Check out the TB2K CHATROOM, open 24/7               Configuring Your Preferences for OPTIMAL Viewing
  To access our Email server, CLICK HERE

  If you are unfamiliar with the Guidelines for Posting on TB2K please read them.      ** LINKS PAGE **



*** Help Support TB2K ***
via mail, at TB2K Fund, P.O. Box 71, Coupland, TX, 78615
or


WAR Iran Pledges to Deploy Warships in the Atlantic
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 17 of 17
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    ex-NO, now in CA
    Posts
    3,931

    Iran Pledges to Deploy Warships in the Atlantic

    For the second time in less than a year, Iran’s top naval commander has said Iranian Navy vessels will soon be plying the Atlantic Ocean, having made great strides in recent years in expanding its presence beyond Iranian waters.

    Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari’s comments came on the same day Iran launched its first domestically-built oil tanker. The 21,000-ton vessel, capable of carrying up to 750,000 barrels of oil, was ordered by Venezuela, and Sayyari’s remarks raise the possibility that a warship may escort the tanker on its delivery sailing to Iran’s Latin American ally.

    Iran has also established close ties with Cuba, another potential destination for an Iranian Navy Atlantic voyage.

    “The navy has carried out successful activities in open seas, and in the near future we will witness the presence of the navy in the Atlantic Ocean,” the Mehr news agency quoted Sayyari as saying.

    “The powerful presence of Iranian Navy in the high seas has proven the Islamic Republic’s might,” he said.

    Sayyari pointed to the navy’s expanding capabilities over the past decade. Once limited to the Persian Gulf, Iranian warships have been carrying out anti-piracy patrols in the Gulf of Aden-Horn of Africa region since late 2008.

    In February 2011 it sent a frigate and replenishment ship through Egypt’s Suez Canal into the Mediterranean Sea, the first such passage since the 1979 revolution. That voyage came shortly after the fall of the Mubarak regime ushered in the prospect of a thawing of long-hostile Iran-Egypt ties.

    Last February, an Iranian destroyer and navy supply vessel again traversed the canal, entered the Mediterranean and docked at the Syrian port of Tartus, rattling Israel.

    “Today we witness that the army’s naval force is deployed in the Red Sea and the Mediterranean Sea instead of the Persian Gulf, and god willing, we will go beyond the Mediterranean in future,” said Sayyari.

    Last fall, the navy commander first announced plans to send warships to the Atlantic, saying, “Like the arrogant powers that are present near our marine borders, we will also have a powerful presence close to the American marine borders.”

    U.S. officials at the time dismissed the comments as bombastic rhetoric.

    “We don’t take these statements seriously, given that they do not reflect at all Iran’s naval capabilities,” said White House press secretary Jay Carney.

    “Given the limited size and capability of the Iranian navy, they would be far better off focusing on the challenges closer to home, including reducing the potential for naval incidents in the Gulf and playing a constructive role in freedom of navigation and maritime issues at home,” commented State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland.

    Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has paid two visits to Venezuela this year, strengthening ties with its U.S.-baiting president, Hugo Chavez, as well as other leftist allies including the leaders of Cuba, Bolivia and Ecuador.

    On his most recent visit, last month, he hailed Chavez’ support in the face of U.S. hostility and declared that “justice-seeking nations like Iran and Venezuela will definitely build their countries and make progress outside the dominance of imperialism.”

    Chavez in turn reiterated his call for a consolidation of ties with Iran in all areas.

    Last May House Armed Services Committee chairman Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) and Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) wrote to President Obama, asking about administration actions to counter the threat of Iranian activity in the Western Hemisphere.

    The prospect of Iranian warships sailing in Atlantic waters recalls Russia’s deployment in 2008 of navy ships led by its Northern Fleet flagship, the nuclear-powered missile cruiser Pyotr Velikiy, in what was believed to be the first such voyage to the Western Hemisphere since the end of the Cold War.

    During the deployment – described by Russian media as a “fist in America’s belly” – the ships held joint maneuvers with Venezuelan Navy vessels in the Caribbean.

    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/iran...ships-atlantic

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    19,842
    this is a joke

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    8,473
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    this is a joke
    Agreed.
    "I never saw a wild thing sorry for itself. A small bird will drop frozen dead from a bough without ever having felt sorry for itself." -DH Lawrence
    "We do not see things as they are, we see things as we are." - The Talmud

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,339
    To paraphrase Winston Churchill: We are waiting for the long-promised Iranian Navy. So are the fishes.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    38,638
    Consider.....

    Iran acquires and flags one or more Panamax container ships (65000 to 80000 tonnes DWT displacement) and fits it out as a "training ship" including a helipad, accommodations for a battalion of "marines", capability to conduct replenishment for their Kilo submarines and act as a mother ship/support ship for smaller patrol boats. And on top of that let's add additional capacity for missile launchers (both anti-shipping, surface to air and surface to surface, AKA "SCUD in a bucket").

    Now this vessel and a brood of IRGC fast attack boats, a Kilo and one or more FFGs/DDGs of their regular navy deploy to Venezuela or Cuba and operate there for an extended period of time.

    How many US resources are going to have to be dispatched to keep an eye on them instead of being used elsewhere?
    Last edited by Housecarl; 07-26-2012 at 06:06 PM. Reason: added surface to air , AKA "SCUD in a bucket"

  6. #6
    Drones
    "If the control of the economy is not in the hands of the majority of Americans then neither is political control."

  7. #7
    I keep reading the thread title as "Iran Pledges To Destroy Warships in the Atlantic" and my heart races a little until I re-read it.

    It's not that crazy, they have been doing anti-Piracy word in the Gulf of Aden, and have established a limited presence in the Eastern Med. That being said, I think the East Coast is safe for a while...
    Throughout the world
    Everywhere we are all brothers
    Why then do the winds and waves rage so turbulently?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    38,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Housecarl View Post
    Consider.....

    Iran acquires and flags one or more Panamax container ships (65000 to 80000 tonnes DWT displacement) and fits it out as a "training ship" including a helipad, accommodations for a battalion of "marines", capability to conduct replenishment for their Kilo submarines and act as a mother ship/support ship for smaller patrol boats. And on top of that let's add additional capacity for missile launchers (both anti-shipping, surface to air and surface to surface, AKA "SCUD in a bucket").

    Now this vessel and a brood of IRGC fast attack boats, a Kilo and one or more FFGs/DDGs of their regular navy deploy to Venezuela or Cuba and operate there for an extended period of time.

    How many US resources are going to have to be dispatched to keep an eye on them instead of being used elsewhere?
    Example of a loaded Panamax container ship.....



    Arapaho Concept example, USN....



    ETA: The PLAN has a 30,000 ton displacement hospital ship built in this manner.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    38,638
    For links see article source....
    Posted for fair use.....
    http://www.policymic.com/articles/11...ran-not-likely

    Iran Sends Navy into Atlantic Ocean to Threaten US, But War With Iran Not Likely

    William Bauer in World, Iran
    3 days ago

    There has not been much in the way of bombast emanating from Tehran lately. This quasi (and largely welcome) silence was broken on Wednesday when a top Iranian naval commander announced the country’s intention to deploy a maritime presence in the Atlantic Ocean.

    Iranian Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari said that: “The navy has carried out successful activities in open seas, and in the near future we will witness the presence of the navy in the Atlantic Ocean.”

    At this point, I imagine a fair few readers recoiling in fear from their computer terminals, and rushing to buy canned goods in anticipation for Cuban Missile Crisis 2.0.

    Yet, there is little to fear from this recent announcement. It will certainly only be one or two ships of the Iranian navy taking part, mostly guarding a new Iranian oil tanker carrying 750,000 gallons of oil to Venezuela. They might also stop in Cuba – an Iranian ally – but this is not certain. What is certain is that these ships will not be a threat to the U.S. or any other Western nation bordering the Atlantic.

    Firstly, such a small fleet is never going to be equipped with any nuclear weaponry. Strategically this would be nonsensical for Iran. Why, after all – if such weaponry is in their possession – would they locate it in the middle of the Atlantic ocean, greatly exposed and utterly useless? Consequently, the U.S. can rest easier.

    Equally, the fleet (if it can be called this) is hardly likely to be able to range far from friendly ports, namely in Venezuela and Cuba; and they will likely be heavily monitored by Western military intelligence. So no one will wake up and find an Iranian destroyer casually parked by the Statue of Liberty.

    In actual fact this statement is likely to be another way for Iran to put pressure in a cost-free fashion on the U.S. and maintain its own media image of a rogue state. This is the same strategy adopted with much effect when Iran sent a naval vessel through the Suez canal to Syria in 2011, ensuring much coverage in the world media. But this remained a gesture, with very little strategic consequence.

    It is also worth remembering, that such a fleet they were to be openly hostile in the Atlantic, it would be guaranteed a very strong response from the U.S. and its Atlantic partners. This would not bode well for the duo of Iranian boats.

    So, the Iranian fleet will go into the Atlantic, steam into Venezuela and Cuba, seek to antagonise the great U.S. public and government with their mere presence, and then return to Iran. This is the overwhelmingly likely scenario.

