Could Iran "Win" in the Straight of Hormuz?

georgephillip

Diamond Member
Dec 27, 2009
43,536
5,105
1,840
Los Angeles, California
Long term the answer is obviously no; however, that doesn't mean Iran could not prevail long enough to kill 20,000 US servicemen and women according to a 2002 Pentagon simulation:

From GlobalResearch:

"Even the Pentagon’s own war simulations have shown that a war in the Persian Gulf with Iran would spell (initial) disaster for the United States and its military.

"One key example is the Millennium Challenge 2002 (MC02) war game in the Persian Gulf, which was conducted from July 24, 2002 to August 15, 2002 and took almost two years to prepare...

"Millennium Challenge 2002 was held shortly after the Pentagon had decided that it would continue the momentum of the war in Afghanistan by targeting Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, Lebanon, Syria, and finishing off with the big prize of Iran in a broad military campaign to ensure U.S. primacy in the new millennium..."

"The scenario in the 2002 war game started with the U.S., codenamed 'Blue,' giving Iran a one-day ultimatum to surrender in the year 2007.

"The war game’s date of 2007 would chronologically correspond to U.S. plans to attack Iran after the Israeli attack on Lebanon in 2006, which was to extend, according to military plans, into a broader war against Syria.

"The war against Lebanon, however, did not go as planned and the U.S. and Israel realized that if Hezbollah could challenge them in Lebanon then an expanded war with Syria and Iran would be a disaster.

"In Millennium Challenge 2002’s war scenario, Iran would react to U.S. aggression by launching a massive barrage of missiles that would overwhelm the U.S. and destroy sixteen U.S. naval vessels – an aircraft carrier, ten cruisers, and five amphibious ships.

"It is estimated that if this had happened in real war theatre context, more than 20,000 U.S. servicemen would have been killed in the first day following the attack. [6]"

The Geo-Politics of the Strait of Hormuz: Could the U.S. Navy be defeated by Iran in the Persian Gulf?

20,000 US servicemen and women dead in the first 24 hours followed by 200,000 -2,000,000 Muslim civilians killed in revenge within weeks (days?) Does anyone seriously believe scenarios like Millennium Challenge would be conceived if war was not a racket?
 
Not a chance.

Iran would be stomped flat and left for dead.

That's assuming the pols had balls and didn't order the JCS to play patty fuckin cake.
 
Are you a speed-reader?

"Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a Sociologist and award-winning author. He is a Research Associate at the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal. He specializes on the Middle East and Central Asia. He has been a contributor and guest discussing the broader Middle East on numerous programs and international networks such as Al Jazeera, Press TV and Russia Today. Nazemroaya was also a witness to the "Arab Spring" in action in North Africa. While on the ground in Libya during the NATO bombing campaign, he reported out of Tripoli for several media outlets. He sent key field dispatches from Libya for Global Research and was Special Correspondent for Pacifica's syndicated investigative program Flashpoints, broadcast out of Berkeley, California. His writings have been published in more than ten languages. He also writes for the Strategic Culture Foundation (SCF) in Moscow, Russia.

The Geo-Politics of the Strait of Hormuz: Could the U.S. Navy be defeated by Iran in the Persian Gulf?
 
Are you a speed-reader?

"Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a Sociologist and award-winning author. He is a Research Associate at the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal. He specializes on the Middle East and Central Asia. He has been a contributor and guest discussing the broader Middle East on numerous programs and international networks such as Al Jazeera, Press TV and Russia Today. Nazemroaya was also a witness to the "Arab Spring" in action in North Africa. While on the ground in Libya during the NATO bombing campaign, he reported out of Tripoli for several media outlets. He sent key field dispatches from Libya for Global Research and was Special Correspondent for Pacifica's syndicated investigative program Flashpoints, broadcast out of Berkeley, California. His writings have been published in more than ten languages. He also writes for the Strategic Culture Foundation (SCF) in Moscow, Russia.

The Geo-Politics of the Strait of Hormuz: Could the U.S. Navy be defeated by Iran in the Persian Gulf?

You are aware the military does exercises to learn how to prepare for contingencies? And we are not discussing invading Iran so there wouldn't be all those amphibious ships full of Marines.

I have my doubts that Iran could overwhelm the missile defenses of so many ships. And if they did they would get nuked most likely.

Iran has zero chance of holding the Straights. They could interfere for a short time with oil shipments but not for very long. The Arab States would authorize American deployments to their air fields and we would harm them with the Air Force the Navy and our own missiles.

If we did any landings they would be to seize a couple key points and we would not stay longer then needed to demolish what ever we were after.
 
"The American-Iranian Cold War

"Washington has been on the offensive against Iran using all means at its disposal. The tensions over the Strait of Hormuz and in the Persian Gulf are just one front in a dangerous multi-front regional cold war between Tehran and Washington in the broader Middle East.

"Since 2001, the Pentagon has also been restructuring its military to wage unconventional wars with enemies like Iran. [10]

"Nonetheless, geography has always worked against the Pentagon and the U.S. has not found a solution for its naval dilemma in the Persian Gulf. Instead of a conventional war, Washington has had to resort to waging a covert, economic, and diplomatic war against Iran."

The Geo-Politics of the Strait of Hormuz: Could the U.S. Navy be defeated by Iran in the Persian Gulf?

If and when the US dollar ceases to function as the world's reserve currency, it won't be possible for the Pentagon and Wall Street to borrow enough money to fight oil wars on the opposite side of the planet.

Sounds like more bad news for Mexico.
 
"The American-Iranian Cold War

"Washington has been on the offensive against Iran using all means at its disposal. The tensions over the Strait of Hormuz and in the Persian Gulf are just one front in a dangerous multi-front regional cold war between Tehran and Washington in the broader Middle East.

"Since 2001, the Pentagon has also been restructuring its military to wage unconventional wars with enemies like Iran. [10]

"Nonetheless, geography has always worked against the Pentagon and the U.S. has not found a solution for its naval dilemma in the Persian Gulf. Instead of a conventional war, Washington has had to resort to waging a covert, economic, and diplomatic war against Iran."

The Geo-Politics of the Strait of Hormuz: Could the U.S. Navy be defeated by Iran in the Persian Gulf?

If and when the US dollar ceases to function as the world's reserve currency, it won't be possible for the Pentagon and Wall Street to borrow enough money to fight oil wars on the opposite side of the planet.

Sounds like more bad news for Mexico.

Bad news for all of us.
 
Not a chance.

Iran would be stomped flat and left for dead.

That's assuming the pols had balls and didn't order the JCS to play patty fuckin cake.
Does this sound credible to you?

"Hence, the formidable naval power of Washington is handicapped both by geography as well as Iranian military capabilities when it comes to fighting in the Persian Gulf or even in much of the Gulf of Oman.

"Without open waters, like in the Indian Ocean or the Pacific Ocean, the U.S. will have to fight under significantly reduced response times and, more importantly, will not be able to fight from a stand-off (militarily safe) distance.

"Thus, entire tool boxes of U.S. naval defensive systems, which were designed for combat in open waters using stand-off ranges, are rendered unpractical in the Persian Gulf."

The Geo-Politics of the Strait of Hormuz: Could the U.S. Navy be defeated by Iran in the Persian Gulf?

Nobody's saying Iran would not vanish from the page of time eventually if something like this occurs. The question I have is why should anybody profit from this magnitude of murder?
 
Not a chance.

Iran would be stomped flat and left for dead.

That's assuming the pols had balls and didn't order the JCS to play patty fuckin cake.
Does this sound credible to you?

"Hence, the formidable naval power of Washington is handicapped both by geography as well as Iranian military capabilities when it comes to fighting in the Persian Gulf or even in much of the Gulf of Oman.

"Without open waters, like in the Indian Ocean or the Pacific Ocean, the U.S. will have to fight under significantly reduced response times and, more importantly, will not be able to fight from a stand-off (militarily safe) distance.

"Thus, entire tool boxes of U.S. naval defensive systems, which were designed for combat in open waters using stand-off ranges, are rendered unpractical in the Persian Gulf."

The Geo-Politics of the Strait of Hormuz: Could the U.S. Navy be defeated by Iran in the Persian Gulf?

Nobody's saying Iran would not vanish from the page of time eventually if something like this occurs. The question I have is why should anybody profit from this magnitude of murder?







The Iranians didn't fare too well the last time they tried it. And our technology was nowhere near what it is today.


"Clash

The background to the clash was rather complicated.

At the time, the Islamic Republic was at war against Iraq under Saddam Hussain, rejecting United Nations pleas for a ceasefire.

Towards the end of 1987, the Islamic Republic started firing on Kuwaiti oil tankers passing through the Gulf on the grounds that Arab oil money fuelled Saddam’s war machine. Weeks of efforts by the UN, the Arab League, the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC), and the nonaligned bloc to persuade Tehran to stop attacking Kuwaiti tankers produced no results.

It was then that President Ronald Reagan decided to put the Kuwaiti tankers under the US flag and escort them through the waterway.

