A passage through which 40% of the world's oil flows from the Persian (also called Arabian) Gulf.

This is one of their biggest deterrents / threats made by the Iranian regime: if anyone attacks Iran, Iranian forces will block the passage, and oil prices will skyrocket.

"Given the equipment our armed forces have, an indefinite blockade of the Strait of Hormuz would be very easy," said the commander of the elite Revolutionary Guards, General Mohammad Ali Jafari.

Western military planners whose task is to come up with counters to this tactic said there are solutions to this, but here's something that I've never heard before, although it makes perfect sense:

But Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said that any move by Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz would be "self-defeating" because its economy is so heavily dependent on income from oil exports.

What would be the impact on Iran, assuming they successfully block Hormuz, or make it dangerous enough for tankers to not bother taking the risk... for 1 week? 1 month? 3 months? 6 months?


Source: http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_2370594,00.html

i dont get this Iranians. maybe they just dont care what the impact will be on their own population? so if that is true, how far will they go? mmm?

If Iran is attacked by Israel or US, at Israel's behest, then the closing of the strait of Hormuz is guaranteed.

Israel should pray Iran doesn't get attacked, because that will not only result in chaos in Iran, but widespread chaos in Israel.

If Iran is attacked by Israel or US, at Israel's behest, then the closing of the strait of Hormuz is guaranteed.

Israel should pray Iran doesn't get attacked, because that will not only result in chaos in Iran, but widespread chaos in Israel.

talk about wishful thinking. wasnt it iran that threatened to nuke israel?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FckLO8HcNyo

you know? a world without zionism :p

http://www.offthedime.com/files/page0_blog_entry81_4.jpg

we know they solved their gay problem.

I would think that other Arab producing countries that would be affected by Iran doing this would not be very happy and probably strike back at Iran if it ever does.

I would think that other Arab producing countries\

what do they produce? :bugeye:

If Iran is attacked by Israel or US, at Israel's behest, then the closing of the strait of Hormuz is guaranteed.

Israel should pray Iran doesn't get attacked, because that will not only result in chaos in Iran, but widespread chaos in Israel.

Yeah that's all nice, but you haven't responded to my question... How would Iran be affected internally by a successfully executed blockade of Hormuz?

The US and the EU would be the ones suffering the most from destabilization of Strait of Hormuz, even more than Iran.

It is only wishful thinking that Arab countries will attack Iran, the point is so laughable I have to wonder about the person saying it. If any Arab leader even denounced Iran in its conflict with Israel, he would be seen as traitor.

Arab people realize their main problem is not Iran, but Israel and its genocide against their Palestinian brothers. Iran in this sense, is an ally.

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Uploads/Graphics/002-0725213133-Israel-Palestine.jpg

i think the Iranians have a death wish.

i think the Iranians have a death wish.

I would be more worried about Israel.

Iran can at least get along with its neighbors.

I would be more worried about Israel.

Iran can at least get along with its neighbors.

like it got along with iraq? and saudi arabia? and how it destabilized lebanon and gaza to fight israel over a religious matter?

i heard from a lot of lebanese they dont even support hezbullah and dont want to fight israel. they hate the fact iran is using them.

DiamondHearts, join humanity in its fight for peace and justice.

I would be more worried about Israel.

Iran can at least get along with its neighbors.

Iran had been at war with Iraq for decades as well as Syria. Iran is only being told what to do by Russia.

what do they produce? :bugeye:

Oil.

Oil.

they dont produce oil, they suck it from the ground and use it to gain money and then sponsor terror.

like it got along with iraq? and saudi arabia? and how it destabilized lebanon and gaza to fight israel over a religious matter?

i heard from a lot of lebanese they dont even support hezbullah and dont want to fight israel. they hate the fact iran is using them.

You will find that most Lebanese, Iraqis, and Saudis are more anti-Israel than anti-Iran. You WANT them to be more anti-Iran, that's why you want to portray it that way.

For example, try going to Saudi Arabia or Lebanon and telling every person you meet you are Israeli, you probably won't leave alive.

Iran's neighbors are actually supportive and friendly to Iran. name one neighbor of Israel which it has good relations with. It cannot have good relations because it is an expansionist state based on apartheid against its native Arab population.

No Arab in his right mind would support Israel over Iran. Also, Pres. Ahmadi Nejad is one of the most popular leaders in the Arab world. We all know how popular Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert are to the Arab populace.

they dont produce oil, they suck it from the ground and use it to gain money and then sponsor terror.

Actually some Arabic countries don't spread terror. They want peace. It is only a few of them which want to spread war and terror. So don't lump them all into one.:itold:

Iran had been at war with Iraq for decades as well as Syria. Iran is only being told what to do by Russia.

When has Iran fought Syria? Also, during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Iran supported the Mujahideen's resistance against them. Iran's great leader Imam Khomeini was very anti-Communist.

The Iraq, Iran war was an unnecessary war which Saddam Hussein was responsible for at the behest of the US.

Iran cannot fall, it has a population of 70 million patriotic people, and it has its own facilities for production, it is the most self-sufficient Muslim country in the world next to Turkey.

Where do they get their military weapons from? Where do they get their atomic reactors from? Where are the technicians that train Iranians from...Russia.

ATTENTION!!!

Please stop your bickering about irrelevant topics and try to confine the scope of the discussion as much as possible to the question at hand, which I will repeat:

Assuming Iran successfully blocks the Straits of Hormuz, and western powers can't do anything about it, how would that affect Iran domestically from an economic perspective, assuming that most of their economy depends on exporting oil?

i dont get this Iranians. maybe they just dont care what the impact will be on their own population? so if that is true, how far will they go? mmm?

-Impact ? They are in war/attacked if there is blockade.
-Or do you mean that they should just bend over and take it ?

talk about wishful thinking. wasnt it iran that threatened to nuke israel?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FckLO8HcNyo

you know? a world without zionism :p


-Nuke´em ? references please.
-Isnt there Jews against Zionism ? Whats that all about ? What is Zionism ?
-You fully trust MEMRIs translations ?
http://www.rense.com/general77/noor.htm

Yeah that's all nice, but you haven't responded to my question... How would Iran be affected internally by a successfully executed blockade of Hormuz?

-I dont know, nothing good I guess in that state of affairs.

ATTENTION!!!

Please stop your bickering about irrelevant topics and try to confine the scope of the discussion as much as possible to the question at hand, which I will repeat:

Assuming Iran successfully blocks the Straits of Hormuz, and western powers can't do anything about it, how would that affect Iran domestically from an economic perspective, assuming that most of their economy depends on exporting oil?

-You forget something...If Iran is attacked...was in original post.
If so, should their first worries lay in domestic economics ? :confused:
-Let´em attack, just keep on pushing oil that people get their goods ?

-I guess you are asking what if Iran acts first ? What then ?

Assuming Iran successfully blocks the Straits of Hormuz, and western powers can't do anything about it, how would that affect Iran domestically from an economic perspective, assuming that most of their economy depends on exporting oil? It would damage it, severely.

But that's only an issue if you assume Iran is the aggressor. There is no sign of that - and if brought under severe attack, ability to export oil might not be at the top of Iranian concerns.

It might be working, that is, as a sort of gentle form of MAD: the US would like to take steps toward retaking Iran's oil and installing a Western client government, but cannot afford too great a risk of losing Hormuz.

-Nuke´em ? references please.
-Isnt there Jews against Zionism ? Whats that all about ? What is Zionism ?
-You fully trust MEMRIs translations ?
http://www.rense.com/general77/noor.htm



and a world without zionism is truly a wonderful world with israel in the picture. aand maybe even butterfly's in the background. and the iranian nuclear program is for peace of course.

It would damage it, severely.

But that's only an issue if you assume Iran is the aggressor. There is no sign of that - and if brought under severe attack, ability to export oil might not be at the top of Iranian concerns.

It might be working, that is, as a sort of gentle form of MAD: the US would like to take steps toward retaking Iran's oil and installing a Western client government, but cannot afford too great a risk of losing Hormuz.

there is no sign iran is the aggressor? who are this guys? are we being invaded by Martians?

it never was so easy to fool so many with so degenerate arguments.

and a world without zionism is truly a wonderful world with israel in the picture. aand maybe even butterfly's in the background. and the iranian nuclear program is for peace of course.

-Israel ~ Zionism ?
-There cant be Jewish state without Zionism ?
-Are you implicating with butterflys that its naive to think that there would
be state of Israel without Zionism ?
-What is Zionism ? You did bring the term first on the playground so I would
want to know what you think that Zionism is ?
-Your sarcasm implicates that Iranian nuclear program is for...hmmm....
...let me guess...nuking the Jerusalem, right ?
Where you get that idea, any references ?
Educate me.

I thought Iran could not block the strait? How would they do it?

-Israel ~ Zionism ?
-There cant be Jewish state without Zionism ?
-Are you implicating with butterflys that its naive to think that there would
be state of Israel without Zionism ?
-What is Zionism ? You did bring the term first on the playground so I would
want to know what you think that Zionism is ?
-Your sarcasm implicates that Iranian nuclear program is for...hmmm....
...let me guess...nuking the Jerusalem, right ?
Where you get that idea, any references ?
Educate me.

i said precisely what i think. iran wants to nuke israel. yes, a world without zionism means israel destruction. yes, an iranian president saying death to israel in front of a mob shows his true intension is to destroy israel with nukes. yes, i think its naive to think otherwise.

asking a bunch of questions just to make me defend my position isnt going to change that.

You're still harping on those old lies about Maddy?

You're still harping on those old lies about Maddy?

talk about liars, SAM is here :D

I thought Iran could not block the strait? How would they do it?

Are you sarcastic?
They have the means to try, and according to their own estimates (unless it's just huffing and puffing), they could do it pretty easily, and sustain it, as per the opening post.


But that's only an issue if you assume Iran is the aggressor. There is no sign of that - and if brought under severe attack, ability to export oil might not be at the top of Iranian concerns.

True - national security trumps the economy. Though how long can they continue producing weapons and maintaining the support structure that their armed forces need if their economy is in shit state?

The Iranian government might have some reserve cash to hand out to people in case its oil revenue (the biggest source of revenue) is cut off. But how long will that reserve last? And once it's run out, then what? North Korea like state where the army gets most of the resources while the population sacrifices for "the glory of the dear leader" Ahmedinejad?

Are you sarcastic?
They have the means to try, and according to their own estimates (unless it's just huffing and puffing), they could do it pretty easily, and sustain it, as per the opening post.



How? There are US naval battleships in the Persian Gulf. They have anti-missile systems.

talk about liars, SAM is here :D

Its been proved beyond a doubt.

The Actual Quote:

So what did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his exact words in Farsi:

"Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."

That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word "regime." pronounced just like the English word with an extra "eh" sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase "rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods" (regime occupying Jerusalem).

So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want "wiped from the map"? The answer is: nothing. That's because the word "map" was never used. The Persian word for map, "nagsheh" is not contained anywhere in his original Farsi quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase "wipe out" ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran's president threatened to "wipe Israel off the map." despite never having uttered the words "map." "wipe out" or even "Israel."

The Proof:

The full quote translated directly to English:

"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."

Word by word translation:

Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from).

Here is the full transcript of the speech in Farsi, archived on Ahmadinejad's web site

The Speech and Context:

While the false "wiped off the map" extract has been repeated infinitely without verification, Ahmadinejad's actual speech itself has been almost entirely ignored. Given the importance placed on the "map" comment, it would be sensible to present his words in their full context to get a fuller understanding of his position. In fact, by looking at the entire speech, there is a clear, logical trajectory leading up to his call for a "world without Zionism." One may disagree with his reasoning, but critical appraisals are infeasible without first knowing what that reasoning is.

In his speech, Ahmadinejad declares that Zionism is the West's apparatus of political oppression against Muslims. He says the "Zionist regime" was imposed on the Islamic world as a strategic bridgehead to ensure domination of the region and its assets. Palestine, he insists, is the frontline of the Islamic world's struggle with American hegemony, and its fate will have repercussions for the entire Middle East.

