Official: Iran to send ships near U.S. coast

[The Northerner]

Source: Politico

Iran plans to send military ships near the Atlantic coast of the United States, but offered no timeline or details on the “powerful presence” its naval head promised would be deployed.

Iranian Rear Adm. Habibollah Sayyari warned that his country plans to station ships near the U.S. sea borders in a move that would dramatically heighten tensions between the two countries, Reuters reported.

“Like the arrogant powers that are present near our marine borders, we will also have a powerful presence close to American marine borders,” Sayyari, the head of the Iranian navy, said, according to the official IRNA news agency.

Sayyari said Iran plans to have a large presence in international waters. His speech was given at a ceremony for the 31st anniversary of the country’s 1980-1988 war with Iraq.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/64534.html

---

Although I mostly disagree with Iran on everything I consider this to be a consequence of US foreign policy in which the US government unreasonably deploys its own military near the coasts of other countries for no other reason than harassment and intimidation.

If only the US military wasn't deployed at all in the Middle East...

[arcane1]

1. It's always wrong unless we do it

or something.

[PacerLJ35]

70. I don't think anyone here in the US cares

so long as they don't enter our territorial waters

[leveymg]

2. That would be a very long, interesting voyage. Especially since the Iranian "Navy" is mostly

made up of these powerful seagoing leviathans: ;)



If they were even to make it, perhaps the crews can hurl stomach acid at the East Coast of the United States.

Duck and cover.

[christx30]

4. Iran should invest in those

acid spitting dinosaurs from Jurassic Park. They are small and stealthy, and scared me as a kid.

[jakeXT]

6. They have a literally a handful of submarines and frigates.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/ships.htm

[leveymg]

8. What they do have a lot of are anti-ship missiles - hundreds of launchers.

The C-802 is very effective against most any surface combatant we put into the small, confined piss pot of the Persian Gulf, particularly the narrow straights of Hormuz.

[hack89]

35. An easy threat to avoid

Besides being short ranged, the Iranians don't have an effective means of targeting fast moving ships that are over the horizon. The US Navy would simply operate in open water in the. Gulf of Oman where they would have room to maneuver while engaging with long range missiles and TACAIR. Those missile batteries would also be vunerable to land based TACAIR.

[leveymg]

38. The straits are less than 20 miles wide, nothing's over the horizon. VFR for missiles.

A 35 knot ship is a sitting duck for a 900 mph missile. If and when we move every major combatant and Saudi tanker out of the Gulf, I'd say that Iran has won, because the world's economy is going to be screaming.

As for taking out every mobile battery, oops, that was another local grocery truck or school bus we just destroyed with a Hellfire missile. They all look the same. They'll have to blow up a lot of little trucks to get most of the anti-shipping batteries.

Good luck. That's not a war we want to fight, and not one we can "win" on a political level. Don't get your Farsi dictionary out if you're a DoD contractor or oil company executive.

[hack89]

39. They won't be in the straits.

Hence my comment about the Gulf of Aden. Even in the Persian Gulf it is not hard to.operate over the horizon.

[leveymg]

40. If it comes to that, we will have already lost.

What could we possibly gain that would be worth shutting down that waterway for weeks, months? How much do you want to pay to fuel up that old Explorer? please.

Do you really think that a shooting war between the US and Iran would be confined to the Gulf of Oman?

[hack89]

43. I don't think there will be a war

we certainly won't start one and I don't think Iran is that stupid.

If one were to start - it would be quick and short. We would turn off the lights in Iran in a day or two - how many cruise missiles do you think we have in theater? How vulnerable do you think Iran's infrastructure is to attack? Yes the world economy would suffer if the straits were closed for an extended period. However, Iran's economy would be destroyed - it would take decades to rebuild. So, like I said, Iran won't be so stupid as to start a war.

[Robert_C]

46. Netanyahu might be crazy enough to start a war

They are just saying, once again, that if they are attacked, the US will suffer. --- A small Iranian presence off the US coast, intended for asymmetrical warfare, could do a great deal of damage long after the hard targets in Iran were reduced to rubble.

[hack89]

59. That small Iranian presence would be on the bottom of the ocean

as soon as the shooting starts. They would be defenseless - no anti-air or anti-submarine capability.

Secondly, they could not do a great deal of damage - a couple of frigates might have 8 anti-ship missiles between them. And those missile are easy to shoot down - Aegis, ESSM, CIWS and SeaRAM would provide a very effective defense in depth against them.

But it is a moot point - there will not be an Iranian flotilla off the coast of America - Iran has never crossed the Med, much less the Atlantic. With short ranged ships and no forward bases, the logistics would be a nightmare. Just sink or disable their oiler and they are fucked,

[Robert_C]

73. Commercial vessels make better targets

It never even occurred to me that they would try to attack US Navy ships with their fleet. Supertankers would have a far greater impact and asymmetrical warfare is what Iran emphasizes: For example, consider a British commando style attack: A single brave individual with some kind of camouflage, a kayak, and a torpedo, dropped off by a freighter near one of our ports. However, today, the commando is not needed, for this can all be done electronically by a smart torpedo. Yes. The US Navy has mine sweepers and anti-sub ships stationed in our major ports. During the 1980's they discovered a Russian smart torpedo that had swum into the Puget Sound (Washington State). These are the methods of contemporary warfare and Iran appears to be at this level of sophistication.

[hack89]

74. Meaningless pin pricks

they don't have enough fire power to significantly disrupt shipping off the US coast, sinking 5 or 10 or even 20 ships would have no meaningful impact on our economy.

But again, a moot point - they would be dead after the first attack. They would be tracked every second they are in US waters and would be defenseless.

And also again - it is not an easy matter to take a naval task force halfway around the world and conduct combat operations. There are very few navies with the capability - Iran is not one of them. They have never operated far from shore bases. They have never crossed the Atlantic.

[vminfla]

20. The Iranian Gov't should be congratulated for supporting America's artificial reef program

I hope that these ships are close to the equator as reasonably possible. The Atlantic reef system could use some beefing up.

[MADem]

58. +1 n/t

[stevenleser]

64. Are we sure this is Iran and not the Duchy of Grand Fenwick? ;-) nt

[Brother Buzz]

3. And Hezbollah is equipping Cuba with missiles according to that nimrod, Bauchmann

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/09/27/329507/bachmann-imagines-a-new-cuban-missile-crisis-worries-hezbollah-is-giving-castro-missiles/

Quick, let's circle the wagons and play some fear cards.

[Fuddnik]

7. Hezbollah missiles are pretty much souped up bottle rockets.

The crazy! :crazy: :silly: :crazy: :silly: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :silly: :crazy: :silly: :crazy:

[Marrah_G]

47. LOL- she is such a moron.....

[Lurks Often]

5. "A powerful presence" the Iranian navy is mostly a

collection of coastal forces and aging, if not obsolete, small ships. The Atlantic is a far rougher ocean, weather wise, then anywhere the Iranian Navy has operated before. Given their equipment, level of experience and how rough the Atlantic can be, it wouldn't surprise me if the Iranian Navy loses one or more ships due to weather, breakdown or accident, Of course, that is if they even try.

A single US carrier group could wipe out the entire Iranian navy long before they ever got within range of the carrier group.

[AtheistCrusader]

9. They only have to last long enough to launch a shitload of ship-killer missiles.

Off the atlantic coast, maybe a different story, but in a shooting war with Iran, a carrier group won't last an hour in the gulf.

[A Physicist]

18. Anti-Ship Missiles

What’s the CEP of these anti-ship missiles? How many do they have? What is range of these missiles? How are the missiles guided? How far are the launching stations separated?

[AtheistCrusader]

21. Assuming China hasn't equipped them with Dong Feng's?

The DF21 is a motherfucker.

They have exocets, improved Silkworms, and C-802's for starters.
Dunno if I buy the rocket-torpedo claims though.

[leveymg]

27. DS21 - isn't that one of those funny-looking French cars?

;) Wouldn't want one of those bad boys coming at you. Incoming!

[hack89]

67. The DF21 is an MRBM

since China has agreed to observe the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR)it is very unlikely Iran has them.

[leveymg]

25. A: They have enough to do enough damage to the US 5th Fleet than we don't want to find out

the details.

"Doing Iran" just isn't cost effective. Stick with Somali pirates.

[left on green only]

30. With tongue in cheek I would say that you are probably just saying that

because you are really a provocateur who likes to sit back and watch "stuff" happen. Go ahead, build up his confidence and egg him on, but to be fair, make sure that he also does understand that US intelligence knows which his little boats he will be "commanding" from. Then ask him if he, like other devout muslims, objects to burial at sea? Because as I understand it, his 18 virgins will *not* be coming down to charm him in Davy Jones' Locker.

[Lurks Often]

32. In a shooting war with Iran, no fleet commander would bring

the carrier group into the Gulf until the missile sites and missile carrying ships are destroyed and probably not even after that.


edited for grammar

[AtheistCrusader]

37. True, but we pass through there all the time

and things can escalate quickly.

[PuffedMica]

33. Or the Iranians wait long enough offshore for one of their vessels to sink in a storm

Then they will go before the U.N. and claim the US sank it with one of our nuclear powered submarines.

The Iranians will demand we 'prove' the ship was not sunk by a submarine. Sadly, half the U.N. will back Iran. The damage Reagan and Bush have done to our global image is vast.

[Vogon_Glory]

36. We Might Even Have To Rescue Them If The Atlantic Proves More Than They Can Handle

We might even have to rescue them if the Iranians send their ships during a stormy season in the Atlantic and it proves more than those guys can handle. Now wouldn't that be something?

:evilgrin:

[name not needed]

45. That's assuming they don't get hijacked by Somali pirates first.

[Marrah_G]

49. omg stop.... I just inhaled my ice tea!

:rofl:

[AverageJoe90]

57. That would be so cool if that actually happened.

Somali pirates would be doing the world a favor for once. :)

[Le Taz Hot]

60. . . .

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Marrah_G]

48. hahahahahahaha

[AtheistCrusader]

10. Good. China and NK should do it too.

If we were humble with our foreign policy that would be one thing.

We aren't.

[tcaudilllg]

12. "Our" foreign policy, or Wall Street's?

[AtheistCrusader]

16. As a nation.

Wall street is an influence, but not the prime mover.

[bongbong]

11. The USA

The USA might have asked the Iranians to do this. Gotta ramp up the fear card with respect to weapon budgets. I think the equation is

1 Iranian PT boat within 100 miles of the coastline = $50,000,000,000 more spending on weapons

[A Physicist]

13. Aircraft Carrier Battle Group?

Get back to me when its and Aircraft Carrier Battle Group or Nuke Sub.

[Owlet]

14. Iranian Warships!

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Chris Christie will once again have to tell people to get the hell off the beach.

[Marrah_G]

50. ......

:rofl:

[SoapBox]

15. FuxNooseChannel heads will be EXPLODING!

Shari Law! Sharia Law! Sharia Law!

...or what ever Fux will spew.

[AverageJoe90]

56. Actually, I think those assholes at FOX News would at least secretly, if not openly, welcome this.

After all, this would provide the perfect excuse for spewing anti-Muslim hatred, while everybody turns a blind eye to Iran's REAL threats.

[Cali_Democrat]

17. They have every right

If we don't like it then we should remove our ships from the Persian Gulf.

[PacerLJ35]

71. International waters...

they can do whatever they want out there (well, not whatever they want but you get what I mean)...we do the same thing...actually, lots of countries do that (Russia, UK, China, etc)

[CJvR]

19. So...

...the Revolutionary guard is to deploy some of their exploding motor boats to the Atlantic? Well one or two good storms should cure them of any desire to linger.

[Marrah_G]

51. hehehe....

Let em deal with a good Nor'Easter!

[evilhime]

22. And Bush made it possible

by getting rid of Sadam . . . while Iran feared Iraq they were too busy to do much of what they have done since he was deposed. Like everything else in life there needs to be balance, and Bush destroyed that one.

[Hubert Flottz]

23. I heard through the grapevine, that Iran planned to surround our

Mexican and Canadian borders with 666 crack divisions, of septic tanks.

[Marrah_G]

52. But that would foil our job searches.....

[Botany]

24. So what?

<The Atlantic Fleet consists of over 118,000 Sailors and Marines, 186 ships and 1,300 aircraft. Additionally, there are 18 major shore
stations providing training, maintenance and logistics support, as well as support to Navy and Marine Corps families.>

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/lantflt.htm

Every single one of those ships will be tracked and watched by satellites and if they even sneezed @ the U.S. they will all be sunk
in under 1 hour.

[Dreamer Tatum]

26. Great - now we don't have to go over there to sink their "fleet" nt

[KILL THE WISE ONE]

28. so claim they crossed the invisible line and hold them hostage ?

they seam to do it to us frequently ?

It could bring Obama more of the respect from the right wing, like he got for killing Osama. :tinfoilhat:

[Dreamer Tatum]

29. I'd just park a battleship and a destroyed within sight and let them crap their pants. nt

[ManiacJoe]

68. Do we still have any active battleships?

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[happyslug]

34. Reminds of when I read that the US sent one of its "Sea-Going" Monitors to England in 1865

The US did send one of its "Sea going" Monitors to England in 1865/1866 time period. The Monitor made it, but when English Naval Officers looked over the Monitor the word "Hellish" was used. Yes, the Monitor made it, but even the "Sea Going" monitors were NOT intended to deep water usage.

Yes, the US did what Iran is threatening to do, sending a Coastal (Gator Navy) Naval Vessel to the deep ocean to show the flag, but NOT much else.

Side Note: A "Sea going" Monitor was a Monitor which had two turrets with its smoke stack (and on post civil war Monitors a "Bridge") in the middle of the Monitor. It was still a low free board craft only intended to use just off the coast. The term "Sea Going" was first a propaganda line, to say that the US COULD use these Monitor to attack England and France if either intervened in the US Civil War, and secondary (and more importantly) to provide a larger ship that could have better sea going capacity then did the original Monitor.



Report of Congressional committees 1864-1865, where the limitation of the Monitors were discussed:
http://books.google.com/books?id=1nFHAQAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA77&lpg=RA1-PA77&dq=Sea+going+Monitor+trip+to+England&source=bl&ots=kgII-1afBz&sig=N4me3F3rnLR3dR-_g64daaJij00&hl=en&ei=wVGCTtSKLKTm0QHN7biQAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

[Odin2005]

41. "Powerful presence" AAAAA! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Whatever, Ahma-nut-job!

[Fire Walk With Me]

42. What are the wind currents along the coast from that far out? Do they move inland?

[Hugabear]

44. Makes sense. If we're going to do it to them, why shouldn't they do it to us?

How is it okay for the US to position warships right off Iran's coast, but not okay for them to do it to us?

[Marrah_G]

53. I think they are well within their rights

AND.... I find the entire vision funny as hell.

[Rex]

54. The diesel submarine or the frigate?

Really? Both ships!? How can they afford such a massive endeavor?

[AverageJoe90]

55. Part of this may be a consequence of U.S. foreign policy, true, BUT.............

.....a good part of it is simply due to just who exactly runs the Iranian government: EXTREME right-wing ISLAMISTS.
Actually, scratch that, it's probably the biggest reason; they are doing this to intimidate the American people, not out of legitimate anger towards U.S. foreign policy. Even Russia hasn't pulled a stunt like this and they still have more of a right to be really pissed off than the current government in Tehran could ever be.

[Mudoria]

61. Got a laugh out of this when I read it yesterday

I just hope we as taxpayers don't get stuck with a rescue bill when the Coast Guard has to go out and save them when their "ships" breakdown.

[harun]

62. I wonder why Iran considers the U.S. arrogant?

:sarcasm:

[lynne]

69. You letting Iran tell you when you can and can't laugh these days?

Are we to be concerned that someone will consider us arrogant because we find something so implausible that its worthy of a chuckle? And it certainly is implausible.

I'll take "arrogant" any day before allowing anyone to tell me how I can and cannot express myself. Sadly, people in some other countries don't have that freedom. Seems sad that some of us are willing to give away what others wish they had.

[harun]

72. My comment was in response to the poster thinking the U.S. Coast

Guard will need to rescue their broken down vessels, not that they were having a chuckle.

[panzerfaust]

63. "Iran lacks battleships ... " according to "White House, experts..."

... as noted in the CNN article @ http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/28/world/meast/iran-navy/index.html

Actually, NO navy in the world has battleships! Much less the "Navy of the Iranian Army," as it is apparently called.

The last two battleships in the world - USS Iowa and USS Wisconsin - were struck from the USN fleet list in 2006. The USS Missouri, the last active duty battleship, was decommissioned on 31 March 1992 - after providing fire-support for Iraq War I in 1991.

What the "Navy of the Iranian Army" basically does have is lightly armed coastal patrol vessels. They do have 2 destroyers, and one supposedly ocean-going diesel sub ( http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/ships.htm ). I would expect that a single USN frigate could sink the whole lot in less than 5 minutes (depending upon how hard it proved be to locate the sub), unless the Navy has really gone downhill since I was a sailor.


BB61 USS Iowa fires a broadside.

Distressing that our White House is as ignorant of naval warfare as it is of constitutional government.

Sorry: Did not read the globalsecurity page carefully enough. Iran has NO destroyers, 4 frigates (smaller than a destroyer), and THREE diesel ocean-going subs. However, they have NO oilers or other fleet support vessels. I still think that we are safe :)

[CJvR]

65. Perhaps...

...they can convince their pals inFidel and Chavez to lend them a hand. You really dont need a real fleet oiler unless you are going to refuel udnderway at sea rather than making pitstops in ports along the route.

[Jazzgirl]

66. I put Politico in the same bucket with AP.

They print and push plenty of disinformation. If I see something is quoted from Politico or AP (some people, a source who was not authorized....) I don't even pay attention except to say they have no credibility.