Four US minesweepers arrived in the Gulf over the weekend to bolster the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet, secure the flow of oil shipping routes, and threaten Iran.
The additional ships have an area of operations that includes the Persian Gulf, the Gulf of Oman, the Red Sea and parts of the Indian Ocean. In addition, the two other critical shipping choke points of the Suez Canal and the Strait of Bab al Mandab, between the southern tip of Yemen and Africa, are included in the mission.
In response, the commander of Iran’s ground forces, Ahmad-Reza Pourdastan, suggested on Monday that Iran might move to close the Strait of Hormuz to defend its interests. The threat is an old and tired one, and one that few expect to actually happen.
In April, the Obama administration sent a second aircraft carrier into the Persian Gulf, joining the rest of the fleet of American warships just south of Iranian shores. Cmdr. Amy Derrick-Frost of the Bahrain-based Fifth Fleet said the deployment was “routine and not specific to any threat.”
Indeed, flooding the Gulf with warships is certainly routine and targets no actual threat. They’re there to maintain economic and military hegemony and threaten Iran.
When Obama accelerated the deployment of warships to the Gulf in 2010, the New York Times described it as “part of a coordinated administration strategy to increase pressure on Iran” and also “intended to counter the impression that Iran is fast becoming the most powerful military force in the Middle East.”
Onboard the USS Abraham Lincoln in the Gulf’s Strait of Hormuz last February, BBC reporter Jonathan Beale explained, “This carrier and these [fighter] jets are more than just a show of force, they’re here to send a clear message to Iran as to who really controls these waters.”
Are there really two US aircraft carrier battle groups in the Persian Gulf? This has to be extremely irresponsible. Normally, the US keeps its aircraft carriers a good 1000 km from Iran in the Arabian Gulf. Iran is in no position to engage the US Navy in the open oceans. But they are armed with Russian made anti-ship cruise missiles that have the capacity to sink any mine sweeper, destroyer and cruiser in the US Navy if they are caught in the Persian Gulf in the time of war. In addition these weapons probably have the capacity to blow holes in the side of the air craft carriers, whether they would sink them remains to be seen. (an important technical detail, the Gulf is no more than 300 km across which is within range of those missiles).
If full scale war breaks out between the US and Iran it will be quite irrelevant how much damage the US causes Iran, those Russian provided missiles will make the US 5th fleet vulnerable to terrible losses. If those losses are as bad as some weapons experts predict, it will quite irrelevant if the US "wins" in the exchange with Iran, the loss of the the 5th fleet would not be acceptable to the American public.
I expect these missiles, if ever used, would prove minimally effective at best. Electronic countermeasure s would send them away from their intended targets( or into the sea), and US Navy anti-missile missles and rapid fire guns would prove to be more that adequate "defense."
You ever hear the phrase "hit the broad side of a barn?" Aircraft carriers are several times larger than a barn. It's plenty easy to design a missile that uses visual tracking which can't be jammed or counter-measured. Also, the Navy itself admits that its ships have "no" defenses against ballistic missiles.
According to Saudis the Northern part of Persian Gulf needs to be under the control of Sunny muslims, from south of Iran to Iraq, to Syria to Pakistan and…., If nothing, US and EU have economical invests and interests in that area, one in black gold (oil) the other is the export of goods, otherwise the land is a desert, not able to produce the daily vegetables that people need to eat, although there are some agricultural or other production in Saudi and in general UAE – Qatar but almost everything is imported from Sweden to USA and other part of the world, yet the main import is the Europeans and US weaponry both to Saudis – Qatar alliance and UAE.
There in Qatar, the majority of the people are Shiite so is the Iranian government. Despite the religious differences the Saudis and Qatari kings have made a promise not letting their feudalistic system to be changed by anyone. In the other hand it was the very same dictatorial regimes that give the Sunny regime of Saddam Hussein to the brutality of George W. Bush regime to be changed to what Iraq is today, it is the very same dictatorial regime wanting to make changes in Syria, to place their own kind instead of understanding the fact that they are on the lists of changes that needs to be changed for a better world. Meanwhile the US and EU selling their weapons to these imbeciles, expending their militarism, exporting their goods and nursing the kingdoms needs to get reworded in terms of militarizing the Persian Gulf and paid in billions of dollars, if the Saudis combined with UAE withdraw their investments in US and England the feds (Federal Reserve) needs to rethink and come up with a new banking system beside what the federal government have, where to barrow and from who.
"Sunny" describes a warm, bright day. "Sunni" describes the majority of Moslems. Just thought you might get that straight.
Commenting on the entire US military basis surrounding Iran as well as multiple warships and aircraft carriers in and around the Persian Gulf, an Iranian Commander has made the following comment which seems to make a lot of sense:
“We do not consider them as threats; we consider them as opportunities.” I believe he meant that it is much easier to hit them when they’re close by.
“This carrier and these [fighter] jets are more than just a show of force, they’re here to send a clear message to Iran as to who really controls these waters.”
So they are just a show of force.
This reaches the FAIL level of Wilhelm's Kriegsmarine strutting its stuff in front of Agadir.
This is another US-inspired misinformation piece from antiwar.com. The US doesn't control the Persian Gulf — Iran does. Surface ships are vulnerable to cruise missiles and mines and Iran is predominate in both, plus it has small submarines. Iran is believed to have about 12 light and three Russian-made submarines in its fleet. Four little US minesweepers are nothing.
The US has never had two carriers in the Gulf. Currently the Abraham Lincoln is in the Gulf and the Enterprise is in the North Arabian Sea. http://www.gonavy.jp/CVLocation.html
Iran has been steadily building and buying faster missile boats and stockpiling what American experts say are at least 2,000 naval mines. Iran also has antiship cruise missiles mounted on swarming small boats.
news report: May 4, 2012
Iran Mine Threat Scares Navy; CNO Scrambles To Fix Decades Of Neglect
When asked point-blank whether he was "comfortable" with the Navy's mine-clearing capabilities, the Chief of Naval Operations said bluntly, "No."
Finally there is no evidence that Iran "feels pressure." What Iran sees are more potential targets.
Well, the linked-to NavyTimes says
"The Navy said Monday that the carrier Enterprise entered the Persian Gulf region, becoming the second carrier in that area amid ongoing tensions with Iran over its nuclear program.
The Enterprise carrier strike group joins the Abraham Lincoln’s in support of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan and anti-piracy efforts off Somalia’s coast and the Gulf of Aden, Cmdr. Amy Derrick-Frost of the Bahrain-based 5th Fleet told the Associated Press."
So there may be some leeway in interpretation.
Your log says:
Enterprise (hell, why send the old lady on another mission … some kinda target?)
24May-09Jun2012, Persian Gulf
12Jun-23Jun2012, North Arabian Sea
01Dec2012 The Inactivation Ceremony will be held at Norfolk
Dwight D. Eisenhower
20Jun2012 departed Norfolk for a scheduled deployment to the 5th and 6th fleet areas of operations in support of maritime security operations
I wouldn't call the Jason's article "US-inspired misinformation" nor suggest that these are common around here.
I suggest the Enterprise may be in the gulf for another reason. It is scheduled to be decommisioned next year. That's a nuclear carrier, pricey to scrap. How about just use it as a false flag by Israel and sink it?
Hey, there’s magic in Anti-war. I was cut off the Internet and when I connected again, my comment had disappeared for the third time. I think I’m now on to Anti-war trick. What it does is this:
If they don’t like your comment they make it disappear for others so that no one can see it but you. And if you go off the Internet and come back again, even you cannot see your comment.
http://www.common dreams.org plays the same trick and I quit visiting that phoney site.
I wonder how many people have put nice and informative comments that Anti-war hides from us.
[moderator’s note: You sure do have a lot of theories to keep track of, Nathan. You could reduce the burden by limiting yourself to one with some basis in reality – TLK]
@El Tonno
Learn English — Gulf region/area is not Gulf. And it's not Jason's article.
It is misinformation b/c (1) there are not two carriers in the Gulf and never have there been.
"In April, the Obama administration sent a second aircraft carrier into the Persian Gulf . . .flooding the Gulf with warships " BS
and (2) there is no evidence that "Iran Feels Pressure." As a matter of fact Iran is acting like it is totally in control despite US sanctions and threats. Iran is not buckling under pressure from the predominate world power, which has escalated for thirty years. More BS.
I didn't say "these are common around here" I said "This is another US-inspired misinformation piece from antiwar.com." You really should work on that English.
“Your comment must be approved” — not why I did my twenty, so f-u.
[moderator’s note: Well, I sure HOPE you didn’t do 20 thinking that it would get you a magical exemption from getting caught in spam filters. I sure didn’t do my 10 for that reason, either. On the other hand, 20 years seems to be a pretty hefty investment to have not even learned any basic manners from – TLK]
You got it.
Will you please, pretty please, change that misinformed inaccurate title, and also the text, to reflect the facts and not blatantly support US propaganda regarding Iran?
Many thanks.
We are trying to stop war not promote it, and facts are important. They explain a lot, like Iran's behavior for example.
Flooding the Gulf with warships, indeed.
There had been already one Anglo-Saxon empire who relied on "gun-boat policy". It is no more Empire. The thing is that bullied people can usually adapt more quickly then Empires. It takes some time for sure, but it will come. And the speed of adaptation is going up fast.! With number of bullied chances are falling fast for bully. Bullied will gang-up on bully.
I think it was called "gunboat diplomacy".
A combat quote by a great Marine of old , Colonel Lewis "Chesty" Puller, is quite appropriate from the Iranian point of view. When surrounded by some eight enemy divisions, Col. Puller is quoted as saying to his men:
"All right, they're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us and they're behind us. They won't get away this time."
I should think the only pressure the Iranians are under at this point is getting enough missiles on hand to go around for everyone to take part in the potential carnage.
War on Iran — A brand new game
(1) Iran has a vastly more modern, well equipped and deadly military then any nation we have gone to battle with since World War Two.
(2) Iran is the most highly educated nation we have engaged in combat since 1945, with three of the four nations being totally illiterate.
(3) If heaven intervenes in war, then it could be argued that we won the wars with North Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan because we were the better of two evils. Whereas, Empire US is the most corrupt nation on earth, Iran the most moral of all people on earth, and if the purpose of planet earth is to give the devil enough rope to hang himself, then we his most valuable disciple shall surely be strung up along side of him.