Four aircraft carrier groups in the gulf area could mean a strike on Iran is imminent
This report by Kuwait Times that two additional aircraft carrier groups are heading toward the gulf could be very important because the U.S. would insist on having four aircraft carrier groups in that area before it would give Israel any green light to strike Iran. The same is true if the U.S. decided to strike Iran itself.
If this report is true figure that it will take about a month to get all the ships in place and ready for action. So nothing will happen before early September but like I said before an attack in late September to early October makes more political sense than after the election if it looks like Obama might win. It should be very interesting that two additional carrier groups have been reported to be heading that way to fit the timing of a pre U.S. election strike.
When you actually see four carrier groups in the Gulf and Red Sea, it could mean a strike on Iran is imminent. The U.S. would not allow Israel to strike Iran without first having adequate air power in place.
‘2 US aircraft carriers headed for Gulf’ | Jerusalem Post
Two additional United States naval aircraft carriers are heading to the Gulf and the Red Sea, according to the Kuwaiti newspaper Kuwait Times.
Kuwait began finalizing its “emergency war plan” on being told the vessels were bound for the region.
The US Navy would neither confirm nor deny that carriers were en route. US Fifth Fleet Combined Maritime Command located in Bahrain said it could not comment due to what a spokesman termed “force-protection policy.”
While the Kuwaiti daily did not name the ships it believed were heading for the Middle East, The Media Line’s defense analyst said they could be the USS Theodore Roosevelt and the USS Ronald Reagan.
Date posted: Thursday, August 7th, 2008 9:18 am | Under category: Iran, Israel
RSS 2.0 | Comment | Trackback
“If this report is true figure that it will take about a month to get all the ships in place and ready for action. ”
We get everybody there a lot quicker if we really want to. An entire Carrier Strike Group can cross the Atlantic, through the Suez and into the gulf in about 10 -14 days. The ride sucks, but it can be done, I know, we did it in 02- The John F Kennedy battlegroup.
I am aware that we can get the pieces there in that amount of time. But I don’t think they will push it and I don’t think they will want to arrive and be ready for a shock and awe campaign the next day. Remember if we are putting four aircraft carriers there we are probably doing this on Israel’s possible timing and plans not our own.
Although this Kuwait Times article was picked up by some major press. I still have not read any conformation that these carriers are actually heading to the gulf. If anyone finds out anything on that end let us know.
This might also be a rotation cruise. But it does seem strange that they would send in two groups to replace one. With the weapons we have today the military may only need three carrier groups in the Gulf. One group for Iraq, one for Iran, one for Pakistan(the region along the border with Afganistan).
Nice avatar!
We could do the job with three. During a war with Iran I think all our weapons would be mainly focused on Iran. It also would involve more than aircraft carriers if we got involved in the war. We would have to run B52 and other bombers out of some land bases.
Those land bases are here in the U.S., Kansas and Missouri. The large bombers are not stationed over seas anymore.
Think about it. You do not want your nuclear weapons platform and the weapons that it needs stationed in close proximity to the battle. Also I don’t believe that to many Middle Eastern countries would want bombers with nuclear weapons, that are U.S. Military, on their soil.
Most of our B52 are in the states but we also have B52’s on Guam I would consider that overseas. They also can fly to Germany. We also have other bombers throughout bases in NATO and when I was assigned to NATO we also had U.S. nuke sites overseas. I suppose most of land based nukes are now back in the states and have been destroyed but France and Britain have nukes if they were required for a NATO operation. We also have at least tactical nukes on our aircraft carriers as far as I know and they are pretty close to the battle.
We are not going to use Nukes on Iran anyway so it is a mute point. We have some pretty powerful conventional bombs that could do the job and nobody, not even the Arabs are going to object too much. Think about it, Iran with their latest missiles could send an EMP over the heart of Europe or hit the Arab oil fields. Even France might help us take out Iran if they knew Iran had nukes. I certainly think Germany would let us use our huge base their to strike Iran.
Don’t forget Diego Garcia. The Stealth Bombers were carrying out attacks during Iraqi Freedom, and a lot of the Tankers refuel there to do the in flight refueling. It’s British territory, and we have a lot of infrastructure there.
The military won’t usually say much besides “routine” when talking about ship deployments, but it’s public knowledge when the ships do leave. Norfolk is the Atlantic fleet’s largest base, here is the link to the local news there: http://hamptonroads.com/pilot/military
Here it is for San Diego:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/index.html
Obviously won’t have TOO much information, but little bits and pieces add up. Don, in my first post, wasn’t discounting your timeline with the ships taking a month to get on station. Just making the statement that we can be there quicker if things get dire. BTW, are you going to talk about the Russia/ Georgia conflict? A lot of people seem to think this really isn’t much as far as we’re concerned, but I think differently, and from reading your site, I think you will too.
Looks like you were caught in my spam trap for a few hours. I have it set for 7 external links but it seems to not like even a couple. Thanks, for the info. Your correct on what you said.
I made a short comment on Aug 8th on Georgia. It is called “Georgia on my mind” There are a few reply comments as well.
It could be the start of Russia expansion and it is going to put fear into the hearts of some Russia’s neighbors. It is also going to make the cold war return quicker. In addition, it shows who is really in charge in Russia. I do not think there is any immediate prophetic significance other than that Russia can march South anytime she wants. But if you think there is more to this let us hear it.
I know there were a couple of articles about the Israeli Connection in all of this. Saw one on the Jerusalem Post. I do find it interesting, though, that Israel was supporting Georgia by selling them weapons, and then to try and keep the Russians from selling the S-300 system to Iran, they broke off the deal with Georgia. Wonder if Russia will reconsider selling the system to Iran (yeah right)?
I thought it was hilarious when the new Russian President (can’t even remember his name right now) said that he was in charge. If there were any optimists that Russia would be changing with the President, I also think it proves exactly who is in charge of Russia.
Nobody knows the new Russian President’s name because everyone knows he is just pretending to be in charge of Russia. It is almost like he is in the old “Queen for a Day” TV show.
Does anyone know anything further about this article? I find the report that five carrier groups will be in the area at the same time to be almost beyond belief.
http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=5499
About the article: The Pelelui and the Iwo Jima are ‘gator freighters’ meaning that they house the Marines and their equipment. They are also the ‘flag’ platform, meaning they hold the highest ranking officer of that Marine Expeditionary Unit onboard. Interesting that there are 2 MEUs in the Operating Area.
I’ve emailed some friends about the build up, but nobody is saying much about it. Silence is apparently still golden. I find it interesting, though, that there is no U.S. cvoerage about this. I haven’t seen anything, not even on Fox News.
Thanks for the information Emanuel, I guess I read the intelligence report wrong. It sounded to me like they were implying that they were carriers but they actually just said three new strike forces.
The report indicated that this is the largest build up of naval forces since the invasion of Iraq and if the other report of more ships heading that way are true, something may be up fairly soon. Keep us informed if you hear anything more on this build up.