The stated military purpose of the naval exercise is crystal clear

Tag : Hardware Assortment
According to the press reports (see UPI, August 11, 2008), the warships involved in the "Operation Brimstone" war games off the USNorth Atlantic coast, had set sail for the Middle East. Thisinformation is apparently incorrect, according to the US Navy andStratfor.
It is worth noting that the Kuwaiti government had activatedemergency procedures based on the information pertaining to a majornaval deployment in the Persian Gulf.
Based on the movement and location of USS carrier and expeditionarystrike forces, the Bush administration has not decided to carry outa naval surge directed against Iran immediately following theconduct of the North Atlantic War Games,
T he eventuality of a naval blockade directed against Iran isnonetheless being considered by the Pentagon. In fact, the naval blockade initiative is supported by a bill which waslaunched in the US Congress in late May. (See below for details).
We have checked the most recent information regarding the movementsand location of the various USS Carrier and Expeditionary StrikeGroups.
The text first released on August 14 has been revised. Corrections,and updates to the text are indicated.
We will provide further updates and analysis as more informationbecomes available.

Michel Chossudovsky, August 14, 2008

The Bush administration is envisaging the possibility of launchinga naval blockade directed against Iran.
Extensive war games were held off the US Atlantic Coastline under"Operation Brimstone" in late July.
These war games were activated shortly after the submission in theUS House of Representatives (May 22), of a bill (H CON 362) whichcalled upon the Bush administration to carry out an economicblockade directed against Iran. "Operation Brimstone": North Atlantic Ocean War Games
Joint Task Force Exercise (JTFEX) 08-4 'Operation Brimstone'commenced on July 21 in North Carolina and off the Eastern USAtlantic coast from Virginia to Florida. Of significance was theparticipation of British, French, Brazilian and Italian navalforces as part of a multinational US naval exercise directedagainst Iran.
More than a dozen ships participated in the naval exerciseincluding the USS Theodore Roosevelt and its Carrier Strike GroupTwo, the expeditionary Strike Group Iwo Jima, the French submarineAmethyste, Britain's HMS Illustrious Carrier Strike Group, Brazil'snavy frigate Greenhalgh and Italy's ITS Salvatore Todaro (S 526)submarine. (See Middle East Times, August 11, 2008 , Dailypress.com, July 28, 2008 , www.mt-milcom.blogspot.com )
Stating the purpose of a war game and identifying the real "foreignenemy" by name is not the normal practice, unless there is adecision to send an unequivocal message to the enemy.
Invariably in war games, the foreign enemy is given a fictitiouscountry name: Irmingham, Nemazee, Rubeck and Churia stand for Iran,North Korea, Russia and China (codes used in the Vigilant Shield 07War Games' Scenario opposing the US to four fictitious enemies. ( See William Arkin, The Vigilant Shield 07 War Games: Scenarioopposing the US to Russia, China, Iran and North Korea, WashingtonPost, February 10, 2007 )
In the case of "Operation Brimstone", the stated military purpose of the naval exercise is crystal clear: the North Atlantic wargames are carried out with a view "to practice enforcing aneventual blockade on Iran". These naval exercises are intended todisplay 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 coastalwaters such as the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz."
The USS Theodore Roosevelt equipped with 80-plus combat planes, wascarrying an additional load of French Naval Rafale fighter jetsfrom the French carrier Charles de Gaulle. (Ibid). France's E2CHawkeye early warning aircraft, which was "assigned to the 4thSquadron began flight operations with Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 8aboard Roosevelt, marking the first integrated U.S. and Frenchcarrier qualifications aboard a U.S. aircraft carrier. FrenchRafale fighter aircraft assigned to the 12th Squadron also joined." Navy.mil, July 24, 2008
Anglo-US war games are a routine practice. What is significant inthese large scale naval manoeuvres is the active participation ofFrance, Brazil and Italy in war games which are explicitly directedagainst Iran.
The participation of these countries in extensive war games pointsto broad consensus. It also suggests that the participating nationshave accepted (in political and military terms) to participate in aUS-led military operation directed against Iran. The activeparticipation of France and to a lesser extent Italy also suggeststhat the European Union is firmly behind the US initiative:
"Operations with our friends and allies are the cornerstone of theU.S. Navy's current maritime strategy," said Capt. Ladd Wheeler,Roosevelt's commanding officer. "These combined operations willcertainly pay dividends into the future as our navies continue towork together to increase global security." Navy.mil, July 24, 2008
Another important precedent has been set. Brazil's President LuisIgnacio da Silva has ordered the dispatch of the Greenhalgh Frigate, marking the first time that a Brazilian warship (under agovernment which claims to be "socialist") has operated as part ofa US. strike group in war games directed against a foreign country.

