Iran Threatens to Block Oil Shipments, as U.S. Prepares Sanctions

[kristopher]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by NancyBlueINOklahoma (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).

WASHINGTON — A senior Iranian official on Tuesday delivered a sharp threat in response to economic sanctions being readied by the United States, saying his country would retaliate against any crackdown by blocking all oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital artery for transporting about one-fifth of the world’s oil supply.

The declaration by Iran’s first vice president, Mohammad-Reza Rahimi, came as President Obama prepares to sign legislation that, if fully implemented, could substantially reduce Iran’s oil revenue in a bid to deter it from pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

Prior to the latest move, the administration had been laying the groundwork to attempt to cut off Iran from global energy markets without raising the price of gasoline or alienating some of Washington’s closest allies.

Apparently fearful of the expanded sanctions’ possible impact on the already-stressed economy of Iran, the world’s third-largest energy exporter, Mr. Rahimi said, “If they impose sanctions on Iran’s oil exports, then even one drop of oil cannot flow from the Strait of Hormuz,” according to Iran’s official news agency. Iran just began a 10-day naval exercise in the area.

In recent...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/28/world/middleeast/iran-threatens-to-block-oil-route-if-embargo-is-imposed.html

[msongs]

1. US economic sanctions are just like a blockade, which is an act of war itself nt

[bananas]

7. Good point - Iran's blockade will be an overt act of war

Iran would rather start a war than comply with its IAEA agreements.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade

...
A blockade should not be confused with
an embargo or sanctions , which are legal
barriers to trade
...
A blockade is defined by the Encyclopædia
Britannica as "an act of war by which a
belligerent prevents access to or departure from
a defined part of the enemy’s coasts."
...

[Hugabear]

11. How exactly would Iran be "starting" the war?

Iran has done NOTHING.

The US, on the other hand, has blatantly violated Iranian sovereignty by flying drone spy craft over Iranian territory. The US is the one organizing this economic blockade against Iran.

For what? Because of some dubious claim that Iran is developing nuclear weapons? Isn't this the exact same rationale that lead to us invading Iraq? How smooth did that go?

[Ruby the Liberal]

14. Depends. Whose oil are they threatening to block

and what will the rightful countries/owners do if their cargo and staff are harmed in the process?

[kristopher]

15. This is nothing like Iraq.

Bananas gave a reasonable explanation, if you don't accept it, that is up to you but it does reference where the recognized line of acceptable national behavior is.

It was our blockade of Japanese oil shipping in 1941 that provoked the attack on Pearl Harbor.

[TheWraith]

29. No. Please check history.

There was no "blockade of Japanese oil shipping." The US stopped exporting oil to Japan, partly due to new domestic consumption requirements. Not selling someone something is not the same thing as an act of war.

The reason for the attack on Pearl Harbor was that the Japanese assumed the US would automatically intervene once Japan began seizing European colonies in the Pacific Islands, and therefore they wanted to establish military supremacy by crippling the US Pacific Fleet. Which was actually a misreading on their part, because there was no will in the US to go to war with Japan over island colonies--isolationism was still too strong.

[kristopher]

38. Correct - no blockade. But one had been proposed ...

It was fuzzy, the blockade had been sought by FDR about a year earlier and the fleet commander refused to participate. Roosevelt was trying to use the Japanese to enter the war in Europe.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1842&dat=19451121&id=FRksAAAAIBAJ&sjid=dsYEAAAAIBAJ&pg=877,2011312

Your recital of reason why they went to war, however needs expansion. They saw the embargo as a prelude to a full blockade. Their position was that they were doing nothing the west had not engaged in with their own colonial march around the globe. They were already at war in China and were receiving unrelenting criticism for their campaign there. However to date they were not impeded by concerns over the US intervention particularly, except, as you say, if they attacked other colonial powers.

Since that was not something they had intentions of doing as a basic part of their China campaign, if left to their own plans it is unlikely they would have challenged the British and Dutch in the region. When the embargo was imposed they had a limited supply of oil reserves (8 months IIRC) and their military was split. One camp felt the best course was to proceed with their campaign as they had been and work it out diplomatically, to not be concerned about the US. However the other argued that the limited oil supply meant that it was better to choose their fight, make it one on their terms; meaning they had to go for the oil fields in SE Asia. Since they were near unanimous in their expectation that a full blockade would follow the embargo should they not pull out of China, and since they felt that they both had to have resources and that they had rights to act in a colonial fashion to expropriate the wealth of China, the rest is history.

NYT:
Blockade of Japan in 1940 Considered by Roosevelt; Admiral Says He Opposed It: Called Act of War: Richardson Says He Was Amazed, Warned of Big Ship Loss: Fleet Held Unprepared: Committee Gets Knox, Stimson Letters of 1941 on Need of Strengthening Pearl Harbor
http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/1120.html

[krucial]

26. Act of War

Flying drones over Iran was an act of war,but yet still the US is claiming that Iran is the one that is provoking the US?
I wonder how they say that with a straight face?
Iran would be in their right to retaliate against us for invading their airspace,in that act of war by flying a drone in their space,everyone here know that it is more than likely,that there would be massive response of retaliation on Iran,if the situation was reversed and Iran had flown a drone over any US Air space.
Sad thing is many Americans see themselves as being right all the time,no matter we do to and against others,but when if these try to do the same to us,we get all bent out of shape and want Bomb them back to the stone age

[TheWraith]

30. Economic sanctions are not a blockade.

You fundamentally do not understand the definition of blockade. Sanctions aren't it, nor are sanctions--which is fundamentally the refusal to trade with someone--the same as an act of war.

Also, drone flights do NOT constitute an act of war under international law.

[polly7]

12. pffffffft.

[orpupilofnature57]

2. We've become spectators to our and other governments, Allies

WE'RE supposed to be the goverments allies ,instead most of us 99% ,are the Victims.

[sabrina 1]

3. Every action has a reaction. Too bad our foreign policy is all about brutality and violence.

Then we whine when other countries respond.

As if this should not have been predicted. Biting of your nose to spite your face is not good foreign policy.

When will this country rid itself of the PNAC policies that have dragged it into the gutter?

We are now alienated from Pakistan, threatening to cut off funding, when Pakistan has always been divided about accepting such funding.

So we kill their innocent civilians, then kill their soldiers, and wonder why they don't like us.

Now, the US has finally reigned in the CIA drone killers, a bit late. As Pakistan strengthens its ties with China.

If someone doesn't stop these failed and criminal policies of invading every country in the ME and Africa, the stage appears to be setting for WW111. China and Russia, now Pakistan all with nukes, and soon Iran, aligning against us and Europe, or part of Europe which is falling apart right now.

The world is in the hands of morons

[bananas]

33. This isn't about PNAC - Wesley Clark said Obama is doing exactly the right thing.

Wesley Clark, former Democratic presidential candidate, former Supreme Commander of NATO, said Obama has to take this as far as the Iranian's want to go.

This is what Obama unanimously won the Nobel Peace Prize for - his commitment to stopping nuclear proliferation. If Obama backs down, every country will see the IAEA and NPT as ineffectual and will pursue nuclear weapons. Then it will only be a matter of time before they are used.

Iran is in the wrong - they are not complying with their IAEA agreements, they have threatened to attack Turkey, and now they are threatening a blockade.

[sabrina 1]

37. And who gave the US the right to tell other countries what weapons they may or not have

considering we are the only ones who have ever used Nuclear weapons and an awful lot of other countries would feel a lot safer if we did not have them?? Are we King of the World now? Have you ever been outside this country and heard what people around the world think of us at this point in time?

Iran has every right to have whatever weapons we have, or Russia, or China, or N. Korea have.

Sorry, Clark does not get to make rules for other countries either. Maybe if we just brought our bombs and WMDS and troops home and took care of our own dying country, we would not have to worry about what other countries are doing.

Iran has not threatened this country. Nor had Iraq, nor Afghanistan, nor Libya, nor Pakistan, or any of the countries we are currently killing people in.

How many countries is Iran attacking btw?

I had a conversation with Wesley Clark in which I asked him if he though that we should include countries like Iran in helping us get out of Iraq, I still have his response to me somewhere. He said 'absolutely' that our best bet on foreign policy was to use diplomatic means rather than what we have been doing.

But Bush was president then. I'm beginning to think that the Democrats' principles are as situational as Republicans.

I really don't care what public figures have to say. I lost respect for all of them long ago, as have most people. Leave other countries alone or do not whine when there is blowback.

[demosincebirth]

4. Just think what would happen if Iran tried to blockade one half of the worlds oil supply?

[creeksneakers2]

18. It wouldn't last long

This scenario has probably been war gamed hundreds of times.

[Old and In the Way]

32. I wouldn't want to be a crewman in the 5th Fleet.

If war breaks out. You're right, it might not last long. The war could be over in minutes...in the Persian Gulf. If the Fleet is inside the Straits of Hormuz, the distance is anywhere from 30 miles to 200 miles at it's widest point. Our anti-missile defenses will have to be perfect because, if Iran decides to launch one...they are going to launch everything.

http://www.theburningplatform.com/?tag=sunburn-missile


*Iranian fighter jets would launch Exocet missiles at every oil tanker within reach in the Strait of Hormuz and possibly block the Strait.
*Iranians would unleash thousands of mines into the Strait of Hormuz, effectively stopping the shipments of oil to the world.
*Iranian fighters would fire their Russian built Sunburn missiles that fly just above the surface of the water and sink a couple of our multi-billion dollar aircraft carriers.

On the last point, I wouldn't doubt that Iran has the latest generation of Sunburn missiles, the SS-N-26 Onyx which is faster, heavier, and tracks lower (45') than the previous SS-N-22

But there are other side effects, like the economic consequences on the price of oil....a pan-Islamic radicalization, China/Russia reactions, and general world chaos. I really don't see anyone winning if war breaks out in the Gulf.

[lib2DaBone]

5. $10 a gallon gas is just what we need.

The Congress and Senate all have free Limos.. free lunches...free haircuts.. free health care... free gym... free jets.. free vacations...

They could car less how much it costs you to get to your job at McDonalds.

Life is tough all over.. (except in Washington).

[lonestarnot]

6. Here we go.

[postulater]

8. WWIII is going to happen this week

according to a LaRouche supporter who was leaf letting on State Street in Chicago last week. They were holding Impeach Obama signs with Hitler moustache on Obama.

[EX500rider]

9. Would be a really stupid move on their part.....wonder if they are that stupid?

50% of China's oil comes thru the straight....China would most likely join us in destroying a Iranian blockade....along with Europe and all the Gulf States, all who have a more modern military then Iran.

[DonCoquixote]

10. one the one hand

this is the last thing we need.

On the other hand..Iran getting nukes is also the last thing we need.

[julian09]

13. How will Iran act when they actually have the "nuke"

they will blackmail us even more, all they have to do is let inspectors in and comply with international inspections.
If they want to be treated as part of world community, they should be open about their nuclear program not threathening.
It is obvious they are hiding their true intentions, we can't let them acquire the weapons, they are irrational.
If they blackmail us over sanctions rather than allow inspections, what will the threats be when they get nuclear weapons know how.

[Hugabear]

16. When is Israel going to be "open" about their nuclear program?

Israel still refuses to admit they even have nuclear weapons.

Is Israel allowed to have a clandestine nuclear weapons program, but nobody else is allowed to have a nuke program?

[Behind the Aegis]

19. Irrelevant.

[Hugabear]

27. How so?

How exactly is Israel's nuclear stockpile irrelevant? Because they're the "good guys"?

Don't you suppose that Israel's nuclear stockpile could be the very reason that other countries in the region might possibly pursue their own nuclear weapons?

[Behind the Aegis]

28. Your questions were irrelevant.

Don't you suppose the destruction of Israel could be the very reason that other countries in the region might possibly pursue their own nuclear weapons?

Your questions are red herrings.

[Hugabear]

35. It's an arms race. What's so hard to understand about that.

Israel has them. They are the only country in the region that has nukes.

You honestly cannot understand why other countries in the region might want to develop their own nuclear arsenal as a response?

As for the "destruction" of Israel - that's pretty far-fetched, don't you think? There's nothing to indicate that Iran has any intentions of actually destroying Israel. Doing so would be suicidal on their part - if Israel didn't destroy Iran with their own nukes, there's a very good chance the US would do it for them.

Iran has not started any wars in recent history. Why do you think they're itching to start an unprovoked war all of a sudden?

[Behind the Aegis]

39. There is nothing difficult to understand.

Your questions were logical fallacies. I was simply pointing it out.

No, I don't think it is "far-fetched" that the destruction of Israel could be a possibility. Nor do I think a damn thing would be done about it except a bunch of crocodile tears and clucks of "we didn't think it would happen, but what's done is done."

So what if Iran hasn't started any recent wars? It doesn't mean they can't. I don't know why that stupid remark keeps getting bandied about as if it is some "exemption" card to the possibility of an aggressive attack against Israel by Iran or its proxies.

Iran is a member of the NPT, Israel is not. That is a fact.

[Hugabear]

40. Would you support military action against Iran to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon?

I'm curious to see how far you think that Israel and the US should go to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons. If sanctions fail to work, would you support military action?

[Behind the Aegis]

41. No. I do not support military action.

[TheWraith]

34. Because two wrongs don't make a right?

Perhaps because law doesn't cease to exist because someone, once, got away with breaking it?

[Old and In the Way]

17. Iran doesn't have the ICBM technology to threaten us with nukes.

I see nothing irrational in them trying to acquire nukes. Pakistan has them...we haven't invaded them. Iraq didn't have them, we invaded and occupied their country. A nuclear Iran could threaten the Strait of Hormuz and this may the real concern. But I really don't understand why we are being so single-minded about stopping Iran. Except for their war with Iraq in the 80's over a territorial dispute, they haven't been particularly belligerent in the region.

I wonder if the nuclear issue is really the primary concern? Or could it have more to do with Iran's growing influence over Iraq or control of the energy resources of the Central Asia region?

China and Russia are closing in on an energy security agreement with Iran and Pakistan...I don't know id this is an underlying reason why we are racheting up the rhetoric in the region, but I just can't believe we are ready to start yet another war in the region. Iran is not Iraq and I don't think this will end up well for the world if we let this condition spiral out of control.

[krucial]

20. Israel? Never

Israel never has to answer for anything as long as the US is 200% behind them.
In fact many Americans will say it is criminal of anyone to even mention one word about Israels nukes,and a crime to say you do not support an attack, or the bombing of ran.
Just look how much hell Ron Paul is catching for saying he wants to end American Imperilaism?

If you say you want to end to all our wars,and our and mililtary forways and occupation of Arab lands,you are deemed dangerous,a threat to our national Security,Anti American,and a hater and threat to israel

[Hardrada]

25. The neocons still seem to be running our foreign policy no matter who is in office.

Not what we had voted for.

[ronnie624]

36. I pick 'control over energy resources'.

Nothing offers greater economic and strategic advantage, and if there's anything that current U.S. political leaders want more than anything else, it's advantage and control over others.

[krucial]

23. Can we See Israels?

How about us stop being hypocrits and inspect Israels massive Arsenal of WMD's too?
Lets level the playing field and stop with this blatant,Hyopcrital,immoral,double standard,how about that?

[Behind the Aegis]

24. Did it finally happen? Did Israel sign the NPT?! LINK!

[DonCoquixote]

31. are you prepared to do that

Without throwing Israel to the dogs? I dislike Israel, but i understand why they do not trust Europeans or Americans to not wish them off the planet.

[pennylane100]

42. They should not take our money if the do not trust US

and we should not give them our money if they do not trust. Does anyone know who they do trust.

[madrchsod]

21. iran`s biggest customers rely on the straits to be open and protected by our navy

the only way iran can do anything is to sink enough ships in the straits of hormuz to stop traffic.

will china and the rest of far east sit back and watch the usa and iran go to a shooting war in the straits of hormuz?

[krucial]

22. It is in Irans Territory

To me it seems like many here in amerca believe that We have a right to everyones water way no matter where it is,we live 6000 miles away from the area,and want to dictate who should be in waters that surround Arab lands and any others we believe we have have a divine right to be in.
We also want to dictate to Arabs who they can select as leaders and who they can not,who they can have have friends and who they can not have as friends,such arrogance is way beyond the pale.
In case some dont understand,the fact is we dont own the world,and neither are we boss of the world,and that is the problem why we keep getting in trouble as Ron Paul points out over and over,just because we have the most massive arsenal of WMD's,the worlds biggest most powerfull military,and the biggest guns on earth,this does not give one the right to do whatever they want,anywhere they want to anyone we dont like and finger as enemies.they dynamics have change and the days of colonialism are long gone,things are more dangerous today where today there will be consequences for everyone,not like before when the one with the biggest guns always won

[OKNancy]

43. This is a duplicate

of this thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/101410763