Iran, current events and ongoing sabre rattling!

[RichC]

What, and get captured again like before? Another embarrassment!

[steve149c]

There are no International laws for Blocking international sea lanes - if the sealane lies inside your territorial waters then you can blockade them if you wish - for example the UK could blockade the SW bound side of the Dover straits, or Panama shut the canal, or egypt and suez. But there are laws against it if the sea lane lies in International / other country territorial waters.

[Gary]

Just seen this on twitter, not the twist people expected

SkyNewsBreak Sky News Newsdesk
U.S. Navy rescues 13 Iranian sailors being held hostage by pirates in Arabian Sea
10 minutes ago

[pikey01]

interesting article here http://rt.com/usa/news/us-troops-israel-iran-257/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Now I know Russia Today is totally against the 'evil' west, but a worrying story if true

[hertsman]

It looks like it is true there is a large scale missile exercise to be held in Israel by the US. Defense News published a less alarmist version of the story the other day, saying it was pre-planned and not in response to recent events.http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i= ... =AIR&s=TOP" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So run of the mill exercise or cover for the war to come. Take your pick.

hertsman

[RichC]

China replying to the statement from Obama on concentrating in Asia

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16438584" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Meanwhile, Iran owes the US a big favour...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16447862" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Give me my drone back and you can have your people back..."
or it will be
"USN kidnaps Iranian fisherman" on Iranian State TV

[Richard B]

Words of upping the Asia pacific force, One could see a shift from some of the Europe assets moving, Lakenheath could be on the move?

[Craig]

Is it likely there will be a WW3 soon then?

Well Harry I think if Iran are attacked, whilst I agree with what Rich has said earlier we, sorry the US will utterly crush them from sea and air quite quickly (ground invasion would be a lot harder) I do think there is the possibility for the conflict to go regional quite quickly. Iran, Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah know that they only have strength in numbers, if they allow Israel and the West to pick them off one at a time then they have no chance. Under the idea of NATO actually (strength in numbers) I think if Iran do retaliate if surgical strikes are carried out then then the other three will too, combined they can throw a lot of rockets towards Arab neighbours, our assets in the region and Israel. Of course it is risky to retaliate because it would then allow the US/Israel to claim a Pearl Habour type scenario and gain support to escalate the violence to any level they like under the pretence of being the victim or Iranian aggression.

If it will become WWIII or not will be down to how China and Russia respond. The strife in the Middle East has long been about the flow of resources West rather than East IMO. (Incidentally US allies, Japan and Korea I hear are thinking about ignoring the sanctions on Iranian oil as they are top purchasers of it too.)

I read today that HMS Daring is on the way to the Gulf; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... -Gulf.html

hertsman, the exercise you spoke about was originally planned for March I think, but because it appears Iran are posturing to take the strategic initiative and force the issue sooner rather than later it has been brought forward to get missile cover in place to Israel earlier than planned.

[RichC]

Is it likely there will be a WW3 soon then?

I read today that HMS Daring is on the way to the Gulf; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... -Gulf.html
.

Christ,
I hope they have some missiles onboard as i remember that their primary missile system was not ready. Has that been sorted now?

[RichC]

Not at all.
Tartus is now (as of a 2010) the Russian Naval facility for the Med Sea. So they can make a presence again in the region other than the Black Sea Fleet. Russian naval vessels in Tartus is not a new thing and people are putting two and two together and making five.
They were scheduled to exercise with Greece (NATO country) and have visited Malta, Crete, Cyprus and Syria in the past week or two. They also anchored off Algeria whilst some of the task force visited Ceuta (Spain, another NATO country).
Hardly putting their foot down, exercising with NATO countries and visiting them on good will / fleeting visits.

We have been tracking the task force since December on the HF forum.

More on the topic at hand though, and they (Iranians) are now thought to be enriching Uranium in a hardened underground bunker.
If you are conducting an enrichment for peaceful processes, you wouldn't need a hardened underground bunker to do it in. One can only assume they are doing this purely in defence of knowing they are pissing everyone off and likely to come under attack.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16470100" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[hertsman]

And now another Iranian nuclear scientist has been murdered in a bomb attack on his car in Tehran. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16501566" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The weapon used seems to have been designed to minimise collateral damage, and according to reports, was attached to the victim's car by two assassins on a motorbike. Mostafa Ahmadi-Roshan is the fourth such victim in the last couple of years.

Add to this the unexplained explosions at two Iranian facilities recently, the 'stuxnet' cyber attack, and it appears that action against Iran's nuclear programme is in process, even if has not involved aircraft or missile strikes (as far as we know). Nobody is standing up to shout 'We did it' so we have to fill in the blanks for ourselves. Mossad is high on everyone's list of suspects, but you cannot be certain about that of course.

If these attacks are state sponsored, there are questions about the morality of such methods. There is also the immediate issue of how Iran will respond.

hertsman

[RichC]

Has anyone seen that new Fordo underground complex?
It has two huge tunnel entrances into the mountain with approx 200-300 hardened bunkers dotted around a "vast" area (and i mean vast). Some are standard looking bunkers molded into the surroundings, some are built into the mountains.
This complex would be extremely hard to take out and would need masses of strikes. They picked a good spot there to hide the enrichment facility deep underground.
It's an area approx 8 miles x 8 miles (ish). Of spread out bunkers.

[GOOSE]

Thread renamed due to ongoing events.

[rattler]

Bomb all the entrances and exists to the site. If you can't get in or out - problem solved. Simples.

[hertsman]

Whats worrying is the potential Israeli involvement. If the Israelis strike Iran it will polarise all the Arab countries into a huge alliance against Israel and the West.....

There is no doubt that this is a complex international issue. Israel is a major protagonist, but Iran is not well liked by it's Arab neighbours either. They are fearful of Iran's regional ambitions, nuclear programme and threat to the vital Gulf trade route. While the west wants the oil it buys to get through, the sellers also have a vested interest in that as well. So Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states are busy bolstering their defences.

Iran is an isolated state, and many of it's Arab neighbours would privately be pleased to see it's wings clipped. Should that be by Israel then you might expect to see some public rhetoric admonishing the Zionist state and calling for limits to it's actions, but behind the scenes they might be relieved that a troublesome neighbour has been reined in. One or two of them are apparently so concerned they might be willing to look the other way as Israel's jets overfly their territory on the way to attack Iran.

That's not to say there are no consequences to such an action. Russia and China are very much against military intervention; Europe and the US favour economic sanctions for the moment, but the evidence is mounting that covert action against Iran is already well under way. Who by? Well Israel is a prime suspect and other sovereign states may not be completely blameless either. Will it be enough? I don't know, but if it isn't, I would expect Israel to be the first to lose patience.

In the meantime, while all sides make ominous and thinly veiled threats, we have to hope that negotiations will start in earnest before the shouting and covert war turn into the real thing. I can't see that Iran wants to bring down fire and brimstone upon itself, which it must realise will happen if it does not start talking sometime. I just hope they don't push their luck too far.

hertsman

[RichC]

As i said before, there are some "major" Arab league countries who stated a few years ago they would "allow" Israel to use their airspace for transit to and from Iran if needed. A move which was very surprising. It shows a major shift towards the Arab countries wanting Iran to be dealt with (or atleast that nuclear programme).
I believe two of those countries were Jordan and Saudi Arabia, which literally open up a corridor to Iran.

However, these are news stories and so we won't know until it happens

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/06/12 ... uke-sites/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Also.. regarding the UAE
Quote

"This makes the words uttered last Tuesday by the UAE's ambassador to the United States, Yousef Al Otaiba, in Aspen, Colorado, more than 12,500 kilometers to the west, all the more interesting. Otaiba was attending a forum at the Aspen Institute's Ideas Festival, and the mood was relaxed, or at least it was too relaxed for diplomatic restraint.

The discussion revolved around the Middle East. When asked whether the UAE would support a possible Israeli air strike against the regime in Tehran, Ambassador Otaiba said: "A military attack on Iran by whomever would be a disaster, but Iran with a nuclear weapon would be a bigger disaster."

These were unusually candid words. A military strike, the diplomat continued, would undoubtedly lead to a "backlash." "There will be problems of people protesting and rioting and very unhappy that there is an outside force attacking a Muslim country," he said.

But, he added, "if you are asking me, 'Am I willing to live with that versus living with a nuclear Iran,' my answer is still the same. We cannot live with a nuclear Iran. I am willing to absorb what takes place at the expense of the security of the U.A.E."

Quite a hard lined last sentence there... which i have seen are the views of many of the Arab countries around the middle east.


and here, the discussion continued:-

"Arab governments are concerned about a strong Iran, its nuclear program and the inflammatory speeches of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. They share these concerns with another government in the Middle East -- Israel's.

Never have the strategic interests of the Jewish and Arab states been so closely aligned as they are today. While European and American security experts consistently characterize a military strike against Iran as "a last option," notable Arabs have long shared the views of Israel's ultra-nationalist foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman. If no one else takes it upon himself to bomb Iran, Saudi cleric Mohsen al-Awaji told SPIEGEL, Israel will have to do it. "Israel's agenda has its limits," he said, noting that it is mainly concerned with securing its national existence. "But Iran's agenda is global."

Sometimes that agenda leads to actions that are as absurd as they are typical. In February, for example, Tehran issued a landing ban on all airlines that used the phrase "Arab Gulf" instead of "Persian Gulf" in their on-board programming.

But Arab countries are pursuing a delicate seesaw policy. The UAE cannot afford to openly offend Iran, which explains why Ambassador Otaiba was promptly ordered to return home on Wednesday.

This caution only conceals the deep divide between the Arabs and the Persians. Despite their public expressions of outrage over Israeli behavior, such as the blockade of the Gaza Strip, Arab countries in the region continue to pursue their pragmatic course. On June 12, The Times in London wrote that Saudi Arabia had recently "conducted tests to stand down its air defenses to enable Israeli jets to make a bombing raid on Iran's nuclear facilities" -- in the event of an attack on the nuclear power plant in Bushehr. In March, Western intelligence agencies reported that there were signs of secret negotiations between Jerusalem and Riyadh to discuss the possibility."

[Craig]

If only the Iranian military held direct talks with the US military, leaving Israel out of it, would they possibly ever get to a resolution IMO. I've always thought that, why is it that it is politicians who do the talking and make the decisions, it is not their lives they are risking. Perhaps that is just it, if the Iranians realised firstly just what they are up against in the might of the US military and secondly that the people of the US military are very similar to the people of the Iranian military all with the same hopes and fears. Unless these people are talking no common ground will be found and fear of the unknown could allow events to escalate rapidly at one small slip up by either side.

I can't decide if Russia and China are privately for or against things like pressure on Iran. That is the big factor or course, and I'm sure intelligence operatives and analysts at the highest levels know far more about the true feelings and possible actions of said countries. Sometimes I think they (China in particular) are happy to lend America money to fight wars like this, which is bad for American PR, and also allows China to get rich and build up their military, and because they were verbally defending say Iran there is every chance they get the rebuilding contracts! I really don't think the Chinese care much for any other country, they will look after themselves, if that means letting the US take Iran out then so be it. The worry is if China decide the fall of Iran is not in their interests. How do they act then? The Russians are more interesting, we have heard the fore and against arguments regarding their carrier docked off Syria at the moment but I don't think there has been as much worldwide naval activity in the Persian Gulf since the Iraq war but I may be wrong. If you count the Russian one, their is a French one on the way and the British destroyed I mentioned. The Stennis is leaving, but the Pentagon has stated may not yet return for leave, the Abraham Lincoln is taking over from it and the Carl Vinson is heading across the Indian Ocean. I guess there are assault carrier battle groups too. America denies this is unusual. Iran told the Stennis not to return through the Strait of Hormuz. Whether this was pathetic sabre rattling knowing it was leaving or if it is a genuine threat that Iran intended on stopping any US carrier battle group access to the 5th fleets base at Bahrain remains to be seen. If you are the US though it is a difficult situation, if you turn up and send three carrier battle groups through you could escalate the situation. If you just sent one through without other supporting assets in the area then you would be kicking yourself if lives were lost and Iran attacked it because you did not put a strong front on.

I believe Iran's only real ally is Syria, Hamas and Hezbolloah if you can count them. Likewise for Hamas and Hezobollah only having Iran and Syria as allies. The complication for me is I believe that Syria has Russia as an ally. From everything I have read, some conspiracy theory madness, but right through to quotes coming out of important people from various Middle East countries and here at home following on from Libya, also looking at what I think is logical and fits my gut instinct I believe that the 'popular uprising' in Syria is not all as it may seem on the surface as portrayed by the BBC. A classic case in point was the Daily Fail the other day, some article about thousands of people protesting in Syria and how the government had been accused of a heavy handed crackdown and killing lots of them and somebody at work said 'look at this and how out of order it is'. When the picture was thrust into my face it showed supporters of Assad waving (not burning) syrian flags with his picture on them! But it shows the power of our media, they put some words in a paper, do not claim any truth about the words being written but in the absence of the other side of the story we are led to believe something on an almost subconcious level as fact. Even when the picture showed otherwise! What I am getting at is that encouraged, trained and armed by Arab neighbours who want rid of the regime, and possibly funded by the West who want to use humanitarian intervention in Syria as a back door to war with Iran we have all sorts of mercenaries running around Syria firing all sorts of levels of weapons at the government, military and perhaps even the civilians there. This is not an Arab spring of peaceful protest looking to usher in democracy by weight of numbers. My fear is, just like Libya, we automatically support the 'anti government protesters', read 'hired militia' because there is no democracy in place. Is it democratic that some angry Arabs with the frighteningly powerful NATO airpower as support win a civil war? Just because someone has a grievance it does not mean they are in the right and deserve to get what they want. We had some riots in this country last year. Just looking at the student riots would you say they deserved Russian air support because they were anti government protesters so their protest must have been justified and therefore deserved to get their own way. People will obviously say our government was not killing them to end the protests. The point I am making however is more that the fact some people are shouting about freedom and rights it does not necessarily mean their views are shared by the majority and deserve to have a civil war fought on their behalf. Just imagine if the rioters who smashed and burnt London and other cities up had of carried on. We would have wanted the police to respond harder, (I think a lot of us did anyway). Pretend they were water cannoned and rubber bulleted, but the riots continued and the gangstas started bringing their shootas out with them and it got more and more escalated. I would want martial law brought in to control them. Now, imagine if foreign news services only showed very little of what was happening it would be very easy to jump to the wrong conclusion. More relevantly, what do the majority of the people of Syria want? Not what do we think they want. I doubt it is a civil war, mainly fought by outside thugs but I simply don't know, too many seem quick to judge based on very little information...You might think that Syria is not important to this discussion but regarding Iranian allies it is cruical, and as I started this paragraph Syria gives you the Russian link. What will they allow in Syria, which for me directly affects what happens with Iran.

[hertsman]

Craig,

Yes, 'freedom fighters' and 'terrorists' are the same people. The description you use just depends which side you are on. The complexities of another country's internal politics just show that it is very inadvisable to intervene in their problems in my opinion. But the tactics of covertly fomenting discord in your enemy's back yard has been going on for ever, whatever a state may say publicly. Hence the US supported the mujahideen when the Russians were in Afghanistan, and Iran supports the Taliban now the US is in Afghanistan. Which is right and which is wrong?

As for military to military discussion, it's a very important principal of a free democratic society that the military is there to carry out the will of the government elected by the people, not dictate policy. It is still a good idea that there is contact between military forces though as you suggest, although very hard for this to happen at the point where you may be about to engage each other.

Some of the best ways to engage with people you don't understand is to trade with them, visit them, compete with them at sport and generally get ordinary folks on both sides to better understand each other at a day to day level. You often find that whatever governments may say about each other, you share many of the hopes fears and values that they do, and maybe you are not so different after all. The problem is that in closed societies, such interchange is impossible. In those circumstances, you never get to hear what ordinary people think, and therefore it becomes all too easy to believe that they are different, that they are hostile and you must oppose them. 'Jaw, jaw not war war' someone once said.

hertsman

[hertsman]

The Israeli/US missile exercise mentioned earlier has now been postponed according to Defense News. Cost containment is the official reason given although there is some speculation that it has to do with disagreement between the two parties about military intervention in Iran. http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i= ... =MID&s=AIR" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Meanwhile, the same source quotes The Wall Street Journal's report of US contingency planning in case of a military strike by Israel. http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i= ... =AME&s=TOP" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The pressure is building.

hertsman

[hertsman]

As the ditty from the football terraces would have it 'It's all gone quiet over there'.

Israel is bemoaning that Iran is burying it's secrets where they will soon become hard to take out with surgical strikes, so some urgency is required. The IAEA is back in Iran hoping to get access to what's going on so we can be reassured/scared witless about the Persians' nuclear ambitions.

No more mysterious explosions or assassinations of prominent nuclear scientists. No more low observable drones are to be observed, dressed in skirts, in an Iranian school gym; but I did see word of 'Stuxnet - The Sequel', in the news the other day, but if true, no significant fall-out has been reported. The oil embargo has been approved and Iran has says it won't sell it to certain unfriendly states anyway, so that's all right then. The Strait of Hormuz is still open as I write, and NATO warships have sailed through them recently - and presumably HMS Daring is now on station in the Gulf too?

So unless someone lights some blue touchpaper in the meantime, I guess the next issue is the feedback from the IAEA visit.

hertsman