It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Signs of War in Summer 2006

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 10:57 PM
link   
Prior to the USS Cole incident, the US Navy used to be very forthcoming about ship deployments. After 9/11, the US Navy was very secretive about deployments. Interestingly enough, over the past couple years the Navy has begun talking about deployments again, and last summer, oh about the time that Iran starting talking tough, the US Navy started talking about their Navy deployments in detail. For the most part, few have commented on the trend, but as a researcher, I have noticed.

People keep seeing signs, and think the US is about to attack Iran. I think they are reading the signs wrong. There are two attacks coming, first is Al Qaeda against the US, and the second is potentially an Israeli against Iran.

Did you catch this?


Oman has agreed to give landing rights and parking facilities to Israeli warplanes


Sourced: www.newsinsight.net...

What about this?



Israeli special forces are working in Iran to locate the precise sites at which Iran continues to enrich uranium, a British newspaper reported Sunday.


Sourced: www.jpost.com...

And not to be outdone, this came out last week.



The level of "chatter" by al Qaeda operatives is currently as high or higher than in the months prior to 9-11, and the question in many parts of the U.S. and European intelligence communities is not if al Qaeda will strike again, but when. Much of the thinking centers on the near-term. This is also reflected in current corporate security alerts being circulated among elite business establishments.


Sourced: counterterror.typepad.com...

Want to check it yourself? No problem, most amateurs don't know who, what, where, or how to monitor Al Qaeda online, so pick your poison depending upon language.

internet-haganah.co.il...

Everyone who keeps saying 'soon' is right. Israel has 3 opportunities they may or may not choose to take this year, with the first coming in June, the second comes in July, and the third in August. The thing is, Israel may not warn the US when they are going to strike, but they will do it when they know the US is ready for it.

The USS Enterprise Strike Group is set to deploy in April to assume responsibility of the Persian Gulf region. They will maintain presence until relieved by the USS Eisenhower, scheduled to deploy in late summer/early fall. The US Navy operates a carrier in the Gulf near Bahrain, and has since 2003 when the USAF removed all combat aircraft from Saudi Arabia. It is by far the most dangerous place for a carrier to operate in the world due to shallow waters and limited maneuverability.

In June, the USS Kitty Hawk, USS Reagan, and USS Lincoln will be holding a 3 carrier exercise in the Pacific. It is the last exercise that will be held for the Reagan on its maiden 6 month tour.

In July, at least two carriers will participate in "Pacific Rim" this year, most likely the Lincoln, but probably not the USS Reagan or USS Kitty Hawk. "Pacific Rim" is a large multi-national naval maneuvers held near the Hawaiian Islands every two years. Ships from Australia, Chile, Japan, South Korea, Peru and perhaps other nations will take part.

But in August... The US Navy is holding a very large carrier operation in the Pacific. It will include 3 West Coast carriers and an East Coast Carrier, which will mark the first time an East Coast carrier has operated in the Pacific since Vietnam. I think it is interesting to note that in August, the US will have 5 West Coast Carriers; the USS Kitty Hawk, USS Nimitz, USS Lincoln, USS Stennis, and USS Reagan available, with 3 scheduled to be at sea, AND 4 East Coast carriers; the USS Enterprise, USS George Washington, USS Eisenhower, and USS Roosevelt all available at the same time with 2 at sea, with the Kennedy being shut down, the Truman getting its 10 month dry dock, and the Vinson getting its 3 year overhaul, can anyone remember the last time the US Navy would have 9 carriers certified for operations at the same time? The answer is, it has not happened since before the Korean War.

The idea is, Israel attacks using air strikes utilizing facilities in Oman to support refueling for the strikes. The expectation is, as soon as Israel attacks, they don't follow up, and let the rest take its coarse. The expectation is that Iran would lash out by attempting to shut down the Gulf, and go after the ships in the Gulf. Israel then refocuses on Syria, if a backlash comes, it will come from that direction. No one will argue Israel's right to defend itself from Syria, so Israel will get a free shot if Syria makes the wrong move.

The key is the flashback. The Naval ships in the Gulf this summer are going to be disproportional favoring allies, not US. There are 3 Task Forces assigned to the 5th fleet of operations.

Combined Task Force 58 is in the northern Persian Gulf protecting Iraqi oil terminals, and will be led by the British followed by Singapore into the summer, both countries using an LPD as a flagship. The US CG that supports the ESG in the region is almost always there for force protection, additional assets this summer will come from the UK and Australia.

Combined Task Force 152 patrols the central and southern Persian Gulf. This Task Force is usually built upon components of the 5th fleet assets based in Bahrain, the Carrier Strike Group in the area of operations (this summer it will be the USS Enterprise), and usually the '___' that is apart of the ESG assigned to the Gulf Region. CTF 152 is a US only task force.

Combined Task Force 150 patrols the Gulf of Oman, North Arabian Sea, parts of the Indian Ocean, the Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea. The US has been the largest contributor of this task force since last summer until about 2 weeks ago, when the French Carrier Charles De Gaulle, from French Task Force 473 arrived for a 3 month tour. The US assets this summer will only be elements of the ESG in the region, and 2 other warships deployed towards Africa.

The French Task Force 473 3 month tour, of all things, puts the Charles De Gaulle IN the Persian Gulf in June, around the same time as the first US exercise in the Pacific, in an exercise with the Saudi Navy. Interestingly enough, the Charles De Gaulle is escorted by 3 French warships, and 1 UK Frigate.

Over the summer, the Netherlands, France, UK, Germany, Spain, Pakistan, and Greece will be contributing the majority of Naval assets to Combined Task Force 150 between early June until late August.

This means, if Israel attacks in June, and Iran lashes out in the Gulf, the biggest most obvious target in the Gulf will be the French Carrier Charles De Gaulle.

If Israel attacks in July or August, and Iran lashes out in the Gulf, the biggest most obvious target in the Gulf will be the USS Enterprise.

During any period this summer if Israel attacks and Iran lashes out to the Arabian Sea, the targets will almost certainly be European or Pakistani.

Keep in mind, that at the current 'take it slow' pace of the United Nations Security Council, it is unlikely any vote will take place until June, which ironically enough, is the month that Denmark (you can't make this up) will be the president of the Security Council.

And people think the cartoon controversy doesn't mean anything...

You see, Israel's plan works perfectly if they do 1 strike and Iran lashes out in the Gulf. Think about the possibilities. If Iran attacks the Charles De Gaulle or USS Enterprise without doing any damage, Iran becomes an enormous embarrassment to the entire Middle East, then gets the crap kicked out of them for trying.

BUT, what if Iran attacks the Charles De Gaulle or the USS Enterprise and does significant damage? What will France's reaction be if the Charles De Gaulle becomes an underwater grave in the Persian Gulf? What about Europe, or NATO? What will the reaction in the United States be if the USS Enterprise is sunk? If Iran does what Japan never could do, sink the USS Enterprise, can anyone imagine the outrage? Not only will the star trek lovers be demanding blood, but environmentalist are going to fit to be tied considering a nuclear powered ship just sank in the Persian Gulf. I've been to peace rally's, some people actually wear trek gear to those rallies as daily attire, how many are going to protest for peace when the Enterprise sinks? Never mind the potential for 5,000+ deaths.

If it doesn't happen this summer, it won't happen this year. There is an old saying; “Armatures talk strategy, while Professionals talk logistics.” That applies to why the US won't start a war with Iran in 2006.

There are several very valid logistical military reasons why the US won't strike, and they are regarding military equipment availability, including software updates to Patriot Batteries for allies in the Gulf region, the availability of unmanned mine hunting UUVs, and the completion of Virginia class SSNs and Ohio class SSGNs currently completing work in the yards.

After all, with the Ohio SSGNs in 2007, the US can launch as many cruise missiles as they used the entire OIF from underwater stealth platforms Iran can't even detect, allowing the surface fleet to overload Standards for defense instead of carrying Tomahawks for strike. Since the closest port to reload surface fleet VLS is either in Europe, Australia, or Guam, it makes a huge difference to the US fighting a war from the sea in the Gulf.




posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 11:08 PM
link   
I have suspected as much about Israel ever since the remarks of Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defence Forces, Lieutenant General Dan Halutz

When he was asked how far Israel was ready to go to stop Iran's nuclear project by the press he said "2,000 kilometres." This is the distance between Iran nuclear sites and Israel

Thats pretty clear

Its not like Israel wasnt done this type of stuff before.



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 01:19 AM
link   
I wish I could say it was my own idea, but the war games have been simulated in a number of places, from the Naval War College to China or Russia.

Paul Levian, a former German intelligence officer, has written about the war game scenario and conclusions that both China and Russia did. Although most of the details are not available publically online, he recently generically covered it in an article he wrote for the Asia Times.



The somewhat standard scenario for this war - as indicated by Chinese and Russian war games - has the following features:

An initial Israeli air attack against some Iranian nuclear targets, command and control targets and Shahab missile sites. Iran retaliates with its remaining missiles, tries to close the Gulf, attacks US naval assets and American and British forces in Iraq. If Iranian missiles have chemical warheads (in fact or presumed), the US will immediately use nuclear weapons to destroy the Iranian military and industrial infrastructure. If not, an air campaign of up to two weeks will prepare the ground campaign for the occupation of the Iranian oil and gas fields.


www.atimes.com...

That is how the Russians and Chinese saw it anyway, I don't think there would be an invasion, but when it comes to oil you never know. I think instead, Israel is leveraging its bets on what Iran will do, and who Iran will do it against. The only way I see this comes down in a way for Israel to be politically safe is to insure Iran also goes after the EU, not just the US.

That gives the US more room to operate with against Iran. If the US is drawn into the conflict, it is politically safe for Congress to take action and support the president. If the US is involved in the conflict from the beginning, Congress isn't going to be onboard in mass, and it could hurt relations long term between the US and Israel.

The thing is, if Iran goes after EU or US warships in the Gulf after an Israeli attack, what can all the Iranian supporters really say? Is the world going to get mad at the US or EU for defending themselves? Not likely.

But, the Chinese conclusion Paul Levian didn't discuss in the Asia Times was very interesting. If Iran gets smacked around, even nuked in response to a chemical weapon attack against Iraq, but no invasion occurs, the position was raised whether China should assert itself at that point, call for peace, and use the UN to move Chinese peacekeepers into Iran to bring stablity. It is very possible, given traditional friendships and economic interests, that Iran would go for this, not only since China provides a safety net to rebuild under, but because economic demands from China are the only thing that can get Iran up and running again quickly, thus provide saving grace to Iran's entrenched leadership.

There is a reason why the Chinese ambassador meets once a month with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the only ambassador to enjoy such a privliage. Never underestimate the Chinese, they became the key player for North Korea without stepping on the US, and you can bet before it is said and done, they will find a way to be a key player in Iran, without stepping on the US.



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 01:34 AM
link   
im getting very tired of this, you guys keep making up dates and so on and whenever it doesnt go that way you just make up your minds and say than it will for sure happen next month or next year. China will need our oil for the next 100 years and both of our relationship through military and economiclly is expanding. no airstrike or war will happen...

[edit on 25-3-2006 by Mehran]



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 03:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mehran
im getting very tired of this, you guys keep making up dates and so on and whenever it doesnt go that way you just make up your minds and say than it will for sure happen next month or next year. China will need our oil for the next 100 years and both of our relationship through military and economiclly is expanding. no airstrike or war will happen...

[edit on 25-3-2006 by Mehran]


Even though you may be true, darksided has given us a very good
well thought out theory on times when the probability of an occurence will definately be higher.

Does that mean we will go to war with China for oil? Doubt it would happen soon, but I don't see any proof against it.

Anyway, I really like the theory posted here. 9 carriers...that's a lot of air power that can be focused on a region. The only concern I have is whether another country decides to take a chance and do something during the same time. IMO the US military is already stretched way too thin for my comfort.

Now before I get people on here saying the US is doing fine, and that the soldiers themselves are doing okay, let me pose to you this: How many wars is the US capable of fighting? We are not an invincible country. Eventually there is going to be a point where the US is going to have to say "Sorry, we can't do anything."

Won't there?

[edit on 25-3-2006 by Sir Solomon]



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 03:57 AM
link   
Sorry folks, I'm up way too late, and if a mod would be so kind as to delete this post, that way I won't look to bad...
I meant to edit my previous post and I (sleepily) hit the quote button, sorry!

[edit on 25-3-2006 by Sir Solomon]



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 04:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mehran
im getting very tired of this, you guys keep making up dates and so on and whenever it doesnt go that way you just make up your minds and say than it will for sure happen next month or next year. China will need our oil for the next 100 years and both of our relationship through military and economiclly is expanding. no airstrike or war will happen...

[edit on 25-3-2006 by Mehran]


Eh, for the next hundred years?
If the world's usage of fossil fuels will continue to increase as rapidly as it does now we will not have enough fuels anymore by the end of the '20s.

This rapidly increase of this usage is mainly caused by China's and India's booming economics.

Within a few thirty years all countries producing oils/fuels are of none importancy anymore within a few dencenia. That's why for instance, the UAE started to focus on the tourism industry.

Of course we can only speculate about a particular date, but we all know it will happen if Iran doesn't stop it's cruel activities.

And no, I don't think China will ally Iran yet as its economy is currently too dependant of the Western economies. But who knows what happens when the ROC has become a super power within 20-40 years....



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 07:30 AM
link   
In response to a quoted article in the original post about chatter being on levels as high or higher than the months prior to 9/11... haven't we heard this on at least a dozen different occasions since 9/11? I can personally say that I've read similar statements about the level of chatter equalling pre-9/11 levels many, many times. I don't know if this is the US crying wolf, al Qaida using our evesdropping against us, or what the situation is.

I'm starting to think that these terrorists and terrorist sympathizers are just chattering for the sake of chattering, and watching the US media respond with such statements. Unfortunately, sooner or later it won't be a false alarm. I'm just worried about us dropping our guard because this continues to happen without a subsequent attack on US soil or against US interests.



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 09:06 AM
link   


In response to a quoted article in the original post about chatter being on levels as high or higher than the months prior to 9/11... haven't we heard this on at least a dozen different occasions since 9/11?


Yes we have, which is why I posted a link to the top Al Qaeda web forums in the world. If you are tired of hearing it from others, you can always verify yourself.

You may not be able to read the language, but you can certainly see for yourself when activity goes up and the chatter is high. Usually you can see a similar occurance on the English, French, Spanish, or German sites as well, which will give you an idea of the discussions.



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Does that mean we will go to war with China for oil? Doubt it would happen soon, but I don't see any proof against it.


I don't see that we will ever have to.

I realized that my second post about China moving into Iran sounds confrontational, but it really wouldn't be. Even if there is a war between Iran and the US, Iran needs nuclear power by 2025, or at least an alternative energy source for Iran itself.

Keep in mind Iran is the largest consumer of oil in the Middle East, all of their energy facilities are older and driven on oil, while their population centers are very large and vehicle transportation is common. Iran has 3 major infrastructure changes by 2025 or Iran will consume as much oil as they drill.

Iran needs new and modernized drilling and refinery capabilities over existing wells, Iran will need new wells in order to increase output, and Iran needs new power plants, either driven by nuclear energy or natural gas, to replace old fuel burning plants.

But Iran can't find foreign investment to recapitalize their oil industry, Iran's plan has been to replace all power stations with nuclear power stations, and there haven't been any new wells found on Iranian soil in a decade, only contested wells in the Caspian and Persian Gulf.

However any scenario with Iran goes down, if Iran is to continue to be a major oil exporter, they will need major recapitalization from foreign countries. The US won't do it, after Iraq the US can't afford it, but China might, and if China established a peacekeeper force in Iran, beyond just getting the oil to flow, China could provide the safeguards necessary to build a civilian nuclear power programin Iran, something Iran legitimately needs.



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 02:36 PM
link   
Darksided, I just wanted to say this was very informative and very well presented. Thank you for the contribution, I enjoyed it very much.

Wupy



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join