Slashdot Mirror
Tensions Over Hormuz Raise Ugly Possibilities For War
Hugh Pickens writes "The high stakes standoff between Iran and the U.S. over the Strait of Hormuz, the passageway for one-fifth of the world's oil, escalated this week as Iran's navy claimed to have recorded video of a U.S. aircraft carrier entering the Port of Oman and the deputy chief of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Hossein Salami rejected U.S. claims that it could prevent Iran from closing the strait. To drive the point home, Iran has started a 10-day naval exercise in the Persian Gulf to show off how it could use small speedboats and a barrage of missiles to combat America's naval armada while in a report for the Naval War College, U.S. Navy Commander Daniel Dolan wrote that Iran has acquired 'thousands of sea mines, wake homing torpedoes, hundreds of advanced cruise missiles (PDF) and possibly more than one thousand small Fast Attack Craft and Fast Inshore Attack Craft.'" (Read more, below.)
Hugh Pickens continues: "The heart of the Iran's arsenal is its 200 small potential-suicide boats — fiberglass motorboats with a heavy machine gun, a multiple rocket-launcher, or a mine — and may also carry heavy explosives, rigged to ram and blow a hole in the hull of a larger ship. These boats will likely employ a strategy of 'swarming' — coming out of nowhere to ambush merchant convoys and American warships in narrow shipping lanes. But the U.S. Navy is not defenseless against kamikaze warfare. The U.S. has put more machine guns and 25-millimeter gyro-stabilized guns on the decks of warships, modified the 5-inch gun to make it more capable of dealing with high-speed boats, and improved the sensor suite of the Aegis computer-integrated combat system aboard destroyers and cruisers. 'We have been preparing for it for a number of years with changes in training and equipment,' says Vice Admiral (ret.) Kevin Cosgriff, former commander of U.S. Naval Forces Central Command."
The US should have spent the 500 Billion or so it wasted on lies about Iraq on researching renewable energy, and the Middle East would have returned to its peaceful irrelevance as oil would no longer have been strategically so important.
For a start, read about how our CIA led a coup to overthrow an elected leader who wanted more profits from the oil companies to go to the people. It was called Operation Ajax. We have a history of meddling in nations when leaders nationalize resources we want (Vietnam and Nicaragua, too). In Saudi Arabia we support an oppressive *monarchy* (i.e., NOT a democracy), apparently because we like their oil. Our presence there was a stated motive of Al Qaeda. So it's not so much stealing the oil as it is trying to control the government which gives us a good deal on the oil.
Iran unlikely to block oil shipments through Strait of Hormuz, analysts say.
From the linked article: And Iran — which has enjoyed record oil profits over the past five years but is faced with a dwindling number of oil customers — relies on the Hormuz Strait as the departure gate for its biggest client: China.
“We would be committing economical suicide by closing off the Hormuz Strait,” said an Iranian Oil Ministry official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject. “Oil money is our only income, so we would be spectacularly shooting ourselves in the foot by doing that.”
Ahmad Bakhshayesh Ardestani, a political scientist running for parliament from the camp of hard-line clerics and commanders opposing Ahmadinejad, said it is “good politics” for Iran to respond to U.S. threats with threats of its own.
“But our threat will not be realized,” Ardestani said. “We are just responding to the U.S., nothing more.”
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
Malcolm Gladwell touches about a similar situation in his book Blink. He talks about the largest ever war exercise called the Millennium Challenge. In short, the US hired a badass ex-Marine named Paul Van Riper to command the OPFOR. This guy wrecked havoc on the US Navy by using speed boats and cruise missiles. It was so bad, the US had to stop the exercise, refloat their boats, changed the rules of engagement, then did the exercise ever again. Of course, the blue force won the second time and they claimed a huge success.
You assume this is symmetric. It isn't. To win, Iran doesn't need to destroy the entire US navy, or even it's ability to fight. They just need to make the war sufficiently expensive either financially or politically to continue.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/12/washington/12navy.html
"Tensions Over Hormuz Raise Ugly Possibilities For War"
It's no wonder the Iranians are deeply upset by the sanctions. Surely some people do realise that economic sanctions will likely kill an awful lot of the poorest people in Iran and the sanctions are in themselves, a declaration of war. Theses sanctions worked so very well in Iraq with estimations of up to 1.7 million civilian deaths as a direct result of these sanctions by 1995. http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq17.html.
Like with Iraq, there is no direct evidence of a reason for war and we have already seen the political posturing and powers that be, who already have Iraqi blood on their hands are still lying to us with articles such as this http://www.adl.org/main_International_Affairs/ahmadinejad_words.htm.
For people who don't see how sanctions can kill so many people (taken from UNICEF report 1995 (sorry original link to the report is no longer working ) “Sanctions are inhibiting the importation of spare parts, chemicals, reagents, and the means of transportation required to provide water and sanitation services to the civilian population of Iraq... What has become increasingly clear is that no significant movement towards food security can be achieved so long as the embargo remains in place. All vital contributors to food availability - agricultural production, importation of foodstuffs, economic stability and income generation, are dependent on Iraq’s ability to purchase and import those items vital to the survival of the civilian population.”
The worst thing that could happen to Iran is that they could sink a few US ships.
The US would lose face internationally then and would be required to grind Iran into the dust.
What is so frustrating about the Iranians is how bad they are at dealing with ANYONE else. They're the worst diplomats. No one likes them.
If they go toe to toe with the US over the straight they'll have no backers. The chinese need that straight open. They have a strong interest in free trade. Europeans are finally on board. The Russians are not going to be the outsider if the US, China, and EU are largely in agreement. And there's the Arabs that are also scared that Iran is going to start threatening them with nukes.
So... no friends.
The US almost WANTS iran to attack it just for the justification. But the absolute worst thing Iran could do is sink some US ships. Because they're only going to be able to do that ONCE. The US would never get close enough to let that happen again. And because the US is going to keep going through that straight it would mean Iran either demilitarizes the straight or the US demilitarizes it for them at range.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
You really can't be that stupid can you?
Did you ever here of the North African Campaign.
Why did you think the Germans were in Africa? Looking for the Lost Ark?
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
They don't literally steal, they just help you "conquer" your country back and then "request" "payment".
But we don't. If only we did, to some extent -- the treasury could use the funds. I might go so far as to grant that we've helped some nasty people stay in power for various reasons over the years, but we still, always, pay MARKET PRICE for oil. About the only thing we insist on is that people sell it to SOMEONE (which admittedly, does help keep market prices down SOMEWHAT, but its still ridiculously high compared to the cost in most of the countries in the middle east)
If they did as much a firing at a US warship, the next day they'd be visited by their friends, the B2s, followed by carrier aircraft, maybe F-22s for air superiority (if not, then F-15s), which all pave the way for B-52s. In short, their armed forces would be gone in a few days.
You just never know how these things will unfold. Lots of posturing and a bit of "chicken." Iran, I believe, has more of a Navy than the article is letting on. But as a former US sailor myself, I can say it would not take much doing to coordinate some drones and install some extra CIWZ mounted around their ships and you will have a pretty fair defense against suicide speed boats. They wouldn't be able to get within 1000 yards... (2000 yard range)
I worked in OPS in a carrier group. We had the radar and sonar systems linked as a net to create a very large picture of everything in the area above, below and at sea level with every form of projectile defense capable of using that data to hit any target at any speed with pants-pissing accuracy.
"What about the Cole?" you ask? Well, at the time, people were worried about whether or not it was another green peace boat trying to spray paint on the hull again and they likely had a fire hose ready to spray them off at the time not expecting what really happened. You can bet that mistake will not happen again. The world has been warned that the US will not allow unknown, unannounced small craft anywhere near a US navy military vessel.
What's more, with today's level of target tracking, incidents like the Stark are unimaginable. That's not to say that some US targets won't take damage... they might... mines are still a threat... a minor threat really. The US ships don't have to be close to be deadly and putting mines into international waters? I don't think so. And we don't need to send landing craft in to invade.
Iran would be foolish to play too much chicken with the trigger-happy US military... a fight with the US would just "create more jobs" in the US bringing support for a war pretty quickly.
"Stolen" is a confrontational term, but put it this way: if China backed an armed revolution inside the US which successfully overthrew the government and installed a military dictatorship, and then contracts were signed that gave Chinese corporations access and control over the natural resources of the US, would you consider this to be okay? Or would you consider that, somehow, the natural resources were being "stolen"?
There are many references claiming that this has happened, see war is a racket, the war on democracy etc. There was even an honest politician from one country who was vilified because he stated straight up that they were part of the Iraq coalition in exchange for corporate access to oil.
Perhaps they're remembering the near three decades of the Shah's rule in Iran, marked by murders, torture, SAVAK secret police -- all supported by the United States and Britain? That ended in 1979. Or maybe they're remembering the war we helped create that killed a million Iraqis and Iranians in the 1980s once the Shah fell from power, and we decided to crown Saddam Hussein as our new friend on the block. That ended around 1988.
But answer this question for me: how many decades would pass before you would forget having your government overthrown, controlled by an outside party, and then being subjected to three decades of a police state followed by an eight year war that wrecked your whole nation? I guess real men can watch their families and society get destroyed and just "get over it."
never put his failed excuse of a war onto the budget, so taxes were not raised for it. I personally think we should add an amendment to the constitution that every military excursion outside of the USA must be paid for with an immediate tax surcharge of all people and businesses, based on gross income. That would definitely clip the wings of most of the chickenhawks out there.
