Something is brewing up in the Gulf

[Skybird]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/ne...0906-iraq1.htm

This is a 2002 summary of events during the greatest wargame excercise ever, Millennium Challenbge 2002. That is the famous excercise that fantasised about a war against a ME-style Gulf-region enemy, and saw the orginal American Navy fleet decisively wiped off the face of the ocean. The Pentagon then stopped and started new, this time heavily scripting the way in which the leader of OpFor was to command his troops and what to do and how to behave - so that the Blue Forces would eventually claim a shining, glorious victory with friendly assistance by OpFor that was demanded to follow the screenplay and act stupid.

Interestingly, the leader of OpFor was using tactics and a force composition that worries me since some time now. Originally, he avoided to use communicationmlines that could be monitored by the US military, and he used civilian sportsplanes and speed boats "harmlessly" loitering around in an unsuspicious manner, until an encoded call from the mosques simultaneously ordering to attack, which they did - "floodin g" the action area of the US navy in a coordinated assault that saw planes and speedboats slamming into cruisers and carriers and sinking or damaging almost the entire fleet, by strikes in 9/11-style, and using sportboats to fire swarms of silkworms aginst the carriers, which sank them.

Speedboat attacks in this style worry me since longer time. Just weeks ago I discussed that issue with somebody here on the board.

I now learn that the Iranians have gotten their hand on one of the world's fastest speedboat designs available, the Bladerunner 51, claiming that they copy and equip them with cannons and missiles.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...040402889.html
http://www.icemarine.com/spec/51_spec.htm
http://www.motorboatsmonthly.co.uk/n...sile-launching

the Bladerunner indeed can be used for military purproses - a military version already is being offered:

http://www.navatekltd.com/br51.html

Now consider such a boat equipped with Silkworms, like done in that exercise, or loaded with explosive.

Today, I then getb this article, in German. It says that Obama'S hesitation to make a clear stand nagainst Iran makes the states in the Gulf region nervous, becasue they lose confidence in that the Us indeed would be willing to confront Iran if it goes nuclear. A nuclear Iran however, would cause only one of two possible reactions: either a desire to contain it militarily by increasing military investements, or - more likely if you ask me - by leaving the "alliance" witht he Us and joining a patrongae by the Persians, under their nuclear umbrella.

http://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/a...-dem-Iran.html

At the same time I read this, weapons deals Obama approved for Saudi Arabia means a serious shifting of balances against Israel which depends on maintaining it'S air superiority. While Saudi Arabia seems to be willing to let an Israeli air strike against Iran transit through Saudi air space, Israel and Saudi Arabia enverteless are not true allies, but quite the opposite, Araba that Saudi Arabia is. It took the Israelis heavy lobbying to get an american statement that the F-15s they intend to deliver to Suadi Arbaia at least will not be equipped with the latest generation of long range weapons, and, while Israel should start to receive it's first 20 F-35 from 2015 on.

Obama's foreign policy, if one dares to call it that, for that region sends contradictory signals, but shifting the balance between Israel and it's neighbours against Israel, at the same time appearing to be extremely weak and undecided on wether or not to accept a nuclear armed Iran. However, one US aircraft carrier originally heading for another destination now has been redirected to the Gulf theatre, where tensions since many weeks and months are constantly rising. If Obama does not finally start to get his acts together, we will get a nuclear Iran, a loss of the already uncomfortable status quo in the Gulf, Gulf states switching sides and falling onto the Irqanian camp (ehat else should they do in the shadow of suczh a powerful and then: nuclear armed neighbour?), and Saudi Arabaia, Syria and Turkey starting nuclear weapon programs and an arms race, too.

I do not like how Obama handles things. Not one bit. As I see it he does his best to make sure that all what we better should fear about the Iranian developement - becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. the point when he must decide, is approaching rapidly, but all he bdoes is not getting prepared for that time,l but sending contradictory, even appeasing signals, expressing trust in proecdurfes that already in the past have proven not to work. As I call it in German: he seems to put his money on the good fairy queen.

My view of it all pretty much is described in this, both in Goldberg's and Mullen's comments:

http://www.theatlantic.com/internati...od-idea/61346/

No good options left, only bad options are left, because things were allowed to drift for too long.

http://www.theatlantic.com/internati...om-iran/60800/

We do not even talk about a destruction of the iranian program anymore. We just talk about a dely of 1-4 years. Which in my thinlkimng translates into: killing and destruction on a big scale being done for nothing but a handful of some more hours (unacceptable for me). Hell, what a mess this issue has been allowed to degenerate into. Over well-meaning intentions, of course.

This confrontation is enforced upon us, and faling in it will have unimaginable strategic consequences none of which are acceptable or to be tolerated. I only see two cards on the table: killing the program completely and accepting the costs needed to secure that objective completely (both in own losses suffered and damage done to Iran), or just delaying it, but nevertheless maybe accepting even higher costs in losses and damage for that - but wallowing in the moral self-assurance that one only "meant it well".

For the latter option, I am unavailable.