Politics for Pros- moderated Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: LindyBill who wrote (467022)	1/24/2012 5:03:07 AM
From: unclewest	of 793883

General McCaffrey's view, n my judgment we are now in a high risk situation in the Gulf-?-?-? with a significant probability of Iranian escalation in the coming 90 days. We are ordering three US Navy carrier battle groups into the region. A basic axiom of military operations starts with an assessment of enemy CAPABILITIES-?-? not enemy INTENTIONS. There is now widespread intelligence agreement that the Iranians would be foolhardy (INTENTIONS) to blockade the Gulf inviting GCC and US retaliation-?-? and also shutting off their own oil exports which provides 80% of their foreign revenue. There is also a widespread incorrect intelligence assessment that the Iranians lack the CAPABILITIES to shut down the Gulf exports. NOT SO. ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????-?subs-?-?-? a significant sea mining capacity??some extremely effective shore based missile batteries-?-?-? some highly effective air defense capabilities-?-?-? and a small number of high performance aircraft with missiles that could deny the two mile wide Hormuz sea transit zone to safe tanker traffic. They could also place the GCC/Saudi Gulf oil terminals at risk. The latest saber rattling by the Iranian Armed Forces threatening the US Navy Carrier Stennis Battle Group to not return to the Gulf was significant. It was immediately and widely derided as an empty threat by 5th Fleet in Bahrain. In my judgment the US will not and should not place a carrier at risk in the narrow Gulf waters if combat operations are deemed likely. There is a high probability that the Iranians could SINK a US carrier (with 5000+ sailors) in these constrained waters with their current military capabilities. It would mean all-?out war if that happened. Driving this confrontation was the extremely unwise move by Congress to overwhelmingly pass legislation forcing muscular Administration action to economically strangle the Iranians ability to export oil. Obama felt politically he had to sign it. Diplomacy should be the lead of the White House NOT Congress. This ties Secretary ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????-?-? and the Chinese 50% of their oil -?-?-? and the world 17% of their oil thru these narrow waters. We would have to spasmodically respond to Iranian interruption of the Gulf oil safe passage. We could not ignore a calculated interruption of transit. We should not view the Iranian rhetoric as empty threats. They are likely to further escalate. There is great opportunity for miscalculation on their part. The Iranian regime is in political trouble domestically. They have a huge economic problem. They will not under any circumstance actually be deterred from going nuclear. They will achieve initial nuclear capability within 36 months. IF the Iranians actually take further military action as a provocation and warning to the West we have very few good options. Substantially eliminating the Iranian threat to the Gulf for safe transit would require a major US military air and naval action of several months duration. It is not clear if the Iraqis would support such action. All the GCC states would back the US as an opportunity to avert the coming nuclear threat from Iran. The Israelis should welcome such a confrontation. They have an existential threat to their survival looming in the very near -?-?-?-?-?-?-?-?-?-?-?-?-?-?-?-?-?-?-?-?-?-?-?-?-?-?-?-?-?-?-?-?-?-?-?-?-?-?-? 15% probability of major military action in the coming 90 days. GEN Barry R. McCaffrey, USA (Ret.) January 2012 www.mccaffreyassociates.com

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next