US, Israeli Warships Move to Persian Gulf
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=131181§ionid=351020205
"An armada of more than twelve US and Israeli warships has passed through the Suez canal toward the Red Sea and is reportedly heading to the Persian Gulf.."
Iran attack coming?
I thought you should post that in the Fidel Castro thread you started really.
could have but wanted it seen - this thread format is problematic in many ways..
12 US Warships & One Giant Israeli Warship Enroute to Persian Gulf
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/6/20/12346/6985
"The flotilla is reportedly on the way to the Persian Gulf to meet up with 2 other US carrier groups already in the Gulf. According to reports there are already three Israeli nuclear armed subs in the waters off Iran.."
"One Giant Israeli Warship"... Wow! Talk about poorly written... so what kind of "giant warship" is it?
Oh let me guess: one that floats...
sheeez
Right. Well, one ship would be about what you would need, giant or otherwise, to be used to help direct operation and or pick up lost fliers in the Persian Gulf. Or do you think the US Navy might pick up strays for the IAF?
Maybe. But that would kind of defeat the purpose of having the Israelis do the strikes in Iran, so that the US can keep its hands clean.
Perhaps you will prefer the prose here:
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.
US, Israel Warships in Suez May Be Prelude to Faceoff with Iran
I'm willing to bet (but this is still speculation on my part) it's either a support and resupply ship for submarines thus supporting the theory of a Israeli nuclear armed submarine presents in the Gulf or an amphibious assault type ship that carries smaller craft, helicopters and marines/commandos to board and search ships or rescue downed pilots... both types of ships would be "giant" in size to an inexperienced eye compared to the more stream lined and sleeker looking surface warships Israel has. Both types of ships would be armed, but more for defense than surface battle offence.
Either way something is afoot and Israel (and the US) is ramping up the pressure on Iran who now has to figure out if this is just a show of power or the prelude to an operation.
all along there have been suggestions that a possible modus operandi for any anti-Iran operation would be just this kind of pressure and presence to provoke some kind of response against which the USRAELIs would then 'retaliate'.
Depending on who you talk to they are between the 4th and 10th military power in the world. However that is devined.
Didn't know Israel had subs. Will have to google 'Israel military might' sometime.
ETA: Israel's Dolphin submarines
excerpt:
On Sep 30, 2009 it was reported that Israel had taken delivery of two German-made submarines capable of launching missiles with nuclear warheads. "We have received two Dolphin-class submarines built from Germany," Israel and Arab media reported quoting an anonymous Israeli military spokesman. The submarines were ordered in 2005, and delivery was originally scheduled for 2010. With the latest delivery, Israel held five state-of-the-art U212s.
One of the subs delivered by the German government is permanently stationed in the Gulf, and Israeli media have said that the fleet of five vessels could be key in any decision by Israel to launch an attack on Iranian targets from the sea. An Israeli submarine used the Suez Canal for the first time in June 2009, anchoring in the Red Sea in a journey that would have normally required the Israeli vessel to travel around the coast of Africa. Escorted by Israeli navy vessels, the move was intended to send a message to Iran. An Israeli submarine would not have been able to sail through the Suez Canal without Egypt knowing about it and granting permission. The Canal's water is shallow and boasts lively vessel traffic that would endanger a submarine, even if it sailed at minimal depth below sea level.
If anybody finds a picture of this "giant" ship please post it... then maybe we can figure out better what it's mission is.
Didn't know Israel had subs. Will have to google 'Israel military might' sometime.
Up to five of them now...
If anybody finds a picture of this "giant" ship please post it... then maybe we can figure out better what it's mission is.
Israel has three of these in active service 
according to this link.
That's a corvette, hardly a giant as far as warships go but then maybe who ever reported it doesn't know about navy ships in the first place... Looking at that link it seems the Israeli navy doesn't really have any "giant" ship as compared to other blue water navies. I now suspect its just bad reporting: the guy had no idea what he was looking at aside from a "giant looking Israeli warship". You could have probably convinced him it was a dreadnought class battleship (A type of WW1 battleship)...LOL
Anyways that's pretty much a standard surface warship... nothing TOO specialized about it. Its main purpose is to stop ships to search them, hunting submarines or sinking surface targets. But then it could be modified some way for a special mission. It's still more than a match for anything the Iranian navy has; at least on the books.
We are still speculating here; a picture of the actual ship involved would be better.
Yes, I looked at photos of every Israeli warship at that link - no 'giants' there, although to my untrained eye all of them look like giants. (I hate war and everything involved)
I recall being impressed about this time a couple of years ago that the Americans had three of their huge Nimetz class aircraft carriers in the gulf. Two were 'on station' and the third was coming in for a replacement.
Given that the gulf is not all that big, there were several collusions with commercal tankers/freighters.
That's a corvette, hardly a giant as far as warships
Yes, that's the important element of the story; an ill-chosen adjective. Kinda like "unbeatable" Israeli army, or "Jewish" homeland.
Say, doncha think that a flotilla like this is an act of aggression? No?
Giant gunships of any kind are a thing of the past, this has all be replaced with light, fast, missile ships, frigates and destroyers whose primary purpose is anti-aircraft defense, or routine patrol duties.
This related article is interesting: (excerpt)
The Israeli-converted vintage World War II British Destroyer was formerly known by the British as HMS Zealous. During World War II the ship had accompanied British convoys to Russia bearing vital wartime supplies over one of the stretches of water in the war to assist Russia to survive their common enemy after June 1941, Hitler's Germany. In the 1940's HMS Zealous was a formidable ship. The Israelis had purchased her and renamed the ship the K40 Eilat.
- snip -
The sinking of the Eilat was not highly publicized at the time, for reasons of prestige, but its impact was enormous. It galvanized the Israeli Navy into seeking out more and better naval craft, more suited to the modern conditions of missile combat. The day of the great warship - for the Israelis at least (but not for the Great Powers) - was over. Israel would be looking for small and efficient ships able to patrol her shores and undertake offshore operations at high speed, while at the same time able to evade enemy tracking and missiles as much as possible. The new ships would also have to have more offensive capabilities than they previously had - namely, the new generation of ships would need to be equipped with missiles.
Say, doncha think that a flotilla like this is an act of aggression? No?
Absolutely.
That's a corvette, hardly a giant as far as warships go but then maybe who ever reported it doesn't know about navy ships in the first place... Looking at that link it seems the Israeli navy doesn't really have any "giant" ship as compared to other blue water navies.
You seem to be digging a bit here. Really the age of the giant warship died in 1945. The only "giant" surface ships used by any navy in the world today are aircraft carriers. Even cruiser type craft are basically a thing of the past. All that is left are ships as small or smaller than a what would have been called a destroyer.
So, it is not at all surprising that the Israeli navy doesn't have any "giant" ships, "as compared to other blue water navies", because most blue water navies don't have any "giant" ships at all, unless they have aircraft carriers.
Giant gunships of any kind are a thing of the past, this has all be replaced with light, fast, missile ships, frigates and destroyers whose primary purpose is anti-aircraft defense, or routine patrol duties.
That's a corvette, hardly a giant as far as warships go but then maybe who ever reported it doesn't know about navy ships in the first place... Looking at that link it seems the Israeli navy doesn't really have any "giant" ship as compared to other blue water navies.
You seem to be digging a bit here. Really the age of the giant warship died in 1945. The only "giant" surface ships used by any navy in the world today are aircraft carriers. Even cruiser type craft are basically a thing of the past. All that is left are ships as small or smaller than a what would have been called a destroyer.
When I read that I was thinking more of amphibious assault ships that carry landing craft, speed boats, marines and helicopters or resupply/support ships that could support the submarine(s) on station there... while not as big as aircraft carriers they tend to be allot bigger than the missile surface ships you talking about.
I would think such a "giant" ship moving into the gulf next to Iran would constitute a bigger threat to Iran than a guided missile cruiser showing the Israeli flag off their coast just to dink them in the nose. Since Israel has no such ships the ball would be in Iran's court as to if they want to start a shooting war over this. I would go more with the word provocation for now than an act of aggression; of course your mileage may vary. How about aggeresive provocation? That sounds about right.
I'm willing to bet that ship shadows the Iranian aid ship that is suppose to leave/left for Gaza.
http://www.infowars.com/gaza-aid-ship-departs-iranian-port/
And in other Israeli naval news...
Activists prevent Israeli ship from unloading at US port
For the first time in US history, a peaceful protest was able to stop workers from unloading an Israeli cargo ship on Sunday, 20 June, in the San Francisco Bay area. From 5:30am until 7pm, social justice activists and labor union organizers blocked and picketed several entrances at the Port of Oakland, preventing two shifts of longshoremen with the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) to come to work and unload the Israeli Zim Lines cargo ship.
There are presently 9 countries that have nuclear weapons.
What's the rush to expand that club?
There are presently 9 countries that have nuclear weapons.
What's the rush to expand that club?
Based on scientific evidence, it is not possible for Iran to refine Low Enriched Uranium (LEU) into High Enriched Uranium (HEU) within the next one to two decades.
Let's for the sake of argument, say that it is possible for Iran to refine its uranium into HEU this year or that it already has done so or acquired HEU from another (outside) source.
Would that decrease or increase regional stability?
Currently, Israel is the only country that has atomic weapons in the Middle East. For the past 30 years, Israel has been a source of instability in the Middle East: Two wars against Lebanon (1982 and 2006), a war against Gaza (2008-09) and an attack against a civilian vessel with Nobel lauriates, peace activists and MPs from Israel and countries around the world for passengers and wheelchairs and crayons for cargo in international waters by the Israeli Army and Navy, resulting in the deaths of 9 innocent people. If Israel acts this way using conventional forces and weapons, imagine what Israel will do with atomic weapons - being the only nuclear power in the Middle East?
Imagine what the U.S.A. would have done if it were the world's sole nuclear power during the Cold War? It wasn't. During the 1950s, the Soviet Union was a nuclear power. By the 1960s China was a nuclear power. By the 1970s India was a nuclear power. Although not the most desirable state of affairs, having other nuclear powers provided deterrence: No sane or rational state would launch nuclear weapons because of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) would result if a nuclear war broke out.
Thus, IF (this is a hypothetical premise, remember) Iran had atomic weapons, Israel would be deterred from using theirs due to the threat of Mutual Assured Destruction posed by the two nuclear armed states.
People have often pointed out that Iranian President Mamoud Amadinejad would use atomic weapons against Israel if he had them by pointing out his alleged "wipe Israel off the face of the map" speech.
Two points:
1. This is the Western (media) spin put on his speech after "translation". Other translations explain that "expansionist Zionism is unsustainable and will by its very nature, destroy itself."
2. Like in the U.S.A., the position of President in Iran is a weak one. It is the Grand Council of Ayatollahs that wields the power.
The Grand Council of Ayatollahs of Iran are not known for their unsteady, reckless and insecure tendencies.
Can the same be said for past, present and potential future Israeli governments?
I'm not so sure. Governments like those of Canada and the U.S.A. that back up the state of Israel 100 per cent in everything it does - right or wrong, certainly doesn't help.
So, do you think if Iran had nukes Israel wouldn't have boarded those ships or won't stop Iranian aid ships to Gaza? Do you really think Iran would throw its self onto its nuclear sword for the Palestinians? For Hezbollah?
AND think of this... a nuclear attack on Israel will kill the Palestinians as much as "the Israelis"... yeah Persians killing Arabs to kill Israelis only to get wacked by the USA; how smart is that?
The Gaza Aid ship from Iran's Red Crescent is due to set sail on Sunday, Netanyahu is already calling it 'the Ayotollah ship'. This could be a 'blockade buster' to watch. These are international waters we're talking about - israel has no legal basis for any interdiction attempt. I hope the Iranians go ahead with this.
Looks like someone's pushing a propaganda campaign in favour of a war. The idea that being bombed is actually going to help Iran's reformers is laughable.
I talk about Iran (or other Middle Eastern countries, for that matter) possessing atomic weapons for their own defense, not the defense of Palestinians or other peoples, organizations and countries.
I talk about Israel being deterred from possibly using atomic weapons based on the premise of Iran (or other Middle Eastern countries) possessing them.
Well I'm thinking Iran is in for a very big disappointment; I can agree with maybe deterring nuclear attacks (perhaps) but it will not deter conventional bombing, naval spats, internal strife or international meddling thereof and other entanglements of that always happen in that region (with not just the West or Israel). Once they get the limited nuclear weapon(s) they are claiming they are not making, unless they are going to threaten nuclear escalation every time they feel conventionally threatened, their small nuclear arsenal is just going to be an expensive drain on them for lying about developing them.
With the sanctions imposed on Iran, its export of oil has been severely restricted. Sitting on that oil, Iran could use it for domestic energy needs. Or it could move away from reliance on oil by developing alternate sources of energy like atomic energy - which is what Iran says it's doing. When the restrictions are lifted, Iran's economy could surge with the export of oil as Iran's domestic economy wouldn't be as heavily reliant upon it.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
So, do you think if Iran had nukes Israel wouldn't have boarded those ships or won't stop Iranian aid ships to Gaza? Do you really think Iran would throw its self onto its nuclear sword for the Palestinians? For Hezbollah?
AND think of this... a nuclear attack on Israel will kill the Palestinians as much as "the Israelis"... yeah Persians killing Arabs to kill Israelis only to get wacked by the USA; how smart is that?
I don't make that argument at all.
I talk about Iran (or other Middle Eastern countries, for that matter) possessing atomic weapons for their own defense, not the defense of Palestinians or other peoples, organizations and countries.
I talk about Israel being deterred from possibly using atomic weapons based on the premise of Iran (or other Middle Eastern countries) possessing them.
The Mavi Marmara that was attacked by the Israeli military was a Turkish ship.
As of yet, I haven't heard of any Iranian ships approaching Israel that have been attacked, stopped, boarded or threatened by the Israeli military.
A lot of countries "support" the Palestinians, Hezbollah and Hamas, etc., but because Iran currently has the greatest potential to become the dominant power in the Middle East, that is why painting Iran as evil has been Israel's flavor of the month for the past ~5 years.
Israel wants hegemony in the Middle East. Since 1980, Israel has been doing this by getting its "big brother" Uncle Sam to instigate or fight wars against the most powerful countries in the Middle East.
This is what happened in the 1980-88 Iran - Iraq War. It is what happened in Iraq War II (2003 - 20...) and is happening now with the demonizing of and saber rattling against Iran.
That is why the attack on the Mavi Marmara was a godsend. Israel now has an excuse to demonize its former friend Turkey, the most recent rising power in the Middle East/Central Asia and now seen as another "threat" on the horizon by Israel.
ETA http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2010/06/23/punishing-turkey/
I think the simple solution to Iran's nuclear ambitions is for the Canadian government to sell it a Candu reactor just like they did for India and Pakistan. The hypocrisy around the nuclear industry and nuclear proliferation is what makes me want to puke.
