U.S. Carrier Armada Aims At Iran

:scared: :scared:

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/05/09/us_carrier_armada_aims_at_iran.php

U.S. Carrier Armada Aims At Iran
Michael T. Klare
May 09, 2007


Michael T. Klare is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and author of Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Dependency on Imported Petroleum. This piece originally appeared on TomDispatch.com.


Looking down from the captain's deck some six stories high, the flight deck of the USS Nimitz is an impressive sight indeed: 80 sleek warplanes armed with bombs and missiles are poised for takeoff at any minute, day or night. The sight of these planes coming and going from that 1,100-foot-long flight deck is almost beyond description. I can attest to this, having sailed on the Nimitz 25 years ago as a reporter for Mother Jones magazine.

Today, the Nimitz is rapidly approaching the Persian Gulf, where it will join two other U.S. aircraft carriers and the French carrier Charles De Gaulle in the largest concentration of naval firepower in the region since the launching of the U.S. invasion of Iraq four years ago.

Why this concentration now? Officially, the Nimitz is on its way to the Gulf to replace the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, which is due to return to the United States for crew leave and ship maintenance after months on station. But the U.S. Central Command (Centcom), which exercises command authority over all U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf area, refuses to say when the Eisenhower will actually depart—or even when the Nimitz will arrive.

For a time, at least, the United States will have three carrier battle groups in the region. The USS John C. Stennis is the third. Each carrier is accompanied by a small flotilla of cruisers, destroyers, submarines, and support vessels, many equipped with Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles (TLAMs). Minimally, this gives modern meaning to the classic imperial term "gunboat diplomacy," which makes it all the stranger that the deployment of the Nimitz is covered in our media, if at all, as the most minor of news stories. And when the Nimitz sailed off into the Pacific last month on its way to the Gulf, it simply disappeared off media radar screens like some classic "lost patrol."

snip//

President Bush keeps insisting that he would like to see these "diplomatic" endeavors—as he describes them—succeed, but he has yet to bring up a single proposal or incentive that might offer any realistic prospect of eliciting a positive Iranian response.

And so, knowing that his "diplomatic" efforts are almost certain to fail, Bush may simply be waiting for the day when he can announce to the American people that he has "tried everything"; that "his patience has run out"; and that he can "no longer risk the security of the American people" by "indulging in further fruitless negotiations," thereby allowing the Iranians "to proceed farther down the path of nuclear bomb-making," and so has taken the perilous but necessary step of ordering American forces to conduct air and missile strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. At that point, the 80 planes aboard the Nimitz—and those on the Eisenhower and the Stennis as well—will be on their way to targets in Iran, along with hundreds of TLAMs and a host of other weapons now being assembled in the Gulf.

What do I tell my seatmate in my German course? He's from Tehran. I am sick to my stomach thinking about the "collateral damage." This man is one of the nicest people I've met since I've been here. Fuck Bush and Cheney. :mad: :mad:

Ever since reading about France's role in developing Israel's nukes, I'm skeptical of a "neocon" (sorry, can't remember who described him as such) being in power there. For our part, it is sad to hear this administration still blather about diplomacy when they have no intention of negotiating. We're still holding the 5 Iranians, yes? And even though Condi the Tanker wanted to talk to the Iranians, Cheney vetoed it, no?

snip>
President Bush keeps insisting that he would like to see these "diplomatic" endeavors—as he describes them—succeed, but he has yet to bring up a single proposal or incentive that might offer any realistic prospect of eliciting a positive Iranian response.

And so, knowing that his "diplomatic" efforts are almost certain to fail, Bush may simply be waiting for the day when he can announce to the American people that he has "tried everything"; that "his patience has run out"; and that he can "no longer risk the security of the American people" by "indulging in further fruitless negotiations," end>

We aren't getting out of the ME, folks. We'd all better get used to working of bush's farm.

It's always been about the oil and this is all it will ever be about .

I still do feel Hersh and Ritter know well what they are talking about and do not take their writings lightly .

I do feel if the bush admin finds itself backed further into a corner then all bets are off and they are crazy enough to start another attack .

What will happen to then if they did , someone is going to do what , arrest them , doubtful and they still have the authority to begin this attack without congress handed to them despite the on going ivestigations , hell the house can't even force them to get out of Iraq or to abide by timelines .

There's a new one on me. He was anti-war on Iraq, and cherishes diplomacy. In fact, he chided Chirac publicly for being too "arrogant" in his attacks on US arrogance, saying afterwards "We must never again turn our disagreements into a crisis." He wants France to cultivate friendship with the US, but warns against submission to America, and demands a strong, independent EU defense force. He disagrees with President Bush on Turkey, claiming that it should not be made a full member of the EU.

He wants sanctions--but emphatically not war--with Iran if it continues to pursue nuclear weapons, but believes that Iran has full rights to peaceful nuclear energy.

Doesn't really sound like a foaming neocon to me.

Bush isnt bombing Iran. Period. We always have carriers in the Persian Gulf.

but look at his history. Does anyone really know what this jackass is capable of?

We're all capable of murder, but it doesnt mean we would do it.

but bush has, thousands of times over. And it's bush we are talking about here.

I was stationed onboard the Eisenhower for 3 years. When we would deploy, there would be a carrier in the Mediterranean and one in the Indian Ocean/Persian Gulf.

I'm not saying that Shrubby is planning on bombing Iran, but this many carriers deployed together is rather unusual.

is not particularly unusual.

Be afraid - be very afraid.

How many times has Seymour Hersh or Scott Ritter or others close to the MIC give a date certain when this attack was going to happen? These predictions have been non-stop for years. I think the rapture will come before this attack.

place three carrier battle groups in the Persian Gulf? I mean its not that big, only one way in and out?

Better yet, write your own article disputing this 'clueless' 'nonsense'.

And BTW, I doubt the author is 'clueless': Michael T. Klare is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and author of Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Dependency on Imported Petroleum.

His inference on the lack transition date for the carriers is silly. Such dates are *never* announced

The existence of TLAMs on surface combatants are standard. The number deployed are in no way remarkable, in fact the number present are actually lower than would be expected if an attack or invasion were imminent.

Land based USAF forces would be the bulk of the air attack, but be mentions nothings. That would require extensive prepositioning, which there is no sign of. The 3 carriers would not be enough, especially given the recent acquisition of modern SAMs

The presence of the French carrier would actually be a deterrent, France has consistently refused to support military action against Iran.


...and thats the easy stuff to point out

a ship. Iran has a group that want to "get it on" as badly as * and believes the destruction of Iran is required to bring about a new era. Two madmen in the wrong place at this time could lead to mass destruction.

despite the dire claims of many self-appointed experts. It takes far more than a provocation to lead to an unwanted war, and frankly, those in the American and Iranian adminstrations who want war are little more than squeaky minorities ignored by the powerful who look at Iraq and shudder.

Mentioning the Charles de Gaulle is irrelevant, in my mind. They're there for other reasons.

1. Why this concentration now? Officially, the Nimitz is on its way to the Gulf to replace the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, which is due to return to the United States for crew leave and ship maintenance after months on station. But the U.S. Central Command (Centcom), which exercises command authority over all U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf area, refuses to say when the Eisenhower will actually depart—or even when the Nimitz will arrive.

Such dates are never announced. Carriers are constantly being rotated. Each time a carrier goes to the Gulf, everyone panics. Each time one comes home, nobody notices. If you only paid attention to the the more hysterical elements of the blogosphere, you'd think there were ten carrier groups in the region.

2. Today, the Nimitz is rapidly approaching the Persian Gulf, where it will join two other U.S. aircraft carriers and the French carrier Charles De Gaulle in the largest concentration of naval firepower in the region since the launching of the U.S. invasion of Iraq four years ago.

Sarkozy is against war with Iran. As is Chirac. Who cares if the Charles de Gualle is there?

3. aEch carrier is accompanied by a small flotilla of cruisers, destroyers, submarines, and support vessels, many equipped with Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles (TLAMs). Minimally, this gives modern meaning to the classic imperial term "gunboat diplomacy," which makes it all the stranger that the deployment of the Nimitz is covered in our media, if at all, as the most minor of news stories. And when the Nimitz sailed off into the Pacific last month on its way to the Gulf, it simply disappeared off media radar screens like some classic "lost patrol."

Is he seriously expressing shock that carrier battle groups exist? Carriers always have that "small flotilla." Always. And why should the media breathlessly report that a missile cruiser is carrying (horror of horrors) missiles? Carriers are constantly moving to theaters and returning. It isn't sinister that the media isn't reporting them.

4. President Bush keeps insisting that he would like to see these "diplomatic" endeavors—as he describes them—succeed, but he has yet to bring up a single proposal or incentive that might offer any realistic prospect of eliciting a positive Iranian response.

Iran is currently pursuing a nuclear weapon in defiance of international law. They've turned down any number of American/EU aid/trade/civilian-nuclear-power packages--the same packages that convinced Brazil, Argentina, South Africa, North Korea (to an extent),and Libya to give up their nuclear ambitions. Iran is convinced that a nuclear weapon is vital to its survival. They may be correct to think so. But talks have not failed due to any unwillingness in America or Europe to settle peacefully.