• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iran is heating up . . . [W:259]

Iran will close the straight in response to any attack.

For about 10 minutes. The US has made clear that such is an act of war violating standing UN regs and permitting multilateral military action without formal resolution. If Iran persists after losing control of the corridor, it could be the end of the regime's miltary.
 
Iran will close the straight in response to any attack. Our current economy cannot withstand oil prices going nuts. I'd like to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons if possible, but starting a war is simply too costly to justify. Diplomacy and covert action are the sensible options at this point.

How do they close the Strait?
 
How do they close the Strait?

They can use fast attack craft, aircraft and submarines to attack passing vessels, but those are relatively easy to deal with. The real problem would be mines and land based anti-ship missiles. If the Iranians are really clever, they will submerge heavy torpedo's along the coastline.

Keep in mind, the Iranian don't have to stop warships, but rather giant slow unarmed unarmored targets filled with flammable materials. Even worse, tankers are crewed and operated by civilians who have no tolerance for risks to their lives or finances. It would be easy to attack Iranian nuclear sites, but very difficult to make the strait safe enough for commercial traffic.
 
Probably the only way we would put boots on the ground other than rescue missions for downed pilots would be if the oil fields were ignited and we had to provide protection for the teams to go in and put those things out. Rumor has always been that Iran maintains explosives on their well heads and have vowed to blow up everyone if the US ever attacks it. I am skeptical that is true, but some could go up with all the ordinance flying around.

Its probably true.. or they have thermite stashed nearby and readily accessable.
 
They can use fast attack craft, aircraft and submarines to attack passing vessels, but those are relatively easy to deal with. The real problem would be mines and land based anti-ship missiles. If the Iranians are really clever, they will submerge heavy torpedo's along the coastline.

Keep in mind, the Iranian don't have to stop warships, but rather giant slow unarmed unarmored targets filled with flammable materials. Even worse, tankers are crewed and operated by civilians who have no tolerance for risks to their lives or finances. It would be easy to attack Iranian nuclear sites, but very difficult to make the strait safe enough for commercial traffic.


New pipelines that bypass the strait are coming on line. The Iranian threat of "cutting the West's jugular" is weaking by the day. That said it is clear that the sanctions are working and Iran will need to change it's tune on nuclear expansion or face the wrath of the Iranian people. The threats of attacking Iran only serve the Govts purpose of keeping the people afraid of the West.

The new links will more than double the total pipeline capacity bypassing the strait to 6.5m barrels a day, or about 40 per cent of the 17m b/d that transits Hormuz.
The geopolitical importance of the strait is such that Cyrus Vance, former US secretary of state, called it “the jugular vein of the West”. Over the weekend Ali Fadavi, naval commander in Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guard Corps, said Tehran had the ability to “not allow even a single drop of oil to pass” the strait.
Abu Dhabi and Riyadh say the pipelines are not a direct response to Tehran’s threats. But oil traders and scholars say they are clear counterweight. “Multiple pipelines would partly negate the Iranian threat to block [the Strait of] Hormuz,” said Rafael Kandiyoti, senior research fellow at Imperial College London and author of Pipelines: Oil Flows and Crude Politics. “Showing increasing pipeline capacity suits the purposes of Saudi Arabia.”
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/4203f88c-ce83-11e1-9fa7-00144feabdc0.html#axzz27hToCydt
 
We should have bombed them long ago, if they were busy rebuilding roads bridges and factories they would have no money left for their nuke program. Then as soon as they rebuild, bomb everything again until they say uncle. it would be so freakin simple if we had a pres with any umm how should I say this to not get an infraction, round things.

Have you thought this through? Have you looked at a map? There are NO winners in the bomb Iran scenario.
 
New pipelines that bypass the strait are coming on line. The Iranian threat of "cutting the West's jugular" is weaking by the day. That said it is clear that the sanctions are working and Iran will need to change it's tune on nuclear expansion or face the wrath of the Iranian people. The threats of attacking Iran only serve the Govts purpose of keeping the people afraid of the West.


Pipelines bypassing Hormuz open - FT.com

While the pipelines do mitigate the problem somewhat, they still are not yet capable of providing enough oil if Iran closes the strait. There is also the possibility of Iran attacking the pipelines with missiles in the event of a war. For the time being, attacking Iran would have severe consequences.
 
Have you thought this through? Have you looked at a map? There are NO winners in the bomb Iran scenario.

Except the Iranian people.
 
They can use fast attack craft, aircraft and submarines to attack passing vessels, but those are relatively easy to deal with. The real problem would be mines and land based anti-ship missiles. If the Iranians are really clever, they will submerge heavy torpedo's along the coastline.

Keep in mind, the Iranian don't have to stop warships, but rather giant slow unarmed unarmored targets filled with flammable materials. Even worse, tankers are crewed and operated by civilians who have no tolerance for risks to their lives or finances. It would be easy to attack Iranian nuclear sites, but very difficult to make the strait safe enough for commercial traffic.

Iran would have to use their navy, including the fast attack craft, to close the strait. That means that the US Navy would engage them immediately. It wouldn't take long before Iran didn't have a navy any longer, and the strait would reopen.
 
