Iran Says It Could Deploy Navy Near U.S. Coast: Report

[vector7]

Companion Threads:

• Southern Border Chessboard Involves
  
• Iran/Venezuela/Russia Iran Is Stockpiling Shahab 3 Missiles in Venezuela to Reach U.S.

Iran Says Could Deploy Navy Near U.S. Coast: Report

Reuters September 27, 2011, 11:29 pm


Reuters © Enlarge photo

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran raised the prospect on Tuesday of sending military ships close to the United States' Atlantic coast, in what would be a major escalation of tensions between the long-standing adversaries.

"Like the arrogant powers that are present near our marine borders, we will also have a powerful presence close to American marine borders," the head of the Navy, Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari said, according to the official IRNA news agency.

Speaking at a ceremony marking the 31st anniversary of the start of the 1980-1988 war with Iraq, Sayyari gave no details of when such a deployment could happen or the number or type of vessels to be used.

The declaration comes just weeks after Turkey said it would host a NATO early warning radar system which will help spot missile threats from outside Europe, including potentially from Iran. The decision has angered Tehran which had enjoyed close relations with Ankara.

And it comes a few months after Iran sent warships through the Suez canal, after the fall of former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, the first time the Islamic Republic had deployed navy vessels in the Mediterranean.

The United States and Israel have not ruled out military action against Iran if diplomacy fails to stop it getting nuclear weapons. Tehran denies it is developing nuclear arms saying its atomic program is for purely peaceful purposes.

Iran has dismissed the threats, warning that it will respond by hitting U.S. interests in the Gulf and Israel if any such attack happened.

Analysts say Tehran could retaliate by launching hit-and-run strikes in the Gulf and by closing the Strait of Hormuz, the waterway where about 40 percent of all traded oil passes.

The Islamic state often launches military drills in the country to display its military capabilities amid persistent speculation about a possible U.S. or Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.

(Writing by Hashem Kalantari; Editing by Rosalind Russell)

[American Patriot]

So they gonna come over here and piss off a bunch of American Citizens who are out fishing and minding their own business?

Bring it fuck heads.

[vector7]

Companion Posts:

• China, Iran Creating 'No-Go' Zones to Thwart U.S. Military Power
• China opens missile plant in Iran

Iran Says Its New Cruise Missile Can 'Sink Giant Warships'

Published September 28, 2011
| FoxNews.com


AP
Aug. 23: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stands next to a Ghader, or Capable, a new Iranian-made cruise missile, in Iran.

TEHRAN, Iran – Iran has begun to mass manufacture a domestically developed cruise missile that reportedly could be used to strike Israel and potentially counter U.S. naval presence in the Persian Gulf.

The missile, called Ghader, which means capable in Farsi, has a 124-mile range and can "sink giant warships," Gen. Ahmad Vahidi, the Iranian defense minister, said in an interview on Press TV. He went on to say the missile could be launched quickly and travel at low altitudes.

The exact number of missiles produced is unclear, but they reportedly were delivered to the Revolutionary Guard’s naval division. The country often makes announcements about new advances in military technology that cannot be independently verified.

Vahidi called the manufacture of the missile a "great achievement" and denied reports circulating that the missile was not produced in the country, The Jerusalem Post reported.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad unveiled the missile in August, when he said the intention was defensive and to ensure that Iran's enemies "do not dare attack," the AFP reported.

However, Iran’s growing arsenal includes short- and medium-range ballistic missiles that are capable of hitting targets in the region, such as Israel and U.S. military bases in the Gulf. Reports of the mass production comes at a time when there appears to be increasing tension between Iran and the U.S.

The West is already concerned about Iran's military capabilities, especially the implications of the country's disputed nuclear program. The U.S. and some of its allies, as well as the U.N.'s nuclear agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency, fear that Iran is trying to produce a nuclear weapon. Tehran denies the charges.

On Tuesday, the Iran announced plans to move naval vessels out of the Persian Gulf and into the Atlantic Ocean, "near maritime borders of the United States.”

“As the global arrogance (forces of imperialism) have a (military) presence near our sea borders, we also plan to have a strong presence near the U.S. sea borders with the help of the soldiers who are loyal to the vali-e faqih (supreme jurisprudent),” said Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari, as quoted and paraphrased by the Tehran Times.

Iran began a military self-sufficiency program in 1992, under which it produces a large range of weapons, including tanks, missiles, jet fighters, unmanned drone aircraft and torpedoes.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Iran rolls out Ghader missiles


Tags: Iranian missiles, World, Society, News

Sep 28, 2011 14:43 Moscow Time

© mashleymorgan/flickr.com

Tehran has hosted a ceremony in honor of launching a production line for the mass production of the Ghader sea-based cruise missile.

Ghader has a range of up to 200 kilometers and is designed to attack naval and coastal targets.

Iran’s Defense Ministry denied western media reports that Tehran had obtained the technology to produce such missiles from abroad.

TASS

[American Patriot]

“As the global arrogance (forces of imperialism) have a (military) presence near our sea borders, we also plan to have a strong presence near the U.S. sea borders with the help of the soldiers who are loyal to the vali-e faqih (supreme jurisprudent),” said Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari, as quoted and paraphrased by the Tehran Times.

I can see them screwing with shipping or smaller vessels and setting back Naval conditions about 300 years. Seizing ships as "prizes", holding the men and women hostage (this is going on over in Africa NOW). Ships won't carry weapons and fight back like they used to though, so this becomes a difficult question of whether we will "allow" our own people to use the oceans because we have "military ships patrolling" our shores.

See this comes down to a way to further control Americans more than anything else.

[Malsua]

Iran can't project power. They can try with a frigate but it's pointless.

[Toad]

Sustaining a fleet at sea half way around the world takes training, significant supply logistics, and is by no means a cheap endevor. For them to do this is much more of a political statement than a military statement. Let them waste their money on what is essentially pointless.

Quite honestly, an Iranian fleet that far from home has a special name. It's called a "sitting duck." I can only imagine how giddy with anticipation quite a few sub commanders are right now. Real world hunt and shadow training for their crew.

[American Patriot]

Right... but I'm not talking about projection of power. I'm talking about armed ships detaining citizens of the US, commercial and private vessels at their whim.

Being pretty familiar with how the British did things prior to 1812 should actually explain this more clearly than I can right now.

Essentially I'm talking about an armed warship turning to "piracy" or "privaterrism". They could (not saying they WOULD of course) detain vessels that are just outside of the 200 mile limit. If they do this, then several possible outcomes might happen.

Private or commercial vessels are detained, boarded, searched and perhaps taken or stripped of items or cargo. Persons aboard might be held hostage, to be released somewhere else once the ransom is paid.

Remember the "real pirates" of the Caribbean weren't the bouchaniers, but rather Muslims who raided from the coast of Africa to the coast of America. These guys were government authorized to do their dirty deeds against "Christians" taking supplies, killing people, burning the ships to the waterline, murdering the "Infidels" and much more.

It's these particular guys who are the rabid evil that took to the High Seas for a long period of time and that the US actually fought more than once.

Other "pirates" were different than these guys. Some were actually not murderers and chose to turn their hostages loose once the prize was taken and an island to drop the hostages found.

So what I am getting at here is not so much a global projection of power, as a smaller "projection of force" aimed NOT at the USA specifically, but more like "US citizens" who happen to be "at risk" (that is out on a cruise ship, a smaller boat like I plan to do, or commercial fisherman or commercial cargo vessels).

This would be a good way for them to grab supplies, cargo and even people... .it worked in the 1600-1800s so why not in 2011? Bigger ships, more men, steel and huge guns....

[American Patriot]

Sustaining a fleet at sea half way around the world takes training, significant supply logistics, and is by no means a cheap endevor. For them to do this is much more of a political statement than a military statement. Let them waste their money on what is essentially pointless.

Quite honestly, an Iranian fleet that far from home has a special name. It's called a "sitting duck." I can only imagine how giddy with anticipation quite a few sub commanders are right now. Real world hunt and shadow training for their crew.

Absolutely... and with my scenario of above, they wouldn't last very long were it known they were pirating smaller vessels.

