Could Iran "Win" in the Straight of Hormuz?

[Mr. H.]

Could you ask for a sweeter kill zone?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

 

[Jos]

They dont need to close the strait, if a couple of oil tankers were hit, the Insurance companies would refuse to give cover and the tanker owners would keep them in port

 

[Katzndogz]

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.

 

[westwall]

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.

Fast boats don't outrun missiles too well. The Navy wouldbe involved from the beginning but using standoff missiles. Then after the Iranian navy is sitting on the bottom or burning we would go in and wreak havoc.

 

[High_Gravity]

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.

You must be intoxicated to type things like this.

 

[georgephillip]

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.

"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.

 

[georgephillip]

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.

Smedley Butler dissected the war racket far better than I ever could.
Keep in mind all $ are circa 1918.

"WAR is a racket. It always has been.

"It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

"A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many.

"Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

In Chapter 2, the general names some very prominent names:

"The World War(I), rather our brief participation in it, has cost the United States some $52,000,000,000. Figure it out. That means $400 to every American man, woman, and child. And we haven't paid the debt yet. We are paying it, our children will pay it, and our children's children probably still will be paying the cost of that war..."

"Take our friends the du Ponts, the powder people – didn't one of them testify before a Senate committee recently that their powder won the war? Or saved the world for democracy? Or something? How did they do in the war?

"They were a patriotic corporation. Well, the average earnings of the du Ponts for the period 1910 to 1914 were $6,000,000 a year. It wasn't much, but the du Ponts managed to get along on it.

"Now let's look at their average yearly profit during the war years, 1914 to 1918. Fifty-eight million dollars a year profit we find! Nearly ten times that of normal times, and the profits of normal times were pretty good.

"An increase in profits of more than 950 per cent.

Take one of our little steel companies that patriotically shunted aside the making of rails and girders and bridges to manufacture war materials. Well, their 1910-1914 yearly earnings averaged $6,000,000. Then came the war.

"And, like loyal citizens, Bethlehem Steel promptly turned to munitions making. Did their profits jump – or did they let Uncle Sam in for a bargain? Well, their 1914-1918 average was $49,000,000 a year!

"Or, let's take United States Steel. The normal earnings during the five-year period prior to the war were $105,000,000 a year. Not bad. Then along came the war and up went the profits. The average yearly profit for the period 1914-1918 was $240,000,000. Not bad."

THREE TITLES [3] for the PRICE OF ONE.

 

[JStone]

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.

"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.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

He's only President for 11 more months.

 

[georgephillip]

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.

"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.

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?

 

[Trajan]

no.

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.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

"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.

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?

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.

 

[georgephillip]

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.

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?

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.

I'm not sure how you're defining "peacefully?"

"The 1948 Palestinian exodus, known in Arabic as the Nakba (Arabic: النكبة*, an-Nakbah, lit. 'disaster', 'catastrophe', or 'cataclysm'),[1] occurred when approximately 711,000 to 725,000 Palestinian Arabs left, fled or were expelled from their homes, during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and the Civil War that preceded it.[2]

"The exact number of refugees is a matter of dispute.[3] The causes remain the subject of fundamental disagreement between Arabs and Israelis..."

"Factors involved in the flight include the voluntary self-removal of the wealthier classes,[6] the collapse in Palestinian leadership,[7] an unwillingness to live under Jewish control,[8] Jewish military advances, and fears of massacre after Deir Yassin,[9] which caused many to leave out of panic.

"Later, a series of laws passed by the first Israeli government prevented them from returning to their homes, or claiming their property.

"They and many of their descendants remain refugees.[10][11] Later in the war, Palestinians were expelled as part of Plan Dalet.[12] The expulsion of the Palestinians has since been described by some historians as ethnic cleansing,[13][14][15] while others dispute this charge.[16][17]"

1948 Palestinian exodus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The first British Military Governor of Jerusalem took his post in 1922 predicting the future Jewish state would form "a little, loyal Jewish Ulster in a sea of Arab hostilism" for the Crown This was shortly after the Royal Navy converted from coal to oil to power their fleet.

After WWII the US took over, but Israel remained a garrison state heavily subsidized by US taxpayers. The motivation for the UK and the US seems to involve acquiring a measure of control over Arab oil production and transportation in the same way our invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq do.

 

[georgephillip]

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.

How can you be sure I'm not a self hating Jew?

"The dire threat of Iran is widely recognized to be the most serious foreign policy crisis facing the Obama administration. General Petraeus informed the Senate Committee on Armed Services in March 2010 that 'the Iranian regime is the primary state-level threat to stability' in the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility, the Middle East and Central Asia, the primary region of U.S. global concerns.

"The term 'stability' here has its usual technical meaning: firmly under U.S. control"

I thought the subject encompassed full spectrum imperialism?

ZCommunications | The Iranian Threat by Noam Chomsky | ZMagazine Article

 

[georgephillip]

no.

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?

 

[Trajan]

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?

if they sink an aircraft carrier? dude, what the fuck are you smoking?

 

[NLT]

Obviously, most of the posters here dont have a freaking clue of the awesome capabilities of a US Naval Carrier Task force. It would shut down Irans naval forces within hours and then call in the Air force to slam the Irainian infrastrucure and command and control capabilites. It would be boom pow pow, all over. Even with barry in charge it would be easy.

 

[westwall]

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?

You need to check up on your weapons data there Georgie. The best Iranian missile is roughly equivalent to a first generation Harpoon that we use. They are hell on wheels vs thin skinned vessels and will quite happily blow one of those in two.

Our carriers on the other hand are quite hard, so hard in fact that you could hit a carrier with 10 to 15 missiles and the most you would do is knock out the electronics, for a while, and tons of cosmetic damage.

But they can do no damage to her machinery or flotation.