This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Iran Launches "Massive" 6 Day Naval Wargame - Video Coverage

Tyler Durden's picture


As we reported previously, today Iran decided to launch a rather impromptu "massive" naval drill dubbed the Velayat 91, which will take place in the Oman Sea, North of Indian Ocean, in the Persian Gulf and East of Strait of Hormuz, and will cover an area of one million square kilometers right in the sweet zone of the US 5th Naval Fleet's AOR, where in addition to other resources, both the Stennis aircraft carrier and Peleliu amphibious warfare ship group are located. As PressTV reports, "On the first day of the drills, ships and submarines, will go to their locations and get ready for the tactical stage of the maneuvers. Forces in shores will also get ready for the tactical phase of the drills. In addition our 23rd fleet will be deployed to the high seas to protect commercial ships and oil tankers and to counter piracy in Gulf of Aden." All this will be taking place within kilometers of both the busiest seaborne transit corridor of crude oil in the world, as well as the headquarters of the US 5th Navy in Bahrain. What could go wrong.

More from Iran:

Iran’s Navy Commander Rear Admiral Habibolah Sayyari told us about the aim of these drills and its message for Iran’s enemies and friends.


The aim of the Velayat 91 Drills is to show the strength of Iran’s Navy and its ability to defend the country’s territorial waters, its interests and its resources in the sea.


The drills also demonstrate Iran’s ability to bring sustainable security in the region. The drills have a message of peace for the countries in the region and it conveys to its enemies that the Iranians are serious about protecting their borders, interests and resources.


The top commander also stated that Iran’s Navy on the first day of the drills will send a fleet of warships to the high seas to display its power and more.

As Stratfor reminds us, this is where US naval assets are located in relation to the 6-day wargame: right in it, in other words the probability for an accident, whether predetermined, false flagged, or otherwise, is high to quite high.

And some videos of what is currently going on in the Arabian Gulf:


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Fri, 12/28/2012 - 15:18 | 3102495 Hondo
Hondo's picture

At least the guy in the video knows where the trigger finger should be unlike Feinstien 

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 15:28 | 3102531 sgt_doom
sgt_doom's picture

How dare they!

How dare the Iranians have war exercises right next to all those American nuke aircraft carriers, immediately off the Iranian coast.

How dare those Iranians shoot down US drones invading their sovereign air space.

How dare they.........

You think Norm Schwarzkopf ended up in the afterlife in the same place as that former president of Iran?  You know, the one Normy's daddy helped to overthrow?????

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 15:32 | 3102546 Chief KnocAHoma
Chief KnocAHoma's picture

Yeah!!! And those smelly towel heads are living on land that sits atop OUR oil. Fuck them and the camel they rode in on.

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 15:55 | 3102629 Michaelwiseguy
Michaelwiseguy's picture

I love it. I hope Iran has a shitload of sunburn missiles to use against the bankster corporate mercenary war on them.

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 16:48 | 3102821 Jack Burton
Jack Burton's picture

Sunburn is Iran's best weapon. To use it, they would fire off a couple dozen old silkworms and other out of date missiles. In this mix would be 6 sunburns. The total strike package would be sufficent to overload defenses and perhaps two or three sunburns hit. A modern warship will be a fire trap if hit by a sunburn. A carrier would be a blow tourch if hit anywhere near the hanger deck. It is NOT about sinking a major warship, it is about blast damage to superstructure or hull and the consequent fire.

Although the Navy trains hard to fight fires onboard ship, the Royal Navy is famous for damage control, the fires onboard during the Falklands war defeated most attempts to put them out.

Iran's Subs are vulnerable to US ASW, we even use underwater drone to track them now a days. But properly employed they could be damaging, expecially if they are missile capable. Mines? Depends how modern they are and if some are already in place in key sites.

It all boils down to what the Russians have sold Iran and if Iran has the ability to employ them is a smart manner. This is a giant "IF".


Fri, 12/28/2012 - 17:58 | 3103150 Darth Mul
Darth Mul's picture

And that's why the brave Argentinians recount their stunning victory over the inept Brits in the Falklands to this very day.

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 00:34 | 3104163 TwoShortPlanks
TwoShortPlanks's picture

There's a good chance that Iran already has some ex Soviet Nukes.

Iran is not Iraq or Afghanistan, it's got smart, tech savvy people. The head-bangers know this and won't attack Iran unless Uncle Sam's got a couple of hundred thousand bags of meat ready to throw into the grinder on their behalf. That's how it will be, coz that's how it always is with them. Israel is like a small yap-dog barking and nipping at the heels of larger dogs, stirring them up, and doing so only because it's got a bigger friend ready to step-in at a moment’s notice.

I say, cut that motherfucking Israel loose from the western world and let's see well they fair without back-up. Let's see how much Mossad gets away with when there's nobody behind them to rescue them from their arrogance and reckless actions.

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 19:15 | 3103458 DoChenRollingBearing
DoChenRollingBearing's picture

@ Jack Burton  And yet all I see is ONE carrier out of port...  WTF?!  It looks like the US Navy is not worried...

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 19:24 | 3103492 post turtle saver
post turtle saver's picture

There are three items of note in your assessment which bear consideration:

- The Royal Navy ships which burned during the Falklands campaign are proof that no proper superstructure should be made out of aluminium. Steel superstructures do not have that problem and, specifically, such experience cannot be applied to US Navy designs.

- Re: possible Sunburn effectiveness, exhibit A; (and SEWIP)

- Re: possble mine effectiveness, exhibit B;

Summary: it isn't a given that Iran has anything that can touch a properly equipped US Navy carrier group operating under appropriate discipline for given conditions.

Re: Russian tech and training, agreed, that is a big "if". I believe the appropriate phrase to describe the Iranian Navy is, "battleship mouth, rowboat ass".

