The weapon that could defeat the US in the Gulf

[Cheetah786]

word to the reader: The following paper is so shocking that, after preparing the initial draft, I didn’t want to believe it myself, and resolved to disprove it with more research. However, I only succeeded in turning up more evidence in support of my thesis. And I repeated this cycle of discovery and denial several more times before finally deciding to go with the article. I believe that a serious writer must follow the trail of evidence, no matter where it leads, and report back. So here is my story. Don’t be surprised if it causes you to squirm. Its purpose is not to make predictions –– history makes fools of those who claim to know the future –– but simply to describe the peril that awaits us in the Persian Gulf. By awakening to the extent of that danger, perhaps we can still find a way to save our nation and the world from disaster. If we are very lucky, we might even create an alternative future that holds some promise of resolving the monumental conflicts of our time. MG



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Iran: A Bridge too Far?

by Mark Gaffney

10/26/04 "ICH" -- Last July, they dubbed it operation Summer Pulse: a simultaneous mustering of US Naval forces, world wide, that was unprecedented. According to the Navy, it was the first exercise of its new Fleet Response Plan (FRP), the purpose of which was to enable the Navy to respond quickly to an international crisis. The Navy wanted to show its increased force readiness, that is, its capacity to rapidly move combat power to any global hot spot. Never in the history of the US Navy had so many carrier battle groups been involved in a single operation. Even the US fleet massed in the Gulf and eastern Mediterranean during operation Desert Storm in 1991, and in the recent invasion of Iraq, never exceeded six battle groups. But last July and August there were seven of them on the move, each battle group consisting of a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier with its full complement of 7-8 supporting ships, and 70 or more assorted aircraft. Most of the activity, according to various reports, was in the Pacific, where the fleet participated in joint exercises with the Taiwanese navy.

But why so much naval power underway at the same time? What potential world crisis could possibly require more battle groups than were deployed during the recent invasion of Iraq? In past years, when the US has seen fit to “show the flag” or flex its naval muscle, one or two carrier groups have sufficed. Why this global show of power?

The news headlines about the joint-maneuvers in the South China Sea read: “Saber Rattling Unnerves China”, and: “Huge Show of Force Worries Chinese.” But the reality was quite different, and, as we shall see, has grave ramifications for the continuing US military presence in the Persian Gulf; because operation Summer Pulse reflected a high-level Pentagon decision that an unprecedented show of strength was needed to counter what is viewed as a growing threat –– in the particular case of China, because of Peking’s newest Sovremenny-class destroyers recently acquired from Russia.

“Nonsense!” you are probably thinking. That’s impossible. How could a few picayune destroyers threaten the US Pacific fleet?”

Here is where the story thickens: Summer Pulse amounted to a tacit acknowledgement, obvious to anyone paying attention, that the United States has been eclipsed in an important area of military technology, and that this qualitative edge is now being wielded by others, including the Chinese; because those otherwise very ordinary destroyers were, in fact, launching platforms for Russian-made 3M-82 Moskit anti-ship cruise missiles (NATO designation: SS-N-22 Sunburn), a weapon for which the US Navy currently has no defense. Here I am not suggesting that the US status of lone world Superpower has been surpassed. I am simply saying that a new global balance of power is emerging, in which other individual states may, on occasion, achieve “an asymmetric advantage” over the US. And this, in my view, explains the immense scale of Summer Pulse. The US show last summer of overwhelming strength was calculated to send a message.

The Sunburn Missile

I was shocked when I learned the facts about these Russian-made cruise missiles. The problem is that so many of us suffer from two common misperceptions. The first follows from our assumption that Russia is militarily weak, as a result of the breakup of the old Soviet system. Actually, this is accurate, but it does not reflect the complexities. Although the Russian navy continues to rust in port, and the Russian army is in disarray, in certain key areas Russian technology is actually superior to our own. And nowhere is this truer than in the vital area of anti-ship cruise missile technology, where the Russians hold at least a ten-year lead over the US. The second misperception has to do with our complacency in general about missiles-as-weapons –– probably attributable to the pathetic performance of Saddam Hussein’s Scuds during the first Gulf war: a dangerous illusion that I will now attempt to rectify.

Many years ago, Soviet planners gave up trying to match the US Navy ship for ship, gun for gun, and dollar for dollar. The Soviets simply could not compete with the high levels of US spending required to build up and maintain a huge naval armada. They shrewdly adopted an alternative approach based on strategic defense. They searched for weaknesses, and sought relatively inexpensive ways to exploit those weaknesses. The Soviets succeeded: by developing several supersonic anti-ship missiles, one of which, the SS-N-22 Sunburn, has been called “the most lethal missile in the world today.”

After the collapse of the Soviet Union the old military establishment fell upon hard times. But in the late1990s Moscow awakened to the under-utilized potential of its missile technology to generate desperately needed foreign exchange. A decision was made to resuscitate selected programs, and, very soon, Russian missile technology became a hot export commodity. Today, Russian missiles are a growth industry generating much-needed cash for Russia, with many billions in combined sales to India, China, Viet Nam, Cuba, and also Iran. In the near future this dissemination of advanced technology is likely to present serious challenges to the US. Some have even warned that the US Navy’s largest ships, the massive carriers, have now become floating death traps, and should for this reason be mothballed.

The Sunburn missile has never seen use in combat, to my knowledge, which probably explains why its fearsome capabilities are not more widely recognized. Other cruise missiles have been used, of course, on several occasions, and with devastating results. During the Falklands War, French-made Exocet missiles, fired from Argentine fighters, sunk the HMS Sheffield and another ship. And, in 1987, during the Iran-Iraq war, the USS Stark was nearly cut in half by a pair of Exocets while on patrol in the Persian Gulf. On that occasion US Aegis radar picked up the incoming Iraqi fighter (a French-made Mirage), and tracked its approach to within 50 miles. The radar also “saw” the Iraqi plane turn about and return to its base. But radar never detected the pilot launch his weapons. The sea-skimming Exocets came smoking in under radar and were only sighted by human eyes moments before they ripped into the Stark, crippling the ship and killing 37 US sailors.

The 1987 surprise attack on the Stark exemplifies the dangers posed by anti-ship cruise missiles. And the dangers are much more serious in the case of the Sunburn, whose specs leave the sub-sonic Exocet in the dust. Not only is the Sunburn much larger and faster, it has far greater range and a superior guidance system. Those who have witnessed its performance trials invariably come away stunned. According to one report, when the Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani visited Moscow in October 2001 he requested a test firing of the Sunburn, which the Russians were only too happy to arrange. So impressed was Ali Shamkhani that he placed an order for an undisclosed number of the missiles.

