It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Carrier Surge to Iran? Cover story, scare tactic, or real?

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 30 2006 @ 02:46 AM
Rumor is going around that the US is preparing to engage Iran in the only kind of diplomacy either regime is really prepared to attempt: Gunboat Diplomacy.

But is it true?

The New York Times (members only), as well as the Navy Times say that the USS Stennis (CVN-74) could be underway to the gulf as early as the first week of January, where it would arrive in Feb and overlap with the presence of the USS Eisenhower (CVN-69) for about two months. Other carriers are also in a position to deploy, although it would muck up the training and maintenance cycle considerably. Kitty Hawk, Reagan and Nimitz would all be candidates for the short end of that stick, probably in that order. Skeptical bloggers note that we saw this just a couple of months ago when Eisenhower relieved enterprise and that nothing will likely happen (it bears mentioning that last time, there were two Expeditionary Strike Groups in the Gulf, now Boxer is gone, though Iwo Jima remains), but concede that the 5th fleets recent request for forces does seem to indicate that there will be a shuffling of assets, and this may be designed to fire a shot across Iran's bow. If come March the Eisenhower is still in the gulf along with Stennis, Iwo Jima and any others though, it will be likely that we're going.

This raises a number of questions, not the least of which is whether or not the last alarm of impending strikes was intentional, designed to reduce concerns over the current possibility. It's thin for now, but depending on whether or not Eisenhower's tour is extended, it could thicken up.

Will it only be a brief overlap designed to remind the Iranians that we're not stretched so thin that we can't retask a few forces when we really need to be on their doorstep, or will the buildup grow and become a real attack, just in time for Spring. (If that's the case, I'm guessing it means that something bad will have to happen to Tim Johnson)

But then, there's the hidden possibility. Is there any other reason that we might want the Stennis to hurry it's butt out of port and get into the 5th fleet a couple months before it absolutely has to be there?
Well, there is that pesky little war in Somalia that I've been telling you would happen all year. It could all be a cover to put a carrier in position to lay a couple of airstrikes down on targets of opportunity and blame it on Ethiopia. Afterall, the guys who bombed the embassy in Kenya are supposed to be with the UIC force that has retreated from Mogadishu.

new topics

log in