Iran warns closing strategic Hormuz oil route

[Nova78]

US warns Iran against closing Hormuz oil route | General Headlines | Comcast

U.S. Navy Ready if Iran Closes Oil RouteTEHRAN, Iran — Iran's navy chief warned Wednesday that his country can easily close the strategic Strait of Hormuz at the mouth of the Persian Gulf, the passageway through which a sixth of the world's oil flows.

It was the second such warning in two days. On Tuesday, Vice President Mohamed Reza Rahimi threatened to close the strait, cutting off oil exports, if the West imposes sanctions on Iran's oil shipments.

In response, the Bahrain-based U.S. 5th Fleet's spokeswoman warned that any disruption "will not be tolerated." The spokeswoman, Lt. Rebecca Rebarich, said the U.S. Navy is "always ready to counter malevolent actions to ensure freedom of navigation."

With concern growing over a possible drop-off in Iranian oil supplies, a senior Saudi oil official said Gulf Arab nations are ready to offset any loss of Iranian crude.

That reassurance led to a drop in world oil prices. In New York, benchmark crude fell 77 cents to $100.57 a barrel in morning trading. Brent crude fell 82 cents to $108.45 a barrel in London.

"Closing the Strait of Hormuz is very easy for Iranian naval forces," Adm. Habibollah Sayyari told state-run Press TV. "Iran has comprehensive control over the strategic waterway," the navy chief said.

The threats underline Iranian concern that the West is about to impose new sanctions that could target Tehran's vital oil industry and exports.

Yea ,another war !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Mr. H.]

 

[Photonic]

5th Fleet says, "Nuh uh!"

 

[Richard-H]

If everybody's so worried about the Strait of Hormuz:

Why don't all these rich oil producing countries get together and dig a canal across the UAE?

That would settle that!

 

[Samson]

US warns Iran against closing Hormuz oil route | General Headlines | Comcast

In response, the Bahrain-based U.S. 5th Fleet's spokeswoman warned that any disruption "will not be tolerated." The spokeswoman, Lt. Rebecca Rebarich, said the U.S. Navy is "always ready to counter malevolent actions to ensure freedom of navigation."

Lt. Rebecca Rebarich..........



What's A nice Jewish Girl doing in the USN?

 

[daveman]

US warns Iran against closing Hormuz oil route | General Headlines | Comcast

In response, the Bahrain-based U.S. 5th Fleet's spokeswoman warned that any disruption "will not be tolerated." The spokeswoman, Lt. Rebecca Rebarich, said the U.S. Navy is "always ready to counter malevolent actions to ensure freedom of navigation."

Lt. Rebecca Rebarich..........



What's A nice Jewish Girl doing in the USN?

Telling Iran they lack the horsepower to play with the big dogs.

 

[JoeB131]

I'm not sure who has more to lose in this conflict.

If Iran cuts off the straight, that's going to send the price of oil through the roof. But we are in no real position to invade Iran right now and probably wouldn't get much international support.

They tried the same stunt back in the 1980's during the Iran-Iraq war, and Reagan responded by sending the navy to protect the tankers and putting them under our flag. (Again, wasn't it nice when we had a president with balls?)

Of course, Reagan had a 600 ship navy, Obama has a 300 ship navy.

Worse, since Reagan, our domestic production has declined. So closing the straights would have serious impacts on the market.

Iran, on the other hand, would not be able to get its oil to market if we imposed sanctions over their nuclear program. I doubt that would slow their program down that much, so the question becomes can we take it more than they can?

 

[Jackson]

I'm not sure who has more to lose in this conflict.

If Iran cuts off the straight, that's going to send the price of oil through the roof. But we are in no real position to invade Iran right now and probably wouldn't get much international support.

They tried the same stunt back in the 1980's during the Iran-Iraq war, and Reagan responded by sending the navy to protect the tankers and putting them under our flag. (Again, wasn't it nice when we had a president with balls?)

Of course, Reagan had a 600 ship navy, Obama has a 300 ship navy.

Worse, since Reagan, our domestic production has declined. So closing the straights would have serious impacts on the market.

Iran, on the other hand, would not be able to get its oil to market if we imposed sanctions over their nuclear program. I doubt that would slow their program down that much, so the question becomes can we take it more than they can?

That's just it, In the 80's that was Reagan who knew what to do. Obama will not do anything and let prices spike. He'll ignore Rebarich and head for the hills. No balls for this man. Please let me be wrong. Just send in the ships, Obama.

 

[blastoff]

If they would close it, wonder what the over/under in days would be for the total annihilation of their naval and air forces, ground artillery, etc. by the U.S.?

 

[G.T.]

I'm not sure who has more to lose in this conflict.

If Iran cuts off the straight, that's going to send the price of oil through the roof. But we are in no real position to invade Iran right now and probably wouldn't get much international support.

They tried the same stunt back in the 1980's during the Iran-Iraq war, and Reagan responded by sending the navy to protect the tankers and putting them under our flag. (Again, wasn't it nice when we had a president with balls?)

Of course, Reagan had a 600 ship navy, Obama has a 300 ship navy.

Worse, since Reagan, our domestic production has declined. So closing the straights would have serious impacts on the market.

Iran, on the other hand, would not be able to get its oil to market if we imposed sanctions over their nuclear program. I doubt that would slow their program down that much, so the question becomes can we take it more than they can?

That's just it, In the 80's that was Reagan who knew what to do. Obama will not do anything and let prices spike. He'll ignore Rebarich and head for the hills. No balls for this man. Please let me be wrong. Just send in the ships, Obama.

You need to ignore rhetoric.

Obama clearly has the "balls" (whatever that means) to use our Military. He upped our forces in Afghanistan like he said he would, and he's signed off on more drone attacks than ever before. He's authorized the killing of pirates on international waters, he's authorized Military force to get Bin Laden inside of a sovereign Country, and he's imposed as many sanctions on Iran as Bush has.

Where would you get the impression he tucks his tail and runs when IN ACTION and.........RHETORIC aside, he's shown just the opposite, is beyond logic. You're susceptible to anti Obama propoganda where it's undue.

 

[G.T.]

If they would close it, wonder what the over/under in days would be for the total annihilation of their naval and air forces, ground artillery, etc. by the U.S.?

My guess is 8 days.

 

[Jackson]

I'm not sure who has more to lose in this conflict.

If Iran cuts off the straight, that's going to send the price of oil through the roof. But we are in no real position to invade Iran right now and probably wouldn't get much international support.

They tried the same stunt back in the 1980's during the Iran-Iraq war, and Reagan responded by sending the navy to protect the tankers and putting them under our flag. (Again, wasn't it nice when we had a president with balls?)

Of course, Reagan had a 600 ship navy, Obama has a 300 ship navy.

Worse, since Reagan, our domestic production has declined. So closing the straights would have serious impacts on the market.

Iran, on the other hand, would not be able to get its oil to market if we imposed sanctions over their nuclear program. I doubt that would slow their program down that much, so the question becomes can we take it more than they can?

That's just it, In the 80's that was Reagan who knew what to do. Obama will not do anything and let prices spike. He'll ignore Rebarich and head for the hills. No balls for this man. Please let me be wrong. Just send in the ships, Obama.

You need to ignore rhetoric.

Obama clearly has the "balls" (whatever that means) to use our Military. He upped our forces in Afghanistan like he said he would, and he's signed off on more drone attacks than ever before. He's authorized the killing of pirates on international waters, he's authorized Military force to get Bin Laden inside of a sovereign Country, and he's imposed as many sanctions on Iran as Bush has.

Where would you get the impression he tucks his tail and runs when IN ACTION and.........RHETORIC aside, he's shown just the opposite, is beyond logic. You're susceptible to anti Obama propoganda where it's undue.

We'll see. I hope you are right.

 

[Jarhead]

I'm not sure who has more to lose in this conflict.

If Iran cuts off the straight, that's going to send the price of oil through the roof. But we are in no real position to invade Iran right now and probably wouldn't get much international support.

They tried the same stunt back in the 1980's during the Iran-Iraq war, and Reagan responded by sending the navy to protect the tankers and putting them under our flag. (Again, wasn't it nice when we had a president with balls?)

Of course, Reagan had a 600 ship navy, Obama has a 300 ship navy.

Worse, since Reagan, our domestic production has declined. So closing the straights would have serious impacts on the market.

