USN conducting massive buildup off Iran

m21sniper · 12-19-2006, 02:43 PM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16281057/

U.S. plans naval buildup in Gulf to counter Iran
CENTCOM plans to use 'gunboat diplomacy,' officials tell NBC News

• U.S. Naval buildup
Dec. 19: NBC's Jim Miklaszewski reports the U.S. Navy is building forces in Persian Gulf in response to Iran.

MSNBC

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Central Command is aggressively planning a naval buildup in the Persian Gulf, including the addition of a second aircraft carrier, in response to a series of aggressive actions by Iran, U.S. military officials told NBC News on Tuesday.

The officials pointed to Iran's interference in Iraq — including its support for Shiite militants and shipments of improvised explosive devices into the country — recent military naval exercises in the Gulf, and its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

The attempt at "gunboat diplomacy" is in its final planning stages. Although it has not been approved yet, it appears likely the increase in U.S. warships into the Gulf could come as early as January, the officials said.
Story continues below ↓ advertisement

U.S.: Iran making headway on weapons
On Monday, the Bush administration said Iran was making headway in building nuclear weapons as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice tried to iron out differences with Russia over a U.N. resolution designed to stop the program with economic sanctions.

While not predicting when Iran would join the nuclear club, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the Iranians were trying to perfect technology to enrich uranium. Iran has denied an effort to build nuclear weapons and says its work is for energy development.

“It’s a very tricky matter of perfecting centrifuge technology so you can actually enrich all the uranium,” McCormack said. “So, yes, they are going along their way in trying to go down the various pathways.”

The spokesman provided no details of Rice’s telephone conversation with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. “They went over some of the outstanding issues,” McCormack said.

'Time for a vote'
Russia, which has close economic ties with Iran, has favored diplomacy over punitive sanctions, but the Bush administration is hoping Moscow may be prepared to approve a watered-down resolution at the U.N. Security Council.

“We are hopeful that we can get a vote in the very near future. It is time for a vote,” McCormack said. “I think we need to see a vote on this in a matter of days.”

The United States and its European allies have proposed offering Iran economic concessions in exchange for halting its enrichment of uranium, a key part of the process of building nuclear weapons.
NBC News' Jim Miklaszewski and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

------------------

fastpat · 12-20-2006, 07:29 PM

Pentagon mulling show of force to Iran. More saber rattling, in short, it's garbage. Iran knows there's no troops left to deploy to protect those in Iraq from retaliation if there's an attack against them.

Bush is a fool, whose reputation as such grows daily.

m21sniper · 12-20-2006, 08:09 PM

To the contrary, the Navy has been pretty much sitting on the sidelines for the most part. A carrier task force can't take or hold ground, but it can sure blow the hell out of a lot of stuff.

It probably is nothing more than hollow sabre rattling though.

I saw some US official threatening that the US/UN were going to militarily intervene in Darfur too. LOL....they got our guys fighting everywhere i guess.

Porsche-O-Phile · Porsche-O-Phile's Garage

Yea. The Iranians may be nuts, but they're definitely smarter than Bush. Any sort of chess-match between the two is only going to be more of a colossal embarassment to this country than has already occurred - if you can even believe that's possible.

I swear Bush WANTS a regional war with different sides blowing up oil fields all over the place so his buddies can justify charging $200 for light sweet crude. So transparent it's ridiculous.

red-beard · red-beard's Garage

The only way to start a war with Iran to destabilize it, and not have $200 per barrel oil, is to open the strategic Petroleum reserve. We have a 2 year supply of oil, waiting to be turned on.

Joeaksa · 12-20-2006, 09:36 PM

Flew through this area several times in the last two months and the traffic going back and forth to the battle group has steadily increased.

As Karachi ATC controls the airspace next to Iran for the first 100 miles out, once you get feet wet our guys have to communicate on Uniform then switch to tactical Victor after the handoff. You can really tell that they are happy to "go tac" and get the hell out of talking where everyone and their dog is listening.

Funny thing was that we were recording greatly increased radar and scanning hits in this area, from both friendly and "other" sources. Lots of fun going on here lately and bet its going to increase in the near future.

jyl · jyl's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by red-beard
The only way to start a war with Iran to destabilize it, and not have $200 per barrel oil, is to open the strategic Petroleum reserve. We have a 2 year supply of oil, waiting to be turned on.

Isn't it more like 2 months?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Petroleum_Reserve

http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/spr/spr-facts.html

and the max extraction is 4MM bbl/day vs our usage of appx 18MM bbl/day?

Porsche-O-Phile · Porsche-O-Phile's Garage

Either 2 months or 2 years - our middle eastern "friends" can outwait us and they damn well know it. They'll just wait us out and then jack the price up to $300 a barrel to make up for the inconvenience of having their steady stream of U.S. dollars interrupted, so we don't forget who owns us again.

tabs · 12-20-2006, 11:30 PM

U all presume that Bush is still in charge. If U notice his rhetoric on Iran stopped abuptly last June. This was about the time that Baker started having conversations with Bush.

Bush was selected to be the lead Cheer Leader in 2000 and 2004, as such he was given the keys to the Kingdom. What did he do with those keys, he led the Kingdom into a Tar Pit...No matter which way U want to figure it and they have figured it 14 differnt ways, no matter what they do, on the bottom line it comes out a loser for the US.

