Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 6/14/2010 6:35:02 AM EDT
(Then again could be the Fuddruckers from last night)





Saudis clear Airspace for attack on Iran





http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article7148555.ece






Iran Definitely Building Nuclear Weapon





http://www.wtop.com/?nid=25&sid=1979648





Iranian "Aid Ships" Head for Gaza


(This one could be a "set up" reason to kick it off - Israel blockades/attacks Iranian Ships - Iran defends etc....) - Here's where I start to get a bit tinfoily





http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LDE65D0HG.htm





Ehud Barak, Israeli Defense Minister, Stays Home rather than Attending (as planned) Paris Eurosatory





http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100613/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_france
So, the question... am I thinking too much on this one... or does all this info spell "Fo Time"?





Your thoughts?



 
Link Posted: 6/14/2010 6:37:53 AM EDT
[#1]
Africa will get hot too ,soon enough ...
Link Posted: 6/14/2010 6:38:21 AM EDT
[#2]
There is rarely a single "fo time" opportunity in the early stages of a conflict.  Generally, adversaries are presented with many opportunities to fo.  This is one such opportunity.  It is not necessarily more or less likely than the last few opportunities.  

Either way, pray that Israel is not foolish enough to attack overtly.
Link Posted: 6/14/2010 6:45:11 AM EDT
[#3]



Quoted:


There is rarely a single "fo time" opportunity in the early stages of a conflict.  Generally, adversaries are presented with many opportunities to fo.  This is one such opportunity.  It is not necessarily more or less likely than the last few opportunities.  



Either way, pray that Israel is not foolish enough to attack overtly.


I am with you.... I realize that they have had many opportunities... it just seems as if the dominoes are lining up.



 
Link Posted: 6/14/2010 6:50:41 AM EDT
[#4]
If the ships attempt to run the blockade, there are few possible outcomes.

Israel does nothing (zero possibility).

Israel sinks the ships outright (not likely).

Israel attempts to board and the Iranians do not resist (not likely).

Israel attempts to board, is met with heavy resistance, and kills everything (likely).
Link Posted: 6/14/2010 6:53:05 AM EDT
[#5]
Quoted:
There is rarely a single "fo time" opportunity in the early stages of a conflict.  Generally, adversaries are presented with many opportunities to fo.  This is one such opportunity.  It is not necessarily more or less likely than the last few opportunities.  

Either way, pray that Israel is not foolish enough to attack overtly.


Yep. This. I have a bad feeling about this.
Link Posted: 6/14/2010 6:57:18 AM EDT
[#6]
Iran isn't capable of putting ships in the Med.  Ain't gonna happen.
Link Posted: 6/14/2010 6:58:04 AM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
Iran isn't capable of putting ships in the Med.  Ain't gonna happen.


According to reports, two ships are already on the way.
Link Posted: 6/14/2010 6:58:58 AM EDT
[#8]
Really, with the state of our administration what do they have to lose? I wish they'd get it over with, the suspense is appalling.
Link Posted: 6/14/2010 7:04:55 AM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Iran isn't capable of putting ships in the Med.  Ain't gonna happen.


According to reports, two ships are already on the way.


Which reports?  They have no ability to support anything in the Med, any ships they put there would be sitting ducks –– and most of their ships would run out of fuel long before they got anywhere near the Med –– assuming anyone lets them travel through the Suez, which is not guaranteed.
Link Posted: 6/14/2010 7:07:46 AM EDT
[#10]
Quoted:
Iran isn't capable of putting ships in the Med.  Ain't gonna happen.


 How ya figure?  I HIGHLY doubt the Egyptians will refuse them passage through the Suez.
Link Posted: 6/14/2010 7:09:52 AM EDT
[#11]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Iran isn't capable of putting ships in the Med.  Ain't gonna happen.


According to reports, two ships are already on the way.


Which reports?  They have no ability to support anything in the Med, any ships they put there would be sitting ducks –– and most of their ships would run out of fuel long before they got anywhere near the Med –– assuming anyone lets them travel through the Suez, which is not guaranteed.


The aid ships are SUPPOSED to be sitting ducks.  They WANT the Israelis to board and take those ships... so they can AGAIN play the victim.  Logistically, no, they cannot support their own MILITARY ships getting to the Med... but they ARE aligned with Russia and Turkey.  There's nothing stopping them from getting a Russian oiler or pulling into a Turkish port.  

As for the Suez... on what grounds would the Egyptians refuse them innocent passage?
Link Posted: 6/14/2010 7:11:08 AM EDT
[#12]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Iran isn't capable of putting ships in the Med.  Ain't gonna happen.


According to reports, two ships are already on the way.


Which reports?  They have no ability to support anything in the Med, any ships they put there would be sitting ducks –– and most of their ships would run out of fuel long before they got anywhere near the Med –– assuming anyone lets them travel through the Suez, which is not guaranteed.


Not speaking to the validity of this report. Only pointing it out, for objective consideration. It was in the OP.

Iran is sending aid ships to blockaded Gaza, state radio said on Monday –– a move likely to be considered provocative by Israel which accuses Tehran of arming the Palestinian enclave's Islamist rulers, Hamas.

One ship left port on Sunday and another will depart by Friday, loaded with food, construction material and toys, the report said. The boats would be part of international efforts to break Israel's isolation of the Gaza Strip.


There is nothing preventing Iran from using the Suez or from "borrowing" Turkish or Russian ships and re-flagging them, which is likely what has happened.
Link Posted: 6/14/2010 7:12:48 AM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
Really, with the state of our administration what do they have to lose? I wish they'd get it over with, the suspense is appalling.


So, you want Israel to make a first strike (bear in mind that no conventional weapons are going to touch the bunkers A-jad has built, so they'd have to use nuclear bunker-busting weapons) because Iran can't be trusted with nuclear weapons?  Have you thought about exactly how that's going to play out on the world stage?  Israel would be the subject of a new UNSC resolution demanding that they disarm (much like Saddam was).  Russia would, in an attempt to remain relevant) decide to take a page from the US's playbook and exert military pressure on Israel.  And, Israel either takes the entire middle-east with them in a ball of fire or... they allow themselves to be pushed into the sea.  Attacking Iran from the air would be the height of stupidity.
Link Posted: 6/14/2010 7:14:22 AM EDT
[#14]
When I heard on the radio that Saudi Arabia had given Israel clearance through it's air space specifically for an attack on Iran, I could have shit a Mack truck. This is definately getting hairy.
Link Posted: 6/14/2010 7:16:51 AM EDT
[#15]
It is in the news of today that Saudi Arabia gave, unofficially of course, an aerial attack corridor in case Israel decide to hit Iran nuclear facilities.

It was reported by an italian MP and journalist tha has double citizenship, italian and israeli.

This is not unexpected, because all the arabic countries that are not yet under Iran influence, especially not having a strong shiite component in their population, are more afraid by a nuclear Iran (that probably would use the nukes...) than by a nuclear Israel, that would NOT use it's nukes to expand their influence in the region.

Shiia'i islam is trying to overwhelm sunni islam, including in the custody of holy sites to Islam. And this is seen as blasphemy by other muslims.
Link Posted: 6/14/2010 7:34:01 AM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
It is in the news of today that Saudi Arabia gave, unofficially of course, an aerial attack corridor in case Israel decide to hit Iran nuclear facilities.

It was reported by an italian MP and journalist tha has double citizenship, italian and israeli.

This is not unexpected, because all the arabic countries that are not yet under Iran influence, especially not having a strong shiite component in their population, are more afraid by a nuclear Iran (that probably would use the nukes...) than by a nuclear Israel, that would NOT use it's nukes to expand their influence in the region.

Shiia'i islam is trying to overwhelm sunni islam, including in the custody of holy sites to Islam. And this is seen as blasphemy by other muslims.


Doubtful the Saudis are actually willing to work with the Israelis.

Kingdom denies airspace reports

By ARAB NEWS
Published: Jun 13, 2010 00:03 Updated: Jun 13, 2010 00:03

RIYADH: Saudi Arabia denied Saturday foreign media reports suggesting that it has permitted Israel to use its airspace to launch attacks against Iran.

In a statement to the Saudi Press Agency, an official source at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said: "Saudi Arabia has noticed some false claims in some British media that it has permitted Israel to launch attacks on Iran using its airspace."

The source added that the Kingdom has reiterated its clear stance that it will never allow anyone to use its airspace or territory to attack any other country.

The source also said it is appropriate that the Kingdom should apply this principle on Israel with which it has no relations.

http://arabnews.com/saudiarabia/article65141.ece
Link Posted: 6/14/2010 7:34:42 AM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Iran isn't capable of putting ships in the Med.  Ain't gonna happen.


 How ya figure?  I HIGHLY doubt the Egyptians will refuse them passage through the Suez.


What warships under Iran's control (this is what we're talking about –– escorts for the blockade running ships) have a combat radius that would allow them to transit the Suez, conduct operations in the Med, and return to Iran?
Link Posted: 6/14/2010 7:35:57 AM EDT
[#18]
bla. . .bla. . .bla. . . .bla. . . .bla. . .No but it kicked off in a Dallas strip club last night!!
Link Posted: 6/14/2010 7:38:13 AM EDT
[#19]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Iran isn't capable of putting ships in the Med.  Ain't gonna happen.


According to reports, two ships are already on the way.


Which reports?  They have no ability to support anything in the Med, any ships they put there would be sitting ducks –– and most of their ships would run out of fuel long before they got anywhere near the Med –– assuming anyone lets them travel through the Suez, which is not guaranteed.


The aid ships are SUPPOSED to be sitting ducks.  They WANT the Israelis to board and take those ships... so they can AGAIN play the victim.  Logistically, no, they cannot support their own MILITARY ships getting to the Med... but they ARE aligned with Russia and Turkey.  There's nothing stopping them from getting a Russian oiler or pulling into a Turkish port.  

As for the Suez... on what grounds would the Egyptians refuse them innocent passage?


I highly doubt either Russia or Turkey is going to support an overt act of war by Iran against Israel –– that's what running Israel's blockade would be.  IF they were to do so, Israel would be fully justified in sinking whatever ships were involved.  I don't think that's what they would do, and I really hope that doesn't happen, but taking it to that level is asking for that kind of response.

Egypt supports Israel's blockade in Gaza.  If Iran announces to the world that they're going to run that blockade, either Egypt or Israel could decide to stop their ships, in any way they decide to do it.
Link Posted: 6/14/2010 7:39:55 AM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Iran isn't capable of putting ships in the Med.  Ain't gonna happen.


According to reports, two ships are already on the way.


Which reports?  They have no ability to support anything in the Med, any ships they put there would be sitting ducks –– and most of their ships would run out of fuel long before they got anywhere near the Med –– assuming anyone lets them travel through the Suez, which is not guaranteed.


Not speaking to the validity of this report. Only pointing it out, for objective consideration. It was in the OP.

Iran is sending aid ships to blockaded Gaza, state radio said on Monday –– a move likely to be considered provocative by Israel which accuses Tehran of arming the Palestinian enclave's Islamist rulers, Hamas.

One ship left port on Sunday and another will depart by Friday, loaded with food, construction material and toys, the report said. The boats would be part of international efforts to break Israel's isolation of the Gaza Strip.


There is nothing preventing Iran from using the Suez or from "borrowing" Turkish or Russian ships and re-flagging them, which is likely what has happened.


Left what port?  Your article doesn't say –– but it does say this:

A senior Iranian official said earlier Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards were ready to provide a military escort to aid ships heading to Gaza if Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei so commands. [ID:nLDE65509B]

But the Guards' deputy head, Hossein Salami, said there were no plans to do so. "Such a thing is not on our agenda," he was quoted as saying by the official IRNA news agency on Monday.
Link Posted: 6/14/2010 7:40:04 AM EDT
[#21]
There's nothing "tinfoil" about it - it's going to happen. The only question is whether it will be this week, next week, next month, or next year. Israel cannot afford to sit back and do nothing forever and if Iran gives them a free shot...

Link Posted: 6/14/2010 7:46:42 AM EDT
[#22]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Really, with the state of our administration what do they have to lose? I wish they'd get it over with, the suspense is appalling.


So, you want Israel to make a first strike (bear in mind that no conventional weapons are going to touch the bunkers A-jad has built, so they'd have to use nuclear bunker-busting weapons) because Iran can't be trusted with nuclear weapons?  Have you thought about exactly how that's going to play out on the world stage?  Israel would be the subject of a new UNSC resolution demanding that they disarm (much like Saddam was).  Russia would, in an attempt to remain relevant) decide to take a page from the US's playbook and exert military pressure on Israel.  And, Israel either takes the entire middle-east with them in a ball of fire or... they allow themselves to be pushed into the sea.  Attacking Iran from the air would be the height of stupidity.


I'm sure that was the same argument back in 1981, if memory serves, the Saudi's looked the other way then too. I wouldn't be a bit surprised that Israel has her own bunker busting JDAMs.
Link Posted: 6/14/2010 7:53:02 AM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Really, with the state of our administration what do they have to lose? I wish they'd get it over with, the suspense is appalling.


So, you want Israel to make a first strike (bear in mind that no conventional weapons are going to touch the bunkers A-jad has built, so they'd have to use nuclear bunker-busting weapons) because Iran can't be trusted with nuclear weapons?  Have you thought about exactly how that's going to play out on the world stage?  Israel would be the subject of a new UNSC resolution demanding that they disarm (much like Saddam was).  Russia would, in an attempt to remain relevant) decide to take a page from the US's playbook and exert military pressure on Israel.  And, Israel either takes the entire middle-east with them in a ball of fire or... they allow themselves to be pushed into the sea.  Attacking Iran from the air would be the height of stupidity.


I'm sure that was the same argument back in 1981, if memory serves, the Saudi's looked the other way then too. I wouldn't be a bit surprised that Israel has her own bunker busting JDAMs.


Bunker busting JDAMs won't work. Only a nuclear payload could ensure that several of the sites would be destroyed. Israel doesn't have aircraft big enough to drop conventional bombs big enough to destroy these sites. The Israeli Defense Minister, Ehud Barak, has already admitted this.

Iran nuclear plant 'immune to conventional strike'

(AFP) – Dec 28, 2009

JERUSALEM — Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak said on Monday that Iran's recently disclosed second uranium enrichment plant is "immune" to conventional bombing.

"The new site near Qom is meant for enrichment. What was revealed by the Iranians had been built over years and is located in bunkers that cannot be destroyed through a conventional attack," Barak told parliament's foreign affairs and defence committee.


Iran notified the UN nuclear watchdog in September that it was building a second enrichment plant near the central shrine city of Qom, after Washington accused it of covertly evading its notification responsibilities under the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Confirmation of the construction work drew criticism not only from Western governments but also from the United Nations.

Enriched uranium can make the fuel for nuclear power plants but in highly extended form can also produce the fissile core of an atomic bomb.

Along with Western governments, Israel suspects Iran of seeking to develop a weapons capability under the guise of a civil nuclear programme, an accusation Tehran denies.

Along with its US ally, Israel, the region's sole if undeclared nuclear power, has refused to rule out a resort to military action to prevent Iran developing a bomb.

Barak said he feared Iran could develop a weapon by 2011.

"I believe that by early 2010 Iran will hold threshold technology (for building a bomb). That means that if it wanted, it could develop nuclear weapons within a year from obtaining threshold technology," a senior official quoted him as telling the parliamentary committee.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i6iQ_yRItbEyQi1bDoonlY0F0S4A

Link Posted: 6/14/2010 7:53:24 AM EDT
[#24]
Wake me when the shooting starts. Until then it's all just politics as usual.
Link Posted: 6/14/2010 8:03:36 AM EDT
[#25]
This shit is getting interesting, I do think Israel could pull it off, I checked snopes to see if the airspace deal was BS but couldn't bring up anything but that may change eventually. I think Israel may have worked out a backdoor deal with Saudi Arabia that got leaked, now Saudi Arabia is playing damage control.
I hate the persian as much as the next guy and have been harassed by them enough when I was in the  region to side with the Jews, I hope they cercumsize the Persians Nuke sites.
Link Posted: 6/14/2010 8:09:13 AM EDT
[#26]
How bout this - Iran runs blockade, Isreal says stop.  The don't, they get torpedoed out of the water.  Nothing good will come from an trying to take the ships.  Blow them out of the water, and simply annouce that the ships were in violation of blockade and were dealt with...

The the whole world holds it breath to see what Iran does - but they do nothing but shake a finger at Israel.
Link Posted: 6/14/2010 8:16:06 AM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
When I heard on the radio that Saudi Arabia had given Israel clearance through it's air space specifically for an attack on Iran, I could have shit a Mack truck. This is definately getting hairy.


This x10.  Saw that yesterday and my "OH F#@K-ometer" pegged to the high side.

TC

Link Posted: 6/14/2010 8:50:23 AM EDT
[#28]


Link Posted: 6/14/2010 9:34:24 AM EDT
[#29]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Iran isn't capable of putting ships in the Med.  Ain't gonna happen.


 How ya figure?  I HIGHLY doubt the Egyptians will refuse them passage through the Suez.


What warships under Iran's control (this is what we're talking about –– escorts for the blockade running ships) have a combat radius that would allow them to transit the Suez, conduct operations in the Med, and return to Iran?


I figured out what you were talking about later... the article said "aid" ships; not warships.  Still, if they can export oil in a tanker, they can probably rig up a makeshift oiler to accompany their ships.
Link Posted: 6/14/2010 9:35:36 AM EDT
[#30]
realistically? no  but my wish is for Isreal to hand Iran their slimy asses to them
Link Posted: 6/14/2010 9:37:59 AM EDT
[#31]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Iran isn't capable of putting ships in the Med.  Ain't gonna happen.


According to reports, two ships are already on the way.


Which reports?  They have no ability to support anything in the Med, any ships they put there would be sitting ducks –– and most of their ships would run out of fuel long before they got anywhere near the Med –– assuming anyone lets them travel through the Suez, which is not guaranteed.


The aid ships are SUPPOSED to be sitting ducks.  They WANT the Israelis to board and take those ships... so they can AGAIN play the victim.  Logistically, no, they cannot support their own MILITARY ships getting to the Med... but they ARE aligned with Russia and Turkey.  There's nothing stopping them from getting a Russian oiler or pulling into a Turkish port.  

As for the Suez... on what grounds would the Egyptians refuse them innocent passage?


I highly doubt either Russia or Turkey is going to support an overt act of war by Iran against Israel –– that's what running Israel's blockade would be.


Both nations have already condemned Israel's actions as illegal because they believe the blockade itself is illegal... Regardless, I really doubt they're going to try to run a blockade with military ships.

IF they were to do so, Israel would be fully justified in sinking whatever ships were involved.


Hell, the world thinks they weren't even justified in BOARDING a ship that tried to run the blockade... see what happens if they SINK one.  This isn't about legal - this is about Iran playing the victim to justify a UNSC resolution against Israel.

I don't think that's what they would do, and I really hope that doesn't happen, but taking it to that level is asking for that kind of response.

Egypt supports Israel's blockade in Gaza.  If Iran announces to the world that they're going to run that blockade, either Egypt or Israel could decide to stop their ships, in any way they decide to do it.


Egypt supports Egypt.  Supporting Israel's actions keeps US money flowing.  Just because you have a wolf on a chain does not make him your friend.  

Link Posted: 6/14/2010 9:38:21 AM EDT
[#32]
Definitely the Fuddruckers. That place makes me feel like I just ate 20lbs of lead.
Link Posted: 6/14/2010 9:39:26 AM EDT
[#33]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Really, with the state of our administration what do they have to lose? I wish they'd get it over with, the suspense is appalling.


So, you want Israel to make a first strike (bear in mind that no conventional weapons are going to touch the bunkers A-jad has built, so they'd have to use nuclear bunker-busting weapons) because Iran can't be trusted with nuclear weapons?  Have you thought about exactly how that's going to play out on the world stage?  Israel would be the subject of a new UNSC resolution demanding that they disarm (much like Saddam was).  Russia would, in an attempt to remain relevant) decide to take a page from the US's playbook and exert military pressure on Israel.  And, Israel either takes the entire middle-east with them in a ball of fire or... they allow themselves to be pushed into the sea.  Attacking Iran from the air would be the height of stupidity.


I'm sure that was the same argument back in 1981, if memory serves, the Saudi's looked the other way then too. I wouldn't be a bit surprised that Israel has her own bunker busting JDAMs.


It was not the same argument in 1981.  That REACTOR (not bunker 200' under a mountain) was an easy target (all air defenses aside).  The only conventional weapon with a CHANCE of affecting the bunkers in Iran is the MOP (or the Halliburton Earthquake Machine).

And Saudi Arabia did not look the other way in 1981.

As for Saudi Arabia's current "attack corridor," it would not surprise me if Saudi Arabia allowed the strike in order to kill two birds with one stone.  Take out Iran's nuclear program with tactical nuclear weapons from the air... and have the UN under Russian leadership exert military pressure on Israel for the act itself.  Never interrupt your adversary (or deny him your airspace) when he's making a mistake.
Link Posted: 6/14/2010 9:41:37 AM EDT
[#34]
Quoted:
realistically? no  but my wish is for Israel to hand Iran their slimy asses to them




Link Posted: 6/14/2010 9:42:43 AM EDT
[#35]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Really, with the state of our administration what do they have to lose? I wish they'd get it over with, the suspense is appalling.


So, you want Israel to make a first strike (bear in mind that no conventional weapons are going to touch the bunkers A-jad has built, so they'd have to use nuclear bunker-busting weapons) because Iran can't be trusted with nuclear weapons?  Have you thought about exactly how that's going to play out on the world stage?  Israel would be the subject of a new UNSC resolution demanding that they disarm (much like Saddam was).  Russia would, in an attempt to remain relevant) decide to take a page from the US's playbook and exert military pressure on Israel.  And, Israel either takes the entire middle-east with them in a ball of fire or... they allow themselves to be pushed into the sea.  Attacking Iran from the air would be the height of stupidity.


I'm sure that was the same argument back in 1981, if memory serves, the Saudi's looked the other way then too. I wouldn't be a bit surprised that Israel has her own bunker busting JDAMs.


weren't our original bunker busters of the modern era fabricated from old 203mm artillery barrels?  Don't the Izzies have 170mm and 203mm artillery?

Link Posted: 6/14/2010 9:46:39 AM EDT
[#36]
Wake me up when something happens.This chicken little shit is getting old.
Link Posted: 6/14/2010 9:48:36 AM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:


Both nations have already condemned Israel's actions as illegal because they believe the blockade itself is illegal... Regardless, I really doubt they're going to try to run a blockade with military ships.


Yes, but writing a strongly worded letter and committing military assets to run an obviously legal blockade are two different things.  Turkey had to make a scene about it –– but they're not going to actually do anything.

And that's my point.


Hell, the world thinks they weren't even justified in BOARDING a ship that tried to run the blockade... see what happens if they SINK one.  This isn't about legal - this is about Iran playing the victim to justify a UNSC resolution against Israel.


Of course –– but UNSC resolutions are usually worth about as much as the paper they're written on, and nobody really cares what a few Islamic countries think about it.  Israel's never been particularly worried about the UN, as the UN has no way to enforce their resolutions unless the US decides to back them up –– which will not happen (Ambassador Rice made our position on it pretty clear on Fox news last night –– I was actually a bit surprised to hear her so strongly support Israel in her statement).
Link Posted: 6/14/2010 9:50:53 AM EDT
[#38]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Iran isn't capable of putting ships in the Med.  Ain't gonna happen.


 How ya figure?  I HIGHLY doubt the Egyptians will refuse them passage through the Suez.


What warships under Iran's control (this is what we're talking about –– escorts for the blockade running ships) have a combat radius that would allow them to transit the Suez, conduct operations in the Med, and return to Iran?


I figured out what you were talking about later... the article said "aid" ships; not warships.  Still, if they can export oil in a tanker, they can probably rig up a makeshift oiler to accompany their ships.


I don't believe they have the ability to do that.  UNREPs aren't something you just rig up, and I doubt they have ever trained to be able to do that even if they could put the equipment together to do it.  UNREPs are a fairly complex evolution for a country whose Navy really never leaves sight of port.
Link Posted: 6/14/2010 9:51:25 AM EDT
[#39]







Quoted:
Quoted:






Quoted:






Quoted:



Iran isn't capable of putting ships in the Med.  Ain't gonna happen.

 How ya figure?  I HIGHLY doubt the Egyptians will refuse them passage through the Suez.

What warships under Iran's control (this is what we're talking about –– escorts for the blockade running ships) have a combat radius that would allow them to transit the Suez, conduct operations in the Med, and return to Iran?




I figured out what you were talking about later... the article said "aid" ships; not warships.  Still, if they can export oil in a tanker, they can probably rig up a makeshift oiler to accompany their ships.




This was my thought as well... these ships are not  Warships, but are being sent to elicit a response from Israel that would make them look bad on the world stage or perhaps push them into some sort of military action. I think Ahmadinejad would welcome an Israeli attack on "aid vessels" or even an attack on Iranian soil, as it would likely bring about his desired result of war between Islamic nations and Israel, perhaps entangling major powers as well. He wants the "Clash of Civilizations". Secondly, it would likely also push more moderate Islamic nations further to the right.

 
Link Posted: 6/14/2010 9:54:05 AM EDT
[#40]
Quoted:

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Iran isn't capable of putting ships in the Med.  Ain't gonna happen.


 How ya figure?  I HIGHLY doubt the Egyptians will refuse them passage through the Suez.


What warships under Iran's control (this is what we're talking about –– escorts for the blockade running ships) have a combat radius that would allow them to transit the Suez, conduct operations in the Med, and return to Iran?


I figured out what you were talking about later... the article said "aid" ships; not warships.  Still, if they can export oil in a tanker, they can probably rig up a makeshift oiler to accompany their ships.

This was my thought as well... these ships are not  Warships, but are being sent to elicit a response from Israel that would make them look bad on the world stage or perhaps push them into some sort of military action. I think Ahmadinejad would welcome an Israeli attack on "aid vessels" or even an attack on Iranian soil, as it would likely bring about his desired result of war between Islamic nations and Israel, perhaps entangling major powers as well. He wants the "Clash of Civilizations". Secondly, it would likely also push more moderate Islamic nations further to the right.




 


Israel hasn't "attacked" anything, and most likely would not.  Conducting a non-compliant boarding of a blockade runner is not an attack.
Link Posted: 6/14/2010 9:55:42 AM EDT
[#41]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Iran isn't capable of putting ships in the Med.  Ain't gonna happen.


 How ya figure?  I HIGHLY doubt the Egyptians will refuse them passage through the Suez.


What warships under Iran's control (this is what we're talking about –– escorts for the blockade running ships) have a combat radius that would allow them to transit the Suez, conduct operations in the Med, and return to Iran?


I figured out what you were talking about later... the article said "aid" ships; not warships.  Still, if they can export oil in a tanker, they can probably rig up a makeshift oiler to accompany their ships.


I don't believe they have the ability to do that.  UNREPs aren't something you just rig up, and I doubt they have ever trained to be able to do that even if they could put the equipment together to do it.  UNREPs are a fairly complex evolution for a country whose Navy really never leaves sight of port.


I get what you're saying, but don't think that, in order to refuel at sea, you have to do it the way we do.  Hell, they could even pull into a port or drop anchor, tie up along side the tanker and get gas.  It doesn't have to be an UNREP.  Sometimes we marvel so much at our own technology that we forget there ARE simpler ways of accomplishing similar results - especially if you toss caution and safety to the wind.
Link Posted: 6/14/2010 9:56:09 AM EDT
[#42]
Jesus H Christ.....

Do you people WANT this war to happen? Every week there's another one of these threads...

Oh, OP.... Fuddruckers is very fucking anti-gun.... Think about that the next time you want an overpriced burger....
Link Posted: 6/14/2010 9:56:54 AM EDT
[#43]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Iran isn't capable of putting ships in the Med.  Ain't gonna happen.


 How ya figure?  I HIGHLY doubt the Egyptians will refuse them passage through the Suez.


What warships under Iran's control (this is what we're talking about –– escorts for the blockade running ships) have a combat radius that would allow them to transit the Suez, conduct operations in the Med, and return to Iran?


I figured out what you were talking about later... the article said "aid" ships; not warships.  Still, if they can export oil in a tanker, they can probably rig up a makeshift oiler to accompany their ships.


I don't believe they have the ability to do that.  UNREPs aren't something you just rig up, and I doubt they have ever trained to be able to do that even if they could put the equipment together to do it.  UNREPs are a fairly complex evolution for a country whose Navy really never leaves sight of port.


I get what you're saying, but don't think that, in order to refuel at sea, you have to do it the way we do.  Hell, they could even pull into a port or drop anchor, tie up along side the tanker and get gas.  It doesn't have to be an UNREP.  Sometimes we marvel so much at our own technology that we forget there ARE simpler ways of accomplishing similar results - especially if you toss caution and safety to the wind.


I wonder why we don't do it that way.
Link Posted: 6/14/2010 9:57:35 AM EDT
[#44]
Quoted:
Quoted:


Both nations have already condemned Israel's actions as illegal because they believe the blockade itself is illegal... Regardless, I really doubt they're going to try to run a blockade with military ships.


Yes, but writing a strongly worded letter and committing military assets to run an obviously legal blockade are two different things.  Turkey had to make a scene about it –– but they're not going to actually do anything.

And that's my point.


Hell, the world thinks they weren't even justified in BOARDING a ship that tried to run the blockade... see what happens if they SINK one.  This isn't about legal - this is about Iran playing the victim to justify a UNSC resolution against Israel.


Of course –– but UNSC resolutions are usually worth about as much as the paper they're written on


Until a member nation like... Russia... gets a bug up its ass and decides to "unilaterally" enforce one while citing our actions in Iraq as precedent.  

Link Posted: 6/14/2010 9:59:18 AM EDT
[#45]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:


Both nations have already condemned Israel's actions as illegal because they believe the blockade itself is illegal... Regardless, I really doubt they're going to try to run a blockade with military ships.


Yes, but writing a strongly worded letter and committing military assets to run an obviously legal blockade are two different things.  Turkey had to make a scene about it –– but they're not going to actually do anything.

And that's my point.


Hell, the world thinks they weren't even justified in BOARDING a ship that tried to run the blockade... see what happens if they SINK one.  This isn't about legal - this is about Iran playing the victim to justify a UNSC resolution against Israel.


Of course –– but UNSC resolutions are usually worth about as much as the paper they're written on


Until a member nation like... Russia... gets a bug up its ass and decides to "unilaterally" enforce one while citing our actions in Iraq as precedent.  



Russia's not going to get involved in that fight.  There's really no reason for them to.  They might issue a strongly worded letter like Turkey did, but in reality they don't care that much, and they're not going to support Hamas.
Link Posted: 6/14/2010 9:59:52 AM EDT
[#46]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I get what you're saying, but don't think that, in order to refuel at sea, you have to do it the way we do.  Hell, they could even pull into a port or drop anchor, tie up along side the tanker and get gas.  It doesn't have to be an UNREP.  Sometimes we marvel so much at our own technology that we forget there ARE simpler ways of accomplishing similar results - especially if you toss caution and safety to the wind.


I wonder why we don't do it that way.


And that's my point... I think it would be foolish to assume Iran can't find a way to extend the combat radius of their ships especially if it is VERY unlikely that anyone will be shooting at them during the refueling.
Link Posted: 6/14/2010 10:00:27 AM EDT
[#47]
Quoted:
If the ships attempt to run the blockade, there are few possible outcomes.

Israel does nothing (zero possibility).

Israel sinks the ships outright (not likely).

Israel attempts to board and the Iranians do not resist (not likely).

Israel attempts to board, is met with heavy resistance, and kills everything (likely).


lots of folks like to think the iranians are crazy end-timers wanting the final battle to get started so the 5 year old 13th imam can come up outta the well to bring on a world islamic paradise.

when in fact they are playing israel and the west.

my guess is a toned down 4. israel boards the ship, is met with what appears to be light resistance, some folks are killed (i betcha there's womenz killed), when the boat is searched, all they find id baby food and toys and israel ends up looking like ass, obama complains, europe comdemns and the mullahs just grin..

the gaza folks, probably with iranian direction are slowly learning the south african solution. make your opponent look like a baby killer in the eyes of the world so that you can get you folks into power even though they cant govern a chicken coup.
Link Posted: 6/14/2010 10:03:01 AM EDT
[#48]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Iran isn't capable of putting ships in the Med.  Ain't gonna happen.


According to reports, two ships are already on the way.


im very curious to know the logistics of this myself.

come through suez? will this be allowed. or sail around the horn and come in through the front door.
Link Posted: 6/14/2010 10:03:08 AM EDT
[#49]





Quoted:





Quoted:
Quoted:




Quoted:




Quoted:




Quoted:


Iran isn't capable of putting ships in the Med.  Ain't gonna happen.

 How ya figure?  I HIGHLY doubt the Egyptians will refuse them passage through the Suez.






What warships under Iran's control (this is what we're talking about –– escorts for the blockade running ships) have a combat radius that would allow them to transit the Suez, conduct operations in the Med, and return to Iran?








I figured out what you were talking about later... the article said "aid" ships; not warships.  Still, if they can export oil in a tanker, they can probably rig up a makeshift oiler to accompany their ships.



This was my thought as well... these ships are not  Warships, but are being sent to elicit a response from Israel that would make them look bad on the world stage or perhaps push them into some sort of military action. I think Ahmadinejad would welcome an Israeli attack on "aid vessels" or even an attack on Iranian soil, as it would likely bring about his desired result of war between Islamic nations and Israel, perhaps entangling major powers as well. He wants the "Clash of Civilizations". Secondly, it would likely also push more moderate Islamic nations further to the right.






 






Israel hasn't "attacked" anything, and most likely would not.  Conducting a non-compliant boarding of a blockade runner is not an attack.





Not as it is viewed by the liberal media, or other Islamic nations... reality does not matter, what matters is perception... if the perception and media coverage suggests it as unwarranted and thusly an attack, it doesnt matter what the reality of the situation is.





 
Link Posted: 6/14/2010 10:03:08 AM EDT
[#50]
Quoted:
Russia's not going to get involved in that fight.  There's really no reason for them to.  They might issue a strongly worded letter like Turkey did, but in reality they don't care that much, and they're not going to support Hamas.


Let's hope you're right.  I think you're wrong, though.  Russia is DESPERATE to maintain relevance on the world stage.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top