Second US Aircraft Carrier Battle Group Sent To Persian Gulf as Warning To Tehran

page: 1
8

log in

join

posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 04:56 PM
link   
A second US carrier strike group is now heading to the Persian Gulf. It is being sent as a message to Tehran not to challenge US interests and not to underestimate US military power because of the war with Iraq. US officials also claim they think that Iran will block ports and shipping lanes in the Persian Gulf, where two-fifths of the worlds oil comes from, if they have a conflict with the US.
 



www.usatoday.com
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — A U.S. State Department official ruled out talks with Iran and said Tuesday that a second U.S. aircraft carrier strike group now steaming toward the Middle East is Washington's way of warning Tehran not to challenge America.

Nicholas Burns, the U.S. undersecretary of state for political affairs, said Iran must halt enrichment of uranium before the Bush administration will agree to direct negotiations. Several prominent American leaders have urged Bush to seek Iran's help quelling sectarian conflict in neighboring Iraq.

"The Middle East isn't a region to be dominated by Iran. The Gulf isn't a body of water to be controlled by Iran. That's why we've seen the United States station two carrier battle groups in the region," Burns said in an address to the Dubai-based Gulf Research Center, an influential think-tank.




Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


This, I believe, is going to seem antagonistic to Tehran and cause further posturing and confrontation between the US and Iran.

This is only going to make Tehran nervous about US intentions, maybe causing them to feel like they better strike first before the US builds up more military might in the Persian Gulf.

I personally don't see the need for a second aircraft carrier strike group in the Persian Gulf right now.




posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 07:30 PM
link   
Any country would/should feel threatened when a US military force as large as 2 carrier strike groups are lurking off its shores and your country is not have the best of relations with the US.

A US Navy Carrier Strike Group consists of: (x2)

* A Nimitz or Kitty Hawk class aircraft carrier
* A Carrier Wing - consists of up to 9 aircraft squadrons
* A Destroyer Squadron - 3 or more Destroyers
* An AEGIS Guided Missile Cruiser w/ Tomahawk missiles
* 2 to 3 Guided Missile Destroyers
* up to 2 Los Angeles Class Attack Submarines
* and a Fast Combat Support Ship to store and distribute supplies to the Group

When a country isn't having the best of relations with the US, this force could easily be seen as hostile and as a provocation.

Still, Ahmadinejad does not see this force as a threat to Iran somehow.

Ahmadinejad Rejects Possibility of Feared US Attack Against Iran

Tehran- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Tuesday insisted that there was no chance of a military attack by the United States against Iran was. "The US is neither in a position nor does it have the capability to attack Iran," Ahmadinejad said in a live interview on state television network IRIB. "The threats are only a psychological war for creating an atmosphere of fear and tension and intimidating the nation."

There is growing concern within Iranian society that the US might attack Iran due to its defiance of the United Nations Security Council resolution 1737 and refusal to suspend uranium enrichment.

According to the local opposition, Ahmadinejad and his government were underestimating the US threats, especially the US announced deployment of the aircraft carrier USS Stennis in the Persian Gulf.

"What can one carrier do? Iran is not just a spot in the region to be destroyed by a carrier," the president said.

Ahmadinejad said that due to Washington's continuation of wrong policies in Iraq, the US would remain in that country and not start another war.


Saddam thought the same thing. When the US sends 2 US Aircraft Carrier Strike Groups to the same area, things just might get ugly (for ol' Ahmadinejad) real quick.


[edit on 23/1/07 by Keyhole]



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 07:44 PM
link   
*sigh* It makes me wonder if it's really that hard to just sit down and actually talking things through before we begin sending enough firepower to give John Lennon a attack if he was still alive. Can anybody explain to me the harm in talking to Iran directly in a professional manner? It's not as if sitting down to talk means were committing to anything that we wouldn't want, I'm pretty sure it just means that we'd talk, have a meaningful dialogue.

But in the meantime I can't say I disagree that in the event of war Iran is not going to be in a very pretty position with those two carrier aircraft groups sitting there. Those groups have an immense amount of capabilities and a capacity for a lot of destruction. Although they've got just as much capacity to do good I get the feeling that we didn't send them in on a humanitarian mission.

So Amadinejad would be absolutley nuts or just plain stupid to think that he's perfectly safe. Or more likely he's just trying to keep his own people feeling safe. After all, nobody likes the feeling that they could have a 2,000 pound bomb come crashing into their living room next Tuesday. So his speeches downplaying the threat may just be for the benefit of his own people.



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 10:04 PM
link   
I really don't think this is what the Baker Commission meant by engaging Iran and Syria but then English has always gotten the best of Bush... . I am surprised he doesn't attack Britain for having such a difficult language.
Ideas, thinking and the like aren't a strong suit of his either.


[edit on 23-1-2007 by grover]



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 06:15 AM
link   
Sing along everybody... "All we are saying...is give war a chance..."

Doesn't have the same impact as the original does it?



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Keyhole
This, I believe, is going to seem antagonistic to Tehran and cause further posturing and confrontation between the US and Iran.


As far as antagonistisms go, the bigger financial war on Iran has already begun.


Are Saudis waging an oil-price war on Iran? MSNBC
Falling fuel costs probably not a coincidence, oil traders say

“If under normal circumstances, the price of oil was falling this dramatically [17% in the last few months], Saudi Arabia would have already called for a special OPEC meeting,” says one oil trader. “It’s got to be something else and that something else has to be Iran.”

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


...and it looks like the response is to build the bomb:
Iran bars 38 IAEA nuclear inspectors
N Korea helping Iran with nuclear testing

[edit on 24-1-2007 by Regenmacher]



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 08:50 AM
link   
"War what is it good for?"
"absolutely nothin, say it again."



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by polanksi
"War what is it good for?"
"absolutely nothin, say it again."


Well, war is also good for taking Nukes out of the hands of Terrorists. I hope the US just chooses to war with Iran from the skies and only on their presidential palaces and nuclear sites.

Ahmadinejad is a bully and he is just about to get his ass kicked!

Better to deal with terrorists like this now before they start extorting us with nukes.

Polanksi get a clue, it goes, "Extortion what is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothin, say it again."

The rules of warfare have changed with the Nuclear Bomb. Tactics have changed, this ain't your grandpa's war! Ahmadinejad deserves to get bombed and he will, hence the second carrier just like the treatment Saddam got.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Perhaps we should let the Iranians deal with their leader. They seem to see him for what he is. And since when does Iran have nukes? That's a scoop.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Between Ahmadinejad and the nuts who support him and Bush and the nuts who support him, the world is going to become a much uglier place before it gets any better.

Both seem determined to ramp up tensions to a conflict before saner elements at home can hold them back.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Absolutly nothing new is going to happen at all as a result of this. Prove me wrong people, prove me wrong. Please do not forget that for the past year and a half at LEAST there were allegations that Iran was going to be attacked within the next couple of months, weeks, days etc etc. It is not going to happen.

Iran will continue doing whatever it is that they do, and so will we.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 06:33 PM
link   
These articles remind me of the war chatter that started after 9/11 and before the US invaded Iraq in March 2003.

Plus, it's hard to imagine moving attack subs, mine hunters and two carrier groups into the Persian gulf for just show and tell.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by DYepes
Absolutly nothing new is going to happen at all as a result of this. Prove me wrong people, prove me wrong. Please do not forget that for the past year and a half at LEAST there were allegations that Iran was going to be attacked within the next couple of months, weeks, days etc etc. It is not going to happen.

Iran will continue doing whatever it is that they do, and so will we.


I hope you are right, but this IS the first time since, I think it was 2003 that the US had two carrier fleets in the Persian Gulf. There haven;t been two carrier strike forces in that area since the beginning of the last confrontation with Iraq.

And you know as well as we do, there is NO way of proving you wrong except waiting to see what happens.

I hope you are right, but only time will tell.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 08:03 AM
link   
If Bush ordered an attack on Iran, without consulting Congress... he would be toast. Impeachment proceedings would start immediately... even if he tries to Tokin Gulf the issue he has cried wolf so many times, no one is going to believe him any more than the little boy, and we all know what happened to him.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 02:57 PM
link   
I honestly don't know for sure what a second carrier fleet is doing there, but when one actualyl takes a moment to think rationally, one would see there are many possibilities.

Perhaps they will begin round the clock 24/7/365 border patrol in order to restrict air traffic indefinetly between Iraq and Iran. An antagonistic, expesnvie, and IMO unlikely scenario.

It could also be that perhaps the other carrier fleet is getting ready to go somewhere else in the world, and they just want them both together to make it look like a show of force, when in actuality it may just be a standard redeployment of forces throughout the world.



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Twitter just ran an article from Global news out of Canada that due to budget restraints the US Navy will only actively operate 1 carrier now in the Persian Gulf seems strange to me with all the politicians still beating war drums and throwing rhetoric all over the place.

Link to article

Budget Issues 1 Carrier

Anyone with better knowledge be able to confirm and give reasons as too why with tensions still high, not like the States to not spend money they don't have???

SaneThinking





new topics
top topics
 
8

log in

join


Off The Grid with Jesse Ventura and AboveTopSecret.com Partner Up to Stay Vigilant
read more: Ora.TV's Off The Grid with Jesse Ventura and AboveTopSecret.com Partner Up to Stay Vigilant