Are the drum beats for war with Iran getting louder?

[EdithWeston]

This is an interesting Guardian article.

It says that the rhetoric from Israel is getting louder, and that the US appears to be doing more scenario planning. And we've got our own diplomatic issues.

Is this something that could happen? If Israel were to act, would the US leave them to go it alone? Is a new external bogeyman needed by Obama?

What is going on?

I don't want any country to be involved in yet another war. I certainly don't want GB to be, the human and economical costs are too high. However, an Iran with nuclear weaponry is a pretty bleak prospect too. And their human rights violations are vile. So why shouldn't the regime be tuppled when other similar regimes have been lately? Sanctions and harsh words don't seem to do much so maybe it may come down to Israel feeling so threatened that they take action without allies at which point the rest of the world begins to take sides. It is a bleak prospect for 2012 though...

Firstly, BLIMEY - A Guardian article I wholeheartedly agree with!

I think it would be madness for the west to deliberately pick a fight with Iran - we are already overstretched and the military requirements to take Iran out would need to be significantly greater than the resources required for Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya combined. The terrain of the country doesn't suit the NATO armies and (AFAIK) there is no major ethnic/tribal split (as there was with Iraq and Libya) to create a resistance from inside the country. We would have to provide the fighting troops and suffer the casualties. One only needs two minutes to read about the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980's to see that these buggers mean business. All of this points to no ground based offensive.

We could (probably quite easily) gain air superiority and bomb them for a bit but I can't see that alone bringing the country down - however, we could slow down or stop their nuclear ambitions with an aerial campaign. I suspect that this is what will happen.

Simply bombing them is not without its pitfalls too though. Across the muslim world many people look to Iran (the Shi'ite communities in Iraq for example) for leadership and inspiration so an aerial campaign over Iran could make an already difficult situation worse.

All in all, the Iranians are, unfortunately, in quite a strong position at the moment - i'd expect them to be the ones to make the first move, whatever that may be.

Ed Miliband was asked about this in today's web chat. Relevant bit:

"Our current 'government' is starting to make some scary noises about Iran, despite having cut the defence budgets. If the worst was to happen and they drag us into another pointless war on the US behalf, please can you confirm that you would oppose this? I am aware the last two weren't your fault so won't have a go at you for TB's war lust. But out of interest, did you support those wars?

"The first thing I would say is that the attack on our embassy this week was appalling. I am glad the Government has made this clear to the regime.

"Our embassy staff are men and women doing their jobs far from home and their safety must be ensured at all times.

"The important thing for stability in the region is to continue efforts to ensure that Iran is never able to gain access to nuclear weapons.

"I was against the war in Iraq but I support our mission in Afghanistan. I've been there and witnessed first hand what a brilliant job they're doing, risking their lives on our behalf. I know how much we owe them and how important it is that they know people at home are supporting them".

I see this as fence-sitting: he did not say he would oppose military action, especially if there was a belief Iran had WMD. (Scarily familiar?)

I don't see given the scale of the redundancies still to come in HM Forces, especially with the Army post Afghanistan, and the size of the black hole in the MODs budget, that there is any way we could afford military action against Iran. Until Afghanistan is over the Marines and the Army can't do it; and whilst the RN could presumably help with keeping the straits of Hormuz open, using the MCMVs, we don't really have enough ships and personnel to keep it going for too long.

Don't forget that WMDs come in many forms - it isn't just the Nuclear, but the Biological and Chemical as well (hence the term NBC). Saddam Hussein had and deployed chemical weapons on the Kurds in 1987 and it is thought against the Marsh Arabs in 1992. I don't think he ever disposed of them. Biological and chemical weapons can be moved quickly and easily....I always wonder if Saddam's chemical weapons are sitting on a railway siding in Syria.

scaryteacher Absolutely spot on - ongoing cutbacks and general fatigue to the armed forces will see the British army unable to deploy for another decade or so once the withdrawl from Afghanistan is completed.

Chemical and Biological weapons need to be stored properly, ideally as close to absolute zero as possible. We know Saddam's Iraq never had the capability to produce this, and Liquid Nitrogen was on the embargo list - any chemical or biological weapons that Saddam may have had would have long since decomposed.

The Royal Navy have been working at the tempo the Army are now working at in Afghanistan for a long time before Afghanistan started, and have upped the tempo with the RM deploying as well. However bad it gets (and I've had years when I have seen dh for less than 90 days), they keep going; keep producing the results needed and raise their game. They are past masters of doing more with less and of 'the art of the possible.' I think that they would be able to deploy post Afghanistan, but logistics would be even more difficult than they are now.

However, Iran would be biting off more than we can chew at present, and I think places like Saudi might want the region to stay stable and will be working to make that happen.

Presumablythis sort of thing won't help.

Even with the level of demands on the military, if there are moves towards a multi-national operation then UK will participate; the question will e only nature and extent of role.

And Israel is very hawkish at present.

Sorry, numpty question alert -

What is Israels problem with Iran?

Western governments have been very manipulative over the playing out of the Arab Spring. It has removed or destabilised some of the countries' governments most likely to organise an effective counter-offensive against any Israeli aggression in the Middle East.

Israel however is not the Isreal of 1967-73. Or even 1982. It is now a country riven with its own ethnic, religious and gender divies - and that's just the Jewish population. Netanyahu is not Ben Gurion.

I hope that Israel is tamed by Obama, not worn by him as a lapel pin.

Iran is the USA's even worse nightmare creation.

lubeybaublely Iran's president has threatened to wipe Israel from the map.

The US has just sent it's oldest carrier, U.S.S Enterprise, to the Straits of Hormuz. Read up on the U.S.S Liberty. That's all I will say.

According to this article on the BBC website today, "Iran escalation could see UK Forces committed to the Gulf" and we are sending HMS Argyll.

Would you know anything about that ship? I am not from the UK so have no idea. Could it possibly be a very old ship that they were planning to send to the scrapyards anyway (like they were with the Enterprise)? Unfortunately, I can see an 'incident' developing which will take the lives of sailors and, of course, require us to jump into WW3 to avenge them.

From Wiki:
'In early October 2010, the "Argyll and her crew arrived in Plymouth last week after an 11-month, extreme 'makeover' which included 290,000 man-hours spent on modifications, upgrades and improvements."[18] She has received a new command system, upgrades to Sea Wolf, a new 4.5-inch (114mm) gun, and mounts for new small calibre guns.[18] She was also given new boat-launching equipment.[18] "The refit included the replacing of two of the vessel's four diesel generators and one of her gas turbine engines."[18] Her ventilation system has been improved.[18] "Along with fresh paint on the upper decks she has been coated below the waterline with a special paint to prevent the build-up of sea life which would slow the ship. This also makes her more fuel-efficient."[18] "HMS Argyll is the first Type 23 frigate to undergo a second major refit."[18] As of March 2011, the Argyll was in post refit sea training.[19]'

The UK does not afaik, have a ship called the 'Enterprise' (possibly US, definitely Star Trek). If the Iranians have any sense they will back down. The Straits of Hormuz are international waters, and they have no right to block them.

Again from Wiki on the Armilla patrol:
'The Armilla patrol is the British Royal Navy's permanent presence in the Persian Gulf.

The Royal Navy withdrew its forces from the Persian Gulf in 1971 in line with the UK's general retreat from imperial commitments. However, tensions in the area remained high and Royal Navy ships were still a frequent sight in the area. In 1980, war broke out between Iraq and Iran. In response to the increased danger to British shipping and other British interests, a Royal Navy escort vessel was sent to the Persian Gulf and at least one has remained there ever since. In addition to the surface combatant, the Royal Navy has also maintained an auxiliary of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary (RFA) in the Persian Gulf.

The Armilla Patrol was praised by British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and a call was made in parliament for an Armilla Patrol Medal to go to those serving in the Patrol at the time in 1989.[1]

Typical Armilla patrol deployments last for six months or so, with the supporting RFA vessel sometimes spending an aggregate total of over a year in the area. The patrol is reinforced, with an aircraft carrier or task group in times of high tension or British involvement in wartime operations or by frigates or destroyers transiting the area for other operations in the Far East or Pacific.

Beginning in 2006 the surface combatant deployed has been tasked with patrol in the Persian Gulf and as part of Operation Oracle, the UK's assistance to the United States in its operations in the Arabian Sea, along with flexibility in tasking for operations in the Far East and Pacific.

The largest British presence in the Persian Gulf during the Armilla patrol has been during the two operations against Iraq. In 1991, eight Royal Navy ships supported by a number of RFA vessels were sent to the area. In 2003, over 30 British warships and auxiliaries were involved in the invasion of Iraq. A number of vessels, including minesweepers, survey vessels and submarines, are periodically rotated through the area to provide additional capability.'

I have heard that given the geopolitical situation, conflict is expected in the Gulf this year.

Fo those interested, the position of US aircraft carrier and big deck amphibious battle groups can be monitored on STRATFOR who update ship positions weekly.

In the 20 Jan 2012 update the John Stennis had left The Gulf leaving the Abraham Lincoln and Carl Vinnson remaining in The Gulf. The Enterprise is on sea trial in the Atlantic.

Overall there does not seem to be a significant build up of forces although I read that the UK sent its most newest and most advanced ship to The Gulf a few weeks ago.

Mimishimi definitely said USS Enterprise.

It would have to transit Suez unless it goes the long way round so it wil be seen. In 4 days it would be in the Med by now and maybe could be being used to support the two amphibious ships in the Med/Suez

Here is another thread on this.

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204136404577211611787862608.html?KEYWORDS=Dershowitz

Brace yourselves.

Same article - I hope as working link.

I think it's rather scaremongering. US facilities have already had their protections much strengthened in response to the Al Qaeda threat. It's not that likely that others who may contemplate using terrorism tactics will find weaknesses not already considered in those threat assessments.

But this is an example of the temperature of the rhetoric going up. And that in itself can lead to more volatile situations on the ground.

I didn't quite mean brace yourself for a wave of attacks by Iran, although it will certainly be blamed on them. Also, Al Qaeda is a creation of Western intelligence agencies (look up Tim Osman). It never posed a credible threat as much as those who wish to destroy Western democracies from within ( aka Huntington types) in the name of saving civilization.

I didn't mean to say there wasn't a danger either. The attack reports today on an Israeli diplomat's car is proof (if more were needed) that the dangers are very real.

I don't however agree with you about Al Qaeda. There is an abundance of evidence, not just from the West, about that organisation, both its terror and its other roles.