Monday, January 08, 2007
Iranian hubris
An Iranian flunky threatens to close the Strait of Hormuz and do more besides:
A top officer in the volunteer Basij militia said on Monday Iran could block oil traffic through the strategic Strait of Hormuz if the West threatens its economy over Tehran's nuclear program.
"Given Iran's authority over the Strait of Hormuz, the passageway to more than 40 percent of the world's energy, we have become so strong that the world's economic and energy security are in the hands of Iran," deputy Basij commander General Majid Mir Ahmadi was quoted as saying by the semi-official Iranian news agency.
"We can exert pressure on the US and British economies as much as we ourselves are put under pressure," he said.
"US allies, especially those who host US military sites or facilitate American strategies against us, are exposed to our threat," Mir Ahmadi added.
"This is the Islamic republic's strategy in the Persian Gulf -- security for everyone or for nobody."
The question is, does the Islamic Republic have excellent "message control" -- in which case this is deliberate but deniable sabre-rattling -- or poor control over the rantings of its generals? Either way, the "strategy" of "security for everybody, or for nobody" is chilling, insofar as the definition of "security" is highly subjective.
27 Comments:
By 
, at
Mon Jan 08, 06:49:00 PM:
Last summer oil was around $75 a barrel for most of July. Since then oil has dropped to around $56 a barrel where it is today. This means Iran is loosing about $2.25 billion a month relative to the July revenue from oil sales. That is a lot of cabbage.
I see this as designed to put jitters into the oil markets and artificially inflate prices.
By , at
Mon Jan 08, 07:06:00 PM:
The warm weather here in the Northeast is causing the oil bubble to deflate a bit. In other words global warming is hurting Iran's economy. Hahaha.
By 
allen, at
Mon Jan 08, 08:31:00 PM:
It is for this reason that the US must maintain a robust military presence in Iraq.
By , at
Mon Jan 08, 09:17:00 PM:
and have meaningful negotiations
How much security are you willing to trade away? (be specific)
How much are you willing to put on the table as a bribe? (be specific)
What is your timeline for declaring the "negotiations" fruitless? (be specific)
By , at
Mon Jan 08, 09:50:00 PM:
Well IRAN isa terrorist supporting nation and belongs to the UN so why should we be surprised over this we should have nuked them when we had the chance
By , at
Mon Jan 08, 11:26:00 PM:
How long would it be before someone with a submarine would come along and sink a few of the iranian vessels blockading that strait? I doubt the US would be the first one to do it, China and India would have far more reason.
A move like this will only alienate Iran from it's allies on the security council. If Iran voluntarily cuts off the oil coming out of the middle east, you'll see regime change being called for by all those who are currently blocking sanctions against Iran.
By allen, at
Mon Jan 08, 11:40:00 PM:
Gambit,
That Iran has made the threat should, of itself, be sufficient cause to act.
By , at
Tue Jan 09, 02:40:00 AM:
Let's not get carried away here. The Iranians could well close down the waterway. They might be on the wring end of the fight but you can still make a mess if your objective is a one way trip.
I wonder whether the Iranians have mined the waterway with sleeper mines?
By , at
Tue Jan 09, 06:48:00 AM:
The iranians tried to shut down the Straits of hormuz back in the late 80s and it was an unmitigated disaster for them. I don't think they'd actually make the same mistake twice, but it's a pretty good example of how not afraid they are of us.
By SR, at
Tue Jan 09, 09:00:00 AM:
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Tue Jan 09, 03:05:00 PM:
My friend Wesley was bold and brash like the Iranian flunky in this article. Unfortunately, an elephant stomped on Wesley's head in Kenya.
By Pudentilla, at
Tue Jan 09, 05:07:00 PM:
"The question is, does the Islamic Republic have excellent "message control" -- in which case this is deliberate but deniable sabre-rattling -- or poor control over the rantings of its generals? Either way, the "strategy" of "security for everybody, or for nobody" is chilling, insofar as the definition of "security" is highly subjective."
Do we ask the same questions about the "leaked" story that Israel is training to drop tactical nukes in Iran (subsequently denied)?
By skipsailing, at
Tue Jan 09, 05:11:00 PM:
As for the Straits of Hormuz, Arthur Herman's article in the November issue of Commentary created quite a buzz. As others have pointed out we've faced issues in these waters before. It is my belief that this Basij guy's comments are a response to Herman's article. The straits were an ace in the hole. A reminder to the mullahs that they've tried and failed before seems quite timely to me.
the problem with troop basing anywhere in this region is the propensity to chose short term positioning over long term goals. Turkey backed out of our deal for the 4th ID during the run up to the Iraqi invasion, so did the Saudi's, forcing us to relocate our air bases as I recall.
So long as our interests co incide with the interests of the moment for the hosts we're fine. so it seems like a paradox. the longer the violence sustains itself in Iraq the longer we have reason to remain. A stable Iraq might ask us to leave, which would be a relief to the mullahs.
So why are they fomenting violence in Iraq?
By Georg Felis, at
Tue Jan 09, 05:23:00 PM:
I would take the threat exactly as it appears: The head of a volunteer militia made an unsubstantiated vague threat today. It would surprise the heck out of me if the CIA was not at this minute updating their files on this guy, talking to his relatives, finding his home and office GPS coordinates, etc…
By skipsailing, at
Tue Jan 09, 05:32:00 PM:
Since we're discussing the straits of Hormuz, I thought the group here would find this interesting:
USS Newport News Collides With Japanese Tanker
From a Fifth Fleet press release:
No US sailors or merchant crew were injured when a US Navy submarine and a commercial cargo vessel collided in the Strait of Hormuz on Monday evening January 8, 2007.
The collision between USS Newport News (SSN 750) and the Japanese-flagged motor vessel Mogamigawa occurred at approximately 10:15 in the evening (local time) in the strait of Hormuz while the submarine was transiting submerged.
Overall damage to the USS Newport News is being evaluated. The propulsion plant was unaffected by this collision.
The incident is currently under investigation.
USS Newport News is currently on a regularly scheduled deployment to the US Navy Central Command area of responsibility conducting Maritime Security Operations (MSO).
the newport news is a fast attack sub. Apparently it was submerged at the time of the collision.
perhaps not the best way to announce one's presence but hey, the Iranians must have known that we had submarines nearby, now they are certain. I doubt that helps them to rest easy.
Oh, one other thing: the mention of Centcom is interesting. The new Centcom commander is an admiral as I recall.
My point is that while we spend a lot of time reading tea leaves about Iran, they MUST do the same.
By , at
Tue Jan 09, 05:38:00 PM:
Speaking of Global Warming reducing the price of oil, and the Iranians down significant revenues, here's an article that may have been overlooked.
It looks at medium-term fluctuations in global temperatures.
As I last mentioned to Greenman, there are many planetary actions that can screw any interpretation of short-term trends, not least of which were 7 large comet strikes, c.7450 bc, all ocean strikes, which raised global ocean temperatures by an average of 4 degrees C, and took untill 2000bc+/- to return to normal (helped by a single hit in 3050bc+/-). This naturally had significant effects on ice formations and global sea levels.
Naturally you won't find Gore, or any of the other idiots mentioning this book, but it's a good read.
By allen, at
Tue Jan 09, 07:01:00 PM:
Shochu John,
Which perpetually friendly Gulf states would you suggest? Okinawa, Murtha's favorite staging area is not in the Gulf, but is it close enough to quickly react to Iranian provocation? As to storing gasoline in the furnace, what do you think about fire fighters having to show up for the fire? It is always a good think if the fire department is closer rather than farther.
By allen, at
Tue Jan 09, 08:14:00 PM:
Shochu John,
You should check the election and polling data on both Kuwait and Qatar. They will also become "hell holes" in short order if abandoned to the same forces now engaged in Iraq. Indeed, it is eminently sensible to kill the bad guys in Iraq rather than in Kuwait, Qatar, the UAE, Somalia, Ethiopia etc, etc, etc.
While prevention is important, firemen go where there is fire.
By allen, at
Tue Jan 09, 10:37:00 PM:
The Wahhabis, of course, are always the bad guys.
By skipsailing, at
Wed Jan 10, 10:26:00 AM:
So, you'll support such an invasion John?
By skipsailing, at
Wed Jan 10, 12:20:00 PM:
So you're just doing what here? any ideas to offer about how to change the relationship between the house of Saud and the wahabbi extremists?
when do we read your ideas?
One recurring theme I percieve in the anti victory crowd is underlying bigotry. Those who oppose the use of force of arms for ANY reason continually assume that those of us who do see need for force will ONLY use force.
Some of us see the need for force at times, diplomacy at times, economic pressure at times and so forth. It's not all war all the time, but the anti victory crowd simply refuses to acknowledge that.
You line of questioning about Saudi Arabia is a prime example. I can think of several things we can try in an effort at helping the saudis extricate themselves from their deal with the devil. Why do you suppose that Bush continues to state his opinion that Islam is a religion of peace when the far right in his country so strongly disagrees?
Again, what is your position re: dealing with the threat that is radical Islam?
By Purple Avenger, at
Wed Jan 10, 03:20:00 PM:
in a sectarian civil conflict, who exactly are the "bad guys"?
That's easy - anyone with guns shooting people without guns.
By Dawnfire82, at
Wed Jan 10, 03:40:00 PM:
By allen, at
Wed Jan 10, 06:16:00 PM:
The invasion of Saudi Arabia was not my idea. Give credit where credit is due.
The idea, by the way, shows no imagination. Where was the first American battle against German troops fought and when?
By skipsailing, at
Wed Jan 10, 09:12:00 PM:
allen, that's an excellent point and I use it all the time. Just the mention of Operation torch gives the pseudo war historians (defined as opinionated people who know even less than I) reason to pause.
One guy tried to compare Hussein to Rommell and shortly realized he knew nothing about either.
Good point, thank you.
By allen, at
Wed Jan 10, 09:23:00 PM:
skipsailing,
Germany invaded Poland on 1 September, 1939. The first American ground formations did not step foot onto German soil until January 1945 - 5 years, 4 months. It is true that Germany did not declare war on the United States until 10(?) December 1941, but the United States was deeply (albeit, in some quarters reluctantly) involved in the war long before that time.
Patience is a virtue, little used. Patience is sorely needed to fight a one hundred year war.
By allen, at
Thu Jan 11, 06:53:00 PM:
Obviously, I cannot speak for the public. However, I can speak to those who posit that polling shows strong opposition to the Iraq war.
The polling I have seen shows that some greater number of Democrats are opposed to the war, per se, than some number of opposed Republicans. More than anything else, the polls show a strong disapproval of how the war has been managed. To conflate opposition with disapproval is a major error.
Personally, I can foresee the public coming to accept the new American exercise if the rules of engagement prove efficacious, i.e. a significant lessoning in sectarian violence and a fully committed Iraqi government and its army to that end. More than anything else, the President’s new plan could give him the same break a less than stellar ball team gets when it wins a wild card playoff slot to the World Series. If the President’s plan is seen as a winner, the public will come on board enthusiastically, just as they did in 2003.
