Third carrier group on the way to Iran

[lala_rawraw]

"The aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan passes two fishermen in their small boat as it leaves for its second deployment in a year from North Island Naval Air Station in Coronado, California January 27, 2007. The Reagan is headed to the Persian Gulf to support war efforts in Iraq. REUTERS/Fred Greaves (UNITED STATES)"

[rubberducky]

1. Oh, Lord, this is a very, very bad sign.

[Faryn Balyncd]

48. How will the Democratic Congress RESPOND to an Iranian "Gulf of Tonkin" incident?

How will the Democratic Congress RESPOND to an Iranian "Gulf of Tonkin" incident?



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3075116

[Junkdrawer]

71. Why, with an Iranian "Gulf of Tonkin Resolution", of course....

To do otherwise would be "unpatriotic"....and "weak on defense"....

[Faygo Kid]

2. War with Iran is coming, no later than mid-March.

Probably by the first of March, actually. We can't ignore the signs. And they are clear. The Bush Administration is like Mein Kampf. Hitler said what he would do; Bush telegraphs it.

[jpak]

12. Iran's Bushehr nuclear reactor begins its initial fueling in March

They have to take it out before it is fully fueled and begins operation in September...

:nuke:

[conscious evolution]

16. bushco actually has their own version

of MienKaumpf on paper.
It's called Policy for a New American Century.AKA PNAC

[krispos42]

44. Probably the week before the 1st new moon in March

That's what they did last time. The moon didn't rise until late in the night, so we had the advantage of darkness most or all of the night for like two weeks.

Looks like about March 15th or so. Moon rises in Tehran at about 4am at that time and sets at 1:30pm. Then it keep rising and setting later and later for the next couple of weeks. It begins rising at night again on April 3rd or so.

Or we can go with Feb. 13th, same situation.

Go here and put in this information:

http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/RS_OneYear.html

TEHRAN Location: E051 26, N35 42
Rise and Set for the Moon for 2007 U. S. Naval Observatory
Washington, DC 20392-5420
Zone: 3.50h East of Greenwich

Oh, and make sure you pick moonrise/moonset.

[dogfacedboy]

102. Beware the Ides of March, eh? n/t

[krispos42]

105. Oh, forgot about that!

I doubt Bush will get it, though.

For the lurking Freepers, the Ides of March is the day Julius Caeser was assassinated in Ancient Rome. "Ides" means "half division" in Latin.

Latin was the language of ancient Rome.

[Ghost Dog]

118. Ha ha! very well said krispos42.

And thanks for the potentially very relevant information, btw. But let's really hope i doesn't come to that (I mean, neither the moonless night attack nor the transition from Republic to Imperial Fiat).

[krispos42]

121. I aim to please

Bush pleases to aim..._{and if you listen carefully, you can hear the freepers thinking "I thought Chrysler made the Imperial!" lmao}

[roamer65]

52. Yes. World War III is coming.

Raisinbrain is going to start it to bring his "jeezus" back. Wonder what happens when Jeezus pulls a no-show?

[partylessinOhio]

3. What is your response, Congress? Pelosi? Clinton? Obama?

and Lieberman?

Are you all insane? Are you all gutless wonders?


Use your constitutional authority, end this war! And stop the madman from attacking Iran.

[lala_rawraw]

6. funny you should ask...

I just went on a tirade over at my place:

I know, it is all very exciting to watch who might run for the 08 Presidential seat. Yes, it must be so fascinating to start running for 08 when we are still catching our breath from the distraction 06 elections. Perhaps if Congress was not busy always running for something or from someone, they may actually pay attention to the following:

"The aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan passes two fishermen in their small boat as it leaves for its second deployment in a year from North Island Naval Air Station in Coronado, California January 27, 2007. The Reagan is headed to the Persian Gulf to support war efforts in Iraq. REUTERS/Fred Greaves (UNITED STATES)"

It is not just the mainstream newsinistas who are busily ignoring us into a war of provocation (See, last time they sold it, this time they are simply letting it happen) or the ethically challenged co-equal branch of government who is passing non-binding resolutions just to look like they are actually doing something. Try a binding one kids, that might work! But it is not just the bankrupt beltway that is too busy or too purchased to be bothered.

It is also the bloggers, both on the right and the left, who are too busy to focus the net-roots to stop a war. The right is led by a borg-like brain from one moment of propaganda to the other, hoping for the next high of when someone might fall for their "Kerry is sitting all alone at a table" bullshit.

The left is too busy jockeying for power plays - cliques are at odds with other cliques... just like high school - to actually put aside petty disagreements.

And the alternative press, who can claim maybe 3 reporters on this story, is too busy trying to scrape enough money month to month in order to get by. So there you have it, 3, maybe 4 journalists, and 5 maybe 7 bloggers, all working to stop a war of catastrophic proportion should this rogue presidency go all "nukelar."
http://www.atlargely.com/2007/01/third_carrier_g.html

Or i could just be pissy because I was supposed to be in DC and am still sick as dog (bark):(

[Junkdrawer]

15. Larisa, this is the issue that I worry about most....

1.) Big Oil can't drill Iraq until Iran is taken care of...

2.) The Saudis are worried about increasing Shiite influence...

3.) Israel wants to maintain it's nuclear monopoly in the region at all costs...


So the Big Three power brokers in the Bush cabal ALL want Iran gone. China and Russia, on the other hand, are friendly with the Iranian government. This has all the necessary requirements for World War on a scale we have seen since WW II, and thus since the invention of nuclear weapons.

The hands of the Doomsday Clock have been moved two minutes closer to midnight. I think that's optimistic.

[lala_rawraw]

23. yeah, welcome to my ulcer... i

have been worried about this for 2 years now:(

[Junkdrawer]

29. I just checked the DU archives, and I've been saying "fake terror attack...

in order to invade Iran" since late 2003...

Nya, nya, nya... ;)

[alfredo]

63. You need a soothing cup of single barrel bourbon.

Works for me.


3 CSG's (Carrier Strike Group) carries a lot of fire power. It's not just the planes from the carriers, it is the four cruise missile carrying ships to each CSG, and the submarines that accompany the group. We will also have cruise missile batteries in "friendly" nations along the Gulf. This does look like more than saber rattling.

[blues90]

35. Larisa has been staying on top of this .

This is something that gets closer and closer to a reality , reguardless of what many seem to feel this is one scary and very possible horror about to happen .

This so called surge may have something to do with it . Bush and cheney being confronted and now with Libby on trial may be all it takes for this to blow into a war very soon .

These people seem willing to do anything to save themselves .

[lala_rawraw]

59. thankds:D

[FogerRox]

109. Isreal no longer is the sole nuclear power in the Mid East

Pakistan has & may have shared with Saudi Arabia. Last year, Saudi Arabia bought some nice new shiney toys:

http://rdanafox.blogspot.com/2006/12/now-middle-east-gets-interesting.html

[Ghost Dog]

30. Don't worry, lala,

the Davosites are on the case, :sarcasm:
as I'm sure you well know.

I greatly respect your work. You are one history will surely remember.

Viewed from here in Europe, it all looks so Titanic. Admirable though US 'so-called democracy' may be, or once have been, it seems too weak and/or corrupted and/or dumbed-down and/or just too tired to stop it happening now.

(And, the 'it' seems quite akin to the passage of ancient Roman 'civilization' from Republican to Imperial forms. It remains to be seen if, in this case, 'successfully' (however such 'success' may be measured)).

So, I guess most of us can only try to hopefully look forward to the eventual phoenix that will arise one day out of the almost immediate, so-ominously looming catharsis.

You will be aware of the references in ancient Greek (and other) mythologies.

[lala_rawraw]

60. yes... now come rescue us as you guys are likely to sit this one out

[Ghost Dog]

119. Whatever else they may be, Europeans tend not to be so crazy

these days.

But, I think with a bit of luck we will still be here when you'all really need us :-)

[Blue_Tires]

68. great insights

and i hope you feel better soon!!:hi:

[hashibabba]

21. You do know they're working on it, don't you? I mean, Congress

has only been in session for a total of three weeks. They've passed a nonbinding resolution and have plans for binding resolutions, and defunding the war; and they have told Bush that he can't legally go into Iran. I'm sure they're aware of it and I'm sure they're working on doing things about the problems.

[lala_rawraw]

24. they are taking too long... way too long

[John Q. Citizen]

82. What can they do if bush says, "Make me!" Send the Sargent at arms to

arrest bush?

Someone verbally told bush he'd need authority to go into Iraq. Doesn't mean shit in any kind of legal way.

If bush orders the military to strike, what can congress do? Complain about it afterwords?

Congress needed to force a show down on the surge, something they won't do apparently. Now bush knows they are toothless.

Man a third carrier. That really sucks.

[butterfly77]

4. This is his response to the protest...

the asshole...

[dogday]

5. Seems like we have been here before

How long before the bombs start?

[lala_rawraw]

7. i dunno, but if this continues to be ignored... not long

perhaps we could kicky to top?

[rumpel]

8. what now Sen. Biden?

if * et. al. is hellbent on whatever their intentions are, what are the actual procedures in congress? Do they have to be unanimous in dragging him before a congressional inquiry?
Does anyone know?

We know that he already is adding troops - and who knows what classified operations are under way...

[mmonk]

9. Pretty soon, there won't be enough room for the oil tankers.

[pwb]

10. the neocons think bombing can win a war....still

[Dems Will Win]

11. The Reagan is headed to the Western Pacific, not the Gulf

It's replacing the Stennis, which is ordered to the Gulf. Of course it will only be several days away if wanted in the Gulf for bombing Iran.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

13. a hop, skip and an Indian Ocean away.

two days sailing at fool speed.

[jpak]

14. The OP said the Gulf

n/t

[Junkdrawer]

19. Reuters says "Persian Gulf"...

#

[FogerRox]

110. The Reagan is headed to the Western Pacific, correct

http://www.ne.jp/asahi/gonavy/atsugi/gonavy604.html

The Kittyhawk is slated to be scrapped IIRC late 2008, its the oldest of the bunch. Good candidate for being TONKINed.

[meow mix]

17. too bad you cant bomb information very easily...

since it lives in the brains of many people some of which are no where near iran.
all this is going to do is encourage them to build thier nukes faster, and get some payback.

[bananas]

18. This was mentioned on the radio news early this morning

I googled news and couldn't find a story about it.

[halobeam]

20. Two different destinations offered in this thread for SSReagan

which one is it?

[lala_rawraw]

22. what do you mean two? Reuters is the one provided

not sure what other one is listed

[halobeam]

39. see post 27

sorry, the link itself went AWOL.

[jpak]

25. This is a "surge deployment"

Ronald Reagan Carrier Strike Group to Surge Deploy

http://www.allamericanpatriots.com/m-news+article+storyid-18060.html

1/24/2007 -- SAN DIEGO (NNS) -- USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) Carrier Strike Group (CSG), with more than 5,000 sailors, will surge deploy Jan. 27, while USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63) undergoes scheduled maintenance in Yokosuka, Japan.

<snip>

The Ronald Reagan CSG, commanded by Rear Adm. Charles W. Martoglio, is comprised of Commander, Carrier Strike Group 7 (CCG 7), Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 14, Destroyer Squadron (DESRON) 7, the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76), the guided-missile cruiser USS Lake Champlain (CG 57), the guided-missile destroyer USS Russell (DDG 59), and Explosive Ordnance Disposal Unit 11, Detachment 15.

<not much more>

...and obviously there is some ambiguity where they're headed....

