Iran/US conflict

[vienna]

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>

[Commander Wallace]

^ Excellent point.

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by vienna

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








<O>

you failed to mention FDR's planning his own 'day of infamy' & the Gulf of Tonkin incident which precipitated a decade of misery...GEORGE II WAS SIMPLY FOLLOWING THE WARFARING MANTRA OF THE 20TH CENTURY AMERICAN WAR MACHINE

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.

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

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

[vienna]

Originally Posted by Aktungbby

you failed to mention FDR's planning his own 'day of infamy' & the Gulf of Tonkin incident which precipitated a decade of misery...GEORGE II WAS SIMPLY FOLLOWING THE WARFARING MANTRA OF THE 20TH CENTURY AMERICAN WAR MACHINE

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>

[Rockstar]

Get ready, here comes Praying Mantis.

[JU_88]

While the RN is indeed a tiny fraction of what it once was (e,g WW2), Its a bit of a false comparison.
Advances in technology, firepower, range and overall capability (plus massive increase in costs) mean its very difficult compare - and very hard to justify building such a large number of ships anymore.

How many 40's/50's Era destroyers would you trade in for one modern one?
Its come along way from a steamer with a 5" gun and a couple of torpedo launchers.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

And as we know airpower by itself is not enough.

There is more than sufficient airpower in the region to cause massive damage to the Iranian military infrastructure. Nobody is suggesting 'boots on Iranian territory.

Originally Posted by Commander Wallace

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.

That is my belief also

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

There is more than sufficient airpower in the region to cause massive damage to the Iranian military infrastructure. Nobody is suggesting 'boots on Iranian territory.

Which is not enough to win the war or enact regime change. I am also uncertain that said airpower would be capable of removing Iranian capability to force significant attrition to the tankers passing the straits if not outright closing them, from Yemen experience for example.

[STEED]

Originally Posted by vienna

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.



<O>

I agree we need facts not sound bites before some one decides to pull the trigger.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

Which is not enough to win the war or enact regime change. I am also uncertain that said airpower would be capable of removing Iranian capability to force significant attrition to the tankers passing the straits if not outright closing them, from Yemen experience for example.

I've never mentioned 'war' or 'regime change' I'm talking about maintaing the navigation route through the Straits of Hormuz. Any entity threatening said navigation would be swiftly dealt with in a day or two even if a week or two.

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

I've never mentioned 'war' or 'regime change' I'm talking about maintaing the navigation route through the Straits of Hormuz. Any entity threatening said navigation would be swiftly dealt with in a day or two even if a week or two.

That is not what is happening in Yemen. Modern airforces of petro-monarchies (compare and contrast KSA airforce with RAF for example) fail to supress the ability to hit targets within say aforementioned KSA.

Straits are closer to Iran and do not require complex logistics for Iran to cover. Moreover due to Iran's geographical position Western powers would find it hard to close down the ability of Iran to re-supply from 3rd parties.

[Jimbuna]

I'm not sure you're on the same wavelength as I am.

The superior weapons platforms of both US and UK not only carrier based but also from allied airfields in the region as well as prcision missile capability would be more effective than that currently used in Yemen, surely.

I envision a swift and precision response toward any and all platforms labelled as being with hostile intent, whether that be FAC or missile site locations.

The Straits of Hormuz are vital in ensuring a large percentage of the worlds flow of oil, I've been there and seen it (albeit back in 77) and as such any attempt to close said area would mean the side with hostile intent would need to concentrate their efforts at quite a small choke point making it more likely they could be brought to book.

[ikalugin]

Considering how US is now a net exporter of energy (LNG, oil) they would benefit from closure of the straits.

As to the technological capabilities - KSA and the other locals operate about the same equipment say UK or USA would in such a war (apart from their massive stocks of ballistic and other missiles that INF treaty killed) and still fail to destroy the strike capability in Yemen. As such I doubt that western powers have the capability to destroy Iranian capability to close down the straits for civilian traffic, much less capability to inflict significant attrition to said traffic (which would lock it down essentially), without a full scale invasion.

Moreover Iran would be able to buy (and ship either by rail or by sea) all the weapons it would need to conduct this war, without the western powers being able to really stop it.

[Jimbuna]

Only time will tell.