EckerNet.Com

….is Israel giggling their collective ass off.

Iran\’s sole Simorgh AWACS aircraft was lost during a military parade Sept. 22, one of two Iranian military aircraft that crashed in Tehran while participating in a display to mark the anniversary of the start of the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War.

The Simorgh collided with one of the Air Force\’s Northrop F-5E Tiger II fighters over the area of the Imam Khomeyni Shrine, southern Tehran. According to eyewitnesses, the crash occurred immediately after the parade. Apparently, no mayday call was issued.

AWACS aircraft are absolutely critical to any airborne operation.  They are the brain of any such operation and act as a force multiplier by making it\’s fellow aircraft more effective by coordinating their activities and applying the correct resources where they can be used best.  They also make it difficult for enemy aircraft to go undetected and are then able to vector friendly aircraft in to intercept them.  While airborne operations can be launched without them, their absence can be a game-changer.

As a result Israeli generals have got to be dancing in the streets at this news.  While it was fairly ancient version of an AWACS aircraft, it was still there.  It\’s lose greatly reduces the ability of Iranian aircraft to effectively counter an Israeli attack. It\’s probably time for the Iranian\’s to start seriously sweating.

[via Israel Matzav ]

When you\’re on the same side of the debate as Chavez and Castro, you\’re grievously wrong…and you\’re sending a very alarming indicator of how you think government should work.

\”We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the president of Honduras, the democratically elected president there,\” Obama told reporters after an Oval Office meeting with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe.

Zelaya, in office since 2006, was overthrown in a dawn coup on Sunday after he angered the judiciary, Congress and the army by seeking constitutional changes that would allow presidents to seek re-election beyond a four-year term.

That\’s all fine and good, except that it WAS legal and Zelaya appears to have done more than anger the other branches of government.  Basically everyone agrees that Zelaya tried to push for a national referendum, the military got all pushy and booted Zelaya out of the county.  Then the legislature appointed it\’s president as interim executive instead.

Ok none of that is disputed.  Problem is most of the coverage, including Obama and Clinton\’s version of the \”facts\”, leave out a lot of interim steps.

For example, in between the referendum and the military getting all pushy (or staging a coup according to Clinton), was the Honduran Supreme Court pointing out that constitutionally Zelaya doesn\’t have the power to initiate a referendum, only Congress can do that according to Honduras\’ Constitution.  Military and Congress agreed, so when Zelaya essentially flipped them the bird and did it anyway in defiance of a court order, the Judiciary instructed the military to protect the law and arrest Zelaya.

Also in between booting Zelaya and appointing a new executive, there was an emergency session of Congress, whom as prescribed by Honduran law, appointed their president as the interim executive.

Sure those are the boring parts of the story, but they are critical.  All the more reason why it\’s a little alarming that Obama could simple overlook those and declare the whole thing illegal, which quite clearly the only illegal part is what Zelaya was trying to do.

Obama may be deceitful, vindictive and narcissistic, but he\’s not stupid.  He knows what\’s really going on just as well as anyone else.  The fact that he willfully chose to side with Zelaya despite the clear illegal acts he was trying to undertake is a little revealing.

Obama might be taking this BFF thing with Chavez to the extreme here, because he is essentially arguing that it\’s okay for the Executive Branch to simply ignore a ruling by the Supreme Court.  That\’s something that the Left repeatedly claimed Bush would do, and now Obama appears to be openly endorsing it.

Combine that with the double standard that appears to being applied when you consider how different the Obama administration has responded to both Iran and Honduras.   When the Iranians try to protest dictators rigging an election, Obama\’s failure to support the protesters pretty much endorses the dictators.  When a leader tries to illegally force a dictatorship, Obama immediatly sides with other dictators by voicing support for the would-be dictator.

Together these two create a very chilling insight into how Obama thinks a government should operate.

[Crossposted at True North]

Arguably the biggest news item is whatever is happening in Iran.  Things are sketchy to be sure, but at the very least some very large demonstrations are happening over there.  Originally they started over the botched election fraud.  As if we really expected legitimate elections from Iran.  But either way that\’s where it started and that\’s where most of the reporting has been aimed.

However, if this list of demands has any truth to it, this is not something that\’s going to go away.

