PDA

View Full Version : Irans Threats over Strait of Hormuz Not So Empty.....



MMC
01-05-2012, 06:59 PM
Those columns, however, understate the ease in which the country could seal off the crucial waterway, according to two new reports. According to Reuters, the logistics of closing the 25 mile entrance to the Gulf play to the advantage of a country like Iran, exploiting asymmetrical warfare. "Should Iran's rulers ever make good their threats to block the Straits of Hormuz, they could almost certainly achieve their aim within a matter of hours." Making use of fishing vessels, "smart mines," midget submarines homing torpedoes, the news service describes a couple plausible scenarios:

Iran is also believed to have built up fleets of perhaps hundreds of small fast attack craft including tiny suicide speedboats, learning from the example of Sri Lanka's Tamil Tiger rebels who used such methods in a war with the government. At worst, its forces could strike simultaneously at multiple ships passing out of the Gulf, leaving a string of burning tankers and perhaps also Western warships.

But a more likely initial scenario, many experts believe, is that it would simply declare a blockade, perhaps fire warning shots at ships and announce it had laid a minefield. "All the Iranians have to do is say they mined the straight and all tanker traffic would cease immediately," says Jon Rosamund, head of the maritime desk at specialist publishers and consultancy IHS Jane's.

The Times also reiterates the country's ability to carry out the mission. "An Iranian blockade by means of mining, airstrikes or sabotage is logistically well within Tehran’s military capabilities," the newspaper reports.....snip~

http://news.yahoo.com/irans-threat-close-strait-hormuz-isnt-entirely-empty-152203751.html

Conley
01-05-2012, 07:32 PM
They could say they mined it but we have sat imagery and the like which would let us know if they did or not. The boats would have to move around to set up the minefield and that would be tracked. I imagine we have other means of detecting them as well, like sonar and remote subs.

Captain Obvious
01-05-2012, 07:53 PM
What are international rights to use that straight?

Conley
01-05-2012, 07:59 PM
Technically I don't think it's wide enough to be international waters, right? Aren't those defined as something like 12 miles off a country's coast?

MMC
01-05-2012, 08:01 PM
Guess thats how those tanker companies would take it tho......Not all have what the US has. So you think these guys are wrong on their assessment then? That you do not think it is within Irans capability to do so?

Conley
01-05-2012, 08:01 PM
This seems legit:

Q: In the strait of Hormuz the distance between the closes Iranian and Oman Islands is around 25 miles. If you subtract a 14 mile limit for each (28 miles) so would they just divide it down the middle at roughly 12 miles each? Are there no international waters at all? Or take the strait of Gibraltar. A section of it is only 9 miles wide and with a 14 mile limit Spain could claim the whole thing and block all traffic leaving the Mediterranean? And before anyone comments a countries territorial waters are 12 nautical miles which are 6,076 feet or 1,852 metres. Not the 5280 foot mile we deal with in this county which is why I put 14 miles instead of 12.

A: Out to 12 nautical miles from the baseline, the coastal state is free to set laws, regulate use, and use any resource. Vessels were given the right of innocent passagethrough any territorial waters, with strategic straits allowing the passage of military craft as transit passage, in that naval vessels are allowed to maintain postures that would be illegal in territorial waters. "Innocent passage" is defined by the convention as passing through waters in an expeditious and continuous manner, which is not "prejudicial to the peace, good order or the security" of the coastal state. Fishing, polluting, weapons practice, and spying are not "innocent", and submarines and other underwater vehicles are required to navigate on the surface and to show their flag. Nations can also temporarily suspend innocent passage in specific areas of their territorial seas, if doing so is essential for the protection of its security


http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120101173833AAKbIyF

Conley
01-05-2012, 08:02 PM
Guess thats how those tanker companies would take it tho......Not all have what the US has. So you think these guys are wrong on their assessment then? That you do not think it is within Irans capability to do so?


Oh I definitely think they can close it, but we would be right on top of them I believe. Tankers wouldn't take any chances, they would stop until it was safe. Oil prices would definitely skyrocket.

MMC
01-05-2012, 08:05 PM
Technically I don't think it's wide enough to be international waters, right? Aren't those defined as something like 12 miles off a country's coast?

The piece says that the Entrance to the Strait is 25 miles.

Conley
01-05-2012, 08:09 PM
Well for military purposes I don't think it matters. That body of water is staying open or there will be war. No doubt about it.

Mister D
01-05-2012, 08:11 PM
Well for military purposes I don't think it matters. That body of water is staying open or there will be war. No doubt about it.

