[mekrob]

I don't see your point about a wargame from years ago. You don't think that the US navy would get a little bit more agressive if our lifeline was on the line?

[Petrodollar]

I serioiusly doubt that Iran would retaliate against SA and other Arab states. They want the world's sympathy if bombed, not animosity. Iran's interests would not be served by attacking SA et al. In fact, Iran has never said it would attack SA if hostilities were to break-out. Israel maybe, and that's a maybe - but not other states.

Blocking the strait? Perhaps, accidents can and do happen in war - and we witnessed this during the 1980-1988 Iraq-Iran war.

On the other hand, the US war games have suggested that the 60% shi'ite population in Iraq could rise up in protest at an attack against an unprovoked US bombing raid in Iran. That would put the US military in Iraq in an uncontrollable situation. That is the real risk from a tactical perspective, according to US war games conducted by Col. Sam Gardner (ret.)

Let's hope diplomacy and sanity will prevail...

[mekrob]

Maybe Iran wouldn't directly attack other Gulf states, but they have plenty of sympathizers (or just America haters) in the region that would take the opportunity to wreck havoc upon the West, not to mention their fellow Shi'a brothers in the West of Saudi Arabia and South of Iraq.

[Geko45]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Petrodollar', 'L')et's hope diplomacy and sanity will prevail...

[DantesPeak]

Let’s look at what actually happened in the 1980s.
Small Iranian speed boats dropped mines in areas where oil tankers usually traveled. A number hit their mark and exploded, and although the damage caused was not always serious, insurance companies started charging a $5 insurance premium per barrel. The US eventually ‘flagged’ Kuwaiti tankers with the US flag, and also had the US Navy follow tankers up and down the Gulf.

I suppose now, with any actual conflict, would cause insurance companies to stop all tanker traffic, at least temporary. If we then fall back to random acts of terrorism like in the 1980s, it may be reasonable to assume that insurance premiums may go to $10 per barrel.

What is most worrying is the threat of terrorism not under the state control of Iran – such as a local missile attack on Abqaiq.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')ednesday, May 17, 2006

LATE NEWS: Al Qaeda intent on attacking US oil facilities

By Khalid Hasan

WASHINGTON: A leading expert on Al Qaeda has predicted that in the next phase of the terrorist group’s war on the US economy, the number of attacks on oil infrastructure targets will increase.

Michael Scheuer, who served the CIA for 11 years and was head of the agency’s Osama Bin Laden unit, told a meeting on the threat to Saudi oil industry, organised by the Jamestown Foundation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace on Monday that Al Qaeda and its allies are well placed throughout the Persian Gulf to attack oil facilities and officials.

[mekrob]

I think another very devastating blow would be to hit gasoline trucks, pipelines, wells, and refineries inside the US. That would really strike a nerve psychologically as well as economically. This is in addition to attacks within the Middle East and Central Asia. This is something al-qa'ida is probably looking into very carefully, I think.

[americandream]

Whats the bet that there will NOT ( as in never) be a face off (of any value to joe bloggs in the street) with Iran...or China...or Russia or Osama Bin Larden or Aytollah watsisname a dooodle or whichever of these clowns (East to West) are running this planetary farce we call civilisation........

These boys are simply arguing over who holds the wheel .....the rest of us ordinary buggers in the meantime shovel the coal........hahahahahaha.............

[DesertBear2]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pea-jay', 'w')hich may explain why we are still talking to Iran instead of bombing them. I get the impression that if we could have handled the blowback from a bombing run we would have done so already.

[XOVERX]

The idea that Iran would not attack oil infrastructure outside of Iran is foolhardiness in the extreme.

Sadam Hussein didn't mind much leaving Kuwait a smoking mess in 1990. Billions of barrels of oil up in smoke. Over a period of weeks and weeks. And he tried to reach Saudi too, but couldn't quite get his Scuds there.

Luckily after a decade of sanctions, Iraq was too enfeebled militarily to do much when the neocons made the USA into a jaggernaut warmongering nation under George W. Bush. Iran has no such limitations.

What makes anybody think Iran will give a rat's ass about "sympathy" anyway, when the USA unleashes the dogs of war? I'm thinking, ah . . . no. The Iranians will want revenge, do not doubt otherwise.

Good god, people, think. It's precisely this kind of muddled thinking that is leading the USA, and the world, into the abyss. It will be artificial Peak Oil if Iran does in fact destroy significant amounts of ME oil infrastructure. This is self-evident.

[MacG]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mekrob', 'I') don't see your point about a wargame from years ago. You don't think that the US navy would get a little bit more agressive if our lifeline was on the line?

[grabby]

The monkey is gone, great.

If Iran makes move against any oil anywhere else, they will most thouroghly have their own oil capability be removed permanently in about 25 minutes.

[DesertBear2]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('grabby', '
')If Iran makes move against any oil anywhere else, they will most thouroghly have their own oil capability be removed permanently in about 25 minutes.

[BrazilianPO]

Reading all the posts here, I am convinced that we are on the brink of an oil shortage in the world. Iran would NEVER play this nuclear card back in the 80's. They would have been wiped off almost instantly. The point is that now all governments see that the oil situation is critical, and they thus prefer to do nothing now and let Iran alone than to risk a war and see 4mbpd go down the drain.

Initially, I really believed in a war, but now I am starting to believe Europe and US will let Iran alone. Iran's oil is a deterrent as good as North Korea's nukes. The US played chicken with Iran and turned. Who would guess that?

Oil = nukes? The situation is very serious.

[SoothSayer]

The carrier groups are vulnerable. Targets. It does not matter how "agressive" they are, they are easily sunken by missiles. Just send enough missiles at the same time and saturate the defense systems.

Hmm - the Russians planned to attack US carrier groups with massed Backfire bomber attacks, where the Backfires launched nuclear warhead anti-shipping missiles.



Can Iran put up a large number of modern aircraft firing many anti-shipping missiles? I doubt it.

Sure, they might launch one or two missiles and maybe, just maybe sink a few ships - especially if they are clever and launch from small fishing boats or do something else unexpected.

However, one or two lucky shots won't stop an American fleet.

[MacG]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SoothSayer', 'C')an Iran put up a large number of modern aircraft firing many anti-shipping missiles? I doubt it.

Sure, they might launch one or two missiles and maybe, just maybe sink a few ships - especially if they are clever and launch from small fishing boats or do something else unexpected.

However, one or two lucky shots won't stop an American fleet.

[SoothSayer]

*Yawn*

I would have expected that sort of response from one of the ill-educated adolescent Conspiracy Theorists here .... but certainly NOT from a Scandinavian with a PhD.

[mekrob]

I did read the article (well the first half but got the point). That argument you are making is pretty moot. Sure they can destroy a few of our ships, but did the USS Cole sink? Or did it just sustain repairable damage?

You can be rest assured that if and when a few of our battleships, cruisers, subs, etc are sunk during a/the war with Iran, that everything near the coast or in the waters of Iranian material will be destroyed almost instantly. Guerrila tactics will continue throughout (RPGs, small missiles, rockets) and will target the US Navy and the tankers alike, but the vast majority (80-90%) of the tankers will make it through.

When I say the vast majority of tankers, I mean of those that go through which would probably just be a small portion of the current tanker fleet that flows through.

The point is, that if we do go to war, the US will HAVE to defend the Straits for tanker traffic at whatever the cost. Because if we lose that battle, then the US is sunk (haha). And you're forgetting. This is the US. We are fucking retards. We send out tanks to fight a guerilla war. We elected George Bush! We won't care if it's idiotic, we'll send our ENTIRE fleet to protect 'our' oil.

[DesertBear2]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mekrob', ' ')This is the US. We are fucking retards. We send out tanks to fight a guerilla war. We elected George Bush! We won't care if it's idiotic, we'll send our ENTIRE fleet to protect 'our' oil.

[mekrob]

Save us Jeeebbbbuuuuusssss!

[UncoveringTruths]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')ASHINGTON (Reuters) - Halting Iran's nuclear ambitions is more important than preventing high crude oil prices, U.S. Energy Secretary Sam Bodman said on Tuesday.

"We are as prepared as we can be" for a disruption of Iranian oil exports, Bodman told reporters. "As important as the price of oil is, (stopping Iranian nuclear enrichment is) more important than the price of oil."