Thread: USS Abraham Lincoln sails into waters off Iran

Originally Posted by EagleAye

The sanctions are there to push Iran to accept IAEA inspections and full disclosure of it's nuclear program. By no means is it intended to starve the people of Iran or even destroy the nation. If Iran will open it's doors to the UN and proves it has no weaponization program, the sanctions can be lifted AND Iran can continue it's nuclear program. They can literally have their cake and eat it too. What's so difficult about that?

Iran claims to have a perfectly peaceful program yet refrains from proving it and consequentially the people of Iran suffer. It seems as though the Iranian leadership places the importance of a nuclear program above the health and safety of it's people. Does this make sense? A civilian nuclear facility should be there to enhance the lives of Iranians, not harm them. How is it possible for the Iranian leadership to condone the suffering of Iranians because they refuse to reveal the nature of something harmless?

It points to two possibilites: 1) Iran actually does have a weapons program and a detailed inspection would reveal it, or 2) The Iranian leadership cares more for its own prestige and nothing for the health and safety of its people.

RoccR has I think already described the situation in another thread but it is all described here Iran's Nuclear Program by Muhammad Sahimi . David Milliaband has made it quite clear that with murders and cyber war, never mind the recent explosions, Iran has been kept very well under control and that the West has sufficient ability to know if there was any danger which they are well aware is a few years off leaving plenty of time for diplomacy. Just about everyone has said they know she has not even decided to build them yet so to take economic measures which will cripple her because you are afraid of what she may some day do, does not impress me. Milliband called it sleepwalking into war.

I am not sure why they want to attack Iran but that is what I think they do. If Iran hits first she can be totally destroyed and it would be less likely that the Russians join in. If however any of the Nations who are currently together intimidating her fire one shot at Iran, we shall see.

Mean time you are ruining the economy of Iran and harming her people.

I doubt, even if they manage regime change that they will be interested in ties to Europe after this.

Now I don't know what people are up to but I do know it has nothing to do with nuclear weapons because the only thing that is likely to come out of this is that people will starve until Iran gets the blinking things and tells the West to skedaddle. It seems to excite you a lot. It concerns me a great deal.

If you want to be terrified of the Mad Mullahs and their puppet Imadinnajacket, that's certainly your right. And if you actually believe that Russia would engage in a potential nuclear exchange to protect an Islamic fundamentalist state, that's also your perogative.

You certainly seem to have no difficulty in swallowing everything that comes out of Iran as holy writ.

Puzzling.

Originally Posted by alexa

RoccR has I think already described the situation in another thread but it is all described here Iran's Nuclear Program by Muhammad Sahimi . ...

Originally Posted by Wiggen

.....
You certainly seem to have no difficulty in swallowing everything that comes out of Iran as holy writ.

Puzzling

One can't help but notice alexa's repeated/Near-unique use of Mohammed Sahimi on this issue.
Muhammad Sahimi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"...In his writings on Iran's nuclear program Sahimi has also expressed the view that the United Nation's Security Council sanction resolutions against Iran are illegal.[26]
Because of his Strong Support for the Islamic Republic of Iran's nuclear program and the Similarity of his arguments to those used by the Iranian government in its IAEA submissions,[27] he has been accused of being close to the government in Tehran.
Sahimi has denied these accusations, but has stated that his articles have been used without his knowledge by members of the Iranian political establishment including Ayatollah Rafsanjani.[28]

http://nationalinterest.org/profile/muhammad-sahimi

Muhammad Sahimi is a professor at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles and lead political columnist for the website Tehran Bureau. He also contributes regularly to Huffington Post and Antiwar.com.

The penny drops. Thanks for the information.

Originally Posted by alexa

...David Milliaband has made it quite clear that with murders and cyber war, never mind the recent explosions, Iran has been kept very well under control and that the West has sufficient ability to know if there was any danger which they are well aware is a few years off leaving plenty of time for diplomacy...

Now I don't know what people are up to but I do know it has nothing to do with nuclear weapons because the only thing that is likely to come out of this is that people will starve until Iran gets the blinking things and tells the West to skedaddle. It seems to excite you a lot. It concerns me a great deal.

If you don't know what people are up to, then how can you know that it doesn't include nuclear weapons? If you accept it when Iran says they haven't decided to build nukes, wouldn't you also accept it when Iran says the killing, the explosions, and cyberwar have NOT stopped anything? I mean, if you're going to accept what Iran says why not accept the whole thing?

Maybe it has worked, maybe not. Maybe the intelligence estimates are accurate, and maybe they're not. You and I and anyone else cannot be certain no matter how many articles are written either way. To be wrong could be catastrophic, and Iran won't let anyone close enough to verify either conclusion.

Lastly, if "Iran gets the blinking things and tells the West to skedaddle," the very last thing that will happen is the West will go away. It will absolutely, positively, incontrovertibly GUARANTEE an attack on Iran, and something far worse than limited strikes, and not from just the US and Israel. Iran's big talk doesn't scare anyone as evidenced by the cruise of the Abe Lincoln, British warships, and soon -- Israeli warships.

Iran needs to understand that strikes haven't happened because the West truly is banking on diplomacy resolving the issue. It isn't out of fear as you may be thinking. Nothing Iran can say, even with nukes in hand, can scare the Western powers out of direct action. Iran's possible threat to use a nuke could not completely destroy any nation, including Israel, and using one it could only guarantee massive retaliation and the certain death of all of Iran's leadership. So any such threat is an empty one.

Originally Posted by Manc Skipper

France and Britain have also sent warships through the Strait this weekend. Plenty of sabre-rattling to go around.

Iran's empty rhetoric was meant to fool USA and other natons into sending warshps through the Strait at taxpayers expense. I like to see some action instead of just going on a cruise.

Originally Posted by RDS

Iran's empty rhetoric was meant to fool USA and other natons into sending warshps through the Strait at taxpayers expense. I like to see some action instead of just going on a cruise.

I wonder what the cost is for turning around? I mean in terms of $$$ I don't think it would matter if they simply reroute from another location (like going through the straights rather than into Indian ocean and up to Japan). I mean you figure these ships are out to see for a few years and then docked for a year for repairs. I don't think it costs that much more money to do an about face. They have already been budgeted to be out to sea.

Originally Posted by RDS

Iran's empty rhetoric was meant to fool USA and other natons into sending warshps through the Strait at taxpayers expense.

As noted above, what's with the idea that the ships would otherwise be idle? This is senseless Iranian propagada.

Originally Posted by stonewall50

I wonder what the cost is for turning around? I mean in terms of $$$ I don't think it would matter if they simply reroute from another location (like going through the straights rather than into Indian ocean and up to Japan). I mean you figure these ships are out to see for a few years and then docked for a year for repairs. I don't think it costs that much more money to do an about face. They have already been budgeted to be out to sea.

Originally Posted by ecofarm

As noted above, what's with the idea that the ships would otherwise be idle? This is senseless Iranian propagada.

There is an armada of warships in the area. What are they waiting for? Will someone fire the first shot so that gas prices will go spiralling.

Originally Posted by RDS

There is an armada of warships in the area. What are they waiting for? Will someone fire the first shot so that gas prices will go spiralling.

Two strike groups. With a base for one nearby. Probably the new group will be going into port and the other elsewhere. What are they waiting for? You don't know?

Tensions in the Gulf could reach a breaking point as a senior Iranian official said Iran would “definitely” close the Strait of Hormuz if an EU oil embargo disrupted the export of crude oil.

Mohammad Kossari, deputy head of parliament's foreign affairs and national security committee, issued the warning in respone to a decision by the European Union on Monday to impose an oil embargo on Iran over the country’s alleged nuclear weapons program.

“The pressure of sanctions is designed to try and make sure that Iran takes seriously our request to come to the table,” EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton said.

However, with Washington’s decision to deploy a second carrier strike group in the Gulf, the EU’s attempt to pressure Iran economically could greatly increase the likelihood of all-out war in the region.

Iran 'definitely' closing Strait of Hormuz over EU oil embargo — RT

I'm not familiar with the source. The title is misleading, missing the 'if'.