The war ahead .. and what it could mean

[YMix]

up to you to join or not

I'm pretty comfortable predicting that Canada will not being joining Greater Iran.

How can you resist the fascination?

[Torchwood]

A communist is someone who wishes the SU would have succeeded, or a Democrat or most people from the left.

The reason is that while technically some people on the left may not be communist they never did one darn thing to stop them. They are then like the street people from the Matrix, eventual proxies/patsies for the communists when they come calling.

All such people need to be neutralized. Politically.

What do you suggest to neutralise them - re-education camps? A few show trials should get the message across... You know, that's the problem with democracy , sometimes you get a result you don't like...

The Vietnam war was entirely fought by Democratic administrations (and ended i.e surrendered, by a Republican one), and the Korean war was largely under Truman. So what you say is totally inaccurate.

It is even more so in Europe. where social democrats faced more directly infiltration from Communists. The man who did more to found NATO than anyone else, dragging the reluctant Americans along, wasErnest Bevin, a confirmed socialist and former union leader. Probably the greatest British foreign minister, as unlike those at the height of British 19C power, he played a weak hand.

[monster_gardener]

.

.

up to you to join or not

I'm pretty comfortable predicting that Canada will not being joining Greater Iran.

.

true

Canada will be absorbed by US

.

Thank you Very Much for your post, Azari.

Canada will be absorbed by US

I hope not.

I rather like having a sane country on our border: possible refuge if we/US go wild about Handmaids/Dominionist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Handmaid%27s_Tale

I have joked that it might be desirable to got the other way, given that Canada sometimes does it better such as handling/not having the Crash........

[AzariLoveIran]

.

.

Canada will be absorbed by US

.

I hope not.

I rather like having a sane country on our border: possible refuge if we/US go wild about Handmaids/Dominionist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Handmaid%27s_Tale

I have joked that it might be desirable to got the other way, given that Canada sometimes does it better such as handling/not having the Crash.......

.

Years ago, read somewhere, if things come Canada joining US, only province US be interested in, would be (our beautiful) British Colombia

.

[AzariLoveIran]

.


Avoiding a ‘Dumb War’

.

Avoiding a ‘Dumb War’ With Iran

Posted By Philip Giraldi On January 25, 2012 @ 11:00 pm In Uncategorized | 36 Comments

The media and the punditry have been deliberately misrepresenting facts to persuade the people of the United States to start another war, not unlike in the lead-up to the Iraq fiasco. Since 9/11, hard-liners in the United States have depicted one Muslim country after another as major threats to U.S. security. They have justified attacks on Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, and Afghanistan, and they have endorsed Israel’s military actions against Syria, Gaza, and Lebanon — 10 Muslim countries.

This time around, Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and New Gingrich are all promising to disarm Iran by force. Romney has a neocon-heavy foreign policy team, while Gingrich’s campaign received at least $5 million in financial support from Las Vegas billionaire Sheldon Adelson, a passionate supporter of Israel. Meanwhile, the White House continues to dither by drawing “red lines” that appear to be more debating points meant to appease the Israelis than substantive policies.

Those arguing for war in Congress, think tanks, and the media have been exploiting a new International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report issued in November 2011, which they interpret to mean that Iran is building a nuclear weapon that poses a major threat to the United States. But the truth is that the IAEA document is essentially political, not factual. It is based on old intelligence assessments made mostly by the United States and Israel using sometimes fabricated information in an attempt to discredit Iran. In reality, the IAEA makes regular inspection visits to Iran’s nuclear facilities and has TV cameras monitoring its sites. While there is legitimate reason to challenge some of Iran’s actions, the nuclear program is not as threatening as many maintain.

Even those who are arguing against the rush to war frequently have succumbed to the propaganda. Leslie Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, in a piece titled “Think Before Acting on Iran,” states that “Iran’s leaders are bad guys capable of doing dangerous things” and then goes on to describe “its relentless moves toward acquiring nuclear weapons.” Well, Gelb should be well-informed enough to know that Iran’s leadership is both cautious and pragmatic because it is primarily interested in regime preservation, not in exporting the revolution or converting the world to Shi’ism. He should also be aware that there is no evidence whatsoever that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. Gelb’s lack of connection with objective reality is reflected in his recommendation to openly debate the wisdom of going to war with Iran in a suitable forum like the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

A genuine nuclear expert, Mohamed ElBaradei, a Nobel Peace Prize recipient and former IAEA director-general, said recently, “I don’t believe Iran is a clear and present danger. All I see is the hype about the threat posed by Iran.” And he is not alone in that judgment: All 16 U.S. intelligence agencies concluded “with high confidence” in a 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program as of 2003. They reviewed the evidence again in 2009-10 and concluded that there was still no solid evidence that the program had been in any way revived.

It is astonishing that the American people are again being gulled by a replay of the “Iraq WMD threat,” which used false information and sustained innuendo to lead the United States into a war that did not need to be fought. As Philip Zelikow, executive secretary of the 9/11 Commission, said, “The ‘real threat’ from Iraq was not a threat to the United States. The unstated threat was the threat against Israel.” It is not unreasonable to argue that today the formula and rationalization are the same with the Persian threat, if there is one, making it a matter of concern mostly for Israel. And Israel is far from defenseless, with an arsenal of 200 nuclear weapons of its own mounted on ballistic missiles and also on cruise missiles that can be fired from submarines.

But many knowledgeable Israelis actually argue that there is no threat from Iran, even as the politicians in Tel Aviv argue insistently that military action must be taken. Former Mossad head Meir Dagan commented that an air force strike against Iran’s nuclear installations would be “stupid,” a view also endorsed by two other ex-Mossad chiefs, Danny Yatom and Ephraim Halevy. Dagan added his opinion that “any strike against [the civilian program] is an illegal act according to international law.” More recently, the Israeli intelligence community has prepared its own report, similar to the U.S. NIE, which concludes that Iran has not decided to construct a nuclear weapon, leading the country’s defense minister, Ehud Barak, to conclude that the possibility of a war “is very far off.”

Dagan also pointed out another reality that has not escaped some policymakers in Washington and Tel Aviv: bombing Iran would guarantee that the Iranians would decide to go nuclear for self-defense and would certainly lead them to retaliate against Israel through their principal surrogate Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, which is reported to have tens of thousands of rockets and even Scud-type longer-range missiles. If American politicians and Israel’s own political leadership were really concerned about the well-being of Israel, they would be doing everything in their power to stop a new war rather than start one.

And then there is the question of what a sustained bombing campaign by the United States would actually accomplish. Since 2005, the U.S. military and intelligence communities have engaged in a major covert operation to identify and derail Iran’s nuclear program. The Pentagon has studied the Iranian nuclear target and has concluded that it would be futile to attempt to eliminate that program — which is dispersed throughout the country and frequently located underground — through aerial bombing. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and other experts have stated that even a prolonged air attack would only delay any weapons program for a year or two at most. This is identical to the view of leading Israelis.

Washington is already spending as much as the rest of the world combined on national defense and $100 billion per year on Afghanistan alone, which is looking increasingly forlorn. The anti-Iran lobby has been beating the drums for an attack for years, but another Asian war on top of Afghanistan is not in America’s or Israel’s interests, whatever some of Israel’s apologists might claim. The “experts” who claim that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said he would “wipe Israel off the map” have got it wrong. Genuine language specialists have pointed out that the original statement in Farsi actually said that Israel would someday collapse: “The imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time” is the accurate rendition. The imam being referred to is the late Ayatollah Khomeini, making the statement a quote within a quote. It’s wishful thinking perhaps, but far from a threat. The fact is that Iran has not attacked any of its neighbors since the 17th century, when it went to war with the Ottoman Turks, and has never threatened to attack Israel. Nor does Iran threaten the United States in any way.

