Iran Threatens As Naval Forces Build

While the New York Times characterizes Iran as defiant in the face of a UN Resolution over its nuclear program, the Tehran Times takes it a bit further in what could be characterized as a veiled threat, possibly an attempt to establish political cover for any naval confrontation in the Straight of Hormuz initiated by Iran.

NY Times: TEHRAN, Dec. 24 — Iran on Sunday reacted defiantly to the United Nations Security Council resolution imposing sanctions because of the country’s nuclear program. Iranian officials vowed to continue efforts to enrich uranium and warned that the Security Council action would change Iran’s relationship with the United Nations’ nuclear monitoring agency.

US Sec Def Gates delivered a not widely reported message for Iran while in Iraq in speaking to the current Britain and US naval build up in the Persian Gulf. The British are sending two mine sweepers and the US is deploying a second carrier and support craft.

U.S. and British military forces are circling Iran with a major buildup in the Gulf region.

The escalation comes as a resolution is about to be passed at the United Nations imposing sanctions on Iran.

"Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates was expected this week to approve a second aircraft carrier and supporting ships to be stationed within quick sailing distance of Iran by early next year," the New York Times quoted U.S. officials as saying in an article published Thursday.

The article said the officials acknowledged the increased military presence would improve the chances of success of a strike if it came, and could be seen as a provocation to Iran.

Britain's Royal Navy is also sending two mine sweepers to the area.

On Friday, on a visit to Iraq, Gates confirmed the buildup. "There has been an increase in naval strength in the Gulf in the past several weeks," he said.

"I think the message that we are sending to everyone, not just Iran, is that the United States is an enduring presence in this part of the world. We have been here for a long time. We will be here for a long time and everybody needs to remember that - both our friends and those who might consider themselves our adversaries," he added.

An editorial in the Tehran Times paints Iran as a noble peace keeper when it comes to the Persian Gulf. It claims the Big Stick effort will fail and also warns the US and Britain of their vulnerability to terrorist attacks in that region.

With both sides engaged in some now more serious saber rattling, Iran is bristling over our recently detaining several Iranians in Iraq and the stand-off over Iran's nuclear program seems no closer to a peaceful resolution.

Tehran Times: TEHRAN, Dec. 22 (MNA) -- Concurrently with the efforts of the United States and Britain to issue a UN resolution against Iran’s civilian nuclear program, the Pentagon has dispatched more warships to the Persian Gulf.

During his recent surprise visit to Iraq, new U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates stated that U.S. forces would remain in the region for a very long time.

... it seems that after their military failures in Iraq, Washington and London have decided to flex their muscles.

Although some terrorist groups are trying to cut the energy lifeline of the United States and other industrialized countries, Iran has paid a heavy price over the years to safeguard the Persian Gulf from this threat.

As for U.S. and British forces, they will not only be unable to restore security to the Persian Gulf region but will also become an easy target for terrorists.

Throughout the first (1980-1988), second (1990-1991), and third (2003 to today) Persian Gulf wars, Iran has successfully provided a secure transit route for oil tankers.

Thus, the efforts of the Islamic Republic of Iran should be extolled by Western countries. 

Yet, if the military presence in the Persian Gulf is meant to threaten Iran, U.S. officials should be aware of the fact that Tehran has many means at its disposal for responding to security threats.

Although the military failure of the United States and Britain in Iraq should compel White House and Pentagon officials to take a wiser approach to settling the current crisis, it seems that Washington and London are trying to compensate for their mistake by committing even more serious mistakes.

It should also be noted that the deterioration of the security situation in the Persian Gulf will never discourage the Iranian nation from continuing their civilian nuclear program.

Comments

[Purple Avenger]

"within quick sailing distance of Iran"

Translation: They'll be parked near the Horn of Africa ;->

Going for a twofer to help Ethiopia put the beatdown on Somali Islamists.

[Phoenix]

>the United States is an enduring presence in this part of the world. We have been here for a long time. We will be here for a long time and everybody needs to remember that - both our friends and those who might consider themselves our adversaries," he added.<

Eat that, you fools who decried the neo-con thinking that took place after 9/11.

[Phoenix]

PA,

Yeah. And look what lovely state/nation is in the middle. :)

[betty]

As Pat Buchanan said on Scarborough and Chris Dodd said in the local paper, "If Mr Bush attacks Iran without them attacking us first, it's undoubtedly an impeachable offense, and proceedings would begin immediately, we've already got the votes for impeachment"

[Darth Malice]

The Navy chopped up the Iranians in 88.They can do it again in 07.As for Dodd and Buchanan,they can both suck eggs.By the way if Joe Scarborough was typical of Republicans in Congress no wonder they got beat.

[Sgt.York]

RE: "The Navy chopped up the Iranians in 88."

Back when Saddam was good-buddy the USA helped him in the Iraq-Iran war by reflagging his ships, sinking Iranian ships, and seizing Iranian offshore oil-platforms. That was before "Saddam is insane and the new Hitler"... now changed to "Ahmadinejad is insane and the new Hitler". That was before "Iraq has WMDs and is reconsituting its nuclear program"... now changed to "Iran has a secret nuclear weapons program that's so secret we don't actually have any proff."

Never underestimate the gullibility of the American public.

[Darth Malice]

Sgt York I do remember all of that.I have the attitude of Henry Kissinger(although I dislike him)that it's a shame they both can't lose.My hope Sgt.York is that we find a way to get off oil,but right now Islamic terror must be fought no matter where in the world it is.

[Phoenix]

>Never underestimate the gullibility of the American public.<

And never underestimate the changing winds of war and peace. This crybaby stuff of "Oh my, look what we did back in the old days! We just can't be mean now!! sniff sniff...." is too blind.

As if history's continuum has been static for twenty-four hours, ever.

[seekeronos]

Feh. One of the key points in the President's oath of office, if I recall correctly... is to protect the nation from all threats "foreign and domestic".

I think it is a duty of the President to use every method at his disposal to protect this nation, up to and including massive exterminative bombardment of enemy Islamists. Civilian casualties be damned, they wouldn't blink an eye at killing us and ours. Keep at it until we get an unconditional surrender, just like in WW2.

Thing is, we will need to have Iran make the first shot... perhaps the next president will do something akin to FDR's cornering Imperial Japan into launching a preventative strike against American assets, which could be used as justification for asking a declaration of war.

[Phoenix]

Seek,

Or maybe something will touch off something with all the naval vessels sailing to Byzantium.

Sorry. Got a little poetic there, but you get the point. All these new fronts opening up and we have but one goal. They have internal hatreds to deal with as well as their big hatred of us. Bummer for them.