zerohedge.com/news/three-us-aircraft-carriers-now-middle-east-fourth-en-route

 

stripes.com/news/us/uss-stennis-most-prepared-aircraft-carrier-for-mideast-deployment-commander-says-1.183405

 

One doubts they'd be acting alone...

 

Israel simply cannot and will not use nukes against a country that hasn't even tested a weapon yet.

 

Israel has more than enough strike aircraft to deliver munitions against nuke targets, and if ISrael is the prime actor they will rely on surprise and confusion of a first strike and will not try to 'shoot their way in' and suppress every  layer of air defense to and from the targets.

 

US Aircraft carriers are irrelevant to attacking Iran's nuclear infrastructure:  F/A 18's have even less capability than Israel's F-15 Strike Eagles.  Sure they could hit soft targets and provide air superiority, but if the US is going to get that involved we'll use B-2s and hit the nuke facilities ourselves.

 

What carriers can do is to saber-rattle and protect the PErsian Gulf and Straits of Hormuz, and provide instant massive retaliation and suppression of IRan's air and missile capabilities if it tries to launch missiles against Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, US ships, tankers, etc. 

 

The bottom line is that Israel knows that strikes will not destroy Iran's nuke program and will surely rally the Iranian people to the flag.  Sanctions are working in the sense that for Israel's (and Saudi Arabia, Iraq, etc) concerns there needs to be a REGIME CHANGE, not a cessation of nuke development.  Attacking IRan is the best way to prevent regime change. 

Agreed.

Israel has more than enough strike aircraft to deliver munitions against nuke targets, and if ISrael is the prime actor they will rely on surprise and confusion of a first strike and will not try to 'shoot their way in' and suppress every  layer of air defense to and from the targets.

It would certainly seem that way based on past operations, Israel seems particularly adept at using those tactics. 

US Aircraft carriers are irrelevant to attacking Iran's nuclear infrastructure:  F/A 18's have even less capability than Israel's F-15 Strike Eagles.  Sure they could hit soft targets and provide air superiority, but if the US is going to get that involved we'll use B-2s and hit the nuke facilities ourselves.

They are relevant as you have said below in that they severely limit Iran's ability to respond as it has threatened (by disrupting oil supplies etc), also, for all we know that suppressive capability might be a key element of any action. One thing is broadly accepted, and Bibi knows it, is that the US will be drawn in to the conflict one way or another, failure is not an acceptable outcome.

What carriers can do is to saber-rattle and protect the PErsian Gulf and Straits of Hormuz, and provide instant massive retaliation and suppression of IRan's air and missile capabilities if it tries to launch missiles against Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, US ships, tankers, etc. 

Yes, I wasn't suggesting that the strike platforms will be taking off from the CVN's themselves, but there is absolutely for the US to avoid involvement if Israel does take action. 

 

The bottom line is that Israel knows that strikes will not destroy Iran's nuke program and will surely rally the Iranian people to the flag.  Sanctions are working in the sense that for Israel's (and Saudi Arabia, Iraq, etc) concerns there needs to be a REGIME CHANGE, not a cessation of nuke development.  Attacking IRan is the best way to prevent regime change. 

 

 It's so hard to know the outcomes, we can already see sanctions beginning to bite, what we don't know is the current level of enrichment, warhead development etc, Israel has repeatedly stated there are "red lines" that will dictate action, whether Iran is months or years away from that (or if it is precisely delineated in the first place) we don't know. The reports of HEU enriched well beyond 20% (if confirmed) put beyond all doubt the regime's objectives.

 

The situation in Syria is also fairly pivotal IMO - if the regime does collapse then Iran (and Hezbollah) will be exposed as never before, most especially because if the uprising does succeed in deposing Assad without ostensible Western support then widespread unrest in Iran, especially with sanctions particularly biting (Apparently imagery of chicken meat has now been banned from TV networks - which shows to some degree an real fear of unrest).

 

 

 I agree with the below statement: (and rarely do I agree with anything written in the independent).  

 

 "But the Independent's (UK) Patrick Cockburn, one of the more reliable analysts on the Middle East, thinks the Israeli threats are "the bluff of the century". Cockburn argues that there is simply no reason for Tel Aviv to go to war, since the Iranian economy is being effectively strangled by the sanctions. But the saber rattling is useful because it scares the EU into toughing up the siege of Tehran, while also shifting the Palestinian issue to a back burner."

 

Source: atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NG18Ak01.html 

 

Either way, and particularly because Assad's regime might well be close to collapse and Iran seems in danger of hyperinflation, I personally agree that the sanctions should be given time to create the conditions necessary for unrest - but the caveat, as always, is the lack of intelligence (publicly at least) as to how far Iran is from possessing a viable quantity of fissile material.

 

R