Orders Read: "Be ready to move by Oct 1"

[Rose Siding]

From Time via TPM ("October surprise"?)

The first message was routine enough: A "Prepare to Deploy" order sent through naval communications channels to a submarine, an Aegis-class cruiser, two minesweepers and two mine hunters. The orders didn't actually command the ships out of port; they just said to be ready to move by Oct. 1. But inside the Navy those messages generated more buzz than usual last week when a second request, from the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), asked for fresh eyes on long-standing U.S. plans to blockade two Iranian oil ports on the Persian Gulf. The CNO had asked for a rundown on how a blockade of those strategic targets might work. When he didn't like the analysis he received, he ordered his troops to work the lash up once again.

What's going on? The two orders offered tantalizing clues. There are only a few places in the world where minesweepers top the list of U.S. naval requirements. And every sailor, petroleum engineer and hedge-fund manager knows the name of the most important: the Strait of Hormuz, the 20-mile-wide bottleneck in the Persian Gulf through which roughly 40% of the world's oil needs to pass each day. Coupled with the CNO's request for a blockade review, a deployment of minesweepers to the west coast of Iran would seem to suggest that a much discussed—but until now largely theoretical—prospect has become real: that the U.S. may be preparing for war with Iran.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/009834.php

[bdamomma]

1. this maybe the October surprise.

:scared:

[Wiley50]

9. Current Time Cover Story:What War With Iran Would Look Like ?

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1535817,00.html

What Would War Look Like?
A flurry of military maneuvers in the Middle East increases speculation that conflict with Iran is no longer quite so unthinkable. Here's how the U.S. would fight such a war--and the huge price it would have to pay to win it
By MICHAEL DUFFY


IRNA / AFP / GETTY
Military ships and helicopters of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards during maneuvers April 6, 2006 off Larak Island in the Gulf Sea.
From the Magazine | Cover
What Would War Look Like?
A flurry of military maneuvers in the Middle East increases speculation that conflict with Iran is no longer quite so unthinkable. Here's how the U.S. would fight such a war--and the huge price it would have to pay to win it
By MICHAEL DUFFY
SUBSCRIBE TO TIMEPRINTE-MAILMORE BY AUTHOR

* Exclusive Interview: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Posted Sunday, Sep. 17, 2006
The first message was routine enough: a "Prepare to Deploy" order sent through naval communications channels to a submarine, an Aegis-class cruiser, two minesweepers and two mine hunters. The orders didn't actually command the ships out of port; they just said to be ready to move by Oct. 1. But inside the Navy those messages generated more buzz than usual last week when a second request, from the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), asked for fresh eyes on long-standing U.S. plans to blockade two Iranian oil ports on the Persian Gulf. The CNO had asked for a rundown on how a blockade of those strategic targets might work. When he didn't like the analysis he received, he ordered his troops to work the lash up once again.

What's going on? The two orders offered tantalizing clues. There are only a few places in the world where minesweepers top the list of U.S. naval requirements. And every sailor, petroleum engineer and hedge-fund manager knows the name of the most important: the Strait of Hormuz, the 20-mile-wide bottleneck in the Persian Gulf through which roughly 40% of the world's oil needs to pass each day. Coupled with the CNO's request for a blockade review, a deployment of minesweepers to the west coast of Iran would seem to suggest that a much discussed--but until now largely theoretical--prospect has become real: that the U.S. may be preparing for war with Iran.

No one knows whether--let alone when--a military confrontation with Tehran will come to pass. The fact that admirals are reviewing plans for blockades is hardly proof of their intentions. The U.S. military routinely makes plans for scores of scenarios, the vast majority of which will never be put into practice. "Planners always plan," says a Pentagon official. Asked about the orders, a second official said only that the Navy is stepping up its "listening and learning" in the Persian Gulf but nothing more--a prudent step, he added, after Iran tested surface-to-ship missiles there in August during a two-week military exercise. And yet from the State Department to the White House to the highest reaches of the military command, there is a growing sense that a showdown with Iran--over its suspected quest for nuclear weapons, its threats against Israel and its bid for dominance of the world's richest oil region--may be impossible to avoid. The chief of the U.S. Central Command (Centcom), General John Abizaid, has called a commanders conference for later this month in the Persian Gulf--sessions he holds at least quarterly--and Iran is on the agenda.

Snip

But superpowers don't always get to choose their enemies or the timing of their confrontations. The fact that all sides would risk losing so much in armed conflict doesn't mean they won't stumble into one anyway. And for all the good arguments against any war now, much less this one, there are just as many indications that a genuine, eyeball-to-eyeball crisis between the U.S. and Iran may be looming, and sooner than many realize. "At the moment," says Ali Ansari, a top Iran authority at London's Chatham House, a foreign-policy think tank, "we are headed for conflict."

[MisterP]

47. I'm gettin Dec. 2002 flashbacks...

[elehhhhna]

21. The Lame Duck's positioned Thousands of "sitting ducks" in Iraq .

Our Generals must revolt. NOW.

This leaking tells me they are.

[The Backlash Cometh]

41. Or maybe they're trying to get the military vote in a contained area

where they can filter out the undesirable ballots?

[Bitwit1234]

2. Permission

Doesn't this administration need congress's approval to start to invade Iran?

[The Cleaner]

4. Joe Biden last year warned of this.

I remember him on a Sunday talk show getting upset and saying, "You know, Bush could go to war with IRAN, to war with IRAN without congressional approval!"

And indeed he can. He is the dictator, remember?

[Chiyo-chichi]

45. Yes, indeed.

And he said that plans were on the table.

[Zodiak]

5. From what I understand

he can deploy troops at his will for 30-90 days. After that, he needs a formal declaration of war or approval from Congress.

That is off the top of my head, though. I am sure other DUers more in the know will weigh in.

[lumberjack_jeff]

11. from the war powers act of 1973 wiki

"The purpose of the War Powers Resolution is to ensure that Congress and the President share in making decisions that may get the U.S. involved in hostilities. Portions of the War Powers Resolution require the President to consult with Congress prior to the start of any hostilities as well as regularly until U.S. armed forces are no longer engaged in hostilities (Sec. 3); and to remove U.S. armed forces from hostilities if Congress has not declared war or passed a resolution authorizing the use of force within 60 days (Sec. 5(b)). Following an official request by the President to Congress, the time limit can be extended by an additional 30 days (presumably when "unavoidable military necessity" requires additional action for a safe withdrawal)."

[EVDebs]

23. WPA of '73 requires 'clear' read truthful 'circumstances' and 'situations'

along with a CONGRESSIONAL determination of same in tandem with the President...In the case of Iran I am seeing more of the same as in Iraq: will someone in Congress please (pretty please ?) verify any claims made prior to the start of committing US soldiers and sailors to potential hostility ?

The AUMF language of "as he (Bush) determines" needs revisiting, as Sen Warner mentioned to Rummy awhile back.

[ChiciB1]

56. This REALITY Here Is TOOOOO Scary!!

Are WE that far gone here in America??? Will the American people REALLY stand for this??

I'm just so SICK of WAR & TERRA! I wanna go home, WHERE EVER that is!!!

[peacebaby3]

48. That is correct. Any president has 90 days. n/t

On edit:

Looks like my post was really late. Sorry, didn't see the new posts when I looked at the thread. I must have had the window open previously.

[radfringe]

7. bush don't need no stinkin' permission slips

he's the decider... he does the decidin' on who gets the decidination slips or not...

[Recursion]

10. Well, there's not much Congress can do

I mean, the three branches have very little actual ability to coerce action on the other. Congress could impeach the President, or could cut off the funding for the war, but that's about it.

[elehhhhna]

22. not funding it would help. let Halliburton & Carlyle finance this one.

[BR_Parkway]

31. China would take care of not funding it - if we blockade the oil, it hurts

their economy - which is currently underwriting ours. All they need to do is stop buying T-Bills and put some pressures on Japan to do the same - like every other business W has run into the ground, the USA becomes bankrupt without enough cashflow to cover it's bills.

[newspeak]

38. you mean like how Congress gave a no go on funding the Contras?

how easily they went around that. They have no respect for the rule of law or Congress.

[wiggs]

29. Not true. OP title should read: there's not much congress HAS DONE. nt

[kestrel91316]

17. Who's to stop him? He can do anything he wants.

[DoYouEverWonder]

60. Congress

and we the people.

[Occulus]

25. You'd think so, and under normal circumstances yes,

but * will say the IWR gives him the authority. Or the resolution re Afghanistan. Or feed us some stupid, twisted "logic".

Of course the American press won't question it and will report it as if nothing is amiss. Silly us, for our concern. We lack the "post 9-11" mindset.

:eyes:

[Marie26]

32. They'd interpret the

Iraq War resolution as authorizing a war on Iran. I think Condoleeza Rice has actually said this.

[chat_noir]

3. Iran oil bourse launch underway

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2161357


No MSM news on this. hmmmm?

[formercia]

18. The key is Euros

The Iranian Bourse will trade oil in Euros. Not a good thing for the Dollar.People are tired of taking paper and being financially blackmailed by having reserves in Dollars.

The US Navy can blockade all they want. Iran will ship their oil via Russia and other points.

[newspeak]

39. well, if our economy is going to take a large hit

it's one way or the other. I'd rather they had allowed them to go Euro, than have our money syphoned off on a bogus war, with the outcome of deaths of Americans and thousands of civilians.

[formercia]

43. Cutting into profits

The 'boys' at the mercantile exchange are not going to like it one bit.

[BlueEyedSon]

59. where is goreN4?

[Toucano]

62. The Iran oil bourse is a farce.

And possibly psych ops. Give up on it.

Even if it were true, it would never have the impact some are claiming it would have.

China and the other foreign nations with investments in dollars have no interest in seeing the dollar crash. Ruining the economy of their best consumer is likewise not in their interest.

[converted_democrat]

6. I really hope this isn't going to happen..n/t

[Selatius]

8. Like a game of chess, to strike, you must move your pieces into position

We might be moving them right now.

[Craftsman]

13. Watch the pizza and fast food deliveries to the Pentagon

Seriously. When those go up dramatically something is up. Lots of people working late.

[yodermon]

35. Welcome to DU, Craftsman

I like the way you think! :toast:

[gratuitous]

14. And remember the build-up to the invasion of Iraq

Thousands of troops massed on the Kuwaiti border and sailing into the area, all the while Bush claiming that he hadn't made any final decision about whether or not to invade, and the media playing along. Because in their greed and bloodlust, they saw millions to be made from an invasion, lots of pretty pictures to transmit from Iraq, and careers as war correspondents to be made. Now, 3½ years later, everyone's bored and tired of this game. It's gone on far too long, and it's not even fun to argue about anymore. Sucks if you're stationed there in the military, but you should have thought of that beforehand, you know?

So, what'll we do next, boys and girls? How about . . . invade Iran! Yeaaaaaaa! Let's go! And with appropriate ruffles and fluorishes, the corrupt Bush administration and their courtiers in the media go tromping off in search of excitement. Anything to stave off ennui. Careless people, aren't they? Then they retreat back into their money, heedless of the damage they've done. (With appropriate nod to F. Scott Fitzgerald.)

[true_notes]

15. Minesweepers are a Permanent Asset there.

in Hormuz. We have a constant submarine presence there and a lot of merchent traffic. However, anything on a broader scale than what we have out there right now is definitely worth watching. Here's our current fleet rundown:

34 Subs are out and about
97 Ships are out with the following strike groups:

Carriers:
USS Enterprise (CVN 65) - Arabian Sea
USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74) - Pacific Ocean

Hospital Ships
USNS Mercy (T-AH 19) - Pacific Ocean

Iwo Jima Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG):
USS Iwo Jima (LHD 7) - North Arabian Sea
USS Nashville (LPD 13) - North Arabian Sea
USS Whidbey Island (LSD 41) - North Arabian Sea

Amphibious Warfare Ships:
USS Tarawa (LHA 1) - Atlantic Ocean
USS Saipan (LHA 2) - Persian Gulf
USS Wasp (LHD 1) - Mediterranean Sea
USS Boxer (LHD 4) - Pacific Ocean
USS Bataan (LHD 5) - Atlantic Ocean
USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD 6) - Pacific Ocean
USS Dubuque (LPD 8) - Pacific Ocean
USS Juneau (LPD 10) - East China Sea
USS Shreveport (LPD 12) - Atlantic Ocean
USS Trenton (LPD 14) - Atlantic Ocean
USS Ponce (LPD 15) - Atlantic Ocean
USS Germantown (LSD 42) - Pacific Ocean
USS Gunston Hall (LSD 44) - Atlantic Ocean
USS Comstock (LSD 45) - Pacific Ocean
USS Carter Hall (LSD 50) - Atlantic Ocean
USS Oak Hill (LSD 51) - Atlantic Ocean

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/navy_legacy.asp?id=146

[elehhhhna]

24. Which PIPELINES to other ports will benefit most w/ the Straits blocked?

That needs answering.

Israel's? Maybe the newly-extra secure Haifa?

[snappyturtle]

12. I'm ready to

:puke: ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! How much more of this crap do we have to be afeared of? It would be so much more productive if this story were about a humanatarian floatila doing some good somewhere!

[leveymg]

16. So, the US Navy is going to sink oil tankers that run the blockade?

Why should these contingency plans be any more feasible today than they were in 2004, when all this was wargamed, and rejected as uncontrollable and likely to escalate into a regional war?

We would all like to see Iran believe that we're willing to pay any price to stop their nuclear program, but the reality is something else, altogether. We're not even willing to pay an extra three bucks a gallon that a blockade of Kharg Island would entail.

This is "crazy Nixon", redux.

[formercia]

20. Desperate men take disparate measures

Looking jail in the face crazy.

[EVDebs]

27. Lemme get this straight, Iran dupes the US into Iraq and now

Iran is duping Bushco into raising the price of oil -- by blockading oil ports-- just PRIOR to a US election ? I knew the Rs were a bit touched by the sun but now I'm seeing the "madman" theory, as the crazy Nixon alludes that Sy Hersh reported on in The Price of Power, coming back into vogue. Bush is like the reincarnation of Nixon's Ghost.

BTW, read this

US Mulled Seizing Saudi Oil Fields in '73
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A46321-2003Dec31¬Found=true

With the looks of gas prices, yes, I'd say we're right back in the time warp again ! Seizing oilfields, ANY oilfields, seems like BushCo's answer to everything.

Fixing an environmental problem with a military solution is counter-productive. Leadership, a la Al Gore, could have prevented much of this "Iraq Fiasco". But that will have to wait...

[AntiFascist]

44. Tell that to all the proud Hummer and other heavy vehicle owners n/t

[Blackhatjack]

28. On Contrary, They Will Keep Strait of Hormuz Open for Oil to Flow...

In the event that Iran is bombed, Iran's plan would be to block the Strait of Hormuz to stop ALL oil from moving to the rest of the world, not just Iranian oil. THis would be much more damaging than if Iran just stopped exporting oil altogether during the conflict.

Some strategists believe that Iran would use mines to blow up tankers which would be difficult to move from the Strait, and would interfere with other tankers negotiating the narrow strait. The import of minesweepers being deployed by the Navy would be to avert this scenario.

Sinking two or three massive oil tankers in the Strait neutralizes any technological advantage the US might have in this effort to counter Iranian forces.

[EVDebs]

30. This would be an overt violation of the Geneva Convention, right ?

Has Iran overtly attacked the US in order to prompt an act of war ? As I've posted above, this is an environmental problem and Bush is "solving" it with a military solution that will not work. We need new leadership in the WH ... we just have to wait a few months to get it. And most probably the Constitution too

"" National wars are said to be offensive or defensive. War is offensive on the part of that government which commits the first act of violence; it is defensive on the part of that government which receives such act; but it is very difficult to say what is the first act of violence. If a nation sees itself menaced with an attack, its first act of violence to prevent such attack, will be considered as defensive.

To legalize a war it must be declared by that branch of the government entrusted by the Constitution with this power. And it seems it need not be declared by both the belligerent powers. By the Constitution of the United States, Art. I, Congress is invested with power "to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; and they have also the power to raise and support armies, and to provide and maintain a navy." ""

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/w038.htm

If Iran shows restraint and does NOT act defensively, what will happen ? Has this been war-gamed as badly as the Iraq aftermath ? Let us pray that is not the case. Let us pray for decent leadership. Is it on the way ?

[elehhhhna]

40. 'Has Iran overtly attacked the US in order to prompt an act of war ?'

not yet. Betcha Dick has it on his calendar for October, though.

Hunker down, blue cities.

[mike_c]

53. certainly the Nuremberg Principles and the U.N. Charter...

...which the U.S. signed and ratified into law. Bush and his cabinet (for a start) are already war criminals-- what's a few more tens or hundreds of thousands of dead brown people, after all? Their presence makes our oil hard to obtain. :sarcasm:

[elehhhhna]

34. YOU are correct: Iran has STATED they will block the Starits if we attack

[windbreeze]

42. Let's not forget

That Iran has that whole seacoast full of missiles just waiting for us to do something stupid...sunburns and exocets...you know, the ones that our ships don't even see coming, until they are hit...god, what the hell is this bunch thinking anyway...I better stop right here...feeling a rant of unending proportions coming..How many more people is he going to be allowed to KILL??
wb

[elehhhhna]

19. The Horn of Africa deployment rumour has been around. The Horn:

Could it be Sudan &/or Somalia thing?



Modern history
The Horn of Africa is a region continuously in crisis. Ethiopia occupies a predominant position in the Horn because of its demographic importance: about 85% of the area's population live in this country. Yet Ethiopia's history is largely marked by conflicts between Muslims and Christians for resources and living space, as well as between nationalism and Marxism-Leninism in the modern times. The rest of the region also faces continuous wars: a civil war erupted in Somalia in 1977, resulting in the country having had no functioning national government since 1991. Sudan, with the Sudanese Civil War, represents another important source of instability for the whole region. Conflicts have also occurred in Djibouti and Eritrea.

Moreover, the region is regularly stricken by natural catastrophes, such as droughts (in Ethiopia) or flood (Somalia) that hit rural areas particularly hard. As a result, the region has some of the world's highest levels of malnutrition and is continuously loomed by a major humanitarian crisis. Between 1982 and 1992, about two million people died in the Horn of Africa due to this combination of war and famine.

The Horn of Africa, since 2002, has been a major focus of attention by the United States, France, Germany, and eleven African nations regarding the War on Terrorism.

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

[paparush]

50. I also read that the Horn is suffering a tremendous tectonic shift

and that the Horn will break off and form its own continent.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/East_Africa.html

[elehhhhna]

51. And it will be named: Bushadonia.

[Straight Shooter]

26. Lindsey Graham on Face The Nation yesterday kept mentioning Iran.

Well, actually it was the host who mentioned it first, in the context of Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. Both of them addressed the issue with the hypothesis of what if one of our soldiers or a CIA agent were captured in Iran. They kept mentioning Iran, and I'm thinking, WTF, is this a done deal already? They're talking about it like it's a given that we will be at war with Iran, with boots on the ground there, and thus it's important to honor the Geneva Conventions so our people aren't tortured if captured.

Graham kept trying to come across as fair and reasonable in his resistance to caving in to bush, but it didn't hide the fact that he thinks war with Iran is imminent and that's why he's desperate not to put Americans in the position of being tortured. IOW, if the U.S. doesn't honor Article 3, why should anyone else. Everyone will make up their own rules to suit their agenda, which incidentally is exactly what the bush administration is doing in pushing for war against Iran, distorting reality to fit their very screwed-up agenda.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/17/graham-nails-geneva-conventions-argument/

[roamer65]

33. Venezuela is the "wild card"

If Chavez holds to his agreement with Iran, I think he will shut off Venezuelan oil shipments to the US under an Iranian blockade.

[puerco-bellies]

36. The Iranians won't have to mine the straights.

I've crossed the Straights of Hormuz around a hundred times. The Iranian side is full of cliffs and gorges, pock marked by caves and probably bunkers by now. If the Iranians run out of missiles/launchers to sink tankers trying to run the straights, a simple artillery piece can doom a tanker with a single round of "willie pete". Remember what trouble we had trying to find Saddam's scud launchers on open desert during Gulf War I? Now try that on rough closed-in terrain, what a bunch of idiot's.

[OneBlueSky]

37. um . . . wouldn't this be a good time for the Congress to . . .

pass a resolution prohibiting BushCo from engaging in any hostile actions against Iran without consulting them? . . . since all signs are pointing toward some kind of attack, shouldn't the experience of having been lied into one war make them determined not to let it happen again? . . .

okay, okay . . . it's a Republican Congress completely under BushCo's thumb . . . but shouldn't the Democrats at least get together and put forth such a resolution -- with lots of bells. whistles, and trumpets -- to alert the American people and to announce their intention to at least TRY to stop another disaster from taking place? . . . the country's in no mood for another war, so such a resolution might just get citizens off their asses and away from their tv's long enough to lobby their representatives and maybe force them to act . . .

the alternative seems to be doing nothing -- which Congress is very, very good at . . . but haven't they learned ANYTHING in the past five years? . . . especially the Democrats? . . .

[Ignacio Upton]

46. This will send oil prices back up

They if try this shit we could see gas prices getting past $3.50-$3.75. However, even if that foils any possible market manipulation, starting World War III is NOT in our interest.

[truedelphi]

49. It's it a win-win for BushCo, Maybe?

If it works and we manage to seize oil fields, then there is cheap gas before election day.

On the other hand, he blew it big time in Iraq, shows no sign of ever
understanding that all you need to do to win a war is listen to the
Five Star Generals who have a decent strategy.

SO if he can't win In the Iran war, will it be total mitiary control of the country right before elections?

[roamer65]

52. OR...they're getting the US fleet out of the Gulf before bombing.

If we or the Israelis bomb, our ships are sitting ducks in the Gulf. Iran has Sunburn anti-ship missiles, which are pretty much unstoppable. Keep an eye on the 5th fleet based in Bahrain. If the fleet re-deploys outside of the Gulf somewhere, war is inevitable. They're probably looking to get the fleet out while the Straits of Hormuz are passable.

[HuffleClaw]

54. BushCo. could easil create a 'justification' for a strike on iran

they've tried a few times now. the lebanon 'war', the oil rig being 'attacked'...

[EVDebs]

55. NPR's wargaming w/ Sam Gardiner shows limited options

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4145036

[Philosoraptor]

57. !!!!!!

[B Calm]

58. Impeachment now!

[Sydnie]

61. CNN is reporting about this now

Saying that they have been working on plans for this for the last 4 to 6 weeks. :mad: