U.S. Armada En Route to the Persian Gulf: “Naval Blockade” or All Out War Against Iran?

Dandelion Salad

Many pics and a map at the original source.  ~ Lo

by Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, August 13, 2008

The World it at a very dangerous crossroads. America in alliance with NATO and Israel has embarked upon a military adventure.

The Bush administration has launched with the approval of the US Congress a naval blockade against Iran, which could be a first step towards an all out war.

Military sources report a massive deployment of US and allied naval power in the Persian Gulf, the Arabian Sea and the Red Sea directed against Iran.

There has been a virtual media blackout regarding this naval deployment. The Western media, including the printed press and network TV have failed to meaningfully address these war preparations.

While war plans directed against are casually acknowledged, the broader implications of a war on Iran are rarely analyzed.

The US media has become a unconditional mouthpiece of the Pentagon. The Islamic republic is relentlessly accused, without a evidence and substantiation, of developing nuclear weapons, as well as working hand in glove with Al Qaeda.

The emerging political consensus among America’s allies, including France, Germany and Italy is that a war on Iran is warranted as a means to enhancing global security.

This consensus is formulated while carefully disregarding the fact that even a limited “punitive” aerial attack on Iran, would immediately result in escalation, engulfing the entire Middle East Central Asian region from the Eastern Mediterranean to China’s western frontier into an extended war zone. There are at present three distinct war theater in the region: Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine. An attack on Iran could potentially engulf a large number of countries into a much broader conflict.



A war on Iran would engulf the entire region from the tip of the Arabian Peninsula to the Caspian Sea and from the Syrian-Lebanese-Israeli Medterranean coastline to China’s Western frontier with Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Three existing war theaters:


would be transformed and integrated into a single war zone,
leading to escalation within and beyond the region.

War Preparations

This massive naval deployment in the Persian Gulf is the culmination of more than five years of active war preparations.

In July 2003, in the immediate wake of the Iraq invasion, the Pentagon launched Theater Iran Near Term (TIRANNT), as an early phase in military planning in which various war scenarios were scrutinized. In this context, several thousand targets inside Iran had been identified as part of a set of war scenarios:

“Under TIRANNT, Army and U.S. Central Command planners have been examining both near-term and out-year scenarios for war with Iran, including all aspects of a major combat operation, from mobilization and deployment of forces through postwar stability operations after regime change.” (William Arkin, Washington Post, April 16, 2006)

The Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) has served as a pretext and a justification to wage America’s theater wars in the Middle East. GWOT is a central component of US National Security doctrine. It is also the keystone of the media disinformation campaign, which portrays “Islamic terrorists” threatening the Homeland.  Meanwhile, the strategic and economic objectives underlying America’s Middle East war.

The US led coalition is in an advanced state of readiness. The war plans are at an operational stage.

While the stated objective of this massive naval deployment is to obstruct trade through the straight of Hormuz and enforce a blockade on Iran in the Persian Gulf, an all out war scenario involving air bombardments is also contemplated.

Congressional Approval

The war on Iran is a bipartisan project, which has been fully endorsed by the Democrats. The naval blockade is being carried out, pursuant to act of the US Congress.

In May 2008, the US Congress passed legislation (H.CON. RES 362) that called for the enforcement of an all out economic blockade, including the encroachment of trade and the freeze of monetary transactions with the Islamic Republic:

“The President [shall] initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran …. prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran’s nuclear program.”

“[H. CON. RES. 362] urges the President, in the strongest of terms, to immediately use his existing authority to impose sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran, … international banks which continue to conduct financial transactions with proscribed Iranian banks; … energy companies that have invested $20,000,000 or more in the Iranian petroleum or natural gas sector in any given year since the enactment of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996; and all companies which continue to do business with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.” (See full text of H.CON RES 362) (emphasis added)

Whether an actual attack will be implemented is a matter for careful consideration.

What is significant, however, is that the ongoing concentration of naval power as well as the level of threat are unprecedented.

Moreover, this naval deployment also involves the active participation of several coalition countries under US command. (for details see below).

While there have been several similar naval deployments and war games in the Persian Gulf over the last two years, what is now occurring is unprecedented in terms of the size of the naval strike force.

Concurrent Military Operations: War in the Caucasus

This massive deployment of naval strength occurs at the very outset of an unfolding crisis in the Caucasus, marked by the Georgian air and ground attacks on South Ossetia and Russia’s counterattack. The timing and chronology of these related and concurrent military operations is crucial.

We are not dealing with separate and unrelated military events. The war in Georgia is an integral part of US-NATO-Israeli war preparations in relation to Iran.

Georgia does not act militarily without the assent of Washington. The Georgian head of State is a US proxy and Georgia is a de facto US protectorate.

The attack on South Ossetia was launched by Georgia on the orders of the US and NATO. US military advisers and trainers were actively involved in the planning of Georgia’s attacks on the South Ossetia capital. (For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, War in  the Caucasus, Towards a Broader Russia-US Military Confrontation, Global Research, August 10, 2008)

Russia is an ally of Iran.

Russia is currently caught up in a military confrontation with Georgia. The Georgian attack on South Ossetia constitutes an act of provocation directed against Russia. It creates an aura of instability in the Caucasus, marked by heavy civilian casualties. It serves to distract Russia from playing a meaningful diplomatic and military role, which might undermine or obstruct the US-led war plans directed against Iran.

Both Russia and China have bilateral military cooperation agreements with Iran. Russia supplies the Islamic Republic with military hardware and technical expertise in relation to Iran’s air defense system and missile program.

Since 2005, Iran has an observer member status in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). In turn, the SCO has ties to the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), an overlapping military cooperation agreement between Russia, Armenia, Belarus, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan.

The structure and strength of military alliances is crucial. In the context of US war plans directed against Iran, the US is intent upon weakening Iran’s allies, namely Russia and China. In the case of China, Washington is seeking to disrupt Beijing’s bilateral ties with Tehran as well as Iran’s rapprochement with the SCO, which has its headquarters in Beijing.

The Georgian attack on South Ossetia seeks to undermine Russia, which constitutes a significant countervailing military power and ally of Iran.

The ultimate objective is to isolate Iran, cut it off from its powerful allies: China and Russia.

In Washington’s mindset, the events in Georgia coupled with media propaganda, can be usefully applied to discredit and weaken Russia prior to the enforcement of a naval blockade on Iran in the Persian Gulf, which could lead into an all out war on Iran.

This somewhat crude line of reasoning tends, however, to overlook America’s own military setbacks and weaknesses as well as the enormous risks to America and the World which could result from a continued and sustained confrontation with Russia, let alone an attack on Iran.

In view of the evolving situation in Georgia and Moscow’s military commitments in the Caucasus, military analysts believe that Russia will not protect Iran and encroach upon a US led operation directed against Iran, which would be preceded by a naval blockade.

In other words, Washington believes that Moscow is unlikely to get actively involved in a showdown with US and allied forces in the Persian Gulf.

“Operation Brimstone”: North Atlantic Ocean War Games

Leading up to this naval build up in the Persian Gulf, US and allied forces have recently completed large scale war games off the US North Atlantic coastline.

Stating the purpose of a war game and identifying the real “foreign enemy” by name is not the normal practice, unless there is a decision to send an unequivocal message to the enemy.

Invariably, in war games  the foreign enemy is given a fictitious country name: Irmingham, Nemazee, Rubeck and Churia stand for Iran, North Korea, Russia and China (codes used in the Vigilant Shield 07 War Games’ Scenario opposing the US to four fictitious enemies. (See William Arkin, The Vigilant Shield 07 War Games: Scenario opposing the US to Russia, China, Iran and North Korea, Washington Post, February 10, 2007)

In the case of Operation Brimstone, the stated military purpose of the naval exercise is crystal clear: the North Atlantic war games are carried out with a view “to practice enforcing an eventual blockade on Iran”. These naval exercises are intended to display US and allied “combat capabilities as a warning to Iran.” They are tantamount to a declaration of war.

“The drill is aimed at training for operation in shallow coastal waters such as the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz.”

Joint Task Force Exercise (JTFEX) 08-4 ‘Operation Brimstone’ commenced on July 21 in North Carolina and off the Eastern US Atlantic coast from Virginia to Florida. Of significance was the participation of British, French, Brazilian and Italian naval forces as part of a multinational US naval exercise directed against Iran.

More than a dozen ships participated in the naval exercise including the USS Theodore Roosevelt and its Carrier Strike Group Two, the expeditionary Strike Group Iwo Jima, the French submarine Amethyste, Britain’s HMS Illustrious Carrier Strike Group, Brazil’s navy frigate Greenhalgh and Italy’s ITS Salvatore Todaro (S 526) submarine. (See Middle East Times, August 11, 2008 and Dailypress.com, July 28, 2008 and www.mt-milcom.blogspot.com)

The USS Theodore Roosevelt equipped with 80-plus combat planes, was carrying an additional load of French Naval Rafale fighter jets from the French carrier Charles de Gaulle. (Ibid). France’s E2C Hawkeye early warning aircraft was “assigned to the 4th Squadron began flight operations with Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 8 aboard Roosevelt, marking the first integrated U.S. and French carrier qualifications aboard a U.S. aircraft carrier. French Rafale fighter aircraft assigned to the 12th Squadron also joined.” Navy.mil, July 24, 2008

Anglo-US war games are a routine practice, consequence of a Anglo-American military axis. What is significant in these large scale naval manoeuvres is the active participation of France, Brazil and Italy in war games which are explicitly directed against Iran.

The participation of these countries in extensive war games points a to broad military consensus. It also suggests that the participating nations have accepted (in political and military terms) to participate in a US-led military operation directed against Iran. The active participation of France and to a lesser extent Italy also suggests that the European Union is firmly behind the US initiative:

“Operations with our friends and allies are the cornerstone of the U.S. Navy’s current maritime strategy,” said Capt. Ladd Wheeler, Roosevelt’s commanding officer. “These combined operations will certainly pay dividends into the future as our navies continue to work together to increase global security.”Navy.mil, July 24, 2008

Another important precedent has been set. Brazil’s President Luis Ignacio da Silva has ordered the dispatch of the Greenhalgh  marking the first time that a Brazilian warship (under a government which claims to be “socialist”) has operated as part of a US. strike group against a foreign country. We have not been able to confirm whether the Brazilian frigate has sailed to the Persian Gulf together with USS Roosevelt, to which it was attached during Operation Brimstone.

According to the Greenhalgh’s Commander Claudio Mello, “It allows us to be one more asset in an international operation.” (Pilot Online.com, July 28, 2008)


En Route to the Persian Gulf

Of significance is that immediately upon completing the North Atlantic war games, on July 31st, the Operation Brimstone Joint Task Force headed for the Persian Gulf, to join up with three other carrier strike groups and a constellation of US, British and French war ships. In other words, Operation Brimstone was a dress rehearsal of an actual naval blockade.

According to military sources, the following naval forces, which are already deployed in the Persian Gulf consists of

-the nuclear powered USS Ronald Reagan Carrier and its Strike Group Seven;

-the USS Iwo Jima,

– the British Royal Navy aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal

-several French warships, including the nuclear hunter-killer submarine Amethyste.

Also positioned in the region are  the USS Abraham Lincoln in the Arabian Sea and the USS Peleliu which is currently in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden.


Unprecedented Deployment of Naval Power

This is the largest concentration of US and allied naval power since the onslaught of the Iraq war in March 2003.

Once the Brimstone joint task force naval force arrives in the Gulf region, it will be joining two other U.S. naval battle groups already on site: the USS Abraham Lincoln and the USS Peleliu.


Four US aircraft carriers and strike forces will be positioned in the Persian Gulf, the Arabian Sea and the Red Sea.

