This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Iran Outlines Key Steps And Actors In A Potential Straits Of Hormuz Closure

Tyler Durden's picture


While the Iranian war game naval exercises have been ongoing for almost five days, or half of the projected 10, tensions in the Straits of Hormuz region have been rising culminating with today's interchange between the head of the Iranian Navy and the US 5th Fleet (which for various reasons we can not present you with a status update today). One question that remains is just what would a closure of the Straits looks like. Luckily, the Middle East Media Research Institute's blog has caught a release by an Iranian website Mashreq News, which spells out the step by step details of just how such a closure would be enacted.


In response to threats by Western countries to impose oil sanctions on Iran, the Iranian website Mashreq News, which is close to Iranian military circles, posted an article on December 15, 2011 outlining military measures that could be taken by Tehran to close the Strait of Hormuz should the regime choose to do so.

The article enumerated the forces and weapons that Iran could employ in such a military operation, including fast attack craft carrying anti-ship missiles; submarines; battleships; cruise and ballistic missiles; bombers carrying laser-, radar- and optically-guided missiles; helicopters; armed drones; hovercraft; and artillery.

It stated that despite Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's statements that Tehran would not initiate a military confrontation but would retaliate harshly if attacked, "there is no guarantee that [Tehran] will not launch a preemptory strike on the civilian level, for instance through cyber-warfare or by means of economic pressure, including by closing the Strait of Hormuz and cutting off [this] energy lifeline for an indefinite period of time." It added, "Should additional sanctions be imposed on Iran, especially in the domain of oil export, Iran might keep [its] oil from leaving its territorial waters."

In a further threat, the article stated that Iran would in the future be able to attack the 480-km pipeline with a capacity of 2.5 million barrels/day[1] that the UAE is planning to build in order to bypass the Strait of Hormuz in order to neutralize Iran's ability to disrupt the world's oil supply: "As for the plan... to construct a [pipeline] from the UAE that will be an alternative in times of emergency in case the Hormuz Strait is closed, we should note... that the entire territory of the UAE is within range of Iran's missiles, [so Iran] will easily be able to undermine security at the opening of this [pipeline] using weapons to be discussed this report."

In accordance with Iranian doctrine, the article pointed out that these weapons would actually not be necessary because there would be suicide operations, and added that "the faith of the Iranian youth, and their eagerness to sacrifice their lives, will sap the enemies' courage."

Despite statements by Iranian government spokesmen, including Oil Minister Rostam Qasemi and Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast, that the closing of the strait is not currently on Iran's agenda,[2] Majlis National Security Committee member Pervez Sarouri said that the Iran would be conducting 10 days of naval maneuvers, called "Velayat 90," beginning December 24, 2011, to drill closing it.[3]

Satellite view of the Strait of Hormuz connecting the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman

Kayhan editor Hossein Shariatmadari, who is close to Khamenei, called on the regime to announce immediately that Tehran would close the strait to vessels from the U.S., Europe, Japan, or any other country participating in imposing oil sanctions on Iran.[4]

At a press conference on the subject of the Velayat 90 naval maneuvers, which commenced on December 24, Iranian Navy Commander Habibollah Sayyari said that his forces would be capable of closing the strait if asked to do so.[5]

It should be noted that Iranian officials have previously threatened to close the strait as a means of deterring Iran's neighbors and the West (see previous MEMRI reports from 2010, 2008 and 2007).[6]

The following are the main points of the Mashreq News article on closing the Strait of Hormuz.[7]


Fast Attack Craft

The article stated that since it first introduced fast attack craft for use in the Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988), the Iranian navy has immeasurably improved the craft's "ability to face advanced enemy combat vessels, much less cargo ships. These boats are equipped with sea radar systems; advanced electronic communication systems; sea-to-sea cruise missiles, both short-range – 25 km – and medium range; medium- and large-caliber [sic] torpedoes; and naval mines, along with traditional means of warfare – including semi-heavy machine guns, missile launchers, and shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles. These sea craft are capable of blocking the Strait [of Hormuz] for a brief or an extended period, and of facing enemy warships trying to open the route.

"In addition to their high speed and abovementioned equipment, these sea craft are highly maneuverable. Their ability to operate at night, aided by the requisite accessories, as well as in stormy weather, has been demonstrated repeatedly in recent years, in maneuvers both minor and major. Their successful record includes stopping submarines from countries beyond the [Gulf] region that aimed to cross the Strait of Hormuz, and supporting [Iranian] submarines threatened by enemy warships in the Indian Ocean... Iran has various types of naval mines, both stationary and remote controlled. This weapon [i.e. the mines] may, if necessary, be operated by Iranian boats and submarines [located at] various points in the Strait of Hormuz and the surrounding waters."


The article continued: "The Iranian navy's acquisition of submarines... some 20 in number... has rendered it more powerful than the navies of the [other] countries in the region. Iran's submarine craft can use torpedoes, mines, and missiles, and can remain submerged for weeks in order to accomplish a mission. Apart from the Russian Kilo class submarines, the Nahang, Ghadir, and Fateh class submarines have been pre-fitted for the waters around Iran, especially the Persian Gulf... These submarines can remain stationary in the water and can evade various enemy radar and sonar systems...

"The Kilo class submarines can carry 24 mines or 18 large torpedoes, while the Fateh class submarines can carry 12 torpedoes and/or eight mines. In addition, there have been reports in the international media stating that Iran has equipped the Kilo class [submarines in its fleet] with Hoot torpedoes...

"The Ghadir class submarines can also successfully participate in the operation [to close the strait]... [These] are small submarines manned by one or several people. Known as 'wet submarines,' they are used for commando operations, laying mines, and firing torpedoes... and can operate in narrow and shallow areas."


The article stated that "Iran has various classes of missile ships, warships, and destroyers. These marine craft are capable of launching four 'Nour' anti-ship missiles, which have a range of 120-170 km, [even] over 200 km. Additionally, these warships' 114mm and 76mm guns... can threaten various [types of] ships. [Iran's] warships can [also] threaten submarines while simultaneously operating together with the rest of the [Iranian naval] force in closing the Strait of Hormuz."

Anti-Ship Cruise Missiles

It continued: "We divide Iran's missile force into two groups: cruise missiles and ballistic missiles. They possess a wide variety of ranges and destructive capabilities. Coastal launchers for Kowsar short-range missiles and for Nour and Ghadir missiles [with a range of some 200 km] have so far been displayed, and the Naser-1 medium-range missiles are launched from Qare'a triple-barrel missile launchers. These launchers are independent, meaning that if they are deployed near the coast, they could detect and identify naval targets and attack them without the need for supporting systems from [Iranian] air and naval units.

"These systems can cover most of the Strait of Hormuz if deployed and camouflaged 70 to 150 km deep into Iranian territory, or even in the Kerman province [in southeastern Iran]. The Iranian armed forces possess these systems in abundance, and they are ready for deployment."

Ballistic Missiles

The article noted: "...Thus far, three types of anti-ship ballistic missiles have been displayed in Iran: Khaleej-e Fars, Tondar, and Sejil. Khaleej-e Fars missiles, with a 300-km range and a 650-kg warhead, are designed to destroy enemy warships. The missile can be prepared for launch in a few minutes due to its use of solid fuel and advanced guidance systems. It strikes the enemy ships from above, traveling at Mach 3, reaching [the target] in a short time and at an acute angle.

"The triple-barrel launcher for these missiles provides sufficient firepower from the first launch; it increases the operational effect of the missile, while decreasing the enemy's ability to retaliate. Based on photos of the missile, it uses an electronic guidance system, which ensures its effectiveness even against the enemy's electronic warfare. The missile's speed, angle of approach, and impact from above are effective points in its modus operandi. We can estimate that the enemy's chances of intercepting it are miniscule.

"The Tondar missile, whose range is estimated by experts to be 150-250 kilometers, operates alongside the Khaleej-e Fars missiles as a short range ballistic missile... and their combined operation can significantly raise the chances of hitting the target... The [Tondar] missile can cover the Straits of Hormuz from deep inside Iranian territory. The Khaleej-e Fars missile can cover the Western Sistan-Baluchestan area, the Kerman province area, eastern and southern Fars province, and all of the Straits of Hormuz."

"The most terrifying of all Iranian missiles is the Sejil long range missile. It has commonly been considered merely a surface-to-surface missile, but the armed forces recently announced that it can also be used to destroy naval targets. Although not much is known about the missile's guidance and targeting systems, the missile has shown great accuracy in hitting a predetermined target. This missile, with a range of 2,000 km, can reach speeds of Mach 8 to Mach 12 (2,700-4,100 meters per second)... Its warhead weighs at least 500 kilograms, helping it to destroy the target. This missile can be used to cover regions beyond the Strait of Hormuz even if deployed on the northern Iranian coast, or at the most distant point in northwest Iran. It is a two-stage rocket powered by solid fuel, and reaches great speed at the end of the first stage [of launch]. It is difficult for the enemy to detect and track it during the first stage, because it uses several methods to reduce its radar signature... Thanks to its high velocity, the chance of it being hit by enemy defense [systems] is even smaller than the chance that they will hit a Khaleej-e Fars missile.

"Such missiles would be launched from deep inside Iranian territory because scattering launchers over a larger area will make it difficult for the enemy to detect them, will limit the means the enemy will be able to use to destroy them, and will also allow the launchers to be relocated and re-camouflaged.

"Although the enemy is much more likely to detect lower-velocity missiles... the combination of the use of these weapons in areas both closer and farther away from the shore and the increased number of targets... can maintain their effectiveness."

Bomber Jets

The article stated: "Iranian fighter jets can carry various types of air-to-surface missiles that can operate against naval targets, including air-to-surface missiles with optical, laser, and radar guidance; Nour and Ghadir missiles adapted for aerial use; C-801K and C-802 missiles; as well as Kowsar and Naser missiles. [Iranian] Air Force jets can carry up to five such missiles.

"Additional missiles for naval targets include: limited range TV-guided Maverick missiles; Qassad-1 and Qassad-2 optically guided bombs with a range of 30-50 kilometers (Qassad-3 bombs, with a range over 100 kilometers, will become operational soon); and Russian-made KH-25 and KH-29 missiles with laser and optical guidance, which can be mounted on Su-24, Su-25, and MiG-29 jets. Their range is 10km-30km, and they have medium destructive capabilities.

"In addition, KH-58 long-range anti-radar missiles, which can be mounted on Su-24 jets for attacks on enemy warships, will play an important role in closing the Strait of Hormuz.

"The array of missiles and bombs with varying ranges will assist Iran in operating remotely against enemy frigates and warships."


"The Shahed 285 helicopter can carry Kowsar anti-ship cruise missiles, and Mi-171 helicopters can launch Nour long range missiles, and apparently Ghadir missiles as well. These helicopters, along with Cobra attack helicopters, can threaten merchant vessels and enemy warships."

Flying Boats

"Only one model of flying boat has thus far become operational in Iran. In fact, it is a new type of plane that can land on the water, and can be equipped with anti-ship missiles. This boat can take off from the water, from various points on Iran's coast, and can operate against enemy warships together with aerial defense."


"The Iranian army drones are used for anti-ship missions. The Karar drone can carry four Kowsar missiles. Due to its speed, the drone can increase the potential energy of the missiles and extend their range. The drone has a range of some 1,000 km; it is launched by a rocket, and when it reaches the correct range, it launches the missiles. Karar drones can carry dozens of missiles to the enemy warships.

"The Karar drone is made from materials that allow it to evade radar detection and get close to enemy vessels. Nevertheless, the drone can also use missiles like Naser-1, for large areas."

Artillery and Surface-to-Sea Rocket Systems

The article also claimed that Iranian security officials several times pointed out that guided bombs are actually being used against moving naval targets. It said that the range of Iranian artillery shells is over 40 km, and that they can be used to harm or destroy enemy ships. It added that during maneuvers, Iran had successfully utilized the Fajr-3 and Fajr-5 rocket launchers against naval targets.



[1], November 21, 2011

[2] Sharq (Iran), December 15, 2011; ISNA (Iran), December 14, 2011. An article on the Mardomak website, which is operated from outside Iran, stated that the closing of the strait was an empty threat: "As long as Iran's economy is dependent upon oil, and the export of crude oil passes through the Persian Gulf, the closing of the Strait of Hormuz will remain [nothing but] a verbal threat... Even if the tension between Iran and the U.S. increases considerably, the closing of the strait will not be an option. Iran will respond to the pressure by other means.", December 22, 2011.

[3] Fars (Iran), December 13, 2011. The oil minister denied reports that Iran plans to close the strait as part of the exercise. Mashreq News (Iran), December 16, 2011.

[4] Kayhan (Iran), December 13, 2011. In addition, a group of Majlis members circulated a petition defending Iran's right to close the strait in response to oil sanctions. Kayhan (Iran), December 19, 2011.

[5], December 22, 2011.

[6] See MEMRI Inquiry and Analysis No. 615, "Iran Demonstrates Its Deterrent Strength in Military Maneuvers," June 14, 2010,; MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 2029, "Iran Threatens to Close Strait of Hormuz If Attacked," August 19, 2008,; MEMRI Inquiry and Analysis No. 407, "Iran's Response to Western Warnings: 'First Strike,' 'Preemptive Attack,' Long-Range Ballistic Missiles, 'Asymmetric [Guerilla] Warfare,'" November 28, 2007, .

[7] Mashreq News (Iran), December 15, 2011.


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Thu, 12/29/2011 - 00:51 | 2018255 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture turned a phrase when he said:

Sounds safe as milk.

I never heard it put quite that way.


