Pushing the Fleet to the Breaking Point, For What Exactly?

US Navy Photo

This is not how we should be celebrating the early retirement of the USS Enterprise (CVN 65). Bold emphasis by me.

The Navy will deploy the aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis and its strike group four months early and shift its destination to the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility, DOD officials said here today.

The deployment late this summer is in response to Central Command’s requirement for an extended carrier presence, Pentagon Press Secretary George Little said. The move affects 5,500 sailors aboard the Stennis and the Aegis cruiser USS Mobile Bay.

Last week, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta approved a request from Central Command commander Marine Corps General James N. Mattis to accelerate Stennis’ deployment. “The decision will help support existing naval force requirements in the Middle East and reduce the gap caused by the upcoming departure of the USS Enterprise Strike Group,” Little said. “It is in keeping with our long-standing commitments to the region.”

Aircraft carrier strike groups provide commanders with ample and flexible air assets to enhance interoperability with partner nations and maintain strong military-to-military relations as well as respond to a wide variety of contingencies, Little said.

The Bremerton, Wash.-based Stennis strike group was due to deploy at the end of the year to U.S. Pacific Command. The group returned from duty in the Middle East in March.

The accelerated deployment to the Central Command area of responsibility is not aimed at any specific threat. “In keeping with Centcom’s requirements, this is a very important region for our defense strategy,” Little said. “We’ve had a presence in the region for decades and we have a range of interests that this extension of our capabilities will support.”

Nor, he said, is the deployment a direct response to tensions with Iran. The U.S. military is “always mindful of the challenges posed by Iran, but … this is not a decision based solely on the challenges posed by Iran,” Little said.

Currently the USS Enterprise and USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike groups are deployed to U.S. Central Command. The USS Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group is due to relieve the Lincoln group shortly. The Stennis group will relieve Enterprise.

The Navy continues to operate at a high operational tempo in order to meet U.S. security needs around the world,. “Our deployment strain is as great as or greater today than it has been at any time in the past 10 years,” a Navy official said.

Sailors and their families have been informed of the change, Little said. Navy officials looked at a wide range of options to ensure Navy commitments and combatant commander mission requirements are met and to lessen the impact of schedule changes.

The carrier strike group will be ready to deploy even given the accelerated timeline, Little said. “The U.S. Navy is well-equipped to ensure our sailors are trained and ready for this deployment,” he said.

Navy leaders understand the operational and personnel impacts this accelerated deployment will have. These include training cycle adjustments, crew and family uncertainty and reductions to quality of life port visits.

As more information becomes available, the Navy will release it, officials said, noting defense leaders are “committed to keeping sailors and their families informed about current and future deployments to the best of our ability.”

The Stennis will be deployed for eight months, meaning the original 6 month Western Pacific deployment scheduled for later this fall is now an eight month deployment in the Middle East only a few weeks away. And for a reason the DoD can't explain, except to say it's not specific to Iran, Navy families get screwed over yet again. If it really is not specific to Iran, something is very wrong.

The Kearsarge deployment last year was eight months. The Bataan deployment last year was eleven months. The Lincoln, to be relieved any day now, departed Naval Station Everett on December 7, 2011, and won't arrive in Norfolk until mid-August; eight months. Eisenhower, which will relieve Lincoln, is on a nine month deployment. Now Stennis, leaving four months early will be on an eight month deployment. I'm sure I forgot a few long deployments among those...

Someone needs to tell the President no, or maybe the President needs to tell General Mattis no. The very real issue is, if the United States is not about to fight a war with Iran, the US Navy is going to wear out their equipment pretending to fight Iran, and the toll on people is very real.We are reducing the number of carriers and amphibious ships at a time we are clearly pushing them at an operational tempo higher than at anytime ever, including the cold war? WTF? The Bataan, which returned in February, has the second longest deployment by a US Navy ship since World War II!

Hey Congress, wake up! That's a red flag!

What exactly is the Navy killing itself for? If these long deployments aren't a domestic political agenda to avoid a public spat between the President and General Mattis, then the answer must be these deployments are intended to prevent war with Iran. There really is no middle ground here, because there really can't be any other justification for this type of persistent operational tempo where Admirals are constantly bitching in public (rightfully, good for them!) about the high operational tempo - but when it comes time to just get back to a normal operational tempo, those same Admirals refuse to stand up to someone and push the fleet further down the dark path.

Bottom line, those Admirals are only saying yes for one of two reasons: either because the need for the CVN is a legitimate reason of state specific to the prevention of war, or the reason is specific for the sake of their own job - in other words they lack the guts to say no to a politician, and that probably goes double in an election year where saying no would have a political amplification impact. I guess it's better the sailors and their families bend over backwards so Admirals don't have to strain themselves, or something like that.

Or maybe we really are legitimately on the brink of war with Iran, and General Mattis is keeping the peace in the Middle East one extended aircraft carrier deployment at a time. I suppose it's possible - color me a skeptic, but that is scary if true. Either way, at what point are the tens of thousands of Navy sailors going to find a single DC reporter with the guts to ask a tough question?

Just Thinking Out Loud...

Wasn't going to say it, but due to the interesting feedback in the email from this post, I'll note the observation I decided not to include.

From here:

Deployable Battle Force Ships: 286

Ships Underway (away from homeport): 94 ships (33% of total)

On deployment: 104 ships (36% of total)

Attack submarines underway (away from homeport): 28 subs (51%)

On deployment: 25 subs (46%)

Note that quietly, the US Navy has 46% of our sub force on deployment. While is not uncommon to see 51% of the sub force at sea, it rarely goes to 46% on deployment. Could mean nothing, but if the Navy knew something was coming, that is how they would handle it.

Report: Ossetia, Georgia Trade Gunfire

The AP is reporting that shots were fired last night in both directions across the administrative border between Ossetia and Georgis.

Russia Deploys the Black Sea Fleet

Russia has sent an official notification to NATO’s general secretary, Hoop Scheffer, proposing that "all upcoming military exercises planned in Georgia should be postponed or canceled.”

On any other day of the year, I would read news article discussing a disagreement between NATO and Russia regarding Black Sea naval activity and dismiss it, but this isn't an average day. Earlier this week, as per the agreement between Russia and the Ukraine, Russian officials notified the Ukraine that 22 of its Black Sea Fleet vessels will leave Sevastopol for military maneuvers. Those ships were expected to depart earlier this week, but it was noteworthy when all of the amphibious ships deployed first rather than all of the ships at once.

The Black Sea Fleet has now deployed all 22 ships, which is getting some attention in the region because regional news reports have noted the Russian military exercises taking place in the Caucasus since the political turmoil and protests began last week in Georgia. There has been a lot of discussion over the past several days, mostly unverified hearsay and internet chatter, of movement of Russian troops towards the Russian-Georgian border and into Abkhazia as part of those exercises. Those rumors were confirmed today when an EU monitor told Reuters "it had registered Russian reinforcements at the boundaries between Georgian-controlled territory and South Ossetia and Abkhazia."

A confidential assessment compiled by EU diplomats in Georgia and seen by Reuters said the Russian reinforcements included tanks, armoured personnel carriers, artillery and "Grad" multiple-rocket launchers.

"Thus the situation at the ABL (administrative boundary line) remains in flux and volatile as Russian/South Ossetian forces continue to establish new facts on the ground," said the the assessment, dated April 13.

This afternoon, the Eurasia Daily Monitor also noted the chatter in the region, and weighed in on the unfolding events.

It is important that the Russian military acknowledges its mobilization and forward deployment of troops and ships. At present, it is impossible to know precisely how many additional army units have been moved within striking distance of Georgian territory. However, the composition of the naval force that disembarked from Sevastopol is not secret, since the Ukrainian authorities must be informed. It seems to be larger than the force that was deployed against Georgia last August. Four large amphibious landing craft left Sevastopol last week, while in August 2008 only two were reportedly deployed to insert a regiment of marines into Abkhazia in the small port of Ochamchira, close to the border with Georgia (Vlast, August 18). The marines were later deployed in the invasion of Western Georgia.

The report goes on to note:

After the war, Georgia disbanded its navy, handing over its surviving ships to the local coast guard. The Russian naval flotilla lead by "Moskva" will not find any opposition at sea, but the deployment of a large amphibious force formed of thousands of marines armed with heavy weapons on board is a threatening sight. The low capacity narrow roads leading from Russia into Georgia (one into Abkhazia and another leading into South Ossetia) create immense logistical problems in rapidly deploying large military contingents into Georgia if Moscow opts for a "humanitarian intervention" to bring about "regime change." The insertion of a sizable marine force with heavy weapons was used last August to bypass the clogged up overland routes and this could prove important again. The Russian military knew beforehand the exact timing of its pre-arranged invasion and fully controlled the pre-war armed provocations by the South Ossetian forces, whereas in the present crisis the situation is much more volatile.

The Jamestown Foundation's Pavel Felgenhauer has a fantastic record when it comes to observing military activity in that region. Just prior to the breakout of hostilities last year, he wrote an article regarding the Russian railroad troops that had completed to connect Russia with Abkhazia. These railroads were used within 10 days of his article to supply the Russian military forces that moved into that territory, thus removing Georgian rule. Last month he noted that with spring melting the snow and ice that prohibits any military activity between Russia and Georgia, Russia's political influence into Georgia was sure to follow. He was right.

Russia's intentions are unclear. On the same day Russia tells NATO to cancel military exercises, Russia also agrees to hold a fifth round of Geneva talks involving negotiators from Georgia, Russia, United States, and the breakaway regions of Abkhazia, and South Ossetia on May 18-19.

There is widespread belief that Russia helped finance the demonstrations that began April 9th, but it is noteworthy those demonstrations have become smaller and smaller each day. After a week of demonstrations, polls indicated the public mood was shifting away from the opposition, and Saakashvili remains the most popular politician in Georgia despite the protests and well funded media campaigns against him. Many experts appear to be in agreement the calls for his resignation have failed, and this will end in negotiations. To date, the opposition has dismissed any suggestion of sitting down with Saakashvili, so it is unclear when those negotiations will happen.

Given that the Russian funded political unrest with demonstrations has failed to achieve its goals, would Russia take military action instead?

It seemed very unlikely war would break out last August on the opening day of the Olympics. Russia may not be making a move against Georgia, but this is one of the largest Black Sea Fleet exercises we have seen in a long time, and the EU is monitoring large troop movements at the border at the same time, so even without a fire there is plenty of smoke.

South Korean Navy Goes on High Alert

This kind of activity was easy to explain during the inauguration period after Barack Obama declined to invite anyone from North Korea to be in Washington, but it is a few weeks later and one wonders if something more is going on. We have another high alert in South Korea as tensions continue to rise.

North Korea issued another warning on Sunday, threatening South Korea of a possible military conflict as the former try to restructure its foreign policies against South Korea amid mounting tension in the Korean Peninsula.

The reports on Sunday said the South Korean Defense Ministry officials have indicated that the country's navy will remain on high alert along the western sea border.

The Communist country warned that it will abandon all the peace agreements with its southern neighbor, adding that he is confident that it's army has grown to be "invincible"

There have been persistant rumors that North Korea is attempting to create an incident in the area of some disputed islands off the west coast of South Korea. South Korea to date hasn't taken the bait, but if by chance a South Korean ship goes into that territory, which South Korea considers its own, the North may attack it because they consider it their own. Something to watch for, an incident at sea is the most probable scenario right now in that region, and there is no telling where it might lead if something happens.

La De Da La De Da

While our political leaders are seriously about to spend 1 trillion dollars so that banks can give out loans to an American population buried under a mountain of debt, there are some serious events taking place in the world that might make conserving a rainy day fund a good idea.

The Taliban has apparently taken over the Swat district of Pakistan, and has set up everything from a provisional government to a court system. According to Nightwatch, 80% of the police have abandoned the district and 180 schools have been closed. The Taliban insurgency in Pakistan is winning, and in the near term, a struggle for power in Islamabad is looking more and more likely every day.

Following the complete pullout of Ethiopian troops from Somalia, the Somali government has fallen. The only word consistently used to describe the transition taking place is uncertainty.

While no one is, nor should, take Russian naval activity as a threat, it may get peoples attention that Russia announced today intentions to start building a naval base in Georgia's breakaway Abkhazia region this year. The establishment of a permanent naval base in that region would all but insure Georgia will never get that territory back, although it might prevent a war with Ukraine when the Russians are asked to leave Sevastopol when the current lease expires in 2017.

Finally, do you know where the F-22s are? While not related to this, still noteworthy the Air Force picked the post inauguration time to forward deploy. I guess they expected some noise, and have instead given the North Koreans something to talk about.

Distractions

Russia understands well the art of distraction. Heard about Russian missiles moving around Europe, or perhaps new political maneuvers in Russia? Whatever, background noise all of it, a reminder that in baseball no one stairs at the center fielder unless he is doing the moonwalk when the ball is actually bouncing towards 3rd base.

The missiles are the moonwalk, while 3rd base is in the Ukraine. This looks like early planning for a future Ukraine scenario to me.

Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner of France said Tuesday that Moscow had been issuing Russian passports in Crimea, a region in southern Ukraine where Russia’s Black Sea fleet is based. “We all know that they are handing out Russian passports over there,” Mr. Kouchner said in an interview with Kommersant, a Russian online newspaper. The government of Ukraine has said it wants the fleet to leave the Crimean base in Sevastopol when its lease runs out in 2017. But the Russian naval authorities have indicated that they want to retain the base. Mr. Kouchner said Russia might try to make advances in Crimea after the success of its military operations in Georgia in August.

Those silly French, always being warmongers with warnings like that. Maybe not, keep in mind this is how it started in Georgia too. This has the look and feel of "preparing the battlefield."

Now go back and read what Joe Biden said. Biden was absolutely right, and I contend this is one of those four or five scenarios he was talking about.

As Two Fleets Mass in a Standoff...

The Marine Corps conducted a study recently that found future wars would most likely be fought over resources, not ideology as wars in the 20th century were. The most important resource likely to be fought over in the mid to long term was water, but in the short term oil and gas remain at top of the list. Most undeveloped natural resources are not on land though, they are at sea, meaning if we ever do have a resource war Naval power may be decisive. Tell that to Bangladesh and Myanmar, who are massing their warships in the name of protecting potential natural resources.

Bangladesh Navy last evening asked ships of Myanmar to stop oil and gas exploration inside Bangladesh maritime territory as Bangladesh's special envoy is to hold a dialogue with the Myanmar government today.

The Myanmar ships, positioned 55km southwest of St Martin's Island, well inside Bangladesh's territory, said they would stop their activities but as of filing of this report around 9:00pm, they failed to do so.

Myanmar even sent another warship to the spot along side the two previously-positioned warships and four survey vessels.

Bangladesh Navy also sent warship BNS Karnaphuli to the spot. Bangladesh already has three other warships at the spot.

Bangladesh is going to launch a diplomatic protest. If it was anyone but Myanmar, I would think this is no big deal, but these guys are nuts. When you protest against a military government, sometimes you find a result that includes the military.

NATO Will Fight Piracy Off Somalia

In the first day of their meeting, NATO Defense Ministers found common ground in the fight against Somalian piracy.

NATO officials said the seven frigates from a group that were to have taken part in an exercise in the Suez Canal region would arrive off the Somali coast within two weeks in response to a request from the U.N. World Food Programme (WFP).

The decision to send the ships was taken at a meeting of defence ministers from the 26 NATO member states in Budapest, NATO spokesman James Appathurai said.

"Piracy is a serious problem for shipping in that area. It is also an immediate threat to the lives of the people in Somalia," he said. "Substantially more than 40 percent of the population depend on the food aid being delivered by ship."

The European Union has agreed to start planning for a joint naval force that could be ready for deployment by the end of the year.

While the press has not confirmed the ships by name yet, the exercise in the Suez Canal region was to be conducted by Standing NATO Maritime Group 2, which by my last count (and could be inaccuate), just happens to consist of 7 ships:

NMM Durand de la Penne (D560)
USS Barry (DDG 52)
HMS Cumberland (F85)
TCG Gokova (F496)
FGS Karlsruhe (F212)
HS Kountouriotis (F468)
FGS Rhon (A1443)

The EU and NATO forces will work in a complimentary manner according to CNN, which is an interesting way of phrasing it. It is unclear if the EU forces have been granted the authority to fight pirates, but some of the news reporting regarding the NATO announcement is that the use of force has been authorized. Interesting times.

The RoE question would be a good one for the media. In our opinion, less is more. Said another way, less rules will produce more results.

5th Fleet Focus: Groundhog Day Off Somalia

About a month ago, the US Navy had a press conference in Bahrain and suggested the Navy would be increasing its presence off Somalia. We don't know what happened with that, but when news broke yesterday that a German Tanker was hijacked by pirates, it became the sixth ship to be hijacked since that announcement.

Eagle1 has been tracking all of the piracy activities, including the four tankers hijacked this week. Responding to the increase in piracy, Bloomberg is reporting the Navy is going to deploy more ships and aircraft off Somalia.

Western coalition warships and aircraft will conduct patrols to boost security in the Gulf of Aden, the U.S. Navy said, after pirates hijacked a German ship off Somalia's coast -- the sixth such seizure this month.

"The idea is to counter and deter destabilizing activity in the area," Lieutenant Stephanie Murdock, spokeswoman for the U.S. Fifth Fleet, said in a telephone interview today from Bahrain. "It's part of the plan to help with regional security in the area. This is an area which we're keeping an eye on."

Bottom line, coalition naval forces aren't able to aid victims and nobody is stepping up to stop it. often with coalition warships passing right next to hijacked ships. There is no political will in the west to stop piracy, and the rules of engagement are so restrictive that even when pirates are identified at sea, coalition forces simply scare them away.

We have not seen any evidence that Somalian pirates are linked to global jihad movements, however we do note that if things continue without action on the part of coalition Navies, the jihad will soon be able to go to sea, and that can lead to serious trouble.

Islamist rebels seized control of a port in southern Somalia on Friday after 70 people died in fighting, the worst in months, that started Wednesday night, residents said. The last two days were particularly bloody, with the insurgents battling a pro-government militia in the southern port of Kismayu and similar clashes breaking out in the capital, Mogadishu. "Kismayu is under our control. We overpowered them and concluded the fighting," said Sheik Mukhtar Robow, an Islamist spokesman.

Al Qaeda has been calling for Naval Terror Cells for the last three months. Maybe we are mistaken, but it seems to us that by taking a port, that capability has been enabled. The US Navy could very soon find itself doing some shooting, but it won't be near Georgia or Iran.

5th Fleet Focus: IRGC Troublemaking with British, Australian Frigates

As we have mentioned many times on the blog in the past, events are taking place at sea in the Middle East that are often not reported in the media. The 5th Fleet in particular keeps information very close, and rarely does it see the light of day without a political motivation, and even then it is some source in Washington leaking information, not 5th Fleet. Other nations tend to follow a similar policy.

This particular incident is flying pretty low under the radar. The IRGC appears to be still playing its tricks in the Persian Gulf, but with tensions with Iran very high it is noteworthy this report went unreported until now. Note the timing, this was during the recent missile tests by Iran, which coincided with major Iranian Navy maneuvers* in the Strait of Hormuz. Guess these IRGC dudes got left behind, and had nothing better to do.

Iranian Revolutionary Guard speedboats menaced the Devonport-based warship HMS Chatham as weapons tests ordered by the Tehran regime to deter strikes on its nuclear weapons facilities raised tension in the Gulf, it can be revealed.

The encounter occurred as the Type-22 frigate patrolled the same waters where sister ship HMS Cornwall suffered the kidnapping and detention of 15 of her sailors and Marines in spring 2007.

