Iran/US conflict
 

https://www.foxnews.com/world/irania...-official-says

Yeah, the Royal Navy doesn't mess around. :yep:

Sure, but how many RN vessels exist on the planet any more, how many of them are at sea at once - and how many tankers pass through critical waters per day?

The Iranians probably will now work to improve their timing.

The Royal Navy has a frigate, four minehunters and a Royal Fleet Auxiliary support ship already stationed in a permanent Naval Support Facility in the region, at Mina Salman in Bahrain.

I should imagine at least one more frigate will be despatched to assist HMS Montrose.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48946051

You certainly understood the underlying problem I pointed at. Too low numbers in general.

Maybe have missile teams on tankers in that region from now on. A missile shot on a tanker may cauzse a whole and oil spilling out and fire. And it would get the Iranias a war shipped to them without further costs. But a missile with a suitable HE or fragmentation warhead hitting a speed boat makes short process with it.

I am not sure if that would be enough to run all the right tankers without bundling them into convoys. If the story is true ofc.

Give the west a few days to organise themselves but if a tanker is attacked and set ablaze I think it would be western airpower and not navl that would bring about a heavy price to be paid.

And as we know airpower by itself is not enough.


Not that we would protest - it would drive oil prices and arms sales up.

I wonder though what Iran (if it actually was Iran) is trying to achieve here.:hmmm:

Wie du mir, so ich dir. The Brits seized an Iranian tanker at Gribraltar recently. Alkso, they want to demonstrate to the US how vulnerable tankers are - and how capable their forces.



Air drones were my first guess, too, but if the Iranians adapt their attacking technique for boarding tankers, plan their timing better and get aboard, drones in the air would not change the fact that then the tanker is under Iranian control as long as they do not meet armed superior resistence - aboard. And then the hostage negotiation game begins.

If Iran can't trade in oil, why should it's neighbours?

Just emphasized the obvious :03:
"How can you know the Iranians placed the mines?"
"We were there."

Because

1. they are not part of Iran, and

2. are not being sanctioned.

I was pondering the question from Iranian position. Who do not believe that they are being rightfully sanctioned.

The U.S hardly has to justify it's actions to a regime like Iran. The U.S is merely using it's economic powers as it sees fit and the U.S is within it's rights to deny access to it's financial institutions. Actually, I'm sorry that Iran didn't attack the British tanker. Iran would have payed a terrible price. :yep:

WWIII PSYCHOLOGICAL AND FISCAL WARFARE
 

I always have a bit of skepticism when I hear about these sorts of 'incidents'. Iran has certain enemies, Saudi's, Israel, etc., who would love to see Iran taken out by the US or some other power. There is a long history of disinformation and covert activity from some of the enemies of Iran and it would not be beyond rational thought to perhaps suspect a 'false flag' at work; its not very difficult to take a few boats, mark them up as Iranian, crew them with troops in fake uniforms, and send them to have a go at UK, US, or other foreign shipping and then pass off the blame on Iran for whatever reason or cause. I'm not saying Iran didn't send those boats, I'm just saying that before the UK, US, or anyone else starts shooting, they very much should be certain of who deserves the blowback...


If there is any need for a frame of reference, a starting point is the notorious case of the "Weapons of Mass Destruction"...








<O>

^ Excellent point. :yep:

There only needs to be one as long as it's in the right place :shucks:

Plus, the Royal Navy's auxiliary wing is the United States Navy.

Aside from possible state-backed 'false flag' action, there is an outside chance of some oil trading/refining private interest(s) trying to stage an incident to drive up oil prices (greed is always a great motive); and then, there is also the possibility of some terrorist group trying to 'stir the pot' to keep the principal players off balance in the hope of using the chaos as a means of furthering their own agenda; another plausible scenario is a group of 'renegade' IRG extremists motivated by dissatisfaction with the Iranian government's response(s) to the imposition of sanctions, etc. The 'usual suspects' is a large and multi-motivated assemblage...








<O>