The Islamic Republic retaliated by mining some of the shipping lanes in the waterway. On April 14, 1988, the USS Samuel B. Roberts struck a mine and was seriously damaged. It was towed to Dubai where it arrived two days later.

The following day experts established that the mine had been made in Iran and placed by the IRCG.

Within hours, President Ronald Reagan ordered the US task force to retaliate. The IRCG responded by firing missiles at US vessels without inflicting any harm.

The US task force seized the opportunity to unleash its superior firepower to virtually break the Iranian navy.

The Americans lost two men, the crew of a helicopter that came down in an accident far from the battle.

The IRCG lost 87 men and over 300 wounded. Later, the Islamic Republic filed a suit against the US at the International Court at The Hague claiming losses amounting to several billion dollars. (The court rejected Tehran’s suit in November 2003.)

The battle’s effect in Tehran was immediate.

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, then the leader of the Islamic Republic, was initially inclined to retaliate by ordering Hezbollah to carry out suicide attacks against American and other Western interests.

However, he was persuaded by Hashemi Rafsanjani, then the ayatollah’s closest aide, to take a deep breath and maintain a low profile. There was to be no retaliation. The remaining vessels of the Iranian navy were ordered to clear their movements with the US task force in advance to avoid any misunderstanding."

Naval Clash 1988 US Navy vs Iran Naval Coast Guard « Silk Roads and Siamese Smiles

Operation Praying Mantis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
It's business.
20,000 meatheads mean nothing to the people that own your asses and a carrier or two on the bottom of the sea will solve global warming just from the Bangledeshi flags being waved all kross murka.
"Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign
policy" Kissinger to Woodward.
Your masters eat this shit up.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEtdw7Z04QQ]Monster Madge - YouTube[/ame]
 
The premise of the OP is could Iran win?

What signifies a win? Making the cost of oil go through the roof and causing an economic tsunami? They could stop oil from transiting the straits for a determinate time and depending on their mine laying capability (remember the last time there were mines) the insurance cost for tankers would be high.

US carriers and cruisers will not approach missile range but stand off from the coast. Unless the Iranians did a sneak attack when they transit the strait in normal operations. But the only scenario I can see that would precipitate an attack would be a global embargo on Iranian oil.
 
Last edited:
The whole "war is a racket" thing is possible. I'm not convinced, but you are more than welcome to try.

The "war game" is nonsense unless we have pols that write the roes.

The Iranians, would not survive the encounter and US casualties would not be anywhere near what the bogus wargame predicted.
 
Are you a speed-reader?

"Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a Sociologist and award-winning author. He is a Research Associate at the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal. He specializes on the Middle East and Central Asia. He has been a contributor and guest discussing the broader Middle East on numerous programs and international networks such as Al Jazeera, Press TV and Russia Today. Nazemroaya was also a witness to the "Arab Spring" in action in North Africa. While on the ground in Libya during the NATO bombing campaign, he reported out of Tripoli for several media outlets. He sent key field dispatches from Libya for Global Research and was Special Correspondent for Pacifica's syndicated investigative program Flashpoints, broadcast out of Berkeley, California. His writings have been published in more than ten languages. He also writes for the Strategic Culture Foundation (SCF) in Moscow, Russia.

The Geo-Politics of the Strait of Hormuz: Could the U.S. Navy be defeated by Iran in the Persian Gulf?

You are aware the military does exercises to learn how to prepare for contingencies? And we are not discussing invading Iran so there wouldn't be all those amphibious ships full of Marines.

I have my doubts that Iran could overwhelm the missile defenses of so many ships. And if they did they would get nuked most likely.

Iran has zero chance of holding the Straights. They could interfere for a short time with oil shipments but not for very long. The Arab States would authorize American deployments to their air fields and we would harm them with the Air Force the Navy and our own missiles.

If we did any landings they would be to seize a couple key points and we would not stay longer then needed to demolish what ever we were after.
This author seems to recognize some of the contingencies you mention, but I'm not sure he's clear on what would happen to Iran if it "succeeded" in killing 20,000 Americans in the Hormuz Strait:

"After the U.S. defeat, the war games were started over again, but 'Red' (Iran) had to operate under the assumption of handicaps and shortcomings, so that U.S. forces would be allowed to emerge victorious from the drill. [7] This outcome of the war games obviated the fact that the U.S. would have been overwhelmed in the context of a real conventional war with Iran in the Persian Gulf."

Perhaps he addresses this elsewhere in his article:

"U.S. naval strength, which includes the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Coast Guard, has primacy over all the other navies and maritime forces in the world. Its deep sea or oceanic capabilities are unparalleled and unmatched by any other naval power. Primacy does not mean invincibility. U.S. naval forces in the Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf are nonetheless vulnerable."

The Geo-Politics of the Strait of Hormuz: Could the U.S. Navy be defeated by Iran in the Persian Gulf?
 
Air superiority.
Checkmate.
There's no doubt about that in my mind.

The author of this article seems to believe Iran could inflict thousands of casualties on the US before returning to the stone age. His unstated premise might be the dogs of war are about to be turned loose as a distraction from the crumbling global economy during an American presidential election year.

If so, does the commander-in-chief benefit?
 
"The American-Iranian Cold War

"Washington has been on the offensive against Iran using all means at its disposal. The tensions over the Strait of Hormuz and in the Persian Gulf are just one front in a dangerous multi-front regional cold war between Tehran and Washington in the broader Middle East.

"Since 2001, the Pentagon has also been restructuring its military to wage unconventional wars with enemies like Iran. [10]

"Nonetheless, geography has always worked against the Pentagon and the U.S. has not found a solution for its naval dilemma in the Persian Gulf. Instead of a conventional war, Washington has had to resort to waging a covert, economic, and diplomatic war against Iran."

The Geo-Politics of the Strait of Hormuz: Could the U.S. Navy be defeated by Iran in the Persian Gulf?

If and when the US dollar ceases to function as the world's reserve currency, it won't be possible for the Pentagon and Wall Street to borrow enough money to fight oil wars on the opposite side of the planet.

Sounds like more bad news for Mexico.

Bad news for all of us.
And our childrens' children.

War is a Racket.
 
Not a chance.

Iran would be stomped flat and left for dead.

That's assuming the pols had balls and didn't order the JCS to play patty fuckin cake.
Does this sound credible to you?

"Hence, the formidable naval power of Washington is handicapped both by geography as well as Iranian military capabilities when it comes to fighting in the Persian Gulf or even in much of the Gulf of Oman.

"Without open waters, like in the Indian Ocean or the Pacific Ocean, the U.S. will have to fight under significantly reduced response times and, more importantly, will not be able to fight from a stand-off (militarily safe) distance.

"Thus, entire tool boxes of U.S. naval defensive systems, which were designed for combat in open waters using stand-off ranges, are rendered unpractical in the Persian Gulf."

The Geo-Politics of the Strait of Hormuz: Could the U.S. Navy be defeated by Iran in the Persian Gulf?

Nobody's saying Iran would not vanish from the page of time eventually if something like this occurs. The question I have is why should anybody profit from this magnitude of murder?







The Iranians didn't fare too well the last time they tried it. And our technology was nowhere near what it is today.


"Clash

The background to the clash was rather complicated.

At the time, the Islamic Republic was at war against Iraq under Saddam Hussain, rejecting United Nations pleas for a ceasefire.

Towards the end of 1987, the Islamic Republic started firing on Kuwaiti oil tankers passing through the Gulf on the grounds that Arab oil money fuelled Saddam’s war machine. Weeks of efforts by the UN, the Arab League, the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC), and the nonaligned bloc to persuade Tehran to stop attacking Kuwaiti tankers produced no results.

It was then that President Ronald Reagan decided to put the Kuwaiti tankers under the US flag and escort them through the waterway.

The Islamic Republic retaliated by mining some of the shipping lanes in the waterway. On April 14, 1988, the USS Samuel B. Roberts struck a mine and was seriously damaged. It was towed to Dubai where it arrived two days later.

The following day experts established that the mine had been made in Iran and placed by the IRCG.

Within hours, President Ronald Reagan ordered the US task force to retaliate. The IRCG responded by firing missiles at US vessels without inflicting any harm.

The US task force seized the opportunity to unleash its superior firepower to virtually break the Iranian navy.

The Americans lost two men, the crew of a helicopter that came down in an accident far from the battle.

The IRCG lost 87 men and over 300 wounded. Later, the Islamic Republic filed a suit against the US at the International Court at The Hague claiming losses amounting to several billion dollars. (The court rejected Tehran’s suit in November 2003.)

The battle’s effect in Tehran was immediate.

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, then the leader of the Islamic Republic, was initially inclined to retaliate by ordering Hezbollah to carry out suicide attacks against American and other Western interests.

However, he was persuaded by Hashemi Rafsanjani, then the ayatollah’s closest aide, to take a deep breath and maintain a low profile. There was to be no retaliation. The remaining vessels of the Iranian navy were ordered to clear their movements with the US task force in advance to avoid any misunderstanding."

