LEON PANETTA, U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No, but we know that they’re trying to develop a nuclear capability, and that’s what concerns us. And our red line to Iran is: do not develop a nuclear weapon. That’s a red line for us.
BOB SCHIEFFER, FACE THE NATION (CBS): What would happen if Israel does decide to take this matter into its own hands? And what would be our reaction and response to that?
PANETTA: If the Israelis made that decision, we would have to be prepared to protect our forces in that situation. And that’s what we’d be concerned about.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/13/world/middleeast/us-warns-top-iran-leader-not-to-shut-strait-of-hormuz.html?_r=1&src=un&feedurl=http://json8.nytimes.com/pages/world/middleeast/index.jsonp&pagewanted=all
It seems the US military thinks it’s no idle threat: Iran can actually close the Straits of H … perhaps for months … and the US would lose a lot of assets in the process of forcing it open again …
And despite the neo-con/zionist frothing at the mouth — combined with other recent provocations –, it’s clear the US top brass do NOT want a war with Iran at this juncture …
Peace
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28516
Similar points …
Peace
@Ishamid: well, I see something of a consensus here: Iran can indeed close down the SoH, and the USN can reopen it.
I agree with that.
Do you read this data differently?
=========
Do you read this data differently?
=========
Iran does not need to permanently close the Strait, and if Iran can keep it closed for one month, let alone several as the articles indicate, that would be a major win for Iran. Why? Because unless the US is ready to occupy Iran lock stock and barrel — something that has never been done by any European power before — the costs of reopening the Strait may be too high for the US. So there will be strong resistance within the echelons of American (and European) power to actually starting a war with Iran, the usual suspects notwithstanding.
20,000+ US deaths in a few months or less is unsustainable, and the US public simply won’t have it. Antisemitism will rise to German levels in the US, American society will be convulsed in ways that will make the 60’s look like a picnic, and Israel will be finished. There are people in the establishment who see this and who will resist a march to war. The risks are just too high. So I don’t think a war with Iran this year (or next) is a forgone conclusion.
“War can only be postponed to the advantage of your enemy”
And for every day that the Empire delays an attack the harder it will be to actually do it. They’ve already delayed the war for seven years, so I think it’s already too late.
That’s my reading, anyway.
Peace
@Ishamid: if Iran can keep it closed for one month
Oh yes, that it can do. If Iran mines the SoH and uses its speedboats, subs and missiles to attack the minesweepers then there is no doubt in my mind that they can pretty much shut it down for a month.
20,000+ US deaths in a few months or less is unsustainable
But, that that is not going to happen. Re-opening the SoH will involve a lot of firepower and electronics, but not that many casualties, even though my guess is that some US forces will have to land on the Iranian cost, but they will be protected by A LOT of firepower.
Also, keep in mind that closing the SoH will really unite a good part of the planet against Iran. Because let’s be blunt here – closing the SoH is a way of taking the rest of the planet hostage, is it not? Why should somebody in China or Finland pay for more for gas because of a US attack on Iran? There will be a lot of very angry people and I am not at all sure that the anger will be directed at the USA, in particular if US servicemen die while trying to re-open the SoH.
So while I do think that the USA cannot win a war with Iran, neither do I think that the closure of the SoH would be a sound strategy for Iran. IMHO a MUCH better response would be to ride out the initial strike, and then make the US and or Israel pay hell politically. But that is only my 2cts, of course…
@Ishamid: Here is my nightmare scenario:
Day 1: US and/or Israel strike on Iran
Day 2: Iran fires missiles at Israel
Day 3: USA strikes Iranian missile forces
Day 4: Iran closes the SoH
Day 5: US goes to UNSC and obtains a UNSC authorizing “all necessary means” to reopen the SoH
Now what began as an illegal act of aggression turns overnight into a legal, UN sanctioned, Article 7 operation on behalf of the planet.
Do you see how toxic such a scenario is?
=================
Also, keep in mind that closing the SoH will really unite a good part of the planet against Iran.
=================
I’m not so sure. I think that China understands that these assassinations of scientists, embargoes etc are already acts of war. Note that we don’t — as far as I know — hear warnings from China that if Iran closes the Strait, they will join with the US etc. To the contrary, we seem to see a lot of resistance to an embargo, and I think the threat to close the Strait adds urgency to that resistance.
So actually, it’s the US and Israel that’s holding the world hostage, and I think the emerging markets see that.
I’m not 100% sure, but I think that riding out a US/Israeli strike is not wise on Iran’s part. It reinforces the narrative that the US can bomb whomsoever it wants at will, and encourages future aggression. No, I think Iran has calculated that is has to be ready to hit back, and hit back hard.
Here is another possibility: They may close the Strait to entering Nato warships. That seems to be something on their agenda, and it also alleviates your concern about “holding the planet hostage”. If Nato seeks to force its way in it will not be for safe passage for civilain tankers but for their own aggression, and makes for a better narrative on Iran’s part.
In any case, I can’t see any way Iran rides the current aggression out without a hard response. So I doubt this oil embargo will get very much traction in the short-to-mid term, in part because the emerging markets and East Asia won’t think it’s wise to call Iran’s bluff.
Of course, Russia make more money if the Straits are closed so we don’t hear much from Russia either ;-)
Peace
==================
Do you see how toxic such a scenario is?
==================
Yep, and if Iran survives, it could lead to a collapse of the international system much the way the League of Nations collapsed. The US manipulation of the UNSC is ultimately unsustainable.
My point is that the risks to the US are so significant and obvious that I’m not so sure they will pull the trigger too easily …
In any case, let’s hope and pray that there is no war at all…
Peace
@Ishamid:I think that China understands that these assassinations of scientists, embargoes etc are already acts of war
Sure, and so does everybody else. So right now, the USraelians are killing some scientists at the cost of pretty much openly being involved in international terrorism.
[speaking of which, listen to this fantastic song by David Rovics: http://soundclick.com/share.cfm?id=759503%5D
So right now the US and Israel look like the aggressors.
I’m not 100% sure, but I think that riding out a US/Israeli strike is not wise on Iran’s part. It reinforces the narrative that the US can bomb whomsoever it wants at will, and encourages future aggression.
Well, the US *can* bomb whomsoever it wants at will. The catch is that bombing does not mean ‘winning’, quite to the contrary. The US has pretty much lost all the wars it was involved in, the worst recent defeats being Iraq and Afghanistan. Amazingly, even that has not inhibited US aggression yet…
======================
It reinforces the narrative that the US can bomb whomsoever it wants at will, and encourages future aggression.
Well, the US *can* bomb whomsoever it wants at will.
======================
LOL … ok, let me be more precise:
It reinforces the narrative that the US can bomb whomsoever it wants at will, without immediate pain being inflicted upon it in return. This relates to the following:
======================
The US has pretty much lost all the wars it was involved in, the worst recent defeats being Iraq and Afghanistan.
======================
From the POV of the military-industrial complex (MIC), these wars have been victories. Not geo-political victories, for sure, but the MIC has done quite well for itself. In both Iraq and Afghanistan there was an initial sweep over the enemy, with few casualties, followed by a losing occupation over years, with the casualties dragged out. From a public-relations POV at home, that’s been politically manageable, and the MIC makes lots of money. So, eg, Bush got reelected in the face of it all.
But what if the target changed the script, as opposed to passively riding the script out? Then the risks for the aggressor dramatically increase. I think that’s Iran’s calculation. And it appears to me to be having some effect.
================
Amazingly, even that has not inhibited US aggression yet
================
Again, because the results have been politically manageable. But note how Ron Paul has been getting better numbers this time around, despite the media’s still laughing at him. Note that RP gets most of his support from — who else? — the troops fighting these wars.
You disagree — and I leave these discussions to the experts — but if enough military analysts thought, back in 2002 that a war with Iran could conceivably cost the US 20,000 dead in the first days of a Persian-Gulf war, then what can they expect now, given almost a decade of further Iranian preparation for being attacked?
So Iran’s strategy would appear to be to inflict as many casualties as early as possible, as opposed to passively being softened up or rolled over. Enough casualties early on, combined with destroying enough American hardware, would make a long war politically unsustainable and unmanageable at this juncture.
Despite their jingoism, even the must sheepish of the American public does not want to die for Israel. Americans — and even Europeans — are politically manageable in war to the degree they they don’t have to sacrifice too much. Taming Iran will simply cost too much, and will not follow the past script. Iran’s strategy appears to be to make sure that this point gets across. Threatening to preemptively close the Strait is part of changing the script. They are not going to just wait, a la stupid Saddam — twice! –, for the US to decide the date of its attack.
There is a reasonable chance that Iran may bar foreign warships from entering the Strait if this economic/covet war goes much further. Then, if Iran can put up an initial fight for, say, three months and inflict serious casualties in human and material resources, it will be a loss back in the US because the echelons of power will not be able to politically manage the fallout for too long. Totally dfferent from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Again, I’m no expert in these matters like yourself. And again, let’s pray for
Peace
The threat alone to sink a ship is enough to effectively close the straits. Insurance rates would be to high to ship oil from the straits.