Iran will 'block' Strait of Hormuz if pressed

[Hexen]

Iran will 'block' Strait of Hormuz if pressed
Tehran threatens to close the Strait of Hormuz, as the Washington sends another warship to the region.

Last Modified: 08 Jul 2012 13:19




inShare

http://www.aljazeera.com/Media/ver2/Images/toolsEmail.gif
Email (http://www.aljazeera.com/Services/ArticleTools/Send2Friend.aspx?GUID=2012789645779519)

http://www.aljazeera.com/Media/ver2/Images/toolsPrint.gif
Print

http://www.aljazeera.com/Media/ver2/Images/toolsShare.gif
Share (http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php)

http://www.aljazeera.com/Media/ver2/Images/toolsFeedback.gif
Feedback (http://www.aljazeera.com/Services/ArticleTools/SendFeedback.aspx?GUID=2012789645779519)



http://www.aljazeera.com/mritems/Images/2012/7/8/20127892345904580_20.jpg The US has recently moved it's warship, the USS Ponce, into the Gulf to keep the strategic waterway open [EPA]


Iran will block the strategic Strait of Hormuz at the mouth of the Gulf, the passageway through which a fifth of the world's oil flows, if its interests are seriously threatened, a senior Iranian military commander said.
"We do have a plan to close the Strait of Hormuz," state media quoted General Hasan Firouzabadi as saying on Saturday.
"But Iran, acting rationally, will not close the corridor through which 40 per cent of the world's energy passes, unless its interests are in serious trouble," he said, referring to the country's crucial crude revenues.
The comments by Firouzabadi, the chairman of Iran's Joint Chiefs of Staff, come days after the European Union enforced a total oil embargo against Iran for its refusal to halt its uranium enrichment program.
The comments also come after the US moved new forces into the Gulf to support anti-mine operations in the Gulf to keep the strategic waterway open, the US Navy said Friday.
A fleet spokesman in Manama said the USS Ponce, described as a "afloat forward staging base", had arrived on Thursday after undergoing refitting for its new mission.
"Ponce's primary mission is to support mine countermeasures operations and other missions, such as the ability to provide repair service to other deployed units," the spokesman said in a statement.
"Additionally, Ponce also has the capability to embark and launch small riverine craft."
Vice Admiral John Miller, commander of regional navy forces, said the Ponce boasted "enhanced capability to conduct maritime security operations, and gives us greater flexibility to support a wide range of contingencies with our regional partners".
Increased pressure

A halt in crude oil imports from Iran is intended to increase pressure on the Islamic Republic to stop enriching uranium to the 20 per cent level, an issue at the center of an international dispute.
Western powers fear material produced at that level, well above the 3.5 per cent enrichment needed for energy-producing reactors, can be turned into weapons-grade material in a matter of months. Iran insists its reactors are only for energy and research.
Iranian lawmakers have prepared a bill that would order the country's military to stop tankers headed to countries that have joined the oil ban.
But Iran's parliament speaker, Ali Larijani, was quoted by Iranian media on Saturday as saying that the proposed bill has not yet been studied by parliament.
Iran's powerful Revolutionary Guard has warned in the past that Tehran would order the closure of the Strait of Hormuz if the country's oil exports are blocked.`

Source:
Agencies




Source: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/07/2012789645779519.html

I heard that if Iran blocks the Strait of Hormuz it will lead to an US attack therefore starting another war. I hope this isn't the case since the US can't afford to get into another war.

Anyway any thoughts regarding this?

[Le Socialiste]

I heard that if Iran blocks the Strait of Hormuz it will lead to an US attack therefore starting another war. I hope this isn't the case since the US can't afford to get into another war.

Anyway any thoughts regarding this?

Nonsense, our opposition lies in the understanding that war serves only the interests of a profit-driven few, pitting the working-class against itself while the ruling-class reaps the benefits. Our fixation on the Middle East is 'legitimized' by the perpetuation of racist, xenophobic, and islamophobic sound bytes that feed into the elite's goals for the region. Concluding that Iran is somehow at fault for its saber-rattling, and that the U.S. is 'reluctant' to engage in further conflicts because "it can't afford to" lacks coherency. Not to mention it's an awful way of pinning the blame on the Iranians; "If only they hadn't closed the Strait, we wouldn't have been drawn into this mess."

Don't mistake me for thinking Iran's own elite are innocent in this affair, though. Their threats are of dual importance: to whip up support for the regime at home while hoping to give the major powers abroad enough pause before deciding whether or not to intervene. They're shaking their fists for the symbolism of it, while not-so-secretly hoping the West and its allies won't call their bluff. In the end, no one wins except the interests of private capital. That should be our opposition, not that America is war-weary and can't afford anymore defiance from the Middle East.

[~Spectre]

I heard that if Iran blocks the Strait of Hormuz it will lead to an US attack therefore starting another war.

It definitely will, which is why Iran won't do it. Beyond all the normal reasons why the U.S. would respond, also consider that Obama is running for re-election. He won't let himself be outflanked to the right on foreign policy, so any Iranian attempts to close the Strait of Hormuz will result in a devastating response.

[Pombero]

I think that if Iran were to do this the US would quickly respond militarily. I also think that no matter who wins the US election in 2012, the US (or Israel) will find some excuse to attack Iran.

Meanwhile Americans are suffering (homelessness, student loan debt, shit employment prospects, failing infrastructure, terrible healthcare)...:crying:

[hashem]

that is obviously a bluff. Iran hasnt the strength to block strait of Hormuz.

[KurtFF8]

I hope this isn't the case since the US can't afford to get into another war.

This is why you hope it won't happen? Not because of the potential of thousands of innocent Iranian folks may be killed, displaced, and have their lives destroyed as a result: all for the interests of the US capitalist class to be secured?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

If the U.S did attack Iran though I assume that the conflict would be kept, to the most part, within the strait and sea as I couldn't imagine why it would be profitable to invade the land if the strait is the primary concern.

[jookyle]

If the U.S did attack Iran though I assume that the conflict would be kept, to the most part, within the strait and sea as I couldn't imagine why it would be profitable to invade the land if the strait is the primary concern.

I don't think the strait is the primary reason for invading Iran but the primary excuse.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I don't think the strait is the primary reason for invading Iran but the primary excuse.

Still, a full scale invasion with occupying troops? Seems highly unnecessary even if the excuse is the strait. Especially if there are no allies to assist in the invasion. I couldn't imagine U.S commanders wanting to do this all by themselves on a moment's notice.

[Hit The North]

Let's be clear that it is the USA that is militarising the strait and using this to halt oil imports into Iran in order to damage it economically. The Iranians are threatening to respond to this. If they did (and they might because they can easily convince themselves of the justice of defending themselves), this would be the pretext the US would need to escalate to a war-footing with the British lapdog and Israeli pitbull ready to offer support.


Still, a full scale invasion with occupying troops? Seems highly unnecessary even if the excuse is the strait. Especially if there are no allies to assist in the invasion. .

As Libya demonstrates, the USA will not need to launch ground troops in order to destabilise the Iranian regime. As for its allies, there is the UK and Israel as stalwarts and then the connivance of Saudi and other dismal oil rich princedoms. American gold can always buy friendship or silence. The question the US will be asking, like any gangster sussing out a situation, is whether the little guy (Iran) has any allies it can rely upon, anyone who'll stand up.


I couldn't imagine U.S commanders wanting to do this all by themselves on a moment's notice
The scenario might very well be similar to how the US took down Iraq. An initial limited war like the first Gulf where land invasion is strictly ruled out; leading to a period of attrition until the enemy is so weakened that a glorious land invasion (miscalled liberation) can be mounted.

[Le Socialiste]

I wonder if Iran's ties to Russia and China would be enough to give the U.S. pause. Of course, either country's 'allegiance' to the Iranian ruling-class could be easily bought off if they're well compensated. The Russians view Iran as a chess piece that can be played in a tight spot against the Americans, giving it strategic value. China less so, though its relationship with the regime probably extends more into the economic (resources and all that). I think one of the reasons we haven't seen a full-scale intervention in Syria is due to the fierce opposition displayed by these two states. Even if the U.S. and its allies decided they had enough pretext for an invasion, it would stand to damage China and Russia's geopolitical relationship with the embattled regime, forcing all three closer to a conflict that I suspect none want right now. An invasion of Iran would cross that line many times over; the question is, is the threat of that enough to deter the Americans, or merely delay the inevitable?

[cynicles]

Do you think that there's a possibility of an already unstable Pakistan being dragged into this conflict?

[hashem]

Do you think that there's a possibility of an already unstable Pakistan being dragged into this conflict?

Pakistan hasnt an important rule in this conflict. but it can be used as a base of operation for sunni fanatics who struggle in Baluchestan (south east of Iran), although Iranian sunni fanatics are not an important force either.

[Psy]

that is obviously a bluff. Iran hasnt the strength to block strait of Hormuz.
Iran has Kilo class subs, in US Navy war games Kilos were able to get firing solutions on US carrier groups with ease when commanded by highly skilled crews as the Kilo is very hard to detect when it is hiding.

Against oil tankers Iran's Kilo's would have no problem sinking any of them that pass through the straits.

[hashem]

Iran has Kilo class subs, in US Navy war games Kilos were able to get firing solutions on US carrier groups with ease when commanded by highly skilled crews as the Kilo is very hard to detect when it is hiding.

Against oil tankers Iran's Kilo's would have no problem sinking any of them that pass through the straits.

if Iran was really able to block strait of Hormuz then there was no reason to publicize its military plans! blocking strait of Hormuz is a bluff for rising oil prices.

diesel submarines are no match for armies of gulfs area arabic countries (let alone USA, England and ...). and if Irans leaders are stupid enough to block strait of Hormuz, even their friends like China and neutral countries like India, Brazil and Arabic countries will become their enemies and might even participate in an invasion against Iran.

[citizen of industry]

if Iran was really able to block strait of Hormuz then there was no reason to publicize its military plans! blocking strait of Hormuz is a bluff for rising oil prices.

diesel submarines are no match for armies of gulfs area arabic countries (let alone USA, England and ...). and if Irans leaders are stupid enough to block strait of Hormuz, even their friends like China and neutral countries like India, Brazil and Arabic countries will become their enemies and might even participate in an invasion against Iran.

The US navy puts its ships in general quarters every time they pass through the straight of hormuz and leaves them in GQ until they are through the pass. Iran has anti-ship missile batteries on both sides of the straight. The straight is narrow and Iran controls both sides. Ships can't maneuver, they are sitting ducks. Blocking the straight is cheap and easy. The US navy fears passing through it, even in peacetime. If the US were to clear the straight, they would do it by aircraft - take out all the missile batteries before they sent their ships through, but doing so makes them the agressor and they are worried about public opinion. They are also worried Iran will make the first move and sink one of their ships in the pass. The navy is very sensitive about losing ships, if not lives. They are very expensive, have lots of top secret technology on board, and are symbolic, rhe latter being most important.

This isn't news though, its been like this for decades. The media just brings it up as news when they want to rally public opinion against Iran.

The obvious solution is a repeat of Gulf of Tonkin, where they stage an incident, rally public opinion, use airpower to clear the pass, then send ships through.

[Psy]

if Iran was really able to block strait of Hormuz then there was no reason to publicize its military plans! blocking strait of Hormuz is a bluff for rising oil prices.

Just because you are sabre rattling doesn't mean you are bluffing. For example the US sabre rattled against Saddam for years before invading.



diesel submarines are no match for armies of gulfs area arabic countries (let alone USA, England and ...)

Armies have no anti-sub capabilities, only navies can deal with subs.



and if Irans leaders are stupid enough to block strait of Hormuz, even their friends like China and neutral countries like India, Brazil and Arabic countries will become their enemies and might even participate in an invasion against Iran.
Why, that is not how anti-merchant submarine warfare works, subs only sink ships with enemy flags and let friendly and neutral merchant ships be.

[citizen of industry]

Other random shit about the navy. The US is a maritime power, not a continental power. Despite its landmass most of its major cities are on the coast. It relies on foreign trade and sea routes, maritime shipping. Its coast guard is larger than most navies in the world. Its navy is the largest in the world to the nth degree. US naval airpower dwarfs the airforce. The airforce needs airstrips, which need the consent of other nations. It is political and needs treaty. The earth is 70% water, so the navy needs no treaty, it can bomb anywhere on the planet within a few days. The airforce is necessary for aircraft that can't fit on a carrier (think large bombers, now mostly obsolete, large supply aircraft, etc.)

Regarding submarines, the US promoted denuclearization during the Reagon era. This is because the could close their strategic missile sites and shut down the airforce B-52 programs due to strategic nuclear ballistic missile subs. They are 100% undetectable and can launch a nuclear attack capable of destroying any country anywhere on the globe at any second. They are operating 24/7.

The seas are divided by "choke points," aka straights. It is the priority of maritime powers to control those straights and permit "free" shipping. This has been accomplished almost everywhere in the world. Taiwan straight, Hormuz straight and Singapore are still flashpoints.

The good news is its army is weak. The police force is massive, but the army is not capable of dealing with a majority insurrection. Its soldiers have close ties to the working class. It is volunteer and spread thin very quickly. Because it is spread then, its troops are exhausted quickly. US naval power can smash any foreign military, but IMO the military cannot deal with revolution at home.

[citizen of industry]

if Iran was really able to block strait of Hormuz then there was no reason to publicize its military plans! blocking strait of Hormuz is a bluff for rising oil prices.

diesel submarines are no match for armies of gulfs area arabic countries (let alone USA, England and ...). and if Irans leaders are stupid enough to block strait of Hormuz, even their friends like China and neutral countries like India, Brazil and Arabic countries will become their enemies and might even participate in an invasion against Iran.

Blocking a straight means against one's enemies, not allies. Iran would block the straight from the shore, not the sea.

Diesel submarines have some advantages. They are quieter and have a much smaller profile than nuclear powered attack submarines, while carrying the same weaponry. They are also cheap and easy to produce. There was an incident in 2006 or so where a Chinese deisel sub surfaced next to the USS Kitty Hawk after slipping by its destroyers, sonars, radars, etc. undetected. In war, it could have sunk the carrier. But the diesel subs have to refuel, which means surfacing, and take on oxygen for the engines with a schnorkel, which makes them detectable instantly. The US monitors the entire ocean. Regardless, subs are attack vessels and have nothing to do with Hormuz. The straight is too narrow.

[ВАЛТЕР]

What's this,about the 100th time that Iran has threatened to do this in the past 6 months? Nothing but sabre rattling from the Iranian government. It is getting old, and they know full well that if they did this they would end up in outright war with NATO. Sick of hearing idle threats from both sides.

[Psy]

Blocking a straight means against one's enemies, not allies. Iran would block the straight from the shore, not the sea.

Diesel submarines have some advantages. They are quieter and have a much smaller profile than nuclear powered attack submarines, while carrying the same weaponry. They are also cheap and easy to produce. There was an incident in 2006 or so where a Chinese deisel sub surfaced next to the USS Kitty Hawk after slipping by its destroyers, sonars, radars, etc. undetected. In war, it could have sunk the carrier. But the diesel subs have to refuel, which means surfacing, and take on oxygen for the engines with a schnorkel, which makes them detectable instantly. The US monitors the entire ocean. Regardless, subs are attack vessels and have nothing to do with Hormuz. The straight is too narrow.
Subs don't have to surface to recharge they only have to be at periscope depth to run diesel. This does not make the instantly detectable as you are looking at a snhorkel that is small even to radar, the only way it is easily detectable is if the sub is stupid enough to be moving at the time to cause a wake with the snhorkel. Refuelling is not a problem with deep sub pens where subs can enter while at periscope depth then surface once in the protection, subs can also be refuelled in open waters by civilian tankers with flags of neutral nations (i.e Iran could simply pay Chinese oil tankers to be refuelling stations for their subs, meaning the US could not attack these refuelling stations without getting in a war with China). Lets not forget a big problem Nazi Germany's block-aid of Britain had was US ships travelled in British convoys while legally claiming neutrality and there was nothing German subs could do about it till Germany declared war on the US.

The straights being narrow makes it easier for subs to hide due to shipping traffic being so confined that sonar and hydrophones become near useless as enemy subs just blend in with the shipping traffic thus a needle in a haystack problem.

[hashem]

Iran has anti-ship missile batteries on both sides of the straight. The straight is narrow and Iran controls both sides ... Blocking the straight is cheap and easy.

Iran only controls the northern side, southern side belongs to Oman. blocking the strait is impossible without declaring war with other arabic countries. i dont know how Blocking the straight can be cheap and easy. have you heard of "Operation Praying Mantis"?

also blocking strait of Hormuz without stoping oil tankers would be pointless. stoping oil tankers will draw more countries (even those which are Neutral or closer to Iran) to war. China will suffer more than USA if the strait is blocked.

even if Iran manages to sink some ships, USA and its allies can replace them but for Irans regime it would mean certain collapse, especially because it has no popular support.

and finally even if the strait is blocked successfully (which is impossible) or an attempt is made for doing so, Iran will suffer more than any country in the world because it will lose nearly all of its income. Iran is already in a deep economical and political crisis. its islamist government fears its own people more than foreign armies. so any attempt for blocking the strait would be suicide. despite Iraninan mullahs claims, they are very materialistic and are not willing to risk their wealth and power.

[Krano]

Another oil war coming soon.

[piet11111]

diesel subs are potentially stealthier then nuclear ones because unlike the nuclear ones they can shut down their loud engines where nuclear needs to keep up reactor cooling systems at the least.
You can imagine what such a sub silent as the grave could do on the bottom of the strait.

And with modern technology can stay submerged for close to a month

[citizen of industry]

We're talking 20 meters across at the narrowest point and 90 meters deep. That's not sub territory. If they clear a straight, it 'll be done quickly. They'll take out the missile batteries on the shore, use all their anti-sub equipment and armament in the straight, then plow through it with destroyers. The stealthy diesael sub might be able to stay silently submerged for a month, but if you can pinpoint where it is, like a straight, it's done for. For theory read Mahan.

[piet11111]

We're talking 20 meters across at the narrowest point and 90 meters deep. That's not sub territory. If they clear a straight, it 'll be done quickly. They'll take out the missile batteries on the shore, use all their anti-sub equipment and armament in the straight, then plow through it with destroyers. The stealthy diesael sub might be able to stay silently submerged for a month, but if you can pinpoint where it is, like a straight, it's done for. For theory read Mahan.

I am talking about a block of the strait not a "clog" of the strait meaning the sub can be in the Persian gulf or the Gulf of Oman.

[Psy]

We're talking 20 meters across at the narrowest point and 90 meters deep. That's not sub territory. If they clear a straight, it 'll be done quickly. They'll take out the missile batteries on the shore, use all their anti-sub equipment and armament in the straight, then plow through it with destroyers. The stealthy diesael sub might be able to stay silently submerged for a month, but if you can pinpoint where it is, like a straight, it's done for. For theory read Mahan.
During WWII subs hunted in harbours without being detected, they simply used the noise of merchant traffic to slip right by destroyers.

[citizen of industry]

During WWII subs hunted in harbours without being detected, they simply used the noise of merchant traffic to slip right by destroyers.

The technology is much better now. I think I read somewhere the US could track all the movements of the Soviet subs in the 80's because they have listening devices everywhere. Plus all the asw technology on the destroyers and subs are better.

[Psy]

The technology is much better now. I think I read somewhere the US could track all the movements of the Soviet subs in the 80's because they have listening devices everywhere. Plus all the asw technology on the destroyers and subs are better.
They tracked nuclear subs, not diesel-electric subs. Diesel-electric subs are much quieter then during WWII and if the sub is shadowing a merchant ship the loud noise of the massive diesel engines of heavy merchant ship masks the sound of the sub (that is more a problem because heavy merchant ships are much louder then during WWII).

[piet11111]

The technology is much better now. I think I read somewhere the US could track all the movements of the Soviet subs in the 80's because they have listening devices everywhere. Plus all the asw technology on the destroyers and subs are better.

SOSUS

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOSUS