Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Iran Ramps Up Warning Over US Navy in Gulf
Iran on Wednesday renewed its warning to America against keeping a US navy presence in the oil-rich Gulf, underlining a threat that Washington has dismissed as a sign of "weakness" from Tehran.
A US Navy picture dated from 2007 shows the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS John C Stennis as it conducts operations in the Gulf. Iran has renewed its warning to America against keeping a US navy presence in the oil-rich Gulf (AFP) "Iran will do anything to preserve the security of the Strait of Hormuz" at the entrance to the Gulf, Defence Minister Ahmad Vahidi said, according to the website of Iran's state television.
"The presence of forces from beyond the (Gulf) region has no result but turbulence. We have said the presence of forces from beyond the region in the Persian Gulf is not needed and is harmful," he was quoted as saying.
The comments echoed a warning issued on Tuesday by Iran's military that it would unleash its "full force" if a US aircraft carrier is redeployed to the Gulf.
"We don't have the intention of repeating our warning, and we warn only once," Brigadier General Ataollah Salehi, Iran's armed forces chief, said as he told Washington to keep its aircraft carrier out of the Gulf.
The White House on Tuesday had brushed off the warning, saying it "reflects the fact that Iran is in a position of weakness" as it struggles under international sanctions.
The US Defence Department said it would not alter its deployment of warships to the Gulf.
But on Wednesday, Salehi reinforced his warning, and called 10 days of Iranian navy war games just held near the Strait of Hormuz a "message" to the United States.
"The forces from beyond the region have received the appropriate message from these manoeuvres," he said, according to the official IRNA news agency.
"Those who have come as enemies should be afraid of our manoeuvres," he said.
The exercises climaxed Monday with the Iranian navy test-firing three types of missiles designed to sink warships.
The head of Iran's parliamentary national security and foreign policy commission, Aladdin Brujerdi, was also quoted by the Fars news agency as saying the US description of Iran being weak "is a completely illogical stance."
He added: "The US talks about sanctioning our oil but they should know that if Iran's oil exports from the Persian Gulf are sanctioned, then no-one will have the right to export oil through the Strait of Hormuz."
The developments have helped send the prices of oil soaring, though they pulled back a little Wednesday.
Brent North Sea crude contracts in London were selling for $111.58 per barrel. New York trading of West Texas Intermediate crude was at $102.30 per barrel.
"The situation with Iran remains worrisome," said Nick Trevethan, a senior commodities strategist at ANZ Research in Asia.
"The consequences of any military action in the Middle East will be enormous. A spike in crude prices will kill off any recovery in the US," he added.
Iran's war games were meant to show the Islamic republic could close the strategic Strait of Hormuz, through which 20 percent of the world's oil flows, if it is attacked or its oil exports are curbed by sanctions.
Last week, a US aircraft carrier, the USS John C Stennis, passed through the strait and eastward, through the Gulf of Oman and a zone being used by the Iranian navy for its drill.
Iranian military officials said that, if the carrier tried to return through the Strait of Hormuz to the Gulf, it would be attacked.
The US carrier would face the "full force" of Iran's navy, a navy spokesman, Commodore Mahmoud Mousavi, told Iran's Arabic television service Al-Alam on Tuesday.
The US Defence Department said in a statement it would continue the rotation of its 11 aircraft carriers to the Gulf to support military operations in the region.
"Our transits of the Strait of Hormuz continue to be in compliance with international law, which guarantees our vessels the right of transit passage," it said.
The Pentagon also underlined its pledge to keep the Strait of Hormuz open, saying "we are committed to protecting maritime freedoms that are the basis for global prosperity; this is one of the main reasons our military forces operate in the region."
The increasingly tense situation in the Gulf was taking place as Iran struggled with turmoil on its domestic currency market.
Foreign exchange shops on Wednesday were shuttered as traders refused to comply with a central bank order putting an artificially low cap on the value of the dollar against the Iranian rial, which has come under intense pressure in recent days.
Iranian authorities were trying to shore up their currency after it slid 12 percent on Monday to a record low against the dollar days after the United States enacted new sanctions hitting Iran's central bank.
Iran, however, insisted the volatility of the rial is not the result of sanctions.
It "definitely has nothing to with sanctions," foreign ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said Tuesday.
