Iranian Boats in Suez
Discussion
I know it has been mentioned in passing on another thread, but is this really going to kick things off? Iran cruising down the Suez off the coast of Israel, done to prove a point or something more sinister? The accompanying 'support' ship looks a tad big for the frigate...
Are they hoping that Israel attacks?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleea...
Are they hoping that Israel attacks?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleea...
This 'training exercise' was planned before all it all kicked off in the Arab nations so if the two are linked it is that the events in Egypt are a result of the planned voyage, not the other way round. Was Mubarak in on something with Syria and Iran? Was pressure put on him to refuse passage to the Iranians and he wouldn't play ball? Maybe Egypt was someone's attempt to lock the Iranians out of the Med and Bahrain was was the Iranian reply, intended to disrupt the 5th fleet. This instability serves as a pretext to foreign nations sending ships to the area to uplift stranded civilians, some of these ships happen to be military, hmmmm? . Then there's the question of what is on board the Iranian vessels, perhaps a Cuban missile crisis part deux! It's all very odd, would make a good film though. Now where did I put that roll of tinfoil?
KANEIT said:
This 'training exercise' was planned before all it all kicked off in the Arab nations so if the two are linked it is that the events in Egypt are a result of the planned voyage, not the other way round. Was Mubarak in on something with Syria and Iran? Was pressure put on him to refuse passage to the Iranians and he wouldn't play ball? Maybe Egypt was someone's attempt to lock the Iranians out of the Med and Bahrain was was the Iranian reply, intended to disrupt the 5th fleet. This instability serves as a pretext to foreign nations sending ships to the area to uplift stranded civilians, some of these ships happen to be military, hmmmm? . Then there's the question of what is on board the Iranian vessels, perhaps a Cuban missile crisis part deux! It's all very odd, would make a good film though. Now where did I put that roll of tinfoil?
Wow that's a conspiracy theory ad a half. Highly unlikely, even improbable. For one thing, the rules of the Suez Canal are that they cannot refuse passage to the Iranians unless they are openly aggressive in their actions or intentions. So creating a revolution will not have helped the US even if they could organise a popular revolt.Four Litre said:
If its just normal and within the rules of the Suez, how comes they havent bothered for 30 years!!
"Iranian military vessels have used the Suez Canal for the first time since Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution"
I think this is more than just a scenic tour!
They could go through if they wanted they just haven't chosen too. Why is that such a hard concept to grasp. To be aggressive, Not actually Iran's style, they promote terrorism but don't invade, shell or shoot down things. "Iranian military vessels have used the Suez Canal for the first time since Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution"
I think this is more than just a scenic tour!
Its a gesture, no-one will argue that, but a supply ship and an ageing/ancient frigate wouldn't even survive an attack on the Israeli fleet let alone a Nato one so that's all it is.
Mikeyboy said:
They could go through if they wanted they just haven't chosen too. Why is that such a hard concept to grasp. To be aggressive, Not actually Iran's style, they promote terrorism but don't invade, shell or shoot down things.
Its a gesture, no-one will argue that, but a supply ship and an ageing/ancient frigate wouldn't even survive an attack on the Israeli fleet let alone a Nato one so that's all it is.
Assuming it's intention is to attack. Perhaps it is transporting something dodgy , perhaps Iran is just saying to the West that they should be able to go off on international training exercises like we often do. Its a gesture, no-one will argue that, but a supply ship and an ageing/ancient frigate wouldn't even survive an attack on the Israeli fleet let alone a Nato one so that's all it is.
KANEIT said:
Assuming it's intention is to attack. Perhaps it is transporting something dodgy , perhaps Iran is just saying to the West that they should be able to go off on international training exercises like we often do.
I don't think they are putting in anywhere but Lebanon and some other allied states are they? Also you could argue if they wanted to trnsport something dodgy they would do it the conventional way they have been using since the 80s. Israel doesn't seem to know how to stop them and better still whichever method they've used hasn't put up a huge banner saying "look at us, we're smuggling stuff"
Its just a training exercise, with a bit of posturing thrown in for good measure.
KANEIT said:
Mikeyboy said:
They could go through if they wanted they just haven't chosen too. Why is that such a hard concept to grasp. To be aggressive, Not actually Iran's style, they promote terrorism but don't invade, shell or shoot down things.
Its a gesture, no-one will argue that, but a supply ship and an ageing/ancient frigate wouldn't even survive an attack on the Israeli fleet let alone a Nato one so that's all it is.
Assuming it's intention is to attack. Perhaps it is transporting something dodgy , perhaps Iran is just saying to the West that they should be able to go off on international training exercises like we often do. Its a gesture, no-one will argue that, but a supply ship and an ageing/ancient frigate wouldn't even survive an attack on the Israeli fleet let alone a Nato one so that's all it is.
Edited by Jimbeaux on Wednesday 23 February 15:12
lostsoixanteneuf said:
Hold on will get Jim sure he will know what’s going on
I am not on a rust bucket heading up the canal; your guess is as good as mine. 
If you want an opinion.....They could be transporting a crude nuke upriver to set off, or the ship's Captain has some Burkka on the side he wants to get his nose under upriver. How about that for two different extremes? 
Mikeyboy said:
..... doesn't seem to know how to stop them and better still whichever method they've used hasn't put up a huge banner saying "look at us, we're smuggling stuff"... .
Yes transporting across land is obviously lower key but say someone wanted to intercept and destroy the consignment all they have to do is send in a small task force or a long range missile. The convoy is likely to be small and entirely unofficial. Small explosion, maybe a bit of gunfire, out in the middle of nowhere, away from international eyes, many ways to explain it away should the need arise, for example separatist terrorism . Also if it was nuclear material any pollution would be on Iranian soil. Now that could be easy for all sides to brush under the carpet , neither wishing to capitalise on it for fear of implicating themselves and the Iranians would just go back to the drawing board . At sea on a large official identifiable vessel, more eyes watching, is another story. Any attempt to intercept it manually could be seen as an act of aggression or war . So zap it with a missile, same again. Imagine Iranian frigate blown up off coast of Israel, big explosion, who could have done it!? No chance of blaming it on tribal terrorism or the likes. Perfect way for Iran to claim Israel attacked them as a pretext for their own assault. Israelis own up and say they attacked it because it had nuke material on board, Iranians say feel free to search the seabed for evidence . KANEIT said:
Yes transporting across land is obviously lower key but say someone wanted to intercept and destroy the consignment all they have to do is send in a small task force or a long range missile. The convoy is likely to be small and entirely unofficial. Small explosion, maybe a bit of gunfire, out in the middle of nowhere, away from international eyes, many ways to explain it away should the need arise, for example separatist terrorism . Also if it was nuclear material any pollution would be on Iranian soil. Now that could be easy for all sides to brush under the carpet , neither wishing to capitalise on it for fear of implicating themselves and the Iranians would just go back to the drawing board . At sea on a large official identifiable vessel, more eyes watching, is another story. Any attempt to intercept it manually could be seen as an act of aggression or war . So zap it with a missile, same again. Imagine Iranian frigate blown up off coast of Israel, big explosion, who could have done it!? No chance of blaming it on tribal terrorism or the likes. Perfect way for Iran to claim Israel attacked them as a pretext for their own assault. Israelis own up and say they attacked it because it had nuke material on board, Iranians say feel free to search the seabed for evidence .
ok, again you seem to have thought about it but not really reached a conclusion which seems to have really taken your threads to their ends. No you can't blow up a warship even if you think its a courier vessel for something nasty. But then you can't do that to a cargo vessel either, and quite a few of them go through the Canal from Iran. So with one of those you have a similar level of invulnerability and also a much larger of anonymity. After all, which cargo vessel is the nasty on? This goes for trucks on a road, if not more so, a white trailer on the back of an artic looks pretty much the same as any other white trailer on an artic. And you think the Syrians don't think a bombed truck is an act of war as much as the Iranian's would see a sunk ship?
The Iranians are not stupid, a little irrational sometimes but not stupid. So this Warship is just on an exercise to thumb their noses at the Western Powers and Israel, anything more would be just plainly stupid.
An exploding cargo ship can easily be explained away whereas an exploding military vessel cannot. If a container ship went bang and a frigate went bang it would be more natural to assume foul play, intent and motive in the case of the frigate whereas a seemingly private run container ship could be put down as piracy, accident, negligence and so on. Also the means to protect the ship against boarding is there on a military vessel but not on a cargo ship, or at least it is to be expected on a military ship but hard to justify crack troops (which is what you'd need against special forces) manning a container ship. Anyone wishing to intercept and search is much less likely to want to take on the frigate too. Surely too if some new-fangled weaponry is found on the frigate it's fair to say it should be there as it's a military ship! Anything of such a nature concealed on a cargo vessel points to evasion and deception. The most obvious is the least obvious and the easiest way to protect the cargo and disguise intent.
Seriously though I agree that it's posturing, they'll be trying to draw parallels with U.S/S. Korea/N. Korea and the training exercise that caused friction.
Seriously though I agree that it's posturing, they'll be trying to draw parallels with U.S/S. Korea/N. Korea and the training exercise that caused friction.
Ozzie Osmond said:
"Two Iranian warships entered the Suez Canal on Tuesday, a canal official said, en route to Syria on a purported training mission that Israel regards as a provocation."
You gotta love 'em.
Just wait till the Iranians are clear of the canal to the North, steam into the open Med, and then tragically strike a rogue iceberg, explode and then sink. Obviously, the iceberg will probably have melted by the time anyone else arrives on the scene.You gotta love 'em.
KANEIT said:
An exploding cargo ship can easily be explained away whereas an exploding military vessel cannot. If a container ship went bang and a frigate went bang it would be more natural to assume foul play, intent and motive in the case of the frigate whereas a seemingly private run container ship could be put down as piracy, accident, negligence and so on. Also the means to protect the ship against boarding is there on a military vessel but not on a cargo ship, or at least it is to be expected on a military ship but hard to justify crack troops (which is what you'd need against special forces) manning a container ship. Anyone wishing to intercept and search is much less likely to want to take on the frigate too. Surely too if some new-fangled weaponry is found on the frigate it's fair to say it should be there as it's a military ship! Anything of such a nature concealed on a cargo vessel points to evasion and deception. The most obvious is the least obvious and the easiest way to protect the cargo and disguise intent.
Seriously though I agree that it's posturing, they'll be trying to draw parallels with U.S/S. Korea/N. Korea and the training exercise that caused friction.
OK, you're not going to listen to a reasonable and rational argument, but I'll try just one last timeSeriously though I agree that it's posturing, they'll be trying to draw parallels with U.S/S. Korea/N. Korea and the training exercise that caused friction.
1.) Ships don't go bang very often. They hit things and sink or are just unseaworthy and sink, They rarely go bang..when was the last time you heard of one?
2.)The world is not a James Bond Novel. If there is a simple unobtrusive way of doing things then smugglers, even government smugglers will take them. Simple.
3.) It is the right of a sovereign power to sail its boats where it wants and do what it wants with them when they are there. Just because your country is calle Iran doesn't mean the same rules don't apply.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff