The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - December 2, 2008

Dunnigan's and Bay's Latest
Advertisement
New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Squad Battles: Winter War
2.Silent War
3.Manoeuvre
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

Online Giving

Utah SEO Firm

Xango

Smiley Gifts for Babies
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
Iran Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Large buildup against Iran, strike possible
Herc the Merc    3/27/2007 4:16:02 PM
Russian intelligence sees U.S. military buildup on Iran border
17:31 | 27/ 03/ 2007

MOSCOW, March 27 (RIA Novosti) - Russian military intelligence services are reporting a flurry of activity by U.S. Armed Forces near Iran's borders, a high-ranking security source said Tuesday.

"The latest military intelligence data point to heightened U.S. military preparations for both an air and ground operation against Iran," the official said, adding that the Pentagon has probably not yet made a final decision as to when an attack will be launched.

He said the Pentagon is looking for a way to deliver a strike against Iran "that would enable the Americans to bring the country to its knees at minimal cost."

He also said the U.S. Naval presence in the Persian Gulf has for the first time in the past four years reached the level that existed shortly before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

Col.-Gen. Leonid Ivashov, vice president of the Academy of Geopolitical Sciences, said last week that the Pentagon is planning to deliver a massive air strike on Iran's military infrastructure in the near future.

A new U.S. carrier battle group has been dispatched to the Gulf.

The USS John C. Stennis, with a crew of 3,200 and around 80 fixed-wing aircraft, including F/A-18 Hornet and Superhornet fighter-bombers, eight support ships and four nuclear submarines are heading for the Gulf, where a similar group led by the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower has been deployed since December 2006.

The U.S. is also sending Patriot anti-missile systems to the region.

en.rian.ru/russia/20070327/62697703.html




 
Quote    Reply
 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
reefdiver       3/28/2007 3:49:25 PM
Would the US attack Iran from inside the confined spaces of the Persian Gulf or from outside the strait?
 
 
Quote    Reply

VelocityVector    reefdiver   3/28/2007 4:01:44 PM
The correct multiple choice answer would be (E) "all of the above."  Iran would be pounded from all directions except in all likelihood from due north though that's a possibility too.
v^2
 
Quote    Reply

reefdiver       3/28/2007 4:15:39 PM

The correct multiple choice answer would be (E) "all of the above."  Iran would be pounded from all directions except in all likelihood from due north though that's a possibility too.
v^2


Wouldn't the Carriers be much more vulnerable inside the Gulf? Having 2 carrier groups in the Gulf, with Iran's coast running the length of the Gulf, would seem a bit risky. 
 
Quote    Reply

VelocityVector       3/28/2007 4:29:35 PM

Wouldn't the Carriers be much more vulnerable inside the Gulf? Having 2 carrier groups in the Gulf, with Iran's coast running the length of the Gulf, would seem a bit risky. 


Carriers, and there is only one US carrier allegedly stationed in the Gulf at present, can be relocated PDQ.  Aircraft and subs can undertake the lion's share of workload in this case.
v^2
 
Quote    Reply

sofa    carriers up in gulf?   3/28/2007 11:09:12 PM
Expect 1 in Gulf and others in deepwater to the south.
 
Need ships in gulf and naval air to defend and suppress Iran navy. Iran has spoiling plans and this will be a spectacular and public portion of any hostilities. Sadly Iran will likely see some limited initial sucess in creating crange and chaos, but their limited resources will then be attritted.
[Air Force doesn't integrate well into these complex, rapidly changing, close support missions. Navy Air has at least thought about it.]
 
Land-based air is coming from other cardinal directions. Need Carriers in IO to dominate that southern sea and airspace, overwatch, and provide secure ingress/egress routes in the south. 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

reefdiver       3/29/2007 9:31:45 PM
 
Land-based air is coming from other cardinal directions. Need Carriers in IO to dominate that southern sea and airspace, overwatch, and provide secure ingress/egress routes in the south. 
 

   USAF fighters are moving to theater? There's not been much said about that. Wonder whats going on at the bomber bases these days?
 
Quote    Reply

Kit       3/30/2007 4:34:53 AM
What a great idea!  Let's start another war when we can't even finish the two we've got going now.
 
I'd be curious to know just what American troops the Russian's think they see gathering on the Iranian border.  We've committed all we have to Iraq and Afghanistan and, according to Gen. Pace, we don't currently have a single Brigade ready to deploy which isn't already overseas.
 
Is a strike against Iran coming?   Yes, probably, but not an invasion.  We simply do not have the troops to either overthrow the Mullahs or to secure the place if we did.  Iran has twice the area, and 3 times the population, of Iraq and if we can't secure that place, what on earth would make us believe we could do Iran?  Perhaps the same wishful thinking which got us into the Iraq mess?
 
And, frankly, I think even an air campaign against Iran is ill-advised right now as they are NOT totally powerless to fight back.  They have anti-ship missles which even our own Navy admits we have no defense against and they just might get lucky and sink one of our carriers.  They also have the capability to stir up trouble in diverse places around the world and they have allies and trade partners on whom we depend for much of our oil and credit.
 
But, more likely, they have their own special forces and Iraqi proxies sitting astride the supply lines which sustain our troops in Iraq and they could cut them almost immediately.  Since we lack the air power to sustain 150,000 troops by airlift, the situation our troops are in there would rapidly deteriorate to one of crisis and we could very well see a precipitous withdrawl back to Kuwait.
 
Yes, Iran is a real, genuine threat to us and, yes, it must be dealt with sooner or later, but just expecting rhetorical bellicosity and a few airstrikes to solve the problem is foolish in the extreme.  However, I don't expect this administration sees that as they still seem to think we are invincible and don't have to really do silly things like prepare for wars before we fight them.  After all, that might include a cut in domestic spending and God knows we just can't do that.
 
Quote    Reply

sofa       3/30/2007 8:40:41 AM

What a great idea!  Let's start another war when we can't even finish the two we've got going now.

 I'd be curious to know just what American troops the Russian's think they see gathering on the Iranian border.  We've committed all we have to Iraq and Afghanistan and, according to Gen. Pace, we don't currently have a single Brigade ready to deploy which isn't already overseas.
 
Is a strike against Iran coming?   Yes, probably, but not an invasion.  We simply do not have the troops to either overthrow the Mullahs or to secure the place if we did.  Iran has twice the area, and 3 times the population, of Iraq and if we can't secure that place, what on earth would make us believe we could do Iran?  Perhaps the same wishful thinking which got us into the Iraq mess?

 And, frankly, I think even an air campaign against Iran is ill-advised right now as they are NOT totally powerless to fight back.  They have anti-ship missles which even our own Navy admits we have no defense against and they just might get lucky and sink one of our carriers.  They also have the capability to stir up trouble in diverse places around the world and they have allies and trade partners on whom we depend for much of our oil and credit.

But, more likely, they have their own special forces and Iraqi proxies sitting astride the supply lines which sustain our troops in Iraq and they could cut them almost immediately.  Since we lack the air power to sustain 150,000 troops by airlift, the situation our troops are in there would rapidly deteriorate to one of crisis and we could very well see a precipitous withdrawl back to Kuwait.

Yes, Iran is a real, genuine threat to us and, yes, it must be dealt with sooner or later, but just expecting rhetorical bellicosity and a few airstrikes to solve the problem is foolish in the extreme.  However, I don't expect this administration sees that as they still seem to think we are invincible and don't have to really do silly things like prepare for wars before we fight them.  After all, that might include a cut in domestic spending and God knows we just can't do that.

Kit, You are right - The Russians don't know what they're seeing. Our military is bogged down. We don't have enough troops. Our Navy is defenseless. Our administration can't see. We are not prepared.  Iran is strong. They have powerful special forces and supporting proxies. They have strong allies and powerful trading partners. So - Iran should be dealt with, but later, after we cut doemestic funding. (?)
Brilliant.
 
 
Quote    Reply

GreyJackal       3/30/2007 11:22:28 AM
An airstrike against Iran would only end up helping the Mullahs gain more support in their own country. Already about two thirds of the population don't like the mullahs and their outdated ideology. Any form of airstrike will help strenghten the Mullahs claim that America is evil, and the voices that are calling for change and reform in Iran will be silenced. Anyone who continues to call for change and reform in the government and the laws will be called a traitor and anyone who supports war against US and their interests will be called a patriot. Does this sound familiar to anyone? 
 
Iranians are pround people and any form of strike on their country will given them no option but to rally around the mullahs. I totally agree that Iran can't have nuclear weapons, but I doubt that just bombing their military infrastructure would stop them form acquiring a nuke.
 
If we want to change Iran from the ground up, then we must launch a ground invasion that topples the Mullah regime. Most Iranians especially the young ones don't like the mullahs ideology, and last thing the mullahs want is for the young Iranians to come in contact with the US for it will spell the end of the mullah's reign and their backward ideology. But alas the US don't have enough troops for a ground invasion.
 
Quote    Reply

reefdiver       3/30/2007 12:11:43 PM
So did you catch the DebkaFile (yeah I know...) headline today? (I've copied only the 2 paragraphs)

DEBKAfile Exclusive: US financial sources in Bahrain report American investors in Bahrain advised to pack up business operations and leave

March 30, 2007, 3:56 PM (GMT+02:00)

The advice came from officers with US Central Command 5th Fleet HQ at Manama, who spoke of security tension, a hint at an approaching war with Iran. Arab sources report the positioning of a Patriot anti-missile battery in Bahrain this week; they say occupancy at emirate hotels has soared past 90% due mostly to the influx of US military personnel. They also report Western media crews normally employed in military coverage are arriving in packs.

Thursday, March 29, Gen. Khaled al-‘Absi, Bahrain’s chief of air defense operations disclosed that new alarm networks had been installed and air defense systems upgraded to handle chemical, biological and radioactive attacks.
 
Quote    Reply

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2008StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy