US Destroyer Fired Warning Shots At Four Iranian Vessels In Strait Of Hormuz

[BATMAN]

Obonga Obama desperate to start war/false flag before Trumps inaugoration!

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-...ning-shots-four-iranian-vessels-strait-hormuz

Correction Barak Hussain Obama.
He delivered you $billions, so say thanks to him.

 

[Penguin]

Regardless, this is no issue of treaties. Iran is not getting irritated because the US is not a party to UNCLOS. Iran is irritated because the US maintains a significant military presence in the region exclusively aimed at Iran. Regardless of treaty obligations, Iran isn't going to welcome them with open arms.

I don't see why the USN (or any navy) coulnd't make friendly visits to allies in the region. That is none of Iran's business. Just like e.g. the Chinese and the Italian navies visit Iran. Doing so require passing through the Hormuz Strait.

 

[AmirPatriot]

I don't see why the USN (or any navy) coulnd't make friendly visits to allies in the region. That is none of Iran's business. Just like e.g. the Chinese and the Italian navies visit Iran. Doing so require passing through the Hormuz Strait.

These are not friendly "visits" just like the Italian and Chinese navies. The US has a permanent base in Bahrain. It is common knowledge that they are in the Persian Gulf to threaten Iran.

And yes, it is Iran's business when a known enemy parks a carrier strike group with aircraft, destroyers, cruisers and nuclear submarines on Iran's doorstep.

 

[Penguin]

These are not friendly "visits" just like the Italian and Chinese navies. The US has a permanent base in Bahrain. It is common knowledge that they are in the Persian Gulf to threaten Iran.

And yes, it is Iran's business when a known enemy parks a carrier strike group with aircraft, destroyers, cruisers and nuclear submarines on Iran's doorstep.

So what if they have a base in Bharain? That doesn't give Iran the right to harass Hormuz Strait traffic. You don't suppose they, the US, have an interest in (SLOCs to/from) Iraq, or Saudi Arabia? The world doesn't revolve solely or even mostly around Iran.

 

[Vincent Alvares]

Correction Barak Hussain Obama.
He delivered you $billions, so say thanks to him.

Barak (Fake Muslim Name ) Obama had 3 options:
1. Iran with Nukes
2. A full scale War against Iran with the potential of ww3
3. That nuke Deal.

So, he picked the easy one.

 

[AmirPatriot]

So what if they have a base in Bharain? That doesn't give Iran the right to harass Hormuz Strait traffic. You don't suppose they, the US, have an interest in (SLOCs to/from) Iraq, or Saudi Arabia? The world doesn't revolve solely or even mostly around Iran.

We don't harass Hormuz traffic. We harass US Warships. Maybe its not the best thing to do, but its certainly not the worst.

And the Americans only started having a substantial presence in the Persian Gulf after the revolution. Especially during the war they escorted Saddam's oil so we couldn't hit it.

 

[BlueInGreen]

I don't see much coming out of this. I still say the US navy is at an disadvantage given the number of cruise and Anti-ship ballistic missiles aimed at them at all times.

Isn't Irans speed boat force around (1,500 - 2,000 vessels?).

Posturing is what we see here nothing more, nothing less.

But it has to be said that the US navy can only take so much before they have to respond with deadly force (although the US shouldn't be there at all, waste of time and resources, Saudi Arabia and its friends should take care of themselves).

 

[AmirPatriot]

1,500 - 2,000 vessels

No, not that much...

Besides, the ones we are interested in are the FAC armed with cruise missiles, not the speed boats with unguided rockets and a few machine guns...

 

[Oublious]

I don't see much coming out of this. I still say the US navy is at an disadvantage given the number of cruise and Anti-ship ballistic missiles aimed at them at all times.

Isn't Irans speed boat force around (1,500 - 2,000 vessels?).

Posturing is what we see here nothing more, nothing less.

But it has to be said that the US navy can only take so much before they have to respond with deadly force (although the US shouldn't be there at all, waste of time and resources, Saudi Arabia and its friends should take care of themselves).

That destroyer have enough tomahawk missiles to hurt iran all by it self. 40 tomahawk cruise missile, so do you have enough SAM to protect against one destroyer?

 

[Blue In Green]

That destroyer have enough tomahawk missiles to hurt iran all by it self. 40 tomahawk cruise missile, so do you have enough SAM to protect against one destroyer?

That ONE destroyer would be sunk if it were to fire those 40 or so cruise missiles, and 40 isn't nearly enough to cripple the Iranian military forces. I know we Americans can be arrogant sometimes but to honestly think that one ship is worth more than the ENTIRETY of Irans naval forces let alone broader military is just short sighted.

Ps. This is the account in use when I use my mobile.

 

[Uhuhu]

So what if they have a base in Bharain? That doesn't give Iran the right to harass Hormuz Strait traffic. You don't suppose they, the US, have an interest in (SLOCs to/from) Iraq, or Saudi Arabia? The world doesn't revolve solely or even mostly around Iran.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis

so what if The soviet union would have a missile deployment in Cuba? That didn't give The U.S the right to block international waters for Russians ships going to Cuba, and threat the world with a very close possible nuclear war. The U.S didnt suppose they, the soviet union, had an interest in cuba?

 

[Blue In Green]

That ONE destroyer would be sunk if it were to fire those 40 or so cruise missiles, and 40 isn't nearly enough to cripple the Iranian military forces. I know we Americans can be arrogant sometimes but to honestly think that one ship is worth more than the ENTIRETY of Irans naval forces let alone broader military is just short sighted.

Ps. This is the account in use when I use my mobile.

h

We don't harass Hormuz traffic. We harass US Warships. Maybe its not the best thing to do, but its certainly not the worst.

And the Americans only started having a substantial presence in the Persian Gulf after the revolution. Especially during the war they escorted Saddam's oil so we couldn't hit it.

Honestly, at this point like I've said in the past. Iran should build more boats that are small but pack a strategic punch. It's seems as though that would be a more cost effective goal.

 

[ARABIC]

Iran have a problem it think it better than Japanese whish they have been nuked by us

obama is a pussy so he can't do any thing
But trump is crazy so his response will be much more harder then the pussy

 

[Penguin]

We don't harass Hormuz traffic. We harass US Warships. Maybe its not the best thing to do, but its certainly not the worst.

And the Americans only started having a substantial presence in the Persian Gulf after the revolution. Especially during the war they escorted Saddam's oil so we couldn't hit it.

US ships are Hormuz traffic too. Don't kid yourself to think the other navies wouldn't react the same under the same circumstances.

And don't kid yourself into thinking there was no US presence in the Persian Gulf pre 1979.

"Unless versed in the history of the Gulf and the evolution of U.S.-Gulf relations, the average person is not likely to be aware that U.S. presence in the region outdates by many years the Gulf War, or that it has had a host of interests encompassing political, economic, and geo-strategic objectives."
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub185.pdf
U.S. MILITARY PRESENCE IN THE GULF:

CHALLENGES AND PROSPECTS
Sami G. Hajjar
March 2002

Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War
College, 122 Forbes Ave., Carlisle, PA 17013-5244.

SSI’s Homepage address is: http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usassi/welcome.htm

See also page 11 - 12

U.S. Regional Interests.
Since its independence, the United States has had interests in and relations with the Middle East. Morocco was the first country to establish relations with the new nation, and in 1866 American missionaries established the Syrian Protestant College in Lebanon that later became the famed American University of Beirut. During the early part of the 20th century, business entrepreneurs were responsible for the major oil discoveries in Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, it was Alfred Thayer Mahan, the noted American naval officer and strategist, who coined the term “Middle East” as that area between Arabia and India “with its center—from the point of view of the naval strategist—in the Persian Gulf.”
U.S. relations with that center began on September 21, 1833, when it signed a treaty of amity and commerce with Oman. Since then, U.S. involvement in the Gulf region has widened and deepened, given the increasing relevance ofGulf petroleum to the world economy, and the geo-strategic importance of the region during the Cold War.

See also page 13:

... Many of these documents addressed U.S. interests in the region but often in the context of the Cold War. A linchpin document is NSC 47/2 of 1949, written the year following the creation of the state of Israel. The NSC concluded that the Middle East is “critically important to American security," that the United States should “promote pro-Western ties to prevent Soviet penetration of the region,” and “argued that Israel and its Arab neighbors had to reach an accord on their own . . .” Three decades later in 1977, President James Carter identified the Gulf region as “vulnerable and vital . . . to which greater military concern ought to be given,” in Presidential Review Memorandum 10. The Memorandum led the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) in 1978 to highlight essentially the current trinity of interests that continue to define U.S. strategic concerns for the region. U.S. interests in the region have been consistent since the early days of the Cold War, and the articulation of these interests by both Democratic and Republican administrations also has been consistent.

Page 15 - 16
The policies that were adopted by various administrations to secure America’s strategic interests in the Middle East since the start of the Cold War were greatly influenced by the grand strategy of containing the Soviet Union. The first clear policy was based on the Truman Doctrine of May 1951 that established a Mutual Security Program designed to assist free nations of the Middle East “with half of the world’s oil revenues,” as President Truman said, resist Soviet pressure and help increase their security and stability. The Eisenhower administration supported the establishment of the Baghdad Pact in 1956 as a security alliance involving Iraq, Pakistan, Iran, and the United Kingdom. This pact, also known as the Middle East Treaty Organization, was supposed to extend the line of NATO from Turkey to India. However, it collapsed because the Iraqi revolution of 1958 ended the country’s pro-Western Hashemite monarchy, and because of the rise in the same year of anti-Western nationalism in Iran under Prime Minister Mosaddeq, who forced a brief exile of the Shah.
During this period, the security of the oil-rich Gulf region was being guaranteed by Great Britain. However, when Great Britain began to terminate its protectorate of the region in 1970 with the trucial sheikdoms becoming independent states, a security vacuum was created.
Because of the Vietnam experience, direct U.S. intervention in the Gulf was not possible. Instead, the United States was to rely on the pro-western Shah of Iran to maintain regional peace. To that end, the Nixon administration provided the Shah with substantial material assistance to enable him to fulfill the surrogate role of local hegemon.
The demise of the Shah’s rule in 1979 and its replacement by an anti-western Islamic government ushered in a new policy under the Reagan administration. Its essence was to capitalize on the Iraq-Iran war that broke out in 1980 by seeking to create a balance of military power between these two large Gulf powers in order to prolong the war, weaken them, and prevent an anti-Western local actor from dominating the region.

Have a nice day.

 

[Khafee]

And don't kid yourself into thinking there was no US presence in the Persian Gulf pre 1979.

There was no Mullah presence pre-1979