According to the Greenhalgh's Commander Claudio Mello, "It allowsus to be one more asset in an international operation." ( Pilot Online.com, July 28, 2008 )

Brazil's Frigate Greenhalgh dispatched to participate in US WarGames
Congressional Initiative
The naval blockade against Iran, which is tantamount to adeclaration of war is a bipartisan project, which has tacitly beenendorsed by the Democrats. In May 2008, a bill was introduced inthe House of Representatives (H.CON. RES 362) that called for theenforcement of an all out economic blockade, including theencroachment of trade and the freeze of monetary transactions withthe Islamic Republic:
"T he President [shall] initiate an international effort toimmediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, anddiplomatic 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 departingIran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranianofficials 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 usehis existing authority to impose sanctions on the Central Bank ofIran, ... international banks which continue to conduct financialtransactions with proscribed Iranian banks; ... energy companies that have invested $20,000,000 or more in theIranian petroleum or natural gas sector in any given year since theenactment of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 ; and all companies which continue to do business with Iran'sIslamic Revolutionary Guard Corps." (See full text of H.CON RES 362) (emphasis added)
Meanwhile, H CON RES 362 has been referred to the House ForeignAffairs Committee. A similar procedure has taken plance in theSenate.

Concurrent Military Operations: War in the Caucasus
The planning of a naval blockade by the Bush administration(Operation Brimstone, H Con 362) occurs at the very outset of anunfolding crisis in the Caucasus, marked by the Georgian air andground attacks on South Ossetia and Russia's counterattack. Thetiming and chronology of these related and concurrent militaryoperations is crucial.
We are not dealing with separate and unrelated military events. Thewar in Georgia is an integral part of US-NATO-Israeli warpreparations 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 factoUS protectorate.
The attack on South Ossetia was launched by Georgia on the ordersof the US and NATO. US military advisers and trainers were activelyinvolved in the planning of Georgia's attacks on the South Ossetiacapital. (For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, War in the Caucasus, Towards a BroaderRussia-US Military Confrontation, Global Research, August 10, 2008 )
Russia is an ally of Iran.
Russia is currently caught up in a military confrontation withGeorgia. The Georgian attack on South Ossetia constitutes an act ofprovocation directed against Russia. It creates an aura ofinstability in the Caucasus, marked by heavy civilian casualties.It serves to distract Russia from playing a meaningful diplomaticand military role, which might undermine or obstruct the US-led warplans directed against Iran.
Both Russia and China have bilateral military cooperationagreements with Iran. Russia supplies the Islamic Republic withmilitary hardware and technical expertise in relation to Iran's airdefense system and missile program.
Since 2005, Iran has an observer member status in the ShanghaiCooperation Organization (SCO). In turn, the SCO has ties to theCollective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), an overlappingmilitary cooperation agreement between Russia, Armenia, Belarus,Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan.
The structure and strength of military alliances is crucial. In thecontext of US war plans directed against Iran, the US is intentupon weakening Iran's allies, namely Russia and China. In the caseof China, Washington is seeking to disrupt Beijing's bilateral tieswith Tehran as well as Iran's rapprochement with the SCO, which hasits headquarters in Beijing.
The Georgian attack on South Ossetia seeks to undermine Russia,which constitutes a significant countervailing military power andally of Iran.
The ultimate objective is to isolate Iran, cut it off from itspowerful allies: China and Russia.
In Washington's mindset, the events in Georgia coupled with mediapropaganda, can be usefully applied to discredit and weaken Russiaprior to the enforcement of a naval blockade on Iran in the PersianGulf, which could lead into an all out war on Iran.
This somewhat crude line of reasoning tends, however, to overlookAmerica's own military setbacks and weaknesses as well as theenormous risks to America and the World which could result from acontinued and sustained confrontation with Russia, let alone anattack on Iran.
In view of the evolving situation in Georgia and Moscow's militarycommitments in the Caucasus, military analysts believe that Russiawill not protect Iran and encroach upon a US led operation directedagainst Iran, which would be preceded by a naval blockade.
In other words, Washington believes that Moscow is unlikely to getactively involved in a showdown with US and allied forces in thePersian Gulf.
Naval Deployment
According to press reports, upon completing the North Atlantic wargames on July 31st, the participating warships in "OperationBrimstone" headed for the Middle East, to join up with othercarrier strike groups and a constellation of US, British and Frenchwar ships.

Which Carrier Strike groups and Expeditionary Forces sailed for theMiddle East upon the completion of "Operation Brimstone" remains tobe ascertained.

