Galrahn

To add more to the above.

The CSG to replace the Eisenhower now appears to be yet another Pacific CSG, specifically the Nimitz CSG with the following contingent:

USS Nimitz (CVN68)
USS Princeton (CG 59)
USS Pinckney (DDG 91)
USS Chafee (DDG 90)
USS Higgins (DDG 76)
USS John Paul Jones (DDG 53)
USNS Bridge (T-AOE 10)
SSN ???

That would add 1 DDG with a built-in attachment of 4 MIW UUVs, and 2 more DDGs able to conduct AEGIS BMD missions, along with a 4th DDG that is Flight IIA specifically enhanced in ASW. The Nimitz CSG is the first US Navy Strike Group with 5 surface combatants since the tailor made naval deployments of Operation Iraqi Freedom, and the first 5 surface ship combatant CSG deployed from the mainland United States since the inception of the US Navy Fleet Responce Plan.

Between the Stennis CSG, Nimitz CSG, the Bataan ESG, and the Bonhomme Richard ESG the Navy will have significant presence in the Gulf Region (most since 2004) by early April that will still leave the Boxer ESG in the Pacific and the Eisenhower CSG in the Med, both returning home. That is on top of the additional Minesweepers in the Gulf, the planned spring deployment of the forward deployed Essex ARG in the Pacific, the European Naval assets in the Med (including 2 European Carrier groups), the deployment of a US CG and DDG in the NATO Standing Groups, the Troops surge in Iraq, the Patriot Missile deployment to fight an Iraqi Insurgency, the Air Force surge in the Middle East and Asia, the deployment of the USS Peleliu to the Pacific for humanitarian mission instead of the unarmed USNS Mercy, and the Reagan CSG in the Pacific.

Say what you want about what this means for Iran or Iraq, but even for a peacetime operation it is becoming plainly clear that whether Admiral "Fox" Fallon becomes the CENTCOM commander or not, he had significant deployments in mind for PACOM in early 07 and wasn't going to play around.

zraver

If we assume the pot is heading towards bpoil over and the balloon will go up. Where will the US strike first? The obvious strategic target is iran's nuclear facilties. But are these sites critical? Will taking them out reduce tensions and make the world safer? personally I don't think so, and think the imediate goal will be oil protection.

Iran has a very large and multi-facited force geared towards imposing a global oil blocake by closing the straits of Hormuz. These missile sites, strike aircraft, and naval vessels have to rendered unusable almost at once or energy issues will take center stage. I am not talking about 4 dollars a gallon., I am talking no gallons to sell at all. While the US military won't run out of oil thanks to Mexico, Canada, and domestic sources. And Europe can squeak by on north Sea and Russian supplies the rest of the world including North Ame'srica and Europe civillian consumers will be out of luck.

The global economy is not robiust enough to survive a serious threat to oil supplies. One side affec tof the new JIT (Just In Time) deleivery based economy is that there are no reserves. With out oil to ship everything from cereals to tube socks you could see economies unravelling rapidly.

Iran is obviously betting that its forces can survive the atrition inflcited by the US and her allies. This bet has emboldened them to pursue nucelar weapons, and to take an even more agressive stance against the US.

People forget that Iran declared war on the US when the Shah fell from power. Even if we didin't take that threat seriously, Iran obviously did.

The first step is to wake up to the fact that it is not if a war, but when. Then we need to figure out how to hit iran's center of gravity. To me this center is clearly thier ability to inflict oil blocade. Can we remove this ability rapidly enough to stall a devestating economic down turn?

The US Navy can sink Iran's navy at will or so close to it that as long as we fire first, they shouldn't fire at all. The aircraft can also be contained by USN/USAF/UK/AU/GS aircraft. My big worry is the ballistic and cruise missile sites. The easiest solution would be a series of quick tactical nuclear strikes agaisnt hardeneded storage sites and a combination of tomahawk adn stealth attacks agaisnt coastal batteries and launch pads.

Nuclear demonstration would first off show resolve to defend the worlds energy supply. Secondly it would cower Iran and North Korea both. Both rouge states rely on the US acting out of forbearance. If the dynamic was suddenly and demosntrably changed to one wher enuclear blackmail meritted a nuclear strike these weapons would lsoe thier apeal.