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 23:09 | 3104066 EscapingProgress
EscapingProgress's picture

If an invasion of Iran occurs the most significant factor will be the 5 million or more unemployed Iranians who will fire RPGs at American convoys and plant IEDs in exchange for a little bit of money or food for their families.

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 01:28 | 3104164 Element
Element's picture

It's worse than that Jack.

You're maybe forgetting about the demonstrated Iranian anti-ship IRBMs. These come in at high speed at a high angle and will punch most of the bottom out of a destroyer, from the kinetic energy alone. But they have a heavy warhead as well, just to make sure they kill the ship with only one direct-hit.


Iranian anti-ship ballistic missile testing:


They have indigenous designed and built ASMs as well - lots of them. I think we can be very confident they know how to utilize these with great effect, in concurrent co-ordinated attacks, using many different types of missiles at once:


The USN would realize that it will numbers of ships and have very many severely damaged if they tangled with Iran in a real no-holds-barred missile battle. Without doubt the USN would be forced to withdraw from the gulf. That tactical withdrawal alone would signal a sea-change in strategic balances, and geopolitical leverage, for the entire region.

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 12:45 | 3104581 post turtle saver
post turtle saver's picture

You guys are forgetting how all this works. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING, flies in a US theatre of operations unless it's US or a designated friendly. The nanosecond any clown on the shore starts painting a target US forces will detect and counter-launch. We have their antenna specs on file, for cryin' out loud. There's no getting around that, it's plain physics.

The US was easily countering Silkworms and other People's Republic of Cheap Toys tech with _Hawk missile batteries_ clear back in the 80s. Does anyone here have any idea how crufty that tech is? I think they pulled the Hawk battery they sold to Kuwait out of a museum somewhere _and it still got the job done_.

Shore-to-ship missile batteries are simply targets to a properly equipped modern fleet or air force. The primary threat to a surface fleet with air cap is _submarines_, plain and simple. If you're a crackpot despot death-to-America type who's fortunate enough to not be land locked, focus your efforts there.

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 14:21 | 3104789 Element
Element's picture

What complete baloney. Any missile defense can be gotten through. There are several examples of layered-defenses being overwhelmed and defeated. Here's a clue; an Israeli frigate in combat on alert in 2006, was hit and seriously damaged by a radar guided Hezbollah ASM, made in Iran.

You're dealing with a state that plucked an RQ-170 out of the air - intact.

I'd love to see you on a DDG, steaming through Hormuz, discovering that you're suddenly getting hit once every 5 seconds or so by a laser-guided 155mm artillery shell. You've got only so many SM2, ESSMs, M61 rounds, and 5-inch shells. You think you're going to be able to make it through via counter-fire? Well maybe. SM2s do have an air to ground mode. But you've already taken 5 direct hits before you even realize what's happening. Are the ship's systems even going to be in any state to do much after 5 direct 155mm hits? But then you find you've got a large mix of ASMs, decoys and anti-ship ballistic missiles inbound, plus fast-attack missile-boats (with torpedos) and a swarm of smaller boats with rockets.

These guys are going to come at you and you are going to run out of Phalanx rounds and 25mm cannon rounds. Plus the VLS cells are going to rapidly empty. And these guys are still going to close the distance and deliver multiple hits. Meanwhile, the 155mm is still falling the whole time, from several dispersed batteries, plus from SP arty. So you're going to lose a couple of DDGs, while others ships will burn or be crippled then probably sunk soon afterwards.

Your confidence is a little misplaced.

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 20:40 | 3103757 ali-ali-al-qomfri
ali-ali-al-qomfri's picture

…it’s not a towel…….feather brain, towels are given out by banks trying to sucker your money, shemaghs or keffiyeh are worn by cool cats, that is cats that want to stay cyool and Persians are cool cats.

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 15:28 | 3102533 Dealer
Dealer's picture

Dude, I saw Feinstein in that picture.  Clueless bitch.  She prolly never even checked the chamber to make sure it was clear!

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 15:46 | 3102597 john39
john39's picture

for a vampire, she hides her fangs pretty well...  but that face...  not much you can do about that.

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 16:02 | 3102657 Michaelwiseguy
Michaelwiseguy's picture

Online WH Petition

Try Senator Dianne Feinstein in a Federal Court For Treason To The Constitution

The Constitution was written to restrain the government. No amendment is more important for this purpose than the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment was written so the power could be kept with the citizenry in the face of a tyrannical government. It was well understood the Constitution acknowledged certain rights that could not be limited by government.

Senator Dianne Feinstein has made it clear she does not believe in the Constitution or the inalienable rights of Americans to keep and bear arms. She is actively working to destroy the 2nd amendment with her 2013 assault weapons ban. For this reason we the people of the united States petition for her to be tried in Federal Court for treason to the Constitution.

An outline of her bill may be found here:

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 16:00 | 3102575 SheepleInAction
SheepleInAction's picture

It's called the Persian Gulf. There is no such thing as Arabian Gulf. Please educate yourself.


Fri, 12/28/2012 - 16:33 | 3102765 TPTB_r_TBTF
TPTB_r_TBTF's picture



Once Iran is defeated, the Arab Allies can call that body of water whatever they like...

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 17:30 | 3102932 SheepleInAction
SheepleInAction's picture

Fortunately, there is only UK that persists on forging the history although the naughty queen officially admitted that they were calling it fallaciously. I guess brits still have this feeling that they are living in the 18th century; the divide and rule bullshit, etc.

I don't think anyone could easily rename something like a gulf with several thousand years of historical documentation. And unless we make the mistake of helping them, I don't think arabs will ever be able to defeat Iran.

I say it's a mistake because if those dirty mullahs are removed from the power, Iran can become the most important ally of the west in the region, like once it was before the 1979 revolution.

In addition, the west needs Iranian people to fight with Islamic fundamentalism. You may be surprised to know that there are more anti-islam people in Iran today than many western countries. Unlike us, those people have learned Islam very well and know how to fight with it.

Think about it, Egypt is now going through the same route that Iranians did 35 years ago and Egypt is supposed to be the most advanced arabic society. The other arabic countries are waaaay behind the civilization even though they built the tallest and biggest buildings.


Fri, 12/28/2012 - 19:25 | 3103495 Manthong
Manthong's picture

"can call that body of water whatever "

Lake Leonidas?

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 15:19 | 3102498 Agent P
Agent P's picture

"What could go wrong?"

For our Navy, I'm guessing not a lot.

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 15:24 | 3102513 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

In the age of sunburn anti-ship missiles I wouldn't be so sure about that. Aircraft carriers make for big targets.

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 15:28 | 3102522 Manthong
Manthong's picture

Sure hope the Iranians don't have any airliners passing overhead.

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 15:35 | 3102554 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

I remember when that happened. I think that we would witness a different response if that were to happen today.

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 15:41 | 3102578 Manthong
Manthong's picture

It's amazing how something like that could happen.

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 16:13 | 3102704 Manthong
Manthong's picture

It’s just comforting to know that the US government is in control of all of the buttons, the information flow and the evidence..

like at Sandy Hook.

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 20:08 | 3103675 mjcOH1
mjcOH1's picture

"In the age of sunburn anti-ship missiles I wouldn't be so sure about that. Aircraft carriers make for big targets."

Sunburn maximum range  : 75 miles
F-18F combat radius : 450 miles (unrefueled)

Hmmm....yeah.    The math says being on an Iranian missile boat has a high actuarial risk.

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 19:30 | 3103520 Jack Burton
Jack Burton's picture

The sub story makes sense. The US submarine force for decades has proven it's boats can do this exact same thing. The South African Navy some years back in exercises with a USN force used a similar boat to this Chinese sub to sink most of the USN force in a exercise in SA's waters.

China is probably about 25 years behind the USN and still a sub can do this. A good sub force like the USN's could sink any Navy in the world in very, very short order.

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 01:28 | 3104130 Element
Element's picture



In a real ASuW battle you get;

  • Permanent ELF underwater listening arrays on various continents that can hear and track a sub right across an ocean basin
  • Long-range maritime patrol aircraft dropping active and passive sonobuoys on contacts and using new-gen MAD sensors.
  • Fleet helicopters deploying active dipping sonars and floating active and passive sonobuoys
  • LHDs loaded with more helicopters equipped with torpedos, mobile sub-hunting mines
  • RUM-139 VL-ASROC torpedo-tipped missiles launched from destroyers and cruisers with classified but >30km range.
  • Hunter-killer subs (let's not forget those)

Western naval ASuW technology is fearsome. I'd rather be on an alert ship than in a sub any day as at least you'd have a fighting chance of survival on the ship. Surface fleets can detect and nail subs really fast if/when the gloves actually come off.

Most of the time western fleets don’t use their toys, even during allied exercises, simply because they don’t want to damage fisheries. People get real upset. Plus it telegraphs to the other guys what you can do.

Yes, subs are sneaky, but SSKs are very slow and impractical against fast moving blue-water fleets and virtually impossible for the SSK to survive if they do attack such a fleet. It would be suicide to fire on a modern Western surface fleet with torpedos, so they'd have to use under water launched ASM missiles, but these are immediately detected at launch, by sound, thermal and radar, so the ships can just drop a VLS ASROC torpedo right on top of a slow moving SSK - within about 1 minute. And if that doesn't work a helicopter will be in the scene in minutes with a dipping-sonar and more torpedos. It's suicide for the SSK, and almost not assured suicide for a fast-attack SSN.

Plus carriers and destroyers are not slow, they were made to sprint, to be able to potentially out-run a torpedo, or rather, to try and stop it catching-up, before the torpedo runs out of puff and dies. SSNs the same.

In these exercises a 'fired' torpedo is usually simulated, so the 'kill' claim is a technical one only, and more or less wishful thinking. But if a sub fired real torpedos, these would be heard almost immediately, identified, and the sub counter-attacked within about a minute.

BTW, there are also anti-torpedo torpedos, not to mention towed-decoys and rocket dispersed decoys for use against torpedos. Killing a frigate, destroyer or carrier for real is nowhere near as easy as baloney exercise kill-claims suggest. In reality the sub crew would be scared to death, and wanting to get the hell out of dodge.

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 02:35 | 3104246 Jack Burton
Jack Burton's picture

Indeed. Spoken like a true Surface Sailor. I naturally take the opposite view. But then I was a Sonar Tech Submarine SS. I also had the good fortune to do a year with Surface ASW and got their side of the ASW problem.


Sat, 12/29/2012 - 03:03 | 3104250 Element
Element's picture

I could find a much more productive (and nasty) use for SSKs as well as a far more survivable role (SSG, mine warfare and special ops for instance). You can nail a surface fleet far more quickly and more flexibly with cheaper and much more easy to come by weapons and platforms, sans throwing the subs against them. ;)

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 15:35 | 3102557 Chief KnocAHoma
Chief KnocAHoma's picture

So does that backwards ass country full of savages. Bring it I'mANuttJob... it will be a quick war even with our depleted force strength. And don't think Russia and China are itching for a fight. They'll sit it out, but Turkey? Those Turks may want to re-assert their power and let it be known they are rising.

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 15:40 | 3102573 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

So when you say " backward ass country full of savages" I can only presume that you are talking about the one country that trots around the globe savagely killing whoever might be in their way.

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 19:32 | 3103532 Jack Burton
Jack Burton's picture

He may consider them "backward ass" because they are not "chosen people". He may have given away his motive for calling them that.

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 15:45 | 3102592 EscapeKey
EscapeKey's picture

I found the guy who drinks the kool-aid.

Next, you'll tell us that the right-wing-of-the-Wall-St-party Republicans are so much better than the left-wing-of-the-Wall-St-party Democrats.

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 19:43 | 3103578 shovelhead
shovelhead's picture

Well, you have to admit the republicans wear better ties.

Barney Frank's tie has gravy from 1987 on it.

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 23:12 | 3104069 Ima anal sphincter
Ima anal sphincter's picture

That's not gravy.

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 15:49 | 3102607 Renewable Life
Renewable Life's picture

There is something absolutely priceless about a dude, screaming about "backwards ass country full of savages" that "represents himself"with an old school Atlanta Braves logo, with a Native American image on it!

Gotta love it! What would be intersesting to know is, does dude see and understand the irony, or does it just not even register in his brain?? Oh well, i sure we will never know?

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 16:16 | 3102710 Global Hunter
Global Hunter's picture

I thought he was trying to be funny, maybe I gave him too much credit?

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 15:46 | 3102602 Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill's picture

A surprise as nasty as the Royal Navy got with the first generation Exocet.
HMS Bristol sank with most hands.

Sunburn is a third generation anti ship weapon ,and a fourth generation is rumored to

be in production.Name unknown.Ballistic with no credible defense .

The US carriers are very expensive targets.

As much use as battleships at Midway.

Pity the sailors manning them.

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 16:34 | 3102734 Wile-E-Coyote
Wile-E-Coyote's picture

HMS Bristol!!!!! It was HMS Sheffield type 42 destroyer you fucking idiot. Oh and the Atlantic conveyor: Falklands war 1982 FFS.

The Sheffield didn't sink with all hands, the Exocet's warhead didn't go off but the missile hit amid ships 7 feet above water level, the main firemain was ruptured rendering fire fighting all but impossible, the ship burnt from stem to stern. Just under 10% of the crew were killed (22) from a compliment of 270.

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 16:54 | 3102854 Jack Burton
Jack Burton's picture

USN brags they can defeat many multiple anti ship missiles at once. Sunburn deploys counter measures, is extremely fast and can take avoid action to make a shoot down very hard. USN knows it can knock down drone missiles from exercises. It has never, ever faced a Sunburn. So it is a crap shoot till the real fighting begins. My guess is Sunburn can get a hit rate sufficient to induce serious losses, but not enough to defeat the USN intentions. Still, America has not faced big casualties since Vietnam. In the Falklands war several hundred Argentine sailors died in one torpedo attack. A Sunburn or two hitting a USN Carrier or Cruiser?  Easily could kill hundreds on a Carrier, dozens on a Cruiser.

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 18:01 | 3103166 Darth Mul
Darth Mul's picture

The Iranians just might win this thing if Israeli subs target more than 1 US carrier to get things rolling, is that what you mean, Mr. Expert From 10 Years Ago?



Fri, 12/28/2012 - 18:37 | 3103307 Jack Burton
Jack Burton's picture

Be a little more clear? The question makes no sense. Expert? Sorry for my experiences in the Navy and for keeping up on naval developments. Or is that an issue for you? What is ten years about?

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 01:06 | 3104191 Element
Element's picture

yeah, and there's another nasty little surprise the USN and USMC may not be banking on Jack. What they should and need to understand is that if Iran ever really no-bullshitting opened-up on them within the Persian Gulf and Hormuz area, US naval power would get a mauling like the Philippines Sea hammering by Kamikazes.

Iran unveils "Basir" smart laser-guided long-range artillery munition:

Now imagine several of these shells dropping on you every minute for an hour, or more.  What are the chances of even an aegis destroyer or cruiser surviving? Not real good I'd say. And a carrier would be trashed pretty damn quick. Almost all people in the US simply don't grasp what an incomprehensible ass-whooping would be handed-out in any real battle with Iran.

People like Barry and Hillary etc., have no clue what fools they are to keep antagonizing Iran, and attacking them with sanctions as a point will come when Iran will act and when it does, it's going to be big, and much too late to stop what takes place.

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 15:21 | 3102508 knukles
knukles's picture

New Year's fireworks promise to be huge!
Welcome everybody, hope you have a blast!

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 15:27 | 3102527 SheepHerder
SheepHerder's picture

The good news is that if the administration (and the puppet propaganda machine) has to turn its attention to Iran, they can momentarily stop stripping American citizens of their civil liberties and rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

 Wait…who am I kidding?  I’m sure they’ll still figure a way to continue bending over American citizens while spreading “democracy bombs” overseas.

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 15:27 | 3102530 Magnum
Magnum's picture

Only a matter of time before a handful of stinking israelis dressed up as iranians does something to spark the sheeple into a frenzied war.

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 15:41 | 3102579 EscapeKey
EscapeKey's picture

...but even then, according to our "fair and balanced" media, it'll be Iran declaring war on the west.

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 16:30 | 3102757 NoTTD
NoTTD's picture

Iran declared war on the US on 11/04/79 when it invaded our sovereign territory.

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 16:58 | 3102876 Jack Burton
Jack Burton's picture

Can we expect more of the "Dancing Israelis".  US cops should have shot the "dancing Israelis" on 9/11 instead of arresting and deporting them.

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 15:34 | 3102553 youngman
youngman's picture

They could be all taken out with about 20 Christmas hams lobbed on their decks....

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 15:58 | 3102642 optimator
optimator's picture

I still remember those Japanese Naval aviators with their Coke bottle glasses and buck teeth.  They cleared the air over the Pacific in three months!  Never diminish your potential adversaries capabilities.

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 19:53 | 3103610 shovelhead
shovelhead's picture

Spiral sliced for a higher kill ratio.

A HAARP induced monsoon of bacon grease over Iran and that's all folks.

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 15:36 | 3102559 Super Broccoli
Super Broccoli's picture

this blocade sounds a lot like a medieval war : first you starve your ennemy then - if he doesn't wave the white flag after a while - you attack.

Basically we haven't innovated on the way to wage a war over the last 600 years ... except nowaday everyone pretends a blocade isn't an act of war !

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 15:53 | 3102621 john39
john39's picture

actually, they take most countries by infiltration with foreign agents...  happened to the U.S. long ago...

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 19:42 | 3103576 Dugald
Dugald's picture

Mamma Mia! sanno che siamo qui, rapido ritorno in Italia...

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 15:36 | 3102563 Frozen IcQb
Frozen IcQb's picture

The screen doors might tear

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 15:39 | 3102568 monopoly
monopoly's picture

"What could go wrong", lolol. What has gone right the past 4 years?

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 15:39 | 3102569 wandstrasse
wandstrasse's picture

What is wrong with the good (= the clean, honest, godly, brave - the West) fighting the evil (= the ugly bearded, lying, superstitious, coward - the Arabians/Iranians)?


Fri, 12/28/2012 - 15:40 | 3102571 EscapeKey
EscapeKey's picture

How dare they not have collapsed yet?

Don't they realize that gold is a fools errand, and only the RARE US Dollar is worth anything?

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 15:40 | 3102574 Diesel Seven
Diesel Seven's picture

That's kinda cute. The U.S. currently has 14 strategic nuclear submarines (with 24 tubes per sub, thank you very much). What's the point of it all. The U.S. spends more on defense than the next 14 countries combined--those Petro-dollars really come in handy.

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 15:46 | 3102599 EscapeKey
EscapeKey's picture

Salaries across those countries are not like-for-like.

And some of these countries might be closer to the labour theory of value equations when it comes to production cost.

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 20:44 | 3103766 mjcOH1
mjcOH1's picture

"That's kinda cute. The U.S. currently has 14 strategic nuclear submarines (with 24 tubes per sub, thank you very much). What's the point of it all. "

Well, there are over 160 Chinese cities with populations of over 1 million.

You asked.

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 15:41 | 3102577 ceilidh_trail
ceilidh_trail's picture

Probably much ado about nothing. I note that only 1 of 10 US carriers is at sea- and it's on a port visit. Look at the above map. We moved the vast majority of our stuff out of there to let them put on their little show. I love the boat with the giant propeller above it- really makes me tremble-not. They are not stupid enough to believe that they are more than a nat on a dogs ass.

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 16:09 | 3102688 dkd
dkd's picture

thank you!  I also noticed that!  Conincedental I am sure


Fri, 12/28/2012 - 15:41 | 3102580 AurorusBorealus
AurorusBorealus's picture

If Iran is operating under the assumption that war with the United States is inevitable (and I assume that they are... since... the U.S. has made it abundantly clear for at least the past 11 years that war with Iran is coming), this is the perfect time to commence hostilities.  With all of Iran's assets sortied under the guise of a "drill," they could almost assured take down both the CVN battle group and the big deck amphibious group.  With only 1 U.S. carrier in the region and nearly the entire Atlantic Fleet in the Chesapeake, it would be quite some time before the U.S. could assemble forces sufficient to begin clearing the Straits.  To send a second CVN (after the Stennis is sunk), alone, to the region would be foolish, and the U.S. would have to wait until at least 3 CVNs are available to enter the Gulf.

This would add a month or more to the time it would take the U.S. to open the Straits after an Iranian blockade and would give the Iranians time to scatter their naval assets.  Almost assuredly the Straits would be closed until the Summer, and the spike in global oil prices would be frightening apparition to behold.  It is very much an open question as to whether the U.S. could open the Straits before the Strategic Petroleum Reserve ran dry.  If Iran could hold after the SPR runs dry, the U.S. economy would implode in short order and a full-blown global crisis would be on.  The Iranians have a chance, here and now, to bring the Great Satan to his knees.

Whoever put the whole Atlantic Fleet in port and left only 1 carrier patroling the Gulf and 1 carrier in the Pacific is an idiot... but then again... when you are more concerned with your military commander's political positions than their capacity for strategic thinking, these are the types of situations you find yourself in.

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 16:00 | 3102648 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

"Whoever put the whole Atlantic Fleet in port and left only 1 carrier patroling the Gulf and 1 carrier in the Pacific is an idiot... but then again... when you are more concerned with your military commander's political positions than their capacity for strategic thinking, these are the types of situations you find yourself in."


You are working under the false assumption that our current commander -n-thief gives a rat's ass about the United States navy.

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 16:02 | 3102663 DosZap
DosZap's picture

With only 1 U.S. carrier in the region and nearly the entire Atlantic Fleet in the Chesapeake, it would be quite some time before the U.S. could assemble forces sufficient to begin clearing the Straits.

Hmmmmmmmm, yeah like if they sank ONE battelship, or a Carrier, the nation would have maybe 2 mins till a HUGE glob of gigantic white orbs hit incinerating 50%  of Iran.

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 16:15 | 3102707 Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill's picture

Because that idiot screwed up the rotation by keeping so many carriers on station

in the Gulf for so long.It could be a year to get three back there in operational

condition.Four carriers are now overdue for multi year refits.

Pax Americana is way over extended on sea, and land.

Someone is going to realize ,and take the initiative soon.

Maybe Iran, maybe someone else.

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 20:20 | 3103714 AurorusBorealus
AurorusBorealus's picture

Correct as usual Mr. Churchill.  You do your namesake justice.

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 16:28 | 3102750 NoTTD
NoTTD's picture

Iran has been at war with the US since 11/04/79.

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 17:12 | 3102940 Joe A
Joe A's picture

The US has been at war with the Iranian people when the CIA disposed of a democractilly elected Iranian president in '53 because he wanted to nationalize the Iranian oil instead of Western oil companies taking most of the profit. One thing leads to another and in this case it was the US supporting an ever increasing oppressive regime by the Shah which in the end led to the installation of an even more oppressive regime of Mulas. Of course, the US will now again bring 'peace, freedom and democracy' to the region. NOT. Just as in '53 it is all about the oil.

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 17:32 | 3103048 A. Magnus
A. Magnus's picture

WRONG! The US has been at war with Iran since the CIA overthrew the legitimately elected government there in 1953. Nice try waving the staged 'hostage' situation from '79 as a Cassus Belli for the Neocon chickenhawk pussy commandos, but that dog won't hunt these days...

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 02:08 | 3104238 Element
Element's picture

Bullshit, if you were at war with Iran you'd know about it in far more tangible and direct ways.  The US may be constantly attacking Iran, and inciting a war with Iran, they just haven't fallen for the constant baiting is all.

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 16:38 | 3102780 czarangelus
czarangelus's picture

and they'd be totally right in doing it.

A scary scenario, because the last thing America can sustain right now is a military humiliation. The loss of a carrier, and the inability to respond in an immediate fashion to the sinking, would cause a potentially fatal paradigm shift for the US Wehrmacht...

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 17:42 | 3103081 A. Magnus
A. Magnus's picture

You do know that the US uses a policy of 'flexible response' that means if the Iranians so much as put a bullet hole in one of our sea copters that the Feds reserve the right to retaliate with full-on nukes, right?

They came up with that policy in the 80s to keep the Soviets from wiping out the armies of Western Europe with the massive numeric superiority in conventional firepower they had in those days. The Feds never rescinded that policy, so if we lose a carrier then millions of Iranians will likely lose their lives in an instant...

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 20:20 | 3103708 AurorusBorealus
AurorusBorealus's picture

This, my friend,will instigate a massive response from Russia and China as they would be forced to retaliate in some fashion (such as a nuclear bombardment of Japan), what follows this would be the complete destruction of human life in the northern hemisphere and most of the life on earth.

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 02:03 | 3104236 Element
Element's picture

Absolute nonsense, definitely not.

When you're dealing with a potentially nuclear-armed state, "proportional-response" has been the long term operative diplomatic policy, else you get into an open-ended escalation that ends with nuclear exchange. 

If the US indicriminately murdered a million Iranians, for merely sinking a US carrier and escorts to defend itself, then Iran would at the very least be justified in using a bio-agent or nerve-gas, on at least one US mainland city.

"Want to play a game?"

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 20:26 | 3103692 AurorusBorealus
AurorusBorealus's picture

If I were in charge of Iran, I would instigate the war, here and now, (were I solely a military / political man and not a christian who would never instigate a war for any reason).  Iran is unlikely to ever have an opportunity like this again.

Sun, 12/30/2012 - 02:32 | 3104426 Element
Element's picture

Why do you assume Iran wants war with the USSA? It's not Iran that has the long and sordid hystery of making war on innocent countries, who have done nothing to the USSA.

But you just automatically assume and assert Iranians are as duplicitous, warmongering and evil-in-intent, as the USSA, Europe and Israel. But Iran has no such history of making war on other countries, in that way. It's plainly not what they do. That's the zionist-kike way of making war, by deception, infiltration, pre-emption and terrorism. What you're saying is like expecting India to move against Dieago Garcia, to get the infernal-eternal shit-stirrers, out of the central Indian ocean basin. You said this was the ideal time! So this would be the perfect opportunity for the curry munchers to do that, right? So why don't they rush to do it then?

Because its fucking dumb, is why, and you're unbelievably dumb for suggesting Iran should attack the USN like that.

Oh, Washington is indeed baiting Iran to react, and they eventually will respond - you can count on that. But like that novel RQ-170 take down, it's going to happen on their terms, in their way, on their schedule, and they are going to do so in a way that assures they win, and maximize the strategic losses, and technology losses, and global status losses, to the US/NATO/Israel axis-of-evil doers.

Never forget this simple lesson; Iran could have simply put up an interceptor, to close with and shoot down that RQ-170 (which is obviously not as 'low-observable' or stealthy as was believed). They could have done that, at a much earlier time. But instead, they chose to do something much more damaging and embarrassing, something much less obvious, something very unexpected. Something no one even contemplated was possible. And it had a terrific global impact, and a huge material bonus. They instead of doing the obvious thing, took their time, and plucked and RQ-170 out of the air. And let's remember also, at the time this was an aircraft that was so top-secret that almost no one knew anything about it or had seen it. There were no photos of it even, just rumors of it. People didn't even know it existed, until the Iranians presented a captured RQ-170 to the world. And Obama Sin-laden then lamely asked for his toy back, like some facile retarded child!

How can people so soon forget such a stunning lesson that indicated the dire need to understand the Iranians and the whole situation, and to never underestimate their potential? I really don't get this willful blindness, and the basic dishonesty of it all, and the refusal to learn from the obvious material fact that the USSA was massively asymmetrically out-smarted by a far greater technical and tactical capacity than was ever suspected to exist. Thus the Achilles-Heal of the entire paradigm of remote-controlled UAV, UCAV, satellite and long-range missile attack, was but for a moment, fleetingly revealed to be an electronic and software house-of-cards.

