| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| Field Notes: World War 4, Gulf Theater |
| 2006-04-05 |
| I am posting this to elicit input from the Rantburg group. I read spectator.org for the politix, but this guy, John Batchelor, who I believe to be a radio host, keeps posting these gloomy assessments of the US/Iran conflict. The common theme is that they are in great shape vs. the US militarily. Today he stated that the Iranian wargames are successful and indicated capabilities I did not know they had, like a German electric boat: 1. You will recall that Ahmadinejad vanished from the scene for ten days in February. Now confirmed that he spent his ten days at the new Gulf Operations HQ, site of the command and control for the recent Great Prophet war games. Successful demonstration of headquarters, subordinate headquarters, linked by secure communications, linked to National Command Center at Tehran. 2. During the games, National Command Center conducted successful simulation of ballistic missile launch. This means a nuclear warhead launch. Missile type identified as Fajar 3, or Victory 3. Resembles the body of a Russian SS-4 with a mirved warhead resembling Iskander 3, likely Chinese and or Russian assist. Mirved warhead also associated with distribution to Syria. 3. Announcements of test firings by two types of underwater warheads. Both Russian designs. The cavitation weapon is likely the KV111, rebuilt, and was likely acquired from Ukraine Black Sea Fleet. The Whale torpedo demonstrated in the Straits of Hormuz is Russian design, likely from the Black Sea Fleet. The torpedo maneuvered the shallows and depths of the Straits. The Whale is built for targeting big ships, such as carriers or supertankers. 4. Rebuilt German electric boat deployed and operational in Gulf: this is smaller than German original, aimed at operations on Gulf bottom and in crowded shipping lanes. Also Kilo boats (Russian made) deployed in Indian Ocean from Mozambique to Pakistan. No information if the Kilo boats are using the silencing technology avaiable. 5. Emphasize command and control and communications for all this equipment was successful. Does this mean satellite linkage? Does this mean AWACs? 6. Area of war games operation extended from from the Iraqi coast to Straits of Hormuz. Practicing for a crisis, both blocking the Straits, assault on Gulf oil and transportation facilities. 5. Analysis to follow. Snarky thought: Fifth Fleet is MacArthur, 1941. To the extent I am qualified to perform the analysis, I believe that it's highly unlikely that Iran has made so many simultaneous advances even with Russian, Chinese, Ukranian and Pak help. However, I do believe that the proliferation of modern air to air missiles, anti-shipping missiles, torpedoes and air independent subs to a wack job country that already has IRBMs is a not good. I can only hope that the Navy and Air Force have been paying attention and that, in some ways, an air and naval battle vs. Iran would be easier for our military than the counterinsurgency slog in Iraq in that we trained for it. I do think Batchelor's observation that the Iranians successfully communicated is trivial. We were not trying to stop them, after all. |
| Posted by:JAB |
| #14 John Batchelor belongs oh the radio show "Coast to coast". You know the one about aliens, UFO's, etc. Or he could have his own radio show "Chicken little returns". Of course, he might eventually get something right? |
| Posted by: FeralCat 2006-04-05 23:46 |
| #13 So far the security council has shown no motivation to impose sanctions. Maybe Iran is about to do something that would precipitate sanctions? |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2006-04-05 23:33 |
| #12 I think America should take a long, hard look at how hard we want to press Iran, regardless of how . Forty percent of the world's oil passes through the Strait of Hormuz. All of you gas-guzzling SUV drivers with your predictable Bush/Cheney 04 stickers and your oxymoronic Support our Troops stickers on your rear windows are finally going to recka-nize that the Iranians have us by the proverbial balls, and that the use of force is economically disastrous. They tested two missiles, two torpedos and a ridiculous excuse for a flying boat in the Strait, and the price of oil shot up to $70/barrel. If/when the shooting starts, you'll have CARRY your kids to soccer practice. Nevermind if they get lucky and plug a super-tanker. I'm interested to see how this plays out, but definitely don't want to see the US, or anyone trading hot punches with Iran. The American economy can't afford it. And neither can the Iranian economy if they can't use their prime resource. I think there's room for a creative, non-military solution here...if only cooler heads would prevail. |
| Posted by: GradStudent06 2006-04-05 23:10 |
| #11 "But the most important battle will be the one fought by the MSM and Iran against the United States in the living rooms of America. What will be interesting to see is which side the Democrats chose." Please. By now, you should already know what side they are on. |
| Posted by: newc 2006-04-05 22:32 |
| #10 I think Batchelor is not so much afraid of a confrontation with Iran as he is agitating for one. He has been implicating Iran in the difficulties in Iraq for several years, and I think he is trying to use what influence he has to convince people to take Iran more seriously. To that end, he occasionally indulges in hyperbole. |
| Posted by: tibor742 2006-04-05 22:20 |
| #9 John Batchelor, who I believe to be a radio host, keeps posting these gloomy assessments of the US/Iran conflict. The common theme is that they are in great shape vs. the US militarily. You know I heard the same thing all during the Cold War that the Soviet soldier was 10 foot tall and immune the the harsh conditions of combat. Then their arab allies kept getting their ass handed to them by the Israelis. Oh, that was just poor arab performance was the chorus. Then Afghanistan and then Chetchnya, and the doom and gloom assessements of superior Soviet capabilities were laid to rest. Then there was the 'terrible' Afghan winter and the victors over the Soviets who were doing to teach the Americans their place. One of the quickest campaigns in history. Then there was the Republican Guard [tm] which was suppose to give the American forces a fight for their lives, especially with the absolutely necessary northern thrust removed from the operation by Turkish politics. However, it was a sand storm that slowed the Americans down more than any action by Saddams' forces. But wait, taking Baghdad was going to be Stalingrad Part Deux. Instead we got live feed from the front balcony of the press hotel as Saddam's statute falls. When are these idiots going to get a grip? By playing into the enemy propaganda these twerps make conflict more probable. They play primitive warfare. Its a show, a display of posture and territory. Americans approach warfare like an engineering project. The hand wringer create a misunderstanding on the part of the posturing enemy that they have some effect. Let the record show the reality. They are about the face the most professional and deadly armed force in human history. They are about to get their collective asses handed to them. Sure there's going to be some degree of foul up. That goes along with the friction of war. However, when the dust settles they are going to end up in the same situation as Saddam does today. Don't screw with the thousand pound gorrilla in the living room. |
| Posted by: Juck Sleath3598 2006-04-05 22:03 |
| #8 If they had real confidence, they wouldn't need bluster. |
| Posted by: Crock Thrager2875 2006-04-05 21:45 |
| #7 I think all of the latests tests and such are for Iranian internal consumption. The people know they were held to a standstill for nearly a decade by Iraq and that the Allies took Iraq down in weeks. They need to bolster some confidence pretty badly and the Iranian folks this is aimed at aren't going to be as knowledgable or doubtful as the posters on Rantburg are. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2006-04-05 20:43 |
| #6 Yanking the money out of the Swiss banks was the result of fear of sanctions resulting from the referral to the Security Council. I suspect they're blowing hot air as far as these weapons go in an attempt to provide support to the anti-war forces in the west. The U. S. forces will be able to handle the Iranians with little difficulty as long as we control the tempo, i.e. they might pull off a "Peral Harbor" sneak attack for a few days at most, but that's it. But the most important battle will be the one fought by the MSM and Iran against the United States in the living rooms of America. What will be interesting to see is which side the Democrats chose. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-04-05 20:13 |
| #5 Ya'think that maybe pulling their money out of the Swiss banks might be a strong hint of something afoot? I find it hard to believe that Ahmadinejad would confront the US and/or Isreal at this point. Otherwise, where could Iran go on the tactical offensive? Lebanon: Establish Shia supremacy over Sunnis and Christians. Iraq: Consolidate the position of the Sadrists through violence. Iraq or Afghanistan: Increase tempo of insurgency. Gulf: Hit and run attacks on shipping WMD: Nuclear test. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2006-04-05 19:52 |
| #4 Re JAB's question, I think the best thing to do from here until Showtime is to take EVERYTHING we hear with double the normal grains of salt-- if for no other reason than there's going to be a lot of disinformation floating around from both sides of the conflict. It was that way in the runup to Gulf War I, I recall. As to the Snowman's question, I suspect we're simply going to announce that any sub attack will be assumed to be Iranian and will be responded to appropriately; that should keep any underwater rubberneckers away. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2006-04-05 19:41 |
| #3 Lots of countries have Kilo diesel-electric subs. You can't tell what country they're from from their accoustic signatures... |
| Posted by: Abdominal Snowman 2006-04-05 19:05 |
| #2 One question that has occured to me: * If there's an incident in the Gulf, where a sub shoots a tanker and sinks it and the sub is then sunk or chased off or whatever... How will we know that sub is Iranian? Are we sure noone else is going to show up to the dance? |
| Posted by: Abdominal Snowman 2006-04-05 18:50 |
| #1 I fear it's all a red herring. This show of new weapons and craft. There is something quite different that they're actually proud of. I think in part, given the lack of invective towards Israel in the last weeks, and this deflection to such a specific area, this is a diversion towards a build-up of Iranian-sponsored hit on Israel. A closer look at the Al Q build up in Paleostine and arms in surrounding territory is wise. How many gunnies are ammassed in surrounding areas now (Syria, Leb, Egypt, jordan - and close by enough to move within 24 hours?). I do smell fish - not that the show isn't to be taken seriously. |
| Posted by: Thinemp Whimble2412 2006-04-05 18:45 |