The Fleet Positions Itself For War

We believe the only successful exit strategy from Iraq travels a road through Iran. In general we subscribe to a theory put forth by Stratfor that events will build up towards the brink of war before a peaceful resolution is possible. We don't necessarily believe that is how it has to be, rather we believe that is how our current leadership believes it has to be. Part of that strategy includes the buildup of rhetoric, the shuffling of resources, and the preparation in Iraq for a military action against Iran. We observe these events taking place. Much thanks to Yankee Sailor for his collections regarding the developing time line.

From April 28th.

Late last week, Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, pointed to the Qods Force for its “increasingly lethal and malign influence” in Iraq. Adm. Mullen added that evidence would be publicized in the coming days that newly made Iranian armaments are being smuggled into Iraq at an increasing rate.

These reports echo the information I revealed in February about the Qods Force’s new military/political infrastructure, designed to expand its operations inside Iraq. Why now? Simply put, the ayatollahs and their primary mover and shaker in Iraq, the Qods Force, are going for broke before they lose their “Iraq opportunity.”

From April 29th.

Speaking to reporters after meeting with Mexican leaders, Gates said heightening U.S. criticism of Iran and its support for terrorist groups is not a signal that the administration is laying the groundwork for a strike against Tehran.

Still, he said Iran continues to back the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The State Dept. released Country Reports on Terrorism 2007 on April 30.

Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism. Elements of its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) were directly involved in the planning and support of terrorist acts throughout the region and continued to support a variety of groups in their use of terrorism to advance their common regional goals. Iran provides aid to Palestinian terrorist groups, Lebanese Hizballah, Iraq-based militants, and Taliban fighters in Afghanistan.

Iran remains a threat to regional stability and U.S. interests in the Middle East because of its continued support for violent groups, such as HAMAS and Hizballah, and its efforts to undercut the democratic process in Lebanon, where it seeks to build Iran’s and Hizballah’s influence to the detriment of other Lebanese communities.

Iran is a principal supporter of groups that are implacably opposed to the Middle East Peace Process, and continues to maintain a high-profile role in encouraging anti-Israel terrorist activity - rhetorically, operationally, and financially. Supreme Leader Khamenei and President Ahmadinejad praised Palestinian terrorist operations, and Iran provided Lebanese Hizballah and Palestinian terrorist groups, notably HAMAS, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, with extensive funding, training, and weapons.

On May 1st.

Iran is stonewalling on an attractive deal to trade away only the part of the program that could result in a nuclear weapon, Rice said ahead of a gathering of the U.N. nations that have presented a carrot-or-stick package to Iran.

"I continue to suspect this is not at all about a civil nuclear program," Rice told reporters traveling with her. Iran's insistence that it be able to enrich uranium on its terms seems at cross-purposes with that goal, Rice said.

"One has to wonder what is going on here."

Again, May 1st.

The nation’s top military officer warned yesterday that the transition to a new American president will mark a “time of vulnerability” as the United States fights two wars, and he said military leaders are already actively preparing for the changing of the guard.

On May 2nd.

Iran’s “irresponsible influence” in the Middle East including pursuit of nuclear weapons and support of terrorism creates a “perfect nightmare” threatening the entire region, the top US military official warned.

It isn't just the administration talking.

The U.S. military has drafted and won approval for attack plans ir response to an Iran attack.

Western diplomatic sources said the U.S. military’s Central Command has submitted plans for an air and naval strike on Iran. The sources said the plan envisioned escalating tensions that would peak with an Iranian-inspired insurgency strike against U.S. military assets in the Gulf.

On May 2nd.

Six weeks ago, President Bush signed a secret finding authorizing a covert offensive against the Iranian regime that, according to those familiar with its contents, “unprecedented in its scope.”

Bush’s secret directive covers actions across a huge geographic area - from Lebanon to Afghanistan - but is also far more sweeping in the type of actions permitted under its guidelines - up to and including the assassination of targeted officials. This widened scope clears the way, for example, for full support for the military arm of Mujahedin-e Khalq, the cultish Iranian opposition group, despite its enduring position on the State Department’s list of terrorist groups.

Similarly, covert funds can now flow without restriction to Jundullah, or “army of god,” the militant Sunni group in Iranian Baluchistan - just across the Afghan border — whose leader was featured not long ago on Dan Rather Reports cutting his brother in law’s throat.

Other elements that will benefit from U.S. largesse and advice include Iranian Kurdish nationalists, as well the Ahwazi arabs of south west Iran. Further afield, operations against Iran’s Hezbollah allies in Lebanon will be stepped up, along with efforts to destabilize the Syrian regime.

All this costs money, which in turn must be authorized by Congress, or at least a by few witting members of the intelligence committees. That has not proved a problem. An initial outlay of $300 million to finance implementation of the finding has been swiftly approved with bipartisan support, apparently regardless of the unpopularity of the current war and the perilous condition of the U.S. economy.

As Yankee Sailor notes, there hasn't been any denial from Washington of this accusation, but Iran had some comments. Yankee Sailor then goes on to note we shouldn't make too much of a single allegation, until you look at all the activity elsewhere in the region. His points are very interesting, and worth looking at in detail.

The rhetoric will continue over the next few months, but it is only part of the story. We have been observing Yankee Sailors account of events and observing other signs that give us some pause. Let me first state I never in a million years believed the US would attack Iran, until I observed this administration fire Admiral Fallon. I'm still dumbfounded Admiral Fallon is the only major officer to be thrown under the bus by this administration after six years of war, nothing quite says red flag like "fire the successful Admiral and forgive the failures of Generals" during a land war that has not gone well.

Our observations regarding developments began back in September of last year, as we began to watch how the rotations would come together for 2008. We have discussed 6+2 strategy for carriers before. The carrier strategy which was enabled by the Fleet Response Plan was designed to insure the Navy has 6 aircraft carriers available within 30 days to anywhere in the world, with 2 more available by 90 days. The theory is that beyond 90 days, the other 2 carriers not conducting a nuclear refueling would be available within 180 days. 6+2 is theory though, it usually involves several of those 6 carriers returning from deployment, thus the 30 day metric.

However, as the rhetoric builds, we observe 6+2 is getting very close to reality. Lets count them down. Here is the 6 for the 30 day response this summer:

6 & 30 Days:

USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) - Deployed to Gulf
USS George Washington (CVN 73) - Deployed on way to Japan
USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71) - Next Atlantic Fleet Carrier to Deploy
USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) - Next Pacific Fleet Carrier to Deploy
USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) - Surge Atlantic Carrier Behind Roosevelt
USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74) - Surge Pacific Carrier Behind Reagan

2 & 90 Days:

USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63) - Rotating from Japan to San Diego (Currently Deployed)
USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75) - Currently Deployed, Returning Home

2 & 180 Days:

USS Enterprise (CVN 65) - 16-month Extended Docking Availability Began April 11th
USS Nimitz (CVN 68) - Currently Deployed, Extended Drydock Availability Begins After Deployment

Nuclear Refueling:

USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70) - Unavailable until end of 2008

Check closely, we list both carriers for 60 days as deployed today, plus a 180 day carrier as deployed today. In other words, they won't be unavailable until the Navy decides them to be.

I don't know what it means, but a scheduling "coincidence" has generated a considerable amount of naval power availability this summer, and we note the first strike weapons are on the move. The next big sign is to wait and see what the Peleliu ESG does when the Iwo Jima ESG deploys. If both are in the Middle East at the same time late this summer, that is a pretty solid sign of a September Surprise. 4 reasons why: Abu Musa island, Sirri, and the Greater and Lesser Tunbs. Check the map, those islands are arsenals on the deep water channel in and out of the Gulf, they will require Marines to secure in a war against Iran.

I'm not big on conspiracy theories, not my style, but the coincidences of naval power availability and how obvious this has been unfolding for 8 months now is simply something observers like us can't ignore. We believe Stratfor is soon going to get an opportunity to test their theory, all signs point towards a time in the very near future where both nations will approach the edge of war. Lets hope Stratfor is correct in their analysis, and it is in that moment negotiations prevail.