US to Iran Ayatollah: Back Off

I linked to this article - www.nytimes.com - on another thread yesterday.

The piece ran in 2008, after Iranian vessels closed on US ships in the Gulf. The author, Thom Shanker, used that incident to take note of the $250M "Millennium Challenge 2002" war game the US conducted six years earlier.

Some key points from that earlier story:

In the simulation, General Van Riper sent wave after wave of relatively inexpensive speedboats to charge at the costlier, more advanced fleet approaching the Persian Gulf. His force of small boats attacked with machine guns and rockets, reinforced with missiles launched from land and air. Some of the small boats were loaded with explosives to detonate alongside American warships in suicide attacks....

The victory of the force modeled after a Persian Gulf state - a composite of Iran and Iraq - astounded sponsors of what was then the largest joint war-fighting exercise ever held, involving 13,500 military members and civilians battling in nine live exercise ranges in the United States, and double that many computer simulations to replicate a number of different battles.

General Van Riper's attack was much more complex and sophisticated than anything that could have involved the Iranian boats last weekend....

In the war game, scores of adversary speedboats and larger naval vessels had been shadowing and hectoring the Blue Team fleet for days. The Blue Team defenses also faced cruise missiles fired simultaneously from land and from warplanes, as well as the swarm of speedboats firing heavy machine guns and rockets - and pulling alongside to detonate explosives on board.

When the Red Team sank much of the Blue navy despite the Blue navy's firing of guns and missiles, it illustrated a cheap way to beat a very expensive fleet. After the Blue force was sunk, the game was ordered to begin again, with the Blue Team eventually declared the victor.

In a telephone interview, General Van Riper recalled that his idea of a swarming attack grew from Marine Corps studies of the natural world, where insects and animals - from tiny ant colonies to wolf packs - move in groups to overwhelm larger prey.

"It is not a matter of size or of individual capability, but whether you have the numbers and come from multiple directions in a short period of time," he said.

I'm assuming - hoping - the US has made corrective adjustments in light of the implications of that decade-old war game.

An attack of this scope and size could draw a nuclear response,,,

That kind of an attack by the Iranians would destroy their country.

And while I don't think Khamenei or Ahmadinejad or any of their close-team are inclined to do that, as the article points out (after noting Gen. Dempsey's statement that the Iranians possess the capability to block the strait - although for how long remains unclear, with the estimates cited ranging "from a day to several months"):

"Their surface fleet would be at the bottom of the ocean, but they could score a lucky hit," said Michael Connell, the director of the Iranian studies program at the Center for Naval Analysis, a research organization for the Navy and Marine Corps. "An antiship cruise missile could disable a carrier."

Iran has two navies: one, its traditional state navy of aging big ships dating from the era of the shah, and the other a politically favored Revolutionary Guards navy of fast-attack speedboats and guerrilla tactics. Senior American naval officers say that the Iranian state navy is for the most part professional and predictable, but that the Revolutionary Guards navy, which has responsibility for the operations in the Persian Gulf, is not.

"You get cowboys [presumably Revolutionary Guards] who do their own thing,"Mr. Connell said. One officer with experience at the Navy's Fifth Fleet headquarters in Bahrain said the Revolutionary Guards navy shows "high probability for buffoonery."

Between the sanctions and the assassination of yet another nuclear scientist if Iran was ever serious about attempting something like this now would be the time,,,

DOC I think you should take your canoe to the straits of Hormuz and appeal for calm,,,

What's your solution?

I can't imagine why "now would be the time." In fact, given the attention the smarter Iranian decision makers pay to the Long Game - and bear in mind that the existence of Long Game Think is something of which most Americans appear to be blissfully unaware - now is not the time.

Instead, from their perspective, now is the time to get their people behind the government by focusing on the Outside Threat posed by The Other (sounds like GOPiggies' oinking about Obama, doesn't it?). (As an aside, the chances of the former US Marine who was condemned to death by the Iranians for spying last week making out of there anytime soon (if ever) just took a big hit.)

If the Iranian leadership felt they were about to take a big fall and end up torn apart in the streets, then they might sanction something like this. Otherwise, look for some Israeli scientists/leaders/whatever (or Brits or Americans) to get snuffed on the side as a we-see-you-too message.

What's your solution?

#5 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2012-01-13 08:30 AM | Reply | Flag:

If the Iranians were contemplating such an attack they certainly would loose the element of surprise and most likely it is just the same tired old rhetoric we usually hear from them. That being said I would publicly let the Iranians know that all nuclear capable ships in the convoy will have all nuclear weapons ready to fire all warheads at Iran during the first attack. Our ships may wind up on the bottom of the ocean with a huge lose of life but in so doing Iran would no longer exist. The choice is really up to the Iranians attack and the entire country gets vaporized end of story,,,

Like one of our former Presidents said Paraphrase ON: (Carry a Big stick and use it the very first time any body fucks with you.) Paraphrase Off,,,

Hey DOC are you still there, oh well it must be that last post I know sometimes it takes DOC awhile to digest some of my ideas,,, and I need to help some of the other posters with their threads but I will check back later to see how you are doing,,,

#6 | Posted by ATaxpayer

Good point. I think they probably already know that.

There's all kinds of idiotic shit that has to be put up with around the old blue marble, but closing off the Strait of Hormuz just isn't one of them.

"I know sometimes it takes DOC awhile to digest some of my ideas,,,"

LOL.

I'd sooner digest a dog's breakfast.

;>)

"In 2002, a classified, $250 million Defense Department war game concluded that small, agile speedboats swarming a naval convoy could inflict devastating damage on more powerful warships. In that game, the Blue Team navy, representing the United States, lost 16 major warships -- an aircraft carrier, cruisers and amphibious vessels -- when they were sunk to the bottom of the Persian Gulf in an attack that included swarming tactics by enemy speedboats."

Well knowing that, I'm guessing we'd choose not to fight them in the strait. We don't have to be in the strait to destroy Iranian warships that are there (or anchored in Iranian ports for that matter).

Why isn't this a european problem? If we had the keystone xl pipeline, it wouldn't bother us a little bit.

I'm guessing we'd choose not to fight them in the strait.

No doubt you are correct but Iran on the other hand would choose to fight us in the Straits. US warships and any "unfriendly" tankers hauling oil through there at least.

The frigates, destroyers, and cruisers doing the escorting as well as the mine sweepers, would be the ships under attach. I would think America has enough airpower to protect them although a mass surprise swarming type attack could do some serious damage.

Look what one little dingy did to the Cole.

No doubt you are correct but Iran on the other hand would choose to fight us in the Straits.

Iran doesn't fight in Iran. Iran blows up cars and buildings in the country they want to fight. Iran would bring the war to us and it would be horrible for all sides.

#11 you just can't be pushed around. it's a playground, and some little puke is trying to hit up the biggest kid in school for lunch money. if they do, a pounding will be in order.

i know video games are not an exact mirror to real life, but these tactics have been used in eve for a long time. i have heard that darpa was trying to work with developers like ccp to add experimental weapon ideas (like ghost ships, ie, one ship looking like many) to see how the players would exploit the weapon and what defenses would be brought against them. eve players have a reputation for figuring out ways to exploit new weapons and items in ways that were never dreamed of. i guess none of the people involved ever read that article.

the bottom line is that if an eve online fleet commander for any major alliance had been asked what the best way to take down a fleet of very large, advanced, and expensive warships, the obvious answer would be large numbers of small inexpensive ships. whether it be space ships or sea ships, the tactics are the same and the outcome of this wargame should have been no surprise to anyone.

that was my nerd moment.

"The frigates, destroyers, and cruisers doing the escorting as well as the mine sweepers, would be the ships under attach. I would think America has enough airpower to protect them although a mass surprise swarming type attack could do some serious damage."

I'm thinking that would happen once. Then US ships, including civilians, would stay out of the area completely. The the bombing campaign would start. Swarms of little attack boats must be kept somehwere and that would probably be the 1st target.

"Iran would bring the war to us and it would be horrible for all sides."

Americans are less blinded by ideology when they feel threatened. IMO, each terror attack would make the next one more difficult. I think the Iranians could easily pull off 100 small terror attacks on US soil in one day. But they wouldn't be able to attack us on 100 consecutive days. We could bomb them 24/7 indefinitely.

Not that I want this to happen, I just don't see any scenario where Iran gains anything from picking this fight. IMO, it would likely end with Iranians overthrowing their own government.

I've been saying this for years. Something similar resulted in an Iranian civilian Airbus getting blown out of the sky.

The USS Vincennes sunk 9 Iranian boghammers just prior to firing those missiles; confusion and the many small "targets" played a major factor.

"the bottom line is that if an eve online fleet commander for any major alliance had been asked what the best way to take down a fleet of very large, advanced, and expensive warships, the obvious answer would be large numbers of small inexpensive ships. whether it be space ships or sea ships, the tactics are the same and the outcome of this wargame should have been no surprise to anyone."

The difference between the game and real life is that in the game, you can't kill someone or blow up their ship if they are logged off. In reality, its possible to destroy a fleet of small boats and their pilots at night from thousands of feet in the air without any of them knowing its coming.

Iran doesn't fight in Iran.

If the want to close the Staits of Hormuz they will have to fight at least one front on their home territory. I don't think they have what it takes to pull off too many out of country bombings. I could be wrong

you just can't be pushed around.

No argument from me. Iran on the other hand feels like it's the one being pushed around. They want to produce weapons grade nuclear material and are dead set on getting that capability. Their backs are against the wall and the world community is watching. Now they're behaving like a psycho-Chihuahuas.

Why isn't this a european problem? If we had the keystone xl pipeline, it wouldn't bother us a little bit.

#11 | Posted by Sniper

It would actually become a windfall for us when the World commodity prices increase.

But we ain't got no damn pipeline. It's not done being gerrymandered by Obama yet.

Iran cant stop the stealth bombers and cruise missiles. They're terrified of what we can do to them.

Why havent we heard anymore about that drone they claimed to have shot down? That disappeared from the news cycle pretty quick. Part of me wants to believe we sent them a trojan horse part of me believes the US Govt wants the story to disappear because we fucked up.

"It would actually become a windfall for us when the World commodity prices increase."

Just how do you figure that? You think the owners of that oil will cut you in for a share of their profit, you think they will sell that oil cheaper than the going world rate?? That pipeline will enable some oil company to make some money, it will even create a few jobs but it will not do anything for 99.9999% of America but it will expose the states it passes through to some pretty dangerous ecological damage to water supplies.

"Not that I want this to happen, I just don't see any scenario where Iran gains anything from picking this fight. IMO, it would likely end with Iranians overthrowing their own government."

I agree, Iran doesn't want this war. Israel and the neocons are trying to manipulate the US into forcing war on Iran by wrecking their economy with sanctions. AT some point some Iranian will do something aggressive and then we will have an excuse to respond. It's disgusting what we are doing IMHO. If Israel can sit there with nukes it is unfair for us to try and dictate to Iran what it can do to defend it self and that is what a nuke would do for them....it would make it to dangerous to ever invade their country like we did Iraq.

#20 - The Keystone pipeline would hardly put an end to oil flow through the Straits of Hormuz. Iran closing the Straits is a US made problem. The US and others have decided that Iran cannot make enriched Uranium. Iran says bullshit we're making it. US set sanctions, Iran closes the Straits, trouble ensues. Although the Straits make it an oil thing it's really a nuclear thing.

Please try to keep up.

P.S. I think the windfall would be more a Canadian one than a US one.

"Although the Straits make it an oil thing it's really a nuclear thing."

It's more of an exercise in imperialism. We dictate who and who cannot have nuclear weapons though we are the only nation that has ever used them on an enemy. If we can dictate about nukes we can dictate about anything we want.

#23 | POSTED BY DANNI

You certainly aren't 100% wrong on your assessment but I think it goes beyond you have one so I want one. Somewhere along the line, and in the US I believe it started with the Democrats, the powers to be decided that the more countries that have nuclear weapons the better the chance that one of those countries would start using them perhaps causing global destruction.
There's not a whole lot that can be done about it once they have the capability so it's best to nip it in the bud so to speak.

Israel is convinced that Iran would nuke them if'n they had half a chance. Israel has convinced the US to help prevent that from happening. The US said OK and that's were we are. If you think Iran is stable enough to develop nuclear weapons and never use them as an offensive or first to fire scenario, then write you state and federal governments and beg them to back off and let Iran have it's WMD's.

After all we know how level headed and even keeled they are in the part of the world. It's not like we would let the Baptist Church have a nuke either.

War with Iran will explode in the Gaza Stip and West Bank. Many innocent Palestinians and Israelis would suffer as the leaders get to play war games.

This explosion will force Syria, Egypt, Lebennan, and Turkey into it.

It is a dangerous game of Chicken all three sides are engaged in and given each's history, none is going to blink first.

in the US I believe it started with the Democrats, the powers to be decided that the more countries that have nuclear weapons the better the chance that one of those countries would start using them perhaps causing global destruction.

It comes down to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran signed it; Israel didn't. Israel having nukes is therefore not a violation as they never agreed to it. Iran did agree to it and therefore would be in violation should they pursue nukes.

Personally, I think it is well past time America either tells Israel to get on board with it because we will not help a country that doesn't agree to it.

Of course, everyone else is also in violation of the NPT by denying Iran peaceful nuke technology per the agreement as well: "in exchange agree to share the benefits of peaceful nuclear technology"

"It comes down to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran signed it; Israel didn't."

So Iran should be considered to have signed the treaty because the Shah agreed to it in 1970. Sorry, but Iran had a revolution since then and thus should not be considered to have signed that treaty.

So Iran should be considered to have signed the treaty because the Shah agreed to it in 1970.

Yes Danni. Just like we are still held to it even though Nixon (or Ford as I forget who signed it) is not President anymore.

"It would actually become a windfall for us when the World commodity prices increase."

#22 | Posted by danni

Oil prices triple, as soon as the Straight of Hormuz closes.

Any oil not there, becomes 3 times more valuable.

Some call that a windfall. I'm not sure what you call it.

Go ahead close it. Teach America that foreign oil kills our kids. Go Solar!

In 2002, a classified, $250 million Defense Department war game concluded that small speedboats swarming a naval convoy could inflict devastating damage on more powerful warships.

Thank G-d they classified it! We don't need to fund our enemy's research on the most effective ways to kill us. So happy this is classified and nobody knows about it.

#22 | Posted by danni

Maybe those big fucking tankers you drive alongside on the freeway should just avoid your region.

Hell, they could crash. Really fuck up a lot of shit up doing it too. Ever see those fireballs? Your ecology could be wrecked, damn and so close to home too.

Yet, Danni uses gas the same as the rest.

Hates herself terribly for doing it to be sure, but does just the same anyway. Probably drives a fucking import to boot.

You don't need no pipline Danni? Fine.

Then you don't need no gas that comes out of em'.

B.I.G. Danni, unlike us here people, gasoline just doesn't evolve itself into a full tank of gas.

We listen to you, and we are all suddenly walking.

I will agree nobody WANTS war, but they all want what saber rattling brings to them. They want to appear tough for their nations and strong to the world. Sadly, as Einstein said: you cannot prepare for and prevent war.

I'm tired of Danni blaming Israel for what will eventually be a United States war. Obama can tell Israel to go fuck themselves if that's what he wants to do. We aren't being "dragged into" anything. We bomb who we want to bomb. Got it?

I'm tired of Danni blaming Israel for what will eventually be a United States war.

She is a Neocon. She just hated Bush.

I find the article hard to believe,that those many ships went to the bottom of the Persian Gulf.

For the navy guys,how many targets is the MK-15 able to engage at a time?

With a one mile range it would appear the MK-15 could take out a lot of small vessles before they came in and did any damage.

rwd

When the day comes, AND it will - that we no longer need to kiss the fuking aye-rab ass for oil, they will then wither up and die in the goddamn desert.

"I'm tired of Danni blaming Israel for what will eventually be a United States war. Obama can tell Israel to go fuck themselves if that's what he wants to do. We aren't being "dragged into" anything. We bomb who we want to bomb. Got it?"

Our government, regardless of who is in power, kowtows to Israel.

But you are right. It doesn't have to and to the extent it does that is our fault (both the politicians and the American public, which is generally pro-Israel at the expense of the US too).

Its like when I was a little kid and I would do something stupid because an older kid told me to do it. My mother wouldn't blame the older kid. I was the idiot for listening to him.

wow, thought you cumbuckets would have learned when you got your dick stuck in iraq...

"We aren't being "dragged into" anything. We bomb who we want to bomb. Got it?"

Technically true but politically it's nonsense.

"But you are right. It doesn't have to and to the extent it does that is our fault (both the politicians and the American public, which is generally pro-Israel at the expense of the US too)."

And I hate to say it but if we bomb Iran and start another war I will blame the President. He came onto the national scene because of his opposition to a stupid war, he needs to be consistent because any war with Iran will leave us poorer and I thik we're about poor enough.

"She is a Neocon. She just hated Bush."

It's the neocons who want a war with Iran and that's not me.

"wow, thought you cumbuckets would have learned when you got your dick stuck in iraq..."

Yes, yes. Its the same exact situation. And the stupidity of the Iraq War should naturally result in any country, Iran or womever, to dictate which international waterways US ships can use.

USA bad and stupid. Very astute observation.

Now run along.

we are still held to it even though Nixon (or Ford as I forget who signed it) is not President anymore.

#31 | Posted by kanrei

In response to Dannis assertion that Iran does not have to abide by agreements made prior to their revolution.

I agree with Danni (2nd time I can think of). Irans revolution was a complete change of government. This is very different than the elections the US has every 4 years. We are still the same government, we have only replaced some leaders. All treaties and laws stay the same.

Iran had a revolution where the old nation ceased to exist and an entirely new nation and government were created. Laws changed drastically. Iran could argue that they do not have to honor any of those previous agreements. Of course that would effect other agreements that they want to keep.

"The Navy Is Depending on Dolphins to Keep the Strait of Hormuz Open"
news.yahoo.com

From the article:

If Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz, the U.S. Navy has a backup plan to save one-fifth of the world's daily oil trade: send in the dolphins.

[RELATED: Iran's Threat to Close Strait of Hormuz Isn't Entirely Empty]
The threat of Iran closing the strait has reached a fever pitch, reports today's New York Times, with U.S. officials warning Iran's supreme leader that such moves would cross a "red line" provoking a U.S. response. Iran could block the strait with any assortment of mines, armed speed boats or anti-ship cruise missiles but according to Michael Connell at the Center for Naval Analysis, â€œThe immediate issue [for the U.S. military] is to get the mines.â€ To solve that problem, the Navy has a solution that isn't heavily-advertised but has a time-tested success rate: mine-detecting dolphins.

[RELATED: This Crisis with Iran Is Exactly Why We Have Oil Reserves]
"We've got dolphins," said retired Adm. Tim Keating in a Wednesday interview with NPR. Keating commanded the U.S. 5th Fleet in Bahrain during the run-up to the Iraq war. He sounded uncomfortable with elaborating on the Navy's use of the lovable mammals but said in a situation like the standoff in Hormuz, Navy-trained dolphins would come in handy:

KEATING: They are astounding in their ability to detect underwater objects.

NPR's TOM BOWMAN: Dolphins were sent to the Persian Gulf as part of the American invasion force in Iraq.

KEATING: I'd rather not talk about whether we used them or not. They were present in theater.

BOWMAN: But you can't say whether you used them or not.

KEATING: I'd rather not.

The invasion of Iraq was the last time the minesweeping capability of dolphins were widely-touted. "Dolphins - - which possess sonar so keen they can discern a quarter from a dime when blindfolded and spot a 3-inch metal sphere from 370 feet away -- are invaluable minesweepers," reported The San Francisco Chronicle. In 2010, the Seattle Times reported that the Navy has 80 bottlenose dolphins in the San Diego Bay alone. They are taught to hunt for mines and drop acoustic transponders nearby. According to a report in 2003, the dolphins only detect the mines. Destroying them is left up to the Navy's human divers. Still, the mammals are large enough to detonate a live mine, a prospect that doesn't delight animal rights groups.

Flag:

When the day comes, AND it will - that we no longer need to kiss the fuking aye-rab ass for oil, they will then wither up and die in the goddamn desert.

#41 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2012-01-13 02:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yeah, we'll be kissing BP's, Shell, etc's ass like we do now. Arab countries flooding market with oil is what keeps its prices downward. Inflation in the US dollar should have driven prices much higher than they are now. People will be crying for the good ole days when they're paying out of their asses to gas up.

When the day comes, AND it will - that we no longer need to kiss the fuking aye-rab ass for oil

We got a wake up call in 1973.
There was a brief flurry of interest.
America elected Ronald Reagan in 1980 and went back to sleep.
Now it's a bit more of a challenge.

...Part of me wants to believe we sent them a trojan horse part of me believes the US Govt wants the story to disappear because we fucked up.

#21 | Posted by 101Chairborne and part of me is under the table too busy playing with myself to really care.

It is a dangerous game of Chicken all three sides are engaged in and given each's history, none is going to blink first.

#27 | Posted by kanrei

Indeed it is...We are pushing them into a corner with the Oil Sanctions. If they block the Straights the results will be very costly no matter who started it. But, if they get nuclear weapons I suspect it could cost us more in the end.

Could is the key word here. Thing is there is no guarantee of what happens after they get their Nuke. It could be nothing at all. Or they could start acting like Pakistan or worse. There IS a guarantee of what it will cost to open the Straights. I bet it's been calculated (or should have been by now).

I hope that Obama is a better diplomatic chess player than even I think he is.

Else, McCain may get his wish after all.

I hear there is already a 50/50 chance.

Now it's a bit more of a challenge.

#50 | Posted by Zatoichi

Indeed! But, it could be done.

I'd rather us do that than bomb Iran. It might even be cheaper.

Just think what where we would be right now if we had decided to spend all the money that we buried in the sands of Iraq on a Manhattan Project for Making America Energy Independent.

How could the Iranian small "swarm" boats get through this?

www.youtube.com

Radar directed

Caliber 30 mm
Barrels 7
Elevation +85 to âˆ'25 degrees at 80 degree/s
Traverse 360Â°
Rate of fire 70 rounds/second (4,200 rounds/minute)
Muzzle velocity 1,109 m/s (MPDS round)
Effective range 350 to between 1,500 and 2,000 meters dependent on ammunition

If I were in the Iranian navy this would give me cause for concern! There would be nothing left of the swarm boats.