• 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 sends warships to Gulf of Aden - navy

American

American

Trump Grump Whisperer
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
96,099
Reaction score
33,418
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Link

Mon May 25, 2009 5:43pm IST

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran has sent six warships to international waters, including the Gulf of Aden, to show its ability to confront any foreign threats, its naval commander said on Monday.
Admiral Habibollah Sayyari, quoted by the ISNA news agency, made the announcement five days after Iran said it test-fired a surface-to-surface missile with a range of 2,000 km (1,200 miles), putting Israel and U.S. bases in the area within reach.
Iran said on May 14 it had sent two warships to the Gulf of Aden to protect oil tankers from the world's fifth-largest crude exporter against attacks by pirates but ISNA did not make clear whether they were among the six Sayyari talked about.
Iranian waters stretch along the Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz and the Sea of Oman. Iran has threatened to block the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 40 percent of the world's traded oil is shipped, if it were attacked over its nuclear programme.
"Iran has dispatched six ... warships to international waters and the Gulf of Aden region in an historically unprecedented move by the Iranian Navy," Sayyari told a gathering of armed forces officials, IRNA reported.
Sayyari said that preserving Iran's territorial integrity in its southern waters called for the "perseverance and firmness" of the navy.
The move to dispatch the warships "is indicative of the country's high military capability in confronting any foreign threat on the country's shores," Sayyari said.
Click to expand...
Well, I guess the diplomatic approach isn't going to work. What's Hillary doing about this?
 
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_Iranian_Navy_Vessels"]List of current ships of the Iranian Navy[/ame]

Doesn't look like she needs to do much. A stiff sneeze will pretty much sink the Iranian navy.
 
A BMW with really loud speakers probably has more firepower then the Iranian navy.
 
obvious Child said:
Pretty much. If you understand the geography (which I'm guessing 95% of the people here don't), four large old container ships pose far more of a threat than Iran's entire navy.
Click to expand...

They are headed for the Strait of Hormuz, which has enough navy around it to end any threat Iran might pose. I forget all the straits on the route to the Arabian(Persian) Gulf, but that was one of them.
 
I am Iran's Navy, and I am hurt (emotionally) by all the things said here.

So what if I am small, poorly equipped, and less experienced? It's not about the size, nor the strength, it's about how effective the admiral is behind the sea-men. I can drive my navy down the Mississippi river, if need by, and not even touch her Canal wall's.



:rofl
 
Myself, I think it's a great move. For more reasons than one.

1. I think more ships should be in the Gulf of Arden protecting/escorting valuable cargo passing through from pirates.

2. It brings their Navy out in the open to observe and study.

3. If they are there, they can't be anywhere else. Sitting ducks, if you will. Meanwhile, the underside of their belly is left partially exposed.

Just your usual pan-arab sabre rattling politics. Must be close to election time over there.

Move along. Nothing to see here.
 
Captain America said:
Myself, I think it's a great move. For more reasons than one.

1. I think more ships should be in the Gulf of Arden protecting/escorting valuable cargo passing through from pirates.

2. It brings their Navy out in the open to observe and study.

3. If they are there, they can't be anywhere else. Sitting ducks, if you will. Meanwhile, the underside of their belly is left partially exposed.

Just your usual pan-arab sabre rattling politics. Must be close to election time over there.

Move along. Nothing to see here.
Click to expand...

except my wit. And it's about the size of the Iranian Navy.
 
Arch Enemy said:
I am Iran's Navy, and I am hurt (emotionally) by all the things said here.

So what if I am small, poorly equipped, and less experienced? It's not about the size, nor the strength, it's about how effective the admiral is behind the sea-men. I can drive my navy down the Mississippi river, if need by, and not even touch her Canal wall's.



:rofl
Click to expand...

:rofl

Good one Archie.

In other words, it's not the size of the ship but the motion of the ocean. I can understand not touching the canal walls too. :3oops:
 
Don't discount the possibility of their using these ships as a provocateur or bait.
 
American said:
Link


Well, I guess the diplomatic approach isn't going to work. What's Hillary doing about this?
Click to expand...

Iran is the kid in school who is not big enough to play sports, but likes to run their mouth thinking it will scare away the big guys.

It is all a ploy and the world knows it. Let them strut.
 
Redress said:
They are headed for the Strait of Hormuz, which has enough navy around it to end any threat Iran might pose. I forget all the straits on the route to the Arabian(Persian) Gulf, but that was one of them.
Click to expand...

Not quite.