Sanctions don't kill people, people kill people. Really though, sanctions end up starving people who would have otherwise provided for themselves. Additionally, I don't like the government telling me who I can do business with, especially now that the economy is increasingly dependent on global trade.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
Actually, this has the American military very worried. In the Millenium Challenge 2002, Red used exactly this tactic and wiped the floor with us in a wargame - 20,000 (virtual) service personnel dead. The military basically said "NUH UH! DO OVER DO OVER!" and restarted the exercise with new rules that would have made such tactics impossible. The leader of OPFOR (retired Marine Corps. Lt. General Paul K. Von Riper) resigned his position as commander of OPFOR in protest.
Then, of course, there was the Trillion Credit Challenge (start at the bolded "I"):
In 1981, a computer scientist from Stanford University named Doug Lenat entered the Traveller Trillion Credit Squadron tournament, in San Mateo, California. It was a war game. The contestants had been given several volumes of rules, well beforehand, and had been asked to design their own fleet of warships with a mythical budget of a trillion dollars. The fleets then squared off against one another in the course of a weekend. “Imagine this enormous auditorium area with tables, and at each table people are paired off,” Lenat said. “The winners go on and advance. The losers get eliminated, and the field gets smaller and smaller, and the audience gets larger and larger.”
Lenat had developed an artificial-intelligence program that he called Eurisko, and he decided to feed his program the rules of the tournament. Lenat did not give Eurisko any advice or steer the program in any particular strategic direction. He was not a war-gamer. He simply let Eurisko figure things out for itself. For about a month, for ten hours every night on a hundred computers at Xerox PARC, in Palo Alto, Eurisko ground away at the problem, until it came out with an answer. Most teams fielded some version of a traditional naval fleet—an array of ships of various sizes, each well defended against enemy attack. Eurisko thought differently. “The program came up with a strategy of spending the trillion on an astronomical number of small ships like P.T. boats, with powerful weapons but absolutely no defense and no mobility,” Lenat said. “They just sat there. Basically, if they were hit once they would sink. And what happened is that the enemy would take its shots, and every one of those shots would sink our ships. But it didn’t matter, because we had so many.” Lenat won the tournament in a runaway.
The next year, Lenat entered once more, only this time the rules had changed. Fleets could no longer just sit there. Now one of the criteria of success in battle was fleet “agility.” Eurisko went back to work. “What Eurisko did was say that if any of our ships got damaged it would sink itself—and that would raise fleet agility back up again,” Lenat said. Eurisko won again.
Eurisko was an underdog. The other gamers were people steeped in military strategy and history. They were the sort who could tell you how Wellington had outfoxed Napoleon at Waterloo, or what exactly happened at Antietam. They had been raised on Dungeons and Dragons. They were insiders. Eurisko, on the other hand, knew nothing but the rule book. It had no common sense. As Lenat points out, a human being understands the meaning of the sentences “Johnny robbed a bank. He is now serving twenty years in prison,” but Eurisko could not, because as a computer it was perfectly literal; it could not fill in the missing step—“Johnny was caught, tried, and convicted.” Eurisko was an outsider. But it was precisely that outsiderness that led to Eurisko’s victory: not knowing the conventions of the game turned out to be an advantage.
“Eurisko was exposing the fact that any finite set of rules is going to be a very incomplete approximation o
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
Given the size of Iran versus its powerful adversary, Iran seems to be doing okay geopolitically.. In the last decade, two of their biggest regional enemies have been eliminated (Saddam and the Taleban) and replaced with friendly regimes. The myth of Israeli invincibility was destroyed in the Lebanon war, making Israel more reluctant to use their military in the future.
Sure, in an all-out war between the US and Iran, then Iran would be destroyed. But in order to avoid this, the Iranian government only need convince the US that it would it turn suffer unacceptable military and economic losses. It's a game of brinksmanship - the aim (for both sides) is to get as much as you can get without actually going to war.
2. Stop supporting international terrorism. If you want to brutalize your own people that will probably be tolerated indefinitely. But if you spread chaos throughout the region then it forces the US to respond. Don't do that.
Both US and Iran are guilty of playing games of geopolitics and interference in the affairs of other nations. It's a bit rich to accuse Iran of being the one to destabilise the region after the US has invaded and overthrown two major regional governments, leading to a decade long civil war in both countries...
It just forces the US to send resources to the area and focuses additional resources on their country. None of that is good for Iran.
Forcing your enemy to squander resources is a kind of win. Posturing is also a kind of win, like the teenager showing off his muscles and martial skills in the school yard, it sends a particular message to be wary of messing with this kid.
Wow. Talk about uneducated.
First off if you're going to spout off about over population, realize that WE (us citizens) use FAR MORE resources per capita than any 2nd ofr 3rd worlder could dream of. So if you're going to spout off about lack of resources for the people of the world, understand that reducing our population in half would conserve more resources than reducing developing populations by a billion or more. Not that I advocate for that, I'm just sick of seeing how wasteful we are (including me) but seeing the finger pointed at all the people in the world who have only a sliver of what we have.
