US Navy Says Any Disruption To Straits Of Hormuz "Will Not Be Tolerated"

Tyler Durden's picture

Just out from Reuters:


Compare this statement with what an Iranian navy chief said earlier:

Closing off the Gulf to oil tankers will be "easier than drinking a glass of water" for Iran if the Islamic state deems it necessary, state television reported on Wednesday, ratcheting up fears over the world's most important oil chokepoint.


"Closing the Strait of Hormuz for Iran's armed forces is really easy ... or as Iranians say it will be easier than drinking a glass of water," Iran's navy chief Habibollah Sayyari told Iran's English language Press TV.


"But right now, we don't need to shut it as we have the Sea of Oman under control and we can control the transit," said Sayyari, who is leading 10 days of exercises in the Strait.

It appears that just like in the case of the ECB, where all the powers involved need a crash of some sort to proceed with "next steps" so the same mentality has now gripped the US Fifth Fleet.

And more on the original story:

The U.S. Fifth Fleet said on Wednesday it will
not allow any disruption of traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, after Iran
threatened to stop ships moving through the strategic oil route.


"The free flow of goods and services through the Strait of Hormuz is
vital to regional and global prosperity," a spokesperson for the
Bahrain-based fleet said in a written response to queries from Reuters
about the possibility of Iran trying to close the waterway.


"Anyone who threatens to disrupt freedom of navigation in an
international strait is clearly outside the community of nations; any
disruption will not be tolerated."


Asked whether it was taking
specific measures in response to the threat to close the Strait, the
fleet said it "maintains a robust presence in the region to deter or
counter destabilizing activities", without providing further detail.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
ZeroPower's picture

Ya don't fuck with the US navy, i hope this is clear.

Gully Foyle's picture


None of those Gay sailors are fucking?

Pladizow's picture

If there was ever a time when America needed a president like Ron Paul - this is it!

Why the fuck does America feel the need to stick its nose EVERY WHERE?

And what if Iran had thoughts on how transportation should occur in the Gulf of Mexico?


PulauHantu29's picture

Guess they got tired of looking for WMDs in Iraq?

FreeSlave's picture

This war is to establish a zionist central bank in Iran (only few countries that dont have that. One of them was Libya and Iraq). At the same time to get their oil of course. If you support this war, means you support the establishment of FED like bank in Iran. Most of us here agree that the FED must be abolished, so we must not approve the war with Iran. The nuclear threat from Iran is a BS, like we had BS with Iraq weapons of mass destruction. Also, stop supporting israel completely, and NEVER elect officials who support israel! Officials who blindly support israel are zionists! PERIOD. For them israel is more important then USA. We will will be screwed as long as we have zionist controlling our government. It is that simple.


strannick's picture

I guess its becoming apparent to Iran that its pisspot navy of aluminium outboards loaded with gangs of ak-47 wielding crazies wont be sufficient to shut down world trade.

caconhma's picture

There is another thing to consider:

Washington Post reports that the White House is negotiating with the Taliban. And not with some anonymous guys, but with Mullah Omar who is in charge of the organization supreme consul - "Quetta shura."

If so, it means big problems for Pakistan, which can lose their important client. "All that was acquired by hard labor ...." As a matter of fact, Pakistan is left with just one last argument - nuclear weapons. This is the subject of a great concern for Americans.  The USA has offered to Pakistan to place their nuclear warheads under the U.S. Army control.  Naturally, Pakistan refused to do so.

Let's see - if so, the events will move much more rapidly than would be expected. Now, the Taliban may well be the strike force of the United States in the Middle East and Central Asia - and this is a very serious force. Even more serious than NATO contingent in Afghanistan. For Pakistan and China, this is bad news, but for Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Russia the news could be catastrophic.

The idea is to revive the Caliphate - now under the benevolent patronage of the United States. No wonder the U.S. is so diligently helped develop the drug trafficking and fed them to the Taliban - the Taliban is already quite capable of large-scale military action - as long as the local scale, but it just will change very quickly if the U.S. dramatically change its policy towards them. And there is given a link to confirm this is news, however: The U.S. and the extremist movement "Taliban" have held several rounds of direct negotiations to achieve a peaceful settlement in Afghanistan.

According to Iranian television channel Press TV, with reference to the U.S. media, plan on an agreement between the parties was developed several months ago. Recall that the military operation of NATO under U.S. leadership in Afghanistan continues to 2001. All this time, it was emphasized that the Alliance has been fighting against this "Taliban".

To make this strategy work, the USA will also need some Iran cooperation.

There is another variable: to get in bed with Taliban, the USA will have to sell out their present allies. This must be the main topic of US/Taliban negotiations.

Finally, religious fanatics could be very difficult to manage. Muslim fanatics are not much easy to managed than Jewish socialist thugs trained, paid, and sent to Russia by the world Zionist banking oligarchy almost exactly 100 years ago.

Lord Koos's picture

The US has been negotiating with the Taliban since the 1990s, when Taliban leaders were flown to Texas so that Bush the elder could try to talk them into an oil pipeline.

IBelieveInMagic's picture

Time to spread some democracy and show them the kinds of freedoms that we have come to expect and enjoy!

Helicon's picture

I still can't really understand the system behind the soviet central bank. Any help would be greatly apreciated.

DosZap's picture


Washington Post reports that the White House is negotiating with the Taliban

You believe that?, hell their relatives on vacation,staying at Unca's house.

13thWarrior's picture

Some myths I like to dispel.


1. Taliban contrary to popular propaganda doesn't operate outside Afghanistan.

2. Taliban are anti-Banks also.

3. Taliban are anti-drugs as well.

4. Taliban just beat the shit out of US Army in recent attacks to curb their expansion.

5. Taliban don't come to negotiation because they know USG has no honest intention.

6. Taliban never have and never will attack Pakistan or any other muslim state.

7. Taliban is not TTP (A counter gang created by Western intelligence agencies to defame Taliban, Read Kitson book on counter gangs)

8. Taliban want US out and implment Shariah also means intrest free economy, a nightmare for NWO.

9. Taliban is not ALQaeda either.

10. Using Taliban against Pakistan is Zbigniew Brzezinski policy and he is failing cos Taliban will never attack Pakistan and have told TTP to make peace with US Pakistan army.

Dave Thomas's picture

No they won't go toe to toe with the US Navy, that would mean instadeath. What they'll do is scuttle a few junk tankers at key areas and dump a few mines overboard just to make removal dicey.

That would definitely put a crimp in any kind of shipping traffic that had to go "toot toot" through the straight.

msamour's picture

I remember when we crossed the Straits in the 90's we could see the missile sites. I remember the OOW say, those were only the decoys, the real ones we couldn't see. Iran has an history of putting their old gear in plain sight, and to keep their good gear hidden. During my watch, I counted about 60 different missile sites. I have a feeling, many armchair admirals and generals would be very surprised of the result should a war begin. I have been there in the Gulf, things there are not what they seem...

jeff montanye's picture

and the u.s.'s own war game showed either mutual destruction or an iranian victory.'s picture

If Iranians are so lightly armed then that proves that they are not a threat to Israel or the US. Glad to hear that you agree that we have no need to sanction or bomb Iran.

strannick's picture

Just because they are relatively lightly armed doesnt mean Iran wont cause shit, and the US wont step in and stop it. Its the way the world turns.'s picture

Well there's your casus belli right there. Iran is lightly armed and they might "cause shit." Colin Powell could not make a better presentation at the UN.

strannick's picture

Dont quite follow your logic or pretentious language, but if your looking for King Arthur and Dragon roles in these farces, you probably should go back to the nursery rhymes, or the university protest- pep rallies.

The US will do what it does, for all its shitty little reasons, likewise Iran will do what it will do, for all its shitty little reasons. That sound reasonable?'s picture

You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? Then who the hell else are you talking... you talking to me? Well I'm the only one here. Who the fuck do you think you're talking to?

strannick's picture

Non sequiters and insider entendres. Thought I smelt teen spirit.'s picture

Wrong again, I'm 48. But thanks for playing. You will receive a copy of the ZeroHedge home edition and a glorious 365 day / 365 night vacation in a war zone of Obama's choice.

See in the pink's picture

You don't have to have taken Latin or studied law to look up WTF "casus belli" means, here (that was hard):

Bringin It's picture

Nice work Crockett.  Genuine applause.

On the foreign policy slope of the great mountain of corruption, you could be the Sherpa guide.  But what about the other thing?

Have you encountered any epiphanies(sp?) re. Ol' #7?  Or still going with the party line?

sof_hannibal's picture

Good point. Other than mines and closing the starits with a mined suken ship, it is not apparent to me how Iran could have any control over the straits. Also, they only have one border of the straits.

Lord Koos's picture

They don't have to actually close the straights, all they have to do is to start sinking oil tankers, which is very easy, and it's difficult to protect them.  Aall they have to do is sink one or two, and all oil traffic through the straights will stop.  Instant $8.00 gas.

boattrash's picture

Make that $10 gas, since our Cocksucker-In-Chief shut down our Gulf drilling for the last year.

sof_hannibal's picture

I don't or am not agreeing with any war action; but the US Navy -- submarines are incomparable and basically unsinkable. If Iran did sink a tanker; its navy would not exist within a week. The Iranian Navy knows this; the ICRG is a little more fanatical; but they have speed boats as noted

TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Iran needs neither navy nor air force to close the strait and keep it closed indefinitely.


DosZap's picture


Iran needs neither navy nor air force to close the strait and keep it closed indefinitely.

Iran could cease to exist,they used to be Persia,they could become Sand Dunia,w/out one bullet being fired.

New World Chaos's picture

At the end of WWI, the Germans built a gun with a range of 80 miles.  They used it to shell Paris from behind their own lines.   The Straits of Hormuz is 34 miles wide and makes an indentation into hilly Iranian territory.  Iran doesn't need ships or missiles to shut down the strait, just a bunch of mobile artillery.  Each gun could be a mile away before the shell even hits the tanker.  Not getting rid of those guns without an air war at the very least.  Plus, if I was Iran I would have run a tunnel under the straits so I could release mines into the shipping lanes without having to dodge the US Navy/Air Force.

Eally Ucked's picture

Maybe they will hack into J.Stennis navigation system and moor it at one of their ports? Then naval power of Iran would increase significantly. 

delbutler's picture

When are most Americans gonna wake up and realise just because Iran has 3 letters in it's name in common with Iraq, that it is not anything like the latter ? Iran is a far far more advanced country in terms of economy, military and technology.

Anyone that thinks that Iran will be another "48 hours and it's all over" job is so sadly mistaken, it ain't even funny. The American governemt would do well to stop trying to be the playground bully, punching kids in the face and taking their money (oil) and stick to getting it's own rather wrecked and near collapsing house in order.

strannick's picture

This war is to establish a zionist central bank in Iran (only few countries that dont have that. One of them was Libya and Iraq).

You make Libya and Iraq sound like stalwart bastions of totalitarian thwarting democracies, instead of modernday Muslim shiekdoms. Im sure that wasnt your intention.

kill switch's picture

Why the fuck does America feel the need to stick its nose EVERY WHERE?

Because, when your a world empire everything is in your national interest...unsustainable.

Jack Burton's picture

"Unsustainable?" You bet! We reached that point with the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.  The Iran war will be even more expensive.

I ask all the armchair warriors: "Will YOU pay higher taxes to fund these wars".  I seem never to get an answer, just silence, their keyboards don't work when confronted with reality based questions.

wisefool's picture

They would answer yes. The real question you have to pose to them is "would you implement a tax code where a simple majority of citizens contribute to the war effort for your great democracy"

Thats where they clam up like little girls.

wisefool's picture

Not sure why I got a junk. My point is, if 51% of americans are too poor to pay federal taxes, then maybe we should not have the federal government play super cop to the world. Not to mention the 13 Trillion dollar debt that 51% of children not born yet will not be able to afford to pay for either.

This is exactly the tyrrany that George Washington predicted for the USA.

kralizec's picture

And higher taxes in the form of extortion level oil & gas prices resulting from unchecked Persian meddling in the striats is going to be subsidized here at home by...President Ron Paul?


El Viejo's picture

Yup, the Saudis are mad at us for not dealing with Iran sooner and Ron Paul is no different from Cain. He's gotta another quick pill to swallow for the dumbass american voters.  Look at the data: everytime we balanced the budget or even tried throughout the entire history of this country it caused a deep recession. Remember the Clinton balanced budget? Check out Eisenhower: three attempts to balance the budget = three recessions.



strannick's picture

Clinton didnt balance the budget, Greenspan did it for him by freefalling interest rates on his behalf.

Clinton deregulated derivatives, and repealed Glass-Steagal, setting the stage for our current quagmire.

Dave Thomas's picture

Oh yeah, don't forget about all that flight of capital from countries with dieing currencies in the mid to late 90s either, Thailand, Russia, etc.

A nice bald dutch guy named Paul clued me into that a while back.'s picture

 Look at the data: everytime we balanced the budget or even tried throughout the entire history of this country it caused a deep recession.


That simply isn't true. From the 1830s to 1912 the US had no central bank and did not run excessive debts except during the Civil War. This period is known as the Industrial Revolution and was the single greatest leap in the standard of living for rich and poor alike in the entire history of the world. Why lie about that unless you want people to be poor and hungry?

outofhere's picture

With  -1% rate of inflation no less

boattrash's picture

El V, They still live in the fucking desert! You can't grow food in the desert. Like Pops said 30yrs ago, trade 'em a loaf of bread for a barrel of oil.