U.S. military moves 3 aircraft carrier strike groups near Iran

[SinoChallenger]

The Pentagon has suggested that, sooner a carrier will pass through the Strait of Hormuz into the Gulf.

"We routinely operate our ships - all of our ships, all of our types of ships - inside the Arabian Gulf and that will continue," Kirby said.

If the US is reckless enough to drive a carrier into the straits, Iran can only reasonably interpret this as an act of aggression, because half of the Strait of Hormuz is Iran's territorial waters.

Iran will wait until the US carrier is in the narrow straits. Then Iran will encircle the carrier with small attack boats to prevent it from going through. If the US keeps acting aggressive, then the boats will detonate against the ship, damaging it. If the US attacks targets on Iran's shore, then Iran will launch its coastal anti-ship missiles against the carrier.

In short, if the USA is reckless and aggressive enough to the Iranians, at least one carrier will be sacrificed. Without using nuclear weapons, USA simply doesn't have the ability to destroy the Iranian state through air power. A ground campaign is impossible also, because USA cannot attack Iran through Afghanistan, Iraq or Pakistan territory.

An intense exchange of fire and casualties initially followed by a long stalemate and attrition war is the most likely outcome.

 

[TruthSeeker]

2012 is a US Presidential election year. Barack Obama is seriously in jeopardy because of the unemployment rate and general malaise of ordinary Americans about our economy. Many times in this situation, an incumbent President, up for re-election, has turned to a foreign crisis to both distract from domestic problems he can't solve (the economy), and to rally the American patriotic public to his side as the "Commander-in Chief".

So, don't discount the possibility that it serves Obama's re-election purpose to cause tension and confrontation, short of outright war, with Iran this Summer and Fall. Any flare-up that makes ordinary Americans decide to get behind "our" President in "tough times", helps Obama. And, don't think for a minute that Obama is above provoking an incident if he calculates it will help him get re-elected.

I hope the Iranians understand that the USA has it own "domestic politics" in 2012 that may make this US administration unusually quick to escalate a military provocation, especially one by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

 

[harpoon]

If the US is reckless enough to drive a carrier into the straits, Iran can only reasonably interpret this as an act of aggression, because half of the Strait of Hormuz is Iran's territorial waters.

Iran will wait until the US carrier is in the narrow straits. Then Iran will encircle the carrier with small attack boats to prevent it from going through. If the US keeps acting aggressive, then the boats will detonate against the ship, damaging it. If the US attacks targets on Iran's shore, then Iran will launch its coastal anti-ship missiles against the carrier.

In short, if the USA is reckless and aggressive enough to the Iranians, at least one carrier will be sacrificed. Without using nuclear weapons, USA simply doesn't have the ability to destroy the Iranian state through air power. A ground campaign is impossible also, because USA cannot attack Iran through Afghanistan, Iraq or Pakistan territory.

An intense exchange of fire and casualties initially followed by a long stalemate and attrition war is the most likely outcome.

That explains all. So Iran has no right to blockade any ships passing through Hormuz St. The rest of your post is your fantasy..nothing more.

 

[Hello_10]

If the US is reckless enough to drive a carrier into the straits, Iran can only reasonably interpret this as an act of aggression, because half of the Strait of Hormuz is Iran's territorial waters.

Iran will wait until the US carrier is in the narrow straits. Then Iran will encircle the carrier with small attack boats to prevent it from going through. If the US keeps acting aggressive, then the boats will detonate against the ship, damaging it. If the US attacks targets on Iran's shore, then Iran will launch its coastal anti-ship missiles against the carrier.

In short, if the USA is reckless and aggressive enough to the Iranians, at least one carrier will be sacrificed. Without using nuclear weapons, USA simply doesn't have the ability to destroy the Iranian state through air power. A ground campaign is impossible also, because USA cannot attack Iran through Afghanistan, Iraq or Pakistan territory.

An intense exchange of fire and casualties initially followed by a long stalemate and attrition war is the most likely outcome.

I also think that Iran would concentrate to destroy one aircraft carrier only as other twos would then run away after that, I think. But US is right to send 3 aircraft carriers as, if they send just one aircraft carrier then its now clear that they would definitely lose it, till now they have accepted it by their decision to send 3 aircraft carriers at one time.
But I find even if they send 3 at one time, at least one of them they would lose, very likely.

But what about this news I read today?

RUSSIA claimed last night that the US and Turkey were planning possible military strikes on Iran and Syria.
Cookies must be enabled | The Australian

 

[blackops]

great just fcuking great my car gives me an average of 8/ltr of petrol its 75 rs let this war start and it will be touching 100 rs/ ltr god damn it yanks

 

[TruthSeeker]

god damn it yanks

Don't blame the "yanks". WE aren't the ones threatening to change the status quo, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is doing that. Blame them!

 

[SinoChallenger]

2012 is a US Presidential election year. Barack Obama is seriously in jeopardy because of the unemployment rate and general malaise of ordinary Americans about our economy. Many times in this situation, an incumbent President, up for re-election, has turned to a foreign crisis to both distract from domestic problems he can't solve (the economy), and to rally the American patriotic public to his side as the "Commander-in Chief".

So, don't discount the possibility that it serves Obama's re-election purpose to cause tension and confrontation, short of outright war, with Iran this Summer and Fall. Any flare-up that makes ordinary Americans decide to get behind "our" President in "tough times", helps Obama. And, don't think for a minute that Obama is above provoking an incident if he calculates it will help him get re-elected.

I hope the Iranians understand that the USA has it own "domestic politics" in 2012 that may make this US administration unusually quick to escalate a military provocation, especially one by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

IMO Obama is not as pro-Israel as Romney, Santorum or Gingrich. If any of these Republicans win in November, an Iran conflict is a certainty.

Before November, Obama will respond to Iran's assertive behavior, and the US navy has declared its intention to challenge Iran's prohibition on US warships in the straits. However, I think Obama will discretely pull back before the precipice. For example, the navy might deploy a smaller warship instead of a carrier to show the flag in the straits. Or, the US warship might passage through on the Oman side, not through Iranian territorial waters.

But if a carrier really provokes Iran by entering its territorial waters, then a naval conflict similar to Operation Preying Mantis will happen. Recall that during OPM the US lost a frigate to an Iranian mine. This time, if the US passes through the straits with a carrier, it will be this carrier that is sacrificed.

I also think that Iran would concentrate to destroy one aircraft carrier only as other twos would then run away after that, I think. But US is right to send 3 aircraft carriers as, if they send just one aircraft carrier then its now clear that they would definitely lose it, till now they have accepted it by their decision to send 3 aircraft carriers at one time.

But I find even if they send 3 at one time, at least one of them they would lose, very likely.

I don't think Iran is at a level where it can locate and attack carrier battle groups in the open waters under combat conditions, but if a carrier is reckless enough to drive into Iran's territorial waters, then it will be the target of a lot of anti-ship missiles. Iran won't chicken out.

Don't blame the "yanks". WE aren't the ones threatening to change the status quo, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is doing that. Blame them!

LOL of course everybody blames you. Most countries don't want to see the US acting like some kind of global police.

Indeed, it the US who is changing the status quo and imposing its "global law" on everybody through a brutal expansion and conquest for the past 20 years. Your reaction simply shows how deeply Americans are brainwashed about their manifest destiny.

 

[anon45]

If the US is reckless enough to drive a carrier into the straits, Iran can only reasonably interpret this as an act of aggression, because half of the Strait of Hormuz is Iran's territorial waters.

Iran will wait until the US carrier is in the narrow straits. Then Iran will encircle the carrier with small attack boats to prevent it from going through. If the US keeps acting aggressive, then the boats will detonate against the ship, damaging it. If the US attacks targets on Iran's shore, then Iran will launch its coastal anti-ship missiles against the carrier.

In short, if the USA is reckless and aggressive enough to the Iranians, at least one carrier will be sacrificed. Without using nuclear weapons, USA simply doesn't have the ability to destroy the Iranian state through air power. A ground campaign is impossible also, because USA cannot attack Iran through Afghanistan, Iraq or Pakistan territory.

An intense exchange of fire and casualties initially followed by a long stalemate and attrition war is the most likely outcome.

well the carriers are going to traverse the straits no matter what you think, as they've done for decades. Let's see what happens and if your predictions come to pass.

 

[scorpi786]

The logic of Americans who oppose another war this time with Iran :
"Please don't attack Iran,because more of our troops will be killed and our economy will go down faster"
I've seen sentences like this hundreds of times in forums and other sites.actually they don't care how many Iranian children,women will die.We saw this 2 weeks ago when president Obama praised troops who came back home from Iraq and called them heroes and veterans,but didn't even mention thousands of Iraqis who have been killed in the war.

They're a very selfish country and from what ive heard the people are like that too, but fair play they must be doing something right to be the top dog.

 

[gambit]

That explains all. So Iran has no right to blockade any ships passing through Hormuz St. The rest of your post is your fantasy..nothing more.

Notice it is filled with 'ifs'. Supposedly before Desert Storm, the PLA leadership published an internal memo/report for the Party's leadership about the (then) speculative US-led military alliance performance in Iraq. This report declared that the alliance would win but that since the alliance was US-led with the US providing the bulk of resources, manpower and materiel, the US would suffer tens of thousands of ground casualties in both KIAs and WIAs, hundreds of aircraft losses with many POWs, and dozens of ships lost thanks to Chinese sold Silkworms.

Everything came true...

 

[Thorough Pro]

Iranian war fears spark closure of Israel reactor
January 09, 2012 12:00AM

ISRAEL is preparing to shut its nuclear reactor at Dimona, where it makes nuclear weapons, because of the site's vulnerability in a war with Iran.

The decision, taken by the Israel Atomic Energy Commission and the country's civil defence authorities, follows a realisation that the facility could be vulnerable to a missile attack.

This is a very clear indication of their intentions. Lets see...........

 

[T-Rex]

What a level of IQ and Intelligence you have....

Prove that your IQ is higher than a donkey's IQ!

 

[T-Rex]

Don't blame the "yanks". WE aren't the ones threatening to change the status quo, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is doing that. Blame them!

Now, what status quo are you talking about? That israel should be the only country to possess nukes and other should simply watch israel do whatever it wants? You've been living in a nazi land for too long, perhaps you should consider joining the human race!

 

[SOHEIL]

Poor americans !!!

 

[gambit]

Poor americans !!!

The PLA leadership thinks 'Poor Iranians'.