FARK.com: (6856823) Iran to U.S. Navy: Keep your fleet out of the Persian Gulf, or we'll publish pictures of us sinking your ships. U.S. Navy: That'd be one hell of a Photoshop job

If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

		Iran to U.S. Navy: Keep your fleet out of the Persian Gulf, or we'll publish pictures of us sinking your ships. U.S. Navy: That'd be one hell of a Photoshop job (reuters.com)		512
		More: Amusing, Persian Gulf, U.S. Navy, Iran, french foreign minister, Catherine Ashton, oil exports, Arabian Sea, shipping lanes

• • •

20774 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Jan 2012 at 10:50 AM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/6856823

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

512 Comments (+0 »)

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

SnarfVader		2012-01-03 08:23:11 AM

That's like a flock of seagulls threatening to shiat on the village people.

DarnoKonrad		2012-01-03 08:31:21 AM

Really all depends on how good their guided missile systems are. There's a pretty good reason we only attack nations with military technology we sold in the 60s.

Slives		2012-01-03 08:35:32 AM

Sure, go ahead and threaten one of our carriers. Its not like we can't have 4-5 more there in 30 days or so.

I suspect that if Iran was really that much of a threat, there would be more than one carrier in the area.

EatHam		2012-01-03 08:42:32 AM

Nuts.

Party Boy		2012-01-03 09:01:14 AM

TFA: Iran threatens U.S. Navy as sanctions hit economy

NPR Dec 2011
The powerful pro-Israel lobby and a leading Jewish advocacy group on Wednesday endorsed tough sanctions on Iran's Central Bank as Congress wrestles with an Obama administration plea to ease the impact of the penalties to avoid driving up oil prices.
In a letter to lawmakers, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee said the sanctions would contribute to the U.S. effort to pressure Tehran economically and could dissuade Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon. Separately, the American Jewish Committee wrote to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta backing the penalties that would target foreign financial institutions that do business with the Central Bank.
Last week, the Senate voted 100-0 for an amendment by Sens. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., and Bob Menendez, D-N.J., to add the sanctions to a broad defense bill. House and Senate negotiators are meeting this week to try to iron out the differences between their respective bills and produce a final version of the legislation for President Barack Obama's signature.
NJ Jewish News
Menendez said their opposition undermined a compromise he struck with Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) on legislation that was eventually passed in the Senate by a vote of 100-0.
The White House countered that the Kirk-Menendez amendment could actually help the Iranian economy if foreign banks resisted American unilateral efforts.
This week Menendez stood by his approach on sanctions, which he developed in consultation with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

Background

The Israeli-U.S.-Iranian triangle had shifted remarkably in just a few years. In the 1980s,Israel was the unlikely defender ofand apologist for Iran in Washington,taking great risks to pressure the Reagan administration to open up channels ofcommunication with Iran.Now,Israel did the oppo- site.Israel wanted the United States to put Iran under economic and politi- cal siege. Shimon Peres's New Middle East and the American policy of Dual Containment that went into effect in 1993 after more than a year ofIs- raeli pressure would all but write Iran's isolation into law. 181
But the prevailing view in the Israeli government was that a U.S.-Iran dialogue would not beneﬁt Israel because Iran was interested only in reduc- ing tensions with Washington-not with Israel."What the Iranians want is to have the U.S.recognize them as a regional superpower in the Middle East,"Israeli Gen.Amos Gilad argued. Just as it did in the Iran-Contra affair and the Lebanese hostage negotiations with Washington in the early 1990s,Iran would try to cut Israel out ofthe deal because Israel itself couldn't offer Tehran anything it needed. 181
This was particularly true ifU.S.-Iran relations were put in a global context,in which Washington needed to maintain some inﬂuence over Iran and its gas and oil reserves in order to keep the United States'future geopo- litical rival-China-in check."A small state is always worried that a global ally will make a deal in which it takes a global view ofthe deal and forget about local details that for a local actor are very important,"Rabinovich ex- plained. Apprehension that Washington would "sell Israel out"and pur- sue its own interests in a U.S.-Iran dialogue weighed heavily on the minds of Israeli strategists. Because Israel viewed a U.S.-Iran dialogue as a greater threat than that ofIran itself,the optimal strategy was to prevent a dialogue from materializing in the ﬁrst place. This provided the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC),the most potent pro-Israeli lobby group in the United States,with a new cause to rally around. 182
Rabin had always had a prob- lematic relationship with American Jewish organizations,partly because of his secular inclinations and upbringing,but mainly because ofwhat he per- ceived as repeated attempts by American Jewish leaders to sideline Israel's government (particularly its Labor governments) by approaching the U.S. administration on Israel's behalf.Lobbying the administration should be off-limits to AIPAC,he insisted,whereas Capitol Hill was fair game. "He felt that the community had become too big ofa part ofthe bilateral [U.S.- Israel] relationship," 183
Israel's new push against Iran pro- vided AIPAC with an opportunity to reinvent itselfin the Oslo era,when its traditional function ofcountering Arab inﬂuence in Washington had be- come obsolete."AIPAC made Iran a major issue since they didn't have any other issue to champion,"said Shai Feldman ofthe Jaffee Center for Strate- gic Studies in Tel Aviv."The U.S.was in favor ofthe peace process,so what would they push for?" AIPAC needed a new issue,and Israel needed help in turning Washington against Iran.It was a win-win situation. 183
By mid-1994,Israel and AIPAC turned the full force oftheir diplomatic and lobby power against Iran.Rabin's advisers requested that he ask the West to impose "some potent economic sanctions against Iran."75 This wasn't an easy task,because even though Iran wasn't a popular country in the United States,it wasn't considered a threat.But whatever challenges lay ahead,they could be resolved with AIPAC's help.Rabin held a teleconfer- ence with U.S.Jewish leaders in September 1994 to coordinate the strategy. His message was clear-Iran was the greatest threat to Middle East peace. "Behind [the Palestinian rejectionists] there is an Islamic country,Iran,that in addition tries to develop in the coming seven to ﬁfteen years nuclear weapons and ground-to-ground missiles that can reach every part ofthe Middle East,"he said. 184

More on sanctions

Companies
Companies
Companies

doglover		2012-01-03 09:07:39 AM

DarnoKonrad: There's a pretty good reason we only attack nations with military technology we sold in the 60s.

Not really.

It's just worked out that way. We took on Germany TWICE in the world wars. The were THE premiere military when we did that, both times.

But, since the world wars, pretty much none of the countries involved have come to blows against each other. We ALMOST did with Russia, but shiat's cooled down a bit. And that's a good thing. Peace is always more profitable.

DarnoKonrad		2012-01-03 09:39:36 AM

doglover: DarnoKonrad: There's a pretty good reason we only attack nations with military technology we sold in the 60s.

Not really.

It's just worked out that way. We took on Germany TWICE in the world wars. The were THE premiere military when we did that, both times.

But, since the world wars, pretty much none of the countries involved have come to blows against each other. We ALMOST did with Russia, but shiat's cooled down a bit. And that's a good thing. Peace is always more profitable.

Germany didn't give us a choice, they declared war. I'm talking about wars of convenience.

Mentat		2012-01-03 09:57:12 AM

SnarfVader: That's like a flock of seagulls threatening to shiat on the village people.

And Iran, Iran so far away

GAT_00		2012-01-03 10:13:15 AM

There is a pretty good chance that they could take out the Stennis if they decided to. After all, their missile is a clone of the Chinese ones that people take so seriously.

doglover		2012-01-03 10:15:27 AM

DarnoKonrad: doglover: DarnoKonrad: There's a pretty good reason we only attack nations with military technology we sold in the 60s.

Not really.

It's just worked out that way. We took on Germany TWICE in the world wars. The were THE premiere military when we did that, both times.

