Islamic Republic of Iran

News and discussion threads on defence in other parts of the world.
abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Islamic Republic of Iran

Post by abc123 »

Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Islamic Republic of Iran

Post by abc123 »

OK, this is fake news, but hillarious never the less:

Policymakers in Brussels and across Europe has been trying to catch their breath and wipe away tears after a straight-faced Jeremy Hunt seriously urged European countries to create a dedicated naval force to counter Iran’s aggression in the Straits of Hormuz.
The proposal was seen by all as one of the finest political jokes in a decade, as explained by the French Defence envoy to the EU, Admiral Simon De Guillaumes.
“It’s just so good. You guys have spent the past three years saying the most important thing for your nation is to be no longer strategically aligned with us. Add to that, your newspapers and pundits go into meltdown at the merest discussion of a European Rapid Reaction brigade as if it’s a proposal to conscript all British males into a 4th Reich Wehrmacht. And now you want to assemble a European fleet because you can’t deter six gunmen on a helicopter? Priceless.
“The days of the Empire are long gone and you guys couldn’t organise a threesome in a brothel but when it comes to comedy, you’re still the champions. One ship jacked in the Gulf of Aden and you drop all that buccaneer nonsense and beg for help from nations that had the foresight to put airplanes on their carriers. I think I peed a bit when that came out.
“I’m willing to bet that a week after the pound goes below the dollar, Boris Johnson proposes some sort of economic and political union of like-minded democracies with a shared history and geography.”
Admiral De Guillaumes was asked how the UK’s proposal would be received once the laughter stopped.
“Go fuck yourselves. Ask Trump.”

https://newsthump.com/2019/07/23/eu-pis ... with-iran/
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Islamic Republic of Iran

Post by Lord Jim »

The fact that Europe including the UK are hostile to actually being seen to align themselves with the US by working closely together is really going to hamper any effective response. Their needs to be a UN resolution demand freedom of navigation through the Straits, and asking member to do everything possible to ensure this happens. Problem is I can see either China or Russia vetoing such action just to cause problems for Europe and he US>

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Islamic Republic of Iran

Post by abc123 »

Now, with 10 days past after the incident with Stena Impero, I wonder why the UK didn't react stronger? I mean, would it be so hard to send at least 6 Typhoons, one Voyager, one Sentry and a few Wildcats to say Al Udeid base in Qatar or in Oman? Yes, I know that the HMG is trying to bend backwards not to upset Iran and protect the nuclear agreement, but I wonder how much Iran values that agreement and UKs stance if the HMG is ready to let them do whaever they want without at least assembling some force in vicinity? Why have 140 Typhoons if you don't want to use them at least for deterrence?
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Islamic Republic of Iran

Post by Lord Jim »

Iran is more than capable of effectively turning the Straits into a no go zone for merchant shipping if pushed. Its economy is already wrecked by the US imposed sanction so the closing of the straits will not effect hem half as badly as other countries. It has literally hundreds of shore based AShMs, and after her Nuclear facilities the Straits are the most highly protected region in Iran. The effects on most world economies would be almost immediate and the military effort and time required to force open then Straits would be on a level not seen since the last Gulf War if not more like the first, but with far fewer countries will to contribute to the effort.

Sending a few Typhoons etc to the Gulf would in no way intimidate the Iranians, in fact it is more like to result in their hardening their stance. Both China and Russia are in Iran's corner, so do not expect any action to be sanctioned by the UN and the EU and the US are in disagreement on how to deal with Iran. We cannot bring sufficient resources to bear to have any noticeable effect on Iran and sinking a dozen or so IRG speed boats when they have hundred will achieve only negative results. But we will also not align ourselves with the US for political reasons and the EU will never be able to agree a joint strategy that require a unanimous vote in Brussels for any thig to happen.

If countries will no t paly by the rules as the EU and US see them we are not well positioned to take any action to force them to do so, especially with the current generation of Politicians we are saddled with.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Islamic Republic of Iran

Post by abc123 »

Lord Jim wrote:Iran is more than capable of effectively turning the Straits into a no go zone for merchant shipping if pushed. Its economy is already wrecked by the US imposed sanction so the closing of the straits will not effect hem half as badly as other countries. It has literally hundreds of shore based AShMs, and after her Nuclear facilities the Straits are the most highly protected region in Iran. The effects on most world economies would be almost immediate and the military effort and time required to force open then Straits would be on a level not seen since the last Gulf War if not more like the first, but with far fewer countries will to contribute to the effort.

Sending a few Typhoons etc to the Gulf would in no way intimidate the Iranians, in fact it is more like to result in their hardening their stance. Both China and Russia are in Iran's corner, so do not expect any action to be sanctioned by the UN and the EU and the US are in disagreement on how to deal with Iran. We cannot bring sufficient resources to bear to have any noticeable effect on Iran and sinking a dozen or so IRG speed boats when they have hundred will achieve only negative results. But we will also not align ourselves with the US for political reasons and the EU will never be able to agree a joint strategy that require a unanimous vote in Brussels for any thig to happen.

If countries will no t paly by the rules as the EU and US see them we are not well positioned to take any action to force them to do so, especially with the current generation of Politicians we are saddled with.

So, your'e saying that Iran has carte blanche by the HMG to do whatever it wants and take another British ship whenewer it wants?
In that case, why send HMS Montrose and HMS Dragon there, if they will not be there to try to deter Iran, and if necesarry, take action against their forces that are trying to attack British shipping?
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

Re: Islamic Republic of Iran

Post by serge750 »

I suspect HMG does not want to escalate the situation, maybe buy sending a ship or 2 to act as convoy escorts it would be seen as a defensive measure and hopefully lead to Talks about the situation, I agree it would be easy to send in typhoons etc, that might be the next step if things got worse....

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Islamic Republic of Iran

Post by abc123 »

serge750 wrote:I suspect HMG does not want to escalate the situation, maybe buy sending a ship or 2 to act as convoy escorts it would be seen as a defensive measure and hopefully lead to Talks about the situation, I agree it would be easy to send in typhoons etc, that might be the next step if things got worse....

The thing is- Iran sees that as a sign of UK weakness ( and rightfully so ). For peace you need two, for war one is enough. Also, yes, Iran has 100 small boats, but when you sink 10 of them it isn't the same thing as when you sink not even one. Also, yes, UK and the West depend a lot on Gulf's oil, but Iran depends on it 100%. Closing the Hormuz would bite them first and strongest.

Another thing- remember Praying Mantis? After even a semi-decisive US action, Iran withdraw and ceased with attacks.

By non-responding HMG insures that the things WILL get worse. Not the opposite. Because if Iran sees that they can get away unpunished with this, why not do more?
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

S M H
Member
Posts: 433
Joined: 03 May 2015, 12:59
United Kingdom

Re: Islamic Republic of Iran

Post by S M H »

abc123 wrote:By non-responding HMG insures that the things WILL get worse. Not the opposite. Because if Iran sees that they can get away unpunished with this, why not do more?
The major problem is even if they lose a few vessels in harassment operations. The clerical leadership would class it reasonable risk . This would only deter them for a short time. If it comes to a attack on a warship. H.M.G. response would have to be well targeted multiple synchronised attacks on the R.G. vessels operating bases. But do we have the ability without gapping all other commitments.

topman
Member
Posts: 771
Joined: 07 May 2015, 20:56
Tokelau

Re: Islamic Republic of Iran

Post by topman »

abc123 wrote:
serge750 wrote:I suspect HMG does not want to escalate the situation, maybe buy sending a ship or 2 to act as convoy escorts it would be seen as a defensive measure and hopefully lead to Talks about the situation, I agree it would be easy to send in typhoons etc, that might be the next step if things got worse....

The thing is- Iran sees that as a sign of UK weakness ( and rightfully so ). For peace you need two, for war one is enough. Also, yes, Iran has 100 small boats, but when you sink 10 of them it isn't the same thing as when you sink not even one. Also, yes, UK and the West depend a lot on Gulf's oil, but Iran depends on it 100%. Closing the Hormuz would bite them first and strongest.

Another thing- remember Praying Mantis? After even a semi-decisive US action, Iran withdraw and ceased with attacks.

By non-responding HMG insures that the things WILL get worse. Not the opposite. Because if Iran sees that they can get away unpunished with this, why not do more?
because all this is merely a means to an end. They want someone to put pressure on the US to ease up and go back to the agreement as signed. Therefore they squeeze the UK to put the squeeze on the US.

The UK sending typhoons and/or blowing up patrol boats do nothing to further the situation. Praying mantis totally different set of circumstances.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Islamic Republic of Iran

Post by Lord Jim »

I am not saying that HMG has given Iran Carte Blanche, at least not by choice. At present we a very vulnerable to the methods Iran is using and any effective counter would require a serious escalation of he situation, something the UK must avoid. By choice we have decided not to team up with the USN in the area for political reasons and there is little chance the EY will get its act together anytime soon as they always prefer talking. The effects of the US sanctions are already hurting Iran severely and the closure of the Straits would not add that much of an additional burden on them compared to he rest of the world and it would take a major conflict to re open them. Iran has had decades to build up its assets on its side of the straits with high end Russian and Chinese AShMs and SAMs IF we decided to take aggressive action against a IRG swarm that was threatening another UK flagged carrier, Any RN warship in the straits would be very vulnerable to a large strike by shore based AShMs, enough to overwhelm the defences of a T-45, a T-23 more so. Typhoons would be vulnerable to the long range S-300 and S-400 SAMs systems operated by the Iranians and these are protected y an array of very effective SHORAD systems. The RAF has never gone up against such a GBAD system with out serious US help and the Iranians could engage the Typhoons away before they reached the straits.

Unless we are part of a major coalition of nations including he US, EU and far eastern Navies we do not want to poke the hornet nest, especially as Iran does not follow the same game plan and rules we do. They see us as a low risk "Proxy" to he US whom they can take action against with little risk of retaliation, that is just the way things are. They only respect power, especially the IRG. Are we will to send every available warships and submarines we have together with all available Typhoons and F-35s to the Gulf. Are we willing to dispatch the whole of 3 Command Brigade and 16 Air Assault together with the naval vessels and air lift to support them and give hem the ability to take action. Even with us stripping everything leaving he cupboard bear we would have insufficient forces to decisively engage the Iranians and would take un acceptable loses. Iran will call our bluff if we try to do things without sufficient forces in theatre. Having a couple of warships doing what HMS Montrose is doing now is all we really should do. It may deter the IRG from taking further action, and releasing the Iranian Tanker in Gib would certainly help, but we must tread carefully whist we are acting alone.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Islamic Republic of Iran

Post by abc123 »

But what's the point of having a T23 and T45 there if they can't use force to protect British shipping? Even more if the HMG don't introduces convoys, I mean, even two ships can be there only at two places at once.
And Iran knows that well. So, who are we trying to impress by giving the Iranians two hostages more (T23+T45)? Not the Iranians, for sure.
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

topman
Member
Posts: 771
Joined: 07 May 2015, 20:56
Tokelau

Re: Islamic Republic of Iran

Post by topman »

How do you know that the companies are interested or willing to engage in convoys?

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Islamic Republic of Iran

Post by Caribbean »

Lord Jim wrote:Typhoons would be vulnerable to the long range S-300 and S-400 SAMs systems
Isn't that what Storm Shadow and T-LAM are for? F35 as well. We have no interest in invading Iran, but we could certainly leave them regretting that they started a fight.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Islamic Republic of Iran

Post by abc123 »

topman wrote:How do you know that the companies are interested or willing to engage in convoys?
I'm pretty sure they aren't interested to have their ships in hands of the IRGC, like Stena Impero.
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

andrew98
Member
Posts: 197
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:28
United Kingdom

Re: Islamic Republic of Iran

Post by andrew98 »

They'll just claim on insurance, then say UK Gov failed to protect them and its not their fault...

topman
Member
Posts: 771
Joined: 07 May 2015, 20:56
Tokelau

Re: Islamic Republic of Iran

Post by topman »

abc123 wrote:
topman wrote:How do you know that the companies are interested or willing to engage in convoys?
I'm pretty sure they aren't interested to have their ships in hands of the IRGC, like Stena Impero.
Of course not no, but convoys are unappealing for companies far too commercially a faff tied to other people's timetables. Iran has made their point.

No doubt they'll do it again, just not right now.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Islamic Republic of Iran

Post by abc123 »

andrew98 wrote:They'll just claim on insurance, then say UK Gov failed to protect them and its not their fault...
Well, they wouldn't be lying ..
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Islamic Republic of Iran

Post by Caribbean »

andrew98 wrote:They'll just claim on insurance, then say UK Gov failed to protect them and its not their fault...
An insurance policy that covers force majeure? interesting concept!
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Islamic Republic of Iran

Post by Lord Jim »

Caribbean wrote:Isn't that what Storm Shadow and T-LAM are for? F35 as well. We have no interest in invading Iran, but we could certainly leave them regretting that they started a fight.
But that is the point, it will be us who actually starts the fight. Iran will be happy simply causing chaos in the Straits and causing oil and shipping cost to sky rocket for other countries. If we want to stop the IRG from doing what it wants, we will have to take action, but are we willing to take such unilateral action? Within hours of a UK Warship opening fire and sinking a number of IRG boats, a UK flagged taker could be hit by a Torpedo fired from a Iranian submarine lying in wait in the Straits. But how would be positively confirm it was an Iranian vessels that did so? Are we willing to go to war over one tanker? The Iranians are far batter at this high stakes game than the UK Government lets face it.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Islamic Republic of Iran

Post by abc123 »

Lord Jim wrote: Are we willing to go to war over one tanker? The Iranians are far batter at this high stakes game than the UK Government lets face it.
I think that the technical term is: "lack of intestinal fortitude".

But yes, after decades of basing UK defence policy on "US will allways be there for US, even if we are not 100% reliable vassal, so we don't need to invest in our defence", I would be reluctant to start shooting without US backing too...
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Islamic Republic of Iran

Post by Caribbean »

Lord Jim wrote:it will be us who actually starts the fight
In order for us to take on their coastal missile batteries, they would have to have already started using them - so no, we wouldn't have started the fight.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Little J
Member
Posts: 973
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
United Kingdom

Re: Islamic Republic of Iran

Post by Little J »

The captain of a tanker seized for carrying Iranian oil has said Royal Marines used excessive force in detaining his ship.
Earlier this month, UK forces helped authorities in Gibraltar who believed the tanker was carrying oil to a Syrian refinery in breach of EU sanctions.
The captain said marines made his unarmed crew kneel on the deck at gunpoint.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49162256

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Islamic Republic of Iran

Post by Lord Jim »

Caribbean wrote:In order for us to take on their coastal missile batteries, they would have to have already started using them - so no, we wouldn't have started the fight.
No they wouldn't. Just like we have taken out hostile GBAD in the past as a prelude to conducting other combat missions, we would have to take out, or at least try to, both the AShM and SAM batteries covering the Straits in order to secure them., But as I mentioned the Iranians also have quite a few small diesel submarines capable of operating effectively in the Straits and engaging other vessels rom within Iranian territorial waters. Are we going to forcibly try to conduct serious ASW operations in that area?

As I have said, the Iranians are better at these "Games" than we or many other countries are. They will aim to push us into firing first, be it at IRG FACs or shore batteries, then claim they are the injured party are that will allow both Russian and China to throw their Political support behind them, blocking any UN action and putting out Politicians into an awkward place where they are ill prepared to be. The only option they would really have would be to throw in our lot with the US and change are policy toward Iran and the Nuclear deal which will be a hard political pill to swallow. The result we could end up in another war we do not want and for which we are not well equipped for, especially lacking the mass for a persistent campaign. It will not be GW1 or 2 as Iran has been preparing for such a conflict for decades and the damage to the global economy will have repercussions for decades. Does anyone think our Politicians are up to the job?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Islamic Republic of Iran

Post by Lord Jim »

The question was asked as to whether it was justifies taking naval action over a UK flagged tanker. Well reading the letter section in a national news paper it was stated that the revenue generated to the UK Treasury from a UK flagged vessels that was not actually owned by a UK company nor crewed by UK personnel, was around £1200 in total. Is it worth going to extreme lengths to protect such vessels who have only paid such an amount, with all the implications it would bring? Should we only provide protection for UK owned vessels in future?

Post Reply