Taxation Or Closure Of Strait Of Hormuz?

[Noah-]

Taxation or closure of Strait of Hormuz? The West, including the US are using the logic of war, terrorism and force/sanctions on Iran. Iran could either impose a good amount of taxes on all goods including oil passing through the Strait of Hormuz or simply block it. The West had already declared a war on Iran. Sanctions are part of a cold war, and Strait of Hormuz is part of Iran's strategy to respond to any acts of war; no sweet is distributed during any war.

_______________________________________

Iran to 'block' Gulf oil if sanctions proceed

Vice-president threatens to cut off shipments at Strait of Hormuz if West sanctions Iran's vital oil exports.

No oil will be allowed to pass through the Strait of Hormuz if the West applies sanctions on Iran's oil exports, Iranian Vice-President Mohammad Reza Rahimi has warned.

The threat was reported on Tuesday by the state news agency IRNA as Iran conducted its fourth day of naval drills near the Strait of Hormuz, at the entrance to the oil-rich Gulf.

"If sanctions are adopted against Iranian oil, not a drop of oil will pass through the Strait of Hormuz," Rahimi was quoted as saying.

"We have no desire for hostilities or violence ... but the West doesn't want to go back on its plan" to impose sanctions, he said. "The enemies will only drop their plots when we put them back in their place."

The threat underlined Iran's readiness to target the narrow stretch of water along its Gulf coast if it is attacked or economically strangled by Western sanctions.

War games

Iranian ships and aircraft dropped mines in the sea on Tuesday as part of the drill, according to a navy spokesman.

Although Iranian war games occur periodically, the timing of these is seen as a show of strength as the US and Europe prepare to impose further sanctions on Iran's oil and financial sectors.

The last round of sanctions, announced in November, triggered a pro-government protest in front of the British embassy in Tehran during which Basij militia members overran the mission and ransacked it.

London closed the embassy as a result and ordered Iran's mission in Britain shut as well.

An Iranian legislator's comments last week that the navy exercises would block the Strait of Hormuz briefly sent oil prices soaring before that was denied by the government.

While the foreign ministry said such drastic action was "not on the agenda", it reiterated Iran's threat of "reactions" if the current tensions with the West spilled over into open confrontation.

Saudi steps in

Industry sources said on Tuesday that top oil exporter Saudi Arabia and other Gulf OPEC states were ready to replace Iranian oil if further sanctions halt Iranian crude exports to Europe.

Iranian Oil Minister Rostam Qasemi had said that Saudi Arabia had promised not to replace Iranian crude if sanctions were imposed.

"No promise was made to Iran, its very unlikely that Saudi Arabia would not fill a demand gap if sanctions are placed," an industry source familiar with the matter told the Reuters news agency.

"If the sanctions take place, the price of oil in Europe would increase and Saudi and other Gulf countries would start selling there to fill the gap and also benefit from the higher price," said a second industry source.

Brent crude oil futures jumped nearly a dollar to over $109 a barrel after the Iranian threat, but a Gulf OPEC delegate said the effect could be temporary.

Aljazeera

[Pascal]

I'm not sure exactly why you posted this, you're not making any comment or asking for it, we can all read al jazeera.

I'll just jump in and say though, this is just tough talk and rhetoric.

If Iran actually did this at breakfast they'd be steamrolled by dinner.

It is an act of war ( a blockade) and many other nations also use that shipping lane to send out oil (saudi arabia). I doubt saudi arabia would just sit back, so you have to deal with the saudi's and the USA at the very least, they have the entire 5th fleet based there. It's not a smart idea...

They're like the only nation to have more than 2 aircraft carriers. The largest airforce in the world? United states airforce. Guess what the 2nd is? United states navy... 3rd might also belong to the army or marine core. I read this on reddit somewhere, no idea how true it is but it sounds right. It is sometimes overblown but the US does really have as much military might as people think.

I don't think iran would ever do this in reality. It wont mean good things for anyone.

[alimohamad40]

if they sanction the selling of oil it means they declare direct war and in that case iran will close that ,,,

note that to close the hurmuz they dont need much man power and military ,,, that thing is only 60 meters deep , and i heard they can sink ships in there and that would take ages for them to fix or open it again

other easy options is to simply say " no one is going through and if anyone goes through they send them a short range missile or torpedo. that way no one would dare go there but the USA will start a war and will be a big mess.

Edited December 30, 2011 by alimohamad40

[repenter-gone4awhile]

I'm not sure exactly why you posted this, you're not making any comment or asking for it, we can all read al jazeera.

I'll just jump in and say though, this is just tough talk and rhetoric.

If Iran actually did this at breakfast they'd be steamrolled by dinner.

It is an act of war ( a blockade) and many other nations also use that shipping lane to send out oil (saudi arabia). I doubt saudi arabia would just sit back, so you have to deal with the saudi's and the USA at the very least, they have the entire 5th fleet based there. It's not a smart idea...

