"But it would be a bluff of a different kind if Iran were making these threats while armed with nukes."

 

This is the exact reason why Iran wants/needs nukes.  Since WWII how many countries possessing nukes have been invaded?  0.  How many without nukes have been invaded?  I can think of 7 by the US alone, the total is prolly 50+.

 

How many times has Israel been attacked since it got nukes?  0.

 

Has the US ever threatened North Korea or Pakistan, the other two points of the Axis of Evil, with direct military action?  Nope.

 

It doesn't take a think tank filled with erudite PhDs to figure out that Nukes are useful to have.  And in a way we are making Iran's lack of one almost more painful than continuing to develop one, eh? 

So let's start sinking them and attribute it to Somali pirates...or better yet have SEALS take them over and bring the oil here for free...once again attribute the attacks to Somali pirates....

 

Flyingarty

Well some sources say they had up to 2 nukes during the 1967 6 Day War, and others say that they had all the pieces but had not assembled them yet. But they mostly agree that Israel had at least 10 warheads available during the 1973 Yom Kipper War. All the attacks after that relied on at least the fig leaf of being independent guerillas, rather than government sponsored, in an attempt to avoid an Israeli convention response, not because of the nukes, so the Lebanon and Palestinian conflicts may or may not count.

Technically the US has been at war with North Korea since 1950 so the threat is implicit, or at least according to North Korean. Pakistan is not, and never has been declared a member of the Axis of Evil. Neither have India, China, Russia, France, or the UK been on the list either. The membership was originally Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, so either way, whether you are referring to them all or just the nuclear armed one (NK), you are wrong.

Given the economic assault being applied to North Korea because of its nukes, and that is being repeated against Iran, and that both are likely to result in regime change in the long run, most people would on reflection agree that those political PhDs are idiots. Unless they think Iran can blackmail the world into doing business with them.

 

All possessing nuclear weapons means is that if you push an enemy hard enough to attack, that it will be massive and without warning to take out the nukes and the command and control structure (basically the ‘regime’) before it can use them, as well as the means by which more can be made. That is what the basis of MAD is.

Let’s avoid state sanctioned piracy except in time of war, it violates too many international laws and opens a can of worms you don’t want opened.

 

The other group which routinely turns off the transponders are pirates, so it would be reasonable for a warship to board and direct them to the nearest port. Send ahead owners information to your intelligence agencies and samples of the crude ahead for detailed analysis. Crude oil is as distinctive as fingerprints, so you will have no problem identifying it as Iranian. Meanwhile the intelligence agencies are tracking down the owners, which will be a post office box or front office and setting up communications taps. Most of the vessels transporting Iranian crude are ultimately owned by Iran, and cracking those networks will hurt them more than a few ships.

 

When you get to port start the formal procedures to contact the owners and confirm the identify of the crew and vessel, bill of laden, shipper, receiver, and destination. Take your time to rack up port fees plus the tanker itself probably costs $1 million/day operating costs plus penalties for late delivery, assuming the documentation at least appears valid, otherwise you seize the ship as a potential pirated vessel. The shipper is probably another cutout to track, the purported receiver as well, and the government of the destination country can be embarrassed. The final destination will of course change while at sea, so plant a GPS tracker if possible, they will cut their transponder again when they change destination giving you the excuse to repeat the process.