USS Theodore Roosevelt, USS Ronald Reagan. USS Abraham Lincoln, USS Peleliu Strike Group. The US is also sending to the Middle East the Iwo Jima Expeditionary Strike Group

With accompanying frigates and submarines, some 40 war ships will be in a state of readiness, in the region and/or or directly off the Iranian coastline.

In addition to these 40 war ships, there are some 36 US and allied war vessels operating under USCentcom as part of a Combined Maritime Force (CMF) involved in Maritime Security

In an August 11 article published by Global  Research, the nature of this Naval Strike force is specified and enumerated as follows:

“The US Naval forces being assembled include the following:

Carrier Strike Group Nine

USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN72) nuclear powered supercarrier with its Carrier Air Wing Two Destroyer Squadron Nine:

USS Mobile Bay (CG53) guided missile cruiser
USS Russell (DDG59) guided missile destroyer
USS Momsen (DDG92) guided missile destroyer
USS Shoup (DDG86) guided missile destroyer
USS Ford (FFG54) guided missile frigate
USS Ingraham (FFG61) guided missile frigate
USS Rodney M. Davis (FFG60) guided missile frigate
USS Curts (FFG38) guided missile frigate
Plus one or more nuclear hunter-killer submarines

Peleliu Expeditionary Strike Group

USS Peleliu (LHA-5) a Tarawa-class amphibious assault carrier
USS Pearl Harbor (LSD52) assault ship
USS Dubuque (LPD8) assault ship/landing dock
USS Cape St. George (CG71) guided missile cruiser
USS Halsey (DDG97) guided missile destroyer
USS Benfold (DDG65) guided missile destroyer

Carrier Strike Group Two

USS Theodore Roosevelt (DVN71) nuclear powered supercarrier with its Carrier Air Wing Eight [Set sail for the Gulf on August 5]

Destroyer Squadron 22
USS Monterey (CG61) guided missile cruiser
USS Mason (DDG87) guided missile destroyer
USS Nitze (DDG94) guided missile destroyer
USS Sullivans (DDG68) guided missile destroyer

USS Springfield (SSN761) nuclear powered hunter-killer submarine

IWO ESG ~ Iwo Jima Expeditionary Strike Group [Set sail for the Gulf]

USS Iwo Jima (LHD7) amphibious assault carrier with its Amphibious Squadron Four and with its 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit
USS San Antonio (LPD17) assault ship
USS Velia Gulf (CG72) guided missile cruiser
USS Ramage (DDG61) guided missile destroyer
USS Carter Hall (LSD50) assault ship
USS Roosevelt (DDG80) guided missile destroyer

USS Hartford  (SSN768) nuclear powered hunter-killer submarine

Carrier Strike Group Seven

USS Ronald Reagan (CVN76) nuclear powered supercarrier with its Carrier Air Wing 14 Destroyer Squadron 7

USS Chancellorsville (CG62) guided missile cruiser
USS Howard (DDG83) guided missile destroyer
USS Gridley (DDG101) guided missile destroyer
USS Decatur (DDG73) guided missile destroyer
USS Thach (FFG43) guided missile frigate
USNS Rainier (T-AOE-7) fast combat support ship

Also likely to join the battle armada:

UK Royal Navy HMS Ark Royal Carrier Strike Group with assorted guided missile destroyers and frigates, nuclear hunter-killer submarines and support ships

French Navy nuclear powered hunter-killer submarines (likely the Amethyste and perhaps others), plus French Naval Rafale fighter jets operating off of the USS Theodore Roosevelt as the French Carrier Charles de Gaulle is in dry dock, and assorted surface warships

The USS Iwo Jima and USS Peleliu Expeditionary Strike Groups have USMC Harrier jump jets and an assortment of assault and attack helicopters. The Expeditionary Strike Groups have powerful USMC Expeditionary Units with amphibious armor and ground forces trained for operating in shallow waters and in seizures of land assets, such as Qeshm Island (a 50 mile long island off of Bandar Abbas in the Gulf of Hormuz and headquarters off the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps).”

(See Earl of Sterling, Massive US Naval Armada Heads For Iran, Global Research, August 2008

“Maritime Security”: Thirty-six More Vessels

US Central Command (CENTCOM) under the helm of General Petraeus, coordinates out of Bahrain so-called Maritime Security Operations (MSO) in Middle East waters ( Gulf of Aden, Gulf of Oman, Arabian Sea, Red Sea and Indian Ocean).


This MSO initiative is conducted by the Combined Maritime Force (CMF) with a powerful armada  of 36 warships.

Established at the outset of the Iraq war, CMF involves the participation of the US, Canada, Australia, UK, Germany, Australia, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain, Turkey and Pakistan.

There are several combined task forces responsible for maritime security (including CTF 150, CTF 152 and the CTF 158 North Arabian Gulf (NAG))

The mandate of the Combined Task Forces  “aims to establish security and stability by countering terrorism in the Middle Eastern maritime environment and allowing legitimate mariners to operate safely in the area…” (see Canadian  Navy, News), In the present context, the multinational alliance, will be used to encroach upon maritime trade with Iran as well as play an active role in the implementing the proposed economic blockade of Iran.

Canada has recently deployed three war ships to the Arabian sea, including HMC Iroquois along with HMC Calgary and HMC Protecteur which will be operating under CTF 150, which is responsible for MSO in the Gulf of Aden, the Gulf of Oman, the Arabian Sea, the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean.


Among the 36 war vessels involved in so-called Maritime Security Operations, are:

RBNS Sabha (FFG 90) – The Bahraini flagship of CTF 152 conducting Maritime Security Operations (MSO) in the Central and Southern Arabian Gulf.

USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75) – The U.S. flagship of CTF 50, conducting MSO in the Central and Southern Arabian Gulf, as well as supports Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom.

FS Guepratte (F 714) – French Navy ship operating as part of CTF 150 in the North Arabian Sea, Gulf of Aden, Gulf of Oman, Red Sea and the Indian Ocean.

USCGC Wrangell (WPB 1332) – One of several USCG 110’ patrol boats conducting MSO in the North Arabian Gulf.

HMAS Arunta (F 151) – Australian Navy ship conducting MSO as part of CTF 158 .

PNS Tippu Sultan (D 186) – Pakistan Navy ship conducting MSO as part of CTF 150.

RFA Cardigan Bay (L 3009) – British Royal Navy auxiliary ship operating with CTF 158.

USS Port Royal (CG 73) – US Navy guided-missile cruiser deployed with USS Tarawa Expeditionary Strike Group.

Source: US Naval forces, Central  Command, Fifth fleet, Combined Maritime Forces


Naval Blockade

For Iran,  a naval blockade enforced by some 80 war ships stationed in Middle East waters and off the Iranian coastline is tantamount to a declaration of war.

Meanwhile, war preparations are also being undertaken by Israel and NATO in the Eastern Mediterranean. German war ships are stationed off the Syrian coastline. Turkey which constitutes a major military actor within NATO is a major partner of the US led coalition. It has an extended bilateral military cooperation agreement with Israel. Turkey has borders with both Iran and Syria. (For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, “Triple Alliance”: The US, Turkey, Israel and the War on Lebanon, Global Research, August 6, 2006)

Pre-emptive Nuclear War

A diabolical and related consensus is emerging at the political level,  pointing to the pre-emptive first strike use of nuclear weapons in the Middle East war theater, more concretely against Iran:

“In January 2005, at the outset of the military build-up directed against Iran, USSTRATCOM was identified as “the lead Combatant Command for integration and synchronization of DoD-wide efforts in combating weapons of mass destruction.”

To implement this mandate, a brand new command unit entitled  Joint Functional Component Command Space and Global Strike, or JFCCSGS was created.

JFCCSGS has the mandate to oversee the launching of a nuclear attack in accordance with the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review, approved by the US Congress in 2002. The NPR underscores the pre-emptive use of nuclear warheads not only against “rogue states” but also against China and Russia.”Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, Global Research, January 2006)

More recently, a December 2007 NATO sponsored report entitled Towards a Grand Strategy for an Uncertain World: Renewing Transatlantic Partnership“. calls for a first strike preemptive use of nuclear weapons. The NATO doctrine in this report is a virtual copy and paste version of America’s post 9/11 nuclear weapons doctrine as initially formulated in the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review

(for details, see The US-NATO Preemptive Nuclear Doctrine: Trigger a Middle East Nuclear Holocaust to Defend “The Western Way of Life” by Michel Chossudovsky)

The preemptive use of nukes as formulated by NATO would be used to undermine an “increasingly brutal World” (e.g. Iran) as well as a means to prevent rogue enemies to use weapons of mass destruction.

Under this NATO framework, which is what is explicitly envisaged in relation to Iran, US and allied forces including Israel would “resort to a pre-emptive nuclear attack to try to halt the imminent spread of nuclear weapons, ” (quoted in Paul Dibb, Sidney Morning Herald, 11 February 2008).

“They [the authors of the report] consider that nuclear war might soon become possible in an increasingly brutal world. They propose the first use of nuclear weapons must remain “in the quiver of escalation as the ultimate instrument to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction”. (Paul Dibb, op cit)

In terms of the ongoing threats directed against Iran, a pre-emptive nuclear attack using tactical nuclear weapons, which are according to the Pentagon is “harmless to the surrounding civilian population” could be carried out in relation to Iran, even if if Iran does not possess nuclear weapons capabilities, as confirmed by the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE).

According to a 2003 Senate decision, the new generation of tactical nuclear weapons or “low yield” “mini-nukes”, with an explosive capacity of up to 6 times a Hiroshima bomb, are now considered “safe for civilians” because the explosion is underground.

Through a propaganda campaign which has enlisted the support of “authoritative” nuclear scientists, the mini-nukes are being presented as an instrument of peace rather than war. The low-yield nukes have now been cleared for “battlefield use”, they are slated to be used in the next stage of the Middle East war (Iran) alongside conventional weapons:

Administration officials argue that low-yield nuclear weapons are needed as a credible deterrent against rogue states.[Iran, North Korea] Their logic is that existing nuclear weapons are too destructive to be used except in a full-scale nuclear war. Potential enemies realize this, thus they do not consider the threat of nuclear retaliation to be credible. However, low-yield nuclear weapons are less destructive, thus might conceivably be used. That would make them more effective as a deterrent. ( Opponents Surprised By Elimination of Nuke Research Funds Defense News November 29, 2004)

In an utterly twisted logic, nuclear weapons are presented as a means to building peace and preventing “collateral damage”.

The NATO sponsored report –which broadly reflects a growing consensus– insists that the option of a nuclear first strike is indispensable, “since there is simply no realistic prospect of a nuclear-free world.” (Report, p. 97):

“Nuclear weapons are the ultimate instrument of an asymmetric response – and at the same time the ultimate tool of escalation”

The US-NATO doctrine to use nukes on a pre-emptive basis against Iran, with a view to “saving the Western World’s way of life”, is not challenged in any meaningful way by the antiwar movement.

The mainstream media has a strong grip on the public’s perception and understanding of the Middle East war. The dangers of nuclear war in the Post cold War era are barely mentioned and when they are, the use of nuclear weapons are justified as a preemptive military option to ensure the security of  Western World.

The truth is twisted and turned upside down.

Media disinformation instills within the consciousness of Americans and Europeans that somehow the war on Iran is a necessity, that Iran is a threat to the Homeland and that the Islamic Republic is supporting Islamic terrorists, who are planning a Second 9/11. And that a pre-emptive nuclear attack is the answer.

In contrast, the powerful economic interests behind the war economy, the Anglo-American oil giants military, the defense contractors, Wall Street are rarely the object of media coverage. The real economic and strategic objectives behind this war are carefully obfuscated.

9/11 is a justification for waging war is crucial, despite the fact that there is mounting evidence of cover-up and complicity of key members of the Bush Administration.

Despite the evidence, Afghanistan, Iraq and now Iran have been portrayed as the “State sponsors of terrorism” and a threat to the Homeland, thereby justifying the various stages of the Middle East military roadmap.  The Project for a New American Century, had already described in a 2000 document the nature of this road map or “long war”. What is envisaged is a global war without borders:

fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars (PNAC, September 2000)

At present US and coalition forces including NATO and Israel are in an advanced state of readiness to launch an attack on Iran. Leaders of the US led coalition including France, Germany and Italy, should understand that such an action could result in a World War III scenario.

Escalation scenarios have already been envisaged and analyzed by the Pentagon.

US sponsored war games have foreseen the possible intervention of Russia and China in the Middle East. World War III has been on the lips of NeoCon architects of US foreign policy from the outset of the Bush regime.

In response to Operation Brimstone and the Naval deployment, Iran’s Foreign Ministry said that “Tehran will give a ‘maximum response’ to the slightest threat against the country’s national security.”

War propaganda, through media disinformation consists in galvanizing US citizens not only in favor of “the war on terrorism”, but in support of a social order which repeals the Rule of Law, derogates fundamental civil liberties, upholds the use of torture and establishes a modern police state apparatus as a means to “preserving Western democracy”.

There is a tacit public acceptance of a diabolical and criminal military agenda, which in a very sense threatens “the community of nations” and life on this planet.

In the course of the last four years, Global Research has documented in detail the various war plans directed against Iran.  Operation TIRANNT (Theater Iran Near Term) was initially formulated in July 2003, in the wake of the US led Iraq invasion.

We have done our utmost to reverse the tide of media disinformation, to inform our readers and the broader public on the impending dangers underlying the US military adventure.

This is the most serious crisis in modern history which in a very real sense threatens the future of humanity.

We refer our readers to an extensive archive of articles and documents. See our War on Iran Dossier

© Copyright Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 2008

The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9817


Iran War: Armada of US and allied naval battle groups head for the Persian Gulf

Massive US Naval Armada Heads For Iran

War in the Caucasus: Towards a Broader Russia-US Military Confrontation?

Will the US Congress ratify the Bush Administration’s Decision to launch a War on Iran

Planned US Israeli Attack on Iran: Will there be a War against Iran?

The US-NATO Preemptive Nuclear Doctrine: Trigger a Middle East Nuclear Holocaust to Defend “The Western Way of Life” by Michel Chossudovsky

US War Plans & the “Strait of Hormuz Incident”: Just Who Threatens Whom? by Michel Chossudovsky

Bush Administration War Plans directed against Iran by Michel Chossudovsky


19 thoughts on “U.S. Armada En Route to the Persian Gulf: “Naval Blockade” or All Out War Against Iran?

  1. Pingback: U.S. puts brakes on Israeli plan for attack on Iran nuclear facilities « Dandelion Salad

  2. While the US and its allies are busy with Iran , Russia will reaquire its territories it lost after the collapse of the Soviet Union . Stallin reborn .

  3. Pingback: U.S. - Iran War: U.S. Intentions Unclear; Israel & Israel Lobby Press for War « Dandelion Salad

  4. Pingback: How Foreign Policy Affects Gas Prices By Ron Paul « Dandelion Salad

  5. Pingback: Blockades: Acts of War by Stephen Lendman « Dandelion Salad

  6. is any one here really surprised to be honest i am not quite sure why we haven’t sent a battle group to the Black sea as a show of force against the russians in support towards the Georgia Note i am not advocating war and secondly who cares what (Specific) american Navel Assists are there whether it be the Truman the Roosevelt we have 2 CVA’s (light Carriers) already there or en route and 2-3 CVN (Super Carriers) already there or en route, thats ah hole lot of assists especially since it is conceivable the United states well not need nearly as many assists in iraq next year.
    i would also have you look what valuable raw-material is channeled through Georgia.

