The Straits of Hormuz seem to be warming - due to Geoplolitical Games and Brinkmanship

[Peter Lemkin]

America warns Iran that blocking oil route will 'not be tolerated'

Tensions mount between US and Iran as Fifth Fleet warns that any attempt to block Strait of Hormuz will elicit naval response

Paul Harris in New York
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 28 December 2011 18.35 GMT

Tensions between the United States and Iran have dangerously ratcheted up as naval officials with America's Fifth Fleet warned any attempt by Iran to close a strategically vital oil route through the Strait of Hormuz would "not be tolerated".

The news heightens a sense of growing crisis in the Persian Gulf after two days of threats by senior Iranian figures that they might shut down the important trade route in response to any future international sanctions against the country's oil exports.

"Anyone who threatens to disrupt freedom of navigation in an international strait is clearly outside the community of nations: any disruption will not be tolerated," US Fifth Fleet spokeswoman Lt Rebecca Rebarich told the Associated Press. She added that the US Navy was "...always ready to counter malevolent actions to ensure freedom of navigation."

The Fifth Fleet is based in the tiny Gulf state of Bahrain and commands a huge flotilla of American naval might, including air craft carriers.

That US response came shortly after the head of the Iranian Navy warned that the country could easily close the Strait of Hormuz if it desired to do so.

"Closing the Strait of Hormuz is very easy for Iranian naval forces... it will be easier than drinking a glass of water," Admiral Habibollah Sayyari told the state-run Press TV channel. However, he did add that Iran currently had no plans to carry out the act.

But the war of words theoretically raises the prospect of a naval conflict in the Gulf between Iran and the United States. Sayyari's statement came just a day after Iran's vice president, Mohamed Reza Rahimi, also threatened to use force to shut the waterway and cut off a flow of oil that many see as vital for the world economy.

They also come as Iran is conducting large naval exercises in the region in what many analysts see as a show of force. The war games stretch over a large area of the Gulf, including the Strait of Hormuz, and could easily bring Iranian ships and submarines into close proximity with US forces.

Iran is reacting to what it says is an unfair campaign to punish it for its domestic nuclear programme, which it claims is peaceful but which many believe is actually aimed at creating a weapon.

The US Congress has passed a bill banning dealings with the Iran Central Bank which President Barack Obama has said he will sign. If that happens the new US law could hit foreign companies that deal with Iran's central bank in order to buy oil, striking a blow at a commodity that makes up about 80% of its foreign revenues and is vital for the functioning of the Iranian economy.

The oil markets are already jittery about the latest developments. As the oil price ticked up in the face of the bellicose comments Saudi officials said that they would release more oil in the event of any crisis to make up for a loss of Iranian crude. That effort seemed to help calm oil traders' fears.

The current rising tensions are also merely the latest in a series of serious spats between Iran and Western nations. Earlier this month Iran captured an unmanned US spy drone, broadcasting pictures of the downed craft that created headlines around the world and represented a major intelligence coup. In November violent crowds in Tehran stormed the British embassy and ransacked offices and residences. That led to the closure of the embassy and the expulsion of Iranian diplomats from Britain.

Iranian media has carried detailed reports of how it might act to close the Strait, deploying a mix of ships, submarines, missiles and torpedoes. Few experts believe that any Iranian force could stand up to the US military but any form of armed conflict would likely trigger a global diplomatic and economic crisis.

It would also play out against a backdrop of concerted Israeli efforts to warn against Iran's nuclear programme, which the nation believes represents a threat to its existence. Isreali military and political figures have consistently threatened that armed strikes against Iran might be needed to stop the development of an Iranian nuclear bomb.

------------------------------------------------------
About a month ago [as many times before] Iran hinted they might close the Straits if America threatened Iran in any way. At this point, I think both Iran and the USA are playing a game of bluff. Closing the Straits would be economic suicide for Iran - as most of their oil too leaves via this waterway. The bluster on the US side is part of the Imperial swagger and a longtanding desire to destabilize and crush the current regime in Iran [which we are the most responsible party for creating, along with the British]. That said, any mistake or planned escalation by either side or a third party [Israel, for example] could easily escalate out of hand and create a long naval battle [months] with great losses on both sides - the threat of regional spread and even the unthinkable - use of nuclear weapons by USA, Israel and maybe even Pakistan or others. The only ones to profit from such a conflict would be those who profit from high oil prices and war, in general. Even though at this point I think everyone is bluffing, a spark could ignite that tinderbox and within hours a full blown conflict could be at hand. Now would be the time to have everyone back down - before it is too late. A small group in Iran and the USA would like the confrontation, for their own geopolitical ends. For the World, it would be total madness and a flirting with WWIII

[Peter Lemkin]

Preparing to Attack Iran with Nuclear Weapons: "No Option can be taken off the Table."

by Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, December 26, 2011

"When a US sponsored nuclear war becomes an "instrument of peace", condoned and accepted by the World's institutions and the highest authority, including the United Nations, there is no turning back: human society has indelibly been precipitated headlong onto the path of self-destruction." (Towards a World War III Scenario, Global Research, May 2011)

The World is at a Dangerous Crossroads. America's is on a War Path.

World War III is no longer an abstract concept

The US and its allies are preparing to launch a nuclear war directed against Iran with devastating consequences.

This military adventure in the real sense of the word threatens the future of humanity.

The Pentagon's global military design is one of world conquest.

The military deployment of US-NATO forces is occurring in several regions of the world simultaneously.

War pretexts and "justifications" abound. Iran is heralded as a threat to Israel and the World.

The war on Iran has been on the drawing board of the Pentagon for more than eight years. In recent developments, a renewed set of threats and accusations directed against Tehran have been launched.

A "war of stealth" has already commenced. Mossad intelligence operatives are on the ground. Covert paramilitary formations are being launched inside Iran, CIA drones are being deployed.

Meanwhile, Washington. London, Brussels and Tel Aviv have launched specific destabilizing initiatives "to choke Iran diplomatically, financially and economically".

A stepped up economic sanctions regime has been formulated by the US Congress:

"a bipartisan consensus has emerged in Washington in favor of strangling the Iranian economy." The latter consists in implementing "an amendment to the 2012 defence authorisation bill, designed to "collapse the Iranian economy"... by making it virtually impossible for Tehran to sell its oil." (Tom Burghardt, Target Iran: Washington's Countdown to War, Global Research, December 2011). :

This new wave of diplomatic hype coupled with the threat of economic sanctions has also contributed to triggering an aura of uncertainty in the market for crude oil, with potentially devastating consequences on the global economy.

Meanwhile, the corporate media has embarked on a renewed propaganda stint pertaining to Iran's alleged nuclear program, pointing to "activities related to possible weaponization."

In recent developments, barely acknowledged by the US media, President Barack Obama met privately (December 16), behind closed doors with Israel's Defense Minister Ehud Barak. The meeting was held in the outskirts of Washington DC at the Gaylord Hotel, National Harbor, Maryland under the auspices of the Union for Reform Judaism.


Barack meets Barak, Barack Obama and Israel's Defense Minister Ehud Barak
December 16, 2011 at the URJ Biennal Plenary, Gaylord Hotel, National Harbor
(White House photo)

The importance of this timely private meeting under URJ auspices cannot be underestimated. Reports suggest that the Barack O / E. Barak meeting centered largely on the issue of a US-Israeli attack on Iran.

Writing in Haaretz, Israeli political analyst Amir Oren described the Barack-Barak meeting as a potential "Green Light" to Israel to launch an all out war on Iran:

"Is it possible that the half-hour meeting last Friday at the Gaylord Hotel in National Harbor, Maryland, between U.S. President Barack Obama and Defense Minister Ehud Barak will be remembered in Israel's history as the moment at which Barack O. gave the green light to E. Barak for better or for worse to attack Iran?... Can this be seen as a sort of flashback to the talk between Defense Minister Ariel Sharon and U.S. Secretary of State Alexander Haig in Washington in May 1982, that gave rise to the (mistaken) Israeli impression that there was an understanding with the United States over going to war in Lebanon... " No sign U.S. has given Israel green light to strike Iran - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News

Following this private meeting, Obama addressed the Biennial Plenary of the Union for Reform Judaism, reassuring his audience that "cooperation between our militaries [and intelligence] has never been stronger."

Obama underscored that Iran is a "threat to the security of Israel, the United States and the world ... And that's why our policy has been absolutely clear: We are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons....And that's why ... we have imposed the most comprehensive, the hardest-hitting sanctions that the Iranian regime has ever faced.... And that's why, rest assured, we will take no options off the table." (Transcript of President Obama Union for Reform Judaism Speech Video Dec. 16. 2011: Address at URJ Biennial, 71st General Assembly , emphasis added).

Towards a "Coordinated" US-Israeli Attack on Iran?

In recent weeks, the US media tabloids have been literally plastered with "no options off the table" statements by Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. Panetta intimated, however, "that Israel should not consider unilateral action against Iran" while stressing "that any military operation against Iran by Israel must be coordinated with the United States and have its backing". (Panetta's December 2 statement at the Saban Center quoted in U.S. Defense Secretary: Iran could get nuclear bomb within a year - Haaretz, December 11, 2011, emphasis added)

The Threat of Nuclear War against Iran

The "no options off the table" statement intimates that the US not only envisages an attack on Iran but that this attack could include the use of tactical bunker buster nuclear weapons with an explosive capacity between one third and six times a Hiroshima bomb. In a cruel irony, these "humanitarian" "peace-making" nuclear bombs "Made in America" --which according to "scientific opinion" on contract to the Pentagon are "harmless to the surrounding civilian population"-- are contemplated to be used against Iran in retaliation for its nonexistent nuclear weapons program.

While Iran has no nuclear weapons, what is rarely acknowledged is that five (officially) "non-nuclear States" including Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy and Turkey have US made tactical nuclear weapons deployed under national command in their respective military bases. This nuclear arsenal is slated to be used against Iran.

The stockpiling and deployment of tactical B61 in these five "non-nuclear states" are intended for targets in the Middle East. In accordance with "NATO strike plans", these thermonuclear B61 bunker buster bombs would be launched "against targets in Russia or countries in the Middle East such as Syria and Iran" (quoted in National Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons in Europe , February 2005, emphasis added)

While these "undeclared nuclear states" casually accuse Tehran of developing nuclear weapons, without documentary evidence, they themselves have capabilities of delivering nuclear warheads, which are targeted at Iran, Syria and Russia. (See Michel Chossudovsky, Europe's Five "Undeclared Nuclear Weapons States" , Global Research, February 12, 2010)

Israel's Nukes are Pointed at Iran. Joint US-Israel "Coordination" of Nuclear Weapons Deployment

Israel rather than Iran is a threat to global security.
\
Israel possesses 100-200 strategic nuclear warheads, which are fully deployed against Iran.

Already in 2003, Washington and Tel Aviv confirmed that they were collaborating in "the deployment of US-supplied Harpoon cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads in Israel's fleet of Dolphin-class submarines." (The Observer, 12 October 2003).

According to Russian general Leonid Ivashov:

The Israeli military and political circles had been making statements on the possibility of nuclear and missile strikes on Iran openly since October, 2006, when the idea was immediately supported by G. Bush. Currently [2007] it is touted in the form of a "necessity" of nuclear strikes. The public is taught to believe that there is nothing monstrous about such a possibility and that, on the contrary, a nuclear strike is quite feasible. Allegedly, there is no other way to "stop" Iran. (General Leonid Ivashov, Iran Must Get Ready to Repel a Nuclear Attack, Global Research, January 2007 emphasis added)

It is worth noting that at the outset of Bush's second term, Vice President Dick Cheney had hinted, in no uncertain terms, that Iran was "right at the top of the list" of the rogue enemies of America, and that Israel would, so to speak, "be doing the bombing for us", without US military involvement and without us putting pressure on them "to do it".

In the above context, political analyst and historian Michael Carmichael has pointed to the integration and coordination of military decision-making between the US and Israel pertaining to the deployment of nuclear weapons:

"Rather than a direct American nuclear strike against Iran's hard targets, Israel has been given the assignment of launching a coordinated cluster of nuclear strikes aimed at targets that are the nuclear installations in the Iranian cities: Natanz, Isfahan and Arak. (Michael Carmichael, Global Research, January 2007)

"No Options off the Table": What Does it Mean in the Context of Military Planning? Integration of Conventional and Nuclear Weapons Systems

The rules and guidelines of the US Military governing the use of nuclear weapons have been "liberalized" (i.e. "deregulated" in relation to those prevailing during the Cold War era). The decision to use tactical nuclear weapons against Iran no longer depends on the Commander in Chief, namely president Barack Obama. It is strictly a military decision. The new doctrine states that Command, Control, and Coordination (CCC) regarding the use of nuclear weapons should be "flexible", allowing geographic combat commanders to decide if and when to use of nuclear weapons:

Known in official Washington, as "Joint Publication 3-12", the new nuclear doctrine (Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations , (DJNO) (March 2005)) calls for "integrating conventional and nuclear attacks" under a unified and "integrated" Command and Control (C2).

It largely describes war planning as a management decision-making process, where military and strategic objectives are to be achieved, through a mix of instruments, with little concern for the resulting loss of human life.

What this means is that if an attack on Iran is launched, tactical nuclear weapons will be an integral part of the weapons arsenal.

From a military decision-making standpoint, "no options off the table" means that the Military will apply "the most efficient use of force". In this context, nuclear and conventional weapons are part of what the Pentagon calls "the tool box", from which military commanders can pick and choose the instruments that they require in accordance with "evolving circumstances" in the "war theater". (See Michel Chossudovsky, Is the Bush Administration Planning a Nuclear Holocaust? Global Research, February 22, 2006

"Once a decision to launch a military operation is taken (e.g. aerial strikes on Iran), theater commanders have a degree of latitude. What this signifies in practice is once the presidential decision is taken, USSTRATCOM in liaison with theater commanders can decide on the targeting and type of weaponry to be used. Stockpiled tactical nuclear weapons are now considered to be an integral part of the battlefield arsenal. In other words, nukes have become "part of the tool box", used in conventional war theaters. Michel Chossudovsky, Targeting Iran, Is the US Administration Planning a Nuclear Holocaust, Global Research, February 2006, emphasis added)

The Integration of Conventional and Nuclear Warfare. CONPLAN 8022

Of utmost relevance to the planned attack on Iran, US military documents point towards the integration of conventional and nuclear weapons and the use of nukes on a pre-emptive basis in the conventional war theater.

This proposed "integration" of conventional and nuclear weapons systems was first formulated in 2003 under CONPLAN 8022. The latter is described as "a concept plan for the quick use of nuclear, conventional, or information warfare capabilities to destroy--pre-emptively, if necessary--"time-urgent targets" anywhere in the world [including Iran]." (See Michel Chossudovsky, US, NATO and Israel Deploy Nukes directed against Iran, Global Research, September 27, 2007). Coordinated by US Strategic Command, CONPLAN became operational in early 2004. (Robert S. Norris and Hans M. Kristensen, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists).

CONPLAN opens up a military Pandora's box. It blurs the dividing line between conventional and nuclear weapons. It opens the door for the preemptive use of nukes "anywhere in the World"

The Absence of Public Awareness

The "international community" has endorsed an attack on Iran in the name of World Peace.

"Making the World safer" is the justification for launching a military operation which could potentially result in a nuclear holocaust.

While one can conceptualize the loss of life and destruction resulting from present-day wars including Iraq and Afghanistan, it is impossible to fully comprehend the devastation which might result from a Third World War, using "new technologies" and advanced weapons, including nukes, until it occurs and becomes a reality.

The corporate media is involved in deliberately blocking news coverage concerning these war preparations. The war on Iran and the dangers of escalation are not considered "front page news." The mainstream media has excluded in-depth analysis and debate on the implications of these war plans.

Iran does not constitute a nuclear threat.

The threat to global security emanates from the US-NATO-Israel military alliance which contemplates --under the CONPLAN framework-- the use of thermonuclear weapons against a non nuclear state.

In the words of General Ivashov, "The public is taught to believe that there is nothing monstrous about such a possibility". Nuclear weapons are "part of tool box".

An attack on Iran would have devastating consequences, It would unleash an all out regional war from the Eastern Mediterranean to Central Asia, potentially leading humanity into a World War III Scenario.

The Obama Administration constitutes a nuclear threat.

NATO constitutes a nuclear threat

Five European "non-nuclear states" (Germany, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, Turkey) with tactical nuclear weapons deployed under national command, to be used against Iran constitute a nuclear threat.

The Israeli government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu not only constitutes a nuclear threat, but also a threat to the security of people of Israel, who are misled regarding the implications of an US-Israeli attack on Iran.

The complacency of Western public opinion --including segments of the US anti-war movement-- is disturbing. No concern has been expressed at the political level as to the likely consequences of a US-NATO-Israel attack on Iran, using nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state.

Such an action would result in "the unthinkable": a nuclear holocaust over a large part of the Middle East.

It should be noted that a nuclear nightmare would occur even if nuclear weapons were not used. The bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities using conventional weapons would contribute to unleashing a Chernobyl-Fukushima type disaster with extensive radioactive fallout.

[Jan Klimkowski]

If this is true, then the geopolitical conflict is in full swing, and Russia has made a huge move in the currency/trade sphere:

Russia, Iran Proceed With Bilateral Trade, Drop Dollar
Russian Warships Park In Syria
Iran Accelerates Nuclear Enrichment

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 01/08/2012 15:37

For anyone wondering how the abandonment of the dollar reserve status would look like we have a Hollow Men reference: not with a bang, but a whimper... Or in this case a whole series of bilateral agreements that quietly seeks to remove the US currency as an intermediate.

Such as these: "World's Second (China) And Third Largest (Japan) Economies To Bypass Dollar, Engage In Direct Currency Trade", "China, Russia Drop Dollar In Bilateral Trade", "China And Iran To Bypass Dollar, Plan Oil Barter System", "India and Japan sign new $15bn currency swap agreement", and now this: "Iran, Russia Replace Dollar With Rial, Ruble in Trade, Fars Says."

And ironically, the proposal to dump the greenback did not come from Iran. Per Bloomberg:

"Iran and Russia replaced the U.S. dollar with their national currencies in bilateral trade, Iran's state-run Fars news agency reported, citing Seyed Reza Sajjadi, the Iranian ambassador in Moscow. The proposal to switch to the ruble and the rial was raised by Russian President Dmitry Medvedev at a meeting with his Iranian counterpart, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in Astana, Kazakhstan, of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the ambassador said."

Is Iran gradually becoming the poster child of an energy rich country that just says no to the dollar: "Iran has replaced the dollar in its oil trade with India, China and Japan, Fars reported."

Next thing you know China, Russia and Japan will engage in bilateral trade agreements with the Eurozone in exchange for purchasing European or EFSF (which at last check are now forced to give 30% guaranatees) bonds, and bypassing dollars completely. But yes, aside from everyone else, virtually everyone (footnote 1) is still using the dollar as currency of global exchange.

And just to make sure that the message is heard loud and clear, Russia just docked several warships in Syria, the same country the US told all American citizens to leave two months ago. From China Daily:

Russian warships patrolling the eastern Mediterranean Sea have docked at Russia's naval supply facility in the Syrian port of Tartus, the private Addounia TV reported Saturday.

Governor of Tartus Imad Naddaf received the ships' leaders and expressed appreciation to Russia's support for Syria, the report said.

Russia's state-owned Itar-Tass news agency quoted a source from the Russian Navy as saying that "It is planned that the port of Tartus will be visited by a big anti-submarine ship of the Northern Fleet 'Admiral Chabanenko' and an escort ship 'Yaroslav Mudry'."

"Our ships are supposed to stay in Syria for several days," the source said, without giving more details about the warships' mission in the country.

The move is considered by many observers as an apparent show of Russia's support for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad whose country has been gripped by a nearly 10-month bloody unrest.

The Russian Navy, however, claimed the move was part of scheduled exercises and had no connection with the situation in Syria.

The warships, led by "Admiral Kuznetsov," the country's only aircraft carrier, have started their patrol missions in the Northeast Atlantic and the Mediterranean Sea on December 6 to "ensure the security of the sea navigation and other Russian maritime economic activities," according to the Russian Navy.

That this is happening just as Reuters inform us that Iran is about to move the invasion timetable by a few months is rather disturbing - recall that "according to Ehud Barak, the Israeli Defense Minister, after September, a successful military attack on Iran's nuclear sites will no longer be possible, because Iran will widen the redundancy of its facilities and spread them out over more sites, including the impenetrable site at Fordow (near Qom), which is located inside a mountain."

From Reuters:

Iran will in the "near future" start enriching uranium deep inside a mountain, a senior official said, a move likely to further antagonize Western powers which suspect Tehran is seeking nuclear weapons capability.

A decision by the Islamic Republic to conduct sensitive atomic activities at an underground site - offering better protection against any enemy attacks - could complicate diplomatic efforts to resolve the long-running row peacefully.

Iran has said for months that it is preparing to move its highest-grade uranium refinement work to Fordow, a facility near the Shi'ite Muslim holy city of Qom in central Iran, from its main enrichment plant at Natanz. The centrifuges and other equipment needed to start enrichment were installed at Fordow last year.

Iran is already refining uranium to a fissile purity of 20 percent - far more than the 3.5 percent level usually required to power nuclear energy plants - above ground at Natanz.

The country said last year it would move this higher-grade enrichment to Fordow, which like other Iranian nuclear sites is regularly inspected by the IAEA, and also sharply boost output capacity.

The United States and Israel, Iran's arch foes, have not ruled out strikes against the Islamic state if diplomacy fails to resolve the dispute.Iran disclosed the existence of Fordow to the IAEA only in September 2009 after learning that Western intelligence agencies had detected it.

The bottom line is that once the transition to Fordow is complete there will be no more possible ways to spin an invasion. Which gives a rough "window of opportunity" - expect to see it reflected ever more in the price of Brent as the September deadline is pushed forward by weeks and months.

As for the escalation in the USD-depegging, all that needs to happen now is for the brand spanking new Chinese aircraft carrier to do some wargames of its own in the Straits of Hormuz for the pre-terminal escalation chaos to be complete.

[Ed Jewett]

The Geo-Politics of the Strait of Hormuz: Could the U.S. Navy be defeated by Iran in the Persian Gulf?


by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

After years of U.S. threats, Iran is taking steps which suggest that is both willing and capable of closing the Strait of Hormuz. On December 24, 2011 Iran started its Velayat-90 naval drills in and around the Strait of Hormuz and extending from the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman (Oman Sea) to the Gulf of Aden and the Arabian Sea.

Since the conduct of these drills, there has been a growing war of words between Washington and Tehran. Nothing the Obama Administration or the Pentagon have done or said so far, however, has deterred Tehran from continuing its naval drills.

The Geo-Political Nature of the Strait of Hormuz

Besides the fact that it is a vital transit point for global energy resources and a strategic chokepoint, two additional issues should be addressed in regards to the Strait of Hormuz and its relationship to Iran. The first concerns the geography of the Strait of Hormuz. The second pertains to the role of Iran in co-managing the strategic strait in accordance with international law and its sovereign national rights.

The maritime traffic that goes through the Strait of Hormuz has always been in contact with Iranian naval forces, which are predominantly composed of the Iranian Regular Force Navy and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Navy. In fact, Iranian naval forces monitor and police the Strait of Hormuz along with the Sultanate of Oman via the Omani enclave of Musandam. More importantly, to transit through the Strait of Hormuz all maritime traffic, including the U.S. Navy, must sail through Iranian territorial waters. Almost all entrances into the Persian Gulf are made through Iranian waters and most exits are through Omani waters.

Iran allows foreign ships to use its territorial waters in good faith and on the basis of Part III of the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea's maritime transit passage provisions that stipulate that vessels are free to sail through the Strait of Hormuz and similar bodies of water on the basis of speedy and continuous navigation between an open port and the high seas. Although Tehran in custom follows the navigation practices of the Law of the Sea, Tehran is not legally bound by them. Like Washington, Tehran signed this international treaty, but never ratified it.



American-Iranian Tensions in the Persian Gulf

In recent developments, the Iranian Majlis (Parliament) is re-evaluating the use of Iranian waters at the Strait of Hormuz by foreign vessels.

Legislation is being proposed to block any foreign warships from being able to use Iranian territorial waters to navigate through the Strait of Hormuz without Iranian permission; the Iranian Parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Committee is currently studying legislation which would establish an official Iranian posture. The latter would hinge upon Iranian strategic interests and national security. [1]

On December 30, 2011, the U.S.S. John C. Stennis carrier passed through the area where Iran was conducting its naval drills. The Commander of the Iranian Regular Forces, Major-General Ataollah Salehi, advised the U.S.S. John C. Stennis and other U.S. Navy vessels not to return to the Persian Gulf while Iran was doing its drills, saying that Iran is not in the habit of repeating a warning twice. [2] Shortly after the stern Iranian warning to Washington, the Pentagon's press secretary responded by making a statement saying: "No one in this government seeks confrontation [with Iran] over the Strait of Hormuz. It's important to lower the temperature." [3]

In an actual scenario of military conflict with Iran, it is very likely that U.S. aircraft carriers would actually operate from outside of the Persian Gulf and from the southern Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea. Unless the missile systems that Washington is developing in the petro-sheikhdoms of the southern Persian Gulf are operational, the deployment of large U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf would be unlikely. The reasons for this are tied to geographic realities and the defensive capabilities of Iran.



Geography is against the Pentagon: U.S. Naval Strength has limits in the Persian Gulf

U.S. naval strength, which includes the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Coast Guard, has primacy over all the other navies and maritime forces in the world. Its deep sea or oceanic capabilities are unparalleled and unmatched by any other naval power. Primacy does not mean invincibility. U.S. naval forces in the Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf are nonetheless vulnerable.

Despite its might and shear strength, geography literally works against U.S. naval power in the Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf. The relative narrowness of the Persian Gulf makes it like a channel, at least in a strategic and military context. Figuratively speaking, the aircraft carriers and warships of the U.S. are confined to narrow waters or are closed in within the coastal waters of the Persian Gulf. [See map above]

This is where the Iranian military's advanced missile capabilities come into play. The Iranian missile and torpedo arsenal would make short work of U.S. naval assets in the waters of the Persian Gulf where U.S. vessels are constricted. This is why the U.S. has been busily erecting a missile shield system in the Persian Gulf amongst the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries in the last few years.

Even the small Iranian patrol boats in the Persian Gulf, which appear pitiable and insignificant against a U.S. aircraft carrier or destroyer, threaten U.S. warships. Looks can be deceiving; these Iranian patrol boats can easily launch a barrage of missiles that could significantly damage and effectively sink large U.S. warships. Iranian small patrol boats are also hardly detectable and hard to target.

Iranian forces could also attack U.S. naval capabilities merely by launching missile attacks from the Iranian mainland on the northern shores of the Persian Gulf. Even in 2008 the Washington Institute for Near East Policy acknowledged the threat from Iran's mobile coastal missile batteries, anti-ship missiles, and missile-armed small ships. [4] Other Iranian naval assets like aerial drones, hovercraft, mines, diver teams, and mini-submarines could also be used in asymmetrical naval warfare against the U.S. Fifth Fleet.

Even the Pentagon's own war simulations have shown that a war in the Persian Gulf with Iran would spell disaster for the United States and its military. One key example is the Millennium Challenge 2002 (MC02) war game in the Persian Gulf, which was conducted from July 24, 2002 to August 15, 2002 and took almost two years to prepare. This mammoth drill was amongst the largest and most expensive war games ever held by the Pentagon. Millennium Challenge 2002 was held shortly after the Pentagon had decided that it would continue the momentum of the war in Afghanistan by targeting Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, Lebanon, Syria, and finishing off with the big prize of Iran in a broad military campaign to ensure U.S. primacy in the new millennium.

After Millennium Challenge 2002 was finished, the war game was "officially" presented as a simulation of a war against Iraq under the rule of President Saddam Hussein, but in actuality these war games pertained to Iran.[5] The U.S. had already made assessments for the upcoming Anglo-American invasion of Iraq. Moreover, Iraq had no naval capabilities that would merit such large-scale use of the U.S. Navy.

Millennium Challenge 2002 was conducted to simulate a war with Iran, which was codenamed "Red" and referred to an unknown Middle Eastern rogue enemy state in the Persian Gulf. Other than Iran, no other country could meet the perimeters and characteristics of "Red" and its military forces, from the patrol boats to the motorcycle units. The war simulation took place because Washington was planning on attacking Iran soon after invading Iraq in 2003.

The scenario in the 2002 war game started with the U.S., codenamed "Blue," giving Iran a one-day ultimatum to surrender in the year 2007. The war game's date of 2007 would chronologically correspond to U.S. plans to attack Iran after the Israeli attack on Lebanon in 2006, which was to extend, according to military plans, into a broader war against Syria. The war against Lebanon, however, did not go as planned and the U.S. and Israel realized that if Hezbollah could challenge them in Lebanon then an expanded war with Syria and Iran would be a disaster.

In Millennium Challenge 2002's war scenario, Iran would react to U.S. aggression by launching a massive barrage of missiles that would overwhelm the U.S. and destroy sixteen U.S. naval vessels an aircraft carrier, ten cruisers, and five amphibious ships. It is estimated that if this had happened in real war theatre context, more than 20,000 U.S. servicemen would have been killed in the first day following the attack. [6]

Next, Iran would send its small patrol boats the ones that look insignificant in comparison to the U.S.S. John C. Stennis and other large U.S. warships to overwhelm the remainder of the Pentagon's naval forces in the Persian Gulf, which would result in the damaging and sinking of most of the U.S. Fifth Fleet and the defeat of the United States. After the U.S. defeat, the war games were started over again, but "Red" (Iran) had to operate under the assumption of handicaps and shortcomings, so that U.S. forces would be allowed to emerge victorious from the drill. [7] This outcome of the war games obviated the fact that the U.S. would have been overwhelmed in the context of a real conventional war with Iran in the Persian Gulf.

Hence, the formidable naval power of Washington is handicapped both by geography as well as Iranian military capabilities when it comes to fighting in the Persian Gulf or even in much of the Gulf of Oman. Without open waters, like in the Indian Ocean or the Pacific Ocean, the U.S. will have to fight under significantly reduced response times and, more importantly, will not be able to fight from a stand-off (militarily safe) distance. Thus, entire tool boxes of U.S. naval defensive systems, which were designed for combat in open waters using stand-off ranges, are rendered unpractical in the Persian Gulf.

Making the Strait of Hormuz Redundant to Weaken Iran?

The entire world knows the importance of the Strait of Hormuz and Washington and its allies are very well aware that the Iranians can militarily close it for a significant period of time. This is why the U.S. has been working with the GCC countries Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, and the U.A.E. to re-route their oil through pipelines bypassing the Strait of Hormuz and channelling GCC oil directly to the Indian Ocean, Red Sea, or Mediterranean Sea. Washington has also been pushing Iraq to seek alternative routes in talks with Turkey, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia.

Both Israel and Turkey have also been very interested in this strategic project. Ankara has had discussions with Qatar about setting up an oil terminal that would reach Turkey via Iraq. The Turkish government has attempted to get Iraq to link its southern oil fields, like Iraq's northern oil fields, to the transit routes running through Turkey. This is all tied to Turkey's visions of being an energy corridor and important lynchpin of transit.

The aims of re-routing oil away from the Persian Gulf would remove an important element of strategic leverage Iran has against Washington and its allies. It would effectively reduce the importance of the Strait of Hormuz. It could very well be a prerequisite to war preparations and a war led by the United States against Tehran and its allies.

It is within this framework that the Abu Dhabi Crude Oil Pipeline or the Hashan-Fujairah Oil Pipeline is being fostered by the United Arab Emirates to bypass the maritime route in the Persian Gulf going through the Strait of Hormuz. The project design was put together in 2006, the contract was issued in 2007, and construction was started in 2008. [8] This pipeline goes straight from Abdu Dhabi to the port of Fujairah on the shore of the Gulf of Oman in the Arabian Sea.

In other words, it will give oil exports from the U.A.E. direct access to the Indian Ocean. It has openly been presented as a means to ensure energy security by bypassing Hormuz and attempting to avoid the Iranian military. Along with the construction of this pipeline, the erection of a strategic oil reservoir at Fujairah was also envisaged to also maintain the flow of oil to the international market should the Persian Gulf be closed off. [9]



Aside from the Petroline (East-West Saudi Pipeline), Saudi Arabia has also been looking at alternative transit routes and examining the ports of it southern neighbours in the Arabian Peninsula, Oman and Yemen. The Yemenite port of Mukalla on the shores of the Gulf of Aden has been of particular interest to Riyadh. In 2007, Israeli sources reported with some fanfare that a pipeline project was in the works that would connect the Saudi oil fields with Fujairah in the U.A.E., Muscat in Oman, and finally to Mukalla in Yemen. The reopening of the Iraq-Saudi Arabia Pipeline (IPSA), which was ironically built by Saddam Hussein to avoid the Strait of Hormuz and Iran, has also been a subject of discussion for the Saudis with the Iraqi government in Baghdad.

If Syria and Lebanon were converted into Washington's clients, then the defunct Trans-Arabian Pipeline (Tapline) could also be reactivated, along with other alternative routes going from the Arabian Peninsula to the coast of the Mediterranean Sea via the Levant. Chronologically, this would also fit into Washington's efforts to overrun Lebanon and Syria in an attempt to isolate Iran before any possible showdown with Tehran.

The Iranian Velayat-90 naval drills, which extended in close proximity to the entrance of the Red Sea in the Gulf of Aden off the territorial waters of Yemen, also took place in the Gulf of Oman facing the coast of Oman and the eastern shores of the United Arab Emirates. Amongst other things, Velayat-90 should be understood as a signal that Tehran is ready to operate outside of the Persian Gulf and can even strike or block the pipelines trying to bypass the Strait of Hormuz.

Geography again is on Iran's side in this case too. Bypassing the Strait of Hormuz still does not change the fact that most of the oil fields belonging to GCC countries are located in the Persian Gulf or near its shores, which means they are all situated within close proximity to Iran and therefore within Iranian striking distance. Like in the case of the Hashan-Fujairah Pipeline, the Iranians could easily disable the flow of oil from the point of origin. Tehran could launch missile and aerial attacks or deploy its ground, sea, air, and amphibious forces into these areas as well. It does not necessarily need to block the Strait of Hormuz; after all preventing the flow of energy is the main purpose of the Iranian threats.

The American-Iranian Cold War

Washington has been on the offensive against Iran using all means at its disposal. The tensions over the Strait of Hormuz and in the Persian Gulf are just one front in a dangerous multi-front regional cold war between Tehran and Washington in the broader Middle East. Since 2001, the Pentagon has also been restructuring its military to wage unconventional wars with enemies like Iran. [10] Nonetheless, geography has always worked against the Pentagon and the U.S. has not found a solution for its naval dilemma in the Persian Gulf. Instead of a conventional war, Washington has had to resort to waging a covert, economic, and diplomatic war against Iran.



Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a Sociologist and award-winning author. He is a Research Associate at the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal. He specializes on the Middle East and Central Asia. He has been a contributor and guest discussing the broader Middle East on numerous programs and international networks such as Al Jazeera, Press TV and Russia Today. Nazemroaya was also a witness to the "Arab Spring" in action in North Africa. While on the ground in Libya during the NATO bombing campaign, he reported out of Tripoli for several media outlets. He sent key field dispatches from Libya for Global Research and was Special Correspondent for Pacifica's syndicated investigative program Flashpoints, broadcast out of Berkeley, California. His writings have been published in more than ten languages. He also writes for the Strategic Culture Foundation (SCF) in Moscow, Russia.


Notes

[1] Fars News Agency, "Foreign Warships Will Need Iran's Permission to Pass through Strait of Hormuz," January 4, 2011.
[2] Fars News Agency, "Iran Warns US against Sending Back Aircraft Carrier to Persian Gulf," January 4, 2011.
[3] Parisa Hafezi, "Iran threatens U.S Navy as sanctions hit economy," Reuters, January 4, 2012.
[4] Fariborz Haghshenass, "Iran's Asymmetric Naval Warfare," Policy Focus, no.87 (Washington, D.C.: Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy, September 2010).
[5] Julian Borger, "Wake-up call," The Guardian, September 6, 2002.
[6] Neil R. McCown, Developing Intuitive Decision-Making In Modern Military Leadership (Newport, R.I.: Naval War College, October 27, 2010), p.9.
[7] Sean D. Naylor, "War games rigged? General says Millennium Challenge 02 was almost entirely scripted,'" Army Times, April 6, 2002.
[8] Himendra Mohan Kumar, "Fujairah poised to be become oil export hub," Gulf News, June 12, 2011.
[9] Ibid.
[10] John Arquilla, "The New Rules of War," Foreign Policy, 178 (March-April, 2010): pp.60-67.

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28516

[Ed Jewett]

When War Games Go Live. Preparing to Attack Iran. "Simulating World War III"


by Michel Chossudovsky

With ongoing war games on both sides, armed hostilities between the US-Israel led coalition and Iran are, according to Israeli military analysts, "dangerously close".
There has been a massive deployment of troops which have been dispatched to the Middle East, not to mention the redeployment of US and allied troops previously stationed in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Nine thousand US troops have been dispatched to Israel to participate in what is described by the Israeli press as the largest joint air defense war exercise in Israeli history.
The drill, called "Austere Challenge 12," is scheduled to take place within the next few weeks. Its stated purpose "is to test multiple Israeli and US air defense systems, especially the "Arrow" system, which the country specifically developed with help from the US to intercept Iranian missiles."
In the course of December, Iran conducted its own war games with a major ten days naval exercise in the Strait of Hormuz, (December 24, 2011- January 2, 2012).
Missile defense and naval war games are being conducted simultaneously. While Israel and the US are preparing to launch major naval exercises in the Persian Gulf, Tehran has announced that it plans to conduct major naval exercises in February.
An impressive deployment of troops and advanced military hardware is unfolding.
Meanwhile, Israel has become a de facto US military outpost. US and Israeli command structures are being integrated, with close consultations between the Pentagon and Israel's Ministry of Defense.
A large number of US troops will be stationed in Israel once the war games are completed.
The assumption of this military deployment is the staging of a joint US-Israeli air attack on Iran. Military escalation towards a regional war is part of the military scenario.

Ultimately Israel is an American pawn.

The people of Israel are the unspoken victims of US military ambitions, which consist in the conquest and "recolonization" --under a US mandate-- of the Anglo-Persian oil empire.


The History of War Planning: "Theater Iran Near Term" (TIRANNT)
The history of war planning including war games and simulations directed against Iran is essential to an understanding of recent developments in the Persian Gulf.
Active war preparations directed against Iran (with the involvement of Israel and NATO) were initiated in May 2003, one month after the invasion and occupation of Iraq. It should be understood that from the outset of these war preparations, a World War III scenario was envisaged by US war planners.

The assumption of escalation was embedded in the simulations and the war games.

Moreover, the war on Iran was formulated as a "Global Strike" plan involving centralized military decision-making and coordination by US Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM). A "Concept Plan" entitled CONPLAN 8022 was established in 2003. The operational CONCEPT PLAN (CONPLAN) 8022 is described as "an actual plan that the Navy and the Air Force translate into strike package for their submarines and bombers."

A simulated scenario of an all out bombing campaign against Iran entitled "Theater Iran Near Term" was implemented in May 2003. (To be noted, there have been numerous simulations and war games which have not been made public).

Code named by US military planners as TIRANNT, "Theater Iran Near Term" had identified several thousand targets inside Iran as part of a "Shock and Awe" Blitzkrieg. (The analysis contained in this section is based on my earlier 2007 article entitled Theater Iran Near Term, Global Research, February 21, 2007)

"In early 2003, even as U.S. forces were on the brink of war with Iraq, the Army had already begun conducting an analysis for a full-scale war with Iran. The analysis, called TIRANNT, for "theater Iran near term," was coupled with a mock scenario for a Marine Corps invasion and a simulation of the Iranian missile force. U.S. and British planners conducted a Caspian Sea war game around the same time. And Bush directed the U.S. Strategic Command to draw up a global strike war plan for an attack against Iranian weapons of mass destruction. All of this will ultimately feed into a new war plan for"major combat operations" against Iran that military sources confirm now exists in draft form.

... Under TIRANNT, Army and U.S. Central Command planners have been examining both near-term and out-year scenarios for war with Iran, including all aspects of a major combat operation, from mobilization and deployment of forces through postwar stability operations after regime change." (William Arkin, The Pentagon Preps for Iran Washington Post, 16 April 2006, emphasis added)

What distinguishes the TIRANNT simulations in relation to previous (pre-2003) war game scenarios, is that a) they were conducted in the wake of the Iraq war and b) the Blitzkrieg assumptions behind TIRANNT are similar to those used in the intense March 2003 bombing campaign directed against Iraq.
In other words, the bombing campaign scenarios under TIRANNT are not limited to surgical strikes directed against Iran's nuclear facilities. They involve an "invasion scenario", the deployment of Marines Corps, as well as "the mobilization and deployment of forces through postwar stability operations after regime change."
The assessment of these war games is crucial in evaluating recent developments in the Persian Gulf because it suggests that if an attack on Iran is implemented it will inevitably evolve towards an all out bombing campaign as well as a ground war.
Confirmed by Arkin, the active component of the Iran military agenda was launched in May 2003 "when modelers and intelligence specialists pulled together the data needed for theater-level (meaning large-scale) scenario analysis for Iran." (Arkin, op cit). In October 2003, different theater scenarios for an Iran war were contemplated:

"The US army, navy, air force and marines have all prepared battle plans and spent four years building bases and training for "Operation Iranian Freedom". Admiral Fallon, the new head of US Central Command, has inherited computerized plans under the name TIRANNT (Theatre Iran Near Term)." (New Statesman, 19 February 2007)

It is worth noting that following the implementation of TIRANNT, starting in 2004, there was a stepped up delivery of weapons systems to Israel.
Military Alliances. Simulating World War III
A World War III scenario has been the object of numerous simulations and war games, going back to the Cold War era.
We have no details regarding the geopolitical assumptions underlying the TIRANNT war scenarios, --i.e. regarding analysis of major military actors, alliances, etc. From the available information, the simulations pertained to an all out war (bombing campaign and ground war) directed against Iran, without taking into account possible responses by Iran's allies, namely China and Russia.
In 2006, The Pentagon launched another set of war simulations entitled Vigilant Shield 07 (conducted from September through December 2006). These war simulations were not limited to a single Middle East war theater as in the case of TIRANNT (e.g. Iran), they also included Russia, China and North Korea.

The core assumption behind Vigilant Shield 07 is "Global Warfare". In the light of recent war preparations directed against Iran, the Road to Conflict in the Vigilant Shield 07 war games should be examined very carefully. They anticipate the "New Cold War". They reflect the formulation of US foreign policy and military planning from the outset of the Obama administration in January 2009. The declared enemies of America under Vigilant Shield areIrmingham [Iran], Nemazee [North Korea], Ruebek [Russia], Churya [China]
Vigilant Shield 07 is a World War III Scenario which also includes an active and aggressive role for North Korea.
The simulations are predicated on the assumption that Iran constitutes a nuclear threat and that Russia and North Korea --which are allies of Iran-- will attack America and that America and its allies will wage a pre-emptive (defensive) war.
While China is included in the simulations as a threat and an enemy of America, it is not directly involved in attacking America.

The war simulations commence with Iran and Russia conducting joint air defense exercises, followed by nuclear testing by North Korea.
A terrorist attack on America is also contemplated in Vigilant Shield 07 based on the assumption that the "axis of evil" "rogue states" are supporting "non-State" terrorist organizations.
The diplomatic agenda is also envisaged in the simulations, as well as a media campaign to discredit Russia and Iran.

It should be understood that these war scenarios with America under attack are intended as an instrument of internal propaganda within the Armed Forces, with a view to developing a broad consensus that the threat against America is real and that the pre-emptive war doctrine --including the use of US nuclear weapons-- against rogue enemies is justified.

---

Irmingham [Iran], Nemazee [North Korea], Ruebek [Russia], Churya [China]

Details and Sequencing: [emphasis added]

" Road to Conflict (RTC): 11 Sep 15 Oct 06

Initial Irmingham Enrichment I&W [indications and warning]
Initial Ruebeki & Irmingham Involvement
Ruebek I&W, PACFLT [U.S. Pacific Fleet] Sub Deployments
Initial Nemazee ICBM [intercontinental ballistic missile] I&W
Initial MHLD [homeland defense?] I&W
Strategic IO [information operations (cyber warfare)] operations (Ruebek & Churya)
Ruebek & Irmingham Conduct Joint AD [air defense] Exercise

Phase 1 / Deployment: 4 8 Dec 06

Rogue LRA [Russian long-range aviation] w/CALCM [conventional air launched cruise missile] Launch
Continue Monitoring Strategic Situation
Continue Monitoring Nemazee Situation

Possible Nuclear Testing
Probable ICBM Preparation

Continue Monitoring MHLD Situation

Five VOIs [vessels of interest]
Churya Flagged VOI into Dutch Harbor Supports BMDS [ballistic missile defense system] Threat to Ft Greely

Continue Monitoring IO Activities
Nemazee Conducts SLV [space launch vehicle] Launch 8 Dec 06

Phase 2 Minus 42 Days:

Additional Nemazee ICBM Shipments to Launch Facilities
RMOB [Russian main operating bases] Acft Conduct LR Navigation Flights
AS-15 [nuclear armed cruise missile] Handling at RMOBs

Minus 41 Days:
Additional Nemazee ICBM Preps at Launch Pad # 2
Minus 40 Days:
Activity at Nemazee Nuclear Test Facilities
Minus 35 Days:
DOS [Department of State] Travel Warning
Minus 30 Days:
Ruebek LRA Deploys Acft to Anadyr & Vorkuta

Phase 2 Minus 30 Days:

Growing International Condemnation of Ruebek
Ruebek Deploys Submarines

Minus 20 Days:
Nemazee Recalls Reservists
Minus 14 Days:
DOS Draw-down Sequencing
Minus 13 Days:
Ruebek Closes US Embassy in Washington DC
Minus 11 Days:
Nemazee Conducts Fueling of Additional ICBMs
Ruebeki Presidential Statement on Possible US Attack

Phase 2 Minus 10 Days:

POTUS Addresses Congress on War Powers Act
Minus 6 Days:
Ruebek President Calls "Situation Grave"
Minus 5 Days:
CALCM Activity at Anadyr, Vorkuta, and Tiksi
Ruebeki SS-25 [nuclear armed mobile ICBMs] Conduct out of Garrison Deployments
Nemazee Assembling ICBM for Probable Launch
Minus 4 Days:
Ruebek Closes US Embassy in Washington DC
Ruebek Acft Conduct Outer ADIZ [air defense identification zone] Pentrations
Mid-Air Collison w/NORAD Acft During ADIZ Penetration

Phase 2 Minus 4 Days:

Nemazee ICBM Launch Azimuth Threatens US

Minus 3 Days:
NATO Diplomatic Efforts Fail to Diffuse Crisis
USAMB to Ruebek Recalled for Consultation
POTUS Addresses Nation
Minus 2 Days:
Nemazee Leadership Movement
Minus 1 Day:
Ruebek Expels US Mission

Phase 2 / Execution: 10 14 Dec 06

Pre-Attack I & W
Imminent Terrorist Attack on Pentagon Suggests Pentagon COOP [continuity of operations plan]
Nemazee Conducts 2 x ICBM Combat Launches Against United States
Ruebek Conducts Limited Strategic Attack on United States
Wave 1 8 x Bear H Defense Suppression w/CALCM
Wave 2 Limited ICBM & SLBM Attack
2 x ICBM Launched (1 impacts CMOC [Cheyenne Mountain], 1 malfunctions)
2 x SLBM Launched Pierside (1 impacts SITE-R ["Raven Rock" bunker on the Maryland-Pennsylvania border], 1 malfunctions)
3 x Bear H from Dispersal Bases w/ALCM (Eielson AFB, CANR, Cold Lake)
US Conducts Limited Retaliatory Attack on Ruebek
1 x ICBM C2 Facility
1 x ICBM Against ICBM Launch Location
Phase 2 / Execution:
Ruebek Prepares Additional Attack on United States
Wave 3 Prepares for Additional Strategic Attacks
1 x ICBM Movement, NO Launch
3 x SLBM PACFLT Pierside Missile Handling Activity (NO Launch)
6 x BEAR H (launch & RTB [return to base]) w/6 x ALCM (NO launch)" [source Northern Command and William Arkin] emphasis added

---

Complacency of Western Public Opinion
The complacency of Western public opinion (including the US anti-war movement) is disturbing.
No concern has been expressed at the political level as to the likely consequences of a US-NATO-Israel attack on Iran using nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state.

Moreover, public opinion is led to believe that the war will be limited to surgical strikes directed against Iran's nuclear facilities and that neither Russia nor China will intervene.
The war on Iran and the dangers of escalation are not considered "front page news." The mainstream media has excluded in-depth analysis and debate on the implications of these war plans.
The absence of public awareness, the complacency of the antiwar movement as well as the weakness of organized social movements indelibly contribute to the real possibility that this war could be carried out, leading to the unthinkable: a nuclear holocaust over a large part of the Middle East involving millions of civilian casualties.
It should be noted that a nuclear nightmare would occur even if nuclear weapons are not used.
The bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities using conventional weapons would contribute to unleashing a Chernobyl-Fukushima type disaster with extensive radioactive fallout.
For further details on the history of war preparations directed against Iran, see my earlier 2007 article
[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 1"][/TD]
[TD]"Theater Iran Near Term" (TIRANNT)

- by Michel Chossudovsky - 2007-02-21

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

"Theater Iran Near Term" (TIRANNT) has identified several thousand targets inside Iran as part of a "Shock and Awe" Blitzkrieg, which is now in its final planning stages.

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28542

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

[Ed Jewett]

SocGen: It Would Be 'Easy' For Iran To Shut Down The Strait Of Hormuz, And Oil Would Surge To $150-$200

Joe Weisenthal | Jan. 8, 2012, 1:06 PM



ran's threat to shut down the strait of Hormuz -- a potential retaliatory measure against oil sanctions -- has obviously emerged as one of the hottest economic risks in the world right now.
SocGen lays out the worst-case scenario:
We believe it would be relatively easy for Iran to shut down the Straits of Hormuz, but that
they would not be able to keep it shut for long. Importantly, Iran would not actually need to
succeed in sinking an oil tanker or a naval ship to shut down the Straits. A credible threat
would be enough to shut down oil shipments, because tanker insurers would stop coverage
and traffic would cease. Threats could include mining the Straits; launching a surface-to-ship
missile or maybe even just arming launch radars on those installations; or swarming armed
small fast patrol boats around tankers all of which would be detected by routine naval and
air patrols conducted by the Western allies.

That said, we do not believe the Western allies would allow the Straits to be shut for a
prolonged period. A disruption to oil flows would be considered a national and economic
security threat, and if necessary, military force would be used to re-open the shipping lanes in
the Persian Gulf. Our view is that Iran would not be able to keep the Straits closed for more
than 2 weeks. In addition, after the re-opening, it would be possible to maintain security
through the use of naval escorts for tankers, as happened during the 1980s Iran-Iraq war.

In the event of a shutdown of the Straits of Hormuz, disrupting 15 Mb/d of crude flows, we
would expect Brent prices to spike into the $150-200 range for a limited time period. The
disruption would definitely result in an IEA strategic release. Lastly, the severe price spike
would sharply hurt economic and oil demand growth, and from that standpoint, be self-
correcting. A Straits of Hormuz shutdown is not likely; we estimate the probability of this very
high impact event at 5%. Although Iran may like the idea of retaliation and hurting its
perceived enemies, it would hurt itself even more, by halting its oil export revenues.
Moreover, Iran would do this at the cost of provoking a military response that would destroy
much of its military and perhaps even target its nuclear program.
(HT: ZeroHedge)





http://www.businessinsider.com/socgen-ir...z1ivtD00zu

[Peter Lemkin]

Any battle there would be horrible to oil prices and more importantly to the danger of a MUCH wider war[s]! It hardly matters who one thinks will 'win'....as everyone will be loosers with a limited war and if it is prolonged and/or goes to advanced [sic] weapons, the loosers will be lost for months or years or dare we contemplate...for decades! Even playing this brinkmanship game is madness and suicidal. Very worrying, indeed! I trust neither the Iranians nor the US Military and their backers who love wars. That said, it doesn't take a genius to see that the Straits are right next to Iran. We are getting the blowback from our 1953 Coup and installation of the Shah! Time to apologize and be friends with Iran without any wars or interference...though not USA 'style'......

[Lauren Johnson]

If WWIII breaks out, I will blogging live or dead from Israel and the Occupied Territories for the next two weeks.

[Peter Lemkin]

If WWIII breaks out, I will blogging live or dead from Israel and the Occupied Territories for the next two weeks.

In Truth? Go get 'em and to where the action is! All say that one goes to Israel first, the other way and they won't usually let you in.....

[Christer Forslund]

HMS Daring to head for the Gulf
(UKPA) 2 days ago - http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress...887459210A

The Navy's newest and most advanced ship is being sent to the Gulf for her first mission amid heightened tensions with Iran over threats by Tehran to block a busy shipping lane.

Type 45 destroyer HMS Daring, which employs a "stealth" design to help avoid detection, is to join the British presence in the region, the Ministry of Defence confirmed.
Although the deployment of the hi-tech vessel has been planned for more than a year, it comes as Britain and allies have issued clear warnings to Iran over its threats.
Defence Secretary Philip Hammond warned the regime on Thursday that any attempt to block the Strait of Hormuz would be "illegal and unsuccessful" and would be countered militarily if necessary.
...