U.S. warns merchant ships of possible Iranian attacks; cleric threatens U.S. fleet

[rooster59]

U.S. warns merchant ships of possible Iranian attacks; cleric threatens U.S. fleet

 

The Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln transits the Suez Canal in Egypt, May 9, 2019. Picture taken May 9, 2019. Dan Snow/U.S. Navy/Handout via REUTERS

 

LONDON/DUBAI (Reuters) - Iran could target U.S. commercial ships including oil tankers, the U.S. Maritime Administration said on Friday, as a senior Iranian cleric said a U.S. Navy fleet could be "destroyed with one missile."

 

In the latest tense exchange between Tehran and Washington, Iran's hardline Revolutionary Guards separately said Iran would not negotiate with the United States, a stance that seemed partly aimed at discouraging Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and his moderate allies from taking up a U.S. offer of talks.

 

U.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday urged Iran's leaders talk with him about giving up their nuclear program and said he could not rule out a military confrontation.

 

Trump made the offer as he increased economic and military pressure on Iran, moving to cut off all Iranian oil exports this month while beefing up the U.S. Navy and Air Force presence in the Gulf. Acting U.S. Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan approved a new deployment of Patriot missiles to the Middle East, a U.S. official told Reuters on Friday.

 

The U.S. aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln, deployed as a warning to Iran, passed through Egypt's Suez Canal on Thursday and American B-52 bombers have also arrived at a U.S. base in Qatar, U.S. Central Command said.

 

Iran has dismissed both moves - which the United States said it took after U.S. intelligence signalled possible preparations by Tehran to attack U.S. forces or interests - as "psychological warfare" designed to intimidate it.

 

In an advisory posted on Thursday, the U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD) said that since early May there had been an increased possibility of Iran or its regional proxies taking action against U.S. and partner interests.

 

These included, MARAD said, oil production infrastructure, after Tehran threatened to close the vital Strait of Hormuz chokepoint through which about a fifth of oil consumed globally passes.

 

"Iran or its proxies could respond by targeting commercial vessels, including oil tankers, or U.S. military vessels in the Red Sea, Bab-el-Mandeb Strait, or the Persian Gulf," MARAD said.

 

"Reporting indicates heightened Iranian readiness to conduct offensive operations against U.S. forces and interests."

 

HEATED RHETORIC

 

Millions of barrels of oil pass daily through the various bottlenecks from Middle East oil producers to global markets.

 

U.S.-Iranian tensions have risen since Trump withdrew a year ago from a 2015 nuclear deal with Iran and major powers and began ratcheting up sanctions to throttle Tehran's economy.

 

Vice Admiral Jim Malloy, commander of the U.S. Navy's Bahrain-based Fifth Fleet, told Reuters on Thursday its forces were on a heightened state of readiness, although the U.S. military was not seeking or preparing for war with Iran.

 

MARAD said U.S.-flagged ships were encouraged to contact the Fifth Fleet at least two days before sailing through the Strait of Hormuz. The fleet's job is to protect commercial shipping in the area.

 

Washington further tightened sanctions on Iran this month - eliminating waivers that had allowed some countries to buy its oil - with a goal of reducing Tehran's crude exports to zero.

 

Iran responded by relaxing some curbs on its nuclear program concerning material stockpiles but continues to comply with commitments to restrict its uranium enrichment activity.

 

Rhetoric has grown heated on both sides.

 

The semi-official ISNA news agency quoted hardliner Ayatollah Tabatabai-Nejad in the city of Isfahan as saying: "Their billion(-dollar) fleet can be destroyed with one missile.

 

"If they attempt any move, they will ... (face) dozens of missiles because at that time (government) officials won't be in charge to act cautiously, but instead things will be in the hands of our beloved leader (Ayatollah Ali Khamenei)," he said.

 

'SANCTIONS HAVE NO EFFECT!'

 

Separately, Yadollah Javani, the elite Revolutionary Guards' deputy head for political affairs, said: "No talks will be held with the Americans, and the Americans will not dare take military action against us."

 

"Our nation ... sees America as unreliable," he said, according to the semi-official Tasnim news agency, echoing a stance Iran has taken since the U.S. withdrawal from the 2015 deal under which Iran curbed its nuclear program in return for relief from economic sanctions.