If you're saying that Iran is overpopulated because their land can't support the number of people there, I'd agree with that. I'd also suggest that the same is true for us. But the answer is already there: trade. We have arable land. But we couldn't cultivate it to feed all of us if not for fertilizers, which oil is a key ingredient. We couldn't get it from the "breadbasket" region to the population centers on the coasts, which means oil. And once it's on the coasts, supermarket or fridge, it needs to be kept from spoiling. Via electricity, so much of which is supplied by oil.
So we have one thing. Land to grow on. Absent oil it would be useless to us. Iran and so much else of the middle east lacks that. But they have the oil that WE need in order to not suffer mass starvation. And trade is the solution. It could be direct (food for oil) or it could be indirect (food for dollars, dollars to euros, euros for food). But the point is that we're mutually dependent.
So when we talk about sanctions, realize that depriving the population of resources directly. Less dollars so less to be ent on imports. So us doing that to them is essentially the same as them blocking all the highways leading away from our agricultural areas
World resources aren't spread evenly. But trade fixes that problem.
So before you spout off about over population point your finger at yourself ,me, and The rest of us, as we are the resource hogs of the world. And realize that all of our own stuff would be useless if not for what we can import from overseas.
Justification for obliterating a country on the opposite side of the planet? The Constitution doesn't say anything authorizing that. Part of the reason the United States exists is because our leaders at the time were fed up with the British government for several reasons. This includes imperialism and the fact that the British empire had its nose in too many places, including the colonies.
I think unless we have a country invading or attacking U.S. soil, we need to avoid war at all costs. Japan bombing Pearl Harbor? By all means, fight back, and take the fight to their allies (Germany, Italy) once we wrap up the Pacific theater. Specious arguments about a madman in Iraq allegedly having WMDs? Who cares? Not our problem. In that case, we didn't even declare war, but we should have. Congress alone has that authority, but ever since WW2, has been too eager to pass resolutions saying "the President can attack this other country, but we don't want to declare war and look like douchebags."
24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
Name a war that Iran started. Yeah. Didn't think so. Why don't you read something rather than watching fox news?
Poverty is not due to lack of food or resources in the world.
Iraq was heavily supported by the US in its war against Iran, including arming Iraq with chemical weapons and turning a blind eye to atrocities against Iran and its own people. When Iraq consulted the US about invading Kuwait they were told that "[The US] took no position on these Arab affairs", basically telling them it was ok to go ahead and invade.
Your conservative revision of history is appalling. You are the type of person who believes that the USA has never supported tyrants and has never taken part in unjustified aggression.
It's easy, quit threatening people and play nice with the world, quit having a childlike temper tantrum and pretending that you have only ever been a force for good in the world.
There is no disputing that the oil embargo was imposed in an attempt to slow the Japanese occupation and war in China, which was certainly brutal.
But, it would have been incredibly naive for the U.S. to think that Japan wouldn't retaliate for the oil embargo. Without the oil supply from the U.S., Dutch and British East Indies(no Indonesia) Japan's economy and military was crippled. It was inevitable Japan would seize the Dutch and British East Indies to restore their oil supply. That would inevitably lead to war with the British and U.S. So to protect their oil supply they had to completely remove the British and U.S. from a large buffer around their oil fields and shipping lanes which is exactly what they did in the opening weaks of the war. The U.S. Pacific fleet was the one obstacle to Japan's seizing and holding the East Indies oil fields and shipping the oil to Japan. Everyone knew it so its no surprise the U.S. attacked it first thing. It was also no accident the U.S. carriers weren't at Pearl Harbor because they were priceless, while the battleships were expendable since they were nearly useless with the advent of aircraft carriers.
So FDR and the U.S. military knew war was inevitable with Japan the day the embargo was imposed. Claiming the attack on Pearl Harbor was a "surprise" was pure propaganda for the consumption of the American people. It was designed to whip American's in to frenzy of support for war against both Germany and Japan. It worked really well.
I'm not even really being critical of it, Pearl Harbor was a propaganda masterpiece by the Roosevelt administration, in fact I am almost admiring its genius.
@de_machina
Some of what you say is true however we also have a trade strategy that punishes the developing world.
At world trade meetings the US and Europe constantly harp on about the importance of free trade. BUT then they claim that food is a strategic resource as a justification of their $40b subsidy of farms in the EU and $20b in the US.
So you see free trade means that I can buy your banks and phone companies but it does not mean that you can sell us your food.
What are small developing nations supposed to export? Fire engines and ice breakers? Let the poor bastards sell us food on a level playing field then talk to me about how it is their lack of character that is holding them back.
The West, like the rest, are hypocrites.