Showing posts with label Warships. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Warships. Show all posts

Monday, September 17, 2012

US And Britain Send Warships To The Persian Gulf To Prepare For An Israel Strike On Iran

Banoosh

An armada of U.S. and British naval power is amassing in the Persian Gulf in the belief that Israel is considering a pre-emptive strike against Iran’s alleged covert nuclear weapons program (which doesn't exist, according to Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta).

Warships, aircraft carriers, minesweepers and submarines from 25 nations are converging on the strategically important Strait of Hormuz in an unprecedented show of force as Israel and Iran move towards the brink of war.

Western leaders are convinced that Iran will retaliate to any attack by attempting to mine or blockade the shipping lane through which around 18 million barrels of oil passes every day; approximately 35 per cent of the world’s petroleum traded by sea.

A blockade would have a catastrophic effect on the fragile economies of Britain, Europe, the United States and Japan, all of which rely heavily on oil and gas supplies from the Gulf.

The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world’s most congested international waterways. It is only 21 miles wide at its narrowest point and is bordered by the Iranian coast to the north and the United Arab Emirates to the south.

In preparation for any pre-emptive or retaliatory action by Iran, warships from more than 25 countries, including the United States, Britain, France, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, will today begin an annual 12-day exercise.

The war games are the largest ever undertaken in the region.

They will practice tactics in how to breach an Iranian blockade of the strait and the force will also undertake counter-mining drills.

The multi-national naval force in the Gulf includes three U.S. Nimitz class carrier groups, each of which has more aircraft than the entire complement of the Iranian air force.

The carriers are supported by at least 12 warships, including ballistic missile cruisers, frigates, destroyers, and assault ships carrying thousands of U.S. Marines and special forces.

The British component consists of four British minesweepers and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Cardigan Bay, a logistics vessel. HMS Diamond, a brand-new £1billion Type 45 destroyer, one of the most powerful ships in the British fleet, will also be operating in the region.

In addition, commanders will also simulate destroying Iranian combat jets, ships, and coastal missile batteries.

In the event of war, the main threat to the multi-national force will come from the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps navy, which is expected to adopt an “access-denial” strategy in the wake of an attack, by directly targeting U.S. warships, attacking merchant shipping, and mining vital maritime chokepoints in the Persian Gulf.

Defense sources say that although Iran’s capability may not be technologically sophisticated, it could deliver a series of lethal blows against British and U.S. ships using mini-subs, fast attack boats, mines, and shore-based anti-ship missile batteries.

Next month, Iran will stage massive military maneuvers of its own, to show that it is prepared to defend its nuclear installations against the threat of aerial bombardment.

The exercise is being showcased as the biggest air defence war game in the Islamic Republic’s history, and will be its most visible response yet to the prospect of an Israeli military strike.

Using surface-to-air missiles, unmanned drones, and state-of-the-art radar, Iran’s Revolutionary Guards and air force will combine to test the defenses of 3,600 sensitive locations throughout the country, including oil refineries and uranium enrichment facilities.

Brigadier General Farzad Esmaili, commander of the Khatam al-Anbiya air defence base, told a conference this month that the maneuvers would “identify vulnerabilities, try out new tactics and practise old ones”.

At the same time as the Western maneuvers in the Gulf, the British Response Task Forces Group — which includes the carrier HMS Illustrious, equipped with Apache attack helicopters, along with the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle — will be conducting a naval exercise in the eastern Mediterranean. The task force could easily be diverted to the Gulf region via the Suez Canal within a week of being ordered to do so.

The main naval exercise comes as President Barack Obama is scheduled to meet Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, today to discuss the Iranian crisis.

Many within the Obama administration believe that Israel will launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities before the U.S. presidential elections, an act which would signal the failure of one of Washington’s key foreign policy objectives.

Both Downing Street and Washington hope that the show of force will demonstrate to Iran that NATO and the West will not allow President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian leader, to develop a nuclear armory or close Hormuz.

Sir John Sawers, the head of MI6, the Secret Intelligence Service, reportedly met the Israeli prime minister and Ehud Barak, his defense secretary, two weeks ago in an attempt to avert military action against Iran.

But just last week Mr. Netanyahu signaled that time for a negotiated settlement was running out when he said: “The world tells Israel ‘Wait, there’s still time.’ And I say, ‘Wait for what? Wait until when?’”

“Those in the international community who refuse to put red lines before Iran don’t have a moral right to place a red light before Israel.”

The crisis hinges on Iran’s nuclear enrichment program, which Israel believes is designed to build an atomic weapon. Tehran has long argued that the program is for civil use only and says it has no plans to build a nuclear bomb, but that claim has been disputed by the West, with even the head of MI6 stating that the Islamic Republic is on course to develop atomic weapons by 2014.

The Strait of Hormuz has long been disputed territory, with the Iranians claiming control of the region and the entire Persian Gulf.

Rear Admiral Ali Fadavi of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps recently boasted that “any plots of enemies” would be foiled and a heavy price exacted, adding: “We determine the rules of military conflict in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz.”

But Leon Panetta, the U.S. defence secretary, warned that Iranian attempts to exercise control over the Strait of Hormuz could be met with force.

He said: “The Iranians need to understand that the United States and the international community are going to hold them directly responsible for any disruption of shipping in that region — by Iran or, for that matter, by its surrogates.”

Mr. Panetta said that the United States was “fully prepared for all contingencies” and added: “We’ve invested in capabilities to ensure that the Iranian attempt to close down shipping in the Gulf is something that we are going to be able to defeat if they make that decision.”

That announcement was supported by Philip Hammond, the Defense Secretary, who added: “We are determined to work as part of the international community effort to ensure freedom of passage in the international waters of the Strait of Hormuz.”

One defense source told The Sunday Telegraph last night: “If it came to war, there would be carnage. The Iranian casualties would be huge but they would be able to inflict severe blows against the U.S. and British forces.

“The Iranian Republican Guard are well versed in asymmetrical warfare and would use swarm attacks to sink or seriously damage ships. This is a conflict nobody wants, but the rhetoric from Israel is unrelenting.”

Monday, July 12, 2010

Anger in Costa Rica over deal to ‘invite’ 46 US warships

Costa Ricans suspect 'ulterior motive' in permitting large numbers of US troops
By Daniel Tencer | Sunday, July 11th, 2010

Opposition leaders in Costa Rica are up in arms over an agreement between the country and the United States that reportedly allows 46 US warships and 7,000 US Marines to enter the country as part of an anti-drug effort.

According to several Costa Rican news sources, the government there signed an agreement with the US last week to extend an 11-year-old cooperative program aimed at eradicating the maritime drug trade.

But opponents say this year's deal differs from previous ones in that it allows US warships to enter the country. Previously, opponents say, only US Coast Guard vessels were allowed to enter Costa Rican territory. The new agreement expires on December 31 of this year.

A committee of the People's Movement political party said the deal turns Costa Rica into a "US protectorate" and brings the country into "a new phase of military occupation," 
according to the Costa Rican newspaper El Pais.
Costa Rica's Nacion newspaper reported last week that the new agreement will see 7,000 US Marines, supported by 200 helicopters and 46 warships, "enter and leave the country at will." The paper also cited a June 2 letter from Costa Rica to the US declaring that US troops will have "the right to carry out the activities it deems necessary in carrying out its mission."

Inside Costa Rica reports that opposition leaders see the US military force as disproportionately large compared to the problem of Central American drug-running.

Luis Fishman, head of the Christian Social Unity Party, said the deal amounts to a "blank check" for US forces in Costa Rica. "We cannot support the illegal; we cannot allow our Constitution to be trampled," he said, as quoted by ICR.
FA legislator José María Villalta questioned the conditions under which the permission was granted, since US personnel "will enjoy freedom of movement and the right to carry out the activities needed to fulfill their mission".
The FA also urged consideration of the geopolitical situation in which naval forces will be allowed to enter a region considered by Washington as part of its sphere of influence. 
The legislator recalled that the US applies in the region a "strategy of complete dominance", which includes offensive actions such as the coup d'etat in Honduras and the installation of military bases in Colombia.
Writing at Inside Costa Rica, John Holtz says the fact that the deal allows such a large US troop presence, allows warships rather than Coast Guard vehicles, and expires rapidly at the end of this year, has made many Costa Ricans suspicious of the US and Costa Rican governments' motives.

"This story is not going away and for sure the pro–con arguments will grow exponentially as will the theories and hidden agenda accusations. A military presence of this magnitude on foreign soil with what amounts to be a 'blank check' is serious stuff and fodder for speculation," he writes.


The US State Department says the US-Costa Rica Maritime Cooperation Agreement, first signed in 1999, "facilitates cooperation between the Coast Guard of Costa Rica and the US Coast Guard."

It says the program "has resulted in a growing number of narcotics seizures, illegal migrant rescues, illegal fishing seizures, and search-and-rescue missions."

Sunday, July 11, 2010

46 US Warships Plus 7,000 US Marines On Route To Costa Rica?

Scott Oliver - July 10, 2010

On the 2nd July 2010 the Costa Rica Congress authorized the entry of 46 U.S. warships capable of carrying 200 helicopters and warplanes, plus 7,000 U.S. Marines "who may circulate the country in uniform without any restrictions" , plus submarine killer ships to the Costa Rican coast for "anti-narcotics operations and humanitarian missions' between 1st July 2010 until 31st December 2010.

With this kind of nation destroying firepower, it gives real meaning to the expression "war on drugs", but if this a real six month "war on drugs" we should expect to see some fantastic results, right?

Politicians representing the Acción Ciudadana (PAC), the Unidad Social Cristiana (PUSC) and the Frente Amplio (FA) political parties opposed the measure saying that the destructive force of the ships, helicopters and 7,000 US Marines is "disproportionate for the fight against drug trafficking."

On Sunday, the President of Costa Rica Laura Chinchilla said that the government does not intend to militarize the fight against drugs and the Minister of Public Security Jose Maria Tijerino stressed that this huge, powerful military force would be under the command of the US Coast Guard and not the US Navy.

Although I don't suppose the Costa Ricans, the drug traffickers or we expats will notice the difference...

A few of the thoughts that raced through my mind?

  1. To my knowledge at the present time, Costa Rica is not suffering from any "humanitarian" crisis.
  2. The article did not make it clear what sort of "humanitarian missions" might take place.
  3. The article did not mention where any "humanitarian mission" might take place.
  4. Based on the truly horrific, drug crime related slaughters we have witnessed in Mexico, wouldn't it be better conducting these kinds of heavy weapon "anti-narcotics pperations" in northern Mexico?
  5. With what is probably the world's worst environmental disaster going on right now in the Gulf of Mexico, surely it would be more appropriate to conduct "humanitarian missions" in the Gulf?
  6. Or, could these vital warships be fleeing from something far more dangerous that is about to happen in the Gulf of Mexico?
  7. The article did not make it clear whether these vessels would be patrolling off the Pacific or Atlantic coast but either way, is it possible they are on their way to Venezuela? Either as a show of force or something more serious?
  8. Does anyone know if any of these ships carry nuclear weapons?

Another politician Francisco Chacón defended the arrival of the US forces saying that "they would give humanitarian support, build schools and fight against drug traffickers."

If these 7,000 US Marines, 200 helicopters, warplanes and submarine killers are coming to Costa Rica to "give humanitarian support, build schools and fight against drug traffickers," perhaps we could ask them to repair the new highway to Caldera? With that kind of manpower they could have it finished in a week.

Monday, June 21, 2010

Armada of U.S. and Israeli Warships Head for Iran (2 articles)

(Thanks to Adam for the heads up...this is some sorry bullshit. If we invade Iran, I want Obama to be impeached.--jef)

US, Israel Warships in Suez May Be Prelude to Faceoff with Iran

June 20, 2010 by IsraelNationalNews.com
Egypt allowed at least one Israeli and 11 American warships to pass through the Suez Canal as an Iranian flotilla approaches Gaza. Egypt closed the canal to protect the ships with thousands of soldiers, according to the British-based Arabic language newspaper Al Quds al-Arabi.



One day prior to the report on Saturday, Voice of Israel government radio reported that the Egyptian government denied an Israeli request not to allow the Iranian flotilla to use the Suez Canal to reach Gaza, in violation of the Israeli sea embargo on the Hamas-controlled area.


International agreements require Egypt to keep the Suez open even for warships, but the armada, led by the USS Truman with 5,000 sailors and marines, was the largest in years. Egypt closed the canal to fishing and other boats as the armada moved through the strategic passageway that connects the Red and Mediterranean Seas.


Despite Egypt's reported refusal to block the canal to Iranian boats, the clearance for the American-Israeli fleet may be a warning to Iran it may face military opposition if the Iranian Red Crescent ship continues on course to Gaza.


The warships may exercise the right to inspect the Iranian boat for the illegal transport or weapons. Newsweek reported that Egyptian authorities could stop the ship for weeks, using technicalities such as requiring that any official documents be translated from Farsi into Arabic.  


The magazine's website also reported that the Iranian navy is the weakest part of its armed forces. Tehran has already backed down from announced intentions to escort the Iranian ships with "volunteer marines" from the Iranian Revolutionary Guards.


The Iranian news site Hamsayeh.net reported, "The move might be in connection to U.S. self-inflicted embargo against Iran aimed at inspecting Iran bound ships for suspected goods related to the country's nuclear program."


Another battle on the high seas may involve one, and possibly two, Lebanese vessels that are aimed at challenging Israel's sovereignty over the Gaza coastal waters. Hizbullah, gearing up for a reaction to a possible clash between the Israeli Navy (pictured) and the Lebanese boats, has delayed rocket units near Lebanese ports, according to unofficial military sources.


Israel has warned U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon that Israel will use force, if necessary, to stop the boats, one of which is carrying approximately 70 women passengers and crew organized by Hizbullah support Samar al-Hajj. Her husband is one of several jailed suspects involved in the assassination for former Lebanese anti-Syrian Prime Rafik Hariri.


Hizbullah has denied it is connected with the Lebanese flotilla, but it has been reported that Al Hajj met with Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah last month.

***

Armada of U.S. and Israeli Warships Head for Iran
Published on 06-20-2010
By Kurt Nimmo

More than twelve U.S. and Israeli warships, including an aircraft carrier, passed through the Suez Canal on Friday and are headed for the Red Sea. “According to eyewitnesses, the U.S. battleships were the largest to have crossed the Canal in many years,” reported the London-based newspaper al-Quds al-Arabi on Saturday.

The Israeli newspaper
Haaretz reported Egyptian opposition members criticized the government for cooperating with the U.S. and Israeli forces and allowing the passage of the ships through Egyptian territorial waters. The Red Sea is the most direct route to the Persian Gulf from the Mediterranean.

Retired Egyptian General Amin Radi, chairman of the national security affairs committee, told the paper that “the decision to declare war on Iran is not easy, and Israel, due to its wild nature, may start a war just to remain the sole nuclear power in the region,” according to
Yedioth Internet, an Israeli news site.

The passage of a warship armada through the Suez Canal and headed for the Persian Gulf and Iran is apparently not deemed important enough to be reported by the corporate media in the United States.

Egypt recently rejected an Israeli request to prevent Gaza aid ships from passing through the Suez Canal. According to a report by
al-Jazeera, Israel appealed to Egyptians asking them to prevent the passage of Iranian ships through the Suez Canal. The Egyptians responded that due to international agreements on movement through the Suez Canal, Egypt cannot prevent ships from passing through the canal unless a ship belongs to a state that is at war with Egypt. Iran and Egypt are not at war.

The United States and Israel, the sole nuclear-armed power in the Middle East, have not ruled out a military strike to destroy Iran’s nuclear program.

A number of Israeli politicians and scholars have admitted Israel has used its nuclear weapons for
“compellent purposes,” in short forcing others to accept Israeli political demands.

Israel’s threats to use nuclear weapons have increased significantly since it was discovered in 2002 that Iran was building uranium enrichment facilities. Israel’s former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon “called on the international community to target Iran as soon as the imminent conflict with Iraq is complete,”
the Sunday Times reported on November 5, 2002. The United States invaded Iraq on March 20, 2003.

Earlier this month Israel leaked to the press that they had permission from Saudi Arabia to use their air space to attack Iran. “In the week that the UN Security Council imposed a new round of sanctions on Tehran, defence sources in the Gulf say that Riyadh has agreed to allow Israel to use a narrow corridor of its airspace in the north of the country to shorten the distance for a bombing run on Iran,”
the Sunday Times reported on June 12. On June 14, the ambassador of Saudi Arabia to UK Prince Mohammed bin Nawaf issued a categorical denial of the report.

