Author Topic: More saber Rattleing - Iran threatens to close straits of Hormuz (Read 1221 times)

scootrd · « **on:** December 27, 2011, 06:57:22 PM »

Oil Trades Near Six-Week High on Iran Threat to Strait of Hormuz Shipping

Oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz account for roughly 40% of all world traded oil,

Iran’s official Islamic Republic News Agency cited Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi as saying the country would bar shipments through the strait if sanctions are imposed on its oil exports.

The U.S. and European governments are seeking help from Arab and Asian allies to reduce Iran’s oil revenue to pressure the Islamic republic to abandon a suspected nuclear weapons program. The strategy includes a push by France and the U.K. for an embargo on imports of Iranian oil by the 27 European Union countries as soon as next month. Iran claims its nuclear program is strictly for energy.
Iran is attempting to “distract attention” from its nuclear program by threatening to block oil shipments through the strait, Mark Toner, a State Department spokesman, said at a briefing yesterday in Washington.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-27/oil-trades-near-six-week-high-on-iran-threat-to-strait-of-hormuz-shipping.html

Conan The Librarian · « **Reply #1 on:** December 28, 2011, 01:49:31 AM »

How come it's saber rattling if it's Iran, and a humanitarian mission if the US bombs the crap out of a country for ten years, deposes its leadership, and destabilizes it to the point where political chaos ensues for decades. Iraq. afghanistan. Libya. ...

magooch · « **Reply #2 on:** December 28, 2011, 02:25:47 AM »

First of all, I don't recall the actions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya as being humanitarian in nature and second, it matters which side you're on.

scootrd · « **Reply #3 on:** December 28, 2011, 02:56:02 AM »

It's saber rattling because if they attempted a blockade in the straits between Oman and Iran to block 40% of world reserves flowing , it would last a whole 3-5 days at most. Their Navy would be dessimated. Just because the straits
abutt Iran does not mean they have ythe right to disrupt global shipping lanes.

Conan The Librarian · « **Reply #4 on:** December 28, 2011, 04:15:05 AM »

Lots of other countries have nuclear resources. The US is trying to bully Iran into stopping their work with nuclear. That's ridiculous. Iran is a sovereign country, and they can develop whatever arms and resources they deem to be in their best interest. The only reason for the Hormuz thing is that Iran is reacting to the bullying. It's a strategic target that they have some influence on. So far, their reactiion and their naval exercises make perfect sense to me, considering why they are doing it.

gypsyman · « **Reply #5 on:** December 28, 2011, 04:50:48 AM »

This would be a none issue, if Obama would open up the drilling in the Gulf, and the pipeline from Canada. But, since he's out to make more people dedpendent on big govt. it'll never happen with him at the helm. When a can of peas or corn is $2, and a loaf of bread is $5, and gas is $6-$8 a gallon, he will claim, this is good. Now America will find out what a 3rd. world has to go thru. Except for him. He'll be in Hawaii. gypsyman

BBF · « **Reply #6 on:** December 28, 2011, 04:55:32 AM »

Quote from: Conan The Librarian on December 28, 2011, 01:49:31 AM

How come it's saber rattling if it's Iran, and a humanitarian mission if the US bombs the crap out of a country for ten years, deposes its leadership, and destabilizes it to the point where political chaos ensues for decades. Iraq. afghanistan. Libya. ...

Excellent point!

BBF · « **Reply #7 on:** December 28, 2011, 04:57:17 AM »

Quote from: scootrd on December 28, 2011, 02:56:02 AM

It's saber rattling because if they attempted a blockade in the straits between Oman and Iran to block 40% of world reserves flowing , it would last a whole 3-5 days at most. Their Navy would be dessimated. Just because the straits
abutt Iran does not mean they have ythe right to disrupt global shipping lanes.

Sunk ships and Mines could certainly at least reduce ship traffic if not totally block the strait.

Conan The Librarian · « **Reply #8 on:** December 28, 2011, 05:20:19 AM »

A lot of people will argue that our relatively low fuel taxes encourage foreign dependence on oil, and therefore we need to raise taxes so people buy less fuel. I think that's a dandy way of hobbling the economy. So beware of politicians arguing for reduced dependence on foreign oil. They may be proposing to expand use of available resources, or they may want to shut us down. I think Obama is one of the "shut us down" guys, judging by his actions on domestic exploration and and harvesting of oil.

magooch · « **Reply #9 on:** December 28, 2011, 05:23:47 AM »

So I guess the world should just cower in the face of the mighty Iran and let them have their way. No worries though, Obama and Hillary will know what to do.

Conan The Librarian · « **Reply #10 on:** December 28, 2011, 05:48:59 AM »

That's right, but not the world, only the US. When European oil supplies were threatened by events in Libya, Obama provided the fire power to depose Quadaffi, and nobody in congress was interested enough to challenge him. Make no mistake, Libya was about oil for Europe.

gypsyman · « **Reply #11 on:** December 28, 2011, 06:15:09 AM »

Right know our oil company's ared sedlling information and know how, for deep water rigs, we're helping out South America country's with oil and exploration. Maybe, just maybe, lets let China have a chance to deal with these idiots over there. Instead of using the brain that they have, and making good on the resource's that they have, their still to busy killing each other, and us, because their moon god fell in a well, and they don't want there women to become to smart. Unfortuneatley, what I see is a China, that blows the crap out of them, takes the oil, and makes out. While our govt. is to busy being PC, and pushing wind and solar power, when it won't be a major player for at least 30 more years. gypsyman

Sourdough · « **Reply #12 on:** December 28, 2011, 06:18:36 AM »

By blocking the Straits Of Hormuz, Iran is blocking the oil from Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. The world, not just the US, can not stand that. They have made this threat before and were not able to carry it out. Same thing will happen again. US and British War Ships will come into the area and the Iranian Navy will stay at the docks. In the past, small partol boats would make a run with torpedoes, but they were all blown out of the water before they could inflict damage on anything. If the Iranians open up with shore batteries, just remember they started the shooting.

scootrd · « **Reply #13 on:** December 28, 2011, 06:52:47 AM »

Quote from: Sourdough on December 28, 2011, 06:18:36 AM

By blocking the Straits Of Hormuz, Iran is blocking the oil from Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. The world, not just the US, can not stand that.

I agree ,

Conan The Librarian · « **Reply #14 on:** December 28, 2011, 07:03:33 AM »

It's only the US in the sense that the US is the one that will be in there spending money and potentially fighting. Do you really thing Japan or Kuwait is going to send their navy in to do something about this? Rest assured, the US Navy is probably headed there right now, and they have a mission. Why?

Given the judgment of our presidents in these matters since at least the Clinton years, I think I trust Iran more than I do US.

powderman · « **Reply #15 on:** December 28, 2011, 07:06:40 AM »

DUBAI (Reuters) - The U.S. Fifth Fleet said on Wednesday it will not allow any disruption of traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, after Iran threatened to stop ships moving through the strategic oil route.
"The free flow of goods and services through the Strait of Hormuz is vital to regional and global prosperity," a spokesperson for the Bahrain-based fleet said in a written response to queries from Reuters about the possibility of Iran trying to close the waterway.
"Anyone who threatens to disrupt freedom of navigation in an international strait is clearly outside the community of nations; any disruption will not be tolerated."
Asked whether it was taking specific measures in response to the threat to close the Strait, the fleet said it "maintains a robust presence in the region to deter or counter destabilizing activities," without providing further detail.
(Reporting by Humeyra Pamuk and Andrew Hammond; Writing by Joseph Logan; Editing by Louise Ireland)

Cheesehead · « **Reply #16 on:** December 28, 2011, 07:08:44 AM »

What is the 5Th Fleet comprised of?

Cheese

Conan The Librarian · « **Reply #17 on:** December 28, 2011, 07:44:04 AM »

Fabulous. And correction: The 5th fleet has no authority to do that. Somebody had to command them. We are off to war again. "Outside the community of nations." Just like Libya.

So, why did Iran pick this time to do it? Because they know Obama doesn't want to start a war now because it would be bad for his re-election campaign.

It will be interesting to see how far US goes this time, and what that community of nations really is.

And by the way, can a fleet really talk? Somebody had to be accountable as the spokesman for it. Why didn't they identify that person? Certainly to abstract the coming hostilities from real people.

And to answer your question, the fifth fleet is the president, and a subset of the men and machines he commands.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #18 on:** December 28, 2011, 08:18:33 AM »

Quote from: Conan The Librarian on December 28, 2011, 01:49:31 AM

How come it's saber rattling if it's Iran, and a humanitarian mission if the US bombs the crap out of a country for ten years, deposes its leadership, and destabilizes it to the point where political chaos ensues for decades. Iraq. afghanistan. Libya. ...

Short ansewer - the winner writes history

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #19 on:** December 28, 2011, 08:22:18 AM »

Quote from: Cheesehead on December 28, 2011, 07:08:44 AM

What is the 5Th Fleet comprised of?

Cheese

At one time it had 5 carriers but that was around 2003.

scootrd · « **Reply #20 on:** December 28, 2011, 08:43:29 AM »

Conan,

We are not off to war again , we are defending our countries interests and the free flow of U.S. trade and commerce in international waters. If other countries benefit from this , so be it.

However , This is well in line with Jefferson,

In 1803 , Jefferson Authorized the US Navy to aggressively defend our American shipping interests in Tripoli and ensure the free flow of US commerce and trade would not be impeded.

Conan The Librarian · « **Reply #21 on:** December 28, 2011, 08:52:11 AM »

Pardon me for being a little obtuse, but isn't that the same as saying we're going to war?

(About the fleet, being a submarine fan, I'd say that it was at least mostly composed of targets.)

scootrd · « **Reply #22 on:** December 28, 2011, 09:19:01 AM »

No , there is no declaration of war, and our presence is not as an aggressor, we are ensuring the defense our merchant ships. Same as we should be doing off the coast of Somalia or anywhere else when the free flow of U.S commerce or trade has Been threatened.

If the threat turns to an actual act ... well , then we go from there and we are no longer in a defensive posture. Until then it is just more rhetoric, but there is nothing wrong with being prepared in international waters as long as we don't encroach on any nations territorial waters..

Conan The Librarian · « **Reply #23 on:** December 28, 2011, 10:33:44 AM »

I checked it out on a map. It looks like it ought to be good fishing there.

scootrd · « **Reply #24 on:** December 28, 2011, 11:47:10 AM »

There are international laws that apply with ships engaged in innocent transit passage in accordance with international law." In addition to international laws - there is UNCLOS, 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

UNCLOS states Iran's territorial water extend 12 nautical miles at the Strait of Hormuz.

UNCLOS also states -

Article 25 -
A coastal state may take the necessary steps in its territorial sea to prevent passage which is not innocent .

Merchant ships are innocent.

However it is also worth noting , under Article 25 a "coastal state may take the necessary steps in its territorial sea to prevent passage which is not innocent ... the coastal state may suspend temporarily in specified areas of its territorial sea the innocent passage of foreign ships if such suspension is essential for the protection of its of security, including weapons exercise."

- bet they will fall back on this article and have continuous exercises.

However Article 39 also states -
pertaining to "duties of ships during transit passage US ships passing through must "proceed without delay.

This will be interesting if nothing else.

BBF · « **Reply #25 on:** December 28, 2011, 03:57:05 PM »

I do recall that the Suez Canal was blocked to all traffic for some time by ships being sunk in it.

Sourdough · « **Reply #26 on:** December 28, 2011, 08:43:20 PM »

One of our Carriers, they did not say which one, just passed through the straights last week. It is still in the area. I bet at the first sign of hostilities all Iranian ports and airfields will be under constant surveliance. Iran was able to take control of one of our drones a few weeks ago so they are feeling mighty proud of themselves now. Don't think they will be able to do that a second time. And the first attack on a ship in the shipping lanes, will bring swift retaliation. As it should be. Yes I'm a Hawk. Rog

powderman · « **Reply #27 on:** December 29, 2011, 04:06:14 AM »

Quote from: Sourdough on December 28, 2011, 08:43:20 PM

One of our Carriers, they did not say which one, just passed through the straights last week. It is still in the area. I bet at the first sign of hostilities all Iranian ports and airfields will be under constant surveliance. Iran was able to take control of one of our drones a few weeks ago so they are feeling mighty proud of themselves now. Don't think they will be able to do that a second time. And the first attack on a ship in the shipping lanes, will bring swift retaliation. As it should be. Yes I'm a Hawk. Rog

Good post Sir. POWDERMAN.

scootrd · « **Reply #28 on:** December 29, 2011, 04:18:41 AM »

Quote from: Sourdough on December 28, 2011, 08:43:20 PM

One of our Carriers, they did not say which one, just passed through the straights last week. It is still in the area. I bet at the first sign of hostilities all Iranian ports and airfields will be under constant surveliance. Iran was able to take control of one of our drones a few weeks ago so they are feeling mighty proud of themselves now. Don't think they will be able to do that a second time. And the first attack on a ship in the shipping lanes, will bring swift retaliation. As it should be. Yes I'm a Hawk. Rog

I don't consider that Hawkish , I consider that prepared and defensible .
Innocent global Commerce should continue to be allowed flow no matter what friction lies between any parties.

yellowtail3 · « **Reply #29 on:** December 29, 2011, 04:47:29 AM »

Whoa - one of our carriers, in the Persian Gulf? Dumb move, admiral.

I'm imaginging a US carrier, with 80+ planes, nukes (probably) and 5000 sailors, plus a couple more ships, just over the horizon from Iranian shores. I remember some people here having conniptions at the idea of an Iranian destroyer in this hemisphere!