But, since the world wars, pretty much none of the countries involved have come to blows against each other. We ALMOST did with Russia, but shiat's cooled down a bit. And that's a good thing. Peace is always more profitable.

Germany didn't give us a choice, they declared war. I'm talking about wars of convenience.

Yeah, um they didn't really declare war on us. They kinda did a number in Europe and we got pulled in.

In world war I happened by accident when the Germans sunk passenger ships and hit one with Americans on.

In world war two, they did indeed declare on us. But only because we declared war on Japan and by then the treaties had been flying thick and heavy. We woulda been drawn into Europe somehow, though.

And let's not forget the Japanese. They might not have had the resources for a long campaign, but at the outset their Zeros weren't exactly something to laugh at and the Yamato might have gone down to Davy Jones, but she took just as much sending as any ship in our ports.

I'm tellin' you Americans are just the new Romans. We crush people in the field when we can, and say "Now wasn't that nice." but when things get ugly, we get uglier. All the high tech in the world doesn't change our national character. Look at the sports we like.

Headso		2012-01-03 10:18:03 AM

doglover: Yeah, um they didn't really declare war on us.

lol wut?

doglover		2012-01-03 10:22:17 AM

Headso: doglover: Yeah, um they didn't really declare war on us.

lol wut?

The first time.

brerrabbit		2012-01-03 10:50:00 AM

Slives: Sure, go ahead and threaten one of our carriers. Its not like we can't have 4-5 more there in 30 days or so.

I suspect that if Iran was really that much of a threat, there would be more than one carrier in the area.

So we are going to add another relatively defenseless high value target to the mix?

I think if we play this game, we need to expect to be prepared to recover a lot of bodies from the water. We won't get out of this without having our noses bloodied.

TravisBickle62		2012-01-03 10:51:37 AM

I say they're bluffing ...

9beers		2012-01-03 10:53:16 AM

DarnoKonrad: Really all depends on how good their guided missile systems are. There's a pretty good reason we only attack nations with military technology we sold in the 60s.

So what you're saying is that you know nothing about military technology.

moike		2012-01-03 10:54:36 AM

FTFA: "I advise, recommend and warn them over the return of this carrier to the Persian Gulf because we are not in the habit of warning more than once."

To be fair, it is hard to issue that second warning from a smoldering crater in the earth...

Norv Turner		2012-01-03 10:57:19 AM

In other news, I'm going to buy a tesla this year.....(if they actually had one available since they already sold every one they'll produce for 2012)

Random Anonymous Blackmail		2012-01-03 10:57:42 AM

Iran penis waving is sure helping the oil speculators make a bunch of money.

mrmaster		2012-01-03 10:57:45 AM

Doesn't matter if they are bluffing. The only way for the US and Iran to come out winners is if the US releases a press release stating that the aircraft carrier was already scheduled for maintenance for a month and its next assignment would be determined at that point.

In turn, the US can then send it back to the Hormuz straight in a few weeks and pretend nothing happened. Iran, on the other hand, gets to pretend that they kept the us navy at bay when in reality they know they are at a fine line that they can't afford to cross..at least not until they have their nuke functional.

This way both Iran and US gets to declare victory in this spat.

Badmonkey82009		2012-01-03 10:57:50 AM

trappedspirit		2012-01-03 10:58:57 AM

I'm just going to be swinging my arm like this and if anyone walks into it's path it will be their fault because I warned you

MAYORBOB		2012-01-03 10:59:56 AM

Remember one thing, Iran -- the US fleet don't take no guff when it struts its stuff.

darch		2012-01-03 11:00:14 AM

So we are going to add another relatively defenseless high value target to the mix?

Um, if you mean that in the way that carriers don't carry mounted guns like a battleship or cruiser, sure. However, the dozens of supersonic jet fighters ready to scramble off their decks armed with missles would like a word with you...

Happy Hours		2012-01-03 11:00:48 AM

darch		2012-01-03 11:02:53 AM

Happy Hours

I remember them from when I was a kid! Wow. Nostalgia.

Tom_Slick		2012-01-03 11:02:57 AM

Geriatric Goodman Brown		2012-01-03 11:03:04 AM

doglover: In world war I happened by accident when the Germans sunk passenger ships and hit one with Americans on.

I see you're a scholar.

In what year was the Lusitania sunk?

In what year did the U.S. declare war on Germany?

Read up on the Zimmerman telegram. Germany assumed we'd declare war on them when the resumed USW, a tactic necessary due to GB's blockade. Germany then asked Mexico to join them in war against the U.S. When the U.S. found out about this telegram, they viewed it as cause for war.

Who knows what would have happened had Germany not sent that telegram.

spasmodious		2012-01-03 11:03:05 AM

darch: So we are going to add another relatively defenseless high value target to the mix?

Um, if you mean that in the way that carriers don't carry mounted guns like a battleship or cruiser, sure. However, the dozens of supersonic jet fighters ready to scramble off their decks armed with missles would like a word with you...

what are those billion dollar jet fighters going to do against anti ship missiles?

Misconduc		2012-01-03 11:03:12 AM

9beers: DarnoKonrad: Really all depends on how good their guided missile systems are. There's a pretty good reason we only attack nations with military technology we sold in the 60s.

So what you're saying is that you know nothing about military technology.

He clearly doesn't understand military technology isn't simply bought from one country, its like herpes - everyone passes it around.

Most of the military technology is either going to be chinese or russian, which both have the capability of striking a carrier group at short/med/long range - question of what KIND of system Iran has in place will depend on how accurate it is.

Just because they possess a guided missile doesn't mean it will hit within a meter of its intended target, the french exocet was a prime example of a good medium ranged air to surface guided missile, however it should of been easily fooled by the British chaff counter measures to home in on the Radar, instead one of the ships failed to follow through and got slammed.

Considering I haven't heard anything about Iran testing Surface to Sea guided missiles lately, its questionable that they even possess such a missile that would actually threaten a U.S Fleet.

special20		2012-01-03 11:03:12 AM

brerrabbit: Slives: Sure, go ahead and threaten one of our carriers. Its not like we can't have 4-5 more there in 30 days or so.

I suspect that if Iran was really that much of a threat, there would be more than one carrier in the area.

So we are going to add another relatively defenseless high value target to the mix?

I think if we play this game, we need to expect to be prepared to recover a lot of bodies from the water. We won't get out of this without having our noses bloodied.

Guided missiles don't have blood in their noses. Also, I'm sure that during the little Iranian boat parade, we gathered signatures on each vessel - it should be a cake walk for the USN.

CygnusDarius		2012-01-03 11:03:33 AM

I'm thinking attacking Iran at this point is a bit of a waste of time. If they attack Israel let them defend themselves, it's time the US washes its hands for once.

Unsung_Hero		2012-01-03 11:03:38 AM

brerrabbit: Slives: Sure, go ahead and threaten one of our carriers. Its not like we can't have 4-5 more there in 30 days or so.

I suspect that if Iran was really that much of a threat, there would be more than one carrier in the area.

So we are going to add another relatively defenseless high value target to the mix?

I think if we play this game, we need to expect to be prepared to recover a lot of bodies from the water. We won't get out of this without having our noses bloodied.

I think 9/11 shows that, while you can fight the Americans, actually landing a hit of any substance will result in an extreme over-reaction. The only thing stopping the USA from rolling over the Middle East is a lack of public support back home.

Go ahead, attack an American vessel. Watch the left, middle, and right unite behind a war-hawk government and pound your country into dust.

They'll worry about the PR problems when they calm down from their rage.

change1211		2012-01-03 11:03:53 AM

darch: So we are going to add another relatively defenseless high value target to the mix?

Um, if you mean that in the way that carriers don't carry mounted guns like a battleship or cruiser, sure. However, the dozens of supersonic jet fighters ready to scramble off their decks armed with missles would like a word with you...

Wouldn't it make more sense to have those supersonic jets covering the smaller ships while the carrier is a few hundred kilometers away so they can't sink it? I'm not saying a carrier couldn't defend itself but why risk it?

Cybernetic		2012-01-03 11:04:39 AM

"I advise, recommend and warn them over the return of this carrier to the Persian Gulf because we are not in the habit of warning more than once."

Does this remind anyone else of Khadaffi's "Line of Death" bullshiat from the 1980s?

topcon		2012-01-03 11:04:57 AM

So if this Strait of Hormel gets shot down...pepperoni prices are going to skyrocket. Pizza is one of the world's most popular foods. If pepperoni gets shut down, people will demand action. Not to mention, the Hormel corporation has long arms of its own.

xanadian		2012-01-03 11:05:08 AM

Yeah, good luck with that, Iran. :-/

Triaxis		2012-01-03 11:05:40 AM

Didn't China just produce a missile they call the "carrier-killer"? They wouldn't give those to Iran now would they? Nah..

Genta		2012-01-03 11:05:43 AM

the US navy isnt invincible....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

"In a preemptive strike, Red launched a massive salvo of cruise missiles that overwhelmed the Blue forces' electronic sensors and destroyed sixteen warships. This included one aircraft carrier, ten cruisers and five of six amphibious ships. An equivalent success in a real conflict would have resulted in the deaths of over 20,000 service personnel. Soon after the cruise missile offensive, another significant portion of Blue's navy was "sunk" by an armada of small Red boats, which carried out both conventional and suicide attacks that capitalized on Blue's inability to detect them as well as expected"

Gdalescrboz		2012-01-03 11:05:53 AM

mrmaster SmartestFunniest 2012-01-03 10:57:45 AM

Doesn't matter if they are bluffing. The only way for the US and Iran to come out winners is if the US releases a press release stating that the aircraft carrier was already scheduled for maintenance for a month and its next assignment would be determined at that point.

In turn, the US can then send it back to the Hormuz straight in a few weeks and pretend nothing happened. Iran, on the other hand, gets to pretend that they kept the us navy at bay when in reality they know they are at a fine line that they can't afford to cross..at least not until they have their nuke functional.

Sorry but i dont see how a US carrier coming back into the Gulf can in anyway be interpreted as an Iranian victory. They said "dont come back" not "dont come back for a week."

dittybopper		2012-01-03 11:06:43 AM

DarnoKonrad: Germany didn't give us a choice, they declared war. I'm talking about wars of convenience.

Technically, no they didn't: In WWI, we declared war on Germany, and in WWII, we were in a shooting war with Germany by our own discretion months before Hitler declared war on us. Just ask the crew of the USS Reuben James, sunk in October of 1941 while escorting convoy HX-156. Or you can ask the crew of USS Niblack, which attacked a (probably phantom) German u-boat in April of 1941.

Happy Hours		2012-01-03 11:07:17 AM

darch: Happy Hours

I remember them from when I was a kid! Wow. Nostalgia.

Good times, eh?

One of my friends in school was Iranian when that shiat was going on. He insisted he was Persian. He was a good person, probably still is. Don't hate the people, hate the Ayatollah!

joness0154		2012-01-03 11:07:20 AM

Genta: the US navy isnt invincible....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

"In a preemptive strike, Red launched a massive salvo of cruise missiles that overwhelmed the Blue forces' electronic sensors and destroyed sixteen warships. This included one aircraft carrier, ten cruisers and five of six amphibious ships. An equivalent success in a real conflict would have resulted in the deaths of over 20,000 service personnel. Soon after the cruise missile offensive, another significant portion of Blue's navy was "sunk" by an armada of small Red boats, which carried out both conventional and suicide attacks that capitalized on Blue's inability to detect them as well as expected"

This.