Ahmadinejad acknowledges that the removal of America's powerful grip on the region via the Zionists may seem unimaginable to some, but reminds the audience that, as Khomeini predicted, other seemingly invincible empires have disappeared and now only exist in history books. He then proceeds to list three such regimes that have collapsed, crumbled or vanished, all within the last 30 years:

(1) The Shah of Iran – the U.S. installed monarch

(2) The Soviet Union

(3) Iran's former arch-enemy, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein

In the first and third examples, Ahmadinejad prefaces their mention with Khomeini's own words foretelling that individual regime's demise. He concludes by referring to Khomeini's unfulfilled wish: "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time. This statement is very wise." This is the passage that has been isolated, twisted and distorted so famously. By measure of comparison, Ahmadinejad would seem to be calling for regime change, not war.

The Origin:

One may wonder: where did this false interpretation originate? Who is responsible for the translation that has sparked such worldwide controversy? The answer is surprising.

The inflammatory "wiped off the map" quote was first disseminated not by Iran's enemies, but by Iran itself. The Islamic Republic News Agency, Iran's official propaganda arm, used this phrasing in the English version of some of their news releases covering the World Without Zionism conference. International media including the BBC, Al-Jazeera, Time magazine and countless others picked up the IRNA quote and made headlines out of it without verifying its accuracy, and rarely referring to the source. Iran's Foreign Minister soon attempted to clarify the statement, but the quote had a life of its own. Though the IRNA wording was inaccurate and misleading, the media assumed it was true, and besides, it made great copy.

Amid heated wrangling over Iran's nuclear program, and months of continuous, unfounded accusations against Iran in an attempt to rally support for preemptive strikes against the country, the imperialists had just been handed the perfect raison d'être to invade. To the war hawks, it was a gift from the skies.

It should be noted that in other references to the conference, the IRNA's translation changed. For instance, "map" was replaced with "earth." In some articles it was "The Qods occupier regime should be eliminated from the surface of earth." or the similar "The Qods occupying regime must be eliminated from the surface of earth." The inconsistency of the IRNA's translation should be evidence enough of the unreliability of the source, particularly when transcribing their news from Farsi into the English language.

Perhaps your MEMRI is not so good, eh? Too many false MEMRIs in the way of real MEMRIs.

yeah wow, this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time sounds much less aggressive. good one SAM.

next time read it before trying to debunk. :p

and a world without zionism is truly a wonderful world with israel in the picture. aand maybe even butterfly's in the background. and the iranian nuclear program is for peace of course.

Iran does have a track record of having the capablity of producing WMD and yet not producing and using them.

Iran does have a track record of having the capablity of producing WMD and yet not producing and using them.

they also have a track record of threatening the west, hanging people, saying there are no gays, arming radical groups to fight israel, being ugly and stupid etc.

How many countries has Iran attacked since it established a parliament in 1905?

they also have a track record of threatening the west, hanging people, saying there are no gays, arming radical groups to fight israel, being ugly and stupid etc.

The first three i agree, the 4th i think is good, and the last one is just stupid

How many countries has Iran attacked since it established a parliament in 1905?


so how many times iran denied the holocaust?

he International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust was a two-day conference that opened on December 11, 2006, in Tehran, Iran. The Iranian Foreign Minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, said the conference sought "neither to deny nor prove the Holocaust ... [but] to provide an appropriate scientific atmosphere for scholars to offer their opinions in freedom about a historical issue."


The 67 attendees from 30 countries [3][4] included the American Yisroel Dovid Weiss of Neturei Karta; the American David Duke, former Republican member of the Louisiana House of Representatives and Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, Austrian Jew Moshe Aryeh Friedman, Holocaust deniers Robert Faurisson and Fredrick Töben, and Canadian political science professor Shiraz Dossa.[5

but in sci forum they would be welcomed :D
so what is fuss?

Wow, ruin my topic why don't you ...

As long as we're on the topic:

* Ahmedinejad was quoting Khomeini, who meant it (destroying Israel) in the literal sense

* You can sit there and parse his statements and hope he meant the more peaceful version of what he said, but his audience was mostly internal, to the uneducated militaristic masses. I have no doubt what-so-ever how they interpreted that message

* Ahmedinejad and the presidents before him have been waging proxy war to achieve the goal of destroying Israel for over 2 decades already

You can be cynical and dishonest about Iran's regime's intentions towards Israel, but you cannot erase facts.

Wow, ruin my topic why don't you ...

As long as we're on the topic:

* Ahmedinejad was quoting Khomeini, who meant it (destroying Israel) in the literal sense

* You can sit there and parse his statements and hope he meant the more peaceful version of what he said, but his audience was mostly internal, to the uneducated militaristic masses. I have no doubt what-so-ever how they interpreted that message

* Ahmedinejad and the presidents before him have been waging proxy war to achieve the goal of destroying Israel for over 2 decades already

You can be cynical and dishonest about Iran's regime's intentions towards Israel, but you cannot erase facts.

do you think there are gays in iran?

so how many times iran denied the holocaust?

he International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust was a two-day conference that opened on December 11, 2006, in Tehran, Iran. The Iranian Foreign Minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, said the conference sought "neither to deny nor prove the Holocaust ... [but] to provide an appropriate scientific atmosphere for scholars to offer their opinions in freedom about a historical issue."


The 67 attendees from 30 countries [3][4] included the American Yisroel Dovid Weiss of Neturei Karta; the American David Duke, former Republican member of the Louisiana House of Representatives and Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, Austrian Jew Moshe Aryeh Friedman, Holocaust deniers Robert Faurisson and Fredrick Töben, and Canadian political science professor Shiraz Dossa.[5

but in sci forum they would be welcomed :D
so what is fuss?

So you could not find a single instance of Iran attacking any country? Israel denies the Holocaust against Palestinians so they are hardly one to point fingers. Besides, its not like they give a SHIT about Holocaust survivors themselves. :yawn:

do you think there are gays in iran?

The biggest fag in Iran is Ahmedinejad himself. As far as the rest of them, yes, there are plenty of homosexuals in Iran, and they are persecuted terribly. I think they need to show Ahmedinejad some love, in the literal sense of the word. All 5-7% of the 60-70 million of the Iranian population, one at a time.

So you could not find a single instance of Iran attacking any country? Israel denies the Holocaust against Palestinians so they are hardly one to point fingers. :yawn:

i thought muslims deny the holocaust:


Mahmoud Abbas, Yasser Arafat's successor as leader of the Palestinian Authority and approved by many for his moderation, argued in 1983 in his book The Other Side that the Holocaust had claimed 'only a few hundred thousand lives', and that the figure of six million had been 'inflated' 'in the interest of the Zionist movement'


of course i find it ironic since they also say:

The London Central Mosque, also known as Regent’s Park Mosque, is "the spiritual focal point for Muslims" throughout Great Britain, the European Jewish Press reported. It is also home to the Islamic Cultural Center, which educates Muslim children.

The report said that a British television station will air on Monday a documentary on Muslim extremism in Britain, and will report the selling of the DVD.

The DVDs are being sold at the London Central Mosque Shop. One excerpt shows a preacher, Sheikh Feiz, imitating the sounds of a pig and referring to the Jewish people who will be killed on the "day of judgment."


i do give them credit. they are original.

The biggest fag in Iran is Ahmedinejad himself. As far as the rest of them, yes, there are plenty of homosexuals in Iran, and they are persecuted terribly. I think they need to show Ahmedinejad some love, in the literal sense of the word. All 5-7% of the 60-70 million of the Iranian population, one at a time.

You work for the IDF too?


An Israeli army doctor who examined kidnapped Lebanese guerrilla leader Mustafa Dirani found physical evidence to back his charge that he was raped, Israel TV reported on Wednesday.

During an evening newscast, Israel TV quoted from a document where the doctor, identified as Lt. Col. Chen Kugel, wrote, "on the basis of my examination of Mr. Dirani ... the results can substantiate the essence of the complaint" that he was raped.

The report did not say when the doctor examined Dirani.

Israel abducted Mustafa Dirani in 1994, hoping to use him as a bargaining chip for information on Ron Arad, an Israeli airman whose jet was downed over Lebanon in 1986. Israel claims Dirani's Amal militia held Arad at one point.

Dirani was kept in Israel until 2004, when Israel swapped 435 Arab prisoners for a captive Israeli businessman and the remains of three soldiers captured in Lebanon.

Before his release, Dirani told a Tel Aviv court that his Israeli interrogators raped and systematically tortured him in a futile effort to get information about Arad. He demanded 6 million shekels ($1.3 million) in compensation.

Dirani claimed interrogators kept him naked in a secret facility, alternately splashed him with hot and freezing water, shook him until he fainted, squeezed his testicles, sodomized him and sexually assaulted him with a stick.


http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Security/7323.htm

You work for the IDF too?



http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Security/7323.htm

having sex with a donkey is not being raped. its called raping the donkey.

having sex with a donkey is not being raped. its called raping the donkey.

heh, a donkey hmm? So the IDF is into bestiality as well? You train the troops at Abu Ghraib? Expose your butts to all and sundry?:D


IDF soldiers who arrived at the Maon Farm settlement outpost near the West Bank city of Hebron exposed their rear ends to Palestinians in an attempt to make them evacuate nearby grazing fields, Palestinian sources and foreign peace activists claimed Sunday.

I dont know any of these people but he may have done it to himself for the shelesk.

heh, a donkey hmm? So the IDF is into bestiality as well? You train the troops at Abu Ghraib? Expose your butts to all and sundry?:D

An Arab was interviewed at the US Embassy for a U.S.A. Visa.

Consul : What is your name?

Arab: Abdul Aziz

Consul: Sex?

Arab : Six to ten times a week

Consul: I mean, male or female?

Arab : both male and female and sometimes even camels

Consul: Holy cow!

Arab : Yes, cows and dogs too!!!!

Consul: Man,...isn ' t it hostile?

Arab :Horse style, dog style, any style

Consul: Oh...dear!

Arab : Deer? No deer, they run too fast!

So you're becoming Arabs! Good for you. I hear a hamar costs about khamsa riyal for an hour. :D

Anyway, I doubt that Iran can "close" the strait. What they can do is blow up an oil tanker, which would cancel the insurance on all oil tankers and shut down oil transport. But they'd have to figure out a way to do it, because any US attack on Iran will first aim at protecting the tankers movements through the straits, before they blow up any Iranians. Which means conventional attacks are out. Since Americans have blown up civilian aircraft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655) in the Persian Gulf, that too is out.

I think the iranians, like the germans, are willing to commit suicide just to nuke israel. just like the germans preferred to kill jews at the expanse of precious supplies to their soldiers and civilians. its the same old story, only different people.

Oh, how many Iranians have committed suicide so far in this cause?

leaders have no problem sacrificing their people-leaders like the ayatollah and ahmadinejad.

I think the iranians, like the germans, are willing to commit suicide just to nuke israel. just like the germans preferred to kill jews at the expanse of precious supplies to their soldiers and civilians. its the same old story, only different people.

LOL, why do all Israelis compare their enemies to the Germans?

Iran does not want to bomb Israel, it has stated this already.

However, Israel has made it clear that it wants to bomb Iran, either by convincing the US to, as it did with Iraq, or doing it itself. Israel is capable of gross violations of international law as seen in the 2006 invasion into Lebanon.

How many countries has Iran invaded in the past 50 years? ZERO.

How many countries has Israel invaded or bombed? Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, I HAVE LOST COUNT.

leaders have no problem sacrificing their people-leaders like the ayatollah and ahmadinejad.

So is that hundreds? thousands? millions? How many Iranians who have committed suicide so far to [flashing red banner]WIPE ISRAEL OFF THE MAP[/flashing red banner]?

To be fair DH do you that is because they are always being attacked.

[flashing red banner]WIPE ISRAEL OFF THE MAP[/flashing red banner]?

:roflmao:

To be fair DH do you that is because they are always being attacked.

Hey, if the Jews had landed in the US and declared it a Jewish state and performed a nakba on the Americans, do you think there would be any Jews left in the world?

So is that hundreds? thousands? millions? How many Iranians who have committed suicide so far to [flashing red banner]WIPE ISRAEL OFF THE MAP[/flashing red banner]?

that depends. how many of them starved to death, how many of them didnt receive medical treatment, how many were hung in the false accusation of spying for israel? the media in iran isnt free, we cant really be sure.

LOL, why do all Israelis compare their enemies to the Germans?

Iran does not want to bomb Israel, it has stated this already.

However, Israel has made it clear that it wants to bomb Iran, either by convincing the US to, as it did with Iraq, or doing it itself. Israel is capable of gross violations of international law as seen in the 2006 invasion into Lebanon.

How many countries has Iran invaded in the past 50 years? ZERO.

How many countries has Israel invaded or bombed? Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, I HAVE LOST COUNT.

so, do you think arabs accept the colonial entity called israel?

that depends. how many of them starved to death, how many of them didnt receive medical treatment, how many were hung in the false accusation of spying for israel? the media in iran isnt free, we cant really be sure.

So spying for Israel is suicide to [GIANT flashing red banner]WIPE ISRAEL OFF THE MAP[/GIANT flashing red banner]?

Maybe I need an Israeli brain to figure that one out.

Honestly SAM and really i have no connection either way bu if they were from Connecticut, in the same way they have historically been from the region of Israel and wanted Connecticut then i would not have a problem with that.

Israel, not Iran, attacked a American naval ship named USS Liberty


USS Liberty -Israelis attacking an American ship (http://www.buchanan.org/blog/2008/06/uss-liberty-new-revelations-in-attack-on-american-spy-ship/)

So spying for Israel is suicide to [GIANT flashing red banner]WIPE ISRAEL OFF THE MAP[/GIANT flashing red banner]?

Maybe I need an Israeli brain to figure that one out.

maybe theyll hang you in the process one day SAM. but then no one here will protest it.

Israel, not Iran, attacked a American naval ship named USS Liberty


USS Liberty -Israelis attacking an American ship (http://www.buchanan.org/blog/2008/06/uss-liberty-new-revelations-in-attack-on-american-spy-ship/)

i thought iranian boats nearly attacked a navy convoy once.

maybe theyll hang you in the process one day SAM. but then no one here will protest it.

Nah, maybe I'll get lucky, like Pollard.

Jonathan Pollard is an American of Jewish descent, born in Galveston Texas, who established a career as an intelligence analyst for the US Navy. There have been many theories offered as to why Pollard decided to betray his country of birth to the Jewish state, but that Pollard did betray his country of birth to Israel is beyond all doubt. Pollard’s defense was that he did not spy so much against the United States, only that he spied for Israel, sending them documents that in his opinion the US should have shared with Israel anyway.

That it was never Pollards job to decide what documents Israel should have was apparently irrelevant. Pollard arrogated that authority to himself. From his position of trust within the US Navy, Pollard delivered over 1000 classified documents to Israel for which he was well paid. Included in those documents were the names of over 150 US agents in the Mideast, who were eventually “turned” into agents for Israel.

But by far the most egregious damage done by Pollard was to steal classified documents relating to the US Nuclear Deterrent relative to the USSR and send them to Israel. According to sources in the US State Department, Israel then turned around and traded those stolen nuclear secrets to the USSR in exchange for increased emigration quotas from the USSR to Israel. Other information that found its way from the US to Israel to the USSR resulted in the loss of American agents operating inside the USSR. Casper Weinberger, in his affidavit opposing a reduced sentence for Pollard, described the damage done to the United States thus, "[It is] difficult to conceive of a greater harm to national security than that caused by... Pollard's treasonous behavior."
But, I'll give you a hint:

If Israel does not want it known that it spies in other countries, maybe they should stop giving them commendations in public

. Israel publicly denied that Pollard was an Israeli spy until 1998, when he was granted Israeli citizenship.[

That kinda puts paid to the "baseless" accusations. :rolleyes:

Spying? For money???? noooooooo.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7097296.stm

Nah, maybe I'll get lucky, like Pollard.


But, I'll give you a hint:

If Israel does not want it known that it spies in other countries, maybe they should stop giving them commendations in public



That kinda puts paid to the "baseless" accusations. :rolleyes:

yeah, a 16 years old girl is a spy for israel

Atefah Rajabi Sahaaleh (Persian: عاطفه رجبی سهاله; 1988–August 15, 2004) was a 16-year-old schoolgirl from the town of Neka, Iran who was executed a week after being sentenced to death by Haji Rezai, head of Neka's clerical court on charges of adultery and "crimes against chastity". Rezai, who submitted and processed the execution order at the Supreme Court himself and put the noose round Atefah's neck before she was hoisted on a crane to her death telling her “This will teach you to disobey!”, was later arrested himself on charges of rape and torture of the defendant.

An Iranian woman accused of involvement in the blast at a Shiraz mosque a few months ago will be executed, a local news agency reported, saying she received a life sentence for a connection she had with Israeli intelligence organizations.


Aside from this woman, whose name was not released, three other Shiraz residents arrested in this case will be executed.

what can be more clever? kill your political enemies and blame them for treason. better yet, blame it on your other enemies.

China is probabvly sniifing our connections right now.

I don't see where the girl was accused of spying for Israel, but is a crime against chastity also a secret Iranian weapon to WIPE ISRAEL OFF THE MAP?

I see I am far behind on modern weapons technology. Clearly teh ways to WIPE ISRAEL OFF THE MAP have been deeply investigated in Iran.

I don't see where the girl was accused of spying for Israel, but is a crime against chastity also a secret Iranian weapon to WIPE ISRAEL OFF THE MAP?

I see I am far behind on modern weapons technology. Clearly teh ways to WIPE ISRAEL OFF THE MAP have been deeply investigated in Iran.

a 16 years old was executed and you only care how it is related to Israel?

you are weird. :bugeye:

Well i am out of here.

a 16 years old was executed and you only care how it is related to Israel?

you are weird. :bugeye:

Yeah, because we are discussing how Iranians want to WIPE ISRAEL OFF THE MAP, not their legal system or lack thereof.

So far we have suicide by spying for Israel and suicide by crimes of chastity [for Israel, one presumes].

Well i am out of here.

Do something fun. ;)

i said precisely what i think. iran wants to nuke israel. yes, a world without zionism means israel destruction. yes, an iranian president saying death to israel in front of a mob shows his true intension is to destroy israel with nukes. yes, i think its naive to think otherwise.

asking a bunch of questions just to make me defend my position isnt going to change that.

-Ok, can bring some references or not, now I only have your word on nuking.
-You dont want to share your view on what Zionism mean/is to you ?
-You base your politics about going to war on that one mob speech ?

Spock:
yeah wow, this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time sounds much less aggressive.

-The Regime he is talking about is Zionism, right ?
-How come this came to "We will surely nuke Jerusalem when we have nukes" ? How that would help (the prime cause Iran being conflict with Israel) the Palestinians ?

Here is Ahmadinejad being guestioned in Columbia University.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BL3VigBZkCw&feature=related

-So its all decided then, The Iran war is coming, no way to avoid it ?
Its down to.."if you want nuclear power the bombs are off" ?
And in other hand... "if The Palestinian issue isnt solved we wont back off" ?

The Bias is overwhelming from both sides in this one.

Yeah, because we are discussing how Iranians want to WIPE ISRAEL OFF THE MAP, not their legal system or lack thereof.

So far we have suicide by spying for Israel and suicide by crimes of chastity [for Israel, one presumes].



Do something fun. ;)

i mean it, you seriously have a problem. you actually care more for debunking something then for the life of a little girl. are you pro executions?

-So its all decided then, The Iran war is coming, no way to avoid it ?


yep and yep.

Spock, can you tell us how many Palestinian politicians are in Israel to this day?

Israelis even locked up such a promineint and respected person like Marwan Barghouti. If he was free, there would be no conflict between Abbas and the other Palestinians.

Spock, can you tell us how many Palestinian politicians are in Israel to this day?

Israelis even locked up such a promineint and respected person like Marwan Barghouti. If he was free, there would be no conflict between Abbas and the other Palestinians.

how much in israel? how about a soldier they wont even let the red cross visit? the prisoners in israel get medical treatment, visitors, money, access from the red cross. where is our captive???:mad:

The entire elected Hamas government, all 40 [or is it 44?] [[edit: its 64, according to wiki]] members are in Israeli prisons. So much for the only shamocratic state in the ME.

Iran has its right to use civilian nuclear technology, no one is debating that as that is guaranteed by the Nuclear NPT treaty.

The reason for attacking Iran is SUSPICION of ATTEMPTING to produce nuclear weapons AT SOME LATER date.

Can you really invade a country on the basis that you think they will do something in the future?

Apparently, US and Israel can read the minds of Iranian leaders. That's what it is, a CONSPIRACY that Iran will do this. There is not nor will ever be any proof. They got away with this in Iraq, now they are trying it again.

Don't get bitten by the snake from the same hole twice. Challenge these leaders to bring actual EVIDENCE.

Spock, tell us again, how many nukes does Israel have and has it ever signed the Nuclear NPT to give it the right to even to use civilian nuclear power?

Do something fun. ;)

Are you telling me to go play in traffic?

The entire elected Hamas government, all 40 [or is it 44?] [[edit: its 64, according to wiki]] members are in Israeli prisons. So much for the only shamocratic state in the ME.

really? so who are this guys?

Hamas officials arrived in Cairo Tuesday for talks with Egyptian officials on a prisoner exchange with Israel and ways of ending a yearlong rift with Fatah.

Hamas deputy leader Moussa Abu Marzouk and Mohammed Nasr, a member of the group's political bureau, flew from Damascus to join several delegates from Gaza who traveled over land earlier in the day, Egypt's Middle East News Agency reported.

Iran has its right to use civilian nuclear technology

only problem they have enough gas they can export it so they dont even need nuclear energy. besides, if that is true, why are they so afraid of inspections?

Actually they do need nuclear technology, because their economy is dependent on energy and oil will not last forever. Even Saudi Arabia is considering going entirely nuclear. But you won't hear about that in the news. :p

Actually they do need nuclear technology, because their economy is dependent on energy and oil will not last forever. Even Saudi Arabia is considering going entirely nuclear. But you won't hear about that in the news. :p

they have only oil? :shrug: whats wrong with solar panels?

they have only oil? :shrug: whats wrong with solar panels?

I don't know, whats wrong with them? You know any country that has a preference for solar panels over nuclear technology? Israel maybe?

I don't know, whats wrong with them? You know any country that has a preference for solar panels over nuclear technology? Israel maybe?

they are a big country, if they are in such need for energy solar panels are quicker and cheaper. even the Saudis are doing it.

It's their choice whether they wish to develop civilian nuclear technology or not. We have things in our world to prevent bogus accusations being used to invade or bomb other countries, we call these INTERNATIONAL LAWS.

It's their choice whether they wish to develop civilian nuclear technology or not. We have things in our world to prevent bogus accusations being used to invade or bomb other countries, we call these INTERNATIONAL LAWS.

and you are very concerned with the international law when the iranian president is saying on world wide television there are no gays in iran, and when the regime is executing teenage girsl over audacity.

I would be more worried about Israel.

Iran can at least get along with its neighbors.

Watch the neighbors, kick the shit out of Iran, if they try to close the straights, and that will be before the rest of the world piles on.

Now exactly what would it take to close the straights?

I don't think its possible. Tactically, they don't have the technology for it. But like 9/11, there are always possibilities outside the box. Can't think of any myself.

Apparently Western people are ignorant enough to believe anything. Iran's religious leaders have stated themselves that building of nuclear weapons are against Islam. I have never heard stuff like this from America is Israel, I wonder which countries are the larger threats?

Shouldn't we be afraid of a nation which has used nuclear weapons before, thus set a precedent for itself, as in US bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a nation which has destroyed two sovereign nations, Afghanistan and Iraq, based on lies, and single handedly supported oppressive regimes of Shah Reza Pahlavi, Saddam Hussein, Hamid Karzai, Nuri al Maliki, Hosni Mubarak, Islam Karimov, etc.

We should not ignore the two greatest threats in the Middle East (which is proven by how much they are hated by people living in the Middle East), America and Israel.

As for gas out of the Middle East, only 20% of the U.S. Oil comes from the Middle East, the vast majority of our oil comes from Canada, Mexico,

Canada - 1.8 million barrels, Mexico - 1.6 million barrels, Saudi Arabia - 1.4 million barrels, Venezuela - 1.1 million barrels, Nigeria - 1.0 million barrels.

None of those countries are affected by the straights of Hormuz.

Now if the Democrats can get off their ass, and lift the OCS ban, we could replace the 20% of our oil imports that come from the middle east, with the Oil in the OCS.

The Democrats are always talking about becoming more energy independent from unstable sources, so let start with the OCS, and screw the ME.

Apparently Western people are ignorant enough to believe anything. \

yeah, we westerners are so ignorant we just might swallow your crap right DH? that is what you are thinking no?

As for gas out of the Middle East, only 20% of the U.S. Oil comes from the Middle East, the vast majority of our oil comes from Canada, Mexico,

Canada - 1.8 million barrels, Mexico - 1.6 million barrels, Saudi Arabia - 1.4 million barrels, Venezuela - 1.1 million barrels, Nigeria - 1.0 million barrels.

None of those countries are affected by the straights of Hormuz.

Now if the Democrats can get off their ass, and lift the OCS ban, we could replace the 20% of our oil imports that come from the middle east, with the Oil in the OCS.

The Democrats are always talking about becoming more energy independent from unstable sources, so let start with the OCS, and screw the ME.


I support this, the US should become independent of oil in the ME. Thats the only way the people living there can breathe easily. I bet 3 trillion dollars would have contributed to a lot of research on energy independence.


yeah, we westerners are so ignorant we just might swallow your crap right DH? that is what you are thinking no?


You're not a westerner. You're a Middle Easterner. You were born in the Middle East.

The Democrats are always talking about becoming more energy independent from unstable sources, so let start with the OCS, and screw the ME.

Apparently that has been America's policy for the last 50 years.

yeah, we westerners are so ignorant we just might swallow your crap right DH? that is what you are thinking no?

Until Israelis realize that their constant support of the invasion of and vilification of sovereign Muslim counties is not checked, they cannot live in peace with any of these countries.

If Israel wants peace, this is the best opportunity.

If Iran is attacked, Israel will have proven forever that it wants the destabilization of sovereign Muslim countries and thus, in the eyes of 1.7 billion people, the biggest threat to their existence.

Do you really want to open Pandora's box in the Middle East, because this is what is going to happen. I guarantee it.

How come I feel that all leaders are just dancing by tunes from someone else.
How come we have suchs dittoheads like Bush, Berlusconi, Ahmadinejad, Mugabe and so on ? If democracy is supposed to present citizens, well then, humanity is all time low,
but I havent see that much decay of humanity in my daily life, so, its something else.
Easy to manipulate. Shouting for someone else in forums while not realizing it thy self ?
All I want is non-biased information, from here ?, thats crazy.
I wont be lying much when I say that half of questions I ever made here not being answered, just preaches coming...where is the logic...putting fingers to ears...laaa laaa....good night.
This is it, my cyber-personality breakdown, things would not be the same ever. zip.

How come I feel that all leaders are just dancing by tunes from someone else.
How come we have suchs dittoheads like Bush, Berlusconi, Ahmadinejad, Mugabe and so on ? If democracy is supposed to present citizens, well then, humanity is all time low,
but I havent see that much decay of humanity in my daily life, so, its something else.
Easy to manipulate. Shouting for someone else in forums while not realizing it thy self ?
All I want is non-biased information, from here ?, thats crazy.
I wont be lying much when I say that half of questions I ever made here not being answered, just preaches coming...where is the logic...putting fingers to ears...laaa laaa....good night.
This is it, my cyber-personality breakdown, things would not be the same ever. zip.


There is no short answer to this question. Mostly, I think its a reflection of the apathy that people have today to government actions and corporate actions that don't directly affect them. Governments and corporations both recognise this, and use it to their advantage by controlling the information access and the economy to keep the people lulled. But if you look at the bigger picture, the fact that it is necessary for them to do this kind of stuff behind smokescreens is a good sign. You wont find heads on pikes at the town gates anywhere. Barbarism is just not socially acceptable anymore.

I find it rather amusing that Israelis are more fanatic in pushing for attacks on Iran than vice versa.

I know plenty of Iranians, they don't even mention the possibility of Iran attacking Israel. Why? Because with America and EU behind Israel, it is political suicide.

It's as simple as that. there is a much higher chance of American or Israeli attacks on Iran than vice versa. US media and Zionist lobbies like to portray militarily weak nations like Iran as a threat to civilization, etc. It was the same type of propaganda used to invade Iraq.

I find it rather amusing that Israelis are more fanatic in pushing for attacks on Iran than vice versa.

I know plenty of Iranians, they don't even mention the possibility of Iran attacking Israel. Why? Because with America and EU behind Israel, it is political suicide.

It's as simple as that. there is a much higher chance of American or Israeli attacks on Iran than vice versa. US media and Zionist lobbies like to portray militarily weak nations like Iran as a threat to civilization, etc. It was the same type of propaganda used to invade Iraq.


Only in your convoluted mind.

Assuming Iran successfully blocks the Straits of Hormuz, and western powers can't do anything about it

Well that just won't happen so why bother worrying over it?

they have only oil? :shrug: whats wrong with solar panels?

Look at a solar farm. its on flat land. what does iran have very little of? flat land.

Look at a solar farm. its on flat land. what does iran have very little of? flat land.

Seem to be a lot of flat land according to the Map, especially in the east of Iran:

http://search.hp.my.aol.com/aol/redir?src=image&clickedItemURN=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cais-soas.com%2FCAIS%2FImages2%2FMaps%2FLarge_Iran.jpg&moduleId=image_details.jsp.M&clickedItemDescription=Image Details

Forget solar panels in the short term. That's satellite technology, special purpose stuff on smaller scales.

No one needs flat land for heat concentration solar - you can bolt the things to the side of a cliff, put them on your rooftop, etc.

But Iran is under restrictions about importing such tech, and has no more internal experience with such matters than anyone else. Those things are new,with unsolved problems (storage, etc) at large scale - the nukes are standard US and French and Russian tech, and have the side benefit of supplying weapons possibilities if necessary in the future. Israel is nearby, as is the US army, and both are threatening military attack from outside as well as supporting internal terrorism.

Actually the consequences of closing the straits ogf Hormuz are two fold for Iran.

If they succeed and close it tightly, their economy will be largely nonexistant in a short period. Oil is their cheif export and they will literally choke on it very quickly. They will driver the price of oil through the roof, but will not cash in on it.

However, the more likely outcome is Iran will get a serious wake up call. The US Military's only real problem in Iraq is that the insurgents hide. Well, iran;s military will not be able to do this and blockade the strait. Given our extensive use of smart technologies and weapons, the Iranian navy could end up being extinct in no time.

Why would Iran's export suffer if it closed the straits? Would they prevent their own oil from being exported?

Seem to be a lot of flat land according to the Map, especially in the east of Iran:

http://search.hp.my.aol.com/aol/redir?src=image&clickedItemURN=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cais-soas.com%2FCAIS%2FImages2%2FMaps%2FLarge_Iran.jpg&moduleId=image_details.jsp.M&clickedItemDescription=Image Details

just like i said-they dont need nuclear energy. they want a nuclear weapon so they can nuke israel and blame it on some terrorist group they sponsor. the iiranians are clever.

one square mile of solar power can solve all their energy problems.

How many solar panels does Israel have? Why does Israel, which is an occupation country have nuclear weapons?

why does a country that hangs 16 years old girls over audacity and insolence wants with nuclear weapons?

Why does a country that shoots rubber bullets into the eyes of four year old need it?

http://www.nature.com/eye/journal/v17/n7/full/6700447a.html

its just too bad iran uses other countries to wage their own wars.

Like in Iraq? :rolleyes:

Like in Iraq? :rolleyes:

yes, just like in iraq. the iranians used the americans to invade to iraq and kill saddam. they knew the american public of the 21st century is weak and ignorant, ans after theyll leave iraq it will be easy to takeover. all in while, they develop nuclear weapons and destroy israel and pay scummy muslims to manipulate the weak minded westerners long enough to get the job done.

an d the best part, they will blame israel for everything, because they know what the west thinks of the jews.

Israel was calling for an attack on Iraq as part of their strategic initiative



Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions
http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm



Israeli support for the invasion was never a secret. Both the Sharon government and a clear majority of the Israeli populace favored attacking Iraq. A Guardian (UK) report on the undermining of US intelligence agencies in order to provide “evidence” to support the invasion describes how Americans working outside the CIA worked with Israelis operating outside of the Mossad to help produce that “evidence.”Reports before the war indicated that Israel was playing a key role in preparing for the invasion, and other reports indicate that Israeli operatives have been working among Iraqi Kurds.
http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/publish/article_237.shtml

And now its got its sights on Iran.

Israel was calling for an attack on Iraq as part of their strategic initiative


http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm


http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/publish/article_237.shtml

And now its got its sights on Iran.

so israelis are that stupid? they will destabilize the middle east on purpose? what has israelis gained? hamas in gaza? a war with hezbullah? please....you cant be serious. iranians gained much more. they manged to draw israel to fight hezbullah, manipulate the foreign media, got rid of sddam-even you said it, the americans lost the war the moment they stepped in. you wanna tell me the israelis planned this?

what an easier way it is, use the americans and tell everyone its the israelis fault, to gain a legitimacy to attack. its working is it not?

Mr. Spock: "its just too bad iran uses other countries to wage their own wars."

That's true. It's also true that Israel has been agitating for hostilities between the US and Iran. As a consumer of Arab oil, Israel is as keen on the strategic control of Hormuz as have been the British and US empires.

But it's not a simple thing for the US Navy, at the the USAmerican public's behest (or for any other agenda) to keep the strait open to shipping, or to keep economies invulnerable to interruptions there by participating in potential interruptions. Our high military profile in the Gulf Region is becoming a counterproductive liability to US interests. In a previous thread here (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=76003) we've discussed many of the issues. One that often gets overlooked is the delicacy of exerting imperial control without a mandate, over a busy commercial choke-point. An exchange there touched on that:



Joepistole: "In this case the enemy has been warned on several occasions. We have here an enemy who hides behind children and burkaks to kill and murder not only Americans but children and women of their own people. I call them cowards, any one or group that uses innocents as a shield is indeed a coward."

HW: You are obviously conflating Iranian patrol vessels with unspecified terrorists, and that's a very dangerous and unreasonable assumption.

"They need to file and follow flight plans... you know as well as I that [IA 655] was where it did not belong."

You're repeating a long-exposed lie, and your readiness to do so is exemplary of belligerent US propaganda. Iran Air 655 (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/ir655-dod-report.html) followed her scheduled flight plan, and communicated with ATC on normal channels in plain English- right up until the moment they were blown out of the sky. That tragedy underlined in blood the imperative for naval vessels to comport themselves in accordance with international law in commercial lanes and under peacetime conditions- even as the standing-down of full defense may compromises a ship's security against real and present dangers.

In confined foreign waters, our formations are indeed more vulnerable to attack than they would be under hair-trigger wartime conditions. The law applies equally for any foreign vessels transiting American waters: Ready combat battle-group defenses are unacceptably hazardous to vessels sharing the sea and airspace, and it is improper to maintain a combat stance amidst normal commercial and patrol operations.

In such delicate situations as this, potential adversaries must basically be allowed a greater opportunity to take the first shot than they would be in a war zone. The alternative to a restrained posture is a state of war with everyone encountered, which would directly result in multiplied danger to personnel in all our ships and garrisons. Hair-trigger defenses in this context multiply the likelihood of incidents getting out of control. The United States cannot long swagger around the planet in a deadly, unnapproachable posture before we forfeit our friends, our influence, and our security.


Hormuz is a very delicate situation (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1703801&postcount=182) for US force protection, for US policing and protection of shipping, for regional stability, and of course the global economy. During the last tanker war in the Gulf, the lack of a legitimate mandate to control these waters compelled the USA to re-flag tankers. Today, the USA has expended much of the international support that we once enjoyed for our policing of the Mideast, and it's important to consider.

Those who are enthusiastic about US force projection around the world often dismiss doubts about the durability of our naval hegemony in the Gulf. The problem is not just fleet defense, but also a political one all along the Shia-majority shores of the Persian Gulf. Throughout and following hostilities, Iran could enjoy considerably greater political support at the grass-roots level than would the USA, which presents a real threat of the destabilization of the vulnerable Sunni dynasties presently running the Western shores. A too-imperialistic tightening of the US grasp could cause much to slip further from our control. Just the short-term economic implications of an interruption in Gulf traffic could present a shock that the US economy and national mentality are woefully unprepared for. Returning to the same earlier thread, from the last time the world was jittery about Hormuz:

There is much for the US Navy to fear in the Persian Gulf. The mission of the Iranian fast boats was probably a tickle, where shore stations monitored the visible and electronic response that US warships in the channel made to the patrol-boat display. Should Iran ever engage the US Navy in the straits and/or decide to blockade the Gulf, their arsenal includes extremely fast and lethal weapons systems, and the Iranians tasked with targeting need intelligence to best prepare.

Just as we routinely do in the US Navy, potential adversaries are periodically prodded for initial threat-response for intelligence and targeting purposes by Iranian forces. The Strait of Hormuz is a particularly dense shooting-gallery, and Iran has for many years been purchasing and developing at great cost its own fast torpedos (Shkval variants), fast missiles (such as Sunburn and Silkworm) and stealthy seabed-deployed mines. In such close quarters bristling with advanced and hardened shore and seabed batteries, all ships are vulnerable, as are US shore installations across the Gulf.

Iran is not likely to initiate hostilities with the US Navy. But Iran has made Hormuz a potentially deadly gauntlet for any ships squeezing through. It's a reasonable assumption that no serious U.S. provocations will occur while there is a carrier battle group, or any concentration of naval assets vulnerably filing through the Hormuz shooting-gallery. Likewise, Iran is unlikely to wastefully accept retaliatory US strikes that would neutralize many, if not all of the Iranian batteries. Even then, "Many destroyed" would be cold comfort for the first vessels running the gauntlet after opening hostilities.

With these realities in mind, it is sheer bravado to say that the Navy has nothing to fear from Iran. It is foolish to dismiss Iranian naval capabilities as inept, unimpressive, or laughable. Battle groups are always vulnerable in confined waters, and US Sailors are particularly under the gun in the Persian Gulf.

(also from previous thread) (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=76003&page=11)
iceaura's earlier recalling Lt.Gen. Paul Van Riper's Pentagon dissidence during the Millenium Challenge wargame (2002) seems important to this discusion, because it brings to light what the 5th Fleet (thanks Tiassa for the correction) should fear the most- and it isn't a "fleet" of 5 speedboats.

It's worth revisiting Millenium Challenge (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wartech/nature.html) now, because Van Riper demonstrated (http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=6779&IBLOCK_ID=35) potential tactics of a more determined, more unified, better equipped, and better trained enemy than Iraq was in 2003; in other words, Iran in 2008. Speedboats were only one component of the attack that defeated a hypothetical US Navy in the wargame- It was a combined attack that overwhelmed a representative simulation of US fleet defenses. Employing scores of harrying sea vessels and aircraft of all sizes that saturated US tracking, the attack exploited confusion during a moment of escalation, delivering a sudden and devastating coordinated attack involving ships, aircraft, and guided missiles. The exercise showed how Hormuz, and the Persian Gulf, can be a deadly trap- even for the most powerful navy on Earth.

Although the initiation of hostilities is not in Iran's interest, Iran could be backed into a position where pulling out nearly all the stops, and suddenly unleashing nearly everything they've got against the US fleet might be the most effective military response to sufficient US provocation, such as imminent air attack from US forces. While Iran might use small craft (in much greater numbers than were involved in the non-incident last week) to saturate taskloads aboard US warships, their heavier shipboard and shore batteries are what pack the knockout punch: Amid the hurly-burly of engaging multiple targets, the nightmare scenario is for fast anti-ship missiles such as Sunburn to streak into our capital ships.

Because the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part3.htm) does not provide for US convoys to forcibly deny the approach and maneuvering of other vessels, warships transiting Hormuz are relatively naked- they must file through without their standard defensive formation and perimeter, and they must allow other vessels passage. The Gulf as a whole does not allow the physical or legal maneuvering space of the open sea. This reality remains while tensions may escalate, presenting extraordinary risks for the US Navy. The US President's recent sabre-rattling, and the major US media's penchant for overdrama are dangerous games (with real, irreversible consequences) that certainly do not Support Our Sailors, in terms of valuing their lives. We have nothing to gain from a shootout with Iran that is worth the risk to our Navy, not to mention our equally vulnerable garrisons in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Sunburn/Moskit (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/moskit.htm) and Shkval (http://www.periscope.ucg.com/mdb-smpl/weapons/minetorp/torpedo/w0004768.shtml) are two systems that those poo-pooing Iran's naval lethality should educate themselves about.

The SS-N-22 Sunburn or Moskit is specifically designed to penetrate an American carrier's air cover at extreme low level, with speeds approaching Mach 3. That air cover is significantly compromised in the case of unavoidable proximity to Iran within the Persian Gulf. The SS-N-22 is also specifically designed to be too fast in approach and final maneuvering for close-in point defenses such as Phalanx to get a dependable firing solution in time. There is little reason to assume that Iran can not hit a US carrier in the Persian Gulf. The tests Russia has conducted for skeptical buyers were convincing to say the least. Sunburn makes Exocet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet) (USS Stark (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/1987/may/19/iraq.davidhirst), HMS Sheffield (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Sheffield_(D80)), and MV Atlantic Conveyor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Conveyor)) seem like a bottle-rocket by comparison.

Iran is very keen and creative about naval power in the Persian Gulf, and have not only front-line Russian and Chinese missile systems, they have been making adaptations and innovations of their own.

While I wouldn't call American Gunboat Diplomacy in the Persian Gulf fish in a barrel, US warships are truly vulnerable to Iranian weapons systems in that confined, congested, and often low-visibility arena. The US Navy has met with deadly surprises (http://www.navybook.com/nohigherhonor/pic-stark.shtml) there before.

Why would Iran's export suffer if it closed the straits? Would they prevent their own oil from being exported?

Simple answer is yes.

If they succeed and close it tightly, their economy will be largely nonexistant in a short period. Oil is their cheif export and they will literally choke on it very quickly. They will driver the price of oil through the roof, but will not cash in on it.

How fast will Iranian economy become "non existent"? Do Iranian businesses depend on government handouts that much? And I'm sure there are some cash reserves to sustain a blockade... no?


Why would Iran's export suffer if it closed the straits? Would they prevent their own oil from being exported?
Iran's exports will suffer because they will have all that oil and no means to deliver it to their buyers since they choked off the straits.

By the way, I don't know if I mentioned this earlier, but one American military official mentioned that the US will also setup a blockade to make sure that Iran's refined oil imports cannot reach it (it imports a huge amount of refined fuel from other countries as it lacks refining capacity).

That too, doubtless, will multiply the "economy in shit" effect.

As a consumer of Arab oil, Israel is as keen on the strategic control of Hormuz as have been the British and US empires.

How did I miss this? Of course, that is what they want, hence the desire to decimate any standing government in the ME that will stand up to them.

/slaps forehead.

And I agree with you, the best time for Iran to "close" the strait is when the battleships are in the Gulf, or let the Americans bomb their own Navy.

this is a 5 part documented video of how a 16 year old girl was brutally executed in iran for adultery and "crimes against chastity".

part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovSI2uyZW6w&feature=related)

part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzD_SSGrSr8&feature=related)

part 3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6kkh42UEnk&feature=related)

part 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bq5LJ2MNa9E&feature=related)

part 5 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aspN7-ChXqM&feature=related)


this 2 videos shows how civilians are treated in iran:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2aUNsO1vVs&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNLaFRaNPdI&feature=related

who will stand up against this regime?

Ok, Spock convince us why Iran doesn't need civilian nuclear reactors, and why they should let Israel and America form their domestic policy?

Also, why does Israel need 200+ nukes while we are on the topic?

convince us why Iran doesn't need civilian nuclear reactors, and why they should let Israel and America form their domestic policy?
They need it... and from what I've read about the subject, they need it a lot. The world is just worried that Iran will build nukes. The current offers by the world to Iran are far greater than letting Iran have nuclear civilian technology with supervision. If Iran wanted just the nuclear civilian energy, they could have had it months ago, without antagonizing the world and uniting it against Iran.

Also, why does Israel need 200+ nukes while we are on the topic?

Assuming Israel does have them, they need them as a deterrent to the Muslim world's genocidal ambitions. Though I don't know how much use they are now. It's not like Israel can actually use them, under any practical or theoretical Doom's Day scenario. I can't see Israel using a nuke as a first strike on any Muslim nation. The only scenario would be, I guess, if another Hitler rises to power in any country and begins another Holocaust...

Israel hasn't used its supposed nuke arsenal even as a threat during 1973 when a bunch of armies invaded her from all sides. Israel didn't even say "we have a nuke so watch the f9ck out". There wasn't even a hint of that even when Israel was faced with total and utter destruction and potential genocide. That weapon is reserved for a very unlikely scenario and will likely never be used in the Middle East (by Israel at least). Even from the perspective of Israel's enemies being so close to it... it would be impossible to reside in Israel after such an attack.

But people who use the "if Israel has it, others should have it too" argument are just cynics who manipulate facts around as if Israel is as barbaric and expansionist as Iran is. Stop the dishonesty please...

They need it... and from what I've read about the subject, they need it a lot. The world is just worried that Iran will build nukes. The current offers by the world to Iran are far greater than letting Iran have nuclear civilian technology with supervision. If Iran wanted just the nuclear civilian energy, they could have had it months ago, without antagonizing the world and uniting it against Iran.

They have already stated their program is for civilian nuclear facilities, and it is not weapon-based.

Here is a video of Pres. Ahmadi Nejad's interview with Brian Williams

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1vIzSZQn2E&eurl



Assuming Israel does have them, they need them as a deterrent to the Muslim world's genocidal ambitions. Though I don't know how much use they are now. It's not like Israel can actually use them, under any practical or theoretical Doom's Day scenario. I can't see Israel using a nuke as a first strike on any Muslim nation. The only scenario would be, I guess, if another Hitler rises to power in any country and begins another Holocaust...

Israel hasn't used its supposed nuke arsenal even as a threat during 1973 when a bunch of armies invaded her from all sides. Israel didn't even say "we have a nuke so watch the f9ck out". There wasn't even a hint of that even when Israel was faced with total and utter destruction and potential genocide. That weapon is reserved for a very unlikely scenario and will likely never be used in the Middle East (by Israel at least). Even from the perspective of Israel's enemies being so close to it... it would be impossible to reside in Israel after such an attack.

But people who use the "if Israel has it, others should have it too" argument are just cynics who manipulate facts around as if Israel is as barbaric and expansionist as Iran is. Stop the dishonesty please...

Iran is not expansionist. It has never conquered territory from another nation in the past 100 years. Israel on the other hand is occupying Palestinian West Bank and Gaza, Lebanese Shebaa Farms, and Syrian Golan Heights.

The fact is that as long as Israel has nuclear weapons, no country in the Middle East will feel safe, because Israel is willing to kill thousands, destroy billions of dollars, bomb densely populated civilian neighborhoods for two soldiers.

A nation like that has the potential to use a nuclear bomb, I don't doubt it. With American and European complicity, the ones who have the most to suffer are not Israel but its neighbors.

They have already stated their program is for civilian nuclear facilities, and it is not weapon-based.

Here is a video of Pres. Ahmadi Nejad's interview with Brian Williams

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1vIzSZQn2E&eurl
Whose intelligence are you trying to insult? Or do you actually believe what you're saying?

Just because he stated it you're going to take his word as truth? That's not enough unfortunately.

Iran is not expansionist. It has never conquered territory from another nation in the past 100 years. Israel on the other hand is occupying Palestinian West Bank and Gaza, Lebanese Shebaa Farms, and Syrian Golan Heights.
Since the Iranian revolution, the Islamic Republic of Iran has been trying to export its Shiite Islamic revolution and increase its influence in the region through violent means. Why do you think all the Sunni states despise it so much? (or at best are mistrustful).

The fact is that as long as Israel has nuclear weapons, no country in the Middle East will feel safe
I don't see the Saudis or Egyptians having nuclear weapons programs. Israel doesn't threaten anyone with nuclear weapons, so its neighbours see no need to reciprocate.

But Iran, who wants to increase its influence through force and intimidation, and believes that there is a "zionist ship" travelling the seas where children are abducted and their organs harvested, does threaten its neighbours.

Israel is willing to kill thousands, destroy billions of dollars, bomb densely populated civilian neighborhoods for two soldiers.
Eye of the beholder. And you're a cynical and dishonest hack.

A nation like that has the potential to use a nuclear bomb, I don't doubt it.
You mean a nation whose stated objective is to destroy Israel and its inhabitants?

You are so predictable man. Your head is filled with so much shyte that you can't even concentrate on the question at hand (read OP). Watch out, or the agents from the zionist ship will harvest your eyes.

They need it... and from what I've read about the subject, they need it a lot.

no they dont

Iran has 9% of the world's proven oil reserves, and almost 16 percent of the world's gas reserves (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/iea/table81.html) , second only to Russia. Iran also has considerable quantities of coal. Their energy consumption is about the same as that of Saudi Arabia, and far less per capita. Gas is a clean burning fuel that can be used for generating electricity and nuclear power. It is cheaper than nuclear power.

Iranian per capita energy consumption is still not very high. Total energy consumption is about the same as Saudi Arabia, (about 100 Metric Ton Oil Equivalents). Since the proven oil reserves are not all the oil reserves, it is unlikely that Iran will need to import oil if she develops the existing resources. Proven reserves are usually a very low estimate of actual retrievable oil. New methods are also making it economically feasible to extract oil from previously problematic sources such as oil sands and shale.

Israel doesn't threaten anyone with nuclear weapons, so its neighbours see no need to reciprocate. Nukes are for defense - they make attack very risky. Israel has helped made itself invulnerable to concerted assault, by developing nukes (since 1973). But Israel is an aggressive, expanding country, and it has used that invulnerability to cover for aggression and expansion, and assaults on its neighbors.

Iran has no such pattern of aggression, and apparently at least as much need for defense - the US has been openly discussing military assault, and stationed the means right on its borders, for example.

Even so, there is as yet not a shred of evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. So far, what they have done looks exactly like what they say it is - an attempt to become independent of Western fuel supplies for their electricity.

a country that hangs people over religion, declares war over religion, uses hezbullah to wage war in its name over religion, is not dangerous and expanding. iran doesnt want to take over iraq, nuke israel, and be a dominant power. with all the liberals air heads here that blame israel over the arab desire to wipe out all jews(regardless of the fact israel has already initiated 3 peace treaties-2 of them successfully) they would bliss at the sight of israel bombardment by hezbullah and iran.

just the other day lebanon declared war on israel, where are the liberals then? all of a sudden war is a good thing? using force for revenge is excusable?

but who counts on the liberals anyway. they didnt want to help jews during the holocaust, why would they start now? only problem they dont understand its their assess on the line. they actually think if israel is gone it will save them from rabid maniacs.

aye Spockey, how does it stem fo ya that US yor dearest alley need all the jews to
be in ther nev homland becaus the armafukingeddon and comming of a new christ,
how dos it feel to see those rigtwingerapocalypce preachers psyching up the masses
for armageddon against the great satan, and same time some hardcorejihadist preaching
the same about you&US, you musta feel quite e ..fcuked ?
Are you a jew i mean in religion, can there be atheist Israelite, whaaats your take on
coming of christ and armagedon ? too personal ? sorrrry, like i said i´m snapped kjäh kjäh

we are dealing with " if " here .
I see no point in hostilities between the west and Iran and the west should mind their own business and stop bullying the whole world .
Any sovereign nation has the right to develop its industry and the west are already very well developped .
When the Us attacked Iraq , they told the whole world that not even one soldier will die and Iraqis will welcome them with music and flowers . How wrong were they !!!.
I suspect if they attack Iran , the casualties will be very high for a futile and unnecessary war . How wrong the morons will be ( again )!!! .

Nukes are for defense - they make attack very risky. Israel has helped made itself invulnerable to concerted assault, by developing nukes (since 1973). But Israel is an aggressive, expanding country, and it has used that invulnerability to cover for aggression and expansion, and assaults on its neighbors.

Iran has no such pattern of aggression, and apparently at least as much need for defense - the US has been openly discussing military assault, and stationed the means right on its borders, for example.

Even so, there is as yet not a shred of evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. So far, what they have done looks exactly like what they say it is - an attempt to become independent of Western fuel supplies for their electricity.

Israel is not aggressive its belligerent.

Israel is not aggressive its belligerent.

give ´ emmmmmmmm boxcutters and u are done kjeh kjeh

kjeh kjeh

What does that mean?

hih hih hiii kjeh kjeh is there something in mi throat köh kjeh kjeh twiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisted miiiiiiinded oralllllllll souuunnnnds

I've said it before and I'll say it again: This is not a new or uncharted scenario. Iran has tried the maritime interdiction gig (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Earnest_Will) before and got their asses handed to them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Mantis) for it. Anyone who has bothered to dig through a Jane's encyclopedia and read about the differences in the tactical picture between the late 1980s and today will tell you the Iranians had a better chance of pulling it off then than they do now. Expecting that the Iranians themselves are not aware of the force balance seriously underestimates the wisdom of their leadership. As such, any threat on their part to piss off all of their neighbors on the Gulf waters along with pretty much the entire industrialized world (as they would do by blockading the SOH) is a bluff. The only way it would actually do anything for them is if they wanted to tell the world to fuck off in a last act of desperation before a rout or regime collapse. I'm not an economist, so I can't tell you how long they would last in complete isolation, but in any outcome it would not be a sustainable solution to their problems.

A few months ago I completed Ken Pollack's book The Persian Puzzle (http://www.amazon.com/Persian-Puzzle-Conflict-Between-America/dp/0812973364), which was a work so well nuanced that it required tangential reading on my part to fully appreciate the author's points; something I found to be a pleasant surprise. I would strongly recommend it to anyone with an interest in this subject. It was on the reading list (http://www.usna.edu/LibExhibits/Readinglist/Fullreading.htm) at Annapolis when it was new (I think the professor who entered it had changed jobs or something). In it, Pollack concludes that Iran's policies are not couched in an expansionist or offensive agenda, merely that Iran feels threatened by behavior of the US since 9/11, after which they offered their assistance (which would have been nice to have) in the GWOT but we snubbed them and then put them on the ZOMG axis of evil instead. Due to that event and others, any significant action on Iran's part needs to be interpreted in the context that they feel their regional hegemony shrinking and their security threatened. He argues that using additional force against Iran will only further hamper the US's long-term goals and security in the region, and that using diplomacy to exploit the rift between moderates and radicals within the Iranian political dimension is the best way forward for the US. Here (http://www.motherjones.com/news/qa/2005/01/kenneth_pollack.html) is an interview about it if anyone is curious.

Nukes are for defense - they make attack very risky. Israel has helped made itself invulnerable to concerted assault, by developing nukes (since 1973). But Israel is an aggressive, expanding country, and it has used that invulnerability to cover for aggression and expansion, and assaults on its neighbors.

Iran has no such pattern of aggression, and apparently at least as much need for defense - the US has been openly discussing military assault, and stationed the means right on its borders, for example.
Israel also has a more colorful history of being ganged up on and attacked by its neighbors than Iran does, and as of late have not been causing the PR ruckus that the Iranian leadership has. While there is certainly a bothersome element of "only our friends get to have nice things" in US policy vis a vis Iran and Israel, I don't think it is fair to interpret Israeli and Iranian behavior in the same context. That said, I think it is entirely reasonable to say that Iran might look at a weapons program as a deterrent to an overwhelming conventional threat on two of their landed borders, if that is what they pursue. And as I said above, I agree with Pollack's analysis of their true perspective in which the United States is an aggressor.

Whose intelligence are you trying to insult? Or do you actually believe what you're saying?

Just because he stated it you're going to take his word as truth? That's not enough unfortunately.

So then whose word are you taking to assign guilt over Iran?

The truth is that there is no proof that Iran intends to develop nuclear weapons. The vast amount of evidence, statements from Iranian leaders and IAEA, state that Iran is developing a civilian nuclear program only. It is within its rights to do this as it is a signatory of the Nuclear NPT.


Since the Iranian revolution, the Islamic Republic of Iran has been trying to export its Shiite Islamic revolution and increase its influence in the region through violent means. Why do you think all the Sunni states despise it so much? (or at best are mistrustful).

Iran's biggest allies are Sunni nations: Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Iraq (now). Sunnis and Shias are not as hateful against each other as Americans and Israelis wish them to be. Anyone who has ever been to Iran will tell you this. Sunnis don't despise Iran, as a matter of fact, the vast majority of Sunnis look up to Iran for its strength.


I don't see the Saudis or Egyptians having nuclear weapons programs. Israel doesn't threaten anyone with nuclear weapons, so its neighbours see no need to reciprocate.

Believe me, if they could, they would. The governments of these countries are traitors to the Arabs and Muslims and puppets of the US. They have sold out the Palestinians, they have no moral legitimacy in the Muslim world anymore. Iran, on the other hand, is seen as brave and courageous for standing up to America and Israeli ambitions in the region.


But Iran, who wants to increase its influence through force and intimidation, and believes that there is a "zionist ship" travelling the seas where children are abducted and their organs harvested, does threaten its neighbours.

No, you are mistaking Iran with Israel. The Lebanese learned the hard way why Israel, and not Iran is their biggest threat. Israel and America want to portray Iran as the biggest threat in the Middle East because it is the biggest threat tot heir global hegemony. To Muslims, Sunni and Shia, Iran is a great defender of Muslims and a great friend to all the people of the region. The only ones who should be afraid are those who sell out their people for the interests of Israel and America.


You mean a nation whose stated objective is to destroy Israel and its inhabitants?


Those are not its stated objectives. You are trying to imply that Iran has the intention to invade Israel.

Explain to me practically how Iran is going to accomplish this without political suicide.

Iran wishes to develop a nuclear program fro civilian use to benefit its people. Those who oppose Iran, want the Iranian people to remain economically weak and never progress scientifically.

Nuclear power is the future. All nations of the Middle East should develop civilian nuclear programs, this is the only way for them to advance into economic powers.

manipulate facts around as if Israel is as barbaric and expansionist as Iran is Um how is a country that has annexed roughly half of it current land during warfare not expansionistic?

How fast will Iranian economy become "non existent"? Do Iranian businesses depend on government handouts that much? And I'm sure there are some cash reserves to sustain a blockade... no?

The Oil in Iran is not governemtn controlled, otherwise they would not be seeling it to us or our allies. Second Iran's economy is dependant on exports, both Oil and otherwise. Some cash reserves would keep it open for a short period, but with exports and imports the business just dries up. Finaly when it comes to conflict, we can launch a missile here and hit a PT boat in the straits, so Iran might want to think twice.

E3R: "Iran has tried the maritime interdiction gig before... [link]
On 14 April 1988, the American frigate USS Copeland, while on patrol, encountered trouble with its primary missile launcher. The Samuel B. Roberts, assuming Copeland's patrol area, struck an Iranian mine and was badly damaged. Four days later, U.S. forces retaliated with a one-day attack on Iranian warships, armed speedboats, and oil platforms used as naval bases. Dubbed Operation Praying Mantis, it was the biggest engagement of surface warships since World War II. Two Iranian ships were destroyed, and two American pilots died when their helicopter crashed.

On 3 July 1988, USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air Flight 655, an Airbus A300B2, over the Strait of Hormuz after mistaking it for an Iranian F-14. 290 people were killed.

..."and got their asses handed to them for it." [link] On April 14, the guided missile frigate USS Samuel B. Roberts struck a mine while deployed in the Persian Gulf as part of Operation Earnest Will, the 1987-88 convoy missions in which U.S. warships escorted reflagged Kuwaiti oil tankers to protect them from Iranian attacks. The explosion put a 25-foot hole in the Roberts' hull and nearly sank it. The crew saved their ship with no loss of life, and Roberts was towed to Dubai on April 16.

After the mining, U.S. Navy divers recovered other mines in the area. When the serial numbers were found to match those of mines seized along with the Iran Ajr the previous September, U.S. military officials planned a retaliatory operation against Iranian targets in the Persian Gulf.

The battle, the largest for American naval forces since World War II, sank two Iranian warships and three armed speedboats. It also marked the first surface-to-surface missile engagement in U.S. Navy history.

The attack by the U.S. helped pressure Iran to agree to a ceasefire with Iraq later that summer, ending the eight-year conflict between the Persian Gulf neighbors.


These engagements were not tantamount to an Iranian blockade of Hormuz, nor were they representative of Iran making war with the USA. Although the US Navy did kill a lot of Iranian civilians, Iran's naval losses were not disproportionate nor crippling, and Iran never attempted to take out a US warship. Iran came through those exchanges with their regional power enhanced, not reduced. Iran's capabilities for interrupting Persian Gulf commerce, along with their national military and regional political wherewithal for doing serious harm to US forces are much improved today.

We are not discussing a scenario here such as the Tanker War, in which the US stepped in on the side of Iraq (in spite of events including the Iraqi attack on the USS Stark (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4442/is_200606/ai_n17177270)) and did compel Iran to desist from interrupting Gulf petroleum traffic. It seems to me we are discussing instead Iran's capability to respond to US and Israeli provocations with serious damage to US naval and ground forces along with the US economy, while retaining the political, logistical, and economic infrastructure to weather US and Israeli responses better than their adversary in a direct and furious conflict.

E3R: "any threat on [Iran's] part to piss off all of their neighbors on the Gulf waters along with pretty much the entire industrialized world (as they would do by blockading the SOH) is a bluff."

That isn't a safe bet at all. Consider the potential for Shi'a revolutions all along the Northern and Western Persian Gulf: Shi'a are the long-suffering underdog majority on the beach, who would rally to a sea-change.

"The only way it would actually do anything for them is if they wanted to tell the world to fuck off in a last act of desperation before a rout or regime collapse. I'm not an economist, so I can't tell you how long they would last in complete isolation, but in any outcome it would not be a sustainable solution to their problems.

No, that's not the only way it would do anything for them. When an empire collapses, there are momentous shifts in influence. If Iran called yours and the present US Administration's own bluff under particular circumstances (as plausible defender/non-aggressor) it could very well be that the United States would suffer more isolation politically than Iran- both regionally and globally. Understand that for many in the region, the United States would be perceived as the intruders- not the Iranians. Iran has been practicing a regional policy that generally does not offend their neighbors (excepting Israel). Further afield, Iran does not have trouble finding trading partners (excepting Israel and the USA). Globally as well, the United States could in a losing situation find themselves suddenly, profoundly irrelevant to Persian Gulf oil. It's happened to empires before, even some who "ruled the waves" and it can happen again.

Assuming Iran successfully blocks the Straits of Hormuz, and western powers can't do anything about it, how would that affect Iran domestically from an economic perspective, assuming that most of their economy depends on exporting oil?

Obviously, they wouldn't be able to sustain a war effort, but it could be used as a last stand tactic, block it with a a tanker and you'll guarantee rising prices for at least 2 months. Because they can't stand up to US military hardware, they'll have to do it covertly and low tech, sinking a tanker should do it.

It'll be a "fuck you", effort, in the end.

E3R: "Pollack concludes that Iran's policies are not couched in an expansionist or offensive agenda, merely that Iran feels threatened by behavior of the US since 9/11, after which they offered their assistance (which would have been nice to have) in the GWOT but we snubbed them and then put them on the ZOMG axis of evil instead."

You should consider carefully the significance of that if Iran should take on the heroic role of confronter of empire: Iran has been cultivating the respect of Persian Gulf neighbors at the grass-roots level, while that the USA has been busy doing the opposite.

"any significant action on Iran's part needs to be interpreted in the context that they feel their regional hegemony shrinking and their security threatened."

No, Iran's security and regional hegemony has never looked better, while the United States has never been so over-extended (militarily, economically, and politically) before.

"[Pollack] argues that using additional force against Iran will only further hamper the US's long-term goals and security in the region, and that using diplomacy to exploit the rift between moderates and radicals within the Iranian political dimension is the best way forward for the US."

That's right. He recognizes that the military hacking-out and maintenance of a US empire in the Mideast is no longer plausible. You don't seem to share this realization.

"I agree with Pollack's analysis of their true perspective in which the United States is an aggressor."

That is not a nuanced opinion- It is the clear and overwhelming opinion of the residents of the region, if not the world.

Iran is looking better and better in the mid east by the second, any more threats by the US will only serve to increase it's support. The US can't throw down the power card, since it's been played on Iraq.

I think, like palestine, Iranian troops will be seen as heroes in the Arab world, simply for defying the US.

Absolutely. E3R has been well demonstrating for us the hubristic mentality of some very dangerous US policy. If the USA intensifies an overt grab at empire, it just isn't going to work. Once it is widely apparent that the empire has no clothes, nothing in the US arsenal can turn the tide.

one square mile of solar power can solve all their energy problems.only if you ignore the logistics of transporting power.

pjdude: "only if you ignore the logistics of transporting power."

Petroleum is far more ponderous to transport, refine, and convert to usable energy than electrons, and we have adequate and sustainable alternative sources of electricity besides burning fossil fuels. Squabbling over the dregs of the Petroleum Age isn't wise.

Ok hypewaders. I'm only going to make one post, and I'm going to avoid making it difficult to read by responding to you in the catty, tit-for-tat fashion you seem to enjoy. Here we go...

It seems to me we are discussing instead Iran's capability to respond to US and Israeli provocations with serious damage to US naval and ground forces along with the US economy, while retaining the political, logistical, and economic infrastructure to weather US and Israeli responses better than their adversary in a direct and furious conflict.
Indeed we are. Something that is relevant to this discussion is the force balance between our hypothetical belligerents. That balance is heavily in favor of the US; a fact of which Iran is very aware. Iran is also experienced with attempting to close the SOH before, at a time when the US was not nearly as well prepared to deal with such a threat as we are now, but it ended terribly for them anyway. The crux of the issue here is that the Iranian leadership - despite the way they are represented here in the US - are neither reckless nor stupid. They simply do not have the capability to enforce a blockade for any meaningful amount of time, and they know such a plan would not enjoy much tactical or operational success.

Above that, at the strategic level, Iran also knows that they are as hostage to a navigable Gulf as every one of their neighbors, and much of the industrialized world is. Any plan to interdict shipping will fail to do the one thing that it needs: to allow Iran to survive. Unmolested operation of the commercial shipping lanes and the seaport at Jebel Ali and the Jebel Ali Free Zone is top priority for all the Gulf states (it is the main commercial lifeline for the entire region). What do you think an Iranian blockade of the SOH, which would put a halt to all of that, would do to mobilize regional opinion of Iran's actions? The answer is obvious.

On that note, there really isn't any chance of a region-wide Shia revolt in support of Iran. The Arab Shia in the west have a different language and culture than their historic rivals in Persia. Also, the Arab Shia (especially in Iraq) remember Operation Karbala 5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Karbala-5) enough to harbor significant enmity toward Iran to this day. In February of 1991, both the US and Saddam feared that Iran would destabilize Iraq by entering the south of the country in support of the Shiites who were revolting, but it didn't happen. For all the angst the US has earned from dicking around over there, Iran would be making itself into a much bigger problem.

Basically, a blockade would have the same strategic failings for Iran that the Von Schlieffen Plan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlieffen_Plan) had for WWI Germany. As an added penalty, Iran would not enjoy the early tactical or operational successes that the Germans did. They know this better than we do.

Absolutely. E3R has been well demonstrating for us the hubristic mentality of some very dangerous US policy. If the USA intensifies an overt grab at empire, it just isn't going to work. Once it is widely apparent that the empire has no clothes, nothing in the US arsenal can turn the tide.
:rolleyes:

You'd be a better poster if you could make it through a thread without this infantile strawmanning of other people.

pjdude: "only if you ignore the logistics of transporting power."

Petroleum is far more ponderous to transport, refine, and convert to usable energy than electrons, and we have adequate and sustainable alternative sources of electricity besides burning fossil fuels. Squabbling over the dregs of the Petroleum Age isn't wise.

Power bleeds from wires. Long distances you would lose a fair portion of power made as heat.

Power bleeds from wires. Long distances you would lose a fair portion of power made as heat.
You should hear his idea to power the country from electrical storms.

Is that so? I recall some exploration of the concept of augmenting our power grid (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=83067) by capturing and storing lightning-induced currents where strikes are already regular events. Anyway, back on topic...

Ultimately the same deterrents with respect to Iran will have to suffice, that have applied to other nuclear states. US gunboat diplomacy in the Mideast is fast losing leverage, and a conflict in Hormuz is clearly not in the interests of the USA.

Well, I agree. Fortunately there have been some recent indications that our relations with Iran are on the mend. Some of us may have heard the rumor that the Bush administration is looking into establishing a diplomatic presence in Tehran for the first time since the revolution (article (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/19/world/middleeast/19iran.html?ref=middleeast)). Also, Ahmedinejad recently offered some information about Robert Levinson, the retired FBI agent that went missing in Iran, in an interview with Brian Williams (transcript (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25887437/page/4/)). For a head of state to concern themselves with that seems to me like it could be another friendly diplomatic gesture.

The crux of the issue here is that the Iranian leadership - despite the way they are represented here in the US - are neither reckless nor stupid. They simply do not have the capability to enforce a blockade for any meaningful amount of time, and they know such a plan would not enjoy much tactical or operational success. But the issue is not Iranian aggression, but Iranian response to serious attack.

Do you have as much confidence that the US leadership is neither reckless nor stupid ?

But the issue is not Iranian aggression, but Iranian response to serious attack.

That is the whole issue, that and the stability of the Iranian Leadership, they are driven more by Religious Theology than Fact based assessments.

Do you have as much confidence that the US leadership is neither reckless not stupid ?

I can't answer for E3R, but yes I do, and I know you do not, but your hatred of GWB, and anything conservative, is a cloud to logical reasoning on your part.

Do the math- Iran doesn't stand a chance, unless Allah himself with his big beard descends from the clouds and literally stomps out America's forces. Iraqis have the advantage of being able to hide behind civilians the US is trying to protect, and even they can't defeat or inflict militarily significant casualties on US forces. Iran's only playing card is they can make life difficult for their enemies, whereas their enemies can wipe them off the map (and not just in Photoshop). We don't find it worth the raised prices and bloodshed to make war on Iran, most of us would rather take a defensive posture, develop capabilities to bat their missiles out of the sky, etc. But if Iran wanted an all-out war with the west, America will be adding another star to its flag to accomodate the new territorial acquisition.

My point? Iran is weak. Very, very weak. They can bluster and threaten all they want, but if they ever became a genuine threat to western security, like the next Hitler, they would be swept away in a New York minute. Human shields and Photoshop are pretty much all they have. A few hundred rockets raining down on Israel or US bases is nothing compared to what western countries have survived in the past- absolutely nothing. Germany did worse things in a single day, and they still got their asses handed to them in the end.

So Iran is no danger then. The US battleships are needlessly parked in the Persian gulf? Israel's bleats are all pointless?

I don't see how Israel would profit from a surprise strike. Even if they somehow disabled Iran's nuclear program and set it back 10 years, Iran would simply redouble its efforts and this time would undoubtedly be going for nuclear weapons, and the international community would probably consider it a legal pursuit this time. Either Israel would have to scorch Earth and plow its way through Syria and Iraq just to get to Iran (which they would also have to scorch, as they're too small to occupy it), or the US would have to finish the job for them. The diplomatic repercussions for Israel would be disastrous and those consequences alone would probably be enough to destroy the Israeli state. No thanks, let Iran rot on its own. If they nuke anyone or even try, they'll be the next Wild West, prime real estate for American or Israeli settlement.

So Iran is no danger then. The US battleships are needlessly parked in the Persian gulf? Israel's bleats are all pointless?

The point of all these military gestures are not for the sake of killing Iranians. It's to change their behaviour. If it would be just for the sake of killing, nukes would have been used a long time ago.

I don't see how Israel would profit from a surprise strike. Even if they somehow disabled Iran's nuclear program and set it back 10 years, Iran would simply redouble its efforts and this time would undoubtedly be going for nuclear weapons, and the international community would probably consider it a legal pursuit this time.

10 years - that's being very liberal with the success estimate. All it would do is it would buy time. There are 2 real options here, and one of them is out of the question, which is to have a full scale war with Iran. They will "lose", (whatever that means), but the otherside will not win either. The only real option available is to increase Iran's isolation and sanctions 10-fold. The current sanctions are not working, but their effects are already beginning to show. If sanctions are increased further, then even though Iran suffers from the "small dick" mental disorder and are extremely sensitive about their pride, eventually the sober actors within that regime will agree to just take the already overtly generous deal that the west is offering.

Re: the world deciding that Iran's program is legal, it won't happen.

It would nice to see that they could hold the strike to watch how the next presidential
election goes there, they might choose less extreme prez than when in isolation,
in isolation domestic votes are easy to sway in by opportunists.

Almost all Muslim nations support Iran, unilaterally, Sunni or Shia.

Some people are trying to make it look like we are opposed to Iran, this is not the case at all. The majority of the Arab populations in the world love Iran, especially for standing up for Palestinians and Lebanese.

Trying to make us hate Iran will not work.

Almost all Muslim nations support Iran, unilaterally, Sunni or Shia.

How did Saddam get so many Sunnis to fight Iran?

If they love them so much.

How did Saddam get so many Sunnis to fight Iran?

If they love them so much.

Saddam was a tyrant. He used propaganda against Iran to build support, but even then invaded Iran unilaterally even though many Muslim governments and many people in Iraq opposed the war.

That war was unnecessary, any Iraqi or Iranian will tell you that.

That war was unnecessary, any Iraqi or Iranian will tell you that.
Would Iraqis still say it was unnecessary if they had won?

Would Iraqis still say it was unnecessary if they had won?

Why don't you ask them if you aren't going to believe what I say?

It's a no-brainer: If Iraqis could somehow have repelled the invasion, they would certainly have considered the invasion (as they do overwhelmingly consider it in reality) unnecessary.

Back to topic, I'm not glad that there is trouble in the Caucasus, but other dangers do reduce the chances that the Bush Administration will have any Pentagon or Political support for escalating with Iran before they leave the stage.

Some people are trying to make it look like we are opposed to Iran, this is not the case at all. The majority of the Arab populations in the world love Iran, especially for standing up for Palestinians and Lebanese.

Standing up for them, you say? I see Lebanese and Palestinians dying all the time. I don't see any Iranians dying, except from their own civil conflicts of course. Is Iran standing up for Palestine and Lebanon, or are the Lebanese and Palestinians dying for Iran's sake? Hmmmm....

The Lebanese and Palestinians are dying from Israeli occupation. You know, those guys with a Right of Return© on Palestinian lands.


©Jews Only, others need not apply as automatically disqualified.

Standing up for them, you say? I see Lebanese and Palestinians dying all the time. I don't see any Iranians dying, except from their own civil conflicts of course. Is Iran standing up for Palestine and Lebanon, or are the Lebanese and Palestinians dying for Iran's sake? Hmmmm....

LOL, I think we should blame the people killing then, i.e. ISRAEL!

LOL, I think we should blame the people killing then, i.e. ISRAEL!

And the right people are Islamic.

Where do they get their military weapons from? Where do they get their atomic reactors from? Where are the technicians that train Iranians from...Russia.

The world will probably learn one day that while Iran was building up its arsenal in late 2008 the USA probably secretly provided all the weapons in some covert operation like the Iran Contra crisis back in Ronald Regan’s administration… Quote from Regan: [Um I don’t remember that..]

Carcano:

How did Saddam get so many Sunnis to fight Iran?

If they love them so much.


It's not about loving Iran, it's about hating the U.S.A, and admiring anyone with the cahones to stand up to it.

Carcano:

How did Saddam get so many Sunnis to fight Iran?

If they love them so much.

It's not about loving Iran, it's about hating the U.S.A, and admiring anyone with the cahones to stand up to it.

What? The question was how did Saddam get so many Sunnis to fight Iran, if they loved Iran, a Sunni nation.

Nothing about the U.S.

Easy, fight for Iraq or your family dies.

What? The question was how did Saddam get so many Sunnis to fight Iran, if they loved Iran, a Sunni nation.

Nothing about the U.S.

Easy, fight for Iraq or your family dies.

Since when was Iran a Sunni nation?


Kadark

Since when was Iran a Sunni nation?


Kadark

Sorry, I made a Boo Boo, Shia, and to get Sunni to kill Shia is easy, they don't love each other in the first place.

Something about who is the righteous and right full successor to Mohammad.

http://www.islamfortoday.com/shia.htm

Imam Ali (ra),

Ali is the central figure at the origin of the Shia / Sunni split which occurred in the decades immediately following the death of the Prophet in 632. Sunnis regard Ali as the fourth and last of the "rightly guided caliphs" (successors to Mohammed (pbuh) as leader of the Muslims) following on from Abu Bakr 632-634, Umar 634-644 and Uthman 644-656. Shias feel that Ali should have been the first caliph and that the caliphate should pass down only to direct descendants of Mohammed (pbuh) via Ali and Fatima, They often refer to themselves as ahl al bayt or "people of the house" [of the prophet].

Ali was, however, opposed by Aisha, wife of the Prophet (pbuh) and daughter of Abu Bakr, who accused him of being lax in bringing Uthman's killers to justice. After Ali's army defeated Aisha's forces at the Battle of the Camel in 656, she apologized to Ali and was allowed to return to her home in Madinah where she withdrew from public life.

However, there remain significant differences between the two forms of Islam and these are what tend to be emphasized. Many Sunni's would contend that Shias seem to take the fundamentals of Islam very much for granted, shunting them into the background and dwelling on the martyrdoms of Ali and Hussein. This is best illustrated at Ashura when each evening over a period of ten days the Shias commemorate the Battle of Karbala, with a wailing Imam whipping the congregation up into a frenzy of tears and chest beating. It is alleged that instead of missionary work to non-Muslims, the Shia harbor a deep-seated disdain towards Sunni Islam and prefer to devote their attention to winning over other Muslims to their group. There is ongoing violent strife between Sunnis and Shias in Pakistan.

Iraq is also Shia, the Sunni dictator, Saddam (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2773), like the Shia dictator in Iran [the Shah (http://www.angelfire.com/home/iran/savak.html)], were both installed by Jesus Christ the US. Both of whom, at the height of their popularity with the US, were torturing and/or killing their own countrymen.

http://roguecity.files.wordpress.com/2006/12/saddamrumsfeld.jpg (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2773)


http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/shah%20nixon.jpg (http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iran/savak/)

That pic is like bringing out Saddam's baby pictures.

That pic is like bringing out Saddam's baby pictures.

And about as relevant.

Not to present day Iraq. Or Iran.

Why don't you ask them if you aren't going to believe what I say?

Why believe you? You aren't a Iraqi, and you have no perspective as a Iraqi.

Just put yourself in their place. What would you think of the US?

Sorry, I made a Boo Boo, Shia, and to get Sunni to kill Shia is easy, they don't love each other in the first place.

Something about who is the righteous and right full successor to Mohammad.

Simple answers for simple minds.

Why believe you? You aren't a Iraqi, and you have no perspective as a Iraqi.

Most of my family lives in Iraq, and they are completely against the war. Of course, I'm sure that means absolutely nothing to you, even though they have "perspectives as Iraqis".


Kadark

Simple answers for simple minds.



Most of my family lives in Iraq, and they are completely against the war. Of course, I'm sure that means absolutely nothing to you, even though they have "perspectives as Iraqis".


Kadark

Your bio says it all:

Biography:
I love conquering people. I love eating people's souls.

Interests:
Working out, martial arts. I love hearing the crack people's necks make when I break them.

Occupation:
Revolutionary.

MSN Instant Messenger Handle:
King_Kadark@hotmail.com

Yes the Peaceful Religion of Islam.

Your bio says it all:

Biography:
I love conquering people. I love eating people's souls.

Interests:
Working out, martial arts. I love hearing the crack people's necks make when I break them.

Occupation:
Revolutionary.

MSN Instant Messenger Handle:
King_Kadark@hotmail.com

Yes the Peaceful Religion of Islam.

Most of my profile is based on quotes by Mike Tyson, who I have always had great admiration for (he was an unbelievably fierce fighter). But yeah, I'm not entirely sure what my Sciforums profile has to do with the Iraqi perspective of the current war, although I probably shouldn't risk questioning your redneck logic.


Kadark

Most of my profile is based on quotes by Mike Tyson, who I have always had great admiration for (he was an unbelievably fierce fighter) He was a thug and a coward, who caved and bit ears the first time he met his match in the ring.

When he was a street criminal as a teenager, big and muscular and violent as he was, he picked on little old ladies and people in wheelchairs. He snatched purses. That's not an exaggeration.

He was a thug and a coward, who caved and bit ears the first time he met his match in the ring.

When he was a street criminal as a teenager, big and muscular and violent as he was, he picked on little old ladies and people in wheelchairs. He snatched purses. That's not an exaggeration.

If he's a thug and a coward, then I dare you to say that to his face. He's an animal in the ring, and in his prime, practically nobody could stop him. He's a criminal, of course, and he has some severe mental issues.

Has nothing to do with his fighting ability.

As for biting ears, his response was comical:

After biting Holyfield he said, "This is my career. I have children to raise. I have to retaliate. He butted me. Look at me. My kids will be scared of me."

"I felt Holyfield was using his head illegally. I told the referee I wasn't getting any help, so I went back to the streets. I cannot defend it, but it happened."

Yeah, he's not a very good individual, but he fights like a beast.


Kadark

deleted, per cogent observation.

This thread is not about Kadark's profile or Mike Tyson, get a life people.

This thread is not about Kadark's profile or Mike Tyson, get a life people.

But his profile explains his beliefs, and personnel view of Himself, what you say about yourself say much of what you believe, and your approach to life and how your value your neighbors lives.