What are the possible scenarios re Iran / Mid East ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What are the possible scenarios re Iran / Mid East ?
Open discussion for all.
What are the possible scenarios re Iran / Mid East ?
At present, we have
- Iran threatening to close the Straits of Hormuz
- The US with 2 - 3 carrier groups in the vicinity
and 2 carrier groups joining together, not something that happens often ?
- The US trying to restrict buyers of Oil from Iran to try to limit income
and all the associated problems with that.
- Russia doing deals with Iran for oil and other behind the scenes stuff.
- Israel / Mossad killing off Iranian scientists ?
Will Iran seriously try to close the Straits ?
Will Israel do a pre emptive strike on Iran ?
Would the US be involved in a pre emptive strike on Iran ?
After all, isn't that what the Big Blu bomb was made for ?
Does Iran really have the military goods to get involved
in a sustained war with the US ?
Would Iran really attack US ships ?
Would Russia get involved in any way with it's military ?
Anyway, lets hope for a good discussion on all the factors.
What are the possible scenarios re Iran / Mid East ?
At present, we have
- Iran threatening to close the Straits of Hormuz
- The US with 2 - 3 carrier groups in the vicinity
and 2 carrier groups joining together, not something that happens often ?
- The US trying to restrict buyers of Oil from Iran to try to limit income
and all the associated problems with that.
- Russia doing deals with Iran for oil and other behind the scenes stuff.
- Israel / Mossad killing off Iranian scientists ?
Will Iran seriously try to close the Straits ?
Will Israel do a pre emptive strike on Iran ?
Would the US be involved in a pre emptive strike on Iran ?
After all, isn't that what the Big Blu bomb was made for ?
Does Iran really have the military goods to get involved
in a sustained war with the US ?
Would Iran really attack US ships ?
Would Russia get involved in any way with it's military ?
Anyway, lets hope for a good discussion on all the factors.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: The Chemistry Lab
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That was really supposed to be specifically about the Hormuz Strait, not the whole Iranian issue, and to be honest was getting a bit hard to follow..
Maybe starting afresh is a good idea - however we'll have to be careful as we don't want any more people getting banned from topics for offering their predictions do we?
Anyway my belief is that a three-way axis is developing between Iran, Syria and Russia, with maybe Pakistan IF the military coup takes place.
The variables affecting what happens are: no-fly zone over Syria, boycott of Iranian oil, and the Iranian elections in March. If the situation in Syria deteriorates further, then you are likely to see Iranian "fraternal assistance" forces in Syria. Iran is already accusing Bahrain of sending mercenaries to destabislise Syria and is threatening a reply in kind.
Maybe starting afresh is a good idea - however we'll have to be careful as we don't want any more people getting banned from topics for offering their predictions do we?
Anyway my belief is that a three-way axis is developing between Iran, Syria and Russia, with maybe Pakistan IF the military coup takes place.
The variables affecting what happens are: no-fly zone over Syria, boycott of Iranian oil, and the Iranian elections in March. If the situation in Syria deteriorates further, then you are likely to see Iranian "fraternal assistance" forces in Syria. Iran is already accusing Bahrain of sending mercenaries to destabislise Syria and is threatening a reply in kind.
THere is a thread already running about Iran. Do we need another one?
FB
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
COCL2
No fly zone over Syria ?
I don't think the UN would ever be able to get it through (Russia would veto it)
and which Western country is going to provide the planes to enforce it - or has the will, money and whatever else is needed ?
The US Carrier groups, 2 or 3 getting together has me thinking something is being planned, All those planes in one place ?
Any thoughts ?
No fly zone over Syria ?
I don't think the UN would ever be able to get it through (Russia would veto it)
and which Western country is going to provide the planes to enforce it - or has the will, money and whatever else is needed ?
The US Carrier groups, 2 or 3 getting together has me thinking something is being planned, All those planes in one place ?
Any thoughts ?
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK and where I'm sent!
