One Week Until U.S. Has 3 Aircraft Carriers Facing Iran

[Pak47]

October 18, 2012

In just one week, the United States will have three aircraft carriers facing Iran, the number usually regarded as sufficient for a state of war.

The latest Stratfor naval update map shows that the USS John C. Stennis has now arrived in the waters just outside Iran, joining the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower. Although there were already two aircraft carriers in the region prior to Stennis’ arrival, the USS Enterprise left for a scheduled port visit in Naples, Italy.

“In a week or so, shore leave will be over and CVN will be back to join everyone else, at which point the US will finally have three aircraft carriers just off the Iranian coastline ready to rumble,” reports Zero Hedge.

In response to this build-up, along with exercises involving the US, UK and Middle Eastern countries focused around clearing mines in the Strait of Hormuz, Iran has launched a Tareq-901 submarine and a Sahand destroyer into the Gulf from the port of Bandar Abbas.

“At the same time, as stated on (Ayatollah) Khamenei’s official website, the Supreme Leader was visiting the northern coastal city of Nowshahr to observe naval cadets practice planting mines, rescuing hijacked ships, destroying enemy ships, and rapid deployment via helicopters,” reports OilPrice.com

Earlier this week, German newspaper Der Spiegel reported that Iran may also be planning to disrupt shipping lanes in the Strait, through which around 40 per cent of the world’s oil passes, by intentionally causing a massive oil spill.

“The goal of the plan seems to be that of contaminating the strait so as to temporarily close the important shipping route for international oil tankers, thereby “punishing” the Arab countries that are hostile to Iran and forcing the West to join Iran in a large-scale cleanup operation — one that might require the temporary suspension of sanctions against Tehran,” states the report.

Iran later denied the claims, stating they illustrated how, “Western nations have been brought low and have resorted to making any allegation against us.”

It seems abundantly clear that if there is to be an “October surprise” which will decide the US presidential election one way or the other, it will involve Iran and it will happen within the next two weeks.

The likelihood of such an incident involving Iran was raised by an ABC News piece earlier this month which speculated that something could “occur in the days before the election” to swing the outcome and that it would probably involve Iran in one way or another, be it an attack on US interests or Obama or Romney cutting a deal with Tehran.

Last month, lobbyist Patrick Clawson stoked controversy when he urged the United States to stage or provoke an attack in order to create a manufactured casus belli for striking Iran.


Click the Hyperlinks within the text.. for sources.

 

[IraniGirl]

I've watched that video with Patrick Clawson. It's shocking!!! BTW Some of the Middle Eastern countries are traitors!! they never learn, if you were put in as puppet dictator , you will be removed as one soon.

 

[Pak47]

I hope this is just to show might.. And nothing further more. but 3 aircraft carriers that close.. Cant be good

 

[xuxu1457]

this depends on the result of US Presidential election, show strong to Iran can help Obama re-election;
If Obama win, this will be only a show
If Romney win, US may attack Iran, Romney support "power" diplomacy

 

[S_O_C_O_M]

iran is toast

 

[raptor22]

I love them , big targets ...

 

[JonAsad]

iranians should get rid of the dictator khomeni-

 

[A.Muqeet khan]

iran is toast

not yet they are not but fingers crossed knowingly that Iran wont be targetted just yet !

 

[Vatoz]

iran is toast

Not only Iran but entire ME will suffer.
Bloody stupid move to bomb Iran.

I personally don't think they will be a bombing but if Obama Losez the election
Mickey will definitely help benjie to do something really stupid.

 

[IceCold]

You know a recent tv showed aired by the name of "Last Resort" in which US is shown to launch preemptive nuclear strike on Pakistan.
The whole thing is shown as part of a conspiracy and the reason they show is nukes getting into the wrong hands.
Why am i writing this here, is because Iran and Pakistan are bother considered a threat and while Iran is considered one in a very open manner, public opinion towards Pakistan and a possibility of a nuclear strike which wiped 4.5 million Pakistanis is being shown so as to make it acceptable to the general public if it comes to that.
Iran is on the hit list for some time now and it is very much possible that the US would strike Iran and the only country who has used nukes, might decide to do that again. Iran needs to be prepared and so shall we.

