Iranian issue is heating up like it or not

U.S. Navy sends carriers near Iran By BARBARA SURK, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 34 minutes ago



The U.S. Navy staged its latest show of military force off the Iranian coastline on Wednesday, sending two aircraft carriers and landing ships packed with 17,000 U.S. Marines and sailors to carry out unannounced exercises in the Persian Gulf.

The carrier strike groups led by the USS John C. Stennis and USS Nimitz were joined by the amphibious assault ship USS Bonhomme Richard and its own strike group, which includes landing ships carrying members of the 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit.

The Navy said nine U.S. warships passed through the narrow Strait of Hormuz on Wednesday. Merchant ships passing through the busy strait carry two-fifths of the world's oil exports.

Aircraft aboard the two carriers and the Bonhomme Richard were to conduct air training while the ships ran submarine, mine and other exercises.

The maneuvers came just two months after a previous exercise in March when two U.S. carrier groups carried out two days of air and sea maneuvers off the Iranian coast.

Before the arrival of the Bonhomme Richard strike group, the Navy maintained around 20,000 U.S personnel at sea in the Gulf and neighboring waters.

U.S. warships have frequently collided with merchant ships in the busy shipping lanes of the Gulf.

(This version CORRECTS the number of carriers to two, not three.)


*********************************************************

Lets see what other little nuggets....

IAEA: Iran continues to defy U.N.

Oh and this little diddy....

Iran detains fourth Iranian American

the more I watch the developments with Iran and the posturing of both sides the clearer it becomes armed conflict is on the horizon. On top of all this we have rumblings in congress about a preemptive (pun intended) bill that would limit the presidents ability to wage war against Iran.

Am I reading the signs wrong?

Maybe the engineer in me has been trained to look for patterns where there may be none. But I find these developments, as well as the continuously deteriorating situation with Russia as intrinsicly linked. I say this because whenever things 'ratchet up' with Iran, they seem to almost always 'ratchet up' with Russia.

America's greatest fear: A nuclear armed Iran.

Russia's greatest fear: An American missile shield which leaves them vulnerable and the traditional deadly balance of MAD removed.

Right now, it seems as though both of these issues are coming to a head, and I suspect that it's not a coincidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Maybe the engineer in me has been trained to look for patterns where there may be none. But I find these developments, as well as the continuously deteriorating situation with Russia as intrinsicly linked. I say this because whenever things 'ratchet up' with Iran, they seem to almost always 'ratchet up' with Russia.

America's greatest fear: A nuclear armed Iran.

Russia's greatest fear: An American missile shield which leaves them vulnerable and the traditional deadly balance of MAD removed.

Right now, it seems as though both of these issues are coming to a head, and I suspect that it's not a coincidence.

---

Nice observation Don, I think given the fact that Russia was unable to do anything about Iraq it might well be fueling increased rhetoric on thier side in anticipation of whats going to happen next.

Luckily for Russia (sarcasm implied here) they have a new MAD component and thats thier energy stores, Russia can hurt the eastern europeans who might host the missle shield.

Why does the Darth Vader song come to mind when I think of Carrier Battle Groups doing excersizes off the persian gulf?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wakizashi

Why does the Darth Vader song come to mind when I think of Carrier Battle Groups doing excersizes off the persian gulf?

---

You have yet to comply with and assimilate to the "empire" :whip:

Interesting observations Don.

I believe we'll see the climate of conflict continuing to heat up with regards to Iran. I can easily see Iran continue its course of defiance through this administration. If we are not in armed conflict with Iran directly before the election than I believe Iran will be willing to become even more defiant to test the incoming administration. At some point the new administration will have to face some tough decisions. Whether to go hawk or dove the luxury will exist of being past the election.


As far as Russia is concerned, I'm personally keeping my eye on the Doomsday Clock.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Maybe the engineer in me has been trained to look for patterns where there may be none. But I find these developments, as well as the continuously deteriorating situation with Russia as intrinsicly linked. I say this because whenever things 'ratchet up' with Iran, they seem to almost always 'ratchet up' with Russia.

America's greatest fear: A nuclear armed Iran.

Russia's greatest fear: An American missile shield which leaves them vulnerable and the traditional deadly balance of MAD removed.

Right now, it seems as though both of these issues are coming to a head, and I suspect that it's not a coincidence.

---

Now I'm letting your engineer brain work a bit more and come up with an explaination on why Russia would want Iran with nukes in that case, as Iran with nukes = few nukes = missile shield a functional idea for US defense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Now I'm letting your engineer brain work a bit more and come up with an explaination on why Russia would want Iran with nukes in that case, as Iran with nukes = few nukes = missile shield a functional idea for US defense.

---

I think the idea is

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Putin

you may be able to stop us from launching ICBM's at you, but you won't be able to stop Hizbollah leaving a suitcase in Times Square. Stop building that missile shield, or we'll see to it that's exactly what happens.

---

The best way for the Russians to get us to stop building a missile defense shield is to introduce a consequence for building it against which, it cannot defend us.

I think this is a link to Global Warming and not having enough carbon credits.

On the BBC there was talk of Iran launching a summer offensive (no I am not Iran) to stir the American troops out of Iraq. Something akin to a Tet Offensive where we won't lose the battle, but popular opinion will lose the war. Now, if there was a conflict with Iran, then I think that the bull waste will hit the oscillating blades.
If Bush plays it right (PR-wise) then he could get another check from the Congress to hit Iran.
However this is all subjective, and with the U.S. declaring war on so many targets, you get the feeling that the dreaded 'd' word might pop up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I think the idea is

The best way for the Russians to get us to stop building a missile defense shield is to introduce a consequence for building it against which, it cannot defend us.

---

Meh, those Chetchenian (sp?) terrorists with "connections" with Al-Quida has been able to "just accidently" acuire a suit-case nuke bomb by bribing some underpaid guard. Getting enough radioactive material to make a dirty bomb is even cheaper an much easier.

The traces would only be further dilluted.

If there's a connection it's more likely that Iran is used as a focuser for the US, to keep Russia new empire bulding under the radar is it's busy elsewere.

Yeah it is sabre-rattling from the americans. They have royally plucked it in Iraq, and there is now overwhelming pressure for a Syria-Iran detente to create a mutually agreeable buffer state between them. The US govt know that the writing is on the wall, they just don't want to give up gracefully.

So pathetic really. Once again to all of you :daisy: who backed the war - told you so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

Yeah it is sabre-rattling from the americans. They have royally plucked it in Iraq, and there is now overwhelming pressure for a Syria-Iran detente to create a mutually agreeable buffer state between them. The US govt know that the writing is on the wall, they just don't want to give up gracefully.

So pathetic really. Once again to all of you :daisy: who backed the war - told you so.

---

I'm not sure I'm following your logic. If the Syrians and the Iranians are fighting a proxy war by way of insurgents in Iraq, wouldn't it stand to reason that if they were coming to some sort of agreement, the violence between the insurgent groups would be decreasing? Surely you're not agreeing with Mr. Cheney that things are wrapping up over there...

Saber rattling? Yes, I suppose it is. I think we're nervous and our current administration appears ill-suited to tackle the problem of preventing a nuclear armed Iran. When you're a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail, but I'm curious how you personally, Idaho, would attempt to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons?

I personally think any sort of military action in Iran would be a terrible mistake. It really would bring about WW3. There's no way China and Russia would just sit back and let us control 30% of the world's oil supply, even if we truly had the best of intentions (and as we can't even convince 50% of our population that we really do have the best of intentions, it's foolish to assume that we could convince Russia and China).

But I also think it would be a terrible mistake to allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons. They've all but said they'll use them the first chance they get against Israel.