Sure Russia wpouldn't be too happy for a variet of reasons. Seeing thier latest and greatest miltech defeat once again would hurt arms sales and an Iran unable to blackmail oil prices and unable to support the Insurgency in iraq might lead to lower oil prices and thus lower profits for Russia. But we know Russia would only be objectign for self serving reasons. Same for France with its ingrained anti-Ameican feelings. But I bet China would aquiese at least privately. They stand to suffer the most if Iran follows through on its attempts to blackmail the world.

astralis

zraver,

the US is dependent on ME oil, but not THAT dependent. between the strategic reserve and other countries, even a total fall of middle east oil supplies wouldn't mean a collapse of the global economy- just a very frantic rush to get south american, mexican, and most of all, african oil supplies more developed.

and also, something that's often missed out- where does iran gets its revenue to fund its economy (let alone its war machine) if iran closes off all oil supplies? how long would the US tolerate this?

funny thing about the global economy is, despite the spiking oil prices of the last five years, the global economy has grown faster in the last five year period than in any other period. the global economy, while still needing oil, is no longer completely tied to it.

__________________
Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present.

-Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

Stan187

As far as I've heard, the US only gets 10-15% of its oil from the ME, is that wrong?

__________________
In Iran people belive pepsi stands for pay each penny save israel. -urmomma158
The Russian Navy is still a threat, but only to those unlucky enough to be Russian sailors.-highsea

highsea

We source about 18% of our imports from the ME. Imports make up about 60% of our consumption. So it would be ~9-10% of consumption. Basically that all comes from KSA. There is a trickle from Iraq and Kuwait (under 1Mbl/Day).

__________________
My baby called me up. She said- Why don't you ever take me out? Pick me up in your brand new car....You shake the short change from the old fruit jar...

zraver

I dissagree, most of the world depends on ME oil for continued growth. it is not the only oil, but it is the easiest and cheapest to get too. Suddenly removing this would collapse the glabal economy. Even if the oil never really ran out, the perception of it running out would drive prices well past affordable. How many homes will be sold, televsions bought and meals at a finer eatery eaten if gas skyrockets? Not many and the sudden drop off in consumer spending globally would be what started the collapse.

Iran knows this and has built it's military for just such a purpose. By holding a credible threat vs the worlds energy supllie sit can pursue it's nuclear dreams in peace. To take out the nuclear ambitions means gettign rid of Iran's ability to close the straits. And this has to be done before Iran can retaliate and flame a dozen tankers.

Stan187

That's a good point Ray, I didn't think of that at the moment.

Stan187

So in other words, we are not THAT depedent.

zraver

No, oil supplies do not exist in a vacume. If the ME oil was taken off the table viua iran closing the straits, prices would skyrocket as remaining OPEC and Non-OPEC exporters were flooded with demands on thier production. A demand they can not possibly meet. 60% of the worlds oil comes form the ME if this is taken off the table it will have massive and world wide repurcussions. Current worldwide consuption is about 84 million barrels a day. 30-35 million barrels a day in production form the Arab 5 plus iran when the straits got closed would be devestating.

Galrahn

Keep in mind, Iran can't simply 'block the strait' with a minefield in a vacuum. While most people here are familiar with the military aspect of blocking the straits, both tactical and strategical, if Iran was to mine the Strait of Hormuz it would be a legal declaration of war on all Gulf States, and any other country worldwide that utilizes the Strait for free maritime trade. In legal terms, it would be a declaration of war against all of Europe, Asia, and most countries in all of North and South America.

During the cold war the UN spent considerable time creating a "Law of the Sea" to regulate international choke points in an attempt to create a unified position in international law regarding their status. The Law of the Sea established international law in peacetime and wartime to insure that choke points were not centers of tension between the United States and the Soviet Union during the cold war, largely in an effort to avoid the international disaster of a nuclear exchange. The Law of the Sea regulates using International Law as a foundation a great number of things regarding military activity in these locations, including making laying of sea mines illegal.

Mining the Strait would be a violation of International Law so enormous the UN wouldn't have any option but to condemn Iran, no matter how much they hate America. If the UN failed to stand firm regarding the Law of the Sea, Russia, France, and China would basically lose the UN as a credible international institution, and a great deal of International Law could then be thrown away as toilet paper.

It may not mean much to Islamic radicals without a state, but I can't imagine any legitimate state being able to give any political assistance to Iran if they mine the strait, short of the US nuking Tehran. Sure, it is nice strategy strictly on military doctrine, but it would be an enormous political and legal catastrophe for Iran.

The Law of the Sea is available on the UN website for those who want to review.

Stan187

Too late.

xerxes

Is this meant to insult some people, frankly you sound like a palestinean kid who calls Israel a zionist regime ...

I agree ... in 1941 that was the reason why Japan went to war against US who was puting a legal noose around its neck.

xerxes

Carter administartion gave the green light to saddam to invade Iran .. hoping that the turmoil or revolution and wat will somehow weaken the new anti-american government in Iran. You are correct in assuming that US did not provide weapons to Iraq: but UK, France and USSR did quite a bit.

The reason US did not supply weapons was not that of consideration for the Iranians but rather that Iraq was still a Soviet client state therefore transferring high-tech US weaponary would have been quite foolish.

But believe me that US did its bid and quite bid to support Iraq in everyway they could. Not only that most of Iraqi intelligence was performed via US satellites and I might even add that US did took a side in 1987-88, or I should say Saddam achieved what he wanted when he started attacking Iranian oil shipments, knowing that it would force Iran to strike back which inturn would bring in the superpowers in.

Wha ... ?? the grossest violation was when CIA toppled a democratically elected government in 1953 and install a dictator. The Iranian revolution was a 'blow back' of that operation.

incorrect ... the Prime Minister of iran in that time was Dr. Bazargan a 70 year old engineer who had served in the Free French during WWII. He resigned almost immediatly after the hostage taking.

I am not sure if the concept of revolution and the chaos that usually causes is familiar to you Americans. But believe or not things like this do happen. But if you feel like using that to strength your anti-iranian stance .. feel free to do so. Infact it was only after the hostage were taken that Khomeini realized of the importance and therefore kept the hostages and made demands.

very funny ... the sunni insurgenncy is financed primarly by Saudi Arabia and Jordan ,, Iran does finances the Shia factions. I believe most of the killings is done by the sunni insurgenncy that is against the Shia-led majority.

since when waging proxy wars has not been on purpose ??? .. and like i said before Iran is on the side Shia not the sunni insuregency. Ofcourse you Americans or so into your FOX news that the concept of Saudi financing of sunni insurgency is too alien for you. How could it be??? they are our allies??

you simply make a vague loose connection between Iran, miltia and Iraq, and connect them together without even counting Saudi intrests - which are quite quite important. Hell!!! all the forgien fighters in Iraq are form Saudi arabia and Jordan

Is insulting other's nationality is allowed on this forum? .... is this a white supermacy forum? ..... will I be banned if I say that the only Animals are the animals that lauched an unprovoked-invasion of another sovergien nation in 2003.

for **** sake. What Iran is doing is no different than what America would if there were 100,000 Russian troops next to its border in Canada. What Iran is doing is no different than what China did during the Korean War. What Iran is doing is no different than what Pakistan and USA did to the Soviets during the Afghan-Soviet War.What Iran is doing is no different than what JFK did during the Cuban missile crisis.

no the war started in 1953 ... but ofcourse you - an American - see things from a bigoted and superior point of view.

Parihaka

I believe he was referring to the Iranian government rather than the people of Iran, and if you care to examine the nationalities of the many posters on this board you will discover that it is far from a "white supermacy forum"

Ray

Stan,


Where the supply of oil is concerned, it is not just that the US is comfortable with its strategic reserves.

When one looks at oil and reserves, one has to look at the same from the context of the US and its allies, including Japan.

Without the allies alongside the US, the policies that the US wants to apply, especially where intervention is required in a massive scale as in Iraq, may not be feasible. And such intervention requires oil.

That changes the perspective.

Since you are in Washington, could you check out as to whether the oil used by the US and the allies in Iraq is being shipped from the US itself. And if the figures of oil in the US tally is accounting for the oil that US forces are using worldwide.

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA