US Deploying to Gulf

Again, here is another party apparently thinking that if war kicks off then it will spread to Iraq.
The reason I sort of mentioned earlier that if it ever does - Iraq will be considered a walk in park. They've always hated each other - different sects. I really can't imagine the carnage. Not that there's already a lot of that going on.

Ironically, Iran actually "assisted" the U.S. in the fight against the Taliban.

https://ctc.usma.edu/irans-ambiguous-role-in-afghanistan/
 
The following is a CBC story on the forces in the US pushing for war with Iran. The present situation is linked to the same forces which pushed for the US to pull out of the Iran nuclear deal last year.
www.cbc.ca/news/world/john-bolton-saudis-white-house-iran-war-u-s-1.5137610?cmp=rss
How this fragile situation came to pass, Iran specialists say, is tied to the motivations of bellicose actors in the White House, as well as Mideast powers that cheered on the U.S. exit from the Iran nuclear deal last year.

If not for Trump withdrawing from the nuclear pact; if not for U.S. national security adviser John Bolton's hawkish position toward Tehran; and if not for Sunni states and Israel wielding influence with this administration, the U.S. might not be in this crisis, they say.
One of these forces is US national security advisor John Bolton. He has called for overthrowing the government of Iran, including in a speech addressing the Mujahedin-e Khalq, an anti-Iran group formerly designated a terrorist organisation by western countries until they were declared rehabilitated in the 2009 to 2012 period.
Bolton has a long history of displaying hawkish tendencies. He has endorsed regime change in Iran, calling for "the overthrow of the mullahs' regime" in a July 2017 address to the Mujahedin-e Khalq, a militant group that advocates achieving that end through violence.
Bolton was a backer of the invasion of Iraq in 2003 where he worked together with Dick Cheney. Bolton was considered to be the most extreme of the hard liners.
He championed the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the disastrous aftermath of which continues to this day.

(...) Bolton served with Vice-President Dick Cheney in George W. Bush's administration in the aughts. If Cheney was known for his "hard-line" influence over Bush while pushing the Iraq War and defending waterboarding interrogation techniques, then Bolton was a hard-liner among hard-liners, Parsi said.
He also pushed for an attack on North Korea.
He also pushed for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea, laying out his case in a 2018 Wall Street Journal op-ed that warned that the U.S. "should not wait until the very last minute" for North Korea to obtain a nuclear weapon.
In 2015 he published a newspaper editorial in which he advocated bombing Iran.
Before his appointment as Trump's chief adviser on national security, Bolton authored a 2015 op-ed in The New York Times articulating his solution for preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb: "Bomb Iran."
Saudi Arabia and the UAE are also pushing the US to war with Iran.
But Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, Sunni states with historical enmity for Iran's Shia Muslim-majority population, are engaged in a proxy war with Iran. Both countries have pushed the U.S. to take a more aggressive stance against Iran.
As are Israel.
This week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told an event in Jerusalem that Israel had enjoyed renewed relations with Arab neighbours because "we are united in our desire to stop Iranian aggression."

Last year, Netanyahu claimed credit for ending U.S. participation in the Iran nuclear deal, boasting: "We convinced the U.S. president [to exit the deal] and I had to stand up against the whole world and come out against this agreement."
The news story's main focus though seems to be on Bolton, and questions whether Bolton is once again using falsified intelligence to push for a Middle East war, quoting one observer as noting that "Bolton has blatantly lied before".
Meanwhile, a top British general's assessment that there has been no threat increase from Iran in the region drew rebuke from the Pentagon, a rare statement of disagreement from a fellow member of the Five Eyes nations that supposedly share intelligence information.

Such discrepancies have roused questions about whether the administration's intelligence on Iran should be trusted, reviving echoes of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, a conflict cheered on by Bolton and justified using false or overstated evidence of Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction.

With discrepancies on intelligence arising once again, this time with Iran, Parsi warned against history repeating itself.

"We should be skeptical," he said. "Bolton has blatantly lied before."
 
The reason I sort of mentioned earlier that if it ever does - Iraq will be considered a walk in park. They've always hated each other - different sects. I really can't imagine the carnage. Not that there's already a lot of that going on.

Ironically, Iran actually "assisted" the U.S. in the fight against the Taliban.

https://ctc.usma.edu/irans-ambiguous-role-in-afghanistan/
The supply of EFPs and other weapons really assisted NATO forces?
Another concern in Afghanistan has been the discovery of AK-47s, C4 plastic explosives, mortars and advanced armor piercing explosives, known as Explosively-Formed Penetrators (EFPs), a shaped charge used with deadly effect by insurgents in Iraq.20 EFPs, which appear to come from Iran, have earned the nickname in Afghanistan as “Dragons” because they are shaped so that the explosive force is concentrated in the direction of the designated target rather than blasting in all directions and therefore weakening the impact.21 Unlike ordinary mines that can cause minor damage to military vehicles, a Dragon can completely destroy it. The Taliban have credited Iranian-supplied weapons as being responsible for successful attacks against NATO forces in southern Afghanistan.22
 
Being able to visually identify aircraft with fighters reduces the danger, so in a way a carrier reduces the potential risk. In 1982 the Falklands task group thought an Argentine jet was spying on them jet was spying on them was was preparing to shoot it down, until it was realised it was on a route from South Africa to Brazil. A Sea Harrier intercepted and confirmed it was an airliner.

Abraham Lincoln's aircraft can stop Iranian aircraft from harassing or threatening oil tankers, gas carriers, and other merchant shipping, and contribute to countering a possible submarine threat. Hopefully her presence (and that of other forces) should help convince regional players on both sides of the Gulf to keep calm.
Not being funny mate but have you ever Been through Hormuz straits?

There are a slight few more considerations than you imply.
Notwithstanding... I think this is all piss & wind anyway.
 
Crusade by proxy, or some tinfoil turban-wearing? The author's oeuvre seems to be generally alarmist and anti-Western from what I can find of his other op eds.

'The U.S. and Israel are following a quite successful method concerning the Islamic civil war. They are establishing organizations and using Muslims. They control states and make them wage wars against one another. They have UAE Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman under their control and are trying something new.

'Two crown princes, two countries: They’ve become hitmen of the Crusader attacks

'The plot to “push God to trigger doomsday” is unfortunately being staged through Saudi Arabia and the UAE today. The two countries have become spokespersons of an Evangelist Crusades craze. These two countries that have control over Mecca and Medina are kept under control through the crown princes and turned into the hitmen of a sort of Crusader battle.'

US won’t attack Iran, it will start a new Arab-Persian war. Two crown princes, two countries: They became hitmen of the Crusaders. But the big trap is set against Saudi Arabia. - İBRAHIM KARAGÜL
Mr Blackflower writes for the pro-government (well, pro Erdogan) Yeni Safak. Turkey would love a Saudi-Iran spat as it would allow it to cement its role as a regional hegemon.

One thing that observers seem not to pick up is that Jared Kushner"s "deal of the century" - a new Middle East Peace Plan - is meant to be revealed in all its glory in about a month's time. If (yet another) war is started by the US in the region, Kushner"s plan is unlikely to be well received.
 
Mr Blackflower writes for the pro-government (well, pro Erdogan) Yeni Safak. Turkey would love a Saudi-Iran spat as it would allow it to cement its role as a regional hegemon.

One thing that observers seem not to pick up is that Jared Kushner"s "deal of the century" - a new Middle East Peace Plan - is meant to be revealed in all its glory in about a month's time. If (yet another) war is started by the US in the region, Kushner"s plan is unlikely to be well received.
The leaking which is feeding these stories may have some connection to the internal power struggles within the Whitehouse.

That's a very interesting point about Turkey though. As one of the major regional powers they wouldn't want to see either Saudi Arabia or Iran get the upper hand, but something which took both of them down a peg would probably suit Turkey just fine.
 
Does this compare with Iran’s backing of, involvement with terror groups, and the killings that they have directly had a hand in for over 35 years?
When it comes to supporting and backing terrorism in the past 35 years Iran are rank amateurs compared with Saudi Arabia and our other good friends in the Gulf states.

If it's terrorist enablers you're after maybe you should find out who has been behind all these absolutely horrific ISIS attacks in the past few years.

I'll give you a clue.

It isn't Iran.
 
When it comes to supporting and backing terrorism in the past 35 years Iran are rank amateurs compared with Saudi Arabia and our other good friends in the Gulf states.

If it's terrorist enablers you're after maybe you should find out who has been behind all these absolutely horrific ISIS attacks in the past few years.

I'll give you a clue.

It isn't Iran.
You have proof the Saudi govt supported IS? I’d be interested in your sources. Not RT and their ilk please.
 
When it comes to supporting and backing terrorism in the past 35 years Iran are rank amateurs compared with Saudi Arabia and our other good friends in the Gulf states.

If it's terrorist enablers you're after maybe you should find out who has been behind all these absolutely horrific ISIS attacks in the past few years.

I'll give you a clue.

It isn't Iran.
Is it the USA?

It sort of makes sense.
 
Not being funny mate but have you ever Been through Hormuz straits?

There are a slight few more considerations than you imply.
Notwithstanding... I think this is all piss & wind anyway.
No I have not - but I was just saying sending a carrier does not imply a 'bomb Iran' agenda. In 1998 there was a bit of a crisis between China and Taiwan, and the Clinton administration sent a carrier group (or was it two?) to calm down the hot heads. Nobody accused Clinton of seeking a war with Beijing.

I would like to think the lunatics on the American right have not taken over.
 
...In 1982 the Falklands task group thought an Argentine jet was spying on them jet was spying on them was was preparing to shoot it down, until it was realised it was on a route from South Africa to Brazil. A Sea Harrier intercepted and confirmed it was an airliner...
According to Woodward’s book, no intercept occurred on that occasion. Instead, they assumed it was probably an airliner when somebody realised it was on an oceanic air route. That assumption was confirmed when it kept going south east.

...Abraham Lincoln's aircraft can stop Iranian aircraft from harassing or threatening oil tankers, gas carriers, and other merchant shipping, and contribute to countering a possible submarine threat...
There are more than enough assets in Theatre for all of those roles and it’s achieved on a daily basis. This is purely Trump willy-waving.

Regards,
MM
 
According to Woodward’s book, no intercept occurred on that occasion. Instead, they assumed it was probably an airliner when somebody realised it was on an oceanic air route. That assumption was confirmed when it kept going south east.

Regards,
MM
Woodward's book says that the jet was launched after Weapons Tight had been ordered. Even in the relatively empty South Atlantic the potential for danger and confusion exists. I believe warships now carry equipment for communicating with civil aircraft on ICAO agreed frequencies.
 
Woodward's book says that the jet was launched after Weapons Tight had been ordered...
I stand corrected and will re-read.

...I believe warships now carry equipment for communicating with civil aircraft on ICAO agreed frequencies.
TG ships hade Mode 3 and C IFF/SSR and a VHF radio capable of 121.5! ADS-B and Mode S helps today.

Regards,
MM
 
Last edited:
Despite Iran’s inferior armed forces Iran has very successfully used a huge variety of asymmetric warfare techniques over the last 35 years to achieve the Influence and concern it now has.

It does regard itself as a world power, and it’s Supreme Leader is also it’s religious leader. The ultimate declared aim of Islam is world domination and they are quite happy to declare that quite openly. So openly in fact that it has simply ceased to have any impact and people now ignore it as mere background noise. A rather dangerous mistake.

Islam is not a tolerant religion, its proponents are quite happy to use methods that most of the rest of world deplores

What is happening at the present time is a perfect example of asymmetric warfare. The US has been either baited, or in fact has uncovered evidence of a possible hostile move by Iran against it, and is taking precautionary steps.

It’s allies in the meantime are in a state of doubt, as evidenced by top military commanders and by the general press/twiteratae/bloggers/internet public/Joe soap, Spot and his bone. Iran can sit back and watch this all with quiet satisfaction, delay any intended action...or, if deniable enough go ahead, wait for a US reaction... and the inevitable worldwide howl of indignation from the doubters of whom there are a multitude, as evidenced right here on this Forum.

Iran has a reasonably proficient cyber capability and uses it relentlessly.
https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB424/docs/Cyber-071c.pdf
https://www.fdd.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/REPORT_IranCEEW.pdf
When It Comes to Cyberattacks, Iran Plays the Odds

Anyone who believes that Iran’s religious and National motives are simply the desire to be friends can continue to do so along with the knowledge that they certainly never want a nuclear bomb only nuclear power for peaceful purposes...and, the complete inihaltion of Israel. Another openly stated intention.
 
From memory ( only visited once) I recall that the Gulf is way too narrow to deploy a battlegroup effectively without being under permanent threat from Iranian shore based missiles?
Also it's supposedly too shallow for subs, so it's more likely the carrier group will be lurking outside the straits, somewhere in the Indian Ocean?
 
Last edited:
They were also responsible for about 608 Americans deaths fairly recently. So no, we are not in the moving on stage yet.
Should we count how many innocent citizens Americans have killed in their role as the Worlds Policeman? Here's a clue it's far more than 608.
 

Similar threads


Top