[n2doc]

27. Navy Times says Japan

Reagan strike group heads to Japan Saturday

By Gidget Fuentes - Staff writer
Posted : Thursday Jan 25, 2007 11:12:24 EST
SAN DIEGO, Calif. – The aircraft carrier Ronald Reagan will leave its North Island Naval Air Station pier on Saturday for a short-notice deployment to the Western Pacific, Navy officials said Wednesday.

The nuclear-powered Reagan, with a crew and air wing of more than 5,000 sailors, will deploy with its carrier strike group and operate in the U.S. Seventh Fleet region while the conventional carrier Kitty Hawk remains in the shipyard undergoing scheduled maintenance at its homeport in Yokosuka, Japan.

“Our nation relies on flexible, credible forces forward deployed, ready for immediate employment to address the challenges we face today,” Rear Adm. Charles W. Martoglio, the carrier strike group commander, said in a statement. “Being able to project forces both rotationally and through surge readiness makes us more effective and responsive.”

Reagan’s short-notice deployment, done under the Navy’s Fleet Response Plan that enables ships and strike groups to remain operationally ready to be able to quickly surge and deploy overseas, comes just six months after the carrier returned home from its maiden six-month deployment to the Persian Gulf and Western Pacific. “We’ve maintained a high operational tempo since we returned from deployment, and our ability to surge now is a testament to the hard work of this crew in keeping the ship battle ready,” said Navy Capt. Terry Kraft, Reagan’s skipper.

Reagan will be accompanied by Carrier Air Wing 14, based in Lemoore NAS, Calif., and the San Diego-based Destroyer Squadron 7 and will include the guided-missile cruiser Lake Champlain and the guided-missile destroyer Russell, along with a detachment from Explosive Ordnance Disposal Unit 11. The air wing includes Navy Strike Fighter Squadrons 22, 25, 113 and 115, Navy Airborne Early Warning Squadron 113, Navy Tactical Electronic Warfare Squadron 139, Carrier Logistics Support Squadron 30 and Helicopter Anti-submarine Squadron 4.

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/01/ntReagan070124/

Of course, where she heads from there is anyones guess...

[DemReadingDU]

32. updated link

http://navytimes.com/news/2007/01/ntreagan070127/

[jpak]

33. link has gone "AWOL"

n/t

[Ghost Dog]

34. Here, still here:

#

Ed. sorry, I see you refer to the navytimes.

Actually, it would be pretty crazy, in a practical (though maybe not in a pure psyops) sense, to deploy more warships in the restricted, shallow waters of the Gulf. In the Indian Ocean off the southern shores of Iran, or even closer to the Afghan/Pakistan theater (and Eastern Iran) would seem far more logical.

Remarking on the purely naval/tactical/practical here.

In a more strategic/political/moral sense such moves are imho entirely out of order.

[bananas]

54. It needs the trailing slash

DU puts a space in front of a trailing slash.
Or try these links - I added "?a" to fool the DU software:

There are two stories:

Reagan strike group heads to Japan Saturday
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/01/ntReagan070124/?a

Reagan, strike group leave as part of ‘surge’
http://navytimes.com/news/2007/01/ntreagan070127/?a

[halobeam]

37. thank you

[lala_rawraw]

58. this is no small floating contraption...

and I think Reuters had it right... plus, we heard she would be deployed to the Gulf anyway, so I tend to think Navy times may not be telling us where she is really gonna go... would they?

[n2doc]

86. I don't know

Shrubco has been so proud of bullying Iran that I sort of doubt that they would hide it. But the article leaves wide open where the Carrier is going after Japan. I also don't know where Reuters got their info from. I suppose we shall see in due course.

[tabasco]

26. Every day with the idiot-in-chief we get closer to WWIII.

I think impeachment might be a good idea. Even if it just slows the asshole down.

[Ghost Dog]

28. As Scott Ritter forewarned:

"...As things currently stand, the Bush Administration, emboldened with a vision of the unitary executive unprecedented in our nation's history, believes it has all of the legal authority it requires when it comes to engaging Iran militarily. The silence of Congress following the President's decision to dispatch a second carrier battle group to the Persian Gulf has been deafening. The fact that a third carrier battle group (the USS Ronald Reagan) will probably join these two in the near future has also gone unnoticed by most, if not all, in Congress..." http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20070205&s=ritter

Xref DU thread (cf. Pearl Harbor Freudian Slip): http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2705339

The photo:


Muy mal :-(

[partylessinOhio]

31. I would believe Scott Ritter before almost anyone else.

You don't let the evil insane one put all his war-toys in place before you "begin" to put your foot down on his neck.

:argh:

[zenturtle]

78. Scott Ritter's article is a must-read

We desperately need to convince Congress to take the steps Ritter suggests. I will see Senator Tester tomorrow, and will discuss this with him. CALL CONGRESS!

[The Straight Story]

36. Is the carrier 30,000 Square feet?

:rofl:

[cynatnite]

38. How many is this now? Do you have a link? n/t

[motocicleta]

40. Once again, thank you lala

I cannot escape the conclusion that you and Scott Ritter are correct on this one. Please, congress critters, the time is now.

K n R

[Strelnikov_]

41. Could be nothing, could be the beginning of the end of everything

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iran-timeline.htm

The Bush Administration has almost certainly not approved the timing of military operations against Iran, and consequently any projection of the probable timing of such operations is necessarily speculative. The election of Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad as Iran's new president would appear to preclude a negotiated resolution of Iran's nuclear program. The success of strikes against Iran's WMD facilities requires both tactical and strategic surprise, so there will not be the sort of public rhetorical buildup in the weeks preceeding hostilities, of the sort that preceeded the invasion of Iraq. To the contrary, the Bush Administration will do everything within its power to deceive Iran's leaders into believing that military action is not imminent.


Could be a training op as they say. OTOH, it's a quick dash from the South China Sea to the Arabia Sea. If this carrier is spotted at battle speed transiting the Strait of Malacca, it will begin looking like the match is on.

[krispos42]

42. USS Ronald Reagon... any symbolism, do ya think? n/t

[CoffeeCat]

100. I actually thought to myself...

...this will be the carrier that will be "Tonkenized". Our government
knows that Reagan's name incites strong emotions--which will lead
to increased approval of war with Iran.

Bush road on the coattails of 9/11. They need another "event" that will incite fear
and outrage in the American people. Reagan recently died. He is beloved by many. Bombing a
ship named after him will incite all of the blind rage and hysteria that this
PNAC war machine needs.

Country #2 in the bag. Syria won't be too far behind. During their "War with Iran",
it will be easy to accuse Syria of "disrupting the war". I predict that we're in Syria
before the end of the year.

This is why McCain is toeing an unpopular pro-war stance on Iraq. He knows damn well
that, within a year, we will be in the throes of WW3--and he's positioning himself
as the "strong, national defense" candidate. The rest of the anti-war politicians
are now saying things that will be used against them in political ads, during the 08
campaign season.

The PNACers are loving every minute of this.

[walldude]

43. Reagan is headed to the Persian Gulf to support war efforts in Iraq.

Yeah nothing like having the navy help fight a desert war :eyes:

[Crabby Appleton]

45. Iran attack will be an air campaign only

[Crabby Appleton]

46. Navytimes news

http://navytimes.com/news/

[scarletwoman]

47. You might find this of interest - from an economic site: "Does SPR Increase Foretell Iran Strike?"

(This link was posted by a commenter at either Juan Cole's Informed Comment, or Pat Lang's Sic Semper Tyrannis -- sorry I can't remember which...)

Does SPR Increase Foretell Iran Strike?
by Ashraf Laidi
January 24, 2007

Sharp swings ensued in today's FX trading, as the dollar fell sharply during the Asian session following a spike in oil prices after President Bush announcement to double the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to 1.5 billion barrels over the next 20 yrs.

<snip>

Does aggressive SPR build-up foretell Iran strike?

Light sweet crude is down 20 cents at $54.80 per barrel, after Tuesday's $2.48 jump to $55.04 on reports that the US Dept of Energy will purchase 100K barrels of oil per day starting next spring. While the decision is part of the Bush Administration's latest commitment to reduce US dependency on imported oil, the aggressive approach on beefing up SPR may reflect heightened possibility of a US military strike against Iran as early as March or April, at a time when US navy ships are piling up in the Persian Gulf. Yesterday, markets were filled with chatter of a Kuwait-based newspaper article reporting that the US will launch a military strike on Iran before April 2007, citing "reliable sources".

<my bolding -- original page has this section underlined>

According to the article, the strikes will be launched from US ships with Patriot missiles guarding all oil-producing countries in the region. The attacks would be planned in April, the last month of British PM Blair in office. The immediate result of such an attack is a protracted run up in oil prices, which could reach the $70 per barrel mark in less than a week.

sw

[jpak]

49. When the Chimp announced this the other night - my blood ran cold

The MSM never picked up on this either...

[scarletwoman]

50. Well, The MSM very carefully avoids picking up on ANYTHING that might clue people in as to

what's really going on in the big picture.

There'll be no "debate" about attacking Iran, it's just going to happen and be presented to us a fait accompli. We will be assured, of course, that it was absolutely necessary.

sw

[The Rubicon]

99. Exactly

It's amazing to see all the people who actually still believe the two parties serve separate masters. Dream on folks. At the moment it's too late to work within the system, but too early to start hanging the politicians. To quote Matt Damon in Syriana, "this is a fight to the death". Who controls the oil determines who lives and who dies. Last I checked the earth is about 5,000,000,000 people over its natural carrying capacity. That's a lot of dying to do.:nuke:

[leftchick]

51. Most of these google links say western pacific ,replacing the Kitty Hawk

I know that isn't too far from the PG and that they are calling this a "surge deployment". :(

Thousands Say Goodbye To USS Reagan

Last Updated:
01-27-07 at 3:53PM

For the second straight Saturday, thousands of military families say goodbye to their loved ones.

The USS Ronald Reagan and its Air Wing Strike Group has been sent to the western Pacific for the ship's second deployment.

It was another early call. Families were bundled up waiting for the sun to come up and their loved ones to ship out of NAS North Island.

"I don't want to do it again, but it's something I've got to do," said Alida Guzman, one of 5,000 sailors headed for the western Pacific.

That is where the USS Ronald Reagan will replace the USS Kittyhawk, which is in need of maintenance.


http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=uss+ronald+reagan

[lala_rawraw]

61. i will call around on Monday, but judging from my inbox

others are alarmed... but we still have time... looks to be at the earliest Ides of March... although, an eclipse in Feb would be ideal

[scarletwoman]

62. Something I read recently was indicating mid-February as highly likely.

I'm so sorry I can't remember where I saw that -- I've been obsessively following links upon links about this Iran business for weeks now, but my poor old computer keeps freezing up before I can bookmark everything.

The little article I linked to in my post #47 above seems to be speculating April, rather than sooner. From other reading I've been doing, however, I'm tending to think sooner, myself.

sw

[Kurovski]

53. Kick

:kick:

[bobthedrummer]

55. K&R n/t

[dogday]

56. K...

[Jcrowley]

57. K&R n/t

[doublethink]

64. U.S. to issue report on Iranians in Iraq

WASHINGTON, Jan. 27 (UPI) -- The United States will release a report on alleged actions by Iranian agents inside Iraq to further justify the use of lethal force against them. -snip-

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20070127-111106-9727r

:eyes: .... fixing the 'evidence' around the policy again? The beat goes on. Peace.

[leftchick]

65. lala Check this out.....

God is there any way in bloody hell to get this TRUTH out about Iran and nukes???

Nuclear plans in chaos as Iran leader flounders


Boasts of a nuclear programme are just propaganda, say insiders, but the PR could be enough to provoke Israel into war

Peter Beaumont, foreign affairs editor
Sunday January 28, 2007
The Observer


Iran's efforts to produce highly enriched uranium, the material used to make nuclear bombs, are in chaos and the country is still years from mastering the required technology.
Iran's uranium enrichment programme has been plagued by constant technical problems, lack of access to outside technology and knowhow, and a failure to master the complex production-engineering processes involved. The country denies developing weapons, saying its pursuit of uranium enrichment is for energy purposes.


Despite Iran being presented as an urgent threat to nuclear non-proliferation and regional and world peace - in particular by an increasingly bellicose Israel and its closest ally, the US - a number of Western diplomats and technical experts close to the Iranian programme have told The Observer it is archaic, prone to breakdown and lacks the materials for industrial-scale production.
The disclosures come as Iran has told the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency , that it plans to install a new 'cascade' of 3,000 high-speed centrifuges at its controversial underground facility at Natanz in central Iran next month.

The centrifuges were supposed to have been installed almost a year ago and many experts are extremely doubtful that Iran has yet mastered the skills to install and run it. Instead, they argue, the 'installation' will more probably be about propaganda than reality.

The detailed descriptions of Iran's problems in enriching more than a few grams of uranium using high-speed centrifuges - 50kg is required for two nuclear devices - comes in stark contrast to the apocalyptic picture being painted of Iran's imminent acquisition of a nuclear weapon with which to attack Israel. Instead, say experts, the break-up of the nuclear smuggling organisation of the Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadheer Khan has massively set back an Iran heavily dependent on his network


http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2000303,00.html#article_continue

[teryang]

72. Iran leader founders.

Excellent article. Leaders of US, UK, and Israel are foundering as well. Just the sort of fools paradise that leads to major war.

[leftchick]

74. it is happening again isn't it teryang?

this time on a much larger scale. A WWIII type scale when considering the outside ME influence as well? China and Russia? And omg.

:(

[teryang]

80. not WWIII but a bad one

there is no need for WWIII. The Russians can break us down by attrition, backing unconventional Iranian forces against us without becoming directly involved. We have other weak spots throughout the middle east and central Asia. We have no manpower and little military talent apparently. Way too overconfident in so called technology. Cordesman's analyses show a distinct political advantage to the defenders unconventional tactics.

Occupation forces and tactics will not do well. Air and missile attacks alone cannot reduce Iran. Any further expansion of the war beyond Iraq will damage our economy irrevocably. North American king doesn't take Eurasian rook.

[lala_rawraw]

90. yeah

although that is largely thanks to the efforts of CIA

[nannah]

106. i'm concerned that martial law in US

is the goal of this administration and they have been putting changes in constitutional safeguards into policy and law methodically for past 6 years. war talk and posturing is to provide backdrop to allow president to justify martial law; Lieberman put play into motion when he used language, comfort to the enemy during petraeus's hearing. is there precedent for a president charging congress with giving comfort to the enemy? will they be criminalizing anti-war protests?

am i over the top with paranoia???

[jpak]

111. Iran to begin to installing its centrifuge cascade "next month"????

and the Bushehr reactor to beginning fueling in March???

Is there a coincidence in the timing of The Surge here???

[ohio2007]

120. Russia committed to completing Bushehr nuclear power plant on time

This from the official Iranian news source

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4bV7TrQATw&NR

btw, you never know what short news blurb you'll stumble upon when you troll non western MSM sites;
http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-203/0701283272121648.htm

[frogcycle]

66. despite my trepidations about a pending additional preemptive war

it is prudent to put the assets where they might be needed. Iran's unpronounceable leader HAS made a lot of noise, and they COULD decide to ratchet up the confrontation. I stipulate that bush is doing most of the sabre-rattling, and he scares the living shit out of me. But over-reacting to every reasonable move we make militarily is not necessarily helpful either.

[SammyWinstonJack]

67. Maybe george shouldn't have called Iran an axis of evil?

I think george brought this on, he asked for it! Iran is responding, don't you think?

[frogcycle]

69. yes, of course

i'm not defending the bastard for totally demolishing our once-proud position as "leader of the free world", with at least some claim to being the good guys.

I'm just saying that facts are facts, we are where we are, and deploying a carrier might be prudent. Do I suspect he's up to no good? you betcha! but overreaction to a carrier deploying is like overreacting to the size of a house. There is so much shit to sort through and so much to put right, energy spent harping on either red herrings or false alarms is energy lost to the more important causes.

[John Q. Citizen]

83. Why is sending more aircraft carriers to the Gulf reasonable? Are you

afraid Iraq or Iran will attack us if we don't?

I find it highly unreasonable, and in fact, I haven't yet found any action the bush administration has taken to be reasonable.

Of course I don't subscribe to the PNAC plan, so maybe that why it all seems so unreasonable.

If we look at the evidence;

1.We have two carriers and support in the Tiny Persian Gulf. Why?

2. Another carrier support group maybe heading to the gulf or close by.

3. A doubling of the Strategic Oil Reserve

4. A Navy guy put in charge of an occupation in Iraq

5. 21,000 additional ground forces sent to Iraq when not requested by our military or the Iraqi military.

6. Increased lies about and demonization of Iran.

Am I missing anything else?

Why are we doing this if it's not to attack Iran? What legitimate reason do we have for doing this?

[Land Shark]

70. K&R, If there's another war soon, we should all get married Now, no?

With the kind of war it appears may be in the works, we're all about to be drafted into the hostilities. And we'll need each other. Well, it would beat the hell out of fear, trembling, analysis, and stress, and make politics more festive than it otherwise would be.

Sign me, An Optimistic American, forever looking for the pony near the pile of horseshit, but a DUer and rawstory fan, and so without denying the sighting or the stench of that pile.

The faint scent of blood in the water excites me, miles away,
--Land Shark

[lala_rawraw]

92. you may be right

because short of a nuke war i am never, ever, ever getting married again. ;)

[StrictlyRockers]

73. HOLY CRAP!

I mean, this is a very bad sign!

[Junkdrawer]

75. WHOA....Looks like they've been planning this one for a while...

....

During and after the Cold War, the Navy operated its aircraft carrier battle groups on a highly structured cycle of training, deployment and repair that typically kept only two or three of the 12-ship fleet at sea simultaneously. Sailors could count on a six-month cruise every other year.

Navy leaders crafted the Fleet Response Plan after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, speeding up training and overhaul time to make as many as six carriers available on 30 days' notice, and two more available in 90 days. They tested it 2½ years ago with an exercise called Summer Pulse '04, which sent seven flattops to sea at the same time.

....

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20070127-1611-bn27reagan.html

[lyonn]

76. Jusk kicking this post a bit, lots of good thoughts and info here

Thanks and recommended

[cool user name]

77. ITMFA ...

:wtf:

[Land Shark]

79. Consider Speaker Pelosi's comments about timing in the Persian Gulf

They are mostly about Iraq, but wouldn't it apply even more strongly to Iran??

"'The president knows that because the troops are in harm's way, that we won't cut off the resources. That's why he's moving so quickly to put them in harm's way,' Pelosi said on ABC's 'Good Morning America.'

When asked whether she thought the president manipulated the deployments to avoid congressional action, Pelosi said she hoped he did not but thought 'he could have told us about it sooner. ... We found out about it as the troops were going in.'"

Ask yourself the question: What are the chance of Congressional "interference" in the Persian Gulf NOW (including but not limited to interfering with the funding of the war) versus the chances of Congressional "interference" with funding or otherwise once there are fresh hostilities involving Iran, etc.?

Umm, will Americans "support the troops" who are "in harm's way"? At least a dust-up with Iran seems like a smart Machiavellian maneuver.

[provis99]

81. check globalsecurity.org

Their section on where are the carriers had the Reagan in post-deployment; it should have stayed at home, and one of the surge ready groups redirected to Japan, if replacement of the Kittyhawk was what was intended. As it stands now, it looks to me like there will be two carrier battle groups in the Gulf shortly, one (the Reagan) in theatre proximity, and three more (Nimitz, Roosevelt, Truman)on short notice duty. That makes six groups available for a strike on Iran should the Chimp request it.

the link for keeping track of carrier movements is at
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/where.htm

[EVDebs]

84. Atlantic Monthly article 'Will Iran Be Next ?' shows wargames all failures

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200412/fallows

Since DOD already knows they can't militarily prevent Iran from pursuing a nuclear program you'd think Bushco would be doing some negotiations long about now. Sane course of action could even have included Russian processing of fuel etc. but all this seems to have been deliberatly frittered away.

Only bright spot is Fareed Zakaria's estimate of when Iran could get a bomb

The Year of Living Fearfully
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14640262/site/newsweek/

""Most serious estimates suggest that Iran would need between five and 10 years to achieve even a modest, North Korea-type, nuclear capacity.""

ANY attack now would be #1 premature (that's my merciful terminology coming out here-- since I can't call Bushco and the crazies in the basement at the WH and the Pentagon insane and live to tell the the tale) and, #2, would elicit support for hardliners in Iran, not moderates or those wanting detante with the West.

[Mnemosyne]

85. I printed this article out originally, when it first appeared.

Couldn't find the old link and don't know if this could mean something, maybe only Iranian prop., but you never know.





:hi:

On edit: sorry pics huge, don't know how to shrink them yet.

[magellan]

88. Good find!! The MKO = MEK, doesn't it?

From Wikipedia (and I recall this has been discussed on DU before):

Alleged MEK activity in Iran

In 2006 news reports linked the PMOI with US threats to attack Iran, specifically use of the PMOI to "prepare the battlefield" for US military action against Iran.<26>

According to the news organisation Rawstory, an intelligence official said that following the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, “We disarmed of major weapons, but not small arms. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was pushing to use them as a military special ops team, but there was infighting between Rumsfeld's camp and then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, but she was able to fight them off for a while”.

According to another intelligence source, the policy infighting ended last year when Rumsfeld, under pressure from Vice President Dick Cheney, came up with a plan to “convert” the MEK by having them simply quit their organization." “These guys are nuts,” the intelligence source said. "Stephen Cambone and those guys made MEK members swear an oath to Democracy and resign from the MEK and then our guys incorporated them into their unit and trained them” for action in Iran. A UN source close to the United Nations Security Council, again according to Rawstory, said in April 2006 that "the clandestine war had been going on for roughly a year".

According to a former Iranian ambassador and UPI, "The Iranian accusations are true, but it is being done on such a small scale - a series of pinpricks - it would seem to have no strategic value at all."

Except that a steady drip eventually yields a bucketful, and that bucket's about ready to overflow now.

Additionally, Wiki cites (and I also remember) Kucinich's letter to Bush** last year which 'asked Bush to report to Congress both on US military operations in Iranian territory and on US use of proxy organisations in military actions against the Iranian government, stating, "Previously I asked you to immediately report to Congress on the extent of U.S. military operations currently in Iran. Now, in light of the evidence described above, I urge you to report to Congress on U.S. support for military operations in Iran by anti-Iranian insurgent groups."'

Our government using "former" members of terrorist group MEK as sources of disinformation (known in BushWorld as "credible intelligence") about Iran's nuclear activities? If anyone doubts it, I refer them to BushCo's continued dalliance with the well-known double-(triple-?)crosser Ahmed Chalabi and what he did for them in regards to pre-war intelligence on Iraq.

[lala_rawraw]

91. Yes, MEK is MKO

remember, the all resigned MEK because that word (not the people, if you can imagine) are listed on State's terror watch list and DOD wanted to use them as assets.

[magellan]

97. Thanks. And I just found this interesting tidbit in Wiki:

"According to the U.S. Department of State and the Foreign Affairs group of the Australian Parliament, the MEK assisted the Iraqi Republican Guard in suppressing the Kurdish and Shiite uprisings in Iraq after the 1991 Persian Gulf War."

So! -- not only is BushCo using a terrorist group as an asset to further their ambitions in Iran, they're using a terrorist group that aided Saddam in murdering the Shia and Kurds -- a crime BushCo like to point to in justifying their invasion of Iraq!!

Well, hats off to BushCo for creative warmongering. And by golly, they were right: there were terrorists in Iraq...just not al Qaeda as Bush** insisted. I don't suppose he'd like to explain to Americans that he's working with terrorists while prosecuting a "war on terror", hm?

The MEK's importance to BushCo is also underscored by this factoid reported on the BBC's Newsnight in 2004: shortly after the Iraq invasion, Tehran offered to withdraw its military support of Hamas and Hezbollah, along with giving open access to its nuclear facilities, in return for the West disbanding the MEK. The request fell on deaf ears.

TRAITOROUS, LYING NEOCON SCUM.

[lala_rawraw]

114. it gets better

MEK has been assassinating Iranian government officials... last count I had was 22 as of last March

[magellan]

124. Lovely.

It really makes you wonder, doesn't it? These neocon fools are so opposed to the Iranian regime, yet they put a similar one in place in Iraq and DEFEND it. Crazy like foxes, I think.

BTW, I noticed after I posted the last time here last night that you had some of the info I was quoting on your blog already, which must mean you've posted it here previously. I always try to read your posts but sometimes I miss them! Thanks for all your hard work keeping us informed and I hope you're feeling a bit better. :)

[Mnemosyne]

122. Chalabi has 'double-crossed' so many times; he resembles

a mutant pretzel in my mind now.

"A UN source close to the United Nations Security Council, again according to Rawstory, said in April 2006 that "the clandestine war had been going on for roughly a year"."

War there since 2005, at least, a bit of vindication for Ritter I would say. And as to it being called a "war", I'd bet that it is more like covert terrorism, intimidation and sabotage. Ahmadinejad is safe from assassination for now; they still need him.

Do we know any names for the Iranian "Chalabi yet"

What a friggin' world!

[magellan]

125. Iranian Chalabi? Presenting Amir Abbas Fakhravar

I googled and came up with this MotherJones article; Lala may know more. He sounds like Chalabi's Iranian twin to me.

Has Washington Found its Iranian Chalabi?

By Laura Rozen
October 6, 2006

"This past summer, an op-ed appeared in the Washington Post under the byline of Richard Perle, the influential former Pentagon adviser who was a chief booster of Ahmed Chalabi in the run-up to the war in Iraq. As he had prior to the invasion of Iraq, Perle urged the Bush administration to shun appeasement and take an uncompromising stand toward Tehran; as with Iraq, he argued that a hard line was critical to help the population overthrow a brutal regime. And once again, Perle had an exile leader he wanted America to know about: Amir Abbas Fakhravar, “an Iranian dissident student leader who escaped first from Tehran’s notorious Evin prison, then, after months in hiding, from Iran.”"

snip...

Enter Fakhravar, who is more inclined to say exactly what the hawks want to hear. He told me that Iran’s president wants to wipe Israel off the map, and that “any movement or any action whatsoever” by the United States would “help or enhance the people to rise up.” All the student movement in Iran needed to overthrow the regime, he said, was “a little bit of coordination, organization, and training.”

A virtual unknown both inside and outside Iran when he arrived in the United States in May, Fakhravar has in the months since then ascended to prominence at a dizzying clip. By midsummer he was rushing from testifying on Capitol Hill one moment to an Iran opposition gathering at the White House the next, meeting regularly with policymakers and influential advisers, chatting with the former Shah’s son on his cell phone, and generally being touted as the young, idealistic face of the movement to overthrow the mullahs.

(picture of Fakhravar with Richard Perle)

But Fakhravar may be a false messiah. In interviews with more than a dozen Iranian opposition figures, some of them former political prisoners, a different picture emerged—one of an opportunist being pushed to the fore by Iran hawks, a reputed jailhouse snitch who was locked up for nonpolitical offenses but reinvented himself as a student activist and political prisoner once behind bars. Fakhravar and his supporters vehemently deny such allegations, saying that the attacks are motivated by petty jealousy and a vendetta by Fakhravar’s enemies on the Iranian left.

more.... http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2006/11/fakhravar.html

[Leopolds Ghost]

126. Well, considering Chalabi was an Iranian double agent who fooled us into invading Iraq... n/t

[NuttyFluffers]

87. to spread peace, good will, and cheer, i'm sure.

whaaaaaaa..! you mean this might be a bad sign?! nah, impossible, they couldn't be so stupid as to escalate this quagmire! right? right?!

[GreenZoneLT]

89. Reuters screwed that up; Reagan to WestPac

I know it's hard to imagine a Reuters stringer getting a cutline wrong, but there you have it.

Official word through Navy channels is that the Stennis is coming to the Gulf, as the second carrier, and the Reagan is "surging" to replace the Stennis in the western Pacific. San Diego newspaper (where the Reagan is homeported) has the details:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20070128-9999-1m28reagan.html

[lala_rawraw]

93. it was slotted to stay home

was it not?

[Cooley Hurd]

94. According to CNN this am, it's replacing USS Kitty Hawk...

...because the Kitty Hawk is in need of repairs.

[GreenZoneLT]

96. Not directly. It's possible they took Kitty Hawk's slot.

Stennis was the WestPac carrier before they moved to the Gulf. It's possible Kitty Hawk was the on-call surge carrier, and Reagan is replacing them. Not having seen the CNN story, I dunno. That San Diego newspaper story gives the details pretty thoroughly, though.

[lala_rawraw]

112. so we know two things now...

Reuters fucked up yet again

and

Reagan won't be too far from Gulf area (how many nautical miles?) at about 2-3 day "surge"

[GreenZoneLT]

95. Right, that's why it's a "surge."

The Reagan wasn't scheduled for a WestPac deployment. You could say they're transiting in support of Persian Gulf operations, but they're not actually going to the Gulf.

[Truthy Nessy]

98. I believe Iran will be attacked because of grunt Marine's

talk with his parents. He told them he is waiting orders to fight in Iran. No mistake. His orders have been postponed twice. when he Ships out I know that it is in the works.

[ohio2007]

101. I wonder if there could be a build up going in a different direction

Pakistan. That side of the Afghan border may be leading to a spring troop insertion to pre empt the Taliban summer offensive.

[Marie26]

103. I wouldn't trust a photo caption.

First of all, I wouldn't trust anything that's just a picture caption. News photographers write their own captions to the photos before it is uploaded to the newswire. Unlike news articles, which are edited before publication, photographer's captions are just uploaded as-is, w/o any editing or proofreading. So this caption is just one photographer's opinion - he's not a reporter, and he's not an in-depth expert on military movements - he's just taking an pretty picture from afar.

I think it's downright irresponsible to post one photo caption as if it proves something this serious. The caption isn't right. The carrier is not heading to the Persian Gulf, but the Western Pacific (Japan). And yeah, maybe that's significant, but it's not the same as heading straight to Iran. So the OP isn't correct.

Even though this caption is wrong, this movement still seems significant. Two days before the USS Reagan was "surged" to the Western Pacific on Jan. 27, the carrier's commander was replaced. Maybe it's normal for the Navy to replace commanders before a major movement, I don't know, but it still seems like a meaningful coincidence. Why was the commander replaced?

"Carrier Strike Group 7 Holds Change of Command"

Release Date: 1/26/2007 4:06:00 PM

From USS Ronald Reagan Public Affairs

SAN DIEGO (NNS) -- Rear Adm. Charles W. Martoglio relieved Rear Adm. Michael H. Miller as commander, Carrier Strike Group (CCSG) 7 in a change of command ceremony Jan. 25 aboard USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76).

“I am honored to take command of Carrier Strike Group 7 and the Ronald Reagan Strike Group (CSG)," said Martoglio. "I am impressed with the readiness of this strike group and with the tremendous Sailors and their families who so measurably contribute to the security of our great nation.”

http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=27478

Why did they change command of the carrier? IMO, the commander was replaced because they wanted someone w/experience w/directing a carrier during a major initial attack. Miller, the old commander, doesn't have any war-time experience as a Carrier Commander. He was only appointed in 2005, way after the Iraq invasion. However, his replacement, Martoglio, commanded a destoyer group during the 2003 invasion, and also oversaw all sea combat operation for the Nimitz carrier strike group during the Iraqi invasion.

("Rear Adm. Martoglio’s most recent sea command was as Commander, Destroyer Squadron Twenty-Three during which he also served as the Sea Combat Commander for the Nimitz Strike Group during Operation Iraqi Freedom.")

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/bios/navybio.asp?bioID=192 - Martoglio bio
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/bios/navybio.asp?bioID=215 - Miller bio


When Bush replaced CENTCOM Gen. Abazaid w/a Navy Admiral, it seemed to signal a new sea-based military policy against Iran. BEfore they launch a war, they want to make sure the right officers are in position to implement it. I think the replacement of Miller w/Martoglio means that they expect this carrier to be involved in offensive military strikes in the near future.

[ohio2007]

104. ? you answered your own question in the sentence.prior to asking

Maybe it's normal for the Navy to replace commanders before a major movement, I don't know, but it still seems like a meaningful coincidence. Why was the commander replaced?

personnel retire,rotate to shore duty or take other commands.

imo, the reason some people are so fascinated by battle groups "freedom of movement" is bc they can 't be predicted like a troops built up along a border

[Marie26]

107. How's that?

Is it normal to replace a commander before a major movement? I'm hoping someone can answer that, cause I certainly can't answer that question. If it's typical, the replacement doesn't mean a thing. If it's uncommon to replace a commander right before a carrier ships out, then this is significant.

[lala_rawraw]

113. asked, waiting to hear... but

what i am hearing is that they cannot stuff all the carriers in the actual Gulf (my paraphrasing) and that Reagan going over to Japan is not really too far from the Gulf... that said, it looks like Reagan is replacing Stennis' who was supposed to replace Kitty Hawk... Stennis was moved into Gulf.

and Reuters got the news caption wrong... but perhaps a Freudian slip?

[ohio2007]

115. What are you trying to "read into" about a simple of command procedure?

It is normal to have a change of command. Having a change of command during mid deployment isn't out of the ordinary either.

[Fatima]

116. CO rotation

CO's of CV/CVN's are full captain rank...the tour should be 36 months (for a CVN) but there are exceptions, always. Normal to change before deployment? Sure, it's been done plenty of times.

[Marie26]

117. Thanks

This might be significant, it might not. This CO's tour was only about 12 months, so it's an exception case. And there could be a perfectly normal reason why command was changed before deployment. It's just that the change, conmitant w/this sudden "short-notice" surge, makes me think that the two changes might be related. :shrug: I just wanted to add this info - YMMV.

[BattyDem]

108. This is bullsh*t! Hey Congress ....

DO SOMETHING!!!!!!!!!!!

[liberalhistorian]

123. This is truly frightening, and I'm hearing more and more

on the MSM about the likelihood of our "going after Iran", I think to prepare us for it in the same way we were "prepared" for Iraq. I simply cannot believe anyone in their right mind would actually support this in the least.

Which is why I'm truly infuriated at John Edwards' support for it, as shown in his speech in Israel last week in which he banged the drums for war with Iran, saying that it was necessary for us to go after Iran if we had to, if necessary to "protect Israel." He did nothing more than vomit up GOP talking points, to my total and everlasting disgust. I couldn't believe it when I heard about it, and any DUer who supports him now after knowing this needs their head examined.