Mr Ahmahdinejad meet Mr.Eisenhower

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
1

Coincidence? I think not.

By no strange coincidence there is a huge assembly of American warships floating around the Iranian shore. This availablity of US Carriers and large warships has somehow timed itself to coincide with the UN discussion of Iranian Sanctions. Specifically there are three Strike Forces ready and available, floating offshore of Iran at this moment. The Eisenhower, the Enterprise and the Iwo Jima all have large strike forces of smaller support vessels, including Guided Missle Cruisers, submarines, minesweepers, and a contingent of Marines.

It is fashionable to think of the US military as “tied down” in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is not altogether true. The Army and the Marines are quite busy, but the Navy and the Air Force are largely replenished and rested. Any strike against Iran would largely fall on the shoulders of these two services.

The three armadas:

Strangely enough, the Eisenhower Strike Group has departed their home port early and quite unexpectedly:

According to Lieut. Mike Kafka, a spokesman at the headquarters of the Second Fleet, based in Norfolk, Virginia, the Eisenhower Strike Group, bristling with Tomahawk cruise missiles, has received orders to depart the United States in a little over a week. Other official sources in the public affairs office of the Navy Department at the Pentagon confirm that this powerful armada is scheduled to arrive off the coast of Iran on or around October 21.
The Eisenhower had been in port at the Naval Station Norfolk for several years for refurbishing and refueling of its nuclear reactor;** it had not been scheduled to depart for a new duty station until at least a month later, and possibly not till next spring. **Family members, before the orders, had moved into the area and had until then expected to be with their sailor-spouses and parents in Virginia for some time yet. First word of the early dispatch of the “Ike Strike” group to the Persian Gulf region came from several angry officers on the ships involved, who contacted antiwar critics like retired Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner and complained that they were being sent to attack Iran without any order from the Congress.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061009/lindorff

Now this could just be having a little fun with President Nutjob, and flexing the US muscle a little bit. On the other hand, a strike on Iran immediately after the US elections in a few weeks is far more possible with so many resources near Iran.

Or it could be nothing.

2

Re: Mr Ahmahdinejad meet Mr.Eisenhower


I wouldn't fancy US striking on Iran for any reason anytime soon. Having AF and Navy free doesn't mean you can push-over a country, its Iran we are talking about not Iraq and Afghanistan who didn't have ANY airforce, Iraq might have some naval power in '03 but that was already blocked long time ago. So stop fancying around.

3

Re: Mr Ahmahdinejad meet Mr.Eisenhower

na, they cant deplete iranian forces without a ground invasion which they cant afford. if they only do airforce/navy it would probably be an iranian military strategist's dream come true.

4

Re: Mr Ahmahdinejad meet Mr.Eisenhower

Oh, I in no way think that we are going to war. The resources for a strike on nuclear assets are there however, as well as the resources to keep the Straight of Hormuz open to keep oil flowing. Iran held some hyped up war games a while ago, It is unlikley that they will be coming out to play against this force. On the other hand, if the Iranians are feeling frisky, they might arrange a little tussle.

Apparently the Iranians have taken notice:

Iran Focus
Tehran, Iran, Oct. 23 – Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) is aware of “enemy movements”, the elite military force’s Supreme Commander declared on Sunday.

“As the superior military force in the Persian Gulf region, the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Armed Forces is aware of and has intelligence on movements by the militaries of enemies from beyond the region. It is closely monitoring their movements”, Major General Yahya Rahim Safavi told a group of IRGC commanders.

General Safavi said that Middle East was facing “sensitive” months and years ahead.

“The enemies which were defeated in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lebanon have reached the conclusion that the Muslim peoples of these countries have learnt the lesson of resistance and standing steadfast against foreigner’s domination from our great and sacrificing nation”, he said.

“From a political perspective, Iran’s political influence in the equation of the Middle East involving Lebanon, Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Persian Gulf has bewildered the enemies of the Islamic revolution. Thus, they have accepted Iran as an effective, influential, and determining power in this equation”, he added.

                                  http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=9012
5

Re: Mr Ahmahdinejad meet Mr.Eisenhower

dont see a reason for a war here but then I am not W

Peeps in Netherlands! Talk to me!
6

Re: Mr Ahmahdinejad meet Mr.Eisenhower

OG: they dont need to directly have a tussle, they can instruct the present iraqi government's pro Iran shia party SCIRI and it's militia (which is maintaining large parts of iraq) to turn against the occupation. possibly even force a ground war if its resources are attacked with it's main asset (a huge number of motivated religious fighters) and wage a Hezbollah like war.

Iraq is heading south as it is and its not getting any better anytime soon if Iran doesnt want it to be. Isnt there a recent intelligence report being held back till after the mid-terms that advocates talks with iran and syria to seek their help?

doesnt sound very Eisenhowerish.

7

Re: Mr Ahmahdinejad meet Mr.Eisenhower

Delete! Ooops, now we have deleted too much!

8

Re: Mr Ahmahdinejad meet Mr.Eisenhower

to be honest i really really would prefer it if karl rove or whoever manages to keep the republicans in power. it is politically hugely beneficial for the Muslim world than to have democrats in power, even if less Muslims might die if the Dems had control. with Iraq the way it is and bush having cornered himself into a box with his approach to Iran, never would Iran have able to work so openly towards nuclear technology. they've also strengthened the revolution, and gotten people galvanized against an obvious enemy (bush's america vs something more nuanced). Iran has effectively gained land, and the proposed resolution of splitting iraq into 3 states will effectively make the oil rich shia south an iran proxy. not for political reasons, but for religious ones.

Pakistan too has benefited very much and gotten scot free from so much that would have screwed us otherwise. And the Dems are chomping at the bit to have a go at Pakistan, Im sure we would face a tough tough time if my boys in Red let me down.

In a broader sense the general open anti-Islamism of much of Bush's support base and senators means that america tends to act in ways to make the Muslims really think about what our faith means to us. I think the hostility has made Islam better, and Muslims better adherent, because it polarizes, and nobody likes to be a sell-out.

i dont think american attitudes under dems would be any better, only less strident and less obvious and more ACLUed. which doesnt help.

So heres something I would never have thought I'd say, or atleast mean... GO BUSH!!

9

Re: Mr Ahmahdinejad meet Mr.Eisenhower

useless muslims are setting on top of usefull oil anyway. It will be fun taking out Iran and coming after Pakistan.

Last person to answer this post wins!!!!
10

Re: Mr Ahmahdinejad meet Mr.Eisenhower

og's initial guess might not be far wrong. US can handle 2 .5 world wars at the same time(so ive read somewhere). plus the way uk polticians have been behaving is reminiscent of the pre iraq subdueing of uk muslims. uk muslims dont want to see uk verses muslims in pointless wars. something maybe happening especially as other UNSC members are reluctant to impose heavy sanctions the US want. even with sanctions iran you'd think would be growing in military strength each day. also from the iranian side i wonder if theyve 'mined' the allies already since the issue has been around a while now. iranians are good with missiles so may have the ability to outdo the elderly patriot defence system. expect the most fierce war our generation has seen but a crushing win of sorts for US. it'll be better for pakistan if this didnt happen

rush: india will be history at end of it!

11

Re: Mr Ahmahdinejad meet Mr.Eisenhower

some fun, eh? :hoonh:

12

Re: Mr Ahmahdinejad meet Mr.Eisenhower

India will be history or not ask Americans, as they say, History starts today!

13

Re: Mr Ahmahdinejad meet Mr.Eisenhower

rush how about we go a little easy here, eh?

~Sadaf hits 1 K~
14

Re: Mr Ahmahdinejad meet Mr.Eisenhower

sudhar jao logo..acchay khasay thread ka satya naas kar diya hai

PS: i mean as ppl say I'm a lover not a fighter, here it appears they are lovers and fighters, wonder how they find the time to do both.

Eid festivities 2009: Eid gifts[merged]
15

Re: Mr Ahmahdinejad meet Mr.Eisenhower

Iran certainly has been making a lot of chest puffing noises lately. If they let a whole armada of US ships play war games right off their coast, they don't look very macho. But they are unlikely to do anything until after the US election. The thing they would least want is to engage in a conflict prior to the election, get their butts whupped, and boost W into winning key House and Senate seats.

On the other hand, post election, sparking a naval conflict is easy. Iran can claim that some US ship entered their waters and they were protecting their sovereign waters. If Iran is able to even damage a large US warship, then they could claim a huge military win. The success with Hezbullah's tactics may have emboldened Iran to thinking that they can damage the image of invincibility of the US Navy in a similar fashion to damaging the image if the IDF.

This also serves to forstall the UN sanctions debate, and to muddy the waters enough to gain 3 or four more months to work on nuclear weapons.

Iran really has only a few naval weapons. They have Chinese missles, like the one that hit an Israeli Corvette, they have mines, small PT boats essentially converted commercial boats, shore artillery, three submarines, and about a dozen small missle boats.

You can bet over the past few years the US has mapped every inch of the Gulf bottom, set up passive sensors, war gamed every scenario, and snuck into every harbor with subs. They are ready for a conflict. The best chance the Iranians woudl have would be swarming attacks with thousands of small boats loaded with RPGs, and explosives. 95% of these would be decimated, but if even one or two made it through the US defenses, Iran could claim success, and would gain respect for developing new and successful tactics against the vaunted US Navy. Never mind the fact that the day after Iran would have a thousand less boats, and virtually no remaining navy. To Iran at this time, public opinion is everything, so any chance of giving the US a bloody nose might be worth the effort.

Watch for small conflicts the day after the election that seem to mysteriously escalate. The US is essentially saying, "Come and get me." Iran will seldom get a chance like this again, with all of those massed US targets. At some point they need to walk the walk, not just talk the talk. This may be the time if they are looking to prove something.

16

Re: Mr Ahmahdinejad meet Mr.Eisenhower

has UN sanctioned a war?

17

Re: Mr Ahmahdinejad meet Mr.Eisenhower

This is so fcuking hilarious, I am gona pull this thread right back up when amreeka is done with table dance on EiJenhower and Iran will move on with its noooclar program the world will go round and round getting on with its life...

Until then any amreekan knows if table dance bore any fruits with Shri kim the Jr. or do we need to send EiJenhower too

18

Re: Mr Ahmahdinejad meet Mr.Eisenhower

Politics is like a pendlum. It shifts every few years. The shift is taking place from the Republicans to the Democrats.....instead of hoping for a Republican victory we need to adjust oversleves to dealing with the Democrats in due course.

19

Re: Mr Ahmahdinejad meet Mr.Eisenhower

i think the US ‘success’ in iraq would have emboldened them alot more than hezbullah winning against israel could ever do.

Secondly, they may lack superiority in weapons compared to the US, but we all know that didnt stop hezbullah or the Iraqi insurgents causing alot of damage to the US or israel, and eventually left bush comparing iraq to vietnam.

Hizbullah is a relatively small militia, iran is a different ball game altogether. You forget the public is generally anti american, hence the whole nation can be mobilised on one fatwa, and if so, the US will be left isolated, something they cant afford to do if they aim to actually win a war.

seriously, are you for real? when experts are suggesting 10 years tilll they they get anywhere near nukes, you’re sitting here claiming 3 months. wow, bush propaganda seems to be at full spin here.

Firstly, Iran has a strong influence over iraq, if it wished, it could’ve screwed the US army 10 times over, by stirring the iraqi public and sending in its own. This isnt the sddam era, evrything is pretty much in the open.

but to its credit, and even tho the US deserve it for the way they’re messing with iran over the nukes, iran has held back and cooperated with iraq, and also with the coalition. Even though neither likes to admit it, america could not have done anything without Irans co-operation, even if it means them standing back.

So if america wishes to play war games and tempt iran into a response, it better get its ass out of iraq beforehand, before they find its been set on fire already.

So we can safely say that the US is at obvious fault here for trying to intimidate, threaten, and tempt iran into responding back, by these silly wargames. and if iran does, they’ll then claim iran attacked them and declare war. pathetic childish stunt really, that will lead to the death of inncocent lives, but noone really expected any better from the low lifes.

I dont think the war with iran is imminent altho you never know with bush admin, they make one bluner to cover up another, however im thinking they’ll try to play the sanction game to try and weaken iran and then go in for the kill, like they did with iraq. but i think they dont realise that iran knows what sanctions mean, they’ve been sanctioned since the 79 revolution, but they always came out stronger. hence sanctions are what they generally thrive on and it only made them more independant as a nation altogether, which in this day an age can actually be a blessing in disguise.:k:

20

Re: Mr Ahmahdinejad meet Mr.Eisenhower

I stopped reading after this
[quote]
hence the whole nation can be mobilised on one fatwa
[/quote]

I don't care to read about the wet dreams of those who confuse policy with religion. It's bad enough to try and read through the blind bias of posters who think the tyrannical terrorist government of Iran is some great shining example of righteousness.