"The United States has more than 5,000 troops stationed in Iraq, which has a State Department waiver from sanctions allowing it to keep purchasing electricity from Iran. U.S. forces are also based in Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia.
Iraq has a number of Shiite militia groups, backed and trained by Iran, that have criticized the U.S. designation of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp, an elite branch of Iran’s military, as a terrorist organization.
The Persian Gulf includes critical sea lanes for oil shipments, particularly at the Strait of Hormuz. As U.S. sanctions have dried up many markets for Iran’s oil, Tehran has threatened to close the strait. When Bahrain objected, an Iranian official responded: “Mind your small size and do not threaten someone bigger than yourself.”
The White House announced Sunday that the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln and its escort ships are in the Mediterranean and have been en route to the Persian Gulf region since early April.
Washpost
-----------
I am told that the Israelis have told the neocon claque (Bolton, Pompeo, etc.) that the Iranians are preparing to attack the large number of US personnel in Iraq. This may or may not be true, but, if it is, it would provide a predicate (popular word these days) for the US war against Iran that Israel very much wants. There might even be a whiff of gas in the air. Who knows?
So, Pompey the Great is off to Baghdad to tell them wogs to behave and be prepared to be supported as an independent and sovereign country. Understand?
A problem with this is the existence of a lot of Shia militias in Iraq who don't want US personnel to be in Iraq at all and who would react to any aggressive action against Iran with dire ferocity.
Trump is AWOL on this except in the sense that he is a more or less silent partner, but, IMO a war of choice against Iran would kill his chances of re-election. pl
Can Iraq tell Air Force 2 1/2 that it is not allowed to land as it enters Iraq airspace and it should check with a neighboring country as far as refueling? Maybe hold in pattern for best effect as problems at the airport are worked on?
Posted by: SAC Brat | 07 May 2019 at 08:49 PM
I would love to be a fly on the wall when the Iraqi PM shares this thoughts on the matter with Pompey. Yosemite John will not be happy either.
Posted by: Mark Logan | 07 May 2019 at 09:00 PM
Poor American's who have to take care that not only the dangers that have been on the pressure cooker for quite a while, like faster-please-let's-first take-Syria-then-Iran, have to be dealt with but also others:
Like the Russian threat on the Arctic horizon that has been simmering more gently for quite some time too:
WP:Pompeo said he had talked by phone with Trump on Monday night, when Pompeo was still in Finland for a meeting of the Arctic Council.
Take it from Mikheil Saakashvili, of all the possible people:
Russia’s Next Land Grab Won’t Be in an Ex-Soviet State. It Will Be in Europe.
Always be prepared for the worst to happen.
Posted by: Joanna | 07 May 2019 at 09:23 PM
A very ridiculous idea that Iran is planing to attack American forces in Iraq....if anything Iran has show astuteness when dealing with the US and Israel....many provocations but Iran just does not bite....now if the US or Israel attack Iran the militias would strike accordingly...
Posted by: notlurking | 07 May 2019 at 09:24 PM
That will keep all those illegals from crossing the US border! Thanks Jared. What country did you swear to protect? Maybe you should remind dad-in-law which country is his back-up country and which one he is actually President of.
The WAPO article states there is a photo of a dhow with a shipping container that "may" contain missiles. Did those three expert journalists from inside the beltway ask if they could hold aluminum tubes or yellow cake? Just how stupid is Pompeo to put out this line of camel dung?
https://www.whitehouse.gov/opioids/
Where's the fentanyl coming from that killed 64,000 Americans in 2016? Not Iran. Prescription drugs aren't the precursor either. Perhaps that piece I linked to was just a puff piece put out to placate the rubes in flyover country. Maybe Orange Man can give us a tweet since he doesn't appear to give a damn about doing something substantial after there are 64,000 dead Americans but our bestest ally whines and ....