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, I have one. Only one at a time, I'm afraid!
Reuters: The Pentagon denied any direct link between recent tensions and the movement of aircraft carriers. So it's just a coincidence that happen to have three carrier battle groups there. I think not. The message is too obvious.
As for joining two groups together, I would think two reasons.
Each CBG is purpose-designed for the mission. It's unlikely that they put to sea with this mission in mind so now they need to reorganize assets to suit the current situation – circumstantial evidence that a new mission has now been devised.
The Strait, or more correctly its approaches, is a confined body of water that would make the operation of two separate CBGs very complicated and the risk of blue-on-blue increased. Combining two would allow the concentration of a lot of air power and the coordination of the other assets in the group. Again, evidence of a new mission reacting to changed circumstances.
The third group is more likely to deploy elsewhere in the vicinity. Once we see the final disposition we’ll start to get a clearer picture of what’s afoot. However, I do not think this is an aggressive move by the US, rather a deployment of forces in preparation for possible Iranian action in the Strait. It might be useful to look at other naval forces positioning in the Eastern Med and Indian Ocean.
Reuters: The Pentagon denied any direct link between recent tensions and the movement of aircraft carriers. So it's just a coincidence that happen to have three carrier battle groups there. I think not. The message is too obvious.
As for joining two groups together, I would think two reasons.
Each CBG is purpose-designed for the mission. It's unlikely that they put to sea with this mission in mind so now they need to reorganize assets to suit the current situation – circumstantial evidence that a new mission has now been devised.
The Strait, or more correctly its approaches, is a confined body of water that would make the operation of two separate CBGs very complicated and the risk of blue-on-blue increased. Combining two would allow the concentration of a lot of air power and the coordination of the other assets in the group. Again, evidence of a new mission reacting to changed circumstances.
The third group is more likely to deploy elsewhere in the vicinity. Once we see the final disposition we’ll start to get a clearer picture of what’s afoot. However, I do not think this is an aggressive move by the US, rather a deployment of forces in preparation for possible Iranian action in the Strait. It might be useful to look at other naval forces positioning in the Eastern Med and Indian Ocean.
I hate to admit it, but think M2 may have got this right. 
I haven't seen where the big group is forming or whare it might be on station, but once that becomes clear, we should be able to look at a/c operating ranges and see the intent. I would certainly think that air power is a better and safer bet in such confined waters than direct surface action. If the need arises, they will want to operate at arm's length. Easy to see who has the longest reach. No predictions from me at the moment.
Courtney
I haven't seen where the big group is forming or whare it might be on station, but once that becomes clear, we should be able to look at a/c operating ranges and see the intent. I would certainly think that air power is a better and safer bet in such confined waters than direct surface action. If the need arises, they will want to operate at arm's length. Easy to see who has the longest reach. No predictions from me at the moment.
Courtney
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A quick question from someone who has no idea.
Since one of the worries is anti ship missiles etc, would the combined assets of both groups make a more efective screen, this is presuming Iran has any real stuff to be weary of.
Since one of the worries is anti ship missiles etc, would the combined assets of both groups make a more efective screen, this is presuming Iran has any real stuff to be weary of.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be a fool that underestimates the capabilities of anti-ship missiles but a well composed US Air Group along with the modern Arleigh Burke\Ticonderoga warships this threat should be manageable. Only a fool would suggest easily manageable but would I want to be an aggressor or part of that US Battle Group?.
These battle groups try to conceal their location but would Iran have access to any satellite information that might be monitoring these ships? You cannot hit what you can't see. A bit simplistic but hopefully folks will understand what I am trying to say.
We go back to the abilities of what is under the water and will the US remind its enemies of the capabilities of the Ohio class as there does appear to be a lot of this 'willy waving'
Ohio Class
These battle groups try to conceal their location but would Iran have access to any satellite information that might be monitoring these ships? You cannot hit what you can't see. A bit simplistic but hopefully folks will understand what I am trying to say.
