USS Nimitz Forced Iran's Decision

USS Nimitz Forced Iran's Decision

www.newsmax.com

But as Britain refused to apologize for the behavior of its boarding party, continuing to insist that they were operating in Iraqi waters – not inside Iran's territorial waters, as Tehran alleged – some of Khamenei's advisers began to have second thoughts.

Adding to those doubts were reports that the USS Nimitz was steaming toward the Persian Gulf – making it the third Carrier Strike Group in the area.

(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 4-4-2007 by UM_Gazz]

If this is true, the notion of "walk softly and carry a big stick" diplomacy worked.....this time.

www.newsmax.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Common Carrier

I'm pretty sure the deployment schedule of the Nimitz has nothing to do with the British detainees.

Rather, I think the planning behind its movements has been underway for quite some time, and is about to come to fruition in the near future.

Strategically, the U.S. is at a point where it either needs to fish or cut bait in the Middle East.

What happens in the coming weeks will probably answer that question once and for all.

The problem is much like a child who goes unpunished Iran has gotten away with the stunt they pulled. Had the military option been used the child would have been punished and Iran would have been taken down a peg or two.

Iran's Nuclear program could have been set back as well.

I have serious doubts that the Nimitz carrier group forced Iran's hand on this. This report is just patting oneself on the back and thinly disguised propaganda.

The crisis simply played out as these things go; Iran has made its point, humiliated the UK and thumbed its nose at the US, scored points at home and in the ME, and avoided a broader confrontation--for now.

In all, well played.

The US has spent Lord knows how much to sail carrier groups into the Gulf and surrounding waters and threatens a huge attack. But Iran has Russian-supplied missiles that would wreak havoc on our fleets. This is either an enormously expensive attempt at bluffing & intimidation, or simple recklessness on the US's part if we do attack.

If macho posturing gets the better of reason, it will not be pretty.

Originally posted by Majic
I'm pretty sure the deployment schedule of the Nimitz has nothing to do with the British detainees.

The deployment of the Nimitz had been planned far in advance yes. But if the hostages were still in Iranian custody when she arrived in the region, that would give the U.S. a good reason to delay Eisenhower's return to port.

So I think it could very well have played a part of their calculation.

Originally posted by Majic
What happens in the coming weeks will probably answer that question once and for all.

I think this statement is very true. I don't like the direction this is going but I fear it is not going to be pretty.

Flying In The Face Of Reason

Originally posted by gottago
If macho posturing gets the better of reason, it will not be pretty.

It's entirely possible that U.S. military planners have no idea what they're doing and are about to be defeated by Iran, just as they were going to be outsmarted by Saddam or immobilized by those "brutal Afghan winters".

But I don't recommend betting on that.

Part and parcel of any U.S. military operation is psychological warfare, and an important part of psychological warfare is getting the enemy to underestimate or misunderstand the nature of one's capabilities and plans.

Politics and propaganda aside, the U.S. is in the process of a significant force build-up in the Middle East subsequent to unsatisfactory diplomatic efforts with Iran.

I think it's safe to say the time for talk is coming to an end.

Originally posted by Majic
Part and parcel of any U.S. military operation is psychological warfare, and an important part of psychological warfare is getting the enemy to underestimate or misunderstand the nature of one's capabilities and plans.

Politics and propaganda aside, the U.S. is in the process of a significant force build-up in the Middle East subsequent to unsatisfactory diplomatic efforts with Iran.

I think it's safe to say the time for talk is coming to an end.

Are you serious?

What diplomatic efforts? What talk, other than the same empty nonsense we heard last time round?

Seriously, you write as if you're almost happy about the way things are being advanced.

Get out a map. Iran is as big as Alaska; bigger than France, Germany and England combined. This won't be Grenada if it happens. And it won't play out like some World of Warcraft bonus round.

Iran has not been run into the ground like Iraq was. It has suffered no sanctions of any seriousness, it has not been disarmed or emasculated.

Oh, and btw, let's not be so naive. Since the war or the threat of war was planned far in advance, the Nimitz's schedule is de facto part of the war buildup, and is not in the least a coincidence.

On the contrary. A standard CBG deployment is six months. Eisenhower arrived in the Gulf in December. Counting transit times to and from the Gulf that comes out to right at six months by the time she gets home. This isn't any part of a military buildup, it's standard movements for the CBGs.

Originally posted by gottago
The US has spent Lord knows how much to sail carrier groups into the Gulf and surrounding waters and threatens a huge attack. But Iran has Russian-supplied missiles that would wreak havoc on our fleets. This is either an enormously expensive attempt at bluffing & intimidation, or simple recklessness on the US's part if we do attack.

And you know this for a fact? Do you not think the military planners arnt aware of this? You dont honestly think they would send MULTI BILLION DOLLAR ships that take literally a decade to build into a hornets nest without some bug spray now do you? I think you would be surprised to know that they have defense capabilities against such threats.

House Of Straw

Originally posted by gottago
Oh, and btw, let's not be so naive.

Let's not be so presumptuous, and please give that straw man you're beating on a break.

I can't really help you with your post, because it addresses someone who doesn't exist.

If you want to discuss the topic with me, please be courteous enough to actually disagree with something I've said, rather than launch into an irrelevant and insulting tirade unrelated to my actual opinions.

Thanks.

I have to agree with the title of this thread. The Nimitz battlegroup entering into the Persian Gulf helped Iran move a little faster to sending the 15 home. You can thank us later, Great Britain -- always glad to be of assistance.

Originally posted by carnival_of_souls2047
I have to agree with the title of this thread. The Nimitz battlegroup entering into the Persian Gulf helped Iran move a little faster to sending the 15 home. You can thank us later, Great Britain -- always glad to be of assistance.

No worries. I always knew we built your country for a reason.

There is no defence against Sunburn missiles that I know of. These things go so fast that their punch is equivalent to a nuclear explosion but via conventional explosives and kinetic energy. Both the Chinese and the Russians have these non-nuclear missiles and each missile is capable of downing an aircraft carrier.

As to the question of whether the Nimitz forced Iran's hand, it has been clearly demonstrated that the Nimitz was scheduled to move well in advance of the hostage taking so this rules out it's deliberate use in intimidating Iran into giving them back. And it's also been clearly explained that the Nimitz is replacing the Eisenhower, so there is no net increase in force.

As far as my arm-chair General prediction goes, I cant see the United States engaging in total war against the Iranians. I believe the carrier presence is purely designed to prevent the Iranians from blockading the Straights of Hormuz at whim. It negates Iran's strongest threat thereby leaving the United States in a much better strategic position to make demands on Iran.

It has nothing to do with an military plans since they are purely catastrophic in nature. Iran would most likely down the carriers and incur limited nuclear attack from the United States for it's trouble. I don't think US ground forces would even consider going into Iran even following their nuclear response.

Originally posted by subz
And it's also been clearly explained that the Nimitz is replacing the Eisenhower, so there is no net increase in force.

Yes that was the plan, but there is/was no reason the Eisenhower would have had to leave. There certainly has been precident to keep carriers out for much more extended times when needed.

American arrogance knows no boundaries.

Do you really think that hideously large animated gif capable of inciting seizures or your blanket attack on all Americans really adds anything useful to this discussion?



[edit on 4/5/2007 by djohnsto77]

I thought Blair's reaction was somewhat subdued. His comment about Britain respecting Iran as an ancient civilization was rather humorous, considering his country or the States could reduce it to glass in about five minutes without going anywhere near it.

This was all about appearances. I don't think either Britain or the US was ready to do anything in the way of a measured response. There is too much going on elsewhere. Tehran caught a break, but I don't believe for one minute they will get away with it again.

As they say an image speaks a thousand words and quite frankly the title of this thread is truly laughable. Typical American arrogance. You take credit for everything. The truth is that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad completely humiliated Tony Blair and Great Britain and made Tony Blair look like the American poodle he is. This had nothing to do with American helping whatsoever.

If Bush's comments earlier in the week were anything to go by, just like Blair he also made things worse for those captured navy personnel. Thankfully Iran has chosen to set them free.

As for all those who are only too eager to wage war on Iran, I hope you've stocked up on the tissues because subz is right and you have absolutely no defence against those Russian sunburn missiles. I hope you're prepared to loose a few aircraft carriers, not to mention the waste of life of all those who serve aboard these ships.

I can only imagine what psycho Bush would do in that situation if America was humiliated. Nodoubt he would resort to using nuclear missiles to save face.

Also if you do decide to invade Iran you can kiss goodbye to any relationship you ever had with Great Britain or anyone else for that matter. America will stand alone.




[edit on 5-4-2007 by kindred]