The Sunburn can deliver a 200-kiloton nuclear payload, or: a 750-pound conventional warhead, within a range of 100 miles, more than twice the range of the Exocet. The Sunburn combines a Mach 2.1 speed (two times the speed of sound) with a flight pattern that hugs the deck and includes “violent end maneuvers” to elude enemy defenses. The missile was specifically designed to defeat the US Aegis radar defense system. Should a US Navy Phalanx point defense somehow manage to detect an incoming Sunburn missile, the system has only seconds to calculate a fire solution –– not enough time to take out the intruding missile. The US Phalanx defense employs a six-barreled gun that fires 3,000 depleted-uranium rounds a minute, but the gun must have precise coordinates to destroy an intruder “just in time.”

The Sunburn’s combined supersonic speed and payload size produce tremendous kinetic energy on impact, with devastating consequences for ship and crew. A single one of these missiles can sink a large warship, yet costs considerably less than a fighter jet. Although the Navy has been phasing out the older Phalanx defense system, its replacement, known as the Rolling Action Missile (RAM) has never been tested against the weapon it seems destined to one day face in combat.

Implications For US Forces in the Gulf

The US Navy’s only plausible defense against a robust weapon like the Sunburn missile is to detect the enemy’s approach well ahead of time, whether destroyers, subs, or fighter-bombers, and defeat them before they can get in range and launch their deadly cargo. For this purpose US AWACs radar planes assigned to each naval battle group are kept aloft on a rotating schedule. The planes “see” everything within two hundred miles of the fleet, and are complemented with intelligence from orbiting satellites.

But US naval commanders operating in the Persian Gulf face serious challenges that are unique to the littoral, i.e., coastal, environment. A glance at a map shows why: The Gulf is nothing but a large lake, with one narrow outlet, and most of its northern shore, i.e., Iran, consists of mountainous terrain that affords a commanding tactical advantage over ships operating in Gulf waters. The rugged northern shore makes for easy concealment of coastal defenses, such as mobile missile launchers, and also makes their detection problematic. Although it was not widely reported, the US actually lost the battle of the Scuds in the first Gulf War –– termed “the great Scud hunt” –– and for similar reasons. Saddam Hussein’s mobile Scud launchers proved so difficult to detect and destroy –– over and over again the Iraqis fooled allied reconnaissance with decoys –– that during the course of Desert Storm the US was unable to confirm even a single kill. This proved such an embarrassment to the Pentagon, afterwards, that the unpleasant stats were buried in official reports. But the blunt fact is that the US failed to stop the Scud attacks. The launches continued until the last few days of the conflict. Luckily, the Scud’s inaccuracy made it an almost useless weapon. At one point General Norman Schwarzkopf quipped dismissively to the press that his soldiers had a greater chance of being struck by lightning in Georgia than by a Scud in Kuwait.

But that was then, and it would be a grave error to allow the Scud’s ineffectiveness to blur the facts concerning this other missile. The Sunburn’s amazing accuracy was demonstrated not long ago in a live test staged at sea by the Chinese –– and observed by US spy planes. Not only did the Sunburn missile destroy the dummy target ship, it scored a perfect bull’s eye, hitting the crosshairs of a large “X” mounted on the ship’s bridge. The only word that does it justice, awesome, has become a cliché, hackneyed from hyperbolic excess.

The US Navy has never faced anything in combat as formidable as the Sunburn missile. But this will surely change if the US and Israel decide to wage a so-called preventive war against Iran to destroy its nuclear infrastructure. Storm clouds have been darkening over the Gulf for many months. In recent years Israel upgraded its air force with a new fleet of long-range F-15 fighter-bombers, and even more recently took delivery of 5,000 bunker-buster bombs from the US –– weapons that many observers think are intended for use against Iran.

The arming for war has been matched by threats. Israeli officials have declared repeatedly that they will not allow the Mullahs to develop nuclear power, not even reactors to generate electricity for peaceful use. Their threats are particularly worrisome, because Israel has a long history of pre-emptive war. (See my 1989 book Dimona: the Third Temple? and also my 2003 article Will Iran Be Next? posted at < http://www.InformationClearingHouse.info/article3288.htm >)

Never mind that such a determination is not Israel’s to make, and belongs instead to the international community, as codified in the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). With regard to Iran, the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA’s) recent report (September 2004) is well worth a look, as it repudiates facile claims by the US and Israel that Iran is building bombs. While the report is highly critical of Tehran for its ambiguities and its grudging release of documents, it affirms that IAEA inspectors have been admitted to every nuclear site in the country to which they have sought access, without exception. Last year Iran signed the strengthened IAEA inspection protocol, which until then had been voluntary. And the IAEA has found no hard evidence, to date, either that bombs exist or that Iran has made a decision to build them. (The latest IAEA report can be downloaded at: www.GlobalSecurity.org)

In a talk on October 3, 2004, IAEA Director General Mohamed El Baradei made the clearest statement yet: "Iran has no nuclear weapons program", he said, and then repeated himself for emphasis: “Iran has no nuclear weapons program, but I personally don’t rush to conclusions before all the realities are clarified. So far I see nothing that could be called an imminent danger. I have seen no nuclear weapons program in Iran. What I have seen is that Iran is trying to gain access to nuclear enrichment technology, and so far there is no danger from Iran. Therefore, we should make use of political and diplomatic means before thinking of resorting to other alternatives.”

( http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=5051 )

No one disputes that Tehran is pursuing a dangerous path, but with 200 or more Israeli nukes targeted upon them the Iranians’ insistence on keeping their options open is understandable. Clearly, the nuclear nonproliferation regime today hangs by the slenderest of threads. The world has arrived at a fateful crossroads.

A Fearful Symmetry?

If a showdown over Iran develops in the coming months, the man who could hold the outcome in his hands will be thrust upon the world stage. That man, like him or hate him, is Russian President Vladimir Putin. He has been castigated severely in recent months for gathering too much political power to himself. But according to former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, who was interviewed on US television recently by David Brokaw, Putin has not imposed a tyranny upon Russia –– yet. Gorbachev thinks the jury is still out on Putin.

Perhaps, with this in mind, we should be asking whether Vladimir Putin is a serious student of history. If he is, then he surely recognizes that the deepening crisis in the Persian Gulf presents not only manifold dangers, but also opportunities. Be assured that the Russian leader has not forgotten the humiliating defeat Ronald Reagan inflicted upon the old Soviet state. (Have we Americans forgotten?) By the mid-1980s the Soviets were in Kabul, and had all but defeated the Mujahedeen. The Soviet Union appeared secure in its military occupation of Afghanistan. But then, in 1986, the first US Stinger missiles reached the hands of the Afghani resistance; and, quite suddenly, Soviet helicopter gunships and MiGs began dropping out of the skies like flaming stones. The tide swiftly turned, and by 1989 it was all over but the hand wringing and gnashing of teeth in the Kremlin. Defeated, the Soviets slunk back across the frontier. The whole world cheered the American Stingers, which had carried the day.

This very night, as he sips his cognac, what is Vladimir Putin thinking? Is he perhaps thinking about the perverse symmetries of history? If so, he may also be wondering (and discussing with his closest aides) how a truly great nation like the United States could be so blind and so stupid as to allow another state, i.e., Israel, to control its foreign policy, especially in a region as vital (and volatile) as the Mid-East. One can almost hear the Russians’ animated conversation:

“The Americans! What is the matter with them?”
“They simply cannot help themselves.”
“What idiots!”
“A nation as foolish as this deserves to be taught a lesson…”
“Yes! For their own good.”
“It must be a painful lesson, one they will never forget…”
“Are we agreed, then, comrades?”
“Let us teach our American friends a lesson about the limits of military power!”

Does anyone really believe that Vladimir Putin will hesitate to seize a most rare opportunity to change the course of history and, in the bargain, take his sweet revenge? Surely Putin understands the terrible dimensions of the trap into which the US has blundered, thanks to the Israelis and their neo-con supporters in Washington who lobbied so vociferously for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, against all friendly and expert advice, and who even now beat the drums of war against Iran. Would Putin be wrong to conclude that the US will never leave the region unless it is first defeated militarily? Should we blame him for deciding that Iran is “one bridge too far”?

If the US and Israel overreach, and the Iranians close the net with Russian anti-ship missiles, it will be a fearful symmetry, indeed…

Springing the Trap

At the battle of Cannae in 216 BC the great Carthaginian general, Hannibal, tempted a much larger Roman army into a fateful advance, and then enveloped and annihilated it with a smaller force. Out of a Roman army of 70,000 men, no more than a few thousand escaped. It was said that after many hours of dispatching the Romans Hannibal’s soldiers grew so tired that the fight went out of them. In their weariness they granted the last broken and bedraggled Romans their lives…

Let us pray that the US sailors who are unlucky enough to be on duty in the Persian Gulf when the shooting starts can escape the fate of the Roman army at Cannae. The odds will be heavily against them, however, because they will face the same type of danger, tantamount to envelopment. The US ships in the Gulf will already have come within range of the Sunburn missiles and the even more-advanced SS-NX-26 Yakhonts missiles, also Russian-made (speed: Mach 2.9; range: 180 miles) deployed by the Iranians along the Gulf’s northern shore. Every US ship will be exposed and vulnerable. When the Iranians spring the trap, the entire lake will become a killing field.

Anti-ship cruise missiles are not new, as I’ve mentioned. Nor have they yet determined the outcome in a conflict. But this is probably only because these horrible weapons have never been deployed in sufficient numbers. At the time of the Falklands war the Argentine air force possessed only five Exocets, yet managed to sink two ships. With enough of them, the Argentineans might have sunk the entire British fleet, and won the war. Although we’ve never seen a massed attack of cruise missiles, this is exactly what the US Navy could face in the next war in the Gulf. Try and imagine it if you can: barrage after barrage of Exocet-class missiles, which the Iranians are known to possess in the hundreds, as well as the unstoppable Sunburn and Yakhonts missiles. The questions that our purblind government leaders should be asking themselves, today, if they value what historians will one day write about them, are two: how many of the Russian anti-ship missiles has Putin already supplied to Iran? And: How many more are currently in the pipeline? In 2001 Jane’s Defense Weekly reported that Iran was attempting to acquire anti-ship missiles from Russia. Ominously, the same report also mentioned that the more advanced Yakhonts missile was “optimized for attacks against carrier task forces.” Apparently its guidance system is “able to distinguish an aircraft carrier from its escorts.” The numbers were not disclosed…

The US Navy will come under fire even if the US does not participate in the first so-called surgical raids on Iran’s nuclear sites, that is, even if Israel goes it alone. Israel’s brand-new fleet of 25 F-15s (paid for by American taxpayers) has sufficient range to target Iran, but the Israelis cannot mount an attack without crossing US-occupied Iraqi air space. It will hardly matter if Washington gives the green light, or is dragged into the conflict by a recalcitrant Israel. Either way, the result will be the same. The Iranians will interpret US acquiescence as complicity, and, in any event, they will understand that the real fight is with the Americans. The Iranians will be entirely within their rights to counter-attack in self-defense. Most of the world will see it this way, and will support them, not America. The US and Israel will be viewed as the aggressors, even as the unfortunate US sailors in harm’s way become cannon fodder. In the Gulf’s shallow and confined waters evasive maneuvers will be difficult, at best, and escape impossible. Even if US planes control of the skies over the battlefield, the sailors caught in the net below will be hard-pressed to survive. The Gulf will run red with American blood…

From here, it only gets worse. Armed with their Russian-supplied cruise missiles, the Iranians will close the lake’s only outlet, the strategic Strait of Hormuz, cutting off the trapped and dying Americans from help and rescue. The US fleet massing in the Indian Ocean will stand by helplessly, unable to enter the Gulf to assist the survivors or bring logistical support to the other US forces on duty in Iraq. Couple this with a major new ground offensive by the Iraqi insurgents, and, quite suddenly, the tables could turn against the Americans in Baghdad. As supplies and ammunition begin to run out, the status of US forces in the region will become precarious. The occupiers will become the besieged…

With enough anti-ship missiles, the Iranians can halt tanker traffic through Hormuz for weeks, even months. With the flow of oil from the Gulf curtailed, the price of a barrel of crude will skyrocket on the world market. Within days the global economy will begin to grind to a halt. Tempers at an emergency round-the-clock session of the UN Security Council will flare and likely explode into shouting and recriminations as French, German, Chinese and even British ambassadors angrily accuse the US of allowing Israel to threaten world order. But, as always, because of the US veto the world body will be powerless to act...

America will stand alone, completely isolated. Yet, despite the increasingly hostile international mood, elements of the US media will spin the crisis very differently here at home, in a way that is sympathetic to Israel. Members of Congress will rise to speak in the House and Senate, and rally to Israel’s defense, while blaming the victim of the attack, Iran. Fundamentalist Christian talk show hosts will proclaim the historic fulfillment of biblical prophecy in our time, and will call upon the Jews of Israel to accept Jesus into their hearts; meanwhile, urging the president to nuke the evil empire of Islam. From across America will be heard histrionic cries for fresh reinforcements, even a military draft. Patriots will demand victory at any cost. Pundits will scream for an escalation of the conflict.

A war that ostensibly began as an attempt to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons will teeter on the brink of their use…

Conclusion

Friends, we must work together to prevent such a catastrophe. We must stop the next Middle East war before it starts. The US government must turn over to the United Nations the primary responsibility for resolving the deepening crisis in Iraq, and, immediately thereafter, withdraw US forces from the country. We must also prevail upon the Israelis to sign the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and open all of their nuclear sites to IAEA inspectors. Only then can serious talks begin with Iran and other states to establish a nuclear weapon free zone (NWFZ) in the Mid East –– so essential to the region’s long-term peace and security.

* * *
Mark Gaffney’s first book, Dimona the Third Temple? (1989), was a pioneering study of Israel’s nuclear weapons program. Mark’s articles about the Mid-East and proliferation issues have appeared in the Middle East Policy Journal, Washington Report On Middle East Affairs, the Earth Island Journal, The Oregonian, the Daily Californian, and have been posted on numerous web sites, especially Counterpunch.org. Mark’s 2003 paper Will Iran Be Next? can be viewed at < www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iran.htm> Mark’s newest book, Gnostic Secrets of the Naassenes, was released by Inner Traditions Press in May 2003. Email <Mhgaffney@aol.com> For more information go to www.GnosticSecrets.com

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Information Clearing House endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

 

[zraver]

1- The US navy does not sail into harm's way alone. In any shooting match between Iran and the US, iran will face thye full wieght of Ameircan military might. Cyber attacks, stealth aircraft and cruise missile attacks on C4i assets and strikes agaisnt it's coastal batteries, ports and airfeilds.

The USAF is already in the Gulf and Indian Ocean and can flatten Iran's war making ability almost overnight.

China is even less of a chance than Iran. At least Iran has US forces with oin strikin range and possily in a confiend space. China not matter how impressive its perceived ability to strike at US carriers still only leaves port at the forebearanc eof the US navy. In the wider deeper waters off China's coast the US Sub fleet are the masters of thier domain. The US can literally sink the linchpin ships the PLAN depends with in 5 minutes of deciding to do so. The same vulnerability also appies to China's airfeilds, rail links, highway bridges, electrical and communications grid, and pipelines.

The US can conduct Hyperwar, a very realo and devestating type of attack that can cripple a modern nation in minutes.

 

[Cheetah786]

1- The US navy does not sail into harm's way alone. In any shooting match between Iran and the US, iran will face thye full wieght of Ameircan military might. Cyber attacks, stealth aircraft and cruise missile attacks on C4i assets and strikes agaisnt it's coastal batteries, ports and airfeilds.

The USAF is already in the Gulf and Indian Ocean and can flatten Iran's war making ability almost overnight.

China is even less of a chance than Iran. At least Iran has US forces with oin strikin range and possily in a confiend space. China not matter how impressive its perceived ability to strike at US carriers still only leaves port at the forebearanc eof the US navy. In the wider deeper waters off China's coast the US Sub fleet are the masters of thier domain. The US can literally sink the linchpin ships the PLAN depends with in 5 minutes of deciding to do so. The same vulnerability also appies to China's airfeilds, rail links, highway bridges, electrical and communications grid, and pipelines.

The US can conduct Hyperwar, a very realo and devestating type of attack that can cripple a modern nation in minutes.

Mark Gaffney’s first book, Dimona the Third Temple? (1989), was a pioneering study of Israel’s nuclear weapons program. Mark’s articles about the Mid-East and proliferation issues have appeared in the Middle East Policy Journal, Washington Report On Middle East Affairs, the Earth Island Journal, The Oregonian, the Daily Californian, and have been posted on numerous web sites, especially Counterpunch.org. Mark’s 2003 paper Will Iran Be Next? can be viewed at < www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iran.htm> Mark’s newest book, Gnostic Secrets of the Naassenes, was released by Inner Traditions Press in May 2003. Email <Mhgaffney@aol.com> For more information go to www.GnosticSecrets.com

These are some of this gentlemans achivements or in Another polite way of saying it you are clue less.

 

[zraver]

Actually your clueless, the nmere fact that I have to explain things proves it. A big part of the US defense industry in lobbying, or red scares. We saw the exact same type of statements about the SU-30MKI after Cope India, and about the T-64/72/80 prior to GW1, and about mythical Soviet bombers going back to the early 50's.

Taking on the US requires more than a secret weapon it requires a comphrensive package of advanced technology, numbers, training, doctrine, and motivation. And when contemplating taking out a carrier, risking a nuclear strike in retaliation.

600 billion a year buys a certain level of dominacy that a mere cruise missile won't undo. Nor is the Sunburn imune to counter measures. According to Global Secuirty the reaction time is reuced from 150 seconds to 25-30. This might have been a problem in the 80's vs Gen 1 Aegis like the Tico's. But US Technology has not remained stagnant. Then ther eis the question on whether or not the Moskit can even dent a carrier. Russian guide lines call for 5-10 to be used on a 2000t merchantmen, let alone a 100,000t super carrier desiged by the worlds leading minds when it comes to damage control.

The USN learned alot from the Forrestal, Bunker Hill, and others and has the best damage control in the world.

What it all ads upto Cheetah,

1- Iran or China's succesful use of the Moskit vs a carrier requires a pre-meditated suprise attack (and the resulting US wrath at the murder of thousands of its servicemen and woman- ask japan about that wrath), or a collossal departure from known US warfighting doctrine.

2- The Sunburn does nothing to counter the USAF or US submarines (do you think those russian built PLAN DDG's would not have a US submarine on them if they tried to surge in a high tension period)

3- Going after a US carrier with of w/o a declaration of war bring withit a total American commitment to winning or dying trying. Going after a carrier is a totally different ball of wax from funding insurgetns in Iraq, its total war. A situation neither Iran or China can win. Iran depends on oil revenue, and that depends on two critical bottlenecks, the Suez and straits of Mallacca. Since Iran cannot project power into the Indian Ocean it cannot ship oil.

Its even worse for China, at least Iran is united by religion. In China the CCP's continued power rests on continued growth, with out the US markets that growth not only stops, but despression sets in.

There are many other aspects that will impose thier own twist on events if either Iran or China decides to commit national suicide. Sure the US might lose a carrier but its foes will lose so much more.

 

[lulldapull]

1- The US navy does not sail into harm's way alone. In any shooting match between Iran and the US, iran will face thye full wieght of Ameircan military might. Cyber attacks, stealth aircraft and cruise missile attacks on C4i assets and strikes agaisnt it's coastal batteries, ports and airfeilds.

The USAF is already in the Gulf and Indian Ocean and can flatten Iran's war making ability almost overnight.

China is even less of a chance than Iran. At least Iran has US forces with oin strikin range and possily in a confiend space. China not matter how impressive its perceived ability to strike at US carriers still only leaves port at the forebearanc eof the US navy. In the wider deeper waters off China's coast the US Sub fleet are the masters of thier domain. The US can literally sink the linchpin ships the PLAN depends with in 5 minutes of deciding to do so. The same vulnerability also appies to China's airfeilds, rail links, highway bridges, electrical and communications grid, and pipelines.

The US can conduct Hyperwar, a very realo and devestating type of attack that can cripple a modern nation in minutes.

Raver...buddy......what do you think would happen to your 140,000 demoralised boys sitting in those large U.S. bases in Iraq and Bahrain? you think iran will just sit there and take it like these Arabs do? I think you are dreaming and getting delusional.

Iran has a lot of power it can project in the Gulf. I don't think the USN will be stupid enough to stay in the Gulf and become target practice for the thousands of Iranian Antiship missiles that will be launched.

Btw......bullshiitting is one thing...but do you honestly believe that Russia and Chian would watch iran get pounded without doing anything?...Are you kidding yourself?

In the next few years...the U.S. military will get up....shake Iran's hand.....dust off its pants, and beat it. There won't be any attack on iran, as the superpowers wont allow it. Time is on Tehran's side. The U.S. has lost legitimacy and squandered any and all chances of any sort of detente' with not only Iran but also in Iraq, Lebanon and Syria.

Bush and these Neocons are the dummies to blame for this......not the U.S. Military.

P.S. That 'Hyper power' was very recently tested by the IDF over Lebanon, and the hezbollah busted them right between the butt cheeks. It has its limitations, and hezbollah didn't even call on its reserves. They could have taken the fight inside Israel if they wanted to. Next time around, the Hezb will respond with much larger and much more destructive SSM's. Point being the message is clearly on the wall for Bush......Bring it on....and if you can't do it, or flinch, then beat it.

 

[zraver]

Raver...buddy......what do you think would happen to your 140,000 demoralised boys sitting in those large U.S. bases in Iraq and Bahrain? you think iran will just sit there and take it like these Arabs do? I think you are dreaming and getting delusional.

Iran has a lot of power it can project in the Gulf. I don't think the USN will be stupid enough to stay in the Gulf and become target practice for the thousands of Iranian Antiship missiles that will be launched.

Btw......bullshiitting is one thing...but do you honestly believe that Russia and Chian would watch iran get pounded without doing anything?...Are you kidding yourself?

In the next few years...the U.S. military will get up....shake Iran's hand.....dust off its pants, and beat it. There won't be any attack on iran, as the superpowers wont allow it. Time is on Tehran's side. The U.S. has lost legitimacy and squandered any and all chances of any sort of detente' with not only Iran but also in Iraq, Lebanon and Syria.

Bush and these Neocons are the dummies to blame for this......not the U.S. Military.

P.S. That 'Hyper power' was very recently tested by the IDF over Lebanon, and the hezbollah busted them right between the butt cheeks. It has its limitations, and hezbollah didn't even call on its reserves. They could have taken the fight inside Israel if they wanted to. Next time around, the Hezb will respond with much larger and much more destructive SSM's. Point being the message is clearly on the wall for Bush......Bring it on....and if you can't do it, or flinch, then beat it.

I will adress your points in order

1- Those 140,000 troops are not demoralized, last year the army beat its re-enlistment goal of 60&#37;. I don't care how motivated the Pasadran is, it is completely outclassed in experiance, technology, and doctrine.

2- The Irainian army and airforce are jokes as is thier navy. Thier power projection rests soley on missiles anhd terrorists. Iran already learned what happens when you threaten Europes oil, you get smacked down hard. There is nothing in Iran's arsenal capable of providing even a modest amount of resistence to the USAF. The Persian state can make all the claims it wants but it cannot back them up. So they can close the strait of Hormuz, they can't keep it closed.

The Ayatollahs and the zealots that follow them are the minority in Iran and barely in power. The presidetns party lost seats because of his wacko belligerancy. If he pushes his country into ruin by taking on the US, the theocratic state may well fall to internal revolt.

3- China and Russia will protest loudly, and not lift a finger or shed one ounce of blood. They know the rules of the game as well as anyone. Nuclear powers do not engage in direct confrontation over proxies, the stakes are to high. During the Cold War only the US and UK proved willing to bet thier national survival on direct confrontation. The USSR and to a lesser extent PRC always backed down. The US lead in strategic assets right now is such that the US has an unlimited and unchecked first strike capability and at least (in the case of the PRC) limited ABM capability.

4- There is only 1 superpower, The US of A. Do not delude yourself into thinking we have once again re-entered a multi-polar world. That day is still 30-50 years in the future. The US has not lost its legitamcy, Bush has lost his legitmacy. There is a differance. As Mao said power come sform the bareel of a gun and the US has the biggest guns around, as well as the biggest economy, and being the worlds market. That trifecta of power makes the US legitmate no mater who is in charge.

5- The IDF went into Lebanon with an army that had lost its edge and under a weak willed politcal enviroment. It attacked an area already ideally suited for defensive operations, that was recent;y built up over 6 years. Hezzbollah showed absolutely no ability to re-inforce or impose it's will on the IDF. it had to hold in place and fight when the IDF reached them, thier sole means of counter attack was a WW2 era bombardment rocket. Thier supply of longer ranged rockets and true SSM's having been taken out early (hence no attacks outside of the border region.

Remember Iran is training insurgents vs both the IDF and vs the USA/UK and in Iraq the Irainian tactics have not been able to ressist a single US assault, and have been forced to use IED's and snipers instead of feild forces like what defeated the IDF in Lebanon. Israel got complacent and got smacked. It won't happen again. Meanwhile the US has been engaged in active fighting for years now and has an army that is almost entirely combat vets.

 

[Cheetah786]

I will adress your points in order

1- Those 140,000 troops are not demoralized, last year the army beat its re-enlistment goal of 60&#37;. I don't care how motivated the Pasadran is, it is completely outclassed in experiance, technology, and doctrine.

2- The Irainian army and airforce are jokes as is thier navy. Thier power projection rests soley on missiles anhd terrorists. Iran already learned what happens when you threaten Europes oil, you get smacked down hard. There is nothing in Iran's arsenal capable of providing even a modest amount of resistence to the USAF. The Persian state can make all the claims it wants but it cannot back them up. So they can close the strait of Hormuz, they can't keep it closed.