 

[KRAIT]

Too much paranoia over one serial.

 

[Pak47]

Just watched that last video.. and indeed it is disturbing..

 

[IceCold]

Too much paranoia over one serial.

i wonder what would have you said had it be India?? Indians and think tanks what a combination it turned out to be. The master mind behind it deserves

 

[anon45]

WASHINGTON — The United States and Iran have agreed for the first time to one-on-one negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, according to Obama administration officials, setting the stage for what could be a last-ditch diplomatic effort to avert a military strike on Iran.

Iranian officials have insisted that the talks wait until after the presidential election, a senior administration official said, telling their American counterparts that they want to know with whom they would be negotiating.

News of the agreement — a result of intense, secret exchanges between American and Iranian officials that date almost to the beginning of President Obama’s term — comes at a critical moment in the presidential contest, just two weeks before Election Day and the weekend before the final debate, which is to focus on national security and foreign policy.

It has the potential to help Mr. Obama make the case that he is nearing a diplomatic breakthrough in the decade-long effort by the world’s major powers to curb Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, but it could pose a risk if Iran is seen as using the prospect of the direct talks to buy time.

It is also far from clear that Mr. Obama’s opponent, Mitt Romney, would go through with the negotiation should he win election. Mr. Romney has repeatedly criticized the president as showing weakness on Iran and failing to stand firmly with Israel against the Iranian nuclear threat.

Reports of the agreement have circulated among a small group of diplomats involved with Iran.

There is still a chance the initiative could fall through, even if Mr. Obama is re-elected. Iran has a long history of using the promise of diplomacy to ease international pressure on it. In this case, American officials said they were uncertain whether Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, had signed off on the effort. The American understandings have been reached with senior Iranian officials who report to him, an administration official said.

Even if the two sides sit down, American officials worry that Iran could prolong the negotiations to try to forestall military action and enable it to complete critical elements of its nuclear program, particularly at underground sites. Some American officials would like to limit the talks to Iran’s nuclear program, one official said, while Iran has indicated that it wants to broaden the agenda to include Syria, Bahrain and other issues that have bedeviled relations between Iran and the United States since the American hostage crisis in 1979.

“We’ve always seen the nuclear issue as independent,” the administration official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of the matter. “We’re not going to allow them to draw a linkage.”

The question of how best to deal with Iran has political ramifications for Mr. Romney as well. While he has accused Mr. Obama of weakness, he has given few specifics about what he would do differently.

Moreover, the prospect of one-on-one negotiations could put Mr. Romney in an awkward spot, since he has opposed allowing Iran to enrich uranium to any level — a concession that experts say will probably figure in any deal on the nuclear program.

Beyond that, how Mr. Romney responds could signal how he would act if he becomes commander in chief. The danger of opposing such a diplomatic initiative is that it could make him look as if he is willing to risk another American war in the Middle East without exhausting alternatives.

“It would be unconscionable to go to war if we haven’t had such discussions,” said R. Nicholas Burns, who led negotiations with Iran as under secretary of state in the George W. Bush administration.

Iran’s nuclear program “is the most difficult national security issue facing the United States,” Mr. Burns said, adding: “While we should preserve the use of force as a last resort, negotiating first with Iran makes sense. What are we going to do instead? Drive straight into a brick wall called war in 2013, and not try to talk to them?”

The administration, officials said, has begun an internal review at the State Department, the White House and the Pentagon to determine what the United States’ negotiating stance should be, and what it would put in any offer. One option under consideration is “more for more” — more restrictions on Iran’s enrichment activities in return for more easing of sanctions.

Israeli officials initially expressed an awareness of, and openness to, a diplomatic initiative. But when asked for a response on Saturday, Israel’s ambassador to the United States, Michael B. Oren, said the administration had not informed Israel, and that the Israeli government feared Iran would use new talks to “advance their nuclear weapons program.”

“We do not think Iran should be rewarded with direct talks,” Mr. Oren said, “rather that sanctions and all other possible pressures on Iran must be increased.”

Direct talks would also have implications for an existing series of negotiations involving a coalition of major powers, including the United States. These countries have imposed sanctions to pressure Iran over its nuclear program, which Tehran insists is for peaceful purposes but which Israel and many in the West believe is aimed at producing a weapon.

Dennis B. Ross, who oversaw Iran policy for the White House until early 2012, says one reason direct talks would make sense after the election is that the current major-power negotiations are bogged down in incremental efforts, which may not achieve a solution in time to prevent a military strike.

Mr. Ross said the United States could make Iran an “endgame proposal,” under which Tehran would be allowed to maintain a civil nuclear power industry. Such a deal would resolve, in one stroke, issues like Iran’s enrichment of uranium and the monitoring of its nuclear facilities.

Within the administration, there is debate over just how much uranium the United States would allow Iran to enrich inside the country. Among those involved in the deliberations, an official said, are Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, two of her deputies — William J. Burns and Wendy Sherman — and key White House officials, including the national security adviser, Thomas E. Donilon, and two of his lieutenants, Denis R. McDonough and Gary Samore.

Iran’s capacity to enrich uranium bears on another key difference between Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney: whether to tolerate Iran’s enrichment program short of producing a nuclear weapon, as long as inspectors can keep a close eye on it, versus prohibiting Iran from enriching uranium at all. Obama administration officials say they could imagine some circumstances under which low-level enrichment might be permitted; Mr. Romney has said that would be too risky.

But Mr. Romney’s position has shifted back and forth. In September, he told ABC News that his “red line” on Iran was the same as Mr. Obama’s — that Iran may not have a nuclear weapon. But his campaign later edited its Web site to include the line, “Mitt Romney believes that it is unacceptable for Iran to possess nuclear weapons capability.” He repeated that in a speech at Virginia Military Institute this month.

For years, Iran has rejected one-on-one talks with the United States, reflecting what experts say are internal power struggles. A key tug of war is between President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ali Larijani, Iran’s former nuclear negotiator and now the chairman of the Parliament.

Iran, which views its nuclear program as a vital national interest, has also shied away from direct negotiations because the ruling mullahs did not want to appear as if they were sitting down with a country they have long demonized as the Great Satan.

But economic pressure may be forcing their hand. In June, when the major powers met in Moscow, American officials say that Iran was desperate to stave off a crippling European oil embargo. After that failed, these officials now say, Iranian officials delivered a message to their American counterparts that Tehran would be willing to sit down for one-on-one talks.

At the United Nations in September, Mr. Ahmadinejad hinted as much, describing the reasoning to American journalists. “Experience has shown that important and key decisions are not made in the U.S. leading up to the national elections,” he said.

A senior American official said that the prospect of direct talks is why there has not been another meeting of the major-powers group on Iran.

In the meantime, pain from the sanctions has deepened. Iran’s currency, the rial, plummeted 40 percent in early October.

Even with possible negotiations in the offing, there is no evidence Iran has slowed its fuel production. It continues to make nuclear fuel and has refused to allow international inspectors into key sites. Any negotiation with Iran, American officials say, would have to include highly intrusive inspection regimes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/w...bout-nuclear-program.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Talking is better than nothing, but with how long this has dragged on i'm not going to look at this positively until there is a deal agreed to.

3 carriers are closing in on the Middle East, this is the pinnacle of 'speak softly and carry a big stick'. Just remember Iran that if we do not get an agreement things may change from dealing with this

to dealing with this

Careful...

 

[Ticker]

An aircraft carrier group is always available for any kind of response in the Gulf with the 5th fleet which is already stationed in Bahrain.

When there is an increase to two carriers, it is a concern and when these are three, the environment should be seen as heightened indeed.

However, it should be ascertained as to whether the additional carrier is moving in as a replacement of an already stationed carrier or is an increase to the existing ones.

If it is a planned increase, one must watch closely the regional situation for any hype.