The next war in the Persian Gulf

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3383
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Re: The next war in the Persian Gulf

Postby Rudradev » 17 May 2019 20:31

2014 article by Gary Brecher ("The War Nerd") on USN plans for an attack on Iran. A little dated but informative, and very entertaining :mrgreen:

https://pando.com/2014/05/26/the-war-ne ... -you-tell/
The War Nerd: Iran is building a "fake" aircraft carrier? How can you tell?

...

To the US Navy, aircraft carriers are sacred—as huge, expensive, gaudy, and useless as any cathedral, mosque, or temple ever built.
...

The Persian Gulf is a body of water specifically shaped to exploit carriers’ vulnerability. It’s fitting that one of the carriers currently deployed to the Gulf is the USS George H. W. Bush, because these carriers will make a suitable memorial to the Bush Dynasty’s habit of rolling the dice one too many times in the wrong part of the world.

I live on the shores of the Gulf, and when I walk along Fahaheel Beach in the evening when it’s a little cooler, I’m always surprised by how small and shallow it is. People wade and quasi-swim out a long way, women in their black Islamic swimming togs, others in more standard Western suits—and even the kids can stand up in the water way offshore. Brave kids; I’m not going into that water, not til I know a little more about Kuwait’s sewage-disposal arrangements; but those kids standing up a hundred yards offshore give you an idea what a silted-up, shallow body of water this is.

The huge tankers have to stick to a few channels way offshore, because the Gulf has been silting up ever since Ur was a seaport, 5000 years ago. Back then, Ur was at the mouth of the Gulf; now, the ruins of Ur are 200 kilometers inland, near the city of Nasiriyah.

No place to hide vertically either, because the Gulf has an average depth of only 50 meters. And narrow, only 230 miles at its widest point and cinching up to 21 miles at the chokepoint, the Strait of Hormuz. All in all, a perfect death-trap for a blue-water naval force.

If you look out from Fahaheel Beach, Bushehr—yeah, that Bushehr, where Iran is building that reactor, peaceable or otherwise—is about 200 km (125 miles) across the water. I won’t say I can see Iran from my house—I don’t have Palin’s eagle eye, and the air here is a solid, khaki substance that makes anything more than a mile away fade into the general beige.

But you can certainly feel the claustrophobic geography of the Gulf, walking along the beach. It’s a defender’s dream and a nightmare for an ocean-based navy like ours--the marine equivalent of a box canyon, the perfect ambush site that even rookie lieutenants know not to lead their platoons into. You send a few expendable scouts, maybe, but you don’t charge in with your heavy forces.

So naturally, the US Navy, with its usual wisdom and discretion, has assigned the Gulf to its 5th Fleet, a force so huge it’s divided into 11 Task Forces.
:mrgreen:

Some of these are useful, survivable weapons, like the submarine force. In fact, the 5th Fleet’s submarine task force could handle any possible war scenario perfectly well on its own. The USN has two kinds of sub in the Gulf: hunter-killer subs of the “Los Angeles” class and the real doomsday subs, Ohio-class models packed with Tomahawk cruise missiles ready to pop out of the sub’s back like the young of a Surinam Toad. These missiles are officially conventional, not nuclear, but the USN has a long history of being coy about which vessels are and aren’t nuclear-armed—so coy that New Zealand refused to let any US Navy ships enter its waters for decades, since USN refused to say which ones were carrying nukes.

Not that the 5th Fleet actually needs nukes on its ships. It’s a very safe bet that land-based American ICBMs have been assigned to every city and military base in Iran, with satellite-image based targeting refined to specify whether you want Ground Zero to be the front or back seat of a particular Iranian base commander’s car. But then the US military’s attitude is that you can’t have enough ordnance, so it’s very possible those 5th Fleet subs are carrying nuclear-, as well as conventionally-armed cruise missiles.

So you might wonder why the showpiece of the 5th Fleet isn’t subs, but aircraft carriers--specifically, the USS Nimitz, flagship of the Fleet’s main Strike Force, the same aircraft carrier the Iranians are making a mockup, if not a mockery, of.

The answer is an old naval cliché, “power projection.” Navies do a lot of things, and fighting wars is by far the least important—at least until the war actually begins. In peacetime, or quasi-peacetime, which is what you’d have to call the state of things in the Gulf at the moment, naval vessels “show the flag”—that is, make the paying customers feel better, and keep the little mobsters away from the tankers. That’s what big mobsters do: Keep the little mobsters away. Henry Hill explained it in Goodfellas: “All they got from Paulie was protection from other guys looking to rip them off. That's what it's all about.”

And that’s the real job of the US 5th Fleet out there in that hot, smoggy Gulf: Protection for the paying customers—Exxon and BP—against the “other guys”—the freelance pirates, big and small, especially the ones operating in the name of the Islamic Republic of Iran on the opposite shore.

For a job like that, you can’t just use submarines. They’re designed as “clandestine platforms,” in USN jargon. What you need to reassure the customers and intimidate the little mobsters is something huge that displaces about the same volume as a mid-size city. And that’s one of the reasons that carriers like the USS Nimitz are still blundering around the oceans, even though everyone in the loop knows they wouldn’t survive one day if the Iranians ever got serious about doing some power projection of their own in the Gulf.

