Naval Exchange in Hormuz "Like a knife fight in a phone booth"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45981376/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times/

So Iran's navy poses a serious challenge to the United States Navy, and it would be possible for them to block Hormuz if they so desired, top navy officials say. They wouldn't hold it forever, mind, but they could shut down a fifth of the world's oil supply for many months, in theory, by using swarming tactics - sending in armored speedboats in high numbers to swarm the larger, slower American boats while simultaneously launching anti-ship missiles from the shore. It's possible that we could even lose a Carrier in the resulting navy battles.

The Straight of Hormuz is vital for our economy, and Iran has the power to shut it down. I think its about time we try for some sort of entente with the country, since neither side can really afford such a hypothetical fight. Let them get nuclear missiles, they are (hopefully) smart enough to just sit on them and not try something that is sure to anger us, like giving them to Syria. I doubt it, but its probably worth the risk at this point.

...why in god's name would a US carrier go into the straight?

That seems to me like it would be the epitome of idiocy. The entire object of carriers is that you fight with them from far the fuck away.

So, launch the planes outside the straight and go ship hunting.

I guess the destroyers and cruisers would have a hard time of it, but if the planes can do all the work they don't have much to do besides sit by the carrier and look pretty.

Problems arise if the pilots don't win or do as well as we'd like them to do, but...

"Shit, our candidate is a psychopath. Better replace him with Newt Gingrich."

I was wondering that myself...maybe its a supply-lines thing. I know that carriers aren't just airplane transport anymore - they are almost floating fortresses, with central command for our fleets, as well as troop transport. They might HAVE to bring a carrier into the straight, for whatever reason (if they conducted war games featuring a carrier, then the navy probably has a good reason for why a carrier would have to be on the front lines, so to speak).

My guess is that minesweepers need proper escort craft, and its the cruisers that they are more concerned with than the carriers, but they still wanted to run wargames with a carrier just in case that specific scenario came up.

edited 12th Jan '12 9:27:43 PM by MyGodItsFullofStars

If they bring the carrier into the straight for anything less than a last-resort "well we have nothing else to do but this" option they deserve to have the whole battle group sunk.

"Shit, our candidate is a psychopath. Better replace him with Newt Gingrich."

Is it me, or is Iran seeming more insane?

If they block off the Strait, they kill their own economy. Most of Iran's trade goes through there. They would be committing suicide.

Something weird is going on in Iran.

Presumably Iran believes that it's going to lose either way, with more Israeli attacks imminent and Israel in an unassailable position thanks to US backing.

Might as well do some kind of credible damage before they get pwned.

Or rather, that's what I think the thought process behind it is. In reality, I don't think they realize how bad a war with them would go for the US...

"Shit, our candidate is a psychopath. Better replace him with Newt Gingrich."

They are feeling the pain from the sanctions is what is up. America was smart and basically attacked Iran's banking industry, causing economic ruin in a few days. Seriously, their economy is in shambles and they are getting desperate.

Also, it is Iran's election year, and defying the Americans wins points.

If they block the straight, we'll probably pull into some rather serious retaliation and a possible invasion.

Honestly, the biggest factor in clearing a blockaded straight of hormuz is not the fact that it would be any kind of actual fight, it's the fact that clearing mines is a methodical business. If they properly mined the straight, it'd be a while before we started letting commercial traffic back in and out.

Needless to say though, it'd be an absolute slaughter for Irans standing Navy and military.

Well, the best analogy I can draw is an arrogant man with a revolver in an alley with a cornered dog.

Can he win easily? Sure. But there are far too many ways for that situation to go horribly, terribly wrong for that to be really likely...

"Shit, our candidate is a psychopath. Better replace him with Newt Gingrich."

We're usually much more cautious than that, I fully expect that if it came down to a showdown, we would stick to aircraft from every direction around Iran before sending warships into easy range of those missiles.

Kyrgystan, Turkey, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia...

We can hit Iran from every single direction without too much trouble. We'd either pound them from the air until they gave up, or pound them from the air until we decided it was time to footslog our way into Tehran.

And then we spend a decade and a half attempting to subdue a country four times the size of Iraq with a superior military willing to fight us for it. Great.

"Shit, our candidate is a psychopath. Better replace him with Newt Gingrich."

Hopefully some of the lessons that we've learned in the last decade and our tons of military folks who can speak farsi from Afghanistan come in handy to offset something like that. Not to mention the educated college aged youth of Iran that are halfway ready to a revolution themselves having a part to play in regime change.

We won't know how any of that plays out until it's in the history books though.

I say, let's not give ammunition to the nutjobs in control, which would hurt the many, many dissidents, and instead just let them howl.

They would be hurting their nation's economy even more if they shut the Persian Gulf. I think they are bluffing. Iran has so many issues, something will pop in the reasonably short term.

Let Ahmadinejad and Khamanei hang themselves while they are fighting amongst themselves.

edited 12th Jan '12 10:21:21 PM by RAWieren

Considering what I have heard of Iranian opinions of American interference (they seem to like us in general, actually, they just don't want us up in their business) I'd rather they start revolutioning on their own and ask for assistance rather than the situation be forced by this Hormuz thing. Although I suppose their government doing this could trigger just that kind of a situation.

> Presumably Iran believes that it's going to lose either way, with more Israeli attacks imminent and Israel in an unassailable position thanks to US backing.

Israeli attack is not just imminent. Iran had been attacked repeatedly.

In January, 2010, a remote-controlled bomb attached to a motorcycle killed Masoud Ali Mohammadi, 50, who “taught neutron physics at Tehran University.”

In November, 2010, two separate car bombs exploded within minutes of each other on the same day, one that killed nuclear scientist Majid Shahriar and wounded his wife, and the other which wounded another nuclear scientist, Fereidoun Abbasi, along with his wife.

Then, in July of last year, Darioush Rezaei, 35, was shot dead and his wife was wounded by two gunmen firing from motorcycles outside of their daughter’s kindergarten;

According to Iranian media, a 32-year-old university professor, Mostafa Ahmadi-Roshan, died when an assailant riding on a motorcycle attached a magnetic bomb to his car, which then detonated and killed him.

http://www.salon.com/2012/01/11/more_murder_of_iranian_scientists_still_terrorism/singleton/

plus STUXNET controversy last year. Its no wonder they are panicking.

We have lots of ships besides carriers. However, specifically, to do flight ops in the Persian Gulf - I think we're still patrolling Iraqi airspace, we have bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia, and it's much cheaper on fuel if we can sail the ships up into the gulf before launching planes off.

Destroyers and carriers also have their own firepower, while carriers have rather small weapons aside from the aircraft.

How's it feel to wish another troper death? Because my carrier is next to be going through the straight.

Iran's sort of in a lose/lose situation here - either the US pressures everyone into actually getting serious about these embargos, or they cut it off themselves until all the countries they sell to*

China, Japan, and France are, I believe, their three largest customers

in disregard of the UN sanctions bitches about it enough that they let up. However, I thought they had some portion of coastline on the Indian Ocean side of the straight?

Isn't half of Iran's navy sitting over in the Med right now?

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

There are some things worth noting about a blockade of the strait:

1) Saudi-Arabia has a series of pipelines across the country for just that purpose. Ships could dock at the Gulf coast, and the oil would be pumped to the Red Sea coast.

2) The industrialized states have reserved that could supply them all by themselves for a month. To only compensate Hormuz the reserves would last even longer.

3) Such a blockade would hurt Iran itself since they ironically do not have enough petrol, since they lack refineries. Which means - the world has more stamina to stand a blockade than Iran itself does!

The "only" damage would be economical, as such an action would of course wreak havoc upon the financial oil markets. It would not actually lead to oil supply deficiencies, though.

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

Imagine yourself that Iran would decide to invade Iraq. The world probably going to intervene and stop them like it stopped Iraq during the gulf war. Now imagine that a nuclear Iran would invade Iraq. Would the world still intervene?

The very existence of nukes in Iran is dangerous since it move Iran into the "untouchable" category and that would allow to get away with a lot more crap (like recreating the Persian Empire for example)

edited 13th Jan '12 2:13:04 AM by nnokwoodeye

Yup. Hello Aviano AFB.

Yeah...no.

USS John C Stennis alone is more powerful than their entire navy combined. Her escorts would just tip the balance even more in Stennis' favor.

"Allah may guide their bullets, but Jesus helps those who aim down the sights."

"Now imagine that a nuclear Iran would invade Iraq. Would the world still intervene?"

...Yes? It doesn't really matter, does it? The US considers Iraq to be a very important tool, if Iran attacked Iraq, the US would attack Iran, same way they attacked Iraq in 1991, and even though it would be a little harder, Iran would still lose, without ever getting to nuke anyone.

^ Knowing how Iran is and their use of tactics of questionable morality, Iran would begin an invasion with their nukes, not hold them off for a last resort.

"Allah may guide their bullets, but Jesus helps those who aim down the sights."

Well, I doubt that, but either way, that's not what I was addressing, I said that the world, and more importantly, the US, would still attack Iran in turn for committing an unprovoked invasion.

Really though, they wouldn't invade Iraq. The regime wants to preserve itself, giving the US a reason to invade is quite counter to that.

edited 13th Jan '12 3:22:34 PM by stripesthezebra

If Iran brings nukes to the party then all hell breaks loose.

Apocalypse: Dirge Of Swans.

Iran is quickly becoming the North Korea of the Middle East.

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."