US is dusting off the military option

DEBKAfile: Nine US military ships enter Persian Gulf Wednesday, assembling off Iran’s coast in largest American naval move since 2003

They sailed through the Strait of Hormuz by day – according to US Navy officials for training exercises. The vessels carry around 17,000 combat and marine personnel. They include the two aircraft carriers, USS Nimitz and USS Stennis, as well as the USS Bonhomme Richard LHD 6 Group, the world’s biggest amphibious strike force. Iran was not notified of the planned arrival.

DEBKAfile reports the maneuvers take place less than two weeks after Vice President Dick Cheney visited the region and informed Saudi King Abdullah and fellow Gulf rulers that President George W. Bush has determined that if Iran refuses to waive a nuclear weapon capability, the US will attack its nuclear, military and economic infrastructure before he leaves the White House in Jan. 2009.
Our sources also note that the US armada sailed into the Gulf on the day the latest UN Security Council ultimatum expired for Iran to give up uranium enrichment or face a fresh set of sanctions.

Its presence backs up Cheney’s pledge and tells the region and Iran that Washington may not be satisfied with sanctions and the military option is alive. Washington is also stiffening its posture ahead of its first direct talks with Tehran on Monday, May 28, when US and Iraqi ambassadors meet in Baghdad. The message to Iran and its ally Syria is that if the Baghdad talks fail, and they refuse to suspend their backing for Iraq’s insurgents and al Qaeda, the US stands ready with a military option.

Tuesday, May 21, a senior US officer in Baghdad accused Iran of orchestrating a summer offensive against US troops in Iraq “linking al Qaeda and Sunni insurgents to its Shiite militia allies.” Our sources add that Iran with Syrian support has also embarked on a summer offensive in other parts of the Middle East, including Lebanon and the Gaza Strip

Rear Admiral Kevin Quinn said maneuvers beginning now are part of a long-planned effort to reassure nearby countries of America’s commitment to regional security. He told reporters before crossing: “There is always the threat of any state or non-state actor deciding to close one of the international straits, and the biggest one is the Strait of Hormuz.”

May 23, 2007 | 7 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

7 Comments / 7 Comments

  1. Gary,

    I cannot agree that an American attack on Iran depends on a coalition of world nations including Russia.

    Unless under Sarkozy in France, France does a complete turnaround from her policies to date characterized by greed for Arab oil, opportunism, anti-Americanism and and contrarianism as regards any American foreign policies in the Middle East, there is little if any chance that other EU nations would be persuaded by America to join a coalition against Iran.

    A number of EU nations as you know are engaged in very profitable and advantageous trade arrangements with Iran, which no doubt give those nations some comfort to believe that if Iran goes nuclear and launches those weapons against Israel and America, they will be spared any danger from Iran.

    America certainly does not need Russia that provided Iran with the nuclear technology and armed Iran to the teeth, to attack Iran. America did not rely on Russia to go after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and has not relied on Russia to go into and stay in Iraq.

    America is well positioned in Iraq to launch an attack on neighboring Iran. America still has the resources and ability, though not the resolve as of yet, to devastate Iran militarily and force it to grovel in the dirt and devote all her energies thereafter to supplying Iranians with essential services and only after that to begin the long process of rebuilding Iranian infrastructure.

    I have argued before that the only way for America to leave Iraq with dignity and head held high is to roll over Iran on their way out of Iraq.

    I have also argued that simultaneously as America attacks Iran, Israel launch a pre-emptive strike against Syria and send them back to the dark ages as well.

    Since Hezbollah is sustained by Iran and Syria it would, with no more support of any kind forthcoming from their two benefactors, Hezbollah would likely dry up and blow away. Hamas, that relies on Iran for much support too could be crippled in the result.

    With Iran’s meddling in Iraq to stoke the fires of chaos by supporting the Shia terrorist insurgents in their attacks on both Americans and Iraqis ended and with America plausibly threatening all Iraqi factions, Sunni, Shia and Kurds to get along to work out a new arrangement for Iraqi governance and stability or suffer consequences America will visit upon them, the chances are that much better that Iraq will find a new and stable balance that will allow Iraqis to thrive in peace and security.

    Finally with the rest of the Muslim Middle East shocked into according America newfound respect and fear that America’s patience has limits, America would be able to leave Iraq with the dignity and respect it so desperately wants and will further enhance its ability to advance American interests in the Middle East.

    All that America needs to have happen is that it cannot remain like a deer frozen in the headlights and must see that talk, even from America at a negotiating table is cheap in terms of convincing anyone of anything and that barring the war option against Iran, America will be piling on gifts to Iran to gain their co-operation that Iran would have to be insane not to accept and then wait until next time, which time we know would likely be just around the corner.

  2. Felix: With all due respect, I think that your premise is wrong. I see the West and capitalism as the best option. All other forms of government such as Communism which I guess is your first choice, have cannibalized their own people. Capitalism, though too often cashing in on the health and environment of some of its citizens for short-term gains, does not have the kind of ideological brutality and slavish adherence to a doctrine that is all too common with fascism, communism and islamicism.

    Russia has proved to be a real enemy of Israel (and a predominately antisemitic country) and the only time it was on Israel’s side was during a UN vote at the creation of the modern state – and that was a vote of defiance against the West rather than a vote of support for Israel. The history of modern Israel has been riddled with examples of how Russia supplies weapons and expertise to Arab countries all too willing to partner with the devil to wreak evil and destruction upon Israel.

    Your assumption that the US needs an enemy such as the Fascist Republic of Iran is too ridiculous to comment on.

  3. Gary

    You are basically correct about the weakness of the US Imperialist class and system.

    There is also the complication that in the overall strategic struggle of maintaining US Imperial rule then it does see itself in alliance with Islam.

    For obvious reasons. Not unlike the support which the Brit ruling class gave to Hitler in the early to mid Thirties.

    And the comments above correctly point to the great danger to Jews out of all of these machinations, and here we have the clear example of the Holocaust.

    Do not forget it was the Brits and the US Imperialists who helped the Nazis to isolate the millions of Jews in central Europe, something that the great visdionary Herzl was able to see at a time when Lenin and Trotsky were in baby political swaddling clothes!

    But Gary why blame Russia and Putin. That is exactly what the US and Brit strategy was geared towards, to create a thriving capitalist system in Russia.

    And they sell arms to the enemies of Israel because they too are antisemites.

    But Gary I think you are wrong. The main attack on the world scene may very well be directed against Russia, with China and India included as well.

    The US and EU Empire just do not like any other competitors and they do not even actually like each other. Capitalism is a system with war at its centre.

    Of course the US can attack the Iranians, that is theoretically possible, but destroy Iranian fascism, not a chance, because I think it needs it for its own existence.

  4. If the US cannot even find the strength to bomb and level “The Triangle of Death” in Iraq after losing more than 3500 men and having suffered the serious wounding of thousands of men, I hardly think that the US is serious about bringing Iran around to comply with anything.

    The only distant chance for action is if a real coalition of world leaders (not only the US) put their armies on the line while issuing a ultimatum with a deadline to Iran. This coalition cannot be formed without the Bribeocracy of Russia and because Russia thrives on the business and support it gets pariah countries such as Iran, this is not about to happen.

  5. If Iran calls and the US folds, then “we” are bigger fools than I ever thought possible.
    If you draw your gun, you better be willing to use it without hesitation. I hope we never again become just a big mouth without anything to back it up, as in the final days of Jimmy Carters regime? What a fiasco…We had become a joke. And that jerk is still making trouble.

  6. This is a positive sign and may well bring Iran to the table for talks with America. Depending on how America plays her hand however will signal to Iran whether America does have the resolve to use a military option.

    Thus far Iran knows:

    1. The Baker-Hamilton ISG report reflects the thinking of many Americans;

    2. America is war adverse and continues to arrogantly think that anything can be negotiated;

    3. America is desperate to get out of Iraq and preserve some dignity in the process and to that end is looking to Iran to help it do just that;

    4. America has already signalled that she is still not of a mind to seek revenge or vengeance against Iran for all the damage Iran has done to America in terms of American lives lost and shattered, property damage and financial loss and loss of respect in the Muslim Middle East over the last 28 years, starting with the American hostages held by Iran in 1979 that America rather then avenge, just whimpered over;

    5. There have been more than enough signs that America in return for Iran’s assistance in allowing America to get out of Iraq with some dignity, is prepared to generously pay Iran for that assistance by allowing Iran opportunities to increasingly establish itself as an important regional power in the Muslim Middle East and to even allow Iran to complete their nuclear agenda sans nuclear weapon capacity.

    6. Iran is fully aware that once it has nuclear capacity, it would be one secret step away from completing its nuclear WMD capacity. Iran has proven quite capable of lying and deceiving the UN to move forward in secret with its nuclear agenda in spite of facing UN resolutions against such enterprise and promises that it not do so. There would be virtually nothing to stop Iran from quickly becoming a nucelar weapons nation.

    If America comes to the table with Iran bearing all these gifts, Iran would have to be totally insane not to take what is being offered, go through the pretense of an agreement with America which it later would break, but in the mean time Iran would have gotten America and her military might out of Iraq and within striking distance of Iran. With that, then Iran would be relatively free to proceed as before with her broad anti-Israel/America and Western agenda.

    Israel simply cannot afford to let America bargain away such advantages to Iran which sorely disadvantages Israel and puts her in mortal danger. America too cannot afford to do so either, but American desperation to get out of Iraq with dignity and to try to retain influence in the Muslim Middle East could conceivably move America to give Iran what it wants which would expose America to even larger blowback from Iran than America has experienced in her other ill advised alliances with despotic regimes in the Middle Eastern Muslim world.

Comments are closed.