 

Thousands of Iranians took part in state-sponsored marches on Friday to support the government's decision to reduce limits on its nuclear program. Iran has threatened to go further if other parties to the deal - Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia - fail to shield it from U.S. sanctions.

 

State TV showed protesters marching after Friday prayers in Tehran and said similar marches had been held across Iran.

"America should know, sanctions have no effect!" chanted the protesters.

 

For a graphic on the Iran nuclear deal, click:

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-05-11

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[geoffbezoz]

Oh dear, this could go the complete opposite way to which Trump had hoped.

[Tug]

If I were Iran I would be very very carefull Donald is desperate for a distraction and on a side note I hope Donald isent dumb enough to send a carrier task force past the straights of Hormuz that’s pretty confined for a carrier task force 

[geoffbezoz]

Just now, Tug said:

If I were Iran I would be very very carefull Donald is desperate for a distraction and on a side note I hope Donald isent dumb enough to send a carrier task force past the straights of Hormuz that’s pretty confined for a carrier task force 

But that's the point isn't it ? He really is dumb enough to do anything.

[wayned]

10 minutes ago, geoffbezoz said:

But that's the point isn't it ? He really is dumb enough to do anything.

And he is being advised to do it by his two war monger advisers, Pompeo and Bolton,  who need to take a vacation to a country where euthanasia is legal and check themselves into a fast track program.

[watcharacters]

11 minutes ago, geoffbezoz said:

But that's the point isn't it ? He really is dumb enough to do anything.

 

 

A war or major conflict would certainly distract attention from his domestic issues.

 

 

[bristolboy]

37 minutes ago, watcharacters said:

 

 

A war or major conflict would certainly distract attention from his domestic issues.

 

 

I don't think this one would be popular, though. Iraq is still too fresh in most Americans' memories. And if Iran managed to shut down the straits, that would be devastating to the world economy.

[rabas]

2 hours ago, geoffbezoz said:

Oh dear, this could go the complete opposite way to which Trump had hoped.

 

Protecting the Straits of Hormuz from Iranian closer is not a Trump issue. It's been a strategic Western alliance initiative since at least the 60s. Iran will find no sympathy throughout the world except from its one supporter Mr. Putin and his surrogates North Korea and Venezuela, and to a lesser extent US democrats. Even China will cooperate as they import far more oil from the Persian Gulf than the US.  Not even Arab oil exporting states want the straits closed.

 

Dangerous stuff? Yes, very, especially since Putin is becoming more unhinged. Surely he's not thrilled his lover Donald keeps trashing his every global initiative from Iran, Syria, Venezuela, North Korea, Ukraine, and the Russian economy, plus belittling his coveted S200/S300 missiles.

Edited May 11, 2019 by rabas

[geoffbezoz]

5 minutes ago, rabas said:

 

Protecting the Straits of Hormuz from Iranian closer is not a Trump issue. It's been a strategic Western alliance initiative since at least the 60s. Iran will find no sympathy throughout the world except from its one supporter Mr. Putin and his surrogates North Korea and Venezuela, and to a lesser extent US democrats. Even China will cooperate as they import far more oil from the Persian Gulf than the US.  Not even Arab oil exporting states want the straits closed.

 

Dangerous stuff? Yes, very, especially since Putin is becoming more unhinged. Surely he's not thrilled his lover Donald keeps trashing his every global initiative from Iran, Syria, Venezuela, North Korea, Ukraine, and the Russian economy, plus belittling his coveted S200/S300 missiles.

But Iran simultaenously  sending one of their own tankers thro' Suez and sinking it with devastating environmental impact that would necessitate closure of the canal ,  together with another of their own fully loaded tankers, with many hundreds of tons of conventional explosives detonated near any US shipping that approached them or could get near to in the Straits of Homuz , would create quite an impact.

[bristolboy]

15 minutes ago, rabas said:

 

Protecting the Straits of Hormuz from Iranian closer is not a Trump issue. It's been a strategic Western alliance initiative since at least the 60s. Iran will find no sympathy throughout the world except from its one supporter Mr. Putin and his surrogates North Korea and Venezuela, and to a lesser extent US democrats. Even China will cooperate as they import far more oil from the Persian Gulf than the US.  Not even Arab oil exporting states want the straits closed.

