...Aaaaannd we're back!
And not a moment too soon, if reports of U.S. and Israeli warships massing off Iranian waters is true...
For the record, let me just say that I am aware that I can be a bit alarmist when it comes to military movement tea-leaf reading. And even if the reports are true, as Biz pointed out the other day, it may be more of a political exercise designed to effect strategic thinking in Tehran, instead of the opening moves in a military operation to thwart Iranian nuclear ambitions...
But remember the other day, when I posted about reports of Saudi Arabian air defense informally agreeing to look the other way, when Israeli warplanes transit through narrow corridors of Saudi airspace to hit Iranian military and industrial sites.
It was at the point that Biz pointed out that this was probably just saber rattling to make the mullahs think twice before pushing the "West" any farther...
So, in cases like this, the first thing I ask myself is "where are the carriers?" Well, there are not an unusual amount of them in the region, right now, although the two that are there – the Eisenhower, CVN 69 and the Truman, CVN 79 – are in a "joint exercise." This means that they, and their battle groups, are currently occupying the same relative area in the world, constituting a serious forward deployment of American military power.
This does not include the 24th Marine Amphibious Ready Group, which also just arrived in the region. This group consists of: The USS Nassau, USS Mesa Verde, USS Ashland amphibious assault ships and their compliment of about 4,000 Marines and several hundred special forces.
And right now, that power is just off the Straits of Hormuz.
Moreover, the Enterprise, Lincoln and Reagan are just finishing pre-deployment workups and could sail at any time if they needed to. Technically they are listed as "surge ready." Also the Washington is currently just around the corner in the Sea of Japan conducting war games, but given the situation on the Korean peninsula, they would probably only be moved in the event of a genuine emergency.
And if this is the current thinking within U.S. military and security circles, then the Likudnikization of American foreign policy is complete, to wit:
All this suggests that U.S. influence over the Middle East is declining, while that of Iran is rising. It follows that encouraging Iran to play a more responsible international role is unlikely to come by turning the nations on Iran's periphery, leaving it isolated and willing to make accommodations. It seems that only the opposite track is open: turning the new center of power, Iran, through engagement, with sanctions, by supporting the domestic opposition, or by the exercise of force. The rest of the Middle East is then more likely to follow.
Are you kidding me? Ankara deciding to cooperate in a regional partnership with the other big player in South Asia means we need to go kick Iran's ass?
So let me get this straight: Iranian influence is waxing and state's that were either friendly to the U.S. or at least warming up to the U.S. are now getting cozy with their new BFFs in Tehran. And the only way to show them that we are better friends than the Iranians is to deliver a serious school yard beat down on Iran.
Yeah, then they'll love us...
It's not that I'm entirely unsympathetic to the whole "they'll like us when we win" diplomatic strategy. There's a certain appeal there, but in pragmatic terms this seems like a regional military horror show and political car wreck of epic proportions just waiting for someone at the helm to take their hands off the wheel and say "look at me, I can drive using The Force!"
You know the thing about playing chicken? You gotta know when to quit...
mojo sends
