So, Iran has thumped its chest and threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz if the EU imposes an embargo on Iranian oil (means, not buy Iranian oil). The US has aircraft carrier groups in the area. What will happen? I certainly don't know, but it is interesting to speculate.
I don't think the US will allow the Iranians to close the Strait of Hormuz. If opening the Strait means sinking some Iranian boats, I don't think we will feel any compunction about that whatsoever. I kind of imagine our attitude is sort of like Clint Eastwood in the Dirty Harry movie: "Make my day, punk!"
Seriously, (1) we cannot countenance this action; (2) no doubt we would like to bust their lip after all their obnoxious braggadocio of late; and (3) we would no doubt like to cut their navy down. In fact, while this may not in fact happen, if it were me and I were moved to pull the trigger -- I would try to sink every boat they have on the water. Hey, you gave me the pretext . . . I'm gonna use it. I would start sinking the boats closest to the Iranian coast first -- sort of like shooting the furthest away ducks in an incoming flight first -- you'll have a chance later to shoot the closer ducks as they try to flee. You want to provoke me to put my fleet at risk and provoke me to shoot, I ain't takin' no prisoners so they can fight me another day.
Of course there is always room for reversals of fortune. Things can happen. What if something goes wrong and one Iranian missile hits and sinks a US aircraft carrier? Is this something that would be limited to a naval engagement only? What if we shoot down another Iranian commercial airliner? What if we don't shoot down the commercial airliner and it sinks a US aircraft carrier?
I would tend to advocate keeping a cool head, making it clear that I won't tolerate closing the Strait of Hormuz and will open it with overwhelming force if anyone closes it. Hopefully the Iranians are only talking jive. I don't see what they would have to win by such a grandstand action. They don't have many friends to stand beside them.
Who knows what The U.S. Is going to do with spineless president, the Dumbocraps are not going to spend a red cent doing what is right, they'd rather rape the American public with more social programs.
We ought to take over the strait; but we I'm sure we won't do anything but scream like a scalded dog!
Its a sad situation to be sure....and one that has, in part, been precipitated by the obvious idea that the pukes in power are flaccid and lacking in fortitude to do what needs to be done. Certainly, a 'strong' country does not get bullied by weaker ones, unless the strong one does not have the head for a challenge. Too bad....the American people, by their choice of Obama as president, have threatened the very existence of the republic.
With reference to both your replies, it sounds like you do not think Obama would undertake the "sink all Iranian boats, beginning with those closest to the Iranian coast first" strategy I mentioned. OK. It is quite possible few presidents would follow such an unyielding and opportunistic path.
Notwithstanding, I'm betting Obama will not allow the blocking of the Strait. If he is smart, he won't allow the Strait to be blocked any longer than it takes to scramble a squadron of jets to sink the subject blocking vessels -- I mean 20 minutes. Although now that I think about it, I don't know much about sea navigation or the Strait of Hormuz particularly. If several Iranian vessels were sunk in the Strait, could that itself block the Strait?
It will be interesting to see how it rolls out.
Hey, let me be the very first to observe that the second worst president in US history, Jimmy Carter, likewise had an embarrassing relationship with the Iranians. Has anyone else pointed out this oddity? Wasn't it kind of late in Carter's first and only term of office that the Iranians took and held a US commercial airliner and kept it hostage? Recall they released these hostages as Regan was being inaugurated. I guess they saw Regan's calendar entry for that day: 12:00, give Nancy dozen roses; 12:30, take oath of office; 1:00, blow up Tehran. If Obama got cross-ways of Iran here in the next month or so and muffed the deal that would be awfully similar in timing to Carter's fumbling.
In Carter's favor, however, the situation was a bit more volatile and dynamic. It seems like the Iranian revolution was actually taking place while he was in office -- the Shah of Iran coming down sick with Cancer, leaving Iran, Iranian revolution occuring in the subsequent power vacuum. My memory may be fuzzy here, so this paragraph may be riddled with error. Consider yourself warned. Also, another interesting link back to those thrilling days of yesteryear . . . some have said they thought the current Iranian president, Akmadeinajad (excuse my spelling), could have been one of the actual students involved in holding the American hostages. What did Santayana say, those who do not study history are condemned to repeat it? But I didn't think it would repeat in only 32 years!!!
Notwithstanding, I'm betting Obama will not allow the blocking of the Strait. If he is smart, he won't allow the Strait to be blocked any longer than it takes to scramble a squadron of jets to sink the subject blocking vessels -- I mean 20 minutes. Although now that I think about it, I don't know much about sea navigation or the Strait of Hormuz particularly. If several Iranian vessels were sunk in the Strait, could that itself block the Strait?
If they wanted to block the Strait, they would put out rocket-propelled mines.
Quote:
Hey, let me be the very first to observe that the second worst president in US history, Jimmy Carter, likewise had an embarrassing relationship with the Iranians. Has anyone else pointed out this oddity? Wasn't it kind of late in Carter's first and only term of office that the Iranians took and held a US commercial airliner and kept it hostage? Recall they released these hostages as Regan was being inaugurated. I guess they saw Regan's calendar entry for that day: 12:00, give Nancy dozen roses; 12:30, take oath of office; 1:00, blow up Tehran. If Obama got cross-ways of Iran here in the next month or so and muffed the deal that would be awfully similar in timing to Carter's fumbling.
They were taking their last stab at Carter to humiliate his presidency. It had nothing to do with Reagen. The negotiations were done.
Quote:
In Carter's favor, however, the situation was a bit more volatile and dynamic. It seems like the Iranian revolution was actually taking place while he was in office -- the Shah of Iran coming down sick with Cancer, leaving Iran, Iranian revolution occuring in the subsequent power vacuum. My memory may be fuzzy here, so this paragraph may be riddled with error. [snip]
He let the Shah in the U.S. for cancer treatment which was a mistake.
You raise some interesting points....my comments in red....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alsatian
With reference to both your replies, it sounds like you do not think Obama would undertake the "sink all Iranian boats, beginning with those closest to the Iranian coast first" strategy I mentioned. OK. It is quite possible few presidents would follow such an unyielding and opportunistic path.
I believe an tentative response would be followed by subsequent engagements resulting in losses for both sides. A failure on our part if we do not take the opportunity to obliterate that which we can.
Quote:
Notwithstanding, I'm betting Obama will not allow the blocking of the Strait. If he is smart, he won't allow the Strait to be blocked any longer than it takes to scramble a squadron of jets to sink the subject blocking vessels -- I mean 20 minutes. Although now that I think about it, I don't know much about sea navigation or the Strait of Hormuz particularly. If several Iranian vessels were sunk in the Strait, could that itself block the Strait?
It will be interesting to see how it rolls out.
WIth an average depth of 50 meters (approximately 150 feet ?) and a max depth of 90 meters, the sinking of anybody's warships can result in blocking the straits. That being said, once 'shots are fired', it will be up to us to sink all Iranian vessels in the immediate region. All of them. We would need first naval superiority then air superiority. I do not believe the Iranians can stand up to either air or naval forces so it should not be very long at before we take superiority of the T.O. Once that has happened, we can remove the scrap Iranian ships and reopen the straits.
Quote:
Hey, let me be the very first to observe that the second worst president in US history, Jimmy Carter, likewise had an embarrassing relationship with the Iranians. Has anyone else pointed out this oddity? Wasn't it kind of late in Carter's first and only term of office that the Iranians took and held a US commercial airliner and kept it hostage? Recall they released these hostages as Regan was being inaugurated. I guess they saw Regan's calendar entry for that day: 12:00, give Nancy dozen roses; 12:30, take oath of office; 1:00, blow up Tehran. If Obama got cross-ways of Iran here in the next month or so and muffed the deal that would be awfully similar in timing to Carter's fumbling.
I do not remember the airliner hijacking....
Quote:
In Carter's favor, however, the situation was a bit more volatile and dynamic. It seems like the Iranian revolution was actually taking place while he was in office -- the Shah of Iran coming down sick with Cancer, leaving Iran, Iranian revolution occuring in the subsequent power vacuum. My memory may be fuzzy here, so this paragraph may be riddled with error. Consider yourself warned. Also, another interesting link back to those thrilling days of yesteryear . . . some have said they thought the current Iranian president, Akmadeinajad (excuse my spelling), could have been one of the actual students involved in holding the American hostages. What did Santayana say, those who do not study history are condemned to repeat it? But I didn't think it would repeat in only 32 years!!!
I have heard that the little rat was identified as one of the scum who invaded U.S. territory and took U.S. hostages. I think Carter's flaccidity was obvious in his inability to get the hostages back for 444 days. The failed rescue attempt in the desert was not really his fault, i don't think, but the buck stops at his desk and he was CINC so he gets the 'frowny face' on an American embarrassment in the desert. The main similarities here are inherent weakness....Carter was a twinkie and Obama is of the same ilk...soft and squishy and not at all able to command respect from the savages.
Iran's navy, Strait of Hormuz, and EU embargo
