Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Wed 06/30/2004 View Tue 06/29/2004 View Mon 06/28/2004 View Sun 06/27/2004 View Sat 06/26/2004 View Fri 06/25/2004 View Thu 06/24/2004
1
2004-06-30 Syria-Lebanon-Iran
Radio Report of Several Carrier Battle Groups headed towards Iran
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Yosemite Sam 2004-06-30 10:09:41 AM|| || Front Page|| [11128 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 A blockade is covered by international law. The administration is going to have to get some kind of finding better than "we caught some Iranian guys videotaping the Holland Tunnel" to justify that sort of thing.
Posted by Jonathan  2004-06-30 10:32:57 AM|| [www.workaround.blogspot.com]  2004-06-30 10:32:57 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 If there is any truth to the blockade report, I have no doubt that there is a LOT more to the story than two guys videotaping.
Posted by virginian 2004-06-30 10:39:52 AM||   2004-06-30 10:39:52 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Jonathan - absolutely true - it's a clearly defined Act of War... so it should require a trip back to Congress for authorization - utterly impossible until after November, and utterly moot if Skeery is elected. If we go ahead and do it anyway, I'll have to eat my hat - but it would be worth it 10x if it resulted in the fall of the Mad Mullahs. I just don't believe it will have that effect.

Pure sabre-rattling?
Posted by .com 2004-06-30 10:40:52 AM||   2004-06-30 10:40:52 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 I heard on another radio show that much of the US fleet has been dispatched to the Korean Peninsula area and the Arabian Peninsula area for "exercises." This is consistent with a report on RB a few weeks ago about 7 carrier battle groups rapidly deploying as part of an exercise. The earliest an Iranian blockade can come is after the September IAEA meetings (if the IAEA recommends sanctions to the UN Security Council). Not sure about the timing of a Nork blockade.
Posted by Tibor 2004-06-30 10:50:01 AM||   2004-06-30 10:50:01 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Please define several carrier BGs for those of us on the learning curve program.
Posted by Dragon Fly  2004-06-30 10:50:32 AM||   2004-06-30 10:50:32 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 DF - Check this out.
Posted by .com 2004-06-30 10:53:59 AM||   2004-06-30 10:53:59 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 .com: Maybe W has prepared an October surprise? As in, "If anything happens in the US that looks anything like terrorism, the mullahs are going to be in for a surprise this October."
Posted by Jonathan  2004-06-30 10:54:54 AM||   2004-06-30 10:54:54 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 1. lite Jonathan said - taking pictures isnt an act of war. This is NOT to defend the fascist regime in Teheran - its merely to make the point that there HAS to be something we havent heard about yet if the above is anything but another rumor.
2. In any case, NO admin official has said anything in public about the expelled diplos - youd think theyd start building a case.
3. Seven carriers? To do what? For an invasion youd need a lot of troops. Which we dont have available, unless we're willing to use troops deployed in Iraq, and just forget about keeping order in Iraq. Which makes sense IF you think Iran is the source of ALL problems in Iraq, I suppose. But youd think we'd see at least some evidence of redeployment to the border, in Iraq. If its a raid only, you dont need 7 carriers - which is just about every deployable carrier I think. Hell we fought the OIF with only what, 4 carriers?

Whole thing doesnt make sense. give this one 48 hours, folks.
Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-06-30 10:58:28 AM||   2004-06-30 10:58:28 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 .com Thanks ...Wow! I would not want to tangle with them if I were a black hat!
Posted by Dragon Fly  2004-06-30 10:58:30 AM||   2004-06-30 10:58:30 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 jonathan - then the deployment is too early. Carriers have a regular deployment cycle, involving repair,training, etc. A massive deployment disrupts that, and is a BAD thing. There are certain carriers that ARE deployed to the Med, Arabian Sea, Pacific, etc. Adding more is NOT something you do till theyre needed.

I suggest Globalsecurity.org "Where are the Carriers?"
Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-06-30 11:01:02 AM||   2004-06-30 11:01:02 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 DF - More

Jonathan - Pre-November it sounds like the UNSC, via an IAEA Report truly damning the Iranians for their duplicity and Non-Proliferation violations, is the path being worked. I just don't have any faith / confidence that Elbarradai would actually call a spade a spade. He's certainly waffled all around doing this - and managed not to do it - for a long time, now. Even if the IAEA finally does its duty, will Russia, et al, sign on to anything more than some EU3-styled sanctions? I doubt it...

But maybe. But then, assuming serendipity strikes and the UNSC generates a resolution with teeth, will it have any real salutary effect? I don't see the Mad Mullahs giving up their gravy train voluntarily. So many pieces have to fall into place, some quite unlikely, for this to succeed in actually removing the threat.

But I'll keep my fingers crossed and salt my hat, just in case!
Posted by .com 2004-06-30 11:03:34 AM||   2004-06-30 11:03:34 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 Like pd/dot com, i assume the UNSC would at most impose economic sanctions, but no blockade - UN members would be expected to police their own trade. I cant see it going further till there is abundant evidence of sanctions busting - expect Irans friends on the UNSC to drag that out.

But lets suppose the UNSC does the very unlikely, and authorizes say a "quarantine" - stop and search for nuclear materials only, lets say. Do you really need 7 carrier battle groups to do that? Hell its gonna be the tincan boys doing the stopping and searching, not the flattops. You only need the flat tops for Combat Air Patrol - one or two should suffice.
Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-06-30 11:08:40 AM||   2004-06-30 11:08:40 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 From Navy Newsstand:
USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74) arrived in Pearl Harbor Tuesday to participate in exercise Rim of the Pacific Maritime 2004, the region's largest international exercise involving seven Pacific Rim nations. The 1,092-foot long aircraft carrier deployed from its homeport in San Diego May 24 as part of Summer Pulse '04. Summer Pulse '04 demonstrates the Navy’s ability to surge forces around the globe, with seven aircraft carrier strike groups deployed simultaneously, introducing the first test of the Navy’s Fleet Response Plan (FRP).
----snip-----
The six other aircraft carriers involved in Summer Pulse '04 include: the Norfolk-based USS George Washington (CVN 73) CSG and Yokosuka, Japan,-based USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63). The Mayport, Fla.,-based USS John F. Kennedy (CV 67) CSG will begin a combined and joint exercise early this month, followed by a scheduled overseas deployment. The Norfolk-based USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75) CSG will conduct a scheduled training exercise, followed by overseas operations with the Norfolk-based USS Enterprise (CVN 65) CSG, beginning early this month. USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) will conduct operations in the U.S. Northern Command and U.S. Southern Command theaters during the ship’s interfleet transfer from Norfolk, Va., to its Pacific Fleet homeport of San Diego.
The exercise is scheduled to run through August.

Looks like the USS George Washington is the only one on station right now.
Posted by Steve  2004-06-30 11:22:00 AM||   2004-06-30 11:22:00 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 I can see one group to cover the Arabian Sea - but there's no access to cover the Caspian. So overkill is the operative word regards Iran. Much of this must be either NorK-related or just an exercise. As LH pointed out, breaking the maint schedules, etc. has some potentially serious consequences.

Whassup? is still an open question, it seems. I'm no swabbie, but common sense prolly comes into play somewhere in this gig, right? Lol!
Posted by .com 2004-06-30 11:22:47 AM||   2004-06-30 11:22:47 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 .com said:

I just don't have any faith / confidence that Elbarradai would actually call a spade a spade.

Mohamed ElBaradei said:

Bushehr is not currently in the center of international concern because it's a project to produce nuclear energy....

Ye of little faith!
Posted by Dragon Fly  2004-06-30 11:34:08 AM||   2004-06-30 11:34:08 AM|| Front Page Top

#16 Summer surge 2004. A trainning exercise and a leaning forward all wrapped up in one.

Build more carriers.
Build more LPDs.

Build more divisons.

Buy more C-17s.
Posted by Shipman 2004-06-30 11:37:16 AM||   2004-06-30 11:37:16 AM|| Front Page Top

#17 From Globalsecurity.org:
Kittyhawk - Yokosuka
Enterprise - North Atlantic
JFK - Med
Nimitz - San Diego
Eisenhower - yard
Vinson - yard
Roosevelt - left Norfolk yard
Lincoln - P. Gulf
Stennis - Pearl Harbor
Truman - Atlantic
Reagan - San Diego

So the Lincoln is on station and the Enterprise and Truman are somewhere in the Atlantic.
Posted by Steve  2004-06-30 11:41:13 AM||   2004-06-30 11:41:13 AM|| Front Page Top

#18 DF - So he's consistent, Lol! Does he get a chateau next to Blixie's in Provence? Russian Beluga and Belgian chocolates?

Ship - Amen. Air lift and Sea lift shouldn't be susceptible to political shenanigans (i.e. leasing commercial) given the current state of affairs. Some things are just too critical...
Posted by .com 2004-06-30 11:44:19 AM||   2004-06-30 11:44:19 AM|| Front Page Top

#19 ... and all their comms (phone, email, etc) have been monitored by the US for quite some time. They were going to send the info back to the IRG who would then forward it to Hezbollah. Hezbollah was going to try to pull off a mass casualty attack in NYC and make it look like Al Qaeda did it.

If true there's definitely more to this than we know. There's always lots more to these things than we know. What amazes me is that these dopes were dumb enough to say incrimintating things on the phone and/or in email. Do they really have so little concept of our capabilities? Or are the mullahs bright enough to try to force a confrontation ahead of the election?

But let's assume that the report is true. It makes perfect sense to me. Bush isn't completely a political animal, if he sees a threat to our nation he's going to go after it personal consequences be damned. In Iran today we find all of the mullah's historical lunacy, their current amazing level of bellicosity, their statements that they're going forward with a nuclear program no matter what, spies in the US planning a "mass casualty attack" to be carried out by Hezbollah, etc. I doubt anyone here needs any help connecting those dots. They're certainly far more clear than anything we've found out about the planning of 9/11 after the fact.

Posted by AzCat 2004-06-30 11:55:55 AM||   2004-06-30 11:55:55 AM|| Front Page Top

#20 I wish I had more to add - I've been listening to the radio and surfing but I can't find anything else. I'll post more if I learn anymore.
Posted by Yosemite Sam 2004-06-30 12:00:06 PM||   2004-06-30 12:00:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 (As a woman who never served in the military, I am mil intell challenged, but one thing I learned from Tom Clancy's books is that it takes a while for our carriers to get into position.)
If there's going to be trouble with Iran--and everything points to that--then this report makes me feel better!
Posted by Jen  2004-06-30 12:05:08 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2004-06-30 12:05:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 Giggle, giggle...From www.irna.ir ....

"We catagorically deny that they ever took any photos af anything of a security or sensitive nature.

"Millions of foreigners, be they on leisure or business trips, visit New York every year, and foreigners with cameras across the metropolitan area are quite familiar with these scenes everywhere.

"It is a very unfortunate that a regular sightseeing and shooting session by two guards of this misson who were on holiday became so contentious and controversial," the press release said.
Posted by Dragon Fly  2004-06-30 12:06:40 PM||   2004-06-30 12:06:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 If true, then what should be the response to this comment:

Hezbollah was going to try to pull off a mass casualty attack in NYC and make it look like Al Qaeda did it.

i.e-Who are Hezbollah's favorite lackeys?
Posted by jules 187 2004-06-30 12:42:23 PM||   2004-06-30 12:42:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 "It is a very unfortunate that a regular sightseeing and shooting session by two guards of this misson who were on holiday became so contentious and controversial," the press release said.

Er, because we're pissed off and no longer inclined to take their continual stream of BS??
Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-06-30 12:46:41 PM||   2004-06-30 12:46:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 #22...and yes, what "holiday" would that be? The religion of pieces holy day to protect their newest aligned holy site (the UN)? Yes, we here in the States are now very contentious and controversial about "two guards of this mission" being on holiday snapping pics! Sounds like there's a LOT more to this story than what irna.ir is saying, eh?
Posted by BA  2004-06-30 1:04:46 PM||   2004-06-30 1:04:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 This is too much like the reports of Arab men taking pictures of the WTC before 9/11...
I'm sure the holiday they have in mind is July 4.
I just pray that NYC isn't the site of another attack, much less any other American city!
Posted by Jen  2004-06-30 1:07:01 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2004-06-30 1:07:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 If these jokers do manage to attack the US on July 4, I've got just the firecrackers to send their way...
Posted by mojo  2004-06-30 2:07:36 PM||   2004-06-30 2:07:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 Pure sabre-rattling?

I suspect so. I doubt it would amount to a blockade in any event. Just a little, you know, oceanographic research in the neighborhood of The Gulf.

More along the lines of what Jonathan said in #7.
Posted by eLarson 2004-06-30 2:32:45 PM||   2004-06-30 2:32:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 #27: Can these people really be that stupid?

I mean, what would the response of the American people be to an attack of 9/11 proportions on their independance day? (that's a rhetorical question by the way).

If these rumours of another mass casualty attack are true, then truly the Mullahs are clinically insane.
Posted by Tony (UK) 2004-06-30 3:39:18 PM||   2004-06-30 3:39:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 Iran has been pushing a lot lately. Supporting Sadr and then grabbing the Brits and now guys poking around NY. Odds are this is simply a scare the crap out of them tactic. I don't see a blockade.

It will be nice to have the carriers in the area when its time to bomb the Iranian nuclear sites. They have lots of sites to hit after all.
Posted by yank  2004-06-30 3:39:47 PM|| [politicaljunky.blogspot.com]  2004-06-30 3:39:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 I seriously doubt the mad mullahs are this smart but...

One possibility that hasn't been mentioned, although its a bit off the charts, is a sneak attack, maybe with a nuke, on any carrier groups that come sniffing around. I am definitely no military expert and I have more imagination than is really good for me, but what if the whole plan were to get several battle groups into place and then explode a nuke above or close nearby in some kind of Pearl Harbor type decapitation strike. It couldn't be good to have several of our air carriers bathed in toxic levels of radiation.

Now having said that, I await the good news from those who know better that such a thing would be impossible to carry off, right? It would make me feel alot better and I could put at least one nightmare to bed.
Posted by peggy  2004-06-30 4:11:26 PM||   2004-06-30 4:11:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 you wouldnt have the carriers that close together. Whatever nukes Iran has - if they have any - arent that big. killing one or two battle groups in exchange for having the regime destroyed (and yes, in these circumstances it would be much easier than Iraq - total world support, etc) doesnt seem like a worthwhile tradeoff.
Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-06-30 4:21:32 PM||   2004-06-30 4:21:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 Remote possibility Administration/Pentagon/State believes Iran Regime is so shaky,devestating initial airstrike/cruise missile attack on Regimes' power base could lead to popular revolt w/no need for US ground troops.Most likely this is exercise to work out kinks for real thing in 2005,w/side benefit of warning Iran.If someone reports major deployment of F-117s to MidEast,then I'd think something is afoot.
Posted by Stephen 2004-06-30 5:07:08 PM||   2004-06-30 5:07:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 I mean, what would the response of the American people be to an attack of 9/11 proportions on their independance day?

I know it's a rhetorical question, but given the current political climate here, there's always the possibility that there will STILL be people who think that it'll be all our fault. Again. Matter of fact, I'm almost certain of it.
Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-06-30 5:53:26 PM||   2004-06-30 5:53:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 B-a-R, you can count on the fact that the blamers would be on Bush immediately. I live in Marin County, CA. Commie/asshat density here is very high. Most are looking for another reason to point the (middle) finger at Bush (because he's affected their lives so much??? NOT!)
Posted by remote man 2004-06-30 5:59:24 PM||   2004-06-30 5:59:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 remote man: I feel your pain. Luckily for me I'm up in Sonoma, so I don't have it as bad as you, but it's still bad. A percentage of the folk here are true believers. I cringe everytime I see a Volvo. As for the carriers I'm thinking dry run too. The timing is all wrong in regards to the election.
Posted by Rex Mundi 2004-06-30 6:44:43 PM||   2004-06-30 6:44:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 As for the carriers I'm thinking dry run too. The timing is all wrong in regards to the election.

That's the scary part. This is either an exercise and exactly what it appears to be (we can all hope) or the situation is far more dire than we know. With the election looming, Bush can't really risk an aggressive bluff so this must be either nothing serious or something so dangerous that it's worth his throwing the election. We'll know in pretty short order.
Posted by AzCat 2004-06-30 7:01:23 PM||   2004-06-30 7:01:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 Bless his heart, Gunny Bob is still just a Marine.

1) Navy is changing doctrine - and using this deployment doctrine change as an opportunity to put the carriers to sea.

2) Center of gravity is moving away from the Atlantic: the Gulf and Straits of Mollucca are more important - and more reachable from PACFLT.

3) THe chinese and NORKs have been making noise too - another reason for the change in center of gravity (THe Reagan is changing homeports - from one coast to the other - somethign not done lightly).

So moving all these carriers at once is a great exercise, and the need to change homeports and opeartional procedures present a one-time opportunityto truly command a "Full War" deployment for the upper echelons of command.

Thats it, nothing to see, move along.
Posted by OldSpook 2004-06-30 11:49:37 PM||   2004-06-30 11:49:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 #33 --- lots of F-117s recently sent to Korea...
Posted by 3dc 2004-07-01 1:06:33 AM||   2004-07-01 1:06:33 AM|| Front Page Top

#40 Guys, it's an exercise. Having just left an air wing, I can tell you it's part of a major change in the way the Navy does business, still unproven, but it does away with the traditional 18-month deployment cycle and replaces it with a sort of "just in time" surge plan. Time will tell if it works.

Old Spook--you're right about center of gravity shift, but the Gulf is much more accessable from the East Coast so long as Suez remains passable.

Concur, nothing to see here, move along.
Posted by longtime lurker 2004-07-01 8:04:51 AM||   2004-07-01 8:04:51 AM|| Front Page Top

#41 Something else to consider: Why do you think we're in Iraq now? I mean, bottom line, really and truly. (Forget Bush anger towards Saddam.) Do the words "foothold" and "beachhead" come to mind? They should.
Posted by Balima Bingo 2004-07-09 1:44:38 PM||   2004-07-09 1:44:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#42 .com,

The Russian Navy has the Caspian Sea Flotilla, and a tiny sea command consisting of a Krivak-class missile frigate, several missile boats (Nanuchka class maybe?) and some fast attack boats. Their land compliment consists of a naval rifle battalion, with BTRs. They have no naval air support in that area, but my guess air support in the event of hostilities would immediayely would have to come from the Trancacusus front, already established and conducting operations in Chechnya and elsewhere. If I rememeber right, Astrakhan is a defense node for the Russians in that area, and is where the naval base to support Caspian Sea operations is; and I think there is a major air field nearby.

The Russian navy routinely makes port calls on Iran's side of the sea. Not sure why though, maybe someone beter informed than me can explain the wherefores
Posted by badanov  2004-07-09 1:58:39 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org]  2004-07-09 1:58:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#43 I think there are some splendid data elements above that are important to estimates of the situation, but I believe the area today needs analysis with increased emphasis on the psycho-soc-religio dimensions of this war and its likely playouts. With these in mind, I for one would argue that the timing for massive alteration of the M.E. and Central Asia has arrived, and that that timing viz the November elections is most propitious. 9/11 had no nefarious U.S. hand behind it, but in the future retrospective its timing and the U.S. response will also have been more clearly delineated in linear terms. As for the present, there is no "going back," whatever that might mean, but the going forward in geopolitical terms, especially from today's starting point in Iraq, seems frought with less ambiguity and incertitude. I would see the carrier battle groups through those lens, refracted through the heavier emphasis on the psych-socio-religous elements. In my opinion, that's the more important center of gravity shift. Watch for something big, and soon.
Posted by Balima Bingo 2004-07-10 2:46:51 PM||   2004-07-10 2:46:51 PM|| Front Page Top

12:10 AnonymousAuthor
00:42 Anonymous5889
11:13 jibril
23:41 John
12:58 Anonymous5563
09:59 jibril
01:02 Anonymous5563
14:46 Balima Bingo
23:49 jibril
13:58 badanov
13:44 Balima Bingo
02:55 Anonymous5563
23:07 jawa
23:02 jawa
22:51 jibril
03:44 Anonymous5563
12:44 jibril
01:19 Anonymous5563
18:42 Anonymous5581
12:46 ed
12:33 jibril
10:44 Anonymous5563
17:45 Diane
09:19 jibril









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com