On June 17, Iran’s parliament warned it will respond in kind to inspection of its ships under a fourth round of sanctions imposed on the country by the UN Security Council. “Even if one Iranian ship is stopped for security-check, we will act likewise and thoroughly inspect any (western) ship passing through the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz,” member of the Iranian parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission
Hossein Ebrahimi said.

Also on Saturday, Iran accused the United States of “deception” and insisted its missile program is for self-defense after a top U.S. official claimed that Iran had the capacity to attack Europe. “The Islamic Republic’s missile capability has been designed and implemented to defend against any military aggression and it does not threaten any nation,”
Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi said in a statement carried by state media.

Vahidi announced on April 10 that Iran will use all available options to defend itself if the country comes under a military attack. “Americans have said they will use all options against Iran, we announce that we will use all options to defend ourselves,”
Vahidi told the Tehran Times.

Monday, May 24, 2010

S.Korea says North 'will pay price' for ship attack
Published: Monday May 24, 2010

South Korea Monday halted trade with North Korea as part of a package of reprisals for the sinking of one of its warships, drawing strong US support but threats of attack from the communist state.

President Lee Myung-Bak also banned the North's merchant ships from South Korean waters and said Seoul would refer the March 26 attack -- which killed 46 sailors -- to the United Nations Security Council for punishment.

In a nationally televised address, a sombre-looking Lee vowed an immediate military response to any future aggression, saying South Korea had in the past repeatedly tolerated the North's "brutality."

"But now things are different. North Korea will pay a price corresponding to its provocative acts," he said, demanding an apology for the sinking of the Cheonan, a 1,200-tonne corvette.

US President Barack Obama directed his administration to review North Korea policy and commanded his armed forces to work closely with South Korea "to ensure readiness and to deter future aggression," the White House said.

North Korea reacted angrily to any proposed reprisals, and threatened to open fire at any South Korean loudspeakers broadcasting propaganda across the border if Seoul follows through on its pledge to install them.

"From now on, (South) Korea will not tolerate any provocative act by the North and will maintain the principle of proactive deterrence," Lee said.

"If our territorial waters, airspace or territory are violated, we will immediately exercise our right of self-defence."

Analysts predicted cross-border tensions would remain high for months but said major conflict was unlikely.

A multinational investigation team Thursday reported finding "overwhelming evidence" that a North Korean submarine fired a heavy torpedo which sank the Cheonan near the disputed border.

The United States and numerous other nations have condemned the attack, seen in Seoul as one of the worst provocations since the 1950-53 Korean War. The North's ally China, which wields a Security Council veto, again called on all sides to show restraint.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, during her current visit to Beijing, is pressing China to get tough with its wayward ally. She goes on to Seoul Wednesday.

"We are working hard to avoid an escalation," Clinton told reporters during a break from talks, adding she was in "very intensive consultations" in Beijing.

Beijing later confirmed that the Chinese and US delegations had discussed the sinking of the Cheonan.

"China hopes the parties will maintain calmness and restraint and properly deal with relevant issues," foreign ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu was quoted as saying by the official Xinhua news agency after the talks.

In Tokyo, Japan said it supported Seoul's push for Security Council punishment and was also studying more sanctions of its own against Pyongyang.

Seoul's Defence Minister Kim Tae-Young said the US and South Korean navies would soon stage an anti-submarine drill off the west coast and his government would resume the border broadcasts halted six years ago.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman told reporters in Washington that the joint anti-submarine and other maritime interdiction exercises would be held in the "near future," without giving further details.

The North says the South has faked evidence of its involvement in the Cheonan's sinking as part of a plot to ignite conflict. It threatens "all-out war" in response to any punitive moves.

A spokesman for North Korea's National Defence Commission, the country's top body and chaired by leader Kim Jong-Il, described Lee as a "traitor" and termed his speech "another clumsy farce" designed to cover up the conspiracy.

The North's military has separately expressed anger at new moves to wage psychological warfare, vowing to open fire at propaganda posters or loudspeakers on the southern side.

In his strongly worded speech, delivered symbolically from Seoul's war memorial, Lee said trade and exchanges would be suspended since any cooperation was "meaningless" under present circumstances.

He exempted the jointly run Kaesong industrial estate just north of the border and humanitarian aid for the North's children.