The United States and other Western nations have imposed sanctions on Iran's economy over Tehran's controversial nuclear programme, which they believe is being used to develop atomic weapons.
Iran has repeatedly denied that allegation, saying the programme is purely for energy and medical uses.
92 Comments so far
Show AllPerhaps Iran is in a "position of weakness" as the US asserts, but even a position of weakness can be dangerous. If you back an animal into a corner, that animal could react aggressively, and even if its lashing-out is done from a position of weakness, it can still inflict a lot of damage. And as unpredictable as geopolitics tend to be, it is much more dangerous when you are talking about backing a nation-state into a corner. The US needs to back off and deescalate this situation, not mock Iran as "weak." This isn't a game of chicken or a staring contest -- this is war.
Oh right - and Iraq (1/3 the size of Iran) was going to be a "cakewalk". And this one also will "pay for itself". Riiiight...
DC-CPH, you are precisely right!
____________________________________________
This article by Vali Nasr is the most intelligent and sane I have seen on this attempt by the Empire that has captured our country to provoke a deadly war of all against all --- which, of course, is exactly what empires always do when they are in end-stage failure.
____________________________________________
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-04/hard-line-u-s-policy-tips-iran-toward-belligerence-vali-nasr.html
Best,
Alan
Not to mention the 20-30 soviet diesel subs that can pick off the whole carrier group. Hope they didn't buy any Soviet Nuc-torpedos! in the straight they'd be very effective!
Typical american saber ratteling! one day they are gonna step in it but good! whoops their already in Afganistan lol..... Empires never learn do they??
>^^<
The flat top in the pic is a sitting duck for anti-shipping missiles. If Iran takes the bait and fires on one its 911 all over again.
Once the flight deck is taken out, isn't it pretty much a cruise liner after that?
Yes, that would be bad for a carrier. However for the aircraft they can recover to any one of a hundred airfields close to the Straits, it would hardly effect them at all.
For those already launched, sure. Can't launch 'em with holes in the flight deck, though.
Maybe, maybe not. Aircraft carriers are not as defenseless as they seem. The best of the Iranian missiles is the SSN22 and they probably have fewer than 60 of those. Of those, several are probably mounted on corvettes which will sink fairly quickly in the event of a war or are deployed on Qusham Island which is isolated, near the shipping channel, and just made for Marines...
While the SSN22 was regarded as the most dangerous anti-ship missile ever deployed, that was more than 30 years ago. During that time several have been bought by the US in 1998 and 2001 and tested against our close in defenses which lead to supplementing the Phalanx system (which does not stop them reliably) with the Rolling Air Missile (seaRAM) which has a 90% plus record of knocking down incoming missiles of the SSN22 class although there is no official statement that they were ever tested directly with SSN22s.
The remainder of the Iranian missile arsenal is of negligible value.
If there were a conflict, we would probably take losses of some sort. I rather doubt that we would lose a carrier but it is possible. A carrier is 15-20x larger than a destroyer or frigate and that is a lot of mass to sink (and a big target to hit). An SSN22 has a 360kg warhead and that is about twice that of an Exocet but remember that the USS Stark was hit with 2 Exocets 25 years ago. The strike crippled the ship and killed 37 sailors, but the Stark made it back to port on its own power and was repaired and returned for an additional 10 years of active service.
Carriers are designed well with the fuel and ammunition distributed and stored in such a way that if they catch fire or explode, the explosions are directed outwards. The US has had long history with carriers at war and many in WWII were hit and the general rules for designing a carrier haven't changed since then. A falling 2000lb bomb (deeper penetration before exploding) is about the same as a hit with an SSN22 and the carriers were designed to withstand that. We have also had experience on carriers with the fire and how to fight that. No other country (except the UK with one light aircraft carrier) now operating carriers has any wartime experience with them except us.
The only thing for sure is that it would be fast and brutal and it would result in the destruction of the Iranian fleet and expenditure of their missiles. On our side, at the worst, the loss of one of 11 active aircraft carriers. If they sank one, they would never be able to sink a second.
War and violence simply do not work. Especially against a military the size of the US. Far better for Iran to continue the trash talk and to threaten without acting.
The idea is to have a replay of Pearl Harbor, the ship is the bait.
Maybe an attack, I don't think they plan to get anything sunk.
Don't put any thing past the crimminals in DC.
General Shade, “Plans" are the first thing to go wrong in a big war.
General War Monger of the Iranian threads it would seem.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30062.htm
Inside Iran: Rick Steves' Travel Journal
The Most fascinating and surprising land I've ever visited
I am far from a war monger. I really hope it doesn't happen for the sake of the US, the soldiers there, the civilians that are inevitably going to die and for the sake of the Iranians. War is bad. Violence is bad. What I am stating is a picture of how that violence is going to play out. So many people want the US to get a black eye that no one is thinking. The US forces locally will survive anything the Iranians might do and Iran might not, at least their infrastructure and military won't.
Call me a warmonger all you want, I am just showing you a future like the ghost from A Christmas Carol. It may not come to pass and we all hope it doesn't. If it does, you'll all hate me for being right, if it doesn't you'll all hate me for showing you what might have happened. Still there is a lot of brain power here not being used well, you all need to see that Iran is NOT going to be the one to put the US off Imperialism. YOU are as long as you are a voter. If you want less imperialism, convince others here and vote.
Vote for what?? it's odvious that both sides are just as hungry for blood as the other!!
>^^<
Applies equally to the Iranians and frankly, plans where soldiers are able to communicate with each other last longer than soldiers that can't. I bet there won't be a lot of radio traffic between Iranian units after the first few hours. C&C are vital.
Keep talking as your foot is not deep enough in your mouth.
But your plan was one of Iran’s little islands was just made for the Marines.
If so it would be reasonable to assume Iran would have plans for that too so that they would occupy a place that was a trap where your "radio communication" would be useless. Iran has been preparing for this ever since they kicked out the CIA under Carter.
You bet this and you bet that and say you want peace but all your so called bets are on a quick victory over Iran... but in a hot war there will be no victory and Iran would never surrender and there are at least three nuclear armed powers that would aid Iran over the USA.
At least even the Joint Chiefs and the War College have more sense than you about the consequences of a hot War militarily, economically, politically, and environmentally.
You are just playing a mind war game with us here, like you are playing with toy soldiers and war video games. So just keep playing with your toys.
>>On our side, at the worst, the loss of one of 11 active aircraft carriers. <<
Right. Fuck the 5000-6000 sailors on the carrier. After all, neocon warmonger, they are just dumb stupid animals to be used in a militarist interventionist foreign policy. Fuck them. They can be replaced. Carriers cost some real money. You're getting hard just at the thought of war with Iran, aren't you? Just another proud, exceptional American, aren't you?
" You're getting hard just at the thought of war with Iran, aren't you? Just another proud, exceptional American, aren't you?"
There's alot of them thar warmongerers...maybe he's of the armchair variety, maybe not.
Here's some worthwhile ANTIWAR propaganda right here:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30062.htm
Inside Iran: Rick Steves' Travel Journal
The Most fascinating and surprising land I've ever visited
"The remainder of the Iranian missile arsenal is of negligible value."
How do you know? Did you think the same about their abilities when they brought down one of the most advanced stealth drones in one piece?
And what if as you say they sink even one carrier out of 11? Besides the poor soles that will lose their lives on both sides, there will be other serious consequences. For example, a loss of a carrier to a country like Iran will be considered a sign of weakness by many countries, and don't think for a moment that Russia and China will watch things from the sidelines if they sense weakness.
I know because their arsenal is well known. Most is purchased and can be tracked. The home made missiles are observed and commented. We know some of what they do and while they are decent engineers, we can tell what levels of accuracy and reliability they have. They are doing the best they can militarily because they are working with what they have, the problem is that other than a very few missiles, what they are building are simply not going to reach their targets much of the time.
Don't confuse them having the drone and having brought it down. They may have taken control and they may have simply jammed it enough that it crashed. It is designed not to crash but to glide to earth so it may be just that as we can see that one wing was broken or at least disassembled and reassembled. I was rather surprised that it survived and if they can prove that they did take control, that would indeed be a coup and one they should be proud of. I simply don't know the whole story and I don't believe a lot of it at this point. In time the story will come out and I may be surprised. I certainly don't insist that they didn't bring the drone down.
If they sink one carrier out of 11, I would be very surprised, but it is possible. They are going to have to be very lucky because the SSN22 that they may use is exactly what the carrier's defenses are designed to defeat and a carrier is VERY large. Remember that the SSN22 is old, the US has them to evaluate, and they have never been used in combat. If the Iranians sink a carrier, it will indeed be seen as a real victory for them. The problem is that it is pyrrhic since it is going to cut into their economy and devastate their military.
The Chinese and the Russians will do what? They don't have carriers to move air power. They aren't going to suddenly join with Iran in common cause. They won't do a thing.
I am not confused at all, you are. Your statements are full of "may" and "could", so let me ask you, if they were able to jam a drone as you say, what makes you think they can't jam a satellite or a GPS signal?
And what makes you think Russia won't do anything when we keep stirring shit in their backyard (remember Georgia a year or two ago)? Specially when they're pissed for the missile shield we're installing in their neighborhood pointing at them. And how do you know it wasn't the Russians who brought down our drone in the name of Iranians? You are asking what Russia can do to hurt us? Well, Iran has been trying to buy S300 missile defense system from Russia for 10 years now, but they have been hesitant to give it to them under extreme pressure by US. What if Russia decides to install these missiles in Persian Gulf right before the fireworks begin as a payback for how we helped their enemies in Afghanistan in the 80's? Do you really think other nations have alzheimer's desease like we do?
And to answer you about Iran having to use all their arsenal to sink one of our carriers. Well they have to be stupid to do that. What if they decide to hit oil refineries with their arsenal instead of putting it all in one basket? Do you know who will benefit from it the most? Russia, because they will probably become the main oil producer in the world. I am not saying this scenario will play out, all i'm saying is that there are so many scenarios that can play out that is impossible to calculate.
And speaking about economy, yeah! our economy is doing so well that we can just burn another few trillions of taxpayer money and most importantly many many lives for a pointless war that even our top generals say we can't win.
Iran went through 8 years of war with Saddam in 1980's and suffered hundreds of thousands casualties and a lot of their treasure but they held their own even though they just had a revolution and were most vulnerable. So they are a lot more resilient than you think. Oh! and they could have easily just answered Saddam's use of chemical weapons with their own chemical weapons but they did not, so all this talk about Iran dropping nukes on other countries is nonsense.
Yes, I think that's the game. If Iran isn't stupid enough to take the bait, the game might proceed in any case. Don't forget the Seymour Hersh account a couple of years ago about brainstorming on how to fake an attack in the Gulf:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZM7ppkVCT8
Yay, a new game of chicken. It's a lot like the old game of chicken that the last nut played with Iraq, but this time the game will be so much better; won't it now?
On a serious note, no admiral in his right mind would want to take a carrier into the gulf. Even if there was no threat at all, sailing a large ship in restricted waters is never a safe thing to do.
Bahrain, in the Persian Gulf, is the "home" of the US Fifth Fleet. Carriers routinely sail into and out of the Persian Gulf. As a side note, I was in Bahrain in 1998 when one of the carriers' crews came ashore for leave. Some of those sailors could have EASILY passed for 13 or 14 years old, they were so young looking. One poor kid was in tears over something or other as he passed me on the street, carrying a huge duffel bag. The vibe I caught was something like, "I wish the hell I'd never joined the Navy.""
I'm aware of where they are, I'm also aware that since cannons were invented the captains of ships have preferred to stay out of the range of shore batteries. That hasn't changed.
"...Our transits of the Strait of Hormuz continue to be in compliance with international law, which guarantees our vessels the right of transit passage," it said."...
Notice how the article includes a quote (above) about the legal right of passage through the Strait of Hormuz from an American yet at the very end of the article (the last two paragraphs) they fail to make mention of Iran's right to a civilian nuclear program under the NNPT?? Nor does the article mention that the latest IAEA report contains no evidence of diversion of nuclear material from Iran's civilian nuclear program to anywhere else and thus the charges by the U.S. are factually baseless.
Of course all our responses to this article in defense of the truth probably earns us a place on Obama's list to be imprisoned indefinitely for providing "material support" to "associated forces".
Everyone knows and supports Iran's right to peaceful nuclear power. There have even been US proposals to facilitate that in exchange for enriched uranium that never got off the ground (our fault as much as theirs). The contention is over whether or not there is a military program as well.
The US Empire, the UK and Israel certainly DO NOT support "Iran's right to peaceful nuclear power." Nor does any GCC member at the insistence of the US Empire. And it was the US Empire that scuttled the attempt at the uranium exchange, not Iran, which recently--AGAIN--proposed it be done.
Remember, Shady John is a FAUX SNOOZE talking head...
Yes, I am well aware that this is a troll, and not a very good one either.
Ahro, you simply don't like what I have to say. Sorry.
Because you regurgitate the typical "USA is #1" and everybody else, especially the non-whites are stupid idiots....You are what the rest of the world calls an ugly american!!
You are incorrect, again... The US had signed on to a deal to provide tech for peaceful reactors in exchange for the enriched uranium. It fell through because Israel was uneasy and there was an election cycle. Bad move on our part. The GCC states are opposed. I didn't know that. I will take that at your word.
you were hoping no one would point out that little nugget so that you can make the Iranians look bad. Some one caught you on that lie and now, like a typical crooked politician, you flip-flop.
So, here we are again policing the world, forcing our greed and religion on other countries, vote republican and the war machine cash flow for the one percent won't miss a beat. Maybe Bloomberg should be secretary of defense.
Vote democrat and the war machine cash flow for the one percent won't miss a beat.
>>Notice how the article includes a quote (above) about the legal right of passage through the Strait of Hormuz from an American yet at the very end of the article (the last two paragraphs) they fail to make mention of Iran's right to a civilian nuclear program under the NNPT
Added to that this a selective reading of the law. Ships have the right of INNOCENT passage. A Military vessel from a nation that is announcing sanctions against another and claiming all options on the table when it comes to threatening attacks on the same while supporting terrorist groups and illegally spying on the same is NOT Innocent passage.
These ships have to sail in Iranian TERRITORIAL waters.
I also wonder why there the double Standard on Israel a nation which seized CIVILIAN Vessels outside of Israeli waters and attacked them with Military forces.
That is indeed selective reading in as much as you are mistaking two related parts of the law. All ships are granted rights to "innocent passage" of territorial waters. There is an additional status however for straits called "transit passage" which allows military aircraft, ships, auxiliaries and submarines (surfaced and submerged) to transit straits regardless of the territorial waters of any state. Also announcing sanctions or stating that you might use military force is not, legally, hostile. Even if it WERE hostile, that is not barred under transit passage.
I might add that legally the Israelis were able to intercept the Gaza Flotilla because it had legally declared (Yes... legally according to international law, although we all agree immorally) a blockade and were enforcing that which they are allowed to do by law on the high seas. This was backed up by the UN Report on the first Gaza Flotilla.
Just like the US "legally" declared a blockade of Nicaragua in the mid-80's and mined Nicaragua's harbours, effectively shutting off food supplies for five million people. When condemned for that (and that little thing called the Contra War) by international opinion, and the World Court, the US dismissed it all saying "no jurisdiction." If the US can have a "back yard" that it rules with impunity (in this case an entire hemisphere), it seems Iran might, just might, be able to have a say in who and what sails within sight of their coasts. But I digress...........
The US Empire was found guilty of State Terrorism for its actions in Nicaragua and the region. The term "sanctions" is a fancy euphemism for Economic Warfare.
We were wrong, the ICJ was right. It doesn't let the Iranians violate international law.
But you are ok for the US and Israel violating laws....you bloody hypocrite
Legally? If wars were fought only by lawyers, they still could not agree on what is “legal" in war. The victor gets the legal label but when would Iran surrender in a war and who will invade them to make them surrender?
Talk to Bush/Cheney about “legal" and how the Constitution prevented their war.
Well everyone here quotes the NPT and the Geneva Conventions (mostly incorrectly)... Laws do mean something in international relations.
I think almost everybody here knows who is interpreting things “mostly incorrectly” if you just read all the replies to your games.
You talk like a politician with toy soldiers.
You are full of it. There no legal right for warships of a nation to enter the territorial waters of another.
Do you really think that China can send its warhips to cruise into San Fransico harbor and claim it legal transit.
Furthermore blockades of another nation are illgeal under international law. No nation can announce it is blockading another as it considered an act of war.
San Franisco bay is an internal waterway. The Straits are not. Warships have the right to transit passage through international waterways. Period. Look it up, it is in Law of the Sea part III.