US warship heads to Yemeni waters to intercept Iranian weapons shipments

[webfact]

US warship heads to Yemeni waters; could block Iran weapons
By LOLITA C. BALDOR

WASHINGTON (AP) — In a stepped-up response to Iranian backing of Shiite rebels in Yemen, the Navy aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt is steaming toward the waters off Yemen to beef up security and join other American ships that are prepared to intercept any Iranian vessels carrying weapons to the Houthi rebels.

The deployment comes after a U.N. Security Council resolution approved last week imposed an arms embargo on leaders of the Iranian-backed Shiite Houthi rebels. The resolution passed in a 14-0 vote with Russia abstaining.

Navy officials said Monday that the Roosevelt was moving through the Arabian Sea. A massive ship that carries F/A-18 fighter jets, the Roosevelt is seen more of a deterrent and show of force in the region.

The U.S. Navy has been beefing up its presence in the Gulf of Aden and the southern Arabian Sea in response to reports that a convoy of about eight Iranian ships is heading toward Yemen and possibly carrying arms for the Houthis. Navy officials said there are about nine U.S. warships in the region, including cruisers and destroyers carrying teams that can board and search other vessels.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the ship movement on the record.

Saudi Arabia and several of its allies, mainly Gulf Arab countries, have been trying to drive back the rebels, who seized the capital of Sanaa in September and have overrun many other northern provinces with the help of security forces loyal to former President Ali Abdullah Saleh. The U.S. supports the Saudi campaign.

Western governments and Sunni Arab countries say the Houthis get their arms from Iran. Tehran and the rebels deny that, although the Islamic Republic has provided political and humanitarian support to the Shiite group.

The U.S. has been providing logistical and intelligence support to the Saudi coalition launching airstrikes against the Houthis. That air campaign is now in its fourth week, and the U.S. has also begun refueling coalition aircraft involved in the conflict.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest would not comment specifically on any Navy movements in Yemeni waters, but said the U.S. has concerns about Iran's "continued support for the Houthis.

"We have seen evidence that the Iranians are supplying weapons and other armed support to the Houthis in Yemen. That support will only contribute to greater violence in that country. These are exactly the kind of destabilizing activities that we have in mind when we raise concerns about Iran's destabilizing activities in the Middle East."

He said, "The Iranians are acutely aware of our concerns for their continued support of the Houthis by sending them large shipments of weapons."

The expanded U.S. Navy activity in the region comes at a sensitive time, as the U.S. and six world powers have reached a framework deal with Iran to control its nuclear program. Since the preliminary deal with reached on April 2, Iran and the U.S. have been disputing the details of the deal. And on Monday, a lawyer for Tehran-based Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian said Tehran had charged Rezaian with espionage and three other crimes. The Obama administration dismisses the charges as "absurd."

The U.S. Navy generally conducts consensual boardings of ships when needed, including to combat piracy around Africa and the region. So far, however, U.S. naval personnel have not boarded any Iranian vessels since the Yemen conflict began.

Officials said it's too soon to speculate on what the Navy ships may do as the Iranian convoy approaches, including whether Iran would consent to a boarding request, and what actions the Navy would take if its request was refused.

Yemen, the Arab world's poorest country, has been pushed to the brink of collapse by ground fighting and the Saudi-led airstrikes in support of current President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi, who was forced to flee to Saudi Arabia. Observers say the fighting in the strategic Mideast nation is taking on the appearance of a proxy war between Iran, the Shiite powerhouse backing the Houthis, and Sunni-dominated Saudi Arabia.
___

Associated Press writers Jim Kuhnhenn in Washington and Ahmed al-Haj in Sanaa, Yemen, contributed to this report.


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-04-21

[bkkjames]

Since when do these carrier's go it alone? Its not one ship I imagine but a battlegroup of several ships including destroyers, frigates and nuclear subs.

[NeverSure]

Always.

[NeverSure]

"The U.S. Navy generally conducts consensual boardings of ships when needed, including to combat piracy around Africa and the region."

Right. Surround them with a carrier group and perhaps some other navy ships and ask for "consent." I hope Iran declines to give the consent.

This is Obama's best buddies who he has this great "understanding" with.

[oneday]

"...These are exactly the kind of destabilizing activities that we have in mind when we raise concerns about Iran's destabilizing activities in the Middle East..."

And this is the country silly Obama thinks he can deal with on Nuclear arms.