Wed, 12/28/2011 - 20:37 | 2017727 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

Let's see, they fuck with the fifth fleet, we fuck with everything else

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 19:29 | 2017521 kito
kito's picture

whats realistic boilermaker is that iran is enough of a threat to send oil past $200 a bbl in any military engagement. what they lack in firepower, they make up for in oil.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 19:39 | 2017543 Boilermaker
Boilermaker's picture

Yes, that's right.  That has nothing to do with their actual military might.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 19:55 | 2017592 Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

How will the US military, let alone US economy, work at $200?

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 19:56 | 2017598's picture

Boilermaker is anxious to find out.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 20:27 | 2017688 Spastica Rex
Spastica Rex's picture

Big Chief Brings-Up-Rear

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 20:46 | 2017749 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

he'll get his wish soon enough, no matter what happens

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 20:01 | 2017615 SAT 800
SAT 800's picture

Oh come on, it'll only be $200 for a week, while the speculators have fun and the iranian forces discover several interesting things they didn't take into account. There won't be any need for any economy to adapt to $200/barrel oil.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 20:28 | 2017692 Spastica Rex
Spastica Rex's picture


Wed, 12/28/2011 - 23:15 | 2017934 slewie the pi-rat
slewie the pi-rat's picture

after the cruise missiles they show the missiles which are qualified to go freaking ballistic and the picture of the tondar taking off

i built a plastic model of a nike missle in about 1958
looked just like the iranian tondar

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 00:57 | 2018260 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

SAT 800, demonstrating room-temperature IQ (not flattering even when measured in degrees Fahrenheit), said:

Oh come on, it'll only be $200 for a week, while the speculators have fun and the iranian forces discover several interesting things they didn't take into account. There won't be any need for any economy to adapt to $200/barrel oil.

You're right, it'll only be $200 for a week. Adapting to $200 oil would be pretty pointless when it's selling for $300 and $400.


Wed, 12/28/2011 - 20:45 | 2017737 CPL
CPL's picture

Since the average US citizen work place is a 16 miles to work and 16 miles back, I think most of you are going to start biking, walking and arranging bus transportation.


Even then price of a new bike would be out of reach for most people at that point.  Bike thefts would sky rocket.  The irony is you couldn't give away anything with an engine larger than 4 cylinders.  Nothing on the road is street legal anymore, everything is chopped.  Toyota Echos become cargo vans.  Mopeds the new Honda Civic.


Boarding houses would come back for the out of town worker.


Most people would get used to three things.  Rolling black outs like Pakistan, India and Greece are going to become regular occurances.  Last summer was the last time you used Air conditioning for the rest of your life and heat is either too hot or non-existent.

Medical: long term care and machines to keep people on life support will require separate insurance in addition to the regular health insurance regardless of country.  Keeping a generator running to dodge the rolling blackouts and the patient alive will be expensive.

Unscheduled blackouts:  People will move to installing base board heating en masse to avoid oil furnace prices.  This strains the 80 year old electrical infrastructure to breaking many times during the winter.  Many freeze to death in the night peacefully to hypothermia, entire families are uncovered (like England right now) huddled and frozen together in their suburbanite homes. 

Government acts to stop blackouts by placing a ban on AC globally.  First heat wave, the elderly homes suffer 10% mortality rate, all palliative care patients die of heat stroke, by the end of the summer elderly deaths are identified by the smell coming from homes.

Could happen that way...never know.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 23:08 | 2018086 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

Government acts to stop blackouts by placing a ban on AC globally...


Viva Las Vegas

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 00:59 | 2018261 Richard Head
Richard Head's picture

The US doesn't use oil or diesel, for the most part, to produce electricity.  Aircon will be fine.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 03:57 | 2018414 DFCtomm
DFCtomm's picture

You ever hear of coal?? It's black and burns and the U.S. is full of it. I know, I know Obama doesn't like coal, but take peoples electricity and you'll see how fast even the tree huggers come around. I can't wait to see those "friends of coal" bumper stickers on cars in California.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 19:51 | 2017580 homer8043
homer8043's picture

This I agree with. Iran can't completely close the Strait but they can cause a regional crisis, get a few lucky shots against tankers and/or aircraft, and drive the price of oil skyward. They likely can also hit some land based oil installations on the Arabian Peninsula. How well these are defended is unclear to me at least.

They can also get China and/or Russia to become more hostile toward the US and EU either economically or through covert military support. These are all bigger problems than the weapons Iran has which seemed to be the point of the post.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 19:55 | 2017594 eurusdog
eurusdog's picture

I agree "These are all bigger problems than the weapons Iran has which seemed to be the point of the post."

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 19:57 | 2017604's picture

All China has to do is stop buying the bonds which finance our wars.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 20:23 | 2017675 Missiondweller
Missiondweller's picture

They pretty much already have. Most of our bonds are being bought by the Fed.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 20:33 | 2017709's picture

They can also begin selling bonds.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 23:10 | 2018073 obejoyful
obejoyful's picture


It does look like they have stopped purchasing, but like the guy above says, they sure can start selling. Holy Shit look how much they own:
Oct Sep Aug Jul Jun May Apr
2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011
1134 1148 1137 1173 1165 1159
China's ownership, Billion in US bonds


Wed, 12/28/2011 - 20:02 | 2017619 SAT 800
SAT 800's picture

They might also succeed in airmailing their "leadership" direct to Allah; no return address.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 19:50 | 2017575 ilovefreedom
ilovefreedom's picture

This missile, with a range of 2,000 km, can reach speeds of Mach 8 to Mach 12 (2,700-4,100 meters per second)... Its warhead weighs at least 500 kilograms, helping it to destroy the target. This missile can be used to cover regions beyond the Strait of Hormuz even if deployed on the northern Iranian coast, or at the most distant point in northwest Iran. It is a two-stage rocket powered by solid fuel, and reaches great speed at the end of the first stage [of launch]. It is difficult for the enemy to detect and track it during the first stage, because it uses several methods to reduce its radar signature.


Oh yeah, they're totally farmers and sheep herders with pitchforks.

The more I think about it, western pride is quickly becoming one of our greatest weaknesses.

I am not saying the US military couldnt destroy Iran given time and resources, I am saying most people severely under estimate what a barrage of sophisticated weapons would to our interests and assets in the area.

It is not beyond reality to think every US naval asset in the persian gulf could be wiped out by such missiles and unorthodox/alternative warefare tactics.

Not to mention allies and assets in Iraq, Israel, Saudi Arabia, UAE, etc etc.

This is not Iraq or Afganistan, Iran is more technologically sophisticated than most westerners give them credit for and unfortunately our arrogance will lead to an explosive conflict from which there is no going back.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 20:00 | 2017613's picture

Don't discount pitchforks. They're more dangerous than utility knives and we all know the damage they can do. American exceptionalism apparently can't stand up to common household tools.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 23:13 | 2018093 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

Xerxes bitchez...

