| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| US carrier battle group sails for Iran |
| 2006-10-13 |
| The nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Eisenhower and its accompanying strike force of cruiser, destroyer and attack submarine slipped their moorings and headed off for the Persian Gulf region on October 2, according to an article by Dave Lindorff posted on www.jihadunspun.com. According to Lindorff, the Eisenhower strike force is scheduled to arrive in the vicinity of Iran around October 21, at the same time as a second flotilla of minesweepers and other ships. This build-up of naval power around the coast of Iran, according to some military sources of Lindorff, is in preparation for an air attack on Iran that would target not just Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities, but its entire military command and control system. Lindorff says that while such an attack was likely to unleash a wave of military violence all over Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and elsewhere against US forces and interests and against oil wells, pipelines and loading facilities, as well as a mining of the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, with a resulting skyrocketing of global oil prices, the real goal of this new war by the US would be ensuring Republican control of the House and Senate. According to Lindorff, journalist Larisa Alexandrovna, in the online publication Raw Story, reports that top military leaders are already engaging in “branches and sequels” planning for an Iran attack, which her sources tell her is the kind of planning that is done “after an initial plan has been decided upon”. Lindorff writes that he is surprised by the Democratic Party’s silence. Not one Democrat in Congress and not one Democratic candidate for Congress – not even anti-war insurgent Ned Lamont in Connecticut – has demanded an answer from Bush and the Pentagon for the obvious military buildup around Iran, or about published reports that the US already has special forces inside Iran backing the terrorist organization MEK, and selecting targets for US bombardment. Lindroff also questions the status of the Enterprise carrier strike force, which has already been on station in the Arabian Sea for six months. “If the Enterprise is held over for a longer deployment, after the arrival of the Eisenhower, we will know that something serious is planned,” writes Lindroff. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #15 Not one Democrat in Congress and not one Democratic candidate for Congress – not even anti-war insurgent Ned Lamont in Connecticut – has demanded an answer from Bush and the Pentagon for the obvious military buildup around Iran, or about published reports that the US already has special forces inside Iran backing the terrorist organization MEK, and selecting targets for US bombardment. One of two things; 1.) The democrats have suddenly developed a healthy interest in not slitting their own throats. 2.) The democrats are waiting until after any attack on Iran so they can base their response on whether the campaign is successful or not. Gosh, have I become cynical, or what? Iran cannot be neutralized without the use of WMD. Pure horseshit. Our conventional weapons could neutralize Iran ten different ways before they can even begin to shit their pants. They possess missile-defense in depth. You mean their crappy Soviet era trash? Source guided weaponry can put paid to that garbage in an instant. They'll have to keep their radars turned off just to preserve the installations. Second term Presidents want stability in their final years. If your definition of "stability" doesn't include a neutered Iran in the very immediate future, don't count on much stability in your remaining lifetime. Iran won't have ICBMs until GWB is retired on his Texas ranch, outside of the target zone. And if you think ICBMs are Iran's only intended delivery system, again, don't count on much stability in your remaining lifetime. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-10-13 23:19 |
| #14 Regardless of what happens picture this. Hundreds of mullahs cowering under piles of camel dung with their armed 6 year old wives standing guard. Bwwwaaa! |
| Posted by: Icerigger 2006-10-13 18:18 |
| #13 According to Lindorff, journalist Larisa Alexandrovna, in the online publication Raw Story, reports that top military leaders are already engaging in “branches and sequels” planning for an Iran attack, which her sources tell her is the kind of planning that is done “after an initial plan has been decided upon”. Sheesh...it's no secret that all COCOMs have OPLANSs and CONPLANs. They wargame this stuff all of the time. What a maroon. |
| Posted by: anymouse 2006-10-13 14:11 |
| #12 Snease Shaiting3550, the Air Force and Navy can roll up a "missile defense in depth" in a day or so if that is the objective. Electronic Warfare and anti-radiation missiles are an integral part of any well conceived air compaign. The serious problems with an attack on Iran are political rather than military. |
| Posted by: RWV 2006-10-13 11:30 |
| #11 According to Lindorff, journalist Larisa Alexandrovna, in the online publication Raw Story, reports that top military leaders are already engaging in “branches and sequels” planning for an Iran attack, which her sources tell her is the kind of planning that is done “after an initial plan has been decided upon”. By God, I hope so! Those guys in those planning cells get paid to draft plans to respond to all kinds of things, including things nobody expects will ever happen. IIRC, there was (and maybe still is) a contingency plan to land Marines on Fiji in case a Space Shuttle makes an emergency landing there and the locals won't give it back. |
| Posted by: Mike 2006-10-13 10:35 |
| #10 Second term Presidents want stability in their final years. I'm not sure you understand our President. While all politics are local, if he wins this election and Mr. Bolton gets confirmed, I can see him taking this problem off his successor's plate, one way or another. But the way will have to be clear and I doubt he would do it by year end unless he has Cuban Missle Crisis quality evidence from the incompetents at CIA. But by the end of his term, given a win in this election, and any win will be a big win? Very possible; he'd like to if the People would let him. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-10-13 08:16 |
| #9 “branches and sequels” planning for an Iran attack, which her sources tell her is the kind of planning that is done “after an initial plan has been decided upon”. Ha! We have had an initial plan for Iran for years now. |
| Posted by: Armylife 2006-10-13 07:50 |
| #8 Snease, options are like assholes, everyone has one. Agree on BS journos |
| Posted by: Captain America 2006-10-13 05:05 |
| #7 All BS from a gutter journalist who can't get a job with any respectable media organ. Iran cannot be neutralized without the use of WMD. They possess missile-defense in depth. Second term Presidents want stability in their final years. Iran won't have ICBMs until GWB is retired on his Texas ranch, outside of the target zone. See Ethnic map of Iran terrorist entity: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/Iran_peoples.jpg |
| Posted by: Snease Shaiting3550 2006-10-13 04:53 |
| #6 FOX + CNN; WND.com, SPACEWAR.com > NORTH KOREA has also now threatened JAPAN, besides also inferring against NEW YORK + WASHINGTON DC. Washington DC > i.e. the NPE, the Congress + USG themselves, sub i.e. agz our political leadership including Amer "doves"/Dubya critics. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2006-10-13 01:40 |
| #5 I still contend things heat up right after Nov 7 midterm elections. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2006-10-13 01:24 |
| #4 Roger, NavyRet. They will likely have a longer turnover just to intimidate the black hats. |
| Posted by: anymouse 2006-10-13 00:45 |
| #3 Don't read too much into the closing comment: "..If the Enterprise is held over for a longer deployment, after the arrival of the Eisenhower, we will know that something serious is planned." Turnover between carrier battle groups is normally accomplished over 2 or more days, with both boats steaming relatively close to facilitate personnel swaps and visits between the big dogs. and Pictures, lots of pictures. Now if they were to coordinate a couple of strike packages, say Ike running day ops and the Starship covering nights, that would be a real good thing, but i am not holding my breath. if Iran were the destination, it would be more logical to have the support ships kind of slip away over a period of several weeks and rendevouz over the horizon. |
| Posted by: USN,Ret 2006-10-13 00:34 |
| #2 jihadunspun is now a news source for pakiwaki times? Oh how the lilliputians have fallen. |
| Posted by: ed 2006-10-13 00:11 |
| #1 Ooooo, possibly two carrier groups near Iran by the 21st? Should make for a very interesting end to Ramadan! ;) |
| Posted by: Tony (UK) 2006-10-13 00:06 |