We (among others) would come down with such force if that happened I'd be kind of nervous about it. The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were interesting and even a little exciting to read about when they first went down but this would cause me some anxiety.

Conley
01-05-2012, 08:11 PM
Territorial waters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters)Out to 12 nautical miles from the baseline, the coastal state is free to set laws, regulate use, and use any resource. Vessels were given the right of innocent passage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocent_passage) through any territorial waters, with strategic straits allowing the passage of military craft as transit passage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_passage), in that naval vessels are allowed to maintain postures that would be illegal in territorial waters. "Innocent passage" is defined by the convention as passing through waters in an expeditious and continuous manner, which is not "prejudicial to the peace, good order or the security" of the coastal state. Fishing, polluting, weapons practice, and spying are not "innocent", and submarines and other underwater vehicles are required to navigate on the surface and to show their flag. Nations can also temporarily suspend innocent passage in specific areas of their territorial seas, if doing so is essential for the protection of its security.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea

Conley
01-05-2012, 08:12 PM
We (among others) would come down with such force if that happened I'd be kind of nervous about it. The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were interesting and even a little exciting to read about when they first went down but this would cause me some anxiety.

What would you fear?

Mister D
01-05-2012, 08:16 PM
What would you fear?

I wasn't all that concerned with Iraq escalating. Who knows what would happen in the Mid East with a military campaign against Iran. I guess the uncertainty. I mean I have no doubt that militarily it's no contest but this has much more potential for bloodshed than what we've seen so far in the 21st century.

Captain Obvious
01-05-2012, 08:19 PM
The piece says that the Entrance to the Strait is 25 miles.



So, as long as we don't float a 10 mile wide carrier through it, we're ok?

Captain Obvious
01-05-2012, 08:19 PM
Of course the Iranians practice variable border recognition also.

Conley
01-05-2012, 08:22 PM
I wasn't all that concerned with Iraq escalating. Who knows what would happen in the Mid East with a military campaign against Iran. I guess the uncertainty. I mean I have no doubt that militarily it's no contest but this has much more potential for bloodshed than what we've seen so far in the 21st century.

I guess that's true. It really depends on how much we have to do on land. Naval and air would be ridiculously one sided and it would be a coalition I think, similar to GW 1. Iran would really be on their own.

MMC
01-05-2012, 08:22 PM
I wonder if the Russians will send anything down around the area. Otherwise the Iranians have to know they are standing alone on this. That none would come to assist them in such an endeavor.

Conley
01-05-2012, 08:23 PM
The piece says that the Entrance to the Strait is 25 miles.



But with 14 miles (12 nautical) off each side...there's land on both sides.

Conley
01-05-2012, 08:24 PM
I wonder if the Russians will send anything down around the area. Otherwise the Iranians have to know they are standing alone on this. That none would come to assist them in such an endeavor.

I just don't see Russia willing to start WW3 over this. They need to buy oil too.

Mister D
01-05-2012, 08:27 PM
I guess that's true. It really depends on how much we have to do on land. Naval and air would be ridiculously one sided and it would be a coalition I think, similar to GW 1. Iran would really be on their own.

Yeah, that's probably true. Fucking with the global system like that won;t win them friends in Beijing and Moscow.

Mister D
01-05-2012, 08:27 PM
Is Beijing even the capital of China? lol

Captain Obvious
01-05-2012, 08:32 PM
Maybe China sends their sole carrier to get in on the action.

MMC
01-05-2012, 08:44 PM
I just don't see Russia willing to start WW3 over this. They need to buy oil too.

Does Russia have to start anything? I think the presence of Russia and Chinese Ships just appearing in and around the area will create complications.

Moreover Iran re-issued their warning to our carrier again. So they know they are raising the price of Oil. Plus they already know the Saudis cannot match what they say. But like the analysts say. Iran also knows it would hurt them even more than what they are with the sanctions. Let alone losing 90% of their fleet within a day or two.

MMC
01-05-2012, 08:47 PM
Maybe China sends their sole carrier to get in on the action.

Well truthfully they do have merchant ships that are armed. Plus they do have subs. Could even possibly have a few merchants carrying some mini-subs.

Conley
01-05-2012, 08:50 PM
Russia and China have huge needs for oil. Under no circumstances will they be ok with the Strait being closed. They will probably be in the region (at least the Russians) but they're not going to deliberately get involved militarily. An end to Ahmadinejad and a Muslim Brotherhood type government would be just fine with their interests. A Middle East at war and or a nuclear Iran with a death wish does not help their interests whatsoever.

Mister D
01-05-2012, 09:11 PM
That's just it. Russia and China will side with Iran as long as Iran can be used to poke a stick in our eye. Russia and China are just flexing their muscles and once Iran becomes an embarrassment let alone a threat to their interests they won't feel compelled to act in her defense.

MMC
01-05-2012, 09:15 PM
Personally I think Russia's dependence on Oil from Iran is over-stated.

http://www.ogj.com/articles/print/volume-104/issue-5/exploration-development/lukoil-discovers-oil-giant-in-russian-caspian.html

http://www.gasandoil.com/news/russia

Plus now the Rusians are working on deal with the Norweigians over their Discovery in the North Sea.

http://oil.com/blog/2011/08/17/giant-oil-strike-discovered-in-north-sea/


Seems Russia is making some moves. Plus China is buying Russian Oil to.

Mister D
01-05-2012, 09:16 PM
Personally I think Russia's dependence on Oil from Iran is over-stated.

http://www.ogj.com/articles/print/volume-104/issue-5/exploration-development/lukoil-discovers-oil-giant-in-russian-caspian.html

http://www.gasandoil.com/news/russia

Plus now the Rusians are working on deal with the Norweigians over their Discovery in the North Sea.

http://oil.com/blog/2011/08/17/giant-oil-strike-discovered-in-north-sea/


Seems Russia is making some moves. Plus China is buying Russian Oil to.

So is ours.

Conley
01-05-2012, 09:24 PM
It's not that Russia is depending only on oil from Iran, it's that Iran's actions will cause the price of ALL oil to rise. It will have catastrophic effects on the global economy. All those Chinese goods that are shipped over here for sale will suddenly not be so cheap with the transportation and manufacturing costs.

Captain Obvious
01-05-2012, 09:25 PM
Personally I think Russia's dependence on Oil from Iran is over-stated.

http://www.ogj.com/articles/print/volume-104/issue-5/exploration-development/lukoil-discovers-oil-giant-in-russian-caspian.html

http://www.gasandoil.com/news/russia

Plus now the Rusians are working on deal with the Norweigians over their Discovery in the North Sea.

http://oil.com/blog/2011/08/17/giant-oil-strike-discovered-in-north-sea/


Seems Russia is making some moves. Plus China is buying Russian Oil to.

Bingo.

Here's another connection, remember when Russia (aka the Soviet Union) was so economically and powerlessly challenged that they were actually contemplating democracy measures? They got all lovey-lovey? Then suddenly they found resources, oil and new economic stimulus.

Then went back to the iron curtain days faster than a crackhead to a quarter.

Peter1469
01-05-2012, 09:29 PM
Technically I don't think it's wide enough to be international waters, right? Aren't those defined as something like 12 miles off a country's coast?

It hardly matters. The 5th Fleet will blow it open in no time.

Mister D
01-05-2012, 09:29 PM
It's not that Russia is depending only on oil from Iran, it's that Iran's actions will cause the price of ALL oil to rise. It will have catastrophic effects on the global economy. All those Chinese goods that are shipped over here for sale will suddenly not be so cheap with the transportation and manufacturing costs.

Good point.

MMC
01-05-2012, 09:32 PM
What bothers me is that Russian and American Billionaires are share swapping. Other Oil billionaires are doing it as well.

http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7066710
BP and Rosneft announced today that they have agreed a groundbreaking strategic global alliance.

Rosneft and BP have agreed to explore and develop three license blocks - EPNZ 1,2,3 – on the Russian Arctic continental shelf. These licences were awarded to Rosneft in 2010 and cover approximately 125,000 square kilometres in a highly prospective area of the South Kara Sea. This is an area roughly equivalent in size and prospectivity to the UK North Sea.....snip~

Also Russia placed flags on the North pole for the Reserves found under the Artic Ice.

Conley
01-05-2012, 09:36 PM
It hardly matters. The 5th Fleet will blow it open in no time.

Right, as long as it is deep enough that the sunken wreckage doesn't impede passing.

Mister D
01-05-2012, 09:36 PM
It hardly matters. The 5th Fleet will blow it open in no time.

I'd imagine that there will be little in the way of hesitation. Action will be swift and probably severe.

Peter1469
01-06-2012, 05:35 PM
Right, as long as it is deep enough that the sunken wreckage doesn't impede passing.

I imagine the Navy knows how to tow dead ships!

Conley
01-06-2012, 05:46 PM
But what about sunken ships in the middle of a minefield?

I don't doubt they can do it but it doesn't sound fun.