New Threat Posed By Iran?

[Winston]

Could be nothing because as mentioned in the full article linked to below it has been before. However, it's very mysterious. I believe the carrier sent is the first one to deploy the F-35C.

What The Hell Is Going On With The U.S. And The Supposed New Threat Posed By Iran?
Pompeo bolted to Iraq today as rumors swirled about Iranian missile movements, but two days into this saga we have more questions than answers.
MAY 7, 2019

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...u-s-and-the-supposed-new-threat-posed-by-iran

Excerpts:

To call the events of the last 48 hours peculiar would be an understatement. After the White House released a statement, from National Security Advisor John Bolton of all people, about repositioning a carrier strike group and redeploying strategic bombers to the Middle East in response to some nebulous threat from Iran, additional statements from other officials trying to clarify the original one have offered no additional clarity. In addition, rumors regarding what the supposed threat was from Iran have proliferated without any confirmation of what is actually real. Then, just as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who was already in Europe on a diplomatic mission, was supposed to head to Germany, that trip was abruptly canceled without formal explanation and Pompeo's C-32A aircraft immediately headed south, ending up in Baghdad, Iraq.

Why all the secrecy and unexplained actions? If Iran was planning something or doing something provocative, why not just put them on notice and give the American people the basic details surrounding the issue? The answer to those questions could end up being far more troubling than the reasons for asking them.

We discussed the peculiar nature of the original announcement and the issues surrounding the person who made it on Sunday in a piece you should read here. Since writing that article, the shadows of possible facts have grown longer, but none of them have actually come into the light. There have been claims by a limited number of outlets that Israel provided intelligence—very possibly nebulous in nature—to the U.S. of the possibility of an attack by Iranian forces on U.S. interests in the Middle East. There's far too little even in terms of conjecture in these reports to score such a possibility as the motive for the U.S. military's movements and the high-profile nature of the orders that spurred them. Also, it cannot be denied that Israel has its own very serious set of issues with Iran and their motives for conveying such information have to be examined.

[snip]

What was one of the more bizarre pieces of this half-finished puzzle was Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's sudden mission to Baghdad, Iraq. Pompeo's next stop on his trip to Europe was Berlin to meet with high-ranking German officials. This was abruptly canceled with only a cryptic statement that Pompeo had to divert to another location "due to pressing issues." Plane trackers followed his C-32A as it seemed to be heading toward Baghdad, where he materialized hours later. A press pool blackout went along with the change in plans.

[snip]

Now there are growing rumors that Iran has been spotted moving ballistic missiles by ship to various launch positions around the Persian Gulf and especially near the volatile chokepoint that is the Strait of Hormuz. Even firing the missiles on the boats themselves has been mentioned by "undisclosed sources," albeit without any credible evidence that this is planned or even possible.

[snip]

Iranians are all about signaling and threats—nothing new there at all. But they aren't suicidal. One of the biggest issues here with these reports is that if they are true, it is a chicken or the egg situation. In other words, is Iran preparing to defend itself from an incoming carrier strike group that has the mandate of threats made by the highest ranking members of the Trump Administration, or was it moving the missiles around before any of this happened? Undisclosed sources from various reports say no it was happening before, but we don't know that answer for sure, and it is a crucial one to get right.

Even if Iran was moving around ballistic missiles prelude to Bolton's announcement, how is this really a sign of impending attack? Iran constantly runs elaborate military drills that include deploying various weapon systems to new locations, and often right in the middle of the volatile Strait of Hormuz. They have also been shuttling around ballistic missiles, including to their proxies in Yemen, for years now. More so, tensions are rising with the U.S. over Trump pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal and re-leveraging old sanctions on Tehran that are crushing its economy. Just as recently as today, there have been mixed indications that Iran may pull out of the Iran nuclear deal as the benefits of sticking to it are now questionable at best and place its own 'reciprocal measures' on the United States. The outright fiery disdain for the Iranian regime among key officials the Trump Administration is also no secret. So, seeing Iran fortify its defenses and deterrent capabilities in what has always been a major world hotspot and strategic economic corridor isn't really all that surprising.

Acting SecDef Pat Shanahan
@ActingSecDef

We call on the Iranian regime to cease all provocation. We will hold the Iranian regime accountable for any attack on US forces or our interests.

11:36 AM - May 6, 2019

 

[BigRiJoe]

The art of the possible

 

[Sparky]

If above is more than 20% of the actual article, please delete until it is only 20% or less. We cannot put full articles on the site.

 

[jderimig]

Has anybody else flown today? Very high level level and unusual TSA action at CLE this morning.

 

[cwbullet]

Reviewed. Not a violation of rules. Please do not try to change that. We have removed a couple of antagonistic posts to prevent the trolling for malcontent.

 

[Winston]

The reason for all of this was gleaned from one decent video I've found about it - no other news coverage I've found is so concise - Iran is getting really testy because US sanctions/embargoes are having really major negative effects.



Oil Tankers Supposedly Attacked In Persian Gulf As U.S. Carrier Group Approaches (Updated)
No blame has been placed on a particular party and details remain very scarce, but the tension is definitely rising near the Strait of Hormuz.
MAY 13, 2019

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...-persian-gulf-as-u-s-carrier-group-approaches

War drums are sounding a bit louder this morning as news comes that supposedly a pair of oil tankers was 'sabotaged' in the Persian Gulf according to Saudi Arabia. No specifics about the actions or who is responsible for them have been given, but the announcement comes as the U.S. claims it has intelligence that Iran could lash out at U.S. interests in the region and its allies.

[snip]

As for the attacks on the tankers, the New York Times states that Saudi Energy Minister Khalid al-Falih said the two tankers suffered “significant damage" from the incidents, but they did not result in a major release of oil into the sea. One of the ships was supposedly on its way to pick up oil from Saudi Arabia and deliver it to the United States. The attacks occurred off of UAE's Fujairah Emirate, one of the biggest bunkering locales for ships in the entire region.

Before the announcement from Saudi Arabia hit, the UAE claimed that four vessels were attacked off its eastern shore over the weekend. It remains unknown if that number is still accurate or if it even includes the two ships Saudi Arabia have mentioned, although it likely does. We still don't have any visual proof or third-party confirmation that these attacks took place or as to the nature of their severity.

[snip]

Still, we can't stress enough that there is a glaring lack of detail about the attacks on the tanker ships. In particular, how the attack was executed—via frogmen, mine, torpedo, RPG, missile, etc.—not to mention who is supposedly behind them. Hopefully, we will get verification and new details regarding the incidents before the Lincoln Carrier Strike Group pushes through the same volatile area.

The location where these tankers were supposedly hit is just roughly 85 miles south of the Strait Of Hormuz. If indeed this was an attack by Iranian forces, Lincoln's transit has already become even tenser than it was going to be a day prior and the carrier's mission once it arrives in the area may have also changed.

[snip]

Regardless of what actually happened to those two ships off UAE's eastern shore, the geopolitical and military temperature is clearly climbing in the Persian Gulf. Let's hope it doesn't boil over as USS Abraham Lincoln and her escorts snake their way through the tense waterway in the coming days.

 

[cwbullet]

Iran and North Korea scare the crap out of me. They have both have a quality military and terrain advantage.

 

[boatgeek]

...As for the attacks on the tankers, the New York Times states that Saudi Energy Minister Khalid al-Falih said the two tankers suffered “significant damage" from the incidents, but they did not result in a major release of oil into the sea. One of the ships was supposedly on its way to pick up oil from Saudi Arabia and deliver it to the United States. The attacks occurred off of UAE's Fujairah Emirate, one of the biggest bunkering locales for ships in the entire region.

The combination of "significant damage," "sabotage attack," and "no major release of oil" indicate to me that the ships and not the cargo was targeted. It would have been easy for whoever did this to make a giant mess, but they didn't. A few possibilities leap to mind:

Some kind of sabotage in the ship's engine room or cargo pump room. If someone had access (which would be difficult), they could do damage that could prevent the ship from moving or loading/offloading oil.

If the sabotage occurred while bunkering (loading fuel/water for the ship, as opposed to loading/unloading the cargo it's carrying), people from shore may have had access to the deck of the tankers. That would allow them to damage the cargo manifold or the cranes the ships use to handle cargo hoses. That would keep the ship from loading or offloading cargo until repaired. It's hard for me to see either of those as "significant damage" though, particularly the cranes.

I tend to discount the possibility of torpedoes because those would likely have opened up a bunch of tanks, likely including cargo tanks. Even with a double hull, explosions cause a lot of damage and torpedoes are designed to destroy ships. Likewise, it's unlikely that they ran into a mine laid somewhere in the harbor, for the same reasons. It's possible they could have hit the bow, prop, or rudder to disable the ship with less risk of spilling oil, though that would take very fine targeting. Small mines attached by frogmen or ROV would be more likely for ruining the rudder and/or prop.

I also tend to think that whatever was done had an element of plausible deniability. Mines or torpedoes would be an obvious act of war. "Gosh, too bad something happened to your tanker" isn't anywhere near as actionable.

 

[boatgeek]

Update: CNN has a piece about this. It shows a picture of one of the non-Saudi ships, which has clear damage at the stern above and below the waterline. It looks like the bottom shell plate was pushed up and forward by something. There was apparently also an early report of an explosion in the port.

 

[cwbullet]

This story concerns me. I think we will find this is either a small outlaw group or proxies of Iran. If it is the prior, I expect it will stop when out Battlegroup gets within range. The latter is a little less predictable. Iran has hopefully learned a lesson from the 80s or they may have to buy glass bottom boats to view their Airforce and Navy.

 

[boatgeek]

Two tankers were attacked in the area this morning, both apparently loaded with cargo for Japan. One's cargo (75,000 tons of naphtha!) caught fire and the other suffered an engine room fire. All crew are reported safe. More info here: https://gcaptain.com/two-tankers-attacked-near-strait-of-hormuz/

The one with the cargo fire is almost certainly a total loss. The other may be, depending on how bad the engine room fire was. The fact that the crew abandoned ship indicates it was bad. Pollution-wise, it could have been a lot worse. Naphtha is fairly light and whatever was spilled and doesn't burn will evaporate off fairly quickly. The other tanker is apparently not leaking cargo though these ships carry non-trivial amounts of heavy fuel.