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 01:08 | 2018275 Richard Head
Richard Head's picture

These hardware specs might sound scary on paper, but rest assured that the first phase of any air operations will be to knock out Iran's integrated air defense system (IADS).  Even the most advanced SAMs are pretty much worthless without command and control or functioning acquisition radars to find the targets.  I don't recall Iran's IADS being near the top of the world's most sophisticated.  North Korea, on the other hand...

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 23:19 | 2018107 RafterManFMJ
RafterManFMJ's picture



I think they pretty much let it be known they would launch everything they have against Israel.  They also have many missles that can hit Southern Europe...load 'em up with gas or nerve agents and you might have a problem.  Overheard a mouth breather like you at Applebee's today saying, "Looks like we might have to go teach Iran a lesson."  Yup, the sheep are ready for another TV war.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 19:01 | 2017450 LeBalance
LeBalance's picture

"In a further threat, the article stated that Iran would in the future be able to attack the 480-km pipeline with a capacity of 2.5 million barrels/day[1] that the UAE is planning to build in order to bypass the Strait of Hormuz in order to neutralize Iran's ability to disrupt the world's oil supply:"

is the issue territorial landmass, borders, and waterway security OR being a bully?

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 19:16 | 2017482 Harbourcity
Harbourcity's picture

Relative to the US, it takes one to know one.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 19:20 | 2017491 nmewn
nmewn's picture

"is the issue territorial landmass, borders, and waterway security OR being a bully?"

Naw, they're just fucking nuts with suicidal tendencies.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 20:53 | 2017766 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

as opposed to the fucking nuts with homicidal tendencies

is that a punk band or a democracy?

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 21:05 | 2017792 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Well, they do have "martyr brigades", if I recall correctly, is called the Olive Daughters.

I'd say thats fucking nuts & suicidal.

I guess they're supposed to strap on bomb vests, over their bikinis (but under their burkas of course) and swim out to detonate next to an oil tanker.

Or sumpin.

Google it if you don't believe me...martyr brigades that is ;-)

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 22:02 | 2017931 BigDuke6
BigDuke6's picture


is this bullish for gold?


Wed, 12/28/2011 - 22:19 | 2017980 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Gold dental work ;-)

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 22:22 | 2017987 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

I believe you and know it's true. I guess I'm debating the breadth, depth and definiton of nuts, suicidal and homicidal

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 23:17 | 2018101 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

I guess they're supposed to strap on bomb vests, over their bikinis

Fuck that then... If it comes down to bikinis, let's just fucking declare war on Sweden...

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 20:04 | 2017621 SAT 800
SAT 800's picture

Being a bully; all the true believers in "The Religion of Peace" just love being bullies.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 00:50 | 2018253 Joseph Jones
Joseph Jones's picture

By "The religion of peace", do you mean Judaism?

From Judaism Discovered, Michael Hoffman, pg 438 top


Judaism’s Talmud, Soferim 15, Rule 10.  This is the saying of Rabbi Simon ben Yohai: Tob shebe goyyim harog (“Even the best of the gentiles should all be killed”).  From the original Hebrew of the Babylonian Talmud as quoted by the 1907 Jewish Encyclopedia, published by Funk and Wagnalls and compiled by Isidore Singer, under the entry, “Gentile” (p. 617).  Some translations conceal this Talmud passage.  The Jewish Encyclopedia states, “…in the various versions the reading has been altered, ‘The best among the Egyptians’ being generally substituted.”  In the Soncino version: “the best of the heathens” (minor Tractates, Soferim 41a-b)*


* Jewish Press, June 9, 1989, p. 56B       


The Talmud is Judaism’s holiest of all holy books, far above the O.T., which Judaism believes to be a poem only understood through proper interpretation by a Rabbi.  In other words, Judaism is all-Talmud all the time.  The above passage is in full effect same as when authored.  The Talmud instructs the Rabbis to lie and obfuscate the truth of such passages to naïve goyim, only until Judaism rules supreme over the land, at which time all such passages are subject to immediate enforcement.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 19:09 | 2017469 Long-John-Silver
Long-John-Silver's picture

I remember when Reagan decimated Iran's fleet while it was tied up to the piers.

Apparently they have only now recovered from it.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 19:20 | 2017492 Sudden Debt
Sudden Debt's picture

Yeah, the japanese also did this to the US once, all it did was piss people of and made them want to kill every japanese.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 19:48 | 2017562 HungrySeagull
HungrySeagull's picture

The Local fishermen found the japanese fleet in all it's military glory in the western Islands. They called it in to the FBI and anyone who will listen.

They were told to stop playing on the calls and get back to work.


At the time of Pearl Harbor, it was a Generation who understood total war. A war that will essentially eliminate a Nation State and the two atomic attacks did that. Even while a million plus invasion was scheduled for winter.


We are still handing out Purple Hearts massed up into stockpiles for that '45 invasion.


Sadly, I fear this Nation as a People no longer knows what it is to commit to war in it's totality and are willing to accept the required sacrifices to make it happen.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 19:52 | 2017583 Sudden Debt
Sudden Debt's picture

Nice to see you mass produce purple hearts... They're special right?

But on Ebay, they go for 120$ a piece!

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 20:40 | 2017735 XenoFrog
XenoFrog's picture

It's a bubble. Peak purple heart.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 23:04 | 2018005 BidnessMan
BidnessMan's picture

The US manufactured about 500,000 Purple Heart medals in 1945 for the expected casualties resulting from the invasion of Japan.  Truman decided to try out a nuke on Hiroshima to see if the invasion could be avoided.  No response from Japan after Hiroshima, so Nagasaki was bombed with a nuclear weapon.  The Japanese then surrendered, and so the half million Purple Heart medals were not needed.  At least not in 1945 - 1947.  Been working off that stockpile ever since.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 23:23 | 2018115 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

O'Duffer awards himself a Purple Heart for every blister he gets on the golf course...

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 19:57 | 2017603 homer8043
homer8043's picture

We can't even be bothered with a recession or bank failure without stimulus or a bailout. How do we react to war that isn't fought by volunteers and require no sacrifice from the vast majority of the population?

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 20:00 | 2017614 eurusdog
eurusdog's picture

The concept of Total War is completely lost on the current generation that could go to war for the US. Sherman's Neckties, and the march to the sea, are hardly mentioned in history anymore! My son who just graduated had to read about it on his own after I mentioned the concept of total war to him. Pretty sad!

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 21:41 | 2017874 Lednbrass
Lednbrass's picture

Oh, I wouldnt say that-Sherman wasnt forgotten.  We sent you Bernanke in return, and will get the last laugh.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 20:02 | 2017617 dark pools of soros
dark pools of soros's picture

but wait globalization made us all brothers so how can we have war with anyone??

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 19:10 | 2017470 Silverballs
Silverballs's picture

Assuming this info is accurate irans navy has been designed for the sole purpose of shutting down the straits of Hormuz and holding it's ground.. Makes me wonder if that 250 million $ war game the U.S. Navy ran several yrs ago where they suffered severe losses by the mock iranian fleet could even be worse if the real thing occured

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 19:55 | 2017593 MeBizarro
MeBizarro's picture

Yup.  The point for the Iranians isn't to win a military conflict vs. the 5th fleet. The point is to make it so costly and relatively drawn out that it forces severe economic and political costs on the US and her Gulf allies. 

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 20:11 | 2017647 SAT 800
SAT 800's picture

No. There's no rational stategic objective; it;s called a bluff. it's impossible for it to be "drawn out enough" to force severe economic costs. 15 days would be "drawn out".

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 20:44 | 2017741 XenoFrog
XenoFrog's picture

Sinking even one of our larger ships would be a huge symbolic victory, and one that would have a tremendous negative impact on any american support for continued conflict.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 21:41 | 2017875 SAT 800
SAT 800's picture

Oh, yeah. that's what the Japanese thought too. You don't seem to understand human psychology very well. Sinking a military ship is a legal and justifiable act of war. A negative impact on american support for continued conflict? I'm sure you're doing real well in your female studies class, but you just don't get it.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 21:58 | 2017922 XenoFrog
XenoFrog's picture

I understand human psychology and history very well. If Pearl Harbor occurred less than a month after WW1, your historical example might have some bearing. Otherwise, it's totally irrelevant. We've been fighting a perpetual war for a decade. Finally, with an end in sight, you want to provoke a new war by sending ships into the territory of another country and attempt to paint any resulting conflict as Iran's fault? The American people aren't that stupid, and they're sick of your neo-con wars.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 22:50 | 2018042 MeBizarro
MeBizarro's picture

It depends how far the US and Western Europe are willing to engage in a potential oil embargo against Iran.  Ditto an air strike or a large convert action against Iranian nuclear/military facilities.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 19:14 | 2017477 macholatte
macholatte's picture

Assymetrical warfare as perfected by Bin Laden neuters the American Navy on 2 fronts...... collateral damage to "civilians" cannot be allowed and the propaganda machine which will certainly demonize the USA for causing any harm at all via WMD.  The rest of the so called western alliance is so weak it could barely find Ghadaffi let alone take him out. Compound that with the freak show known as the Obama Administration and all you get is more dead Americans.

How about this: Nuke the entire middle east. The oil is underground and can be recovered once the human vermin have been eradicated and it will automatically lower everyone's carbon footprint for about 5 years.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 19:24 | 2017504 Tuco Benedicto ...
Tuco Benedicto Pacifico Juan Maria Ramirez's picture

How does it feel to be brain dead!!!!!!!

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 19:33 | 2017530 eurusdog
eurusdog's picture

It would give another chance to go dig through the pockets of dead soldiers, talk about how bad you are and act more pious. The world now has got to be boring place for someone such as you, Tuco!

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 21:38 | 2017866 Tuco Benedicto ...
Tuco Benedicto Pacifico Juan Maria Ramirez's picture

No, the world is very interesting and exciting my friend.  Get off the fluoride and take the red pill!

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 19:27 | 2017514 Eagle1
Eagle1's picture

Glazed sand as my brother says...

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 20:14 | 2017657 SAT 800
SAT 800's picture

green glass. fallout's a problem for the neighbors; gotta catch the wind blowing in the right direction.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 19:57 | 2017600 MeBizarro
MeBizarro's picture

And how would use remove that oil with no equipment and infrastructure to support it?  Bin Laden worked on the anti-ship missiles which are the single biggest threat to the US surface threat? 

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 20:02 | 2017616 eurusdog
eurusdog's picture

Army Corp of Engineers!

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 21:44 | 2017885 SAT 800
SAT 800's picture

Collateral damage to "civilians" cannot be allowed--" Where have you been for the last twelve years? Don't you ever read the newspaper? You sink a major American War ship you're going to see a lot of "damage"; not intentional, mind you; but it's sometimes unavoidable.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 19:18 | 2017484 Sudden Debt
Sudden Debt's picture

Nice toys :)
This war will generate a lot of quality television which will be great for commercial revenue thus boosting the economy!

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 19:18 | 2017488 eurusdog
eurusdog's picture

I am tired of all this talk. I know it ruins the day, but fuck them.


8 simple letters. 1 simple solution. Let's get going on this already.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 19:19 | 2017489 zilverreiger
zilverreiger's picture

macholatte go and get it yourself big boy, fucking evil empire slave tool

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 19:20 | 2017495 chump666
chump666's picture

ZH, you have following the Hormuz tensions for a while now.  Very commendable.  Since most media have not covered/analyzed this coming flash point.  Iran has the US by the balls, they can tighten oil pumps and have Russia and China aid them as 'allies'.

This could become a very serious situation. China net imports oil, that and Russia can create more tensions to get their oil to go bid.

Bad vibes.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 19:30 | 2017520 homer8043
homer8043's picture

That's one of the three real issues. Russia and China's reaction. Could be much graver than a few shots with Iran.

Second, absent a Chino-Russian response is the next step with Iran. Post 9/11 doctrine had said boots on the ground and that leads to a very bad place in Iran.

Third, is Israel. Do they join in and inflame the whole Middle East or are bribed to behave circa 1991?

These Iranian toys are irrelevant but the situation and politics are a dangerous flashpoint.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 19:40 | 2017544 eurusdog
eurusdog's picture

War with Iran no matter how short drives oil over $120. Russia stands by as oil goes bid. More money in their pockets for a while.

China stands by as oil goes bid. They need oil to eventually fall as the US does. Both are net importers and their economies depend on low oil in the long run. (which incidentally won't happen)

Iran is given to another politico that will only be the beginning of the next problem. How do you win a game that can't be won? We need Capt Kirk I tell you!

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 23:00 | 2017624's picture

Kirk was constrained by the terms of the Organian peace treaty.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 20:29 | 2017677 dark pools of soros
dark pools of soros's picture

isn't the war really about saving the dollar for oil pact that is falling apart?  so shouldn't it lower costs in the long run for USA?  and wouldn't this really be an attack on China since they will have to beg Russia for all their oil needs?


you almost have to think that the powers that be are fighting between themselves since they want a weak dollar to pay off debts easier and a strong dollar to get oil...  or why not just take all the oil and devalue the dollar at the same time??

that way the oilgarchy can own the oil and who cares if the dollar dives and oil goes up?? 


if you want to know what comes next stop thinking about what's good for the people and instead think of an oligarch



Wed, 12/28/2011 - 21:47 | 2017892 SAT 800
SAT 800's picture

Not necessarily. If the people of Iran get to elect a political that's on our approved list and the polling places are guarded by US Marines; things could get a lot more peaceful there and stay that way for quite a while.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 23:02 | 2018074's picture

Like from 1953 to 1979 when the US overthrew the Iranian Prime Minister and replaced him with the Shah's police state? Yeah, that worked out very well for 26 years. And then all of a sudden it didn't.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 19:40 | 2017548 chump666
chump666's picture

Israel is dying for an excuse.  It will be an aerial war and naval.  The big worry is Iran attacking Saudi Arabia.  That would force the oil price into the 200 range and bring China into the tensions.

Very worrying.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 19:50 | 2017573 eurusdog
eurusdog's picture

An undetermined-legth closure also sends oil much higher. Thus bringing China into the conflict. The only resolution at that point in a no boots all air decimation within 2 to 4 days. It would be ugly all over. As mean as I think we should be, I hate to see anything of the sort happen. Way to many unknowns on the other end of it.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 19:57 | 2017601 HungrySeagull
HungrySeagull's picture

I live about some miles and two ridges from a important target.

Russia and China can easily make that go away along with much of Society. The kind people in my State are not prepared. They rely on walmart every friday and saturday to make sure they make it through the next work week.

Russia stands to gain in the short term. China will however have to decide.

I don't see boots in the ground inside Iran for a long time. It is a mountainous HELL with narrow road/passes and very hard to get anywhere in each of it's providences.

We can do without Saudi oil for a while, the bigger problem will the Saudi Government remain in power?


If the USA hits Iran as they have done in the past (Even whoops like the 747 problem once) they are going to probably have everything that they can find targeted and sorted out rather quickly. If memory serves the initial sortie list for Desert Storm was into the thousands and everyone needed to be on time.

They can do it.


If there must be war, let it be done against the military of Iran and it's Government. It is my hope that the Population be spared because they will determine the future when it is all over and done.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 20:10 | 2017641 nmewn
nmewn's picture

"If there must be war, let it be done against the military of Iran and it's Government."


The Green Revolution tried...the Basij, the mullahs and the "Revolutionary" Guard had other ideas.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 21:49 | 2017896 SAT 800
SAT 800's picture

Agreed. And they can take their "other ideas" to hell with them.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 20:11 | 2017643 eurusdog
eurusdog's picture

I wholeheartedly disagree with you. You can not have  war against the military and it's government. Regardless of how many people support it, there are enough that do, to make that impossible. I don't want it (a war), but I am tired of this idea that a war can be won by removing the current government and military.

Every war since WWII where there was a simple change of power, has not worked out. However, Germany, and Japan were brought the their knees from the inside out. Complete destruction, leaves them little else to do but rebuild.

I am not suggesting a war should be fought, but if it is going to happen, we have the power, the technology and know how to win completely and unequivocally. We just lack the conviction.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 21:51 | 2017901 SAT 800
SAT 800's picture

Iran is not Germany. France rolled over. You say Iran will not surrender if some of the police state capos and "leaders" are successfully targeted? And you know this, how?

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 22:03 | 2017935 XenoFrog
XenoFrog's picture

We know this because they're right next to a country that bled us for 8 years, and know that the American people will never put up with another 8 in Iran.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 22:52 | 2018049 MeBizarro
MeBizarro's picture

What does France have to do with Iran?  Just look at how large Iran is before suggesting such nonsense.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 20:21 | 2017664 SAT 800
SAT 800's picture

What real bad place? The Iraqi army stopped the Iranians right in their tracks. You think the Marine Corps is not going in with M1-Abrams because it's a real bad place. I guess you don't know any marines.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 22:40 | 2018027 XenoFrog
XenoFrog's picture

Marines are far less scary when you sink their troop ship on the way to the beach.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 01:04 | 2018269 perchprism
perchprism's picture


That would please you no end, wouldn't it, you traitorous cunt.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 01:11 | 2018284 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Awww, does the truth make your war boner shrivel?


Thu, 12/29/2011 - 05:09 | 2018438 XenoFrog
XenoFrog's picture

What would please me is not sending our brave soldiers/marines to die in another pointless war.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 01:59 | 2018352 sof_hannibal
sof_hannibal's picture

we havent stormed a beach head since WWII... troop ship? not into battle

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 05:14 | 2018442 XenoFrog
XenoFrog's picture

Short of firing our Marines out of the cannons, how do you propose they enter Iran?


Hint: Landing craft

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 14:08 | 2019690 sof_hannibal
sof_hannibal's picture

All US ground forces would enter all other countries, but not the beach head. We would do so (to flank both sides of their country) to pull Iran into a tank battle; we might try to full Iran with a beach landing... you are absolutely wrong here Xeno, no troops land on the beach unless they are SEALs. US troops would enter through Iraq or Afghanistan; your posts about military tactics shows some insight, but your lacking the correct information. Regardless, anyway this wouldnt be a ground action. And Just because marines have landing craft doesnt mean they use them; Marines can move in any way they want; and under no circumstances would we engage in a ground amphibious assult, but Iran better prepare for one, because, yes thats what marines do... why, now a days?, so we dont have to, but the "enemy" has to prepare for one, thats for sure...

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 15:03 | 2019927 XenoFrog
XenoFrog's picture

enter all other countries, like Iraq? Yeah that's exactly what the fledgling Iraqi government wants. The US launching an invasion of their neighbor from their territory. Great plan, Patton.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 15:35 | 2020050 sof_hannibal
sof_hannibal's picture

The US owns Iraq, thus the purpose of the war. Oil. Iraq is ours via imperial country dominance. The Iraq war was wrong. Both times; however, if the US wanted to enter Iran through Iraq it does.

If the US wanted to launch air craft from Sadui Arabia it does or Kuwait or Azerbaijan or launch craft from Bahrain it does with support of the Bahrain Navy -- it does. Point is we spend allot on the military. The scariest part is that loaded guns pointed at one another tend to fire eventually. The US economy, the world, and countless people loose their lives.

We have bases in Germany, Korea, Japan, Kuwait and so on. The key word is force projection and full spectrum dominance. You get what you pay for, and the US military is expensive. And its a waste, just like " Ike" warned, military industrial complex. Also, look into Desert storm, those tactics are now dated, but a war with Iran would play out very similarily.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 19:20 | 2017496 Ocean22
Ocean22's picture

Iran is a joke. It would be suicide. Mind you the longer they get to play soldier, the more toys they collect.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 20:08 | 2017632's picture

So fighting back against an attacker who intends to kill you is suicide? How does that work?

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 01:14 | 2018288 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

It would be suicide for the American bully empire, but he's too thick to understand his own words.


Wed, 12/28/2011 - 22:05 | 2017941 XenoFrog
XenoFrog's picture

And Iraq will welcome us with open arms.


Wed, 12/28/2011 - 19:21 | 2017498 PulauHantu29
PulauHantu29's picture

"there is no guarantee that [Tehran] will not launch a preemptory strik..."

We can thank Bush for legalizing the "preemptory strike" when he invaded Iraq prophylactically. Bush may have established a bad precedent.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 19:40 | 2017545 Logans_Run
Logans_Run's picture

...a bad precedent by a bad President.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 20:23 | 2017674 SAT 800
SAT 800's picture

Yeah, he established a bad precedent, he invaded the wrong damn country. It was the other one spelled with an I that he needed to regime change.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 23:37 | 2018138 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

Oh yeah I get it...

Since we're now coming to know that it was the IRANIANS who were behind the attacks of 9/11 (not IRAQ), we can justify going in there...

Then... In about a decade, it'll be determined that it was my great aunt IRENE who was responsible for the attacks... So then we'll be justified in going in to invade her nursing home & remove her from power...

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 01:17 | 2018291 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

I think he meant Iceland. I mean, how dare they exhibit a spine and testicles and tell the English bankers to go piss up a rope?


Thu, 12/29/2011 - 05:19 | 2018453 doggings
doggings's picture

Since we're now coming to know that it was the IRANIANS who were behind the attacks of 9/11 (not IRAQ), we can justify going in there...

Then... In about a decade, it'll be determined that it was my great aunt IRENE who was responsible for the attacks... So then we'll be justified in going in to invade her nursing home & remove her from power...

EXACTLY - just how blind and stupid are you fucking warmongering pricks?  - as the Judge says - "What if?"

you get exactly what you deserve, thats "what if" 


Thu, 12/29/2011 - 11:46 | 2019232 my puppy for prez
my puppy for prez's picture

Spot on!

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 01:42 | 2018334 DFCtomm
DFCtomm's picture

Smartest comment on this sorry topic. Much legislation and policy was put into place under Bush that is just waiting for the wrong person to come along and take advantage. Surprise! Obama hasn't rolled back any of it that I am aware. Cindy Sheehan's back has a big ol smokin hole in it. 

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 19:21 | 2017499 xcehn
xcehn's picture

What makes this bad news is that the Iranians have apparently concluded that they are sitting ducks regardless of what they do, short of caving to US demands to denuclearise. Hard not to see a war with Iran as inevitable--exactly what the AEI and Heritage Foundation expect.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 19:23 | 2017500 eatthebanksters
eatthebanksters's picture

The list provided by the Iranian press is interesting, but does not strike fear into my heart.  The U.S. has posted no iist of their weaponry...why would they?  Why tell the enemy about the weaponry we have in our arsenal?  Why not let them enjoy the learning experience first hand?  If Iran is foolish enought to create a conflict (not just provoke us), it will be the last mistake the current regime ever makes.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 19:33 | 2017528 Tuco Benedicto ...
Tuco Benedicto Pacifico Juan Maria Ramirez's picture

Let's be clear here gang.  The U. S. is the provoker and Iran is the provokee!

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 19:58 | 2017606 HungrySeagull
HungrySeagull's picture

Even if we are, it started when the hostages were taken decades ago. With the current regime in place after the overthrow Iran has been hostile to the USA.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 21:23 | 2017831 Cistercian
Cistercian's picture

I thought it started when we installed the puppet in response to their desire to nationalize their oil.

 You don't think overthrowing their government pissed them off do you?

I heard life under SAVAK and the Shah was fabulous....not.


 It's called blowback.


 I wonder what Iran would be like today if we had not interfered.Probably very, very different.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 22:35 | 2018012 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

and that was the very first thing we tried to do once we "liberated" Iraq. (unnationalize their oil)  They didn't fall for it.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 21:26 | 2017833 Advoc8tr
Advoc8tr's picture

The hostages were taken in response to your CIA initiated and aided overthrow of their democratically elected government?

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 21:36 | 2017859 Tuco Benedicto ...
Tuco Benedicto Pacifico Juan Maria Ramirez's picture

Beginning in 1953 the CIA has overthrown multiple Iranian governments.  Now who has been hostile to whom?

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 22:10 | 2017951 BigDuke6
BigDuke6's picture


Here we go again, the liberals in washington get dewy eyed with the expat iranians telling them the islamic people want freedom.

No they dont, they want a goddam world caliphate, turkish toilets and to get to the west so they can get on welfare and rape white women.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 01:20 | 2018295 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

I hope Santa brought you a drool bib for Christmas.


Wed, 12/28/2011 - 22:29 | 2018008 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

that and a few other places.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 21:53 | 2017905 SAT 800
SAT 800's picture


Thu, 12/29/2011 - 00:42 | 2018238 Rynak
Rynak's picture

STFU already, williamthebastard, k?

Whops, i did it again.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 02:00 | 2018354 sof_hannibal
sof_hannibal's picture

I believe so

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 20:11 | 2017646's picture

The U.S. has posted no iist of their weaponry...why would they?


So you've never looked around the DoD website, have you?

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 20:27 | 2017689 SAT 800
SAT 800's picture

They all need to go straight to Allah, and he can pat 'em on the head and say better luck next time. The people who live there are not wildly enthusiastic about this shit; if you can target the chief wackos and some of the police state infrastructure I'm sure some reasonable arrangement can be made; like for instance, "be reasonable, do it my way".

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 19:25 | 2017507 virgilcaine
virgilcaine's picture

The Persians would be bombed to oblivion before they knew what hit them.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 19:31 | 2017525 Tuco Benedicto ...
Tuco Benedicto Pacifico Juan Maria Ramirez's picture

"Vanity followed by the fall."

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 19:44 | 2017555 eurusdog
eurusdog's picture

What amazes me is that you think by standing aside and not provoking, Iran will continue down a peaceful path. History is not on the side of countries and empires that draw within and simply try to let the world go about their business. Others want what others have. Your name here belies you comments by the way. Maybe you should change it to something with PhD Econ after it. They seem to get it wrong pretty often too!

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 20:14 | 2017656's picture

History is not on the side of countries and empires that draw within and simply try to let the world go about their business.

If you could dig a few of them up the Romans, Spaniards, British and Soviets would disagree.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 21:31 | 2017847 Tuco Benedicto ...
Tuco Benedicto Pacifico Juan Maria Ramirez's picture

Sir, there is not one shred of proof that Iran is developing a nuke!  Unlike the Israelis, Iran allows U. N. inspections.    Also, why did the U. S. stand aside and even assist North Korea getting nukes? 

Sorry, Euro but you do not know how the world works.  Continue your research and thanks for your comments.  Tuco

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 21:58 | 2017921 SAT 800
SAT 800's picture

Look I already explained this; the proof is logical. They have a MAJOR, INdustrial size Uranium Enrishment program up and running; just like we did during the Manhattan Project; They brag about it; why? they're nuts, that's why. They claim they want nuclear power. No. they can buy reactors from Canada, they're called CANDU reactors, look it up if you don't believe me; they don't even use enriched uranium; but they come with a service contract and the Canadians are going to change out your fuel assemblies for you; the drawback? you don't get any weapons material. And there's the little matter of their "Holy War" against, pretty much everybody, last time I looked. Wake up, please.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 22:03 | 2017936's picture

The Pentagon calls you a liar.


Pat Buchanan: Let Congress decide on war with Iran

“The secretary was clear that we have no indication that the Iranians have made a decision to develop a nuclear weapon,” said Pentagon press secretary George Little. “He (Panetta) didn't say that Iran would, in fact, have a nuclear weapon in 2012.”

Little added that U.N. inspectors remain in Iran and have access to its uranium stockpile, and should Iran attempt a “breakout” by diverting low-enriched uranium to a hidden facility to convert it to weapons grade, U.N. inspectors would instantly detect the diversion.

“We would retain sufficient time under any such scenario to take appropriate action,” said Little.

In short, the Pentagon does not believe Iran has made a decision to build atomic weapons, and the department is confident that, should it do so, the United States would have ample warning.

Little's definitive statement, “We have no indication that the Iranians have made a decision to develop a nuclear weapon,” coincides with the consensus of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, including the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency, in December 2007.

In that report, the entire U.S. intelligence community stated unanimously, with “high confidence,” that Iran had given up its drive for an atom bomb back in 2003.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 22:26 | 2018000 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

As Ron Paul said, what the hell are we doing telling them what they can and can not develop. Funny how the oil nuclear proliferation policy is selectively enforced 

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 11:42 | 2019218 my puppy for prez
my puppy for prez's picture

Sheeshh.....have you EVER read Washington's foreign policy positions in his Fairwell Address?

You are a neocon's wet dream!

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 19:25 | 2017508 Dasa Slooofoot
Dasa Slooofoot's picture

That "flying boat" is cracking me up! 

I wonder what schmuck would sign up to fly that thing.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 19:44 | 2017550 Sudden Debt
Sudden Debt's picture

I would :) they look fun!

But they look more like hobby stuff than war stuff. Jeezz... You can hear those thing comming up from 20 miles away!

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 20:06 | 2017626 Dasa Slooofoot
Dasa Slooofoot's picture

But they look more like hobby stuff than war stuff. Jeezz...


Yep, looks like something sold at a hobby store.  Something thought up by a 12 year old.  Sounds like a lawnmower in that video. lol.


Definitely looks fun for the weekend on the lake though.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 20:31 | 2017698 SAT 800
SAT 800's picture

Yeah, I liked that too. Looks a term project for an aeronautical student; in about 1949.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 21:14 | 2017807 jc125d
jc125d's picture

Good for House of Kebeb deliveries to MD Eastern Shore. No problem.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 21:45 | 2017887 rufusbird
rufusbird's picture

Cute video. Do both the pilot and copilot have to pedal?

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 20:04 | 2017610 HungrySeagull
HungrySeagull's picture

Cessna 172 into Red Square from Germany into the teeth of the USSR defenses?


It made it and landed there too.


For a while we waited and watched. The Soviet was very, very, very angry that week.


Hell the Swordfish planes managed to damage the Bismark sufficently. They were not expected to even survive. But that was all there was.



Thu, 12/29/2011 - 01:28 | 2018311 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

HungrySeagull, fighting dirty by bringing up history, accurately recalled:

Hell the Swordfish planes managed to damage the Bismark sufficently. They were not expected to even survive. But that was all there was.

Yep. Obsolete, World War One vintage biplanes, which flew so slow that the antiaircraft guns couldn't track them, crippled the world's most feared battleship and left it a sitting duck.

It's a good thing the United States' military isn't overly dependent on technology.


Thu, 12/29/2011 - 06:09 | 2018478 HungrySeagull
HungrySeagull's picture

History has many lessons we do well to learn and keep.


Without it or any remembering, what the fuck are we? Nothing more than a dumb bully shaking down kids for lunch money.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 19:30 | 2017523 Tuco Benedicto ...
Tuco Benedicto Pacifico Juan Maria Ramirez's picture

The damage to the U. S. Navy from this regional war will be miniscule compared to the damage done to the U. S. economy.  $10 gasoline anyone?!

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 19:35 | 2017532 SHEEPFUKKER

You mean, damage the economy further.  Yet, I'm not sure how much further damaged it could get.  Spending money on wars abroad seems to be the only solution they can come up with on Capitol Hill.  When the U.S. is broke for real, not just on paper, I have a sneaky suspicion that the countries that have been bullied all these years may come looking for payback.  

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 19:46 | 2017556 eurusdog
eurusdog's picture

This is the first thoughtful comment you've made this go around.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 21:24 | 2017834 Tuco Benedicto ...
Tuco Benedicto Pacifico Juan Maria Ramirez's picture

At least I avoided a shutout this time around:)

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 19:35 | 2017531 chump666
chump666's picture

SS Stark will be Irans model of attack.  Get the fleet close to the straits. Done.  The ships will be taken out by anti-ship missiles.  Now Israel/US air-force does something stupid, Iran takes out Saudi's oil/shipping docks.  Boom. Oil price goes to $200 and Russia and China get frisky.

What the f*ck is wrong with mainstream media!!! This is the most bad sh*t you could want end year.  We are looking at a potential war.

The machines (HFTs) will short on this...hard.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 20:06 | 2017622 HungrySeagull
HungrySeagull's picture

USS Stark was a one off problem.

Something the US Navy has vowed never to allow again.


Those Exocets were good missiles for thier day.


We will lose more ships and men in harms way, but god help us if a Carrier goes down. The Nation wont stand for it. (They lost dozens durign WW2 and we simply built more)

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 20:10 | 2017639 Rakshas
Rakshas's picture

Not to poop on the armchair chunderfest here but:

1 - Stark was basically sitting in port as far as her crew readiness was concerned, her defensive systems were not active, actually USS Vincennes was in a low state of readiness relative to USN ships sailing through the PG/SOH these days - if you get my drift..

2 - Despite the appearence to the contrary you can bet your last oz of Au that the sat coverage of the entire area has gone exponetial as well as the flyovers by the stealth beasts.

3 - Unlike the civilian "handlers" the US military does not have thier heads up thier collective asses when it comes to blowing shit up and blow shit up they will if allowed to - this point scares the hell out of me b/c they don't give a shit they really don't. If told to engage they will engage and if the temperature in Tehran exceeds 10,000 degrees before it's over so be it.

Do none of you remember the events of 2003?  It sure impressed the hell out of the persian moderates - they tried to talk to the idiot Bush and make all this shite go away but that bunch of war mongering mothafuckas wanted nothing to do with them as they already had plans for dealing with these guys - it doesn't appear those plans have changed much.

China and Russia - yeah they'll complain but until they are actually in a postition to take the US machine head on it is unikely it would amount to much more - would you melt your cities for the persians?  The only reason the russians are contrary is b/c of the Fuck You bullshit sandwich the Yanks keep serving them. One day but not today....

Anyway back to the chunderfest.....those are my chunks...




Wed, 12/28/2011 - 20:20 | 2017665's picture

If the Chinese want to put the kibosh on the US all they would have to do is stop buying bonds (and maybe sell a bunch too) and stop providing electronic replacement parts for American weaponry.

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