Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Warships, Warships Everywhere, and Many a Bomb to Drop
Looking down from the captain's deck some six stories high, the flight deck of the USS Nimitz is an impressive sight indeed: 80 sleek warplanes armed with bombs and missiles are poised for takeoff at any minute, day or night. The sight of these planes coming and going from that 1,100-foot-long flight deck is almost beyond description. I can attest to this, having sailed on the Nimitz 25 years ago as a reporter for Mother Jones magazine.
Today, the Nimitz is rapidly approaching the Persian Gulf, where it will join two other U.S. aircraft carriers and the French carrier Charles De Gaulle in the largest concentration of naval firepower in the region since the launching of the U.S. invasion of Iraq four years ago.
Why this concentration now? Officially, the Nimitz is on its way to the Gulf to replace the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, which is due to return to the United States for crew leave and ship maintenance after months on station. But the U.S. Central Command (Centcom), which exercises command authority over all U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf area, refuses to say when the Eisenhower will actually depart -- or even when the Nimitz will arrive.
For a time, at least, the United States will have three carrier battle groups in the region. The USS John C. Stennis is the third. Each carrier is accompanied by a small flotilla of cruisers, destroyers, submarines, and support vessels, many equipped with Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles (TLAMs). Minimally, this gives modern meaning to the classic imperial term "gunboat diplomacy," which makes it all the stranger that the deployment of the Nimitz is covered in our media, if at all, as the most minor of news stories. And when the Nimitz sailed off into the Pacific last month on its way to the Gulf, it simply disappeared off media radar screens like some classic "lost patrol."
Rest assured, unlike us, the Iranians have noticed. After all, with the arrival of the Nimitz battle group, the Bush administration will be -- for an unknown period of time -- in an optimal position to strike Iran with a punishing array of bombs and missiles should the President decide to carry out his oft-repeated threat to eliminate Iran's nuclear program through military action. "All options," as the administration loves to say, remain ominously "on the table."
Meanwhile, negotiations to resolve the impasse with Iran over its pursuit of uranium-enrichment technology -- a possible first step to the manufacture of nuclear weapons -- continue at the United Nations in New York and in various European capitals. So far, the Iranians have refused to give any ground, claiming that their activities are intended for peaceful uses only and so are permitted under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), of which it is a signatory. The United States has made vague promises of improved relations if and when Iran terminates its nuclear program, but the full burden of making initial concessions falls on Tehran.
Just this weekend, a conference in Egypt, called by Iraqi officials to explore regional approaches to stability in the region (with Iranian officials expected to be in attendance), was being viewed in Washington as yet another opportunity to pressure Tehran to be more submissive to the West's demands on a wide range of issues, including Iranian support for Shiite militias in Iraq.
President Bush keeps insisting that he would like to see these "diplomatic" endeavors -- as he describes them -- succeed, but he has yet to bring up a single proposal or incentive that might offer any realistic prospect of eliciting a positive Iranian response.
And so, knowing that his "diplomatic" efforts are almost certain to fail, Bush may simply be waiting for the day when he can announce to the American people that he has "tried everything"; that "his patience has run out"; and that he can "no longer risk the security of the American people" by "indulging in further fruitless negotiations," thereby allowing the Iranians "to proceed farther down the path of nuclear bomb-making," and so has taken the perilous but necessary step of ordering American forces to conduct air and missile strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. At that point, the 80 planes aboard the Nimitz -- and those on the Eisenhower and the Stennis as well -- will be on their way to targets in Iran, along with hundreds of TLAMs and a host of other weapons now being assembled in the Gulf.
Michael T. Klare is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and author of Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Dependency on Imported Petroleum.
Copyright 2007 Michael T. Klare
30 Comments so far
Show AllIt was such a relief when the British hostages were released I forgot about that I believe these evil people will attack Iran as the path to total power as most of the ground work has been laid. This is real fear.
Private banks: unscrupulous practices.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/venezuela/story/0,,2072649,00.html
BIG thirsty military beast with equally thirsty SUVs at home, equals itchy trigger finger, waiting to exploit any means necessary to satiate desire and place control of oil pool into hands of Pope Bush's god.
Maat, Best Wishes and Hope
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tk1vEuhBuEU
I think little Georgie has it backwards. It's the American people who have 'tried everything', whose 'patience has run out', and who realize that we can 'no longer risk the security of the American people' by leaving in power the psychopath in the White House.
zeitgeist,
Good poetry.
If you don't mind, can I work it a bit an take it down to my local coffee house poetry slam?
Imagine after the first jet fighters appear on the Iranian Mr. Radar, hundreds of supersonic anti ship missiles reach their targets before any US missile or fighter get to find its target. Hopefully there will be some TV crews around to film the end of the imperial flotilla. 50 thousand dead soldiers will justify the big one and a huge mushroom cloud will arise over Tehran. This time America will not be the only one who drops nukes on innocent people. Even though that statement is wrong. When the mushroom clouds rise over American cities, those nukes don't hit innocent people.
So it goes.
We've been subjected to continuous hysterical accusations aimed at Iran by those in our goverment/media who hate/fear that nation's growing independence.
They would have us believe that the first Iranian A-bomb off the assembly line will be dropped on Tel-Aviv, and the second handed over to Al-Qaeda to be smuggled into Washington D.C.
Not so. Despite Tehran's denials, I'm sure they want nuclear weapons, not just electric power. But their plan isn't to commit mutual suicide with Israel or the U.S. Their objective is to force our carriers to back off.
Aircraft carrier groups are very hard to sink with conventional weapons. They have sophisticated, multi-layered defense against aircraft and submarines. But a nuke on a medium-range ballistic missile is a very plausible threat.
And because the nuclear strike takes place at sea, with minimal collateral damage, it's very hard for the carrier group's government to threaten nuclear retaliation - against land targets - resulting in massive civilian casualties.
When Iran gets their nukes, The Persian Gulf and the north Indian Ocean will no longer be American "ponds"... an ugly prospect for the neo-imperialists.
So... Ask your Senator and congressman, "Why does our foreign policy rely on the use of aircraft carriers in the first place?"
We could jam one of those carriers up the presidents a~!@ ... im sure the size fits.
In 1282, the Sicilian Vespers put paid to another grand folly, the quest for a universal papal monarchy. A fleet was burned and dreams of conquest went up in smoke.
I have no doubt there are those in Iran who have read their history. I do doubt if there are many students of history in the Bush administration.
The USS Bonhomme Richard left San Diego recently "with a possibility of the Marines going to Iraq" (which is really close to Iran, no?)
That would make 4 US carriers (plus the French one taking over Afghanistan duties).
This article paints a grim picture for Iran. It assumes a country with 70 million people will lay on their backs and let Bush Co bomb them like he does Iraq.
The Persian Gulf is like a lake, with a narrow entrance and exit. In another view, one might lose the arrogance and look at these carriers for what they very quickly would become...sitting ducks for the anti-ship missiles most certainly supplied to Iran by Russia and China. And after Bush joined Syria at the hip with Iran, where will their missiles be pointed?
Jez, this is frightening! Doesn't even look like we have time for the impeachment and trials, let alone time to set up the guillotines that will be needed for the beheadings. S**t! I was really looking forward to that!
The insoluble riddle of western alliances has us tumbling from one disaster to the next.
Let the good times roll. Dr. Strangelove and Orwell coalesce into Armageddon in the 'nether worlds" - far far from 'our' 'gilded palaces and stately pleasure domes'.
Whoever said the meek shall inherit the earth .Its for the 'strong' ,the 'brave' and the 'dauntless' -hunched over flickering video monitors -unleashing those mushroom clouds at the push of a button...their jaws working incessantly- chewing gum.
you may be able to take out or damage a few carriers with cruse missiles. However you forget about what you cant see and that my friend is the submarines that are attached to each carried battle group. And they carry quite a few cruse missiles. And just think how the public could react to the loss of a few thousand sailors. One Trident Missile could destroy the whole country of Iran and the oil would still be usable. Think about that scenario !!!!
Did you all really think the "surge" is intended for Iraq?
course not, most will be sent into the oil fields of Iran whilst Bush bombs the rest of Iran into the stone age.
Hitler would be proud of him.
itsjustkarma has a good point. there are thousands of anti-ship missiles ringed around the Gulf, enough to take out the entire armada. All it would take is to drop a carrier or even a tanker, in the straits of Hormuz and no oil goes out of Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE and Saudi Arabia, in other words, most of the oil exported from the region by ship. The question is, are the carriers in the Persian Gulf? or outside the Strait? Cruise missiles and Jets have much longer range than shore batteries, the carriers could be sitting off in the Arabian Sea, off Pakistan and be out of retaliation space.
Either way, Klare's right. This is a very nervous time for anyone paying attention.
At least that nonsensical bullshit about "the goodness of America" will finally and forever be laid to rest. Small consolation.
I recently visited the beautiful city of San Diego and went for a cruise on the beautiful bay. The incredible view was ruined by the presence of a large number of hideously ugly warships - I made a passing remark referring to them as ``instruments of death and destruction'' and got into something of a stir - oh well long live free speech !
My Oh My, The good ol' Nimitz is 25 years old? Built about 1980? Would you go to a race with a twentyfive year old car or motorcycle? And everybody who has any interest in doing such a thing has had twentyfive years to figure out a way of reducing the effect of, if not destroying, these ships?
Somebody tell me about a war won by the technology and tactics of twentyfive years ago.
This should be good. We've seen the effectiveness of our land forces, now let's see what the Navy can do.
Suhail, if you can believe this, the marina in my town Bummertown, Warshington, USA proudly, yes lovingly displays the restored destroyer Turner Joy!
All the damage from the North Vietnamese torpedoes seems to have been repaired, and for $8 you can take a tour.
The frickin' Turner Joy! They're proud of this ship!
Have the u s troops no backbone to stand up to an inasane order as to launch another attack on a innocent nation?It is time they said no more, enough is enough.
Have the u s troops no backbone to stand up to an insane order as to launch another attack on a innocent nation?It is time they said no more, enough is enough.
Jeez, where to start. How about Suhail's 'instruments of death and destruction,' without which, of course, this nation could never be free enough to voice that opinion. Now, on to damien's 'no backbone' comment, you clearly have no idea how the military works. Democracy ends when you sign the papers to enlist. Can you imagine the effectiveness of a military that allows it's rank and file to make a personal choice as to which orders they will or will not follow? Now for Mooser's inane remarks about 25-year-old technology, have you a clue how much it costs to build an aircraft carrier? Do you propose we replace them every time we have a technological advance in the area of sea warfare? Or how about this for a novel idea? Suppose we get REALLY whacky and just UPDATE the carriers as needed, and not throw the whole billion dollar shell out every five years? Oops, sorry, we're already doing that. Jeez, it's tiring educating liberals. I'll be back.
If Bush decides to to go ahead with this insanity, the Americans should have another Boston Tea party, with a barrel of tar and a ton of feathers. If I could I would lead the group, even with my handicap. WW2 ole vet.
We want peace, but we haven't finished yet, if we attack Iran, Iraq's defence will collapse and voila, the new Middle East will emerge Ms Rice has envisaged.
Because; '...behind these woods there is the remnants of the resistance... encouraged to challenge me, I can't let them have hope!' from 'Eragon'.
What a clear and present danger!
It does not matter if conventional nukes are used or not in the inevitable but insane attack on Iran. The conventional missiles and other munitions used since 1991 are made of depleted uranium and the radioactive debris and dust from these weapons will never go away and slowly keep killing all people who come in contact. Global Population Control has always been a sinister and secret adgenda. Depleted uranium weapons allows the evil ones the nuclear strategy whilst proclaiming innocence to all and sundry.
US aircraft carriers can have a maximum of 2 jets, plus helos, ready to launch any minute. They can maintain several aircraft on combat air patrol (CAP) to protect the fleet. A large scale launch takes time, slowly building up the aerial force and maintaining their fuel via aerial tankers. Get the facts straight!
Otherwise, good article. The use of airpower against primarily civilian targets is the most outlandish example of the brutality and cowardice of the US military, and one of the main reasons why they hate us so much. Unfortunately, babykillers is an accurate description.
If Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) worked, wouldn't it be safer if Iran had nuclear weapons? If MAD is folly, shouldn't we work harder to disarm?
The 'war against Iran' rhetoric has its usefulness if there is no war--that is, it is used to justify the ongoing militarization of the federal government and US foreign policy and the expensive (but hugely profitable for some) occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan--and where it can get it, those proxy wars like in Somalia. It also helps justify subsidizing the Zionist abomination of Israel.
As a personality I consider Scott Ritter a total asshole. The tough guy ex-marine stuff puts me to sleep. But as a weapons inspector and Middle East observer with many contacts, he deserves attention. His new book, "Target Iran" spells out the origins and nature of our policy toward Iran and the likely outcome and consequences. It is not pretty. It is terrifying and infuriating.
The presence of three aircraft carriers within striking distance of Iran is not a mirage. It is the first and necesary step in an unfolding plan to attack Iran, possibly using nuclear weapons. Behind the scenes, David Wurmser and other AIPAC operatives are angling to make this holocaust a reality.
Read the book and watch your knuckles turn white.