Iranian Commander Threatens To Close Strait Of Hormuz To US
Source: ASSOCIATED PRESS
TEHRAN, Iran — The deputy commander of Iran’s powerful Revolutionary Guard said Iranian forces will close the strategic Strait of Hormuz to the United States and its allies if they “threaten” the Islamic Republic, Iranian state media reported on Wednesday.
The comments by Gen. Hossein Salami, carried on state television, follow a long history of both rhetoric and confrontation between Iran and the US over the narrow strait, through which nearly a third of all oil traded by sea passes.
The remarks by the acting commander of the Guard also follow those of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who on Monday criticized US activities in the Persian Gulf. It’s unclear whether that signals any new Iranian concern over the strait or possible confrontation with the US following its nuclear deal with world powers.
The US Navy’s 5th Fleet, based in Bahrain, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Read more: http://www.timesofisrael.com/iranian-commander-threatens-to-close-strait-of-hormuz-to-us/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
iandhr
(6,852 posts)Last edited Wed May 4, 2016, 07:40 PM - Edit history (1)
... that it is not a good idea to f**k with the US Navy.
Eugene
(61,846 posts)The Guard, like the intelligence services and the courts, answer to the Supreme Leader.
I missed that thanks
6chars
(3,967 posts)It is like out of a bad international action movie parody.
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,336 posts)Supreme Leaders, all.
potone
(1,701 posts)
PersonNumber503602
(1,134 posts)
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)Whether or not it is a good plan, who knows.
iandhr
(6,852 posts)philosslayer
(3,076 posts)How about more talk and a few less threats.
iandhr
(6,852 posts)I think most of the Iranian military is aware that messing with the 5th fleet would end badly for them
That's why they just talk. Kind of like this.
philosslayer
(3,076 posts)He knows how to deal with Iran
Mika
(17,751 posts)
McKim
(2,412 posts)So we are in the Straits of Hormuz and right in their faces. Why can't we just stay out of other people's countries? Why can't we just leave them alone and stop doing special forces ops inside Iran and stirring up trouble. And there will be more to come if Hillary is "selected". She is itching for a fight with Iran and calls them our "enemy".
polly7
(20,582 posts)6chars
(3,967 posts)
EX500rider
(10,834 posts)....if you mean Iraq or Kuwait or Bahrain or Saudi we are there with the permission of their governments, who mostly fear Iran.
C. What "special forces ops" are you talking about in Iran? (hint, it's none)
D. As for who calls who their enemy, have you ever heard of the chant "Death to the Great Satan"? clue: it's Iranian.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)injecting some facts and sanity into this thread.
still_one
(92,115 posts)if they tried to block the straits. As you pointed out, Iran has quite a number of adversaries in that region
braddy
(3,585 posts)still_one
(92,115 posts)about "leaving them alone".
The Straits of Hormuz is where a lot of oil is shipped through, from Saudi Arabia and elsewhere.
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)If Iran was capable of developing nuclear weapons, it could act as a deterrent to that goal. As long as exercising control over energy resources in the Middle East is central to maintaining global hegemony, the US will not be leaving Iran alone.
7962
(11,841 posts)Give 'em a deal, and they keep stirring the shit anyway.
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)7962
(11,841 posts)Or would the Revolutionary Guard use their "swarm" technique of small boats? Several Phalanx systems would likely make short work of that. Otherwise, if you started attacking shipping from land, then that whole area would then be targeted for destruction in a big way.
Either way, they've threatened this for decades while continuing to be smart enough to know they'd pay a huge price for trying
jpak
(41,757 posts)Last edited Thu May 5, 2016, 09:32 AM - Edit history (2)
Kilo-class and Iranian mini submarines with wake-homing torpedoes...and yes, they have been planning this for years.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)The M 107, 175 mm self propelled artillery has a range over 30 km without the use of rocket assisted shells. Iran still have them. 8 inch artillerty has a shorter range 25 km, but that still takes in almost half the distance of the straits (which is only 59km in width). Sinking one or two ships in straits can force any remaining ships within range.
On top of the ex-US pieces, Iran has access to some Russian Artillery with slightly longer range. With modern electronics easy to fire a few rounds and hit a target and then move. Such fire and movement has been artillery doctrine since the 1970s when anti artillery radar became common. Once on the move, hard to find.
The sea lanes are closer to Arabia then Iran, but you have three large Iranian islands near those sea lanes. The sea lanes are within rocket assist 175mm and 8inch Artillery range from mainland Iran. Thus artillery may be sufficient.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)and everyone is fucked due to the physical blockage.
EX500rider
(10,834 posts)happyslug
(14,779 posts)Once an artillery piece opens gires, its location will be known, 30 seconds at most. The problem is hitting it before it moves. Self propelled artillery can move within two minutes. Once the piece has gone, the issue is where? This is hilly terrain and along the coast has trees to hide under. Takes 10 to 15 minutes to get a jet fighter to hit the target if they are in the area, thus a well trained artillery unit could avoid most attacks from the air by simply moving down the road from where it fired from. This was a problem in Vietnam where the US had air superiority, a problem for the soviets in Afghanistan, and the pronlem for the US in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now in those fight the main weapon were mortars, but Iran has large self propelled guns and unless you have boots on the ground Iran can move them as they see fit.
Furthermore, there are no Air Force bases near by, the nearest is in Iraq. Saudi Arabia may permit the US to use its Air bases, but the straits are opposite Oman and the Arab Emirates not Saudi Arabia. This extends the 10 to 20 minutes reaction time to 30 minutes to one hour.
Now US Carriers could send in planes quicker, but will the Navy risk a Carrier to close to Iran? The US will not keep a Carrier in the Persian Gulf, to dangerous if Iran wanted to take it out. The Navy will want it in the Arabian Sea, where the Carrier can be protected by its escourts and other defenses. Thus the Navy will be able to react faster then the Air Force to such artillery, but not in the 20 minute time our troops came to rely on in Iran and Afghanistan.
A well train artillery crew could last a long time if they fire three to five rounds and then move. Fire mission over in two minutes and already heading for their next hiding or firing spot by the any US aircraft is in the area.
Iran will avoid challenging US air power, they will work around it. The straits of Homuz is the other end of the Persian Gulf then Iraq and Kuwait.
Qatar is close by and that is where the US Military in the Gulf is headquartered. Qatar would provide the nearest Air Base, but its population is considered pri-Iran, while its unelected leaders are pro-Saudi Arabia. Thus when planes leave Qatar, Iran will know about even if the US destroy Iranian Radar systems by people in Qatar calling in when such planes leave.
Sorry, if the Iranian artillery stays around after it has fired a few rounds, it would be easily destroyed, but if trained to fire and move, they have a good chance of surviving and doing a lot of damage.
EX500rider
(10,834 posts)They send in the Wild Weasels to suppress air defenses and then many armed UAV's would loiter over the area and blast anything that fired a round. They have plenty of loiter time. An MQ-9 Reaper with two 1,000 pound external fuel tanks and a thousand pounds of munitions has an endurance of 42 hours.
hack89
(39,171 posts)the sky will be black with Tomahawk cruise missiles.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Furthermore, destruction of those facilities would lead to counter actions by Iran, including attacks on the oil fields on Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. The MAIN Oil Fields of ALL four nations ae in the upper Persian Gulf. Thus all are within range of each other's forces, thus easy targets to each other. They were not attacked in the last 40 years because that is what each were fighting for, you do NOT destroy want you want to gain, thus no attack on them The US has the same problem, the US imports oil, so does Europe, Japan, Korea and China. None of them can afford that those fields be destroyed, thus every last one of them will do all they can to make sure those fields are secure and safe. Russia is the only country that would benefit of such an attack, thus will not occur.
Sorry, to many countries WANT THE OIL FROM THOSE FIELDS, for the US to destroy them. If those fields are destroyed Europe, Japan and Korea have to turn to RUSSIA for oil, and that is something the US opposes. It is nice to believe that the US would destroy those fields, but the US will NOT do anything to make Europe, Japan and Korea Russian Satellites (China and Russia are becoming close allies, you you are looking at Europe, Japan and Korea becoming Satellites of Russia and China)
THe main Strength the US had in the 1940s, 1950s and into the 1960s was the US was the largest producer of oil and a major Oil exporter. That is why the US defeated Japan and Germany, and made NATO a US centered Alliance. Russia had always been the #2 oil producer so the US could NOT buy Russia, and after China became Red China (and became self sufficient in oil till the 1990s) were the main areas outside US influence. The UK controlled the oil of Iraq and Iran from the 1920s onward, but as the U-boat menace threatened to cut them off, the UK turned to the US and became a US satellite During WWII, the oil fields of Iran, Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia came under US control (basically the British turned over they rights to the US, and the US gain the right to Saudi Arabian Oil as the UK gave up all attempts to control that oil) . THe US also gain control over Dutch East Indies (Indonesia) during WWII The US left each country have their own rulers but tried its best to make sure such rulers were pro-US. Thus when the US ceased to be an net oil exporter in 1969, the US still controlled all oil outside of Russia and China. The US even controlled Mexican Oil, for the Mexican Government had nationalized such oil in the late 1930s, the US still controlled the export of such oil and even most of the refining of such oil to this day. This is also true of Venezuelan oil (and one of the reason for US-Venezuela tensions as the present Government dislikes that control, but can NOT do much about it, but what that Government has done had made the US Hostile to Venezuela).
In 1945 the biggest fear of the Mid-East was you had three Russian DIVISIONS vs three British Brigades in the Mid East. That was the balance of power, if Russia wanted the Mid-East, Russia could take it (a Division is made up of three Brigades AND addition support troops, about 1/2 of the personal in a Division are those support troops, thus you had Three, 15,000 men Divisions, against three 2500 men Brigades). The US and the UK realized they had to build up local forces for neither had the troops to sent to the mid east and off set the Soviet advantages. Thus the Independence of those Nations, which in turn lead them take over the oil within those nations, but the export of such oil was controlled by the US or its allies. Libya was an exception, its oil was only discovered post WWII, but quickly came under US control, Libya was the first country to nationalized its oil, but still had to go through US Corporations when it came to exportation of that oil
I bring this up for any fight in the Persian Gulf will involve OIL Oil MAY not be the cause of any actual conflict, but it will quickly become what everyone is fighting over. Destruction of those fields is against EVERYONE'S interest including the US, thus will NEVER happen. Attacking the oil fields will be talked about, but will never happen It is like the stories about the winter fightin on the Eastern Front during WWII. You hear veterans talking about a house that is between the Russian and German Lines. There is constant fighting over that house, but not a bullet hits the house. Why? both sides sees the house as a warm, place to stay the night so they both want it PRESERVED, thus they fight around it and for it, but both sides refused to destroy it for both sides wanted it. The same with the Oil Fields, everyone wants those fields, so hey will be untouched. The only country that would benefit from an attack on such Middle east oil fields is Russia, for it is the Second exporter of oil today.
Just a comment that an attack on those oil fields, helps no one but Russia, and the US will NOT do anything that strengthen Russia.
tabasco
(22,974 posts)Seeing some howitzers land a few rounds in the water before naval gunfire obliterated their real estate.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Fire and movement means you fire two to three rounds and then hit the road Radar would detect where those rounds were from, but by the time any naval gun fire would land the Artillery piece would be long down what ever road is nearby.
That is the key to fire and movement, fire and then move within two minutes or less By the time he Naval guns have been aimed and loaded, the artillery piece would be long gone. That has been artillery doctrine since the 1970s.
Properly planned, the firing locations will be pre built so any data can be quickly set up, The artillery would be for all practical purposes out of site, until its actually fires its rounds. Th M107 can carry two rounds, and that is all it needs to fire and then move to another location he next location would have its own cover, so again hard to find.
In Vietnam the Viet Cong did this with Mortars, until the US Air Force secured the area around its air bases outside ot mortar range Then the Viet Cong went fo long range rockets. This same tactics were used against the Soviets in Afghanistan and then again against the US in Afghanistan and Iraq Now these were more harassing fire then effective fire. In Iran, with the area under Iranian control, suhc fire and movement would be effective against shipping The Artillery would best stay quite till any US Naval and Air Force units are to far away and just attack civilian shipping.
The worse part is the FEAR of being attack would raise the insurance rates for such shipping and KILL all oil shipments. That is what happened in 1979, it was the FEAR of attacks not actual attacks that caused the end of such shipments and the huge price increases of 1979 Thus a few rounds may be all that is needed to cause a world wide crisis. Movements of those same artillery pieces would keep the rates so high that the US would either have to land troops in Iran or give in to the Iranian demands.
As to Iran, they know such a closing of the Straits will hurt them more then any one else in the Gulf, thus they will only close those straits if they think they backs are against a wall, thus they PLAN for such closing, but the costs are high to Iran in addition to the US Iran has the planes, ships and land forces to drive away civilian shipping, In a one on one with the US, Iran knows they will lose, but they can close that strait to civilian shipping and that is enough to drive up world wide oil prices. Thus the Iran plan is NOT to deny those straits to the US Navy, but Civilian tankers. That is the Iranian plan, and from Iran's point of view one it can win for it will hurt the US, Europe, Japan and China (notice it will NOT hurt Russia, in fact would HELP RUSSIA, who Iran sees as its most important friend in the world right now).
THE US hitting 90% of the Iranian weapons is NOT enough to defeat that strategy, The US has to hit 99% to 100% of such weapons and modern fire and movement would drop the effectiveness of any US Air Attacks below 50% It is nice to assume US military superiority should win every fight, but every so often US Strengths are the wrong type of strength and in any situation where Iran wants to close those straits the US Strengths are the wrong type Yes, the US can bomb the area over and over again, but US does not have the planes or the bombs to bomb that whole area 24 hours a day, seven days a week, which is the level of Air Cover the US would have to provide in such an area.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)and has mountains. And while all this is going on nobody has any oil.
tabasco
(22,974 posts)Rounds from our ships would be on the way before the howitzer rounds hit the water. You also seem to have missed a new development called "drones," which makes it rather difficult for an artillery battery to run away and hide.
Back to your books to look up some more info.
EX500rider
(10,834 posts)braddy
(3,585 posts)sounding like someone from that era.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Yes, counter battery radar can detect rounds the air. The computers tied in with those radars can determine where the rounds were fired from. The delay is by that time the artillery piece is already traveling to its next firing location. The counter battery rounds has to be loaded and aimed, that takes a few minutes. Most modern naval guns are fixed ammunition, quicker to load then semi fixed rounds and separate shell and firing charge rounds, but harder to adjust fire in the indirect fire mode. Worse, if a hill is between the target and the Navy gun, the artillery piece might be impossible to hit.
This is a problem with all high velocity guns, which the Navy tends to favor. Modern Naval Guns are not as bad when it comes to indirect fire as the WWII Naval Guns, but it remains a problem. Indirect fire capacity is why the Army and Marines favor mortars and howitzers. Both have shorter range and take longer to load then high velocity guns, but easier to fire in the indirect fire mode over and behind hills and mountains.
We are not talking about the Anti missile guns on modern ships, those are direct fire but against an identified target. With artillery what is detected by radar is NOT the target, the target is where that round came from. That takes a few more calculations AND loading, aiming and firing. That delay is all the Iranian artillery needs to get away from its firing location to someplace else.
As to drones, they have to be around when the artillery piece is fired. If not around no one cares. If around and can not be destroyed, then wait till they leave. Drones are not that quite or undetectable, drones work best when one side has no air coverage at all, and that is NOT the case with Iran.
Remember Iran only had to be successful one out of ten times to force the oil tankers out of the Gulf. The US efforts has to be nearly 100% perfect to prevent such a stoppage of movement of the oil tankers into the Persian Gulf. That the fight and while the US military is good, it is NOT that good. Iran's military is not a match to the US Military, but it is good enough to block the straits if Iran wanted to.
EX500rider
(10,834 posts).....moving or still, easy targets.
And it wouldn't just be the US getting into the action, many other countries need the straights open.....Persian Gulf oil is shipped east to Asia, primarily to Japan, China, and India, and west to Western Europe and the United States.
A NATO response for sure, with many other countries wanting to get involved, including all the Gulf States, Saudi and maybe even China as they get a large percentage of their oil from there.
NickB79
(19,233 posts)Drones work fine in places like Afghanistan because they have nothing left to shoot down small aircraft better than Soviet-made RPG's (and that's a crapshoot 95% of the time since they're not designed for AA work).
How well would a Predator drone fair against a country with a lot of Soviet-era, dedicated anti-aircraft weaponry in it's inventory?
EX500rider
(10,834 posts)Put 20 or 30 drones overhead and firing off anything would be a hazard to you health.
Plus the service ceiling on a Reaper is 50,000 ft....out of range of most AAA and MANPADS.....even at 25,000 ft they'd be above most of it.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Putin would love it, the US committed to controlling the air space over Iran and he free to continue to supply planes to Iran and oil to Europe. Wars are not fought in isolation but involves the rest of the world and in most cases neutrals win by supplying both sides.
Worse, China will send out ships to Tawian, North Korea makes movescas if to invade South Korea, and Russia will be sending planes all over the Baltic, North Seavand North Atlantic just to see how weak are the defenses. In such a situations Wild Weasels may have higher priority duties then flying over Iran. Cuba may even move troops next to Guantanamo, to further tie up US forces.
Russia and China did not do those things in 1990 during desert storm for the Soviet Union had dissolved in 1989 and Russia had its own problems. China, without Russia was to weak on its own. The same with the breakup of Yugoslavia in the mid 1990s. While Putin was in charge of Russia by the time of the invasion of Iraq in 2002, Russia still was in no condition to do anything when the US invaded Iraq.
Since then the world situation has changed. The US became less dependent on Middle Eastern Oil do to fracking, but Russia has improved its military enough to project power, something Russia had not been able to do since the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1989. Russia is not the threat the Soviet Union had been in 1985, but is strong enough to do damage if it wanted to.
China is the biggest change since 2002. Economically it maybe stronger then the US today, something the Soviet Union never came close to. Its naval power is no match to the US Navy, but it can project power from Indonesia to Japan, something it could not do in 2002. India has close ties with Russia and may want to help Russia in any US - Russian show down. India has even approached China snd has minimised the conflict over their border over the last ten years or so (as Pakistan abandoned China for support from Saudi Arabia and the US do to the US war in Afghanistan).
Of the BRICS, only Brazil would stay completely neutral in a US - Iran confrontation. This is due to recent domestic situation in Brazil as while as its distance from Iran.
It is NOT 2002. Today is much more like a normal world, as opposed to the almost complete US domination of this planet in the 1990s. You have more balance to off set US power. Remember no one has to go to war to help Iran, all they have to do is force the US to deal with that possibility. Those possibility will force the US to keep forces back in case one of those countries does decide to do something. That was the situation during the Cold War, both sides had to keep in mind what the other side could do, thus restricting what each side could do. The US could have sent more troops to Korea and Vietnam, but only by weakening US forces in Europe. The US could have moved troops into the middle east during the various crisis in that region, but again by weakening US forces committed to NATO.
The US had a 20 yearvperiod where it could do as it wanted, but that time period is rapidly ending. The US has to adjust to that reality and that may mean leaving Iran alone.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)He'd need to buy tons of popcorn while he was arming everybody and selling them oil.
Who's got another Vietnam now, bigshot?
The time for stupid, belligerent foreign policy has ended, and largely ended because of the stupid, belligerent foreign policy.
"Never get in a land war in Asia."
I'm trying to think how many we are up to now, land wars in Asia.
Africa should be exciting too, all that "interesting terrain".
happyslug
(14,779 posts)At that point no tankers would enter the Gulf. That is the problem all Iran has to do is be successful is firing a round every few weeks. They aim is to deny TANKERS into the Gulf, not warships. No tankers, workd wide wide oil prices goes through the roof.
Furthermore Iran has air bases in the area, they have locations for AA missiles. Two thirds of the land bordering the Straits is Iranian (the straits make a turn around the Arab Emirates). They have advanages and one of them is their strategic mission would be a lot easier then the US strategic mission. One ship being sunk every week or so would be an Iranian victory and an US defeat.
Iran is not Iraq or Afghanstan, they have a decent Anti Aircraft defense system. The the drones will have to fly low to avoid the missiles, and that opens them up to 12.7, 20mm, and 30mm gun fire. Right now the drones can fly above the range of such guns for the opposition have no AA missiles. With Iran that will not be the case.
Furthermore the mere fear of being fired on will force the tankers to go to Russia for oil, something the US wants less then Iran selling its oil. Thus even if the US does destroy those Iranian weapons, the biggest winner will still be Russian, and that is NOT what the US wants. Thus this whole topic is nonsense, if the US forces Iran to close the Straits, the price of oil goes to ten dollarva gallon and the winner is Putin. If the US keeps those straits open but shuts down the Iranian oil fields, the main winner is again Putin. If Iraq comes out in favor of Iran, and they are close de facto allies right now, the price of oil goes through the roof and the nain winner is Putin. If the Shiites, who dominate the Saudi Arabian oil fields, go into low level guerilla warfare, the winner is Putin.
Thus Putin has a huge interest in backing Iran and tge Shiites, it is to his best interest. Thus Putin will give to Iran all the AA we as pons Iran asks for. Putin will NOT declare war, but he will send in AA units. Putin will send in planes. The resulting situation will be like Korea in the early 1950s, both sides strong enough to keep on fighting, but unable to defeat each other, with neutral Russia selling alll the oil it can.
When the US attacked Iraq in 2002, it may have been the last time the US could have done so. Putin was in charge of Russia, but the world was still in an oil glut. Thus the US attack in Iraq had no immediate affect on the price of oil. As the same time Saudi Arabia increased oil production to keep oil prices low. The failure of Saudi Arabia to increase oil production enough to keep prices low after 2002 lead to the high prices of 2008, as Mexican, North Sea and North Slope oil production dropped. The drop in the price of oil is the result not only of increased US oil production, but the increase in Russian oil adter 2000, and Saudi Arabia oil production since 2008.
The world wide price for oil is presetly low, but it is tight market the loss of any oil producer would drive up the price of oil. Thus the US wants Iranian oil on the market to open. Shutting it down along with Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf oil producer is the last thing the US wants. Thus as long as Iran can close down the Straits, the U S will oppose such a closing, but also do nothing to force Iraq to close those straits. The reason is in such a fight the clear winner will be Putin. Thus the straits will never be closed down, unless the US does something really stupid.
NickB79
(19,233 posts)Sink a few oil tankers in the right spot, since they don't sail with military escorts, and the Strait is effectively shut down. By the time US naval and air power comes to bear, the damage is done.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)As we have seen over and over since Vietnam.
jpak
(41,757 posts)yup
still_one
(92,115 posts)oil out of
and I agree with your assessment, they threatened this for decades, but realize they are screwed if they actually did it.
Not unlike their saber rattling they do on Israel. They know the consequences would doom them.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Turkey will not object for Turkey's oil and natural gas supplies are from Russia and Iran more then Kurdistan. Shipping Iranian oil via truck to Russia via Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and the other former Soviet Central Asiatic Republics will be more expensive then by ship via the Persian Gulf but it is doable.
Thus Iran will only close the Straits if they back are against the wall and there are no other alternatives. It is they most effective weapon, but a weapon with huge costs. Push comes to shove,Iran will close the straits, but only if Iran has no other alternatives. The recent talk is just thwt, Iran is saying they can close the Straits with the US saying it will oppose closing the Straits. This has been both countries positions since the Shah was deposed, nothing new.
pampango
(24,692 posts)We will take action "...if they “threaten” ..." our country is military policy in every country. It is not surprising that is Iranian policy too, although it is interesting that they feel the need to announce a policy that everyone already knew existed.
irisblue
(32,954 posts)Lots of input on American policy over the years....maybe not as much during the Cheney & Rumsfeld war crime years. The later years of Bush 2 & the early Obama years look very differently militarily.
malthaussen
(17,183 posts)... so the hardliners rattle sabres about us threatening the Islamic State while the moderates continue to prosecute religious war against them. I imagine most of the conspicuous twits will respond by swaggering around themselves and mouthing variations on "bring it on," while those who are a little more interested in matters of substance will wonder if this portends any possible awkwardness in Iran, or is just another instance of business as usual. One imagines the latter.
-- Mal
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)
PersonNumber503602
(1,134 posts)Last edited Mon May 9, 2016, 11:28 AM - Edit history (1)
BadGimp
(4,012 posts)eom
hollowdweller
(4,229 posts)There were a lot of politicians in the US and Iran especially that liked the status quo for various reasons.
They will try to provoke something to deny both leaders success if we don't realize what they want.