They're like the only nation to have more than 2 aircraft carriers. The largest airforce in the world? United states airforce. Guess what the 2nd is? United states navy... 3rd might also belong to the army or marine core. I read this on reddit somewhere, no idea how true it is but it sounds right. It is sometimes overblown but the US does really have as much military might as people think.

I don't think iran would ever do this in reality. It wont mean good things for anyone.

I think perhaps you should email the Iranian Military commanders with this information, apparently this is unknown information for them or they didn't get the memo.

The fact of the matter is, it's either political statement as you say, or it's a genuine threat.

If i have a small knife and holding your baby in my hand, it doesn't matter if you have a tank, helicopter or a cruise missile, you still won't do anything to me with all your strength as long as i have your weakness by the throat.

The same situation is with Iran and America, if this wasn't true, then America would have used his strength long time ago.

[ShiaBen]

The situation is going to be different than Operation Praying Mantis.

Iran was unstable back then, poorly trained, and poorly equipped. The U.S. took a pot shot at Iran in the dark like cowards when Iran least expected it.

The tides have turned now. Iran is a stable independent country. Its military, navy, and air force have obviously upgraded since the last 30+ so years.

So I don't see the U.S. bulldozing its way through like in Operation Praying Mantis.

[Pascal]

I think you're assuming they'll come knocking at the front door, through the front of the straight.

I understand your assessment under these conditions then, its a very narrow straight and they'd have a hard time getting much through.

You're forgetting several things, look at this picture i made:

If you thought they'd go through the front, what you said is a reasonable assesment. The straight is incredibly narrow, it'd be hard to fit much through.

I don't think you realise though there are bases behind, including the *headquaters* of the 5th fleet. Ships of other nations also dock in 5th fleet headquaters at bahrain.

There are also many military installations in Kuwait. Lets not forget iran also borders Afghanistan, guess who has a significant military presence there?

This is assuming no other nation gets involed, including Saudi Arabia (their eastern naval base is close to Bahrain). Since they're hardcore Sunni's and its *their* oil that would be getting blockaded, i don't know if they would stand back either.

iran still have a fairly pittiful navy.

The largest ships they essentially have are frigates and there are only 4 of those, in the entire country. 3 are very old and are of the same type that was used in operation praying mantis, infact, they use to have 4 of these but one of them was sunk during the aforementioned operation (https://en.wikipedia...n_Navy#Frigates).

The US Navy has 27 Frigates, 60 destroyers (these are massive and powerful ships and iran has 0 destroyers, remember they can come from behind), 11 aircraft carriers (iran also has none).

The iranian navy is essentially made up of a lot of fast but very lightly armoured ships, most are old. This is could for temporarily closing the straight and harrassing the enemy but they won't last long at all.

It's definetly the former, a political threat and nothing else. Unless they're feeling suicidal... (http://www.latimes.c...0,7909259.story)

Saudi Arabia said it will also offset all of the lost oil production ( "Saudi Arabia-Iran-US: Oil prices fell on Wednesday, 28 December, after Saudi Arabia said it will offset any loss of oil from a threatened Iranian blockage of the Strait of Hormuz. A Saudi oil ministry official told the press that Saudi Arabia and other Gulf producers are ready to provide more oil if Iran tries to block the strait." From the "Night Watch" newsletter published by the private intelligence agency KGS 28/12/2011)

Like i said, started at breakfast, done by dinner.

Edited December 30, 2011 by kingpomba

[Dawood]

I'm not sure exactly why you posted this, you're not making any comment or asking for it, we can all read al jazeera.

It is an act of war ( a blockade) and many other nations also use that shipping lane to send out oil (saudi arabia). I doubt saudi arabia would just sit back, so you have to deal with the saudi's and the USA at the very least, they have the entire 5th fleet based there. It's not a smart idea...

I don't think iran would ever do this in reality. It wont mean good things for anyone.

- It would not be an act war since those waters belong to Iran.

- Oman is (the only country in the region that is) friendly towards Iran.

- The Arab nations have foreseen this and have been contructing a pipe line over the ground which should be operable in a few months.

[pakistanyar]

Iran CANNOT close the strait of Homruz. Its time to stop talking and actually look for a reasonable solution.

There is not way in hell that iran can fight of the american navy, and no angels will not come down and fight along side Iran, so its time to use your minds.

In a few years evn the Saudi Navy and Air force will be able to over power Iran.

[Noah-]

I'm not sure exactly why you posted this, you're not making any comment or asking for it, we can all read al jazeera.

I did make comments at the top of the news report... I believe you didn't read it. Reread the post. Thanks!

It is an act of war ( a blockade) and many other nations also use that shipping lane to send out oil (saudi arabia). I doubt saudi arabia would just sit back, so you have to deal with the saudi's and the USA at the very least, they have the entire 5th fleet based there. It's not a smart idea...

I don't even think that Saudi Arabia and its army and all these Gulf islands even matter in a real world and in a real war... During any regional war if kicks off... these states could only provide the bases for Western countries and then hide behind their females niqab. That is what happened when a weak and isolated Saddam marched towards Riyadh.. Today, it is IRAN..with a new DATE, with a new strategy, with a new region and with more powers. Sending advanced weapons only to Houthis in Yemen could take care of all these cowards Saudis and their lackeys. Just go and check wikipedia when Saudi plus Yemen's army, Jordan, Alqaida invaded Houthis regions (who were armed with very simple weapons).

Iran CANNOT close the strait of Homruz. Its time to stop talking and actually look for a reasonable solution.

There is not way in hell that iran can fight of the american navy, and no angels will not come down and fight along side Iran, so its time to use your minds.

In a few years evn the Saudi Navy and Air force will be able to over power Iran.

LOL

All I can say is that you have no idea of current politics and military powers in the world, especially in the ME, South Asia, Africa and Latin America. Iran is not a dependent puppet country as Pakistan and not a weak country as Iraq or Afghanistan. IT RULES IN POLITICS NOWADAYS. IT IS EXPANDING MORE THAN ANY COUNTRY. IRAN CAN TARGET any country, especially Arab and Western countries using and coming from Arab countries the harshest possible way. Iran's decision on Hormuz is the matter of survival and the danger it faces in regards its interests and the aggression of Arab DICTATOR STATES alongside western countries.

[ShiaBen]

Pakistanyar, I get what you're saying. The Western forces would jump it and the physicality of the war would be such a manner, in which they would bring great brutality to the citizens and soldiers of Iran. I agree with that statement absolutely 100%

But the only thing Iran has, is Iman. They the enemy, definitely have the greater technology, weaponry, intelligence, allies, numbers, etc. but even if Iranians ended up with MUCH MORE casualties in the process, their Iman is what will lead them to victory.

Remember the Iran-Iraq war? Vietnam? North Korea? Or Cuba? Or the other wars. These were all weak countries, lost tons of casualties, but they made it through regardless of the odds.

I think with Iran, if such an event leads to heavy conflict, Iran will sacrifice everything it can, to win this war.

It won't be like Libya or Iraq, where Qaddafi and Saddam, were hiding in their holes.

Iran is ruled by its people, not by a tyrant in which the people refuse to ally with etc.

I think this, will be the ultimate difference, between Iran, and other invaded countries.

[Noah-]

Remember the Iran-Iraq war? Vietnam? North Korea? Or Cuba? Or the other wars. These were all weak countries, lost tons of casualties, but they made it through regardless of the odds.

Well said. There is no question about the tons of casualties. BUT, do not forget that the attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan or Libya were just like more an operation against a few thousands of armed groups. As you said, there were no such thing as a nation or as a true army fighting. However, in any war on Iran the 'tons of casualties' will include 100s of thousands if not millions of Israelis death, millions of Kuwaiti, Saudi, UAE, and all other Sunni regions who will face 100s of tons of Iranian missiles; Shias armed uprisings in already troubled countries and many more. You will even be surprised that, even some of European cities will be targeted from Iran and suffer casualties in thousands.

What is the worst West or Israel can do to Iran? And one should give a very good reason by thinking that Iranians will not respond accordingly? During such a war diplomacy or being 'careful' is not going to be accounted for anymore, IT IS NOT going to be AN OPTION. If millions of people die, then every single resources, weapons and every drop of blood will be used to create maximum damage to the opposition parties. It is going to involve 'religion' very seriously by attacking a 'Shia' Islamic republic! It is not going to be a simple operation, it is going to be A WAR.

[83838]

Well, asymmetric warfare is always unpredictable. With a well-planned tactics and strategies, a big number of small submarines and rocket mounted fast boats would give heavy blow to their gigantic fleets.

[ShiaBen]

Well said. There is no question about the tons of casualties. BUT, do not forget that the attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan or Libya were just like more an operation against a few thousands of armed groups. As you said, there were no such thing as a nation or as a true army fighting. However, in any war on Iran the 'tons of casualties' will include 100s of thousands if not millions of Israelis death, millions of Kuwaiti, Saudi, UAE, and all other Sunni regions who will face 100s of tons of Iranian missiles; Shias armed uprisings in already troubled countries and many more. You will even be surprised that, even some of European cities will be targeted from Iran and suffer casualties in thousands.

What is the worst West or Israel can do to Iran? And one should give a very good reason by thinking that Iranians will not respond accordingly? During such a war diplomacy or being 'careful' is not going to be accounted for anymore, IT IS NOT going to be AN OPTION. If millions of people die, then every single resources, weapons and every drop of blood will be used to create maximum damage to the opposition parties. It is going to involve 'religion' very seriously by attacking a 'Shia' Islamic republic! It is not going to be a simple operation, it is going to be A WAR.

I agree with what you're saying. But how would we target European cities? They're quite far away.

Unless we have sophisticated long ranged intercontinental ballistic missiles. But even then, I doubt Iran would invade them, unless the Europeans sent their own military after Iran etc.

Edited December 31, 2011 by ShiaBen

[repenter-gone4awhile]

I agree with what you're saying. But how would we target European cities? They're quite far away.

Unless we have sophisticated long ranged intercontinental ballistic missiles. But even then, I doubt Iran would invade them, unless the Europeans sent their own military after Iran etc.

You don't need intercontinental missiles to reach Europe, not from middle east. And they probably have rockets that can reach europe too, what they show in the parades etc is what they choose to show, not what they really have, that would be dumb.

Though i would say targeting Europe is retarded and dumb unless an all out war broke out, which again would be even more dumb and unfortunate. However, every god forsaken old rig and platform in middle east belong to wahabis and their masters i have no problem with getting hit.

[ShiaBen]

You don't need intercontinental missiles to reach Europe, not from middle east. And they probably have rockets that can reach europe too, what they show in the parades etc is what they choose to show, not what they really have, that would be dumb.

Though i would say targeting Europe is retarded and dumb unless an all out war broke out, which again would be even more dumb and unfortunate. However, every god forsaken old rig and platform in middle east belong to wahabis and their masters i have no problem with getting hit.

Agreed. Wouldn't make much sense hitting Europe even if we have those capabilities since Israel isn't far form Europe, but yeah, in an all-out war, the wahabis would receive the worst end of the stick. These idiots should think twice before making suggestive statements that they will help the U.S. and Western Powers gang up on Iran.

The Saudis, Qataris, UAE, etc. might think they're tough guys for ganging up on Bahrain and innocent people. But if they think they can impose their way on an armed Iran, they better think again.

[shiasoldier786]

You may not agree with everything he says, but its an interesting speech.

[repenter-gone4awhile]

You may not agree with everything he says, but its an interesting speech.

This guy is a mixture of smart quotes and retarded quotes.

As soon as you start thinking, this guy is clever, he says something that takes away all credibility.

[Aarash_Australia]

this is all crazy talk.

there's a million reasons why this would never happen, but from an Iranian perspective, the two most important are:

1) In international eyes, it would prove everything the USA and Israel has said about this regime all along: they are a rogue state, not to be trusted

2) Iran can "survive" without exporting oil, but overnight everyone's savings and salaries would in real terms, drop by - who knows how much % - before people woke up in the morning. With no one dropping bombs, the reformists and moderates could blame the government. It would be a political catastrophe domestically, and the very conditions under which revolutions happen (read yer history).

In short, doing this would play right into the hands of Iran's enemies.

And Khamane'i is not so reckless.

[Noah-]

this is all crazy talk.

there's a million reasons why this would never happen, but from an Iranian perspective, the two most important are:

1) In international eyes, it would prove everything the USA and Israel has said about this regime all along: they are a rogue state, not to be trusted

2) Iran can "survive" without exporting oil, but overnight everyone's savings and salaries would in real terms, drop by - who knows how much % - before people woke up in the morning. With no one dropping bombs, the reformists and moderates could blame the government. It would be a political catastrophe domestically, and the very conditions under which revolutions happen (read yer history).

In short, doing this would play right into the hands of Iran's enemies.

And Khamane'i is not so reckless.

And according to your genius ideas then, it is ok that 70 million people in Iran suffer because of sanctions, millions die, and a war to be waged with millions of casualties, but Iran should sit back and present their females to NATO soldiers and say 'we are peaceful people' and we want to proof this to international community! ---?

Are you out of your mind or what? What country wants to proof herself peaceful during a war, sanctions and aggressions? And what part of international community are you refereeing to? The opportunist countries who voted for sanctions on Iran for their own interests of a few dollars? The atheist Chinese and Russians who made all these sanctions and acts of war possible? The atheist Japanese who sanctioned 150 Iranian companies just a few weeks ago? The Indians who stood by Israeli pressure and broke all deals with Iran? The ARAB PUPPETS who are wishing and hoping for Iran's destruction?

The good countries with good intention will understand and judge Iran's decisions on Hormuz the right way... But, the opportunistic countries will always stand by Zionist Mafia doesn't matter what.

For your inforation: Gone the times of Khatamai and Abtaei and 10s of other Zionist agents who were fooling their nation with these moderate ideas and trapping their own country. They were the ones who worked for the enemy and played in their hands.

In today's world, you want to be heard, you want to make progress, you want to keep your people safe and secure, YOU NEED TO EXPRESS your POWER, obtain more POWER. No one in this world will ever show any sympathy to anyone, unless it stands by its own people's powers and react strongly when needed and when possible.

Edited January 3, 2012 by Noah-

[ShiaBen]

I agree with Noah on this matter. At one point or another, all these major countries ganged up on Iran.

We could careless about international "reputation" when nearly almost all the countries around the world base "reputation" via a U.S. lens.

Pretty pathetic that countries would support sanctions on Iran because of bribes and their own benefit. But unfortunately that is the case.

I'm glad there are a few souls left like North Korea that have been backing Iran, and even were our only allies during the Iran-Iraq war

[Aarash_Australia]

And according to your genius ideas then, it is ok that 70 million people in Iran suffer because of sanctions, millions die, and a war to be waged with millions of casualties, but Iran should sit back and present their females to NATO soldiers and say 'we are peaceful people' and we want to proof this to international community! ---?

Are you out of your mind or what? What country wants to proof herself peaceful during a war, sanctions and aggressions? And what part of international community are you refereeing to? The opportunist countries who voted for sanctions on Iran for their own interests of a few dollars? The atheist Chinese and Russians who made all these sanctions and acts of war possible? The atheist Japanese who itself sanctioned 150 Iranian companies a few weeks ago? The Indians who stood by Israeli pressure and broke all deals with Iran? The ARAB PUPPETS who are wishing and hoping for Iran's destruction?

The good countries with good intention will understand and judge Iran's decisions on Hormuz the right way... But, the opportunistic countries will always stand by Zionist Mafia doesn't matter what.

For your inforation: Gone the times of Khatamai and Abtaei and 10s of other Zionist agents who were fooling their nation with these moderate ideas and trapping their own country. They were the ones who worked for the enemy and played in their hands.

In today's world, you want to be heard, you want to make progress, you want to keep your people safe and secure, YOU NEED TO EXPRESS your POWER, obtain more POWER. No one in this world will ever show any sympathy to anyone, unless it stands by its own people's powers and react strongly when needed and when possible.

Sorry Noah I wasn't expressing any of my ideas.

I was just saying how the world would see it, and how it would effect the current government domestically.

It would be a disaster for everyone concerned.

That's why you don't see it being discussed seriously anywhere. It's all just bluff and bluster.

I agree with Noah on this matter. At one point or another, all these major countries ganged up on Iran.

We could careless about international "reputation" when nearly almost all the countries around the world base "reputation" via a U.S. lens.

Pretty pathetic that countries would support sanctions on Iran because of bribes and their own benefit. But unfortunately that is the case.

I'm glad there are a few souls left like North Korea that have been backing Iran, and even were our only allies during the Iran-Iraq war

North Korea? :donno:

I'm not speaking about the morality of any of it.

I'm just talking about the political reality.

Both sides would suffer.

Of course both would survive, but the US would benefit diplomatically, and Iran would suffer enormously economically and domestically.

In other words: there's very little to be gained for Iran by having the soul bilateral trading partner being North Korea!

Edited January 3, 2012 by Aarash_Australia

[ShiaBen]

Well what I'm trying to convey is this:

Just about a week ago, Iran announced that it created nuclear fuel rods.

Now in a normal peaceful harmonic international community. Every single country in the world, you would hope, would say "Gee wow, Iran was telling the truth, they didn't create nuclear weapons, to bomb Israel!!!" (Even though history shows we haven't invaded another country for more than 300 years). But instead we get this, "Hmmm, okay so they've created nuclear fuel rods, which are a nuclear based invention that has nothing to do with weapons, but........there's still a possibility they will develop weapons to bomb Israel".

Do you see where I'm going with this? Countries around the world, don't care if Iran is peaceful and telling the truth. They WANT to see Iran destroyed. They don't care about Iran. That's why this whole international reputation is BS. It never existed, and it never will.

That's why I'm thankful a few countries like Syria, Venezuela, North Korea, and a handful of others, were willing to be open minded, and establish relations with Iran and other countries that are anti-imperialist and anti-Israel. Because without them, Iran's situation would get a lot worse.

Edited January 3, 2012 by ShiaBen

[Noah-]

Sorry Noah I wasn't expressing any of my ideas.

I was just saying how the world would see it, and how it would effect the current government domestically.

Well, that is still your ideas of what you 'think' and what you 'say' of what might happen internationally and domestically. That is NOT a FACT.

It would be a disaster for everyone concerned.

That's why you don't see it being discussed seriously anywhere. It's all just bluff and bluster.

If it is going to be a disaster for one side, let it be a disaster for all other people concerned.

Who cares who is taking it seriously or who is not! You think it is a bluster or a bluff, but the ground is being prepared for all possibilities and maximum retaliations by people in charge. Time will tell the rest.

Edited January 3, 2012 by Noah-

[Aarash_Australia]

Well what I'm trying to convey is this:

Just about a week ago, Iran announced that it created nuclear fuel rods.

Now in a normal peaceful harmonic international community. Every single country in the world, you would hope, would say "Gee wow, Iran was telling the truth, they didn't create nuclear weapons, to bomb Israel!!!" (Even though history shows we haven't invaded another country for more than 300 years). But instead we get this, "Hmmm, okay so they've created nuclear fuel rods, which are a nuclear based invention that has nothing to do with weapons, but........there's still a possibility they will develop weapons to bomb Israel".

Do you see where I'm going with this? Countries around the world, don't care if Iran is peaceful and telling the truth. They WANT to see Iran destroyed. They don't care about Iran. That's why this whole international reputation is BS. It never existed, and it never will.

That's why I'm thankful a few countries like Syria, Venezuela, North Korea, and a handful of others, were willing to be open minded, and establish relations with Iran and other countries that are anti-imperialist and anti-Israel. Because without them, Iran's situation would get a lot worse.

I agree with pretty much everything you say there.

But diplomacy matters. It's not true that all "Countries around the world, don't care if Iran is peaceful and telling the truth." Many countries would love to have normal relations with Iran. Europe in particular. And Australia while I am at it. In fact, European and Australian companies go to great lengths to get around sanctions.

All I'm saying is, such a scenario, if it ever occured, would suck for everyone.

And the leaders of all the countries involved are not so reckless as to allow it to happen - especially Khamene'i.

[ShiaBen]

Well I do agree with you about that. There would be no winners in such a war. That's true. Only losers.

[Awaiting_for_My_Master]

If I may if anything will go down it will cause a chain of wars. Iran is a country of its word and it has something that US doesn't have, faith in Allah. Look at imam Al-Hussain (a.s) he lost the battle but won the war due to his faith in Allah. Iran won't be the only country fighting, it would be lebanon, syria, gaza, russia, china, north korea, iraq, egypt. So you understand why Iran would threaten to block the strait off.

Lets note that the tensions are increasing and turmoil is going to occur very soon.

[Noah-]

I agree with pretty much everything you say there.

But diplomacy matters. It's not true that all "Countries around the world, don't care if Iran is peaceful and telling the truth." Many countries would love to have normal relations with Iran. Europe in particular. And Australia while I am at it. In fact, European and Australian companies go to great lengths to get around sanctions.

Yes, diplomacy matters but if the opponents understand the language of diplomacy. Iran has been calling for diplomacy for last 3 decades, but the oppositions in the West want a 'slave' and a 'puppet' not a country who sits equally on the table and speaks of equality and share interests on humane ground. IAEA, Europe and the US plus little puppets like Australia and even officials in Russia and China are enslaved by a Mafia, the Zionist Mafia. They push an agenda, against local population's interests and against people of the world. And the masses of people are following them blindly in those countries.

India builds atomic bombs and Saudi is the worst religious country who behaves against human rights (ascribed by western standards), but they both are considered Western partners so no country ever questioned them over such issues... Because, they are puppets and they listen like some lap-dogs.

If there will be a war on Iran and if between 5 to 7 puppet Arab countries fall in a matter of a few months (in some of them where Shias raise and take power).. and Israel face a bloody retaliation... Western domination over ME, North Africa and South Asia will reduce to its minimum levels, then if you are not calling Iran a winner and the West a loser, then I am not sure how you define winning and losing. In any war, there of course will be some damages and casualties, more from the hands of those who rely on aerial power and fire from a distance, but that is not the point here. The point is a real change in the heart of ME, South Asia and North Africa and in their politics forever.

Edited January 4, 2012 by Noah-

[Aarash_Australia]

Yes, diplomacy matters but if the opponents understand the language of diplomacy. Iran has been calling for diplomacy for last 3 decades, but the oppositions in the West want a 'slave' and a 'puppet' not a country who sits equally on the table and speaks of equality and share interests on humane ground. IAEA, Europe and the US plus little puppets like Australia and even officials in Russia and China are enslaved by a Mafia, the Zionist Mafia. They push an agenda, against local population's interests and against people of the world. And the masses of people are following them blindly in those countries.

India builds atomic bombs and Saudi is the worst religious country who behaves against human rights (ascribed by western standards), but they both are considered Western partners so no country ever questioned them over such issues... Because, they are puppets and they listen like some lap-dogs.

If there will be a war on Iran and if between 5 to 7 puppet Arab countries fall in a matter of a few months (in some of them where Shias raise and take power).. and Israel face a bloody retaliation... Western domination over ME, North Africa and South Asia will reduce to its minimum levels, then if you are not calling Iran a winner and the West a loser, then I am not sure how you define winning and losing. In any war, there of course will be some damages and casualties, more from the hands of those who rely on aerial power and fire from a distance, but that is not the point here. The point is a real change in the heart of ME, South Asia and North Africa and in their politics forever.

I think your main mistake is expecting nation-states to behave like moral agents.

They don't. They just adhere to their own national interest.

So Americans and Saudi Wahhabis don't particularly like each other - but it suits their interest to do business together.

Remember Iran is no angel either. Certainly better than those two countries in many ways, but there is no doubt that Iran has funded and armed some very shady groups.

Your predictions of what would likely happen in the event of a war, are, in my humble opinion, way off the mark.

The USA and Israel alone could wipe out the entire Iranian Navy, and most of the Air Force, in the matter of a few days (albeit while taking significant losses). Iran's strength would rely on: (1) getting missiles through Saudi and Israel's missile defense systems -- but of course they could never hit the US or Europe; and (2) getting Hezbollah, Hamas, and Syria to attack Israel.

But even if they were supremely successful in both those measures - all you've done is smash Israel. The USA and the EU remain untouched, and nothing really changes. Iran gains nothing.

If there ever was an "all-out war" as you propose (which I don't think will EVER happen), then you must realize that MILLIONS of Iranians would be killed - by Israeli nukes if nothing else.

An absolute catastophe for all humanity.

[Noah-]

I think your main mistake is expecting nation-states to behave like moral agents.

They don't. They just adhere to their own national interest.

So Americans and Saudi Wahhabis don't particularly like each other - but it suits their interest to do business together.

Nah! It is you and people like you who expect only "Iran" to behave like moral agents while on the other hand, other countries could do anything possible against Iran to safeguard their so called interests.

To make it short, why you cry foul when Iran is stepping in to maintain its interests and do anything possible? Why 10s of excuses and dramas? Iran cannot do x and y and everything will be whipped out and etc.. Go live in your hole somehwere in Australia.. If it were up to Iranians like you, you would gifted 90% of Iranian soil to Saddam as well.

And you are speaking in a language of these hypocrites like it is Iran who is asking for a war! A war is being imposed on Iran, economically or might eventually militarily. Iran is the one who is taking defensive measures.

And once a war is imposed and you think the mighty Israel is going to be safe? Then go fly for Israel and stay there during such a war.. Israel is the same country who sent 2 million of its population underground when Lebanese groups were sending some firecrackers....Not Iranian missiles.

Iran is sponsoring shady groups? I don't blame any country who is doing anything defensively. Iran has been under attack of the West and its Arab and non-Arab dogs since Islamic revolution. It has every right to do anything.

Today PressTv reports that Saudi Arabia gave refuge to 70 MKO members. Do you think this will go unanswered? Saudis, the cowards playing with fire? MKO is not only Iranian enemies but they have an ideology where they acted strongly against Shia beliefs and against all Shias. And I won't blame Iran if the next day it supports any kind of group to punish Saudi for this crime.

As a last note: You totally forgot the case of South Asia, namely Afghaistan and Pakistan! In case of any war, Iran instead of supporting the central government and NA, it could change sides overnight and call for a popular uprising against NATO forces. We all know what happened to Russians when Afghan Mujahideen had the support and the guns from Pakistan and Iran at the time.

Edited January 4, 2012 by Noah-

[Dawood]

Remember Iran is no angel either. Certainly better than those two countries in many ways, but there is no doubt that Iran has funded and armed some very shady groups.

like?

[Ya Aba 3abdillah]

This move seems to be more an exertion and demonstration of power and regional dominance than an actual threat.

It's strongly rumoured that Iran gave a deadline to the US that it may flood the market with bulk-cheap oil, and selling it in Euros.

Such a move will ultimately collapse the US dollar.

China also is said to have threatened that if the US opened a front with Iran, it'll dump 3 trillion in short term bonds, again, a move that'd collapse the dollar. The threat against Iran, really, has nothing to do with the country, but for global dominance, i.e. for political and economic control over China and Russia.

Stronger sanctions means Iran won't have a market to dump cheap oil.

With this in mind, there's little reason to close the Hormuz. Most of the US' oil-imports don't even come from there, it's the rest of the world that'd be inconvenienced. But this could then put foreign political pressure on the US to back-off.

And this all ties into Syria. The cronies NEED Syria to collapse, which is why they're pumping billions and billions into toppling Assad. A lot hangs on whether they're successful or not. With China and Russia's backing though, it's very unlikely to happen.

[Hussien]

Interesting analysis as usual Ya Aba, but why do you think that China has reduced the quantity of oil it buys from Iran? This obviously hurts Iran and a weaker Iran makes for a stronger America and hence a stronger adversary for China.

Also seeing how US is going to focus its military activities in the Pacific (read China) a strong Iran is definitely in China's interest both for now and in future. Same goes for Russia. But their actions towards Iran is far from that of an ally or one that shares similar interest. This baffles me.

[iDevonian]

Interesting analysis as usual Ya Aba, but why do you think that China has reduced the quantity of oil it buys from Iran? This obviously hurts Iran and a weaker Iran makes for a stronger America and hence a stronger adversary for China.

Also seeing how US is going to focus its military activities in the Pacific (read China) a strong Iran is definitely in China's interest both for now and in future. Same goes for Russia. But their actions towards Iran is far from that of an ally or one that shares similar interest. This baffles me.

Im not sure where people are getting the impression that a strong Iran would be in the best interest of the Russia and China. Id disagree. China in particular benefits greatly with America with regards to trade. Has everyone forgotten how much money China invests in the US's well being and recovery? Has everyone forgotten the resources and development and practical applications that come from the US?

China's diplomatic representatives have openly admitted that they arent interested in seeing Iran with the capability of building nuclear weapons. And with Russias history in Asia and the middle east in particular, i wouldnt trust russia any further than i could throw the entire country. And that goes for the US and Iran.

So we should all recognize that, these countries are acting out of their own interests, and their own interests do not depend on the stability of Iran. China has one of the greatest untapped reserves of oil in the world, it can afford to cut a bit off from Iran if it suits its other interests. And given the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan, let it be known that China is capable of gaining benefits from war torn countries. Wars have not stopped them before.

[Ya Aba 3abdillah]

why do you think that China has reduced the quantity of oil it buys from Iran?

There's a couple reasons I can think of that could prompt China to decrease their imports from Iran, what we must remember here, is China obviously is concerned for its self-interest first and foremost (like all other nations are), this recent take by Brzezinski is fairly accurate http://www.foreignpo...rica?page=full. Energy independence is high-up on its poli-economic agenda. It knows that it needs a diversification of its energy sources, otherwise, similar to Europe being dependent on Russian energy, a dependence is in effect putting yourself on a leash. Also, it may favor increasing its imports from countries such as Australia, Australia at the moment is unique amongst OECD countries in that it's had a run of strong economic growth, mostly due to resource exports to China http://financialfoll...rowed-time.html though some are of the view that it's exaggerated http://theconversati...e-in-china-2591 , however the Chinese influence in Asia (Australia's other partners) it does have a consequent flow-on effect since those smaller countries are also strong due to the Asian dragon. If Australia's economy is 'dependent' on China, China then has political leverage, something it's always chasing. It recently lost a lot of leverage in Africa over the past year due to the uprisings and the Sudan split http://theconversati...e-in-china-2591 , the US knows this well http://www.csl.army....alResources.pdf .

Another reason could also be that if a conflict did start with Iran, it wouldn't want a major disruption in its energy supply. Perhaps even their large gas contract that is close to being signed with Moscow means that they may need to re-allocate funding for that http://english.peopl...83/7614527.html .

If China really wanted to see Iran's downfall, it would have handed Syria over to the West. However both China and Russia are well aware that the Middle East is of no threat to US national interest, other than that not having control over it, means the US is economically weaker. Iran poses no threat what so ever to the US, the real threat is Russia / China, which is why the US is eating up as many countries as it possibly can.

[Awaiting_for_My_Master]

There's a couple reasons I can think of that could prompt China to decrease their imports from Iran, what we must remember here, is China obviously is concerned for its self-interest first and foremost (like all other nations are), this recent take by Brzezinski is fairly accurate http://www.foreignpo...rica?page=full. Energy independence is high-up on its poli-economic agenda. It knows that it needs a diversification of its energy sources, otherwise, similar to Europe being dependent on Russian energy, a dependence is in effect putting yourself on a leash. Also, it may favor increasing its imports from countries such as Australia, Australia at the moment is unique amongst OECD countries in that it's had a run of strong economic growth, mostly due to resource exports to China http://financialfoll...rowed-time.html though some are of the view that it's exaggerated http://theconversati...e-in-china-2591 , however the Chinese influence in Asia (Australia's other partners) it does have a consequent flow-on effect since those smaller countries are also strong due to the Asian dragon. If Australia's economy is 'dependent' on China, China then has political leverage, something it's always chasing. It recently lost a lot of leverage in Africa over the past year due to the uprisings and the Sudan split http://theconversati...e-in-china-2591 , the US knows this well http://www.csl.army....alResources.pdf .

Another reason could also be that if a conflict did start with Iran, it wouldn't want a major disruption in its energy supply. Perhaps even their large gas contract that is close to being signed with Moscow means that they may need to re-allocate funding for that http://english.peopl...83/7614527.html .

If China really wanted to see Iran's downfall, it would have handed Syria over to the West. However both China and Russia are well aware that the Middle East is of no threat to US national interest, other than that not having control over it, means the US is economically weaker. Iran poses no threat what so ever to the US, the real threat is Russia / China, which is why the US is eating up as many countries as it possibly can.

Im not sure where people are getting the impression that a strong Iran would be in the best interest of the Russia and China. Id disagree. China in particular benefits greatly with America with regards to trade. Has everyone forgotten how much money China invests in the US's well being and recovery? Has everyone forgotten the resources and development and practical applications that come from the US?

China's diplomatic representatives have openly admitted that they arent interested in seeing Iran with the capability of building nuclear weapons. And with Russias history in Asia and the middle east in particular, i wouldnt trust russia any further than i could throw the entire country. And that goes for the US and Iran.

So we should all recognize that, these countries are acting out of their own interests, and their own interests do not depend on the stability of Iran. China has one of the greatest untapped reserves of oil in the world, it can afford to cut a bit off from Iran if it suits its other interests. And given the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan, let it be known that China is capable of gaining benefits from war torn countries. Wars have not stopped them before.

Salam Brothers and Sisters,

I understand that Russia and China won't rush into a war for their own personal reasons. But if Iran falls the next to fall is Russia than China, Iran in this sense is the barrier between US and its allies and Russia, China etc. On the other hand Israel plays the same role, it is the barrier for US from Iran, Syria, Lebanon etc. So that might be a reason why Russia and China will get involved. Let us remember that China and Russia aren't to fond of US, US played a key role in bringing down the Soviet Union and it owes China a damn load of money. US is always the country that is up in everyone's face and being hypocritical about policies etc.

Salam,