Posted by: Fred | 07 May 2019 at 10:05 PM
Trump would be the perfect fall guy for a closing of the Straight of Hormuz. I read somewhere that the gasoline shortages we saw in 1973 were the result of a 5% cut in output ... because the threat of shortage causes people to horde which results in shortage in a "just in time" supply change which causes people to horde more. The people will need someone to blame.
Posted by: JamesT | 07 May 2019 at 10:49 PM
Now, if Iran was indeed planning an attack, I have a hard time understanding what incentive Israel would have to even say anything.
Posted by: eakens | 08 May 2019 at 12:30 AM
Sir
I concur with your analysis that a war of choice against Iran at the behest of Bibi will likely kill Trump's re-election which is his to lose right now. No doubt he'll be supported by Biden, Pelosi and the rest of the beltway crew. I can see Sean Hannity and Fareed Zakaria drooling "war president" and even Rachel Maddow conceding respect. AIPAC will ensure the pom poms and the yellow ribbons with Support the Troops decals.
My sense though is that Trump will bluster and build up the armada but not pull the trigger. Bibi & Bolton will have to pull off a gas attack or something similar to put the squeeze on him. Putin however will caution him and note the severe implications of how it could go awry.
Trump I don't believe is delusional. He knows he won by just 80,000 votes in the Rust Belt. There will be limited support there for another middle eastern quagmire with trillions of expenditure. He must know that while he could make Iran rubble he can't get them to bend their knee to Bibi. Even with all the hysteria ginned up by the ziocons there will be a sizeable minority who will oppose another war fought by the Deplorables to aid Bibi's maximalist dreams.
.
Posted by: Jack | 08 May 2019 at 12:42 AM
Hello sir,
The recent escalation against Iran is not an isolated matter and there are a number of events that may explain this situation:
1. Bolton's recent failure in Venezuela and the humiliation he and his circus took which made them look terrible in the eyes of Trump. So Bolton thinks he needs to quickly score "something". His aim is to use every small and insignificant matter to escalate as much as possible, so Iran would do an unforced error, which is highly unlikely. It appears that the B-Team wants one thing most: Iran's full withdrawal from the JCPOA. Moon of Alabama had a very good analysis of this.
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2019/05/how-the-us-is-pressing-iran-to-breach-the-nuclear-deal.html#more
2. Trump's AG, Bill Barr is being heavily pressed by the House Democrats to release the un-redacted version of the Mueller Report, plus possible Muller testimony in May 15th in case Barr resisted to House Democrats' demands. This would clear a number of ambiguities, especially with regards to the obstruction of justice charges. Trump has already tweeted that he does not want Mueller to testify in front of Congress and wants the whole Russiagate story to end as it seemingly did in March. Who knows what Mueller would reveal in case he appeared before Congress? Will that hurt Trump, particularly with regards to obstruction charges? who knows...but Trump may be willing to divert the attention from this, so will Trump WAG THE DOG??
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/06/opinion/robert-mueller-testify.html
2. Trade Talk with China did not go anywhere and he slapped another some-hundred billion dollars worth of tariffs on Chinese goods, plus he just sent a naval strike group to the South China Sea, possibly to "show force" and intimidate the Chinese. It is known that China buys around 625k barrels of oil from Iran and is the country's biggest oil customer. Does this have an Iran angle to it? Likely.
https://www.businessinsider.nl/the-us-just-sent-2-us-destroyers-to-check-china-in-the-south-china-sea-2019-5/?international=true&r=US
3.North Korea's recent missile tests, which does not sit well with Trump trying to reach to a deal with the NKs, but at the same time want to show it is still ruthless enough to show force. I'm sure Kim is carefully watching Trump admin's moves in the Middle East. This too may have an Iran angle to it.
https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000006497496/trumps-contrasting-approaches-to-north-korea-venezuela-and-iran.html
4.There is a joint Russian and Syrian operation in Idlib to eliminate one of the last places where the terrorists still exist. Bolton and its client Israel do not want a peaceful, stable and unified Syria, so they would want to escalte and obstruct this important operation.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-security-idlib/syrian-rebels-say-goal-of-russias-idlib-assault-is-to-take-highways-idUSKCN1SC01H
6. Iran just introduced a new financial mechanism that would facilitate trade with Russia, Turkey and even the spineless EU. It is a fact that uncle Sam does not like ANY de-dollarization mechanism to develop that would later pave the road for similar future attempts.
7. It is already clear that the U.S. has exhausted all his sanctions efforts against Iran and most experts believe that it will not be able to force Iran's oil export to zero. Iran according to Mr. Zarif "has a Phd in sanctions evasion" and throughout its 40 years under permanent western sanctions the country has developed various ways to sell its oil. This and because Iran dos not publish its oil export information anymore so KSA does not know what to do and how much oil to pump to replace the Iranian oil, which in tern runs aganist Trump's personal demand to pump oil and keep the gas below $4 a gallon mark in the U.S.
My question however is that why is Trump, as you mentioned, has suddenly gone AWOL? is he playing the 'Good Cop' role, while 'the Stache' plays the bad guy's? Does he want to reach to some type of Deal with Iran and that these are all intimidating tactics to bring Iran to the table? is there a possibility of Bolton leaving the Trump admin?
Posted by: E Publius | 08 May 2019 at 05:59 AM
Well it had to happen. They're officially moving the US Capitol, the White House- and its state subsidiaries- to Jerusalem. Groveling zio-satrap licks the boot that walks on him. https://www.sun-sentinel.com/business/fl-bz-ron-desantis-plantation-20190409-story.html
Posted by: Colleen | 08 May 2019 at 06:15 AM
I trust Israeli Intelligence about Iran about as much as I would trust Iranian Intelligence about Israel but Rubio and the other Neocons consider it gold.
Iran moving ballistic missiles by boat, US officials say
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/07/politics/us-iran-transporting-missiles/index.html
This story doesn't smell right. The Iranians are more clever than this. If they really wanted to hit U.S. targets it wouldn't be this obvious. They would use land based batteries and wouldn't need to ship missiles by sea. They also have a couple of diesel submarines and midget submarines if they wanted to stalk naval targets.
Posted by: Christian J Chuba | 08 May 2019 at 06:21 AM
PL and others, does the relocation of the Abraham Lincoln make war unavoidable? At what levels are we negotiating with Iran behind the scenes to avoid conflict?
Posted by: wtofd | 08 May 2019 at 10:59 AM
wtofd
If the president does not give an execute order nothing will happen short of an open attack by the Iranians or their friends.
Posted by: turcopolier | 08 May 2019 at 11:05 AM
The Abraham Lincoln left her home port on 1 April enroute to her new home port of San Diego. Along the way she spent two weeks exercising off Italy before heading to the Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf. This is not a sudden deployment to the Gulf as the Trump administration would like us to believe.
Posted by: The Twisted Genius | 08 May 2019 at 12:07 PM
It's not 1973 anymore.
Posted by: Fred | 08 May 2019 at 01:18 PM
You are right, it is not 1973 anymore. But I am not sure what you are getting at.
Posted by: JamesT | 08 May 2019 at 05:55 PM
''were the result of a 5% cut in output ... ''
No. And I am old enough to remember it.
Oil Embargo, 1973–1974
During the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, Arab members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) imposed an embargo against the United States in retaliation for the U.S. decision to re-supply the Israeli military and to gain leverage in the post-war peace negotiations.
Arab OPEC members also extended the embargo to other countries that supported Israel including the Netherlands, Portugal, and South Africa. The embargo both banned petroleum exports to the targeted nations and introduced cuts in oil production. Several years of negotiations between oil-producing nations and oil companies had already destabilized a decades-old pricing system, which exacerbated the embargo’s effects.
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1969-1976/oil-embargo
Posted by: catherine | 08 May 2019 at 05:59 PM
What I guess has been discovered is something that has long been predicted. It must be that Iran has put TELs among the cargo stacks on container ships. These Transport Erector Launch vehicles look like the other containers but can open their tops and elevate to a good firing angle short-range missiles like the thirty-five mile range Nasr-1 or the hundred-and-twenty mile range Qader. Iran has already disguised trucks carrying TELs as commercial vehicles. They are deployed along the highways of the coast and are very hard to identify.
In the last year Sultan Qaboos of Oman has tilted sharply towards the Houthis, certain salafist groups and the Muslim Brotherhood. The closest Yemeni province to Oman is Mahra. The frontier there is guarded unsuccessfully by Saudi troops. Oman government border guards allow armed Omani and Yemeni tribesmen free movement back and forth across the frontier. Oman also has begun to naturalise hundreds of tribal militias from the province. For years Iran has moved weapons down to the Houthis. Some of these were long range missiles in sections which proved to have been roughly field-welded and not smoothly factory finished before they could be used. So it could also be that Iran is now shipping complete factory finished missiles in shipping containers into a port like Sohar where Iran would have a shipping agency headquarters, a designated docking area, warehouses guarded behind chain link fences, even small factories, trucks, the whole bit. Relations between Oman and Iran are normal, a LNG pipeline is planned across and under the approaches to Hormuz.
Last year the Bulk and General Cargo Carriage Company, a subsidiary of the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines, launched a new freight service between the ports of Khorraramshar and Sohar. Plans are in place for a Chabahar-Sohar shipping line from down on the Indian Ocean almost to the frontier with Pakistani Gwadar, and also one to Bushire, back up in the Gulf.
Posted by: Tidewater | 08 May 2019 at 06:04 PM
As acting Secretary of Defence would Bolton have been in a position to order so much as a tug boat to steam some where? My understanding is that even a confirmed S of D could only advice the C in C on a matter of operations and S of D is more of a bureaucracy gig.
Posted by: BraveNewWorld | 08 May 2019 at 06:46 PM
Bolton is not Secretary of Defense. Try to educate yourself before entering into our discussions.
Posted by: turcopolier | 08 May 2019 at 09:10 PM
Is anyone Secretary of Defense at the moment? BNW is close to the mark: to all intents & purposes it's Brushlips.
Posted by: Jon Rudd | 09 May 2019 at 07:42 AM
I hate to be one of those people who say 'link please' but some of what you say has the feel of what the Israelis would tell Haley's among us to scare us. I'll elaborate and sure I could be wrong.
Never heard about Iranian container launched missiles but I've seen multiple press releases about Israel bragging about their ability to do so.
Smuggling weapons through Oman? Getting through Oman, fine but then there's another 500 miles of Yemen before getting into Houthi territory and that's in a straight line; taking roads, much longer. I'll grant you that portion of Yemen is sparsely populated and people can be bribed but still, a shipment of long range missile components is bound to be intercepted by some checkpoint at least once. We wouldn't need Haley to be standing over debris, she could hold up shiny new objects straight from Iran. Scott Ritter did an analysis of the missile and argued that it looked like a Korean Scud that was modified rather than an Iranian missile chopped into pieces and re-assembled. I believe Iran has provided technicians to help the Houhthis / Royal Guards manufacture and modify their existing arsenal, smuggling people is less difficult than meaningful amounts of hardware.
Posted by: Christian J Chuba | 09 May 2019 at 08:02 AM
that may well be true, catherine, and notice, I don't have time to follow your link, but the larger world market responded to it. At least noticeably in "the West"...
full discovery: I am not a fan of all-options-are-on-the-table, I am also not a fan of delivering democracy by forcing anyone to look into the barrel of a gun, neither am I a fan of the non-military pressure via financial sanctions.
What I am much less sure about is, where does this leave me. Other then possibly belonging into the category of a "cultural Marxist" or let's say one grasped by the TDS, the Trump derangement symptom, evaluated from the outside.
Posted by: Joanna | 09 May 2019 at 08:03 AM
Jon Rudd
Shanahan is acting SECDEF
Posted by: turcopolier | 09 May 2019 at 08:25 AM
You might want to update your economic understanding of the oil industry.
Posted by: Fred | 09 May 2019 at 11:04 AM