BREAKING - Iran 'definitely' closing Strait of Hormuz in the event of an EU oil embargo

Comments section said that was in Santa Cruz and someone else said they saw the samething in Oregon. I wonder where the rail lines run out there and who is doing this contract? Interesting thing is these aren't painted for desert warfare. So wonder where they might need to increase/replace with these colors. Hmm....

I added a new comment to the video. Yes, they are the wrong color. Usually what they do is ship them out to locations like Red River Army Depot in Texas to be re-fitted and re-painted before deployment. They usually come down to Texas via train or semi-trailor if it's a small number. I live in Texas and have had family that worked there. Before Iraq the same thing happened, huge loads of Military vehicles were shipped via train to Red River for Re-fitting for the desert. Also a lot of the vehicles comeing back go there as well.
 
Last edited:
Regardless of what happens, Iran will be blamed.

Ignore the fact that anything they're doing is completely reactionary.

War is great! People rally behind the POTUS in the face of an external threat and our economy is collapsing so its a great distraction. Its a win/win for the establishment.

If Obama plays this right, he might be able to ride the war bounce into the White House for another four years.
 
Last edited:
If Obama plays this right, he might be able to ride the war bounce into the White House for another four years.

This has been telegraphed all along. A few months ago people called me crazy and hysterical for pointing this out.
 
Oh come on man enough with the sensational headlines....the part about that the Iranians would "definitely" close the straits only if the EU imposed an oil embargo was left out of the headline, making it look imminent, which it certainly is not, the EU embargo is slated to start in July, if it even becomes fully implemented since Spain, Italy, and Greece get large amounts of Iranian oil and do not want an oil embargo.
 
Isn't Iran technically allowed to shut it down since it's their own territory? We are violating international law of their sovereignty.
 
Isn't Iran technically allowed to shut it down since it's their own territory? We are violating international law of their sovereignty.

The UN treaty of the sea applies and Iran is a signatory. They allow passage through their waters by treaty.
 
The key to the Strait of Hormuz problem for Ron Paul is this:
1. Iran only controls half of the Strait of Hormuz, the other half is controlled by Oman.
bg2599_map1600px.ashx

That means that ships could always use the Omanian part of the strait, except when the Iranians ceized the Omanian territory which would be an act of war against Oman. This is totally blacked out by the msm. According to wikipedia, Oman is trying to solve the conflict peacefully and has the best diplomatic relations with Iran of the Arab nations:
Oman and Iran share close diplomatic, economic, and military ties. According to Kenneth Katzman of the Congressional Research Service, “Oman has a tradition of cooperation with Iran dating back to the Shah of Iran’s regime and Oman has always been less alarmed by the perceived threat from Iran than have the other Gulf states.” Unlike the majority of its Gulf neighbors, Oman managed to uphold diplomatic relations with both sides during the Iran-Iraq war from 1980-1988 and strongly supported UN Security Council resolutions to end the conflict. Secret cease-fire talks between the two adversaries were held in Muscat during the war, and although an agreement was never reached during these talks, they did reduce distrust on both sides. Moreover, after the war, Oman mediated talks to restore diplomatic ties between Iran and Saudi Arabia and Iran and the United Kingdom.
During the Persian Gulf War, Iran-Oman relations were damaged after Iran began running attacks on tanker movements in the Persian Gulf and placed anti-ship missile launchers along the Strait of Hormuz. The Gulf neighbors have since restored their ties and have conducted joint military exercises as recently as February 2011. Oman’s leader Sultan Qaboos traveled to Iran in 2009 for the first time since Iran’s 1979 revolution. Though on two occasions the U.S. has dispatched high-level officials to discuss Iran with Oman, the fact that Oman has avoided publicly expressing any concerns regarding Iran’s nuclear program is likely a reason why the two states have managed to maintain strong ties.
In addition to strong diplomatic and political ties, Iran and Oman cooperate economically on several fronts, including energy. Most recently, the Gulf neighbors signed an initial agreement to begin supplying large quantities of natural gas from Iran to Oman, a project that was earlier reported to be worth between $7-12 billion. In addition to these major economic projects, the two countries have opened a joint bank to facilitate their mutual financial dealings, agreed to develop the Kish and Hengam gas fields in the Gulf, and signed a memorandum of understanding for a potential joint petrochemical project valued at $800 million.
About Iran nuclear program, the Omani government official position on Iran’s nuclear program is as follows: “The sultanate hopes Washington will engage in a ‘direct dialogue’ with Teheran to resolve the crisis over the Iranian nuclear program. The sultanate has no reason not to believe Iran’s assurances that its program has purely civilian purposes. This region, no doubt, does not want to see any military confrontation or any tension".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab–Iran_relations#Oman
2. Even if Iran closed the strait completely, therefore delcaring war on Oman, the the principle of the freedom of the seas could be invoked by the US, meaning congress could declare war The principle is customary international law, that body of rules that nations consider binding in their relations with one another. It derives from the practice of nations in the international arena and from their international agreements. The principle allows naval forces (both military and commercial) of every country to transit the territorial waters of another nation if they are an international strait (see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_passage ). This is described here in detail:
Transit Passage Through International Straits. The right of warships to enjoy navigational freedoms while transiting through an international strait has been largely unchallenged for centuries. This is primarily because the coastal states that border on international straits have historically claimed only a 3 nm territorial sea. Since almost all strategic international straits are wider than 6 nm, warships could transit using the corridor of high seas in the middle of the strait without entering the territorial waters of the coastal states. Thus, “the ships and aircraft of all nations had the uncontested right to pass through such strategically important straits as Gibraltar, Hormuz, Bab el Mandeb, Lombok and Malacca, regardless of the political unpopularity of their mission.”
However, shortly after World War II, many coastal states bordering on international straits (straits states) began to claim territorial seas of greater and greater breadth.By 1979, only 23 states, including the United States, still claimed a territorial sea of only 3 nm, while 76 states claimed a territorial sea of 12 nm. (The U.S. did not extend its territorial sea to 12 nm until December 1988.)These expanded claims could have “closed” several key international straits, because the high seas corridors through the centers of these straits were reclassified as territorial waters of the straits states and were therefore subject to the restrictive regime of innocent passage.
...
While transiting, warships may conduct activities that are “incident to their normal modes” of transit.
...
U.S. officials have made it clear that “long-standing international practice bears out the right of all States to transit straits used for international navigation” and that no nation may “prohibit passage of foreign vessels or aircraft in a manner that interferes with straits transit.”
States have long enjoyed the right to navigate through international straits under the customary international law of the sea. That customary right became threatened after World War II when several straits states claimed territorial seas of 12 nm or greater. To address these competing rights, a compromise was reached during UNCLOS III that recognized claims to a 12 nm territorial sea but preserved the long-standing customary right of passage through international straits.
http://www.heritage.org/research/re...ary-to-secure-us-navigational-rights-freedoms
 
I added a new comment to the video. Yes, they are the wrong color. Usually what they do is ship them out to locations like Red River Army Depot in Texas to be re-fitted and re-painted before deployment. They usually come down to Texas via train or semi-trailor if it's a small number. I live in Texas and have had family that worked there. Before Iraq the same thing happened, huge loads of Military vehicles were shipped via train to Red River for Re-fitting for the desert. Also a lot of the vehicles comeing back go there as well.

so does that prevent them from being readily apparent when in transit here? curious why the two paint jobs?
 
How does nobody bring up the reason Japan attacked Pearl Harbor was because of the US oil embargo against them??

Sanctions and embargos are acts of war....right?
 
How does nobody bring up the reason Japan attacked Pearl Harbor was because of the US oil embargo against them??

Sanctions and embargos are acts of war....right?

i pretty much have made up my mind that "sanctions" and "embargoes" are the modern definition for siege.
 
The key to the Strait of Hormuz problem for Ron Paul is this:
1. Iran only controls half of the Strait of Hormuz, the other half is controlled by Oman.
bg2599_map1600px.ashx

That means that ships could always use the Omanian part of the strait, except when the Iranians ceized the Omanian territory which would be an act of war against Oman. This is totally blacked out by the msm. According to wikipedia, Oman is trying to solve the conflict peacefully and has the best diplomatic relations with Iran of the Arab nations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab–Iran_relations#Oman
2. Even if Iran closed the strait completely, therefore delcaring war on Oman, the the principle of the freedom of the seas could be invoked by the US, meaning congress could declare war The principle is customary international law, that body of rules that nations consider binding in their relations with one another. It derives from the practice of nations in the international arena and from their international agreements. The principle allows naval forces (both military and commercial) of every country to transit the territorial waters of another nation if they are an international strait (see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_passage ). This is described here in detail:

http://www.heritage.org/research/re...ary-to-secure-us-navigational-rights-freedoms

These are great points. I just don't think he's going to mention them though.
 
i pretty much have made up my mind that "sanctions" and "embargoes" are the modern definition for siege.

That's exactly what they are. The US is deliberately starting a war with Iran despite the people being clearly against it... our government is completely rogue and is going to get us into WW3
 
Wow, at which point do we have to storm in and pyhsically remove those in power? Sometimes it seems like that is going to be the only way. Our leaders are out of control and are doing whatever they please.
 
How does nobody bring up the reason Japan attacked Pearl Harbor was because of the US oil embargo against them??

Sanctions and embargos are acts of war....right?

Right. It's interesting this subject was brought up because last last night I was watching an author on Book tv discuss President's Hoover's opinions about Japan before the attack on Pearl Harbor. Hover's objections and principles about going to war was like listening to Ron Paul speak!

Herbert Hoover writes about World War II and the Cold War in what's been called a magnum opus, published 50 years after the former president completed it. In it, he sharply criticizes the wartime decisions of Presidents Roosevelt and Truman and analyzes their consequences. The presidential writings were edited by Hoover expert George Nash, who discusses them with presidential historian Richard Norton Smith, the author of "An Uncommon Man: The Triumph of Herbert Hoover."

You can find the video here:

http://www.booktv.org/Program/13108...ard+Norton+Smith+George+Mason+University.aspx
 
How does nobody bring up the reason Japan attacked Pearl Harbor was because of the US oil embargo against them??

Sanctions and embargos are acts of war....right?

The oil embargo against Japan was to bait them into a pre-emptive attack against the United States. Sounds like the exact same thing we're doing to Iran right now.
 
i accidently came across this video that was uploaded a day or so ago.... check this out it is insane!!!! but now today after rerading this thread it makes sense!!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n118IwMQQPc

Not saying that the video isn't what you think, but many times units railhead their tactical equipment to other US bases so they can conduct training events at different locations in different training environments. Was this going East to West?
 
The oil embargo against Japan was to bait them into a pre-emptive attack against the United States. Sounds like the exact same thing we're doing to Iran right now.

exactly. a siege. starve them to the point of giving them no choice but to fight.

history is cyclical. we in the post modern age just like to use new words.
 
Back
Top