Can Someone Debunk or Put in Perspective the “Gulf Armada” Story?

Military History \| How To Make War \| Wars Around the World	Rules of Use	How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Iran Discussion Board
Return to Topic Page

Subject: Can Someone Debunk or Put in Perspective the “Gulf Armada” Story?
carlofab 9/2/2008 6:39:27 PM

Can someone help me debunk, or put into perspective, the following? I think it's horse and would like to post a credible reply elsewhere if someone can provide one. Thanks, Carlofab REPORT SAYS 5 U.S. CARRIER GROUPS ARE IN THE PERSIAN GULF OR ARE HEADED TOWARD IT. The Evidence Supports Some of the Report. By Gary North August 23, 2008 Please forward this to anyone who would be interested. We need further verification. (What we have already is bad enough.) I started my department on war with Iran two years ago. http://www.garynorth.com/members/department106.cfm I have given this a lot of thought. The #1 economic issue in the world, if there is a war with Iran, will be to keep the Strait of Hormuz open. It must be protected from Iranian attacks on oil tankers. Two sunk oil tankers, and shipping insurance will go so high that few if any private oil tanker firms will be able to afford it. Oil's price would skyrocket. Chaos in the world's capital markets would be catastrophic. It would take an armada to protect the entire Strait. DEBKAfile reports that five carrier groups are now in the Middle East or heading there now. DEBKAfile's military sources note that the arrival of the three new American flotillas will raise to five the number of US strike forces in Middle East waters -- an unprecedented build-up since the crisis erupted over Iran's nuclear program. This vast naval and air strength consists of more than 40 carriers, warships and submarines, some of the last nuclear-armed, opposite the Islamic Republic, a concentration last seen just before the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. Our military sources postulate five objects of this show of American muscle: 1. The US, aided also by France, Britain and Canada, is finalizing preparations for a partial naval blockade to deny Iran imports of benzene and other refined oil products. This action would indicate that the Bush administration had thrown in the towel on stiff United Nations sanctions and decided to take matters in its own hands. 2. Iran, which imports 40 percent of its refined fuel products from Gulf neighbors, will retaliate for the embargo by shutting the Strait of Hormuz oil route chokepoint, in which case the US naval and air force stand ready to reopen the Strait and fight back any Iranian attempt to break through the blockade. 3. Washington is deploying forces as back-up for a possible Israeli military attack on Iran's nuclear installations. 4. A potential rush of events in which a US-led blockade, Israeli attack and Iranian reprisals pile up in a very short time and precipitate a major military crisis. . . . DEBKAfile's military sources name the three US strike forces en route to the Gulf as the USS Theodore Roosevelt, the USS Ronald Reagan and the USS Iwo Jima. Already in place are the USS Abraham Lincoln in the Arabian Sea opposite Iranian shores and the USS Peleliu which is cruising in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden. http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=5499 I have tried to verify this. The carriers' websites are sometimes vague as to where they are. The Abraham Lincoln is with the Fifth Fleet's area of operations. The Fifth Fleet is in Bahrain. In the region. The Peleliu is in the Red Sea area. In the region. It is a carrier, but may not technically be a carrier group. [August 27: Offsetting this could be the George Washington, which has left San Diego and is en route to Japan, where it will hencefort be stationed permaently. Close from now on.] The Iwo Jima was deployed to the Persian Gulf this week. The Ronald Reagan left Malaysia on August 21. Close to the region. [August 27: The ship is in joint maneuvers in the Arabian Sea with the Indian Navy. It will finish these maneuvers in late October.] The Theodore Roosevelt was in the Atlantic as of July 18. It was having joint maneuvers with the French Navy. I could not find anything posted on its site later than this. The last time the Navy had joint maneuvers with France was in 2007. They took place in 2007 in the north Arabian Sea. Then I came across this report, published on August 8. It is very detailed. If it is a hoax, it is a very sophisticated hoax. Operation Brimstone ended only one week ago. This was the joint US/UK/French naval war games in the Atlantic Ocean preparing for a naval blockade of Iran and the likely resulting war in the Persian Gulf area. The massive war games included a US Navy supercarrier battle group, an US Navy expeditionary carrier battle group, a Royal Navy carrier battle group, a French nuclear hunter-killer submarine plus a large number of US Navy cruisers, destroyers and frigates playing the "enemy force". The lead American ship in these war games, the USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN71) and its Carrier Strike Group Two (CCSG-2) are now headed towards Iran along with the USS Ronald Reagan (CVN76) and its Carrier Strike Group Seven (CCSG-7) coming from Japan. A story in T

Quote Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

warpig 9/3/2008 9:15:20 AM

I'm not a ship-watcher, but I'll make a couple comments.

1. They're really only talking about three aircraft carriers. I don't care how much some people want to attribute near-mystical powers to an LPD that may be carrying a half-dozen AV-8B Harriers along, the Iwo Jima and Peleliu are not aircraft carriers.

2. Every six months or so you'll see essentially the same sort of potential for having multiple aircraft carriers in the area. That's because they routinely rotate out the ships that have been on station, and replace them with new ships. Therefore it's nothing new or special per se that currently there is one aircraft carrier on station and perhaps two aircraft carriers coming into the general region soon.

3. U.S. aircraft carriers have been operating with about 50 combat jets for many years now, not 80.

4. It's a pretty safe bet that if DEBKA says something is black, then in reality it's white. They suck.

Quote Reply

carlofab To warpig 9/4/2008 10:24:33 PM

Many thanks, warpig.

Have passed on your comments to good effect.

Quote Reply

Aeroman 9/15/2008 5:53:59 AM

Hi carlofab,

I'm going to have to say that overall, the story is false and/or misinterpreted.

First off, the story was only directly reported by 1 news agency in the entire world...that would be the Kuwaiti Times. Everyone else, including the Jereuslem Times, merely cited the Kuwaiti Times. So you have to wonder... How could something this big be happening and no other major news agency in the world know about it? Surely CNN, BBC, Globalsecurity.org, etc... would have reported this if it were true. Even if, lets say, the government tried to keep quiet on their deployments, that could only work until the armada actually arrived at its destination. Then it would most definitely be reported. Why? Because you can't hide something like that, especially in the very narrow Persian Gulf.

Secondly, yes, it was confirmed that the USS Reagan and the Iwo Jima were headed to the Persian Gulf. However, is it a coincidence that the Abraham Lincoln and the Peleliu have been in the region for 6 months now? Nope! The timing is just right that these ships are on their way merely to relieve them of their duties since their deployments are up. In fact, on CV Locations at http://www.gonavy.jp/CVLocation.html, it states as of September 10th (it only updates periodically) that the Reagan has indeed relieved that Lincoln, and the Lincoln has left the region and is in the Gulf of Thialand...pretty far away to be part of a massive armada in the Persian Gulf/Arabian Sea don't you think? Now, one thing that I'm not sure about is it also says that as of September 8th, the USS Roosevelt was enroute for a scheduled deployment to the Middle East. Now, exactly where he's headed or what its purpose is, is unknown. However, 2 aircraft carrier Strike Groups are nothing new there and is a huge step down from 3 carriers.

Also, the political discussions and actions don't make since for the there to be an imminent war with Iran. For example, Dick Cheney and Rice were overseas traveling to different countries worrying about other business. I would think that if a major military operation were about to be underway, the nation's most senior people would be here at home readying for it. Nicolas Sarkozy, the president of France, was in Syria last week talking with Syrian President al-Asad about how Syria can use its influence on Iran to get it to alter its nuclear course. Again, doesn't seem like something someone would say if they knew they were about to go to war with that country, and, again, I would think he'd be back in-country making his final preparations for the war.

Also, do you think that Congress, one that is a majority of democrats and against war with Iran, would approve such actions? I know the president does have the authority to launch a military operation without Congress consent up to, I believe it's 90 days. However, it was also reported in the mass frenzy of blogs on the internet regarding this issue that Congress approved this. That, I highly doubt.

And finally, do you think that naval power is enough to win a war? Of course not. The Air Force would have to be involved as well. And, as of today, I have not ever heard of increased deployments of bombers, fighters, attack, cargo, and survailance aircraft to the region, deployments that most definitely would exist should such an operation be imminent. Also, troop deployments, I'm almost certain, would be increased in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Not necessarily for a ground invasion, but to repel an invasion by Iranian forces should they decide to. They can't be unprepared. And as of now, they're taking troops out of Iraq, not adding any, and putting a few thousand more in Afghanistan. Once again, doesn't seem logical for an impending major military operation on Iran.

Hope this helps your view.

Quote Reply