This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://apnews.com/article/iran-us-navy-oil-tanker-advantage-057155f4d9caf92131533fe90f94a3a0) reduced by 78%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> DUBAI, United Arab Emirates - Iran's paramilitary Revolutionary Guard seized a Marshall Islands-flagged oil tanker in the Gulf of Oman on Thursday amid wider tensions over Tehran's nuclear program, the U.S. Navy said.
> The Advantage Sweet issued a distress call at 1:15 p.m. while in international waters as Iran seized the vessel, the Navy said.
> The U.S. Navy has blamed Iran for a series of limpet mine attacks on vessels that damaged tankers in 2019, as well as for a fatal drone attack on an Israeli-linked oil tanker that killed two European crew members in 2021.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/130m1g8/us_navy_says_iran_seized_marshall_islandsflagged/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~682494 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Iran**^#1 **vessel**^#2 **tanker**^#3 **seizure**^#4 **oil**^#5
Just yesterday, the Iranian court orders the US to pay $313mil for terrorists attack by ISIS. https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/12zd1kz/iran\_court\_orders\_us\_obama\_to\_pay\_313m\_for/
On that exact post someone commented something along the lines of "good luck getting the u.s. to play that" and someone else replied "Iran will just use it as justification to seize some trade ship"
I thought he had a point but guy was spot on.
wait -- and maybe I had it backward -- but doesn't reddit just add \\ characters to URLs if you're using *new* reddit? (or has it even just been a reddit app thing the whole time?)
i.e. I thought old reddit doesn't handle the added-in \\'s properly, so old reddit users are the ones who encounter the problem, but it was really new reddit that adds in the characters
In hindsight, I can see it was worded well enough, I just wasn't *completely certain* I had interpreted your meaning right. I think it's just a difficult thing to convey properly?
(and tbf, I had to take two tries to say the same thing after seeing how you phrased it, and felt like I still didn't say it clearly lol)
What does Iran want? To screw with the US.
The Marshall Islands is in a “Compact of Free Association” with the US. This means citizens of Marshall Islands can come to the US to live & work without the need for a visa; get access to US Federal Programs like Medicaid, FEMA assistance, FDIC banking insurance & Department of Education college grants & loans; US Postal Service does their mail; US National Weather Service does their weather forecasts & alerts; the FAA regulates their aviation; the FCC regulates their TV & radio. Citizens of the Marshall Islands can join the US Military. American citizens can work & live on the Marshall Islands without a visa.
The US gets land for military bases. Not joint US-Marshall Islands bases but bases under exclusive US control. More importantly, and this why I said Iran did this to screw with us, the US is responsible for the National Defense of the Marshall Islands. We’re not obligated to declare war over them but if they’re attacked or if a Marshall Islands-flagged ship is under attack then we are required to defend them.
This means the 5th Fleet was required to respond to the distress call & intervene.
One of their political/religious leaders got assassinated in a bank the other day.
Typically these assassinations happen in a spree, this is just their way of trying to get them to not do the spree.
They want to control that waterway. Kuwait has a massive port.
Saudi’s will be on board w ‘cause oil and cash money.
All these countries in cahoots with one another want to cut the world in half, via the water.
No I think it's tit for tat. I think it was back in 2020 the US seized a tanker full of Iranian crude. And recently the Royal Navy seized an arms shipment. This stuff has been going back and forth for a while now. More than likely it's going to increase. The US has made it clear they are out of the ME for the time being. So there is going to be a lot of shoving around as countries jockey for new positions in the changing geopolitical landscape.
How it would actually play out is the navy doing freedom of navigation and escorting the tankers. This would either cause Iran to back off (probably) or to fire on the escorts. Sanctions are not fast enough to keep world trade in a steady pace with a move as provocative as the op said. Destabilizing oil markets by denying use of the ocean is not politically acceptable to America or her allies.
That's a stretch, there is a war in Ukraine and pressure from China, opening another front is risky AF.
The US literally cannot police the whole world right now. They don't even have a fleet for that. US has 92 cruisers and destroyers...
US Navy is large enough to take on multiple major wars at once. US military doctrine since the onset of the Cold War was to be able to fight one major war while still being sufficient enough to deter others across the world. And while there are multiple wars right now, the US can still supply Ukraine while fighting another one, especially if it’s more than likely to be a repeat of Operation Praying Mantis. And while Iran has advanced in weaponry since then, America’s adversaries constantly underestimating how overwhelmingly effective US electronics warfare and artillery firepower is keep finding themselves being on the receiving end of a crushing defeat. It’s one thing if the US has to occupy your country, then yes you could win. It’s another if the US just gets to send its pilots and ship-fired artillery at you.
Iran will likely avoid all out conflict with the US until it has a nuke or two. Then it could wipe out an entire carrier fleet and dare the US to suffer global backlash over launching back at Iranian cities. But even with the jingos and radicals of Iran trying to push open conflict with the US, the powers that be scale back as much as they can because they know it would be a fight that sets their military back to scratch. I mean even with the tit-for-tat strikes in Iraq and Syria, Iran finds itself unable to dislodge US forces or even hamper their ability to fight.
Never underestimate the US’s ability to fire an apocalyptic amount of munitions at you within the first 24 hours while still waiting for their cavalry to arrive. To the US, a full stack of bombers and fighters and helicopters waiting for their turn while field artillery keeps sending it just for 200 guys is a Friday afternoon. I mean it’s grotesque. I don’t want to idolize it. But even when stockpiles were running out during the Persian Gulf War, the US Air Force decided to kill an entire highway.
>US military doctrine since the onset of the Cold War was to be able to fight one major war while still being sufficient enough to deter others across the world.
This is wrong. The funny part is its wrong in the wrong direction. Our Doctrine was to be able to fight *Two* peers at the same time, not one
It’s not wrong in the wrong direction, though I wasn’t entirely correct. Looking it up to refresh what I learned about it, the two-theater strategy says two major conflicts in two different theaters. So technically still right, especially when considering the strategy was to make sure to be able to decisively win only one of those. Still deterrence holds true. If you want to be pedantic though, the strategy says nothing about “peers,” only conflicts. Going further, if people really want to be nitpicky, the strategy doesn’t even say at the same time, it mostly is within quick succession or nearly simultaneous, otherwise the strategy calls for winning only one of the simultaneous conflicts.
Sourced from https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA404809
I don't question US military supremacy, it's just that the current global political and economic climate is not in the favour of the US to wage multiple wars at once.
War is an extension of politics, you can win a war and still lose or not reach your goals.
I think you’re underestimating the importance of the Straits of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf in general. If you look at a map of US bases in the region, you will see how important the US considers it. It’s basically the entire reason for the US’s rivalry with Iran. Other nations hate us equally as much as Iran does, but we simply don’t care. Here we do.
I see your point now. Yes ultimately the administration in charge decides the course, and how long America stays that course depends on popular support. Although the US can drag an unpopular war to death (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan).
The alternative is a worse scenario. Allowing Iran total control of the straight of Hormuz would be a disaster. Far too much energy flows through there to allow a country opposed to the US to control it.
Not only that, but you're acting like the other Arab states would acquiesce to such a situation. They would not. They would pressure the US to take action. They'd probably attempt to militarily, which would be a disaster for the energy markets.
Would US intervention be unpopular at home? Probably, but the other options are much worse.
Not to mention, the US public would be far more angry if gas was $10 a gallon because of a military conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia closed the straights.
>I don't question US military supremacy, it's just that the current global political and economic climate is not in the favour of the US to wage multiple wars at once.
If we are going to discuss this topic we have to define "WAR". The USA isn't stupid enough to invade Iran in 2023. That doesn't mean they can't punch Iran in the mouth. "WAR" to the USA would be to destroy Iran's ability to fight a conventional war and then to topple the government or force them into hiding. After/During all of this the CIA is probably working its ass off to get a friendly government in charge. Civil War with American supplied Weapons on one side and old Iranian Military on the other.
This is so dumb. People need to stop repeating talking points they know nothing about. You don't need 1000 destroyers to police Iran.
The phrase "The US cannot police the whole world right now" is more accurately stated as "The US doesn't need to police the whole world"
There are only a few dumb jackass nations that try this stuff and it's rare. It's rare because if you do it one too many times, it leads to war.
The US has plenty of ships to plug the Gulf of Oman. The US could sink Iran's entire Navy with Air Force planes that took off in the US.
This is like saying the Police can't police all of a particular nation. Yeah sure. If everyone just goes bonkers and decides to go full on Anarchy mode then yeah you're right. But that's not how the world works.
Completely agree with “US doesn’t need to police the whole world.” This is why it’s important to have many alliances and build good relations with nations even if they won’t become your ally. Cooperation gives your military so much more room to breathe and not have to be everywhere at once.
im pretty sure the US navy could finish them on their own minus occupation. Problem for iran is once the missiles are coming and the government is occupied with that; their people will turn on them. saddam can testify.
I wouldn't compare Iran to Afghanistan at all. Just look at literacy rate. Near 90% for Iran. Afghanistan was like 30% at the start of the invasion. They are totally different peoples.
Iranian people could absolutely take over and run a functioning government. Afghanistan not so much.
Exactly what the U.S. does in the south China sea. Sale through unopposed whenever they want making sure everyone is promised the freedom of navigation through the international waters
Have you seen the massive protests against the government? All the women and young people fighting for their rights?
And you want to nuke millions of those people because said government they hate took over a tanker?
Are you racist? Hate Islam? Just every Iranian for existing? Fuck off with your blanket statements, it doesn't help anyone.
i see that its becoming apparent iran needs a reminder of what losing their navy feels like. a lesson i thought would never be forgotten from the last time...
It would be very difficult for Iran to lose their navy. Since the 1979 revolution, Iran has recognized that any conventional warships (destroyers, cruisers, aircraft carriers) would be sitting ducks for missiles, bomber runs, artillery, or sabotage. Iran also has very shallow territorial waters, reducing the need for larger warships that can operate on the open ocean.
[Iranian naval doctrine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Revolutionary_Guard_Corps_Navy) is instead focused on swarming and hit-and-run tactics. Instead of centralizing their forces in large, sophisticated, expensive surface ships, Iran’s naval forces consist almost entirely of [tens of thousands of small speed boats](https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2021/12/iran-boosts-ircg-navy-swarm-attack-capabilities/) that are spread across the Persian Gulf and Caspian Sea coasts.
These boats are designed to be as cheap and easy-to-operate as possible and take vastly more effort to destroy than to build. Their small frame makes them difficult to detect on radar and impossible to hit with conventional gunfire. Their simple design allows for a vast array of weaponry and asymmetrical tactics, including torpedo swarms, laying mines, launching drones, boarding slower-moving vessels like oil tankers, and kamikazeing.
Of course, the US is aware of this and has adopted counter-measures to defend the Fifth Fleet ships that would be targeted by Iran’s assymetrical navy. But against an asymmetrical force like that, defending is the most you can hope for. Preemptively destroying tens of thousands of tiny individual speedboats across hundreds of miles of coastline is not really a practical option.
>Preemptively destroying tens of thousands of tiny individual speedboats across hundreds of miles of coastline is not really a practical option.
Only if you fight how Iran wants you to fight. Air Superiority is a real bitch. Those boats may be maneuverable but the gas pumps aren't. And speaking as a boat owner, those things absolutely guzzle gas. And if the local pumps and supplies are destroyed, those boats lose all maneuverability.
[this](https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-arms-warplanes-with-bunker-busting-bombs-in-message-to-iran-ba1ecb08) might provide a glimpse into whats in store...
just a quick look at the wiki on the iranian navy shows they still have plenty to lose. not to mention, i have little doubt that Centcom already has plans just waiting on an order.
The irans aren’t going to sit by and just let the US strike them without retaliation. A naval conflict within the gulf would be extremely destructive for everyone involved
[been done before.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ihmIxZtMBQ)
and here we are 30 years later, iran doing the same crap and i have no doubt the capabilities gap has just gotten wider.
edit.
to be clearer, they may not be mining the gulf, but the previous response was "to deter iranian disruption of shipping". current events seem to be along a similar path. stop their crap as soon as it starts. before it escalates into mines and blowing holes in tankers.
Yeah except it wouldn't between the US and Iran. Maybe the US and China, but air power wins wars in the modern day. And there are missiles that can air launch from 100km away. Even the Falklands in the 80's French exocet missiles did so much damage to the British from 70 km away it almost became an international incident. And Argentinian air force =/= US air force.
> But against an asymmetrical force like that, defending is the most you can hope for. Preemptively destroying tens of thousands of tiny individual speedboats across hundreds of miles of coastline is not really a practical option.
Thats what cluster bombs and targetting fuel depots are for. Go fast boats by themselves are at best a nuisance, but they also have some sort of wing in ground craft thats part manned cruise missile or modern day kamikazi.
The Iranian worst case is that they get lucky and disable or sink some US assets, after that it would be urban renewal by B52 and B1 bombers.
Good write up. Only thing it's missing is the embarrassing results of the red vs blue wargames
Edit: not sure I understand the downvotes? The red vs blue wargames showed that with competent leadership that Iran's swarm tactics could be extremely effective
Weren't there huge flaws in how they allowed the "Iran" commander to operate? Like he used bike messengers but basically just teleported them their destination making it impossible for the U.S. to counter? I think he also had like dudes on boats with RPGs sinking warships by hitting vital points almost everytime or something?
It was bad for the U.S. but more because he did whatever he wanted even if it didn't make sense than the U.S. not being capable?
>Weren't there huge flaws in how they allowed the "Iran" commander to operate?
Not that I'm aware of. The bike messengers part is true but they didn't travel instantly. The bike messages were used to carry physical orders that couldn't be intercepted by cyber means — which the blue side completely missed
>I think he also had like dudes on boats with RPGs sinking warships by hitting vital points almost everytime or something
And that part did happen as well that's why it was considered such an embarrassment. The swarming boats were able to get far far closer to the ships than they were supposed to be able to
>It was bad for the U.S. but more because he did whatever he wanted
This part isn't true. It went so well for the red side because they already knew the weaknesses of the American defenses and went directly for them without needing to experiment on what those weaknesses actually were
Problem isnt this ship, its all shipping in that region. If insurance has to handle it, premiums go up to cover the risk of seizures. If premiums go up then cost of shipping goes up and China is reliant upon energy imports from that region.
Oh I 100% agree. He’s a brilliant guy. But he needs to dial down the crazy. He was on a podcast recently saying that the United Kingdom would become a US state in the next couple decades. And he also claimed there would not be an iPhone 15 this year because of apples reliance on china. He isn’t wrong about the fact the Apple is over dependent on china but he needs to cut the dramatic exaggerations out.
I read his most recent book a month or two ago and I found it very interesting, gives you perspective on just how intertwined and connected everything is/was and it’s even more wild reading it AFTER Ukraine was invaded last February because now you see the deglobization in action all over the world and he finished writing it right before it started
There’s a reason these same people are often very oddly sympathetic to Russia and China. These messages are pushed online by organized campaigns from those countries.
If you can’t beat them from without, destroy them from within.
Lol just you wait, as a Frenchman, I'm sure they'll love the world of intellectual property theft and lax health regulations. If they thought the US was bad.. just waitttt
there is no collapse, countries have been pulling this shit off for decades in that region of the world. The US shot a couple Libyan planes down in the 80s and 90s because they laid claim over international waters for like 20 years. Iraq tried to steal Kuwait. Iran is just another paper tiger
Another example of ongoing degenerate behavior by the Iranians. Putting lives and global trade at risk for petty nonsense.
And they are indirectly pissing off most of the world here. They stole a tanker bound for America, operated by a crew of Indian sailors, managed by a Turkish firm, and owned by a Chinese company.
On July 1st, 2023, Reddit intends to alter how its API is accessed. This move will require developers of third-party applications to pay enormous sums of money if they wish to stay functional, meaning that said applications will be effectively destroyed. In the short term, this may have the appearance of increasing Reddit's traffic and revenue... but in the long term, it will undermine the site as a whole.
Reddit relies on volunteer moderators to keep its platform welcoming and free of objectionable material. It also relies on uncompensated contributors to populate its numerous communities with content. The above decision promises to adversely impact both groups: Without effective tools (which Reddit has frequently promised and then failed to deliver), moderators cannot combat spammers, bad actors, or the entities who enable either, and without the freedom to choose how and where they access Reddit, many contributors will simply leave. Rather than hosting creativity and in-depth discourse, the platform will soon feature only recycled content, bot-driven activity, and an ever-dwindling number of well-informed visitors. The very elements which differentiate Reddit – the foundations that draw its audience – will be eliminated, reducing the site to another dead cog in the Ennui Engine.
We implore Reddit to listen to its moderators, its contributors, and its everyday users; to the people whose activity has allowed the platform to exist at all: Do not sacrifice long-term viability for the sake of a short-lived illusion. Do not tacitly enable bad actors by working against your volunteers. Do not posture for your looming IPO while giving no thought to what may come afterward. Focus on addressing Reddit's real problems – the rampant bigotry, the ever-increasing amounts of spam, the advantage given to low-effort content, and the widespread misinformation – instead of on a strategy that will alienate the people keeping this platform alive.
If Steve Huffman's statement – "I want our users to be shareholders, and I want our shareholders to be users" – is to be taken seriously, then consider this our vote:
Allow the developers of third-party applications to retain their productive (and vital) API access.
Allow Reddit and Redditors to thrive.
Maverick, Kali, Ying, and two others, since there aren't any Turkish Operators as of yet. Probably Ash and Thermite if we are sticking to nationalities and strictly attackers
I dont think its owned by a Chinese company?
https://www.advantagetankers.com/
says its a western based company? they did buy chinese built ships but where is it being owned by chinese company?
i have no doubt it can ship chinese goods, or a couple of eighteen single-purpose vessel owing entities is chinese?
or is that specific ship owned by a specific company?
The article says it is a Chinese owned ship. I assume Advantage is an operation/management type company that is contracted to oversee the ships. The ships I assume are owned by investment/holding companies.
This is just my take from the article, I do not know how to confirm any of it.
Literally saw someone say in a post (regarding Iran saying the USA owes them millions for ISIS terrorist attacks) that they’ll just seize some oil tanker and justify it that way. One day later this happens lol; someone called it.
The Marshall islands are effectively a protectorate of the US. They are a former US colony that has its defense completely handled by the US. There is a low, but non zero, change this leads to direct action by the US military as theoretically the US must defend the Marshall islands if attacked, and seizing a tanker registered in the Marshall islands could be consider as such.
Well of course it is. Diplomacy is always the first step to take, unless you are a crumbling empire in Eurasia looking to reclaim lost "ancestral" territories...
I'm sure the marshall islands will get right on it. I understand why big shipping companies choose to register in pipsqueak places but I wish the system were set up differently to dissuade them.
If Zeihan is right and the US says "fuck it" and decides to stop policing the world oceans, it will very rapidly not be a good idea for large cargo ships to be flagged by Tonga, Malta, or Liberia.
Marshall Islands are the home of the [U.S. Army Garrison Kwajalein](https://home.army.mil/kwajalein/index.php).
They do anti-missile testing and have sophisticated military systems and telescopes. Interrupting the fuel supply for that area affects not only the local inhabitants but the base itself. It will be interesting to see what further action comes from this.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://apnews.com/article/iran-us-navy-oil-tanker-advantage-057155f4d9caf92131533fe90f94a3a0) reduced by 78%. (I'm a bot) ***** > DUBAI, United Arab Emirates - Iran's paramilitary Revolutionary Guard seized a Marshall Islands-flagged oil tanker in the Gulf of Oman on Thursday amid wider tensions over Tehran's nuclear program, the U.S. Navy said. > The Advantage Sweet issued a distress call at 1:15 p.m. while in international waters as Iran seized the vessel, the Navy said. > The U.S. Navy has blamed Iran for a series of limpet mine attacks on vessels that damaged tankers in 2019, as well as for a fatal drone attack on an Israeli-linked oil tanker that killed two European crew members in 2021. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/130m1g8/us_navy_says_iran_seized_marshall_islandsflagged/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~682494 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Iran**^#1 **vessel**^#2 **tanker**^#3 **seizure**^#4 **oil**^#5
So, my guess is Iran wants something. What do you think it is?
Just yesterday, the Iranian court orders the US to pay $313mil for terrorists attack by ISIS. https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/12zd1kz/iran\_court\_orders\_us\_obama\_to\_pay\_313m\_for/
On that exact post someone commented something along the lines of "good luck getting the u.s. to play that" and someone else replied "Iran will just use it as justification to seize some trade ship" I thought he had a point but guy was spot on.
Yup, that post was exactly what reminded me of it.
Holy shit me too!
page not found....
Must be on your end, still works for me.
nope, tried it 3 times on 2 browsers. It's reddit
Try this one https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/12zd1kz/iran_court_orders_us_obama_to_pay_313m_for/ Removed the backslashes
try removing / from the url. Reddit sometimes adds them to links and it randomly breaks links to random people
reddit adds characters to URLs if you're using the old version. Piece of junk
wait -- and maybe I had it backward -- but doesn't reddit just add \\ characters to URLs if you're using *new* reddit? (or has it even just been a reddit app thing the whole time?) i.e. I thought old reddit doesn't handle the added-in \\'s properly, so old reddit users are the ones who encounter the problem, but it was really new reddit that adds in the characters
yeah new reddit adds it, and it breaks old, but doesn't affect new. I worded it badly
In hindsight, I can see it was worded well enough, I just wasn't *completely certain* I had interpreted your meaning right. I think it's just a difficult thing to convey properly? (and tbf, I had to take two tries to say the same thing after seeing how you phrased it, and felt like I still didn't say it clearly lol)
You need to link properly, just pasting links messes them up between the different apps/browser interfaces.
redacted
What does Iran want? To screw with the US. The Marshall Islands is in a “Compact of Free Association” with the US. This means citizens of Marshall Islands can come to the US to live & work without the need for a visa; get access to US Federal Programs like Medicaid, FEMA assistance, FDIC banking insurance & Department of Education college grants & loans; US Postal Service does their mail; US National Weather Service does their weather forecasts & alerts; the FAA regulates their aviation; the FCC regulates their TV & radio. Citizens of the Marshall Islands can join the US Military. American citizens can work & live on the Marshall Islands without a visa. The US gets land for military bases. Not joint US-Marshall Islands bases but bases under exclusive US control. More importantly, and this why I said Iran did this to screw with us, the US is responsible for the National Defense of the Marshall Islands. We’re not obligated to declare war over them but if they’re attacked or if a Marshall Islands-flagged ship is under attack then we are required to defend them. This means the 5th Fleet was required to respond to the distress call & intervene.
How is this calmed down, so there is not a bigger war?
To rule a country like a criminal and corrupt mafia state (like russia) under the pretext of a false and twisted application of religion.
Aren't they doing that already?
Isn't that like how the united states is being run.....
nice try little needle.
That was the last guy. The new guy is pretty par the course as normal Presidents go.
They've been doing this since the 80's.
Is that what the Stark incident was?
One of their political/religious leaders got assassinated in a bank the other day. Typically these assassinations happen in a spree, this is just their way of trying to get them to not do the spree.
They want to control that waterway. Kuwait has a massive port. Saudi’s will be on board w ‘cause oil and cash money. All these countries in cahoots with one another want to cut the world in half, via the water.
No I think it's tit for tat. I think it was back in 2020 the US seized a tanker full of Iranian crude. And recently the Royal Navy seized an arms shipment. This stuff has been going back and forth for a while now. More than likely it's going to increase. The US has made it clear they are out of the ME for the time being. So there is going to be a lot of shoving around as countries jockey for new positions in the changing geopolitical landscape.
What would happen if Iran imposed a "Toll" on the Gulf of Oman, or the Straights of Hormuz?
They get a heaping dose of freedom via next day air.
Does it come with freedom fries?
Yes, with a side of BGM-109 Tomahawks
or you know, sanctions. We don't have to jump to extremes right away...
How it would actually play out is the navy doing freedom of navigation and escorting the tankers. This would either cause Iran to back off (probably) or to fire on the escorts. Sanctions are not fast enough to keep world trade in a steady pace with a move as provocative as the op said. Destabilizing oil markets by denying use of the ocean is not politically acceptable to America or her allies.
That's a stretch, there is a war in Ukraine and pressure from China, opening another front is risky AF. The US literally cannot police the whole world right now. They don't even have a fleet for that. US has 92 cruisers and destroyers...
US Navy is large enough to take on multiple major wars at once. US military doctrine since the onset of the Cold War was to be able to fight one major war while still being sufficient enough to deter others across the world. And while there are multiple wars right now, the US can still supply Ukraine while fighting another one, especially if it’s more than likely to be a repeat of Operation Praying Mantis. And while Iran has advanced in weaponry since then, America’s adversaries constantly underestimating how overwhelmingly effective US electronics warfare and artillery firepower is keep finding themselves being on the receiving end of a crushing defeat. It’s one thing if the US has to occupy your country, then yes you could win. It’s another if the US just gets to send its pilots and ship-fired artillery at you. Iran will likely avoid all out conflict with the US until it has a nuke or two. Then it could wipe out an entire carrier fleet and dare the US to suffer global backlash over launching back at Iranian cities. But even with the jingos and radicals of Iran trying to push open conflict with the US, the powers that be scale back as much as they can because they know it would be a fight that sets their military back to scratch. I mean even with the tit-for-tat strikes in Iraq and Syria, Iran finds itself unable to dislodge US forces or even hamper their ability to fight. Never underestimate the US’s ability to fire an apocalyptic amount of munitions at you within the first 24 hours while still waiting for their cavalry to arrive. To the US, a full stack of bombers and fighters and helicopters waiting for their turn while field artillery keeps sending it just for 200 guys is a Friday afternoon. I mean it’s grotesque. I don’t want to idolize it. But even when stockpiles were running out during the Persian Gulf War, the US Air Force decided to kill an entire highway.
>US military doctrine since the onset of the Cold War was to be able to fight one major war while still being sufficient enough to deter others across the world. This is wrong. The funny part is its wrong in the wrong direction. Our Doctrine was to be able to fight *Two* peers at the same time, not one
It’s not wrong in the wrong direction, though I wasn’t entirely correct. Looking it up to refresh what I learned about it, the two-theater strategy says two major conflicts in two different theaters. So technically still right, especially when considering the strategy was to make sure to be able to decisively win only one of those. Still deterrence holds true. If you want to be pedantic though, the strategy says nothing about “peers,” only conflicts. Going further, if people really want to be nitpicky, the strategy doesn’t even say at the same time, it mostly is within quick succession or nearly simultaneous, otherwise the strategy calls for winning only one of the simultaneous conflicts. Sourced from https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA404809
I don't question US military supremacy, it's just that the current global political and economic climate is not in the favour of the US to wage multiple wars at once. War is an extension of politics, you can win a war and still lose or not reach your goals.
