With this latest information about Israeli intention, one can be reasonably certain that the Iranian Navy may also have Submarines cruising the waters off the Israeli coast.
Iran's strategy, if attacked would be to take a few ships out in the Straits of Hormuz and sink them. That would block the majority of the world's oil supply right there. Iran does have other measures at its disposal, but the Straits of Hormuz would be their number one priority.
Things may be lining up for some major ugliness very soon. Iran and Israel, N and S Korea... and then there's their backers, the USA, Russia and China.
They can prevent ships from sinking? That's pretty awesome!
With the current economic crisis, it's not going down in Europe or the US at this point in time. Nope, attacking Israel would be the only way to secure the apocalyptic circumstances needed for the return of the 12th imam.
Those who wonder "who believes this crap?" are in for a surprise.
Twelver - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hitchens is right saying that religion has the power to make good people do horrible evils.
What hypocrisy in this thread.
Where are the people who were complaining about the provocation from a humanitarian ship in international waters?
I guess a ship full of blankets and human rights activists is more of a threat than a submarine with nuclear missiles on board. Pathetic.
There are reports that weapons have already been found on the "humanitarian aid" ship.
Israel is being threatened with possible ballisitic missle attacks. They are preparing to defend themselves and keeping all options open if their survival is threatened... as any nation would.
Spread the word because there are quite a few orgs committing precious time and funds to study the effects of a possible war with Iran, and blocking the strait has always been a part of those studies. Whether the american navy is able, and I do have my doubts, to prevent it, does not remove that risk. Since you suggest you really know what you're talking about I hope you realise that Iran wouldn't necessarily play by the rules.They can prevent from ships getting in to position to be sunk. There is a small amount of space that is optimal for sinking the ships so they will block the strait, and the commanders of the 5th fleet are well aware of this. Please know a little bit of what you are talking about before you make belligerent sarcastic comments.
They can stop the ships from reaching the straits... by sinking them.They can prevent ships from sinking? That's pretty awesome!
They can stop the ships from reaching the straits... by sinking them.
What hypocrisy in this thread.
Where are the people who were complaining about the provocation from a humanitarian ship in international waters?
I guess a ship full of blankets and human rights activists is more of a threat than a submarine with nuclear missiles on board. Pathetic.
The U.S 5th fleet is well trained in various scenarios that would threaten the closing of the Strait of Hormuz, I have no doubt about their capabilities to keep the strait open.
Better keep your fingers crossed.
Iran's strategy, if attacked would be to take a few ships out in the Straits of Hormuz and sink them. That would block the majority of the world's oil supply right there. Iran does have other measures at its disposal, but the Straits of Hormuz would be their number one priority.
Spread the word because there are quite a few orgs committing precious time and funds to study the effects of a possible war with Iran, and blocking the strait has always been a part of those studies. Whether the american navy is able, and I do have my doubts, to prevent it, does not remove that risk. Since you suggest you really know what you're talking about I hope you realise that Iran wouldn't necessarily play by the rules.
If Israel told Iran it was going to bring its nuclear subs within its territorial waters in order to deliver aid to a group that was fighting Iran from across a border, then Iran would be perfectly within its authority to tell them not to do so. If Israel declared that it would do so anyways regardless of what Iran said and continued to move toward those waters, then Iran would be perfectly justified in taking action to prevent that from happening.
And you may have a point IF it was Iran's territorial waters when Iran took action to prevent a breach of its security. But you don't have a point if Iran took action while the Israeli nuclear subs were around say... the Strait of Hormuz.
There's a lot of IFs that go along with that. If the Iranians are moving to block the free navigation of the straits, that too violates "the law of the sea" and can be acted against.NO that is against international law called laws of the sea
In the scenario I mentioned, I think they absolutely would have that authority regardless of whether it was in their water yet or not.
Well lucky for us opinion does not formulate international law. A preemptive strike when the only credible threat is words will never be justified. A preemptive strike when a credible threats exists and is imminent is completely justified.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?