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

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.

Nuts.

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

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.

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

And Iran, Iran so far away

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.

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

lol wut?

The first time.

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.

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...

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.

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.

"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?

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

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!