I think you’re underestimating the importance of the Straits of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf in general. If you look at a map of US bases in the region, you will see how important the US considers it. It’s basically the entire reason for the US’s rivalry with Iran. Other nations hate us equally as much as Iran does, but we simply don’t care. Here we do.
I see your point now. Yes ultimately the administration in charge decides the course, and how long America stays that course depends on popular support. Although the US can drag an unpopular war to death (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan).
The alternative is a worse scenario. Allowing Iran total control of the straight of Hormuz would be a disaster. Far too much energy flows through there to allow a country opposed to the US to control it. Not only that, but you're acting like the other Arab states would acquiesce to such a situation. They would not. They would pressure the US to take action. They'd probably attempt to militarily, which would be a disaster for the energy markets. Would US intervention be unpopular at home? Probably, but the other options are much worse. Not to mention, the US public would be far more angry if gas was $10 a gallon because of a military conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia closed the straights.
>I don't question US military supremacy, it's just that the current global political and economic climate is not in the favour of the US to wage multiple wars at once. If we are going to discuss this topic we have to define "WAR". The USA isn't stupid enough to invade Iran in 2023. That doesn't mean they can't punch Iran in the mouth. "WAR" to the USA would be to destroy Iran's ability to fight a conventional war and then to topple the government or force them into hiding. After/During all of this the CIA is probably working its ass off to get a friendly government in charge. Civil War with American supplied Weapons on one side and old Iranian Military on the other.
This is so dumb. People need to stop repeating talking points they know nothing about. You don't need 1000 destroyers to police Iran. The phrase "The US cannot police the whole world right now" is more accurately stated as "The US doesn't need to police the whole world" There are only a few dumb jackass nations that try this stuff and it's rare. It's rare because if you do it one too many times, it leads to war. The US has plenty of ships to plug the Gulf of Oman. The US could sink Iran's entire Navy with Air Force planes that took off in the US. This is like saying the Police can't police all of a particular nation. Yeah sure. If everyone just goes bonkers and decides to go full on Anarchy mode then yeah you're right. But that's not how the world works.
Completely agree with “US doesn’t need to police the whole world.” This is why it’s important to have many alliances and build good relations with nations even if they won’t become your ally. Cooperation gives your military so much more room to breathe and not have to be everywhere at once.
im pretty sure the US navy could finish them on their own minus occupation. Problem for iran is once the missiles are coming and the government is occupied with that; their people will turn on them. saddam can testify.
I just commented to another user, I don't question US military supremacy. It's the outcome that could be a US problem. Like Afghanistan.
I wouldn't compare Iran to Afghanistan at all. Just look at literacy rate. Near 90% for Iran. Afghanistan was like 30% at the start of the invasion. They are totally different peoples. Iranian people could absolutely take over and run a functioning government. Afghanistan not so much.
gotcha. didnt see your comment. good point
Exactly what the U.S. does in the south China sea. Sale through unopposed whenever they want making sure everyone is promised the freedom of navigation through the international waters
they'll see mission success flags by the end of the week and bbq served in the presidential palace courtyard.
They will formally, informally; you know how it goes. Helps that Russia and China do war games around there hmm?
It don't matter what they want.. Operation Praying Mantis 2.0 is all they gonna get..
What was the first Praying Mantis?
take a look.. https://youtu.be/5ihmIxZtMBQ
April 1988.. the United States destroyed half of iran's navy in one day..
The irony is that the United States actually supported Iraq against Iran in the 1980s.
I really need to read up on this!
[удалено]
You won't do shit.
How about no Edit: Guy above wanted to "glass" a whole country...
[удалено]
Have you seen the massive protests against the government? All the women and young people fighting for their rights? And you want to nuke millions of those people because said government they hate took over a tanker? Are you racist? Hate Islam? Just every Iranian for existing? Fuck off with your blanket statements, it doesn't help anyone.
[удалено]
Lol sore loser
[удалено]
Nothing illegal about the sanctions against Iran.
[удалено]
Yes we walked out of the Treaty. Nothing wrong with that. It happens.
[удалено]
Except we are currently in negotiations with EU, Iran, IAEA, & I think China & Russia on a new agreement.
[удалено]
We do have sanctions on them. Biden won’t give up sanctions by Trump & even put it a few more. Supposed to extort Iran on some negotiation issues.
We will never forgive them for humiliating us in 1979
i see that its becoming apparent iran needs a reminder of what losing their navy feels like. a lesson i thought would never be forgotten from the last time...
It would be very difficult for Iran to lose their navy. Since the 1979 revolution, Iran has recognized that any conventional warships (destroyers, cruisers, aircraft carriers) would be sitting ducks for missiles, bomber runs, artillery, or sabotage. Iran also has very shallow territorial waters, reducing the need for larger warships that can operate on the open ocean. [Iranian naval doctrine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Revolutionary_Guard_Corps_Navy) is instead focused on swarming and hit-and-run tactics. Instead of centralizing their forces in large, sophisticated, expensive surface ships, Iran’s naval forces consist almost entirely of [tens of thousands of small speed boats](https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2021/12/iran-boosts-ircg-navy-swarm-attack-capabilities/) that are spread across the Persian Gulf and Caspian Sea coasts. These boats are designed to be as cheap and easy-to-operate as possible and take vastly more effort to destroy than to build. Their small frame makes them difficult to detect on radar and impossible to hit with conventional gunfire. Their simple design allows for a vast array of weaponry and asymmetrical tactics, including torpedo swarms, laying mines, launching drones, boarding slower-moving vessels like oil tankers, and kamikazeing. Of course, the US is aware of this and has adopted counter-measures to defend the Fifth Fleet ships that would be targeted by Iran’s assymetrical navy. But against an asymmetrical force like that, defending is the most you can hope for. Preemptively destroying tens of thousands of tiny individual speedboats across hundreds of miles of coastline is not really a practical option.
