|
|
Ellyn
Joined: 16 Jul 2000
Posts: 4458
|
MEDIA BLACKOUT: THE ARMADA IN THE GULF
 Thu Aug 28, 2008 6:25 am
|
 |
|
MEDIA BLACKOUT: THE ARMADA IN THE GULF
By Gary North
August 26, 2008
The media have covered such recent events as the Olympics,
the selection of Joe Biden as the Vice Presidential candidate for
the Democratic Party, and what John McCain is going to do about
the selection of the Vice President of the Republican Party. Now
the media will focus on the national convention of the Democratic
Party.
The most important news for the month of August was the fact
that President Bush has quietly sent the largest armada into the
Persian Gulf since the Iraq war began in 2003, when there were
six carrier groups. This is a huge number of ships to be
concentrated in one location in peacetime.
This story has been completely ignored by the news media all
over the West. The only coverage is from special-interest
websites. It was only on Saturday morning, August 23, that I
learned what was going on.
I spent most of Saturday in an attempt to verify the basic
story. Some of this story is easily verifiable. Other parts of
it are circumstantial, but nevertheless compelling. I posted the
story on my site late in the afternoon. You can read the details
here:
http://www.garynorth.com/public/3927.cfm
Here is the basic story. Two aircraft carrier task forces,
the Abraham Lincoln and the Peleliu, are already in the Persian
Gulf. This is verifiable on the Websites of the carriers. A
third task force, the Iwo Jima, was dispatched to the Gulf on
August 22. This has been verified by a naval source.
Two more -- the Theodore Roosevelt and the Ronald Reagan --
are said to be sailing to the Gulf, but I was unable to verify
this from official sources. The "Jerusalem Post" reported this,
as did at least one Egyptian newspaper cited by the "Post." The
Arab world is aware of all this. Western audiences are not.
We do know from naval sources that in July, the Theodore
Roosevelt was involved in joint naval maneuvers with the French
Navy. Think about this for a moment. When was the last time you
read of joint naval operations between the United States Navy and
the French Navy? I have never heard of it.
Third-party sources report that French ships, along with
British ships, are accompanying the Theodore Roosevelt to the
Gulf. This would indicate a joint military venture.
THE BLACKOUT
This is receiving no coverage by the media of the Western
nations. It is a non-event. Yet if I know about it, and if I
have been able to verify three-fifths of the story by official
sources, then there is no question in my mind that any of the
major news media that wanted to assign one lone individual to
tracing down the details of this story would be able to do this
without a great deal of difficulty. Yet the media have remained
absolutely silent about this.
This sounds fishy to me. It sounds as though there is a
coordinated effort among Western owners of the media to make
certain that the voters are kept in the dark.
Why should this story not be front-page news? Two very good
reasons are the fragility of the economy with oil under $130 a
barrel, and what could happen if it goes to $400. Nobody wants
to trigger bank runs.
The existence of an armada of this size raises an obvious
question: Against which nation in the Persian Gulf is such an
armada to be used? The answer is obvious: Iran.
If this armada is to be used against Iran, the next question
arises: What will happen to the price of oil if Iranian exports
of oil are cut off by an armada whose purpose is to stop all
trade with Iran?
Second question: What would happen to the price of oil if
Iran sinks two oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz?
Third question: What would happen to maritime insurance
rates for oil tankers in the Persian Gulf?
This raises a fourth question: Is the fleet's purpose is
to police the Strait of Hormuz, to make certain that the land-based
anti-ship missiles that may have been installed by Iran can be
stopped?
Fifth question: Why would Iran sink oil takers, apart from
wartime?
These questions relate to the supply of oil. The price of
oil, as with the price of all other commodities, is set at the
margin. The problem with the price of oil is that it is so
volatile. There are no short-term supplies of oil that can come
on-stream in response to rising prices. Because increased
supplies do not respond to an increase in the price of oil,
prices rise and very fast and very high whenever there is a major
interruption of oil production or delivery.
IRANIAN RETALIATION
If Iran is attacked by either the United States or the
Israeli Air Force, there will be retaliation by the Iranians.
Iranian leaders have made it clear repeatedly that an attack on
Iran by the Israeli Air Force will be regarded as an attack by
the United States. At that point, the Middle East will begin to
unravel.
If the Israeli Air Force attacks Iran, this will create an
instant unified resistance movement by Muslims throughout the
Middle East. This will include Sunni Muslims. The hatred of
the Israelis by Muslims in the region is so intense that even
though the Israeli Air Force attacks at Shi'ite nation, Sunni
leaders will not be in a position to publicly justify such an
attack. They would risk a revolution in their own countries if
they did this. The best that the Israelis could expect would be
silent neutrality.
Retaliation on the part of Iran will be expected by all
Muslim nations in the Middle East.
What could Iran do to impose negative sanctions on the
United States? The first thing it can do is to stop all oil
exports. This would create an economic depression in Iran. But
if the armada is controlling the flow of goods into Iran anyway,
then why not stop the export of Iranian oil? If Iran cannot buy
the goods that revenues from the sale of the oil would provide,
then Iran's leaders might as well get some credit with their
people for having stood up to the Americans.
Iranian leaders will be able to say, accurately, that since
United States has gone to war with Iran by creating an embargo
around Iran, the smart thing to do is to inflict great economic
damage on the United States. The leaders will be able to tell
the people to buckle down, cut expenses, and suffer because this
is the price of war with the Great Satan, which has indulged in
an act of war against Iran. All the bad effects can be blamed on
the United States, and all the tough talk will strengthen the
regime that is in power at the time that the embargo is first
announced. This will wipe out any so-called moderates in Iran.
The nation will come together against the United States.
Next, Iran can begin to create havoc for American troops by
supplying small arms to Shia militias inside Iraq and by
supplying resistance fighters inside Afghanistan. There is
nothing that the United States can do to stop the flow of
low-cost, low-intensity arms out of Iran. The American death
toll in both Iraq and Afghanistan would increase. The surge
would find itself facing a much greater counter-surge.
NATO forces in Afghanistan will begin to suffer a series of
defeats. This will certainly please Vladimir Putin. This will
advance Russian hegemony in the region. All the Russians have to
do is tell the world that they oppose this unauthorized embargo
on Iran, and that it opposes any air strikes inside Iran by the
United States or the Israeli Air Force. At this point, Russia
will become a verbal ally of the Islamic world. This will be an
enormous diplomatic advantage for Russia. It will be an
extraordinary diplomatic disadvantage for the United States.
Because imposing an embargo was an act of war, and because
Iran would have no particular reason to settle with the United
States on terms that are in any way favorable to the United
States, the Iranians need only bide their time. At some point,
if the armada is removed from the Strait, the Iranians will again
be in a position to sabotage oil tankers going through the
Strait. So, once this embargo is imposed, it has to become
permanent.
The tactic that would impose the greatest financial loss on
the United States would be to sink oil tankers in the Strait. If
the Iranians can sink as few as two tankers, this will result in
huge increases in maritime insurance premiums for oil tankers
sailing through the Strait. This would reduce the supply of oil
reaching the West.
Whether Iran can attack oil tankers in the Strait when the
Strait is protected by American warships is a tactical question
that I am not capable of answering accurately. It may be that
Iran's land-based missiles can be taken out by naval air power.
But this would mean that the armada must remain inside the
straight permanently.
If Iran ceases to export oil, this alone would be sufficient
to drive the price of oil into regions that will push the West
into a recession. Thus, it is ominous that President Bush, as
Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, has ordered the five
carrier task forces into the region.
I realize that the price of oil has not responded yet to
this strategic move. The best thing we can say at this point is
that the oil markets do not appear to regard this strategic move
of the United States Navy as a serious threat to the supply of
oil from the Middle East.
Given the high-risk situation that has been created by the
failure of subprime mortgages in the United States, an oil shock
that drives oil above $200 a barrel is likely to create
bankruptcies in major banks all over the West. Depositors are
already jumpy. If it appears that the Western economies are
going to go into a simultaneous recession, because of a sharp
increase in the price of oil that is likely to become permanent,
the West's banking system, and surely its capital markets, will
be at risk. The Iranians understand this. There is no reason
why the rest of us should not understand this. Hence, there is a
blackout on all information of the assembling of the armada all
over the Western world.
A UNITED FRONT
Islamic societies do not tolerate military activities of
non-Islamic nations against Islamic nations except in support of
one Islamic nation against an invasion by another Islamic nation.
It was possible for President George H. W. Bush to mobilize
support from Sunni Islamic nations in the first Gulf War because
Saddam Hussein had invaded Kuwait. This was perceived as an
attack by a secular national leader against an Islamic nation.
President Bush understood that this did not authorize the
conquest of Iraq by the West. This is why he stopped American
troops from capturing Baghdad. The capture of Baghdad and the
overthrow of Saddam Hussein were not part of the agreement by
which the United States received financial and logistical support
from oil-exporting Islamic nations in the Gulf.
The United States since 2003 has been able to gain grudging
support by Sunni nations in the region only because the official
justification for the invasion was to fight Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda
is perceived by the oligarchies of the region as a threat to
their own existence. Also, Saddam Hussein was perceived, not as
a practicing Muslim, but as a secular autocrat.
The United States was able to gain support from Pakistan,
but this has created such resistance inside Pakistan that
Musharraf has finally been forced out of office.
The thing that oil-exporting Muslim nations worry most about
is the possibility that Iran will retaliate by sinking oil
tankers that pass through the Strait of Hormuz. On this issue,
oil-exporting Muslim nations may be willing to accept the
presence of a Western armada in the Middle East. If the
justification of the armada is to keep open the Hormuz Straight,
oil-exporting nations may cooperate with the United States. They
will not be able to say anything favorable toward Israel, but
they may keep quiet about the use of the armada as a way to
maintain revenues for themselves.
IF NOT OIL, THEN WHAT?
I have three other questions.
What is it that oil investors believe is a legitimate
role for five carrier task forces in the Persian Gulf
that is not in some way related to the export of oil?
