A post by Maynard
There are unconfirmed reports that 2 additional aircraft carriers are being dispatched to the Persian Gulf.
This doesn’t necessarily mean that hostilities will break out. Beefed-up security is often intended to convey a message, nothing more. It’s been done plenty of times previously.
At this point, it would be politically difficult for America to raid Iran. The Europeans are unhappy with rising tensions, and for understandable reasons. Iran has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz if war breaks out. This would block the transport of Europe’s oil, and the entire world would be squeezed. You can see why everyone would rather this not happen.
At the moment, the more likely scenario is that Israel would launch a raid to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities. In that case, a US military presence would hopefully discourage Iran from broadening the war by attacking other parties. Or, if the war spreads, America would be situated to neutralize Iranian firepower.
These things may be unavoidable. Iran must be stopped, and “soft power” is not doing the job. We must be prepared for the worst, without giving up hope for the best.
For Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz would essentially be an act of war against the entire rest of the world. Maybe this is just a show of force, or maybe the Israelis are about to put an end to all the “soft power” BS, in which we need both the carriers and perhaps even more importantly the Aegis cruisers and attack subs that are part of their battlegroups to be in theater.
I have been hearing the threat to close the Straits of Hormuz all my adult life. It is not that easy, as experts will tell you. Clearly, the Israelis are preparing to settle the matter, preferably while the hapless Europeans are on vacation, or attending an Obama rally. Randy.
Why is it necessary that Israel has to try to do the job (as it did in 1981) by itself? Israel cannot this time logistically do it without massive U.S. help.
Btw anyone who thinks that the jerky Olmert is capable of doing anything is kidding himself.
Ripper, Israel should not have to do this by itself, but Bush’s spinelessness at this point suggests it will have to. As for Israeli leadership, Olmert’ll be out in a matter of a few months at most, replaced by Barak or Netanyahu, either of whom would have no qualms launching a strike on Iran.
In addition to a history of carrier-o-grams to Iran, the Olympics is underway followed by the Democrat convention followed by the Republican convention. I doubt Washington or Israel would strike during those events. Might ruffle some feathers. We can always hope I guess.
Oct ’06
Iran Attack Looks More Likely as Eisenhower Carrier Group Sails for Iran Theater
Dec ’06
U.S. Plans Military Buildup To Warn Iran
Jan ’07
Second Carrier Sent To The Gulf
July ’07
U.S. Navy Sends Third Aircraft Carrier Near Iran
Apr ’08
New U.S. carrier in Gulf a “reminder” to Iran: Gates
I don’t think the latest remarks from Condi are a feint.
Ripper is right in noting that Israel doesn’t have a beefy enough air force to fly enough missions and carry enough bombs to do the job right. This is much larger than the strikes on Iraq and Syria, not to mention farther away. If they did it on their own, they might feel they needed to throw in a nuke to get at the buried stuff in a single raid. There would be consequences in any case, but obviously more so with nukes.
Just because Bush and Olmert act like Mr. Rogers doesn’t necessarily mean they’re not planning to use force. Sometimes it’s necessary to strike a pose in order to demonstrate to the rest of the world that we tried to be nice, and all we got was abuse. There have been rumors that Bush has promised the “moderate” Arabs an Israeli/Palestinian peace deal in exchange for tacit permission to bomb Iran. Doesn’t look like peace is about to break out, but that may explain some of the recent nice guy stances.
If something does happen, it needs to take the Iranians by surprise. Iran has got some nasty, sophisticated weapons. So a raid may come at a moment none of us suspect it.
Israel would suffer heavy plane and pilot losses in an attack (the Persians have been forewarned that they might be coming) and will not be able to get the job done. What is needed is stealth bombers and tomahawk cruise missiles which only one nation has.
But if Israel or America strike Iran, it will provoke a war! They’ll be mad! There will be terrorist attacks! Hmmm. Let’s see: Iran has engaged in a self-declared war against America and Israel since the Carter Administration. They have been mad (in both common senses of the word) since then. Their preferred method of warfare–until they can build nuclear devices–has been terrorism by proxy.
The news media, and virtually all liberals, have no idea of the power represented by even one carrier battle group. Two or three can unleash an unimaginable amount of specifically targeted destructive power. We could, in one simultaneous strike, destroy not only most of Iran’s nuclear capacity, but we could obliterate its entire navy, every military installation along the Straits of Hormuz (down to the level of a couple idiots with a crew served heavy machinegun), and so degrade its military capacity that it would be helpless to do anything but lash out with terrorist attacks. With a day or two of follow on strikes, we could so reduce Iran’s military capability that they would never recover and their hostage population might be able to retake their country. We could do all this with few civilian casualties. No doubt, we have such a plan ready to be loaded into the appropriate hard drives as I write this.
Sadly, I doubt that American politicians, even Bush and McCain, have the courage and character to do what should be done. We know without any question that Obama doesn’t.
My point is that if the Iranians are too stupid to understand the damage a single carrier croup could do, two or three will not raise their IQ level. Or perhaps they know us just a bit too well.