you don't hear about them, the "silent service" of the USN can be depended upon to be on station and one step ahead of any perceived threat.

ASW is one of those technological arenas where the USN has enjoyed overwhelming superiority in all aspects from technology to operational doctrine for a very long time with no intention of allowing any other naval force an opportunity for parity in the foreseeable future.

It is a safe guess to bet that current attack submarine doctrine regarding the PLAN submarine fleet is not all that different from what the USN practiced against the Red Navy during the cold war. The USN attack submarines take advantage of the numerical and technological superiority to pick up the PLAN boats when they sortie and then shadow them without their knowledge for the duration of the PLAN Diesel/Electric submarines endurance (another advantage of the multi trillion dollar USN investment in an all nuclear submarine force) Diesel Electric boats such as the Type 039 do not have the performance or stamina to stalk a U.S. carrier group. The tactics used by a Diesel Electric boat would be more akin to having good intelligence on the Carriers planned movements and then ambushing the carrier within an existing choke-point

Another overlooked factor lost in the sensationalism of the Kitty Hawk vs.Type 039 story is that all U.S. Carrier groups operate with a group of usually 2 to 4 attack submarines in the role of ASW picket.

In a nutshell what it all means is a lot of smack talk over a non event for the USN but a brazen and arguably reckless maneuver by the PLAN sub commander.

Adm. Timothy J. Keating, the commander of U.S. Pacific Command, told reporters in Hong Kong on Feb. 18, (2009)...

Adm. Keating said his command is "very carefully" watching China's buildup of both nuclear-missile and attack submarines as well as diesel submarines, which number about 65 and are increasing their patrols farther from Chinese coasts.

He defended a security failure in 2006 when the aircraft carrier battle group led by the USS Kitty Hawk allowed a Chinese submarine to sail undetected within torpedo range of the ship.

"No danger presented to either," he said. "The carrier was in a very relaxed posture. If there were some heightened state of tension, we would, believe me, we would not let them get that close. But we are watching the submarine technology very carefully. We want them to understand that there are rules of the road, both figurative and literal, and it is very much in their best interest to observe and operate by those rules of the road."

China's military has rebuffed repeated efforts by Pacific Command and the Pentagon to reach a maritime agreement on naval operating rules.

The Chinese Embassy declined comment.

Inside the Ring/China intelligence gaps

The truth is that were the Carrier group on an alert footing, there would have been multiple sonobuoy pickets deployed from both carrier borne aircraft like the S-3B Viking, SH-60B Seahawk rotorcraft and long range land based P-3 Orion ASW patrols as well as active sonar search ( due to environmental concerns, active sonar transmission,arguably the most potent weapon in the USN ASW arsenal is not employed in peacetime outside of specialized weapon ranges and simulations.)

The story also fails to mention the multiple Seawolf/Virginia and Los Angeles class attack submarines attatched to the carrier group that would have been quietly refining their firing solutions the entire time the PLAN sub was show boating in addition to the bulk of the Carrier task force ASW surface picket.



(sorry about the scroll bars but the photo was not nearly as cool after it was re-sized )

Originally posted by Gazrok

Yup, can't help but feel pity for all those countries that have been cursed with large oil deposits beneath their feet... and we all know how countries with lots of oil and brown people get treated

or is it just countries who try to develop a nuclear weapons program?

Apparently not, because there are plenty of other countries developing nuclear weapons programs and/or already have them and we don't see everyone jumping up and down on soapboxes screaming for "economic sanctions" on them, do we ? A number of those countries aren't exactly our allies either.

And then of course we have the so-called "violation of human rights" (Syria as a current example) in other countries where the soapboxers are screaming for "economic sanctions", meanwhile several other countries have in the past or are currently doing the same damn thing but nobody screamed for "sanctions" on those countries (Bahrain, Rwanda, etc).

So why is that ?

Am I the only one who sees the common denominator with all the countries that have had sanctions enforced on them (versus the ones that haven't) in the past decade or so ?

Originally posted by CranialSponge

Originally posted by Gazrok

Yup, can't help but feel pity for all those countries that have been cursed with large oil deposits beneath their feet... and we all know how countries with lots of oil and brown people get treated

or is it just countries who try to develop a nuclear weapons program?

Apparently not, because there are plenty of other countries developing nuclear weapons programs and/or already have them and we don't see everyone jumping up and down on soapboxes screaming for "economic sanctions" on them, do we ? A number of those countries aren't exactly our allies either.

And then of course we have the so-called "violation of human rights" (Syria as a current example) in other countries where the soapboxers are screaming for "economic sanctions", meanwhile several other countries have in the past or are currently doing the same damn thing but nobody screamed for "sanctions" on those countries (Bahrain, Rwanda, etc).

So why is that ?

Am I the only one who sees the common denominator with all the countries that have had sanctions enforced on them (versus the ones that haven't) in the past decade or so ?

What other countries are you referring too? NK? Um, they've had sactions for decades. Countries that are a direct threat to the US and her allies will always be swayed from nuclear ambitions but there are some countries that really should not have a weapon of such destruction. NK and Iran and just 2 small samples.

reply to post by CranialSponge


That's just it, it isn't a "common" denominator, as we also impose sanctions on nations like North Korea for the same reason, which is neither oil rich, nor "brown people".

The West can impose all the sanctions it likes..but seeing they get most of their stuff from Russia and China it dosn't really bother them. Russia and China might even talk sanctions but they never impose them.

Very true, so in a sense, our threat of sanctions is our own saber rattling. Personally, I say let them spend their oil money on low-tech nukes that will do nothing but sit there...that's what nukes do best.

reply to post by Gazrok


Gazrok,

The common denominator is 'those that play ball' vs 'those that don't'.

It isn't so much the resources as it is the concept of capitalism.

You can easily see that the countries on the 'bad guy' list are not necessarily bad as they are different. Or even unwilling to change.

Look at Libya. Ghadaffi was not a good man, but he was far from the worst man. But, Libya was refusing to buy into western economic ideology, and even worse was convincing other African countries to do the same.

And that is very dangerous to our way of life. We need people at the top and people at the bottom to sustain our systems. If people stop being our 'bottom tier', they need to be 'convinced' or we need to have our own people take that spot.

This is a cry of protest for increasing sanctions. It amusing to see people bragging and gloating at the size of the american penis. We all know how big and useful it is and I'm sure Iran knows also. Please don't invoke war scenarios wwIII won't be comfortable place for any of us that survive it. It would be naive to underestimate Russia, China and Irans militarys' I'm sure they haven't been twidling their thumbs while US has been developing theirs. War will be fought on many fronts including cyber.

I knew it, one of our professors on universities in Serbia said this, they will block oil passage an will stop every supply they can find. Let's hope conflict wont occur.

It all depends on what kind of sanctions are imposed on Iran, if at all, because Russia, and China will veto any sanctions imposed on Iran at the U.N.

If sanctions, force the lifelines of the Iranian economy to collapse, just because they are building nukes, or if Iran's nuclear facilities are attacked, by the U.S. or Israel; I believe, that it is then justifiable for Iran to shut down the Straits of Hormuz. I believe, that Iran has the military capability to shut down the Straights of Hormuz, for months, if not years, even in the event of a conventional or nuclear war with the United States.

Originally posted by Suibom1974
reply to post by InsideYourMind

 

So effectively, you are not going to answer my questions? You dont want to bring up USA giving nukes to Israel? Or Troy Davis? Check Mate!

The US gave nukes to Israel in the form of "aid". Aid which goes towards the creation of weapons.
Aid which it can get whenever it wants, because the US simply coughs up cash to Israel 24/7.


As for the Troy Davis mention, i was trying to state in simple terms that there is no difference between:

A nation that kills one of its own citizens as a punishment for suspected adultery
A nation that kills one of its own citizens as a punishment for being a black suspect

In regards to nations which still use capital punishment, none are better than any other. The point was, somebody tried to claim that Iran should give up all of their nuclear capabilities (uranium enrichment) because of their legal stance on adultery.

If that were a valid reason for Iran to "stop" nuclear efforts (in the form of energy, not bombs). Then why won't the US get rid of every nuclear plant, weapon, bomb, and shell... because they do the exact same thing to their own citizens?

I'm simply making sense of what i have witnessed.

The truth here is that the US wants to install its own dictator to "lead" Iran, for the sake of free oil. This can only be done while there is no nuclear deterrent. Why? Because the US wouldn't risk invading a nuclear state because it's a coward.

Why haven't we seen them invade any nuclear states? Because a nuclear bomb is a bargaining chip.
The reason why the US and Israel will hold onto their "chips" for as long as they can. The hypocrisy is to "clean the world of nukes" except for themselves so they can dictate planet earth.

It is really that simple.