Book of the Month

Shuts and Failures

by Michael Maiello

cmaukonen's picture

Armada of international naval power massing in the Gulf as Israel prepares an Iran strike

by cmaukonen 9/17/2012 - 10:00 pm

Cruisers, aircraft carriers and minesweepers from 25 nations are converging on the strategically important Strait of Hormuz in an unprecedented show of force as Israel and Iran move towards the brink of war.

Western leaders are convinced that Iran will retaliate to any attack by attempting to mine or blockade the shipping lane through which passes around 18 million barrels of oil every day, approximately 35 per cent of the world’s oil traded by sea.

A blockade would have a catastrophic effect on the fragile economies of Britain, Europe the United States and Japan, all of which rely heavily on oil and gas supplies from the Gulf.

The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world’s most congested international waterways. It is only 21 miles wide at its narrowest point and is bordered by the Iranian coast to the north and the Oman to the south.

 

[Making it even more congested now. What could possibly go wring ?]

 

Read the full article at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/9545597/Armada-of-international-naval-power-massing-in-the-Gulf-as-Israel-prepares-an-Iran-strike.html

The Asia Times' columnist "Spengler," being even more provocative (as in "thought-provoking") than usual:

All-out Middle East war as good as it gets

This part of it is a new one on me and I am going to be watching for other stuff that also suggests it:

Europe and Japan have concluded that America has abandoned its long-standing commitment to the security of energy supplies in the Persian Gulf by throwing the Saudi monarchy under the bus, and have quietly shifted their energy planning towards Russia. Little of this line of thinking will appear in the news media, but the reorientation towards Moscow is underway nonetheless.

by artappraiser 9/18/2012 - 4:09 am

And this piece by a fellow Asia Times columnist  was more striking in context of Spengler's:

"Putin opens Benghazi door for Obama" by M K Bhadrakumar,

which in its second half also segues into On the other hand, the leading Chinese dailies opened a virtual broadside on the US policies in the Middle East

 

by artappraiser 9/18/2012 - 4:21 am (re: artappraiser)

Bhadrakumar's analysis is well reasoned. "Spengler," on the other hand, is wrong on just about everything it's possible to be wrong on. Israel is going to save America by attacking Iran? I think you bought a bad batch, buddy.

by acanuck 9/18/2012 - 5:29 pm (re: artappraiser)

I wanted to comment on Mitt's Russia statement a few weeks ago - not that I think Mitt knows what he's talking about, but Russian expansion into energy sector as a bargaining chip / gun to the head is scarier than any Chinese foreign policy move. Putin's a major concern, and we've been so wrapped up in the Mideast for 12 years, we barely have time for anything else (or have to bribe Putin for support rather than pushing him in better directions).

But this Spengler is a nutcase. All he sees is buildings on fire, and he seems to have no trouble with some arbitrary military re-orienting of the region. If I'm building a bicycle and you think I'm building a reactor, what's the red line I'm supposed to heed? Too many spokes on the front wheel? Foot pedals have dual use? No one else seems to think Iran can get to real warheads from their current effort, but for some reason Netanyahu's opinion / fanaticism gets to trump all reason. Perhaps they should read this Arabist / NY Times conclusion that the Israelis bullied the US into their point of view in 1982, letting thousands of Phalange get massacred in refugee camps.

Yes, there are dangers in places like Libya - but it's unlikely it will get worse than Libya in the 80's, and most likely will be much better than that. EU-style democracy? Maybe semi. Al Qaeda takeover? Doubtful.  [And I doubt that an Israeli attack will be the catastrophe some say - somehow it just seems the region limps along, I'm not sure anything will change it much, hopes for Arab Spring aside]

Meanwhile, more earnest Muslims kill foreigners to avenge some silly video made somewhere. If these folks want people to take their religion seriously, they better get their shit together and find a way to stop the assholes. Yes, Islam has the responsibility to police its own madness. How easy to get copycat protests worldwide.

"We just killed all your family in a drone attack". "I'm upset."

"Someone made an irreverant video." "Death to America, I kill you!!!"

So much for rationality. And doesn't Egypt have a new democracy to trouble itself with? 

by PeraclesPlease 9/18/2012 - 4:39 am (re: artappraiser)

Uh-oh, #MuslimRage is trending. Went to the Islamic cultural center to talk jihad, turned out it was Street Dance night :-(

by PeraclesPlease 9/18/2012 - 8:21 am (re: PeraclesPlease)

On Russia an interesting development, we're bugging out from all our USAID programs there:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/world/europe/russia-demands-us-end-pro...

the Times' headline and first paragraph makes it sound like a big dust-up between us and them but if you read further, sounds more like your regular diplomatic wrangling: they sent a demand that "it's time for you to go," and then we said "ok but can we wind these things down properly so locals can take over" and they are like "What is it that you don't get about us not liking you supporting Putin's political enemies?". It's more like a "keep tuned" ongoing story, I suspect; narrative incomplete.

by artappraiser 9/18/2012 - 6:05 pm (re: PeraclesPlease)

Last two paragraphs of the story maukonen cites:

One defence source told The Sunday Telegraph last night: “If it came to war, there would be carnage. The Iranian casualties would be huge but they would be able to inflict severe blows against the US and British.

“The Iranian Republican Guard are well versed in asymmetrical warfare and would use swarm attacks to sink or seriously damage ships. This is a conflict nobody wants, but the rhetoric from Israel is unrelenting.”

If nobody wants this conflict, WHY is the West signaling to the would-be aggressors, "Don't do this. But if you do, we've got your back."

The striking aircraft would have to violate Turkey, Iraq or Saudi airspace. Western leaders, if they really wanted to avoid a Mideast conflagration, could whisper in Bibi's ear that the assembled armada would treat any intruding aircraft as hostile, and interdict if necessary. Whisper the same undertaking in the ayatollah's ear but warn that if Israel is undeterred, Iran won't have a green light to set the region ablaze. No need; plenty of blazes will erupt spontaneously. Afterward, own up that Netanyahu had been warned, and join in the UN vote condemning Israel.

The blowback would still be massive and very, very ugly. I'm talking here about a way to mitigate the damage -- maybe even lure Bibi off his window ledge. And it might NOT cost Obama the election, once he has a frank talk with the American people. In any case, it's important enough to run that risk.

I know this is all crazy talk on my part. Not gonna happen; instead, the West will let the drift to Armageddon continue. But the alternative is near-unthinkable, so my "plan" should be considered. Ehud Barak's as much of a hawk as Netanyahu, but he's shown signs of wavering in the face of U.S. resistance. Whisper in his ear too; the Israeli cabinet apparently hasn't signed off on an attack, and he could lead the charge against it.

Desperate times. Desperate measures.

 

by acanuck 9/18/2012 - 5:20 pm

Latest Comments

more