Thread: Iran lawmakers prepare to close Hormuz Strait

Originally Posted by OhOh

But hey, when has the crusader coaliton ....

Thanks for letting us know where you stand with all of this:

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Oh yes, I'm sure China wants the straits closed.

Firstly would the Chinese aircraft carrier make it to the Persian Gulf. Secondly do they have planes that can use it. Lastly I am sure the Iranians would make exceptions to those countries that have not threatened the use of force against as, the Crusader coalition, Israel and the GCC states have.

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

I consider whatever casualties such a conflict will bring about to be a minimal price to pay

Idiot.

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

compared to the destruction a nuclear Iran can and will cause.

When was the last time Iran invaded and attacked a sovereign state?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

send the odd skiff full of kids on a suicide mission

The spectacle of a few rubber boats holding a US military ship and being blown out of the water would be of course illegal.

The "Iran issue" edition number #39.

I see this as saber rattling. Nothing more...but of course who knows what can happen in our world.

Some snippets from today's NYT.

The deployments are part of a long-planned effort to bolster the American military presence in the gulf region, in part to reassure Israel that in dealing with Iran, as one senior administration official put it last week, “When the president says there are other options on the table beyond negotiations, he means it.”

.....“The message to Iran is, ‘Don’t even think about it,’ ” one senior Defense Department official said. “Don’t even think about closing the strait. We’ll clear the mines. Don’t even think about sending your fast boats out to harass our vessels or commercial shipping. We’ll put them on the bottom of the gulf.” Like others interviewed, the official spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of the diplomatic and military situation.

Since late spring, stealthy F-22 and older F-15C warplanes have moved into two separate bases in the Persian Gulf to bolster the combat jets already in the region and the carrier strike groups that are on constant tours of the area. Those additional attack aircraft give the United States military greater capability against coastal missile batteries that could threaten shipping, as well as the reach to strike other targets deeper inside Iran.

Entire: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/03/wo...n.html?_r=1&hp

Translated: "Come and have a go if you think you're hard enough".

New U.S. warships in Gulf to deter Iran

Tuesday, 03 July 2012


United Press International

MANAMA, Bahrain, July 3 (UPI) -- Washington moved Navy ships into the Persian Gulf, administration officials said, as Iran announced new legislation to disrupt traffic in the Strait of Hormuz.

The warship reinforcements -- designed to enhance the U.S. ability to patrol the vital Persian Gulf shipping lane and to counter a threat posed by Iranian naval mines - is part of the Obama administration's "two track" policy against Iran, senior administration officials told The New York Times.

The policy combines negotiations with new sanctions aimed at Iran's oil revenues and increased military pressure.

"The message to Iran is, 'Don't even think about it,'" a senior Defense Department official told the newspaper.

"Don't even think about closing the strait. We'll clear the mines. Don't even think about sending your fast boats out to harass our vessels or commercial shipping. We'll put them on the bottom of the gulf," the official said.

Another senior administration official told the newspaper last week, "When the president says there are other options on the table beyond negotiations, he means it."

The proposed Iranian legislation calls for Tehran's military to block any oil tanker heading through the narrow, strategically important strait toward countries no longer buying Iranian crude because of the European Union embargo, which took effect Sunday.

The legislation would be "an answer to the European Union's oil sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran," Ibrahim Agha-Mohammadi, a member of the Parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, was quoted by Iran's official Islamic Republic News Agency as saying.

It was unclear whether the legislation would pass the Parliament.

U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey has said Iran's military is capable of temporarily closing the strait.

The Obama administration has warned any disruption would constitute a "red line" that would provoke a swift U.S. response.

"Any disruption will not be tolerated," a spokeswoman for the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet, which patrols the strait, warned in December, when Iran first spoke of shutting down the sea passage in response to the then-proposed sanctions on Iran's oil exports.

About 20 percent of the world's oil passes through the strait, which includes Iranian territorial waters that ships pass through under transit passage provisions of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea.

The European embargo, along with new U.S. restrictions that took effect Friday, are intended to penalize Iran for refusing to suspend all uranium enrichment.

Western nations and Israel suspect the enrichment program is aimed at creating the ability to make nuclear weapons, which Iran denies.

A new round of low-level technical talks over Iran's nuclear program were to begin in Turkey Tuesday, two weeks after talks in Moscow ended with Iran and the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany acknowledging they were far apart from a possible deal.

Originally Posted by OhOh

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

send the odd skiff full of kids on a suicide mission

The spectacle of a few rubber boats holding a US military ship and being blown out of the water would be of course illegal.

Maybe in your world - in the real world, the moment the rubber skiffs open fire, they are fair game, no matter which coastal aggressor they belong to.

You keep forgetting that there are TWO adjoining coastlines along that straight....

Originally Posted by OhOh

When was the last time Iran invaded and attacked a sovereign state?

You love to carefully choose your words, actually thinking people can't figure you out.

A nuclear Iran is not interested in invasion - aside from having declared the desire to destroy Israel, having nuclear weapons also would mean that they hand them to friendly terrorists or assist in potentially smuggling them to other countries in diplomatic luggage...

You, of course, would welcome a covert nuclear strike against those "Crusader Nations", won't you?

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

the moment the rubber skiffs open fire

They don't need to open fire just order the warship or tanker to stop, as laid out in the convention which you are having trouble reading.

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

aside from having declared the desire to destroy Israel

Try finding the actual words idiot " Israel will disappear from the pages of time" from memory.

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

having nuclear weapons also would mean that they hand them to friendly terrorists or assist in potentially smuggling them to other countries in diplomatic luggage...

You have proof that Iran has them?

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

You, of course, would welcome a covert nuclear strike against those "Crusader Nations", won't you?

NO.

Originally Posted by OhOh

The US has threatened Iran with use of force, therefore it is the belligerent, not Iran.

You are blinded by your fanaticism.

If a US warship cross the straight, accompanying several oil tankers, that is not aggression. Opening fire at them, is, and would be met with deadly force.

Furthermore, regardless of whatever conventions, the Iranians do not have the right to close the straight.

The UK used to have fighters, they may still have some biplanes left, which used to fly out and meet Soviet spy planes prior to reaching UK airspace. The spy plane would acknowledge the fighters, waving a hand, waggling their bare arse etc. and turn to head away.

I am sure the Iranian have radar, radio and small rubber boats/ducks which would perform the same function.

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

Originally Posted by OhOh

The US has threatened Iran with use of force, therefore it is the belligerent, not Iran.

You are blinded by your fanaticism.

If a US warship cross the straight, accompanying several oil tankers, that is not aggression. Opening fire at them, is, and would be met with deadly force.

Furthermore, regardless of whatever conventions, the Iranians do not have the right to close the straight.

If you mean fanaticism for the rule of law, as opposed to brute force, you are correct, but somehow your stance has a wiff of religious intolerance/racism about it.

I am quoting internationally agreed conventions, even if the US has not signed it, that govern international protocols. See my post above with how "civilised" countries have handle such events in recent times.

The Iranians have international law on their side. Whether they are upheld by other countries is another matter.

Originally Posted by OhOh

Originally Posted by Attilla the Hen

The Straits of Hormuz are international waters.
For one country to try and close them at best is a breach of The Law of the Sea. At worst, it's piracy.

Try reading , and understanding, what a convention is.

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/conventi...s/unclos_e.pdf

"Article 19
Meaning of innocent passage
1. Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State. Such passage shall take place in conformity with this Convention and with other rules of international law.

2. Passage of a foreign ship shall be considered to be prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State if in the territorial sea it engages in any of the following activities:
(a) any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of the coastal State, or in any other manner in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations;
(b) any exercise or practice with weapons of any kind;"

I have highlighted the relevant clause to assist the short sighted amongst us.

But hey, when has the crusader coaliton ever respected international law, they only understand brute force.

So, please explain how oil tankers and general cargo ships constitute a threat to Iran?

Originally Posted by Attilla the Hen

So, please explain how oil tankers and general cargo ships constitute a threat to Iran?

I'd like to hear that as well.

Originally Posted by OhOh

If you mean fanaticism for the rule of law, as opposed to brute force, you are correct, but somehow your stance has a wiff of religious intolerance/racism about it.

... you're the only one in this thread driven by Calgary-like fanaticism and paranoid obsession - which I'm sure is not merely a coincidence. Everyone else in here seems to be rationally pointing out facts and asking questions - both of which you appear to ignore.

Throwing out completely unjustified and unsubstantiated accusations of religious intolerance and racism really only expose you as just another facet of Calgary / Albert / Prufrock ... Yeah, yeah, yeah... I know

"... this is the Internet you nonce. I love posting under multiple names. It's fun..."

Originally Posted by Attilla the Hen

Originally Posted by OhOh

Originally Posted by Attilla the Hen

The Straits of Hormuz are international waters.
For one country to try and close them at best is a breach of The Law of the Sea. At worst, it's piracy.

Try reading , and understanding, what a convention is.

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/conventi...s/unclos_e.pdf

"Article 19
Meaning of innocent passage
1. Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State. Such passage shall take place in conformity with this Convention and with other rules of international law.

2. Passage of a foreign ship shall be considered to be prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State if in the territorial sea it engages in any of the following activities:
(a) any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of the coastal State, or in any other manner in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations;
(b) any exercise or practice with weapons of any kind;"

I have highlighted the relevant clause to assist the short sighted amongst us.

But hey, when has the crusader coaliton ever respected international law, they only understand brute force.

So, please explain how oil tankers and general cargo ships constitute a threat to Iran?

Article 19,

Section 2.

The ship shall be considered to be prejudicial.

Section 2a

Any threat or use of force

The ship is carrying war materials, any material which could be used by a country to commit war, for use of a country that has threatened the peace, good order or security of the coastal State.

There are online dictionary's for those that need them, google is your "friend".

Bet the Saudi's are pissed

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

you're the only one

Tell that to the Gypsies, the Jews, the intellectuals, the non Aryans in Nazi Germany.

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

Originally Posted by OhOh

If you mean fanaticism for the rule of law, as opposed to brute force, you are correct, but somehow your stance has a wiff of religious intolerance/racism about it.

Everyone else in here seems to be rationally pointing out facts and asking questions - both of which you appear to ignore.

I am sorry I must have missed the questions, can you point me to them. A post number is sufficient.

duplicate

Originally Posted by OhOh

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

you're the only one in this thread driven by Calgary-like fanaticism and paranoid obsession - which I'm sure is not merely a coincidence.

There was only one person who knew that I lived in Calgary, Alberta and that person has a different user name to you, or are you multi posting?

Originally Posted by Attilla the Hen

Cobblers. How does Iran prove that a cargo of live sheep is war material?

Threatening to close the Straits of Hormuz means closing it to ALL ships from ALL countries. How do they prove that ALL countries ar carrying war materials?

Seems like you are clutching at straws and making yourself look foolish in the process.
[at]

By boarding it if it has suspicions and verifying the cargo and it's destination. I agree that destinations of ships may change during a voyage but in time it will become obvious where the ship ends up.

Closing the straights, or more precisely not allowing ships to cross the territorial waters is a prerogative of the coastal state i.e for clarity it is up to the Iranians nobody else.

Me foolish, maybe, but not deterred.