Skip to main content

Lessons for Iran
1) Diplomacy will not work once America sends a bigger fleet and more troops once that happens America will invade they always invade.

2) UN Weapons inspectors are useless they can declare they can’t find weapons in your Iran but since they can't prove a negative America will attack anyway.

3) Letting America build up its troop levels, bring in more ships etc as you wait for diplomacy to resolve the crisis is stupid. Its better to attack first before the Americans get enough troops to attack you.

4) After the Americans win the war freedom and economic opportunity won’t follow,  just look at Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran should make a point of this in their media to help unite their country.

Now then lets assume Iran is smart what would they likely do next?

1) Sneak Attack first before America sends in too many ships.

Reasons why this idea will work

a)

Millennium Challenge 2002 (MC02) was a major war game exercise conducted by the United States armed forces in mid-2002, likely the largest such exercise in history. The exercise, which ran from July 24 to August 15 and cost $250 million, involved both live exercises andcomputer simulations. MC02 was meant to be a test of future military “transformation“—a transition toward new technologies that enablenetwork-centric warfare and provide more powerful weaponry and tactics. The simulated combatants were the United States, referred to as “Blue”, and an unknown adversary in the Middle East, “Red”.
Red received an ultimatum from Blue, essentially a surrender document, demanding a response within 24 hours. Thus warned of Blue’s approach, Red used a fleet of small boats to determine the position of Blue’s fleet by the second day of the exercise. In a preemptive strike, Red launched a massive salvo of cruise missiles that overwhelmed the Blue forces’ electronic sensors and destroyed sixteen warships. This included one aircraft carrier, ten cruisers and five of six amphibious ships. An equivalent success in a real conflict would have resulted in the deaths of over 20,000 service personnel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/...

Astutely and very covertly, Van Riper armed his civilian marine craft and deployed them near the US fleet, which never expected an attack from small pleasure boats.
Faced with a blunt US ultimatum to surrender, Force Red suddenly went on the offensive: and achieved complete tactical surprise. Force Red’s prop-driven aircraft suddenly were swarming around the US warships, making Kamikaze dives. Some of the pleasure boats made suicide attacks. Others fired Silkworm cruise missiles from close range, and sunk a carrier, the largest ship in the US fleet, along with two helicopter-carriers loaded with marines.
http://www.rense.com/....

My bold Imagine how many more losses we would have suffered if Iran attacked before we had sufficient forces in the area to demand a surrender?

After all after giving a notice to surrender the the American ships must have been expecting an attack imagine how many more ships will be sunk when they are not expecting an attack.

Next Lesson a change in tactics.

Iran I am sure has read the Millennium Challenge 2002 wiki the same as I did they know that no Iranian or indeed nobodies pleasure or fishing boat will be unwatched and will probably be targeted if it gets to close to any of our ships.

So then attack oil tankers first.

Reasons why

1) America depends on oil sink enough oil tankers, set them on fire and then close the Persian Gulf to shipping until those sunken oil tankers can be refloated and moved. As long as you still have some guns and missiles left no civilian crew will go to move those ships if you keep shooting at them. This means the Persian Gulf is closed until you are out of ammo or surrender.

Link to map of all US bases in the middle east below.

http://www.antiwar.com/....

America and our Western Allies have already imposed economic sanctions to stop Iran’s nuclear bomb program even though we don’t have proof it exists.

Iran I am sure considers this economic warfare a hostile act any country that has American bases on its soil is thus a legit target. That means Iran can close down the oil ports of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and Omman by sinking oil tankers refueling with oil in their ports and using firebombs to set the oil on fire thus preventing rescue teams from preventing the oil tankers from sinking. Once sunk it will take weeks? before these ships can be moved and more oil pumped into oil tankers from these ports.

I assume all talk about a rise in oil prices is based on Iran sinking one or maybe 5 oil tankers and a few months long war. Imagine if Iran sinks 10, 20, 30 oil tankers? Imagine if the war lasts longer than 6 months.

2) Iran needs money to pay for the war if you sink every oil tanker in the Persian Gulf then you raise the price of oil. This both helps Iran pay for the war and hurts the Western economies now leveling economic sanctions on Iran.

a) You bankrupt the Western Insurance companies that insure oil tankers and have Credit Default Swap insurance policies that pay only if the price of oil goes up  thus further hurting our economy.

b) Credit Default Swaps bought to protect Airlines and other fuel intensive using business from the price of oil will kick in. Despite all the talk about Obama crafting financial regulation the banks have No Margin set aside to pay Credit Default Swaps. We also have no transparency about which banks, insurance companies etc are exposed to CDS this means everyone will sell their bank and insurance company stocks because they don’t know who has exposure to CDS bought to hedge against rising oil prices. Given how many banks lied last banking Crisis about being ok when they were not I can easily predict that a war with Iran will lead to a bigger banking crisis than last time.

