If Iran closed the Straight of Hormuz?

[Dr.Drock]

A blockade is an act of war. As such, it opens the door for a military response.

The correct response to any such closure is the removal of the assets that affect said closure. This will require a number of repeated air/missile strikes combined with some limited number of boots on the ground, certainly to include SF personell and, likely, some small-unit raids.

Few can legitimately oppose such action - the only real question is if the necessary people will support it and then act on it.

While I agree with you a lot, that situation you just typed is exactly what happened with the U.S. and Japan.

Which, applying the same logic, would mean that Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor was justified.

I don't follow.

An embargo isn't a reason for war, it's just business. Yeah it would suck, but it's their choice, just like our embargo wasn't an act of war, it was just business.

Causes of World War II in the Pacific - World War II Causes - Cause of World War with Japan.

Moving Towards War with the US
The American oil embargo caused a crisis in Japan. Reliant on the US for 80% of its oil, the Japanese were forced to decide between withdrawaling from China, negotiating an end to the conflict, or going to war to obtain the needed resources elsewhere.

 

[merrill]

Too many in America believe the USA military should intervene at the drop of a hat.... which is nonsense.

Iran has never attacked the USA and cannot attack the USA. The USA doesn't own anything in Iran or anywhere else in the world.

Perhaps it would smart to mind our own business which is patriotic.

 

[M14 Shooter]

While I agree with you a lot, that situation you just typed is exactly what happened with the U.S. and Japan.

Which, applying the same logic, would mean that Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor was justified.

I don't follow.

An embargo isn't a reason for war, it's just business.

The 'act of war' in question here is the blockade of the straits.
Blockades are an act of war.

Maybe I am still missing something.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I don't follow.

An embargo isn't a reason for war, it's just business.

The 'act of war' in question here is the blockade of the strats.
Blockades are an act of war.

Maybe I am still missing something.

I'm not really explaining myself well I don't think, we basically cut off supplies to Japan, Iran is threatening to cut off supplies to us, except now we have a lot more options than Japan did in the 30's and 40's.


Seems very similar to me, maybe I'm wrong.

 

[M14 Shooter]

An embargo isn't a reason for war, it's just business.

The 'act of war' in question here is the blockade of the strats.
Blockades are an act of war.
Maybe I am still missing something.

I'm not really explaining myself well I don't think, we basically cut off supplies to Japan, Iran is threatening to cut off supplies to us, except now we have a lot more options than Japan did in the 30's and 40's.
Seems very similar to me, maybe I'm wrong.

There's a difference.
We stopped trading with japan - we embarged them. They attacked us.

In the current situation, Iran threatens to blockade the straits. That, in and of itself is an act of war, and justifies a military reaction.

 

[rightwinger]

Iran does not want to provoke retaliation from the West. Any attempt to block shipping through the straight would be dealt with harshly

We don't have a wimpy President in there who only cares about Iran. Our current President would deliver a serious ass whipping and Iran knows it

 

[Mr. Jones]

No one wants Iran to have a nuke.
The threat of such a thing should be readily apparent to everyone.

Not really.

Let's say the Iranians announced they were far ahead of where anyone thought they were, set off a test nuke tomorrow, and announced they had 10 more already mounted on their Shahab-5 missiles (capable of a range of 3000 miles.)

So what?

What would they actually be able to do with them? Launch them? Okay, but anyone they'd launch them against has ten times as many AND would have payloads of many more times. Let's not forget, anything the Iranians can build would be a primitive fusion bomb, probably measured in kilotons, not megatons.

These missles couldn't hit the US, and probably couldn't hit Europe. SO really, the only ones who would be threatened are the Israelis.

Hey, anyone still want to argue that our foreign policy isn't being dictated by Tel Aviv? Anyone. Buehler? Buehler?

You don't think that an Iran/Israel nuclear exchange isn't a grave threat to the world?
What do you suppose would happen, globally, if the Iranians launched those 10 missiles and Israel replied in like and kind?

Iran has no history of being an aggressive nation and attacking others without provocation.
Israel has nukes and is the bigger threat to middle east peace.

Rose Gottemoeller, an assistant secretary of state and Washington's chief nuclear arms negotiator, asked Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel refused.

The United Nations passed a resolution calling on Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and to submit to inspections. Israel refused.

The IAEA asked Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and to submit to inspections. Israel refused.

Iran's formal notification to the IAEA of the planned construction of the backup fuel-rod facility underscores that Iran is playing by the rules of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which Iran has signed.

In 1986, Mordachai Vanunu blew the whistle and provided photographs showing Israel's clandestine nuclear weapons factory underneath the reactor at Dimona.

Israel made the same accusations against Iraq that it is making against Iran, leading up to Israel's bombing of the power station at Osirik. Following the invasion of 2003, international experts examined the ruins of the power station at Osirik and found no evidence of a clandestine weapons factory in the rubble.

Revealed documents prove not only that Israel has nuclear weapos, but actually tried to sell some to Apartheid South Africa. Who else Israel approached to sell nuclear weapons remains an unasked question.
Iran vs Israel: What The Media Wants You To Forget | WHAT REALLY HAPPENED


Meanwhile...
The US continues to fund and aid Israel-
U.S. Doubles Aid to Israel's Defense Systems - Defense/Security - News - Israel National News

Then Israel turns around and is alleged to be involved in this.

Breaking: Patriot Missiles Seized, Sold To China by Israel (Updates) | Veterans Today

These units, the most advanced Patriot system had only been supplied to one nation, Israel.
The 69 Patriot ICBM interceptors are believed to be a highly secret consignment demanded by Israel as protection from any retaliatory strike by Iran were war to break out in the region.

It's long past time America takes care of itself first, with "friends" like Israel who needs enemies?

 

[NYcarbineer]

What would the US do if Iran closed off oil supplies from the Gulf? Strangely enough the president didn't respond to the question even though it is his responsibility. Neither did the Secretary of State. The administration left it to the Pentagon to respons with "yada yada not tolerate yada yada" but the Pentagon doesn't get to say what the US will or will not tolerate. A female Lt. spokesperson for the 5th fleet claimed "the US is ready to counter malevolent actions". Well duh. My guess is that Barry and the radical greenies would like nothing better than closing off oil to the US.

First Iran goes after the Gays, now they're going after the Straights?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Iran (and China) are the new boogie men cash cows for the defense lobby, now that Iraq is history and Afghanistan may be on the wane.

Be prepared for plenty of scary stories about both of them.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Not really.

Let's say the Iranians announced they were far ahead of where anyone thought they were, set off a test nuke tomorrow, and announced they had 10 more already mounted on their Shahab-5 missiles (capable of a range of 3000 miles.)

So what?

What would they actually be able to do with them? Launch them? Okay, but anyone they'd launch them against has ten times as many AND would have payloads of many more times. Let's not forget, anything the Iranians can build would be a primitive fusion bomb, probably measured in kilotons, not megatons.

These missles couldn't hit the US, and probably couldn't hit Europe. SO really, the only ones who would be threatened are the Israelis.

Hey, anyone still want to argue that our foreign policy isn't being dictated by Tel Aviv? Anyone. Buehler? Buehler?

You don't think that an Iran/Israel nuclear exchange isn't a grave threat to the world?
What do you suppose would happen, globally, if the Iranians launched those 10 missiles and Israel replied in like and kind?

Iran has no history of being an aggressive nation and attacking others without provocation.

Same with Israel. Your point?

Israel has nukes and is the bigger threat to middle east peace.

Really? Under what circumstances will Israel ever use its nukes?

 

[tinydancer]

Iran does not want to provoke retaliation from the West. Any attempt to block shipping through the straight would be dealt with harshly

We don't have a wimpy President in there who only cares about Iran. Our current President would deliver a serious ass whipping and Iran knows it

And Iran won't care. They are on a divine mission you see. We think in political terms when we think of the ME.

Whoopsies. Big mistake.

When a leader of a country is actually saying to the world that he wants to help bring about the end of days by bringing forth the Mahdi, it has nothing to do with politics.

You have to wrap your brain around the fact that end of days is a divine mission in their minds.

 

[JoeB131]

Give me a compelling argument that problem isn't Iran, it's the existence of Israel.

sure. Would we have any problem with Iran at all if there was no Israel? It would be just some chunk on the map where we are indifferent to, like Zaire.

Would we be facing as much hostility in the middle east over all?

We don't have to, we change the NATURE of the world economy by developing the next thing.

Your understanding of the term "world economy' is far too limited for you to have this conversation.[/QUOTE]

My understanding is perfectly fine. It runs on oil. It could run on something else, but the people who m ake the decisions are making too much money on oil, so we are linked to the instability of the madmen who are sitting on much of it.

Could we design a worse system?

 

[JoeB131]

Iran has no history of being an aggressive nation and attacking others without provocation.

Same with Israel. Your point?[/quote]

You mean other than attacking Egypt in concert with France and Britian in 1956.
Launching a pre-emptive war against its neighbors in 1967.
Launching an invasion against Lebanon in 1982.
Launching another invasion of Lebanon in 2005

Not to mention the ongoing violence against Palestinians in the "occuppied Territories".

Other than that, they are the most peaceful folk in the world.

 

[rightwinger]

Iran does not want to provoke retaliation from the West. Any attempt to block shipping through the straight would be dealt with harshly

We don't have a wimpy President in there who only cares about Iran. Our current President would deliver a serious ass whipping and Iran knows it

And Iran won't care. They are on a divine mission you see. We think in political terms when we think of the ME.

Whoopsies. Big mistake.

When a leader of a country is actually saying to the world that he wants to help bring about the end of days by bringing forth the Mahdi, it has nothing to do with politics.

You have to wrap your brain around the fact that end of days is a divine mission in their minds.

Iran is not as stupid as you think. They are not into suicidal attacks. Mush of the country is highly educated and it is the religious conservatives who exercise undue influence.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Now is the "perfect" time to attack Iran, republicans will approve of any war that results in a lot of dead muslims, democrats love Obama's warmongering, they thought the war in Libya was like a victory parade or new years celebration.

Basically everyone would pat Obama on the back for the death/mutilation/permanent injury of tens of thousands of american servicemen and the deaths of another 100k of Iranian civilians. And as a side note everyone could care less how much it costs and the debt a war like this would rack up.

Maybe ending democracy in Iran wasn't such a good idea.

 

[Jos]

America has imposed sanctions, they are threatening to cut the supply of gasoline (which Iran needs to import) Iran has said if you cut our gas off we'll cut off all of the gulfs. solution for US? stop ******* with other countries

 

[Jos]

"ending democracy in Iran" started in 1953
1953 Iranian coup d'état - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Katzndogz]

obaabaa would ask Iran to pretty please open the strait or he will pout.

 

[Unkotare]

Iran does not want to provoke retaliation from the West. Any attempt to block shipping through the straight would be dealt with harshly

We don't have a wimpy President in there who only cares about Iran. Our current President would deliver a serious ass whipping and Iran knows it

Even you don't believe that.

 

[Unkotare]

America has imposed sanctions, they are threatening to cut the supply of gasoline (which Iran needs to import) Iran has said if you cut our gas off we'll cut off all of the gulfs. solution for US? stop ******* with other countries

OR, sink everything Iranian that floats AND blow their nuclear facilities to smithereens if they do something stupid.