The midterm election finished Bushs leadership, the powers that be, probably in the Repblican party took the keys to the Kindom away and put the issue on the table for suggestions. I have the feeling Bush was on Double Secret Probabtion before the elections anyway and they were the final straw. I have the feeling that a few of the Democrats are now at the table as well scratching their heads as what to do next.

The next move the US makes is going to be, as a Nation with its back to the wall. In my estimation it will be pretty well thought out, but I have been wrong about that before. With the reputations of Cheney, Rummy and Powell you'd of thought that they would have made sure the Backdoor was covered and that they would have covered everything to the last detail. I just have to shake my head on that one.

If the move is against Iran, it will not be Bushs decision alone. More than likely the move will be against Iranian interests in Iraq.

tabs · 12-20-2006, 11:35 PM

If the US goes from Iraq the one thing the US doesn't want left behind are strong Sh!a Militias with allegiance back to Iran.

tabs · 12-20-2006, 11:42 PM

The US could also go with a Sanction from the UN to blockade Iran. It will be one with the full muscle of the USA. We may even be hoping that the Iranians slip, to give the USA an excuse.

I say the full muscle of the US as the USA will not be screwing around, because its back is against the wall on this one. U won't hear a squeak from the media on this one, nor any bad mouthing from the Dems except maybe from a whacko or 2 in the house.

red-beard · red-beard's Garage

Iran oil production: 2.5 million bbl/day

Current capacity: 688.5 million bbl

This means we could replace Iran's oil for 275 days, which also assumes that none of our buddies would ramp up production.

fastpat · 12-21-2006, 05:23 AM

All this still begs the question; why should Americans allow it's government to illegally attack yet another country which is not conducting acts of war against ours?

The answer is, we should not. We should be preparing "things" with which to persuade the US government to stop its' aggressive behavior BEFORE it's too late.

Jim Richards · 12-21-2006, 05:36 AM

The B2's are trying to destabilize Iran and Syria. Great, that's all the world needs is less stability in the Middle East. You think Russia and China are going to stand idly by as we muck around with their trading partners?

fastpat · 12-21-2006, 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jim Richards
The B2's are trying to destabilize Iran and Syria. Great, that's all the world needs is less stability in the Middle East. You think Russia and China are going to stand idly by as we muck around with their trading partners?

That's what the attempt to link Putin to the death of the Russian mafia guy in Britain was all about. Discredit Putin to nullify Russian influence or activities in the mideast. Disinformation campaign's by government are very old these days, dating back at least 100+ years.

m21sniper · 12-21-2006, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by fastpat
All this still begs the question; why should Americans allow it's government to illegally attack yet another country which is not conducting acts of war against ours?

The answer is, we should not. We should be preparing "things" with which to persuade the US government to stop its' aggressive behavior BEFORE it's too late.

Because a lot of people think that stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons is worth the effort. Because a lot of people also feel it will be an effective means of preventing Iran from continuing to support the Shi'a groups in Iraq. Finally, we have been in a proxy war with Iran since almost the beginning of "Phase IV ops" anyway, so a lot of people figure, "why not make it official?"

I have mixed feelings on the issue, but make no mistake, Iran is decidedly NOT Iraq. In reality Iran represents a whole different league of opposition and fanatacism. Of course they really are "asking for it" at the same time.

These are troubling times we live in.

m21sniper · 12-21-2006, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by fastpat
That's what the attempt to link Putin to the death of the Russian mafia guy in Britain was all about. Discredit Putin to nullify Russian influence or activities in the mideast. Disinformation campaign's by government are very old these days, dating back at least 100+ years.

That "Russian Mafia guy" was a former KGB agent, a recently converted muslim, and appears to have some as yet undefined Chechen connections. And Polonium 210 is no pipe bomb. In fact, this is the first known radiological murder in the history of mankind if i have my facts straight. And traces were also found on three British Airlines planes IIRC.

Whatever is going on with that "Russian mob guy", in my estimation, it's big.

Putin is a two-bit dictator, btw.

fastpat · 12-21-2006, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by m21sniper
Because a lot of people think that stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons is worth the effort.

That's not going to be possible, and we Americans will be made to regret any attack made in a military attempt to stop it. Attack Iran to prevent nuclear weapons acquisition will speed up their program, not slow it down. Such an attack might even give the green light to nations that could simply sell them one in order to stop future US government agression.

Quote:

Because a lot of people also feel it will be an effective means of preventing Iran from continuing to support the Shi'a groups in Iraq.

That's not going to happen either. Why do you even bring up the impossible?

Quote:

Finally, we have been in a proxy war with Iran since almost the beginning of "Phase IV ops" anyway, so a lot of people figure, "why not make it official?"

It's way past the time to leave Iran alone. The US government has been meddling in their country at least since 1953, causing countless deaths and destruction. That's the driving force in Iran now.

Quote:

I have mixed feelings on the issue, but make no mistake, Iran is decidedly NOT Iraq. In reality Iran represents a whole different league of opposition and fanatacism. Of course they really are "asking for it" at the same time. These are troubling times we live in.

I agree with that last, and the largest terrorist organization on the planet must be stopped; that organization is the US government.

fastpat · 12-21-2006, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by m21sniper

Putin is a two-bit dictator, btw.

No less than Bush.

All of this focus on Russia is all about neutralizing their power to disrupt US government crimes; planned or in progress. When did you ever see the US government show a conscience about dictators and what they do?

Let me help you with that, NEVER.

Eric 951 · 12-21-2006, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by fastpat
[B
That's not going to happen either. Why do you even bring up the impossible?

[/B]

paste making this statement?????

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha