Will Bush Bomb Iran
- Thread starter Mcluhan
- Start date
Makes sense to me.WoodPeckr said:Nice timing, eh!
Almost looks like Team 'w' is preparing for something they know will happen!...
Administration, Not DHS, Would Run Shadow Government
By Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 10, 2007; Page A12
President Bush issued a formal national security directive yesterday ordering agencies to prepare contingency plans for a surprise, "decapitating" attack on the federal government, and assigned responsibility for coordinating such plans to the White House.
The prospect of a nuclear bomb being detonated in Washington without warning, whether smuggled in by terrorists or a foreign government, has been cited by many security analysts as a rising concern since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
The order makes explicit that the focus of federal worst-case planning involves a covert nuclear attack against the nation's capital, in contrast with Cold War assumptions that a long-range strike would be preceded by a notice of minutes or hours as missiles were fueled and launched.
"As a result of the asymmetric threat environment, adequate warning of potential emergencies that could pose a significant risk to the homeland might not be available, and therefore all continuity planning shall be based on the assumption that no such warning will be received," states the 72-paragraph order. It is designated National Security Presidential Directive 51 and Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20.
The statement added, "Emphasis will be placed upon geographic dispersion of leadership, staff, and infrastructure in order to increase survivability and maintain uninterrupted Government Functions."
After the 2001 attacks, Bush assigned about 100 senior civilian managers to rotate secretly to locations outside of Washington for weeks or months at a time to ensure the nation's survival, a shadow government that evolved based on long-standing "continuity of operations plans."
Since then, other agencies including the Pentagon, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the CIA have taken steps to relocate facilities or key functions outside of Washington for their own reasons, citing factors such as economics or the importance of avoiding Beltway "group-think."
Norman J. Ornstein, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and an adviser to an independent Continuity of Government Commission, said the order "is a more explicit embrace of what has been since 9/11 an implicit but fairly clear set of assumptions."
He added, "My frustration is that those assumptions have not gripped the Congress in the same way."
Other former Bush administration officials said the directive formalizes a shift of authority away from the Department of Homeland Security to the White House.
Under an executive order dating to the Reagan administration, responsibility for coordinating, implementing and exercising such plans was originally charged to the Federal Emergency Management Agency and later DHS, the Congressional Research Service noted in a 2005 report on a pending DHS reorganization.
The new directive gives the job of coordinating policy to the president's assistant for homeland security and counterterrorism -- Frances Fragos Townsend, who will assume the title of national continuity coordinator -- in consultation with Bush's national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, with the support of the White House's Homeland Security Council staff. Townsend is to produce an implementation plan within 90 days. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff will continue to coordinate operations and activities, the directive said.
Hawking the Bombing
A leading advocate of the Iraq war speaks again.
We must attack Iran before it gets the bomb
By Toby Harnden in Washington
Last Updated: 3:32am BST 16/05/2007
Iran should be attacked before it develops nuclear weapons, America's former ambassador to the United Nations said yesterday.
Former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton said Iran should be attacked before it develops nuclear weapons
John Bolton has close links to the Bush administration
John Bolton, who still has close links to the Bush administration, told The Daily Telegraph that the European Union had to "get more serious" about Iran and recognise that its diplomatic attempts to halt Iran's enrichment programme had failed.
Iran has "clearly mastered the enrichment technology now...they're not stopping, they're making progress and our time is limited", he said. Economic sanctions "with pain" had to be the next step, followed by attempting to overthrow the theocratic regime and, ultimately, military action to destroy nuclear sites.
Mr Bolton's stark warning appeared to be borne out yesterday by leaks about an inspection by the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) of Iran's main nuclear installation at Natanz on Sunday.
The experts found that Iran's scientists were operating 1,312 centrifuges, the machines used to enrich uranium. If Iran can install 3,000, it will need about one year to produce enough weapons grade uranium for one nuclear bomb.
Experts had judged that Iran would need perhaps two years to master the technical feat of enriching uranium using centrifuges - and then another two years to produce enough material to build a weapon.
But the IAEA found that Iran has already managed to enrich uranium to the four per cent purity needed for power stations. Weapons-grade uranium must reach a threshold of 84 per cent purity.
Mohammed ElBaradei, the IAEA's head, said the West's goal of halting the enrichment programme had been "overtaken by events". Iran had probably mastered this process and "the focus now should be to stop them from going to industrial scale production".
Mr Bolton said: "It's been conclusively proven Iran is not going to be talked out of its nuclear programme. So to stop them from doing it, we have to massively increase the pressure.
"If we can't get enough other countries to come along with us to do that, then we've got to go with regime change by bolstering opposition groups and the like, because that's the circumstance most likely for an Iranian government to decide that it's safer not to pursue nuclear weapons than to continue to do so. And if all else fails, if the choice is between a nuclear-capable Iran and the use of force, then I think we need to look at the use of force."
President George W Bush privately refers to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has pledged to wipe Israel "off the map", as a 21st Century Adolf Hitler and Mr Bolton, who remains a close ally of Vice President Dick Cheney, said the Iranian leader presented a similar threat.
"If the choice is them continuing [towards a nuclear bomb] or the use of force, I think you're at a Hitler marching into the Rhineland point. If you don't stop it then, the future is in his hands, not in your hands, just as the future decisions on their nuclear programme would be in Iran's hands, not ours."
But Mr Bolton conceded that military action had many disadvantages and might not succeed. "It's very risky for the price of oil, risky because you could, let's say, take out their enrichment capabilities at Natanz, and they may have enrichment capabilities elsewhere you don't know about."
Such a strike would only be a "last option" after economic sanctions and attempts to foment a popular revolution had failed but the risks of using military force, he indicated, would be less than those of tolerating a nuclear Iran. "Imagine what it would be like with a nuclear Iran. Imagine the influence Iran could have over the entire region. It's already pushing its influence in Iraq through the financing of terrorist groups like Hamas and Hizbollah."
Although he praised Tony Blair for his support of America over the Iraq war, he criticised the Prime Minister, who is due to visit Washington today to bid farewell to Mr Bush, for persisting with supporting EU attempts to negotiate with Iran that were "doomed to fail".
"Blair just didn't focus on it as much as [Jack] Straw [former Foreign Secretary] did, and it was very much a Foreign Office thing because they wanted to show their European credentials, wanted to work with the Germans and the French to show 'we'll solve Iran in a way differently than those cowboy Americans solved Iraq'."
Mr Bolton, a leading advocate of the Iraq war, insisted that it had been right to overthrow Saddam Hussein and that the later failures did not mean that military action against rogue states should not be contemplated again.
"The regime itself was the threat and we dealt with the threat. Now, what we did after that didn't work out so well. That doesn't say to me, therefore you don't take out regimes that are problematic.
"It says, in the case of Iraq, and a lot of this I have to say we've learned through the benefit of hindsight, was that we should've given responsibility back to Iraqis more quickly."
The Bush administration has moved some distance away from the hawkish views of Mr Bolton and Mr Cheney, which were dominant in the president's first term, towards the more traditional diplomatic approach favoured by the State Department.
But his is still a highly influential voice and Mr Bush remains adamant that he will not allow Iran to become armed with nuclear weapons.
The Pentagon has drawn up contingency plans for military action and some senior White House officials share Mr Bolton's thinking.
A leading advocate of the Iraq war speaks again.
We must attack Iran before it gets the bomb
By Toby Harnden in Washington
Last Updated: 3:32am BST 16/05/2007
Iran should be attacked before it develops nuclear weapons, America's former ambassador to the United Nations said yesterday.
Former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton said Iran should be attacked before it develops nuclear weapons
John Bolton has close links to the Bush administration
John Bolton, who still has close links to the Bush administration, told The Daily Telegraph that the European Union had to "get more serious" about Iran and recognise that its diplomatic attempts to halt Iran's enrichment programme had failed.
Iran has "clearly mastered the enrichment technology now...they're not stopping, they're making progress and our time is limited", he said. Economic sanctions "with pain" had to be the next step, followed by attempting to overthrow the theocratic regime and, ultimately, military action to destroy nuclear sites.
Mr Bolton's stark warning appeared to be borne out yesterday by leaks about an inspection by the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) of Iran's main nuclear installation at Natanz on Sunday.
The experts found that Iran's scientists were operating 1,312 centrifuges, the machines used to enrich uranium. If Iran can install 3,000, it will need about one year to produce enough weapons grade uranium for one nuclear bomb.
Experts had judged that Iran would need perhaps two years to master the technical feat of enriching uranium using centrifuges - and then another two years to produce enough material to build a weapon.
But the IAEA found that Iran has already managed to enrich uranium to the four per cent purity needed for power stations. Weapons-grade uranium must reach a threshold of 84 per cent purity.
Mohammed ElBaradei, the IAEA's head, said the West's goal of halting the enrichment programme had been "overtaken by events". Iran had probably mastered this process and "the focus now should be to stop them from going to industrial scale production".
Mr Bolton said: "It's been conclusively proven Iran is not going to be talked out of its nuclear programme. So to stop them from doing it, we have to massively increase the pressure.
"If we can't get enough other countries to come along with us to do that, then we've got to go with regime change by bolstering opposition groups and the like, because that's the circumstance most likely for an Iranian government to decide that it's safer not to pursue nuclear weapons than to continue to do so. And if all else fails, if the choice is between a nuclear-capable Iran and the use of force, then I think we need to look at the use of force."
President George W Bush privately refers to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has pledged to wipe Israel "off the map", as a 21st Century Adolf Hitler and Mr Bolton, who remains a close ally of Vice President Dick Cheney, said the Iranian leader presented a similar threat.
"If the choice is them continuing [towards a nuclear bomb] or the use of force, I think you're at a Hitler marching into the Rhineland point. If you don't stop it then, the future is in his hands, not in your hands, just as the future decisions on their nuclear programme would be in Iran's hands, not ours."
But Mr Bolton conceded that military action had many disadvantages and might not succeed. "It's very risky for the price of oil, risky because you could, let's say, take out their enrichment capabilities at Natanz, and they may have enrichment capabilities elsewhere you don't know about."
Such a strike would only be a "last option" after economic sanctions and attempts to foment a popular revolution had failed but the risks of using military force, he indicated, would be less than those of tolerating a nuclear Iran. "Imagine what it would be like with a nuclear Iran. Imagine the influence Iran could have over the entire region. It's already pushing its influence in Iraq through the financing of terrorist groups like Hamas and Hizbollah."
Although he praised Tony Blair for his support of America over the Iraq war, he criticised the Prime Minister, who is due to visit Washington today to bid farewell to Mr Bush, for persisting with supporting EU attempts to negotiate with Iran that were "doomed to fail".
"Blair just didn't focus on it as much as [Jack] Straw [former Foreign Secretary] did, and it was very much a Foreign Office thing because they wanted to show their European credentials, wanted to work with the Germans and the French to show 'we'll solve Iran in a way differently than those cowboy Americans solved Iraq'."
Mr Bolton, a leading advocate of the Iraq war, insisted that it had been right to overthrow Saddam Hussein and that the later failures did not mean that military action against rogue states should not be contemplated again.
"The regime itself was the threat and we dealt with the threat. Now, what we did after that didn't work out so well. That doesn't say to me, therefore you don't take out regimes that are problematic.
"It says, in the case of Iraq, and a lot of this I have to say we've learned through the benefit of hindsight, was that we should've given responsibility back to Iraqis more quickly."
The Bush administration has moved some distance away from the hawkish views of Mr Bolton and Mr Cheney, which were dominant in the president's first term, towards the more traditional diplomatic approach favoured by the State Department.
But his is still a highly influential voice and Mr Bush remains adamant that he will not allow Iran to become armed with nuclear weapons.
The Pentagon has drawn up contingency plans for military action and some senior White House officials share Mr Bolton's thinking.
Perle rips into Bush saying, " Iran, is now firmly back in the hands of the Department of State." Seems the rift is widening in the new American Century architects office. First the administration today seems poised to dump Wolfowitz, now this. Meanwhile the forces of darkness are not completely stopped as Cheney sabotages discussions with Iran. The Hawks appear to be down to Cheney as a force of one.
Perle Turns on Bush in Harsh Terms
By NICHOLAS WAPSHOTT
Staff Reporter of the Sun
May 15, 2007
The Bush administration is beginning to appease rather than confront America's enemies, a former chairman of the Defense Policy Board and leading neoconservative thinker said yesterday, describing the president as "a failure" who is proving powerless to impose his views on his administration.
Richard Perle offered a withering assessment of the president's impotence at a meeting of the Hudson Institute in New York, saying American foreign policy is being applied by an out-of-control State Department.
Perle Turns on Bush in Harsh Terms
By NICHOLAS WAPSHOTT
Staff Reporter of the Sun
May 15, 2007
The Bush administration is beginning to appease rather than confront America's enemies, a former chairman of the Defense Policy Board and leading neoconservative thinker said yesterday, describing the president as "a failure" who is proving powerless to impose his views on his administration.
Richard Perle offered a withering assessment of the president's impotence at a meeting of the Hudson Institute in New York, saying American foreign policy is being applied by an out-of-control State Department.
Perle ia a one of a kind nutcase, fortunately. I wonder how he can say
something like this without his audience breaking out in ROFLMAO:
Richard Perle offered a withering assessment of the president's impotence
at a meeting of the Hudson Institute in New York, saying American foreign
policy is being applied by an out-of-control State Department.
something like this without his audience breaking out in ROFLMAO:
Richard Perle offered a withering assessment of the president's impotence
at a meeting of the Hudson Institute in New York, saying American foreign
policy is being applied by an out-of-control State Department.
Witness Obama cultivating the Israeli vote and making sure that AIPAC funds do not turn against his campaign...
Last update - 21:14 16/05/2007
Obama to Haaretz: Pressure on Iran over nukes must be greater
By Shmuel Rosner, Haaretz Correspondent
WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama told Haaretz in an exclusive interview that the current level of pressure on Iran over its nuclear program is "is not enough."
"Iran continues to be a major threat to the U.S. and its allies," said the Illinois senator.
Obama reiterated his position that the U.S. should engage Iran in direct talks, but explained that these should be "low level talks" until there's "some sense of progress" such as voluntary freezing on the enrichment of uranium.
Obama expressed a "sense of urgency" in dealing with the matter.
A new bill, sponsored by Obama in the Senate, will require the federal government to publish a list of companies that have an investment of more than $20 million in the Iranian energy sector.
It will also authorize local governments to divest their pension funds from companies on the list and protect managers from lawsuits directed at them by investors who are unhappy with the decision to divest.
Read the full interview with Obama now on Rosner's Domain.
note: some clever footwork by Obama:
" Divestment from Iran, Obama believes, is an "appropriate strategy." His bill is almost identical to the House version, but has one small additional component: It can only sunset once the government of Iran has retracted the statements of the president of Iran calling for the destruction of Israel."
Last update - 21:14 16/05/2007
Obama to Haaretz: Pressure on Iran over nukes must be greater
By Shmuel Rosner, Haaretz Correspondent
WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama told Haaretz in an exclusive interview that the current level of pressure on Iran over its nuclear program is "is not enough."
"Iran continues to be a major threat to the U.S. and its allies," said the Illinois senator.
Obama reiterated his position that the U.S. should engage Iran in direct talks, but explained that these should be "low level talks" until there's "some sense of progress" such as voluntary freezing on the enrichment of uranium.
Obama expressed a "sense of urgency" in dealing with the matter.
A new bill, sponsored by Obama in the Senate, will require the federal government to publish a list of companies that have an investment of more than $20 million in the Iranian energy sector.
It will also authorize local governments to divest their pension funds from companies on the list and protect managers from lawsuits directed at them by investors who are unhappy with the decision to divest.
Read the full interview with Obama now on Rosner's Domain.
note: some clever footwork by Obama:
" Divestment from Iran, Obama believes, is an "appropriate strategy." His bill is almost identical to the House version, but has one small additional component: It can only sunset once the government of Iran has retracted the statements of the president of Iran calling for the destruction of Israel."
Maybe not.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/16/fallon-carrier/
CentCom Commander Fallon: Attack On Iran ‘Will Not Happen On My Watch’
Earlier this year, the Bush administration deployed a second Navy group carrier into the Persian Gulf. Vice President Cheney referred to the move as an attempt to send a “strong signal” about the administration’s commitment to confronting Iran.
In February, Newsweek reported that the Bush administration was planning to ratchet up the pressure even further by deploying a third carrier group into the Gulf. Hillary Mann, the administration’s former National Security Council director for Iran and Persian Gulf Affairs, warned that some Bush advisers secretly wanted an excuse to attack Iran. “They intend to be as provocative as possible and make the Iranians do something [America] would be forced to retaliate for,” she told Newsweek.
IPS reported yesterday that the administration’s attempt to send the third carrier group was vetoed by the new head of the U.S. Central Command Admiral William Fallon:
While Fallon’s message may have affected the deployment of another Navy carrier, it didn’t stop Vice President Cheney from finding other ways to issue symbolic acts of provocation against Iran. Last week, Cheney stood aboard one of the two carriers currently in the Gulf and warned Iran that the U.S. was prepared to use its naval power to keep Tehran from disrupting off oil routes or “gaining nuclear weapons and dominating this region.”
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/16/fallon-carrier/
CentCom Commander Fallon: Attack On Iran ‘Will Not Happen On My Watch’
Earlier this year, the Bush administration deployed a second Navy group carrier into the Persian Gulf. Vice President Cheney referred to the move as an attempt to send a “strong signal” about the administration’s commitment to confronting Iran.
In February, Newsweek reported that the Bush administration was planning to ratchet up the pressure even further by deploying a third carrier group into the Gulf. Hillary Mann, the administration’s former National Security Council director for Iran and Persian Gulf Affairs, warned that some Bush advisers secretly wanted an excuse to attack Iran. “They intend to be as provocative as possible and make the Iranians do something [America] would be forced to retaliate for,” she told Newsweek.
IPS reported yesterday that the administration’s attempt to send the third carrier group was vetoed by the new head of the U.S. Central Command Admiral William Fallon:
One source said Fallon sent a memo that “insisted there was no military requirement for” for an additional carrier. Fallon privately conveyed around the time of his confirmation hearing that an attack on Iran “will not happen on my watch.” IPS notes, “Fallon’s refusal to support a further naval buildup in the Gulf reflected his firm opposition to an attack on Iran and an apparent readiness to put his career on the line to prevent it.”
While Fallon’s message may have affected the deployment of another Navy carrier, it didn’t stop Vice President Cheney from finding other ways to issue symbolic acts of provocation against Iran. Last week, Cheney stood aboard one of the two carriers currently in the Gulf and warned Iran that the U.S. was prepared to use its naval power to keep Tehran from disrupting off oil routes or “gaining nuclear weapons and dominating this region.”
Yes, I read about this yesterday. Remarkable development. A coup within the coup. The Pentagon it seems prevented a possible April catastrophe and Bush backed down at a key moment. It sheds possible light on the April 13th speech he made. Makes you wonder what is really going on behind closed doors in the White House. I will bet Bush is back on the sauce big time, and Cheney has full reign. I am sure Cheney is counting on another terrorist hit on US soil. Pray it doesn't come. I haven't noticed, has Bush been making any public appearances lately, other than his last big hissey-fit April prime time press conference? He seems out of sight.TOVisitor said:
Meanwhile Tony Snow looks like he about to lose it and Cheney is flipping around the other side of the globe trying to make sure nobody talks to Iran. The real vicious hawks like Bolton are doing their best to scare everyone into thinking more military action is the only solution. Feels like an implosion in the WH. The infighting must be intense.
You are in good company, Richard perle agrees that the WH is in chaos.Mcluhan said:
It is so bad that the State Department have influence on foreign policy.
"Richard Perle offered a withering assessment of the president's impotence
at a meeting of the Hudson Institute in New York, saying American foreign
policy is being applied by an out-of-control State Department."
I'm not saying I'm spending Mcluhan's money yet, but I'm golfing on Sunday and I'm dedicating the round to him.
hehe.. the way it's looking, I'm just glad i didn't give odds.lookingforitallthetime said:I'm not saying I'm spending Mcluhan's money yet, but I'm golfing on Sunday and I'm dedicating the round to him.
This post was started month ago and last time I checked Iraq hasn't been bombed yet..at this pace Obama or Clinton will be in office and another doomsday scenario has gone the way of area 51
Remember, it's a good thing.Mcluhan said:
Your donation is a small price to pay for world peace. If I break 80, I'll nominate you for the Nobel Prize.
E
enduser1
This thread is apparently still relevent..
I wonder who is leaking what to whom, and why.
Bush Authorizes New Covert Action Against Iran
May 22, 2007 6:29 PM
Brian Ross and Richard Esposito Report:
Bush_authorizes_mnThe CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert "black" operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com.
I wonder who is leaking what to whom, and why.
Bush Authorizes New Covert Action Against Iran
May 22, 2007 6:29 PM
Brian Ross and Richard Esposito Report:
Bush_authorizes_mnThe CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert "black" operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com.
Nine U.S. warships enter Gulf for training
The assembly off Iran’s coast is largest since the 2003 Iraq war
Check out the photo to see what barrel Iran is looking down the face of.
Updated: 10:30 a.m. ET May 23, 2007
ABOARD USS JOHN C. STENNIS - Nine U.S. military ships entered the Gulf on Wednesday for a rare daylight assembly off Iran’s coast in what naval officials said was the largest such move since the 2003 Iraq war.
U.S. Navy officials said Iran had not been notified of plans to sail the vessels, which include two aircraft carriers, through the Straits of Hormuz, a narrow channel in international waters off Iran’s coast and a major artery for global oil shipments.
Most U.S. ships pass through the straits at night so as not to attract attention, and rarely move in such large numbers.
Story continues below ↓advertisement
Navy officials said the decision to send a second aircraft carrier was made at the last minute, without giving a reason.
Fears of military confrontation
Tension between the United States and Iran over Tehran’s nuclear ambitions and Iraq has raised regional fears of a possible military confrontation that could hit Gulf economies and threaten vital oil exports.
But Rear Admiral Kevin Quinn, leading the group, said the ships would start conducting exercises after passing through the straits as part of a long-planned effort to reassure nearby countries of U.S. commitment to regional security.
“There’s always the threat of any state or non-state actor that might decide to close one of the international straits, and the biggest one is the Straits of Hormuz,” he told reporters on the USS John C. Stennis aircraft carrier before the crossing.
On the way to the straits, a public announcement called on crew to witness “some of the most powerful ships in the world,” whose tight formation against a backdrop of the setting sun created a dramatic image of American naval might
Ships carrying 17,000
The group of ships, carrying around 17,000 personnel, crossed at roughly 0355 GMT.
The maneuvers come less than two weeks after U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, speaking aboard the Stennis during a tour of the Gulf, said the United States would stand with others to prevent Iran gaining nuclear weapons and “dominating the region.”
On a visit to Abu Dhabi a few days later, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatened “severe” retaliation if the United States attacked his country, which is locked in a standoff with the United States over its nuclear program.
He also urged Gulf countries to “get rid of” foreign forces, blaming them for insecurity in the region.
The United States accuses Iran of trying to produce nuclear weapons, and has sought tougher U.N. sanctions against Iran. Iran says its nuclear ambitions are for energy purposes only.
U.S. and Iranian ambassadors are due to meet on Monday in Baghdad to discuss security in Iraq, where the United States has accused Iran of fomenting violence by backing Shiite militia there, and of providing weapons and the technology for roadside bombs. Iran has denied the accusations.
Last month, the U.S. Fifth Fleet base in Bahrain conducted its biggest crisis response drill and in March, the U.S. Navy conducted its biggest war drills in the Gulf since 2003.
The assembly off Iran’s coast is largest since the 2003 Iraq war
Check out the photo to see what barrel Iran is looking down the face of.
Updated: 10:30 a.m. ET May 23, 2007
ABOARD USS JOHN C. STENNIS - Nine U.S. military ships entered the Gulf on Wednesday for a rare daylight assembly off Iran’s coast in what naval officials said was the largest such move since the 2003 Iraq war.
U.S. Navy officials said Iran had not been notified of plans to sail the vessels, which include two aircraft carriers, through the Straits of Hormuz, a narrow channel in international waters off Iran’s coast and a major artery for global oil shipments.
Most U.S. ships pass through the straits at night so as not to attract attention, and rarely move in such large numbers.
Story continues below ↓advertisement
Navy officials said the decision to send a second aircraft carrier was made at the last minute, without giving a reason.
Fears of military confrontation
Tension between the United States and Iran over Tehran’s nuclear ambitions and Iraq has raised regional fears of a possible military confrontation that could hit Gulf economies and threaten vital oil exports.
But Rear Admiral Kevin Quinn, leading the group, said the ships would start conducting exercises after passing through the straits as part of a long-planned effort to reassure nearby countries of U.S. commitment to regional security.
“There’s always the threat of any state or non-state actor that might decide to close one of the international straits, and the biggest one is the Straits of Hormuz,” he told reporters on the USS John C. Stennis aircraft carrier before the crossing.
On the way to the straits, a public announcement called on crew to witness “some of the most powerful ships in the world,” whose tight formation against a backdrop of the setting sun created a dramatic image of American naval might
Ships carrying 17,000
The group of ships, carrying around 17,000 personnel, crossed at roughly 0355 GMT.
The maneuvers come less than two weeks after U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, speaking aboard the Stennis during a tour of the Gulf, said the United States would stand with others to prevent Iran gaining nuclear weapons and “dominating the region.”
On a visit to Abu Dhabi a few days later, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatened “severe” retaliation if the United States attacked his country, which is locked in a standoff with the United States over its nuclear program.
He also urged Gulf countries to “get rid of” foreign forces, blaming them for insecurity in the region.
The United States accuses Iran of trying to produce nuclear weapons, and has sought tougher U.N. sanctions against Iran. Iran says its nuclear ambitions are for energy purposes only.
U.S. and Iranian ambassadors are due to meet on Monday in Baghdad to discuss security in Iraq, where the United States has accused Iran of fomenting violence by backing Shiite militia there, and of providing weapons and the technology for roadside bombs. Iran has denied the accusations.
Last month, the U.S. Fifth Fleet base in Bahrain conducted its biggest crisis response drill and in March, the U.S. Navy conducted its biggest war drills in the Gulf since 2003.
Bush is the consummate jackass. Playing chicken in the most volatile region in the world.
Thank God the likes of him wasn't POTUS during the fall of '62.
Thank God the likes of him wasn't POTUS during the fall of '62.
But then those days there was a balance of power. This Brinkmanship is a game played by one.lookingforitallthetime said:
Anyone seen Bush lately? He is conspicuously absent.
Very true. The decline of the Soviet Union whose leadership understood the principles of MAD is a greater problem than anticipated.Mcluhan said:
Still, you may be giving Bush too much credit in assuming he would act differently within the constraints of a balance of power.
Me give BUSH credit...lol.. Its cash only from this wildmanlookingforitallthetime said:
You have to wonder about the audacity of the command, having three battle groups (i think it is three) inside the straights, in this relatively tiny stretch of water... I guess this means the Iranians have absolutely nothing to fire back with.
And I notice they didn't give Iran notice that they were sailing.
