That's interesting..........coincidence or?
It looks like the FD hasn't been able to go in yet to investigate.
Clearly, the increasing tensions with Iran since the capture of the British marines/sailors are reaching a critical junction. First off, it appears to be very clear that the more radical elements of Iran’s Islamic leadership have been planning this kind of operation for some time, monitoring and watching the inspection operations. The swiftness of the operation and the inability of the British elements to protect the boarding teams show that they knew their target and its weaknesses.
This also occurs after the congress passed spending bills that legislate a time table for withdrawal from Iraq. As has been typical in the Arab world, the sign of weakness is an opportunity to strike. Even this week, Arab ‘allies’ in the region have been very openly reluctant to even provide a ‘hint’ of support, preferring to tell us that our presence is ‘illegitimate’ (according to the Saudis).
On the other side of the coin is the determination to ‘surge’ our forces in the region to provide a breather for the Iraqi government to gain control over sectarian violence by removing outside instigators, among who the most serious are Iranian agents.
US capabilities in the region are currently at their highest level since the invasion of Iraq. There are two US carrier strike groups in the gulf. France has its carrier in the region supporting operations in Afghanistan. The Nimitz strike group is enroute to relieve the Stennis by the end of April, however both could stay in the region giving us 3 carrier strike groups. The Regan strike group is currently in the China Sea area, providing a fourth strike group if necessary.
Why all the firepower? It is for one of three reasons. 1) Preparation for a strike against Iran (offensive), 2) Defensive in the event Israel strikes Iran first or 3) A combination of offensive and defensive measures against Iran. Control of the sea is critical to global oil supplies, and Iran has made if very clear that they would do whatever it takes to shut down the Arabian Gulf. During the Iran/Iraq war, Iran tried to disrupt the flow of oil through mines and attacks against oil tankers. Strong actions by the US in protecting the flow of oil prevented a major catastrophe. Both Iran and the US have (and probably still are) reviewed the results of that period in the light of current technology and force capability. Should the shooting start between the US and Iran, control of the water will be critical not only for the supply of oil but to maintain the logistical needs of our ground forces in Iraq.
The other need for a higher concentration of firepower is the potential that Iran may launch a limited ground invasion either using its forces or the proxy forces of al Sadr or both, into the predominately shia regions of southern Iraq should we strike Iran. This region is currently under the control of British and other European forces. If Iran senses that the same timidness exists in the ground forces as the naval forces, such a strike becomes more probable. Such a limited assault would seize the Iraqi ports and oil facilities and cut off sea based logistic support to the coalition troops in Iraq. Additional air power and ground forces provided by the Marine assault groups also on the sea in the region, would be necessary to re-secure the area.
How will this all pan out? There is already RUMINT that a US strike is scheduled for the Easter timeframe. I wouldn’t give it too much credibility at the moment. A lot will depend upon the determination of the President and PM Blair as any strike would face stiff opposition both from Iran as well as from opponents here. Although Iranian response would be furious, it is doubtful that they will succeed in defeating our naval forces, though it is likely that we may lose some ships.
Wild Cards Although Iran is blustering big, the question is how far will they allow their response to any strike (by US or Israel) go? Any strikes against other Gulf countries could ignite a regional war. Any strike against Iraq would provide cause us to strike them even harder. Any global terror attacks would immediately be linked to Iran, due to the vast publicity of their claims of having ‘sleeper cells’ everywhere.
The other unknown is Israel. If Olmert’s handling of the conflict in S. Lebanon provides any clue, I’d be surprised to see an Israeli preemptive strike anytime soon. However, it is very likely that should Iran be hit, Hamas and Hezbollah will be unleashed from both Lebanon and Gaza with perhaps Syria getting into the mix.
What to be looking for Iran will continue to milk the hostage situation for all its PR worth to embarrass both Britain and the US. I would suspect that there would be a limited naval blockade on Iran should things draw out longer. Probably the import of gasoline would hit the Iranian economy the hardest. I suspect that Iran will try to find an opportunity to embarrass the US through the capture of ground forces near the Iraq/Iran border or through the capture or damage of a naval vessel. Both Iran and the US appear to be ready for a fight and only need a good excuse to get things started.
One of those things that make you go "hmmm"...