The White House is considering whether to further pressure Iran by adding to the naval fleet already stationed in the Gulf region. The carrier Dwight D. Eisenhower and four other ships and submarines already present could be joined by at least one additional carrier in this dicey bid to rattle Tehran.
Guardian via Common Dreams:
Outgoing U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said [Tuesday] that military intervention in Iran would be “unwise and disastrous,” as the Security Council debated a resolution that would impose sanctions on Tehran over its nuclear programme. “I believe that the council, which is discussing the issue, will proceed cautiously and try and do whatever it can to get a negotiated settlement,” he said.
The latest draft resolution would order all countries to ban the supply of specified materials and technology that could contribute to Iran’s nuclear programmes.
Reports that the U.S. is leaning towards an even stronger posture against Iran reflect indications that Washington wants to deepen its military presence in the region. It follows warnings from Saudi Arabia that it would fund Sunni militias in Iraq in the event of a U.S. troop withdrawal. “The aircraft carrier is a way of assuring the Saudis that the inclination is to do more rather than less, and that we are not going to leave them in the lurch,” said John Pike, a military analyst.
The tougher posture on Iran and a temporary troop surge in Iraq would both run counter to the findings of the Iraq Study Group earlier this month, which recommended a withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq by early 2008, and the opening of diplomatic talks with Iran and Syria.
Read more
Email Newsletter
Get truth delivered to your inbox every week.
Previous item: BBC Goes File-Sharing
Next item: Military Wants Even More Money
Protesters Razz Bush at July 4 Event
Email
Print
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Ma.gnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Yahoo
Jump to Comments
By Bukko in Australia, December 22, 2006 at 4:09 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
There was a lot of kerfuffle about the Eisenhower carrier group going into the Persian Gulf before the November Congressional elections. Part of it was here on TruthDig, in response to an article by Christopher Hedges. Some people said it was just a rotation of forces; the Eisenhower sailing in so that others could go home. Did this happen, or was it a permanent build-up of naval forces?
Report thisBy YankeeGoHome, December 21, 2006 at 11:46 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
I have a pretty good idea what is going on here. The Neo-Fascists that illegally hold power in the US are trying to provoke Iran.
Cock Cheney, last year, advised stratcom to draw up contingencies for a first strike nuclear Iranian holocaust. They perfectly know how vulnerable their pieces of meat in the lion’s mouth, that is the Persian Gulf, are. They are willing to sacrfice thousands of American lives so that they can nuke Iran.
The American public, outraged and humiliated by the losses inflicted upon their armed forces, will celebrate the unwarranted and illegal use of nuclear weapons.
Report thisBy Charles Newlin, December 20, 2006 at 11:48 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Are they a threat, or yet more hostages? The Iranians have, and have tested, Silkworm anti-ship missiles that apparently are a very real threat: they go so fast that there is little defense against them, especially at close range. The Persian Gulf is quite small, as seas go.
Perhaps the Navy thinks they have a defense against those missiles; but will it work in a real combat situation? I’d rather not be on one of them if the shooting starts, thank you.
Of course, given the Bush residence in Never-Never land, reality may have little to do with their decisions.
Report thisBy Brad Arnold, December 20, 2006 at 10:02 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
I bet the real reason the US is beefing up its naval assets in the Persian Gulf, and beefing up its troops in Iraq is in preparation of going against al Sadr and his militia.
A quarterly Pentagon report names al Sadr’s militia as the biggest threat to peace in Iraq (behind al Qaeda and the Sunni insurgency!). Furthermore, al Sadr’s coalition has withdrawn their Iraqi Parliment members, causing a lack of a quorum. Finally, al Sadr’s militia has been receiving funding from Iran and training from Hezbollah.
To “neutralize” the al Sadr militia, large sections of Baghdad will have to be leveled. Furthermore, the current Iraqi government will fall. I strongly advise against this reckless military strategy.
Report thisBy G. Anderson, December 20, 2006 at 9:06 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Reminds me of an incident years ago in the Gulf of Tonkin, that led to un restrained bombing of North Viet Nam.
What are the chances of that happening again?
Report thisBy Spinoza, December 20, 2006 at 8:30 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
George Bush was proud of the 152 executions that he oversaw in Texas. All right wingers are murderers by the nature of their ideology and support for capitalism. All right wingers love war by definition.
Can the left do anything about the existence of right wingers without going to war against them as we did in WWII? As we can see we were not able to stop fascism with that war. But what is the choice?
Report thisBy Quy Tran, December 20, 2006 at 2:45 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
The Whore House already has green light from Jerusalem. The Middle East situation will go down to.....toilet !
Report this