Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: US Senator says Naval Blockade On Iran should be considered.

  1. #1
    Senior Member J.Noah ה's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Baltimore, Maryland
    Age
    25
    Posts
    1,797

    Default US Senator says Naval Blockade On Iran should be considered.

    http://www.*******.com/article/2012/...8E9F0Y20120309

    (*******) - An international naval blockade of Iranian oil exports should be considered before any resort to air strikes against the country's disputed nuclear program, the chairman of the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee said on Friday.

    "That's, I think, one option that needs to be considered" to boost pressure on Iran to curb its nuclear program in line with U.N. Security Council resolutions, Democratic Senator Carl Levin said in an interview taped for C-SPAN's "Newsmakers" program.
    He said any such blockade should be preceded by lining up alternative oil supplies to avoid a price spike on world crude markets. Iran is OPEC's second-largest oil producer and the world's third-largest petroleum exporter.
    Levin was responding to a question about possible ways of increasing pressure short of combat, including imposition of a "no-fly zone" over Iran.
    Such moves "could be very effective," he said. "I think (these are) options that whoever is willing to participate should explore, including Israel and including the United States."
    Iran is widely suspected of enriching uranium, and other activities, as a prelude to building nuclear weapons. Tehran says the program is aimed at producing civilian nuclear power.
    The international response to Iran's nuclear program has evolved into a widespread consensus for substantial sanctions and other pressure, paired with incentives and diplomacy, to head off the possible development of nuclear arms.
    Israeli leaders have said, however, that time is running out before they could feel compelled to launch military strikes to stop or delay the program.
    Levin voiced optimism that increasingly strict sanctions, including an oil purchase embargo by the European Union to take full effect by July 1, might force Iran to relent.
    "Not because it doesn't want a nuke - I think it does - but because the price that it's going to have to pay" in terms of isolation would be too high, said Levin, whose committee has an oversight role for the U.S. Defense Department.
    Levin said President Barack Obama should seek congressional authorization before any U.S. resort to military action against Iran. But he noted that presidents from both parties had maintained they were not bound to do so as commander in chief of U.S. armed forces.
    A senior Obama administration official, asked about Levin's remarks, said, "Our focus remains on a diplomatic solution, as we believe diplomacy coupled with strong pressure can achieve the long-term solution we seek."
    WOULDN'T BE SURPRISED IF ISRAEL ACTS
    Levin said he would not be surprised if the Jewish state, which regards a nuclear-armed Iran as a threat to its existence, took military action within "months."
    "I would say that a strike is likely" if Iran continues to refuse to curb its nuclear program, he added. He said U.S.-supported Israeli missile defense programs had undercut Iran's ability to retaliate against Israel for any strike.
    Asked why Israel alone should be allowed to have nuclear arms in the region, Levin cited the Holocaust, the genocide of about 6 million European Jews during World War Two by NaziGermany, and what he called similar threats throughout history.
    In addition, he said, Israel still faced a threat of being wiped out by some of its neighbors, "so it's a deterrent against that kind of a threat."

    Hope not repost. Any thoughts?

  2. #2
    Banned user
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    California
    Age
    47
    Posts
    24,839

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by J.Noah ה View Post
    http://www.*******.com/article/2012/...8E9F0Y20120309

    (*******) - An international naval blockade of Iranian oil exports should be considered before any resort to air strikes against the country's disputed nuclear program, the chairman of the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee said on Friday.

    Hope not repost. Any thoughts?
    Are you willing to pay more at the pump?

  3. #3
    Senior Member [WDW]Megaraptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Making people mad...
    Posts
    7,898

    Default

    Sounds like Carl Levin is remembering his 9th grade lessons on the Cuban Missile Crisis...

  4. #4
    Senior Member J.Noah ה's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Baltimore, Maryland
    Age
    25
    Posts
    1,797

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ordie View Post
    Are you willing to pay more at the pump?
    Its going to happen either way.

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ordie View Post
    Are you willing to pay more at the pump?
    i don't want to answer for anyone else, but if there's a choice between 6$ a gallon gas and Iran being nuclear armed - i'll take the gas hike. hopefully it will serve as incentive to make this stupid resource increasingly irrelevant in the new century.

  6. #6
    Member von Clausewitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Königreich Preußen
    Age
    50
    Posts
    71

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by J.Noah ה View Post
    http://www.*******.com/article/2012/...8E9F0Y20120309

    (*******) - An international naval blockade of Iranian ...
    Which means Casus Belli!

  7. #7
    Senior Member Universals's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    peace to this young warrior without the sound of guns
    Posts
    8,156

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scenicsquare View Post
    i don't want to answer for anyone else, but if there's a choice between 6$ a gallon gas and Iran being nuclear armed - i'll take the gas hike. hopefully it will serve as incentive to make this stupid resource increasingly irrelevant in the new century.
    A nuclear armed Iran is less of a danger than a nuclear armed Pakistan IMO. How did the world let Pakistan build over a hundred nuclear warheads and are now going ape-shyte cos Iran might build one. The greatest danger we face is that of a government losing control of the nukes. Pakistan, being a hot bed of radicalism and a weak central government, is prime candidate.

  8. #8
    Μολὼν λαβέ Hollis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Stuck in the rain and mud again.
    Posts
    23,291

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Universal_Soldier View Post
    A nuclear armed Iran is less of a danger than a nuclear armed Pakistan IMO. How did the world let Pakistan build over a hundred nuclear warheads and are now going ape-shyte cos Iran might build one. The greatest danger we face is that of a government losing control of the nukes. Pakistan, being a hot bed of radicalism and a weak central government, is prime candidate.

    Cold war insanity and PDRC (China) as a threat. Even worse in the India/Pakistan wars, the US supported Pakistan. Another action caused by the insanity of the cold war.

  9. #9
    the Ralph Wiggum of Mp.net. timetraveller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    In a house
    Posts
    8,401

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Universal_Soldier View Post
    A nuclear armed Iran is less of a danger than a nuclear armed Pakistan IMO. How did the world let Pakistan build over a hundred nuclear warheads and are now going ape-shyte cos Iran might build one. The greatest danger we face is that of a government losing control of the nukes. Pakistan, being a hot bed of radicalism and a weak central government, is prime candidate.

    Very true ....

  10. #10

    Default

    Carl Levin
    stupid idea, are you going to stop a Russian flagged ship maybe one from China?

  11. #11
    Senior Member [WDW]Megaraptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Making people mad...
    Posts
    7,898

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BudW View Post
    Carl Levin
    stupid idea, are you going to stop a Russian flagged ship maybe one from China?
    Not to mention trying a naval blockade against a country with 5,440 km of land borders but only 2,440 km of coastline?

  12. #12
    Banned user
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    California
    Age
    47
    Posts
    24,839

    Default

    Persians are proud people.
    If you squeeze them with a blockade, they'll back anyone who will defend thier interest.
    But if you squeeze the key people, they'll begin to fight among themselves.

  13. #13
    Senior Member themacedonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    none
    Posts
    6,653

    Default

    After the expected "failure" of Iran to close the straits or to do anything stupid to provide a reason for action ................ a new method is suggested.

  14. #14

    Default

    That would rise the oil price to $200/barrel from the current $100, bring back recession world-wide, and accelerate the construction of the IP(I)C (Iran-Pakistan-(INdia)-China) pipeline

Posting Permissions

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