Iran, on the other hand, would not be able to get its oil to market if we imposed sanctions over their nuclear program. I doubt that would slow their program down that much, so the question becomes can we take it more than they can?

That's just it, In the 80's that was Reagan who knew what to do. Obama will not do anything and let prices spike. He'll ignore Rebarich and head for the hills. No balls for this man. Please let me be wrong. Just send in the ships, Obama.

You need to ignore rhetoric.

Obama clearly has the "balls" (whatever that means) to use our Military. He upped our forces in Afghanistan like he said he would, and he's signed off on more drone attacks than ever before. He's authorized the killing of pirates on international waters, he's authorized Military force to get Bin Laden inside of a sovereign Country, and he's imposed as many sanctions on Iran as Bush has.

Where would you get the impression he tucks his tail and runs when IN ACTION and.........RHETORIC aside, he's shown just the opposite, is beyond logic. You're susceptible to anti Obama propoganda where it's undue.

Obama is not afraid to flex American Military muscles when necessary. He has proven that. I believe the concern of many on the right is whether or not he will use his concern of losing the far left vote and "hesitate"...and when it comes to something like this, any hesitatioin could prove to be an issuel.

Now...partisan glasses aside.....I believe ANY politician will consider his/her political backlash for any action that may be deemed "unpopular" during an election year.

So that being said...I sure wouldnt want to be a President looking for a re-election with this type of situation happening.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'm not sure who has more to lose in this conflict.

If Iran cuts off the straight, that's going to send the price of oil through the roof. But we are in no real position to invade Iran right now and probably wouldn't get much international support.

They tried the same stunt back in the 1980's during the Iran-Iraq war, and Reagan responded by sending the navy to protect the tankers and putting them under our flag. (Again, wasn't it nice when we had a president with balls?)

Of course, Reagan had a 600 ship navy, Obama has a 300 ship navy.

Worse, since Reagan, our domestic production has declined. So closing the straights would have serious impacts on the market.

Iran, on the other hand, would not be able to get its oil to market if we imposed sanctions over their nuclear program. I doubt that would slow their program down that much, so the question becomes can we take it more than they can?

That's just it, In the 80's that was Reagan who knew what to do. Obama will not do anything and let prices spike. He'll ignore Rebarich and head for the hills. No balls for this man. Please let me be wrong. Just send in the ships, Obama.

You need to ignore rhetoric.

Obama clearly has the "balls" (whatever that means) to use our Military. He upped our forces in Afghanistan like he said he would, and he's signed off on more drone attacks than ever before. He's authorized the killing of pirates on international waters, he's authorized Military force to get Bin Laden inside of a sovereign Country, and he's imposed as many sanctions on Iran as Bush has.

Where would you get the impression he tucks his tail and runs when IN ACTION and.........RHETORIC aside, he's shown just the opposite, is beyond logic. You're susceptible to anti Obama propoganda where it's undue.

Whichever direction Obama has gone militarily, policy-wise, the Right has bitched about it. Escalated the Afghan war, they bitched about it. Got us out of Iraq, they bitched about it. Aggressively went after al qaeda, including getting Bin Laden, they bitched about it. Limited our role in Libya, they bitched about it.

So, whatever he does re Iran, we already know what we'll hear from the bitches.

 

[G.T.]

That's just it, In the 80's that was Reagan who knew what to do. Obama will not do anything and let prices spike. He'll ignore Rebarich and head for the hills. No balls for this man. Please let me be wrong. Just send in the ships, Obama.

You need to ignore rhetoric.

Obama clearly has the "balls" (whatever that means) to use our Military. He upped our forces in Afghanistan like he said he would, and he's signed off on more drone attacks than ever before. He's authorized the killing of pirates on international waters, he's authorized Military force to get Bin Laden inside of a sovereign Country, and he's imposed as many sanctions on Iran as Bush has.

Where would you get the impression he tucks his tail and runs when IN ACTION and.........RHETORIC aside, he's shown just the opposite, is beyond logic. You're susceptible to anti Obama propoganda where it's undue.

Obama is not afraid to flex American Military muscles when necessary. He has proven that. I believe the concern of many on the right is whether or not he will use his concern of losing the far left vote and "hesitate"...and when it comes to something like this, any hesitatioin could prove to be an issuel.

Now...partisan glasses aside.....I believe ANY politician will consider his/her political backlash for any action that may be deemed "unpopular" during an election year.

So that being said...I sure wouldnt want to be a President looking for a re-election with this type of situation happening.

I think you're looking at it far too simplistically.

These issues of Military force (putting other people's lives at risk) keep Presidents' hairs turning grey, keep them up at night and actually are the cause of great stress for these guys. I wouldn't accuse any President of using these young kids as political pawns. That's assuming the lowest of the low onto a person when you have no way of verifying it at all. It's undeserved.

I think of it this way: There's a War room. They analyze, they determine if/when we need to take action, and the President probably 99.99% of the time heeds their recommendation. They are the intelligence gatherers, they are the career fighters and strategists. It's likely them who decide if and when we strike Iran, not any President. There's a reason Bush just kept the "sanction sanction sanction" meme going, and that Obama has carried out the same. Was Bush afraid of war even Politically? Not. What was it? Likely that Bush isn't the decider. The career men and women behind the scenes are the deciders. Our diplomats and moles are the deciders.

 

[Jarhead]

You need to ignore rhetoric.

Obama clearly has the "balls" (whatever that means) to use our Military. He upped our forces in Afghanistan like he said he would, and he's signed off on more drone attacks than ever before. He's authorized the killing of pirates on international waters, he's authorized Military force to get Bin Laden inside of a sovereign Country, and he's imposed as many sanctions on Iran as Bush has.

Where would you get the impression he tucks his tail and runs when IN ACTION and.........RHETORIC aside, he's shown just the opposite, is beyond logic. You're susceptible to anti Obama propoganda where it's undue.

Obama is not afraid to flex American Military muscles when necessary. He has proven that. I believe the concern of many on the right is whether or not he will use his concern of losing the far left vote and "hesitate"...and when it comes to something like this, any hesitatioin could prove to be an issuel.

Now...partisan glasses aside.....I believe ANY politician will consider his/her political backlash for any action that may be deemed "unpopular" during an election year.

So that being said...I sure wouldnt want to be a President looking for a re-election with this type of situation happening.

I think you're looking at it far too simplistically.

These issues of Military force (putting other people's lives at risk) keep Presidents' hairs turning grey, keep them up at night and actually are the cause of great stress for these guys. I wouldn't accuse any President of using these young kids as political pawns. That's assuming the lowest of the low onto a person when you have no way of verifying it at all. It's undeserved.

I think of it this way: There's a War room. They analyze, they determine if/when we need to take action, and the President probably 99.99% of the time heeds their recommendation. They are the intelligence gatherers, they are the career fighters and strategists. It's likely them who decide if and when we strike Iran, not any President. There's a reason Bush just kept the "sanction sanction sanction" meme going, and that Obama has carried out the same. Was Bush afraid of war even Politically? Not. What was it? Likely that Bush isn't the decider. The career men and women behind the scenes are the deciders. Our diplomats and moles are the deciders.

I dont see it any differently than you do.

However, Bush's opposition made it clear that it was Bush AND ONLY BUSH that made the decision to go to war...and that he lied and cherry picked to convince congress to approive the action.

So now, the Obama campaign is going to be forced to admit that it is NOT the president who makes the decision...but the non-partisan folks in the war room....who make the suggestion, dictating the final decision.

They say that electiuons have consequences. I agree.

But I bleive campaign platforms also have consequences.....and that being said, I am not conivnced that Obama is not going to see this as a serious dilemma.

 

[G.T.]

Obama is not afraid to flex American Military muscles when necessary. He has proven that. I believe the concern of many on the right is whether or not he will use his concern of losing the far left vote and "hesitate"...and when it comes to something like this, any hesitatioin could prove to be an issuel.

Now...partisan glasses aside.....I believe ANY politician will consider his/her political backlash for any action that may be deemed "unpopular" during an election year.

So that being said...I sure wouldnt want to be a President looking for a re-election with this type of situation happening.

I think you're looking at it far too simplistically.

These issues of Military force (putting other people's lives at risk) keep Presidents' hairs turning grey, keep them up at night and actually are the cause of great stress for these guys. I wouldn't accuse any President of using these young kids as political pawns. That's assuming the lowest of the low onto a person when you have no way of verifying it at all. It's undeserved.