We go back to the abilities of what is under the water and will the US remind its enemies of the capabilities of the Ohio class as there does appear to be a lot of this 'willy waving'
Ohio Class
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK and where I'm sent!
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Willy waving? I would have thought that navies these days would prefer the more PC "posturing" or muscle flexing.
But you would know better than I.
Now that picture speaks volumes. The combined battle group should have no problem either defending itself or striking at maximum reach. I wonder if the remaining single carrier group will remain on station and position to cover the mainland or whether it was already due to be relieved. If it stays, that will be a clear signal of intent.
M2
But you would know better than I.Now that picture speaks volumes. The combined battle group should have no problem either defending itself or striking at maximum reach. I wonder if the remaining single carrier group will remain on station and position to cover the mainland or whether it was already due to be relieved. If it stays, that will be a clear signal of intent.
M2
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: The Chemistry Lab
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The intent of the Russians in all this is the big unknown
As already mentioned elsewhere, they have eyes on Syria and Iran as warm water homes for their fleet. Also it seems quite feasible that they have intents on using Syria as a port for Iranian and Iraqi oil, bypassing the Gulf and so creating a Russian led oil cartel.
However possibly their biggest need (and this was raised in Pravda this week of all places) is a need for some kind of stability in the Asian republics. They can't control Afghanistan, and they see the Western alliance failing. Sooner or later the alliance will withdraw, leaving a power vacuum which only Iran is possibly capable of resolving. The flip side is that as much as the Russians want Afghanistan stable, they don't want any kind of Islamic agitation in the ex-Soviet 'stans. So somehow they need to buy the Iranians off. Its interesting that at present the hardline news agencies of both Iran and Russia (FARS, Pravda) are pushing the line that the problems in Syria are due to Al-Qaeda members and mercenaries sponsored by Bahrein and Saudi. Similarly Pravda insists the Libyan revolt was by American backed Al-Qaeda and mercenaries. Nothing like confusing the issue is there?
Anyway, back on thread. Russia needs a trade-off over the 'stans. I can see that part of that trade-off is going to be military assistance to Iran, possibly overt, maybe covert. But don't be surprised at the Iranians getting Russian satellite coverage, and Russian ships and aircraft running "interference" against the USA fleet. We know they already have signifcant Russian electronic warfare resources.
Just how far will the Russians go? My guess is as far as it takes as long as it helps them control the oil supply to Europe, and keeps the spectre of Islamic fundamentalism at bay in the 'stans. Remember the Russians already control much of Europes gas supplies.
As for Syria, the Russians clearly have an interest there, and if the Arab League impose a no-fly-zone all bets are off. If there is one, the zone is likely to be flown from Turkey, using Saudi and other Gulf states aircraft. The very countries Iran accuses of financing the current Syrian problems. Given Irans current ironic friendliness towards the Syrian Ba'athists, I can see a head-on collision there, and maybe a more likely flashpoint than in the Gulf.
The other big question in Egypt - just who sponsored the rebellion there? Was it USA-led "democracy at the point of a gun" as the Russians would have us believe? Or a Russian financed change which is yet to complete, emerging as a radical Islamic republic controlling Suez and hostile to the west? Theres a lot of unfinished business there, and just how this all plays out depends partly on what happens in Egypt.
One cynical opinion I came across was that after the problems in Egypt threatened oil supplies via the Gulf, a change in Libya became essential to ensure supplies from there to the west.
As already mentioned elsewhere, they have eyes on Syria and Iran as warm water homes for their fleet. Also it seems quite feasible that they have intents on using Syria as a port for Iranian and Iraqi oil, bypassing the Gulf and so creating a Russian led oil cartel.
However possibly their biggest need (and this was raised in Pravda this week of all places) is a need for some kind of stability in the Asian republics. They can't control Afghanistan, and they see the Western alliance failing. Sooner or later the alliance will withdraw, leaving a power vacuum which only Iran is possibly capable of resolving. The flip side is that as much as the Russians want Afghanistan stable, they don't want any kind of Islamic agitation in the ex-Soviet 'stans. So somehow they need to buy the Iranians off. Its interesting that at present the hardline news agencies of both Iran and Russia (FARS, Pravda) are pushing the line that the problems in Syria are due to Al-Qaeda members and mercenaries sponsored by Bahrein and Saudi. Similarly Pravda insists the Libyan revolt was by American backed Al-Qaeda and mercenaries. Nothing like confusing the issue is there?
Anyway, back on thread. Russia needs a trade-off over the 'stans. I can see that part of that trade-off is going to be military assistance to Iran, possibly overt, maybe covert. But don't be surprised at the Iranians getting Russian satellite coverage, and Russian ships and aircraft running "interference" against the USA fleet. We know they already have signifcant Russian electronic warfare resources.
Just how far will the Russians go? My guess is as far as it takes as long as it helps them control the oil supply to Europe, and keeps the spectre of Islamic fundamentalism at bay in the 'stans. Remember the Russians already control much of Europes gas supplies.
As for Syria, the Russians clearly have an interest there, and if the Arab League impose a no-fly-zone all bets are off. If there is one, the zone is likely to be flown from Turkey, using Saudi and other Gulf states aircraft. The very countries Iran accuses of financing the current Syrian problems. Given Irans current ironic friendliness towards the Syrian Ba'athists, I can see a head-on collision there, and maybe a more likely flashpoint than in the Gulf.
The other big question in Egypt - just who sponsored the rebellion there? Was it USA-led "democracy at the point of a gun" as the Russians would have us believe? Or a Russian financed change which is yet to complete, emerging as a radical Islamic republic controlling Suez and hostile to the west? Theres a lot of unfinished business there, and just how this all plays out depends partly on what happens in Egypt.
One cynical opinion I came across was that after the problems in Egypt threatened oil supplies via the Gulf, a change in Libya became essential to ensure supplies from there to the west.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would have thought that navies these days would prefer the more PC "posturing" or muscle flexing
Don't.... It really hurts when I laff, larf or even laugh
Muscle flexing it will be.
The very thought of having that third group in reserve must be a consideration but here is yet another question.
Would one large group have better overall strength in depth and then use the Air Force AAR for longer range operational deployments? Having aircraft to maintain air cover might be easier when covering one group, plus there will be more aircraft to play with regarding specialist missions. The joy of the F-18 being a multi role aircraft.
At present each group has a Rear Admiral in command but will that change? (Beyond my pay grade)
The sight of that battle group will be something to behold and something to tell the grandchildren
I wonder if one super group would be just too large to manage. And maybe the third group has a different task in a similar area. I quite like the idea of them looking out for land-based threats while the super group handles the Strait and its own self protection. There is a lot of air power on just one of those carriers, as you know. Having three all together might be over-kill. Can you imagine planning the ATO for 200 or more manned air assets plus the cuise missiles, balistics, ALCMs, etc. How big can the otential Iranian blockade be?
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: The Chemistry Lab
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
they may just be thinking of those Iranian anti-ship ballistics which are supposedly in volume production. They're truck launched and if there really are are a large number may take some hunting down. Those things supposedly can throw a 650kg warhead 300km and presumably offer some potential threat. It may need a large air fleet to knock out the launchers
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In transit
Age: 70
Posts: 3,052
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no love lost between the Iranians and the Arabs, even if at times it may be expeditious for them to show some solidarity.
The Iranians are now saying that if the Arab states increase the flow of oil to the west to compensate for Iranian cuts resulting from sanctions, they must consider themselves responsible for the consequences. There is some very serious sabre rattling going on here.
The Iranians are now saying that if the Arab states increase the flow of oil to the west to compensate for Iranian cuts resulting from sanctions, they must consider themselves responsible for the consequences. There is some very serious sabre rattling going on here.