    And what raw-material is in the rest of the middle east. OIL and a Georgia and Iran closure iran through the strait of Hormuz and georgia though its oil pipe line not good.

    so we might be moving to secure american interest as well as a most definite re insurgency in Iraq after such an attack By Israel or America although i beleive were moving more toward a good old naval blockade due in part to the Russians unwillingness to talk tough toward Iran.


  7. Since we are quoting the original author, let’s be fair. He also said:

    “Shortly after this article was released on August 13, US military sources as well as Stratfor (a Strategic Studies Think Tank) stated that the various press reports (UPI, Middle East Times, Kuwait Times, Debka) regarding the naval deployment to the Middle East were incorrect. “

  8. Thanks, detainthis. Good advice to take it up with the author.

    Let’s take a look at what he wrote (right at the beginning):

    “Military sources report a massive deployment of US and allied naval power in the Persian Gulf, the Arabian Sea and the Red Sea directed against Iran.”

    He goes on to say:

    “The US Naval forces being assembled include the following: …”

    And lists ships.

    Later, he mentions other ships:

    “Among the 36 war vessels involved in so-called Maritime Security Operations, are: …”

    The Truman ship is listed in this last group. He doesn’t say that it has been deployed.

    He gives sources for everything.

    The confusion may be at what is written after the name of the Truman ship.

    “USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75) – The U.S. flagship of CTF 50, conducting MSO in the Central and Southern Arabian Gulf, as well as supports Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom.”

    If you go to the source, this description is exactly what is listed.

  9. What a fine bunch of patriots you are – The Hate Amerika First lobby is still alive and twitching. Although not an American, I support your right to criticise but hell’s teeth, sometimes it comes down to America – love it or leave it. The line between criticism and treason needed remarking years ago.

  10. Hey, Steve. I like that idea of taking it up with the original author. But it’s definitely wrong if Sue is implying that the blog editor has perpetrated some fraud here.

  11. if I were to offer an answer to the questions found in the title it would be:neither.
    The Iranians have made it a point to display for better or good their ballistic missile holdings. Add to these the torpedoes and gnat sized but effective craft (especially on a “bang for the buck” level) the thought that the navies of the world especially the USN would be open to offering so many targets. In keeping with the armada theme I just don’t believe the USN is open to having it’s finer ships of the line bottled up in the Gulf.
    I dare say the truth of any increase in naval assets in the region are multi prong. hello Russia and yes hello Iran. But no invasion. Also I’d further offer up that many of the vessels you list would come in quite handy to remove troops from Iraq a thought that escapes way too many people.

  12. That link shows areas of responsibility, not current locations. The US Navy does not routinely report on the location of its ships.

    The Truman is in Virginia. My nephew serves on it..

    I also wondered about the other ‘facts’ if they think the Truman is at sea…

  13. Pingback: Nothing Behind U.S. Allegations? « Dandelion Salad

  14. Pingback: Will American Insouciance Destroy the World? By Paul Craig Roberts « Dandelion Salad

  15. Hi, Ah, you might want to check your facts. The USS Harry S Truman is in Virginia, not the Arabian Sea. It’s been there for over 2 months and out of the Arabian Sea for over 3 months.

    Kind of makes you wonder about your other “facts”, doesn’t it?


    Or, perhaps you should check yours.

    It looks like the information on the USS Harry S. Truman comes straight from a U.S. Navy source:


    No biggy. To err is to have a pulse.

  16. Hi, Ah, you might want to check your facts. The USS Harry S Truman is in Virginia, not the Arabian Sea. It’s been there for over 2 months and out of the Arabian Sea for over 3 months.
    Kind of makes you wonder about your other “facts”, doesn’t it?

  17. WTF. Once again the USA is the true international terrorist organization. Congress & the Corporate Military/Industrial Complex need to be reined in. This can start to happen by impeaching the president & vice president and voting all but a handful of politicians out of

Comments are closed.