11 US warships pass through the Suez...

[SteamWake]

Gulp... :oops:

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/138164

[Oberon]

Well, this'll end well. :yep:

[Jimbuna]

It's possible Obama has come off the fence...at last.

[Skybird]

Why those many warships? A wolfpack of Type VIIs, und gut is' !

[Oberon]

Why those many warships? A wolfpack of Type VIIs, und gut is' !

Bah, high tech gizmos, handful of longships'll send them running for their mummies :03:

[Snestorm]

Looks like "something" may hit the fan shortly.

[TLAM Strike]

Why those many warships?
11 ships sounds like a full CSG.

CSG:
1 CVN with Airwing
1 AOE
1 to 2 CGs (Tico Class)
2 to 3 DDGs (Burkes)
1 to 2 FFGs (OHP Class)
1 to 2 SSNs or SSGNs

Give or take a ship in each class and you get 11 warships. If I was Iran I would be worried if there were more because that would mean an ESG was riding shotgun.

EDIT: I think they are making something out of nothing, US CSGs transit the Suez all the time. Maybe they just wanted all the ships going though at once rather than in one big group (The flattop) and a few single ship transits.

[thorn69]

It's a relief deployment. They are relieving another carrier battle group! This is typical every six to 12 months.

[SteamWake]

It's a relief deployment. They are relieving another carrier battle group! This is typical every six to 12 months.

Source?

[Skybird]

It's a relief deployment. They are relieving another carrier battle group! This is typical every six to 12 months.
It seems to be not so typical that the whole armada then would pass through the Suez in one rush. The article says that.

I personally, if time is no critical factor, would even refuse to pass high value assets like carriers and cruisers through a narrow waterstreet at all, even at peacetimes. If mtime allows, let them sail around Africa - much reduced vulnerability that way. But this only on a sidenote.

TLAM,
did you miss my joke? :) Your reply was so terribly fact-oriented. :D

[Jimbuna]

Bah, high tech gizmos, handful of longships'll send them running for their mummies :03:

Was there an intentional pun there? :hmmm:

[Oberon]

Was there an intentional pun there? :hmmm:

:hmmm: ?

[raymond6751]

11 ships sounds like a full CSG.

CSG:
1 CVN with Airwing
1 AOE
1 to 2 CGs (Tico Class)
2 to 3 DDGs (Burkes)
1 to 2 FFGs (OHP Class)
1 to 2 SSNs or SSGNs

Give or take a ship in each class and you get 11 warships. If I was Iran I would be worried if there were more because that would mean an ESG was riding shotgun.

EDIT: I think they are making something out of nothing, US CSGs transit the Suez all the time. Maybe they just wanted all the ships going though at once rather than in one big group (The flattop) and a few single ship transits.

The article mentioned marines, so this is likely a Marine rapid reaction force, involving a smaller carrier for choppers and amphib landing units.

A show of force I think. This might also be an opportune time to relocate some assets to the med that would go there anyway.

[krashkart]

:hmmm: ?

'handful', 'longships' :03:

[Oberon]

'handful', 'longships' :03:

:damn: Ya gutter minded lot! :O:

[krashkart]

:damn: Ya gutter minded lot! :O:

It's a gift, really. :smug:

[Weiss Pinguin]

:damn: Ya gutter minded lot! :O:
Well, we are talking about the biggest gutter of them all :p2:

[SteamWake]

Well, we are talking about the biggest gutter of them all :p2:

Actually a pretty accurate description of the canal.

You know just a few years ago we may have never even heard of this manuver. Nowadays you cant move this kind of stuff around without being noticed... by everyone.

[thorn69]

It seems to be not so typical that the whole armada then would pass through the Suez in one rush. The article says that.

I personally, if time is no critical factor, would even refuse to pass high value assets like carriers and cruisers through a narrow waterstreet at all, even at peacetimes. If mtime allows, let them sail around Africa - much reduced vulnerability that way. But this only on a sidenote.

TLAM,
did you miss my joke? :) Your reply was so terribly fact-oriented. :D

I served in the US Navy for 6 years and I've deployed to the Gulf before in this same manner. Usually the ships stagger through the Suez but it's just a show of force to the Iranians that World's Policeman #1 is coming with a full deck of cards. But the carrier battle group is also relieving the current one that's been deployed for the past 6 months. This carrier battle group is just "observing" the situation but coming fully locked and loaded just in case anything kicks off in the next 6 months.

[Snestorm]

Source?

Personal experience. (Ex-sailer's expertise).
USA generaly deploys their surface/carrier battle groups for 6 months.

[SteamWake]

Here is an interesting retrospective...

As reports circulate of a sharp debate within the White House over possible US military action against Iran and its nuclear enrichment facilities, <i>The Nation</i> has learned that the Bush Administration and the Pentagon have moved up the deployment of a major &quot;strike group&quot; of ships, including the nuclear aircraft carrier Eisenhower as well as a cruiser, destroyer, frigate, submarine escort and supply ship, to head for the Persian Gulf, just off Iran's western coast.

This information follows a report in the current issue of Time magazine, both online and in print, that a group of ships capable of mining harbors has received orders to be ready to sail for the Persian Gulf by October 1.

http://www.thenation.com/article/war-signals

[Jimbuna]

Was there an intentional pun there? :hmmm:

:hmmm: ?

I was thinking more in terms of "mummies"....as in desert countries etc.

[Oberon]

I was thinking more in terms of "mummies"....as in desert countries etc.

Aaah,I think I missed it because I focused on the longship reference. Of course, for the ultimate in deterrence, you could send a fleet of biremes and triremes through...but the Egyptians would probably crap themselves. :hmmm:

[Weiss Pinguin]

I was thinking more in terms of "mummies"....as in desert countries...
Hey that rhymed :O:

[Jimbuna]

Aaah,I think I missed it because I focused on the longship reference. Of course, for the ultimate in deterrence, you could send a fleet of biremes and triremes through...but the Egyptians would probably crap themselves. :hmmm:

The return of the mummy :DL


http://www.subliminalworld.org/mummy.gif
Hey that rhymed :O:

The artists work was all in vain...sh!thouse poet strikes again!! :DL

[AVGWarhawk]

Looks a bit of a show.

[Jimbuna]

Looks a bit of a show.


I think it's more than simply a coincedence....America will not allow Israel to be bullied into submission for simply one of a multitude of reasons...which Middle Eastern ally would be next?

[AVGWarhawk]

I think it's more than simply a coincedence....America will not allow Israel to be bullied into submission for simply one of a multitude of reasons...which Middle Eastern ally would be next?


Exactly Jim...a show of support.....as if to say, we are here and we are watching.....

[Jimbuna]

Exactly Jim...a show of support.....as if to say, we are here and we are watching.....

It wouldn't suprise me if the US didn't take an offensive role should Israel show signs of being unable to manage any aggressive moves toward herself from multiple enemies.

There are a lot of jewish votes in the US I hear tongue tell.

I'm sure Obama must have a secret yearning to bust a few Iranian chops :03:

[Weiss Pinguin]

Exactly Jim...a show of support.....as if to say, we are here and we are watching.....
Pulling out the big stick so to speak...

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/12/19/128741887231981489.jpg

[SteamWake]

Exactly Jim...a show of support.....as if to say, we are here and we are watching.....

At least someone is watching I heard zero mention of this in the 'popular media'.

[Zachstar]

Likely a test run in case there is a need to get ships there quickly in the future. And while the millions are spent mise well have a nice little show of force for the funny people over there.

Nothing new

[AVGWarhawk]

At least someone is watching I heard zero mention of this in the 'popular media'.

The popular media does not know it all. They only know what draws ratings...Britney Spears and oil leaking in the Gulf.

[Jimbuna]

The popular media does not know it all. They only know what draws ratings...Britney Spears and oil leaking in the Gulf.

LOL :DL

[SteamWake]

The popular media does not know it all. They only know what draws ratings...Britney Spears and oil leaking in the Gulf.

Both of which are artifically inflated to look bigger than they actually are ;)

[SteamWake]

Meanwhile Iran continues to raise the stakes

JERUSALEM – Iran said Tuesday it would send a blockade-busting ship carrying aid and pro-Palestinian activists to Gaza, fueling concern in Israel, where commandos were training for another confrontation at sea.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100622/ap_on_re_mi_ea/gaza_blockade_13

[Jimbuna]

Israel warned archenemy Iran to drop the plan. The Iranian announcement came days after Israel eased its three-year-old blockade of Gaza under international pressure following its deadly raid on a Gaza-bound flotilla last month.


Then let any consequences rest squarley on Irans shoulders :nope:

[Bilge_Rat]

Then let any consequences rest squarley on Irans shoulders :nope:

exactly.

[TLAM Strike]

Interesting all four SSGNs are at sea...

http://www.csp.navy.mil/releases/release_10-0610.shtml

That's over 600 TLAMs that could target nearly any point in Iran and no one except the Pentagon knows where they are. :hmmm:

The Shi'ite might be heading towards the fan... :ping:

[Skybird]

The article says normal deployment time for these boats is 12-15 months, so let's not become too hastily on conclusions why four such boats are at sea at the same time.

Imo such assets make more sense anyway when lurking around in some unknown place than when being parked at the pier. and over 12 months, they can be rotated in and out for maintenance and crew exchange anyway, if that would be needed.

I see no major war operation against Iraq being underway. What I see is a presdient who by his person is almost guarantee that such an operation will not happen during his reign. at least as long as we all have not monumentally underestimated him.

Does anyone think we have?

Maybe one single strike to flatten a factory in the somali desert. That would be all.

[Jimbuna]

Interesting all four SSGNs are at sea...

http://www.csp.navy.mil/releases/release_10-0610.shtml

That's over 600 TLAMs that could target nearly any point in Iran and no one except the Pentagon knows where they are. :hmmm:

The Shi'ite might be heading towards the fan... :ping:

My own personal hunch is the US are sending a clear message or hint that should hostilities begin, especially a collective threat from Iran and any 'hanger on' against Israel then they (the US) have the firepower deployed in the area to wreak a heavy price on the aggressor/s.

The question I am pondering....is the will and resolve there to use it? :hmmm:

[Oberon]

The question I am pondering....is the will and resolve there to use it? :hmmm:

That's the question that Kim Jong-il, Dinnerjacket, and every other nation on the planet is pondering there Jim. :yep:
Personally I also wonder if there is the will and resolve of not only the President of the US but the people of the US, for a protracted action against Iran, particularly if they want to remove its nuclear ability that much, because the only feasible way to do that is to put boots on the ground and keep them there for the best part of a century...and that just is not going to happen, not without horrific casualties, and the general public do not accept high casualties and hardship when they have been used to sixty-seventy odd years of prosperity and good living.

[Weiss Pinguin]

I really don't know if the general American public would stand for going to war again, unless we were attacked first. I think it's unlikely that there would be much support for getting into another war in the middle east to help Israel.

That would have my personal approval, for what that's worth, but that's just me.

[krashkart]

^^ Agreed. The Ayatollah musta go-a.

I wonder who would still be willing to buddy up with the US in a war against Iran.

[Jimbuna]

That's the question that Kim Jong-il, Dinnerjacket, and every other nation on the planet is pondering there Jim. :yep:
Personally I also wonder if there is the will and resolve of not only the President of the US but the people of the US, for a protracted action against Iran, particularly if they want to remove its nuclear ability that much, because the only feasible way to do that is to put boots on the ground and keep them there for the best part of a century...and that just is not going to happen, not without horrific casualties, and the general public do not accept high casualties and hardship when they have been used to sixty-seventy odd years of prosperity and good living.

I wasn't thinking of a land invasion but rather a series of air and missile strikes against strategic targets and the threat of plenty more to come should said aggressors not pull they're necks/claws in.

[TLAM Strike]

I wasn't thinking of a land invasion but rather a series of air and missile strikes against strategic targets and the threat of plenty more to come should said aggressors not pull they're necks/claws in.
That could turn exactly in to what you don't want, a protracted air/ground war. Look at a map... notice something? Iran borders Afghanistan and Iraq- not to mention the US allies in Azerbaijan and the fmr. Soviet Republics. Iran could retaliate against US forces in Afganistan which would be bad since they are equipped for COIN and don't have their Anti-Armor and Anti-Aircraft weapons deployed. Same for Iraq. Or they could go for the aforementioned Azerbaijan and deny its oil supplies to the west. Some of the Iranian forums I've lurked on have shown some are eager to go after Azerbaijan seeing it as a weak target compared to the GCC nations. I foresee Azerbaijan being a possible Kuwait in a new Gulf War.

Strikes against targets in the Med via Syria are possible as is mining the Red Sea to name a couple other possibilities.

[Oberon]

I wasn't thinking of a land invasion but rather a series of air and missile strikes against strategic targets and the threat of plenty more to come should said aggressors not pull they're necks/claws in.

It's a viable strategy, but would most likely just result in Iran becoming more determined to get operational nukes and use them and since there is no real care in the Iranian government or chain of command over civilian casualties (in fact the more civilians die the better because they can herald them as victims of the barbaric west [which'll only whip up a fervor from those who view the US as the 'bully boy' of the world]) and most, if not all their nuclear weapons equipment is scattered around the country in underground facilities because they know that the only option the US has short of a full blown invasion is aerial strikes and so they put the precious stuff out of the way of US aerial weaponry.

[Jimbuna]

That could turn exactly in to what you don't want, a protracted air/ground war. Look at a map... notice something? Iran borders Afghanistan and Iraq- not to mention the US allies in Azerbaijan and the fmr. Soviet Republics. Iran could retaliate against US forces in Afganistan which would be bad since they are equipped for COIN and don't have their Anti-Armor and Anti-Aircraft weapons deployed. Same for Iraq. Or they could go for the aforementioned Azerbaijan and deny its oil supplies to the west. Some of the Iranian forums I've lurked on have shown some are eager to go after Azerbaijan seeing it as a weak target compared to the GCC nations. I foresee Azerbaijan being a possible Kuwait in a new Gulf War.

Strikes against targets in the Med via Syria are possible as is mining the Red Sea to name a couple other possibilities.

Good points but pinpoint strikes can wreak an enormous price in the process and destroy their oil producing capability.

I should imagine any arms build up on border areas would be heavily reduced in their potential effectiveness prior to full blown mobilisation.

All of this is hypothetical of course but the alternative would mean a possible withdrawal from the whole region by the US and a 'cart blanche' opportunity for Iran to pi$$ on the region.

I somehow doubt the US will allow that.

[Jimbuna]

It's a viable strategy, but would most likely just result in Iran becoming more determined to get operational nukes and use them and since there is no real care in the Iranian government or chain of command over civilian casualties (in fact the more civilians die the better because they can herald them as victims of the barbaric west [which'll only whip up a fervor from those who view the US as the 'bully boy' of the world]) and most, if not all their nuclear weapons equipment is scattered around the country in underground facilities because they know that the only option the US has short of a full blown invasion is aerial strikes and so they put the precious stuff out of the way of US aerial weaponry.

Agreed....but I simply can't imagine the US, even under Obama allowing Iran to take the pi$$ out of them in front of the world.

You never know, they might allow the Israelis to do the 'deed' for them :hmmm:

[Oberon]

Agreed....but I simply can't imagine the US, even under Obama allowing Iran to take the pi$$ out of them in front of the world.

You never know, they might allow the Israelis to do the 'deed' for them :hmmm:

Even the Israelis would have trouble hitting Irans nuclear ability enough to destroy it completely.

Grab yourself a Newcastle and have a read of these:

http://pds15.egloos.com/pds/200904/27/40/070305_iran_israelius.pdf

http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/090316_israelistrikeiran.pdf

[Jimbuna]

Two excellent links....cheers :up:

There are so many options/cross permutations to consider having read those.

I'll still wager the US/Israeli partnership will prevail :DL

[TheSatyr]

I am tired of watching US Kids dying for the state of Israel. We need to get the hell out of the Middle East and let Israel fight their own damn wars.

Bottom line,if Israel can't survive without the USA then they don't deserve to be a country.

[Oberon]

Two excellent links....cheers :up:

There are so many options/cross permutations to consider having read those.

I'll still wager the US/Israeli partnership will prevail :DL

Oh I agree Jim, generally speaking the side with the bigger guns prevails, but only if they use those bigger guns and don't tie them up in red tape which is the current fashion in the conducting of wars. Furthermore, Iran will not suffer the war weariness to the extend that the US will because it has a tighter control on its population and can stomp out protests and do away with dissidents whilst broadcasting pictures of mangled Iranians and destroyed 'Baby milk factories' which will a) strengthen the resolve of the waverers and b) wind up on CNN and the BBC and turn western opinion against the course of action being undertaken by the US and Israel.
Israel is a separate entity, it will suffer from a small amount of war weariness but nowhere near the size of the US because it has been under siege since its creation and chances are that during the battle the odd Scud will be winging its way across the Tel Aviv giving the Israeli Patriot batteries some target practice. Israel knows that if Iran goes nuclear that it is target numbero uno, so that puts a resolve behind its people and reduces the magnitude of war weariness.
Obama would win and lose from taking bilateral action with Israel against Iran. He would gain support to some extent from the Republican side of politics, 'Huh, he has a backbone after all' although there will still be many whose scales do not balance out still and who will still dislike him, however he will alienate many of his current supporters, and those undermine his own power-base. I think it's pretty obvious that he's going to be a one term president unless the Republicans field a real howler in 2012 (here's a hint...do NOT field Palin, field Scott Brown he seems quite popular) so he has two options, he can either play it safe and walk the middle road or he can try and carve himself a little legacy by standing up to Iran and taking the tough road...but given that he already has a book signing and after dinner speech circuit lined up for being the first non-white American president, I'd say that he'll want to take the safe road to 2012.

[Jimbuna]

Good response :up:

I don't think Obama can win on this either way he chooses to go.

What is most telling for me is the fact he has already made future contingency plans similar to what Tony B had.

I'm simply wondering about two points:

1....Will he find it within his gift to aid Israel short of committing ground troops ie. airborne and missile attacks?

2....If he fails to act should Israel be attacked, how large is the jewish vote/lobby in the US?

[MH]

Good response :up:

I don't think Obama can win on this either way he chooses to go.



No he cant but question is does he realize that or just waiting HOPING for the best.

[Jimbuna]

No he cant but question is does he realize that or just waiting HOPING for the best.

Well judging by my own personal experiences in life....if you stick your head in the sand like an ostrich does and simply 'hope for the best'....someone or something usually comes along and kicks you in the ar$e.

[Tribesman]

how large is the jewish vote/lobby in the US?
The jewish vote is less than 3% but its concentrated in several key states which given the electoral system increases its impact for its size. On record the vote has always gone massively to the Democrats apart from when there was a 3 way split in Hardings election victory as about 40% of the jewish vote went to the jailed social democrat candidate that year.
As for the lobby, don't you mean the Isreal lobby?

[MH]

Oh yeah Israeli Lobby -the evil Israeli that shape American politics.
Or evil Americans that back up Israeli polices?

One thing is sure its not a "make love not war" organization and thats how it should be as for now.

[Oberon]

Good response :up:

I don't think Obama can win on this either way he chooses to go.

What is most telling for me is the fact he has already made future contingency plans similar to what Tony B had.

I'm simply wondering about two points:

1....Will he find it within his gift to aid Israel short of committing ground troops ie. airborne and missile attacks?

2....If he fails to act should Israel be attacked, how large is the jewish vote/lobby in the US?

I'd be less worried about the Jewish vote/lobby and more about the Republican one. Since Israel is a bastion of the western world in the middle east and the middle east is the primary location of insurgent based activities (or at least that is how it is often perceived in the public eye) to fail to act to assist an ally in the Middle East...heck, the only ally in the Middle East (I don't really count Saudi Arabia because they're friends with anyone who has money) then he will be slaughtered by every Republican and probably quite a few centralist Democrats.
I'd say that Obama is waiting for Iran to make the first move, so that he can act with bipartisan support but Dinnerjacket knows that too, so it's a case of provoking each other to try and get the other guy to act first so that you can play the victim card. Eventually though someone will call someones bluff and things will get interesting. Israel is also a wild card, they could decide to act unilaterally which would put Obama in a no-win scenario, if he sides with Israel fully then he'll catch it from the Democrats who will accuse him of assisting the 'renegade Israel' but if he doesn't support Israel then he will further anger the Republicans AND further distance the US from Israel which, as witnessed by some views already stated in threads regarding Israel, is something that SOME people want but OTHERS don't. Basically, a unilateral Israeli action is the worse case scenario for Obama politically. There is a middle option though, and that's to neither condemn or condone Israeli actions but continue to ship arms and aid to Israel during the conflict, but it's hard to tell how successful this would be with the EU most likely condemning Israel and calling for a ceasefire, backed by Russia and China who will probably supply weapons to Iran.
If I were a betting man, and had I money to actually bet, I would put it against Obama conducting any first strikes, he just doesn't come across as the type of person who would do such a thing. If attacked then I expect he would retaliate to the best of his abilities, but he would not make the first move, because he knows that it would be political suicide.

[Tribesman]

Oh yeah Israeli Lobby -the evil Israeli that shape American politics.
Or evil Americans that back up Israeli polices?

Would you like some fish to go with that huge sack of chips on your shoulder?

One thing is sure its not a "make love not war" organization and thats how it should be as for now.
The Israel lobby is really quite diverse, the jewish lobby is even more so.

[MH]

Would you like some fish to go with that huge sack of chips on your shoulder?


As long as its not a cheese its OK with me.:D
Sorry seen too much conspiracy movies myself-was interested about how others may perceive Israel and reasons behind certain opinions.
Anyway, i find people on this forum mostly very knowledgeable down to earth.
In some cases maybe too idealistic:D

[Jimbuna]

The jewish vote is less than 3% but its concentrated in several key states which given the electoral system increases its impact for its size. On record the vote has always gone massively to the Democrats apart from when there was a 3 way split in Hardings election victory as about 40% of the jewish vote went to the jailed social democrat candidate that year.
As for the lobby, don't you mean the Isreal lobby?

Well both I suppose, I was wondering what wight they carried on the US political stage but it looks like you've more or less answered that above.

Oh yeah Israeli Lobby -the evil Israeli that shape American politics.
Or evil Americans that back up Israeli polices?

One thing is sure its not a "make love not war" organization and thats how it should be as for now.

I think we have a crossed wire here....where have I referred to either the US or Israelis as being "evil".

TBH I doubt you understand precisely where my sympathies lie.

[MH]

I think we have a crossed wire here....where have I referred to either the US or Israelis as being "evil".

TBH I doubt you understand precisely where my sympathies lie.

I wasn't referring to what you wrote at all.
Well...i guess im still under influence of the "blockade thread".:damn:

[Foxtrot]

The warriors of Christ are passed through the canal on their iron beasts to spread the message and fear of God.

[MH]

The warriors of Christ are passed through the canal on their iron beasts to spread the message and fear of God.


Sorry could not resist...



http://media.ebaumsworld.com/picture/odysseyjft/1christ-middle-finger.jpg

[MH]

Some interesting article:





http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.politicsdaily.com/media/pd_logo_print1.jpg

When Iran Goes Nuclear


http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.politicsdaily.com/media/david-wood_pic.jpg (http://www.subsim.com/bloggers/david-wood)
David Wood (http://www.subsim.com/bloggers/david-wood)

Chief Military Correspondent


Posted:
04/26/10


http://www.blogcdn.com/www.politicsdaily.com/media/2010/04/nuclear-iran-427aa042010.jpg
Almost no one outside of South Asia noticed this week when India fired some 90 artillery rounds across the border into Pakistan. No injuries were reported in the 30-minute "unprovoked'' barrage, according to Pakistani news reports (http://www.thearynews.com/english/archive.asp).

But for anyone thinking about the perils of a nuclear-armed Iran, the little disturbance at Shakargarh, in the hotly disputed Kashmir border region (http://www.pk.all-biz.info/guide/cities/?id=291) between nuclear-armed Pakistan and nuclear-armed India, was a jolting reminder of how fragile is the web of luck, happenstance and good intention that so far has kept the world from thermonuclear war.

The White House now is struggling to find a strategy (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1983216,00.html?xid=rss-top-aol) to prevent Iran from building its own nuclear weapons arsenal. Economic sanctions, which the United States first imposed on Iran in 1979, haven't worked. Crippling sanctions -- a blockade of Iran's oil ports -- likely would start a war as the Iranian regime fought for life. Standing U.S. policy for years has been to refuse to rule out a military strike, yet President Barack Obama's top advisers acknowledge than an attack would be ineffective, and a long war unthinkable.



Faced with these grim options, some have begun (http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2010/0228_nuclear_iran_strategy_ohanlon_riedel.aspx) to wonder if a nuclear-armed Iran would really be so bad. Think again.

When Indian rocket launchers wrecked two Pakistani tank brigades at Shakargarh in 1971, neither India nor Pakistan had nuclear weapons. Good thing: Pakistan's military was shattered and the nation humiliated. It had lost half its territory (the new nation of Bangladesh) and India held 90,000 Pakistani prisoners of war.

Now, Pakistan (http://thebulletin.metapress.com/content/f828323447768858/fulltext.pdf) and India (http://thebulletin.metapress.com/content/t884046w31156318/fulltext.pdf) have nuclear arsenals estimated to contain 70 to 90 warheads on each side.

This week's artillery attack at Shakargarh is meaningless, perhaps. But just days ago Pakistan unleashed (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/Pakistan-stages-largest-manoeuvres-in-20-years/articleshow/5834689.cms) a mock attack on India, a massive rehearsal of its war plan for a preemptive strike against its larger neighbor. It was the largest such exercise in 21 years and an impressive show. But in any conventional war, Pakistan would get clobbered by India's far larger armed forces, which often rehearse their own massive preemptive strike across the border.
That is why "any future conflict between these two states will escalate to a nuclear exchange,'' said John McCreary, formerly a top intelligence analyst for the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs of Staff. "Pakistan must use its nuclear missile force to survive an Indian conventional attack.''

Transfer this scenario to the Persian Gulf and it gets uglier. Iran with nuclear weapons and long-range missiles on one side, Israel with nuclear weapons and a high-tech strike force on the other. Iran with a declared intention of obliterating Israel; Israel with the declared goal of survival. Each side, like Pakistan and India, engaging in low-level or proxy terrorist harassment.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran has declared that "Israel must be wiped off the map.'' The Israelis have not been shy about using force either. "I don't think the Iranians, even if they got the bomb, are going to drop it immediately on some neighbor,'' Defense Minister Ehud Barak of Israel said recently. "They fully understand what might follow. They are radicals, but not total 'Meshugenah,' '' he explained, using the Yiddish word for "crazy."

Barak, (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/barak.html) a former Israeli prime minister, was referring to the potential punishing power of the combined military power of Israel and the United States, including the nuclear arsenals of both countries. That deterrent force, according to conventional thinking, is what kept the United States and the Soviet Union at a standoff for five decades of Cold War.

Can the same theory be safely relied upon in the Middle East, to deter a nuclear-armed Iran from pushing its way around?

Is it possible, Sen. John McCain (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,591250,00.html) asked the other day, that "the old rules of two-dimensional deterrence'' can be "applied to a volatile region with multiple nuclear powers and possibly less rational actors?'' Probably not, he answered himself at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee (http://armed-services.senate.gov/e_witnesslist.cfm?id=4506): "We should have no illusions about the catastrophic consequences of Iran developing a nuclear weapons capability."

Oddly enough, McCain was seconded by William J. Burns, an under secretary of state who testified that a nuclear-armed Iran "would be catastrophic. . . . I don't think anyone should underestimate what is at stake.''

Relying on traditional deterrence against a nuclear-armed Iran would be a mistake -- that is the cautionary conclusion of a two-year study (http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?pubID=629) at the U.S. Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute. It saw three problems with trying to deter Iran:

- The regime is split into factions, making it difficult to know whether to deal with clerics or civilians like Ahmadinejad, the military or the ultra-hard-line paramilitary Revolutionary Guards.

- Rather than threatening to launch a nuclear attack, a nuclear Iran would likely be more aggressive in backing terrorist attacks or even minor conventional or very low-level nuclear operations against U.S. interests in the region -- nuclear sea mines along the Persian Gulf's oil routes, for example. Such operations would complicate U.S. decisions about whether a nuclear response would be justified.

- Domestic political instability could affect how Iran's leaders play their nuclear weapons card, making it difficult to predict how they would react in a crisis.

The West's recent experience with Iran suggests that working with its rulers to build a stable practice of deterrence would be more confounding than was dealing with the Kremlin in the 1960s and 1970s. The awkward grappling with each other over Iran's nuclear program and potential sanctions is a case in point (imagine trying to negotiate with Tehran in a crisis over a hotline (http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h2587.html), if one existed).

"Iranian leaders tend to believe that the best defense is a good offense, and under strain are prone to lash out rather than to moderate their policies or yield to external demands,'' writes Suzanne Maloney (http://www.brookings.edu/%7E/media/Files/rc/reports/2010/03_economic_pressure_iran_maloney/201003_economic_pressure_iran_maloney.pdf), an Iran expert at the Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East policy (http://www.brookings.edu/saban.aspx).

"For Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, and even more so for the younger generation hardliners who surround Ahmadinejad, there is no middle ground for dealing with Washington or the West. In their view, any act of compromise would merely initiate a perilous process of intensifying pressure intended to eliminate the Islamic Republic,'' she explained.

So much for cooperation, even of the suspicious and grudging sort that long characterized U.S.-Soviet exchanges.

If deterrence failed, the United States maintains a powerful nuclear force that could, if required, pulverize any potential nuclear aggressor.

But the trick with nuclear-armed opponents, as former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger pointed out last year, is to stop a potential aggressor before the trouble starts, not to retaliate afterward. That requires a constant and patient engagement with allies and foes, not just making sporadic threats.

Unfortunately, Schlesinger said last year, that skill has eroded badly.

This "larger purpose of our nuclear forces, our nuclear deterrent, has sometimes been neglected within the Department of Defense as a whole,'' Schlesinger told Pentagon reporters.

As chairman of a blue-ribbon panel that spent a year examining U.S. nuclear deterrence (http://www.defense.gov/pubs/pdfs/PhaseIIReportFinal.pdf), Schlesinger said he had found that expertise in the art of nuclear deterrence had faded since the end of the Cold War two decades ago. (Schlesinger's panel was formed after several earlier incidents in which the U.S. Air Force lost track (http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id=5177) of several of its nuclear weapons.)

"The services, as we discovered, have tended to understate the unique aspects of deterrence, and . . . failed to fully recognize the psychological and political consequences of our deterrent forces,'' Schlesinger said.

Bottom line, he added: "Interest in deterrence at the highest levels of DOD [Department of Defense] has diminished.''

In the year since then, the Pentagon has scrambled to revamp its deterrence theory and practice, codified in the Nuclear Posture Review (http://www.defense.gov/npr/docs/2010%20nuclear%20posture%20review%20report.pdf) released last month.

The impact of what the White House says is a strengthened deterrence will be clear enough as India and Pakistan continue to elbow and jostle each other.


And, as Iran moves toward acquiring its own nuclear force, in the Persian Gulf.

[MH]

*****



Averting Nuclear Terror

April 15, 2010
President Barack Obama's nuclear summit in Washington largely focused on how the international community can prevent nuclear terrorism. Since the 9/11 attacks, this has been a special preoccupation of the US intelligence establishment for good reasons. One month after the attacks, George Tenet, the head of the CIA, told President Bush that one of his agents, who had the codename "Dragonfly" reported that al-Qaeda possessed a ten kiloton nuclear bomb, that had been stolen from the Russians, which had slightly less the explosive force of the atomic bomb the US dropped on Hiroshima.
Worse still, Tenet reported that his agent had evidence that the bomb had already been smuggled into the US--specifically, he added that it was in the city of New York. American electronic monitoring of internal al-Qaeda conversations in the previous six months picked up references to an "American Hiroshima." Prof. Graham Allison, the former dean of the Kennedy School at Harvard University, reported the story of the US nuclear alert from an al-Qaeda bomb in his book, Nuclear Terrorism. He tells how the Bush administration hid Vice President Cheney for weeks, because it feared that al-Qaeda had the capacity to kill off the entire top leadership of the US with a nuclear terror attack.
In the end the report by "Dragonfly" to the CIA turned out to be false, but it caused enormous efforts to study the nuclear threat to the US from terrorist groups. There were other disturbing reports that Allison shares in his book. The Soviet Union had manufactured 132 miniaturized atomic bombs that could fit into a suitcase. The Russians admitted that 84 suitcase bombs were missing. And just one month before the 9/11 attacks the US had hard intelligence that two Pakistani nuclear scientists met with Osama bin Laden in a secret al-Qaeda headquarters outside of Kabul. Both had worked on the Pakistani nuclear program. Only after the US pressured the Pakistani leadership were the two scientists arrested and interrogated.
Meanwhile the only state to have been threatened by a nuclear terrorist attack has been Russia. In November 1995, Chechen terrorists produced a crude dirty bomb--which spread radioactivity but does not cause a nuclear explosion. They placed the dirty bomb in a Moscow city park but did not explode it in order to warn the Russians what they could potentially do. According to the CIA, in 2004, roughly two dozen international terrorist groups were seeking to develop weapons of mass destruction. It should not be difficult to build a global consensus against nuclear terror, considering the many states it could affect.
Yet, President Obama faces certain difficult dilemmas in dealing with the threat of nuclear terror. On April 6, he decided to revise the military doctrine of the US regarding the use of nuclear weapons. In his announcement he specifically said that states that signed the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and comply with their treaty obligations will not be threatened by US nuclear forces. The US public response to the new nuclear doctrine did not appear to be supportive. Three days after the doctrine was announced Fox News published a disturbing poll that 74 per cent of Americans now felt that the US was weaker than it was ten years ago. Perhaps they felt that the US was pulling back from its global role.
In this spirit, Obama's critics quickly pointed out that there were many scenarios in which the US nuclear deterrent had contributed to security in the past, but would no longer be affected by US nuclear forces. A state that attacked the US with biological weapons could not be threatened with nuclear retaliation any longer. Previously, the US had been ambiguous about such situations, but now Obama wanted to clarify what US nuclear deterrence covered and did not cover. During the Cold War, US nuclear policy was based on "extended deterrence"--that a conventional attack on US NATO allies or on South Korea might lead to a nuclear response by the US. It was no longer clear what now happens to those former security guarantees.
The new Obama doctrine has implications for the threat of nuclear terrorism. What if a state has not formally crossed the nuclear threshold, but it gives sanctuary to an international terrorist group planning to use nuclear weapons against the US and its allies? When the US was more ambiguous about how it would react, even under such situations states would fear that if terrorist groups that operated on their soil engaged in such activity, then they might face a retaliatory response from the US. Now that ambiguity has been removed, and the number of cases in which the US would use its nuclear power has been severely narrowed.
Obama is hoping by reducing the role of nuclear weapons he will help make them irrelevant and thereby strengthen nuclear non-proliferation. The underlying assumption of his policy is that rogue states seek nuclear weapons because other states like the US have them. But what if Iran wants nuclear weapons in order to establish its hegemony in the Middle East and not because of the size or use of the US nuclear arsenal?
In fighting global terrorism, in general, it is difficult to create deterrence against groups like al-Qaeda, especially if they believe in martyrdom and are willing to sacrifice their lives for religious reasons. In order to contain terrorism, the states that sponsor terrorist organizations must be firmly threatened if they give sanctuary to groups, like al-Qaeda. For this reason, the US attacked the Taliban in Afghanistan, after 9/11.
Right now, the barriers that once existed for transferring state-of-the-art conventional weapons to terrorist groups are dropping away; for example, both Iran and Syria are providing long-range rockets and even Scud ballistic missiles to Hezbollah. The next leap for these states--to provide weapons of mass destruction--to terrorist groups is getting far less far fetched.
In order to prevent al-Qaeda and other organizations from moving to the adoption of nuclear terrorism, the strongest forms of pressure must be applied against the states that provide it with assistance of any sort. This is especially important because there are states that have murky ties to al-Qaeda, like Pakistan and Iran. If states know that they might risk full retaliatory response by the US, then they will be more prone to firmly use their security forces to root out the terrorist infrastructure. But if they are confident that US and Western military force is totally irrelevant to their situation, then the danger of nuclear terrorism unfortunately might well increase.


The Frightening Side of a Nuclear Iran

February 17, 2010
Tags:Ahmadinejad (http://www.dore-gold.com/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/ipractic/managed-mt-dev/mt-search.cgi?blog_id=52&tag=Ahmadinejad&limit=20), Barack Obama (http://www.dore-gold.com/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/ipractic/managed-mt-dev/mt-search.cgi?blog_id=52&tag=Barack%20Obama&limit=20), Iran (http://www.dore-gold.com/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/ipractic/managed-mt-dev/mt-search.cgi?blog_id=52&tag=Iran&limit=20), Iraq (http://www.dore-gold.com/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/ipractic/managed-mt-dev/mt-search.cgi?blog_id=52&tag=Iraq&limit=20), nuclear (http://www.dore-gold.com/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/ipractic/managed-mt-dev/mt-search.cgi?blog_id=52&tag=nuclear&limit=20)
In the corridors of power in Washington, it is increasingly recognized privately that the US will not be able to halt the Iranian nuclear program and therefore the Obama Administration's Plan B is to rely on deterrence. They hope that the US and its allies can deter Iran the same way that they deterred the nuclear weapons of the Soviet Union during the Cold War. But they fail to take into account that Iran is not run today by secular communists but rather by a radical version of Shiite Islam that has spread across much of the Iranian leadership.
The Twelver Shiism practiced in Iran and throughout most of the Shiite communities in the Islamic World is based on the idea that the descendants of the Prophet Muhammad though his daughter, Fatima, and son-in-law, Ali, have a special spiritual status--especially the twelfth descendant, who is supposed to re-appear as the "Anointed One" or Mahdi, in the future. He is also called "Lord of Time."
For Shiites these descendants are the rightful leaders of the Islamic community and not the Caliphs, who were chosen to lead Islam by the Sunnis. According to Shiite tradition the Twelfth Imam went into a state of being hidden in the year 874 at the age of six, but his return will usher in events that will culminate with the destruction of the world and the end of days. Both Judaism and Christianity have a concept of the end of days, but in Iran a radical interpretation of Shiism has gathered strength in elite circles that believes the arrival of the Mahdi is not a fixed date in the distant future but rather can be accelerated by man.
Generally, Iran has witnessed in the last decade a massive revival of the belief in the imminent arrival of the Mahdi. In 1983, Ayatollah Khomeini outlawed the main group that advanced the idea of the Mahdi's imminent arrival, the Hojatieh Society, but now its members have become openly active with government support. For example, there is a mosque outside of the Iranian holy city of Qom, known as the Jamrakan Mosque, where a well is located through which, by local legend, a pilgrim can communicate with the Twelfth Imam, even though he is still in a state of hiding. Jamrakan may have historically been a minor and run down center for pilgrimage, but in the last ten years, the Iranian government has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in the site. It has become an important center for popularizing the cult of the Twelfth Imam.
More disturbingly, the growing obsession with the imminent arrival of the Twelfth Imam as the Mahdi has been popular among the Revolutionary Guards and their Basij corps. Their faith in the Mahdi grew on the battlefields of the Iran-Iraq War. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad comes from the same religious milieu. Speaking in 2005 at the UN General Assembly, he added a prayer: "...hasten the reappearance of the Imam of the times and grant to us victory and prosperity." After his speech in 2005, he said that he was surrounded by a halo of green light while he spoke for 27 to 28 minutes. That same year, Ahmadinejad met with the French foreign minister, Philippe Douste-Blazy, asking them: "Do you know why we should wish for chaos at any price." He then explained: "Because after chaos, we can see the greatness of Allah."
After his 2005 election victory, the first religious figure Ahmadinejad consulted with in the city of Qom was Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi, whose journal deals with the return of the Mahdi; in 2005 it wrote that the Koran calls on Muslims "to wage war against the unbelievers and prepare the way for the advent of the Mahdi." A Yazdi disciple has given the religious justification for the use of nuclear weapons. Yazdi was a teacher at the Haqqani School which trained senior officers in the Revolutionary Guards and the Iranian intelligence services. He continues to appear in various events sponsored by the Revolutionary Guards. This month Ahmadinejad decided to increase funding by 143 % to Yazdi's religious institute and other radical groups that spread the belief in the Mahdi.
Of course the President of Iran does not have exclusive control over the Iranian nuclear program, though he is a partner with Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and the Revolutionary Guards commanders in deciding Iranian defense policy. Khamenei has been a political ally of Mesbah-Yazdi, who supported his becoming Supreme Leader after the death of Ayatollah Khomeini. Khamenei's influential son, Mojtaba, has been Yazdi's student at his seminary in Qom.
There are also other key officials in the Iranian national security establishment who share Ahmadinejad's Mahdist beliefs, including the former head of the Iranian Atomic Energy Organization. Ali Akbar Vilayati, Iran's foreign minister for nearly two decades, was a Hojatieh member. He now serves as foreign affairs adviser to the Supreme Leader, and yet is still active in a newer organization examining the arrival of the Mahdi.
The Commander of the Revolutionary Guards, General Mohammad Ali Jafari, declared in 2008: "Our duty is to prepare the way for an Islamic world government and the rule of the Lord of the Time". In 2009, both the Revolutionary Guards and the Basij were undergoing indoctrination using materials from the Hojatieh Society concerning Shiite doctrines on recognizing the arrival of the Mahdi. The Revolutionary Guards will undoubtedly control Iran's nuclear weapons along with the civilian leadership when they become operational.
It is far easier for intelligence agencies to monitor Iranian capabilities than Iranian intentions. It is especially difficult to penetrate the minds of the Iranian leaders to understand to what extent their religious views affect their political behavior. There are reasons for the West to be seriously concerned. When Iraq invaded Iran in 1980, within two years, the Iranian army captured back all the territory that it lost, so that the Iran-Iraq War could have ended in 1982.
But the Iranian leadership kept the war going for six years, sacrificing hundreds of thousands of Iranian soldiers in order to achieve their ideological goals of exporting the revolution. When Ayatollah Khomeini decided to agree to a cease-fire in 1988, the only Iranians who objected were the Revolutionary Guards. The hard question that needs to be answered in Western capitals, and in Israel, is to what extent is deterrence a reliable defense doctrine against a military leadership harboring this kind of world view.
Useful Sources: Dore Gold, The Rise of Nuclear Iran: How Tehran Defies the West (Regnery: 2009), Abbas Amanat, Apocalyptic Islam and Iranian Shi'ism (I.B. Taurus, 2009), Muhammad Sahimi, "The Man in the Shadow: Mojtaba Khamenei" Frontline: Tehran Bureau, July 16, 2009.