AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums

Full Version: Gulf of Hormuz
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
Should the US protect the shipping through the gulf of Hormuz?

The rest of the world sits idly, except for the latest resolution to abjure Iranian oil. The good ol' US comes to the rescue.

If the US developed its oil reserves (not possible quickly), then we could let the rest of the world worry about it.
Nope. We have oil and gas here. Let them weld it shut for ages for all I care.
As a principle enforcing free sea movement, yes, but, as a means to protect the flow of oil no.

We have our own resources, it seems unbelievably immoral to me to recruit, train and dispatch naive Americans to be willing to kill and be killed for this oil supply when we won't exploit first supplies outside that continent.

I think China is customer #1, they can handle this if they need to.
Why does everyone insist that all of the nonsense in the ME is about "oil" and its supply with respect to the US. The US is not the protetor of the "Spot Market" in Amsterdam, nor is the issue "freedom of the seas". Besides after 60 years of rhetoric with the North Koreans one should be totally blaise over international realities such as this one.
IMO if it takes the Gulf of Ormuz to be shut for a few weeks or one month and cause a temporary rise of oil price to $200 a barrel, I'm all for it if it can help destroy the Iranian nuke program.

So my answer is NO.
The US should NOT ensure free passage for ships through the Straight of Ormuz: It should bomb Iranian nuclear installations not regarding of the temporary consquences.

Because nobody will think seriousely that the Straight will remain closed for more than a few days.
It's an issue which will be resolved very quickely. But traders will love it.
Iran's ability to close the straits, if opposed by any modern navy, is a joke. We could sink everything they own in less than 24 hours, including their subs.
http://www.rense.com/general80/hormuz.htm

This indicates it is 21 miles wide at the narrowest point. That's wider than Gibraltor and the Med is, but, they could create havoc if determined to. Even if they failed, it would drive the BOPD wild. They surely have missiles on land that can hit a ship from 10 miles away, so their navy isn't the only possibility they have if they also have S-300s from Russia to protect missile sites(don't know about that).


DR,

If it isn't for oil, what is our interest since 1947 patrolling the Gulf?
(01-07-2012, 06:02 PM)Palladin Wrote: [ -> ]http://www.rense.com/general80/hormuz.htm

This indicates it is 21 miles wide at the narrowest point. That's wider than Gibraltor and the Med is, but, they could create havoc if determined to. Even if they failed, it would drive the BOPD wild. They surely have missiles on land that can hit a ship from 10 miles away, so their navy isn't the only possibility they have if they also have S-300s from Russia to protect missile sites(don't know about that).


DR,

If it isn't for oil, what is our interest since 1947 patrolling the Gulf?

Palladin, the US Navy no more patrolled the Gulf of Ormuz in the 1940s than Mussolini consolidated Italian East Africa! You are projecting the 60s and 70s back to a period when "Foggy Bottom" premised the chore belonged to the "Brits". Shall I mutter "Diego Garcia"?

Palladin, mining the gulf seems to be an easy task. Am I correct? This would stop tankers. Possibly it could be done quickly.

I'll go along with Fredle...: A successful closing of the Gulf would wake up Europe and even China and India who are clients of Iranian oil. Perhaps a spinal column would start to grow.

There is no doubt in my mind that the first response of the US would be to delete Iran's oil refineries and offshore platforms. You cannot run an army without gasoline. The nuclear facilities need be no more than an after thought since they are not a present danger. I think naval bases and air defense facilities would come secondarily, after oil has been made scarce.
So again, why would Iran close the Straits? They would lose everything. I would imagine within a week, riots would remove the current leadership and possibly the Mullahs. What could they gain from all this?
Quote:They surely have missiles on land that can hit a ship from 10 miles away,

Yeah, for about thirty minutes after we decide to take them out. The S-300's that Iran may have (there are differing opinions on this) are first gen systems. They pose little to no threat against the modern stealth aircraft that would decimate them in short order. The Iranians have no ability to stop the US from maintaining air superiority over their country any time we wish.

They could mine the straits. That would hurt them, since it would almost certainly piss off all their neighbors. This is more sabar rattling from a true military paper tiger. Iran's military, particularly their navy and air force, is not their strength, when compared to the US. They get far more mileage by funding terrorists.
I remember reading an article a few years ago about these fast one person crafts that Iran was developing. The idea was that they could get up close to a ship and bomb it or swarm with a bunch of these to take out a carrier. I can't imagine them being able to do anything long term to our navy, I'm afraid all of this is being used as a pretext for yet another invasion of a Middle Eastern country, probably right before the elections get under way.
It is very unlikely that the US would invade Iran, but if Iran blocks the Straights, it would be an opportunity to take out the Nuclear sites and as much of their military as is necessary to accomplish the mission and protect the Straits of Hormuz.
Not only take out nuke sites, but wipe out the bulk of their military from a distance, without ever putting boots on the ground.
Why would it be an opportunity if they block the Straits? We clearly do whatever we want to do when we feel like doing it. Using this Straits situation as an excuse means nothing to a world that knows full well that we coerced Iran into making these decisions.
Huh? Actually, the world knows that Iran is illegally developing nuclear weapons and lying about it and most countries want them stopped.
Then those countries need to take care of bidness. We should take the day off and save ourselves a few bucks.
Little off topic, but, this murdering of non military personnel won't work.

http://news.yahoo.com/iran-sends-rare-le...11574.html

http://www.jpost.com/NationalNews/Articl...53550&R=R2

I don't know what Iran has here, but, it is real easy to murder an unarmed person. If they have any agents at all in this area, I could personally be a witness to such a murder. Luckily for me, no one would mistake me for a scientist.

If this is Israel they need to take the retaliation for this. Shooting people going to work might be acceptable during say WWII, this is immoral and can end up getting some of our innocents shot.
So? If this is what Israel thinks it needs to do to protect itself, what's the problem? If they get caught, I'm sure Iran will have some retaliation, but since Iran can't prove it yet then screw them. If Iran starts ratcheting up its attacks on Israel through Hamas or Hezbullah proxies, then it will be pretty clear that taking out the nuke scientists has been pretty successful. More successful than aerial bombing, IMO.
It's murder is the problem for starters. Second, even I can murder an unarmed man, so retaliation won't even need a highly skilled operation.

If you were a highly regarded scientist and you got shot driving home Monday over this, your wife and kids might not like that.

I bet any scientific types hope they're not well known right now over here. Even I can drive up to your car and shoot you and if I can do it, anyone can. Murdering unarmed civilians isn't going to work. If it happens to us it's terrorism, remember?

We've spent a decade of senseless wars over this stuff, Israel has no right to murder people in civilian work IF it's Israeli managed, I tend now to think it is.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NA14Ak01.html
Pages: 1 2 3