Don't put it past the Iranians though.

[Toad]

I just don't see that happening, Rick. Too small a fleet, too far from home, too vulnerable to retaliation. It would be a piss poor chess move on Iran's part to start playing that game. To start screwing with commercial and private shipping and not expect significant retaliation would be a fool's move. At the very least we'd lock down the Gulf of Oman to Iranian shipping as a counter move, a step to open war.

Edit: Rethinking my position, Iran is however entirely capable of piss poor chess moves.

[American Patriot]

LOL. I never said that such a thing would be a SMART move on Iran's part.

But, think about it a minute. From time immemorial Captain's of ships have had pretty much open freedom to do whatever it takes to make their crew do their bidding. Even today a Captain/Master of a ship can lock someone up if they get out of hand if necessary (I'm talking military and some commercial ships). Navy ships from countries like Iran? Come on, they mete our justice with a sword for sailors that break rules, steal or simply put them to death if necessary.

It wouldn't be a far stretch for a skipper of a Muslim naval vessel with a lot of big guns to start doing something really stupid.

And... unless those being harassed decide to call in the attacks, no one would know.

[Ryan Ruck]

Could be a one way float with an unconventional cruise missile loadout.

[Malsua]

It could certainly light up an EMP

[American Patriot]

Doh, I didn't think of the EMP aspect. Iran... nukes... North Korea.... yeah, that could be a possibility!

[vector7]

Report: Iranian Warship Route to U.S. Coast Leaked Online

• Posted on October 6, 2011 at 2:28am by Buck Sexton

Last week, an Iranian Naval Commander threatened to deploy ships off the U.S. coast as a provocative show of force.

Now it looks like Iran might actually be serious.

A new map that allegedly shows the expected path of the Iranian Naval expedition to the U.S has leaked online from an Iranian website, according to MEMRI.



The unprecedented route for the Islamic Republic would take Iranian ships through the Suez Canal and into the warm waters of the Caribbean, a total nautical distance of approximately 9000 miles. According to MEMRI, Iranian media sources claim:

“In this new and feasible mission, the ships of the navy of the Iranian Army will sail west, towards the Strait of Gibraltar, after they enter the Mediterranean. Subsequently, they will enter the Atlantic Ocean, and from there they must traverse the long distance to their destination off Cuba, in the Gulf of Mexico, and Central and South America.”

Iranian Naval chief Sayyari has previously threatened on Iranian state TV to send a fleet of warships into the Atlantic armed with “Nour” long-range anti-ship cruise missiles. The proposed Iranian flotilla would be an extension of Iran’s presence in the Mediterranean, the Persian Gulf, and the Indian Ocean.


Iranian warship crossing the Suez Canal

Iranian warships deployed close to the U.S. mainland would be a deliberate provocation. The warships could be viewed as additional leverage– alongside Iran’s threat to cut off oil supplies through the gulf of Hormuz– if Israel were to strike against Iranian nuclear facilities.

MEMRI pulled a second map from the Iranian website that had no accompanying description, but showed a number of western countries in different colors, including the U.S., Cuba, Venezuela, Panama, Ecuador and Brazil. See Below:



The Iranian regime has already established close ties to Venezuela and Cuba, but the inclusion of the other Central and South American countries remains unclear, according to MEMRI.

In addition, an unconfirmed report in an Italian newspaper in September claimed Hezbollah– a terrorist proxy of Iran– has opened up a base in Cuba. This allegation was repeated by Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann just last week.

Whether Iran launches this aggressive naval action or not, the Ayatollahs are clearly looking for ways to agitate the United States and complicate international efforts to contain the number one global sponsor of terrorism.

You can read the full report and detailed analysis on the Iranian maps here.

[vector7]

Iran Navy can patrol off coast of US'

Wed Nov 9, 2011 2:38AM GMT
RedditShare | Email | Print


Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari, the commander of the Iranian Navy

The commander of the Iranian Navy says Iran has the right to deploy naval vessels near US coastal waters according to international law.

On Tuesday, Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari said that international law permits all countries to send their naval ships to the open seas, and naval forces of the Islamic Republic are also allowed to sail in these waters, the Mehr news agency reported.

He went on to say that the Iranian Navy has the right to sail in waters near the coast of the United States because the coastal waters beyond the territorial waters of the country are regarded as the open sea.

He also spoke about the Jamaran destroyer, saying that it is currently on a patrol mission in the Bab-el-Mandeb strait between the Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea.

Last year, the Iranian Navy launched the Jamaran destroyer, with a displacement of around 1,420 tons and fitted with modern radar and other electronic warfare equipment.

The Jamaran can carry 120-140 personnel on board and is armed with a variety of surface-to-air missiles.

Earlier in the day, on its first international mission, the Jamaran foiled a pirate attack on an Iranian oil tanker in the southern part of the Red Sea off the coast of Hanish Al Kubra Island.

MR/AS/HGL

[vector7]

Iran has right to deploy naval vessels near U.S. coast: commander

On Line: 08 November 2011 17:27



TEHRAN – The Navy commander says Iran has the right to deploy naval vessels near U.S. coastal waters.

“The Iranian Navy has the right to be present (near) the coasts of the United States,” Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari told the Mehr News Agency in an interview published on Tuesday.

He also said that international law permits all the world’s countries to send their naval ships to open seas.

In response to the commotion created by Western media outlets about Iran’s plan to deploy its naval vessels near U.S. sea borders, he said, “Is anything wrong with the presence of the Iranian Navy in open seas or not?

“If there is nothing wrong with it, no one should be worried about this issue.”

In addition, he said, “According to international law, U.S. coastal waters after territorial waters of this country are regarded as open seas, so the Navy is allowed to be present in these waters based on international conventions.”

On September 27, Sayyari announced that Iran plans to deploy naval vessels in the Atlantic Ocean near maritime borders of the United States.

Earlier, the commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps Naval Force signaled a possible presence of Iran’s naval vessels near U.S. waters.

Commenting on the proposal for the establishment of a direct military hotline between the U.S. and Iran, Rear Admiral Ali Fadavi said, “When we go to the Gulf of Mexico, we will establish direct communication with them. In the view of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the illegitimate presence of the U.S. in the Persian Gulf makes no sense.”



Iranian military ships to sail to U.S shores

8 November 2011, 16:10 (GMT+04:00)



Azerbaijan, Baku, Nov. 8 / Trend T. Jafarov /

According to international law, the naval forces of any country can sail in free waters and as such, Iranian warships have the right to sail to the U.S shores, Iran's Navy Commander Habibullah Sayyari said commenting on the foreign media's information which previously reported that Iranian military ships cannot sail to the U.S shores, Iranian news agency MEHR said.

Earlier, he said that Iran will send its ships into the Atlantic Ocean. After this statement, the foreign media, with reference to U.S. officials, said that the U.S thinks that Iran's intention to send its ships to the open waters near the U.S. borders are unfounded. It was also stressed that Iranian navy ships are unable to sail to the free waters near the U.S borders.

Commander Habibullah Sayyari said that the Iranian ships will sail in free waters and to any point specified in international law as free water.

[Phil Fiord]

I hate to say it, but my understanding is any country can sail near any other countries land as long as they are in international waters. It is what we do as well. That Iran would attempt to do it is telling that we have the weakest White House ever.

[American Patriot]

Earlier in the day, on its first international mission, the Jamaran foiled a pirate attack on an Iranian oil tanker in the southern part of the Red Sea off the coast of Hanish Al Kubra Island.

I commend them on stopping pirates. If they would STICK to doing such a job, that would be nice of them, protect shipping, civilians from those fucks is a great thing.

I hate to say it, but my understanding is any country can sail near any other countries land as long as they are in international waters. It is what we do as well. That Iran would attempt to do it is telling that we have the weakest White House ever.

You're right. I can take my own private, US flagged vessel and sail where I wish. When I drop anchor though, that's when I start complicating things... like having to check into customs and immigration for that country.

Sure they can certainly sail all the way into the 3 mile limit if they WANT to... would they? Why would they? Would they be met with some of our Navy? (Probably).

Can they sail anywhere off the coast? SURE.

If they molest anyone, that there becomes a different story....

[vector7]

Iranian Nuke Attack on US Easy as EMP?



WASHINGTON -- Pentagon estimates show that Iran could have missiles capable of reaching the East Coast of the United States by the year 2015. If the Iranians acquire a nuclear bomb, they might be able to cripple their "Great Satan" even sooner through an electromagnetic pulse, or EMP, attack off America's coastline.

"Within a year of an EMP event, at least two-thirds of the American population would perish from starvation, disease, and societal collapse. It's a high-tech means of killing people the old fashioned way," Dr. Peter Vincent Pry, president of EMPact America, explained.

A nuclear weapon detonated above the U.S. would emit powerful electromagnetic pulses, frying America's electrical grid and shutting down necessities from cars to computers to airplanes and refrigerators.

Iranian military handbooks point out the benefits of such an attack. Russia, China, and North Korea also possess EMP technology.

Pry, a member of the congressional EMP Commission, said America could plunge back into the 19th century, with Katrina-like chaos nationwide.

"A single nuclear weapon will cause the collapse of the electric power grid, all the critical infrastructures and other electronic systems across the entire continental United States and basically cause a permanent blackout," he told CBN News.

Pry's nightmare scenario shows Iran or its terrorist proxy, Hezbollah, parking an unmarked freighter off America's East Coast or in the Gulf of Mexico.

They would fire a nuclear-tipped scud above a city like New York, then immediately sink the freighter to destroy evidence of their handiwork.
"Even if we were able to identify the scud by our radars, we wouldn't be able to identify who did it," he explained. "This is a way of keeping your fingerprints off it."

Former CIA double agent Reza Kahlili spent time as a member of Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps. He said the Iranians have conducted missiles tests off ships in the Caspian Sea, which are consistent with an EMP-style attack.

"They're going to get to the Gulf of Mexico with ballistic missiles, and they're going to launch one at a moment's notice. And they wouldn't care about the repercussions," he told CBN News.

Kahlili's book, A Time to Betray, details Iran's rapidly advancing ballistic missile program.

"They have obtained missiles from North Korea that can now target the capitals of Europe," Kahlili said.

There are reports that Iran plans to establish missiles bases in Venezuela, where it has a vast network. And an Iranian official recently threatened to send military ships to patrol America's Atlantic coast.

Legislation is currently pending in Congress that would harden America's electrical grid against an EMP attack.

Sponsors of the bill, called the SHIELD Act, say it would cost less than $1 billion to do it. But the bill has yet to pass.

[vector7]

Iran, perceiving threat from West, willing to attack on U.S. soil, U.S. intelligence report finds


View Photo Gallery —  A string of volatile incidents have occurred between the two countries in the past few months.

By Greg Miller, Published: January 31

An assessment by U.S. spy agencies concludes that Iran is prepared to launch terrorist attacks inside the United States, highlighting new risks as the Obama administration escalates pressure on Tehran to halt its alleged pursuit of an atomic bomb.

In congressional testimony Tuesday, U.S. intelligence officials indicated that Iran has crossed a threshold in its adversarial relationship with the United States. While Iran has long been linked to attacks on American targets overseas, U.S. officials said they see troubling significance in Tehran’s alleged role in a plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington last year.

2519 Comments


Intelligence shows that Iran received foreign assistance to overcome key hurdles in acquiring technology that could lead to a nuclear weapon, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Graphic


Highlights from a series of potentially volatile incidents

U.S. officials said they have seen no intelligence to indicate that Iran is actively plotting attacks on U.S. soil.

But Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. said the thwarted plot “shows that some Iranian officials — probably including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei — have changed their calculus and are now more willing to conduct an attack in the United States in response to real or perceived U.S. actions that threaten the regime.”

The warning about Iran’s more aggressive stance was included in written testimony that Clapper submitted to Congress on Tuesday as part of the intelligence community’s annual assessment of the nation’s most serious security threats.

On other fronts, U.S. intelligence officials said that al-Qaeda has been badly degraded, but they expressed rising concern over alleged cyber-espionage by China, the leadership transition in nuclear-armed North Korea and the uncertain prospects for Afghanistan after U.S. forces eventually depart.

Still, Clapper, CIA Director David H. Petraeus and other top U.S. intelligence officials spent much of Tuesday’s hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee fielding questions about Iran.

Washington is eyeing the country’s nuclear ambitions, long a source of simmering concern, with new urgency. Reports suggest that Iran is closing in on the ability to develop a bomb, and a series of explosions, assassinations and computer attacks targeting the country’s nuclear program have led many outside analysts to conclude that a covert conflict is already underway.

Iran says its nuclear efforts are for peaceful, energy-producing purposes and has blamed the United States and Israel for mysterious developments including the apparently targeted killing of yet another Iranian nuclear scientist in Tehran on Jan. 11, as well as an earlier cyberattack on the country’s largest uranium-enrichment facility.

In his State of the Union address last week, President Obama raised the threat of military intervention to halt Iran’s alleged pursuit of an atomic bomb, saying he would “take no options off the table to achieve that goal.”
Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta added new rhetorical heat during an interview with CBS’s “60 Minutes” program that aired Sunday, saying that Iran was probably one year away from being able to build a bomb. He added that it could take a year or two beyond that to develop the ability to deliver a warhead by missile.

“That’s a red line for us, and it’s a red line, obviously, for the Israelis,” Panetta said. “If we have to do it, we will do it,” he added, declining to elaborate on what “it” means.

It was against this backdrop that Clapper and others described the efforts by the United States and Israel to move Iran off that nuclear course. Clapper said that escalating economic sanctions have pushed Iran to the brink of a currency crisis, but he acknowledged that the measures have had little or no impact on Iran’s nuclear aims.

“The sanctions as imposed so far have not caused them to change their behavior or their policy,” Clapper said.

He and others testifying Tuesday indicated that their assessment of Iran’s willingness to launch attacks in the United States stems mainly from a more-detailed understanding of the country’s role in the alleged plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador, Adel al-Jubeir.

As described by U.S. officials in October, the convoluted scheme was to rely on assassins from a Mexican drug cartel to carry out the killing at a restaurant in Washington.

U.S. officials said the plot was devised by an Iranian American with ties to Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps. But the plan was foiled when the would-be operative mistakenly hired a paid informant of the Drug Enforcement Administration to carry it out. Iranian officials have denied any role in the plot.

It was “so unusual and amateurish that many initially doubted that Iran was responsible,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said in Tuesday’s hearing. “Well, let me state for the record, I have no such a doubt.”

Experts said Iran’s willingness to back such a scheme may reflect a sense among Iran’s leadership that prevailing against the United States and Israel may require adopting new, lower-percentage means of carrying out attacks.

“I see the Iranians feeling that they are under siege,” said Daniel Byman, an Iran expert at Georgetown University and a former CIA analyst. Given Iran’s resources and ties to terrorist groups, including Hezbollah, Byman said that it is “plausible” that Iran already has agents inside the United States.

Clapper’s testimony also called attention to other emerging national security concerns, including cyber-related threats from China and Russia and the diminished but persistent danger to the United States posed by al-Qaeda.

This year’s assessment was the first to evaluate the terrorist network since its founder and leader, Osama bin Laden, was killed in a U.S. commando raid in May. That blow, combined with the toll taken by subsequent strikes and raids, has destroyed al-Qaeda’s core.

As a result, Clapper said in the testimony, the United States is entering a “critical transitional phase for the terrorist threat,” in which smaller-bore strikes from regional nodes are more likely than elaborate, mass-casualty plots.

If the pressure on al-Qaeda can be maintained, “there is a better-than-even chance that decentralization will lead to fragmentation,” Clapper said in his prepared statement. The terrorist group “will seek to execute smaller, simpler plots to demonstrate relevance to the global jihad.”

The group’s affiliate in Yemen continues to be seen as the most likely source of plots targeting the United States. But the death of U.S.-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki in a CIA drone strike in Yemen last year has at least temporarily eroded the affiliate’s ability to mount international attacks, officials said.