When Iran does confront its baiters, in Washington and elsewhere, they're going to do many things that are not at all obvious, or expected, and they're going to win because they will wait until they know they will win. Their non-response to date should not be misunderstood, they aren't intimidated, they are confident but careful and intending to win. Misunderstanding Iran, and misrepresenting it is a huge mistake in itself, but under-estimating them is incredibly unwise.

But Washington, London and Paris baiting them towards war - without relent - that's just insanity.

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 01:54 | 3104232 Element
Element's picture



There are several potential flash points on a hair-trigger right now.

- Disputed territory Japan/China

- Korea

- Hormuz/Gulf

- Eastern Med/Syria

Any one of these could go loud fast. If Washington and US-Policy-Captured, but actually unwilling allies, don't want that to happen, then it would be a good idea to pull the fleets back, give them some Christmas/new-year leave (did you think of that?) and lay-low and allow tensions to cools-down some.

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 07:33 | 3104362 AurorusBorealus
AurorusBorealus's picture

You're a member of the Joint Chiefs, aren't you?  No wait, you are definately in State, probably Hilary's closest advisor.


Fri, 12/28/2012 - 15:42 | 3102582 docmac324
docmac324's picture

They do this every year.  Nothing to see, move along, move along.

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 15:54 | 3102627 cougar_w
cougar_w's picture

Wait let me get some popcorn.

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 15:58 | 3102641 earnulf
earnulf's picture

Even if Iran was irrational enough to actually initiate hostilities, the response would more than likely take the form of airstrikes and missile strikes that would target Command, Control and Communications.     Pissing off the US is not a long term healthy type of event and while WWII was 71 years ago (1941), the US has never taken kindly to blindsides, whether engineered or not.     Not sure if "Remember the Stennis" is quite as stirring, but one never knows.    If Iran throws the first pitch, China and Russia will sit it out rather than show their hand.   China is not yet ready to belly up to the bar and definately not so far from it's own shores.   Russia will also decline to get involved other than politicial carping because Iran started it.

Doesn't matter what led up to it, sinking a US CVN is big boy shit and brings forth the hammer.   Guess whose the nail.

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 16:40 | 3102786 Bollixed
Bollixed's picture

"and while WWII was 71 years ago (1941), the US has never taken kindly to blindsides, whether engineered or not."

We had factories back in those days. We could afford to sacrifice a bunch iron for the cause. Now we would be lucky to build anything since we've farmed out so many of our critical military parts to our NATO buddies. And let's not forget the other stuff we rely on China for.

Bottom line..we're in no position to stick our dick in a wasp nest now that we've gone 'global'.


Sat, 12/29/2012 - 22:01 | 3104243 Element
Element's picture

I think you'll find that it was the US Treasury which "initiated" war with Iran, when a bunch of fucking Jews, who have welded themselves to Uncle Sam's purse-strings, goy together under the aegis of the "Financial Terrorism Unit", to impose a range of advanced 'smart-sanctions' on Iran, a few years back.

Make no mistake, it's a bunch of duel-shitizen kikes, within the bowels of the US Treasury Dept, headed up by Timmay the Goldman zionist-Jew-boy, who are behind all of the current sanctions-regime aggression against Iran. Naked financial and economic aggression, that continues to absurdly passed off as peaceful innocent diplomacy.

Until such stinking zionist shit-birds are gone, and actually banned from the US Treasury, altogether, and their pet "financial terrorism section" shutdown, and eliminated, then this sort of insane endless international financial aggression shit is going to be on-going. And as long as the kikes are also running FEMA and the FEDERAL RESERVE BANK, the same thing applies.

The ultimate sick joke of the US Treasury's "Financial Terrorism Section", is that they pretend to be fighting terrorism. When it's exactly the reverse! The unit is in fact appropriately named because it's entirely obvious from their actions, not their words, that they're attacking and inflicting financial terrorism, as considered acts for inciting destruction and international warfare.

And thus they're subverting and throwing a monkey-wrench into the mechanism of US foreign policy - they couldn't give a fuck how many US European or Israeli citizens they get killed by this, and they certainly don't give a damn about Iran, or Iranians, in general. Hence this is the reason why the Gulf and Middle East situation and foreign policy is so incredibly fucked-up, to the ridiculous extent that the Kenyan dipshit from Indonesia, who claims to be Hawaiian, is literally backing Al Qaeda in Syria, and arming and financing them, in the face of DIRECT Russian and Chinese warning and threats of nuclear-backed intervention and potential WW3 - if Iran is ever attacked!

If you want to defuse and fix this staggering mess, first, you need to get rid of all the fucking zionist kikes, actively subverting the US system.

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 15:58 | 3102646 youngman
youngman's picture

I would hit them when they are doing their morning prayers......that way some of the firepower would go right up their Keisters.....symbolic I would think

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 16:10 | 3102692 CitizenPete
CitizenPete's picture

Spoken like a true Amerikan.

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 16:11 | 3102696 CitizenPete
CitizenPete's picture

Remember the USS Liberty.

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 20:36 | 3103749 Iwanttoknow
Iwanttoknow's picture

citizen pete,

Try googling operation cyanide.

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 16:25 | 3102741 NoTTD
NoTTD's picture

Iran does not have enough of any military equipment to do anything "massive".   Maybe chelow kababs - but I'm not sure those can be militarized.  Not quick enough, anyway.

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 16:37 | 3102776 rsnoble
rsnoble's picture

Fucking insane. Shit in Iran about to go viral, US financial system on the rocks and now we're supposed to hand in all our fkn guns. Boy these rotten motherfuckers certainly have things fkd up.

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 17:15 | 3102957 Joe A
Joe A's picture

Everything going according to plan.

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 16:44 | 3102811 czarangelus
czarangelus's picture

the Zionist trolls always come out in force for this shit.

Hey faggots. The enemy Zero Hedgers have - the US Federal Government - is the same enemy decried by Persians and Arab revolutionaries for 30+ years. And guess what? Those of us with our fingers on the pulse realize they were right, all along. The US FedGov IS the Great Satan. Freedom-seeking people all over the world are natural allies against the globalist regime, if not for the jambalaya of racism and fracticious sectarianism pushed by the MSM and many alternative media sites to boot. Fuck you shills.

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 17:00 | 3102895 ZFiNX
ZFiNX's picture

Unleash the nukes.

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 17:35 | 3103058 Skip
Skip's picture

The US has waged war against Iran for the last several years, ZH readers know that already. The same enemies of US may pull another one of these where they were going to blame EGYPT:

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 17:37 | 3103061 Mad Muppet
Mad Muppet's picture

'Democracy Bombs'...that one killed me.

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 19:57 | 3103626 PhD
PhD's picture

What an UTTERLY pointless display! What is the point of this propaganda by Iran? It serves no purpose.

Too bad I'm not in charge because I would have made a show for the ages!  A show that would determine ones and for all the military abitions of Iran,

To start I would have sent in dozens of freshly carpented Trimeres, its crew armed to the teeth with Muskets and bows and arrows. Then, at the shoreline there would have been rows and rows of Catapults hurling wooden rockets at random into the sea, their crew yelling WHOOOS WHOOS.

At the midst of the displayed mayhem, would appare a formation of those female ninjas, each in their rubber boats performing awsome synchronized ninjutsu moves, while steering their state of the art 500W electric propeller engines. 

Fri, 12/28/2012 - 20:25 | 3103720 shovelhead
shovelhead's picture

Relax kids...

It's just a little pep rally for the locals because they had a worse holiday retail showing than we did.

Iranian Christmas Cheer.

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 03:01 | 3104255 AwkwardReader
AwkwardReader's picture

I had the mind numbing task of over-watching the two oil platforms and the Iranian Navy off the Iraqi coast a couple years back. Let's just say that their Navy isn't that big of a deal. God love them though, they freaking try and I don't doubt that they would put up the fight of a life time. I once saw them open up on a fishing vessel in Internatioal water. Not a good outcome.

I also met an Iraqi Major that served 10 years in Iranian prison when he was caught during the Iraqi/Iran war. He didn't have any heartwarming stories to tell. Hell of a good guy though and I do believe he's living in Arizona now.

I also met an Iraqi who was captured by the Saudi's during the first Gulf War. He said while in prison they tried to grow small plants in bottles. The guards caught them and pronounced that they were "witches" because using magic was forbidden.

Gotta love the Saudi's. The most backward fking retards on this planet. Except the women of course, they like it rough.


Sat, 12/29/2012 - 05:47 | 3104326 Ausmerican
Ausmerican's picture

Anyone who thinks Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons is kidding themselves, it's the elephant in the room that even the west doesn't want to admit, otherwise they would have invaded Syria/Libya style already. They (NATO et al) do not want to seem like a toothless tiger and have to admit their sanctions haven't worked, and Iran is happy to play along and use the political Gains of the victim in all of this. At the end of the day its all poitics and bullshit.

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 12:45 | 3104566 JR
JR's picture

It’s Stratfor (George Friedman) and it’s the discussion of possible war and, unfortunately, all the talk has a way of enveloping the United States in War. That’s a purpose of warmongering.

And the warmongering benefits the foreign policy of Israel.

America is in rapid decline because she has been commandeered by a foreign country with that country’s best interests at heart. Israel has placed her agents at the top of  the US government, of its communications network, and its financial system. As a result, those the Zionists dislike, Americans and Iranians alike, have become “the country’s true enemies.”

Spain resolved its decline in 1492 by the expulsion of its Jewish financiers. And, contrary to myth that Spain went into decline afterwards, to the contrary,” the Spanish Empire attained its greatest limits and material and intellectual power in the Century after the Expulsion.” (William Thomas Walsh, Characters of the Inquisition)

If Americans want to live in hovels while her “merchants and usurers live in palaces with regal pomp and luxury,” then by all means, continue to cast off freedom and slouch onward toward Serfdom at the sound of the Elitists’ whip. Let your fate be what you impose on other peoples in the name of Zionism.

And: “May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." --Samuel Adams

Israel criticised by Britain over West Bank university | The Guardian

Foreign Office says upgrade for college in settlement of Ariel will prove an obstacle to peace in the region

December 28, 2012 -- Israel plans to found a university in the West Bank Jewish settlement of Ariel.

The British government has warned that the official authorisation of Israel's first settlement university will create another hurdle in the peace process.

Israel's defence secretary, Ehud Barak, approved the upgrade of a college in the settlement of Ariel, 11 miles inside the West Bank, earlier this week.

In a statement released on Thursday, the British foreign office minister Alistair Burt said the UK was deeply disappointed by the decision.

"Ariel is beyond the Green Line in a settlement that is illegal according to international law. This decision will deepen the presence of the settlements in the Palestinian territories and will create another obstacle to peace," the statement said.

Burt repeated the government's call for Israel to reverse a recent spate of settlement expansion plans, saying it should "take no further steps aimed at expanding or entrenching settlement activity".

A spokesman for the Israeli foreign ministry said it was "disappointing to see that a [UK Foreign Office] minister should adopt the contested Palestinian position hook, line and sinker, thus adding controversy where it is already in excess".

Britain and other European countries have become increasingly vocal in their criticism of Israel's plans to build thousands of new homes in settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. They say such expansion threatens the possibility of a viable Palestinian state…

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 13:51 | 3104712 hivekiller
hivekiller's picture

With any luck, Iran nukes Israhell. If they take out Washington and London as well, I say go Iran.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!