Featured Iran intends to block strait of Hormoz

[aryobarzan]

To carry out such a massive mega project , iran had to do the following:
Research the special steel alloy required to carry corrosive crude oil..they named it "sour steel".

Steel mill in Isfahan had to produce the steel alloy in the form of sheet with exact thickness.

Steel sheets had to be rolled into pipes and coated.
1000 km of trenches had to be dug out in 40 degrees heat.
Pipes placed ,connected,welded,tested.

Pumping station put in place.

Terminals built..storage tanks built..

Such a feast of an engineering for a country under total embbargo due to sanction.

My salutes to iranian men and women who are doing this mega project and F***k the Israeli and Arab fan boy....have a nice day!

 

[Philosopher]

writing with bold letters or not. IRAN never claimed responsbility someone else did a non-state actors. Are you taking claim for what your gov't never officially took claim for. Well ofcourse botht the US and Saudi would blame Iran.

So Iran should come out and actually take responsibility for attacking another country directly? Do you even realise how stupid you seem out of this desperation to hide your embarrassment?

The Americans did not just say Iran was part of it, but that the attack came directly from Iran.

The Farsi's are historically weak in conflicts nothing will be different here

The Persians are controlling the region and using your kind as their puppets. Morever, the Persians are attacking you directly but you're hiding behind the skirts of the Americans.

It's honestly cringeworthy seeing these Iranians beating their chests over irrelevant stuff.. Okay strong boy why don't you join the Houthis who are sieged and land-locked and starved out to die. You are nobody in the region.

So attacking the largest Saudi oil processing facility and wiping out 50% of its capacity is "irrelevant stuff". I am afraid that very relevant, but the most striking realisation is that the saudis are too weak and scared to respond against Iran, directly . As for Houthis, that's a silly attempt at deflection. Here we are not talking about proxies but a direct attack from Iran.

When even your American masters call you weak openly then I suppose you need to wake up and smell the coffee.

Saudi King would not last 'two weeks' in power without US support: Trump

 

[SalarHaqq]

Iran can of course it back at regional targets in ME as a response to any US/Israel attack. but to think that Iran stands a chance against an intense shooting match against the much superior firepower for long will be a long shot...

I believe Iranians are smart enough to keep their posturing to these videos and test. Anything beyond that can invite serious spanking

absolutely agree with what you said about the blockade, Iran has all the means to that but does it have the means to sustain it ? the answer is no.

what do you think how the US /West will react to Iranian blockade? my sending minesweepers or ships to open up the strait? in most probable scenario, the allied forces will unleash an air / missile campaign to destroy Iranian military infra. Against which Iran has little to no defense.

so yes, Iran can temporarily do a blockage but the cost of it will be too severe to bear..

The point is that Iran's defence strategy and military power are such that they would make an intense shooting match (to reuse your terms) cost-prohibitive for the US regime - both financially and in terms of casualties, regardless of the outcome. Hence why the US has refrained from this sort of action.

Any videos and tests you see actually presuppose a defensive scenario wherein the US attacks first. As such, they are dead serious, and do not represent mere posturing. They serve a clear deterrence purpose, deterrence which to this day has been highly effective since it has kept the US military at bay, despite the fact that for 40 years Iran has been a main target for Washington and especially so after 9-11, 2001. Absent this formidable degree of deterrence, you can bet Iran would have been subjected to military aggression in one form or another by now.

Should the US launch a real attack on Iran, Iran would respond by doing exactly what she practiced in those tests and wargames, in addition to a spate of unanounced "surprise" measures. That's without mentioning the damage Iran's many allies could inflict to US interests not just in the region (Iraq, Syria, Palestine, Yemen, Afghanistan etc) but way beyond in fact, plus the global economic risks stemming from massive Iranian strikes on the oil infrastructure and reserves of PGCC monarchies.

As for a hypothetical American air and missile campaign, where are US aircraft and missile launching platforms going to be stationed at? Check out the respective ranges of these American assets versus the ranges of Iranian area denial weapons (from ballistic to cruise missiles etc), and factor in the sortie rates and numbers of missiles and bombs required to deplete the defensive and offensive capabilities of a country like Iran, thrice the size of Iraq, presenting any aggressor with a huge target list (again several times greater than Desert Storm), blessed with favorable terrain and equipped with dozens (literally) of hardened underground bases built beneath mountains, housing hundreds of ballistic missile launchers and even missile assembly lines among other things.

Such an endeavour would be associated with tremendous material and human costs. Not something the US regime deems reasonable to engage in.

 

[nahtanbob]

Inadequate pretext for mass murdering more than a hundred thousand civilians in just two bombings I'm afraid. My point still stands: the US is very capable of targeting civilians, its forces have done so in virtually every conflict they took part in since WW2. The claim that their opponent was "bad" or "worse" doesn't really constitute a valid counter-point, after all the regime in Washington has equally been demonizing Iran for some forty years so by that logic, the US would consider itself "entitled" to hit civilian targets in Iran.

Ask all those peoples who were occupied by Imperial Japanese Army how feel about the atomic bombings

 

[Xerxes22]

Solemni went to Russia and sxxcked cock to save Syria and got Russia involved and then even Russia could't give victory as they got

Reported. Iranians on the forum shudnt hesitate in doing mass reportings of such classless and distasteful remarks. We will tackle this in a systemic civilized way. So keep it up if u like.

 

[Stryker1982]

Iran is establishing 1000 km oil pipeline from Goreh to port of Jask to avoid strait of Hormoz for exporting oil. Within a short period of time Iran will be able to fulfill its threats about strait of Hormoz ... or Iran is able to sell its oil openly or no one in the region will sell a drop of oil

The problem is that we'd never be able to keep those tankers very safe could we?

 

[Hormuz]

The problem is that we'd never be able to keep those tankers very safe could we?

Iran has pipelines to the north and west. in case of war Iran could sell oil with the help of iraq and russia. i don't know how necessary it's to sell the oil from the sea. maybe someone can help explaining.

 

[Saudang]

The point is that Iran's defence strategy and military power are such that they would make an intense shooting match (to reuse your terms) cost-prohibitive for the US regime - both financially and in terms of casualties, regardless of the outcome. Hence why the US has refrained from this sort of action.

Any videos and tests you see actually presuppose a defensive scenario wherein the US attacks first. As such, they are dead serious, and do not represent mere posturing. They serve a clear deterrence purpose, deterrence which to this day has been highly effective since it has kept the US military at bay, despite the fact that for 40 years Iran has been a main target for Washington and especially so after 9-11, 2001. Absent this formidable degree of deterrence, you can bet Iran would have been subjected to military aggression in one form or another by now.

Should the US launch a real attack on Iran, Iran would respond by doing exactly what she practiced in those tests and wargames, in addition to a spate of unanounced "surprise" measures. That's without mentioning the damage Iran's many allies could inflict to US interests not just in the region (Iraq, Syria, Palestine, Yemen, Afghanistan etc) but way beyond in fact, plus the global economic risks stemming from massive Iranian strikes on the oil infrastructure and reserves of PGCC monarchies.

As for a hypothetical American air and missile campaign, where are US aircraft and missile launching platforms going to be stationed at? Check out the respective ranges of these American assets versus the ranges of Iranian area denial weapons (from ballistic to cruise missiles etc), and factor in the sortie rates and numbers of missiles and bombs required to deplete the defensive and offensive capabilities of a country like Iran, thrice the size of Iraq, presenting any aggressor with a huge target list (again several times greater than Desert Storm), blessed with favorable terrain and equipped with dozens (literally) of hardened underground bases built beneath mountains, housing hundreds of ballistic missile launchers and even missile assembly lines among other things.

Such an endeavour would be associated with tremendous material and human costs. Not something the US regime deems reasonable to engage in.

Couple of points to mention here -

1. we are talking about a country who goes to war for a living - The USA. Last 100 years have shown enough evidence for us to understand that US will fight when their core interests are challenged. Their whole global positioning is based on being a globally bully (security provider ), their military industrial complex itching for conflicts and their interest to protect their ME pawns and partner Israel.

2. The US will not get into a conflict with Iran just for the odd incidents supported by Iran. But here we are talking about Iran blockading the strait of Hormuz ..That action will tick mark all the boxes for the US to attack Iran.

Lastly, all your assumptions are just based on what Iran can do or will do to the USA. But you are not accounting for what the greatest superpower on the plant can do to Iran in return or as a preempt...

with all the respect, Iran has done brilliantly to build up their domestic defense capabilities, but they are generation behind what they will face from their Foe ..

 

[SalarHaqq]

1. we are talking about a country who goes to war for a living - The USA. Last 100 years have shown enough evidence for us to understand that US will fight when their core interests are challenged. Their whole global positioning is based on being a globally bully (security provider ), their military industrial complex itching for conflicts and their interest to protect their ME pawns and partner Israel.

The US regime had its interests challenged by the USSR - it did not go to war against Moscow. Post Korean war, it has had its interests challenged by the DPRK - without declaring war on the latter. Iran is challenging the US regime's interests - but Washington prefers not to lauch direct military aggression on Iran.

These cases have one thing in common: in all three, the US regime was/is deterred from resorting to the military option because it calculates that the costs associated with such an endeavour would not be bearable (economically, politically etc), at least not in the context of an offensive strategy whereby the US would initiate hostilities.

Thus it falls back on the variety of other means at its disposal (economic warfare, proxy conflicts, soft war / psy-ops / information war / cultural war / propaganda war, intelligence operations, terrorism, assassinations, sabotage, diplomatic pressure and so on) in its confrontation against adversaries of this kind.

2. The US will not get into a conflict with Iran just for the odd incidents supported by Iran. But here we are talking about Iran blockading the strait of Hormuz ..That action will tick mark all the boxes for the US to attack Iran.

My response was only to the assumption that an all out US aggression on Iran would be a one-sided affair, and to the idea that Washington and allies could destroy Iran's military infrastructure without incurring prohibitive level costs.

Lastly, all your assumptions are just based on what Iran can do or will do to the USA. But you are not accounting for what the greatest superpower on the plant can do to Iran in return or as a preempt...

Please refer to the last paragraph of my previous post, where I focus on the US warfighting apparatus and weigh its known capabilities and doctrine against the specifics of the mission at hand.

 

[Titanium100]

So Iran should come out and actually take responsibility for attacking another country directly? Do you even realise how stupid you seem out of this desperation to hide your embarrassment?

The Americans did not just say Iran was part of it, but that the attack came directly from Iran.




The Persians are controlling the region and using your kind as their puppets. Morever, the Persians are attacking you directly but you're hiding behind the skirts of the Americans.



So attacking the largest Saudi oil processing facility and wiping out 50% of its capacity is "irrelevant stuff". I am afraid that very relevant, but the most striking realisation is that the saudis are too weak and scared to respond against Iran, directly . As for Houthis, that's a silly attempt at deflection. Here we are not talking about proxies but a direct attack from Iran.

When even your American masters call you weak openly then I suppose you need to wake up and smell the coffee.

Coming with memes or whatever to prove a ridiculous point. The Saudis won't last obviously if the Americans withdraw their support and it's not a threat coming from outside but from inside as not many people like the house of Saud but not a threat from outside whatsoever.

As for Iran the devastating defeat will come to them from inside Saudi Arabia and you think of Saudi Arabia as a land of arabs but no it's a global hub with many nationalities. It has global cities.

Better armed Then the Iranians and have numerous more support then Iran in the region. As a matter fact Saudi Arabia alone could defeat Iran's paper tiger army who have historically been upset to many times.

Fighting Saudi Arabia is equal to fighting a global war but you can't see this because you have been miscalculating all this time and your ever bound to miscalculate. Your blind sighted if you can't see the bigger picture here.

I could envision the world going down before the Arabian Peninsula and the Holy land. As I said before if the whole world gather they can't move an inch to Arabia forget about irrelevant lands hack if all Humans and Jinns gather they can't enter the Arabian Peninsula

 

[Saudang]

The US regime had its interests challenged by the USSR - it did not go to war against Moscow. Post Korean war, it has had its interests challenged by the DPRK - without declaring war on the latter. Iran is challenging the US regime's interests - but Washington prefers not to lauch direct military aggression on Iran.

These cases have one thing in common: in all three, the US regime was/is deterred from resorting to the military option because it calculates that the costs associated with such an endeavour would not be bearable (economically, politically etc), at least not in the context of an offensive strategy whereby the US would initiate hostilities.

Thus it falls back on the variety of other means at its disposal (economic warfare, proxy conflicts, soft war / psy-ops / information war / cultural war / propaganda war, intelligence operations, terrorism, assassinations, sabotage, diplomatic pressure and so on) in its confrontation against adversaries of this kind.



My response was only to the assumption that an all out US aggression on Iran would be a one-sided affair, and to the idea that Washington and allies could destroy Iran's military infrastructure without incurring prohibitive level costs.



Please refer to the last paragraph of my previous post, where I focus on the US warfighting apparatus and weigh its known capabilities and doctrine against the specifics of the mission at hand.

I seriously hope that there are more pragmatic heads in Iran taking these calls..

Iran cant come close to challenging the US military might in conventional conflict ... non conventional ways may be different ball game. However Would Iran risk getting into a conflict and take say 1:10 or 1:20 hit verses its enemy and put everything they have build so far into risk ... I hope not

an attempted blockade of the strait will put energy supply at risk for even its close friends like China or India, and even they will not appreciate that situation ..

 

[Hormuz]

I seriously hope that there are more pragmatic heads in Iran taking these calls..

Iran cant come close to challenging the US military might in conventional conflict ... non conventional ways may be different ball game. However Would Iran risk getting into a conflict and take say 1:10 or 1:20 hit verses its enemy and put everything they have build so far into risk ... I hope not

an attempted blockade of the strait will put energy supply at risk for even its close friends like China or India, and even they will not appreciate that situation ..

no one ist saying that Iran will win a direct war against america, but what Iran is doing, is to make the war very expensive for the u.s. economical and in casualties so it's not worth for america to risk an attack.

Sixteen ships were sunk altogether, along with thousands of marines. If it had really happened, it would have been the worst naval disaster since Pearl Harbor.

Wake-up call

If the US and Iraq do go to war, there can only be one winner, can't there? Maybe not. This summer, in a huge rehearsal of just such a conflict - and with retired Lieutenant General Paul Van Riper playing Saddam - the US lost. Julian Borger asks the former marine how he did it

www.theguardian.com

that was in 2002. we have much more effective weapons now. and proxies in iraq and syria. and since 2006 there was a massive update for hezbollah in terms of weapons and training.
imagine america will lose 20000 marines within 24 hours. what do you think people will do in america.
as said before in another thread the only president, who maybe would go for a war is trump. but this has do to with some mental issues and nothing to do with geopolitics or rational politics.

i would like to add that in case of Iran closing the straight there won't be any u.s. ship left to threaten Iran and open the straight. do you think when america get hit that hard uk and france will continue the war? NEVER!

 

[Cliftonite]

The day Iran does that is the day it will start the beginning of its end. GCC and NATO will all gang up on Iran. And Russia will look on as its oil competitors fight it out in the Hormuz.

Seriously I wonder how has Iran survived so long. It's such a fanatical crazy regime. I really hope Iran goes forward with the threat. It will fianlly give the world a legit reason to deal with this problematic nation.
Please Iran. Go forward with this threat.

We will watch popcorn and watch your fanatical country be destroyed. IRGC's victory in the Gulf war have inflated your ego. You are no match against the combined world powers.

 

[jamal18]

I don't understand the pipeline business. If Iran blocks the straits of Hormuz, no Iranian oil is going anywhere.

 

[scimitar19]

Fighting Saudi Arabia is equal to fighting a global war but you can't see this because you have been miscalculating all this time and your ever bound to miscalculate. Your blind sighted if you can't see the bigger picture here.

I could envision the world going down before the Arabian Peninsula and the Holy land. As I said before if the whole world gather they can't move an inch to Arabia forget about irrelevant lands hack if all Humans and Jinns gather they can't enter the Arabian Peninsula