Why the US Naval Buildup in the Gulf?

[PatrickHenry]

There's readiness...then there's provocation and pretext.

US naval war games off the Iranian coastline: A provocation which could lead to War?

There is a massive concentration of US naval power in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea. Three US naval strike groups off the Iranian coastline are deployed: USS Enterprise, USS Eisenhower and USS Iwo Jima Expeditionary Strike Group. The naval strike groups have been assigned to fighting the "global war on terrorism." Tehran considers the US war games to be conducted in the Persian Gulf, off the Iranian coastline as a provocation, which is intended to trigger a potential crisis and a situation of direct confrontation between US and Iranian naval forces in the Persian Gulf:

And another Strike Group is transiting the Arabian Sea just now.
Remember the Gulf of Tonkin pretext?
I oppose US warmongering.

[The Architect]

Its just a precaution.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: The Architect Its just a precaution.

Against what?

[BobbyO]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Against what?

More of a reminder: You ain't having nukes. One way or t'other.

[PatrickHenry]

They need to remind the Zionist state of that little idea...

[Osborn F Enready]

I agree Patrick, this looks like a textbook building of a case against Iran.

Park the fleet nearby, wait for some lunatic extremists to try something futile, like a suicide bomb or actually planting something on one of the ships, which will be viewed as a national "attack" by Iran of course.

If some lunatic doesn't try something, they may just make it up, like our government did with Operation Northwoods in Cuba.
Operation Northwoods: Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba, 3/13/62

Yes, it could just be posturing by us, to try to use military show of force to Ahmidenajad(?) that we aren't messing around, but we should know by now those tactics don't do much but cause anger and more tension in tight situations in the missile age.

[jim sofra]

eya Jason, folks.

we've been curious as to whats going on there, thanks for the links.

i think this is all pretty obvious set up and it gives em way to many options.

all of them huge potential catastrophes in the long run. it's insane.

US military on the ground pretty well woken up to reality

still a dense core though hoping this all

is in aid of something...

[Morgan_Freeman]

At the risk of feeding conspiracy theories, I talked to a guy in the National Guard a few months ago who told me heavy armor units were transferring to Western Afghanistan.

[Osborn F Enready]

Look at the buildup around Iraq, before the invasion of Iraq that the press never covered.......

It happens before ANY invasion.... of a soverign nation.....by any country.

[Suburbanite]

Iran? Look, I don't know why they have those ships there, but I promise you it isn't for anything constructive.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: BobbyO More of a reminder: You ain't having nukes. One way or t'other.

In all honesty, who are "we" to say that they "ain't having nukes"? :eek:

- Rob

[drgilbert4]

I have had the good fortune of cruising around the Arabian Gulf onboard luxurious US Navy Warships twice. There were many occasions on which we were harassed by Iranian gunboats and aircraft. This is never reported in the press because it is very common and is of little interest to the public. This was even before the current escalation of rhetoric. We do not have to look for them to provoke us. We have had to decide not to destroy their military equipment hundreds of times in the past 20 years. When they approach our ships, we send a warning over the radio that they are approaching a US Navy Warship and order them to divert or we will have to take defensive action. All that would have to be done is to issue the order to follow up on our warnings if we were the ones really trying to pick a fight.

[RickSp]

It wasn't all that long ago that a US Navy warship shot down an Iraqi civilian Airbus killing all 290 aboard, including 66 children.

The USS Vincennes, an AEGIS missle cruiser mistook a climbing commercial jet liner for a diving MIG. Then Vice-President George H.W. Bush went to the UN and made a statement that was lies from beginning to end to justify the attack. All personnel aboard the USS Vincennes were awarded medals for their heroic action.

All of which is to say that the Navy is capable of can starting wars whether it intends to or not. Sending warships is itself a provocation.

Navy Missile Downs Iranian Jetliner
Iran Air Flight 655

[JohnMK]

Americans? Historical awareness? Nah. We have our Reality TV shows to watch.

[dreamer]

Theirs always breaking news, thats normaly the time we get the truth, well for a short time anyway.

Dreamer

[Nono]

Quote by: PatrickH There's readiness...then there's provocation and pretext.

And then there are unpromising-looking midterm elections. Wouldn't it be simply wonderful for the Republicans if the mullahs were to take a potshot at the fleet just a couple of days before polling? Ahmadinejad and Bush -- two peas in a pod. They need each other, feed on each other. A truly symbiotic relationship.

So trouble is definitely possible.

Quote by: Chossudovsky Canada is formally participating in this military deployment under the disguise of the "war on terrorism".

Stephen Harper is a lickspittle, running-dog lackey if ever there was one. How embarrassing.

[harami]

Through the gulf, most of the oil tanker shipments from the middle east flows. Iran has threatened to close the gulf to such transportation of oil ("if necessary") many times. It even had a show of force last year with new torpedos and bragged of other means by which it could disrupt tanker traffic. Perhaps 20 years ago the Iranians attempted to shut off this flow, and the US rebutted that effort. One reason US ships are there is to protect tanker traffic. It is possible that they are spoiling for an "incident", for the achilles heel of Iran is its oil production facilities in the gulf and the fact that they must import most of their gasoline.

[RickSp]

Quote by: harami Perhaps 20 years ago the Iranians attempted to shut off this flow, and the US rebutted that effort. One reason US ships are there is to protect tanker traffic. It is possible that they are spoiling for an "incident", for the achilles heel of Iran is its oil production facilities in the gulf and the fact that they must import most of their gasoline.

The so-called tanker war of the Iran-Iraq war was primarily Iraqi fighters firing exocet missles at at tankers calling in Iran. The Iraqis also managed to hit the US AEGIS cruiser STARK, which happened to have its missle defense system turned off at the time. The Iranians responded by attacking ships trading in the Gulf. Overall the Iranian attacks did relatively little damage. Roughly 2% of ships trading in the Gulf came under attack and of these only one in ten was seriously damaged.

The reflagging of Kuwait tankers temporaily to US flag was used as an excuse for aggressive US Navy tactics in the Gulf. A series of Iranian fishing boats were sunk and an Iranian airbus was shot down as noted in a previous post.

Iran may have the capability to shut down the Straits of Hormus but to suggest that that was what they were attempting in 1988 doesn't appear supported by the facts.

THE UNITED STATES AND THE IRAN-IRAQ WAR

[BobbyO]

Quote by: Autolykos In all honesty, who are "we" to say that they "ain't having nukes"? :eek: - Rob

Somebody has to say it. Might as well be the country that can make it stick.

[Nono]

Nobody can make it stick, Bob. (That's the sort of spaced-out wishful-wetdream stuff we were hearing re Iraq in Feb. 2003, if you recall.)