= new reply since forum marked as read
You have to understand the difference in outcomes to understand the difference in Strategic and tactical goals. The US needs to keep the straits OPEN at all times, while Iran only has to close it once in a while. If Iran sinks one ship in the Straits, international shipping insurance rates goes through the roof and all imports and exports of oil from the Persian Gulf ends (This is what happened during the Iranian Revolution and oil Crisis of 1979, the shipping rates went through the roof, as did the price of oil).
Carriers, to be effective, would have to maintain constant air guard over the Straits, giving cover to whatever surface ships we send in to guard the tankers going in and out of the Gulf. Worse, the Iranians could be using small fishing vessels as missile launchers (Small Anti-Tank missiles like the TOW would be effective against Tankers, you do NOT need the much larger anti-ship missiles, like the Harpoon to take out a tanker). Remember, damage is all the Iranians need to be successful, for the US to be successful we must prevent ALL such damage.
Worse, small boats operate in those shadow waters all the time, thus you have multiple potential targets.
http://catnaps.org/islamic/boats.html
This is made worse, by the fact trade is common across the Persian Gulf, thus many of the small boats are NOT Iranian but Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Qatar, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates and Oman. Technically these are all allies of the US, but all of them (Except Saudi Arabia) are majority Shiite population (and the part of Saudi Arabia along the Persian Gulf is Shiite). Thus is the boat Iranian or from a Friendly Country, and once that is determined, is it friendly or not (If Iranian the US could shoot at it, but if it is Friendly, the US will have to wait for it to do something hostile, and if it is smart, it will do nothing as along as the US Navy is around).
Worse, Iran may get is friends among the Shiites just to put they boats out to sea, to tie up US resources looking at them to see if they have any missiles on them or not. You can NOT do that by plane, thus the Carrier become a non factor. This is the flood the US with "Friendly" ships, that only one in 1000 carries a missile. Worse, every time one is searched, it goes back to port and the US Navy will have to search it again when it ships back out to sea.
The above, combined with land based missile launchings and air based missile launching, will over tax most defenses. The US Navy can destroy 99 out of 100 attackers, but if one gets through, the price of oil goes through the roof.
Please note, Abu Musa, an island in the Straits on the Gulf side of the Straits is held by Iran, while easy for the US to take over, would provide a nice base for a few days of launching attacks. Abu Musa is an important Iranian outpost, along with the much larger island of Qeshm marked on the following map as Jazireh-ye Qeshm:
The US Navy and Marines can take both island quickly, but not before damage to some tankers would have occurred. Once secure, then you have the problem of holding them, Qeshm would be subject to Artillery and Mortar fire, which would force any US Forces holding that Island to move inland to grab the surrounding high grounds to discourage such actions, but that would require men on the ground and support of Carriers, thus leaving the Straits open for other attacks.
On top of this, Tankers generally do NOT go fast, and having to make a 180 Degree turn, will slow them down even more. This providing more Iran opportunity to hit a Tanker.
If the Iranians are properly trained, and this training exercise is PART of their training, They will fire and scoot, to avoid US response. It will be like using a plane to destroy cars on an interstate, but the interstate is as wide as it is long, we have to make sure NOT to destroy any cars of out allies, but we can not tell if the car is from our allies (and the fact the ship came out of Iran, proves nothing, such trading and shipping is done all the time in the Persian Gulf). Furthermore we have to destroy ALL of the Cars WITHOUT doing damage to the Interstate. Is it possible, yes. Will the US destroy a lot of Iranian Ships and boats, yes, but that is NOT the same thing as winning and both the Pentagon and Iran knows this.
From what I have read, in the War Games the Pentagon has played, the US loses, it destroy most of the Ships, boats, planes, on land launch sites, Iranian Artillery etc, but Tankers refuse to go into the Gulf and the price of oil goes through the roof. Iran retains enough capacity to ch allege the use of the Straits, as the US economy implodes (along with the Iranian economy).
Now, Iran does NOT want to see any such fight, for it ships most of its oil through those same Straits and if Iran blocks the Straits, the US will block the Straits to Iranian oil shipments. Iran does NOT want that, prefers some sort of peaceful resolution of the dispute, without having to give into the US. Hopefully both sides don't do anything stupid and this problem is either resolved or just festers till everyone accepts each sides position. The big winners of such a fight will be Russia, because, once you take out Persian Gulf Oil production, the biggest producer AND exporter of oil is Russia.
AS to production:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_production
http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=5&pid=53&aid=1
As to exports:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_exports
Russian Exports are less then HALF the exports of the Persian Gulf Nations. If you include the largest non-Persian Gulf exporter (Norway) with Russia, you have just over HALF of total exports out of the Persian Gulf.
The world EXPORT 63 Millions barrels of Oil a day, 22.3 Million of that comes out of the Persian Gulf, that is over a third of all exports.
Please note, I above cites use 2009 as a base year, since that time Saudi Arabia has increased its exports, while Russia and Mexico have seen a slight decline (which is believe to continue), Britain, which in 2009 was the 19th exporter is now a net importer of oil. The Third leading producer of oil, has been an net importer of oil since 1969 (i.e. the US, for decades the US was the #1 producer of oil, even after it became a net importer in 1969, it is in the 1980s that the US lost its place as the #1 oil producer, since then the US, Saudi Arabia and Russia have switch being #1, but the US is clearly no longer in contention for #1 or #2 oil producer).
Here is a site for NET exports (exports less imports). 24.4 million barrels of oil out of a total of 32 million barrels come from EIGHT countries, three from the Persian Gulf. None of the Persian Gulf nations are claiming they are in production decline, but the # 2 exporter, Russia, the #3 Exporter Norway, and # 6 Exporter, Mexico all indicate long term decline in oil production.
Norway North Sea Oil production:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Norway
Russian Oil production:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/9657
The problem with Russia, is under the Soviet Union you had poor control over data (Through production was fine, data was questionable), this became worse with the collapse of the Soviet Union, since Putin took over the collection of Data has improved, but you have a bad base to build on, thus the issue of when Russia will hit peak oil). Right now, it appears Soviet Peak oil was in 1982, the Soviet Union made every effort to keep production up till 1987, when those efforts failed and the decline in oil production became steep (and lead to a cash shortage, which lead to the fall of the Soviet Union). The Collapse of the Soviet Union (and the 1990s oil glut due to Saudi Arabia flooding the work with oil during and after the Iraq-Kuwait war and operation Desert Storm) lead to massive drop in oil production, that was undone after 2000, when a second peak occurred recently (i.e. production had drop so much in the 1990s, when production resumed after 2000, it was easy to get the oil back into production and increase oil production by a huge amount, aided by the increase in the price of oil).
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_exp_net-energy-oil-exports-net
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-12-02/russian-oil-output-hits-record-10-dot-5-million-barrels-a-day
Mexican Oil Production (I site Wikipedia, and its reference that since it is forbidden for foreign companies ot own oil wells in Mexico, that is why it is in decline, when the fact that Mexico has a national oil company has NOTHING to due with the decline. The National Oil Company has and does hire assistance from private foreign companies when needed, that it is a Nationally owned company is NOT the problem, the problem is the overall decline in the oil Mexico can produce:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves_in_Mexico
http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/mexican-oil-crisis/2833
http://www.eia.gov/countries/analysisbriefs/Mexico/Mexico.pdf
Sorry, a war with Iran, where Iran can fire missiles at any tanker in the Straits of Hormuz will destroy the world economy, if we lucky all the US suffers is a few damages tankers and high gasoline prices (and I am talking $10 a Gallon Gasoline and I suspect that will be the worse).
If the US is unluckily, we go into a long term war like Austria-Hungary and Germany in 1914, we come out with a destroyed economy and massive internal infighting (I doubt this will happen, I see the US pulling out of things start to go bad economically, thus avoid further economic damage to the US).
Notice, I do NOT see the US losing the war on the sea, in the air or on the ground, but on Main Street, when Main Streets tells Washington it has NO MONEY to pay for the War (and I expect Wall Street to reject the idea of taxing Wall Street to pay for the war). An old joke about war goes this way "Two nations go to war, fight each other, go bankrupt, then sign a peace treaty". I do NOT see the GOP increasing taxes to pay for the War, but at the same time demanding we "Win" the War. That is a recipe for economic disaster, it is what George Bush did in 2001-2002, against Iran, a country with a more defensibly homeland and a better trained army (The Iranian Army of today is not the ill trained Volunteers that charged Iraqi guns in the Iranian-Iraqi war of the 1980s). Today's Iranian Army is well trained, through its equipment is no where near US equipment standards, but it does have a home field advantage and it does NOT plan to fight a war it can NOT win (Thus its plans to close the Straits, something it can do in the face of massive American opposition).
As I said above, Iran does NOT want to go to war with the US, it admits it will lose if war breaks out. That is a dangerous position from a US point of view, the US can attack and even occupy, but that is when the "fun" begins (as it did in Afghanistan and Iraq) for having conceded to the US what the US can do, Iran can then plan what it can do in face of such a threat. Missile launchings at the Main Saudi Arabian Oil fields, missiles blocking the Straits. Asking for and supporting uprisings among their fellow Shiites in the various other Persian Gulf nations.
The above is a viable plan. The plan can, and probably does provide for giving China favorable oil rates if the Chinese provides "assistance". This is NOT a request for direct military action, but just flying its planes to fly near US bases in Japan and Korea (Just like Imperial Russia sent its Fleet to various US Cities during the US Civil War, in effect telling Britain and France that the US had friends who could provide trouble for them if they intervened into the US Civil War), sending Chinese forces to occupy disputed Islands in the South China Seas etc. No direct confrontation, just efforts to tie up US forces. I suspect Iran will do the same to Pakistan and India, but I doubt either will do much (Through Pakistan is a question mark, a US attack on Iran, may give the Taliban in Pakistan the rally cry to get the people of Pakistan behind it and over throw the Government of Pakistan. The Alternative is more likely, when the Government of Pakistan, seeing the attack being used that way, sends ships to the Gulf to show its own people its opposition to the War with Iran WHILE also cutting off the supply lines to Afghanistan, for the second time).
I suspect Iran is leaving open the islands in the Gulf (you do NOT try to hold something you can not hold) and will even let US forces land wherever the US wants to land US forces. Iran is probably setting itself up for a massive bombardment from US planes and waiting to fight the war it can win, the war over the occupation of Iran.
In many ways the US is in a box, if the US leadership was truly smart, it will back out of this box by doing nothing except slowly pulling troops out of Iraq, the Persian Gulf in General and Afghanistan. The US can even increase its talk about how bad the Iranian Government is, while pulling US troops out. The Iranians will see what the US is doing and cut back its own defense efforts. Talk may become harsher, but that is ignorable if the other side seeing you are backing down by pulling troops and ships out.
The problem the US is in this box, it has to either pull back (Which is my suggestion) or attack. I am afraid the US will attack, its other options are gone (Except to withdraw). I see the US taking Iran, but the issue then comes to holding it (the US could NOT hold Iraq, and it is a Desert Country and all you need to control is the two rivers that flows through the desert and the US could NOT even do that for any length of time). Iran is a more fertile and gets more rain then Iraq, and thus its population is a lot larger AND more dispersed. Thus we have the population density of Iraq, with the disperse population of Afghanistan AND the popular unity of Vietnam (yes their are opposition, that also was the situation in Vietnam, but most Vietnamese saw themselves as one people and being divided into two nations was unacceptable to them, the same with Iran).
Side note: You had ethnic minorities in Vietnam, and Iran (and in Iran you have religious minorities including Sunni Moslems) but they are minorities who have to live with the majority and the minorities and majority have worked together for thousands of years in Iran and Vietnam. Thus not much of a dividing line for sooner or later the minorities know they have to live with the Majority, whenever the US leaves. Thus they are a poor source of allies against the Majority, they are fighting for a better position within Iran, not for what the invading country wants. Thus their agenda is different from what the US will want. Could be useful allies for a time, but sooner or later they know the US will leave and they will NOT help the US take anything, they themselves can NOT hold if and when the Majority Shiite Iranian population takes over the Government.
... how they've placed their country right in the middle of all our military bases!!!
