US warship heads to Yemeni waters to intercept Iranian weapons shipments

[Chicog]

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".

Chuck you need to take off those rose-coloured glasses mate.

You may not like the fact that Iran has taken over the job of arming the Houthi from the US, but it's just the way it is. You shouldn't trust all these dictators you keep putting in power; they damned well don't trust you any more.

If you actually read the article, the US are probably doing well to get out of it.

The place is going to collapse like a clown's car in the near future.

[Publicus]

Looks like a little old-fashioned gunboat diplomacy can go a long way even in these times. Let's see what Tehran may mean by making this statement within the past hour.

The CVN T.R. Roosevelt btw is steaming with one accompanying escort, the missile cruiser Normandy, which is really all it needs in this circumstance. It could use a destroyer too but the Normandy can effectively engage a dozen or more targets simultaneously in the air, on the sea or undersea. We don't need as many ships as we used to need, or want. The smaller Navy = more firepower than the WW2 Navy.

Iran sees Yemen ceasefire in coming hours: Tasnim news agency

• REUTERS

• 23 MINUTES AGO

DUBAI (Reuters) - Iran's deputy foreign minister said he was optimistic that a ceasefire in the Yemen conflict would be announced later on Tuesday, the Iranian Tasnim news agency reported.

"We are optimistic that in the coming hours, after many efforts, we will see a halt to military attacks in Yemen," Hossein Amir Abdollahian was quoted as saying by Tasnim.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/r-iran-sees-yemen-ceasefire-in-coming-hours-tasnim-news-agency-2015-4#ixzz3XvyJDkgx

[ALLSEEINGEYE]

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.

Uh do you remember George Bush's infamous rally cry "if you're not with us, you're against us"??? All the while feeding misinformation to the world and his own people about WMDs!!!

Maybe you need to look a bit closer at history too??

[Publicus]

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.

Uh do you remember George Bush's infamous rally cry "if you're not with us, you're against us"??? All the while feeding misinformation to the world and his own people about WMDs!!!

Maybe you need to look a bit closer at history too??

Barack Obama is president so we're not invading anyone, not now, not soon.

This is old-fashioned gunboat diplomacy, even using the carrier Theodore Roosevelt, the 'Rough Riders' Colonel who as President said to speak softly but carry a big stick, the guy who sent the USNavy on a world cruise of port calls.

When the Roosevelt and its escort missile cruiser Normandy arrive on scene, the US will have 9000 Navy and Marines deployed.

The Roosevelt and the Normandy join at least seven other Navy combat ships in the area.

USS Theodore Roosevelt CVN 71

The U.S. has deployed the destroyers USS Forrest Sherman and USS Winston Churchill, two minesweepers — the USS Sentry and USS Dextrous — and three amphibious ships — the USS Iwo Jima, USS New York and USS Fort McHenry — according to the Navy. A dry cargo ship, the USNS Charles Drew, is also in the region.

"In recent days, the U.S. Navy has increased its presence in this area as a result of the current instability in Yemen," said a Navy statement on Monday.

USS Normandy CG 60

"The purpose of these operations is to ensure the vital shipping lanes in the region remain open and safe. The United States remains committed to its regional partners and to maintaining security in the maritime environment," it said.

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/239416-us-sends-aircraft-carrier-to-yemeni-waters

Edited April 21, 2015 by Publicus

[Chicog]

Not a lot of point having 9000 marines at sea when the war is on the ground. And best stay out of it or has no lesson been learned from Afghanistan? Enough pointless body bags already surely?

[Scott]

Off-topic post removed.

[Publicus]

Not a lot of point having 9000 marines at sea when the war is on the ground. And best stay out of it or has no lesson been learned from Afghanistan? Enough pointless body bags already surely?

This is gunboat diplomacy dude similar to that practiced by Pres Theodore Roosevelt.

Do keep in mind no one is invading anyone, that the 9000 are Navy and Marines not only one exclusively, none of 'em have engaged in combat at this point as they are in support of the Arab force that is doing the heavy lifting for a radical change to regional policing, that building the canal in Panama got finished a hundred years ago and that the canal has belonged to Panama for going on 40 years.

USS Theodore Roosevelt CVN 71

Iran is trying to slip one through here while the nuclear negotiations are still cooking and a deal remains not yet a deal. So Washington needs to throw a bucket of cold water in their face to set them right, which is what is happening.

The US as world cop is no longer the case and we are in fact supporting Arab Sunni allies and partners in the region to police their own region. That they need to be weaned off the US role as world cop is not the problem of the US. This is all a part of that process.

So here as a reality check is what the Arab Sunnis are doing....

Louis Martin-Vézian and Evan CentanniOperation Resolute Storm

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/us-warships-to-intercept-iranian-arms-shipments-2015-4#ixzz3XwITqevF

Edited April 21, 2015 by Publicus

[Steely Dan]

Looks like a little old-fashioned gunboat diplomacy can go a long way even in these times. Let's see what Tehran may mean by making this statement within the past hour.

The CVN T.R. Roosevelt btw is steaming with one accompanying escort, the missile cruiser Normandy, which is really all it needs in this circumstance. It could use a destroyer too but the Normandy can effectively engage a dozen or more targets simultaneously in the air, on the sea or undersea. We don't need as many ships as we used to need, or want. The smaller Navy = more firepower than the WW2 Navy.

Iran sees Yemen ceasefire in coming hours: Tasnim news agency

• REUTERS

• 23 MINUTES AGO

DUBAI (Reuters) - Iran's deputy foreign minister said he was optimistic that a ceasefire in the Yemen conflict would be announced later on Tuesday, the Iranian Tasnim news agency reported.

"We are optimistic that in the coming hours, after many efforts, we will see a halt to military attacks in Yemen," Hossein Amir Abdollahian was quoted as saying by Tasnim.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/r-iran-sees-yemen-ceasefire-in-coming-hours-tasnim-news-agency-2015-4#ixzz3XvyJDkgx

So what If Iran backs down temporarily to take a more circuitous route, much as a mosquito does. The Iranians have no intention whatsoever to stop destabilizing the region or stop supporting terrorism. The last thing they want is a showdown with the U.S in case Israel see it as an opportunity to deal with Iran's nuclear weapons program.

[Publicus]

Looks like a little old-fashioned gunboat diplomacy can go a long way even in these times. Let's see what Tehran may mean by making this statement within the past hour.

The CVN T.R. Roosevelt btw is steaming with one accompanying escort, the missile cruiser Normandy, which is really all it needs in this circumstance. It could use a destroyer too but the Normandy can effectively engage a dozen or more targets simultaneously in the air, on the sea or undersea. We don't need as many ships as we used to need, or want. The smaller Navy = more firepower than the WW2 Navy.

Iran sees Yemen ceasefire in coming hours: Tasnim news agency

• REUTERS

• 23 MINUTES AGO

DUBAI (Reuters) - Iran's deputy foreign minister said he was optimistic that a ceasefire in the Yemen conflict would be announced later on Tuesday, the Iranian Tasnim news agency reported.

"We are optimistic that in the coming hours, after many efforts, we will see a halt to military attacks in Yemen," Hossein Amir Abdollahian was quoted as saying by Tasnim.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/r-iran-sees-yemen-ceasefire-in-coming-hours-tasnim-news-agency-2015-4#ixzz3XvyJDkgx

So what If Iran backs down temporarily to take a more circuitous route, much as a mosquito does. The Iranians have no intention whatsoever to stop destabilizing the region or stop supporting terrorism. The last thing they want is a showdown with the U.S in case Israel see it as an opportunity to deal with Iran's nuclear weapons program.

Mosquitoes buzzing about would be more of a situation normal.

Simply get out more of the mosquito incense burners and light 'em to keep driving off the bugs.

Reuters reported Iran suddenly has announced an end to hostilities in Yemen will occur today. Everyone knows we can't trust 'em on this or the nuclear negotiations so they're not fooling anybody. Let this develop to see what Tehran is babbling about at the moment.

Meantime this is a high profile Navies and ships at sea coming soon kind of miniature Cuban Crisis of 1962, but this one involves less immediate stakes compared to back then. If the Iranian ships turn around or they get boarded off Yemen, then Tehran will have put its miserable judgements and dead wrong calculations on global display. I'm not too concerned about how this is developing at this point and foreseeably

Sending our Navy there and now, along with the terms and condition of the nuclear Framework (interim) Agreement not yet signed, shows our allies and partners in the region we haven't gone anywhere nor will we be clearing out our lockers at any time going forward. We will in fact be adding lockers.

[Sealbash]

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.

Uh do you remember George Bush's infamous rally cry "if you're not with us, you're against us"??? All the while feeding misinformation to the world and his own people about WMDs!!!

Maybe you need to look a bit closer at history too??

Does the UK, France, et al not also have adequate intelligence gathering?

[Chicog]

Still no-one has yet mentioned that Sanaa could become the first world capital to run out of water (along with the rest of the country).

Who's going to be their saviour then?

It won't be Iran.

[Publicus]

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!

This one is for the Navy to resolve, not the Army in some screwed up country full of roadside bombs and run by warlords and corrupt treacherous sleazebags.

Navy doesn't have to take any hill or hold any village, or have to please some nutcase 'president' in the guy's strange and foreign land where suicide bombers walk up to you where ever you are.

Navy has its challenges and vulnerabilities as well as its strengths, but it's just plainly and simply not the Army with its land warfare and in-country political headaches. The Navy and the Air Force have the focus of the Pentagon's military strategies going forward, and have already been moved to the forefront as the core of the new AirSea Battle Doctrine of US military forces.

Pacific-Asia-India Theater commander in chief Admiral Locklear and two other admirals are on Prez Obama's shortlist to become new JCS chairman later this year, along with an Army general and an Air Force one. Admiral Locklear's scheduled retirement has been placed on hold by SecDef Ash Carter in the leadup to Carter's recommendation to the prez.

The carrier Theodore Roosevent is the flagship of Carrier Strike Group 12 and all the ships currently on station are assigned to Group 12 at the 5th Fleet which is headquartered just around the corner (as an Army guy would say) from Yemen..

I'd rather doubt Iran wants to be the first test case of the AirSea Battle Doctrine.

[NeverSure]

Does the UK, France, et al not also have adequate intelligence gathering?

"Does the UK, France, et al not also have adequate intelligence gathering?"

There's certainly never been any evidence of it.

[wooloomooloo]

What's new? My dad was in Aden in the '60s fighting arabs. Nice to see that nothing's changed.

[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.

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.

Iran has three Kilo-class subs. The next best thing to "stealth" subs. Extremely quiet.

Not sure the older/original Dolphin-class (i.e., not the Dolphin II) can carry the nuclear-tipped cruise missiles ... yet. (That's despite reports available on the internet - 'not really always the last word in journalism ... or accuracy) But if not, I'm sure the refitting is either already underway or soon to be.

U.S. ASW consists of more than surface combatants and the surface combatants have much more than ASW capability.

=========================

Things could get very interesting if Iran should think to stage a running of the blockade with its naval vessels. The more likely scenario (IMO) is that the bulk of the weapons & other material Iran is trying to get to the Houthis are actually on commercial vessels. (Those waters are heavily trafficked shipping lanes.) Should one of them ignore the order to stop & be boarded, and try to run the blockade, is Obama really prepared to fire on it? My fear is that HE thinks a blockade consists of mere presence, and doesn't quite understand he's actually just drawn another red line and may very well be called upon to enforce it, or climb down (again).

The latest news is that there's a 9-ship convoy (no naval vessels in company) moving at about 5K still in international waters off Yemen, thought to be bound for Aden, with the TR group shadowing it. Stay tuned, sports fans.

[ScarpoFongness4U]

I've read reports on Debka that state US F18A hornets are already circling above the Iranian ships and are shadowing them as we speak

They will know if any offloading of arms to commercial ships take place

Earlier reports had Egyptian navy firing on Iranian vessels and chasing them away, which instigated this new mini armada

Iran likely didnt expect to encounter the us navy in this theater as they calculate Kerry and Obama to be idiots, small time and the us foreign policy group, rank amateur or as Obama once phrasedz the JV team

Obama doesn't run the US Navy, and the US Navy runs the world

History has the Egyptian army ensnared in yemen in the 60's and Sadat even called it his Vietnam

Egypt relies on the Saudi now to prop up their economy

The Muslim brotherhood just saw their their Egyptian leader sentenced to 20 years,

War is afoot everywhere in the region and if you subscribe to condalezza rices view of the Arab world, Iran was always the target, but Iraq had to be destroyed first, and then ISIS created from the ashes of the Iraqi general staff, to then become our proxy or, our new Saddam

And to the people who complain about the us being the big bully, allow me to digress a little in history and bring up things like the British India Tea company, and the British china opium wars and the Act of 1871 which established the us as a corporation wholly owned by the same banking family which owned England and of course France

The Louisiana purchase wasn't a purchase

It was the exchange of land owned by France to pay its war debt to, the same family that now owns America and England, and for good measure, Israel

I know these things as my family name from one of the old countries is Roth, And from another is Greenspan

[Publicus]

The US Navy is there for intelligence gathering, backup and support.

