US & UK Send Warships To The Persian Gulf To Prepare For Israeli Strike On Iran

[jimmy olsen]

That would certainly have interesting effects on the election.

http://www.businessinsider.com/us-and-britain-sending-warships-to-gulf-2012-9#ixzz26ggMwLxC

US And Britain Send Warships To The Persian Gulf To Prepare For An Israel Strike On Iran
Sean Rayment, The Telegraph   

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/us-and-britain-sending-warships-to-gulf-2012-9#ixzz26ggaAYfS


An armada of U.S. and British naval power is amassing in the Persian Gulf in the belief that Israel is considering a pre-emptive strike against Iran's covert nuclear weapons program.

Warships, aircraft carriers, minesweepers and submarines from 25 nations are converging on the strategically important Strait of Hormuz in an unprecedented show of force as Israel and Iran move towards the brink of war.

Western leaders are convinced that Iran will retaliate to any attack by attempting to mine or blockade the shipping lane through which around 18 million barrels of oil passes every day; approximately 35 per cent of the world's petroleum traded by sea.

A blockade would have a catastrophic effect on the fragile economies of Britain, Europe, the United States and Japan, all of which rely heavily on oil and gas supplies from the Gulf.

The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world's most congested international waterways. It is only 21 miles wide at its narrowest point and is bordered by the Iranian coast to the north and the United Arab Emirates to the south.

In preparation for any pre-emptive or retaliatory action by Iran, warships from more than 25 countries, including the United States, Britain, France, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, will today begin an annual 12-day exercise.

The war games are the largest ever undertaken in the region.

They will practise tactics in how to breach an Iranian blockade of the strait and the force will also undertake counter-mining drills.

The multi-national naval force in the Gulf includes three U.S. Nimitz class carrier groups, each of which has more aircraft than the entire complement of the Iranian air force.

The carriers are supported by at least 12 warships, including ballistic missile cruisers, frigates, destroyers, and assault ships carrying thousands of U.S. Marines and special forces.

The British component consists of four British minesweepers and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Cardigan Bay, a logistics vessel. HMS Diamond, a brand-new £1billion Type 45 destroyer, one of the most powerful ships in the British fleet, will also be operating in the region.

In addition, commanders will also simulate destroying Iranian combat jets, ships, and coastal missile batteries.

In the event of war, the main threat to the multi-national force will come from the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps navy, which is expected to adopt an "access-denial" strategy in the wake of an attack, by directly targeting U.S. warships, attacking merchant shipping, and mining vital maritime chokepoints in the Persian Gulf.

Defense sources say that although Iran's capability may not be technologically sophisticated, it could deliver a series of lethal blows against British and U.S. ships using mini-subs, fast attack boats, mines, and shore-based anti-ship missile batteries.

Next month, Iran will stage massive military maneuvers of its own, to show that it is prepared to defend its nuclear installations against the threat of aerial bombardment.

The exercise is being showcased as the biggest air defence war game in the Islamic Republic's history, and will be its most visible response yet to the prospect of an Israeli military strike.

Using surface-to-air missiles, unmanned drones, and state-of-the-art radar, Iran's Revolutionary Guards and air force will combine to test the defenses of 3,600 sensitive locations throughout the country, including oil refineries and uranium enrichment facilities.

Brigadier General Farzad Esmaili, commander of the Khatam al-Anbiya air defence base, told a conference this month that the maneuvers would "identify vulnerabilities, try out new tactics and practise old ones".

At the same time as the Western maneuvers in the Gulf, the British Response Task Forces Group — which includes the carrier HMS Illustrious, equipped with Apache attack helicopters, along with the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle — will be conducting a naval exercise in the eastern Mediterranean. The task force could easily be diverted to the Gulf region via the Suez Canal within a week of being ordered to do so.

The main naval exercise comes as President Barack Obama is scheduled to meet Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, today to discuss the Iranian crisis.

Many within the Obama administration believe that Israel will launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran's nuclear facilities before the U.S. presidential elections, an act which would signal the failure of one of Washington's key foreign policy objectives.

Both Downing Street and Washington hope that the show of force will demonstrate to Iran that NATO and the West will not allow President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian leader, to develop a nuclear armory or close Hormuz.

Sir John Sawers, the head of MI6, the Secret Intelligence Service, reportedly met the Israeli prime minister and Ehud Barak, his defense secretary, two weeks ago in an attempt to avert military action against Iran.

But just last week Mr. Netanyahu signaled that time for a negotiated settlement was running out when he said: "The world tells Israel 'Wait, there's still time.' And I say, 'Wait for what? Wait until when?'"

"Those in the international community who refuse to put red lines before Iran don't have a moral right to place a red light before Israel."

The crisis hinges on Iran's nuclear enrichment program, which Israel believes is designed to build an atomic weapon. Tehran has long argued that the program is for civil use only and says it has no plans to build a nuclear bomb, but that claim has been disputed by the West, with even the head of MI6 stating that the Islamic Republic is on course to develop atomic weapons by 2014.

The Strait of Hormuz has long been disputed territory, with the Iranians claiming control of the region and the entire Persian Gulf.

Rear Admiral Ali Fadavi of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps recently boasted that "any plots of enemies" would be foiled and a heavy price exacted, adding: "We determine the rules of military conflict in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz."

