Iran Strike By US Scheduled For 6th April 2007

[blast19]

Quote from ByLoSellHi:

If you really believe that, you don't understand how complicated securing narrow waterways are.

I don't understand it that well, either, but I know it's way more difficult than you imply.

No, I was being a conspiratorial exaggerater. Iran's interest is heavily vested in the fact that they can stop flow through those straits...no doubt there is no easy way about this.

I have no doubt that an invasion would include some plans to protect the strait though. It's not exactly a little worry.

 

[ByLoSellHi]

Quote from blast19:

No, I was being a conspiratorial exaggerater. Iran's interest is heavily vested in the fact that they can stop flow through those straits...no doubt there is no easy way about this.

I have no doubt that an invasion would include some plans to protect the strait though. It's not exactly a little worry.

I agree.

Silkworm missiles, minisubs, mines and a variety of other hazards won't make securing the Straits an easy or quick exercise.

 

[fearless9]

Quote from TM1:

I don't believe I drew the similarity between Iran and the Falklands. You are drawing your own conclusions. I simply stated that Thatcher would not stand for this nonsense and would take military action.

If you want to debate the tactics of the Falklands, that's fine (I'm not interested) If you want to debate whether or not Thatcher had the balls to go into Iran to get her men out, we can certainly discuss that, but there's not much to say on my part...I believe she would have been quick, decisive and heavy handed in her response. If you disagree, so be it. Without asking her we won't really know anymore than we do now.

We are still not on the same wave length.
I am saying that this incident was preventable and nobody is focusing upon this.

Both media and public need to pursue why a navy Commander with a ship like HMS Cornwall failed to prevent the Iranians in lightly armed boats from snatching his sailors.

An answer like " we did not want to risk injuries" is entirely unacceptable.

This event remains entirely preventable in my mind. It is up to TPTB to convince me otherwise.

 

[THE-BEAKER]

Regarding a securing of the waterways or a complete naval blockade.

(1) The Iranian Navy comrpises of :

Personnel: 18,000 Navy (including 2,000 Naval Air and Marines), 20,000 IRGCN

Fleet: 3 submarines; 3 frigates; 20 fast attack craft with missiles; 123+ coastal patrol craft

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Republic_of_Iran_Navy

my understanding of this is it does even compare in size to the US Navy let alone an Allied Navy Force.

(2) Iran exports most of its crude oil to the market and is a massive importer of refined oil to run its country. This is due to very little money being spent on internal refining infrastructure.

(3) In order to stop Iran exporting oil or blockade it so it cannot import any products and not function is to employ modern warfare tactics not really used in a new naval wargaming situation.

If anything moves within certian GPS parametres you blow it out the water.

SIMPLE

 

[blast19]

The-Beaker, thanks for that info. Very interesting. Amazing how they import the refined stuff..they're like the Mexico of the Middle East I guess.

The could quickly isolate themselves from the world if they do anything to those soldiers. No doubt.

Their military it teensy in comparison. I think US troops are in the 1.4 million range..with over half deployed overseas...I can only imagine this number(if I remember it correctly) includes national guard.

 

[universaltrader]

This is kind of scary, I hope it doesn't happen.

 

[fearless9]

Quote from THE-BEAKER:

If anything moves within certian GPS parametres you blow it out the water.

SIMPLE

My point entirely TB.

Firstly, you use diplomacy to explain exactly what will happen if certain boundaries are crossed and secondly you use your military to back up your diplomatic position.

This incident very sadly is in reverse.
The military failed dismally and then it is left to Diplomats who now find that they are toothless.

 

[fearless9]

Quote from blast19:



The could quickly isolate themselves from the world if they do anything to those soldiers. No doubt.

Do not forget China and their position with Iranian oil.

My guess is that Russia/China would find a US attack on Iran as being in their best interests.

 

[TM1]

Quote from fearless9:

We are still not on the same wave length.
I am saying that this incident was preventable and nobody is focusing upon this.

Both media and public need to pursue why a navy Commander with a ship like HMS Cornwall failed to prevent the Iranians in lightly armed boats from snatching his sailors.

An answer like " we did not want to risk injuries" is entirely unacceptable.

This event remains entirely preventable in my mind. It is up to TPTB to convince me otherwise.

Well, perhaps the Commander has standing orders regarding such situations. If he had taken action, we might be watching a full scale war on tv and saying "this was preventable"

Perhaps if this occured on Thatcher's watch, such standing orders would not exist (if they do now) and perhaps the Iranians would take the Brits more seriously given the embassy siege handling by Thatcher and the SAS, and never even taken UK soldiers to begin with.

The answer to your question involves knowing the directives issued to Commanders, I doubt we will ever be privy to that.

 

[fearless9]

Quote from TM1:

Well, perhaps the Commander has standing orders regarding such situations. If he had taken action, we might be watching a full scale war on tv and saying "this was preventable"

Perhaps if this occurred on Thatcher's watch, such standing orders would not exist (if they do now) and perhaps the Iranians would take the Brits more seriously given the embassy siege handling by Thatcher and the SAS, and never even taken UK soldiers to begin with.

The answer to your question involves knowing the directives issued to Commanders, I doubt we will ever be privy to that.

I agree with you in all but .......
we might be watching a full scale war on tv and saying "this was preventable"

Given the Iranians track record, it is fair to assume trouble is coming sooner or later.
Therefore it is always better to have it on your terms rather than the other fellows.

The Iranians position relates to the so called "war on terror", which I think can be safely described as badly managed and they think that they see an exploitable chink in the armour.