Notice I bolded Silkworm cruise missiles according to the Millennium Challenge 2002 war games we lost 16 warships to them the new Sunburn anti ship missile is much faster, its supersonic and much more accurate.

Although the Russian navy continues to rust in port, and the Russian army is in disarray, in certain key areas Russian technology is actually superior to our own. And nowhere is this truer than in the vital area of anti-ship cruise missile technology, where the Russians hold at least a ten-year lead over the US.
Many years ago, Soviet planners gave up trying to match the US Navy ship for ship, gun for gun, and dollar for dollar. The Soviets simply could not compete with the high levels of US spending required to build up and maintain a huge naval armada. They shrewdly adopted an alternative approach based on strategic defense. They searched for weaknesses, and sought relatively inexpensive ways to exploit those weaknesses. The Soviets succeeded: by developing several supersonic anti-ship missiles, one of which, the SS-N-22 Sunburn, has been called “the most lethal missile in the world today.”

According to one report, when the Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani visited Moscow in October 2001 he requested a test firing of the Sunburn, which the Russians were only too happy to arrange. So impressed was Ali Shamkhani that he placed an order for an undisclosed number of the missiles.
The Sunburn can deliver a 200-kiloton nuclear payload, or: a 750-pound conventional warhead, within a range of 100 miles, more than twice the range of the Exocet. The Sunburn combines a Mach 2.1 speed (two times the speed of sound) with a flight pattern that hugs the deck and includes “violent end maneuvers” to elude enemy defenses. The missile was specifically designed to defeat the US Aegis radar defense system. Should a US Navy Phalanx point defense somehow manage to detect an incoming Sunburn missile, the system has only seconds to calculate a fire solution not enough time to take out the intruding missile. The US Phalanx defense employs a six-barreled gun that fires 3,000 depleted-uranium rounds a minute, but the gun must have precise coordinates to destroy an intruder “just in time.”
. A single one of these missiles can sink a large warship, yet costs considerably less than a fighter jet. Although the Navy has been phasing out the older Phalanx defense system, its replacement, known as the Rolling Action Missile (RAM) has never been tested against the weapon it seems destined to one day face in combat. Implications For US Forces in the Gulf

http://www.rense.com/....

The Millennium Challenge 2002 war games assume much slower silkworm missiles and that Iran would have to swarm our ships with multiple missiles to get past our defenses with the Sunburn maybe they would need only two missiles to take down our most armored ships.

I expect that if we fight and lose to Iran or even if we win if we lose 16 or more warships money that was expected to be spent for new ships will be moved to developing new missiles because missiles are cheaper than ships and even the best missile defense systems can’t protect a ship from multiple missiles. Plus its cheaper to make multiple missiles than it is to make multiple ships.

3) Next if Iran sinks ten oil tankers and lights the oil on fire with firebombs well our ships in the Persian Gulf will be covered with smoke thus making landing planes on aircraft careers impossible. Our sailors will all have to wear gas masks to breath which will hamper their efficiency and make sleeping a challenge. Oil tanker fires might last for days also they will restrict vision and effect any infra red targeting systems we may have.

4) If Iran cuts off the oil ports of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and Omman for a month or so then those countries will have to withdraw money they have in Western Banks and invested in Western Stock Markets to pay their bills. This would further hurt our economies.

a) If the oil countries are prevented from selling oil long enough they won’t be able to pay their foreign workers…who they mistreat badly according to several human rights groups.

In 2010, Bahrain’s population grew to 1.2 million, of which 568,399 were Bahraini and 666,172 were non-nationals.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/....
In 2010, the UAE’s population was estimated at 8,264,070,[4]of whom fewer than 20% were UAE nationals or Emiratis,[85]while the majority of the population were expatriates
http://en.wikipedia.org/....
Seventy percent of the Saudi population is under 30, and as many as 40 percent of those young people are unemployed. According to the kingdom’s own statistics, holding a college degree almost doubles the chances of failing to find a job.
http://www.globalpost.com/....
About 31% of the population is made up of foreign nationals living in Saudi Arabia
http://en.wikipedia.org/....

Given the huge numbers of Foreign Workers and high unemployment among young Arabs Iran by attacking their oil ports very well might spark rebellions in several oil countries.

Next Lesson for Iran Attack every country’s oil tankers if they have a US army or Naval base America show them the cost of being friends with America show them that America can’t protect them. Its a classic Mafia tactic and it works.

I cannot believe that any American war games would assume Iran's navy even if they could sink 16 of our warships would engage in a suicide run where in the end they all die when they can hurt America more by crippling our oil supply then attacking our fleet.

According to the International Monetary Fund, a $10-a-barrel increase in the price of oil reduces U.S. GDP growth by 0.5 percentage points.
http://www.dailyfinance.com/...

I humbly submit this post for consideration for a State Dept or Pentagon analysis job:) Judging from what I read in the papers it seems you need me:)

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Do you believe that Obama = Bush? (4+ / 0-)

    This is strongly implied in your opening points.  Do you believe that President Obama will behave in the same way that Bush did in the run-up to the Iraq war?

    I personally do not think he will, I'm sure some here will disagree with me.  But I wanted to clarify this point with the author of the diary in terms of his or hers own view.

    •  I don't think Obama (0+ / 0-)

        Is as stupid as Bush. But if he invades Iran that would prove me wrong. I am making the case against invading Iran. In so doing I cannot help but use recent Bush examples of failure in war.
         Obama if he wants to not invade Iran needs arguments like this to help mobilize public opinion.
          In general I am anti war 90% of the time.

      •  I agree with the 90% (0+ / 0-)

        War is horrible and only someone truly immoral (Bush, Cheney) seeks it out.

        I do believe that a nuclear Iraq is a terrible danger to the entire mideast, to the world, and to us.  I consider President Obama's actions to date as being wise and properly calibrated, and I have confidence he will handle a very difficult sitution as well as it can be.  The only good outcome is a diplomatic solution wherein Iraq foregoes nuclear weapons and we agree to end the sanctions.  A nuclear Iraq is not an acceptable outcome, and a war with Iraq isn't either.  

        Where we probably disagree is this - if the ony two options are the latter two, I think we would have no choice but military action, as risky and awful as that would be.  Let's all hope we (the U.S.) don't wind up having to make that choice.

        •  Do we really want to trust (0+ / 0-)

          The Same intelligence that told us Iraq had WMD? As far as threats to Israel goes the Saudis, Egypt etc all want Nuclear Reactors. Once they get the Uranium and the know how building bombs won't be that hard.
              If we really wanted Peace we would offer Iran free wind and solar power equal to what they can get from a nuclear reactor if they let us dismantle their reactor.
             We would also offer them a peace treaty and trade.
          They would demand Israel and Palestine settle their borders fairly. I think all of these steps will prove cheaper than attacking Iran.

    •  The danger is not that Obama = Bush (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Things Come Undone, Gooserock

      Looking at Obama's statements, it is reasonable to believe Obama doesn't want war.  The danger, however, is that through continual escalation it may not matter what Obama wants.  We may be dragged into war by accident or by intentional act of one of the parties.

      That is why the latest military buildups are disturbing, they greatly increase the chance of us sliding into war, intentionally or not.

      Likewise, the economic sanctions meant to "cripple" the Iranian economy.  I don't really believe such sanctions will cripple an economy or force Iran to change its policies (sanctions have an EXTREMELY poor record on that front).  However, lets play out the logic for a moment.

      Assume the sanctions work and Iran is economically crippled.  To save itself, Iran must develop an entirely autarkic economy (unlikely) or it must sell something it has in a largeer volume or at a higher price.  Obviously, Iran has oil, but it can't quickly increase production.  However, Iran CAN quickly increase oil prices just by sharply increasing tension in the Persian Gulf (and oil prices go up every time tensions increase; right now we are paying about a $15-$20 tension-premium per barrel).

      Hence, if the sanctions work, we will be forcing Iran into a corner in which they MUST sharply increase tensions in order to make ends meet.

      Again, we create the situation where war can easily happen, whether Obama wants it or not.

      "How did you go bankrupt?" "Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly." - Ernest Hemingway, The Sun Also Rises.

      by weasel on Mon Mar 19, 2012 at 11:22:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Interesting ideas on economic sanctions:) (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        weasel
        Iran CAN quickly increase oil prices just by sharply increasing tension in the Persian Gulf (and oil prices go up every time tensions increase; right now we are paying about a $15-$20 tension-premium per barrel).
          Sanctions might prove counter productive America cut off Iran's access to weapons years ago and in so doing we created Iran's weapons industry, including their missile program where they buy weapon designs from North Korea, China, Russia etc but they make most if not all the missile themselves.
              If Iran is banned from Western Banking systems then Western Banks will suffer the loss in profits since I don't see the world not buying Iran's oil for long.
        Looking at Obama's statements, it is reasonable to believe Obama doesn't want war.
           And since I don't want war either I can make the case Obama can't. Yes we can beat Iran but only by risking our own fleet, troops and our economy.
            We cannot hope that Iran will act as stupid as Saddam did.
  •  America's Bloodlust (2+ / 0-)

    for killing brown people seems insatiable. Eve when sating it is obviously self destructive.

    Advisors for President-Elect Barack Obama feared the new administration would face a coup if it prosecuted Bush-era war crimes, according to a new report out this morning.

    by Kurt Sperry on Mon Mar 19, 2012 at 11:11:07 AM PDT

  •  TCU - here is where your analysis is wrong (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TimmyB, SquirrelWhisperer, gfv6800

    We are not going to invade Iran, we can't. There standing army is too large and our military does not have the current capacity to fight a land war in Iran. In addition, we have no interest in occupying Iran. What we want to do is destroy, or degrade, their nuclear program. While we would very much like a regime change, that is not the current mission. To destroy or degrade their nuclear program our air and missile attacks will be exclusively directed to the nuclear facilities, the air defense systems, command and control facilities, and the Iranian air force and navy. We have no interest in killing civilians. However, if the Iranians attack first, the entire country will be leveled.  That's why the Iranian's won't attack.  

    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Mon Mar 19, 2012 at 11:17:02 AM PDT

    •  What is the difference between an invasion and (0+ / 0-)

      wanting to destroy their nuclear facilities if we have to destroy their navy, airforce  and command and control facilities?
          We will try not to kill civilians and we won't send in troops to occupy the country?
          Without a navy or airforce Iran might as well surrender to whomever wants to invade next.
          They will not let that happen without a fight.
      Second if its a choice of Iran losing and being leveled vs Iran still losing but hurting America and our allies as they go down then expect them to hurt us.
         Saddam proved that diplomacy does not work once America sends in the troops.

      •  We won't send in the troops (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Gooserock, SquirrelWhisperer

        Except for some special forces we won't send troops into Iran.  Therefore we will not be amassing troops on Iran's boarders. Even if we took out its navy, and air force, and degraded its army who would invade Iran and how would they do it?

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Mon Mar 19, 2012 at 11:46:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Never underestimate the number of stupid people in (0+ / 0-)

          the world.

          Even if we took out its navy, and air force, and degraded its army who would invade Iran and how would they do it?
           Someone has to the Gulf Oil Producing Arab states are weak if Iran is not distracted with a war the Gulf Arab States would be easy pickings for Iran if America ever left.
             Or more likely if America is distracted with another war.
        •  Yeah Nobody's Talking Invasion. nt (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SquirrelWhisperer

          We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

          by Gooserock on Mon Mar 19, 2012 at 12:21:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Suppose Iran does not attack first (0+ / 0-)

      Suppose we do we lost 16 warships and 20,000 troops to silk worm missiles not Sunburn missiles which are much faster if we attack Iran they will attack our ships.
           Our losses are likely to be even greater. Do you think 20,000 of our troops dead would be worth the cost? Do you think that would be a win?

      •  TCU - I do not think our losses (2+ / 0-)

        would be significant.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Mon Mar 19, 2012 at 01:25:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ok we can disagree (0+ / 0-)

            I think 16 warships and 20,000 troops would be significant especially when any strike would only set Iran back a few years in their bomb program assuming they have one.
             But I admit thats just me.
          I think letting the Saudis, Egypt etc get nuclear reactors and only worrying about Iran getting a reactor is dangerous for Israel.
               The danger to the world economy of higher oil prices however would likely doom Obama in the election and make any future strike against Iran impossible.

          •  TCU - losses you project (0+ / 0-)

            would be unacceptable to both the DoD and politically so I don't think we would strike if the Obama administration thought losses in that range were likely. I also think that the Obama administration will not strike before the election and will do everything possible to discourage the Israelis from striking this year.

            "let's talk about that"

            by VClib on Mon Mar 19, 2012 at 02:50:59 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Agree on no strike before an election (0+ / 0-)

               However it seems "they" are fixing the intelligence again.

              ThingsComeUndone March 19th, 2012 at 2:20 pm
              15
              In response to allan @ 6
              destroyed sixteen warships. This included one aircraft carrier, ten cruisers and five of six amphibious ships. An equivalent success in a real conflict would have resulted in the deaths of over 20,000 service personnel.

              http://www.dailykos.com/...

              http://www.nytimes.com/...

              Funny how we went from 20,000 dead under a Bush era war game to only hundreds when Iran has gotten faster than sound Sunburn anti ship missiles and we lost 20,000 troops when we did a war game and they only had Silk Worm Missiles.
              Have American ships and anti missile systems gotten that much better?

              http://news.firedoglake.com/...

  •  What's with the links to Rense? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Catte Nappe, Things Come Undone

    Unless one is really into UFO babble, David Duke and the white-power crowd or an array of CT oddities, it's hard to imagine anything of value over there.

    Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time. (Terry Pratchett)

    by angry marmot on Mon Mar 19, 2012 at 11:20:07 AM PDT

  •  It's all about forcing regime change in Iran (3+ / 0-)
    WILKERSON: It is simply that it appears to me that wittingly or unwittingly both the White House and the legislature have adopted a policy of regime change and not diplomacy. And that's frightening. I could see, for example, as happened to Bill Clinton in '97 or '98, as I recall, when he was forced by, then, a Republican legislature, essentially, to sign a piece of legislation that declared official U.S. policy regime change in Iraq—and like other presidents he might have thought he could control that, and for the end of his administration he did. But the Republicans, George W. Bush, my administration, was able to use that as buttressing for what they eventually did in Iraq. It was official U.S. policy, a regime change. I think we may be headed towards that kind of legislation with regard to Iran.

    JAY: Now, Biden, and Obama himself, when they ran in the primaries in '08, both said, if you didn't want Iran as a regional power, you shouldn't have invaded Iraq, Obama said, and Biden said, if you don't want them to have nuclear weapons, stop threatening regime change.

    WILKERSON: And you shouldn't have, I might add, recognized them as the hegemon in the Gulf for 26 years when they had our tyrant in control, '53 to '79.

    JAY: Do you think—from what you can tell on the Hill, your sense of the politics of D.C., is regime change the Obama administration plan? Is it a Netanyahu play with the Republicans?


    More at The Real News
    •  I can agree to your theory (0+ / 0-)

      About what American intent might be however I do not know enough about Iran's politics to judge if we are actually doing a good job at Regime Change.
         Nor do I know what we can expect from regime change.  Iran will still have a large population of non slave workers and the  Gulf Arab countries will still be unstable with their huge population of slave workers.
         Sooner or later Arab weakness will be filled by an Iranian void.

  •  You have no concept of the level of violence (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SquirrelWhisperer

    that would be unleashed on Iran if they sunk even a couple of ships.

    Where are we, now that we need us most?

    by Frank Knarf on Mon Mar 19, 2012 at 01:12:04 PM PDT

    •  Right (0+ / 0-)

      Tell me where will this overwhelming force you speak of come from Israel if so then the Arab countries can't join in any attack on Iran without risking rebellion at home.
            Can the Arab countries risk a war with their populations at the brink of rebellion?
          I will grant you we or Israel could use nukes.

      •  The US Navy has ELEVEN Carrier Strike Groups (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SquirrelWhisperer, Frank Knarf

        The United States regards an attack on any part of the Nuclear Strike forces of the US as an attack on the United States, and that includes aircraft carriers.

        Incredible violence would be unleashed upon Iran if a carrier was attacked in the way described in the war game scenario.

        I have no doubt that Iran is far more dangerous an opponent than many in our country (particularly among the jingos on the right) believe.

        I also have no doubt that Iranian leadership is living in Hitler's Cloud Cuckoo Land if they underestimate the grave peril to their nation that such an undertaking would represent.

        For a short period of time, the US military would be pretty much off the leash, pre-allowed by standing orders related to force protection protocols, with the only real limitation on the local commanders being nuclear weapons release authority.

        Every ship flying an Iranian flag, anywhere in the world, would probably be a sea-bottom wildlife habitat within 24 hours.

        Every airport in Iran would suddenly have their runways destroyed by US air strikes.

        Every command and control facility belonging to the Iranian armed forces and the political leadership would be reduced to rubble.

        Every oil shipping facility would be converted to expensive rubble within days.

        Who needs to invade Iran to utterly destroy the military and commercial infrastructure, and render the country a wreck, with a destroyed economic base?

        I'm hoping that Iranian leadership isn't completely stupid, or carried away by their own Shia Apocalyptic delusions....