While we'd most likely be victorious in the long run, there would most likely be some fairly high losses on our side too. Some of those anti-ship missiles the Iranians have are pretty scary.

watson.t.hamster		2012-01-03 11:07:29 AM

DarnoKonrad: Really all depends on how good their guided missile systems are. There's a pretty good reason we only attack nations with military technology we sold in the 60s.

Because the ones who built their own advanced weapon systems also have nukes?

dittybopper		2012-01-03 11:07:42 AM

topcon: So if this Strait of Hormel gets shot down...pepperoni prices are going to skyrocket. Pizza is one of the world's most popular foods. If pepperoni gets shut down, people will demand action. Not to mention, the Hormel corporation has long arms of its own.

Stop spamming this thread.

Metraxis		2012-01-03 11:08:21 AM

Clearly, we should counter the photoshops of missiles with a CGI video of a low-profile submersible carrier surfacing, unbuttoning, launching a wing of fuzzed-out blobs that look suspiciously like a new version of the F-117, and then submerging again. For maximum impact, the whole thing should be less than 10 minutes long, and someone should be arrested for posting it.

///That's how you bluff tech.

dittybopper		2012-01-03 11:08:31 AM

Cybernetic: "I advise, recommend and warn them over the return of this carrier to the Persian Gulf because we are not in the habit of warning more than once."

Does this remind anyone else of Khadaffi's "Line of Death" bullshiat from the 1980s?

To be fair, it *WAS* a "Line of Death", just not in the sense that he intended.

deschinc		2012-01-03 11:08:46 AM

darch: So we are going to add another relatively defenseless high value target to the mix?

Um, if you mean that in the way that carriers don't carry mounted guns like a battleship or cruiser, sure. However, the dozens of supersonic jet fighters ready to scramble off their decks armed with missles would like a word with you...

That and the fact that they don't send them anywhere alone, see Carrier Strike Group (new window).

Jake Havechek		2012-01-03 11:09:03 AM

Triaxis: Didn't China just produce a missile they call the "carrier-killer"? They wouldn't give those to Iran now would they? Nah..

Why would they? China is our biggest business partner.

ha-ha-guy		2012-01-03 11:09:42 AM

Iran actually wants a mild ass kicking. Their younger generation hates the leadership, they did the whole Arab Spring thing before it was cool and did it with a lot more violence.

Iran needs propaganda for domestic consumption and a bloody flag to wave for nationalism. A few sunken warship or the US pumping some cruise missiles into their base at Bandar Abbas would work nicely. Dinnerjacket's wet dream is a cruise missile going off target, nailing a day care, and giving him dead kids to show on the 10 pm Iranian news. The whole trick is for the Iranians to provoke us into a limited response as opposed to "glass parking lot" level.

The best thing for America is to ignore the dick waving, let sanctions crush the Iranian economy, and perhaps have the CIA covertly help organize the Iranian youth for their next wave of protests.

JustGetItRight		2012-01-03 11:10:15 AM

GAT_00: There is a pretty good chance that they could take out the Stennis if they decided to. After all, their missile is a clone of the Chinese ones that ~~people~~ a few random farkers take so seriously.

FTFY. Iran has nothing capable of taking down a carrier except possibly their Kilo class submarines. Even that would be questionable because their maintenance and crew training quality is questionable.

No missile in their inventory would penetrate the battle group's defenses - but that's a moot point because the carrier would simply stand off out of range and let her air group do it's thing.

What Iran CAN do that would hurt the US greatly is close the gulf. Between their mines, land based missile systems, aircraft, fast attack craft, and coastal submarine force, they could completely shut it down for a week to a month. The duration would depend on how much the US would be willing to do militarily and how much the Iranians were willing to lose in the conflict.

Go all the way and you're looking at $7-8 a gallon gas and a total collapse of any potential worldwide economic recovery.

Displayed 50 of 512 comments