Presidential candidate Barack Obama promised to open a dialogue to resolve problems with the Iranians, but that pledge has been an empty one. In reality, the United States has spoken to Iranian government officials only once in the past three years, and that encounter lasted less than 45 minutes. Since that time, offers to resolve differences through diplomacy have come several times from the Iranians and have been ignored by both official Washington and the mainstream media. Not talking means that war is the only way to obtain a resolution, which would be a very bad outcome for both sides. Washington still has time to make direct diplomacy work in an attempt to convince all parties to back down from the developing crisis, but serious intent and good-faith negotiations are necessary.

The American military has recently concluded what President Obama once labeled a “dumb war” in Iraq, so it behooves us not to undertake another dumb war against a country that is much larger, better prepared, and three times more populous. Such a conflict would not be containable and would set off a major regional war. Such a war, contrary to what some argue, would not be good for the United States, Iran, or even Israel, and it would make no one safer.

.

.

[Ibrahim]

Provoking a war with Iran would certainly be "dumb," but it's more impossible than it is dumb.

I doubt even Israel feels secure enough to start one. That's not praise for Iran's rusted-out military, just an observation that Iran is a large country, the forces of the US are worn down, and the strategic situation of Israel too tenuous to start more fires.

I predict off-the-books drone attacks in Israel, or more murders like the recent nuclear scientist hit, but there will be no war here, and Iran will probably eventually get their nuke.

[Jnalum Persicum]

.

Provoking a war with Iran would certainly be "dumb," but it's more impossible than it is dumb.

I doubt even Israel feels secure enough to start one. That's not praise for Iran's rusted-out military, just an observation that Iran is a large country, the forces of the US are worn down, and the strategic situation of Israel too tenuous to start more fires.

I predict off-the-books drone attacks in Israel, or more murders like the recent nuclear scientist hit, but there will be no war here, and Iran will probably eventually get their nuke.

.

Insha'Allah

and

things not as "rusted"

look Ibrahim

4get Mesopotamia, 4get

when Nato and America (and CIA) can not win against Taleban (with 1900 rifles and plastic sandals), how do you think America would win against our beloved Iranian Revolutionary Guards ?

4get Israel, they could not even match Lebanese students with tennis shoes

.

[Demon of Undoing]

There's no point in really booking the odds ref. the OB, but it's a damn sight more than we can chew. The US military is in seriously dire straits. The gear we would need for this fight is worn to nothing and dispersed. That's a story that really hasn't come out yet. We need a decade of concerted appropriations, steered well, to put us back to the state of readiness for the conventional forces that we had in 2000.

You can only plow a field with a Ferarri once.

[AzariLoveIran]

.

There's no point in really booking the odds ref. the OB, but it's a damn sight more than we can chew. The US military is in seriously dire straits. The gear we would need for this fight is worn to nothing and dispersed. That's a story that really hasn't come out yet. We need a decade of concerted appropriations, steered well, to put us back to the state of readiness for the conventional forces that we had in 2000.

You can only plow a field with a Ferarri once.

.

Demon ,

Iranians will be fighting @ home, dying for defending their homes, their wife and children

You guys would be fighting 12,000 miles away, dying for Mr. Rockefeller and Goldsmith (formerly Goldschmidt) and Wall Street

well, Demon, as in Hockey, we playing at home

you have no chance

Be a man, take "Air Force One" to Tehran and shake hand with Iran .. Nixon did

if so, you will be, down the road, on top .. a win-win for all humans on planet earth

From 6 billion humans on planet earth, 5 billion are poor like a mouse

and

it is a treason to humanity and to those 5 billion to spend so much money for arms to kill people

Rhubarb , drop the nonsense

.

[Ibrahim]

.

Provoking a war with Iran would certainly be "dumb," but it's more impossible than it is dumb.

I doubt even Israel feels secure enough to start one. That's not praise for Iran's rusted-out military, just an observation that Iran is a large country, the forces of the US are worn down, and the strategic situation of Israel too tenuous to start more fires.

I predict off-the-books drone attacks in Israel, or more murders like the recent nuclear scientist hit, but there will be no war here, and Iran will probably eventually get their nuke.

.

Insha'Allah

and

things not as "rusted"

look Ibrahim

4get Mesopotamia, 4get

when Nato and America (and CIA) can not win against Taleban (with 1900 rifles and plastic sandals), how do you think America would win against our beloved Iranian Revolutionary Guards ?

4get Israel, they could not even match Lebanese students with tennis shoes

.

Every major Iranian military formation, unit, or piece of equipment (warships, armored divisions, air force) would be a smoking wreck in 24 hours if some kind of full-sclae war started between Iran and the US. The problem is that this doesn't really buy the US anything except oil prices through the roof. The US can't occupy or impose its will on Iran, and the important weapons will become all those AKs and FAMAS' in the hands of Iranian kids with tennis shoes. The US is in no position to try to occupy Iran, and moreover no desire or motivation to do so. The only winners of a wrecked Iran is Israel and Lebanese Sunnis.

But the Iranian military compared to any top-tier force in the world, on a purely nuts and bolts level, is a joke. In some sort of board-game version of warfare, the "beloved Revolutionary Guard" would be ground into hamburger by any American, Chinese, Indian, Israeli, or European NATO force. It's by using guerrilla warfare that Iran would make itself impossible to occupy. Those same men, wearing civvies and hitting invading forces with IEDs and ambushes, become scary. Formed up with their supporting armor and uniformed, they are just targets.

[Demon of Undoing]

As much as I'm harping, I am indeed talking about a comparative decline from twelve years ago. Part of the reason that has gone as far as it has is because it is indeed ridiculously easy for a top- tier military power to utterly destroy a competing- but- not- comparable conventional power. Most of the Iranian armored formations could be destroyed by a single B52, for instance.

And yes, when you're losing more people to suicide than combat, it's no time to start another war.

[Enki]

You better believe that Iran has studied the hell out of Van Riper. Of course the Pentagon probably has too.

[Demon of Undoing]

You better believe that Iran has studied the hell out of Van Riper. Of course the Pentagon probably has too.

The US military has had guys like that going back to Col Rogers. We just usually don't listen to them or give them a free hand. Until SOCOM.

[Ibrahim]

You better believe that Iran has studied the hell out of Van Riper. Of course the Pentagon probably has too.

The US military has had guys like that going back to Col Rogers. We just usually don't listen to them or give them a free hand. Until SOCOM.

All these special operations guys are superstars now, though. Finally, a kind of war that required their exact skillset.


But even they can't make it work in places like Afghanistan or, hypothetically, Iran. The real role model here is early Mao Zedong. Or, if we want to go back a few thousand years:

The victor is not victorious unless the vanquished considers himself so.

[AzariLoveIran]

.

Look Ibrahim, Demon of Undoing , Enki

Pentagon has a report : How Iran could beat up on America's superior military

To read the report, click here

.

. . according to a recent report issued by an independent, non-profit public policy research institute in Washington DC. The report found that the traditional post-Cold War US military ability to project power overseas with few serious challenges to its freedom of action may be rapidly drawing to a close.

[..]

The report, "Outside-In: Operating from Range to Defeat Iran's Anti-Access and Area-Denial Threats" [1] notes that Iran has been preparing for a possible military confrontation with the United States for decades. Instead of engaging in a direct military competition, which would be pitting its weaknesses against US strengths, Iran has developed an asymmetric "hybrid" A2/AD strategy that mixes advanced technology with guerilla tactics to deny US forces basing access and maritime freedom of maneuver.

Even if Iran did not disrupt Gulf maritime traffic for long, it could still have a devastating impact. A recent report by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) found that Iran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz would "neutralize a large part of current OPEC [Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries] spare capacity," saying "alternative routes exist, but only for a tiny fraction of the amounts shipped through the strait, and they may take some time to operationalize while transportation costs would rise significantly."

"A blockade of the Strait of Hormuz would constitute, and be perceived by markets to presage, sharply heightened global geopolitical tension involving a much larger and unprecedented disruption," it said.

The IMF said that "supply disruption would likely have a large effect on prices, not only reflecting relatively insensitive supply and demand in the short run but also the current state of oil market buffers".

"A halt of Iran's exports to OECD [Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development] economies without offset from other sources would likely trigger an initial oil price increase of around 20-30% (about US$20-30 a barrel currently), with other producers or emergency stock releases likely providing some offset over time," the report showed.

It stressed that "a Strait of Hormuz closure could trigger a much larger price spike, including by limiting offsetting supplies from other producers in the region".

"If you could cut off oil flow for even several weeks the global economy would be in depression. That would be a serious price to pay; it is a sobering thought," according to Patrick Cronin, a senior advisor at the Center for a New American Security, a Washington DC think-tank.

Attacking ships is not the only option available to Iran to disrupt oil supplies, according to Cronin. In a phone interview with Asia Times Online he said, "Forget about shutting down the Strait of Hormuz, you could hit the oil infrastructure in Saudi Arabia; that would have enormous impact."

Cronin, who was involved in the reflagging of oil tankers during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, agrees that the Iranian ability to disrupt maritime traffic is real. "Iran is acquiring greater capabilities and has geographical advantages. Even back in the 1980s, we were very worried."

Currently, aside from military factors, Iran can take advantage of a number of political and demographic realities.

For example, the populations, governments and much of the wealth of the region are concentrated in a handful of urban areas within range of Iran's ballistic missiles. While attacks against Gulf cities may have little direct military utility, their psychological and political impact on regional governments could be significant, especially if Iran demonstrated the capacity to arm its missiles with chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear warheads.

And, as most analysts recognize, Iran could also mobilize its network of predominately Shi'ite proxy groups located across Southwest Asia to conduct acts of terrorism and foment insurrection in states that remain aligned with the United States.

Iran's proxies could become far more dangerous should Iran arm them with guided rockets, artillery, mortars and missiles (G-RAMM). Other groups, like the Lebanese Hezbollah, could conduct a terrorism campaign designed to broaden the crisis and hold US rear areas - even the US homeland - at risk.

And while that indirect approach may not succeed, Iran could use its ballistic missiles and proxy forces to attack US bases and forces in the Persian Gulf directly.

Iran's hybrid strategy would continue at sea, where its naval forces would engage in swarming "hit-and-run" attacks using sophisticated guided munitions in the confined and crowded waters of the Strait of Hormuz and possibly out into the Gulf of Oman. Iran could coordinate these attacks with salvos of anti-ship cruise missiles and swarms of unmanned aircraft launched either from the Iranian shore or from the islands guarding the entrance to the Persian Gulf.

That last scenario is hardly theoretical. Lieutenant General Paul K Van Riper (US Marine Corps-retired) gained notoriety after the Millennium Challenge 2002 wargame, which was a major exercise conducted by the US armed forces in mid-2002, likely the largest such exercise in history.

It cost $250 million and involved both live exercises and computer simulations. The simulated combatants were the US, referred to as "Blue", and an unknown adversary in the Middle East, "Red", commanded by Lieutenant General Van Riper.

Red received an ultimatum from Blue, essentially a surrender document, demanding a response within 24 hours. Thus warned of Blue's approach, Red used a fleet of small boats to determine the position of Blue's fleet by the second day of the exercise. In a pre-emptive strike, Red launched a massive salvo of cruise missiles that overwhelmed the Blue forces' electronic sensors and destroyed 16 warships.

This included one aircraft carrier, 10 cruisers and five of six amphibious ships. An equivalent success in a real conflict would have resulted in the deaths of over 20,000 service personnel. Soon after the cruise missile offensive, another significant portion of Blue's navy was "sunk" by an armada of small Red boats, which carried out both conventional and suicide attacks that capitalized on Blue's inability to detect them as well as expected.

In the years since then, Iran has been investing in the capabilities necessary to carry out Van Riper's strategy. Looking at its maritime forces, in mid-2001 Iran launched the first of a new type of locally built craft equipped with rocket launchers.

In July 2002, a conventional arms sale triggered sanctions on several Chinese companies. Beijing had transferred high-speed catamaran missile patrol boats to Iran. The C-14 boats are outfitted with anti-ship cruise missiles. Short-range anti-ship missiles for the patrol boats also were sold from China to Iran in January 2002. The high-speed gunboat can carry up to eight C-701 anti-ship cruise missiles, and usually have one gun.

Between 2003 and 2005, authorities in the Iranian navy continued to talk about their pushes for greater self-sufficiency, including the continued development of domestically produced missile boats and frigates, as well as new details about submarine projects.

In 2006 and 2007, the Iranian navy accepted new missile boats and a frigate, as well as two types of submarines. The Sina class missile boats, introduced in 2006, were essentially Iranian copies of Kaman missile boats already in service. Also in 2006, the Iranians deployed the first of the Nahang class of midget submarines, described as the first Iranian submarine designed and produced without foreign assistance.

[..]

. . analysts confirm some of CSBA's report's main points. In December, Anthony Cordesman, a well-respected expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, wrote:

Iran is reshaping its military forces to steadily increase the threat to Gulf shipping and shipping in the Gulf of Oman, It also is gradually increasing its ability to operate in the Indian Ocean.

This increase in Iranian capability is almost certainly not designed to take the form of a major war with the US and southern Gulf states, which could result from any Iranian effort to truly close the Gulf. It does, however, give Iran the ability to carry out a wide range of much lower level attacks which could sharply raise the risk to Gulf shipping, and either reduce tanker traffic and shipping or sharply raise the insurance cost of such ship movements and put a different kind of pressure on the other Gulf states and world oil prices.

[..]

US forces in the region are supported by bases that are in close proximity to Iran. In addition to the port facilities in Manama, US Navy ships frequent ports at Jebel Ali near Dubai in the UAE.

Central Command air forces operate from a number of locations in the region, including al Udeid Air Base, Qatar, and al-Dhafra Air Base in the UAE. Al Udeid hosts the USCENTAF (US Air Forces Central Command) CAOC (Combined Air Operations Center), a critical command and control node for US air and space operations throughout Central Command. These and other US forward operating locations are well within the reach of numerous strike systems, including short- and medium-range ballistic missiles, that could be launched from Iran's coastal areas.

Proxy groups also could have a major impact on US forces and forward operating locations. Using commercially obtained overhead imagery, unconventional forces could fix the coordinates of Persian Gulf port facilities, airfields and fuel depots for guided mortar and rocket attacks.

Unconventional forces could also use advanced man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS), such as the Russian-made SA-24 to attack US aircraft transiting supposedly "friendly" airspace, and use ASCMs, antiship mines, or maritime improvised explosive devices against ships in the Suez Canal, Strait of Hormuz and Persian Gulf sea ports of debarkation (SPODs).

Iran would also have benefit from being able to exploit its interior lines of operation to deploy and frequently move its mobile ballistic missiles batteries to complicate US counter-strikes, as well as create a distributed resupply network that would be resistant to attack.

While Iran's ballistic missiles are not without limitations, such as limited accuracy for some of them and lack of launchers, the report finds that they give it a strike capability that would be difficult and expensive for US forces to counter. Over the course of the next 20 years, it is possible that Iran will make progress toward addressing these shortfalls.

According to Cronin, "Iran has levers here and their anti-access and area denial capabilities are proven. We would have a difficult time."

The report notes that more than 70% of the US Air Force's budget for new aircraft over the next decade - including a new bomber - will go toward just two programs, the F-35A and a replacement aerial refueling tanker. Such systems will lead to a fighter force that, when airborne, is more survivable in non-permissive areas. But this force will still be highly dependent on close-in bases or aircraft carriers, as well as aerial refueling.

The problem for US forces is that any conflict in the Gulf is going to be extremely non-permissive. The environment will be filled with guided ballistic and cruise missiles, maritime swarming tactics, proxy forces equipped with G-RAMM, and the threat of chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear (CBRN) attacks.

The fact that other countries are deploying anti-access capabilities is not news to the Pentagon. This month, it released a Joint Operational Access Concept report and noted many of the same anti-access/area-denial capabilities mentioned in the CSBA report.

According to the CSBA report, if the US military is to successfully sustain access to the Persian Gulf against a determined effort by Iran to shut if off, it would need more than weapons. It would also need a new operational concept "that reduces its emphasis on capabilities that are over-optimized for permissive threat environments in order to prioritize capabilities needed for a range of operations in environments that will be increasingly non-permissive in nature" that it currently does not have.

Achieving this within an increasingly constrained budget would require defense planners to make difficult decisions; "the United States cannot meet the challenges that Iran could pose to its vital interests in the Gulf by simply spending more and adding new capabilities and capacity," according to the report.

more @ the link

.

Demon & Ibrahim

Iran has 10 million militia .. people who are trained and armed, but now in civil life .. they have specific task, available in less than 12 hrs notice .. officialy confirmed by Revolutionary guard general on TV, YouTube

Iran has armed everybody with all kinds of missiles .. you name it

and

will hit back in all Arab Oil Sheik and Caucasus

West could lose 20 million barrels a day Oil

and and and

that only the beginning

Monster , there will be no target for American B-52 or B-1 or B-2 bombers .. it is all partisan war

strait of Hormuz will be mind and close with rockets .. many American 5th fleet hit and sank

and and and

Pentagon report says so

and

add to this Russians

Putin said many times, attack on Iran is attack on Russia

What does it mean ?

It means Iran will get very advance weapons from Russia, probably tactical nuclear weapons

so, you folks

there is a reason America not swingin

this even could be a trap for west to brake the back of West in ME theater .. a revenge of Russia for Afghanistan and Iran for pain inflicted on Iran by west last 33 yrs

that is why Iranian are even provoking

Iran not aiming for Israel or UK or France .. the gorilla to beat is America, that is said again and again by Revolutionary Guard generals, on TV, all in YouTube (in Farsi)


QZSutX7c1Xc
IxnRQFZRHpA
KkR0XnuKFtE

.

[Endovelico]

"Bold Alligator 2012" drills 20,000 troops on US East Coast for Persian Gulf action
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report February 7, 2012, 9:53 AM (GMT+02:00)

Some 20,000 marines, seamen and air crews from half a dozen countries, a US nuclear aircraft carrier strike group and three US Marine gunship carriers are practicing an attack on a fictitious mechanized enemy division which has invaded its neighbor. It is the largest amphibian exercise seen in the West for a decade, staged to simulate a potential Iranian invasion of an allied Persian Gulf country and a marine landing on the Iranian coast. Based largely on US personnel and hardware, French, British, Italian, Dutch, Australian and New Zealand military elements are integrated in the drill.

Bold Alligator went into its operational phase Monday, Feb. 6, the same day as a large-scale exercise began in southern Iran opposite the Strait of Hormuz. This simultaneity attests to the preparations for a US-Iranian showdown involving Israel behind the words on Feb. 5 of US President Barack Obama ("I don't think Israel has decided whether to attack Iran") and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Feb. 3 ("The war itself will be ten times as detrimental to the US.").

Monday, Feb. 6, the US president ordered the tightening of sanctions by freezing Iranian assets in America and blocking the operations of Iranian banks including its central bank.

US Rear Adm. Kevin Scott and Brig. Gen. Christopher Owens are coordinating the exercise over large stretches of coastal terrain in Virginia, North Carolina and Florida and Atlantic Ocean from the USS Wasp amphibian helicopter carrier. It is led by the USS Enterprise nuclear carrier with strike force alongside three amphibian helicopter carriers, the USS Wasp, the USS Boxer and the USS Kearsage. On their decks are 6,000 Marines, 25 fighter bombers and 65 strike and transport helicopters, mainly MV-22B Ospreys with their crews. Altogether 100 combat aircraft are involved.

The exercise is scheduled to end on February 14, a week before the winding up of the Iranian drill, after which the participants are to be shipped out to Persian Gulf positions opposite Iran. Altogether three American aircraft carrier strike groups, the French Charles de Gaulle carrier and four or five US Marines amphibian vessels will be posted there, debkafile's military sources report.

On Feb. this site first disclosed a flow in unprecedented numbers of US military strength to two strategic islands, Yemeni Socotra and Omani Masirah, within range of the Strait of Hormuz and Iran.

US naval officials insist that the exercise has nothing to do with Iran, but the scenario is a giveaway. A mechanized division from the fictitious hostile country of Garnet (Iran) has invaded its neighbor, Amber (Saudi Arabia), which has asked for coalition assistance to halt the enemy's northern advance. Garnet has already mined harbors (Hormuz) and established anti-ship missiles on its coastline.

Coalition forces are required to develop strategy for defeating the enemy and carry the combat onto its (Iranian) soil. Hence, the preponderance of amphibian Marines in the exercise.

Four aircraft carriers bottled up in the Gulf of Persia will be sitting ducks to the Iranian missiles and torpedoes. I must confess I am looking forward to the outcome of such brilliant strategy...

[AzariLoveIran]

.

"Bold Alligator 2012" drills 20,000 troops on US East Coast for Persian Gulf action
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report February 7, 2012, 9:53 AM (GMT+02:00)

Some 20,000 marines, seamen and air crews from half a dozen countries, a US nuclear aircraft carrier strike group and three US Marine gunship carriers are practicing an attack on a fictitious mechanized enemy division which has invaded its neighbor. It is the largest amphibian exercise seen in the West for a decade, staged to simulate a potential Iranian invasion of an allied Persian Gulf country and a marine landing on the Iranian coast. Based largely on US personnel and hardware, French, British, Italian, Dutch, Australian and New Zealand military elements are integrated in the drill.

Bold Alligator went into its operational phase Monday, Feb. 6, the same day as a large-scale exercise began in southern Iran opposite the Strait of Hormuz. This simultaneity attests to the preparations for a US-Iranian showdown involving Israel behind the words on Feb. 5 of US President Barack Obama ("I don't think Israel has decided whether to attack Iran") and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Feb. 3 ("The war itself will be ten times as detrimental to the US.").

Monday, Feb. 6, the US president ordered the tightening of sanctions by freezing Iranian assets in America and blocking the operations of Iranian banks including its central bank.

US Rear Adm. Kevin Scott and Brig. Gen. Christopher Owens are coordinating the exercise over large stretches of coastal terrain in Virginia, North Carolina and Florida and Atlantic Ocean from the USS Wasp amphibian helicopter carrier. It is led by the USS Enterprise nuclear carrier with strike force alongside three amphibian helicopter carriers, the USS Wasp, the USS Boxer and the USS Kearsage. On their decks are 6,000 Marines, 25 fighter bombers and 65 strike and transport helicopters, mainly MV-22B Ospreys with their crews. Altogether 100 combat aircraft are involved.

The exercise is scheduled to end on February 14, a week before the winding up of the Iranian drill, after which the participants are to be shipped out to Persian Gulf positions opposite Iran. Altogether three American aircraft carrier strike groups, the French Charles de Gaulle carrier and four or five US Marines amphibian vessels will be posted there, debkafile's military sources report.

On Feb. this site first disclosed a flow in unprecedented numbers of US military strength to two strategic islands, Yemeni Socotra and Omani Masirah, within range of the Strait of Hormuz and Iran.

US naval officials insist that the exercise has nothing to do with Iran, but the scenario is a giveaway. A mechanized division from the fictitious hostile country of Garnet (Iran) has invaded its neighbor, Amber (Saudi Arabia), which has asked for coalition assistance to halt the enemy's northern advance. Garnet has already mined harbors (Hormuz) and established anti-ship missiles on its coastline.

Coalition forces are required to develop strategy for defeating the enemy and carry the combat onto its (Iranian) soil. Hence, the preponderance of amphibian Marines in the exercise.

.

Four aircraft carriers bottled up in the Gulf of Persia will be sitting ducks to the Iranian missiles and torpedoes. I must confess I am looking forward to the outcome of such brilliant strategy...

.

probably they on the way to recycling pit next door in India & Pakistan .. just need a push by


mRJYgNc_TNc


otherwise, if US wants to attack Iran, best would be by cruise missiles from U-boats in Indian Ocean

all this "hand holding" for Sunni cronies


.