Naval Clash 1988 US Navy vs Iran Naval Coast Guard « Silk Roads and Siamese Smiles

Operation Praying Mantis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Without doubt it would turn out much worse for the Iranians this time.
As I understand this article, geography and decades of preparation give them a chance to inflict significant casualties before US retaliation would take effect. If hundreds or thousands of Americans die in the Hormuz Straits, hundreds of thousands of Iranians may well die shortly thereafter.

The sanctions being imposed on Iran are inching closer to qualifying as an act of war.
"Leaders" on both sides will blame the other while making million$ from oil sales and arms sales.
War is a Racket.
 
Does this sound credible to you?

"Hence, the formidable naval power of Washington is handicapped both by geography as well as Iranian military capabilities when it comes to fighting in the Persian Gulf or even in much of the Gulf of Oman.

"Without open waters, like in the Indian Ocean or the Pacific Ocean, the U.S. will have to fight under significantly reduced response times and, more importantly, will not be able to fight from a stand-off (militarily safe) distance.

"Thus, entire tool boxes of U.S. naval defensive systems, which were designed for combat in open waters using stand-off ranges, are rendered unpractical in the Persian Gulf."

The Geo-Politics of the Strait of Hormuz: Could the U.S. Navy be defeated by Iran in the Persian Gulf?

Nobody's saying Iran would not vanish from the page of time eventually if something like this occurs. The question I have is why should anybody profit from this magnitude of murder?







The Iranians didn't fare too well the last time they tried it. And our technology was nowhere near what it is today.


"Clash

The background to the clash was rather complicated.

At the time, the Islamic Republic was at war against Iraq under Saddam Hussain, rejecting United Nations pleas for a ceasefire.

Towards the end of 1987, the Islamic Republic started firing on Kuwaiti oil tankers passing through the Gulf on the grounds that Arab oil money fuelled Saddam’s war machine. Weeks of efforts by the UN, the Arab League, the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC), and the nonaligned bloc to persuade Tehran to stop attacking Kuwaiti tankers produced no results.

It was then that President Ronald Reagan decided to put the Kuwaiti tankers under the US flag and escort them through the waterway.

The Islamic Republic retaliated by mining some of the shipping lanes in the waterway. On April 14, 1988, the USS Samuel B. Roberts struck a mine and was seriously damaged. It was towed to Dubai where it arrived two days later.

The following day experts established that the mine had been made in Iran and placed by the IRCG.

Within hours, President Ronald Reagan ordered the US task force to retaliate. The IRCG responded by firing missiles at US vessels without inflicting any harm.

The US task force seized the opportunity to unleash its superior firepower to virtually break the Iranian navy.

The Americans lost two men, the crew of a helicopter that came down in an accident far from the battle.

The IRCG lost 87 men and over 300 wounded. Later, the Islamic Republic filed a suit against the US at the International Court at The Hague claiming losses amounting to several billion dollars. (The court rejected Tehran’s suit in November 2003.)

The battle’s effect in Tehran was immediate.

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, then the leader of the Islamic Republic, was initially inclined to retaliate by ordering Hezbollah to carry out suicide attacks against American and other Western interests.

However, he was persuaded by Hashemi Rafsanjani, then the ayatollah’s closest aide, to take a deep breath and maintain a low profile. There was to be no retaliation. The remaining vessels of the Iranian navy were ordered to clear their movements with the US task force in advance to avoid any misunderstanding."

Naval Clash 1988 US Navy vs Iran Naval Coast Guard « Silk Roads and Siamese Smiles

Operation Praying Mantis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Without doubt it would turn out much worse for the Iranians this time.
As I understand this article, geography and decades of preparation give them a chance to inflict significant casualties before US retaliation would take effect. If hundreds or thousands of Americans die in the Hormuz Straits, hundreds of thousands of Iranians may well die shortly thereafter.

The sanctions being imposed on Iran are inching closer to qualifying as an act of war.
"Leaders" on both sides will blame the other while making million$ from oil sales and arms sales.
War is a Racket.

So what? The number of enemy KIA in a war that would follow either a tactical victory or tactical defeat of U.S. forces is of NO concern to me, so long as that number is (a)sufficient to bring about the unconditional surrender (or complete incapacitation) of said enemy, and (b) within our ability to inflict. War is essentially an amoral enterprise. One either wins, or loses. HOW that happens, ultimately does not matter. As I recall, no one in America was greatly concerned with how many Japanese we ultimately would have to kill, to achieve the unconditional surrender of the Japanese Empire; the only concern was to reach that number, whatever it was, at the minimum cost to ourselves. YOU may call that a "racket"; I call it, "REALITY".
 

Forum List

Back
Top