I think of it this way: There's a War room. They analyze, they determine if/when we need to take action, and the President probably 99.99% of the time heeds their recommendation. They are the intelligence gatherers, they are the career fighters and strategists. It's likely them who decide if and when we strike Iran, not any President. There's a reason Bush just kept the "sanction sanction sanction" meme going, and that Obama has carried out the same. Was Bush afraid of war even Politically? Not. What was it? Likely that Bush isn't the decider. The career men and women behind the scenes are the deciders. Our diplomats and moles are the deciders.

I dont see it any differently than you do.

However, Bush's opposition made it clear that it was Bush AND ONLY BUSH that made the decision to go to war...and that he lied and cherry picked to convince congress to approive the action.

So now, the Obama campaign is going to be forced to admit that it is NOT the president who makes the decision...but the non-partisan folks in the war room....who make the suggestion, dictating the final decision.

They say that electiuons have consequences. I agree.

But I bleive campaign platforms also have consequences.....and that being said, I am not conivnced that Obama is not going to see this as a serious dilemma.

I don't think he'll consider himself 1st before the Kids.

To the people who blamed Bush and only Bush for Iraq: fuck off.

 

[Jarhead]

I think you're looking at it far too simplistically.

These issues of Military force (putting other people's lives at risk) keep Presidents' hairs turning grey, keep them up at night and actually are the cause of great stress for these guys. I wouldn't accuse any President of using these young kids as political pawns. That's assuming the lowest of the low onto a person when you have no way of verifying it at all. It's undeserved.

I think of it this way: There's a War room. They analyze, they determine if/when we need to take action, and the President probably 99.99% of the time heeds their recommendation. They are the intelligence gatherers, they are the career fighters and strategists. It's likely them who decide if and when we strike Iran, not any President. There's a reason Bush just kept the "sanction sanction sanction" meme going, and that Obama has carried out the same. Was Bush afraid of war even Politically? Not. What was it? Likely that Bush isn't the decider. The career men and women behind the scenes are the deciders. Our diplomats and moles are the deciders.

I dont see it any differently than you do.

However, Bush's opposition made it clear that it was Bush AND ONLY BUSH that made the decision to go to war...and that he lied and cherry picked to convince congress to approive the action.

So now, the Obama campaign is going to be forced to admit that it is NOT the president who makes the decision...but the non-partisan folks in the war room....who make the suggestion, dictating the final decision.

They say that electiuons have consequences. I agree.

But I bleive campaign platforms also have consequences.....and that being said, I am not conivnced that Obama is not going to see this as a serious dilemma.

I don't think he'll consider himself 1st before the Kids.

To the people who blamed Bush and only Bush for Iraq: fuck off.

Whoa....dont get me wrong....Obama is not a monster. He likely cried himself to sleep every night he got the "casualty reports" from Iraq and the Sand Pit......I know I would.

I am not saying he will knee jerk react and send the kids over there....

I am saying he may hesitate and NOT send them over there...despite the advice to do so.

 

[JimH52]

If Iran did try to block the Strait, they would be dealing with far more than just the US. The entire oil producing Middle East would fund an all out war against them. Unfortunately, we would be the ones waging it.

 

[G.T.]

I dont see it any differently than you do.

However, Bush's opposition made it clear that it was Bush AND ONLY BUSH that made the decision to go to war...and that he lied and cherry picked to convince congress to approive the action.

So now, the Obama campaign is going to be forced to admit that it is NOT the president who makes the decision...but the non-partisan folks in the war room....who make the suggestion, dictating the final decision.

They say that electiuons have consequences. I agree.

But I bleive campaign platforms also have consequences.....and that being said, I am not conivnced that Obama is not going to see this as a serious dilemma.

I don't think he'll consider himself 1st before the Kids.

To the people who blamed Bush and only Bush for Iraq: fuck off.

Whoa....dont get me wrong....Obama is not a monster. He likely cried himself to sleep every night he got the "casualty reports" from Iraq and the Sand Pit......I know I would.

I am not saying he will knee jerk react and send the kids over there....

I am saying he may hesitate and NOT send them over there...despite the advice to do so.

Right, and I'm saying that there's no reason to think that - besides Politically, and that I wouldn't put that on him or any President as an assumption or worry.