The Seven-Point Manifesto calls for:

1. Stripping Ayatollah Khamenei of his supreme leadership position because of his unfairness. Fairness is a requirement of a supreme leader.

2. Stripping Ahmadinejad of the presidency, due to his unlawful act of maintaining the position illegally.

3. Transferring temporary supreme leadership position to Ayatollah Hussein-Ali Montazery until the formation of a committee to reevaluate and adjust Iran’s constitution.

4. Recognizing Mir Hossein Mousavi as the rightfully elected president of the people.

5. Formation of a new government by President Mousavi and preparation for the implementation of new constitutional amendments.

6. Unconditional release of all political prisoners regardless of ideology or party platform.

7. Dissolution of all organizations — both secret and public — designed for the oppression of the Iranian people, such as the Gasht Ershad (Iranian morality police).

Even if the mullahs overturn the election results and kick Ima Dinner Jacket out of office, this uprising may not be satisfied.  This list doesn\’t even have to represent the demands of this crowd.  If these are even the unspoken desires of the crowd, kicking Dinner Jacket out of office may just embolden them to take the next step.  On the other hand if Ima Dinner Jacket is confirmed as the winner, it\’s just gonna piss the crowd off more.

This appears to be a movement that\’s not going to go away overnite.  Whether it\’ll amount to anything is another question entirely.  And I think it revolves around the Revolutionary Guard.  They\’re the best equiped military organization in the country and without a doubt whomever has control over the RG has everyone else at the point of a gun.  They are supposedly controlled by the mullahs, but one of the Presidential opponents was a long time general of the Revolutionary Guard.  The RG may very well decided to sit this out and let the mullahs fend for themselves.

The Iranian government was a fairly stable setup, at least as far as oppressive governments go.  There weren\’t too many ways that it was going to be threatened.   The Mullahs seem to have found the perfect storm of circumstances and made what should have been almost impossible, increasingly likely.

It\’s time to cheer the Iranians on.  If only we had a President whose balls hadn\’t been planted in the White House garden by the First Lady.  I\’m not sure the Iranians can wait until fall for her to harvest them.

In a move no doubt copied directly from his \”Jimmy Carter\’s Guide To Foreign Policy\” book, Obama has decided to trade away one of our countries best insurance policies in order to enlist a thug to help negotiate with a lying sociopath.

President Obama offered to consider scrapping plans for a missile defense shield in Europe if Russia helps rein in Iran\’s nuclear program, the Russian newspaper Kommersant reported.

The article said Obama wrote to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to tell him Russia\’s aid in resolving the threat from Iran would make the missile shield plans unnecessary, according to an account from Russian news agency RIA Novosti.

So even if this worked out AND Russia was able to against all odds negotiate with Iran AND Iran agreed AND for whatever reason we could actually trust Iran to follow through, Obama considers the missile shield \”unnecessary\”.  I hate to over-simplify things but that\’s a lot like saying because someone quits smoking they don\’t need health insurance anymore.  Although if that sort of logic appeals to Obama, I\’d like to point out I just found a really simple way to eliminate the federal deficit.

Iran is not the only reason that a missile shield would be useful.  North Korea would be another prime example, especially since they already possess missles that could reach parts of US territory.  Not to mention that something as complex as a missile shield takes years, if not decades to fully develop.  Waiting until a more credible threat exists is not an option for those that value security.

The Russians are known to be good chess players, and it seems they prove so again, as they have Obama willing to trade away his Queen for a Pawn.  Amateur hour continues in the White House.

Sometime I have to wonder if Reid just assumes nobody actually listens to him, because he sure takes every opportunity to prove himself clueless.

In a conversation on Meet The Press on January 4th, Reid futiley tried to explain away his declaration last year that the surge was a failure.  Apparently his tactic is that he was only referring to a very small part of the plan otherwise known as \”The Surge\” and it\’s our fault for not divining what he meant.  Besides, the war itself is the failure…or so says Reid…

SEN. REID: David, listen, someone else will have to determine that as the years go on.  What has the war done?  It\’s brought about–it\’s destabilized the Middle East.  We have a civil war going on in Israel.  We have a civil war in Iraq, as indicated today, more than 50 people killed with a bomb in Iraq today.  We have Lebanon, a civil war there.  We have Iran thumbing their nose with every, everyone.  And if that weren\’t bad enough, our standing in the world community is so far down as a result of this war, so–and that doesn\’t take into consideration the tens of thousands who have been injured…

Huh, that\’s quite a list of supposed effects of the Iraq War…surely they stand up to the barest of historical fact-checking right??