But Leon Panetta, the U.S. defence secretary, warned that Iranian attempts to exercise control over the Strait of Hormuz could be met with force.

He said: "The Iranians need to understand that the United States and the international community are going to hold them directly responsible for any disruption of shipping in that region — by Iran or, for that matter, by its surrogates."

Mr. Panetta said that the United States was "fully prepared for all contingencies" and added: "We've invested in capabilities to ensure that the Iranian attempt to close down shipping in the Gulf is something that we are going to be able to defeat if they make that decision."

That announcement was supported by Philip Hammond, the Defense Secretary, who added: "We are determined to work as part of the international community effort to ensure freedom of passage in the international waters of the Strait of Hormuz."

One defense source told The Sunday Telegraph last night: "If it came to war, there would be carnage. The Iranian casualties would be huge but they would be able to inflict severe blows against the U.S. and British forces.

"The Iranian Republican Guard are well versed in asymmetrical warfare and would use swarm attacks to sink or seriously damage ships. This is a conflict nobody wants, but the rhetoric from Israel is unrelenting."

[CountDeMoney]

Business Insider, Timmay?  Really?

[katmai]

North Korea is soooo close, c'mon.

[jimmy olsen]

Business Insider, Timmay?  Really?

It was originally posted in the Telegraph, is that any better?

[CountDeMoney]

Business Insider, Timmay?  Really?

It was originally posted in the Telegraph, is that any better?

Yes.  Yes, it is.

[Jacob]

Business Insider, Timmay?  Really?

What's the issue with Business Insider?

[CountDeMoney]

Business Insider, Timmay?  Really?

What's the issue with Business Insider?

Wake me when it's Jane's Defence Weekly beating the war drums.  It's an unnecessarily alarmist article.*




*Although, I do believe Bibi would take his shot prior to the election if the rest of the government doesn't stop him, just for his buddy Mittens.

[Ed Anger]

He might as well take the 3 point shot now.

[Neil]

Israeli defence policy shouldn't revolve around getting an anti-Semite elected.

[CountDeMoney]

Israeli defence policy shouldn't revolve around getting an anti-Semite elected.

Boston Consulting Group friendships are lifelong friendships.

[Jacob]

Alright, so the "Bibi acts to influence the US election" hypothesis as been posited - both here and elsewhere. I have a few questions about that, assuming that he does pull the trigger.

Let's say it does escalate, how will it actually influence the election? Doesn't the US tend to rally around the president during times of crisis, especially the beginning of wars? Assuming Obama is calm, collected, decisive and credible, won't it make it harder for the Republicans to criticize him on the subject without looking like whiny second-guessers or disloyal? And won't it overshadow whatever other issues they may want to talk about?

From an Israeli (or rather Netanyahu's) perspective, how big a difference will you actually see between Romney and Obama, assuming the shit is already airborne? Is that difference big enough that potentially influencing the presidential election (assuming it works out the way you're hoping) is worth letting that influence the timing and nature of your decision making over other concerns (be that domestic political concerns or assessment of the Iranian threat level)?

[CountDeMoney]

Let's say it does escalate, how will it actually influence the election? Doesn't the US tend to rally around the president during times of crisis, especially the beginning of wars? Assuming Obama is calm, collected, decisive and credible, won't it make it harder for the Republicans to criticize him on the subject without looking like whiny second-guessers or disloyal? And won't it overshadow whatever other issues they may want to talk about?

An independent Israeli strike against Iran at this time would be seen as a failure of the Obama Administration's policy of collective security action, not just domestically but globally.

As much as it may be Israel's prerogative--since it is their asses on the line in the end--the US has to ensure that it is the US and the global community, not Israel, that's driving the bus in this crisis.  An Israeli attack would disprove that completely, and draw us into the conflict on terms and a timeline that are not our own.

From an Israeli (or rather Netanyahu's) perspective, how big a difference will you actually see between Romney and Obama, assuming the shit is already airborne? Is that difference big enough that potentially influencing the presidential election (assuming it works out the way you're hoping) is worth letting that influence the timing and nature of your decision making over other concerns (be that domestic political concerns or assessment of the Iranian threat level)?

If there's one thing we've learned about Mittens during this campaign, he places personal attachments and friendships over sound policy advice.  That's a bad mix, particularly when it comes to Bibi.

[DGuller]

I think Netanyahu would be shrewd to attack before the election.  Obama would have no choice but to back Israel 100% and go to war with Iran if necessary, because any response that could be seen as falling short would be a blow for his re-election chances.  I think in the end the attack would actually seal the deal for Obama, but I don't think that's the main concern that Israel has at the moment.

[Tamas]

I think Netanyahu would be shrewd to attack before the election.  Obama would have no choice but to back Israel 100% and go to war with Iran if necessary, because any response that could be seen as falling short would be a blow for his re-election chances.

That's a good point, actually. 

[jimmy olsen]

I think Netanyahu would be shrewd to attack before the election.  Obama would have no choice but to back Israel 100% and go to war with Iran if necessary, because any response that could be seen as falling short would be a blow for his re-election chances.  I think in the end the attack would actually seal the deal for Obama, but I don't think that's the main concern that Israel has at the moment.

I totally agree.