# Iran Decides to Close the Straight of Hormuz if Oil is Blocked



## Makalakumu (Jan 8, 2012)

http://www.infowars.com/iran-decides-to-close-hormuz-if-oil-exports-blocked/



> Ali Ashraf Nouri,  a senior commander in Irans Revolutionary Guard, told Khorasan daily  on Sunday that the Iranian government has decided to close the strategic  Strait of Hormuz at the mouth of the Persian Gulf if the countrys oil  exports are blocked.
> 
> 
> Also on Sunday, Iranian Army Commander Brigadier General Habibollah Sayyari said Iran can block the Strait of Hormuz easily.
> ...



So, is this it?  On January 30th, or shortly thereafter, is the US going to war with Iran?


----------



## Big Don (Jan 8, 2012)

Ah infowars, a fine unbiased site.
:rofl:


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 8, 2012)

Personally, I think it's saber-rattling.  Time will tell, I could be wrong.

http://www.voanews.com/english/news...at-Underground-Site-This-Month-136902803.html

http://tehrantimes.com/opinion/94348-the-wests-pressure-on-iran-will-backfire

http://www.jpost.com/Magazine/Opinion/Article.aspx?id=252675


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jan 8, 2012)

Just for discussion, what would you suggest sir?  If the Europeans decide to embargo Iranian oil, what would be a proper Iranian response?  IF they decide to block the Straits of Hormuz, however they might decide to do so, what should European nations, and/or the US do?

One must consider if there are any better options to embargoing Iranian oil, considering it has to do with encouraging them not to develop a nuclear capability?

If ignoring a blocking of the Straits would cause sufficient suffering and national security problems to require a response by any country(ies) to the blocking of the Straits?

Would military response by any country(ies) be appropriate, even if that might lead to a state of war existing between Iran and thouse country(ies)?  And if not, why not?

Do you really think Iran is crazy enough to chance taking on a coalition of European nations and Northern American nations militarily?  They can count on other Islamic nations to scream to high heaven it Iran is attacked.  But those Islamic nations who are also big oil producers will likely have a different prospective on the issue.

Beyond wishing to hear your thoughts on my questions, in answer to yours, I have no idea.  I really doubt we would engage in a "war" with Iran.  I would expect we would take some action to clear any "blocking" and perhaps even strike at their military assets that participated in any blockage.  Depending on Iran's or other Islamic nations response to that, things could indeed get worse.  But again, what might be viable alternatives to protecting oil supplies.  Please don't just throw out big business and big oil.  They aren't saints, but what about the common people who would suffer if the supply and/or price of oil shot up to $200 or $300 a barrel?


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 8, 2012)

It's 'sabres out!' all round to be sure but what needs to be borne in mind, especially by the Iranians that Iraq kept them engaged for a number of years and the Coalition took Iraq's military out in very short order (the aftermath is a different story involving different, non-military, assets).  So Iran can have as big a 'mouth' as it likes but it's ruling theocracy have to realise they have no 'trousers'.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 9, 2012)

oftheherd1 said:


> Just for discussion, what would you suggest sir?



I support a non-interventionist foreign policy where the US interacts peacefully on the world stage, letting other people arrange their lives as they choose.  If attacked directly, we should defend.  We should hold the worlds players in good faith and assume peaceful intentions.

I hope Iran is just rattling sabres.  A war between us now at this time would be terrible for both parties involved.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 9, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> I support a non-interventionist foreign policy where the US interacts peacefully on the world stage, letting other people arrange their lives as they choose.  If attacked directly, we should defend.  We should hold the worlds players in good faith and assume peaceful intentions.



In the world I live in, if Iran does succeed in building nuclear weapons, they will immediately use them on Israel.  I doubt Israel will let that happen, and I doubt we'll let Israel go it alone if the rest of the Islamic Middle East decides to join in.

That being said, it would be nice if we could all mind our own business.  I don't think it will happen in the world of the living.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 9, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> In the world I live in, if Iran does succeed in building nuclear weapons, they will immediately use them on Israel.  I doubt Israel will let that happen, and I doubt we'll let Israel go it alone if the rest of the Islamic Middle East decides to join in.
> 
> That being said, it would be nice if we could all mind our own business.  I don't think it will happen in the world of the living.



Do you think that Iran is even close to building a nuke?  From what I've been reading, it's not even close.

Also, wouldn't Iran have to fear Israels enormous nuclear arsenal?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 9, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Do you think that Iran is even close to building a nuke?  From what I've been reading, it's not even close.



I don't know.  One reads all sorts of things.  North Korea has nuclear devices (some call them bombs, they certain can explode) and sells weaponry to Iran all the time (not nukes so far, but nuclear technicians and scientists, yes).

But consider that Iran left to do what it pleased, as you propose, will eventually create nuclear weapons.  I believe that's a given.  So the question is not really 'if' but 'when'.



> Also, wouldn't Iran have to fear Israels enormous nuclear arsenal?



First, Israel has a nuclear arsenal, but it's hardly enormous.  Second, yes, they would fear it if their leaders were rational people.  That's a big 'if'.  Third, I believe that Iran, being seriously disliked in the Middle East by other Islamic nations, would not suffer being attacked by Israel without drawing in other players.  Being attacked by the US might be a different story; but if Israel goes into Iran in a big way, I think Iran will herself with many allies.

I'm not an expert, and I don't play one on TV.   But I believe Iran, given the chance, would immediately attack Israel with nuclear weapons if it had them.  I do not think that the religious fanatics that form the shadow government care much if their entire nation is destroyed if they can claim to have annihilated Israel.  Their hatred is truly fanatical.


----------



## Big Don (Jan 9, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I don't know.  One reads all sorts of things.  North Korea has nuclear devices (some call them bombs, they certain can explode) and sells weaponry to Iran all the time (not nukes so far, but nuclear technicians and scientists, yes).  But consider that Iran left to do what it pleased, as you propose, will eventually create nuclear weapons.  I believe that's a given.  So the question is not really 'if' but 'when'.    First, Israel has a nuclear arsenal, but it's hardly enormous.  Second, yes, they would fear it if their leaders were rational people.  That's a big 'if'.  Third, I believe that Iran, being seriously disliked in the Middle East by other Islamic nations, would not suffer being attacked by Israel without drawing in other players.  Being attacked by the US might be a different story; but if Israel goes into Iran in a big way, I think Iran will herself with many allies.  I'm not an expert, and I don't play one on TV.   But I believe Iran, given the chance, would immediately attack Israel with nuclear weapons if it had them.  I do not think that the religious fanatics that form the shadow government care much if their entire nation is destroyed if they can claim to have annihilated Israel.  Their hatred is truly fanatical.


 Clearly, you stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Gee, a jumped up third world dictatorship wants to openly defy the UN (When have we seen this before? How did it end for that guy?) 





> The United     Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea lays down a comprehensive     regime of law and order in the world's oceans and seas establishing rules     governing all uses of the oceans and their resources. It     enshrines the notion that all problems of ocean space are closely     interrelated and need to be addressed as a whole.      The Convention was opened for     signature on 10 December 1982 in Montego Bay, Jamaica. This marked the     culmination of more than 14 years of work involving participation by more     than 150 countries representing all regions of the world, all legal and     political systems and the spectrum of socio/economic development. At the     time of its adoption, the Convention embodied in one instrument traditional     rules for the uses of the oceans and at the same time introduced new legal     concepts and regimes and addressed new concerns. The Convention also     provided the framework for further development of specific areas of the law     of the sea.      The Convention entered into force in accordance with its article 308 on 16     November 1994, 12 months after the date of deposit of the sixtieth     instrument of ratification or accession. Today, it is the globally     recognized regime dealing with all matters relating to the law of the sea.     The Convention (full text) comprises 320 articles and nine   annexes, governing all aspects of ocean space, such as delimitation,   environmental control, marine scientific research, economic and commercial   activities, transfer of technology and the settlement of disputes relating to   ocean matters.  Some of the key features of the Convention are the following:          * Coastal States exercise sovereignty over their territorial sea which     they have the right to establish its breadth up to a limit not to exceed 12     nautical miles; foreign vessels are allowed "innocent passage"     through those waters; * Ships and aircraft of all countries are allowed "transit     passage" through straits used for international navigation; States     bordering the straits can regulate navigational and other aspects of     passage; * Archipelagic States, made up of a group or groups of closely related     islands and interconnecting waters, have sovereignty over a sea area     enclosed by straight lines drawn between the outermost points of the islands;     the waters between the islands are declared archipelagic waters where States     may establish sea lanes and air routes in which all other States enjoy the right of archipelagic passage through     such designated sea lanes; * Coastal States have sovereign rights in a 200-nautical mile exclusive     economic zone (EEZ) with respect to natural resources and certain economic     activities, and exercise jurisdiction over marine science research and     environmental protection; * All other States have freedom of navigation and overflight in the     EEZ,     as well as freedom to lay submarine cables and pipelines;


 If Iran chooses to attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz they are in direct violation of international law. As the nation with the most capable navy, the US would be, REQUIRED to act to keep the Strait open, as does every law-abiding nation.


----------



## granfire (Jan 9, 2012)

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/iran-sentences-us-spy-death/story?id=15320365#.TwuEFPKc5Wo

And we are playing the same old games....


----------



## Steve (Jan 9, 2012)

Okay.  I know I sound like a broken record, but if we decreased our reliance on oil by... NOT THAT FRIGGIN MUCH... it eliminates their hold over us.  We can do it.... easily.  It's a matter of national security.  We just have to stop treating energy policy as a partisan issue, stop the domestic cronyism and collusion and get our collective asses in gear.  

If the Western world in general reduced its dependance on oil, we'd have much less to worry about in the Middle East because they'd be 1: taking less of our money and 2: selling us something we simply want rather than something we NEED.  In order to do this, we don't need to stop buying Middle Eastern oil.  We simply need to stop HAVING to buy Middle Eastern Oil.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 9, 2012)

Steve said:


> Okay.  I know I sound like a broken record, but if we decreased our reliance on oil by... NOT THAT FRIGGIN MUCH... it eliminates their hold over us.  We can do it.... easily.  It's a matter of national security.  We just have to stop treating energy policy as a partisan issue, stop the domestic cronyism and collusion and get our collective asses in gear.
> 
> If the Western world in general reduced its dependance on oil, we'd have much less to worry about in the Middle East because they'd be 1: taking less of our money and 2: selling us something we simply want rather than something we NEED.  In order to do this, we don't need to stop buying Middle Eastern oil.  We simply need to stop HAVING to buy Middle Eastern Oil.



It's a bit late for that now.


----------



## Big Don (Jan 9, 2012)

Steve said:


> Okay.  I know I sound like a broken record, but if we decreased our reliance on oil by... NOT THAT FRIGGIN MUCH... it eliminates their hold over us.  We can do it.... easily.  It's a matter of national security.  We just have to stop treating energy policy as a partisan issue, stop the domestic cronyism and collusion and get our collective asses in gear.
> 
> If the Western world in general reduced its dependance on oil, we'd have much less to worry about in the Middle East because they'd be 1: taking less of our money and 2: selling us something we simply want rather than something we NEED.  In order to do this, we don't need to stop buying Middle Eastern oil.  We simply need to stop HAVING to buy Middle Eastern Oil.



Of course, producing our own would help too, but, the environmental lobby is too entrenched for that...


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 9, 2012)

I remember drill baby drill was big what 4 years ago and then Obama won and well we didn't drill.  The chickens have come home to roost


----------



## granfire (Jan 10, 2012)

Still, drilling more is not the answer.

Not even short term.

We are wasteful with the resource, and every time somebody in the Middle East breaks wind we pay through the nose for it.
Like any addiction, you don't conquer it by switching dealers, you have to cut the habit!


----------



## Steve (Jan 10, 2012)

Big Don said:


> Of course, producing our own would help too, but, the environmental lobby is too entrenched for that...


Agreed.  But we already produce our own.  More now than over the last 10 years, pushing close to 6000 barrels.  And increasing our production would help provide a short term, band aid until we can figure out some alternatives. 



ballen0351 said:


> I remember drill baby drill was big what 4 years ago and then Obama won and well we didn't drill.  The chickens have come home to roost



Obama's actually taken a lot of heat among environmentalists for his support of drilling.  While I understand that Obama is not a conservative, at least hate him for things he's actually done.  




granfire said:


> Still, drilling more is not the answer.
> 
> Not even short term.
> 
> ...


The only problem I have is the speculation of oil rights.  Opening up more drilling areas only gives the oil tycoons the rights to drill.  It will not mean more oil production.  They will hoard the rights and ration them out to strictly control demand.  

If we could actually produce more oil, I'd be for it.  But at the same time, there has to be balance.  It's like chopping up a valuable antique chair for firewood.  The antique can never be replaced, and is it worth burning it for 2 hours of warmth?  Sometimes, when the situation is dire, it is worth it.  But it's not a decision that can be taken back.  In the same way, once we open up the ANWR and other similar areas, it can't be undone.  The damage will be permanent, so if we do it, we have to do it wisely.


----------



## granfire (Jan 10, 2012)

I know the estimation of the worlds resources of untapped oil varies from time to time, but it can be assumed it's not infinite.

There are things that we direly need that is made from oil - other than fuel! Hard to believe, I know.

However, there is no real incentive to push for alternative fuels. Or recycle efforts. The people up top like our dependency on fresh oil.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jan 10, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> I support a non-interventionist foreign policy where the US interacts peacefully on the world stage, letting other people arrange their lives as they choose. If attacked directly, we should defend. We should hold the worlds players in good faith and assume peaceful intentions.
> 
> I hope Iran is just rattling sabres. A war between us now at this time would be terrible for both parties involved.



Well, I would like to live in the world you describe.  But I can't find any instance of it in recorded history.  Even when "super powers" of their day tried to do what you describe, there were always smaller countries that wanted to be the big power themselves.  If not squashed, some of them went on to do that, or in their attempts, involve many countries in conflicts.  IMHO, the problem is in determining at what point do you begin defense, at the first minor skirmish, or only when fully engaged by another countries total might.

I wish we were not as dependent of mid-eastern oil.  But economic ties with many of those countries does give us more opportunity to talk with them and get some sort of cooperation with them.  Granted sometimes more, sometimes less.  Also, engaging in limited wars seems to have prevented another world war.  No war is good, but so called brush fire wars are preferred to global war.

The above are just my thoughts and opinions.  You are welcome to your thoughts and opinions, and I am not trying to convince you mine are in any way better for you, or any one else, to adopt.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 10, 2012)

oftheherd1 said:


> Well, I would like to live in the world you describe.  But I can't find any instance of it in recorded history.  Even when "super powers" of their day tried to do what you describe, there were always smaller countries that wanted to be the big power themselves.  If not squashed, some of them went on to do that, or in their attempts, involve many countries in conflicts.  IMHO, the problem is in determining at what point do you begin defense, at the first minor skirmish, or only when fully engaged by another countries total might.



Perhaps the history you read was written by powers attempting to justify their existence?  That's the problem with government education, you really don't know what is true once you see the paradigm for what it is.  I woke up to this in 2006 when the state I lived in tried to have a basic skills test in History.  The whole idea of a government mandated history test made me look down the rabbit hole of propaganda that I've been fed for thirty years.  

That's why I support Ron Paul's position on Iran.  When they present themselves to be an actual threat that everyone pretty much agrees upon, I would support military action.  As of now, this isn't the case, people across the world are seriously divided on the issue.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 10, 2012)

Apparently, this gets even more complicated.






Chinese officials are saying that they will stand with Iran against pressure from the West.  One General commented that they protect Iran even if it led to WWIII.


----------