Below we provide the most recent information pertaining to themovement of Carrier Strike Groups and Expeditionary Strike Groups

According to Stratfor and military sources:

-the USS Iwo Jima and the USS Theodore Roosevelt , according to Stratfor, returned to their home port in Norfolkafter concluding participation in JTFEX Operation Brimstone on July31
-the nuclear powered USS Ronald Reagan Carrier and its Strike Group Seven; according to Stratfor USS Reagan iscurrently under way in the South China Sea on a routine deploymentin the 7th fleet area of responsibility (AOR) (Indian Ocean andWestern Pacific)
-the USS Abraham Lincoln is in the Arabian Sea (confirmed by Strafor, "operations in the 5th fleet AOR, which includes Iraq andAfghanistan", namely Ariabian Sea,

- the USS Peleliu which was in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden. (latest news fromStratfor USS Peleliu is in the Arabian Sea, "operations in the 5thfleet AOR, which includes Iraq and Afghanistan")


USS Abraham Lincoln
In other words, there are at present (August 14, 2008) two StrikeGroups in the region: USS Abraham Lincoln , northern Arabian Sea, USS Peleliu Strike Group , northern Arabian sea. There is no confirmation as to whether the USS Ronald Reagan is moving towards the Arabian Sea.

"Maritime Security" to Enforce a Naval Blockade

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 theparticipation of the US, Canada, Australia, UK, Germany, Australia,Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain, Turkey andPakistan.
There are several combined task forces responsible for maritimesecurity (including CTF 150, CTF 152 and the CTF 158 North ArabianGulf (NAG))
The mandate of the Combined Task Forces "aims to establishsecurity and stability by countering terrorism in the MiddleEastern maritime environment and allowing legitimate mariners tooperate safely in the area..." (see Canadian Navy, New s),
In the present context, this multinational naval alliance, will beused to encroach upon maritime trade with Iran as well as play anactive role in 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 Protecteurwhich will be operating under CTF 150, which is responsible for MSOin the Gulf of Aden, the Gulf of Oman, the Arabian Sea, the Red Seaand the Indian Ocean.


Canada's HMC Iroquois, involved in Maritime Security.
Canada currently leads the CTF 150 Task Force

Among the 36 war vessels involved in so-called Maritime SecurityOperations, are:
RBNS Sabha (FFG 90)  The Bahraini flagship of CTF 152 conductingMaritime Security Operations (MSO) in the Central and SouthernArabian Gulf.
USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75)  The U.S. flagship of CTF 50,conducting MSO in the Central and Southern Arabian Gulf , as wellas support Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom.(currently in the Atlantic Ocean according to Stratfor).
FS Guepratte (F 714)  French Navy ship operating as part of CTF150 in the North Arabian Sea, Gulf of Aden, Gulf of Oman, Red Seaand the Indian Ocean.
USCGC Wrangell (WPB 1332)  One of several USCG 110 patrol boatsconducting MSO in the North Arabian Gulf.
HMAS Arunta (F 151)  Australian Navy ship conducting MSO as partof CTF 158 .
PNS Tippu Sultan (D 186)  Pakistan Navy ship conducting MSO aspart of CTF 150.
RFA Cardigan Bay (L 3009)  British Royal Navy auxiliary shipoperating with CTF 158.
USS Port Royal (CG 73)  US Navy guided-missile cruiser deployedwith USS Tarawa Expeditionary Strike Group.
Source: US Naval forces, Central Command, Fifth fleet, Combined MaritimeForces

Naval Blockade
The first stage of a naval blockade directed against Iran would inall likelihood be initiated by Maritime Security Operations (MSO) under USCENTCOM.
For Iran, a naval blockade were to be implemented is tantamount toa declaration of war. The blockade constitutes a blatant violationof international law. According to Francis Boyle, a renownedspecialist in international law:

"A blockade is an act of war under international and domestic law. A "Blockade" is a term usedunder international law to specifically refer to belligerentmeasures taken by a nation for the purposes of preventing thepassage of vessels or aircraft to and from another country.Customary international law recognizes blockades as an act of warbecause of the belligerent use of force even against third partynations in enforcing the blockade. Blockades as acts of war have been recognized as such in the Declaration of Paris of 1856 and the Declaration of London of 1909 that delineate theinternational rules of warfare."

Meanwhile, war preparations are also being undertaken by Israel andNATO in the Eastern Mediterranean. German war ships are stationedoff the Syrian coastline. Turkey which constitutes a major militaryactor within NATO is a major partner of the US led coalition. Ithas an extended bilateral military cooperation agreement withIsrael. Turkey has borders with both Iran and Syria. (For furtherdetails 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 politicallevel, pointing to the pre-emptive first strike use of nuclearweapons in the Middle East war theater, more concretely againstIran:
"In January 2005, at the outset of the military build-up directedagainst Iran, USSTRATCOM was identified as "the lead CombatantCommand for integration and synchronization of DoD-wide efforts incombating 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 nuclearattack in accordance with the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review, approvedby the US Congress in 2002. The NPR underscores the pre-emptive useof nuclear warheads not only against "rogue states" but alsoagainst 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: RenewingTransatlantic Partnership ". calls for a first strike pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons. TheNATO doctrine in this report is a virtual copy and paste version ofAmerica's post 9/11 nuclear weapons doctrine as initially outlinedin the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR).
(for details, see Michel Chossudovsky, The US-NATO Preemptive Nuclear Doctrine:Trigger a Middle East Nuclear Holocaust to Defend "The Western Wayof Life", Global Research, January 2008 )
The preemptive use of nukes as formulated in the NATO Transatlantic Partnership document 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 explicitly envisaged inrelation to Iran, US and allied forces including Israel would " resort to a pre-emptive nuclear attack to try to halt the imminentspread 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 brutalworld. They propose the first use of nuclear weapons must remain"in the quiver of escalation as the ultimate instrument to preventthe 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, whichare according to the Pentagon is "harmless to the surroundingcivilian 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 tacticalnuclear weapons or "low yield" "mini-nukes", with an explosivecapacity 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 beingpresented as an instrument of peace rather than war. The low-yieldnukes have now been cleared for "battlefield use", they are slatedto be used in the next stage of the Middle East war (Iran)alongside conventional weapons:
"Administration officials argue that low-yield nuclear weapons areneeded as a credible deterrent against rogue states.[Iran, NorthKorea] Their logic is that existing nuclear weapons are toodestructive to be used except in a full-scale nuclear war.Potential enemies realize this, thus they do not consider thethreat of nuclear retaliation to be credible. However, low-yieldnuclear weapons are less destructive, thus might conceivably beused. That would make them more effective as adeterrent."(Opponents Surprised By Elimination of Nuke ResearchFunds Defense News November 29, 2004)
In an utterly twisted logic, nuclear weapons are presented as ameans to building peace and preventing "collateral damage".
The NATO sponsored report --which broadly reflects a growingconsensus-- insists that the option of a nuclear first strike is indispensable , "since there is simply no realistic prospect of a nuclear-freeworld." (Report, p. 97):
"Nuclear weapons are the ultimate instrument of an asymmetricresponse  and at the same time the ultimate tool of escalation"
The US-NATO doctrine to use nukes on a pre-emptive basis againstIran, with a view to "saving the Western World's way of life", isnot challenged in any meaningful way by the antiwar movement.
The mainstream media has a strong grip on the public's perceptionand understanding of the Middle East war. The dangers of nuclearwar in the Post cold War era are barely mentioned and when theyare, the use of nuclear weapons are justified as a preemptivemilitary option to ensure the security of Western World.
The truth is twisted and turned upside down.
Media disinformation instills within the consciousness of Americansand Europeans that somehow the war on Iran is a necessity, thatIran is a threat to the Homeland and that the Islamic Republic issupporting Islamic terrorists, who are planning a Second 9/11. Andthat a pre-emptive nuclear attack is the answer.
In contrast, the powerful economic interests behind the wareconomy, the Anglo-American oil giants military, the defensecontractors, Wall Street are rarely the object of media coverage.The real economic and strategic objectives behind this war arecarefully obfuscated.
9/11 is used profusely both by the Bush administration and themedia as a justification for waging war, despite the fact thatthere is mounting evidence of cover-up and complicity of keymembers of the Bush Administration.
Despite the evidence, Afghanistan, Iraq and now Iran have beenportrayed as the "State sponsors of terrorism" and a threat to theHomeland, thereby justifying the various stages of the Middle Eastmilitary roadmap. The Project for a New American Century, hadalready 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 inan advanced state of readiness to launch an attack on Iran. Leadersof the US led coalition including France, Germany and Italy, shouldunderstand that such an action could result in a World War IIIscenario.
Escalation scenarios have already been envisaged and analyzed bythe Pentagon.

US sponsored war games have foreseen the possible intervention ofRussia and China in the Middle East. World War III has been on thelips of NeoCon architects of US foreign policy from the outset ofthe Bush regime.
In response to "Operation Brimstone" and the Naval deployment, Iran's Foreign Ministry said that "Tehran will give a 'maximumresponse' to the slightest threat against the country's nationalsecurity."
War propaganda, through media disinformation consists ingalvanizing US citizens not only in favor of "the war onterrorism", but in support of a social order which repeals the Ruleof Law, derogates fundamental civil liberties, upholds the use oftorture and establishes a modern police state apparatus as a meansto "preserving Western democracy".
There is a tacit public acceptance of a diabolical and criminalmilitary agenda, which in a very sense threatens "the community ofnations" and life on this planet.