Mr. H.
Diamond Member
Could you ask for a sweeter kill zone?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No.
The article was interesting, but the wargame was based on a different scenario than we face today. If we went to war against Iran we would not use naval forces until the ground based missile systems Iran relies on are eliminated. As for the fast boats that make up the Iranian navy , we have fast boats ourselves which are more than a match for them, and some of them are deployed in the Middle East.
Iran will win! Unless another country, like Israel, is successful in defeating them, Iran is certain to win. We have a president that intends that Iran should win. That president is commander in chief whose whole purpose in being commander is to see to it that Iran wins.
"Win" is the least appropriate word in my title.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.
Smedley Butler dissected the war racket far better than I ever could.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.
"Win" is the least appropriate word in my title.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.
I couldn't think of a better one.
Certainly, any temporary Iranian "victory" would prove Pyrrhic, if not suicidal.
The author seems to imply the US would not be the first to strike in this particular part of the world.
If an Iranian sucker punch sank the Stennis...?
India and China will probably never stop buying Iranian oil, but these latest sanctions, pushed by Obama, are being labelled an act of war by the Iranians. "Leaders" in both countries desperately need an external distraction from pressing domestic crises, and war has always served the 1% well is similar times.
Iran will win! Unless another country, like Israel, is successful in defeating them, Iran is certain to win. We have a president that intends that Iran should win. That president is commander in chief whose whole purpose in being commander is to see to it that Iran wins.
When you provide the moral authority that entitled one-third of the citizens of Mandate Palestine in 1948 to impose a Jewish state by force of arms on their fellow Palestinians."Win" is the least appropriate word in my title.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.
I couldn't think of a better one.
Certainly, any temporary Iranian "victory" would prove Pyrrhic, if not suicidal.
The author seems to imply the US would not be the first to strike in this particular part of the world.
If an Iranian sucker punch sank the Stennis...?
India and China will probably never stop buying Iranian oil, but these latest sanctions, pushed by Obama, are being labelled an act of war by the Iranians. "Leaders" in both countries desperately need an external distraction from pressing domestic crises, and war has always served the 1% well is similar times.
Georgie, can you show us where international law or the UN Charter prohibit sanctions on the iranian state sponsor of terrorism?
I didn't think you could, stupid boy.
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?
When you provide the moral authority that entitled one-third of the citizens of Mandate Palestine in 1948 to impose a Jewish state by force of arms on their fellow Palestinians.
Maybe Golda knows?
When you provide the moral authority that entitled one-third of the citizens of Mandate Palestine in 1948 to impose a Jewish state by force of arms on their fellow Palestinians."Win" is the least appropriate word in my title.
I couldn't think of a better one.
Certainly, any temporary Iranian "victory" would prove Pyrrhic, if not suicidal.
The author seems to imply the US would not be the first to strike in this particular part of the world.
If an Iranian sucker punch sank the Stennis...?
India and China will probably never stop buying Iranian oil, but these latest sanctions, pushed by Obama, are being labelled an act of war by the Iranians. "Leaders" in both countries desperately need an external distraction from pressing domestic crises, and war has always served the 1% well is similar times.
Georgie, can you show us where international law or the UN Charter prohibit sanctions on the iranian state sponsor of terrorism?
I didn't think you could, stupid boy.
Maybe Golda knows?
I'm not sure how you're defining "peacefully?"When you provide the moral authority that entitled one-third of the citizens of Mandate Palestine in 1948 to impose a Jewish state by force of arms on their fellow Palestinians.Georgie, can you show us where international law or the UN Charter prohibit sanctions on the iranian state sponsor of terrorism?
I didn't think you could, stupid boy.
Maybe Golda knows?
They established Israel peacefully. They asked all the Arabs in the borders of the new State to stay and be citizens. 5 Arab Countries ATTACKED them and frightened off most of the Arabs. Further the Arabs had the same right to form their own Government but the 5 Arab Countries ordered them not to.
How can you be sure I'm not a self hating Jew?When you provide the moral authority that entitled one-third of the citizens of Mandate Palestine in 1948 to impose a Jewish state by force of arms on their fellow Palestinians.
Maybe Golda knows?
George you ignorant Nazi, stick to the subject.
If the Iranians sink a US aircraft carrier during that week to ten days of active interdiction their threat becomes significantly less hollow. The US normally instigates shock and awe at a time of its own choosing. Do we know what happens if Iran shocks first?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?
I was at another very active forum when the Millennium Challenge 2002 report came out, we discussed it there.
again, no, if you want specifics, I am not going to engage in a what I am sure will turn into a circular argument, the take away is the Iranian armed forces that could interdict the straits would have a very active but bottom of the funnel life for oh, a week, maybe if they are lucky and we are incredibly stupid, 10 days. there after some sporadic efforts may yield some trouble but, every platform, sea air land that reveals itself would be pummeled in short order.
thats my take and thats why its a hollow threat; they know it , we know it, whats more; they know we know they know it.
If the Iranians sink a US aircraft carrier during that week to ten days of active interdiction their threat becomes significantly less hollow. The US normally instigates shock and awe at a time of its own choosing. Do we know what happens if Iran shocks first?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?
I was at another very active forum when the Millennium Challenge 2002 report came out, we discussed it there.
again, no, if you want specifics, I am not going to engage in a what I am sure will turn into a circular argument, the take away is the Iranian armed forces that could interdict the straits would have a very active but bottom of the funnel life for oh, a week, maybe if they are lucky and we are incredibly stupid, 10 days. there after some sporadic efforts may yield some trouble but, every platform, sea air land that reveals itself would be pummeled in short order.
thats my take and thats why its a hollow threat; they know it , we know it, whats more; they know we know they know it.
If the Iranians sink a US aircraft carrier during that week to ten days of active interdiction their threat becomes significantly less hollow. The US normally instigates shock and awe at a time of its own choosing. Do we know what happens if Iran shocks first?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?
I was at another very active forum when the Millennium Challenge 2002 report came out, we discussed it there.
again, no, if you want specifics, I am not going to engage in a what I am sure will turn into a circular argument, the take away is the Iranian armed forces that could interdict the straits would have a very active but bottom of the funnel life for oh, a week, maybe if they are lucky and we are incredibly stupid, 10 days. there after some sporadic efforts may yield some trouble but, every platform, sea air land that reveals itself would be pummeled in short order.
thats my take and thats why its a hollow threat; they know it , we know it, whats more; they know we know they know it.