I thought all Iranian ships were floating on the bottom of the ocean?
55
mpsteidle3 days ago
+70
Pirates have been taking container ships from dingies for years. A rope and an AK47 will get you surprisingly far.
70
Borne2Run3 days ago
+18
More that our merchant ship equivalents are 1) not armed and 2) lacking legal protection responding to piracy with lethal force. They're also not escorted (for cost reasons)
18
takesthebiscuit3 days ago
+10
And have like 20 poorly paid crew to cover a Massvie boat worth billions
They give no shits
10
Due-Department-89063 days ago
+12
People underestimate the power of violence. When Columbus first landed and had a fort set up in Cuba, the Spaniards had to be very careful about natives. The natives of that area used bows and wore nothing but small clothes. Yet they remained an existential threat to Spaniards. During skirmishes with the locals the Spanish often lost a man or two. And, the first fort, Las Navidad, got completely exterminated. All Spaniards dead.
People heavily underestimate what a fearsome person can do with their own hands. This is why I think Spain and England and Portugal were only as successful as they were because of disease. On Columbus's first two voyages even the tribal people were a problem, let alone those creating empires like the Maya and Aztec and Inca.
12
noir_lord2 days ago
+2
England (and it was the UK post 1707) was in part successful because it paid one set of locals to fight another set of locals, it was an effective strategy since it just fed into existing disagreements that or we just outright bribed the existing local leadership.
If you look at the size of say India and how many British born people wheee stationed their verse the size of “British” forces you realise immediately the math don’t math.
2
Dingcock2 days ago
+1
Yes England had similar threats in North America. Various agreements and pacts were made while the native population was much more powerful. However once England got the upper hand these agreements started being ignored.
As a Canadian all of this is still brought up regularly, and it's an absolute mess for us now to sort out.
1
LilyBelle5043 days ago
+57
Iran's 50 ship conventional naval fleet? Pretty much.
A fishing boat with a DShK mounted on it turned into an attack boat, nope.
57
Glass-Ideas3 days ago
+10
These are a little better than a 'fishing boat with a DShK mounted on it' - these have missiles. Google 'Peykaap III' to see a picture. Small boats, yes, but these are military grade with 2 anti-ship missile launchers. Typically with 'short range' Nasr-1 (range of 35 km) with 150kg warhead) and Kowser missiles (\~20-30 km range with active homing). These are not 'dinghies with an ak-47' - these can sink a ship at range.
10
snarky_answer2 days ago
+2
The vessels they used to board the boats were not those boats though. It was some dudes on 2 small speedboats with AKs.
2
LilyBelle5043 days ago
-8
>These are not 'dinghies with an ak-47' - these can sink a ship at range.
Then I'm sure if they ever get into say a, war... they'll be sinking actual combat ships trained and armed and not solely targeting defenseless merchant vessels with civilians...
-8
Glass-Ideas3 days ago
+5
Not saying these could sink US navy ships - though who knows, they might get lucky. Im saying the nature of the threat is hundreds of coordinated missile boats...not some pirates with a couple of rifles off the coast of Africa. I.e. it is clear they can use these to great affect to continue to threaten shipping and keep the price of oil high. You know....like they have been doing for 2 months now.
5
DemosthenesOrNah3 days ago
+3
"but it's not huge and expensive!"
asymmetric warfare is too hard for some ppl to understand
3
LilyBelle5042 days ago
+1
What's hard to understand?
Yea, they're really good at sinking unarmed slow civilian ships.
1
Ecstatic_Bee60671 day ago
+1
Attacking civilians and messing with supply lines is as old as war, bud
1
LilyBelle5041 day ago
+1
Yes General.
1
GreatScottGatsby2 days ago
-2
I've literally heard people say that the important metric for a navy is gross tonnage.
-2
LilyBelle5041 day ago
+1
I've also heard people say dinky boats with AKs on them are a threat to modern naval destroyers.
I saw the video of those boats taking over the unarmed civilian vessel. Didn't look like they had missiles on them like the other user alleges.
1
LilyBelle5042 days ago
+1
Yep, threatening civilian ships is about all they're good for.
"Never underestimate your enemy" of course.
1
LilyBelle5041 day ago
+1
Do they have hundreds of missile boats? Let alone the ability to coordinate them?
All evidence I've seen from them, even in their propaganda videos, is maybe 5-6 boats in a formation, speeding along calm seas.
Also the boats in the video didn't have the weapons you described. Looked like just half a dozen guys with small arms.
1
Idiot_Savant_133 days ago
+1
Those are notoriously more affordable, and easier to conceal, than more massive ships.
Ever wonder if Iran's intention was to rely on this swarm-fleet tactic, and so their navy was purchased with the understanding that it would be obliterated?
I mean, I'm an idiot and I don't play to my enemies' strengths - the idea of trying to out-gun the U.S. Navy would feel like tactical foolishness, a waste of time & money.
Now, creating the *illusion* that I was going to try to engage them that way... that might buy some valuable time & open up some tactical options.
1
LilyBelle5043 days ago
+9
I imagine Iran wants a navy like how most other major countries have a navy.
Whether or not it was comparable to the strongest\* navy, the US navy, is another question.
But yea, small c**** boats that shoot defenseless and slow civilian merchant ships is usually pretty easy I agree. So long as Iran's regime even just *threatens* that, it's enough for businesses not to want to risk losing people and equipment.
9
Fumquat3 days ago
-1
Like a guard standing at the entrance to a retail establishment, you have not just seen the entirety of their security system…
-1
Idiot_Savant_133 days ago
-2
Exactly - deception is a key element of strategy.
It doesn't hurt Iran that the U.S. is using precisely the approach Iran has spent decades preparing for.
-2
wil6erness2 days ago
-1
In 2 years when China is done selling them a new fleet and 25% of the US military is dead from mass shootings on bases or has the flu, I wonder how well things will go
-1
TheSleepyTruth3 days ago
+4
They didnt use military/naval ships, they use little civilian style speedboats carrying a couple dudes with AK47s and RPGs.
4
Dark_World_Blues3 days ago
+5
Yeah, but they seized them by using motorboats and machine guns. Civilian ships can't fight back.
5
niceufo7773 days ago
+2
They are, only they're fast boats, and even then they can be very dangerous.
2
Spiritual-Fly58903 days ago
+2
Things are the bottom of the ocean aren’t floating
2
Intrepid_Egg_77223 days ago
+3
Trump has mentioned in at least one tweet that Iran was left with plenty of rapid attack boats, because the US doesn't consider them a threat. Which is a true statement if you're the US Navy, but those boats are plenty adequate for bullying unarmed civilian ships.
3
Fit-Magazine-66693 days ago
+1
big ones, yes. they are. you dont need big ship to board and seize a cargo ship. what are you trying to say?
1
afreshstart20153 days ago
-11
US forces hijack ships
Iranian forces hijack ships
Lovely circle
-11
Shotinthelight263 days ago
+25
Iran is hijacking any ship. The US is just hijacking Iranian ships. Big difference
25
SomeBloke3 days ago
+24
US is hijacking ships of any nationality that stop at, or plan to stop at, an Iranian port, not ***just*** Iranian flagged ships. Big difference.
24
LilyBelle5043 days ago
+14
Iranian linked ships\*, yes.
Iran: "every ship that tries to pass through internationally shared waters including neutral countries".
14
SomeBloke3 days ago
-7
You’ll want to look at the history of both countries in regards to UNCLOS law and their arguments. It comes down to passage vs transit. Neither country has a solid argument (especially the US, which consistently refuses to sign international agreements for fear of losing their self-declared impunity to war crimes). Iran’s interpretation is wrong as well, but neither of them are the good guys here. This is what happens when an unstoppable Imperialist has met an immovable Zealot.
-7
LilyBelle5043 days ago
+5
Eh, I'm not really concerned with the "both bad guys" whole debate.
I'm more focused on hoping the dreams and aspirations of the Iranian people come true. Regardless of all this stuff between Trump and Iran's regime, hopefully they can overthrow their oppressive regime and get the freedom they've been fighting for decades for.
5
SomeBloke3 days ago
-1
Agreed. I hope the Iranians have some chance of developing the country the majority wants, regardless of what suits the US and Israeli agenda. And, hopefully (but not at all likely), the US stops actively interfering in their political choices for once.
-1
LilyBelle5042 days ago
+1
Not sure why you're being downvoted but I agree.
1
afreshstart20153 days ago
+7
And Iran are hijacking any ship from other gulf countries
Both are still hijacking ships which is causing a headache for the rest of us in the world as a muppet had decided to screw everyone over
7
Fumquat3 days ago
+5
What you think it is:
“Meet me at 3pm on the playground and we’ll beat up each other until there’s a w*****.”
What it really is:
“Meet me at 3pm on the playground, we’ll threaten to beat each other up, and then we’ll rob all the kids who show up to watch. We can decide how to figure out who the w***** is later.”
5
SomeBloke3 days ago
+1
Absolutely agree
1
HumansNeedNotApply13 days ago
+2
They are hijacking ships that refuse to pay the toll.
2
Astralsketch2 days ago
+1
these things happen in wars.
1
Deadman_Wonderland3 days ago
-4
No difference, both is just piracy.
-4
Lain_Staley3 days ago
Ultimate pain for China.
0
Chihuahua13 days ago
-8
With trillion dollar companies like Shell going out of its way to help Russia in Siberia despite sanctions, how long until the evil companies come to the rescue here. ExxonMobil will send some of there 1000 private army from Chad and neighboring countries?
49 Comments