The United States Navy won't be firing on any unarmed Iranian or any other unarmed boats or unarmed craft of any unarmed kind....as in unarmed. The armed forces of the United States are not going to fire on anything unarmed over there.

This is anyway an Arab Sunni coalition undertaking and it is for them to act if action is necessary. The Arabs would have all the intelligence they need and all the firepower they can handle, but a little surrounding and ramming action against any ship(s) that might try to run the blockade would likely be the most the right wing warmongers could expect for their thrills, chills and glories of the moment.

The whole of it is backed by the 14-0-1 vote of the UN Security Council last week against Iran transporting, delivering, arms to Yemen. While Russia still could not bring itself to vote at the UNSC for the resolution, at least it did not vote against. Beijing did manage to vote with the good guys and has had a couple of ships in the area but to check piracy only.

[mania]

The whole of it is backed by the 14-0-1 vote of the UN Security Council last week against Iran transporting, delivering, arms to Yemen. While Russia still could not bring itself to vote at the UNSC for the resolution, at least it did not vote against. Beijing did manage to vote with the good guys and has had a couple of ships in the area but to check piracy only.

This means little to me having seen the same security council swayed in various directions by certain select strong members over & over again.

You say "vote with the good guys" Personally I am long past knowing the good guys from the bad.

They just use different terminology. The supposedly good guys constantly destabilize the ME thru their actions whether it be with drones that answer to none

or arming factions....But instead of calling them what they are they are labeled "rebels" fighting the good fight eh? Much like the "freedom fighters" who later earned the

other name/label?

It is all a joke of control...knocking down the governments who will not deal with the "good guys" & dictating to those countries what will be.

But usually what will be can now be seen in countries like Libya, Iraq etc after the "good guys" helped the rebels

Bunch of BS...........One can the other cannot. Maybe Iran should send ships to block intercept the next US shipment of arms to what ever group they are supporting.

None send more weapons to more places that are then later controlled by rebels & are a true mess than the US

One big terrorist group near Iran sticks out & gets theirs from the US...Maybe block that next handout? Oh wait....do we need a vote on that?

Meh..............Last one leaving please turn out the lights as these groups are all the same

& hell bent on the destabilization of areas in the hopes of later controlling them

Edited April 22, 2015 by mania

[Grouse]

Instead of sending the "Big Stick" what about sending a "big brain" for a change.

KSA seems to have stopped the fight now.

Let's have some real diplomacy instead of this my willie is bigger than yours nonsense

Personally, Iran is a much more attractive bed fellow than KSA.

Now's the time for some intelligent diplomacy.

[Chicog]

Obama doesn't run the US Navy, and the US Navy runs the world

Well actually he does, that's why his job title is "Commander-in-Chief".

But don't let little things like facts get in your way, eh?

[hawker9000]

The US Navy is there for intelligence gathering, backup and support.

The United States Navy won't be firing on any unarmed Iranian or any other unarmed boats or unarmed craft of any unarmed kind....as in unarmed. The armed forces of the United States are not going to fire on anything unarmed over there.

This is anyway an Arab Sunni coalition undertaking and it is for them to act if action is necessary. The Arabs would have all the intelligence they need and all the firepower they can handle, but a little surrounding and ramming action against any ship(s) that might try to run the blockade would likely be the most the right wing warmongers could expect for their thrills, chills and glories of the moment.

The whole of it is backed by the 14-0-1 vote of the UN Security Council last week against Iran transporting, delivering, arms to Yemen. While Russia still could not bring itself to vote at the UNSC for the resolution, at least it did not vote against. Beijing did manage to vote with the good guys and has had a couple of ships in the area but to check piracy only.

The US Navy doesn't typically use nuclear aircraft carriers for "intelligence gathering, backup and support". The idea is laughable. A single cruiser could accomplish that. 'Course what the moron-in-chief might decide to do with them is anybody's guess.

But another masterful attempt at spin notwithstanding, you may well be right, and Obama is really not prepared to enforce any embargo or board any Iranian ships. If so, it'll just be another one of his silly red lines that leaves the world laughing, the Iranians overjoyed at having successfully called yet another Obama bluff, and the conflict in Yemen ratcheted up another degree. According to most of the news updates I'm seeing, this convoy is about to cross into Yemeni waters - the moment of truth for Barry O. If these commercial vessels are able to successfully deliver arms, it'll be a(nother) major debacle. No loss of credibility for Obama though: he can't lose what he doesn't have.

Quite a contrast to Khrushchev's taking JFK seriously enough to turn HIS ships around back in '62. Obama has worked remarkably hard to earn his complete lack of credibility, and those chickens may well be coming home to roost right now.

[Publicus]

The US Navy is there for intelligence gathering, backup and support.

The United States Navy won't be firing on any unarmed Iranian or any other unarmed boats or unarmed craft of any unarmed kind....as in unarmed. The armed forces of the United States are not going to fire on anything unarmed over there.

This is anyway an Arab Sunni coalition undertaking and it is for them to act if action is necessary. The Arabs would have all the intelligence they need and all the firepower they can handle, but a little surrounding and ramming action against any ship(s) that might try to run the blockade would likely be the most the right wing warmongers could expect for their thrills, chills and glories of the moment.

The whole of it is backed by the 14-0-1 vote of the UN Security Council last week against Iran transporting, delivering, arms to Yemen. While Russia still could not bring itself to vote at the UNSC for the resolution, at least it did not vote against. Beijing did manage to vote with the good guys and has had a couple of ships in the area but to check piracy only.

The US Navy doesn't typically use nuclear aircraft carriers for "intelligence gathering, backup and support". The idea is laughable. A single cruiser could accomplish that. 'Course what the moron-in-chief might decide to do with them is anybody's guess.

But another masterful attempt at spin notwithstanding, you may well be right, and Obama is really not prepared to enforce any embargo or board any Iranian ships. If so, it'll just be another one of his silly red lines that leaves the world laughing, the Iranians overjoyed at having successfully called yet another Obama bluff, and the conflict in Yemen ratcheted up another degree. According to most of the news updates I'm seeing, this convoy is about to cross into Yemeni waters - the moment of truth for Barry O. If these commercial vessels are able to successfully deliver arms, it'll be a(nother) major debacle. No loss of credibility for Obama though: he can't lose what he doesn't have.

Quite a contrast to Khrushchev's taking JFK seriously enough to turn HIS ships around back in '62. Obama has worked remarkably hard to earn his complete lack of credibility, and those chickens may well be coming home to roost right now.

Right wing warmonger Obama hating spam.

This is US gunboat diplomacy in support of the Arab Sunni coalition led by the Saudis. It's the Arab Sunni show, not the obligation or the imposition of the United States. Anyone would be hard pressed to show how or why the United States Navy would fire on ships either unarmed, simply transiting, or trying to run the blockade. For the president to pull the trigger, the Iranians would need to fire first and to do it with meaning, malace, purpose.

I'd mentioned surround and ram as the realistic alternative to attack and blast.

The US Navy doesn't typically use nuclear aircraft carriers for "intelligence gathering, backup and support". The idea is laughable. A single cruiser could accomplish that. 'Course what the moron-in-chief might decide to do with them is anybody's guess.

The statement in the post denies the reality of it, i.e., the US Navy is in fact using a nuclear powered aircraft carrier for "intelligence gathering, backup and support." As pointed out by your posts, aircraft from the Theodore Roosevent are overhead the slowly crawling Iranian frigates and freighters observing their every trip to the head (when the Iranians on board aren't already shitting their pants which is also recorded from above (and probably from undersea).

The post has too many ifs, ands, buts, not to mention 'will be' and another statement of this sort of blah blah blah, that "this convoy is about to cross into Yemeni waters". Let's instead keep our heads to talk about and discuss what is happening or not happening, not what anyone around here thinks is "about to" happen based admittedly on "most of the news updates I'm seeing."

The only red line that needs to be drawn around here is when the anti-Obama hysteria exceeds the anti-Iran hysteria.

[hawker9000]

The US Navy is there for intelligence gathering, backup and support.

The United States Navy won't be firing on any unarmed Iranian or any other unarmed boats or unarmed craft of any unarmed kind....as in unarmed. The armed forces of the United States are not going to fire on anything unarmed over there.

This is anyway an Arab Sunni coalition undertaking and it is for them to act if action is necessary. The Arabs would have all the intelligence they need and all the firepower they can handle, but a little surrounding and ramming action against any ship(s) that might try to run the blockade would likely be the most the right wing warmongers could expect for their thrills, chills and glories of the moment.

The whole of it is backed by the 14-0-1 vote of the UN Security Council last week against Iran transporting, delivering, arms to Yemen. While Russia still could not bring itself to vote at the UNSC for the resolution, at least it did not vote against. Beijing did manage to vote with the good guys and has had a couple of ships in the area but to check piracy only.

The US Navy doesn't typically use nuclear aircraft carriers for "intelligence gathering, backup and support". The idea is laughable. A single cruiser could accomplish that. 'Course what the moron-in-chief might decide to do with them is anybody's guess.

But another masterful attempt at spin notwithstanding, you may well be right, and Obama is really not prepared to enforce any embargo or board any Iranian ships. If so, it'll just be another one of his silly red lines that leaves the world laughing, the Iranians overjoyed at having successfully called yet another Obama bluff, and the conflict in Yemen ratcheted up another degree. According to most of the news updates I'm seeing, this convoy is about to cross into Yemeni waters - the moment of truth for Barry O. If these commercial vessels are able to successfully deliver arms, it'll be a(nother) major debacle. No loss of credibility for Obama though: he can't lose what he doesn't have.

Quite a contrast to Khrushchev's taking JFK seriously enough to turn HIS ships around back in '62. Obama has worked remarkably hard to earn his complete lack of credibility, and those chickens may well be coming home to roost right now.

Right wing warmonger Obama hating spam.

This is US gunboat diplomacy in support of the Arab Sunni coalition led by the Saudis. It's the Arab Sunni show, not the obligation or the imposition of the United States. Anyone would be hard pressed to show how or why the United States Navy would fire on ships either unarmed, simply transiting, or trying to run the blockade. For the president to pull the trigger, the Iranians would need to fire first and to do it with meaning, malace, purpose.

I'd mentioned surround and ram as the realistic alternative to attack and blast.

The US Navy doesn't typically use nuclear aircraft carriers for "intelligence gathering, backup and support". The idea is laughable. A single cruiser could accomplish that. 'Course what the moron-in-chief might decide to do with them is anybody's guess.

The statement in the post denies the reality of it, i.e., the US Navy is in fact using a nuclear powered aircraft carrier for "intelligence gathering, backup and support." As pointed out by your posts, aircraft from the Theodore Roosevent are overhead the slowly crawling Iranian frigates and freighters observing their every trip to the head (when the Iranians on board aren't already shitting their pants which is also recorded from above (and probably from undersea).

The post has too many ifs, ands, buts, not to mention 'will be' and another statement of this sort of blah blah blah, that "this convoy is about to cross into Yemeni waters". Let's instead keep our heads to talk about and discuss what is happening or not happening, not what anyone around here thinks is "about to" happen based admittedly on "most of the news updates I'm seeing."

The only red line that needs to be drawn around here is when the anti-Obama hysteria exceeds the anti-Iran hysteria.

Well, Admiral, here's a link to an Associated Press report, appearing on the military.com website:

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/04/20/us-warship-sent-to-block-iran-weapons-off-yemen.html?ESRC=navy-a.nl

Noting that "The deployment comes after a U.N. Security Council resolution approved last week imposed an arms embargo on the Iranian-backed Shiite Houthi rebels. The resolution passed in a 14-0 vote with Russia abstaining.", just exactly how do overflights of the freighters by F-18s "observing their every trip to the head" (your idea of "intelligence gathering" I guess, lol) actually provide any enforcement or support of said U.N. resolution? Obviously, about the same as a Blue Angels airshow back in the States. None.

Also noting that "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.", just what kind of support for the Houthis does a failure to board and inspect, and instead allowing said freighters to continue to port unmolested to offload their cargos, constitute? Answer: all possible; the Houthis and Iran must be very grateful at the prospect of the U.S. Navy virtually escorting these freighters instead of interdicting them!

Finally noting that "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.", it's pretty obvious Obama is backing away from even attempting to do with respect to THIS enforcement action what is accepted as a matter or practice with others. He THOUGHT he could have some impact by merely sending ships, but is in a dither now that Iran, sooooo predictably, just continues to give him the finger (which I expect he's quite used to by now, particularly where Iran is concerned; quite a strange way to execute the office...).

But keep up that leftist lunatic anti-Obama conspiracy spin, Admiral. Bear a hand and keep that propaganda ship afloat! You did leave out the part about anyone criticizing him being a racist. Tsk, tsk. The central committee won't like that.

'Sure beats the funny papers.

Edited April 22, 2015 by hawker9000

[MaxYakov]

The US Navy is there for intelligence gathering, backup and support.

The United States Navy won't be firing on any unarmed Iranian or any other unarmed boats or unarmed craft of any unarmed kind....as in unarmed. The armed forces of the United States are not going to fire on anything unarmed over there.

This is anyway an Arab Sunni coalition undertaking and it is for them to act if action is necessary. The Arabs would have all the intelligence they need and all the firepower they can handle, but a little surrounding and ramming action against any ship(s) that might try to run the blockade would likely be the most the right wing warmongers could expect for their thrills, chills and glories of the moment.

The whole of it is backed by the 14-0-1 vote of the UN Security Council last week against Iran transporting, delivering, arms to Yemen. While Russia still could not bring itself to vote at the UNSC for the resolution, at least it did not vote against. Beijing did manage to vote with the good guys and has had a couple of ships in the area but to check piracy only.

The US Navy doesn't typically use nuclear aircraft carriers for "intelligence gathering, backup and support". The idea is laughable. A single cruiser could accomplish that. 'Course what the moron-in-chief might decide to do with them is anybody's guess.

But another masterful attempt at spin notwithstanding, you may well be right, and Obama is really not prepared to enforce any embargo or board any Iranian ships. If so, it'll just be another one of his silly red lines that leaves the world laughing, the Iranians overjoyed at having successfully called yet another Obama bluff, and the conflict in Yemen ratcheted up another degree. According to most of the news updates I'm seeing, this convoy is about to cross into Yemeni waters - the moment of truth for Barry O. If these commercial vessels are able to successfully deliver arms, it'll be a(nother) major debacle. No loss of credibility for Obama though: he can't lose what he doesn't have.

Quite a contrast to Khrushchev's taking JFK seriously enough to turn HIS ships around back in '62. Obama has worked remarkably hard to earn his complete lack of credibility, and those chickens may well be coming home to roost right now.

Right wing warmonger Obama hating spam.

This is US gunboat diplomacy in support of the Arab Sunni coalition led by the Saudis. It's the Arab Sunni show, not the obligation or the imposition of the United States. Anyone would be hard pressed to show how or why the United States Navy would fire on ships either unarmed, simply transiting, or trying to run the blockade. For the president to pull the trigger, the Iranians would need to fire first and to do it with meaning, malace, purpose.

I'd mentioned surround and ram as the realistic alternative to attack and blast.

The US Navy doesn't typically use nuclear aircraft carriers for "intelligence gathering, backup and support". The idea is laughable. A single cruiser could accomplish that. 'Course what the moron-in-chief might decide to do with them is anybody's guess.

The statement in the post denies the reality of it, i.e., the US Navy is in fact using a nuclear powered aircraft carrier for "intelligence gathering, backup and support." As pointed out by your posts, aircraft from the Theodore Roosevent are overhead the slowly crawling Iranian frigates and freighters observing their every trip to the head (when the Iranians on board aren't already shitting their pants which is also recorded from above (and probably from undersea).

The post has too many ifs, ands, buts, not to mention 'will be' and another statement of this sort of blah blah blah, that "this convoy is about to cross into Yemeni waters". Let's instead keep our heads to talk about and discuss what is happening or not happening, not what anyone around here thinks is "about to" happen based admittedly on "most of the news updates I'm seeing."

The only red line that needs to be drawn around here is when the anti-Obama hysteria exceeds the anti-Iran hysteria.

Well, Admiral, here's a link to an Associated Press report, appearing on the military.com website:

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/04/20/us-warship-sent-to-block-iran-weapons-off-yemen.html?ESRC=navy-a.nl

Noting that "The deployment comes after a U.N. Security Council resolution approved last week imposed an arms embargo on the Iranian-backed Shiite Houthi rebels. The resolution passed in a 14-0 vote with Russia abstaining.", just exactly how do overflights of the freighters by F-18s "observing their every trip to the head" (your idea of "intelligence gathering" I guess, lol) actually provide any enforcement or support of said U.N. resolution? Obviously, about the same as a Blue Angels airshow back in the States. None.

Also noting that "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.", just what kind of support for the Houthis does a failure to board and inspect, and instead allowing said freighters to continue to port unmolested to offload their cargos, constitute? Answer: all possible; the Houthis and Iran must be very grateful at the prospect of the U.S. Navy virtually escorting these freighters instead of interdicting them!

Finally noting that "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.", it's pretty obvious Obama is backing away from even attempting to do with respect to THIS enforcement action what is accepted as a matter or practice with others. He THOUGHT he could have some impact by merely sending ships, but is in a dither now that Iran, sooooo predictably, just continues to give him the finger (which I expect he's quite used to by now, particularly where Iran is concerned; quite a strange way to execute the office...).

But keep up that leftist lunatic anti-Obama conspiracy spin, Admiral. Bear a hand and keep that propaganda ship afloat! You did leave out the part about anyone criticizing him being a racist. Tsk, tsk. The central committee won't like that.

'Sure beats the funny papers.

Admiral! Would that be Rear Admiral Publicus?

[hawker9000]

Well, Admiral, here's a link to an Associated Press report, appearing on the military.com website:

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/04/20/us-warship-sent-to-block-iran-weapons-off-yemen.html?ESRC=navy-a.nl

Noting that "The deployment comes after a U.N. Security Council resolution approved last week imposed an arms embargo on the Iranian-backed Shiite Houthi rebels. The resolution passed in a 14-0 vote with Russia abstaining.", just exactly how do overflights of the freighters by F-18s "observing their every trip to the head" (your idea of "intelligence gathering" I guess, lol) actually provide any enforcement or support of said U.N. resolution? Obviously, about the same as a Blue Angels airshow back in the States. None.

Also noting that "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.", just what kind of support for the Houthis does a failure to board and inspect, and instead allowing said freighters to continue to port unmolested to offload their cargos, constitute? Answer: all possible; the Houthis and Iran must be very grateful at the prospect of the U.S. Navy virtually escorting these freighters instead of interdicting them!

Finally noting that "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.", it's pretty obvious Obama is backing away from even attempting to do with respect to THIS enforcement action what is accepted as a matter or practice with others. He THOUGHT he could have some impact by merely sending ships, but is in a dither now that Iran, sooooo predictably, just continues to give him the finger (which I expect he's quite used to by now, particularly where Iran is concerned; quite a strange way to execute the office...).

But keep up that leftist lunatic anti-Obama conspiracy spin, Admiral. Bear a hand and keep that propaganda ship afloat! You did leave out the part about anyone criticizing him being a racist. Tsk, tsk. The central committee won't like that.

'Sure beats the funny papers.

Admiral! Would that be Rear Admiral Publicus?

Show some respect! The man gets serious mileage out of buckets of pure bilgewater.

[ScarpoFongness4U]

I don't believe Obama can risk an Iranian humiliation of the US Navy and expect to survive a cabinet mutiny.

He also is not going to permit Air reconnaissance that finds the offloading of weapons that then threaten Saudi air craft or their national guard, and expect that not to be answered by the Egyptians who are financed now by the Saudi King.

Anyone who thinks the Saudi are backing down from the Iranians, whom they knoe are headed for the dust heap of history,

Has never spent any time in Washington, or Virginia...

[casualbiker]

The thing to think about is this. Why are the US supporting one religious group other the other. And especially when they are supporting a regime that uses religion like a club.. But obviously only for others not the ruling classes.

Why not just let them deal with their own problems and stay out of it!

[Scott]

A post violating fair use has been removed. You must credit your source and you can only post the headline and first 3 sentences as a general rule.

[ScarpoFongness4U]

The thing to think about is this. Why are the US supporting one religious group other the other. And especially when they are supporting a regime that uses religion like a club.. But obviously only for others not the ruling classes.

Why not just let them deal with their own problems and stay out of it!

and how exactly does that benefit the US arms industry, or ensure a safe passage for all of the shipping that goes through there

[Chicog]

The thing to think about is this. Why are the US supporting one religious group other the other. And especially when they are supporting a regime that uses religion like a club.. But obviously only for others not the ruling classes.

Why not just let them deal with their own problems and stay out of it!

The US were technically supporting the Houthis while they were trying to keep Saleh in power.