U.S VS Iran getting close [Archive] - China Defence Today Forum

utelore

01-12-2007, 03:32 AM

With another Carrier battle group arriving in the gulf around february which gives the U.S Two battle groups plus all the fixed wing aircraft and patriot Bats a movin. it appears a strike against Iran IS going to happen.

fellas, things are starting to happen In a very big way. talked to buds on the ground and the Mahdi Army is about to get a thumpin that will make the last showdown with the Mahdi look like a girl scout trip.

The Mahdi must be destroyed or removed as a effective fighting force before the strikes on Iran take place. If you thought Iraq was a mess now wait until you watch the evening news in Mid February.

for the children I have deep sadness but The baghdad area along with Sadr city is in for one hell of a nightmare and If Iran does not take its few hundred guided bomb medicine to cure it of its nuclear ambitions and launches missiles at the green zone or Israel then its gonna get a few thousand PGM that will truly be shock and awe.

Through friendly information given to me I feel a year of intense warfare is at hand. Sanpan if you have not bought your defence stocks such as FLIR and Armour holdings I suggest you do so now.
regular Army will increase by 60,000 and the Marines by 27,000.....Army 545,000 marines 200,000 end strength......cheers ute

SampanViking

01-12-2007, 03:59 AM

Utelore - this is alarmist and sensationalist!!

Now where is my brokers telephone no:?;)

utelore

01-12-2007, 09:03 AM

I wish I could post and say look read this. sorry, no can do....opsec...is a big deal. Just watch the pre-Iran OPs around the capital. there are alot of higher ups that are pissed about the amount of weapons via Iran that are now being used against are boys......much more advanced shaped charge IED(they are using dragon ATGW warheads) and that damn RPG-29 is playing hell and much more advanced sniper systems like the PSG-1 are causing unit level problems.

also cases of mod version M-93 Black Arrow .50 sniper system wreaking havoc on basra to baghdad highway.The days of the cheap Dragunov SVD are being replaced by these MUCH better sniper systems. did I mention those RPG-29.....much better piece of equipment than thought

Totoro

01-12-2007, 01:42 PM

Does the additional 21500 troops being sent to iraq have something to do with the possible strike on Iran? I would assume yes. If there is a strike on Iran, there is a risk that they will do a land invasion of iraq, and additional US forces on the ground may be needed to better protect US interests there. Thing is, I don't see the strike coming very soon... those 21500 troops will take time, and i'm talking months, to assemble. Also, more air power would be needed. Current number of USAF forces in the area will definitely be pumped if only two USN carriers are gonna be used. More USAF planes would give less warning to Iran anyway, compared to 3rd or even 4th carrier being sent in.

What i find interesting is the news of a squadron of f117s to be temporarely stationed in south korea. Could it be that US is preparing for a true political show of force - striking at two countries at the same time? From the military/logistical viewpoint, its unnecesary strain on the forces. But politically... it may be a message of 'we can do whatever we want, whenever we want to'.

We should know more come february, that is true.

Finn McCool

01-13-2007, 12:49 AM

I don't know about "by February" as the launch date for an attack on Iran. I think that it will take longer to postion recently deployed forces (CBGs, Patriot batteries, troops to Iraq). However I think that the US would want to attack during winter months because the temperatures in Iraq are cooler which makes it easier on US forces fighting there.

Utelore-I hardly think the fact that Iranian weapons are being used against Americans in Iraq constitutes evidence that an attack is imminent. However I am VERY interested in your purported offensive against the Al-Mahdi Army. That would give us some concrete dates if, as you said, the US considers it necessary to eliminate them before attacking Iran. Which is another reason I don't think that "by February" is a a significant date. Utelore said any action against the Al-Mahdis would take place in mid-February.

I hope Iranian Intelligence doesn't read SDF. :D

utelore

01-13-2007, 08:38 AM

just funnin about knowing any kickoff date against the mahdi. I do know that boots on the ground of lower level ranks thinks its about to get even hotter in Iraq. I dont think any action against the mahdi would take the form of massive and sudden military attack. I think it will be done through more covert actions such as hellfire strikes using UAV against key leadership or mid level command.

Having AC-130 "spooky" doing gun runs over sadr city would only lead to more shites joining the mahdi. I mean you blow up my house and kill my kids while I am at work.....well.....I will then try and take revenge and that is not what the U.S wants or needs with using massive convetional military force against the mahdi.

Totoro

01-13-2007, 12:23 PM

Of course iran wouldn't be attacked in february. I didn't mean that either. I just meant that we would see enough of force buildup by the end of february, so we know that something will happen. Even if they wanted to attack as soon as possible, that wouldn't be possible in next several months, certainly not before April.

JimGoose

01-15-2007, 01:10 AM

Hi, i'm still new here but I just want to throw my two cents in about why I don't think there will be a direct military confrontation between Iran and America. I will be drawing some comparisons here and there with points to back up my reasoning.

1. Israel is known to have one of the most advanced militaries in the world, and their expertise in air defence is no exception, but when we look at the Israeli-Lebanese conflict this summer, we see that no amount of technological supremacy can stop crude Katyushas or even the presence of Iranian made UAVs over their airspace. So the idea that Iran would not be able to retaliate to a US pre-emptive attack because of Patriot batteries being deployed left and right is rather silly, considering that Israel has, arguably, much better systems to counter such threats having had to learn the hard way when Saddam used his Scuds against them.

2. Hezbollah, by even the most generous estimates, does not number over 5,000. Many of their members and even commanders are supposedly trained by Iran's Revolutionary Guard in Iran with perhaps some advisors still stationed in Lebanon. The IRGC (for short) numbers atleast 50,000 and these are the people who train Hezbollah. They are the most religious, dedicated, motivated, and fanatical of all other Iranian military arms and are entrusted with the country's short to long range missiles. To assume that the IRGC will be instantly pacified in a first wave pre-emptive strike is silly, as we see that no amount of carpet bombing by the IDF/IAF's part had any effect in diminishing Hezbollah's ability to launch rockets, numbering at 100+/day up until the last day of conflict. A more realistic assessment would be to assume that due to their sheer number, training, motivation, and access to arms superior to those utilized by Hezbollah, the IRGC would be able to retaliate in multiples of the force used by Hezbollah.

3. The Israeli corvette "Saar" that was badly damaged by a smaller Iranian variant of the C-802 anti-ship missile (indigineously known as Kowsar) was equipped with "state of the art" defense systems in the form of Phalanx CIWS. (The only confirmed kill the Phalanx system has had was of a friendly fixed wing aircraft near south korea) Iran's southern coast and Islands are lined with dug in implacements of similar weapons and the IRGC's ability to monitor US naval activity in the area has been proven via publicly available IRGC UAV surveillance of the USS Ronald Reagan as it repositioned itself earlier in 2006.

The IRGC also has its own dedicated air force seperate from the IRIAF, and there is no doubt that US air supremacy will prevail fairly quickly, but considering that the IRGC air force is not structured to follow conventional rules of engagement, it's not a far stretch to assume that "kamikaze-esque" low altitude runs could be part of their battle order.

To conclude, I believe that a military conflict with Iran is undesirable and ultimately self-defeating for the US due simply to the IRGC's ability to retaliate. This without mentioning the role of the armed Pasardan and Basij 2 million + all volunteer force.

And if by some slim chance the neo-cons do get their way in light of what happened in Iraq, then we should be prepared to see the US dust off some tactical nukes, because ultimately that will be their only chance to a military victory in Iran.

coolieno99

01-15-2007, 01:33 AM

This is going to be a real test of Iran's 3 Kilo class subs. Not too long ago the subs were retrofitted with the potent Club-S anti-shipping missiles. The subs are also armed with modern wake-homing torpedoes. Can it disable or sink a large aircraft carrier?

Totoro

01-15-2007, 11:43 AM

Without means to detect and identify a target, and protect those sensors until data about target location has been fed to the submarine - even if subs had photon guided photon torpedoes it wouldn't do much good to them. Furthermore, in order to be able to attack the target as soon as they receive the coordinates, subs will have to keep close to surface, with their antennas out. That makes them easier to spot. I'm not saying it's impossible for those 3 kilos to sink an US carrier, but, realistically, it doesn't sound very plausible.

bd popeye

01-15-2007, 01:11 PM

IRGC's ability to monitor US naval activity in the area has been proven via publicly available IRGC UAV surveillance of the USS Ronald Reagan as it repositioned itself earlier in 2006.

The video of the alledged survallence of CVN-76 by the Iranian UAV never occuried. At least not on the days they claimed. For on the day they claim they overflew CVN-76 it was not in the Persian Gulf.

I've seen the video. And it appears to me to have been taken some years ago. Whereas there are clearly S-3 Vikings on the flight deck. CVN-76 deployed with no S-3's onboard.

Personally I do not know where the Iranian video came from. My guess is that it was filmed some years ago by an Iranian P-3 over flying the Gulf region.

The IRGC also has its own dedicated air force seperate from the IRIAF, and there is no doubt that US air supremacy will prevail fairly quickly, but considering that the IRGC air force is not structured to follow conventional rules of engagement, it's not a far stretch to assume that "kamikaze-esque" low altitude runs could be part of their battle order.

This scenerio is possible. However the IRGC air force will have great difficulty operating their systems once the US forces start emitting ECM.

SampanViking

01-15-2007, 04:48 PM

I am rather sceptical about the liklihood of a strike against Iran with regard to its Nucleur weapons program. Mainly, this is because the other Axis of Evil Club member, would probably conclude it was next, very soon and decide to get its retaliation in first.

Not something I think any of us wish to seriously contemplate.

JimGoose

01-15-2007, 06:10 PM

That is a posibility, but I wonder why would Iran use one of their few remaining P-3s for such a risky manouver, unless ofcourse the P-3 was operating inside Iranian territorial waters, perhaps near the Strait of Hormuz, it wouldn't be quite risky.

But if the "voyeur" was international waters, a P-3 orion, would be fairly easy to detect, intercept, and escort away. Whereas a small and expendible UAV, which Iran has been producing for several years, would be a lot harder to detect and also not a big deal if lost, as in the case with the Iranian UAV shot down near the Israeli coast last summer.

I've read that there have been many games of cat and mouse over the persian gulf between US and Iran, this is probably just another one. Hopefully it will remain a game of cat and mouse :)

("UAV" video can be seen here http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1dcb4c3ce3)

bd popeye

01-15-2007, 10:26 PM

That is a posibility, but I wonder why would Iran use one of their few remaining P-3s for such a risky manouver, unless ofcourse the P-3 was operating inside Iranian territorial waters, perhaps near the Strait of Hormuz, it wouldn't be quite risky.

I did mention that I think that film was taken some years ago. I said;

Personally I do not know where the Iranian video came from. My guess is that it was filmed some years ago by an Iranian P-3 over flying the Gulf region.

In 1981 when I was on board CV-66 in the Gulf region we were overflown several times by Iranian P-3's. They were always escorted by USN Tomcats. No, I never saw an Iranian Tomcat overfly an USN CV..

I've read that there have been many games of cat and mouse over the persian gulf between US and Iran, this is probably just another one. Hopefully it will remain a game of cat and mouse

Very true. It's been going on since 1979. Hopefully it will come to nothing and not result in another Operation Preying Mantis.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/praying_mantis.htm

Because if it did it would come to much more than occuried that day.

Finn McCool

01-16-2007, 11:23 PM

I did mention that I think that film was taken some years ago. I said;

Yeah, weren't there F-4s on the deck in those pictures? I seem to remember you pointing that out and seeing it myself. Even if there isn't its obvious that those pictures are not really very recent.

You're very right on the issue of American retaliation to Iranian provocations. There would be terrible consequences that would far exceed any retaliation by Iran from Operation Preying Mantis. The Iranians did retaliate for that Operation, but it was not obviously retaliation for that specfic provocation. They kidnapped and killed several American officials in Beirut, including the CIA station cheif and a Marine Colonel. Also Iran executed terrorist attacks through proxy organizations. Oh wait....I just checked and those kidnappings were before Operation Preying Mantis. Oh well. However the example is still a legitimate one. It would be expected that the IRGC (Revolutionary Guards) and Iranian Intelligence would use their contacts in the terrorist world to provide the resources for terrorist retaliation on American assets in the Gulf and around the world. I think that would be the most likely form of Iranian retaliation (aside from increased aid to America's enemies in Iraq) in the event of a limited American attack like Operation Preying Mantis. Of course we won't see an exact repeat because of the nuclear issue but I'm just using that as an example for scale.

Vlad Plasmius

01-21-2007, 02:06 PM

Iran is working to have elements of the Basij form a 1 million-man ground force. In addition to the IRGC and normal Iranian military that makes for around 1.4 to 1.5 million ground forces, the total personnel of our entire active military.

They're also moving forward with several projects, most importantly the Shafaq and FB-44, which would essentially be the Iranian answers to the F-35 and F-22 respectively.

JimGoose

01-22-2007, 02:42 AM

So far there's nothing to suggest that the "Shafaq" will be any kind of a threat to their American counterparts. From what is known, it is a subsonic prototype featuring a single RD-33 (Mig 29 engine) and radar absorbing materials. As for the other plane you mentioned, I've also heard it referred to as "Iranian Lion" but very little is known about it outside US military intelligence and Iranian R&D circles.

At best, the other fighter should be a locally built plane based on upgraded components of reverse engineered F-14s. Iran is still flying somewhere around 45 of these birds, out of a total of 79 that were delivered prior to the Islamic revolution. All of which have undergone substantial upgrades over the years, such as air frame weight reduction by replacing analog electronic parts with entirely digital systems among other changes like arming a few with prototype Air to Air MIM-23 missiles.

I personally think Iran's best defense would be it's ballistic missiles and rocket arsenal, couple that with a priority on asymmetrical and guirella warfare and you make for a very uninviting target.

And regarding the UAV video of the USS Ronald Reagan, the planes on her deck were not F-4s, but infact USN F-18s, just take another look at the link i posted :) http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1dcb4c3ce3

a new development, the President of Iran has announced a new series of Missile exercises are to begin shortly, apparently in response to the deployment of the 2nd Carrier Strike Group to the Persian Gulf.

Vlad Plasmius

01-22-2007, 08:40 AM

So far there's nothing to suggest that the "Shafaq" will be any kind of a threat to their American counterparts. From what is known, it is a subsonic prototype featuring a single RD-33 (Mig 29 engine) and radar absorbing materials.

It is based off the MIG LFI. Also, while it is subsonic as far as we know, it's not all that difficult for them to make it supersonic.

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss these projects, though. I doubt they'll be to the same standards of F-22 and F-35, but if they've sufficiently stealthy and are given Phoenix missiles, it makes things much different.

akihh

01-22-2007, 01:53 PM

TEHRAN, Jan 22 (Reuters) - Iran has barred 38 inspectors from the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), from entering the country, an Iranian politician was quoted by Iran's ISNA news agency as saying on Monday.

Source: Reuters (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlebusiness.aspx?type=tnBusinessNews&storyID=nBLA244800&imageid=top-news-view-2007-01-22-173807-RTR1LFM6_Comp%5B1%5D.jpg&cap=File%20photo%20of%20Iranian%20President%20Mahm oud%20Ahmadinejad,%20taken%20January%2021,%202007. %20REUTERS/Raheb%20Homavandi%20(IRAN)&from=business)

Hi to all sinodefence forum members from Finland! My first post, please be gentle :)

Why would Iranian leadership do that? They just threw away much of the political restraints against military intervention.

Imho they might have some ace in their sleeve on which they count on very much. Iranians are skilled diplomats, but bluffing with so high stakes, I don't buy it - their foregin politics no #1 priority has always been regime survival, and now it seems that they don't care.

Any suggestions on this one?

Gollevainen

01-22-2007, 01:58 PM

Höhööö lisää mejän heimoo:p :nana:

Welcome to SDF :china: :china:

Finn McCool

01-23-2007, 07:18 PM

Aliph Ahmed

01-23-2007, 10:04 PM

Source: Reuters (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlebusiness.aspx?type=tnBusinessNews&storyID=nBLA244800&imageid=top-news-view-2007-01-22-173807-RTR1LFM6_Comp%5B1%5D.jpg&cap=File%20photo%20of%20Iranian%20President%20Mahm oud%20Ahmadinejad,%20taken%20January%2021,%202007. %20REUTERS/Raheb%20Homavandi%20(IRAN)&from=business)

Hi to all sinodefence forum members from Finland! My first post, please be gentle :)

Why would Iranian leadership do that? They just threw away much of the political restraints against military intervention.

Imho they might have some ace in their sleeve on which they count on very much. Iranians are skilled diplomats, but bluffing with so high stakes, I don't buy it - their foregin politics no #1 priority has always been regime survival, and now it seems that they don't care.

Any suggestions on this one?

Personally, I think that Iranians have boldened after seeing the limitations of Israel in Lebanon and USA in Iraq. They think (Rightly/wrongly is disputable) that it is now or never. Either way they will be bombed to stone age so why not go down fighting.

It is funny, when the west gets nuclear or destroys their own sattelites, it is okay. But when Iran tries to get it and all that too under the IAEA SAFEGUARDS, or when China experiments, it is not okay, Eye brows are raised in suspision and explanations are demanded !!

What a hypocracy !!

akihh

01-24-2007, 09:10 AM

Why would Iranian leadership do that? They just threw away much of the political restraints against military intervention.

Any suggestions on this one?

I'll burn some karma and reply to myself via these excerpts:

North Korea is helping Iran to prepare an underground nuclear test similar to the one Pyongyang carried out last year.
...
A senior European defence official told The Daily Telegraph that North Korea had invited a team of Iranian nuclear scientists to study the results of last October's underground test to assist Teheran's preparations to conduct its own — possibly by the end of this year.
...
"All the indications are that the Iranians are working hard to prepare for their own underground nuclear test."

Source: Daily Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/24/wiran24.xml)

This could explain the cockiness that Iranian regime is showing. If this article is valid and there is gonna be anykind of military intervention, time window is closing fast - declared nuclear power is almost intouchable regardless of it's actions.

Scratch

01-24-2007, 04:09 PM

Municipal and low-level elections in Iran a few weeks go resulted in a major defeat for Ahmadinejad's party. I think that the American leadership may see this as an indication that the Iranian public does not support the reigime's nuclear ambitions. Now I would interpret that to mean that military action is not necessary and it is more effective to simply wait for a political shift. However the Bush Administration might that to mean that if the US did attack it would be welcomed by the Iranian populace.

I'm just suprised that no one posted anything about those elections in this thread.

Well those elections were a good sign in some way, but I don't believe you can apply that to "elections" on the presidential level. The persons who want to campaign have to be "cleared" by a cleric council if I'm correct. Because of that there is a preselection and many citizens, mostly those who lead a "western" life-style don't even go to "vote". However, a more moderate candidate may succeed in the Feb-'08 elections.
The iranian people in fact do appreciate headway in technology. This is also valid for nuclear energy production. However they are also pragmatic, wich is why there are some/many who say better find a solution with the "west" about that issue instead of bullishly further the program and having to deal with embargos.
I sincerely think that the iranies want to resolve that issue on their own anyway and would NOT welcome to be "freed" by outside force.

crazyinsane105

01-25-2007, 02:48 PM

Attack against Iran? Maybe. I thought the Bush administration didn't have any more stupid ideas, but yeah, it's coming to it now. And it seems both sides are getting prepared for the worst.

In Iraq, you have several forces: the Mehdi army, which numbers in the tens of thousands (along with millions of sypmhatizers) and who have access to some of the latest equipment and training from Iran (but they haven't used it against the Americans-yet). Then you have the Sunni insurgents who are getting large amounts of money and weapons flowing in from Saudi Arabia and Syria. You then have Al Qaeda, one of the most powerful terrorist organizations on this planet who have now set up an "emirate" in Al Anbar province. All these groups have different agendas, but they have one thing in common and that is to get the US out of Iraq. When push comes to shove, these groups will most likely start to help each other out. They will all become the target of the US military and your enemy's enemy is your friend for a time being.

For Iran, they have a massive land force: nearly five to six million in the Iranian Pasandra alone. Then you have the regular army and the Revolutionary Guards. Then you have the proxies, many of them armed cream crop weaponry. Jesus Christ this will by no doubt get messy.

The US bases in Iraq are simply vulnerable to any ballistic missile attacks by Iran. Iran has massive stockpiles of ballistic missiles (that's where a good chunk of their money goes). Each and every base in Iraq would be hit with volleys of such missiles, thus crippling the American presence in Iraq. And as for the Iranian Kilos, ya, they can definetely sink aircraft carriers, but it will be interesting to see how all of this is played out. Remember, Iran has been preparing for this moment ever since March 2003. Or shall I say after the Iraq-Iran war.

Utelore, I would love to know more about the weapons being used in Iraq by the insurgents. It's pretty bone chilling to find out the Iraqis have .50 caliber anti-material rifles these days...

Also, one very interesting note on the mutating form of the Iraqi insurgency:

Iraqi insurgents dressed as American soldiers, speaking fluent English and driving American made SUV's, went past three checkpoints, into a security center, and killed 5 American soldiers and wounded three others in Karbala. Please take a look at the related CNN report on youtube which I will post later.

Neutral Zone

01-25-2007, 02:55 PM

Municipal and low-level elections in Iran a few weeks go resulted in a major defeat for Ahmadinejad's party. I think that the American leadership may see this as an indication that the Iranian public does not support the reigime's nuclear ambitions. Now I would interpret that to mean that military action is not necessary and it is more effective to simply wait for a political shift. However the Bush Administration might that to mean that if the US did attack it would be welcomed by the Iranian populace.

I'm just suprised that no one posted anything about those elections in this thread.

And there has been a lot of internal criticism of Ahmadinejad in Iranian newspapers that have close links to the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khameini. He has also been criticised for his poor handling of the economy, uneployment in Iran is about 40% and poverty is rife. Personally I think the Americans have concluded that as Ahmadinejad is in such trouble domestically that the best option is not to launch military strikes but to gradually crank up the pressure militarily, diplomatically and economically in the hope that enough figures in the regime are unnerved and Ahmadinejad is forced to take a more conciliatory line on the nuclear issue. An attack would probably unite the Iranian people behind the regime and would make thinngs a whole lot worse.

crazyinsane105

01-25-2007, 03:16 PM

And there has been a lot of internal criticism of Ahmadinejad in Iranian newspapers that have close links to the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khameini. He has also been criticised for his poor handling of the economy, uneployment in Iran is about 40% and poverty is rife. Personally I think the Americans have concluded that as Ahmadinejad is in such trouble domestically that the best option is not to launch military strikes but to gradually crank up the pressure militarily, diplomatically and economically in the hope that enough figures in the regime are unnerved and Ahmadinejad is forced to take a more conciliatory line on the nuclear issue. An attack would probably unite the Iranian people behind the regime and would make thinngs a whole lot worse.

That's the problem. The Iranian people see themselves as a rising power and share the same views as Ahmadinejad when it comes to the nuclear program. Also, I read about Ahmadinejad's toughest opponent who will reside over him: I forgot his name, but the guy is PhD in engineering, also served in the Revolutionary Guards during Iraq-Iran (he was in the air force), and his dad was a truck driver. Very similar to Ahmadinejad and he's pretty anti-American as well. Difference is that he's more reserved when it comes to making outlandish comments. So don't expect any magical changes when the next President of Iran comes along. The nuclear program will not be halted back since it is in the popular support of the Iranian people and tensions will continue to rise between Iran and the US.

Surpluswarrior

01-25-2007, 05:44 PM

Is this at all significant?

Ronald Reagan Carrier Strike Group to Surge Deploy
By US Navy

SAN DIEGO: USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) Carrier Strike Group (CSG), with more than 5,000 sailors, will surge deploy Jan. 27, while USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63) undergoes scheduled maintenance in Yokosuka, Japan.

The Ronald Reagan CSG is deploying under the Navy's Fleet Response Plan (FRP) and will operate in the western Pacific in support of U.S. commitments in the region. FRP provides the U.S. with the ability to respond to any global commitment with flexible and sustainable forces and the ability to rapidly respond to a range of situations on short notice.

http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/printer/navy/printer_Ronald_Reagan_Carrier_Strike_Group_to_Surg e_Deploy.php

Too far from Iran to be significant?

bd popeye

01-25-2007, 05:49 PM

I posted the same story in another thread.

The intresting thing is that CVN-76 was chosen. I returned from it's first deployment in July last year. That is a very short turn around considering a CV usally stays in the US for 12 -20 months before deploying again. I thought the Nimitz would go. It is ready to deploy also and has been in San Diego since the end of her last deployment on 18 FEB '06.

crazyinsane105

01-25-2007, 05:58 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070124/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_russia_weapons

Iran has received all Tor-M1 missile batteries from the Russians. Just in time I guess before things get hotter, wouldn't you agree? :coffee:

Vlad Plasmius

01-25-2007, 06:17 PM

Now, I'm just wondering about this:

Is the sale of 30 referring to batteries or independent launch vehicles?

BLUEJACKET

01-25-2007, 08:46 PM

Please see my post #35 (http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=2809&page=3) the hyperlink to another post there. I anticipated NK-Iran nuclear cooperation to evolve to this stage- for them it's a win-win situation. I think the Iranian leadership's rhetoric can't be explained any other way- they know themselves as being on the verge of entering the nuclear wepons states club, and also they may already have some suitcase nukes that went missing in Russia as a backup.

U.S. contingency planning for military action against Iran's nuclear program goes beyond limited strikes and would effectively unleash a war against the country, a former U.S. intelligence analyst said on Friday.
"I've seen some of the planning ... You're not talking about a surgical strike," said Wayne White, who was a top Middle East analyst for the State Department's bureau of intelligence and research until March 2005.
"You're talking about a war against Iran" that likely would destabilize the Middle East for years, White told the Middle East Policy Council, a Washington think tank.
"We're not talking about just surgical strikes against an array of targets inside Iran. We're talking about clearing a path to the targets" by taking out much of the Iranian Air Force, Kilo submarines, anti-ship missiles that could target commerce or U.S. warships in the Gulf, and maybe even Iran's ballistic missile capability, White said.

"I'm much more worried about the consequences of a U.S. or Israeli attack against Iran's nuclear infrastructure," which would prompt vigorous Iranian retaliation, he said, than civil war in Iraq, which could be confined to that country.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070120/ts_nm/iran_usa_experts_dc&printer=1

crazyinsane105

01-25-2007, 10:13 PM

Now, I'm just wondering about this:

Is the sale of 30 referring to batteries or independent launch vehicles?

Hmmm....probably batteries. It said all deliveries had been completed, but this is coming from a Reuters source (guys who don't know a whole lot about the military, if you notice the picture they put up it's of the SA-11 Gladfly and not the Tor-M1). I guess we'll have to wait from a more professional source such as defencetalk.com or even Janes.

Vlad Plasmius

01-25-2007, 11:00 PM

Well, other areas I've read that it was "systems" not "batteries" which makes me think it's just that many launch trucks. If it was a battery that would mean around 120 launch trucks for Iran for $700 million overall. That just doesn't sound right.

SampanViking

01-26-2007, 12:46 PM

bd popeye

01-26-2007, 02:11 PM

Pres Bush has authorized US forces in Iraq to engauge Iranians if need be. Last night on the news I heard this order was issued in November 2006.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070126/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iran

By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent
2 hours, 41 minutes ago

WASHINGTON -President Bush has authorized U.S. forces in Iraq to take whatever actions are necessary to counter Iranian agents deemed a threat to American troops or the public at large, the White House said Friday.

"It makes sense that if somebody's trying to harm our troops, or stop us from achieving our goal, or killing innocent citizens in Iraq, that we will stop them," Bush said. "It's an obligation we all have ... to protect our folks and achieve our goal."

The aggressive new policy came in response to intelligence that Iran is supporting terrorists inside Iraq and is providing bombs known as improvised explosive devices and other equipment to anti-U.S. insurgents.

"The president and his national security team over the last several months have continued to receive information that Iranians were supplying IED equipment and or training that was being used to harm American soldiers," National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said.

"As a result American forces, when they receive actionable information, may take the steps necessary to protect themselves as well as the population," Johndroe said.

Bush referred to the new policy in his Jan. 10 address to the nation in which he announced a buildup of 21,500 troops in Iraq. He said the United States would confront Iran and Syria more vigorously.

While promising tougher action, the White House said the United States does not intend to cross the Iraq-Iran border to attack Iranians.

During a picture-taking session Friday with Army Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, newly confirmed by the Senate to command U.S. troops in Iraq, Bush was asked about stepped-up activities in Iraq against Iranian activities thought to be fueling the violence.

He defended the policy, but said it is no indication that the United States intends to expand the confrontation beyond Iraq's borders.

"That's a presumption that's simply not accurate," Bush said.

But added: "Our policy is going to be to protect our troops. It makes sense."

Five Iranians were detained by U.S.-led forces earlier this month after a raid on an Iranian government liaison office in northern Iraq. The move further frayed relations between the two countries, already tense because of U.S.-led efforts to force Tehran to abandon its suspected nuclear weapons program.

"We believe that we can solve our problem with Iran diplomatically and are working to do that," Bush said. "As a matter of fact, we're making pretty good progress on that front."

The administration said at the time that U.S. forces entered an Iranian building in Kurdish-controlled Irbil because information linked it to Revolutionary Guards and other Iranian elements engaging in violent activities in Iraq.

But Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, a Kurd, contended the Iranians were working in a liaison office that had government approval and that the office was in the process of being approved as a consulate. In Iran, Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said the U.S. raid constituted an intervention in Iranian-Iraqi affairs.

Scratch

01-26-2007, 02:41 PM

Here's a question?

What particular factor does Iran share with Iraq? here are two clues The Island of Kish and the Euro.

Another Clue - Moscow and Shanghai too:confused:

Lets see if you can work this very relevant question out;)

The iranian government has plans to establish an iranian oil bourse on the island of kish, wich is designated as a "free trade zone", and to handle the oil sales in Euro. Iraq had changed to salling it's oil for euros three years prior to GW3 I think. Pres Putin, and someone at the Shanghai oil market have vioced similar thoughts.
If that iranian oil bourse has succes, and others will follow to shift to the euro, the dollars value will drop down sharply. The US is no longer able to handle public debts and will breake down. To prevent that, the US must attack Iran in order to prohibit oil being payed in euros. :D
Please note, this is not serious at all. Aside from that oil in euros thing that should answer Sampan's question I think.

SampanViking

01-26-2007, 03:35 PM

Hi Scratch

Right on the Money!!

Iran, Russia, and China are all opening (or have opened) International Oil Bourses trading in multiple currencies mainly the Euro and their domestic currencies. Iraq did a similair switch in 2000 (first thing the US did in 2003 was to switch Iraqi oil transactions back to the dollar).

Yes this is a big deal to the US as it risks direct and indirect petrodollar receipts of nearly $900Billion per year with which to fund its $1 Trillion per year budget deficit and without which it risks major loss of real power and influence amid "market difficulties" Worth going to war for?

Incidentally, Iran's nucleur program was started in the early 70's by the Shah who recognised that Iranian oil production was going to peak in the mid 80's and that reserves would become too valuable to burn.

This program was enthusiastically promoted in the US by two young up and comings in the Ford administration. Step forward please M'seurs Cheyne and Rumsfeld:roll:

Scratch

01-26-2007, 03:40 PM

Well sometime it's quiet funny (or tragic?) what was done decades ago and later (now) turns out to be better never have happend.

BLUEJACKET

01-26-2007, 04:20 PM

I can see how it may be damaging politicaly for the US to pay for oil in Euros, but economicaly I heard it's a nonsense- if you've got $$$ in the first place it doesn't take long to change them into Euros. IMO there is alot more to it then just currency being used!

SampanViking

01-26-2007, 05:46 PM

BLUEJACKET

01-26-2007, 05:51 PM

..losing the advantages of being the worlds reserve currency ..
I agree, but until China stops buying US securities & decides to swith to Euros the reserve currency will still be $, IMHO. Enough said..

Escalation of US Iran military planning part of six-year Administration push
(http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Iran_The_Road_to_Confrontation_0123.html)
U.N. says Iran plans nuclear development (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070126/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear_7&printer=1)

Finn McCool

01-28-2007, 12:53 AM

It is rather more complex than that Bluejacket, it is all about losing the advantages of being the worlds reserve currency as a direct consequence of the petrodollar.

I would love to go on in greater depth but it is heading way :off and beyond the normal bounds of a Military forum.

Suffice to say it means no more cheap credit, no more cheap gasoline and a very painful time as the US learns how to live within its means.

If you want to learn more, then you will need to look elsewhere.

Sampan I did not now about that issue of changing worldwide oil transactions to the Euro. As usual you "follow the money" and put a new spin on something that us simple military people would never have realized.

In fact you've inspired me. Now I will use my economic knowledge to refute some things I read on this amatuerish Iranian Defence Forum.

Basically the posters were saying that Iran must become self sufficent in meeting its defence technology needs. They used Iran's two fighter aircraft programs (forget what their called) as examples of the future. Viewed from an economic context this is totally incorrect. Iran is known for its energy exports, essentially energy is what it is economically "good at". Other nations, particularly Russia and China, are economically "good at" producing (among other things) weapons. Every national economy has only so many resources, so for Iran to reduce the amount of efficent energy and consumer product prodcution its is doing now and refocus resources on inefficently beginning to produce high tech military goods when it can trade energy and labor for weapons is economically wrong. It reduces the "opportunity cost" to both economies because they both sell what they can to get what they want.

Does anyone think that it is feasible for the US to execute a sort of Osirak Reactor attack on the Natanz plant? I can think of several reasons why that wouldn't work (eg dispersal of nuke sites). The question I'm more asking is whether or not you think that Iran would overtly retaliate for a very limited attack.

The_Zergling

01-28-2007, 01:45 AM

Supplementing Popeye's post...

Troops Authorized to Kill Iranian Operatives

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/25/AR2007012502199.html

The Bush administration has authorized the U.S. military to kill or capture Iranian operatives inside Iraq as part of an aggressive new strategy to weaken Tehran's influence across the Middle East and compel it to give up its nuclear program, according to government and counterterrorism officials with direct knowledge of the effort.

For more than a year, U.S. forces in Iraq have secretly detained dozens of suspected Iranian agents, holding them for three to four days at a time. The "catch and release" policy was designed to avoid escalating tensions with Iran and yet intimidate its emissaries. U.S. forces collected DNA samples from some of the Iranians without their knowledge, subjected others to retina scans, and fingerprinted and photographed all of them before letting them go.

Last summer, however, senior administration officials decided that a more confrontational approach was necessary, as Iran's regional influence grew and U.S. efforts to isolate Tehran appeared to be failing.

...

Advocates of the new policy -- some of whom are in the NSC, the vice president's office, the Pentagon and the State Department -- said that only direct and aggressive efforts can shatter Iran's growing influence. A less confident Iran, with fewer cards, may be more willing to cut the kind of deal the Bush administration is hoping for on its nuclear program. "The Iranians respond to the international community only when they are under pressure, not when they are feeling strong," one official said.

With aspects of the plan also targeting Iran's influence in Lebanon, Afghanistan and the Palestinian territories, the policy goes beyond the threats Bush issued earlier this month to "interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria" into Iraq. It also marks a departure from years past when diplomacy appeared to be the sole method of pressuring Iran to reverse course on its nuclear program.

There's something that really made me bang my head against the wall.

Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the director of the CIA, told the Senate recently that the amount of Iranian-supplied materiel used against U.S. troops in Iraq "has been quite striking." [Or not.]

"Iran seems to be conducting a foreign policy with a sense of dangerous triumphalism," Hayden said.

This mentality and attitude can't bode well for our Middle East foreign policy... I'll leave it at that. If I expressed my true feelings on this I would get myself banned.

SampanViking

01-28-2007, 06:41 AM

Hi Finn

Sampan I did not now about that issue of changing worldwide oil transactions to the Euro. As usual you "follow the money" and put a new spin on something that us simple military people would never have realized.

In fact you've inspired me. Now I will use my economic knowledge to refute some things I read on this amatuerish Iranian Defence Forum

Always glad to be of service:)

If there is any interest in this area I might start a Thread in The Club Room. It is an interesting subject and one, which oddly enough, never seems to be mentioned by the US Media.

BLUEJACKET

01-30-2007, 04:41 PM

Another piece of the puzzle falls into place-
'US poised to attack,' claims Bulgarian agency
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
ISTANBUL - Turkish Daily News
The United States “could be using its two air force bases in Bulgaria and one at Romania's Black Sea coast to launch an attack on Iran in April," the Bulgarian news agency Novinite claimed. Commenting on the report, The Sunday Herald wrote that the U.S. build-up along the Black Sea, coupled with the recent positioning of two U.S. aircraft carrier battle groups off the Straits of Hormuz “appears to indicate that U.S. President Bush has run out of patience with Tehran's nuclear misrepresentation and non-compliance with the U.N. Security Council's resolution.”
“Whether the Bulgarian news report is a tactical feint or a strategic event is hard to gauge at this stage. But, in conjunction with the beefing up of the America's Italian bases and the acquisition of anti-missile defense bases in the Czech Republic and Poland, the Balkan developments seem to indicate a new phase in Bush's global war on terror,” wrote the Scottish paper.
The Bulgarian agency named Colonel Sam Gardiner, "a U.S. secret service officer stationed in Bulgaria," as the source its story.
Before the end of March, 3,000 U.S. military personnel are scheduled to arrive "on a rotating basis" at the United States' Bulgarian bases. Under the U.S.-Bulgarian military cooperation accord, signed in April, 2006, an airbase at Bezmer, a second airfield at Graf Ignitievo and a shooting range at Novo Selo were leased to the U.S. Army.
The Sunday Herald noted that last week, the Romanian daily Evenimentual Zilei revealed the U.S. Air Force is to stage several flights of F-l5, F-l6 and Al0 aircraft at the Kogalniceanu Base. According to the story, Admiral Gheorghe Marin, Romania's chief of staff, confirmed “up to 2,000 American military personnel will be temporarily stationed in Romania.”

© 2005 Dogan Daily News Inc. www.turkishdailynews.com.tr

In a "war game" testing US options, the Saban Centre for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution found that, as the descent into civil war [in Iraq] gathered pace, confrontation between the US and Iran intensified, and Washington's leverage on Tehran diminished. Civil war in Iraq would turn Iran into "the unambiguous adversary" of the US.
Indeed, everything indicates that that is already happening. The study appeared on the same day as the Iranian ambassador in Iraq told The New York Times that Tehran intended to expand its influence in Iraq. US commanders now claim that thousands of Iranian advisers are arming and training Shia militias.
Nonetheless, the Brookings report urges the creation of a regional group to help contain a civil war. That would see exactly the contacts with Iran and Syria that the Bush administration steadfastly refuses. An alternative in the report would be "red lines" which, if crossed by Tehran, could lead to a military attack by the US on Iran. http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2198418.ece

Vlad Plasmius

01-30-2007, 11:07 PM

Finn McCool

01-31-2007, 06:01 PM

Hmmmmm, They seem to be a little far from Iran, unless they're being redeployed near Iran I think they may have another target. I'm thinking maybe Bush is looking to go after Syria or prevent Syria from using the conflict ot justify na invasion into Lebanon or Israel.

I don't think that's a likely scenario. An invasion of Israel would be suicide for the Assad reigeme. And there is no need for an invasion of Lebanon-Hezbollah is already close to gaining political control there.

Vlad Plasmius

01-31-2007, 07:57 PM

I don't think that's a likely scenario. An invasion of Israel would be suicide for the Assad reigeme. And there is no need for an invasion of Lebanon-Hezbollah is already close to gaining political control there.

I'm saying we may be preparing for that eventuality if Iran is attacked, perhaps it would be to prevent a Hezbollah coup.

BLUEJACKET

01-31-2007, 08:48 PM

IMO Bulgaria and Romania bases are needed for logistics purposes and as staging areas, since those in Turkey and Azerbaidzan are off-limits in any attack on Iran and/or Syria.
U.S.-Iran tensions could trigger war (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070201/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_war_clouds&printer=1;_ylt=AvgFJdRD2NAwxY.RPUixEykUewgF;_ylu=X 3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-)

General says U.S. has proof Iran arming Iraqi militias (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-01-30-iraq-iran_x.htm?csp=34)

Israel's war is to be sold as America's war. (http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=10429)
Iran eyes long-range air strike capability
Iran is pursuing a longer-range strike capability for its air assets to support the delivery of more powerful strategic weapon systems, western defence sources have told Jane's.
To this end, the sources noted, Tehran is "investing considerable resources in generating enhanced operational aerial refuelling capabilities to support strike assets capable of delivering such systems, most notably the Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force's (IRIAF's) Sukhoi Su-24MK (http://www.napo.ru/eng/?id=42)strike aircraft.
According to the sources, "aerial refuelling exercises, often originating out of Tactical Air Base 7 in Shiraz, southwest Iran, are carried out over Iran at night and at very low altitude (1,000 ft) using, in general, the 747 tanker aircraft". These simulate operational scenarios that would entail night-time refuelling of an Iranian attack aircraft, at low altitude over the Mediterranean [to protect Syria], outward bound en route to the target, said the sources.
IRIAF pilots have, the sources added, learned to make use of advanced radar tactics, terrain masking, manoeuvre and electronic counter-countermeasures in order to surprise opponents, minimise their warning time and limit enemy intercept opportunities.
Iran bolsters Su-25 fleet
Iran's original seven Su-25K (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/su-25.htm)/UBKs were flown to Iran from Iraq in 1991 as the multinational Operation 'Desert Storm' force gathered on Iraq's southern border in response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Air Force (IRGCAF) then purchased three Su-25UBK two-seat combat trainers and three Su-25T anti-tank aircraft from Russia and deliveries of these have been completed. With its maximum combat load of 4,340 kg, the type now plays an important role in supporting the IRGC's rapid-reaction doctrine. It is foremost intended to provide direct air support to ground troops.
The IRGCAF is considering the purchase of more advanced variants, including the Su-25TM (Su-39), optimised for attacks on ground and naval targets in daylight, but also at night, using precision-guided munitions. However, current political circumstances may make this procurement difficult.
© 2007 Jane's Information Group

coolieno99

02-01-2007, 12:04 AM

Iran manufactures shaped charge warheads. The inverted copper cone melts and becomes liquefied when the warhead explodes. The liquefied copper slug can punched thru the thickest armour. Normally ATGMs are armed with shaped charge warheads.

http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/1012/shapechargeiranhz4.jpg
Front view of shaped charge warhead, showing inverted copper cone.

bd popeye

02-01-2007, 04:38 PM

Well it appears that CVN-74 along is on it's way to the Persian Gulf region. CVN-74 did not stop in Hawaii. And it looks though they will speed right past any port in the Pacific..that sucks. I checked the CV schedules for the PAC Fleet since 9/11/2001..

http://www.ne.jp/asahi/gonavy/atsugi/gonavy604.html

...and all the west coast CVN's heading to the Persian Gulf Region always make a pit stop somewhere in the Pacific before they enter the 5th command area...curious...

I also just read that CVN-69 the Eisenhower is back in the Gulf region after a breif stint off the Horn of Africa.

http://content.hamptonroads.com/stor...607&ran=116829

Think about it.:confused:

http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=27556

John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group Arrives in 7th Fleet
Story Number: NNS070201-09
Release Date: 2/1/2007 3:33:00 PM

By Lt. Nathan Christensen, Deputy Public Affairs Officer, USS John C. Stennis Public Affairs

USS JOHN C. STENNIS, At Sea (NNS) -- The USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74) Carrier Strike Group (JCSSG) entered the U.S. 7th Fleet’s area of responsibility (AOR) Jan. 31, as part of a deployment to promote peace, regional cooperation and stability.

While Stennis and the rest of the strike group, led by Rear Adm. Kevin Quinn, is scheduled to transit from 7th Fleet to U.S. Central Command to provide support for coalition forces operating there, JCSSG remains ready to respond to any mission in any theatre of operation.

“Our strike group provides an agile, flexible, responsive and robust set of capabilities ranging from humanitarian assistance all the way up through major combat operations,” said Quinn, commander, Carrier Strike Group Three (CCSG 3). “We have spent a year preparing for this deployment and we are ready for whatever tasking comes our way.”

Since the beginning of 2006, JCSSG has completed multiple training events, qualifications and inspections, leading up to certification as a combat-ready strike group.

“Though we are planning to simply transit through the Pacific en route the Persian Gulf, we are prepared to respond to any emergent tasking in the Pacific Command area of operations,” said Quinn.

The ship will remain postured to render aid in the region if needed, in support of Commander, U.S. 7th Fleet’s goal of delivering responsive, short-term readiness.

JCSSG is comprised of Commander, CSG 3, Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 9, Destroyer Squadron (DESRON) 21, the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Stennis, the guided-missile cruiser USS Antietam (CG 54), the guided-missile destroyers USS Preble (DDG 88) and USS O’Kane (DDG 77), the fast combat-support ship USNS Bridge (T-AOE 10), and Explosive Ordnance Disposal Unit 11, Det. 11. In all, more than 6,000 Sailors are currently assigned to JCSSG.

Commander, U.S. 7th Fleet is permanently embarked aboard USS Blue Ridge (LCC 19), which is forward deployed to Yokosuka, Japan. The 7th Fleet AOR includes more than 52 million square miles of the Pacific and Indian oceans -- stretching from the international date line to the east coast of Africa, and from the Kuril Islands in the north to the Antarctic in the south.

More than half of the world's population lives within the 7th Fleet AOR. In addition, more than 80 percent of that population lives within 500 miles of the oceans, which means this is an inherently maritime region.

“We are ready; we are sustainable; we are flexible; and we provide awesome combat capability,” said Quinn.

JCSSG is headed west to provide support for U.S. and coalition forces operating in the 5th Fleet and will support Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, be prepared to take part in Horn of Africa operations, and conduct maritime security operations (MSO).

Coalition forces conduct MSO under international maritime conventions to ensure security and safety in international waters so that all commercial shipping can operate freely while transiting the region.

For related news, visit the USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74) Navy NewsStand page at www.news.navy.mil/local/cvn74/.

coolieno99

02-01-2007, 05:54 PM

crazyinsane105

02-01-2007, 06:03 PM

Despite U.S. govt objections, Iran purchased 800 of the Steyr .50 cal sniper rifles. It can punched thru armoured vests and has a 1500 m range. Unlike other Middle Eastern countries, over 1/2 of Iran is mountainous, making it very suitable for sniping at long ranges.

http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/9515/steyr2pa.jpg
The Austrian-made Steyr-Mannlicher HS50 .50 cal rifle.

Ah I heard of that sale. Iran also makes its own Druganov SVD's and is one of the very few countries that makes the rare high quality ammunition for the Druganov SVD to make it into a true sniping rifle. As for the fifty calibers, I think that Iran can probably get it's hands on the Black Arrow or the Russian fifty caliber without too much hassle.

Vlad Plasmius

02-01-2007, 09:28 PM

Amphibious Assault groups being moved to Persian Gulf and beefed up air patrols.

Fallon indicated that he intended to assist in building a regional coalition “to address Iran’s actions”. As the first naval officer to be appointed head of Central Command, his role will obviously not be limited to diplomatic activity. Fallon will preside over a huge US naval buildup in the Persian Gulf, which, for the first time since the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, will include two aircraft carrier groups.

The Jerusalem Post reported that the assault ship, USS Bataan, steamed through the Suez Canal on Tuesday on its way to the Persian Gulf. The seven-vessel battle group includes 2,200 US Marines and sailors, helicopters and Harrier fighter jets. The aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis and its associated warships are due in the region later this month, joining the carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower which is already in the Gulf. In all, Fallon will have around 50 warships as well as hundreds of warplanes at his disposal.

Ominously, an article appeared in the Los Angeles Times yesterday outlining plans for more aggressive patrols by US warplanes along the Iran-Iraq border, ostensibly to counter the smuggling of weapons into Iraq. A senior Pentagon official told the newspaper: “Air power plays major roles, and one of those is as a deterrent, whether it be in border control, air sovereignty or something more kinetic.” As the Times noted, “kinetic” is a term used to denote offensive military action. Whatever the stated purpose, provocative US air patrols close to Iranian air space could quickly escalate into open conflict.

Source: Counter Currents.org (http://www.countercurrents.org/us-symonds020207.htm)

The very fact that Centcom is now being handed to a Navy man indicates a likelihood of conflict.

BLUEJACKET

02-02-2007, 04:08 PM

I agree, and the F-22s will surely be pressed to service. I fund some interesting clues in this article:
..The 27th FS, which in December 2005 became the first operational unit, is today pulling real-world alert as part of an Air and Space Expeditionary Force (AEF) deployment to Kadena AB, Japan. The 27th’s sister squadron, the 94th FS, is at Red Flag exercises in Nevada this month, marking the Raptor’s operational debut in that wargame.
In May, the 94th will also deploy on an AEF rotation. Its destination has not been announced.
Even after using up all eight of their air-to-air missiles,.. the F-22s did not have to leave the fight. The Raptors, protected by their stealthiness, could fly far ahead of the rest of their force, using their powerful onboard sensors to fill in the gaps where AWACS could not see, such as behind mountains. Raptor pilots could talk their non-Raptor colleagues into the vicinity of enemies no one else could spot. The F-22s were acting, in effect, as forward air controllers.
“Being airborne, with our sensors, ... basically increased the combat capability of every single asset that was sitting out there, including the AWACS, including the EA-6Bs,”.. “I’ve had one of my operations officers travel around to the various combatant commands and give a capabilities briefing at the classified level to all their planners, so they know what we can bring to the fight right now—what we can and can’t do.”
The regional commanders have started to “develop us into their war plans. And all the briefings have been very well received,” he said.
“As people become more familiar with the fact that we’re really here, we’re really flying, there will be more demand.” Already, however, he acknowledged that the long-anticipated F-22, with its awesome capabilities, is “right now ... a low-density, high-demand asset.” http://www.afa.org/magazine/feb2007/0207raptor.asp

caksz

02-02-2007, 06:09 PM

WASHINGTON, Feb 1 (Reuters) - U.S. trade officials said on Thursday they are reviewing a lawmaker's request for the United States to cut off free trade talks with Malaysia over a $16 billion energy development deal with Iran.

House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Tom Lantos, a California Democrat, raised concerns over the deal signed last month between Malaysia's SKS and the state-owned National Iranian Oil Company.

"This is a disturbing development that I believe requires swift action by the administration," Lantos said in a letter on Wednesday to U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab.
Reuters Pictures
Photo

Editors Choice: Best pictures
from the last 24 hours.
View Slideshow

"I therefore request that your office formally suspend all FTA (Free Trade Agreement) negotiations with the Government of Malaysia until and unless the Government of Malaysia ensures that the SKS agreement with Iran is canceled," Lantos said.

The Iranian oil company and SKS signed the $16 billion preliminary deal to develop Iran's southern Golshan and Ferdos gas fields and build plants to produce liquefied natural gas, Iranian state television reported on Jan. 7.

Lantos said the deal potentially requires the United States to penalize SKS under the recently expanded Iran Sanctions Act, which calls for steps against companies involved in Iranian energy development.

http://yahoo.reuters.com/news/articlehybrid.aspx?type=comktNews&storyID=urn:newsml:reuters.com:20070201:MTFH60186_ 2007-02-01_18-23-57_N01309327&pageNumber=0&imageid=&cap=&sz=13&WTModLoc=HybArt-C1-ArticlePage2

i guess they use anything possible to weaken the iran :p

alwaysfresh

02-04-2007, 06:14 AM

Trade or energy. Energy is more important than trade. US should not threaten Malaysia because it further breaksdown trust and gives more excusses for Malaysia's government to not follow US interest.

bd popeye

02-05-2007, 09:42 PM

BLUEJACKET

02-05-2007, 10:13 PM

To prosecute Iranian Kilos armed with ASMs, CSGs need their own organic fixed wing ASW.
Iranian Subs Get Cruise Missiles
by James Dunnigan
August 1, 2005
Discussion Board on this DLS topic

Russia will upgrade Iran’s three Kilo class subs, so that they can fire cruise missiles (launched from one of the six torpedo tubes of the Kilos), and be generally more capable. Iran got these subs from Russia between 1992-94. The missile in question is the SS-NX-27 “Club-S,” which is based on the older SS-N-21 cruise missile. The Club-S actually comes in three versions, one for attacking ships, another for land targets and another, with a homing torpedo, for going after submarines. All versions weigh about a ton and are about the same size as a 21 inch (533mm) torpedo. The anti-ship and land attack versions have a range of 220 and 300 kilometers respectively. The anti-sub version has a range of 50 kilometers. In addition to wiring the Iranian Kilos for the new missiles, there will be other upgrades and additions to equipment. http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/200581224649.asp

Vlad Plasmius

02-06-2007, 06:49 PM

To prosecute Iranian Kilos armed with ASMs, CSGs need their own organic fixed wing ASW.

I'm not sure it would be very useful against the anti-ship threat. Though, undoubtedly that's what these are going to be used for. However, can skhval be used by the Kilos? I would assume so. If Iran can produce their own version I wonder if they've managed ot extend its range a little. Shkval could be quite deadly.

Jeff Head

02-06-2007, 07:10 PM

I just notice something about the Air Wing on CVN-74. One of the last S-3 squadrons in the USN is in it's air wing. VS-31. Which is not an west coast S-3 squadron. It is from Jacksonville FL.

http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=42762

Does the USN feel it needs extra sub hunters in the Gulf region????

The Ike CVN-69 does not have an S-3 squadron on board.Very interesting Popeye. That is an outstanding catch!

...can you say Kilos?

...and, if the Vikings are used, and are effective to that end in any operation, my guess is that the S-3s could easily be revitalized. As well they should in any case iMHO.

I'm not sure it would be very useful against the anti-ship threat. Though, undoubtedly that's what these are going to be used for. However, can skhval be used by the Kilos? I would assume so. If Iran can produce their own version I wonder if they've managed ot extend its range a little. Shkval could be quite deadly.I would be very surprised if Shkval could be launched from a Kilo platform...but who knows? A longer ranged, heavier supercavitating weapon is what turns the tide of the naval conflict for the PLAN during a good part of the conflict in my book series.

Finn McCool

02-06-2007, 11:43 PM

Violet Oboe

02-07-2007, 01:38 AM

Putting pressure on countries like Pakistan, India, Malaysia and indeed even China for canceling energy deals with Iran will backfire badly for the interests of the US hegemon since this kind of tactics forces these countries to make zero sum decisions which will hurt their own interests inevitably. Consequently a lot of resentment against the US will be honed in the ruling elites and they will be more and more inclined to partner up with (so perceived) a more benevolent and cooperative hegemon (i.e. China) in the future.

Additionally blocking the development of Iran´s oil and gas reserves is simply stupid because this will only magnify the looming global energy crisis in the coming years. Of course Tehran cannot fetch profits from oil it cannot pump, process or sell (sky high prices although will set off most of these losses!) but the american , european and chinese car owners will suffer dearly from gas they simply will not have in their tanks (apart perhaps from a few gallons for getting to work). The often touted Saudi reserve capacities are a dismal fake and even if they can actually pump 2 m bpd more oil that will not be sufficient to compensate reductions in Iran, Venezuela and probably Iraq. Although some effort was put in from the US to bring oil prices down (Cheney visit to Saudi!) the result is quite meagre (currently oil hovers around 60$ per b) and in the long run prices will only go up since demand is exploding (China, India) and peak oil (50%/50%) will be reached around 2015/17 the latest.

BLUEJACKET

02-08-2007, 05:19 PM

Evidence continues to accumulate that the Bush/Cheney Administration is planning an air and naval war against Iran in spite of a rising chorus of protests by serving and retired senior US military officers and diplomats.

The heaviest concentration of US naval strike forces since the 2003 war against Iraq is concentrating off Iran. In a disturbing replay of that conflict, CIA drones and US Air Force recon aircraft, along with US and British Special Forces are overflying Iran and probing its nuclear and military installations.

CIA and Britain’s MI6 are stirring unrest among Iran’s Kurds and Azerbaijanis, and arming Iranian Marxist and royalist exiles.

In a clear provocation, President George Bush ordered US forces in Iraq to “kill” Iranians officials or diplomats who appear “threatening.” US troops in northern Iraq broke into an Iranian liaison office and arrested its military staff. Bush warned Iran not to “meddle” in neighboring Iraq.

Pentagon sources accused Iran of smuggling weapons and explosive to “Iraqi insurgents” – though the “insurgents” are in fact Shia militiamen allied to the US-installed Baghdad regime. Accusations that Iran is behind attacks on US forces are clearly designed to lay the groundwork for a “casus belli” – justifying war.

Half the 21,000 additional US troops headed to Iraq may be positioned to block an Iranian threat to the vulnerable main US Kuwait-Baghdad supply line in the event of war with Iran. US anti-aircraft and anti-missile batteries are being airlifted to Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, and Oman.

New contingents of US Air Force personnel and warplanes are arriving at key forward air bases in Bulgaria and Romania that link the US to the Mideast and Central Asia. US bases in Britain, Germany, Diego Garcia, the Gulf, Central Asia, and Pakistan are reported on heightened alert. Turkey is being pressed to allow US and Israeli strike aircraft to use its air space to attack northern Iran.

The Pentagon’s latest strike plan against Iran includes over 2,300 “high value” targets such as its dispersed nuclear infrastructure and, worryingly, operating reactors, air and naval bases, ports, telecommunications, air defenses, military factories, energy networks, and government buildings. Iran’s water and sewage systems, bridges, food storage, and bomb shelters could also be targeted, as were Iraq’s in 2001.

A swift “surgical strike” is not likely. Given the large number of potential targets in Iran, and its efforts to defend and disperse some of the high value ones; it is very probable the US would have to launch multiple air and missile strikes against many of them to assure destruction. Iranian ground forces moving toward Iraq and Kuwait would also come under repeated attack, along with their long-ranged artillery and mobile tactical missiles.

The US Treasury has mounted a highly effective campaign to strangle Iran financially, seriously hurting its foreign banking connections, retarding industrial growth and energy production, and scaring off foreign investment.

The Bush Administration and close ally Israel have sharply intensified their war of words against Iran, claiming, implausibly, it poses a nuclear threat to the entire world, though Tehran has no nuclear weapons or long-range delivery systems. Nor do Washington’s fear-mongering neoconservatives explain why on earth Iran would want to threaten the rest of the world – even if it could.

The real neocon objective, of course, is not to rid the world of a potential threat, but to get America into attacking and seriously damaging the nation now regarded as Israel’s primary foe, Iran. With Egypt sidelined and under tight US control, Iraq demolished and occupied, Syria isolated and petrified, only Iran remains a threat to Israel and seriously challenges its continued occupation of Jerusalem and the West Bank.

Politicians in Israel are in dangerous emotional overdrive and make open threats to attack Iran – even with nuclear weapons. Israeli rightists and their American supporters absurdly claim Iran is a new Nazi Germany and Israel faces a second Holocaust.

The fact that Israel possesses a powerful triad of air, land, and sea-based nuclear forces that can survive any surprise attack is never mentioned. At any given time, Israel has at least one Dolphin-class submarine on station in the northern Arabian Sea that can hit Iran with nuclear-armed cruise missiles.

Though UN inspectors find no evidence Iran is producing nuclear weapons, Tehran, like Saddam’s Iraq, is being told to prove an impossible negative – that it has no nuclear weapons or secret programs hidden away. Ironically, there are persistent reports that Iran’s nuclear program is moving at a snail’s pace and has encountered serious technical problems.

With disturbing déjà vu, the US Congress and American media are swallowing the administration’s torrent of unproven accusations against Iran precisely the way they lapped up grotesque White House lies about Iraq.

Amid growing war fever in North America, last week France’s President Jacques Chirac sensibly observed, in an off the record interview, that even if Iran had a few nuclear weapons, they would be only for self-defense, and “not very dangerous.”

Iran would be obliterated by US and Israeli nuclear counter-strikes if it ever used its nukes against Israel, noted Chirac with Cartesian logic, and are unlikely to commit national suicide.

After his candid comments became public, Chirac retracted them after a storm of protests from Washington, Israel, and even members of his own government who toe the US party line that Iran is a grave threat to world security. Chirac, who is a lame duck, was simply telling a truth that few cared to hear.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis67.html

Norquist: Bush’s Advisers Telling Him ‘Invade Iran. Then Everyone Will See How Smart We Are’ (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/07/unger-article/)

Iran says it will target U.S. interests if attacked (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070208/ts_nm/iran_nuclear_dc&printer=1;_ylt=AgBWwwZSIuG68OhhIr4Hla1g.3QA)
Iran said it had successfully test-fired a land-to-sea missile with a range of 350km (220 miles).
Tehran said it had also tested a new Russian-made air defence system.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6342313.stm

What missile are we talking about here?

bd popeye

02-08-2007, 05:36 PM

BLUEJACKET I have to challange you on that article you posted. You need to post a link. Honestly that article sounds like someones blog. It is based on pure war jitters over new deployments and re-positioning of forces. Honestly, The recent deployment of CVN-74 does seem out of the ordinary.

That link at the bottom of the article does not take you to the article you posted.

Thanks.

BLUEJACKET

02-08-2007, 05:46 PM

I just checked-those links work OK. I spaced them all out.

TEHRAN SHOOTS FOR THE STARS
After months of preparation, Iran is poised to launch its first satellite into space. Aviation Week & Space Technology (January 25) reports that the Iranian regime will soon use a “space launcher” – commonly assumed to be a variant of Iran’s “Shahab-3” medium-range missile – to carry a satellite into space in a demonstration of political and technological prowess. The test is worrying to U.S. officials, since the launch vehicle could serve as a precursor to the creation of an Iranian intercontinental ballistic missile capability. Moreover, Aviation Week notes, a successful Iranian satellite launch would be a “potent political and emotional weapon in the Middle East,” sending “a powerful message throughout the Muslim world about [the power of] the Shi’ite regime in Tehran.”

SYRIA TESTS SCUD CAPABILITIES
Iran’s missile plans are being echoed in other parts of the Middle East. According to the Jerusalem Post (February 1), the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria has field-tested its Scud D, a missile which is “capable of hitting any point in Israel.” The Syrian test appears to have been a duplicate of the country’s failed 2005 Scud trial. The 435-mile range missile was reportedly fired in northeastern Syria in late January in what Israeli intelligence officials have termed a “successful test.”
from Missile Defense Briefing Report No. 216, February 8, 2007 (http://www.afpc.org/mdbr/mdbr216.shtml)

A US sea-change over Iran (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IB08Ak06.html)Outside of an imminent strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, or a possible Iranian attack on US forces in Iraq or other allies in the region, the appointment of a navy admiral to head up CentCom is hard to square. CentCom oversees US military operations in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and has traditionally been commanded by army or Marine Corps generals well versed in ground warfare. Unlike outgoing CentCom chief army General John Abizaid, Fallon has never commanded US forces fighting a guerrilla insurgency such the one being played out in cities across Iraq.
However, analysts say his experience with carrier-borne air strikes makes him ideally suited to coordinate a possible move on Iran.

100 US, Israel spies found: Iran (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21194222-5005961,00.html)

In aborting Iran's nuclear program, "all options are on the table."
Some version of this threat against Iran has lately been made by John McCain, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Mitt Romney.
Yet, if an attack on Iran (http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=10493)is among "options ... on the table," who put it there? Who gave President Bush the authority to attack Iran? And when was it granted? And are all options also "on the table" if North Korea continues to test nuclear weapons?
What makes these questions other than academic is that Bush is putting in place military assets that will enable him to order and effect the rapid nuclear castration of Iran. But scarcely a peep of protest has been heard from our congressional leadership.
Observers have noted the dispatch of minesweepers and another U.S. carrier to the Persian Gulf, the naming of Admiral Bill "Fox" Fallon to head CentCom, which today manages two ground wars, and the return of U.S. fighter-bombers to Turkey.

Bush Iraq strategy shifts toward containing Iran (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070204/pl_afp/usiraniraqdiplomacy_070204175952)

Since President Bush’s State of the Union address last Tuesday, the White House has manufactured a crisis that pits the United States against Iran. In what looks like the military and diplomatic equivalent of a full court press, Washington has unleashed a barrage of threats (http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/02/01/bushs_trash_talk_about_iran.php), maneuvers and limited military actions that seem calculated to set the United States on a collision course with Iran in Iraq and the Persian Gulf. All in all, it is an exceedingly risky and dangerous gambit.
Even if the intent is not to create a shooting war between the two countries, one false move by radicals on either side could ignite exactly that, whether by hardliners in Iran seeking to cement their influence as the rising, hegemonic power in the Gulf or by frustrated U.S. neoconservatives desperate to prevent the final collapse of their misadventure in Iraq by expanding that war to include Iran, and perhaps Syria.

We might even lose an aircraft carrier. Bush's plan may be to provoke Iran to attack first by putting ships in harm's way in the narrow Gulf. He may be thinking that after such an attack he would have all Americans behind him in retaliating against Iran (http://www.antiwar.com/utley/?articleid=10477).- The Kitty Hawk (CV-63) is a good candidate as it's slated for decom. next year. Why not let Iran "decomission" it, ahead of schedule, thus killing 2 birds with one stone?
Hillary Clinton calls Iran a threat to U.S., Israel (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/02/america/NA-GEN-US-Clinton-Iran.php)

Over the Cliff with George and Dick? (http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=164164)

Iran's war games and warnings (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4ab48d6357)

IRGC test fires sun-burn anti ship missiles in Persian Gulf (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=31412011af)

Footage of the Iranian light fighter, Saeghe-2 (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e7b0253e0d)

See my post #50 for some interesting quotes here (http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=2902&page=4).

Vlad Plasmius

02-10-2007, 12:24 AM

crazyinsane105

02-10-2007, 12:50 AM

I had heard that the Persian Gulf's reefs would make it difficult for the U.S. to conduct ASW and for Iran to do any anti-shipping missions. Is that true and if so, does anyone think Iran or the U.S. has a way around it? Would the same conditions exist in the Gulf of Oman?

Actually, if Iran plays its cards correctly, it would be able to do anti-shipping missions with its Kilos quite well. Since the Persian Gulf is very shallow, US ASW sonars will have an extremely hard time trying to pick up anything in the water since the sonars will be bouncing around everywhere and giving false signs and what not. A member on PDF called Penguin pretty much explained it in great detail about a year ago (that guy is an expert when it comes to naval warfare matters). And the Iranian Kilos won't have an extremely hard time since they would probably know the rough location of the US aicraft carrier battle groups. Above that, will anti-ship missiles with ranges over 100 km, those Kilos can be very dangerous.

BLUEJACKET

02-11-2007, 06:37 PM

New articles leave no doubt: escalation of the war of words is underway!

U.S. military: Iran arming Iraq militias
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070211/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq&printer=1;_ylt=Alb5.1ms_ZXjH8YAG59OV0EUewgF

Target Iran: US able to strike in the spring
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,329712014-111322,00.html

U.S.: Top Iran officials ordering bombs to Iraq
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17097658/

‘US fabricating evidence against Iran’
http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Display_news.asp?section=World_News&subsection=Gulf%2C+Middle+East+%26+Africa&month=February2007&file=World_News2007021114048.xml

It is No Use Blaming Iran for the Insurgency in Iraq
http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/views07/0207-26.htm

NYT Falls for Bogus Iran Weapons Charges
Completely Implausible Numbers are Thrown Around
Repeat of Judy Miller Scandal

This NYT article (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/10/world/middleeast/10weapons.html?hp&ex=1171170000&en=e9a9ae56cb1df98a&ei=5094&partner=homepage)depends on unnamed USG sources who alleged that 25 percent of US military deaths and woundings in Iraq in October-December of 2006 were from explosively formed penetrator bombs fashioned in Iran and given to Shiite militias:

' In the last three months of 2006, attacks using the weapons accounted for a significant portion of Americans killed and wounded in Iraq, though less than a quarter of the total, military officials say.'

This claim is one hundred percent wrong. Because 25 percent of US troops were not killed fighting Shiites in those three months. Day after day, the casualty reports specify al-Anbar Province or Diyala or Salahuddin or Babil, or Baghdad districts such as al-Dura, Ghaziliyah, Amiriyah, etc.--and the enemy fighting is clearly Sunni Arab guerrillas. And, Iran is not giving high tech weapons to Baathists and Salafi Shiite-killers. It is true that some casualties were in "East Baghdad" and that Baghdad is beginning to rival al-Anbar as a cemetery for US troops:

Robert Burns of AP observes,

"The increasingly urban nature of the war is reflected in the fact that a higher percentage of U.S. deaths have been in Baghdad lately. Over the course of the war through Feb. 6, at least 1,142 U.S. troops have died in Anbar province, the heart of the Sunni Arab insurgency, according to an AP count. That compares with 713 in Baghdad. But since Dec. 28, 2006, there were more in Baghdad than in Anbar - 33 to 31."

Over all, only a fourth of US troops had been killed Baghdad (713 or 23.7 percent of about 3000) through the end of 2006. But US troops aren't fighting Shiites anyplace else-- Ninevah, Diyala, Salahuddin--these are all Sunni areas. For a fourth of US troops to be being killed or wounded by Shiite EFPs, all of the Baghdad deaths would have to be at the hands of Shiites!

The US military often does not announce exactly where in Baghdad a GI is killed and so I found it impossible to do a count of Sunni versus Shiite neighborhoods. But we know that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki was running interference for the Mahdi Army last fall, and it seems unlikely to me that very many US troops died fighting Shiites in Baghdad. The math of Gordon's article does not add up at all if this were Shiite uses of Iran-provided EFPs.

So the unnamed sources at the Pentagon are reduced to implying that Iran is giving sophisticated bombs to its sworn enemies and the very groups that are killing its Shiite Iraqi allies every day. Get real!

Moreover, there is no evidence of Iranian intentions to kill US troops. If Iran was giving EFPs to anyone, it was to the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq and its Badr Corps paramilitary, for future use. SCIRI is the main US ally in Iraq aside from the Kurds. I don't know of US troops killed by Badr, certainly not any time recently.

It is far more likely that corrupt arms merchants are selling and smuggling these things than that there is direct government- to- militia transfer. It is possible that small Badr Corps stockpiles were shared or sold. That wouldn't have been Iran's fault.

Some large proportion of US troops being killed in Iraq are being killed with bullets and weapons supplied by Washington to the Iraqi army, which are then sold by desperate or greedy Iraqi soldiers on the black market. This problem of US/Iraqi government arms getting into the hands of the Sunni Arab guerrillas is far more significant and pressing than whatever arms smugglers bring in from Iran.

We now know that Iran came to the US early in 2003 with a proposal to cooperate with Washington in overthrowing Saddam Hussein, and that VP Richard Bruce Cheney rebuffed it. The US could have had Iran on its side in Iraq!

The attempt to blame these US deaths on Iran is in my view a black psy-ops operation. The claim is framed as though this was a matter of direct Iranian government transfer to the deadliest guerrillas. In fact, the most fractious Shiites are the ones who hate Iran the most. If 25 percent of US troops are being killed and wounded by explosively formed projectiles, then someone should look into who is giving those EFPs to Sunni Arab guerrillas. It isn't Iran.

Finally, it is obvious that if Iran did not exist, US troops would still be being blown up in large numbers. Sunni guerrillas in al-Anbar and West Baghdad are responsible for most of the deaths. The Bush administration's talent for blaming everyone but itself for its own screw-ups is on clear display here. http://www.juancole.com/

The_Zergling

02-11-2007, 07:35 PM

Nice catch, Bluejacket. It's interesting (and disappointing) how utterly predictable most of the US media is. At least the LA Times redeemed it some...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraniraq23jan23,0,4316481.story

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran3feb03,0,2695314.story

They are both articles calling out claims by the US that Iran is supplying Iraq with weapons in an attempt to instigate war. Recently it seemed as if the media was treating war-mongering claims of Bush against Iran somewhat skeptically, refusing to simply repeat accusations without conducting an investigation to determine validity of claims.

Unfortunately the NY Times did the exact opposite with the article noted by Bluejacket. In it, Michael Gordon literally does nothing but mindlessly recite administration claims regarding Iran's weapon-supplying activity without the slightest questioning, investigation, or any attempt to present ample counter-evidence. He starts the article with this:

The most lethal weapon directed against American troops in Iraq is an explosive-packed cylinder that United States intelligence asserts is being supplied by Iran.

Is this extremely provocative claim even true? Gordon never says, and in fact he it appears that he doesn't even care. This is extremely irresponsible journalism, and especially worthy of notice because it eerily parallels media acquiescence to administration leading up to the Iraq invasion. Like it or not, the media plays a strong role in shaping public perception about the war, and this is just playing into the administration's hands.

If I may be a bit presumptuous, we don't want to see a war in the Middle East against Iran.

bd popeye

02-11-2007, 07:47 PM

"Z" sez;
Nice catch, Bluejacket. It's interesting (and disappointing) how utterly predictable most of the US media is. At least the LA Times redeemed it some...

It's like watching a magician pull the same stinkin' rabbit out of his hat time and time again...How predictable..I forecasted this type situation in another thread.

http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showpost.php?p=55695&postcount=47

So very true. Look for some sort of "evidence" from the Bush adminstratiion to surface before any attack on Iran is authorized. You can count on that.

And

http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showpost.php?p=55699&postcount=49

So sorry BJ if you did not understand. I feel that if necessary the administration would "manufacture" or "enhance" some sort of evidence as justification for attack on Iraq. Some may be real. some may be contrived.

Listen to US DoD Sec Defense R Gates. He's been beating is Iran War drum since he took for from Rumsfield.

The Bush regime has something up their sleeves..and it's not a rabbit.

"Z" also sez;
If I may be a bit presumptuous, we don't want to see a war in the Middle East against Iran.

You know what guys..as I said many times in the past..War Sucks...

Vlad Plasmius

02-11-2007, 09:11 PM

Actually, if Iran plays its cards correctly, it would be able to do anti-shipping missions with its Kilos quite well. Since the Persian Gulf is very shallow, US ASW sonars will have an extremely hard time trying to pick up anything in the water since the sonars will be bouncing around everywhere and giving false signs and what not. A member on PDF called Penguin pretty much explained it in great detail about a year ago (that guy is an expert when it comes to naval warfare matters). And the Iranian Kilos won't have an extremely hard time since they would probably know the rough location of the US aicraft carrier battle groups. Above that, will anti-ship missiles with ranges over 100 km, those Kilos can be very dangerous.

So then, are the U.S. carriers actually deployed in the Persian Gulf or are they operating in the Gulf of Oman or Arabian Sea?

It is something that has confused me.

Here's another announcement by Iran of a new weapon:

The commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guards on Sunday claimed the Iranian military had developed "suicide drones capable of striking at U.S. naval ships to force them to leave the Persian Gulf.

Ali Shoushtari, deputy commander of the Revolutionary Guard's land forces told the semi-official Mehr news agency, "We have built birds without passengers [drones] that can carry out suicide operations on the U.S. Navy, at any depth if necessary, to make them leave the region in disgrace."

He warns of "defeat for the enemy," and added, "Americans know that if they confront the Islamic system, they will not be secure in the region or at home."

Source: All Headline News (http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7006429893)

Violet Oboe

02-12-2007, 02:49 AM

Creating a new ´Tongking incident´ would indeed relieve Bush jr. of some headaches but engineering a plausible and significant provocation is easier said than done. Of course the Iranian Navy and her Pasdaran naval arm counterparts have strict order to show utmost restraint against USN forces ensuring that they will fire only for purpose of direct selfdefense.

May be that Admiral Fallon has got order by the White House to fire first in the Gulf if an ´imminent threat´ has to be removed but my own bet is that more and more ´iranian terrorists´are killed and taken prisoner in Iraq in the next few weeks and that in late March/early April the first combined search and destroy operations (+ air strikes) in hot pursuit of alleged Pasdaran commandos into iranian territory will be carried out. Of course Tehran will retaliate and voila: Bush jr. has gotten what he ever wanted!

I hope earnestly that my speculation is wrong since the resulting war would be devastating for the whole region and just looking at the daily iraqi horror (want to vomit instantly: check out some of the prolific pics from iraqi hospitals on the net! Well this kind of ´entertainment´corporate media including CNN and interestingly also al-jazeera would certainly show never on their sanitized screens!) is sufficient for predicting a far worse carnage if Iran is attacked (US casualties would be also ´surprisingly´ high).

As bd popeye has said: war sucks!

FuManChu

02-12-2007, 06:15 AM

Creating a new ´Tongking incident´ would indeed relieve Bush jr. of some headaches but engineering a plausible and significant provocation is easier said than done.

War with Iran wouldn't help him at all - the American public doesn't want another pointless war right now.

Of course the Iranian Navy and her Pasdaran naval arm counterparts have strict order to show utmost restraint against USN forces ensuring that they will fire only for purpose of direct selfdefense.

You know this how? Are you a member of the Iranian military command? Who knows what they will do.

Of course Tehran will retaliate and voila: Bush jr. has gotten what he ever wanted!

I think that's a rather underhand comment to make. There's no evidence Bush wants a war with Iran.

alwaysfresh

02-12-2007, 08:30 AM

There's no evidence Bush wants a war with Iran.

There is alot of Troop build up in Iraq and around the area. Israel is calling for the war just like they called for the Iraq war.

If there is no evidence to link Iraq to Iran or a nuclear threat, Bush will create the threat and the evidence. Actions speak louder than words. Look at Iraq's WMD.

I think Iran would have learned alot from watching the Iraq war. I wouldn't be surprised if Iran's submarines end up near the shores of the United States of America. Cause I think that would end the war. If Iran fired some missiles directly at the US, the public would go crazy and look for justification for the war. That is just my opinion and guess.

lcortez

02-12-2007, 09:10 AM

Dont believe Israel is calling for the war,as they will def be in the line of fire and will find themselves fighting a war on at least two fronts against both Iran and Hezbollah,and possibly three fronts.Judging by the fallout over the poor performance against Hezbollah last year,an the fact that their Arrow ABM shield is not yet operational, I believe it in Israel interests to delay for a while.However if conflict starts sooner I believe Israel will be involved as they will be hit anyway!
Dont think Iranian subs will it US mainland, as this will lead Irans total destruction if large numbers of US civilians lose their lives!Any such action will most likely be terrorist related with al qaeda and others taking advantage of the situation,This would also give Iran of some deniability.

FuManChu

02-12-2007, 10:16 AM

There is alot of Troop build up in Iraq and around the area.

Have you forgotten about the very "small" matter of the insurgency? You're mad if you believe it's a prelude to an attack on Iran.

Israel is calling for the war just like they called for the Iraq war.

Where did Israel call for a war with Iran?

If there is no evidence to link Iraq to Iran or a nuclear threat, Bush will create the threat and the evidence. Actions speak louder than words. Look at Iraq's WMD.

Except there is no good reason for the US to get involved in a war it would find very difficult, if not impossible, to win. It was fairly easy to beat Saddam, but the US knows Iran would be a completely different matter. And it could only contemplate war with Iran if it were able to sufficiently stabilise Iraq - which isn't going to happen anytime soon.

I wouldn't be surprised if Iran's submarines end up near the shores of the United States of America.

I would be.

BLUEJACKET

02-12-2007, 12:54 PM

Some good critical thinking here! If only more Westerners would be willing to examine the media brainwashing- alas, if they are told lies many times it is being accepted as the whole truth- which, by the way, is the 1st casualty of war! There is a Japanese proverb that goes like this: You tell me once, I trust you; tell me twice, I doubt you; tell me 3 times, I don't believe you. "The US doesn't plan a war with Iran", etc.
Patrick Cockburn pokes holes in the US Department of Defense's Sunday briefing blaming Iran for all the US troops killed in Iraq by sophisticated shaped charges. (http://www.hamiltonspectator.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=hamilton/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1171234212724&call_pageid=1020420665036&col=1112101662670)

My own take on the issue: isn't it much more likely that most shaped charges are smuggled in or made by Sunni Arab guerrillas, and that the DoD is leaping to the conclusion from a handful of Iranian ones that all are Iranian supplied? It isn't plausible that something could be made in Tehran but not in a workshop in Baghdad; Iraq is an advanced society. And, how much is left from one of those charges afterwards, that you could tell where it came from? This is the same US military that mistakenly attacked a Shiite Husayniya (mourning hall for the martyred grandson of the Prophet) as a death squad safe house, and then announced that they did not know if it was a Sunni or Shiite edifice. They also apparently don't necessarily know whether they are in Sunni or Shiite neighborhoods in Baghdad, or how to judge the likelihood that a shaped charge was set by a Sunni Arab guerrilla as opposed to the Shiite militias. I.e. it isn't necessary to deny that some Iranian weapons are getting in to conclude that they are a tiny proportion of the problem.
And, of course, if US troops weren't in Iraq, they wouldn't be being killed by anyone's shaped charges. http://www.juancole.com/

Tehran fires Tor-M1
http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jdw/jdw070209_1_n.shtml

US shrugs off Iran's revolutionary spirit
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IB13Ak02.html

bd popeye

02-12-2007, 01:30 PM

alwaysfresh sez;
I wouldn't be surprised if Iran's submarines end up near the shores of the United States of America. Cause I think that would end the war. If Iran fired some missiles directly at the US, the public would go crazy and look for justification for the war. That is just my opinion and guess.

I doubt seriously that Iran could operate their subs out of the Persian Gulf. They do not have the logistics to do so.

So, always fresh, what gives you the idea that Iran could attack the US with missiles in the manner you described?

Neutral Zone

02-12-2007, 01:44 PM

Israel's Arrow ABM was mentioned above, seems they're trying to find out how it would perform against Iran's MRBM's

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6352659.stm

Israeli missile test 'successful'

Israel has carried out a successful test of its Arrow missile, the defence ministry has said.
One of the missiles was fired at night and destroyed what Israeli media said was a target similar to Iran's long-range Shahab-3 missile.

The test took place as Iran celebrated the 28th anniversary of its Islamic revolution.

Israel has considered Iran its greatest threat since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq in 2003, analysts say.

'Message to Iran'

"This evening's successful test reinforces Israel's readiness... against external threats at the extremes of its operational envelope," said Israeli Defence Minister Amir Peretz.

The Arrow missile was fired from a base south of Tel Aviv at a missile launched from an aircraft over the eastern Mediterranean at a high altitude.

This was the first test of the Arrow missile to be conducted at night.

Israeli public television called the test a "message to Iran".

The anti-ballistic missile system was developed jointly with the United States after Israel came under attack by Iraqi Scud missiles during the first Gulf War.

Some Western nations, including Israel, fear Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons.

Iran says its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes only.

So was this a long pre-planned test or do the Israeli's know that it's going to kick off soon and are making sure that Arrow is up to the job?

Aliph Ahmed

02-12-2007, 03:02 PM

Repeated salvo attacks with an interval time of 12 minutes inbetween. I doubt Arrow will prove to be that sucessfull as Israelis would like to believe it would be.

All depends on how many Shahabs will be left ready to fly after the initial onslaught.

A nuclear Iran is simple inevitable and as Chirac said, If they have one or two is better then they walking out of NPT and start prolifirating.

lcortez

02-12-2007, 04:14 PM

Not sure I much care for the idea of a nuclear armed Iran,as there is a strong chance they will proliferate wether they are in the NPT or not. President Ahmadinijad has publicaly stated he would like to wipe Israel of the map,and a statesman who behaves like that simply cannot be trusted!
Combine this with their known sponsorship of Hezbollah,and a nuclear armed Iran is a recipe for disaster in the Middle East and beyond!

Scratch

02-12-2007, 04:30 PM

That Israel issue is an interesting point. If read an article (perhaps even on this forum?) that farsi linguists think he said "the Jerusalem Regime must diminish from the earth". This doesn't even necessarily implay the use of force.
The critical point was already NK (or even India and Pakistan), they got their weapon, now it's becoming ever more complicated to intervene with every new state getting one.
At the Munic security conference I think Larijani offered Iran could suspend uranium enrichment if Iran is guaranteed a secure supply of nuclear material. However, he said Iran lost trust in western states to stand to that treaty.
Something that can't be denied is that Iran has the right for nuclear energy and that other states wich have it already have to provide support by treaty.
You can temporarily withhold it by pointing on current circumstances, and A's statements are of course crucial. But you should not just say Iran shall not have a nuclear energy capability.
On the other hand if a country develops nukes agaist treaties you probably find justification for military actions. But again credibility was already lost by not acting on NK, or even India and Pakistan. There were not even other lasting consequences. Just because India is a democracy and Pakistan allowed a counter for stability? As I said, not credible.

Well, I now hope I didn't get too far with that ..., sorry if so