I'm curious what Idaho proposes for ensuring neither of these travesties comes to pass.

@topic: Cool, we'll get another even, long drawn out war that will provide excellent material for future suspense novels, war movies, and war games! I hope the game makers stick to historical realism and focus on AI instead of graphics though!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

Yeah it is sabre-rattling from the americans. They have royally plucked it in Iraq, and there is now overwhelming pressure for a Syria-Iran detente to create a mutually agreeable buffer state between them. The US govt know that the writing is on the wall, they just don't want to give up gracefully.

So pathetic really. Once again to all of you :daisy: who backed the war - told you so.

---

So you are asserting that:

1. US efforts to establish a comparatively stable, relatively secular, somewhat pro-USA/pro Western Iraq are a failure.

2. Any effort at a truly independent Iraq is unlikely.

3. It is up to Syria and Iran to work out the parameters for a "buffer" state between them.

4. The USA will be forced, by extant circumstances, to shut up and do what Iran/Syria want.

5. Our resistance to accepting the 4 previous points is the primary remaining obstacle to a comparatively peaceful resolution of the Iraq situation.



Is this an accurate re-statement?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Is this an accurate re-statement?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I'm curious what Idaho proposes for ensuring neither of these travesties comes to pass.

---

I would like to know these as well, I distinctly remember him stating our basis for invading Afghanistan was to aid in the setting up of an oil pipeline for Cheney's cronies. I remember this well as after reading this drivel I did not visit the Org off-topic for a few years. The main reason being that I couldn't believe somebody as intelligent in expression at times, even if in contention with my views would attempt to make fact out of fantasy.

Quite often people draw connections between events that actually have the same route cuase but are not directly connected.

The Taliban were belligerant and therefore made difficulties with the pieline, because they were belligerant they supported Bin Laden Inc.

That doesn't mean the US faked 9/11 and invaded just to secure the pieline.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

So you are asserting that:

1. US efforts to establish a comparatively stable, relatively secular, somewhat pro-USA/pro Western Iraq are a failure.

2. Any effort at a truly independent Iraq is unlikely.

3. It is up to Syria and Iran to work out the parameters for a "buffer" state between them.

4. The USA will be forced, by extant circumstances, to shut up and do what Iran/Syria want.

5. Our resistance to accepting the 4 previous points is the primary remaining obstacle to a comparatively peaceful resolution of the Iraq situation.



Is this an accurate re-statement?

---

Yeah that looks broadly in line with my opinions.

What would I do about a nuclear Iran? Nothing much. If you or I were the president of Iran we would be trying to get nukes as quick as possible. Our pro US neighbour has them (Pakistan) and two of our declared enemies have them (US and Israel). I'd be foolish not to get them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

What would I do about a nuclear Iran? Nothing much. If you or I were the president of Iran we would be trying to get nukes as quick as possible. Our pro US neighbour has them (Pakistan) and two of our declared enemies have them (US and Israel). I'd be foolish not to get them.

---

If I were in charge of Iran, I'd be trying to use all that oil revenue to build infrastructure and a stable productive economy instead of funneling it to terrorists or squandering it in trying to spark a nuclear conflict with a world super-power.

I think your approach (and Iran's current approach) is a bit foolish. Further, just because you can imagine their motivation for wanting nuclear weapons, it doesn't follow that they should be allowed to have them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

If I were in charge of Iran, I'd be trying to use all that oil revenue to build infrastructure and a stable productive economy instead of funneling it to terrorists or squandering it in trying to spark a nuclear conflict with a world super-power.

I think your approach (and Iran's current approach) is a bit foolish. Further, just because you can imagine their motivation for wanting nuclear weapons, it doesn't follow that they should be allowed to have them.

---

Except middle eastern countries with a decent economy ttend to get shot to bits, either by their neighbours (like Israel) or by the US/UN. I'd be worried about defending my country too.

Let's face it, if you decide to invade Iran we're going to end up with an us or them situation, the US vs Islam, it's not going to be pretty...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

If I were in charge of Iran, I'd be trying to use all that oil revenue to build infrastructure and a stable productive economy instead of funneling it to terrorists or squandering it in trying to spark a nuclear conflict with a world super-power.

I think your approach (and Iran's current approach) is a bit foolish. Further, just because you can imagine their motivation for wanting nuclear weapons, it doesn't follow that they should be allowed to have them.

---

And you are plain niaive if you think that Iran can merrily go about doing good deeds within it's borders without worrying about the US military build-up and decades of repeated threats and rhetoric.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wakizashi

Why does the Darth Vader song come to mind when I think of Carrier Battle Groups doing excersizes off the persian gulf?

---

I find your lack of faith disturbing.
*heavy mechanical breathing*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

And you are plain niaive if you think that Iran can merrily go about doing good deeds within it's borders without worrying about the US military build-up and decades of repeated threats and rhetoric.

---

Yeah those buggers in Tehran screaming "death to america" must be causing all sorts of internal discorse. :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

That doesn't mean the US faked 9/11 and invaded just to secure the pieline.

---

I don't think 11/9 was faked, but I do believe that the invasion was provoked after wrangling over the pipeline that had been going on since the mid 90s. 11/9 served as the necessary, publicly acceptable, pretext. It happened at the right time.

Only an idiot would go to war with Iran , luckily there is a bunch of sensible people in the whitehouse at the moment .
Its just a pity that the cleaning staff doesn't have much input on foriegn policy .

Iran should have as much right to develop nukes as anyone, even though they're nowhere close to doing such. They've enriched uranium to about .05% last time i checked. Maybe in ten years.

The US is the only nation on earth to have actually USED nuclear weapons on people. Not to mention we have hundreds stockpiled. Who is the bigger threat to 'world peace'?

Iran because their leadership supports Islamic sects that are violent, and cannot monitor the stockpiles of uranium and nuclear technology that they currently maintain.

We, on the other hand, know what nuclear weapons do, and are more hesitant to use them, monitor them, and have a track record of safe storage and use of nuclear technology.

I trust our safeguards and nuclear protection than a Islamic Republic that has a stated goal of destroying Israel.

If we give everyone a rifle, it's more likely someone will get shot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

Iran should have as much right to develop nukes as anyone, even though they're nowhere close to doing such. They've enriched uranium to about .05% last time i checked. Maybe in ten years.

---

I've said it before, and I will probably say it again: Iran cannot be allowed to develop nuclear weapons unless it withdraws from the NPT. Once it does that, they are free to do what they want. Until that time, they are subject to inspections and sanctions.

Can't see this happening really only a few months ago Irael was ground to a halt in the Leb by a non state organisation. Iran has a real army with plenty people prepared to fight. US is spread thin at this time an attack on Iran would be madness when two other battles are being fought right now. Not to mention an election and feeling of bring the boys home. Most likely a targetted bombing with some kind of Israeli involvement will happen eventually but it will fail and be greatly fudged in the media.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

And you are plain niaive if you think that Iran can merrily go about doing good deeds within it's borders without worrying about the US military build-up and decades of repeated threats and rhetoric.

---

And you are plain naive if you think that the U.S. and Israel can go merrily about doing good deeds within it's borders and around the globe without worrying about the Iranian military build-up and decades of repeated threats, rhetoric, sustained violence, financed violence, kidnappings, murder, unwavering support for terrorism not to mention that they've distinctly pledged a wiping from the earth for Israel and a decisive blow for great satan that is the U.S and the west.

Open war with Iran, is not however, the answer to the problem at this point. Rice spoke about the situation quite well yesterday in an interview, stating how Iran is indeed feeling the pressure from the international community. The only thing I fear is that when the choice has to be made will they use their heads or the sword of their religion. Everyone preached negotiations, so I hope your faith is well placed in them, a lot will be riding on it.