Defense Tech network member Ned Conger passed this article along to us. I like it because I have great respect for the author, UPI Editor at Large Arnaud De Borchgrave, who has deep sources from both sides of the aisle.
Its also interesting in that it loosely indicts the blogosphere, giving it more power than I think most of us will agree it deserves.
Anyhow, the scenarios are more plausible than our last glance into the crystal ball.
From UPI:
Journalism of verification in the blogosphere has been displaced by a journalism of assertion where rumors become facts and where facts are censored by omission. Hardly surprising then that 200 million Americans, two-thirds of the population, concede they dont understand foreign policy issues. And only one-third say they understand major domestic issues. TV comedian Jay Leno’s Jaywalking interviews confirm these figures. With 80 million blogs and more than 1 billion people now online, it becomes increasingly difficult to sort factoid from fact and truth from untruth.
Today, all you need to become an online know-it-all is a Web site, a blog and an attitude. Creative reporting is the new genre. And you achieve instant mass readership by turning your darkest suspicions into reality. No wonder newspapers are losing readers and advertising revenue — and shedding domestic and foreign bureaus. Newspapers are dull next to the fantasy lucubrations dished out as hard news, or an unconfirmed front-page report next to the hard fact moving through the blogosphere courtesy of electronic tools that ensure mass diffusion.
A conservative journalist, speaking at a think tank meeting, said he hoped President Bush would order the bombing of Iran in his last few days at the White House in January 2009. Iranian retaliation? The Iranians are already attacking us in Iraq, he responded matter-of-factly. The bombs-away-over-Iran advocates are unfazed by Irans retaliatory capabilities. They dismiss a wider conflict, much the way they portrayed a cakewalk in Iraq.
But What World War III May Look Like is already a cyber favorite. Picture a minor incident involving a U.S. Marine patrol operating out of the new base at Badrah on the Iranian border, posits former CIA operative Philip Giraldi.
Superior Iranian forces claim the Americans strayed inside Iranian territory, and surround the Marines. They refuse to surrender and open fire. The Iranian Revolutionary Guards (which the Senate branded an international terrorist group) return fire. Helicopter gunships are called in and artillery fire is directed at Iranian military targets. Bush calls it an act of war and, in an emotional speech to the nation, orders U.S. forces into action.
The rest of the scenario has a plausible ring. The U.N. Security Council votes 17–1 (U.S. veto) urging restraint. In the U.N. General Assembly, only the United States, Israel, Micronesia and Costa Rica support Bushs decision.
Overwhelming U.S. air and naval superiority destroy Irans principal air, naval and army bases. Revolutionary Guard facilities are obliterated, as are known nuclear research and development sites. Population centers are avoided, though smart weapons destroy communications centers and command-and-control facilities. But there are still large numbers of civilian casualties and widespread radioactive contamination as many targeted sites are in or near population centers.
The U.S. media, which had (by and large) backed the administrations plans to engage Iran, rallies round the flag, praising the surgical strikes designed to cripple Irans nuclear weapons program.
No sooner do the Pentagon and the White House call the attacks a complete success than Iran strikes back. With five years to prepare, Iran has successfully hidden and hardened many of its military and nuclear facilities, a large percentage of which are undamaged.
The aircraft carrier USS Eisenhower operating in the Gulf is hit by a Chinese Silkworm cruise missile. Three other support vessels are also hit and are severely damaged when they are attacked by small craft manned by suicide bombers. Pro-Iranian riots break out in Beirut. Lebanese soldiers open fire at the crowds. In the south of Lebanon, Hezbollah fires salvos of rockets into Israel. The Israeli air force responds by bombing Lebanon and Syria. Iranian Shahab-3 missiles also strike Israel, killing a number of civilians. The Israel Defense Forces is mobilized. Syria and Lebanon also mobilize.
Rioters in Baghdad attack U.S. troops. Insurgency mortar shells hit the U.S. Embassy. Snipers target American soldiers all over Iraq. Shiite oil workers sabotage Saudi Arabias eastern oil fields. Hundreds of alleged saboteurs are shot dead by Saudi security forces. An oil tanker hits a mine in the Strait of Hormuz. Oil tops $200 a barrel. Wall Street suffers its biggest loss in 20 years. The Dow plummets more than 800 points.
The United States offers Iran a cease-fire. Iran rejects it. Tehran orders the assassination of Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf flees to Dubai. Pakistans tribal areas that shelter Osama bin Laden declare their independence. U.S. troops fight their way out of Baghdad with heavy casualties. Rioters in Basra cut the main roads to Kuwait that supply U.S. forces.
And its downhill from there. Anti-U.S. Pakistani forces seize control of Pakistans nuclear arsenal. NATOs European forces in Afghanistan disengage from what they say is now a civil war. Taliban reconquers Kabul. The Shiite Afghan north and Mazar-i-Sharif secede to join Iran. Waves of Iranian troops cross into Iraq where they are greeted by Iraqi militias. Shiite clerics take over the government in Baghdad. U.S. troops fight their way back into their bases. A Hezbollah-led coalition takes over in Beirut. Iranian Silkworm missiles set Saudi Arabias eastern oil fields ablaze. The Saudi monarchy declares its neutrality and pledges not to assist the United States. Kuwait and Egypt follow suit.
In Bahrain, rampaging Shiite crowds depose King Sheik Khalifa, establish an Islamic Republic and demand the U.S. 5th Fleet dismantle its headquarters and go home. The Dow Jones loses another 1,000 points. China and Russia refuse U.S. requests for mediation. Suicide bombers attack London, Washington, New York and Los Angeles. Poorly planned. Few casualties, but panic sets in. The White House tells Irans theocracy to cease and desist or nukes will be used on select targets. Tehran refuses.
Israel is shelled from Lebanon and Syria. Rioting rocks the West Bank and Gaza. Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas flees to Cairo. The United States drops a neutron-type bomb on Irans nuclear center at Natanz, already bombed and destroyed. Defiant Iran fires volleys of Silkworms at U.S. ships. Russia and China place their nuclear forces on high alert. Pakistans religious extremists, backed by radical elements in the army and the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, occupy Parliament. India launches a pre-emptive strike against Pakistans suspected nuclear centers. But the nukes are elsewhere and Pakistan strikes back — bombing New Delhi, World War III is under way. Or IV, as the neocons now call what were already in against al-Qaida; III was the Cold War.
(Gouge: NC)
– Christian
{ 28 comments… read them below or add one }
A copy of half an UPI article without giving an URL so people can read the complete article? Do they pay you for such?
Well here is the URL
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2vsvzj
What DE BORCHGRAVE says about blogs doesn’t make much sense. What’s his point?
The article is a scenario of a possible escalation of an attack on Iran. Makes some sense but is just one scenario.
Reading the rest of the article is some scary stuff.
Maybe it wouldn’t be such a great idea after all.
A classic straw man argument. Interesting read but not really much weight.
How about this.
I could see this involving china too though. I mean… if china’s subs are as good as you guys alluded too wouldn’t maybe china strike the U.S. while they are over extended?
Fiscally, I don’t think the U.S. could afford another war.
I think De Borchgrave’s point is that you can’t trust anyone in the blogosphere but him. ;)
As far as WW III scenarios are concerned, well, consider the possibility that WW II didn’t start in Poland in 1939; maybe it started in Spain beforehand. For the US it really started in Hawaii on 12/7/41, but we had guys fighting the Japanese in China well before that — sort of like the Quds force people who are allegedly helping the Shiites now.
Maybe it’s not a question of not starting a war with Iran; maybe the tinder’s already smoldering. Maybe it’s a question of putting it out.
Sure that is possible. There are lots of possibilities, including a host of equally plausible and nasty scenarios should Iran aquire nuclear weapons. The big difference is that our ability to respond to such problems would be much diminished if Iran was so armed. Iran can set the region onfire. That would hurt the entire world in a big way, but would affect Iran much more than most, including us.
The author makes it seem so easy to rollover the US military.
(puts on sarcastic hat…)Suddenly there are hundreds or thousands of snipers in Baghdad, carrier groups have no air defenses, Saudi Arabia gets steam rolled and says they don’t want to fight while Iran moves on most of the Middle East. We might as well give up now and declare Iran the victor. (takes off sarcastic hat…)
Talk about giving the enemy too much credit. I know uneducated people around the world think the US is capable of anything, but to think our enemies are capable of more, is just lunacy.
JMD:
I didn’t suggest how to put out the fire; I raised the possibility that it’s already started.
How would our ability to respond to Iran be diminished by their possessing nuclear weapons? True, it takes some conventional attack options off the table. It opens a host of nuclear options. Personally, I don’t care for those, but I spent most of my life living under the threat of MAD. It sucked, but there were some good days.
I agree with you — all in all, the mullahs don’t need The Bomb, and I don’t regard it as a positive development. It further destabilizes an already unstable region. But the Norks have a few, by most accounts, and we’re trying to negotiate those away.
I mean, you’ve got to rattle sabers; that’s deterrent policy. Like it or not, that what puts the meat behind MAD. But it’s also important to talk, and you need common ground, or at least a clear channel, to communicate your position.
Of course, there’s always the madman theory, like Kissinger and Nixon working the good cop, bad cop routine on the North Vietnamese. But we wouldn’t do that to the Iranians, would we?
Pet Peeve:
WW3 or the ‘clash of civilizations’ is complete nonsense. Although it appears that some leaders wish it would happen. Other than that, this binary world view is not very useful to anyone who takes US foreign policy seriously, and would like to solve problems.
Assuming a Blog has ANY credibility on foreign affairs, I think the problem with Blogs is most people only go to the ones that re-enforce one’s own biases. That is when logic and rationality go out the window, and myopia sets in. Then the wrong conclusions are drawn, and fatal mistakes happen.
Does the ‘good vs. evil’ crowd ever think through their own rhetoric, much less all the BS that comes from our so called adversaries?
With all the present and past stupidity in DC, sometimes I wonder how the world survived the Cold War (the last and only real threat to the human race). There are too many ‘Bomb Away, Curtis Lemay’ lovers around here.
Iran is not a threat to the US, even with a deliverable nuclear weapon, which are several years out, if ever. If Israel and the Sunni Arabs have a problem with it, let’s see them do something about it. Iran has no real conventional military, but is the best at 4GW. The US should not be Israel’s bitch (or Taiwan), they can take care of themselves and our national interests do not always overlap theirs. Iraq is not our country or even a country, and not an ally, so fighting Iranian proxies in Iraq is not a prelude to direct military action into Iran.
A nuclear standoff in the Middle East will be quite interesting, since everyone claims that
Pet Peeve:
World War 3 or the ‘Clash of Civilizations’ is complete nonsense. Although it appears that some leaders wish it would happen. Other than that, this binary world view is not very useful to anyone who takes US foreign policy seriously, and would like to solve problems.
Assuming a Blog has ANY credibility on foreign affairs, I think the problem with Blogs is most people only go to the ones that re-enforce one’s own biases. That is when logic and rationality go out the window, and myopia sets in. Then the wrong conclusions are drawn, and fatal mistakes happen.
Does the ‘good vs. evil’ crowd ever think through their own rhetoric, much less all the BS that comes from our so called adversaries?
With all the present and past stupidity in DC, sometimes I wonder how the world survived the Cold War (the last and only real threat to the human race). There are too many ‘Bomb Away, Curtis Lemay’ lovers around here.
Iran is not a threat to the US, even with a deliverable nuclear weapon, which are several years out, if ever. If Israel and the Sunni Arabs have a problem with it, let’s see them do something about it. Iran has no real conventional military, but is the best at 4GW. The US should not be Israel’s bitch (or Taiwan), they can take care of themselves and our national interests do not always overlap theirs. Iraq is not our country or even a country, and not an ally, so fighting Iranian proxies in Iraq is not a prelude to direct military action into Iran.
A nuclear standoff in the Middle East will be quite interesting, since everyone claims that
Lets be serious here…right now the US is fighting its battles with velvet gloves on. I think i might actually feel sorry for the iranians if they piss us off to the point where we put on the brass knuckles.
As far as insurgents in iraq or anywhere else…simple solution….an executive order for all out engagement with extreme prejudice will do the trick…the only ones who will really suffer are the iranians…and whoever else gets in the way…Also, iranians sinking a carrier? First off, the carriers will be operating well out of range of range from those missles. If they somehow manage to sink a carrier…theres really no debating that we will nuke the hell outta iran. That will piss us off as much as pearl harbor…and history out to have taught our enemies as admiral hito said…”I fear all we have done is awakened a sleeping giant”
“With five years to prepare, Iran has successfully hidden and hardened many of its military and nuclear facilities, a large percentage of which are undamaged.”
Lets get serious here – That is the obvious Iranian Strategy, thus to borrow a phrase from Global Guerillas, their systempunkt for asymmetric warfare. Does anyone really think that US military planners, now definetly experienced in “expect the unexpected”,won’t be prepared for that? Humint, psychological warfare and plain ol’ underhandedness will be the name of the game. This will be like the Israeli raid on Syria – we won’t know what exactly happened until they write their memoirs.
i believe that russia and china and north korea are waiting for all this to happen,it may be 10 or 20 years away,but why such a big military build up if they have no threats.my opinion is they are not too worried about their economy.just military power.we should be very careful what lies between these 2 growing nations. question WHY such a big Military buildup.i cant understand why russia is selling military equipment to indonesia as well as 2 subs.Why does indonesia need subs for anyway?? being an ex military person of 9 years makes me very wary of this.
The US is an ass kicking nation..i do not care about what people say or think..in the end we will kick ass!
I believe that if the Iran thing kicks off, most Iraqs will align with us against Iranian influenece in Iraq. Iran will sneak a dirty bomb into Tel Aviv and Israel takes out everyone who looks at them crosswise. Don’t forget that China might feel Froggy and jump for Taiwan, combine that with India’s population boom and they make a move for Pakistan. Just a thought.
demophilus
I long for the days of MAD. Things were much simpler. You had the worst case scenario mutually confronted by rational actors. The concept of mutually assured destruction becomes very problematic when the first strike comes from a non-state actor though. The traditional notion of nuclear deterrence has fundamentally changed. When you are talking about a regime that has strong historical and ongoing connections to the extremely radicalized groups of non-state actors that we most fear obtaining nuclear weapons, deterrence falls apart. The American people would not be willing to strike a country with nuclear weapons due to strong suspicions that a nuclear attack from a non-state actor used a weapon from a certain regime. Nuclear deterrence requires certainty.
Lacking deterrence as a post nuclear Iran strategy, our only option is to be as certain possible that Iran does not obtain nuclear weapons capability. That can happen one of two ways. After years of diplomatic stalling and game playing Iran must submit to some stringent inspection and production demands. For submitting to this “humiliation” as Ahmadinejad terms it Iran can be received with open arms into the world community with the very significant benefits that entails for Iran and the Iranian people.
Carrot and stick diplomacy can work but when it is all carrot and no stick it does not have historically good results. We would very much prefer that stick to be an economic one but for that we need global cooperation. Right now that does not look terribly likely. Russia and China (and Germany) have significant economic incentives to avoid sanctions.
It is true that Russia does not want Iran to be armed with nuclear weapons. They could very likely be taking a fairly safe gamble that the US will strike to prevent Iran from going nuclear. the resulting confrontation would not be terribly likely to spill over into Russian territory and the subsequent spike in oil prices would benefit the Russian regime far more than it would hurt it. The Russians would get to prevent a nuclear Iran, continue profiting from Iranian arms and nuclear deals, and do it all without lifting a finger and at considerable expense to America.
As Sarkozy said at the UN, by doing nothing the world is making war far more likely. We need to see very real and very transparent sanctions soon to avert the worst possible but increasingly more likely scenario. There cannot be a repeat of the graft riven Oil for Food program. That means the UN probably will not be trusted to be the exclusive overseer of the program.
As you accurately if a bit fancifully demonstrated, conflict with Iran is a no win situation but it may end up being the best of a few horrible options.
here we go again. america omnipotent. no way they could sink a carrier. we’ve thought it all through.
just like on dec 6 1941 those pesky japs couldn’t sink a battleship. they wouldn’t dare, we’d kick their ass – america is an ass kicking nation. yeah right
just like sept 10.
good luck. this sort of hubritic ranting will get what what it deserves – beaten.
I believe that any attack on Iran & following retaliation by Iran will be in concert with North Korea launching nuclear weapons against Japan & attacking South Korea.China will help North Korea by launching missiles against our bases in South Korea,Japan,Okinawa,& Guam.China will also target our aircraft carriers in the Pacific.Then China will make a run for Taiwan.In Central Asia,Russia will move their forces through Kazakhstan,Uzbekistan,Tajikistan,& Kyrgyzstan,all members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization(which should give us pause concerning our airbase in Kyrgyzstan).
So,while North Korea & China are targeting our bases & aircraft carriers in the Pacific,Russia & Iran together can maneuver their combined forces through Afghanistan & into Iraq through Basra with the “wild card” nation(& the turd in the punchbowl of NATO),Turkey.Yes indeed,pay close attention to this,Turkey will pull out of NATO & ally herself with Russia & Iran & provide the third pillar in the combined army of Russia,Iran,& Turkey.iran has the element of surprise in that she can make anything that floats on water an anti-ship missile launcher & because they’ll mostly be civilian watercraft,it will make it difficult for us to know which boat or ship is or isn’t a threat to our naval forces in the Persian Gulf.They(Iran) might even use oil tankers as anti-ship missile launchers.China is converting old obsolete MiG-17 Frescoes & MiG-21 Fishbeds into UCAVs to use against our aircraft carriers,in addition to having Sovremenny Destroyers armed with Sunburn anti-ship missiles.Add on top of that the massive terrorist attacks against western nations & you have the real World War III.
Limited application of US hard power, applied with covert disruption efforts, may be enough to significantly delay the Iranian nuclear effort. The notion that the US must conduct a full-scale attack or invasion of the Iranian homeland is not grounded in the reality of the threat currently posed by Iranian resolve to develop an indigenous uranium enrichment capability and ultimately, a nuclear deterrent against Israel and a Sunni dominated ME.
How Iran responds to a limited attack is the true unknown. In any event, surely the price of oil will exceed $100-120 a barrel and will require the US to change its security posture in the Persian Gulf (or possibly lose ships), especially if attempts are made to block the Strait of Hormuz.
Sounds plausable and possible. This would make a great Tom Clancy novel. As well as a movie. Fact is we as a nation had better be prepared to deal with whatever comes our way. With extreme prejudice 4 sure ! And remember this,with a properly delivered pre-emptive first strike there will be no need to apologize !
Stay Frosty !
If we get involved in a war with Iran, we can be absolutely certain of two things:
1. A lot more of our troops will die.
2. The threat of terrorism against our nation will be greatly increased.
I tend to think simpler than some… perhaps because I come from a simpler time.
We undoubtably have GPS fixes on all of Iran’s various weapons factories. Picture a lone B-52 wandering around over Iraq where they had plenty of help. They announce an emergency. They have lost about half of their many engines so will have to jettison their weapons load. Completely innocent and totally believable, after all they are a sixty year old plane.
They happen to be carrying half dozen cruise missle that have been preprogrammed for the afore mentioned targets. The missles drop to about one hundre feet and then their own brains take over and they head for Iran. We call and warn the Iranians they better get out of the target areas because we have lost control of the missles.
suddenly all of their nuclear capability is set back a few hundred years. We apologize profuselly and offer reparations to the relatives of those who didn’t believe our warning and get out of town. So sorry Charley, here’s a million bucks.
@JMD:
Well put, but I’m not sure about some of your implications. I don’t want to be picayune, if only because I suspect you’re simplifying for the sake of brevity — rounding off your last figures, as it were. That happens, on teh Internets.
FWIW, let me toss a few stray thoughts out for your consideration. This isn’t backscatter; consider it a further attempt to define common ground.
I’m not too sure that “The American people would not be willing to strike a country with nuclear weapons due to strong suspicions that a nuclear attack from a non-state actor used a weapon from a certain regime.” If we got hit, and people saw American children of all races burned by nuclear fire, I don’t think people would care too much about matters of proof.
We attacked Iraq on the mere suspicion of WMD, much less their sponsorship of an actual nuclear attack. An actual WMD attack, with real evidence of Iranian sponsorship? Ooh.
IINM, we have OPLANs for that sort of thing, and once an event triggers an OPLAN response, all POTUS has to do is convince his minders that he’s not insane. He doesn’t have to put things up for a vote.
I’m also not too sure that nuclear deterrence “falls apart” if you include non-state actor scenarios. At this point, it’s still hard for a non-state actor to either build or procure a critical yield weapon (unfortunately, “fizzle” yields may be less challenging).
If we ignore that, a critical device would have to come from a state actor. Of course, it could be stolen; at that point, it would behoove the state involved to inform us ASAP, and they probably would, if they knew we would hold them responsible for any such “accident”.
As you suggest, the more troublesome scenario is that a state actor would deliberately provide a weapon to a non-state actor for a proxy strike. Let’s examine that.
You’re a politician, albeit a religious maniac, and you have a bomb. You want to hand it over to known homicidal psychopaths — I’m sorry, freedom fighters. How do you know you can trust them?
Sure, they swear up and down they’re going to ship it to New York, or Tel Aviv. How do you know it’s not headed towards Mecca, or Riyadh?
Sorry, but I tend to think that Iran’s mullahs want nukes more for deterrence, and a misplaced sense of national pride, than the option of handing them off to AQ. They’ve got thermonuclear, infidel Russia to the north, nuclear Sunni Pakistan to the east, nuclear (maybe thermo-) Jewish Israel to the west, and the infidel, thermonuclear US all over the Persian Gulf. They’re surrounded. Their conventional weaponry is second or third rate; although they fought the Iraqi war machine to a bloody stalemate, we took it down twice, at a fraction of the human cost. And we’ve got bases all around them.
Their economy sucks, their streets are awash with Afghan heroin; the whole world thinks they’re a joke. Their fearless leader came to New York and got bitch slapped by the President of Columbia — the university, not the country.
Do they want the bomb? Wouldn’t you, surrounded by enemies and approaching irrelevancy? Do they need the bomb? Maybe, but only like they need more problems.
I’m not saying they’re rational, but as I recall, things weren’t too rational during the MAD days, either. Have you ever watched DR. STRANGELOVE? Do you remember the 80s, with Pershing IIs and SS-20s about 15 minutes flight time apart? How about that MX basing plan, with the “Peacekeepers” on rail cars riding a subway system the size of Utah?
So, I’m sorry, but I don’t think a policy of nuclear deterrence against Iran, or North Korea, or anyone else, is any crazier than anything I’ve already lived through. I obviously appreciate your carrot and stick argument, seeing as I’m hefting the stick myself, but if you’re going to carry a big stick, it behooves you to walk softly. I really don’t mind saber rattling, and if any kind of attack on Iran is our best option, well, there it is. I just prefer that it be our LAST option — before, of course, a mass conversion to Shia Islam.
Otherwise, we’re in complete agreement. Thanks for listening.
The key to a successful Iranian defense lies not in random acts of violence around the world or even a quick retaliation to a US air and cruise missile strike. Rather, a successful defense must provide for a sustainability of hostilities in the Gulf region.
The Hezbollah rocket artillery strategy employed against northern Israel is the example to be followed. Hezbollah was able to create conditions of an economic siege by sustained rocket artillery attacks, particularly on Israel’s sea port of Haifa. Should the Iranians somehow be able to maintain a similar condition on the Gulf, this would represent the greatest danger to the West .
I suspect Iran already possesses a small stockpile of nuclear weapons, possibly obtained from Ukrainian sources. If this is indeed true, I don’t believe they would be used in a first strike capacity, and would probably not even be used in retaliation to a limited, conventional attack from a foreign power (depending, of course, on the scope of such an attack). Their primary purpose, like all nuclear stockpiles, is to provide a means of deterrence. This, in a region of the globe already stacked with such weapons of mass destruction, such as that fielded by Israel. However, an offensive strike against a nuclear power intensifies the risk of use, as evidenced by the Israeli mobilization of its nuclear forces during the darkest days of the Yom Kippur War.
If Iran does get WMD, look how close our Army is to them. If they wanted to take out half of our Army they could. It would take to long for us to recover those ground assets. Our Airforce and Navy would finish Iran off, but we would probably cease to be the power that we are today. Other adversaries would make there moves, such as China on Taiwan, North Korea on South Korea, and other places that we are keeping a eye on. It would be hard to put out all these fires at once with the forces we have today, but threat to use weapons of mass destruction. Then there goes W.W.III the very thing we have always been trying to prevent. Remember: Fools rush in. We must use more diplomacy and get the World to participate. This would conserve precious resource such as: men, and material.
Iran is a young nation, we must defend Iran from the arrogance of the old. The Youth will prevail.
-peace even with war
The initial scenario started out in a fairly reasonable way, but rapidly got more and more fanciful (or speculative).
As one respondant said “it’s just one possible scenario”
Another option that Iran an use at any time is the use of the 65cm diam. torpedo launched from the Kilo class subs they bought from the Russians many years ago. I don’t think those subs are sea-worthy any more, but that weapon has the range and punch to sink any tanker (or war ship) in the Straights of Hormuz without the sub leaving the dock. And this sort of attact (if done at night) would be largely “untraceable” and would bottle up the Straights to all shipping – thereby crippling the world oil supply.
Hi guys guys! Thanks for the invitation so much. I will try to come back as soon as possible. ;).
I am from Norway and learning to speak English, give true I wrote the following sentence: “It does so since excessive sweating will make other people think that you have poor hygiene.”
With respect :-(, Briony.