    In the end, such announcements by Iran are just short-term stunts. The real issue remains the crowded waters of the Persian Gulf, and the Iranian naval presence in that area of the world. This is the flashpoint, the one to be closely monitored, not the Iranian regime’s Atlantic stunt tactics.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    38,638
    So is this going to be a side show, a supply run to Venezuela or something more?

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Formerly Iowa - now western Arizona
    Posts
    1,251
    Has the Iranian Navy ever ventured out into waters over the head?

    RR
    Real preparedness types know how to care for their own sick and injured.

    http://medtech.syrene.net/forum/

    Survival and Austere Medicine: An Introduction Contributing author and editor

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    ex-NO, now in CA
    Posts
    3,931

    5

    remember the russian club-K system that is supposed to be available for a price....

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNYuMQLPFgQ
    Attached Images

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    45QUC
    Posts
    2,582
    At a guess, Iran will indeed send ships to the Atlantic. As noted, they will generally spend their time doing escort duty for that tanker. However, I suspect that there will be a few incidents where they will find themselves being escorted at less than 500 yards by a US attack submarine they never saw coming, or will wake up one morning to find a US destroyer pacing them about a mile off, after arriving undetected. They will be regularly, and pointedly, reminded that whatever their leaders may boast, they are playing in someone else's yard.
    Strike me down, and I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine


    Oderint dum metuant

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    38,638
    Quote Originally Posted by The Mountain View Post
    At a guess, Iran will indeed send ships to the Atlantic. As noted, they will generally spend their time doing escort duty for that tanker. However, I suspect that there will be a few incidents where they will find themselves being escorted at less than 500 yards by a US attack submarine they never saw coming, or will wake up one morning to find a US destroyer pacing them about a mile off, after arriving undetected. They will be regularly, and pointedly, reminded that whatever their leaders may boast, they are playing in someone else's yard.
    Assuming they wouldn't be getting direct real time intel feeds from either the Russians or the PRC.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Foothills of the Blueridge
    Posts
    1,342
    Shiver me timbers!

    When Iran has the capability of deploying 4 carrier battle groups within striking distance of the US....

    Wait, I think I've got that backwards.

    We have 3 or 4 battle groups within striking range of Iran.

    The Neocon propaganda is no longer based in reality. It's been shown repeatedly to be complete bullshit.

    But if you watch the MSM (any version) it won't be long before you're convinced that the US needs to 'do something' about Iran. And you'll be convinced that the government needs to do something about those evil 'assault rifles' and large capacity magazines, as such weapons are only intended for... wait Mitt said it better than me. He's your 'conservative' candidate. ROFLMFAO

    Iran has its own internal issues that will likely doom the hard line Islamist theocracy, such as peaking oil production (peaked years ago) and a major demographic problem.

    I wouldn't want to live in Iraq, especially eastern Iraq.

    But that's not our problem.

    On the contrary our problem is corruption at the highest levels of corporate entities and corruption at every level of government, immigration, currency debasement, no mfg base, and massive debt/deficit spending.

    But let's ignore that and argue about Iran and abortion.

    That'll fix everything.
    It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others. -Thomas Jefferson
    “In the beginning the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. As his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.” --Mark Twain

  16. #16
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    South of Valhalla
    Posts
    5,425


    No kidding... That's pretty ingenious...Except for satellite imaging...
    Ephesians 5:11 - " Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. ”

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    38,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Ragnarok View Post


    No kidding... That's pretty ingenious...Except for satellite imaging...
    Yeah, just replace the Harriers with SCUDs/Nodongs/Ghadr-110s or solid fueled Fateh-110s/Sajjil systems, a la SCUD in bucket and watch the MSM have a fit.

    Remember the reaction when the Russians put a couple of SSGNs off the Atlantic coast a couple of years ago for the first time since the end of the Cold War?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts


NOTICE: Timebomb2000 is an Internet forum for discussion of world events and personal disaster preparation. Membership is by request only. The opinions posted do not necessarily represent those of TB2K Incorporated (the owner of this website), the staff or site host. Responsibility for the content of all posts rests solely with the Member making them. Neither TB2K Inc, the Staff nor the site host shall be liable for any content.

All original member content posted on this forum becomes the property of TB2K Inc. for archival and display purposes on the Timebomb2000 website venue. Said content may be removed or edited at staff discretion. The original authors retain all rights to their material outside of the Timebomb2000.com website venue. Publication of any original material from Timebomb2000.com on other websites or venues without permission from TB2K Inc. or the original author is expressly forbidden.



"Timebomb2000", "TB2K" and "Watching the World Tick Away" are Service Mark℠ TB2K, Inc. All Rights Reserved.