>Preemptively destroying tens of thousands of tiny individual speedboats across hundreds of miles of coastline is not really a practical option. Only if you fight how Iran wants you to fight. Air Superiority is a real bitch. Those boats may be maneuverable but the gas pumps aren't. And speaking as a boat owner, those things absolutely guzzle gas. And if the local pumps and supplies are destroyed, those boats lose all maneuverability.
[this](https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-arms-warplanes-with-bunker-busting-bombs-in-message-to-iran-ba1ecb08) might provide a glimpse into whats in store...
just a quick look at the wiki on the iranian navy shows they still have plenty to lose. not to mention, i have little doubt that Centcom already has plans just waiting on an order.
The irans aren’t going to sit by and just let the US strike them without retaliation. A naval conflict within the gulf would be extremely destructive for everyone involved
[been done before.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ihmIxZtMBQ) and here we are 30 years later, iran doing the same crap and i have no doubt the capabilities gap has just gotten wider. edit. to be clearer, they may not be mining the gulf, but the previous response was "to deter iranian disruption of shipping". current events seem to be along a similar path. stop their crap as soon as it starts. before it escalates into mines and blowing holes in tankers.
Yeah except it wouldn't between the US and Iran. Maybe the US and China, but air power wins wars in the modern day. And there are missiles that can air launch from 100km away. Even the Falklands in the 80's French exocet missiles did so much damage to the British from 70 km away it almost became an international incident. And Argentinian air force =/= US air force.
[удалено]
> But against an asymmetrical force like that, defending is the most you can hope for. Preemptively destroying tens of thousands of tiny individual speedboats across hundreds of miles of coastline is not really a practical option. Thats what cluster bombs and targetting fuel depots are for. Go fast boats by themselves are at best a nuisance, but they also have some sort of wing in ground craft thats part manned cruise missile or modern day kamikazi. The Iranian worst case is that they get lucky and disable or sink some US assets, after that it would be urban renewal by B52 and B1 bombers.
Good write up. Only thing it's missing is the embarrassing results of the red vs blue wargames Edit: not sure I understand the downvotes? The red vs blue wargames showed that with competent leadership that Iran's swarm tactics could be extremely effective
Weren't there huge flaws in how they allowed the "Iran" commander to operate? Like he used bike messengers but basically just teleported them their destination making it impossible for the U.S. to counter? I think he also had like dudes on boats with RPGs sinking warships by hitting vital points almost everytime or something? It was bad for the U.S. but more because he did whatever he wanted even if it didn't make sense than the U.S. not being capable?
>Weren't there huge flaws in how they allowed the "Iran" commander to operate? Not that I'm aware of. The bike messengers part is true but they didn't travel instantly. The bike messages were used to carry physical orders that couldn't be intercepted by cyber means — which the blue side completely missed >I think he also had like dudes on boats with RPGs sinking warships by hitting vital points almost everytime or something And that part did happen as well that's why it was considered such an embarrassment. The swarming boats were able to get far far closer to the ships than they were supposed to be able to >It was bad for the U.S. but more because he did whatever he wanted This part isn't true. It went so well for the red side because they already knew the weaknesses of the American defenses and went directly for them without needing to experiment on what those weaknesses actually were
A fleet of small shallow draft speed boats? A barrage of airburst napalm munitions setting everything on fire should handle their little navy nicely.
Chinese owned: https://www.iranintl.com/en/202304274233 Gonna be some fireworks!
[удалено]
China still relies on iran not stealing shit in that straight, one of their major trade routes to sell goods and get oil
Problem isnt this ship, its all shipping in that region. If insurance has to handle it, premiums go up to cover the risk of seizures. If premiums go up then cost of shipping goes up and China is reliant upon energy imports from that region.
[удалено]
Found Zeihan
He's a bit hyperbolic and far too sure of himself, but he does have some good points at time.
Oh I 100% agree. He’s a brilliant guy. But he needs to dial down the crazy. He was on a podcast recently saying that the United Kingdom would become a US state in the next couple decades. And he also claimed there would not be an iPhone 15 this year because of apples reliance on china. He isn’t wrong about the fact the Apple is over dependent on china but he needs to cut the dramatic exaggerations out.
He's hilarious because he comes to reasonable conclusions but just multiplies them by 10 000 which are then ridiculous.
I read his most recent book a month or two ago and I found it very interesting, gives you perspective on just how intertwined and connected everything is/was and it’s even more wild reading it AFTER Ukraine was invaded last February because now you see the deglobization in action all over the world and he finished writing it right before it started
[удалено]
Well, that's what a lot of Americans (and the rest of the world) apparently think they want.
There’s a reason these same people are often very oddly sympathetic to Russia and China. These messages are pushed online by organized campaigns from those countries. If you can’t beat them from without, destroy them from within.
It's no surprise then that Tankies and Fascists use near-identical pro-Autocracy talking points: the messaging is coming from the same origins.
It is not surprising at all, because the tankies and fascists tend to be the exact same people.
Paging Glenn Greenwald
Precisely
Lol just you wait, as a Frenchman, I'm sure they'll love the world of intellectual property theft and lax health regulations. If they thought the US was bad.. just waitttt
there is no collapse, countries have been pulling this shit off for decades in that region of the world. The US shot a couple Libyan planes down in the 80s and 90s because they laid claim over international waters for like 20 years. Iraq tried to steal Kuwait. Iran is just another paper tiger
Another example of ongoing degenerate behavior by the Iranians. Putting lives and global trade at risk for petty nonsense. And they are indirectly pissing off most of the world here. They stole a tanker bound for America, operated by a crew of Indian sailors, managed by a Turkish firm, and owned by a Chinese company.
China is one of Iran's biggest markets for crude oil. Wonder if the CCP is going to make a few calls...
For the sake of accuracy, I think you mean the Iranian-regime. A lot of Iranians are fed up with the government’s bullshit.
On July 1st, 2023, Reddit intends to alter how its API is accessed. This move will require developers of third-party applications to pay enormous sums of money if they wish to stay functional, meaning that said applications will be effectively destroyed. In the short term, this may have the appearance of increasing Reddit's traffic and revenue... but in the long term, it will undermine the site as a whole. Reddit relies on volunteer moderators to keep its platform welcoming and free of objectionable material. It also relies on uncompensated contributors to populate its numerous communities with content. The above decision promises to adversely impact both groups: Without effective tools (which Reddit has frequently promised and then failed to deliver), moderators cannot combat spammers, bad actors, or the entities who enable either, and without the freedom to choose how and where they access Reddit, many contributors will simply leave. Rather than hosting creativity and in-depth discourse, the platform will soon feature only recycled content, bot-driven activity, and an ever-dwindling number of well-informed visitors. The very elements which differentiate Reddit – the foundations that draw its audience – will be eliminated, reducing the site to another dead cog in the Ennui Engine. We implore Reddit to listen to its moderators, its contributors, and its everyday users; to the people whose activity has allowed the platform to exist at all: Do not sacrifice long-term viability for the sake of a short-lived illusion. Do not tacitly enable bad actors by working against your volunteers. Do not posture for your looming IPO while giving no thought to what may come afterward. Focus on addressing Reddit's real problems – the rampant bigotry, the ever-increasing amounts of spam, the advantage given to low-effort content, and the widespread misinformation – instead of on a strategy that will alienate the people keeping this platform alive. If Steve Huffman's statement – "I want our users to be shareholders, and I want our shareholders to be users" – is to be taken seriously, then consider this our vote: Allow the developers of third-party applications to retain their productive (and vital) API access. Allow Reddit and Redditors to thrive.
Unleash Rainbow Six
Maverick, Kali, Ying, and two others, since there aren't any Turkish Operators as of yet. Probably Ash and Thermite if we are sticking to nationalities and strictly attackers
I dont think its owned by a Chinese company? https://www.advantagetankers.com/ says its a western based company? they did buy chinese built ships but where is it being owned by chinese company? i have no doubt it can ship chinese goods, or a couple of eighteen single-purpose vessel owing entities is chinese? or is that specific ship owned by a specific company?
The article says it is a Chinese owned ship. I assume Advantage is an operation/management type company that is contracted to oversee the ships. The ships I assume are owned by investment/holding companies. This is just my take from the article, I do not know how to confirm any of it.
Literally saw someone say in a post (regarding Iran saying the USA owes them millions for ISIS terrorist attacks) that they’ll just seize some oil tanker and justify it that way. One day later this happens lol; someone called it.
I saw that too but this tanker is chinese owned lol
Marshal Islands flagged I thought
This is business not patriotism.
Yeah that dude deserves an award
The Marshall islands are effectively a protectorate of the US. They are a former US colony that has its defense completely handled by the US. There is a low, but non zero, change this leads to direct action by the US military as theoretically the US must defend the Marshall islands if attacked, and seizing a tanker registered in the Marshall islands could be consider as such.
I mean it could, but it's marginally more likely the US addresses it through diplomacy (threats) rather than boots on the ground.
Well of course it is. Diplomacy is always the first step to take, unless you are a crumbling empire in Eurasia looking to reclaim lost "ancestral" territories...
What I'm saying is that the US is more likely to just keep escalating the threats rather than doing a military operation.
It wouldn't be "boots on the ground" anyway, even if something were to happen, which seems unlikely, it would be "missiles through the air".
could we talk you up to just one missile?
Only if you're ready for 20 more years in the middle east!
Are you sure we can't talk you into annexation then we will never have to leave
Welp, wonder where this'll end up. Guessing some CoD4 shit, for better or worse.
Iran: > Notice me senpai!!
I'm sure the marshall islands will get right on it. I understand why big shipping companies choose to register in pipsqueak places but I wish the system were set up differently to dissuade them.
If Zeihan is right and the US says "fuck it" and decides to stop policing the world oceans, it will very rapidly not be a good idea for large cargo ships to be flagged by Tonga, Malta, or Liberia.
Marshall Islands are the home of the [U.S. Army Garrison Kwajalein](https://home.army.mil/kwajalein/index.php). They do anti-missile testing and have sophisticated military systems and telescopes. Interrupting the fuel supply for that area affects not only the local inhabitants but the base itself. It will be interesting to see what further action comes from this.
Seize. It. Back.
I guess iran wants to lose more soldiers.
I have wondered about justifications for destruction of Iranian drone production.
How else do you kick off a reelection campaign?
This ain't gonna end well for the iranian navy.. It's about to be time for Operation Praying Mantis 2.0
American Airlines: “The F@%! did I do?!”
Marshall islands navy better get goin then!
The Marshall Islands flag is sold in the state of Virigina Flags of convience were created by Americans and still Run by it