Reuters: US to warn Iran with naval buildup in Gulf- CBS

[Eugene]

CBS News video: Iran's Nuclear Aims Worry U.S.

US to warn Iran with naval buildup in Gulf- CBS
19 Dec 2006 03:28:31 GMT
Source: Reuters

WASHINGTON, Dec 18 (Reuters) - The Pentagon is planning a major buildup of U.S.
naval forces in and around the Gulf as a warning to Iran, CBS News reported on
Monday.

A senior Defense Department official told Reuters the report was "premature" and
appeared to be drawing "conclusions from assumptions." The official did not know
of plans for a major change in naval deployment.

-snip-

Citing unidentified military officers, CBS said the plan called for the deployment
of a second U.S. aircraft carrier to join the one already in the region.

The network said the buildup, which would begin in January, wad not aimed at an
attack on Iran but to discourage what U.S. officials view as increasingly provocative
acts by Tehran.

-snip-

Full article: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N18217613.htm

[babylonsister]

1. Hmmm. I thought they already built-up a few months ago. nt

[Igel]

43. That's what was reported.

They had naval exercises near Iran.

Then many of the ships left and returned to previously assigned duties. This was weakly reported.

That's what you get with confirmation bias.

[bobthedrummer]

44. Back in October, when Iran was conducting "naval exercises" and so

was Russia, and even China-there are still a lot of warships and subs in that "neighborhood".

[originalpckelly]

2. Yeah, just what you want to do to someone when they're mad at you...

pull out your gun and aim at them. Yep, that's not going to result in any sort of accident or mishap which could start yet another war.

:eyes:

[flobee1]

3. increasingly provocative acts by Tehran

I wonder if this has anything to do with Iran's switch to the Euro?

[rman]

28. I wonder if the US's increasingly provocative acts have anything to do

with Iran's switch to the Euro?

[pinto]

4. CBS seems to be overplaying this, somewhat. I can see that

the addition of one carrier in the Gulf would constitute a message to Iran, but the sky is *still* not falling.

[Trajan]

5. This sabre-rattling is useless

The US will not invade Iran ...

They will not impede shipping in the Strait ...

They will not take potshots at Irani vessels ....

The US does not have the ability to win Iran, and so will not provoke war with Iran ....

It could DESTROY Iran through nuclear arms, but not invade and occupy it ....

The destruction of Iran is wholly incompatible with the notion of an existent Israel, and by nuking Iran, the resultant, collateral poisoning of the region would be so pervasive that Israel would not be able to survive, nor Jordan, nor Iraq, nor MANY nations within that area .... The whole region would be a no man's land for 1000's of years ....

This sabre rattling is just that and ONLY that .... The US military knows better than to start a war with Iran ....

Now; Chimpy and the Neocons doesnt seem to have the same sensibility ....who knows what they might do ....

[screembloodymurder]

38. And expensive.

We can't afford Bush for two more years.

[lovuian]

58. I think some people are in Denial We are going to Invade

that was the plan all along unfortunately Bush Buddies did a absolute botched plan but the PLAN goes forward WWIII is heading our way

[Trajan]

60. I understand some people swim in 'Da Nile' ...

But no matter what Newtie and his brother-conspirators want : They do NOT have the manpower to invade Iran ....

They can want it, but they arent going to get it ....

Do the math ...

Denial ? .... hardly .... call it realism ....

[Captain Hilts]

6. But the Bush Admin has shrunk the USN to pre-First World War size. nt

[happyslug]

46. When we were # 2 to England (And closing in)

People forget the Washington Treaty of 1922 was agreed to by Britain for it was the only way Britain could keep up with US NAvy Expansion. By accepting equal parity with the Britain, the US had to stop its then quite large naval expansion program (With most of the Battleships being built being scraped under the terms of the Treaty).

Now Germany had been #2 just before WWI, but was only able to do so by designing their capital Ships with limited range compared to British and American Ships. Thus by the time of WWI, it was the US not Germany that was going to challenge Britain for naval Superiority.

The reason I bring this up is the fact we have the "Smallest" fleet since WWI, is meaningless given how LARGE our fleet was in 1916. British and Germany expansion almost came to an halt while US naval Expansion kept up its pace.

On the other end of this point is how SMALL all the other navies in the world have become since WWI. The German Fleet was sank in place at the end of WWI, The British Fleet had to embrace the VTOL Carrier more do to an inability to build and maintain a full-size Carrier after the 1960s. The Japanese Navy has never recovered from WWII. France and Italy basically converted their Naval Forces to off-shore defense forces depended on land-base air Cover as opposed to any ability to project air power to a enemy. With the collapse of the old Soviet navy with the Collapse of the Soviet Union the US Navy is by far the largest navy in the world. The fact it has less ships on service than in 1916 is meaningless given the every other Navy has even less ships then they did in 1916.

[frylock]

7. we can only hope that there isn't a gulf of tonkin.. errrrr persia incident

[happyslug]

49. Oh, shoot hostile naval forces after landing terrorist on its shore?

Remember the reason the US Navy was in the Gulf of Tonkin was to launched South Vietnamese Guerrillas into North Vietnam. This was done by large speed boats NOT any US Navy Vessels. The North Vietnamese attack the USS Maddox on August 2, 1964 for it appeared to be the only ship still in the area that had participated in the attacks. Now the US Navy denies that the USS Maddox participated in the attacks and in a way the US Navy is correct. What the Maddox was during was forcing the North Vietnamese to reveal their Radar sites and then sending this information to Saigon who then re-transmitted them to the boats during the actual attacks so to avoid the Radars. Thus the MAddox was NOT involved in the attacks of the Speed boats but by being in the Gulf AND detecting the North Vietnamese Radar locations they were helping the raiders.

Now the Second attack on August 4, 1964 was probably a false echo. This was picked up by the CIA as "proof" of continuing attacks by North Vietnamese. t is quite clear at the time that the attacks on August 4 were probably a false echo, as it was reported by the Radar Operator but their opinion was overruled and the US Retaliated for the "Attack" on its ships.

For more on the Attack:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident

[thingfisher]

50. And the rest id history!

[truthisfreedom]

8. another spectacular debacle courtesy of bushco.

watch him turn this into another disaster of biblical proportions.

[Canuckistanian]

9. You're right, this ain't good

Not with Commander McFlightsuit at the helm.

Just breathe deeply an keep repeating, "The Democrats take over Congress in January, The Democrats take over Congress in January, The Democrats take over Congress in January..."

[seemslikeadream]

10. Reuel Marc Gerecht - To Bomb, or Not to Bomb

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/100mmysk.asp?pg=1

....


The opponents of military strikes against the mullahs' weapons facilities say there are no guarantees that we can permanently destroy their weapons production. This is true. We can't guarantee the results. But what we can do is demonstrate, to the mullahs and to others elsewhere, that even with these uncertainties, in a post-9/11 world the United States has red lines that will compel it to act. And one nonnegotiable red line is that we will not sit idly and watch a virulently anti-American terrorist-supporting rogue state obtain nukes. We will not be intimidated by threats of terrorism, oil-price spikes, or hostile world opinion. If the ruling clerical elite wants a head-on collision with a determined superpower, then that's their choice.

....


Seymour Hersh: Cheney Says 'Whether Or Not Dems Win-NO STOPPING Military Option With Iran'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2757350

“This is the largest massing of military power in the region, and it is gathering for a reason.”
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2753952

Does anyone still believe the US will launch a full scale invasion of Iran?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2856177



http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/americaabroad/2006/dec/18/should_we_worry_about_the_saudi_threats
Let us also hope that Prince Turki al-Faysal, the architect of Saudi Arabia’s jihad strategy of the 1980s and 1990s, did not abruptly leave his post as Ambassador to Washington to take charge of the new jihad campaign.

[Canuckistanian]

11. Kick!

:kick:

[BelgianMadCow]

12. I think this deserves greatest. 4th rec.

Was looking for this having found a second hand source in GD.
And of course LBN has the goods
:-)

[FreeStateDemocrat]

13. Is this an another response to Saudi demands made to "Big Dick" Cheney? How high do we have to jump?

[Gman]

14. I thought this was going to be the October surprise

with an attack on the alleged nuclear facilities in Iran. I don't know why they changed their minds. I think they blinked for some reason.

[Scurrilous]

15. US to warn Iran with naval buildup in Gulf- CBS

<snip>

"The Pentagon is planning a major buildup of U.S. naval forces in and around the Gulf as a warning to Iran, CBS News reported on Monday.

A senior Defense Department official told Reuters the report was "premature" and appeared to be drawing "conclusions from assumptions." The official did not know of plans for a major change in naval deployment.

Another Defense Department official called the report "speculative" and a Pentagon spokeswomen declined to comment.

Citing unidentified military officers, CBS said the plan called for the deployment of a second U.S. aircraft carrier to join the one already in the region.

The network said the buildup, which would begin in January, wad not aimed at an attack on Iran but to discourage what U.S. officials view as increasingly provocative acts by Tehran."

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N18217613.htm

[ixion]

16. well, golly gee, that's a pretty stupid thing to do

sure glad that we've learned from our previous experiences. :eyes:

[leftchick]

17. didn't stop Iran from having their war games this summer

This is pure provocation and I am sick of bushco** and their wars.

:grr:

[magellan]

18. Any bets on how long before

...there's a convenient "unprovoked" attack either here or against our forces in the Gulf that gives Bush** the excuse to launch air strikes against Iran?

[Cass]

32. That's what I'm worried about. And its coincidental that 30k troops

are being sent to the area, no?

This news makes me very uneasy.

[sendero]

19. When you "warn" someone with a gun..

.... you'd better be ready to use it.

This is beyond stupid. Our civilian and military leaders are half-wits.

[Earth_First]

20. Low and behold, we're sending 30,000 ground troops to Kuwait...

For 'preventive' measures within Iraq, of course.

[MisterP]

48. and the "surge"...

[Warren Stupidity]

21. MORE WAR DAMMIT WE NEED MORE WAR

I see we have learned nothing. "Increasingly provocative acts by Tehran"? They just had an election that slapped their hideous president in the face and put the reformists back on track. That provocative act? Or perhaps as another poster noted, switching to euros, that provocative act?

Did the Iranian Navy recently parade across our coastline and I missed it?

We need to remove the insane and dangerous idiots from the white house before they go and start another war to distract us from their current disastrous and failed war against Iraq.

[Dr Batsen D Belfry]

22. Missile-tip Diplomacy is Tough When

you're shooting blanks.

'nuff said

DBDB

[MilesColtrane]

23. The Chimperor really believes that the only way to stabilize Iraq...

is to bomb Iran.

In his, and Cheney's, dark little mind we are already at war with Iran. They see the insurgents in Iraq as the proxies.

Oh, it's coming alright. And it's going to be ugly.

We bomb. They destroy some of our ships, and suddenly the fear drives Bush's ratings up a bit and gets him the draft he's been dreaming of.

Fuck me.

[seemslikeadream]

24. There will be no reliance on dollars

The move could have implications for the oil market

Dollar dropped in Iran asset move

The move could have implications for the oil market
Iran is to shift its foreign currency reserves from dollars to euros and use the euro for oil deals in response to US-led pressure on its economy.
In a widely expected move, Tehran said it would use the euro for all future commercial transactions overseas.

The US, which accuses Tehran of supporting terrorism and trying to obtain nuclear weapons, has sought to limit the flow of dollars into Iran.

It wants the United Nations Security Council to impose sanctions on Iran.

Dollar squeeze

Analysts said Tehran had been steadily shifting its foreign-held assets out of dollars since 2003 and that Monday's announcement was unlikely to affect the value of the dollar, which has weakened significantly in recent months.



" There will be no reliance on dollars"

Gholam-Hussein Elham, Iranian spokesman

[alfredo]

25. MSNBC said bush is going to war with Iran this morning.

From what I have heard from bush, he feels he has total license to fight the "War on Terror" as he sees fit, and doesn't need advice and consent from congress.

[KansDem]

26. Does "gunboat diplomacy" still work?

I thought it went by the wayside decades ago...

[rman]

27. The Gulf is pretty much Iranian territorial waters - question is,

what's the US navy doing over there?

[Porcupine]

29. Waiting for a newer Pearl Harbor.

I wouldn't be surprised if a missle war didn't start between the US forces trapped in the Gulf and land based Iranian cruise missiles. I could see 6 or 7 US ships on fire after being hit by Silkworms and Cmdr. Kookoobananas on CNN claiming it was an ambush even if it wasn't. We'll find out about 2040 that Bush ordered US forces to fire on Iran first. These people will do anything to keep the gravy train running.

[reprobate]

34. We will have two carriers at risk by new years. That's what, 10,000 sailors?

Two of Iran's Sunburn anti-ship missiles can sink two carriers, and there's no way to defend against them. That will quadruple the current death toll in Iraq.

And with our administration and it's wholly owned media subsidiary, we'll never know who struck first, just that we now have another 10k dead. And there won't even be body bags for them.

To paraphrase the bard: 'Will no one rid me of this meddlesome village idiot?'

[Strelnikov_]

41. Because It Is U.S. (G)lobal (O)il (P)rotection

In the recent Ted Koppel documentary on Iran, the part that really pissed me off was the (Australian?) navy boarding a supertanker prior to the tanker docking with the off-shore loading facility. The purpose was to search for saboteurs.

My thought was, shouldn't the owner of the terminal be providing their own security service?

Sounds like our Navy, along with others, are busy protecting the assets of Nationalized and multi-national oil companies.


"Fighters for Texaco . . "

[HuffleClaw]

30. 'provacative acts' ????

suuuuuuure, we've heard that one before. of course this time it happens to be TRUE! iran is switching its assets to the EURO.

could it be finally ole gw has snapped? and will coincide an attack on iran with the incoming 'new' congress?

[Spazito]

31. Iraq was intending to switch to Euros re their oil sales as well....

and they were illegally invaded and occupied and now Iran has signaled their intention to do the same and the bush cabal is upping their threat, just coincidence I am sure.

:sarcasm: on the coincidence in case it's needed.

[confludemocrat]

35. Where are the big guns of the opposition to question this provocative act?

Oh yes, that's right, they aren't really an opposition to such gigantic wastes of money and sabre rattling nonsense

[rman]

33. Would we fall for a Gulf of Tonkin incident

yet again?


30-year Anniversary: Tonkin Gulf Lie Launched Vietnam War
Media Beat (7/27/94)
By Jeff Cohen and Norman Solomon
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2261

snip..

The official story was that North Vietnamese torpedo boats launched an "unprovoked attack" against a U.S. destroyer on "routine patrol" in the Tonkin Gulf on Aug. 2 — and that North Vietnamese PT boats followed up with a "deliberate attack" on a pair of U.S. ships two days later.

The truth was very different.

snip..

One of the Navy pilots flying overhead that night was squadron commander James Stockdale, who gained fame later as a POW and then Ross Perot's vice presidential candidate. "I had the best seat in the house to watch that event," recalled Stockdale a few years ago, "and our destroyers were just shooting at phantom targets — there were no PT boats there.... There was nothing there but black water and American fire power."

more..

[yurbud]

36. warn Iran about what? Not to think of defending themselves? To stand back from the oil fields Bush

wants/

[screembloodymurder]

37. This isn't about nukes.

It's about our currency and selling oil for Euros instead of the dollar.

[Strelnikov_]

40. Ka Mother *ucking Ching n/t

[AllexxisF1]

39. Gulf of Tonkin All Over Again.

So the President is ordering ships with thousands of sailors into a possible hostile region...for NO REASON.

Iran has not threatened us, nor have they done anything to warrant this obvious intimidation. Putting such forces within such a small area is inheritantly dangerous.

But then again that is probably what George wants. No better way to put Iraq on the back pages than countering a clear attack by Iran on the United States....or semi clear.

This man is a danger to the world and it's about time someone took him away. I see riots in the streets....

[Occulus]

42. Is this another one of those "perfectly normal troop rotations" or some such

that the naysayers were poo-pooing a while back?

We need a smiley for "derisive snort".