It’s worth emphasizing this, because it’s something most naval war fans don’t or won’t realize: Power projection and effective naval weaponry are mutually exclusive, now that we have cheap, smart missiles in every military inventory. Power projection means big, gaudy surface vessels, and real effectiveness means small, hard-to-target weapons—subs and missiles. So you design a Navy that either looks good and discourages small gangsters, or one that can fight an all-out naval war—but not both.

The Iranians must know that, which makes me lean toward the idea that they’re not really trying to mimic American carriers. They wouldn’t need any carriers of their own to defeat the US Fifth Fleet. The problem with the US military right now is that nobody will play with us on our own terms. Nobody’s going to engage the US Air Force in massive dogfights, fighter to fighter—but they may very well pick off those hundred-million dollar fighters with shoulder-fired SAMs that cost a few thousand. And nobody—not even China—is really going to engage in a retro Battle of Midway, one carrier fleet vs. another. But they can, and will, use some of the very cheap and effective new anti-ship missiles against those carriers, which are weapons from a time when the wet old primate brain was the only effective computer in production.

The Iranians can destroy the 5th Fleet with nothing more than fishing boats, private planes, anti-ship missiles and a few patrol craft. That’s not a guess. It’s a fact, demonstrated at the expense of American taxpayers by our own forces. Back in the summer of 2002, the US armed forces staged Millenium Challenge 2001, the biggest and most expensive war game in history, in the Gulf. The scenario was a war against an unnamed “Red” country, but everyone knew that the red country in question was Iran. At a cost of $250 million, the US Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Army planned to showcase their new HLA (“High Level Architecture”) program, allowing complex logistical and tactical planning among all the services in a joint attack on the “Red” nation.

It was a good idea, emphasizing the network side of war which had been neglected by generations of admirals and generals more comfortable with old-school military maps than software. But something went badly wrong when this joint force sailed out on the simulated waters of the Gulf. It ran into an ornery Marine commander named Paul Van Riper. Van Riper had been given the lousy job of commanding the “Red” forces in the exercise. His job was basically to make the expected moves and lose. But Van Riper, known as a “very controversial individual”—polite Pentagon language for “asshole”-- and a “good warfighter”—Pentagon for “born killer”--didn’t feel like taking a dive. Instead, he came up with a low-tech strategy that sank two thirds of the simulated US vessels in the Gulf. The admiral in charge of the exercise then “refloated” those vessels and went on with the exercise, as if they hadn’t been sent to the simulated silt at the bottom of the simulated Gulf.

What Van Riper did was simple—much too simple and low-tech to seem valid to the US brass, which was only interested in testing its new joint-attack software. Van Riper just tried to think of a way to destroy all those high-tech ships and aircraft as they did their perfectly-choreographed dance number off the “Red” coastline.

And he did. It was simple, and it was completely against the spirit, if not the letter, of the rules. In fact, General “Buck” Kernan, one of the people who planned the exercise, complained afterward that Van Riper “…really focused on the OPFOR [“Opposing Force,” i.e. “Red” force] and he didn’t want any additional information. [about the larger purpose of the exercise]” -- in other words, Van Riper acted like a real enemy commander, rather than seeing the “big picture” in which his role was to throw a few telegraphed, easily-dodged punches and then go down.

And the man in charge of the exercise actually blamed Van Riper for thinking like a real enemy commander. That’s the sort of slack thinking that sends big, technically advanced fleets to the bottom of the world’s oceans, providing interesting dive sites for future generations but ending the lives of thousands of trusting sailors in the process.

To his credit, Van Riper didn’t want to dance the kata; he wanted to play it out full-contact MMA style—and just as you saw when fancy karate-trained “martial artists” went into the Octagon in the first-generation of MMA fights, it turned out that all their fancy moves were very, very vulnerable to less cinematic but more deadly forms of combat.

Van Riper exploited the civilian vs. military divide; instead of using only designated combat vessels, “Red” warships that sailed out in proper Navy gray, he teased the US ships in the narrow, shallow Gulf by crowding them. He had lowly civilian propeller planes buzzing US vessels that cost billions of dollars, and “Red” fishing trawlers sailing along beside the “Blue” American strike force—not doing anything openly hostile, just annoying and confusing the US commanders by getting in their way.

You have to understand that the US armed services always prefer to fight in an imaginary world where there are no civilians at all. That’s why their preferred testing grounds are in uninhabitable deserts. Like the old joke says, “These exercises are fantastic. When the day comes that we have to go to war against Utah, we're really gonna kick ass.”

The Navy doesn’t need deserts. It has thousands of square miles of empty blue-water ocean to play around in with its beloved “over-the-horizon” weapons, designed to keep any threat from getting close enough to threaten its ships.

Add the fact that the Gulf is one of the most heavily-trafficked bodies of water in the world. When I go for my night walks along the beach, the lights of the tankers lined up waiting to load up on the local crude are so thick they look like a city on the water. Every day, at least 28 tankers come in or out of the Gulf.

But those huge tankers are fairly easy to track. The real problem is the swarm of private boats floating around on this little sea. Some are just pleasure craft; people are rich in many parts of the Gulf, and every night I see 32-foot Bayliners, boats my salmon-crazy friends would have died to own, chugging along the short. There are dozens more sitting on trailers in the dust beside every apartment building.

Then there are the fishing boats. That’s where the numbers really get out of hand. Iran has 1,500 miles of coastline along the Gulf (no matter what Mitt Romney might think) and there are fishing villages all along that coast, at least 3,500 of them by recent count.

Then there’s the air traffic. Dubai, the world’s 7th-busiest airport, sits on the Gulf as it turns north toward its narrowest point. And Dubai is getting busier all the time, with a 15% jump in air traffic in 2013. Qatar is finally getting its Doha Airport up to speed, Abu Dhabi is booming, Kuwait shuttles a huge volume of expat workers from the Subcontinent in and out—and they all board civilian jets that fly over the Gulf.

This is exactly the sort of environment the US Armed Forces hate, crammed with civilian traffic—on the water, in the air, driving along the shoreline. You can’t use your “Over-the-Horizon” weapons when the horizon is hidden by civilian craft.

And what if those civilian craft turn into offensive weapons? On September 11, 2001, America saw that civilian airliners were actually incredibly powerful weapons—flying incendiary bombs crammed with explosive fuel, traveling at hundreds of miles an hour. A weapon is anything that can be used as a weapon, and if you’re willing to use them, civilian passenger jets are one of the best.

So the US Navy is sailing around on a narrow, crowded body of water bordered for half its length by Iran. In a situation like that, commanders watching air traffic take off from the dozens of airports around the Gulf either have to ignore all those potential threats or act preemptively and start shooting down anything that might threaten their very expensive, vulnerable surface vessels.

Back in 1988 the USS Vincennes, an American guided missile cruiser near the Strait, decided to err on the side of caution—shoot first and apologize later, if at all.

The Vincennes, spotting an aircraft moving southwest from Iranian territory toward its position (which was inside Iran’s 12-mile limit), decided it was under attack and fired an anti-aircraft missile at an “Iranian F-14.” Except the plane shot down wasn’t an F-14. It was an Iran Air Airbus A300B2, your classic giant passenger jet, on its regular run—Iran Air Flight 655--from Bandar Abbas to Dubai. There were 290 people on board, including 71 children. There’s never been a clear explanation on why the Vincennes decided to shoot down a big lumbering passenger jet on the theory it was a two-seat, twin-engine fighter/bomber. The Navy handled the “accident” its usual way, handing out medals to everyone who’d messed up, covering up the mistake with glory. Vice President George H.W. Bush said, when asked about this “regrettable” incident, “I will never apologize for the United States of America, ever. I don’t care what the facts are.”

This was the Cheers era, you know? A bad time. Bad people. Bad jokes about beer. Even now, when I hear the theme music from Cheers, I get a depressed Reagan-era feeling.

Even though no one was disciplined for shooting down Flight 655, the incident left the Fifth Fleet more wary of firing at targets that might turn out to be civilian. When Millenium Challenge 2002 came around, Van Riper, playing the enemy (Iranian) commander, exploited that squeamishness. As a veteran American officer, he knew how easily US commanders get confused in crowded, noisy civilian environments rather than the wide-open spaces they’re trained to fight in. They knew it wasn’t really safe to let all these “civilian” craft wander around in the kill zone, but they didn’t want to repeat the USS Vincennes’s mistake either.

In an article I did soon after the Millenium 2002 exercise, I described what happened next:

“Van Riper…was given nothing but small planes and ships-fishing boats, patrol boats, that kind of thing. He kept them circling around the edges of the Persian Gulf aimlessly, driving the Navy crazy trying to keep track of them. When the Admirals finally lost patience and ordered all planes and ships to leave, van Riper had them all attack at once. And they sank two-thirds of the US fleet.” :rotfl:

The Navy filed Van Riper’s shock win under “Lessons Learned” but there were no lessons learned. The Fifth Fleet, operating out of this crowded, shallow, long and narrow death-trap called the Persian Gulf, is still structured around huge aircraft carriers, the world’s biggest, most expensive, and most vulnerable targets. In theory, those carriers are supposed to be protected by overlapping defensive screens extending hundreds of miles into the open ocean. But there is no open ocean here, and not even the US Navy could order all the boats, shore traffic, and civilian aircraft zooming around the Gulf to stay away.
....


kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2994
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: The next war in the Persian Gulf

Postby kit » 18 May 2019 18:25

Every American president needs a war for a second term !!... their military industrial complex is a multi trillion dollar industry seeking to justify its overspending. The question is how can a war not happen ?.. not with trump as president..its just that Iran is a convenient target ..weakened by economic sanctions

shyamd
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6785
Joined: 08 Aug 2006 18:43

Re: The next war in the Persian Gulf

Postby shyamd » 18 May 2019 22:18

The current moves are designed to force Iran to spend it's limited cash on security/military instead of surviving and outlasting sanctions, with the idea being that it will put the regime under even more pressure internally (hopefully collapse internally)/produce results faster for the GCC/US.

Whilst the US is building up in the region, Chance of miscalculation is high. So Trump is making it clear that he does not want to go to war and he has communicated that to the Iranians directly via intermediaries such as the Omanis & Swiss.

Iran has decided to respond in textbook military fashion - take the war away from the Iranian homeland and set up a clash in Iraq using the popular forces and assorted Iranian funded groups. This will force US to escalate and put boots on the ground tarnishing Trumps image of "wasting" money in wars in the middle east. i.e. at the bare minimum Iranian want to bloody the nose of the US and hurt Trump politically.

GOI is aware of developments - plans are afoot to secure the straits and prepare large scale exercises to evacuate indian nationals in the event of a war. However the govt machinery is busy with elections and waiting for election results. New govt will have to hit the ground running.

mmasand
BRFite
Posts: 418
Joined: 19 May 2009 23:46

Re: The next war in the Persian Gulf

Postby mmasand » 19 May 2019 01:55

So here is the NOTAM issued by the FAA being widely circulated to the carrier's in the region. Explains the unusual routing of flights out of DXB/DWC and SHJ.

A1987/18A)OMAEE)REFERENCE TO SAUDI ARABIA NOTAM W0438/18, DUE TO THE CONFLICT IN YEMEN BETWEEN THE LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT AND THE IRANIAN-SUPPORTED HOUTHI MILITIA, THERE EXISTS THE POTENTIAL FOR HOUTHI WEAPONS TO AFFECT CIVIL AVIATION OPERATIONS BEYOND THE SANAA FIR.

AS A RESULT, PILOTS SHALL KEEP LISTENING TO THE APPROPRIATE ATC FREQUENCIES AND SHALL STRICTLY ADHERE TO ATC INSTRUCTIONS WHEN FLYING IN THE EMIRATES FIR.

IN ADDITION, UAE IS PUTTING IN PLACE MEASURES TO MITIGATE RISK THAT MIGHT RESULT FROM UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM CAPABILITIES THAT MAY TARGET AIR OPERATIONS WITHIN THE EMIRATES FIR.

Second one:

KICZ A0015/19 - SECURITY..UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ADVISORY FOR OVERWATER AIRSPACE ABOVE THE PERSIAN GULF AND GULF OF OMAN

THOSE PERSONS DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPH A BELOW SHOULD EXERCISE CAUTION WHEN OPERATING IN OVERWATER AIRSPACE ABOVE THE PERSIAN GULF AND THE GULF OF OMAN DUE TO HEIGHTENED MILITARY ACTIVITIES AND INCREASED POLITICAL TENSIONS IN THE REGION, WHICH PRESENT AN INCREASING INADVERTENT RISK TO U.S. CIVIL AVIATION OPERATIONS DUE TO THE POTENTIAL FOR MISCALCULATION OR MIS-IDENTIFICATION. ADDITIONALLY, AIRCRAFT OPERATING IN THE ABOVE-NAMED AREA MAY ENCOUNTER INADVERTENT GPS INTERFERENCE AND OTHER COMMUNICATIONS JAMMING, WHICH COULD OCCUR WITH LITTLE TO NO WARNING.

A. APPLICABILITY. THIS NOTAM APPLIES TO: ALL U.S. AIR CARRIERS AND COMMERCIAL OPERATORS; ALL PERSONS EXERCISING THE PRIVILEGES OF AN AIRMAN CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE FAA, EXCEPT SUCH PERSONS OPERATING U.S.-REGISTERED AIRCRAFT FOR A FOREIGN AIR CARRIER; AND ALL OPERATORS OF AIRCRAFT REGISTERED IN THE UNITED STATES, EXCEPT WHERE THE OPERATOR OF SUCH AIRCRAFT IS A FOREIGN AIR CARRIER.

B. PLANNING. THOSE PERSONS DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPH A PLANNING TO OPERATE IN THE ABOVE- NAMED AREA MUST REVIEW CURRENT SECURITY/THREAT INFORMATION AND NOTAMS; COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE FAA REGULATIONS, OPERATIONS SPECIFICATIONS, MANAGEMENT SPECIFICATIONS, AND LETTERS OF AUTHORIZATION, INCLUDING UPDATING B450.

C. OPERATIONS. EXERCISE CAUTION DURING FLIGHT OPERATIONS DUE TO THE POSSIBILITY OF INTERRUPTIONS TO INTERNATIONAL AIR TRAFFIC DUE TO HEIGHTENED MILITARY ACTIVITIES AND INCREASED POLITICAL TENSIONS IN THE REGION. POTENTIALLY AFFECTED OVERWATER AIRSPACE ABOVE THE PERSIAN GULF AND THE GULF OF OMAN INCLUDES PORTIONS OF THE TEHRAN FIR (OIIX), BAGHDAD FIR (ORBB), KUWAIT FIR (OKAC), JEDDAH FIR (OEJD), BAHRAIN FIR (OBBB), EMIRATES FIR (OMAE), AND MUSCAT FIR (OOMM). THOSE PERSONS DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPH A MUST REPORT SAFETY AND/OR SECURITY INCIDENTS TO THE FAA AT +1 202-267-3333.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66496
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: The next war in the Persian Gulf

Postby Singha » 19 May 2019 02:04

Qassem suleimani has allgedly met and told his pmu friends to get ready for proxy war in iraq

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11318
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: The next war in the Persian Gulf

Postby UlanBatori » 19 May 2019 07:52

Suleimani is Eyeranian? Why start in Iraq again when the Houthi Liberation Struggle beckons?

darshan
BRFite
Posts: 579
Joined: 28 Jan 2008 04:16

Re: The next war in the Persian Gulf

Postby darshan » 19 May 2019 08:50


The US must NOT go to war with Iran

Trump, his National Security Advisor John Bolton and the entire State Department are pushing us into a new regime change war — this time with Iran. We must stop it.

For years, John Bolton has been calling for war with Iran. Bolton and his cohorts lied to us about the Iraq war that he championed, and which he still defends. Now we’re being lied to again, and with the evacuation of non-essential personnel from the Middle East because of growing tensions with Iran, it’s clear that Bolton and Trump are hurtling us towards war.

A war in Iran would be even more devastating than our failed regime change war in Iraq. That war has already cost the lives of thousands of American troops and Iraqis, and wasted trillions of US dollars — all while strengthening terrorist actors like ISIS. A war with Iran would be even more costly and destructive. It would also exacerbate the refugee crisis in Europe and could very possibly lead to nuclear war.

It’s time for Americans across the country and across parties to say enough is enough — no more regime change wars, no more Cold War and nuclear arms race, and no war with Iran. I cannot underscore enough how real the threat of a war with Iran is right now. And how important it is for everyone one of us to stand up to stop it.

In this critical time, stand with me in saying the United States must not go to war with Iran.


Sincerely,

Tulsi

shravan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2193
Joined: 03 Apr 2009 00:08

Re: The next war in the Persian Gulf

Postby shravan » 20 May 2019 00:31

#BreakingNews : National security advisor(NSA) #JohnBolton arrived at the White House following the rocket attack near the #US embassy in the Green Zone in #Iraq #Baghdad.

mmasand
BRFite
Posts: 418
Joined: 19 May 2009 23:46

Re: The next war in the Persian Gulf

Postby mmasand » 20 May 2019 02:18

This madman Bolton is going to make me run for cover a third time in the region. I'm somewhat glad he's been kept in check by the Orangutan.

Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7441
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Re: The next war in the Persian Gulf

Postby Mort Walker » 20 May 2019 04:05



I'm going EWR to BOM a week from today. As of today, UAL is flying over Iran. They have been told to stay away from TSP.

mmasand
BRFite
Posts: 418
Joined: 19 May 2009 23:46

Re: The next war in the Persian Gulf

Postby mmasand » 20 May 2019 04:07

Mort Walker wrote:


I'm going EWR to BOM a week from today. As of today, UAL is flying over Iran. They have been told to stay away from TSP.

No change in the routing over Iran, the NOTAM is for UAE FIR region, somewhere in the seas just south of the strait of Hormuz.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11318
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: The next war in the Persian Gulf

Postby UlanBatori » 20 May 2019 08:22

NOTAM makes it appear that Houthijis have acquired drones. The actual danger is that the KSA's Finest will be firing off SAMs wildly, scared by the drones.

Hukum! $180 drone at 3 O'clock.
Launch the $2M Patriot!!!
Hukum there is also an airliner showing on radar. Bropaply the United Airlines Flight.
AoA! Launch the mijjile! All kuffar anyway.

Tuan
BRFite
Posts: 266
Joined: 16 Oct 2008 01:26

Re: The next war in the Persian Gulf

Postby Tuan » 21 May 2019 03:17

A war with Iran would be the mother of all quagmires - Washington Post



During last week’s war scare with Iran — as the administration leaked discussions to deploy 120,000 troops to fight Iran, and leaked intelligence claiming that Iran was placing missiles on small boats to attack U.S. warships — it sounded to a lot of people like Iraq redux. President Trump temporarily ratcheted down tensions before raising them again with a Sunday tweet: “If Iran wants to fight, that will be the official end of Iran. Never threaten the United States again!”

Trump’s supporters sound just as pugnacious. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) warned that “Attack= decisive response,” and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) said that “if Iran struck out militarily against the United States or against our allies in the region, then I would certainly expect a devastating response against Iran.” John Bolton, the national security adviser, didn’t comment in public — he prefers to spin his plots in secret — but he hasn’t disavowed his 2015 New York Times op-ed: “To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran.”

This tough-guy bluster is disconnected from reality. I’ve spent the past week studying Iranian capabilities, and I don’t see any military option that would qualify as decisive or low-cost. Instead, what I see is the mother of all quagmires: a conflict that would make the Iraq War — which I now deeply regret supporting — seem like a “cakewalk” by comparison.


The United States could, of course, bomb Iran — though it wouldn’t be as low-risk as bombing Iraq in 2003. Iran has the most advanced air-defense network that U.S. aircraft have ever faced — the Russian-made S-300. The U.S. Air Force and Navy could no doubt prevail, but it would not be easy and could result in greater loss of pilots and aircraft than we have become accustomed to.

Eventually, after Iran’s air defenses have been neutralized, the United States would be able to pound Iran’s military and economic infrastructure. But to what end? In 2012, a group of former diplomats and generals estimated that U.S. airstrikes would set back Iran’s nuclear program “for up to four years.” The nuclear deal did far better: It imposed limits on Iran’s nuclear program for 15 years and resulted in the elimination of 97 percent of Iran’s fissile material. If the U.S. goal is to stop Iran’s nuclear program, it would reenter the nuclear deal rather than bomb Iran.

But the Trump administration has laid out a more ambitious agenda. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo demanded that Iran stop its missile development, stop threatening U.S. allies, and stop its support for proxy groups across the region. It is difficult to see how bombing alone could compel Iranian compliance. The United States bombed North Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos for years, dropping three times more bombs than all countries did during World War II, and still lost the Vietnam War. Air attacks are usually decisive only when combined with ground attacks.


Unfortunately, the United States lacks a realistic ground option in Iran, which is much bigger than Iraq in both area and population. (Iran has 83 million people and 617,000 square miles; Iraq in 2003 had about 30 million people and about 170,000 square miles.) Counterinsurgency math — premised on 20 troops per 1,000 inhabitants — suggests that the United States and its allies needed some 600,000 troops in Iraq. (There were never more than 180,000.) By that math, to control Iran, you would need more than 1.6 million troops. That’s more than double the active-duty end-strength (656,403) of the U.S. Army and Marine Corps combined, and few if any U.S. allies would help. You could probably topple the Iranian government with a lot fewer troops. But if you leave immediately afterward, as Bolton favored doing in Iraq, the result could be either Libya-style chaos or the emergence of a new anti-American regime.

Even if you don’t put a single U.S. boot on the ground and stick simply to airstrikes, the war would not be an antiseptic, push-button exercise for the United States. A 2011 report from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments outlined how Iran could hit back with “asymmetric” tactics.

Iran could employ a combination of antiship cruise missiles, drones, submarines, small boats and mines to “swarm” U.S. naval ships in the confined waters of the Persian Gulf. It could target U.S. bases in the region with its arsenal of some 2,000 missiles. It could cripple U.S. computer networks with cyberattacks. It could employ Hezbollah and other groups to stage terrorist attacks abroad. It could send local militias armed with missiles and car bombs to attack the 19,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan. It could tell the Houthis in Yemen to unleash a missile barrage against Saudi Arabia and it could order Hezbollah to fire 150,000 rockets and missiles at Israel.



In response, the United States would do . . . what? Fire a few more cruise missiles, drop a few more bombs? It’s hard to imagine that even Trump would unleash a nuclear holocaust to literally “end” Iran.

“Tell me how this ends,” Army Gen. David H. Petraeus said during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The George W. Bush administration had no clue. Likewise, the Iran hawks today, in and out of the Trump administration, have no idea how a war with that country would end. Better, in that case, not to risk starting one.


Hmm...Realists may think that might is right, but war is an outdated mode of solving disputes in today's changing world.

shyamd
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6785
Joined: 08 Aug 2006 18:43

Re: The next war in the Persian Gulf

Postby shyamd » 27 May 2019 15:43

There is a campaign in DC to dismiss John Bolton (NSA) claiming that the Iran crisis is fabricated by him.

mmasand
BRFite
Posts: 418
Joined: 19 May 2009 23:46

Re: The next war in the Persian Gulf

Postby mmasand » 01 Jun 2019 21:21



Muscle flexing.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2994
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: The next war in the Persian Gulf

Postby kit » 01 Jun 2019 21:44

Might be useful to track the locations of American aircraft carrier groups and the command ships .. this could indicate the uptick towards an actual conflict

https://news.usni.org/category/fleet-tracker

mmasand
BRFite
Posts: 418
Joined: 19 May 2009 23:46

Re: The next war in the Persian Gulf

Postby mmasand » 01 Jun 2019 21:52

kit wrote:Might be useful to track the locations of American aircraft carrier groups and the command ships .. this could indicate the uptick towards an actual conflict

https://news.usni.org/category/fleet-tracker


They are steering well clear of the Strait of Hormuz. The US is still hoping to reach a deal with the Iranians, keeping CVN 72 away from the potential conflict zone. Neither have an appetite for a conventional conflict.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2994
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: The next war in the Persian Gulf

Postby kit » 01 Jun 2019 22:19



Hmm...Realists may think that might is right, but war is an outdated mode of solving disputes in today's changing world.[/quote]


the Mil Ind complex thinks otherwise. Besides when was a war fought with reason? America likes to fight wars far from its shores .. this is what it does best, dont let anyone tell you otherwise.It will make one if one doesnt exist.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11116
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: The next war in the Persian Gulf

Postby A_Gupta » 13 Jun 2019 18:56

The view from Tehran:
https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/436921 ... an-Reports

TEHRAN- Media reports say two large oil tankers have been hit by explosions in the Sea of Oman.

Iran’s Al-Alam television network cited local sources in Oman as saying that two successive explosions were heard in the Sea of Oman — also called the Gulf of Oman — on Thursday morning.

The sources said the blasts were caused by attacks on the tankers, according to the report.

Local Pakistani sources also said the tankers had sent distress calls to the sea’s littoral states, the report added.

The area is near the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic waterway through which nearly one-third of all oil traded by sea passes.

Reuters, citing four shipping and trade sources, said two tankers — identified as the Marshal Islands-flagged Front Altair and the Panama-flagged Kokuka — had been hit in suspected attacks in the Gulf of Oman, and that the crew had been evacuate from the vessels.

The crew were safe, the sources added.

Iranian rescue workers have rushed to the assistance of two oil tankers hit by yet unspecified accidents in the Sea of Oman, transferring all of their 44 crew members to its southern shores, IRNA reported.

The US Navy’s Bahrain-based Fifth Fleet told Reuters that its naval forces are assisting tankers in the Gulf of Oman after receiving two distress calls.

“We are aware of the reported attack on tankers in the Gulf of Oman. US Naval Forces in the region received two separate distress calls at 6:12 a.m. local time and a second one at 7:00 a.m.,” Joshua Frey of the Fifth Fleet said.

The Kokuka Courageous tanker was damaged in the incident, a spokesman for the vessel’s manager BSM Ship Management (Singapore) said.

“The Kokuka Courageous remains in the area and is not in any danger of sinking. The cargo of methanol is intact,” the spokesman said.

The vessel is about 14 nautical miles off Iran and about 70 nautical miles from Fujairah, where a number of commercial vessels were targeted by sabotage operations last month.

The Norwegian shipping firm Frontline also confirmed that its oil tanker Front Altair was on fire after an incident in the Gulf of Oman, Norwegian newspaper VG reported, quoting a company spokesman.

All 23 crew members were brought to safety at a nearby vessel, the spokesman added.

Earlier, the Associated Press reported that the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations — which is run by the British navy — warned that an unspecified incident has taken place in the sea and was urging “extreme caution.”

In another report, shipping newspaper Tradewinds claimed, citing unnamed industry sources, that an oil tanker owned by Norway’s Frontline had been struck by a torpedo off the coast of Fujairah in the United Arab Emirates.



Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66496
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: The next war in the Persian Gulf

Postby Singha » 13 Jun 2019 21:45

one the tankers was struck by a large mine / torpedo / explosive pack boat(uss cole type)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... -Oman.html

oil tankers have sectioned bulkheads and compartments and oil imparts good reserve buoyancy. they might just let the fire burn out and tow her in.

its the gas tankers with compressed spherical tanks that are probably way more dangerous. qatar exports mainly gas i believe not oil. could be some saudi led false flag op to pin the blame on the iranians. or maybe the iranians have factions, one of whom is good cop and other bad cop.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3478
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: The next war in the Persian Gulf

Postby Cain Marko » 14 Jun 2019 01:51

^Saudi mission executed by Baki rent boys?

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11318
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: The next war in the Persian Gulf

Postby UlanBatori » 14 Jun 2019 02:13

As they say, "Take a number, it's gonna be a long summer".
1. Deep State (oil prices going up, yippee!!!)
2. YY playing with matches
3. "White Helmets" of Syria. R u sure that mijjile didn't have a poison gas tip? Too late now, its incinerated.
4. Somalian Fun Boys

Least probable:
1. Iran (yes they are wacko but they won't hit oil tankers)
2. KSA (word will get out, Putin was probably watching, retaliation could be extremely bad).

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11116
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: The next war in the Persian Gulf

Postby A_Gupta » 14 Jun 2019 04:21

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4484 ... il-tankers
The Trump administration is blaming Iran for attacks on two oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo leveled the accusation from the State Department briefing room on Thursday.

“It is the assessment of the United States government that the Islamic Republic of Iran is responsible for the attacks the occurred in the Gulf of Oman today,” Pompeo said in a roughly five-minute statement.

“This assessment is based on intelligence, the weapons used and the level of expertise needed the operation, recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping and the fact that no proxy group operating in the area has the resources and proficiency to act with such a high degree of sophistication,” he added.

Pompeo did not go into further detail on what evidence the United States has against Iran, and he did not take questions after the statement.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11318
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: The next war in the Persian Gulf

Postby UlanBatori » 14 Jun 2019 06:33

no proxy group operating in the area has the resources and proficiency to act with such a high degree of sophistication,” he added.

Kala Pani does, hain?

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66496
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: The next war in the Persian Gulf

Postby Singha » 14 Jun 2019 08:19

Houthis are also in the melee
A missile hit the pax terminal of abha airport injuring 26 people

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19850
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: The next war in the Persian Gulf

Postby Philip » 14 Jun 2019 10:17

Sadly we are on the brink of the decennial Yanqui ME war, based upon as true evidence as Bush and BLiar's claim that Saddam had WMDs.

It is abundantly clear that Iran is desperate to avoid a conflict with the US which is equally desperate to start one! The tanker attscks are obviously "false flag" ops.meant to tar Iran and give the Yanquis and their Arab toadies to attack the hated Shiite Persians.Other state actors perhaps even ISIS have been roped in to conduct these destabilising attacks.There is no reason whatsoever for Iran to heighten tensions and a start a war.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66496
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: The next war in the Persian Gulf

Postby Singha » 14 Jun 2019 11:05

iran may have to swallow its pride and invite russians into the warm waters of the persian gulf to setup a few bases in localities like bandar abbas and kharj island :mrgreen:

its onlee short flight from southern russia across the caspian.

for perhaps the first round is a scripted cruise missile barrage on "WMD sites"

for sure the UN is not going to authorize any use of force given that iran has stuck to its side of the deal on WMD - so another "coalition of the willing" has to be rounded up for this ad-venture. DT needs a ME war to get re-elected or else a decisive trade war victory vs china(he is so far not getting one).

republican hawks will be dusting off proposals for regime change in iran to permanently secure the area for US-KSA interests. MBS will happily bankroll such a plan and guarantee $500 billion of arms deals once the dust settles, paid for with reparations from iran by selling its oil for free.

look for signs of demonisation of iranian leaders in western MSM.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19850
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: The next war in the Persian Gulf

Postby Philip » 14 Jun 2019 11:54

The German For.Min. was in Teheran just a few days ago.Obviously for talks to defuse tension as the EU wants the N-deal to stand.A friend who was a regular visitor to the country said that despite all the sanctions they've survived very well, extremely resilient ( they're not Arabs but Persians), and it will be foolhardy of anyone to light a conflict in the region.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66496
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: The next war in the Persian Gulf

Postby Singha » 14 Jun 2019 12:08

unlike syria there are no powerful domestic militias and lashkars that outsiders can fund to create mayhem. some kurd rebels do hide in the mountains of eastern iraq but neither the iraqi govt likes them or they are very large in number. turkey is not interested in destabilizing iran because that would only mess up its kurd problem in eastern anatolia where they are dominant. a sea blocade on some pretext can be tried but iran has a border with CAR states and links to russia and china via the caspian that will be tough to block.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66496
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: The next war in the Persian Gulf

Postby Singha » 14 Jun 2019 15:46

the owner of the japanese ship in tokyo says based on the crew members reports, they first struck something in pre dawn hours and 3 hours later was struck by another object "that flew in" still in the pre dawn half darkness. the crew members saw something flying in and say the second strike was not a mine.

none can be sure who were lurking around in the dark and looking to create trouble. methinks a ATGM could easily be launched from a small fishing boat some 2km away and hit a lumbering target like a tanker.


UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11318
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: The next war in the Persian Gulf

Postby UlanBatori » 14 Jun 2019 16:44

The main indicator for war is present: DT is down in the polls. If Kelly Ann Conway leaves, that will be a really big blow. 100-SLCM class.
Last edited by UlanBatori on 15 Jun 2019 02:03, edited 1 time in total.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3528
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: The next war in the Persian Gulf

Postby chola » 14 Jun 2019 16:53

I hope this one turns out to be something! The way things fizzled out at NoKo and Doklam after providing such exciting rhetoric of fireworks were kind of letdowns.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11116
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: The next war in the Persian Gulf

Postby A_Gupta » 14 Jun 2019 19:27

https://www.thedailybeast.com/japanese- ... ulf-attack
Yutaka Katada, the owner of one of the stricken oil tankers crippled in explosions in the Gulf of Oman on Thursday, says the U.S. is wrong about the way the attack was carried out. Speaking at a press conference in Tokyo on Friday, he contradicted Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and the U.S. Navy, which released a video that purports to show an Iranian patrol boat removing a limpet mine from the port side of the Kokuka Courageous. Katada said his ship was attacked on the starboard side by a flying object, not by a mine. “It seems that something flew towards them. That created the hole, is the report I’ve received,” Katada said, according to the Financial Times. “It seems there was a high chance they were attacked by a flying object. The impact was well above the water. I don’t think it was a torpedo.” The Japanese ship owner did not say who might be responsible for the attack. Iran has vehemently denied it was involved.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: The next war in the Persian Gulf

Postby abhik » 14 Jun 2019 20:38

chola wrote:I hope this one turns out to be something! The way things fizzled out at NoKo and Doklam after providing such exciting rhetoric of fireworks were kind of letdowns.

True that, we have had to endure one KLPD after another. The current low tempo conflict means the A-Rabs and US can profit from higher oil prices without any significant risks. Lets please have some akshun for once.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11116
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: The next war in the Persian Gulf

Postby A_Gupta » 15 Jun 2019 02:12

UK joins US in accusing Iran of tanker attacks as crew held
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/ ... ker-attack
On Friday night the UK formally joined the US in attributing the attacks to Iran. After carrying out its own assessment – the product of an internal UK intelligence discussion – the Foreign Office issued a statement saying: “It is almost certain that a branch of the Iranian military – the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps – attacked the two tankers on 13 June. No other state or non-state actor could plausibly have been responsible.”

It continued: “There is recent precedent for attacks by Iran against oil tankers. The Emirati-led investigation of the 12 May attack on four oil tankers near the port of Fujairah [in the UAE] concluded that it was conducted by a sophisticated state actor. We are confident that Iran bears responsibility for that attack.”
Trump's maximum pressure train hits buffers with Abe's doomed Iran mission
Read more

The foreign secretary, Jeremy Hunt, said: “I condemn yesterday’s attacks on two vessels in the Gulf of Oman. Our own assessment leads us to conclude that responsibility for the attacks almost certainly lies with Iran. These latest attacks build on a pattern of destabilising Iranian behaviour and pose a serious danger to the region. In targeting civilian shipping, international norms have been violated.

“It is essential that tankers and crews are able to pass through international waters safely. We call on Iran urgently to cease all forms of destabilising activity. The UK remains in close coordination with international partners to find diplomatic solutions to de-escalate tensions.”

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11116
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: The next war in the Persian Gulf

Postby A_Gupta » 15 Jun 2019 02:14

https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/436929 ... -with-Iran
Tehran Times reports:
Chinese President Xi Jinping told Iran’s president on Friday that China will promote steady development of ties with Iran no matter how the situation changes, Chinese state media said.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11116
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: The next war in the Persian Gulf

Postby A_Gupta » 15 Jun 2019 02:22

The American right-wing outlet, townhall.com, joins in the fun:
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2019/06/13/report-uk-officials-covered-up-iranian-bomb-plot-in-london-during-negotiations-over-nuclear-deal-n2547854
Report: UK Officials Hid Iran-Sponsored London Bomb Plot From the Public Amid Nuclear Deal Debate

Refers to this:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/06/09/iran-linked-terrorists-caught-stockpiling-explosives-north-west/
Terrorists linked to Iran were caught stockpiling tonnes of explosive materials on the outskirts of London in a secret British bomb factory, The Telegraph can reveal.

Radicals linked to Hizbollah, the Lebanese militant group, stashed thousands of disposable ice packs containing ammonium nitrate - a common ingredient in homemade bombs.

The plot was uncovered by MI5 and the Metropolitan Police in the autumn of 2015, just months after the UK signed up to the Iran nuclear deal. Three metric tonnes of ammonium nitrate was discovered - more than was used in the Oklahoma City bombing that killed 168 people and damaged hundreds of buildings.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: dnivas and 28 guests