 

Dangerous stuff? Yes, very, especially since Putin is becoming more unhinged. Surely he's not thrilled his lover Donald keeps trashing his every global initiative from Iran, Syria, Venezuela, North Korea, Ukraine, and the Russian economy, plus belittling his coveted S200/S300 missiles.

So making threatening noises against Iraq is the Trump adminstration's way of protecting the Straits? Incite a threat and then oppose it? Maybe it's better not to have made those threats in the first place.

[Brickbat]

The Masters of War can portray any spin they want. Most folks too dumb to understand and rally behind the puppet. In this case, Donny

[impulse]

This is like deja vu.  And not the good kind.  Someone is still itching for a war with Iran.  And they've managed to worm their way into positions that may allow them to have their creamy dream.

 

 

[wayned]

10 minutes ago, impulse said:

Someone is still itching for a war with Iran

That someone is definitely Bolton and has backing from Pompeo.  Bolton has promoted war with Iran and North Korea foe years!

[impulse]

2 minutes ago, wayned said:

15 minutes ago, impulse said:

Someone is still itching for a war with Iran

That someone is definitely Bolton and has backing from Pompeo.  Bolton has promoted war with Iran and North Korea foe years!

 

He's the public face, for sure.  But I think it runs much deeper.

 

[spidermike007]

Trump may be way over his head on this one. First, he is harming the world economy, at a time when he has failed dismally with Chinese trade negotiations. This will drive up oil prices, at a time when that is just not needed. Gasoline is already $4.50 a gallon in Southern California. Second, he just does not know what he is dealing with, in regard to Iran. They could seriously hurt the US. In a very big way. If provoked too hard, they might retaliate. They have tremendous cyber capabilities. It is possible they are good enough to cripple the entire Pentagon satellite system. They have billions to spend, they could resort to selling their oil on the black market, to continue to fund a war of terror against mainland USA, and they could create the kind of havoc the US has never seen. If this ever broke out into all out war, the Iranians could end up costing the US trillions. They would farm out terror to the lowest bidder. They are not to be underestimated. Something Trump regularly does. And something the US has been doing for decades with its adversaries. Just look at Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Some of the adventures the US has been involved in lately. How have they worked out? And with a men as inferior, as dull, and as non visionary as Pompeo and Bolton, he has alot to fear.

[Boon Mee]

4 hours ago, watcharacters said:

 

 

A war or major conflict would certainly distract attention from his domestic issues.

 

 

HIs domestic issues? 

Reckon Comey and the Democrats are the ones who have serious legal issues. 

[Morch]

I think MARAD is obligated to issue such advisory statements under certain conditions. Unless mistaken such statements relate to insurance and liability issues, operation costs and that sort of thing. Doubt any of the big firms operating in the region is unaware of the situation, implications and risks.

 

And while Iran blocking the Strait of Hormuz is quite the sexy bogeyman, the likelihood of it happening is rather on the low side. Going down this path will cripple Iran as well, while destroying whatever shreds of actual international support it gets. Pretty much a carte blanche for the US to do as it will. Obviously, the odd zealot/idiot cannot be ruled out, and the same goes for unintended events, but still, more of posturing thing than anything else.

 

Russia gets yet another gift from the Donald - can play opposition (short of actual confrontation) and even enjoy some economic gains that come with Iran's oil industry being hamstrung.

[Morch]

55 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

Trump may be way over his head on this one. First, he is harming the world economy, at a time when he has failed dismally with Chinese trade negotiations. This will drive up oil prices, at a time when that is just not needed. Gasoline is already $4.50 a gallon in Southern California. Second, he just does not know what he is dealing with, in regard to Iran. They could seriously hurt the US. In a very big way. If provoked too hard, they might retaliate. They have tremendous cyber capabilities. It is possible they are good enough to cripple the entire Pentagon satellite system. They have billions to spend, they could resort to selling their oil on the black market, to continue to fund a war of terror against mainland USA, and they could create the kind of havoc the US has never seen. If this ever broke out into all out war, the Iranians could end up costing the US trillions. They would farm out terror to the lowest bidder. They are not to be underestimated. Something Trump regularly does. And something the US has been doing for decades with its adversaries. Just look at Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Some of the adventures the US has been involved in lately. How have they worked out? And with a men as inferior, as dull, and as non visionary as Pompeo and Bolton, he has alot to fear.

 

Exaggerating Iran's retaliatory capabilities is not needed in order to make the correct proposition about getting involved in a lengthy, goal-muddled campaign. Echos of the scaremongering aired prior to the two Iraq wars. The military operations phase was rather one-sided, on both occasions. It's the aftermath that's the issue.

[Srikcir]

6 hours ago, rooster59 said:

U.S. warns merchant ships of possible Iranian attacks

A military response looking for an excuse.

Same as we saw with Iraq during Sadaam's regime.

Realize that the Iranian navy and air force have the right of navigation through the strait. Just as do all other nations.

The US cannot legally prevent the Iranian navy from such passage unless attacked.

The Iranian navy and air force also has the right to conduct war games within its territorial waters bordering the strait, such as firing missiles that remain within sovereign Iranian territory.

But with US war rhetoric, the stage is being set for a trigger-finger US strike against a perceived Iranian navy threat where there is none.  

[soalbundy]

5 hours ago, geoffbezoz said:

Oh dear, this could go the complete opposite way to which Trump had hoped.

especially if the Chinese have secretly sold Iran carrier killing missiles, a little payback for sanctions.

[Morch]

21 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

A military response looking for an excuse.

Same as we saw with Iraq during Sadaam's regime.

Realize that the Iranian navy and air force have the right of navigation through the strait. Just as do all other nations.

The US cannot legally prevent the Iranian navy from such passage unless attacked.

The Iranian navy and air force also has the right to conduct war games within its territorial waters bordering the strait, such as firing missiles that remain within sovereign Iranian territory.

But with US war rhetoric, the stage is being set for a trigger-finger US strike against a perceived Iranian navy threat where there is none.  

 

"....where there is none."

 

I think that there is an actual threat. That it gets more realistic following US actions and statements is true, but it's not as if Iran isn't contributing to the flames. Then there was the Tanker War phase of the Iran-Iraq War.

[Morch]

18 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

especially if the Chinese have secretly sold Iran carrier killing missiles, a little payback for sanctions.

 

I don't think the Chinese are into cutting off the nose to spite the face thing. A major flare up in the Gulf risks disruption of oil exports and production, of which China is a major buyer. Plus, the minute the cat is out the bag, them trade talks with the US might become even more troublesome.

[rabas]

1 hour ago, impulse said:

1 hour ago, wayned said:

1 hour ago, impulse said:

Someone is still itching for a war with Iran

That someone is definitely Bolton and has backing from Pompeo.  Bolton has promoted war with Iran and North Korea foe years!

He's the public face, for sure.  But I think it runs much deeper.

 

If Iran attempts to block the Strait of Hormuz or block the Suez Canal, as someone mentioned above (a  possibility), that will only happen with direct support or orders from Vladimir Putin. Iran is Russia's no 1 puppet. The West (including China) needs peaceful, continual flows of energy at competitive prices, which is Putin's worst nightmare. Putin needs to sell lots of oil at high price to keep his 3rd world economy afloat. That's a shame as most Russians are very fine people, and so are many Irani.

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, rabas said:

 

If Iran attempts to block the Strait of Hormuz or block the Suez Canal, as someone mentioned above (a  possibility), that will only happen with direct support or orders from Vladimir Putin. Iran is Russia's no 1 puppet. The West (including China) needs peaceful, continual flows of energy at competitive prices, which is Putin's worst nightmare. Putin needs to sell lots of oil at high price to keep his 3rd world economy afloat. That's a shame as most Russians are very fine people, and so are many Irani.

 

I somehow doubt you could support that Iran is "Russia's no 1 puppet". Even the Syrian regime, which is a more serious contender for such a title, doesn't always do as Russia expects or instructs. Influence among countries is often less "direct" than portrayed.

 

If the argument above was that Iran (with Russia's support or on Russia's bidding) would block maritime passage in critical spots, disrupting global trade and thus facing international condemnation, a probable harsh military response, while hurting its own economy - then sorry, can't see how that even remotely makes sense from Iran's point of view.

[RJRS1301]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Exaggerating Iran's retaliatory capabilities is not needed in order to make the correct proposition about getting involved in a lengthy, goal-muddled campaign. Echos of the scaremongering aired prior to the two Iraq wars. The military operations phase was rather one-sided, on both occasions. It's the aftermath that's the issue.

Of courseOf  all forays into the Middle East by the west have been so short and successful in the past#####

Should we mention Afghanistan?

 

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

Of courseOf  all forays into the Middle East by the west have been so short and successful in the past#####

Should we mention Afghanistan?

 

 

Pretty much addressed the point in the post and previous ones.

US forces do not seem to have much issues when it comes to the initial military confrontation, or dealing with the other side's retaliation. Things change when this phase is over, and the whole country building, peace keeping, insurgency bits come up. 

[spidermike007]

What are the end goals with regard to Iran? We encouraged the formation of democracy in Egypt, Libya and Algeria. How is that working out? We did the same in Iraq and Afghanistan. Do they even want our democracy? Are they ready for it, within the region? Is it worth the $7billion or so we have spent, the thousands of American and allied lives, and the hundreds of thousands of civilian lives that have been lost in the battle? Long term prospects for the region? What are they? 

 

Even Israel, which calls itself a democracy, is at best an apartheid state, that suppresses it's non Jewish population with an iron fist. We encouraged democracy in Cambodia and Burma. How is that working out? Autocratic, multi billionaire serial killing strongmen in both nations, though Burma still poses as a democracy, and most liberals buy into it.

 

The US has horrific foreign policy. It has for decades now. And with bullies and dimwits like Bolton and Pompeo in charge of foreign policy, and Trump at the helm, the US is completely lost. 

[55Jay]

IMO, the aw shit turning point in this scenario isn't mobilizing US assets INTO the Gulf, including the big show of landing B52s on Qatar.  Nope.  Too close. 

 

It's when you see them moving OUT of the Gulf.  CENTCOM FWD on Qatar, and the 5th Fleet/COMUSNAVCENT on Bahrain in particular, are within slingshot range of Iran.

 

5th Fleet Admiral/staff will designate a temporary flag ship and mobilize to sea.  USN will fight from stand off positions in the N. Arabian Sea/near-Indian Ocean, taking out Iran's missile batteries and Naval assets/logistics/facilities in and around the Straits and coastline.  US air strikes and resupply from Diego Garcia and other Near-Asian footprints, Eastern Med/Middle East positions, as well as minor APODS and SPODS along the NAS/IO coast, Djibouti. Kenya, etc.  Fujairah, Oman are (closer in) beachheads with airfields, and are also backdoor land-side routes into UAE if the Strait is fouled/mined. 

 

Iran talks a lot of s**t but they also tend to *blink* first.

 

Wild cards being response/actions from Russia and China.

[JulesMad]

Good old policy of fear is usa's favorite policy; domestic and international... For any issue trumpy and/or usa does not like!

[geoffbezoz]

5 minutes ago, 55Jay said:

IMO, the aw shit turning point in this scenario isn't mobilizing US assets INTO the Gulf, including the big show of landing B52s on Qatar.  Nope.  Too close. 

 

It's when you see them moving OUT of the Gulf.  CENTCOM FWD on Qatar, and the 5th Fleet/COMUSNAVCENT on Bahrain in particular, are within slingshot range of Iran.

 

5th Fleet Admiral/staff will designate a temporary flag ship and mobilize to sea.  USN will fight from stand off positions in the N. Arabian Sea/near-Indian Ocean, taking out Iran's missile batteries and Naval assets/logistics/facilities in and around the Straits and coastline.  US air strikes and resupply from Diego Garcia and other Near-Asian footprints, Eastern Med/Middle East positions, as well as minor APODS and SPODS along the NAS/IO coast, Djibouti. Kenya, etc.  Fujairah, Oman are (closer in) beachheads with airfields, and are also backdoor land-side routes into UAE if the Strait is fouled/mined. 

 

Iran talks a lot of s**t but they also tend to *blink* first.

 

Wild cards being response/actions from Russia and China.

Why have you just published, for Iran to read, the USN secret war plans ?  ????????????  or is it you  are just providing some back fill for the next Clancy book ?

Edited May 11, 2019 by geoffbezoz