[ALLSEEINGEYE]

As for destabilizing the middle east, this was done when the US took out Iraq as they were the ones that kept Iran in check. The US single handedly destabilized the region. Most Arab countries in the region would agree.

"...These are exactly the kind of destabilizing activities that we have in mind when we raise concerns about Iran's destabilizing activities in the Middle East..."

And this is the country silly Obama thinks he can deal with on Nuclear arms.

[JingerBen]

As for destabilizing the middle east, this was done when the US took out Iraq as they were the ones that kept Iran in check. The US single handedly destabilized the region. Most Arab countries in the region would agree.

"...These are exactly the kind of destabilizing activities that we have in mind when we raise concerns about Iran's destabilizing activities in the Middle East..."

And this is the country silly Obama thinks he can deal with on Nuclear arms.

Exactly.

Iraq was the main force in the Mideast for containing Iran.

Now the most effective opposition is the Islamic State - and nobody wants to get in bed with them.

This whole mess comes under the rubric of "unintended consequences" resulting from the military adventures of the US and other western countries.

American foreign policy in the region has been a monumental failure.

[catweazle]

World police and clusterf(deleted) master generator of the universe in action again... Well, let's see how this one pans out. The outcome will most likely be (as always) an even more messed up world. Thank you, big brother for protecting us!

[NeverSure]

As for destabilizing the middle east, this was done when the US took out Iraq as they were the ones that kept Iran in check. The US single handedly destabilized the region. Most Arab countries in the region would agree.

"...These are exactly the kind of destabilizing activities that we have in mind when we raise concerns about Iran's destabilizing activities in the Middle East..."

And this is the country silly Obama thinks he can deal with on Nuclear arms.

Exactly.

Iraq was the main force in the Mideast for containing Iran.

Now the most effective opposition is the Islamic State - and nobody wants to get in bed with them.

This whole mess comes under the rubric of "unintended consequences" resulting from the military adventures of the US and other western countries.

American foreign policy in the region has been a monumental failure.

Uh, the UK supplied 1/3 of the troops for the Iraq invasion. Australia was there too. So were more than 20 other countries.

Tony Blair...

But do your revisionist history if it makes you feel better.

[NeverSure]

World police and clusterf(deleted) master generator of the universe in action again... Well, let's see how this one pans out. The outcome will most likely be (as always) an even more messed up world. Thank you, big brother for protecting us!

Uh, the UK supplied 1/3 of the troops for the Iraq invasion. Australia was there too. So were more than 20 other countries.

Tony Blair...

But do your revisionist history if it makes you feel better.

[otherstuff1957]

You'd think that we would have finally learned to stay out of other country's affairs, but NO! The US should just stay out of this and let SA and Iran work things out.

[Credo]

World police and clusterf(deleted) master generator of the universe in action again... Well, let's see how this one pans out. The outcome will most likely be (as always) an even more messed up world. Thank you, big brother for protecting us!

Uh, the UK supplied 1/3 of the troops for the Iraq invasion. Australia was there too. So were more than 20 other countries.

Tony Blair...

But do your revisionist history if it makes you feel better.

But the call to arms was lead by George W. and Co.

We have no way of knowing what would or wouldn't have happened had Iraq been left alone. There could be two nuclear powers by now or they could be in one of their long protracted wars.

The point is the World's Policeman has been backing off and so far it seems to be working well, if you like seeing a lot of regional struggles going on.

[ABCer]

Apparently the USS Theodore Roosevelt is armed with 64 giant copies of the agreement signed in Swiss waters.

The Iranians are already accusing USA in deliberately misinterpreting the terms of the agreement.

[geriatrickid]

The USN will most likely allow the arab navy vessels to intercept, board and search the Iranian ships. UAE, Saudi Arabia and Egypt have imposed an embargo on Yemen and have stated that they intend to stop any supply of weapons to the Houthi. Egypt just might do something as it is looking for a way to reassert its leadership in the region.

[NeverSure]

World police and clusterf(deleted) master generator of the universe in action again... Well, let's see how this one pans out. The outcome will most likely be (as always) an even more messed up world. Thank you, big brother for protecting us!

Uh, the UK supplied 1/3 of the troops for the Iraq invasion. Australia was there too. So were more than 20 other countries.

Tony Blair...

But do your revisionist history if it makes you feel better.

But the call to arms was lead by George W. and Co.

Long may the US be so powerful that it can tell the UK Parliament, Australia, and 20 other countries what to do.

[ezzra]

That will be a game change event when a US ship will intercept an Iranian arms carrying ship..

I would have like to be seagull in the air watching the event....

[hawker9000]

Since when do these carrier's go it alone? Its not one ship I imagine but a battlegroup of several ships including destroyers, frigates and nuclear subs.

Well, the article did say to "join other American ships that are prepared to intercept any Iranian vessels carrying weapons to the Houthi rebels." So there must already be some U.S. naval presence in place. There better be. There's been some moaning lately about Israel's "nuclear subs" (no such thing); well, Iran has three ex-Russian Kilo-class attack subs - some of the world's quietest diesel-electrics - and somewhere north of a dozen midget subs.

[bkkjames]

Since when do these carrier's go it alone? Its not one ship I imagine but a battlegroup of several ships including destroyers, frigates and nuclear subs.

Well, the article did say to "join other American ships that are prepared to intercept any Iranian vessels carrying weapons to the Houthi rebels." So there must already be some U.S. naval presence in place. There better be. There's been some moaning lately about Israel's "nuclear subs" (no such thing); well, Iran has three ex-Russian Kilo-class attack subs - some of the world's quietest diesel-electrics - and somewhere north of a dozen midget subs.

Yes but those in play already are not part of this carriers battle group are they?

[hawker9000]

Since when do these carrier's go it alone? Its not one ship I imagine but a battlegroup of several ships including destroyers, frigates and nuclear subs.

Well, the article did say to "join other American ships that are prepared to intercept any Iranian vessels carrying weapons to the Houthi rebels." So there must already be some U.S. naval presence in place. There better be. There's been some moaning lately about Israel's "nuclear subs" (no such thing); well, Iran has three ex-Russian Kilo-class attack subs - some of the world's quietest diesel-electrics - and somewhere north of a dozen midget subs.

Yes but those in play already are not part of this carriers battle group are they?

They need not be, mostly because they will be now... Same navy. Carriers do steam independently as well as in company with the group they might've worked up with, as well as with other units that might already be operating in a newly assigned AOR. Not that big a deal. Esp. nowadays. The USN hasn't been this small since just after WWI; there's no longer the luxury of immutable and ever-present battle groups. The CV will arrive; there'll be a commanders conference; the flag will issue some standing guidance; and everyone will begin standing by for instructions from the NCA.

[elgordo38]

"The U.S. Navy generally conducts consensual boardings of ships when needed, including to combat piracy around Africa and the region."

Right. Surround them with a carrier group and perhaps some other navy ships and ask for "consent." I hope Iran declines to give the consent.

This is Obama's best buddies who he has this great "understanding" with.

Geeze I think I need a program to tell which side OBama is on.

[elgordo38]

"...These are exactly the kind of destabilizing activities that we have in mind when we raise concerns about Iran's destabilizing activities in the Middle East..."

And this is the country silly Obama thinks he can deal with on Nuclear arms.

Its called Dancing With The Devil. Wait till the music stops.

[NeverSure]

Since when do these carrier's go it alone? Its not one ship I imagine but a battlegroup of several ships including destroyers, frigates and nuclear subs.

Well, the article did say to "join other American ships that are prepared to intercept any Iranian vessels carrying weapons to the Houthi rebels." So there must already be some U.S. naval presence in place. There better be. There's been some moaning lately about Israel's "nuclear subs" (no such thing); well, Iran has three ex-Russian Kilo-class attack subs - some of the world's quietest diesel-electrics - and somewhere north of a dozen midget subs.

That's what the destroyer in the carrier group is for - destroy subs. Iran doesn't have stealth subs and the destroyer would hear them from half-way around the world.

Yes, Israel has every way to deliver a nuke including from an underwater sub. It has five German Dolphin submarines with warheads on cruise missiles. Link

"What's more impressive than sharks with laser beams? Dolphins with nuclear missiles. And that's the newest member of Israel's navy. A Dolphin-class submarine, anyway." Link

Nuclear strike subs create a second strike capability which is a big deterrent to others.

[NeverSure]

Since when do these carrier's go it alone? Its not one ship I imagine but a battlegroup of several ships including destroyers, frigates and nuclear subs.

Well, the article did say to "join other American ships that are prepared to intercept any Iranian vessels carrying weapons to the Houthi rebels." So there must already be some U.S. naval presence in place. There better be. There's been some moaning lately about Israel's "nuclear subs" (no such thing); well, Iran has three ex-Russian Kilo-class attack subs - some of the world's quietest diesel-electrics - and somewhere north of a dozen midget subs.

Yes but those in play already are not part of this carriers battle group are they?

No. These carriers travel in carrier groups for protection and additional strike capability. There's even a nuclear sub in the mix which I think is center bottom of pic.

Edited April 21, 2015 by NeverSure

[chuckd]

The USS Theodore Roosevelt is part of Carrier Strike Force 12.

On their last deployment, the group consisted of three Arleigh Burke class destroyers, one Ticonderoga class guided missile cruiser and several other support ships, to include nuclear powered subs and at least one mine sweep. Most strike/battle groups consist of anywhere from 15 to 20 ships.

The Roosevelt has some 90 aircraft at their disposal.

It is no small undertaking.

My guess is the ships that are there now were pre-positioned and not part of the strike group.

Edit in to add the US ships there now are probably part of the pirate patrol work going on in that part of the world.

Edited April 21, 2015 by chuckd

[simple1]

You'd think that we would have finally learned to stay out of other country's affairs, but NO! The US should just stay out of this and let SA and Iran work things out.

Leaving matters to a proxy war between KSA & Iran, don't think so. Making an assumptive statement US involvement is to protect a globally strategic sea trade route that would be threatened if an Iranian proxy government gained power in Yemen.

Edited April 21, 2015 by simple1

[Chicog]

"...These are exactly the kind of destabilizing activities that we have in mind when we raise concerns about Iran's destabilizing activities in the Middle East..."

And this is the country silly Obama thinks he can deal with on Nuclear arms.

I'm afraid if you do just a smidgin of research you will find the collapse of Yemen probably lays firmly at the feet of the US for propping up a dictator who would routinely shell or shoot his own people and who ironically enough is now on the US terrorist list for colluding with the same rebels the US is now helping Saudi to attack. Frankly if Iran wants to take over Yemen then let them have it, if you read the full article below it is an absolute mess already and going only in one direction.

The previous government of Abdullah Saleh was effectively toppled under popular protests in 2011, which forced Saleh to hand over the reigns of power to his vice-president, Mansour Hadi. But Saleh, now blacklisted by Washington for sponsoring “terrorism” and “destabilising” Yemen by conspiring with the Houthis, was a staunch US ally, who even voluntarily took the blame for US drone strikes in the country, which have killed large numbers of civilians.

Saleh saw his main task as consolidating state coffers at the expense of the rest of Yemen, and deploying overwhelming indiscriminate military force to put down popular rebellions.

Throughout his rule, Saleh was supported by tens of millions of dollars in US aid annually – which reached a height of $176 million for military training and counter-terrorism assistance in 2010.

Yet as documented by groups like Human Rights Watch (HRW), US military aid was used to ruthlessly crush secessionist and opposition movements. Massive aerial bombardment and artillery shelling regularly inflicted consistently “high civilian casualties,” according to HRW. Government forces routinely opened fire on unarmed protestors years before 2011, usually “without warning” and from short-range.

http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/yemen-s-collapse-taste-things-come-456530551

[Chicog]

You'd think that we would have finally learned to stay out of other country's affairs, but NO! The US should just stay out of this and let SA and Iran work things out.

Leaving matters to a proxy war between KSA & Iran, don't think so. Making an assumptive statement US involvement is to protect a globally strategic sea trade route that would be threatened if an Iranian proxy government gained power in Yemen.

And that's an old wives tale, the US has the firepower to scorch the earth 100 miles either side of the Hormuz or Bab-el-Mandab straits without ever setting foot on the ground.

Realistically Yemen is a threat to Oman and Saudi and no-one else.

(You could argue that it's a threat to the Horn of Africa, but I don't think even Iran would get much joy going into that lawless s--thole).

[chuckd]

It is certainly refreshing to know some posters don't seem to think Iran has a role in or any responsibility for the action in Yemen.

Blaming the US for all of it is so much more "today".

[Chicog]

*Removed Post edited out*

I don't know if you had any comment there UG but it didn't appear.

What I would say is that pretty well every single person I spoke to, Arab or expat, knew that taking out Saddam was going to create a civil war in Iraq and empower Iran in the region.

What we probably didn't anticipate was the rise of IS, which may have been containable if Syria hadn't gone tits up.

Edited April 21, 2015 by Scott

[Jingthing]

Intercepting shipments.

Hmm.

Sounds a bit like war to me.