U.S. sending Patriot missile system and another warship to Middle East amid Iran tensions
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The United States is deploying a Patriot missile battery and another warship to the Middle East to counter what it claims are growing threats from Iran.
The USS Arlington, an amphibious transport ship, and a Patriot air defense system will be deployed to the U.S. Central Command.
"The United States does not seek conflict with Iran, but we are postured and ready to defend U.S. forces and interests in the region," the Department of Defense said in a statement on Friday announcing the moves.
National Security Adviser John Bolton said last Sunday that the U.S. was sending a carrier strike group and a bomber task force to the region to send a "clear and unmistakable message" to Tehran. The Pentagon said the latest deployment followed that original request.
The decision to surge additional military forces into the Middle East was based in part on intelligence that the Iranian regime has told some of its proxy forces and surrogates that they can now go after American military personnel and assets in the region , three U.S. officials familiar with the intelligence told NBC News.
The three officials said that in addition to learning that an Iranian official had discussed attacks on Americans, the U.S. began seeing the movement of Iranian and Iranian-backed forces in various places across the region, prompting the commander of U.S. Central Command, Marine Corps Gen. Frank McKenzie, to request additional forces move to the region.
The Pentagon's statement on Friday said the new deployment was "in response to indications of heightened Iranian readiness to conduct offensive operations against U.S. forces and our interests."
The strike group deployed earlier in the week consists of the USS Abraham Lincoln, a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier; the USS Leyte Gulf, a Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruiser; Carrier Air Wing Seven; and destroyers from Destroyer Squadron Two.
Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan tweeted Monday calling on the Iranians to "cease all provocation," warning that the United States "will hold the Iranian regime accountable for any attack on U.S. forces or our interests."
Iran's ambassador to the United Nations denied that Tehran gave the green light to its proxies to attack U.S. forces.
In an exclusive interview with NBC News on Thursday, Ambassador Majid Takht Ravanchi rejected statements from the Trump administration that Tehran posed a heightened danger to U.S. interests and accused U.S. officials of employing "fake intelligence."
President Donald Trump said on Thursday that he was ready to speak with Iranian leaders and come to an understanding that would allow the country to improve its economic prospects.
"What I'd like to see with Iran, I'd like to see them call me," he said.
Trump added: "I look forward to the day where we can actually help Iran. We're not looking to hurt Iran."
Amid the mounting pressure from Washington, Iran on Wednesday informed ambassadors from the United Kingdom, France, Germany, China and Russia that it would stop implementing parts of the landmark 2015 nuclear deal.
In a speech broadcast on national television on the anniversary of America's withdrawal from the deal, President Hassan Rouhani said the country would also resume high level enrichment of uranium if world powers did not keep their promises under the Obama-era agreement.
The Trump administration has previously acknowledged that Iran was living up to the agreement, but alleges it also gave the Islamic republic cover to pursue its ballistic weapons program and deepen its regional influence.
Tags
Who is online
57 visitors
Lemme see... keeping count is kinda hard...
We're out of Iraq. Well, except for those 5 000 troops still there.
We're still in Afghanistan after what is it now - seventeen years?
Oh, right... I almost forgot those thousand in Syria.
Couldn't we please clean up those messes before making another one in Iran?
"The decision to surge additional military forces into the Middle East was based in part on intelligence that the Iranian regime has told some of its proxy forces and surrogates that they can now go after American military personnel and assets in the region , three U.S. officials familiar with the intelligence told NBC News."
We will see who they go after now that the US Navy is breathing down their necks.
Yippee!! Gulf War III! Or is it Gulf War IV? I lose count...
You get that moving ships and troops is being done as a deterrent, right?
I remember deterrence in Vietnam. And how many times since...?
Well, heck, I guess we can just skip all that and allow any attack on American interests to go unpunished or just bomb the hell out of them now?
Alternatively, we could nuke Teheran preventively
What attack are you claiming?
Gee, wish someone would have already said that!
I didn't claim an attack,
Did you see where I did?
Count me in!
The problem is that Bolton and other Trump advisors want a war.
Well you stated in your comment:
So I was just curious what attack from Iran you were referencing.
What would president HRC do?
My only question would be:
Why didn't we already have that weapon system deployed there?
Perhaps some think we need to sacrifice more warriors to the lack of available force protection?
I don't.
More wear and tear of personnel and equipment after 17 years of constant war. Anybody asking what the price tag is for this step up for this operational cycle?
We're not replacing equipment as we should. Recruiting to meet manpower needs is difficult at best. We want taxes cut, we want a wall, we want a bigger military, we need to provide heath care, we need our allies to help shoulder the load (not many with aircraft carries BTW so no real help there)...… The way I see it, we are looking at a budget crisis this fall that is going to be epic.
Anybody want to take a stab at a ven diagram that outlines these issues?
It depends, always, on the mission.
If we want to have the strongest navy in five different theaters, then we must pay for it. If we settle for less, it costs less. Do we need the strongest navy in the Mediterranean? In the Far East? In the Arctic?
We have eleven nuclear carriers. The rest of the world has only one. And that's an ally.
How much is enough?
Well, Russia still has one. The Chinese have at least one ( an older Russian start, that the Chinese finished) with a second and third under construction.
In all the Chinese purchased 1 from Australia and 3 from Russia, 1 of which is now the Liaoning, with minimal aircraft.
S Korea has one helicopter carrier & is planning another.
Spain mothballed one and uses the carrier planes all around the peninsula, while still maintaining a superb carrier.
Egypt, Italy and Australia each have two active carriers.
Like the US, great Britain once had a fleet of carriers but now maintains only two.
India, Japan and France each operate 4 carriers.
One thing is true, they are mostly, currently allies.
For now.
I specified nuclear carriers.
My point was that the US Navy has no competition.
How much is enough?
You ask really good questions Bob! All I can offer is:
A Man of War makes the best ambassador........ Oliver Cromwell.
It seems to me that in order to answer that very basic question, "How much is enough?", we need to first define the mission.
There once was a time when we spoke of a "two-ocean navy"... but neither of those oceans was the Indian Ocean...
Do we need a carrier group in the Gulf? Are our land bases - all over the Arabian peninsula - not enough?
Who is the Sixth Fleet going to fight? Russia is once again an economic basket-case, with an economy smaller than either Germany or France, who each have half the population.
How do we want to handle China? Confrontation? Where, and how far, are we willing to go? It's easy to send a nuclear carrier group against Iran... but against China would be a whole other kettle of fish! We certainly need to be present in the Far East, but we need a serious national conversation about the extent and mission of that presence.
When we know "why", we'll be able to figure out "how much".
The deployments to the Persian Gulf use to be about securing cheap oil for ourselves and our allies. It is quite conceivable that if we and our allies made progress on renewable energies, that we could leave the area to itself. Ten billion for R&D for renewables vs a new carrier. I think the former has a better long term ROI.
The deployments to the IO use to be to ensure control of that part of the ocean that could have been interrupted by Indian Navy to disrupt oil shipments to the far east. Soviet subs were also worth keeping an eye on during the cold war if things turned hot. Diego Garcia is a nice asset to hold onto as well for stationing long range bombers, thus a CVBG stationed in the IO keeps that real estate safe.
The sixth fleet's purpose was and is to keep check of Soviet/Russian surface vessels that would run cover for submarines. The Bosphorus Straights is a natural choke point to keep the Russians bottled up. Trump giving up the battle in Syria has allowed the Syrian regime to give the naval base at Tartus to the Russians, thus making it more difficult to keep the Russian Bear bottled up.
Carrier battlegroups provide the CIC the most flexible response to any and all geopolitical events. It's been that way since the second world war, and I don't see anything that can replace them in the next 20 years.
Regards
Excellent example. Why is a nuclear carrier group needed? That mission would be perfectly well filled by a light carrier group with a flock of recon aircraft. (If, of course, satellite intel isn't sufficient... which it might well be...)
It seems to me (but I'm open to a different POV) that a nuclear carrier group is only needed if we're expecting actual conflict. That conflict is a likelihood...
For the foreseeable future, I think our military operations will be from squad-size to at most battalion-size. A nuclear carrier group is overkill.
Nuclear or not is irrelevant.
The USA has 19 carriers, far more than any other nation or group of non allies.
Does that make all of the submarines irrelevant too?
NK 86
China 76
USA 68
Russia 56
Iran 34
We would seem to be outnumbered there, so what was your point?
Who said "irrelevant"?
I don't know why you're upset. We seem to be agreeing that the USN is overwhelmingly powerful.
Your list of submarines is interesting... Are you implying that Iran's submarine force has half the strength of American forces? Of course not.
Let's be adults, OK?
Really worried about the implications for a friend of mine who went home for Ramadan. Not that he is a practicing muslim, but it is a chance to socialize with family and childhood friends.
I even joked with him before he left, "they are going to keep an eye on you". Really applies to both sides. Yep, by golly I said that.
We even have a funny story about inadvertently running across President Reagan at Nav Hosp Bethesda (now Walter Reed) back in the 80s.
Well, we have a breakast date set up for him and his wife when they return (fingers crossed).
John Bolton and Trump are bumbling us into another quagmire war with Iran...
120,000 American troops have been moved to the ME to amp up the situation.
Trump may be (probably is) bumbling... but Bolton is working assiduously to start a war. He wants a war.
It is a good thing our allies are behind us on this. Oh Wait! They are not...
That didn't prevent Gulf War II.