The Ayatollahs and the zealots that follow them are the minority in Iran and barely in power. The presidetns party lost seats because of his wacko belligerancy. If he pushes his country into ruin by taking on the US, the theocratic state may well fall to internal revolt.

3- China and Russia will protest loudly, and not lift a finger or shed one ounce of blood. They know the rules of the game as well as anyone. Nuclear powers do not engage in direct confrontation over proxies, the stakes are to high. During the Cold War only the US and UK proved willing to bet thier national survival on direct confrontation. The USSR and to a lesser extent PRC always backed down. The US lead in strategic assets right now is such that the US has an unlimited and unchecked first strike capability and at least (in the case of the PRC) limited ABM capability.

4- There is only 1 superpower, The US of A. Do not delude yourself into thinking we have once again re-entered a multi-polar world. That day is still 30-50 years in the future. The US has not lost its legitamcy, Bush has lost his legitmacy. There is a differance. As Mao said power come sform the bareel of a gun and the US has the biggest guns around, as well as the biggest economy, and being the worlds market. That trifecta of power makes the US legitmate no mater who is in charge.

5- The IDF went into Lebanon with an army that had lost its edge and under a weak willed politcal enviroment. It attacked an area already ideally suited for defensive operations, that was recent;y built up over 6 years. Hezzbollah showed absolutely no ability to re-inforce or impose it's will on the IDF. it had to hold in place and fight when the IDF reached them, thier sole means of counter attack was a WW2 era bombardment rocket. Thier supply of longer ranged rockets and true SSM's having been taken out early (hence no attacks outside of the border region.

Remember Iran is training insurgents vs both the IDF and vs the USA/UK and in Iraq the Irainian tactics have not been able to ressist a single US assault, and have been forced to use IED's and snipers instead of feild forces like what defeated the IDF in Lebanon. Israel got complacent and got smacked. It won't happen again. Meanwhile the US has been engaged in active fighting for years now and has an army that is almost entirely combat vets.

YOU might wanna give this speech to those 140.000,in the green zone.some of them had there pictures on the net with banner (save us kerri get us out of iraq)you are only fighting 10% of the poulation so far imagin rest join in thats more then likely after iran is attacked i wonder whats going to happen to green zone.oh yes Arnold will come in and terminate them all
And yes take this Attitude and tell your presidnet we should launch attack on iran its no big deal hey .they might listen to you.After all israelies have been telling him to do so for a long time .he didnt hesitate to do it with iraq whats stopping him. wait American have the habbit of only hitting the defence less.iraq afghanistan.
Super power you said then why ask the nato to help why go to united nations for help why ask pakistan and india for troops for iraq.oh wait must have been my imagination.


ECONOMIC POWER U SAY china cant do nothing well.

The USA&#8217;s national debt is increasing by $2.43 billion everyday. People expect the state debt to top the ten trillion dollar mark in the next few years.

A special huge electronic display in New York which shows in real time the size of state debt will not be able to cope with such a high figure. In 1989 the national debt clock was placed in Times Square so that Americans could see how effectively their government was working. At the time the national debt stood at 2.7 trillion dollars.

Yesterday at midday Moscow time the debt stood at $8 369 526 197 055.36. It even rose yesterday by $604 million. If the figures are to be believed, yesterday every American family bore a debt of almost $90 000.

Developer Douglas Durst owns the clock and his father erected it. He hoped to make Americans understand the economy better. The clock worked fine for ten years but in the run up to the new millennium it crashed. In its final moments the clock read that the national debt was $5.7 trillion and that the family share of the debt was $74 000. Durst believed that such a level of debt would not last long and he was right. Within two years the debt had started to grow at an unprecedented rate.

Durst pulled the plug on the clock in 2000, but it was switched back on in 2002 when debt started to once again increase. In 2004 a new model replaced the original clock which was able to express the figure in a shortened term in the event that in the future the debt suddenly started to rise at an unthinkable rate. Now the figure on the clock goes up by $20 000 every second.

So what is to be done? It is expensive being the &#8220;light of democracy&#8221; in Iraq and Afghanistan, keep revolutionaries at bay and to &#8220;teach&#8221; the rest of the world how to live their lives.

Anton Struchenevsky, an analyst from management company Troika Dialog says, &#8220;Even when the state debt reaches the 10 trillion dollar mark, an economic crisis will not occur in the USA and the dollar will not crash. It is in the interests of the USA&#8217;s main creditor, China, to have a stable American currency and protect the American market.&#8221;

http://english.pravda.ru/world/americas/30-03-2006/78085-nationaldebt-0
in these conditions when the chinese tell uncle sam to jump .bush will ask how high.china dont have to defeat usa militarly any more silly they will own it in no time. more American government barrows to fight .More chinese get to own the American dream dollar at a time.
oh i must ask why Americans have decided to supply nuclear reactors with TOT to china all off sudden.this one i actually wanna no why.


oh i forget to ask this one .

The Irainian army and airforce are jokes as is thier navy. Thier power projection rests soley on missiles and terrorists. when osama attacked usa without a cause he was decleared terrorist as he should have been .
but when the Americans Attacked iraq without a cause they are freedom fighters iam so confused.

 

[Awesome]

Zraver basically you're saying the US military might won't let the Iranians launch off their cruise missiles so they won't come into play?

 

[lulldapull]

IRGC UAV's have been watching all U.S. manouvers and movements of forces in the Gulf. Everything is under surveillence. They know what your cheese pumpers are up to. It will be foolish and downright delusional on your part if you believe that all this capability Iran is getting from aliens living on Mars?

Raver, In all honesty do you honestly believe that Russia and China wont help Iran? they already are......All these Moskits, UAV's, Shkval rocket torpedoes??? more than 1000 ScudB/C's?? More than several thousand Frog-7's? Serially manufacturing of thousands of C-801/802 and KH-55's? the capability to stamp out 3 Shahab-3's per day?? Gen. Safavi has claimed that iran has more than 1000 Shahab-3's alone. the Iranian Navy has dozens of small fast missile craft capable of launching C-802's. You think Russia and China are not helping them?

Don't go into denial.

Did you know that the IRIAF operates more than 50 upgraded Mig-29B's now, and has a similar number of upgraded Su-24MR's? Where did these come from? Let me cue you on the reality......its called Syria. In addition the IRIAF now has more than 450 operational aircraft.

These Carriers will sink to the bottom of the Persian Gulf.

And i tell you.....Iranian hordes that are already inside Iraq will take your boys hostage...just like in 1979......You remember that? All 140,000 of them cowards. First to drop their weapons would be the demoralised and outnumbered British.

 

[lulldapull]

And here's very brave and strong U.S. Marines in daily combat:

God-damn pussies.

We have a word for this type of behaviour in our language 'Raver'.....its called landey.

Yeah 'raver'.....I believe you...your boys are very brave, and are not demoralised at all.

 

[Keysersoze]

These Carriers will sink to the bottom of the Persian Gulf.

And i tell you.....uiranian hordes that are already inside Iraq will take your boys hostage...just like in 1979......You remember that? All 140,000 of them cowards. First to drop their weapons would be the demoralised and outnumbered British.[/QUOTE]

You have no clue at all...........

Zraver don't waste your time with these fantasists...

 

[Keysersoze]

Anti-ship missile defense system unveiled

Associated Press

LOUISVILLE, Ky. &#8212; An improved anti-ship missile defense system that officials say could extend protection for Navy vessels three times farther was unveiled Wednesday.

The Raytheon Co. plant in Louisville displayed one of two development models of the system, which combines elements from two previous models. The other system was produced in Tucson, Ariz.

Troy E. Oberg, program manager for SeaRAM in Tucson, said he hopes to have 100 to 200 systems eventually in place on Navy ships. Although the system has already passed tests by the British Navy, further tests must be conducted before the first system is installed on a U.S. ship in 2005, he said.

Rep. Anne Northup and Sen. Jim Bunning, both Republicans from Kentucky, delivered remarks at the ceremony, thanking workers in the audience for improving military technology.

&#8220;This is a fabulous new weapons system that will save lives,&#8221; Bunning said, adding that Congress will consider $18 million in funding for SeaRAM this fall.

SeaRAM has better sensors and radar than previous systems to &#8220;provide more eyes to the commander,&#8221; said Raytheon spokesman John J. Eagles. Instead of Gatling guns, the SeaRAM is equipped with an 11-round missile guide.

&#8220;We need to project ourselves as a defensive power,&#8221; Navy Capt. Lee Geanuleas said at the ceremony. &#8220;Historically we&#8217;ve meant to project an offensive power, but now our thinking has evolved to include offensive and defensive power.&#8221;

Raytheon, based in Lexington, Mass., contracts for defense, government and commercial electronics, space, information technology, technical services and business and special mission aircraft.

http://www.navytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2131524.php

http://www.raytheon.com/products/sea_ram/

http://www.raytheon.com/products/stellent/groups/public/documents/content/cms01_055726.pdf

 

[lulldapull]

Well see when the ***** hits the fan.....who drops his weapons first.

Keysersoze from Bradistan......I know you are all pumped right now, but between me and you.....the only reason your handful of cheese pumpers are sitting in Basra rght now, is the courtesy of Tehran.

Blair farts wrong, and they'd be fed to the wolves. Trust me on that.

 

[lulldapull]

Keysersoze and Raver, your boys have been defeated and stopped dead in their tracks. Its a new era now, with a different wind blowing. Its all over. These things happen and are unexpected. The U.S. defeat in both Iraq and Afghanistan is inevitable. Don't be delusional, and argue otherwise. its time to go home.....

January 4, 2007
Cracks in the Empire
Has Regime Change Boomeranged?

By M. SHAHID ALAM

In the early 1990s, the fall of the Soviets produced a surge of triumphalism in the US. After defeating the fascist challenge in the 1940s, liberal capitalism had trumped its last adversary, global communism. This triumphalist mood was caught pithily in Francis Fukuyama's claim that mankind--of course led by the West--had reached 'the end of history.'

This quickly produced a global regime change. Within a few years, the capitalist centers stripped most countries in the periphery of the autonomy they had gained in stages, starting in the 1930s. In this latest wave of integration, the periphery would not be 'colonized,' but Washington would define their economic rules. Most countries in the periphery would now be forced to open their doors to foreign capital, privatize their economy, scrap their plans, and dismantle their welfare systems. In all but name, they began to look like the Open Door economies of the nineteenth century.

US economic dominance, however, was not enough for two segments of the American neoconservative movement, consisting of ultra-nationalists (Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bolton) and the Ziocons (Wolfowitz, Feith and Perle), a term coined by James Petras. They wanted the US to take advantage of the unipolar moment--opened up by the demise of Soviet Union--to make its political dominance irreversible.

There were two components to the neocon plan. First, they began to work on plans to extend US military superiority to a point where no potential rival would dare to challenge its hegemony in any region of the world. In violation of international laws, the US would enforce its total hegemony by waging preventive wars against any country that acted contrary to its economic or political interests.

This military plan would first be tested in the Middle East. This is what brought the ultra-nationalists and the Ziocons together. The first wanted to take complete control of the world's oil spigot in order to destroy the OPEC and hold Europe, Japan and China at ransom. The Ziocons wanted to destroy the few remaining centers of resistance to Israeli hegemony in the Middle East--Iraq, Iran and Syria.

But these plans had to be put on hold. President Bill Clinton was not ready to fully embrace their plans, even though his war and sanctions against Iraq prepared the base on which the neocons would build later on. The neocons were back in the saddle with the election of George W. Bush in 2000. They waited for the right time to unleash their wars in the Middle East. The events of 9-11 arrived as their Pearl Harbor. The Americans could now be bamboozled to support their dreams of creating a global and everlasting American Empire.

For the Periphery, the world looked quite bleak in the 1990s. Having lost the leverage of Soviet Union, most regions of the periphery capitulated to the blackmail of IMF, the World Bank and the WTO. Those who resisted--or refused to make 'peace' with Israel--were blacklisted as rogue states. The communist economies in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe suffered melt down; their living standards and life expectancy plummeted. The development regimes in the Third World were dismantled, exposing them to the ravages of global financial manipulation. In 1997, even the 'miracle economies' of Southeast Asia were laid low by Wall Street and the IMF.

In the aftermath of 9-11, matters appeared to get worse in the periphery. Under the pretense of waging 'war against global terrorism,' the neocons launched their plan for establishing global dominance. Overnight, following the lead established by Israel, the US defined all resistance to American hegemony as terrorism. It was now licensed to carry its preventive wars to all corners of the globe. It also licensed regional powers and local despots to expand their violation of human rights under the cover of the 'war against global terrorism.'

In the weeks after 9 April 2003, when US troops captured Baghdad, it appeared that the United States was on a roll. Iran, Syria, North Korea could count the days to their own quick demise. Israel was getting ready to complete its ethnic cleansing of all Palestinians. Pakistan would be asked to liquidate its nuclear arsenal or prepare to be bombed back to the stone age. In time, Egypt and Saudi Arabia would be dismembered into smaller client states. At some point in this sequence, the oil resources of the region would be privatized, sold for a song to US oil corporations. Finally, with a firm American grip on the Middle Eastern oil spigot, Europe, Japan and China would take their humble stations under the shadow of American hegemony.

In the weeks after launching their war against Iraq, the neocons began to imagine that the world was theirs for the taking; the new American century had begun. Yet how their plans have gone awry. All because a few thousand damned Iraqis decided to rob the Americans of the richly-deserved fruits of their victory.

A sea change has been unfolding since April 2003, though it is not going in the directions projected by the neocons. More than three years after the invasion of Iraq, the Americans are deeply troubled by the war they are losing in Iraq. While the 9-11 attacks failed to energize the Arab street, the Americans who entered Iraq were immobilized in the streets of Baghdad, Falluja, Najaf, Ramadi, Basra and Kut. This is an earth-shaking event, all of whose consequences have yet to unfold.

Instead of falling victims to US-sponsored regime change, the Iranians are now stronger than they have ever been in their recent history. For the first time in centuries, their influence extends deep into Iraq and Afghanistan, where they now possess the ability to ramp up the costs of the US occupation. In addition, Iran has positioned a battery of missiles that can close down shipping in the Gulf, threaten oil installations in the Sheikhdoms, and strike inside Israel. Due in part to its own hubris, the US has dramatically reduced its options in the Middle East.

In July 2006, Israel made a bid to weaken Iran and Syria by destroying Hizbullah and starting a civil war in Lebanon. The gambit failed on both counts. Hizbullah was hardly scratched. Unlike three Arab armies in June 1967, Hizbullah responded by disrupting life in northern Israel, destroyed more than 40 Israeli tanks, and poking holes in Israeli intelligence gathering. Most importantly, by choosing to fight, the few thousand Hizbullah fighters destroyed Israel's myth of invincibility.

Together, these developments have seriously exposed the vulnerability of America's Arab client states. Scared of the consequences of US defeat and the imminent withdrawal from Iraq, they have been forced to ally themselves more closely and openly with Israel ambitions in the region. These client states do not now possess even a patina of legitimacy. In desperation, Saudi Arabia is pinning its hopes on using its oil wealth to incite an Islamic civil war.

With America forces caught in the Iraqi quagmire, Latin America is breaking free from US hegemony. Governments 'unfriendly' to the US have now been established in Peru, Bolivia and Nicaragua, in addition to the growing strength of the Bolivarian revolution in Venezuela. A leftist victory was missed by a narrow margin in Mexico--or more likely, stolen. Cuba is demonstrating that it can survive without Castro.

Admittedly, these changes in the political map of Latin America consummate trends that began with the onslaught of neoliberal policies in the 1980s. Moreover, this time the Latin American resistance is being led or fueled by a resurgent native population eager to overthrow the colonial-settler elites imposed on them since the seventeenth century. Yet, it is doubtful if the United States would have allowed these changes to occur--or to stand--if it were not bogged down in Iraq.

Unexpectedly, even Pakistan's servile ruling class is stealthily taking advantage of US troubles. More likely, Islamist elements within the army are ramping up their support for the Taliban resurgence. Once again, the Pashtuns, who had led the jihad against the Soviet occupation, are gearing up for a big fight against the US-led occupation of their country. As Afghanistan slips out of control, Americans will find it harder to sustain their challenge to Russian and Chinese ambitions in Central Asia.

The American loss of prestige in Iraq is taking its toll in Africa too. African rulers are feeling freer to enter into long-range economic relations with China. Rapidly, China is increasing its ownership of a whole range of resources in the African continent, mostly at the cost of positions the US and Europe had built up over centuries. The Chinese have the advantage--at least now--of offering economic investments without any political strings. With the attention of the US establishment riveted on Iraqi, Africa is slowly slipping out of America's grasp and moving into the Chinese sphere of influence.

It is doubtful if the US would have rushed into its risky military adventure in the Middle East without the support of Ziocons. Empires in decline are tempted to shore up their standing with military adventurism. With their superb salesmanship, the Ziocons sold the Iraq war to the US administration and the American public as a cake walk, a historic tipping point, and America's calling in the Middle East. At least for now, Israel is happy to see Iraq disintegrate into chaos, a goal that it has long cherished for the entire Middle East. However, as US losses accumulate this could easily backfire.

Even if the war's human toll does not force an early withdrawal of American troops, it is unlikely that the Iraqi war can be sustained for long. The rising economic costs of the war--together with ascendancy of the Asian agents, escalating oil price, rising trade deficits, and sliding dollar--will force the US to reconsider its posture in the Middle East. Whenever the US reaches this point, Israel is likely to face its neighbors without the American shield. Worse, a growing number of Americans will begin to see the Israeli fingerprint over their Iraqi defeat.

Taking advantage of the tragedy of 9-11, the neocons instantly activated their plans to re-colonize the Middle East, starting with regime change in Iraq, Iran, North Korea and Syria. The US and Israel were hoping to improve upon the success achieved by the British and Zionists during World War I. At this stage, it appears unlikely that these hopes will be realized. For sure, the neocons quickly effected regime change in Iraq, but soon after, the resistance of a few thousand Iraqi insurgents also set in motion forces that are threatening to change the global regime.

A sober reckoning of all the costs of the Iraq war--and these costs are still unfolding--suggests that the US bid for regime change in the Middle East has boomeranged. Instead, the war has been forcing a regime change on the protagonist.

M. Shahid Alam is professor of economics at Northeastern University, and author of Challenging the New Orientalism: Dissenting Essays on America's 'War Against Islam' (IPI Publications: 2006 forthcoming). He may be reached at alqalam02760@yahoo.com.

© M. Shahid Alam

 

[Keysersoze]

Well see when the ***** hits the fan.....who drops his weapons first.

Keysersoze from Bradistan......I know you are all pumped right now, but between me and you.....the only reason your handful of cheese pumpers are sitting in Basra rght now, is the courtesy of Tehran.

Blair farts wrong, and they'd be fed to the wolves. Trust me on that.

Ah yes.......Trust YOU on that .......Let me tell you how it plays out.....Iran turns up the pressure....U.S./UK turn up the pressure at the U.N. Iran refuses to comply. U.S./U.K. uses it's massively overwhelming airpower to hit Iran.....Iran backs down.........You see unlike you they know about reality....They know that whilst there is more they can get away with in the current situation, If they push themselves into a direct confrontation they will get sqaushed. A few Sunburns does not constitute a viable armed force.

And trust me I know my compatriots well....They won't run. They are spoiling for a fight. They actually are glad to be posted in Afghan so they can see some actual fighting. Something I am sure you know nothing about having run away to OZ.......Keep flapping away maybe someone will listen (unlikely) Oh and try and tell all the Ozzies where you are about how their soldiers in the region will run as well......Let me know when the bruises heal