Another piece to the Iran military buildup

I'm hesitant to make a diary of this since it's only a small piece of additional information, but I think it's significant.

There have been a number of diaries recently (for example here) about the deployment of the USS Eisenhower strike group to the Persian Gulf on an apparently accelerated schedule.  This might, of course, be normal force rotation, although it should be noted that another carrier group - the USS Enterprise strike group is nearby in the Arabian Sea.

But there's more.

Now an Israeli site I frequently check  (Yeah, they've got an agenda and a bias, but then who doesn't?  - They also frequently have some pretty good scoops.  Caveat lector)  reports:

Tuesday, Oct. 17,

The Iwo Jima Expeditionary Strike Group steamed into the Persian Gulf to join the US naval, air and marine concentration piling up opposite Iran’s shores. It consists of the amphibious transport dock USS Nashville, the guided-missile destroyers USS Cole and USS Bulkeley, the guided-missile cruiser USS Philippine Sea, the attack submarine USS Albuquerque, and the dock landing ship USS Whidbey Island.

The Iwo Jima group is now cruising 60 km from Kuwait off Iran’s coast.

The Iwo Jima Group serves the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit with 2200 Marines equipped for amphibious assault.  Presumably, if something is brewing in terms of an attack on Iran, they would be tasked with trying to seize the oil port facilities in conjunction with forces attacking from Kuwait.

•  This makes

  me sick to the soul.  These people have done nothing to us.  Their only crime is that they won't cowtow to us and they have oil. I pray God will save those people but I FEAR it will happen.

  by Owllwoman on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 12:03:23 PM PDT

•  Is the Iwo Jima Strike group

  the same as Expeditionary Strike Group 5 which has been deployed to the region?

  by Steven D on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 12:05:12 PM PDT

  •  No

    ESG 5 is the USS Bonhomme Richard and support ships with MEU 15.

    by jrooth on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 12:08:44 PM PDT

    •  Reports say ESG 5

      is also headed for the Persian Gulf.

      by Steven D on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 12:32:45 PM PDT

      •  So that's even more ominous

        Two expeditionary strike groups and two carrier battle groups. That's one heck of a concentration.

        And putting the ESGs into the gulf isn't entirely without risk.  I doubt they'd put two of them in there simultaneously without some purpose in mind.

        by jrooth on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 12:45:52 PM PDT

•  Just an editorial comment ...

  Only an absolute lunatic would think it a sensible idea to attack Iran, especially given our current level of exposure in Iraq.

  But I've long since lost any confidence that our policy isn't being made by lunatics.

  by jrooth on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 12:06:06 PM PDT

  •  Look on the bright side:

    these ships could be going to the Gulf to bring back troops from Iraq. The chimp is having a big pow-wow as we write this and my guess he's going to announce some major news...like the war is over! We won and now we go home, see?!

    by Asinus Asinum Fricat on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 12:09:21 PM PDT

    •  The trouble with that theory ...

      is that if one were sending troop transports for a withdrawal, one wouldn't send them loaded with fresh troops.

      by jrooth on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 12:14:25 PM PDT

    •  How to tell the difference

      Here's some information that will help us tell whether these naval assets are being used for removal of our forces in Iraq or for attack on Iran:

      LINGUISTS.  What languages are the linguists onboard proficient in?  

      If they are primarily proficient in language groups found in Iraq, then it is likely that they are tasked with a redeployment mission from Iraq.

      If they are primarily proficient in Farsi and other Iranian language groups, then it is more likely they are tasked with an attack mission against Iran.

      There are other technical details re. SIGINT capabilities that could be relevant to the Iraq vs. Iran issue but most of those are beyond the scope of what you might get from published or other nonclassified sources.  

      And remember: stay away from classified information unless your intent is to take it to appropriate individuals in the House or Senate, or you have very powerful friends in the MSM who know how to handle publication without risk of major trouble.  

      OSINT (open-source intelligence, i.e. analysis of press reports etc.) is your friend.  

      by G2geek on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 12:29:45 PM PDT

      •  That would be instructive information

        but I, at least, don't know where to get that kind of specifics.

        If the purpose is to deploy the 24th MEU to Iraq, though, they wouldn't really need the whole strike group there.  Now maybe they'd keep them together for the sake of flexibility, but there's a significant cost and risk in putting those ships way up in the Persian Gulf too.  The simpler explanation is that they're at least contemplating an amphibious assault somewhere - and in that region really the only target for that kind of assault is Iran.

        by jrooth on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 12:39:40 PM PDT

•  Diplomacy

  Ah, relax! It's just the backup behind the diplomacy. We're only flexing our muscles to show that we mean business--but our serious efforts are at the UN Security Council, with our astute and tactful diplomat!

  We should have a peaceful and amicable solution in no time.

  \snark

  Thanks for bringing this to the forefront, Jrooth. It no longer surprises me that this information would not be reported in our news media, though it is clearly available elsewhere...e.g. to reassure our friends the Israelis that we have their backs in this next big adventure.

  by mmcole on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 12:22:43 PM PDT

  •  Oh, how silly of me!

    John Bolton is on the job!  What on Earth was I worried about?

    Guess I can go obsess over whatever it is the media wants me to obsess over ... what's this?  Madonna has a black baby?

    /snark

    by jrooth on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 12:30:14 PM PDT

  •  Who is at home?

    Sometimes I have this horrible image of Chimpie playing 'Risk" by moving all his pieces to frontline and leaving homefront defenseless.

    Even Mexico can just invade us and win soon.

    by fugue on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 12:40:06 PM PDT

•  the Cole eh?

  They love that boat!

  by borkitekt on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 12:41:51 PM PDT

•  I've seen another rumor...

  ...that Israel will do the initial bombing.  This does a number of things:

  1. We become "defenders of Israel", not the aggressors and bullies

  2. We're "forced" to fight, as we're allies of Israel, and god-forbid we turn our backs.

  3. It makes it look much less obvious that this is an election ploy, especially as our Admin claims it had no hand in the timing

  4. It most certainly gets Bolton reconfirmed, and Republicans re-elected.

  by topicalstorm on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 12:44:04 PM PDT

  •  The trouble with this notion ...

    is that Israel has no bombers and the fighters with ground-strike capability which they do have can't make the round trip - at least not loaded with bombs.  So unless they got in-flight refuelling from us over Iraq, they'd be forced to ditch their planes in Iranian territory.  At best, those targetting points in western Iran could get back to Iraq, but not all the way to Israel.

    So since they'd have to have overt help from us to do the mission at all, it seems to me ever so much simpler and more effective (strictly from a mission planning POV) for us to do the job in the first place with our far superior range, weapons load capacity and stealth.

    by jrooth on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 12:54:46 PM PDT

    •  US attacks under cover of Israeli rhetoric.

      Like the recent Israel-Lebanon attack, which was apparently planned for months ahead with the full consent of the US. Only this time, the US will offer 'logistical and tactical assistance' to Israeli forces, including an air campaign, a land invasion and occupation of the oilfields and geographically important ports.

      There are lots of ways to lie about an invasion.

      by skrymir on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 01:07:52 PM PDT