# Iran preparing to close Hormuz for Gulf oil tankers [ODIN]



## SN NewsCaster (Mar 5, 2007)

Iran's National Security and Foreign Policy Committee has drafted a bill

More...


----------



## stein (Nov 4, 2006)

Sounds ominous: with NATO country Turkey moving arms to the Syrian border, with Mitt Romney already threatening Iran, and with the EU countries on the brink of economic disaster and maybe soon in need of some occupation other than rebellion against politicians and bankers for their populaces, it might not take much more than the sinking of a tanker to ignite a large scale war…(Sad)


----------



## chadburn (Jun 2, 2008)

As I indicated some time back we are in what is known as "The Period of Tension" in that area hence the reason for N.C.S. This is a well known pre-cursor (certainly by the Military) to a War, it is unforunatly just a matter of time before thing's will "kick off" in the Middle East and as Stein has indicated interference with Merchant Ship's is one of the factor's leading up to it. Iran are pulling out the stop's to build fast attack craft based on a British Hull design which was purchased by a third party last year and is now being copied by them. I would normally drive around with half to empty in my fuel tank now it's half to full.(Sad)


----------



## tunatownshipwreck (Nov 9, 2005)

I suspect that Iranian air and sea bases would not exist long after starting such a mission.


----------



## John Rogers (May 11, 2004)

More shock and awe for them. Wouldn't take much for the population to turn on their government and this would be the time.


----------



## Duncan112 (Dec 28, 2006)

Maybe the Iranian Government think (misguidedly) that their populace would unite behind them in the event of a war with a common enemy, however as Tunatown points out it would be a matter of moments for their armed forces impedimenta to cease to exist and governments are only popular when they win wars. John's prediction of not much for the population to turn would quickly come to pass.

Mind you we would be faced with an increased risk of trouble from the fundamentalist hot heads in the UK and US following the strikes on their bases.

What a wonderful world we live in!!


----------



## stein (Nov 4, 2006)

I'm not sharing the optimism of the Americans here. We're broke, we're hated in the region, and we have one long string of definitely fiasco wars behind us.


----------



## Ron Stringer (Mar 15, 2005)

John Rogers said:


> More shock and awe for them. Wouldn't take much for the population to turn on their government and this would be the time.


Wasn't that the argument given for not taking out Saddam in the 1st Gulf War? Now how did that turn out in our favour? I seem to have missed the popular uprising of the Iraqi people against their government and, following its overthrow, their subsequent warmth towards the West.


----------



## ART6 (Sep 14, 2010)

The so-called "Arab Spring" that was supposed to introduce democracy to countries that were oppressed by dictatorships seems to be heading in the opposite direction to that which the West expected -- the dictatorships look like being replaced by Moslem fundamentalism and, in some if not all cases, the application of Sharia Law. 

The West's ill-considered attempts at regime change in Iraq and Libya have not had anything like the expected result. Egypt, once a religion-tolerant and west-orientated administration under Mubarak seems, with the election of a fundamentalist-leaning president, very likely to end up with Sharia Law and a resulting level of repression greater than that under Mubarak.

Libya is now in a state of turmoil where the outcome is anyone's guess. The West intervened on the side of the rebellion and got rid of the devil we knew, leaving the door open for the devil we don't know.

Syria, also a relatively religion-tolerant country under Assad, is being interfered with by the west, supporting the rebellion at least by propaganda and threats, and, for all we know, secret supplies of arms etc. Meanwhile Russia supplies the Syrian government with arms and America makes thinly-veiled threats. If Assad's regime falls, as it will, perhaps there is another opening for fundamentalism? That seems to be the drive everywhere else.

Meanwhile the USA, UK, et-al are busy losing the war in Afghanistan and will eventually abandon the country having learned over again the lessons of the Russian adventures there that led to the Taliban, who are about as fundamentalist as it gets and will immediately return to fill the void. The western powers will use the excuse that they have prepared the new administration to be able to defend itself although they know full well that there isn't a cat in Hell's chance of it's doing so.

So we now come to a point in the not-too-distant future where Iran elects to close the Straight of Hormuz, and the west retaliates. The Iranian navy is eliminated in days without it ever seeing the enemy that destroyed it. Military bases are vapourised by cruise missiles fired from five hundred miles away by US and British nuclear submarines. Hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties are suffered. The Iranian government falls, and the population kneel in thanks to the great god of the western powers for liberating them.

Or do they? Instead do they become very resentful indeed? How do the other nearby newly fundamentalist countries react? They don't have the military might to seriously threaten the west and Russia even if they all banded together in some sort of Moslem alliance, but they do have one very powerful weapon. Oil.

Given the very parlous state of the western economies at the moment, a Moslem fundamentalist alliance making the Middle East a no-go area for the West and the withdrawal of oils supplies cold, it seems to me, create all of the conditions for what would essentially become a religion-based world war III that could drag on for years without any other resolution than the crippling of the Western countries. Cutting oil supplies to the West could simply result in those supplies heading east instead, with minimal loss to the producers. China alone could absorb massive amounts and could, no doubt, think of may selfish reasons to oppose the Western initiative.

Western alliances have, in recent years, proved to be very shaky indeed, while fundamentalist Moslem ones have been bound together by religious fervor. Some Western countries would opt out of such a war, hoping (stupidly) to gain brownie points with the fundamentalists. Some (Russia for example) might actively oppose the war, concerned about the reaction of the Moslem enclaves in or bordering their own country.

I have an uneasy feeling that a real world-class mess is brewing nicely, and it is doing to because the USA and its allies have yet to learn even a glimmer of understanding of Middle Eastern cultures, simply expecting them all to behave themselves and act like good Christians.


----------



## Varley (Oct 1, 2006)

To paraphrase Gandhi, a cultured Middle East would be a good idea.

The only places where custom and duty requires intervention are those where the superstitious primitives resort to piracy and otherwise harming their betters. If they want to regularly stone their own with occasional excursions into genocide then, if polite commentary in the the forum of the UN cannot persuade them otherwise, let them get on with it - such a chronic situation must surely arrest their journey forward into the 16th century and self limit both the quality and quantity of the assaults they make on Western civilisation (Gandhi's unparaphrased topic).

Unfortunately our leaders appear to be ordering the reciprocal course.


----------



## ART6 (Sep 14, 2010)

Varley said:


> To paraphrase Gandhi, a cultured Middle East would be a good idea.
> 
> The only places where custom and duty requires intervention are those where the superstitious primitives resort to piracy and otherwise harming their betters. If they want to regularly stone their own with occasional excursions into genocide then, if polite commentary in the the forum of the UN cannot persuade them otherwise, let them get on with it - such a chronic situation must surely arrest their journey forward into the 16th century and self limit both the quality and quantity of the assaults they make on Western civilisation (Gandhi's unparaphrased topic).
> 
> Unfortunately our leaders appear to be ordering the reciprocal course.


Indeed! Although I would question your assumption of the sixteenth century. More around the tenth I would guess.

However, the big problem is that Western governments and quaint liberals have this delusion that our ideas of democracy are exactly what the Islamic countries are looking for with desperation. Of course they want women to have absolute equality with men. They want to elect their leaders every few years. They want all of the trappings of civilisation like banks that lend money at extortionate interest rates to those who cannot afford them. They are desperate to immerse themselves in alcohol and by so doing fill their government's coffers. They want, above all else, religious tolerance where anyone can follow any religion or none, and can chop and change between them at will. They want a society where any man or woman can openly declare themselves "gay" and must be allowed to marry a "gay" partner if they so choose. That is the proper way of running a society and we have a divine duty to assist them in achieving it. 

The only problem is that the majority of Islamic Arab societies don't have any concept of democracy and have shown little evidence of seeking it in any form that would be familiar to us. They don't want their women to be equal as their customs are against that since time immemorial. Equally, there is not much evidence that their women in some majority want it either.

They are accustomed to strong and powerful leaders who take control of everything, follow with passion the teachings of the Prophet, and leave Abdullah public to go about his life without having to think about national or international affairs. They don't want Western financial services like mortgages etc. because their religion forbids the demanding of interest on loans. They don't want to fill their government's coffers with alcohol duties and taxes because their faith prohibits the use of alcohol.

The idea of religious tolerance is an anathema to them as the Qur'an forbids it. Instead it demands the death penalty for those not of the faith, and for any who dare to attempt to leave it. Contrary to the attitudes of Christians, who grew out of such things generations ago, the Faith must be defended to the death -- anyone's death. Even one's own family. Prayers must be offered five times a day, and not whenever one feels like it or not at all. Homosexuality is deeply offensive to them, and anyone practising it is considered less than human and worth of execution. Religion and politics are inseparably intertwined.

But, of course, we know better don't we, and if they will not or cannot understand the great treasure we are offering them then we will simply bomb the s**t out of them until they are converted. Still leaves the question of why they don't seem to like us much!


----------



## Satanic Mechanic (Feb 23, 2009)

Hey fairs fair guy's

Iran is a very modern country in many many ways, while still trying reconcile its more reactionary elements. As countries go its like Bambi on ice.




Plus the lassies are georgeous


----------



## ART6 (Sep 14, 2010)

Satanic Mechanic said:


> Hey fairs fair guy's
> 
> Iran is a very modern country in many many ways, while still trying reconcile its more reactionary elements. As countries go its like Bambi on ice.
> 
> ...


And they are not Arabs, so we can't even assume that they will always behave as we, with our in-depth knowledge of Arabs, would expect.


----------



## Satanic Mechanic (Feb 23, 2009)

ART6 said:


> And they are not Arabs, so we can't even assume that they will always behave as we, with our in-depth knowledge of Arabs, would expect.


Famously not Arabs - always good to remember that when talking to them(Smoke)


----------



## the brit (Jan 31, 2010)

*oil*



chadburn said:


> As I indicated some time back we are in what is known as "The Period of Tension" in that area hence the reason for N.C.S. This is a well known pre-cursor (certainly by the Military) to a War, it is unforunatly just a matter of time before thing's will "kick off" in the Middle East and as Stein has indicated interference with Merchant Ship's is one of the factor's leading up to it. Iran are pulling out the stop's to build fast attack craft based on a British Hull design which was purchased by a third party last year and is now being copied by them. I would normally drive around with half to empty in my fuel tank now it's half to full.(Sad)


and fill those jerry cans as well, it's only $1.22 a litre here today or 71 pence stirling,


----------



## chadburn (Jun 2, 2008)

the brit said:


> and fill those jerry cans as well, it's only $1.22 a litre here today or 71 pence stirling,


(Sad) I had been having a good day up till now.


----------



## doyll (Mar 9, 2007)

chadburn said:


> (Sad) I had been having a good day up till now.


Me too. Now it's of to fill the vehicles with fuel.


----------



## ART6 (Sep 14, 2010)

Come on you lot. There is now a golden opportunity to save the planet and deny the Islamists their victory. Go out and buy a horse, sell the car and the lawnmower. The great advantage of this strategy is that when the machines reach the end of their lives you must scrap them, but you can eat the horse and save a bomb in Tesco. In addition, it doesn't incur a vehicle tax or duty and VAT on its straw or grass. It doesn't have to be cossetted in a garage, and instead of washing and polishing it every Sunday you just brush it down every now and again and feed it an apple. Admitted, it will need shoes occasionally, but compare them to the price of tyres for your beloved car. 

Instead of connecting it to a petrol hose in the filling station, you just let it wander about on the lawn, refueling itself automatically without human intervention, and it might even come to love you, which your car certainly won't. Also, while it will create some emissions, you can collect them with a shovel and use them to fertilize your roses with minimal effort. You cannot do that with the CO2 which causes severe trauma among environmentalists and comes from your car.

I share this with you good people in the hope that I might prepare you for the end of oil, and I expect with confidence that in a thousand years time people will say "He told us so. He foresaw all of this. We should have listened."


----------



## Mad Landsman (Dec 1, 2005)

ART6 said:


> The idea of religious tolerance is an anathema to them as the Qur'an forbids it. Instead it demands the death penalty for those not of the faith, and for any who dare to attempt to leave it. Contrary to the attitudes of Christians, who grew out of such things generations ago, the Faith must be defended to the death -- anyone's death. Even one's own family.


Not strictly true - The interpretations put upon the Qur'an by generations of male Muslim clerics are what puts these demands in place.
The Qur'an actually encourages peaceful interaction with people of other faiths and even those of no faith. The original idea being to convert rather than destroy. 
This perversion continues - The word Taliban means student, they are studying their scriptures to see what else they can 'find' in them. Much the same as some fundamentalist Christians manage to discover all manner of hidden meanings in their Holy book as well.


----------



## Satanic Mechanic (Feb 23, 2009)

It is at this point someone usually posts a blood curdling quote from the Koran as proof that the whole religion is hell bent on genocide of the unbeliever.

at least I can say I have read the book in its entirety - religious tolerance is pretty much at its core.


----------



## ART6 (Sep 14, 2010)

Mad Landsman said:


> Not strictly true - The interpretations put upon the Qur'an by generations of male Muslim clerics are what puts these demands in place.
> The Qur'an actually encourages peaceful interaction with people of other faiths and even those of no faith. The original idea being to convert rather than destroy.
> This perversion continues - The word Taliban means student, they are studying their scriptures to see what else they can 'find' in them. Much the same as some fundamentalist Christians manage to discover all manner of hidden meanings in their Holy book as well.





Satanic Mechanic said:


> It is at this point someone usually posts a blood curdling quote from the Koran as proof that the whole religion is hell bent on genocide of the unbeliever.
> 
> at least I can say I have read the book in its entirety - religious tolerance is pretty much at its core.


Agreed with both posts. I was not trying to evaluate the true text of the Qur'an, but rather its interpretation in modern Islam. After all, it is the latter that will determine the future of Islamic/Western relationships.


----------



## Satanic Mechanic (Feb 23, 2009)

Which bit of modern Islam


----------



## ART6 (Sep 14, 2010)

Satanic Mechanic said:


> Which bit of modern Islam


Pardom?


----------



## Satanic Mechanic (Feb 23, 2009)

ART6 said:


> its interpretation in modern Islam. After all, it is the latter that will determine the future of Islamic/Western relationships.


Which bit of modern Islam - similar to most religions it is not a unified movement.


----------



## Varley (Oct 1, 2006)

Please let us not turn this into one fairy tail against another. At the root of many conflicts can be found an artificial moral guideline skewed to one extreme view or another. We would all be better off guided by common sense and, for those unable to appreciate 'do as you would be done by', the law.

I have read the Koran in translation, of course - anaethema to the true believer - as well dipping into the book of Moroni. Any poetry of the first must be lost in the endless repetitions of "peace be unto him and always pay the alms tax" the latter is a blatent and badly written 'in pastich syle' of the King James version (already outdated when released and, additionally, written for recital to widely illiterate congregations - but undeniably a great piece of literature). The only thing they have in common is that they are fairy stories. One well written and the others not - let us stop using any such texts as if they were evidential. The alternative, logicaly, is to say that if any of these books did generally condone violent and inhumane treatment of those behaving immorally that that would be just fine, "put a match to that ****** Vicar, it'll not 'take' otherwise and that Imami fella's got a nice stoning he wants us at once this pyres spent".


----------



## ART6 (Sep 14, 2010)

Satanic Mechanic said:


> Which bit of modern Islam - similar to most religions it is not a unified movement.


Ooooohkay SM. I accept your point even if I am not sure what it is. Perhaps, from an outsider's point of view, it is what a particular political movement or religious ideology is perceived to have as its motivation. That is not simply how we in the West see it, but it is also how its adherents in other sects see it. Those adherents may currently follow all sorts of variations of the teachings of the Prophet, and some of those variations may be liberal and some fundamental. However, by unknowingly attacking one we might easily convert the others to the fundamentalism that we are so afraid of.

The point I am trying to get to is that I believe we must be very careful not to fall into the trap (again) of believing that any dispute between the West and a Middle Eastern country is entirely political. Islam and politics are bound together there in ways that the Western governments seem to refuse to understand. A fire is a fire irrespective of whether it is fuelled by paper, wood, or straw.


----------



## Andrew Craig-Bennett (Mar 13, 2007)

The EU sanctions which prohibit the insurance of ships carrying Iranian oil or oil products came into force on the 1st of July.


----------