[Ezlivin]

45. Time for China to reign in the its runaway republic - Taiwan

While we're over in the Persian Gulf rattling our increasingly hollow saber, China could find it an ideal time to deal with Taiwan.

And naturally North Korea could use the time to do some "stuff."

Bush must jack off to the Book of Revelations every night.

[Megahurtz]

47. oooooooo .... aaaaaahhhhhh ....

oooooo they're going to be so scared!:sarcasm:

:eyes:

Seriously, can't this Country just ever leave other Countries the fuck alone???

[seasat]

51. This right after the Iranian election is stupid!

I was reading up on Iran and there are basically three groups in politics there. You've got the traditionalists which are the dominant clerics that originally sparked the revolution. They are the ones that started Hezbollah and are pretty antiwestern. You've got the reformers, they're the modern Iranians that want a freer society with less clerical control. They're the ones we need to encourage but they reject support from the West. You can't really blame them given our history with Iran (see the Shah and Iran/Iraq war). The final group are the conservatives. They're the ones that back Ahmadinejad. They want a more theocratic Iraq with an aggressive foreign policy. They make the traditionalists look like fuzzy bunnies and are probably behind a push for nuclear weapons.

Ahmadinejad came to power for two reasons (IMHO) first there is a large gap between the rich and poor and secondly our war in Iraq. Ahmadinejad ran as a populist and promised to use some of Iran's oil wealth to help the poor in rural areas. By going into Iraq and threatening Iran, the Iranians turned to a strong man type leader. They (rightly) feared US attack.

However, in the recent election, the conservatives lost to the more moderate candidates. It is stupid to now show force. All we'll do is provide the Iranians with more reasons to support the conservatives. We should now be engaging the more moderate clerics and politician in Iran. We should also hire Iranian firms to work in Iraq and Afghanistan for reconstruction and services. We'd then build up support among the poor Iranians by providing them with income through trade. It would also weaken the conservative's support.

The problem with talking to Iran is that it would require very skilled diplomacy to carefully negotiate around Ahmadinejad and not come off as obviously supporting the reformers. We could affect a change there. Unfortunately, there is no one I can think of in Shrub's administration that is capable of this type of diplomacy even if they suddenly woke up and gained a smidgen of morality or intelligence.

Shrub Inc is unfortunately interested in only playing the hard line. They still think that they can somehow bring peace, democracy, and the American way to the middle east at the barrel of a gun. They're going to turn Iran into a much worse Iraq. Iran is probably the best candidate for a freer more democratic society, if we only stop our frigging meddling. For a stable modern liberal democracy, you need a middle class. Iran is developing one. The neocons forget history. The US, originally, only allowed white land owning males to vote. Iran is in that stage now. If we help the buildup of a middle class, they'll progress much faster and will move from their theocratic state into something more free.

[rman]

57. Moderate governments don't make for good boogeymen

That's why the Cons don't like the new Iranian government.
If the goal is to wage total and perpetual war, it makes perfect sense to seek confrontation with Iran now.

[sillyphoenix]

52. What the hell!?!

Is Bush trying to rack up casualties in the Navy to match those in the Army and Marine Corps? (half-sarcastic)

[Nihil]

56. Yeah, it's cheaper that way ...

... fewer bodies recovered = fewer body bags = lower costs.

That's the Halliburton way!

[oblivious]

53. Iran is evil! Iran's leaders are demons! Iran's people must be freed.

And stop saying it's about the oil. Stop it! What kind of a hypoctite do you think I am!

(Just doing my part to ratchet up the war propaganda.)

[lovuian]

54. This is Old News

the Boxer Group has been there sometime

[Morgana LaFey]

55. One of these days, the military

is just going to have to say No.

Not the troops, the brass. Starting with the Joint Chiefs perhaps.

[Marr]

59. They cite only "provocative acts"- I don't see any mention of Iran's

announced intention to form a euro-based oil market there. Wasn't that just announced a few days ago? And- isn't the entire Middle East invited to sell their oil through that market? I'm not really clear on the arrangement- anyone have more details? Seems to me that that would be the sort of thing our corporate press would describe as a "provocative act".