        "Ronald Reagan is DEAD! His policies live on but we're doing something about THAT!"

        by leftykook on Mon Mar 19, 2012 at 02:27:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  11 air craft carriers (0+ / 0-)

           Are good but will you leave North Korea unwatched? China wants Taiwan,
              How will you fight a long war without oil? How will you fight a long war when the Gulf Arab Nations need constant oil revenue to keep their unemployed young people in some comfort and their huge mistreated wage slave immigrant populations working?
              How long can America fight a war when gas is at $10 a gallon?
              5, 10 oil tankers go down and as I noted in the article Credit Default Swaps on higher oil prices and oil tanker insurance will cause another banking collapse.
               If Iran fights a straight up fight they will lose. If Iran uses their terror groups they will lose.
             If Iran acts to target our oil and through it our financial system we lose.

          •  The US can do it longer than Iran. (0+ / 0-)

            simple as that.

            The US can launch a thousand cruise missiles at Iranian facilities before even scrambling any bomber crews, or moving any more ships into the area.

            If you want to make this an argument about how long each side can continue any hostilities, you should read a little more.

            Iran has a number of highly effective weapons.  That has no bearing on the depth of its capabilities.  Iran can inflict enough injury upon US forces to cause a cataclysmic destructive response.

            Simple equation.  Iran can sink a carrier, and the price would be their entire military structure and lot of their economic base.

            If they roll the dice, every face of the dies will show "snake eyes"

            "Ronald Reagan is DEAD! His policies live on but we're doing something about THAT!"

            by leftykook on Mon Mar 19, 2012 at 02:58:41 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  How many iranian missiles (0+ / 0-)

              can be fired from trucks that can be hidden quite well from view? How many anti ship missiles can be placed on fishing, commercial and pleasure boats?
                   

              Simple equation.  Iran can sink a carrier, and the price would be their entire military structure and lot of their economic base.
                Simple equation can Iran trust America to not invade after their navy and airforce are gone?
                 Can Iran's leaders keep power after they are beaten by us?
              Iran has a number of highly effective weapons.  That has no bearing on the depth of its capabilities.  Iran can inflict enough injury upon US forces to cause a cataclysmic destructive response.
              A cataclysmic destructive response would be taking out their oil fields so they could not afford to  rebuild their nuclear program but America not even the Neo Cons are calling for that. But anything short of that just delays their nuke program a few years. Assuming our bunker buster bombs can beat Iran's skill at building bunkers Israel's last war showed just how effective their bunker designs are.
    •  Describe your case (0+ / 0-)

      for your argument.

  •  how could they continue to sell their oil (0+ / 0-)

    to finance a war if they shut down the Strait?

    •  A good point, but (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Things Come Undone

      Iran lasted through 8 years of war with Iraq.  They could keep a war going even in the face of complete blockade for quite some time.  

      "How did you go bankrupt?" "Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly." - Ernest Hemingway, The Sun Also Rises.

      by weasel on Mon Mar 19, 2012 at 02:02:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  They wouldn't (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SquirrelWhisperer

      ...and the whole premise of the argument assumes the US won't bomb the whole place flat within 24 hours of such an attack, that the US is so powerless and politically paralyzed that Iran could attack our Navy in such a way and then the US would just slink away with tail-between-legs....

      Don't think so.

      The idiots get one shot. Then the US military gets as many shots as they want.

      "Ronald Reagan is DEAD! His policies live on but we're doing something about THAT!"

      by leftykook on Mon Mar 19, 2012 at 02:34:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Only their oil tankers will be let through. (0+ / 0-)
      •  but you said that tankers would be scuttled, sunk (0+ / 0-)

        etc.  so if the Gulf blocked or not?  I am confused

        •  Good point (0+ / 0-)

           Its the Persian Gulf is 30 miles at its narrowest point can Iran sink enough oil tankers at the right place to close the Gulf? Or can they leave an area where only their ships can get through?
              I think as long as Iran still has missiles even a partial  closure of the Persian Gulf could stop us from getting oil.

          Iraq may reactivate long-idle pipelines to get its oil to world markets if tensions over neighboring Iran result in the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a government spokesman said Sunday.

          The plans include shipping more oil to Turkey's port of Ceyhan and reopening pipelines that could deliver Iraqi crude to ports in Syria, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia,

          http://articles.cnn.com/...

          Syria and maybe Turkey both might sell Iran's oil the Saudis nope. I have no idea how much oil they can move through those pipelines or how long it will take to get them running again but Iran seems interested in getting them running.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site