Some 16 months on, Westcountry servicemen and women are still going eyeball-to-eyeball with the Revolutionary Guards on an almost daily basis. In last week's incident, Iranian speedboats came within a few hundred yards of the frigate as the latter patrolled on the edge of Iraqi territorial waters.

At the same time, the Australian frigate HMAS Stuart, which was heading north to relieve the Chatham, was also approached aggressively by Revolutionary Guard vessels.

It all appeared to be part of a co-ordinated effort at sabre-rattling by Tehran, which also allegedly tested new ship-killing torpedoes as well as land-based ballistic missiles.

Until today, the Chatham and Stuart incidents were unreported.

There are too many ignorant people in America who refuse to believe the Iranian IRGC is a menace in the Persian Gulf, intentionally intimidating commercial traffic, and sometimes causing some tense moments with coalition forces. These guys do not have a reputation of providing a service to the security of the Persian Gulf. It is important however to distinguish between the IRGC and the Iranian Navy, they are not one in the same. No one in the region confuses the two, no one discussing events of that region from our armchairs should ever confuse the two either.

This particular comment caught our attention, because in the future when all this nonsense settles down and books get written about this time period in the Persian Gulf, we expect this will be a common theme.

“There are misunderstandings between ourselves and, whenever they occur, we aim to communicate with the Revolutionary Guards to clarify the situation,” revealed one British naval officer in the northern Gulf. “Unfortunately nine times out of 10 they ignore us.”

When the Revolutionary Guard Corps do respond, it is often to tell coalition naval forces to “stick it”.

Coalition forces barely spend any time, or more accurately put, few coalition ships have any time to dedicate to the piracy issues off the Horn of Africa, and the US Navy in particular doesn't have any time to focus on piracy. There are many reasons, but we highlight without giving specific examples, that while piracy may be stealing the headlines of the regions maritime troubles, there are much bigger, more relevant issues happening behind the scenes, but almost always out of view from the media perspective. Just because it isn't reported in the news doesn't mean it isn't happening, rather it is a strategic decision by 5th Fleet, or perhaps CENTCOM, not to add to the political rhetoric when it serves no military purpose. This is not a new policy, it has been in place since Adm. Fallon took over CENTCOM, and continues to this day.

In a time of high tensions, just as the price of oil starts to drop, and particularly at a time when diplomacy is actually getting its day, media reports like this are counterproductive to the process. It might explain why almost no one in the media is reporting the incidents.

With that said, if diplomacy breaks down and rhetoric of war picks up again, if the US Navy or coalition forces as a whole is asked to produce information regarding incidents with the IRGC in the Persian Gulf, expect a very long list of incidents no one has heard any details of. It really is amazing coalition naval forces haven't sank any IRGC boats in the Persian Gulf, because it isn't for a lack of reasons to take defensive action or opportunities to apply steel down range.


* That is an interesting read, it ran in an Iranian paper on July 12th and we had our Farsi guy confirm it is a good translation.

The Fleet Positions Itself For War Part II

In going through the morning reading, one of the first things I read was the post by Thomas Barnett that declared All systems "go" for war. Dr. Barnett has excellent instincts, but in my study of the Iranian issue, I simply could not see a scenario for war unfold by either the United States or Israel until after we get public statements by the Chinese. I posted some comment to that effect on Dr. Barnett's blog, and thank goodness that blog is moderated, because 10 minutes later I realized the conditions for war are indeed being met. China, and Japan have weighed in.

This is not trivial, this is the first time we have seen global coverage of Chinese and Japanese government concerns to the rising tensions surrounding Iran, and it comes as a result of Iranian military posturing, not Israeli posturing. This was one of several conditions we had previously identified, because it is an economic consideration towards war that Japan and China respectively represent the #1 and #2 importer of oil from Iran. It is very important to note what they are saying and what they doing.

Last Friday, Iran delivered a letter of response to a package of incentives proposed by the six countries -- the permanent UN Security Council members Britain, France, China, Russia and the United States, as well as Germany, aimed at persuading Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment activities.

Liu confirmed Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi had received a letter from his Iranian counterpart, Manouchehr Mottaki, which said Iran was ready to hold constructive negotiations as soon as possible with the European Union and the six countries.

Also consider events. China and India both have increased their domestic price of oil through tweaking their subsidies, but also important is the upcoming restrictions on driving we will see leading up to the Olympics as China attempts to paint the sky blue. These adjustments, combined with continued reduced oil use in the US, will increase oil stockpiles in August while production remains constant.

Last week we discussed the negotiations package offered to Iran and why the details are important. Iran appears to have accepted the negotiated package, and with that comes a condition that simply didn't get enough attention in the media.

The Foreign Office in London tonight confirmed to The Times that the major world powers would refrain from any further action against Tehran at the UN Security Council if Iran refrained from any new nuclear activity, including the installation of more centrifuges for uranium enrichment. This offer was part of an incentives package offered to Iran last month by the US, Britain, Russia, China, France and Germany.

It was “part and parcel of any pre-negotiations which would be limited to six weeks to prepare for the opening of any formal negotiations,” the Foreign Office spokesman said.

We see this as a built in time table, essentially a loose countdown towards war. During the "process" Israel is expected to show restraint while the six party talks attempt a diplomatic solution. We expect this six week time period of pre-negotiations will begin soon, if not already, because another important condition was met today.

Notwithstanding months of partisan wrangling in Congress over the Iraq war, the Senate on Thursday handily confirmed Gen. David Petraeus as the top commander in the Middle East and Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno to replace Petraeus as the chief military officer in Iraq.

A lot of attention was given to the missile launches during the Iranian military exercise over the last two days. A brief word about this. A couple weeks ago we noted that the Iranians had moved ballistic missiles in to a launch position. We speculated it was a bluff, but we were also unaware of the Iranian military exercise. The thing is, the media had the story about the ballistic missiles being moved to launchpads, and everyone apparently knew about it when it happened. When we first heard about the missiles being moved to the launch pad, our first question was whether the missiles were fueled. The fuel used for ballistic missiles is very corrosive, meaning a missile that is fueled either must be launched within a few weeks or the fuel will have to be drained and replaced.

With everyone (including the Times citing defense sources in Israel 3 weeks ago) knowing the missiles were moved to the launch pads, clearly the early warning system for an Iranian ballistic missile launch is effective. If you are watching naval exercises, air power demonstrations, or missile launches and believe you are observing the metrics towards war, you've been distracted. The metrics are not military, they are political. For example:

The fact that the terrorists have failed to strike our shores again, does not mean that our enemies have given up. To the contrary, since 9/11 they've plotted a number of attacks on our homeland. Like members standing up here, I receive briefings on the very real and very dangerous threats that America continues to face.

The most important lessons learned after 9/11 was that America's intelligence professionals lacked some of the tools they needed to monitor the communications of terrorists abroad. It's essential that our intelligence community know who our enemies are talking to, what they're saying, and what they're planning.

I can't say I'm excited about this bill, but I can live with it, perhaps literally. Following an attack on Iran by Israel, Iran is not going to find much success trying to sink the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) in the Indian Ocean, but they might have a great deal of success killing you and me here in America. We don't believe for one second that Iran is going to abide by the Geneva Conventions and not intentionally support the killing of American civilians in North America. If war happens, they are as likely if not more likely to attack here than in the Gulf. Whether you like it or not, there was absolutely no way the Democrats, including Barack Obama, were going to leave the possibility open that Israel attacks Iran, and the US gets hit by terrorist attacks inside the US while the FISA bill wasn't passed.

This is a key point. The Democratic Party in mass shifted from a core position. This doesn't happen without keen awareness to some strategic condition. Clearly some outside force has produced conditions which are far outside the scope of national politics, because nothing short of insight and real concern for political survival would Democrats find inspiration for such a massive policy shift with virtually no explanation to its core constituency. This is a major reason, and to Democrats scratching still their heads, an obvious sign we believe that Israel has demanded a time table.

We believe we are in the middle of a twelve week period of diplomacy, what will be the last chance for diplomacy before when we believe Israel will take action. Once the six week negotiation period passes, and the real negotiations begin, the clock is ticking. This time period is not an accident, there is a reason why the six week time period was insisted upon by several nations of the six party talks, including China. The six week period insures that war will not break out during the Olympics, and with this condition established heads of state will be in attendance.

You think tensions are high now, you haven't been reading the blog very long. As we noted in early May, the Navy has been positioning itself for an extraordinary level of readiness this fall, and it is obvious enough that even the damage to the USS George Washington (CVN 73) does little to total battle force availability. With the return of the Nassau ESG to port today, the Atlantic Fleet doesn't have any strike groups on deployment, while the Pacific has 3 Carrier Strike Groups and 1 Expeditionary Strike Group at sea. The Lincoln CSG, currently in the Indian Ocean, is to be replaced by late August, which is also around the same time the Kitty Hawk currently participating in RIMPAC 2008 is expected to move to Washington state to prepare for decommissioning.

The Reagan Carrier Strike Group which is currently in the Pacific, and the Peleliu Expeditionary Strike Group which is currently in the Persian Gulf, will both remain at sea well into the fall months. More notably, the time for the next round of naval strike group deployments has come, and the Navy is about to deploy a whole bunch of ships, with a massive reserve trained up and available. As chance would have it, the Europeans will be putting large numbers of naval forces to sea over the next few months as well.

Final thoughts.

In the Middle East this year Ramadan begins on Sunday, August 31st at sundown and will continue for 30 days until Monday, September 29th at sundown. It is worth noting there is a new moon on August 30th and September 29th. We still see Turkey as a big wild card, Israel can do an end run around the United States through Turkey, and it wouldn't even be the first time this year. This is not trivial, most people are unaware that Turkey has the second largest standing Army in NATO, second behind the United States. It is an experienced, well trained Army with excellent equipment.

Would Iran really be stupid enough to attack a NATO member with the largest standing Army in Europe, who is already on the border and has the means to completely cut off Iran's northern flank? When one considers the dynamics between the US, EU, Israel, and Turkey, don't dismiss the wild card role Turkey still might play in any scenario. After all, no one saw the Syrian incident coming through Turkey until after the fact.

Iran Iran Iran, Iran Iran... Bomb?

It was just last April when John McCain made the "joke" to bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran. Clever, but not funny.

Just over 14 months later, oil prices rose to a record high above $144 today. We are now seeing analysts cite oil prices that range from $300-$400 a barrel if Iran is attacked, which is $12-$15 dollars a gallon of gas. This comes at a critical point in the position of the US economy, the dollar is in steady decline, the Fed can't make a decision, housing is on its way to bust, debt is running wild, signs of inflation are everywhere, Americans continue to consume without saving, Washington has become completely ineffective, and there is an absence of leadership to go along with the abundance of rhetoric.

The noise of war is no longer exclusive to the troops in Iraq, because it is now everywhere in the domestic press, and continues to build a steady drumbeat. We just did a Google News Search of bomb Iran, and our return generated "about 12,393 from Jul 1, 2024 to today for bomb Iran" which is less than 48 hours of news. When we wrote this almost two months ago, the return was "about 1,681 from May 5, 2024 to today for bomb Iran" (May 6th about 11:00pm). That is a seven fold increase of news about war with Iran in two months, and there are few signs of the rhetoric cooling anytime soon.

This week alone we have seen Iran threaten to shut down the Strait of Hormuz, diplomats trying to play down the rhetoric, calls by the international community to lean on Iran, the Joint Chiefs of Staff conducting high level discussions about Iran in Israel, and...

what we have seen described as the last sign of hope for diplomacy.

There has been a lot of speculation that at the point the rhetoric hits a high pitch, when it becomes fairly obvious that either the United States or Israel is going to attack Iran, a diplomatic solution would emerge credited to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who would step in and seek to avoid war. We admit to being impressed when this happened today, because it looks like that analysis might be proving accurate.

“We see the possibility of arriving at a multi-faceted solution,” Manouchehr Mottaki, Iran’s foreign minister told a press conference at the United Nations in New York. Ali Akbar Velayati, a top adviser to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s Supreme Leader, also insisted that a “compromise” could be found.

Both men have led public statements on the nuclear issue in recent days while Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s uncompromising president, has kept a low profile.

The shape of a possible face-saving compromise that would open full negotiations is now becoming clearer. A report on Fararu, an unofficial Iranian news agency close to influential opponents of Mr Ahmadinejad, said Tehran may be willing to limit uranium enrichment for a six-week period to pave the way for fully-fledged negotiations.

This offer was part of an incentives package offered to Iran last month by the US, Britain, Russia, China, France and Germany. As we examine the details disclosed in the press, we believe this will be the last diplomatic push before Israel strikes. We note that this offer is intended to create a six week period of preparation for negotiations, at which time the real negotiations would begin. The intent of the six week period is to insure the seriousness on the part of Iran, that they really are interested in a diplomatic solution. It has been suggested that if Iran violates the agreed upon framework during that six week period, they would not be acting like a serious player in the international community, and diplomatic solutions would become very unlikely. The diplomatic package was formally presented to Iran a month ago. Iran has yet to formally accept the offer.

The administration does not believe the Iranians will accept the offer, indeed, it is legitimate to suggest some are hoping Iran rejects it. The next move will determine where the narrative for Iran goes from here.

I'm going to close this with a theory, discuss if you wish, but I will not elaborate on nor defend the theory as it is not mine, and I honestly don't know what to think about it.

If Iran rejects the proposal, and the rhetoric regarding war continues, keep an eye on the dollar. If the dollar continues to decline, it will increase, not decrease, the likelihood of war. In the event of war, as events unfold the global economy will move towards crisis and potential collapse every day the crisis continues, and it will lead to the re-evaluation of the value of individual currencies on a global scale. If that happens, which currency will the major powers lean on? Ask your banker.

The currencies of major markets of globalization are not backed by gold, modern currencies are backed by the F-16. If you don't bring your F-16 to the bank, or you fail to bring your investment in the currency that supports the F-16, you won't get a loan. This theory was forwarded from the economists view why China sits quietly as the world draws near a war that could supposedly collapse the US economy, and the Chinese economy. I thought it was an interesting theory.

"Preparing the Battlefield" Part دو

Seymour Hersh, call your office, this message is probably on your voice mail.

An Iranian navy commander leading a unit that arrested 15 UK sailors in the Persian Gulf last year has survived an assassination attempt.

The attack on Colonel Abolqasem Amangah, the commander of the Arvand Rood Navy Base in southern Iran, occurred while he was driving in the eastern Sorkh Hesar district of Tehran last week.

Two groups of unidentified assailants, a group on a motorbike and the other in a car, opened fire on the vehicle of the Iranian commander.

Amangah pulled his car over, took shelter, and managed to escape unhurt.

It kind of puts the title of his latest piece into perspective huh? "Preparing the Battlefield"

Indeed.

For all you new folks who aren't familiar with Colonel Abolqasem Amangah, he is a rock star in Iran, they even threw a parade in his honor earlier this year. That link never gets old, Eagle1 won comment of the year...

Exploring the Israel-Iran Option

Seymour Hersh has a new article out in the New Yorker called "Preparing the Battlefield," and after going through all seven pages twice, we are still left wondering what all the hype is about. Essentially the article suggests that the US is operating in Iran to collect intelligence, and appears to attempt to shame Democrats for supporting the gathering of intelligence in Iran by funding intelligence gathering. The implication is that because Bush hasn't brought the intelligence gathered back to Congress there is a problem, but speaking from experience, if Bush never brings the intelligence back to Congress, that is probably a good thing for the country. The record there hasn't been pretty, and we prefer he keeps that stuff to himself where it is unlikely to be used to make the case for war.

The rest of the Hersh analysis is of the various politics of the issue, including some interesting stuff regarding Admiral Fallon, but nothing that left us feeling empowered with new information. Essentially, other than the politics, there was nothing new there.

What the Hersh article does do though is note that his sources are the same as ours, with one new one we had previously not observed. Hersh specifically highlights articles by Andrew Cockburn written back in May, that can be found here and here. Its basically more of the political dancing in Washington. The defense related information that Hersh cites is the news in Iran, which is what we watch, so as folks disinterested in the political shuffle in Washington, we didn't see anything worth exploring other than the confirmation of special forces to gather intelligence.

And on that note, we think about what they might be watching in Iran. One gets the feeling this is on the short list.

Iran has moved ballistic missiles into launch positions, with Israel’s Dimona nuclear plant among the possible targets, defence sources said last week.

The movement of Shahab-3B missiles, which have an estimated range of more than 1,250 miles, followed a large-scale exercise earlier this month in which the Israeli air force flew en masse over the Mediterranean in an apparent rehearsal for a threatened attack on Iran’s nuclear installations. Israel believes Iran’s nuclear programme is aimed at acquiring nuclear weapons.

The question to ask is, are they fueled? Unlikely, and if you know anything about ballistic missiles, you know why. Putting ballistic missiles with no fuel on launchers makes this a strange move for the Iranians, one of many strange moves we are observing in fact. But of all the crazy things associated with the Iran war theory discussion, this is by far our favorite topic.

"Naturally, any country coming under attack will use all its capacity and opportunities to confront the enemy. Given the main route for energy to exit the region, one of Iran's steps will definitely be to exercise control on the Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz," Jafari told Jam-e-Jam newspaper, which is affiliated to Iran's state-run radio and television network.

"Should a confrontation erupt between us and the enemy, the scope will definitely reach the oil issue... Oil prices will dramatically increase.

"This is one of the factors deterring the enemy from taking military action against the Islamic Republic of Iran," he said.

We do not believe the United States will attack Iran during the remainder of the Bush administration. We believe if one was casting odds, the odds of Barak Obama or John McCain bombing Iraq in the first 100 days of their presidency is higher than Bush bombing in his remaining days. With that said, we believe Israel will likely bomb Iran during the Bush administration, and when it happens it will change the way the world looks at 21st century warfare. SUTER will be small stuff compared to what we expect to see.

The conventional wisdom expresses concern regarding what will happen to Israel if they bombs Iran. In truth, the answer is the ballistic missiles of Iran is about the only "new" threat Israel faces, it is hard to imagine the Iranian Air Force could hit Israel, and Iran's Naval options are virtually nil. It is likely Hamas and Hezbollah go crazy on Israel in retaliation, but they did that in 2006, so that isn't really a new threat and one Israel will be in a better position to manage than they were in 2006. As we ponder the scenario's, as soon as the first bomb drops, the question isn't whether Israel will destroy itself, the question becomes will Iran destroy itself.

When one contemplates all of the reactions by Iran, one must consider the consequences. For example, if Iran attacks US forces directly, that would essentially be a declaration of war on the United States leading to the most lopsided battle the region has seen since 1991. For all of the focus on Thomas Barnett's Esquire article about "Fox" Fallon, it seems to us people seemed to miss several points Admiral Fallon made. One memorable comment for us was on page 1, in the first section, when discussing the possibility of war with Iran, Fallon said:

"These guys are ants. When the time comes, you crush them."

Regardless of all the scary scenario's that get tossed around by political pundits, there is one scary fact for Iran that stands out during the decision process: declaring war against the United States has historically been a really bad idea.

Another possible retaliation is the one discussed above, shutting down the straits. Who honestly believes Iran is going to unilaterally shut down the straits and crash the economy of the entire Pacific Ocean region? Does Iran think China will simply sit on its hands and watch their economy crash? I'm trying to figure out why crashing the energy economy of every major power in the world except Canada, Brazil, and Russia is a good idea for Iran. This isn't an option for Iran, because if they shut down the strait, they would lose the political high ground and prove Israel right: Iran is a suicide state.

The fact of the matter is, other than asymmetrical attacks in Iraq, which will only turn Iraqi's against Iran even more, or asymmetrical attacks against Israel after the limited number of ballistic missiles are fired, Iran really doesn't have much recourse without being completely destroyed in a total war scenario. If Hezbollah attacks a mall in Minnesota after Israel attacks Iran, does Iran honestly believe the entire country will not blame Iran? Even more important, do the Iranians really believe the Europeans will simply pull out of NATO to remove their obligations to support a NATO member that was attacked by Iran? The logic assumed by westerners to the suicidal nature of an Iranian regime built on survival simply doesn't make much sense to us.

In other words, Iran is incredibly threatening as long as everyone is talking, but the unfortunate reality for the Iranians is, once the talking stops Iran is left in a terrible strategic position with very few options that don't have massive potential blow back, both political and military. Unfortunately for Israel, if they attack Iran they are on their own. Unfortunately for Iran, they will be on their own too, and Iran doesn't have very many military options against a power as strong as Israel.

6th Fleet Focus: Navy Quietly Deploys Carrier Near Lebanon

If you recall, in early March the US Navy sent the Nassau Expeditionary Group to operate in the Med because of the threat of instability was possible in Lebanon. That threat did not materialize at the time, but clearly the threat existed and we observe as of Sunday night, the threat has turned into reality.

Fierce clashes involving rockets and heavy machine guns erupted in Lebanon on Sunday between pro-government forces and opposition gunmen in mountains east of Beirut. At the same time Arab foreign ministers held an emergency meeting in an effort to find a solution to the worsening crisis.

The increasing violence outside the capital marked a dangerous escalation of an armed conflict that began after Hizbollah, the Shia militant group, and its opposition allies sealed off the airport and seized areas of west Beirut last week...

The longer the confrontation goes on, the greater the danger it could spread into a regional crisis, with Hizbollah backed by Syria and Iran, while the region’s main Sunni states - Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan - support the government.

Saudi and Egyptian officials have said they were dismayed by Hizbollah’s actions, which they have described as unacceptable.

While it may be taking the media a bit to realize that 1 + 1 = 2, we observed the transit of the Truman Carrier Strike Group through the Suez Canal on Thursday, and the arrival of the USS Harry S Truman (CVN 75) to Rhodes (Greece) on Friday. In other words, while the USS Harry S Truman (CVN 75) may not be operating off the coast of Iran near the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72), the carrier is now operating very close to Lebanon.

The USS Harry S Truman (CVN 75) is unlikely to stay in the region for any longer than a few weeks, if it stays at all, but it is worth noting that as military activity heats up in Lebanon, there will be considerable coalition Naval forces in the region over the next few weeks. While we are not sure of the schedule for the HMS Illustrious (R06) on the Orion 08 deployment, we note that the USS Cole (DDG 67) which has been operating with the British carrier has already scheduled a port visit to Palma, Spain on Saturday. We think we remember Orion 08 being a 5 month deployment, and given the deployment began in January, it could be approaching its conclusion.

If civilian evacuations become necessary for Lebanon, we observe the Navy will likely also send a ship attached to the Nassau ESG, likely either the USS Nassau (LHA 4) or USS Nashville (LPD 13) due to the USS Ashland (LSD 48) last reported near in southern Africa in exercises with regional nations there. There are no Marines on board the ships of the Nassau ESG, so there is no possibility of Marines in Lebanon.

It is always difficult to determine which escorts are operating with the a Carrier in any given Carrier strike group due to dispersion tactics that split strike group forces over a large area once they arrive to a region, but we list the ships last known to be still be operating with the Truman CSG.

USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75)
USS San Jacinto (CG 56)
USS Hue City (CG 66)
USS Carney (DDG 64)
USS Oscar Austin (DDG 79)
USS Winston S. Churchill (DDG 81)
HMS Manchester (D95)
USNS Arctic (T-AOE 8)

The Navy will announce this week how long the Truman CSG will be operating in the 6th Fleet. Given the Truman CSG deployed on November 5th, and the strike group has been at sea for over 6 months now, it is likely if there is any extension to the deployment to hang around Lebanon we will see naval forces surged from the east coast to take up station, and bring the Truman sailors home.

Completing That Thought

Glenn Reynolds linked to our observations regarding the Navy's aircraft carrier availability leading into this summer, but how he did so is interesting. He intensifies the intent regarding the activity by attaching to the link an email he received. I quote in full to make a point.

I GET AN EMAIL NEWSLETTER from an oil trader and today it includes this tidbit: "In an interesting twist of OPEC news - in the folder titled 'Adequate Supply' - Iran has chartered an armada of supertankers to act as floating storage for as many as 28 million barrels of crude oil that is backing up on them. Analysts are blaming worldwide refineries yet to recover from maintenance programs. It’s not the first time that Iran has had trouble finding buyers; they temporarily floated 20 million barrels in 2006. No, I can’t explain this in light of record oil prices and continual cries for more release of OPEC crude oil. "

U.S. crude stocks are up, too. This is unlikely to be the case, but here's a thought: If I were, say, the United States government, and I anticipated military action in the mideast that might interrupt oil supplies, I wouldn't want to stockpile directly because that would be a tipoff. But if I manipulated markets into running up stocks, I wouldn't have to. . . . Nah. They're not that smart.

The theory is interesting, but requires evidence of market manipulation to be credible, the rising price of oil is both real and speculated and not a very good measurement alone. On that note I checked out the latest market numbers to see if there is any evidence of manipulation. The economic news is good, trade deficit is down to the lowest point since 2003, which should help our nations GDP, but as I continued reading this jumped off the page despite being buried deep in the reporting.

Imports of industrial supplies fell 3.2% to $61.6 billion, including an 8.9% drop in petroleum imports.

The average price of oil rose to a record $89.85 a barrel, but demand fell 9% to 8.97 million barrels a day.

Other news tells the rest of the story, Steve Mufson tracks gasoline consumption, and while gasoline consumption is up .03% in April, consumption is down for the year.

So let me get this straight. Supply is up, demand is down, consumption is down, but the price of oil is rising to record highs? Glenn might want to think about the sentence he didn't complete, because the word "manipulation" may apply.

Al Qaeda Calls For Naval Terror Cells

Eagle1 highlights this report and offers some excellent analysis regarding a topic that may reshape the calculus in the Persian Gulf. The day after the incident in the Gulf involving shots fired from the SS Westward Venture at small boats reported to be the color blue in the Persian Gulf, MEMRI noted some internet traffic we believe is very critical to the information stream of events taking place.

On April 26, 2008, the Islamist website Al-Ikhlas posted an article from Jihad Press, an e-journal reportedly linked to Al-Qaeda, which urges the mujahideen to establish naval terror cells. The article argues that gaining control over the seas and sea passages - especially around the Arabian Peninsula - is a vital step towards renewing the global Islamic caliphate.

It points out that such operations are feasible, because Yemeni groups have already carried out successful attacks against oil tankers, tourist vessels, and commercial vessels in the Gulf of Aden; and other jihad fighters have carried out "two successful attacks on Zionist-Crusader targets in the [territorial] waters of Yemen: ...the attack on the American destroyer [USS] Cole in October 2000, and the [attack on the] French oil tanker Limburg in 2002."

The article adds: "As we draw near to the [crucial] hour when the leadership of the Zionist-Crusader campaign will be dragged to the [negotiation] table to accept the [mujahideen's] terms... it is necessary to [extend] the battle to the seas. The mujahideen have successfully established units of martyrdom-seekers on land; the sea is the next strategic step towards controlling the world and restoring the Islamic caliphate."

Finally, the article stresses that the seas off the coast of Yemen, namely the Gulf of Aden, the Bab Al-Mandeb strait and the Red Sea are of supreme strategic importance in the campaign to expel the enemy from key locations. If the enemy loses these key areas, it explains, "he will not be able to defend himself on land and [to protect] his naval bases from the mujahideens' attack."

We observe a memo like this can change the calculus for Naval forces operating in the 5th Fleet, and should be a serious concern to all nations in the region. Lets assume that the mujahideen has heard of blue paint, a safe assumption, and decides to buy the very common fast speed boats used by both the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Pasdaran forces and pirates in Somalia.

What happens when they approach in formation a small task force of US surface ships transiting the Strait of Hormuz? When we observed the incident in January involving the three US Naval vessels and the Iranian small boats, we gave credit to the intelligence and training for being prepared for tense situations but keeping their cool when faced what appears to be threatening behavior. We note that the intelligence of that time made it almost a certainty those craft are Iranian and will not conduct a suicide attack. Now that Al Qaeda is establishing what are almost certainly small suicide boat forces, what do you think intelligence and training is going to tell these sailors to do next time? Unfortunately, the only legitimate answer is blow them to hell.

This should be a real concern for Iran, because if they do not want war they would immediately inform their IRGC naval forces that unprofessional behavior like what occurred in January could be the trigger for escalating conflict. If President Bush doesn't send a warning to Iran in this regard over the next few days, Harry Reid or one of the Presidential Candidates would be an absolute fool not to, because unless you truly believe Al Qaeda has never heard of blue paint, this is exactly the kind of situation the asymmetrical style that Al Qaeda is known to capitalize on. If Iran and Al Qaeda elements are truly enemies as claimed by many, then clearly they see high tensions and military exchange between Iran and the US to their advantage. An Al Qaeda suicide boat painted blue striking at a major US Naval vessel in the region appears to be an obvious tactic by Al Qaeda waiting to happen. Iran should be put on notice regarding the risks of unprofessional behavior at sea, as should all mariners.

Another major problem with this development occurs if Al Qaeda begins to conduct operations against unarmed commercial traffic, specifically large tankers very common in those seas. We have highlighted how the US Navy has shrunk due to its focus on an all battleship Navy many times, and how the US Navy simply lacks enough forces to maintain an effective patrol against piracy. The lack of ships becomes even more evident if free trade by sea becomes threatened by terrorists with any consistency.

While terrorist attacks against commercial shipping is a threat to the US, we observe the large majority of shipping from that region has destination ports in Europe and Asia. It occurs to us that if Al Qaeda begins any kind of effective offensive maritime campaign against commercial traffic in that region, while the whole world will feel the economic effects due to rising insurance premiums, Al Qaeda is essentially making a declaration of war against Europe, and potentially China.

While we observe this has potential to be a very bad development in the long war against extremist groups, this is also a very good opportunity to build a larger maritime coalition to fight terrorism. It strike us that the Navy's new Maritime Strategy was well designed with exactly this purpose in mind, however, the resources of the US Navy are so out of balance that we may find our naval forces very poorly resourced to handle these kinds of maritime challenges. In our opinion, the Admirals need to get their maritime sea basing strategy resourced quickly with some smaller vessels ready to distribute and offer sustained forward presence against irregular threats. It has been 8 years since the Cole incident, long enough to be ready.

The Strategic Hammer Hits Hezbollah

It has been announced by all sides that today is the first day of the civil war in Lebanon. This has been building with the steady assassination of political leaders since the conclusion of the war in 2006. Hezbollah is not happy, and all of a sudden the government of Lebanon has access to some very accurate intelligence.

It started with a tip regarding airport security and the means by which Iran was reportedly flying in military supplies to Hezbollah. It didn't go over well with the militia when the government announced they were going to seize control of a security camera system in the Beruit airport. That was followed by the removal of the head of airport security, a member of Hezbollah.

It wasn't until the Lebanese government moved to take down private, secure communications network of Hezbollah that the civil unrest, what some are calling a civil war, began. The New York Times is covering.

On Tuesday, the government said that it would send troops to shut down a telephone network operated by Hezbollah in south Lebanon and the southern suburbs of Beirut.

“This decision was a declaration of war and the start of war on the resistance and its weapons,” Mr. Nasrallah said, speaking via satellite at a news conference convened by Hezbollah in the southern suburbs of Beirut.

“Our response to this decision is that whoever declares or starts a war, be it a brother or a father, then it is our right to defend ourselves and our existence,” he said.

How did the Lebanese government so accurately map out all the secure communication locations? The Lebanese military has almost no presence in the south regions dominated by Hezbollah, they are usually assigned to other duty or kept in bases. Was it the Europeans, Israel, or the US?

We'd guess all three, and Hezbollah is already blaming the United States as well. Note the events. First, the airport incident has some sketchy details, but it has been noted many times by observers the regular flights to Beirut from Iran. With the European naval forces part of UNIFIL conducting boardings at sea, smuggling of heavy weaponry into Lebanon is very difficult, particularly from Syria where the fast forces of UNIFIL operate and wait for ships from Syria to so they can conduct a search when they approach Lebanon.

With lines of communication by sea cut, this has left the airport as the most likely route for moving military supply. Not anymore, that operation appears to have been shut down.

Now the government is going after the communication network, and Hezbollah is treating that as a red line. I don't claim to be an expert, but the tactical pattern here does appear to jump out as obvious. Hezbollah is getting hit hard with a nasty one - two punch in our opinion, first cut teh supply line then cut off communications.

This will be interesting to watch develop. Are we seeing the beginning of a Grand Strategy to neutralize Hezbollah in the region? It is very unclear, but we are clearly seeing a strategy to reduce Hezbollah's military capabilities by denying them supply and communications, and that strikes us as very well thought out tactically, as if some larger strategy is afoot.

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.