What is it that these carrier groups will do for the
stability of oil exports from the region?
Why is it that five carrier task forces are required to
do what one carrier task force was expected to do prior
to August?
There is no question that this is a major military show of
force in the region. President Bush has decided to make this
show of force. He has done so without informing the American
media regarding the reason for this show of force. If the reason
has nothing to do with Iran, he should say so. If the reason has
something to do with Iran, then he should publicly discuss the
question of the supply of oil exported from the Middle East. He
should discuss how he intends to enable Iran to continue to
export oil to the West, yet at the same time persuade the
Iranians to change their policy on nuclear development.
What is it that five carrier task forces in the Persian Gulf
can do to persuade the Iranians to change their policies, other
than by interdicting oil trade with Iran? If this armada does
this, how will Iranian oil exports not be affected? If these
carrier forces are to interdict goods coming into Iran, what
motivation does Iran have for continuing to export its most vital
commodity, when Iran will not be able to use the proceeds from
the sale of this commodity in order to buy Western goods?
If President Bush imposes an embargo on shipping in and out
of Iran, and he does so after the November election but before
the inauguration of a new President, he will deliver to the new
administration a third war. The surge in Iraq will prove to have
been a short-lived operation that succeeded only because Shia
militias and the Shia-run government of Iraq decided to let the
Americans alone. Meanwhile, Afghanistan will become a disaster
zone, and will remain a disaster zone for as long as Western
troops are in the country.
Iran need only sit and wait. The new administration will
find that the world economy is disintegrating, that oil prices
have moved up to such an extent that American voters will demand
action, and the only action that will make any sense will be to
withdraw all forces from the region.
At that point, the Western economy will be completely
dependent upon the good will of the Iranians. If Iran stops the
flow of oil by sinking tankers in the Strait of Hormuz, the price
of oil will become astronomical. The greatest winner in such a
scenario would be Russia. Russia would be in a position of
almost complete monopoly over the oil markets.
Under such a scenario, the new administration would have one
problem to deal with, and that problem is war in the Middle East.
All other issues, domestic and international, would fade into
insignificance on the day oil goes over $200 a barrel. Yet this
could happen after the election but before the inauguration.
President Bush will depart, and his replacement will be saddled
with an economic disaster, a military disaster, and a domestic
political disaster.
There will not be a thing that the newly elected President
can do prior to January 20 to deal with this problem. President
Bush will be an absolute control because he is lawfully the
Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces.
There could be a move to impeach him, but Congress has
proven so utterly impotent over the last two years, and so
utterly fearful of challenging the President on the issue of the
war, that it is unlikely that Congress could mount a successful
impeachment and trial by the Senate during the two-month period
between the election of a new President and his inauguration.
If you think the price of oil would be astronomical under
the conditions I have already described, add to this an
impeachment attempt by Congress. That would tie up the Bush
administration, which would mean that its policies in the Middle
East will be set in concrete until January 20, 2009.
All of this may seem hypothetical. But, as Forrest Gump's
mother might say, hypothetical is as hypothetical does. What is
not hypothetical is the presence of three carrier task forces in
the Persian Gulf, and probably two more by the end of September.
Then what?
The media have been completely successful in blocking all
information about this, not just in the United States, but in the
Western countries generally. Nobody's paying any attention to
this. This includes oil investors. My opinion is that this
blindness is going to result in a military disaster before the
end of 2009.
If President Bush goes on national television this week to
explain why he ordered four new carrier groups into the region,
and this explanation is plausibly unrelated to Iran, oil, and
the Strait of Hormuz, then I am willing to consider the
possibility that the scenarios that I have outlined here are
simply hypothetical.
There may be a cogent explanation for why five carrier task
forces should be in the Persian Gulf. The fact that I cannot
imagine a cogent explanation that does not involve Iran, oil, and
the Strait of Hormuz does not mean that there is not such an
explanation. But the silence of the media points to the silence
of the lambs. The lambs are the voters in the West who could be
facing another war in the Middle East by January 20, 2009.
CONCLUSION
You should think carefully about the implications of $400
oil on your family's finances. You should also think carefully
about $400 oil's effect on your employer's finances. You should
then think very carefully about what might be a plausible
explanation for five carrier task forces in the Persian Gulf that
do not point to $400 oil by January 20, 2009. |
| |
|
|
mr. jones
Joined: 03 Mar 2006
Posts: 1899
|
|
Fri Aug 29, 2008 5:57 pm
|
|
|
An attack is imminent, it's been in the works for a long time.
It was just a matter of when and how.
My personal prediction is that the attack would bend the election in favor of the republicans.
Which of course wouldn't matter much because regardless..... the price of oil will go up.
That is the whole point.
Complete economic control leads to total state control of the masses.
Your freedom is determined by your pocketbook.
In a materialsit world of course.
_________________
"The whole aim of practical politics is
to keep the populace alarmed, and thus clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of
hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." |
| |
|
|
 
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is Fri May 25, 2012 5:44 pm
|
|
|
|
|
Login
