[Sixstrings]

US WARSHIP HEADS TO YEMENI WATERS; COULD BLOCK IRAN WEAPONS

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.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_UNITED_STATES_IRAN?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Well -- I guess we'll see what happens with this -- will Obama actually come out and draw a red line like old Kennedy or Reagan would, and tell Iran that its ships will be boarded and any weapons seized, or is it a paper tiger move and the US Navy will just sit there and watch if Iran calls the bluff and tries to port and offload the weapons for the Houthis?

Whole thing is confusing, Obama has us giving the Iranian Revolutionary Guard air support in Iraq / Syria, and he's trying to convince us on this nuke deal for Iran, and then on the other hand he sends an aircraft carrier battle group out to intercept the Iranian Navy.

Thoughts?

[Sixstrings]

And I just saw this -- after months, and years, of Democrats criticizing Israel and Netanyahu for EXAGGERATING Iran's "nuclear breakout" time -- now, they do a 180 and Obama admin is saying Iran could have the bomb within 3 months if Congress doesn't approve this deal to let Iran get the bomb a little bit slower. (hopefully)

Did Susan Rice Disclose Classified Info on Iran?

Bloomberg's Eli Lake reports Tuesday that the Obama administration kept secret until the beginning of April Iran's two to three month breakout time for a nuclear weapon, saying "the administration only declassified this estimate at the beginning of the month, just in time for the White House to make the case for its Iran deal to Congress and the public."

Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, speaking to reporters on Monday, said that the administration has held this assessment for "quite some time."
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/did-susan-rice-disclose-classified-info-iran_926279.html

So that's just rather confusing.

Obama admin was always saying Netanyahu is exaggerating, and now they disclose US assessment is 3 months. Sooner than what Netanyahu has ever said.

This one is confusing, I don't get it, how can the Obama people keep saying Israel is exaggerating then at the last minute with this nukes for Iran thing they are pushing, NOW Obama admin suddenly says "they'll have the bomb in 3 months if you don't sign this deal with them." (actually the report says TWO to three month. So maybe just two months from the bomb.

[ROCKMAN]

six - Too long to repeat here but check out the post I just put up at "Peak Oil News" on this subject

[Sixstrings]

Okay I read it, nice post as usual rock , but I would disagree in that no, it's not bait.

I think Plant is right about it, in his post on the news comments.

Obama is sending the navy out there but in the end they won't do anything, and Iran will unload the weapons, and the situation between Iran and Saudi Arabia will continue to escalate, and still Obama will not do anything even though he has the Navy sitting out there watching it all.

He'll wait, and wait, and it will escalate and get worse when he could have prevented it all with some decisiveness.. it's an old story at this point, with this administration..

In case anyone is wondering why Yemen matters for the US.. my understanding is that:

ISIS is sunni muslim extremists. And then Al Queda in Yemen are shia muslim extremists terrorists, shia as in Iran is shia. Obviously AQ is a threat to us, same as ISIS is. And so, the US gov kept the embassy in there and was keeping an eye on AQ there, then AQ and their allied rebels got the upper hand -- and then Obama evacuated the embassy and pulled out. So then the Yemeni government fell and now you've got AQ running around loose down there, and then the Saudis did their coalition for war in Yemen without even asking Obama first or telling him.

So now here comes the US Navy back again, after Obama already pulled them out and let Yemen fall in the first place.

US interests are:

* Stopping Al Queda in Yemen, which is sort of backed by Iran at this point
* More importantly, PREVENTING and blocking a shia sunni major war and war between Iran and Saudi Arabia
* And we're also obligated to help US ally Saudi Arabia, versus Iran

The whole thing is very mixed up though, I mean you've got ISIS and they are utter psychos and horrific so at least Iran fights them, right? But Iran is just building its geopolitical hegemony, too, in the process of that. Ground taken from ISIS is ground gained for Iran.

ISIS are monsters, honestly other than killing so many Israelis with rockets, Hezbollah aren't quite the horiffic utter monsters ISIS is. But OTOH -- Iran is going for NUCLEAR WEAPONS, and buying Russian missiles, and Iran could hit Israel and Europe one day with ballistic nukes.

They're all threats to us -- ISIS, and Iran, and Al Queda. And any shia / sunni war, any war involving Iran vs. Saudi Arabia, is serious bad news for oil supplies etc. etc.

[davep]

Okay I read it, nice post as usual rock , but I would disagree in that no, it's not bait.

I think Plant is right about it, in his post on the news comments.

Obama is sending the navy out there but in the end they won't do anything, and Iran will unload the weapons, and the situation between Iran and Saudi Arabia will continue to escalate, and still Obama will not do anything even though he has the Navy sitting out there watching it all.

He'll wait, and wait, and it will escalate and get worse when he could have prevented it all with some decisiveness.. it's an old story at this point, with this administration..

The US Navy's there to cut the Huthi supply lines from Iran. They've chosen their side and it's that of the illegal bombing campaign.

[davep]

Stopping Al Queda in Yemen, which is sort of backed by Iran at this point

Seriously? What gives you that idea? Al Qaeda and ISIS thrive in situations of chaos. They're not allied to the Huthis or Iran (unless I missed something important). Al Qaeda has never been aligned with Shias as far as I'm aware.

[Sixstrings]

Seriously? What gives you that idea? Al Qaeda and ISIS thrive in situations of chaos. They're not allied to the Huthis or Iran (unless I missed something important). Al Qaeda has never been aligned with Shias as far as I'm aware.

I'm not 100% expert on it, I know ISIS is shia, but I thought I'd heard on tv news that AQ in Yemen was a mix of shia and sunni.

The situation is that the Houthis AND al queda in yemen were BOTH fighting the Yemeni government, and the Yemini gov was fighting al queda and the houthi rebels.

So when Iran helps overthrow the US-backed Yemeni government, then Iran has just helped AQ as well.

Anyhow that's why the US was in Yemen to start with, it was to help fight al queda. Now thanks to Iranian-backed Houthis, Obama had to evacuate the embassy and nobody is watching al queda now.

The US Navy's there to cut the Huthi supply lines from Iran. They've chosen their side and it's that of the illegal bombing campaign.

I would be very impressed if Obama ordered our gazillion dollar navy to actually do something, for once.

But I doubt that's the case -- I think Plant is right -- Obama's got the navy out there like a paper tiger. Obama knows how to give orders for the ships to move, but not orders for what to do when they get to some place.

This one is a strategy call -- the US interest, besides fighting AQ in Yemen, is to also prevent a real war between Iran and Saudi Arabia. WHEN to use that US Navy carrier battle group, WHEN to actually intervene -- is Obama's call. On advice of the Pentagon generals. We'll see what happens with it. How far he lets the situation go.

I wouldn't want to see US miltiary action just for the heck of it, it's just that if you make a red line you must enforce it so you keep respect and that's US deterrence and our deterrence credibility is our national defense.

You have to figure out if (a) whether we must prevent a war between Iran and KSA, and if you have concluded that and decided that, then (b) you must seize and board those Iranian ships.


P.S.:

They've chosen their side and it's that of the illegal bombing campaign.

You never criticized Russia's illegal war in Ukraine.

Yet you criticize Saudi Arabia.

Yet you do not criticize Iran, for illegally meddling in Yemen and supporting the Houthi rebels.

You talk about "illegal" wars -- there is no law, anymore, in post-American empire, because there is no global cop anymore to solve these problems and keep the law. Ergo, in the absence of a lawman leading a bunch of allies and enforcing security council resolutions, you are going to see many more regional wars.

When there is no lawman to enforce the law, there is no law.

[davep]

AFAIK, both ISIS and Al-Qaeda are Sunni, not Shia.

[davep]

You never criticized Russia's illegal war in Ukraine.

Yet you criticize Saudi Arabia.

Yet you do not criticize Iran, for illegally meddling in Yemen and supporting the Houthi rebels.

You talk about "illegal" wars -- there is no law, anymore, in post-American empire, because there is no global cop anymore to solve these problems and keep the law. Ergo, in the absence of a lawman leading a bunch of allies and enforcing security council resolutions, you are going to see many more regional wars.

When there is no lawman to enforce the law, there is no law.

The US funded the overthrow of the pro-Russian regime to the tune of several billion dollars. Russia was protecting its military interests with Crimea (they had a large portion of their fleet there) and don't appear to want to actually take over Eastern Ukraine (because they would have already done so). They're actively helping them, there's no doubt about that. But they were put on the spot by NATO expansionism.

I'm criticising Saudi Arabia because they have no mandate to start air strikes in another country. It's basic international law. Sure, the Iranians must be supporting the Houthis, but that dynamic has been going on for years without actually violating sovereign territory as the Saudis have just done (the US supplies whoever the hell they want to, btw, and their arms end up all over the place).

There is still international law, but the US seems to think it can decide when or not it's to be applied. We're not at the post-American empire stage just yet, they have a lot of influence (and the hundreds of foreign bases to ensure they keep that influence).

The US has never been an international lawman. They have been out to further their own interests through dipmlomatic, military and covert means for many years. That doesn't make me a supporter of Putin, I just recognise the reality of US hypocrisy throughout the world.

[KaiserJeep]

When I was 10 years old, a brutal Communist regime imported a few dozen nuclear warheads and missiles to Cuba. The world teetered on the brink of Nuclear Armageddon, and we all had trouble sleeping. My teacher assigned us a "term paper" due in two weeks, and my 3rd grade class burst into laughter, knowing that in two weeks, we would all of us be dead and radioactive vapor.

The United States has just surpassed the Middle East and is again the largest producer of oil in the world. It is true that we also consume more, but we buy that oil on the open market anyway. Nor do we have any skin in a game where the crazy Mullahs in Iran have Nukes, other than a massively inconvenient mutual defense treaty with Israel. The only countries in range of the crazies in Iran with their short and intermediate range missiles are Europe, Russia, and the rest of the ME.

So I say we retire from the region, and let the Europeans deal with the Iranians. If they blow the oil fields up, the USA is better positioned and prepared than any other country to survive the ensuing crisis.

So let the Europeans deal personally with the Mullahs. I say we withdraw from NATO and pull back all our troops, and let the Europeans personally absorb all the nuclear attacks from the Mullahs. One way or the other, that will silence their incessant complaining.

Time to talk Libertarian again. I never was either a Republican or Democrat, and frankly both major parties are too enamored of the role as world policeman for my tastes. Let the Europeans handle a local problem themselves. They can have as much security as they are collectively willing to pay for.

[ROCKMAN]

An update: Iran already has one destroyer and possibly other war ships off Yemen. Saudi and Egyptian war ships plan to enforce the blockade. While it’s difficult to imagine the US ships initiating an armed conflict I have no problem imagining the Saudis, Egyptians or Iranians pulling the trigger.

Time for you big gamblers to put in those oil futures orders.

[Synapsid]

KJ,

The US is the largest producer of oil in the world?

Check the definition of "oil" in whatever source you're quoting. Such statements that I've seen are including everything but the kitchen sink, not just crude plus condensate.

[Plantagenet]

I say we retire from the region, and let the Europeans deal with the Iranians.

I say we withdraw from NATO and pull back all our troops, and let the Europeans personally absorb all the nuclear attacks from the Mullahs. Let the Europeans handle a local problem themselves. They can have as much security as they are collectively willing to pay for.

I quite agree.

Unfortunately, the US is once again taking the lead in these new wars in the ME. Obama has us bombing Iraq AND Syria and arming the Saudis and Egyptians as they bomb the bejesus out of Yemen. Obama has us simultaneously arming Iran's allies in the newest iraq war and arming Iran's enemies in Yemen and in Syria.

Now Obama has sent the US navy steaming to intercept the Iranian Navy off Yemen. Given the complete confusion and hodge podge of US policies in the ME, the best we can hope for is that things don't escalate into an armed confrontation at sea.

Personally, I don't think O will order the US navy to fire on the Iranian navy---O has too much invested in the nuclear deal with Iran. But I wouldn't be surprised if some Iranian takes 30 years of chanting "Death to America" a bit too literally and takes it upon himself to launch an attack on the Great Satan.

[KaiserJeep]

KJ,

The US is the largest producer of oil in the world?

Check the definition of "oil" in whatever source you're quoting. Such statements that I've seen are including everything but the kitchen sink, not just crude plus condensate.

Yes, I grant your point. The "new" petroleum from unconventional sources is a far lesser quality than light sweet Arabian crude.

[ROCKMAN]

"Personally, I don't think O will order the US navy to fire on the Iranian navy--". He doesn't have to give them such an order. Placed in such close proximity to the Iranian vessels is risky enough. The rules of engagement will allow any US ship to return fire if it is fired upon. Given the lethality of modern seaborne weapons systems a fully engaged sea battle can be initiated and completed in minutes. These are not the days of tall ships and muzzle loading cannon. A tremendous amount of fire-power can be unleashed from a US or Iranian vessel in 60 seconds. After that first minute there will be little to no opportunity to stand down for either side.

[Synapsid]

KJ,

True.

It gets worse than that: I've seen NGLs (bottled gas), refinery gain and even biofuels included.

Don't trust the blighters.

[Plantagenet]

"Personally, I don't think O will order the US navy to fire on the Iranian navy--". He doesn't have to give them such an order. Placed in such close proximity to the Iranian vessels is risky enough.

I don't think O will send the US naval ships to confront the Iranian ships. I don't believe they will actually be "in such close proximity".

The rules of engagement will allow any US ship to return fire if it is fired upon. Given the lethality of modern seaborne weapons systems a fully engaged sea battle can be initiated and completed in minutes. ...A tremendous amount of fire-power can be unleashed from a US or Iranian vessel in 60 seconds. After that first minute there will be little to no opportunity to stand down for either side.

Yes…thats exactly what I said I was worried about. While I don't think O will intentionally put US ships in harm's way, I wouldn't put it past an overly zealous fanatic on an Iranian ship to launch first. After all, they've been carefully taught by the Mullahs and Ayatollahs for 30 years that it is their duty to bring about "Death to America."

These are not the days of tall ships and muzzle loading cannon.

Quite right. And on the Iranian side, they are no longer using slave galleys and scimitars.

[ennui2]

The "new" petroleum from unconventional sources is a far lesser quality than light sweet Arabian crude.

Your gas tank doesn't care.

[KaiserJeep]

Your pocketbook cares. In this context, "good" means producing the same amount of fuel, the same amount of petrochemicals, and the same amount of petroleum feedstocks as "real" petroleum, and at the same prices for all of these things. It isn't all about vehicle fuels.

[Sixstrings]

AFAIK, both ISIS and Al-Qaeda are Sunni, not Shia.

I guess you're right, it took me forever just to remember that Iran is shia, I kept getting those mixed up.

Okay Iran does not help AQ, directly, but the situation was that the Yemeni gov was fighting the rebels -- aided by Iran -- and then fighting AQ as well.

So when Iran topples the Yemeni gov, they help AQ indirectly. APAP, in Yemen, was behind the Paris attacks. They're a direct threat to the West -- Europe, Britain, US, Australia -- and Iran has just made the situation more dangerous for everyone by pushing out the Yemeni government.

As for SHIA terrorists -- that's Hezbollah. Didn't Hezbollah hijack some of the first airliners, back in the 60s or something? And didn't they bomb the US marine barracks in Lebanon? And there was some kind of Jewish synagogue bombing in Argentina that had connections with Iran.

Hezbollah has killed many Jewish people, firing rockets into Israel, for decades now. The rockets never cease. They've got the US-provided "Iron Dome" missile defense -- that gets a lot of the rockets, but not all of them. Israelis have to live with something we can't even imagine, just rockets constantly landing all over the darn place.

When trying to figure out Western interests -- it seems the case that the sunni terrorists are more a direct threat, as far as attacking us, while the shia terrorists fight sunni and they fight Israel.

But sunni terrorists have hit us too, in the past. And as a nation state, Iran is a direct threat, to Israel, and to us, and our allied sunni nation states. I've also heard, in the news, that apparently Iranian backed militias and such are almost as bad as the ISIS ones, and the Iranian backed ones do atrocities too.