The US would never allow the strait to be closed on principle alone. Iran will not be permitted to hold its neighbors hostage. The US would destroy those heavy guns in no time, and their clunky diesel subs are not exactly stealthy, and as soon as Iran attacked a US ship, the flight line from Turkey would be saying Howdy.
 
Iran would have to use their navy, including the fast attack craft, to close the strait. That means that the US Navy would engage them immediately. It wouldn't take long before Iran didn't have a navy any longer, and the strait would reopen.

Iran does not need a navy to close the strait. The entire strait of Hormuz is within range of land based anti-ship missiles.
 
Which would last about 15 minutes.
 
Which would last about 15 minutes.

Anti-ship missiles are tiny, easily capable of being concealed inside a commerical truck. Keep in the mind that we couldn't stop Iraqi SCUD missiles in the Gulf War, and those are an order of magnitude larger in size and firing signature.
 
Anti-ship missiles are tiny, easily capable of being concealed inside a commerical truck. Keep in the mind that we couldn't stop Iraqi SCUD missiles in the Gulf War, and those are an order of magnitude larger in size and firing signature.

Thing is, they cannot be launched from a commercial truck. They need a specific kind of launching system. Add to it that they must use radar to target the ship they're after, and these missiles are about as easy to find as a spotlight in a closet. SCUDs didn't employ radar targeting.
 
Why? Don't you want the Iranian people to be free of the mullahs?


BTW, don't let the saber-rattling scare you. Before we took Iraq down, people were saying "OMG! WW3!!!" and "Nukyuler Epoxyclips!" and "Oh they'll shoot missles at Israel and the whole Middle East will go up in FLAMES!!! Russia and China will get involved!! EEK!!" and so on....


Didn't happen.
goshin ,i hope so ,but ıraq was teh first step taken for the greatest aims :))
 
It wouldn't take long before Iran didn't have a navy any longer, and the strait would reopen.

If the Iranian regime even began moving assests in such an effort, they'd lose their military almost overnight.
 
If Obama wins and has to take down Iran, I hope the democrats will then realize and admit that it would have been 10 times more difficult if Saddam Hussein was still in Iraq. I have always thought that was part of the rationale behind closed doors though I have zero evidence of it. It was just the more logical conclusion I could reach.

If I'm not mistaken wasn't Iraq and Iran mortal enemies?
 
Iran: We Can Hit 35 US Bases in 'Minutes' - ABC News

This may be the next President's first challenge. So help me God!! If we send troops in there, I'm marching in the streets.

maggie,i dont like the iranian regime and the other islamist ones,but the new arabian spring has been supported by usa government and now we see they are turning into an islamic spring .i mean ,i cant believe america's aim is just to bring here a democracy.it was the same america which gave a great support to our radical morons..........
 
Which would last about 15 minutes.

I figure the Iranian regime would have at least a couple Warhol minutes after they tried that, so I put it at (~)10.
 
If I'm not mistaken wasn't Iraq and Iran mortal enemies?

Do you think the US having to deal with an Iraqi invasion by Saddam of a beaten down Iranian military would bring stability to the region. Saddam would have used any attack by the US as an opportunity to make a run on Iran's oil fields.
 
Do you think the US having to deal with an Iraqi invasion by Saddam of a beaten down Iranian military would bring stability to the region. Saddam would have used any attack by the US as an opportunity to make a run on Iran's oil fields.

No I don't think Saddam would have been a really big dumbass and attacked Iran when the US was currently beating their asses...
 
No I don't think Saddam would have been a really big dumbass and attacked Iran when the US was currently beating their asses...

While you may disagree, I would have bet that Saddam's military would have invaded the second the US cleared Iranian airspace; Iran would have repelled and driven itself into Iraq and we would have spent 10 years and a trillion dollars beating both of them back into their corners because we hate Saddam and Iran and would go back into that balance of power strategy playing both sides we used before to keep neither of them from winning their prior war against the other.
 
If I'm not mistaken wasn't Iraq and Iran mortal enemies?


Yes they are our mortal enemies.

You libs just don't understand foreign policy.

You want to talk with the other nations. That's the wrong way to do things. We have bombs to do our talking.

America is starting to miss George W. Bush.
 
Thing is, they cannot be launched from a commercial truck. They need a specific kind of launching system. Add to it that they must use radar to target the ship they're after, and these missiles are about as easy to find as a spotlight in a closet. SCUDs didn't employ radar targeting.

C-802's are truck launchable, one was used by Lebanon in 2006. Targets in the strait can be acquired visually, the fire control radar only needs to be turned on for a few seconds to get a lock. There isn't enough time to eliminate the launcher with an HARM before it can fire.
 
While you may disagree, I would have bet that Saddam's military would have invaded the second the US cleared Iranian airspace; Iran would have repelled and driven itself into Iraq and we would have spent 10 years and a trillion dollars beating both of them back into their corners because we hate Saddam and Iran and would go back into that balance of power strategy playing both sides we used before to keep neither of them from winning their prior war against the other.

I do disagree. I think if we would have invaded Iran first. Saddam would have sat on his ass watching. I would agree that saddam probably would have loved to go in right after we left, however, I still think he wouldn't have been that stupid. If the US just defeated Iran and set up a democratic style gov't there, do you really think Saddam would be so foolish to run in there guns blazing? He'd be committing suicide, because right thereafter the US would have bitchslapped him too..
 
Back
Top Bottom