Think about it. Strait of Hormuz. Place the four large cargo ships in the strait. Scuttle them. Congratulations, You just shutdown all shipments of oil out of the Gulf. Any predictors of what that will do to world oil and gas prices? Iran's navy damage capacity is a peashooter compared to what it can do with four old cargo ships.
 
American said:
Link


Well, I guess the diplomatic approach isn't going to work. What's Hillary doing about this?
Click to expand...

She's probably going to look at what threat it actually poses, consult the JCS briefly who will tell her "we got this", and she will hopefully focus on actual threats to our nation.

Probably.
 
obvious Child said:
Not quite.

Think about it. Strait of Hormuz. Place the four large cargo ships in the strait. Scuttle them. Congratulations, You just shutdown all shipments of oil out of the Gulf. Any predictors of what that will do to world oil and gas prices? Iran's navy damage capacity is a peashooter compared to what it can do with four old cargo ships.
Click to expand...

I was just going to post that, but you beat me to it.
 
bhkad said:
Don't discount the possibility of their using these ships as a provocateur or bait.
Click to expand...

For what? North Korea just set off another nuclear device and Iran is flaunting their nuclear program in our face. If they fire on our folks, or even get within range to do so, I'd imagine they'll be dispatched quite handily. What next? Iran is out there on their own. It's not like Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia are going to rise up and attack the U.S. if we take out these ships for threatening us.

What would the provocation serve other than to usher a crushing military response from us?
 
obvious Child said:
Not quite.

Think about it. Strait of Hormuz. Place the four large cargo ships in the strait. Scuttle them. Congratulations, You just shutdown all shipments of oil out of the Gulf. Any predictors of what that will do to world oil and gas prices? Iran's navy damage capacity is a peashooter compared to what it can do with four old cargo ships.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And Iran probably isn't going to do that at this point because it would strangle them as well as bring about a military retaliation from the U.S. 100 cruise missiles and a few hundred air sorties would pretty much put Iran in the dark overnight.

But, you never know.
 
Lerxst said:
Exactly. And Iran probably isn't going to do that at this point because it would strangle them as well as bring about a military retaliation from the U.S. 100 cruise missiles and a few hundred air sorties would pretty much put Iran in the dark overnight.

But, you never know.
Click to expand...

If Israel or the US strikes Iran first, you can count on Iran closing the strait.
 
danarhea said:
I was just going to post that, but you beat me to it.
Click to expand...

Ha ha! You too slow!

Anyways, relevant to that is Iran's anti-shipping capacity. While it's not that big of a threat to modern warships, imagine two sunburns sinking a supertanker in the middle of the transit path which is a mere 6 miles. As the ship breaks apart debris will go everywhere create a serious nautical hazard in the world's most important shipping lane. At its deepest, its 150 feet. A super tanker would literally be 60+ feet out of the water. While it may take more than 4 cargo ships the point is pretty obvious. Some TNT and a bunch of old cargo ships is all Iran needs to do to cause insane things to happen in the world's oil and gas markets. Iran's navy is not the threat. I'd be far more afraid of its civilian naval assets.
 
danarhea said:
If Israel or the US strikes Iran first, you can count on Iran closing the strait.
Click to expand...

I'd agree with this. The moment Iran gets hit, the straight will go down and then it's economic hell on both Israel and the US. That's a pretty powerful trump card Iran's holding. And a good incentive to reduce our need for oil as well as natural gas, as NG's prices are tied to crude.
 
danarhea said:
If Israel or the US strikes Iran first, you can count on Iran closing the strait.
Click to expand...

Well sure they will try, but to what end? It just gives us license to unleash hell upon them. Again, Iran in alone in this endeavor in many ways.
 
Lerxst said:
Well sure they will try, but to what end? It just gives us license to unleash hell upon them. Again, Iran in alone in this endeavor in many ways.
Click to expand...

I don't know about that. Essentially it would be a reaction to our attack and it would not be a direct attack upon America and its soil like 9/11 was. Removing a regime for indirect economic warfare that was provoked seems a bit extreme and I don't know of any historical precedent for that.
 
obvious Child said:
I'd agree with this. The moment Iran gets hit, the straight will go down and then it's economic hell on both Israel and the US. That's a pretty powerful trump card Iran's holding. And a good incentive to reduce our need for oil as well as natural gas, as NG's prices are tied to crude.
Click to expand...

That would give us carte blanche to move and secure the straits militarily. They would get one real shot and then we would dismantle their ability to do things like cook with gas, turn on the lights, use a phone, export oil to their customers, cross certain bridges, produce nuclear energy, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom