• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

U.S. Sizing Up Iran?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yithian,

..3) Why is the 'limpet mine' attached to the tanker at such a high level above the waterline? ..

Exactly what I wondered the moment I saw the image of the tanker's side.

Minimalists,

..I served almost 7 years in the military and thankfully never had to shoot any one.....Nothing gets my gaul worst than some one who has no frigging idea about what these men and women go through in the military....Then cry out in a public forum that the US has never been hurt! Like hell we haven't! ..

I don't think you actually understood what was written. In fact you flew off the handle at the first hint of criticism, as many of your countrymen (and women) do.

Let's take your paragraph apart.

Seven years in the military. I do believe we have had this discussion already. Maybe on a different forum under different user names (I recognnise your avatar) when I mentioned that I also had served in the Army for seven years. So please don't give me the spiel abut not knowing anything about the military.

You really aught to check your facts before hitting the keyboard in anger.

I was, as most will have understood, talking about the attacks on the lower 48 States during World War Two.

As far as I am aware, there were none. There was an incident where a picnic party found a Japanese balloon bomb, and caused it to go off. This resulted in six dead.

To the best of my knowledge, these were the only people killed in the lower 48 during WWII; please correct me if I'm wrong. No one is disputing the sacrifices made by American military personnel. We did lose a few ourselves, as did all the Allied nations.

My point is that your country did not suffer the loss of a vast majority of it's infrastructure due to enemy action. All the folks there were able to carry on their normal everyday lives.
and after the war was over, they did not have to go through a major rebuild of their industry. Nor did they have to live on rations as we did until the early fifties.

I'm glad for that as I have relations in the States, and parcels from them helped us through those times.

So, 50 to 55 Million civilians killed in Europe, six in the US. You see the disparity.

The thing is, if a country continually manages to avoid it's people (civilians) and it's infrastructure being destroyed then it does not know what it is like to be on the wrong end of the stick. And the civilians of today are not as attuned to the grief as are those who spent five years being continually bombed and shelled as those who did. We had to observe strict black out procedures due to the thread of bombers at night.

So they are more likely to support hawkish tactics.

So, To sum up.

I also served the same length of time in the military as you did; and I also never had to shoot at anyone, though I was shot at a couple of time in Aden.

A large part of my country, and even more of mainland Europe was destroyed, None of yours was.

I lost my grandfather in WWI, and two uncles and an aunt in WWII. So my family paid it's dues.

I have no objection to anyone disagreeing with me on anything, but please check the facts first.

INT21.

So your woo hoo is better than mine....They ought to start a forum here called Town Criers don't imagine it would take long to fill it up.
 
Last edited:
The video isn't proof of anything more than a small boat near a large one. As has been said, if it's military footage it's been deliberately blurred.

I'm wondering what Iran's motive is in damaging, but not disastrously, oil tankers. What would be their desired outcome?

If the US have convincing proof, this isn't it. Our government have leapt in with support straight away. Unless they have knowledge of more compelling evidence which is not publicly known, on the basis of this footage they would seem to be on shaky ground.
 
The video isn't proof of anything more than a small boat near a large one. As has been said, if it's military footage it's been deliberately blurred.

I'm wondering what Iran's motive is in damaging, but not disastrously, oil tankers. What would be their desired outcome?

If the US have convincing proof, this isn't it. Our government have leapt in with support straight away. Unless they have knowledge of more compelling evidence which is not publicly known, on the basis of this footage they would seem to be on shaky ground.

Iran's motive is exactly the same as it was during the "Tanker Wars" in the 80s: to weaponise the sea-lanes and disrupt the flow of oil products. It was only after a US ship was seriously damaged by an Iranian mine whilst patrolling the Persian Gulf, that the US retaliated (Operation Praying Mantis), destroying a large proportion of the Iranian navy.
The Iranian leaders are furious about the ongoing sanctions imposed by the UN, EU and US. Given Iran's continued uranium enrichment and involvement in international terrorism, there is no sign of sanctions being relaxed.
As something like one third of the world's oil trade passes through the Persian Gulf, threatening to disrupt it has global implications. Just as during the Tanker Wars, Iran is gambling that the enormity of such actions will become a significant bargaining point to force a resolution.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Jim
Two more points:

1) The video footage has not been "deliberately blurred". It is night-vision (thermal imaging) footage, taken from distance. In my early days as a system tester, I worked on the MILAN night-sight project, which produced very similar results to this.

2) The height above the waterline that the limpet mines were deployed is entirely consistent with a small vessel sidling up to the vast tanker at night and the magnetic mine being attached at the same level as whatever apparatus or personnel were on the small vessel.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Jim
Bears all the hallmarks of a false flag op trying to provoke war between the US and Iran.

Remember the USS Liberty attack.
As with so many events that involve governments, I don't think the majority of us will ever know what really happened with the Liberty.
There are many who believe President Lyndon B. Johnson instigated the attack so he could blame the Egyptians and then the USA could be brought into the Six Day War.
'Remember the Liberty! Almost Sunk by Treason on the High Seas' is a book worth a look at for anyone interested.
 
....2) The height above the waterline that the limpet mines were deployed is entirely consistent with a small vessel sidling up to the vast tanker at night and the magnetic mine being attached at the same level as whatever apparatus or personnel were on the small vessel.

I think Yith's point may be that if you actually want to severely damage a large vessel then limpet mines would usually be deployed below the water line, at which point a relatively small charge can - by breaching the vessel - create significantly more disruption than it would at a point several meters above the level of the water. Also, it is at this lower point that the explosives destructive energy is directed into the fabric of the vessel by the fact that it is surrounded on the other side by water - the side of greatest resistance. (Effective placement - the taking into account of how energy will be directed - is an intrinsic element of any static explosive charge. Doubtless a limpet mine above the water line will create some sort of damage, but, especially for the smaller charges, I wouldn't be overly surprised if noise, and maybe some dead seagulls, would be the most obvious results.)

That said 'limpet mine' has probably become a fairly generic term for a magnetically fixed charge - which could conceivably cover an entire array of devices. And - sitting on the fence and suspending disbelief for a moment - if an aggressor was simply trying to make a point, or create disruption rather than destruction (and limpet mines probably wouldn't be the first choice for the latter), then all you need is for something which goes bang.
 
Last edited:
I think Yith's point may be that if you actually want to severely damage a large vessel then limpet mines would usually be deployed below the water line, at which point a relatively small charge can - by breaching the vessel - create significantly more disruption than it would at a point several meters above the level of the water. Also, it is at this lower point that the explosives destructive energy is directed into the fabric of the vessel by the fact that it is surrounded on the other side by water - the side of greatest resistance.

That said 'limpet mine' has probably become a fairly generic term for a magnetically fixed charge - which could conceivably cover an entire array of devices. And - sitting on the fence and suspending disbelief for a moment - if an aggressor was simply trying to make a point, or create disruption rather than destruction (and limpet mines probably wouldn't be the first choice for the latter), then all you need is for something to go bang.
Maybe the aim is not to sink or severely damage the tanker, but to produce shock and horror? An act of terrorism rather than war? To scare the oil tanker operators away.
 
Maybe the aim is not to sink or severely damage the tanker, but to produce shock and horror? An act of terrorism rather than war? To scare the oil tanker operators away.

Exactly.
Huge flames and massive plumes of black smoke send far more of a signal than a hole below the waterline which, on ships as large as these, would not be anywhere near as dramatic.
 
...As something like one third of the world's oil trade passes through the Persian Gulf, threatening to disrupt it has global implications. Just as during the Tanker Wars, Iran is gambling that the enormity of such actions will become a significant bargaining point to force a resolution.

I may be wrong, but I'm not entirely sure about the last part of that statement. Iran was at that time fighting the longest conventional war in the history of the 20th century. It's immediate concern was to disrupt the Iraqi oil supply and, as far as I know, it only targetted supplies so earmarked. Non combatant nations were clearly concerned that this situation would escalate - but I'm not sure Iran did deliberately go beyond that initial remit. In fact, there's an argument that escalating disruption in the Gulf was actually part of Iraq's game plan, and that Iran knew this, and therefore stuck to it's original mission.

Exactly.
Huge flames and massive plumes of black smoke send far more of a signal than a hole below the waterline which, on ships as large as these, would not be anywhere near as dramatic.

Yes, as I said - if all you want to do is make a point, sometimes a shit bomb is as effective as a good one.

It's worth wondering though, which sides propaganda mill gains the most from these fireworks; seems to me that powerful elements in both have potential motive. In fact, if you apply a cui bono to this, I'm really not sure I'd put a bet on Iran being at the front of the queue.
 
Last edited:
Minimalists,

It appears you have a problem with people declaring that they see the same thing as do others.

Yet you are on a site dedicated to paranormal events ! Where multiple observations of the same thing are considered an asset.

Anyway, my question would be 'why attack a ship belonging to a nation you are negotiating with ?

INT21
 
Multiple reports claim that it was a "Gashti-class patrol boat".
There apparently is no such class boat in their navy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_ships_of_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran_Navy

There's no such patrol boat listed among the vessels operated by the Iranian regular Navy. Iran has two naval forces - the regular Navy and the naval forces of the IRGC (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps). The Gashti class patrol boat is listed among the inventory belonging to the IRGC naval forces.

This February 2017 overview of Iranian naval forces published by the (US) Office of Naval Intelligence:

https://www.oni.navy.mil/Portals/12/Intel agencies/iran/Iran 022217SP.pdf

... lists the Gashti class among the IRGC's surface vessels (p. 34).

The Gashti type is not among the vessels illustrated in the identification guide on p. 35 in the same document.
 
There's no such patrol boat listed among the vessels operated by the Iranian regular Navy. Iran has two naval forces - the regular Navy and the naval forces of the IRGC (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps). The Gashti class patrol boat is listed among the inventory belonging to the IRGC naval forces.

This February 2017 overview of Iranian naval forces published by the (US) Office of Naval Intelligence:

https://www.oni.navy.mil/Portals/12/Intel agencies/iran/Iran 022217SP.pdf

... lists the Gashti class among the IRGC's surface vessels (p. 34).

The Gashti type is not among the vessels illustrated in the identification guide on p. 35 in the same document.
Good catch, thank you for the correction.
 
Iran's motive is exactly the same as it was during the "Tanker Wars" in the 80s: to weaponise the sea-lanes and disrupt the flow of oil products. It was only after a US ship was seriously damaged by an Iranian mine whilst patrolling the Persian Gulf, that the US retaliated (Operation Praying Mantis), destroying a large proportion of the Iranian navy.
The Iranian leaders are furious about the ongoing sanctions imposed by the UN, EU and US. Given Iran's continued uranium enrichment and involvement in international terrorism, there is no sign of sanctions being relaxed.
As something like one third of the world's oil trade passes through the Persian Gulf, threatening to disrupt it has global implications. Just as during the Tanker Wars, Iran is gambling that the enormity of such actions will become a significant bargaining point to force a resolution.

Knowing that 'shock & awe' is a more likely response to oil supply disruption than fresh negotiations about sanctions? I'm not convinced.

The video is 36 seconds long. Assuming it's military origin, there would be much longer footage available which could possibly make it much clearer what's going on. Maybe that's the case & it clearly implicates Iran, in which case why not publish it. We could have more confidence in the pronouncement.

The footage we've seen isn't enough to say much about. It could & maybe is being used to ratchet things up on very slim evidence to say the least. It's not as if we haven't seen this sort of thing before.
 
"If you apply a cui bono to this, I'm really not sure I'd put a bet on Iran being at the front of the queue."

I don't think the rulers of Iran care what the world thinks about them. They are openly admitting to exceeding the permitted stockpile of enriched uranium, including near weapon-grade and they still execute more people (including juveniles) than any other country except China.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...reak-uranium-stockpile-limit-set-nuclear-deal

They are the archetypal "Everyone hates us (except for Putin and Assad of course), but we don't care." fascist state.
 
There's no such patrol boat listed among the vessels operated by the Iranian regular Navy. Iran has two naval forces - the regular Navy and the naval forces of the IRGC (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps). The Gashti class patrol boat is listed among the inventory belonging to the IRGC naval forces.

This February 2017 overview of Iranian naval forces published by the (US) Office of Naval Intelligence:

https://www.oni.navy.mil/Portals/12/Intel agencies/iran/Iran 022217SP.pdf

... lists the Gashti class among the IRGC's surface vessels (p. 34).

The Gashti type is not among the vessels illustrated in the identification guide on p. 35 in the same document.

Here’s a closeup of Iran’s Gashti-class boats:

4bk3cf3f2814534vpp_800C450.jpg


Close study of the FLIR video clearly shows the multiple chevron-shaped anti-slip panels at the prow; also the distinctive twin barrels of the Russian ZU-23-2 anti-aircraft gun.

maximus otter
 
I don't think the rulers of Iran care what the world thinks about them. They are openly admitting to exceeding the permitted stockpile of enriched uranium, including near weapon-grade and they still execute more people (including juveniles) than any other country except China.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...reak-uranium-stockpile-limit-set-nuclear-deal

They are the archetypal "Everyone hates us (except for Putin and Assad of course), but we don't care." fascist state.

I’m not sure anyone really needs reminding how bad Iran is - and it would be a gross mistake to equate occasional scepticism in regard to the West's attitude to Iran, with support of Iran. And yes, I suspect that Iran's rulers really don't give a shit what the world thinks of them - but this does not necessarily make them tactically or strategically stupid.

I suspect any current cynicism around these events is based on the fact that - as desirable as it might be in some cases, and as repulsive as those regimes are - nigh on 20 years of so-called regime change in the region has done little beyond filling endless mass graves and military cemeteries, doesn’t seem to have improved life very much for people on the ground, has negatively affected internal security virtually worldwide, and any declared 'victory' has been pretty much in the eye of the beholder. The defeat of ISIS may be an exception – but, then, where the hell did they come from?

We’ve been bullshitted before, and lots of people died – the majority of whom, I strongly suspect, never held a gun or worked for those regimes. It’s right and proper that we should question whether we are being bullshitted again.
 
The increase in Iran's nuclear material stockpile seems to be fairly well explained when you take into account that they are complaining that the co-members of the nuclear agreement, the one Trump pulled out of, have not been keeping up their end of the agreement. They feel cheated.

If Iran did get a nuclear armed missile, then it would put them at the same level as North Korea. They would be able to say, 'Ok America (or any other nuclear power) go ahead and attack us. See what happens'.

So you could say the idea is protective. The only defense against a bully with a big stick is to get your own stick.

It is unlikely a nuclear war would ever start, but it could. All sides know there would be no winner.

Sadly, during the height of the rhetoric exchanges with North Korea, Trump said that he agreed there would be casualties (AKA the entire population of South Korea's and much of the other places in the region), 'But Not Here'.

And that is the critical part. The mindset that Trump has.

By the way, interesting turn of events regarding the installation of malware on Russian Power grids, and the co-incidental of the South American power failure.

Anyone for a conspiracy theory ?

INT21.

p.s. Just heard Morsy has died. More trouble for Egypt on the horizon.

INT21.
 
The increase in Iran's nuclear material stockpile seems to be fairly well explained when you take into account that they are complaining that the co-members of the nuclear agreement, the one Trump pulled out of, have not been keeping up their end of the agreement. They feel cheated.

If Iran did get a nuclear armed missile, then it would put them at the same level as North Korea. They would be able to say, 'Ok America (or any other nuclear power) go ahead and attack us. See what happens'.

So you could say the idea is protective. The only defense against a bully with a big stick is to get your own stick.

It is unlikely a nuclear war would ever start, but it could. All sides know there would be no winner.

Sadly, during the height of the rhetoric exchanges with North Korea, Trump said that he agreed there would be casualties (AKA the entire population of South Korea's and much of the other places in the region), 'But Not Here'.

And that is the critical part. The mindset that Trump has.

By the way, interesting turn of events regarding the installation of malware on Russian Power grids, and the co-incidental of the South American power failure.

Anyone for a conspiracy theory ?

INT21.

p.s. Just heard Morsy has died. More trouble for Egypt on the horizon.

INT21.

I don't think anyone seriously believes that North Korea has a viable nuke or any realistic method of delivering it. In any case, the fewer countries to possess nuclear weapons the better.
As for Morsi, good riddance. The massive show of people-power that triggered his demise, political and physical, was a good move for Egypt. The country is still a long way from democracy, but at least it hasn't succumbed to islamofascism like Iran.
 
BMCS,

The delivery of a nuclear weapon, even a crude one, may not be a big problem.

Some time ago (Obama era), it was suggested that a Russian ICBM wouldn't be able to penetrate the US defenses.

Putin is alleged to have said that he wouldn't us a missile, he would send it up the Hudson in a shipping container.

If no one believes that north Korea has a viable bomb, why does Trump make such a fuss about it ?

Or is it another case of trying to start a war using false information, like with Iraq ?

Tricky critters, these politicians.

INT21.
 
A clearer photo of the Iranian boat, taken before nightfall, from the BBC website where, incidentally, they conclude that Iran was probably behind the attacks.
If Iran still wants to plead not guilty, then all they have to do is issue a statement explaining precisely what their patrol boat was doing, at night, alongside the tanker.

PSX_20190618_083947.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top