Iraq War begun on March 20th, 2003.
The Middle East hasn\’t been stable since the breakup of the Ottoman Empire, or at the very least shortly after World War II. Coincidentally around that same time Muhammad Jed was shooting at some food, and up through the ground came a bubbling crude. Well the next thing you know, ol\’ Jed is living in a farking hell hole.

Iraq War begun on March 20th, 2003.
There has been constant conflict in and around Israel since literally the day after it was created in 1948, starting with the Arab-Israeli War. Ever since that day, Israel has been the unofficial proving grounds for terrorists to test their weapons and tactics. Apparently, on Sundays the first 200 suicide bombers get an extra virgin in heaven.

Iraq War begun on March 20th, 2003.
Ok the Iraq civil war has started since the Iraq War, but that surge you repeatedly claim has failed has gone a long way in making that civil war less violent than your average day in Chicago, Washington DC, Detroit, LA, or New York.

Iraq War begun on March 20th, 2003.
Lebanon has been in a state of virtual conflict since the Lebanese Civil War, which began in 1975. The conflict was rather complex, but was fought mostly over which type of tree would be displayed on the flag. General Cedar eventually led his forces to victory in 1990.

Iraq War begun on March 20th, 2003.
Iran…well you may remember this tiny thing called the Islamic Revolution in 1978 during which some Americans decided to vacation there. The Iranians have been thumbing their nose at the world ever since….apparently the Americans stole some towels or something.

Iraq War begun on March 20th, 2003.
Our world standing has been down since….well the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. Seems we were never really liked, it\’s just that after World War I and World War II, the world had learned that the only country worth a damn at doing anything was the Americans and therefore they\’d just follow us around for awhile. When the Soviet Union fell and Europeans stopped ritualistically crapping their drawers, the world decided those warmongering Americans were no good.

Iraq War begun on March 20th, 2003.
Well, not including the Iran-Iraq war, anywhere from 300,000 to 1 million Iraqis were killed in Saddam\’s reign of terror starting in 1979. Saddam\’s reign of terror mysteriously stopped shortly after March 20th, 2003, for reasons unknown to Senator Reid and other Democrats.

Ok so I owe an apology to Senator Reid, he\’s clearly got his grasp of the facts well in hand. Now if only we knew what realities he lives in, we\’d know where those \”facts\” apply.

How generous….Lord Obama makes the most overly redundant decision possible regarding Israel.

U.S. President-elect Barack Obama\’s administration will offer Israel a \”nuclear umbrella\” against the threat of a nuclear attack by Iran, a well-placed American source said earlier this week. The source, who is close to the new administration, said the U.S. will declare that an attack on Israel by Tehran would result in a devastating U.S. nuclear response against Iran.

Wow, really going out on a limb there huh?

So if someone nukes Israel, THEN we\’ll act by nuking them??  I probably don\’t need to point out that one of the worst kept secrets in world politics, is that Israel has lots of nuclear weapons of it\’s own.  So making this promise is sorta like telling Rambo that if someone shoots and kills him, we promise we\’ll shoot them in return.  You\’re not exactly promising much, and unfortunately for your action to be necessary requires the worst to happen.

Although I\’m am a little curious what His Holiness plans to aim our nuclear weapons towards.  Sure enough after Israel launches its likely posthumous counter-attack, there isn\’t going to much left of Iran…short of a few radioactive cockroaches.

And for a man that promises change and hope, it\’s a little sad that the best He can offer is M.A.D. (Mutually Assured Destruction), a doctrine that began back in the 1950s.  Not exactly what one expects from a man who promises to change the world.

However, the one drawback to the M.A.D. doctrine is that it assumes (indeed requires) a rational opponent.  It only works when your enemy fears the destruction of himself.  The big drawback is that this requirement doesn\’t apply when your enemy thinks they are fighting a religious war and that their personal destruction is just part of the process.  Doesn\’t exactly inspire confidence (or hope) does it?

As if a strategy of questionable effectiveness wasn\’t bad enough, it also pretty clearly indicates the frame of mind in the Obama administration.  One of the basic facts in this scenario is that Iran possesses nuclear weapons.  Meaning an Obama Administration appears likely to simple cede that issue without dispute.  While technically that is change, it\’s certainly not the change one would like…and it clearly doesn\’t inspire much hope.

I wrote previously that we had sent two aircraft carriers and their battle groups to join two battlegroups already in the Persian Gulf, and about the significance of this move. At the time I theorized that the move was related to a move against Iran, but then later thought that perhaps we have advance knowledge of the strike on Georgia. Turns out, not only was I right on both counts, but what I then termed as \”not a trivial chess piece in a global chessboard\” is just the tip of the iceberg.

There is a massive naval fleet heading for the gulf, most of which just completed Operation Brimstone, a joint US/UK/French/Brazil naval wargame. From descriptions of Operation Brimstone, it appears it concentrated on international cooperation to conduct military operations in littoral waters. All handy skills to have if one is planning a international naval blockade of another country.

Previously, I was aware of only the USS Theodore Roosevelt, the USS Ronald Reagan and their battle groups heading for the Gulf. Now it appears they are joined by the USS Iwo Jima, an amphibious assault ship (similar to the Peleliu), the UK Royal Navy HMS Ark Royal aircraft carrier, and her battle group, along with assorted French naval assets including the nuclear attack submarine Amethyste and French Naval Rafale fighter jets on-board the USS Theodore Roosevelt. By virtually any measure, that is a massive amount of firepower, especially combined with the forces already in the Gulf. Forces which include the USS Abraham Lincoln and her battlegroup, the USS Peleliu and her battle group, at least one US nuclear attack sub and miscellaneous other forces. This is the largest buildup of US allied naval forces in the Gulf since the invasion of Iraq.

There are several possible reasons for this buildup of forces:
1) The US and several allies have decided to enforce at least a partial naval blockade of Iran
2) The US and several allies are preparing for an Israeli and/or US strike on Iranian nuclear facilities
3) The US and several allies are preparing for an invasion of Iran.

Option #3 is the least likely, as this buildup is happening absent any major redeployment of air and ground forces. Both of these would be necessary for an invasion. Also with it\’s easily deployed ground forces already committed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and with the potential of action in Georgia. The timing of this, make option #3 severely unlikely.

Option #2 while possible, has become increasingly unlikely. Israel certainly has the capability. And if they feel the US isn\’t gonna do it, then they may feel the need to step up. And they may very well be at that stage. However, the US just rejected a request from Israel for military equipment necessary to make a strike on Iran. So clearly the Israelis lack some equipment necessary to make a strike. Even if they could manufacture it themselves, they are clearly not at a stage were a strike on Iran is imminent hence no need for a force buildup.

Which leaves us option #3, which I think it increasingly likely, especially considering that a majority of the forces involved just participated in a training exercise practicing precisely this. Plus a naval blockade would be a likely next step in the escalation of force to get Iran to comply with UN demands. While Iran is rich in oil, it has limited domestic refining capability. Which means while it exports lots of oil, it also has to import benzene in massive quantities. So a naval blockade would cripple their economy and that tends to draw attention.

Now certainly a much smaller force would certainly be capable of a naval blockade. The fact that such a large force is being arrayed also says quite a bit about the operational planning that went into this, and tends to imply two different possibilities.

First that it was considered possible that such a blockade would be resisted either by Iran or others (i.e. Russia). In the latter case, this formidable force would likely be intended to make intervention seem futile, or at least impractical. While Russia does have forces in the area, most notably the carrier Admiral Kuznetsov, in the Mediterranean, it\’s aircraft would have to pass over Iraq, and the US forces deployed there, in order to reach this flotilla.

Almost certainly the Iranians would attempt to resist as well, through quite a few different methods. Air attacks from land based aircraft would seemingly be met by aircraft from the four different carriers. Helicopters from the amphibious assault ships would likely be tasked to anti-sub detail. And the numerous warships in the battlegroups would fend of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard high-speed boats, functioning as suicide boats, similar to the attack on the USS Cole.

Almost certainly there would be an attempt by Iran to close the oil route chokepoint (only 21 miles wide) of the Strait of Hormuz, since one side is controlled by Iran, and the other by US allies United Arab Emirates and Oman. With the forces currently being positioned in the Gulf, it seems very likely that the US would be able to keep this route open, and prevent any attempts by Iran to break through the blockade.

Of course, a naval blockade is generally considered an act of war. So it\’s unlikely that everything will be just this simple. The board is set, the chess pieces are moving. This game is about to get interesting.

Late last week I saw an article that the US was sending two aircraft carriers, and their battle groups, to the Gulf. The US routinely maintains a carrier presence in the Gulf and it\’s common for carriers to rotate in their position. However, the current US carrier in the gulf, the USS Abraham Lincoln, arrived in March of 2008, and is scheduled for a seven month deployment, making her departure date October of 2008. This makes it highly unlikely that the USS Theodore Roosevelt and the USS Ronald Reagan are heading to the gulf to relieve the Lincoln of her station.

In addition, the Lincoln is not alone either, along with her own battle group, there is also a battle group centered around the USS Peleliu. The Peleliu is an amphibious assault ship, the home of lots of helicopters, Harrier jets and a few tons of Marines. And apparently a US nuclear sub just entered the gulf as well.

A large shift in the distribution of forces is enough to peak my interest, especially when it involves a relatively large number of a very finite set of a particular unit. Carriers are by their very nature very expensive, and very valuable. They are not a trivial chess piece in a global chessboard. A US carrier entering any area instantly become one of the largest cities, most advanced hospital and most powerful military asset in the area.

They are also machinery, which means they take maintenance. It\’s one of the reasons why the threat of China building an aircraft carrier is less than an immediate danger. To be truly a factor they would need three of them. Because at that point it becomes possible to always have one deployed. The US maintains a force of eleven carriers. And there are always at least a few down for maintenance and others that are busy with training and trials of new equipment. This leaves a relatively few available for action.

So I took a look at our carrier force and what they\’re up to….

USS Kitty Hawk – With it\’s home port in Japan, it is the ever present thorn in China\’s side and one of the biggest trump cards in any hostile intentions China has towards Taiwan. With the Olympics also going on, it is pretty much unavailable for anything short of a foreign invasion of the United States.

USS Enterprise – The Big E is most definitely out of action. She\’s in drydock for an much needed overhaul.

USS Nimitz – The Nimitz is down for planned incremental availability until December. While she could set sail if needed, really she\’s down for repairs, upgrades and other miscellaneous maintenance.

USS Dwight D. Eisenhower – She\’s somewhere in the Atlantic doing qualifications. She\’s be easy to pull into action. However, it\’s also nice to maintain a presence in the Atlantic, it being a pretty big ass pond and all that.

USS Carl Vinson – Most certainly down, as she is down for refueling. Which for a nuclear powered carrier means she\’s pretty much in pieces in a drydock. She\’s unavailable even if the fate of the free world depending on her sailing tomorrow.

USS Theodore Roosevelt – Just set sail for the gulf, for unknown reasons.

USS Abraham Lincoln – Already in the gulf supporting the war in Afghanistan.

USS George Washington – In dock for repairs following a onboard fire while enroute to permanently relieve the Kitty Hawk in Japan. Not available for action until the end of August.

USS John C Stennis – Prepping for her next deployment in the Pacific. Once again, it\’s nice to maintain a presence in a pond the size of the Pacific. Currently the Kitty Hawk in Japan, is the closest we got.

USS Ronald Reagan – She was in the Pacific, now steaming for the Gulf.

When you break it down, our carrier force while not exactly stretched thin, does exactly have carriers to spare either. So committing at least two and potentially three carriers to one region is a significant statement. Originally, when seeing the story, I thought perhaps the United States was either worried about, or preparing for an Israeli strike on Iran, which they\’ve been threatening to do.

Now with the sudden war between Russia and Georgia, I have to wonder if perhaps the US had advanced warning of it and decided they needed more assets in field in case we had to make a move to protect US interests. Either way, this move is worthy of notice and certainly warrants keeping an eye on the region because something big is either happening or about to happen.

If this latest effort against Iran was even remotely intentional, this has to be counted as a stroke of diplomatic genius on the part of the Bush Administration.

The new effort to pressure Iran has been led by Europeans and the international atomic agency. The United Nations Security Council is scheduled to vote Monday on a resolution on Iran, the third that would impose economic sanctions for its continued refusal to stop enriching uranium for nuclear fuel.

The United States has been relegated to more of a behind-the-scenes role, largely because the December intelligence report left it with little leverage to continue confronting the Iranians.

It\’s no longer the \”big bad bully of the world\” picking on Iran, instead it\’s quite literally the rest of the world. In one move, anti-Americanism and claims of war-mongering has been removed as part of the issue.

What\’s remarkable is that how truly easy it was. Europe has typically been content with letting the US fight their battles for them, while they conduct self-destructive sniping from the sidelines.

Suddenly with the release of the, now discredited, NIE, the United States effectively folded it\’s hand and walked away from the table. In response, Iran doubled down with more saber-rattling. Europe had to truly be shocked by all of this and, in a panic, has taken up the pressure on Iran. No doubt forgetting that previously they had labeled such pressure as American war-mongering.

With the US relegated to barely interested bystander, Iran can no longer count on the usual anti-Satan rhetoric and generic anti-Americanism. Instead, it\’s being forced to deal with the very countries that have been their trading partners.

It remains to be seen how effective this is. And if anything more strict that a harsh glare is required, undoubtably the US will be called upon to supply it, so pathetic is what constitutes European (UK-exclusive) military forces. However, it is a significant shift in the usual paradigm. And it provides the United States a welcome relief from taking care of everyone else\’s responsibility while getting criticized by the same nations it is assisting.

So you probably heard that Iran\’s Revolutionary Guard made some aggressive moves towards several US Navy vessesl in the Hormuz Strait recently. You can read the details elsewhere, but it seems pretty clear it was staged by Iran. The only question being why?

The whole \”we didn\’t know who they were\” excuse from Iran doesn\’t compute. They aggressively sought a confrontation with an unidentified superior force?? Right, I don\’t buy it. Even if they were packed with explosives, yeah, I don\’t buy it. No American Captain is going to let his ship become the next USS Cole. And identification is bogus, because then the obvious question because which other Navy in the region justifies this sort of approach by inferior Iranian forces??

In other words it was either a probe to test American resolve and the possibility of nabbing a few American hostages like they did with the British. See how close you can get before the bullets fly. Could you nab a few US sailors?? Could you recreate the Cole?

Alternately this could be a deliberate attempt to racket up tensions again. Tensions have diminished as of late, and I think it\’s no small coincidence that we see stories that Ahmadinejad is losing support in Iran. I don\’t think it would be beyond Ahmadinejad\’s capabilities to stage a small international incident to reestablish his \”Us Against The World\” coalition. Getting everyone to rally behind him against outside aggression again?? Wouldn\’t be the first time a tyrant used fear to keep the peasants in line.

Actually it seems the most likely reason, as anything else just comes across as too amateurish.

Also some have pointed out that maybe it\’s not that big of a deal, since China has been doing kinda the same thing. And the Soviets used to do the same thing back in the Cold War. Oh, and by the way if you\’re interested in those sort of Soviet-US Cold War incidents \”Blind Man\’s Bluff\” is an EXCELLENT read.

However, neither of these are the same thing.. The incidents with the Soviets were for the most part accidents in a dangerous game with a non-existent margin of error. One side tailing the other, two opposing forces in such proximity WILL cause an accident sooner or later.

The incidents with the Chinese are also different. Essentially the US Navy and the Chinese Navy, have been engaging in a massive dick-wagging competition for several years now, with control of the South China Sea, and to some extent the Pacific, at stake. Basically each side is trying to \”one-up\” the other to prove capabilities. And just plain let the other know that if the manure hit the rotating air circulation appliance, they would be dead by now. Consider it a international version of \”Tag\”.

In both cases, neither side was really looking to aggressively create an incident. This Iranian incident, combined with the radio transmissions that preceded it sound like they are an entirely different story.