In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 668
Online now 167 Record: 11761 (2/27/2012)
The Web's No. 1 forum for coverage and discussion of Terps sports
Visitor discussion of University of Maryland and college sports
A place for lively discussion for all other sports unrelated to Maryland athletics
Feedback for IMS and 247Sports
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
A series of apparently unconnected military movements observed in Middle East seas and skies in the last tendays have a common factor: introduction of the new US Air Sea Battle (ASB) doctrine, which is designed to make the most of tightly coordinated operations by air, land, sea, undersea, space and cyberspace capabilities for defeating those of the enemy.
Monday, May 14, the day that Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal warned Iran not to meddle in the evolving Saudi-Bahraini union, large US Navy and Marine forces put into Jeddah port for first time in 11 years.
debkafile’s military sources report that Washington timed the unveiling of the new battle strategy for May 10, two weeks before the Six Power nuclear talks with Iran resume in Baghdad.
US Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jon Greenert explained that the ASB concept was developed "to defeat A2AD (Anti-Access/Area Denial) strategies such as the closure of the (Hormuz) strait, cyber attack, mines, cruise and ballistic missiles and air defense systems, threats enhanced by technological advancements.”
Our military sources add: The concept is also closely applicable to American tactics for defending the Persian Gulf nations against possible Iranian aggression as the GCC takes its first unification steps to shore up its defenses against that threat.
A new US battle strategy against Iran (ABS) hinges on tightly coordinated air, land, sea, undersea, space and cyberspace capabilities for defeating closure of the (Hormuz) strait, cyber attack, mines, cruise and ballistic missiles. US and Israeli Air Forces, Navies and their special forces
No, the article is just written by an Israeli newspaper, so they reference those two individuals. They have nothing to do with the RAND Corporation. The RAND Corporation is a U.S. military think tank, which iirc, has no ideological bend, except towards the military where all of there experts generally come from.
IMO Iran will be attacked; it's just a matter of by whom, how and when. There is a quiet alliance within the Middle East (the Saudis, the emirates, etc.) that is working with Israel.
These think tanks that game out a war with Iran will always come to the same conclusion...it's going to get messy, and cost lives. That's what wars do. But the articles don't change the political/diplomatic situation that brings the war about. If there is a cleaner, easier method to force the Iranians to abandon their nuke program, the world has yet to find it...and it's been looking for such a solution for over a decade.
Pity Iran if O drops down to 45ish in the polls. It won't be "wag the dog" b/c the case for action there is pretty compelling. But the collateral damage projections will look different with O at 45 than at 52.
Agreed. And I just hope the Republicans don't put forth a wag the dog accusation, because it'd be BS.
The US isn't attacking Iran without some sort of imminent threat. A real imminent threat, not Bush's trigger finger getting itchy like in 2003. His entire national political career is built on not bowing to calls for preemptive war.
That said, I wouldn't be surprised if Bibi did something on his own. It's much more in his interests then Obama's, even if his poll numbers are shrinking.
I disagree; I think there's a middle ground between an 'itchy trigger finger' and an imminent threat, and it centers around the legal case to stop Iran's nuke program, the many UN resolutions and IAEA findings that Iran has violated, etc.
And it's not that I think we're going to do it alone; it will be a coalition of countries that will be bigger than a lot of people realize.
As always, we the public are only seeing the tip of the iceberg...there's a ton going on beneath the surface that is driving the situation and decision-making. If we lack the will to participate in an attack on Iran, we're sure doing a great job disguising it with what our military has been up to the past few years.
This situation is where it is because of the inaction of the US up until now. A wag the dog would not be BS.
For such a time as this.
I think you're underestimating the American public's war weariness at this point, especially when added to the fact that an Iranian bomb is, again, little to no threat to us. Nobody gives a shit about legal cases and resolutions when the economy still sucks and our military has been fighting hot wars for over a decade already.
I do think we lack the will, and I think that's why we're doing what we're doing behind the scenes, so the Iranians know we mean business this time. A little good cop, bad cop with Israel too.
are there places you can bet on stuff like this? id bet a lot of money we wont go to war before the elections.
check out in trade. odds go for 4% to 25% depending on the cutoff date, and there's an Israel kicker to make it sporting.
Presidents don't poll the public before deciding whether to go to war, and sometimes things happen whether we want them to or not. And obviously, we use military action for other reasons besides imminent threats to ourselves.
From Yahoo! News: JERUSALEM (Reuters) - U.S. plans for a possible military strike on Iran are ready and the option is , the U.S. ambassador to Israel said, days before Tehran resumes talks with world powers which suspect it of seeking to develop nuclear arms. Like Israel, the United States has said it considers military force a last resort to prevent Iran using its uranium enrichment to make a bomb. Iran insists its nuclear program is for purely civilian purposes. ...
Folks O is priming for war, it is what he wants.
The carrier-group rebuff in January was one of several for the commander responsible for East Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. Working for the Obama administration, Mattis has often found himself the odd man out—particularly when it comes to Iran.
Military sources close to the general tell The Beast that Mattis was worried that the president’s decision, announced in November, to fully withdraw from Iraq would leave the U.S. military without access to the country’s bases and with few options to project power in the region. The military had been negotiating with the Iraqi government for continued access to bases there for some intelligence, training, and counterterrorism missions until Obama announced his decision to the press in November.
Exclusive: CentCom commander’s call for third Persian Gulf carrier group was rejected, reports Eli Lake.,Exclusive: CentCom commander’s call for third Persian Gulf carrier group was rejected, reports Eli Lake.
You realize that article and what you said are opposed to each other, right?
Not at all.
Mattis believed a third carrier group into the area would be a deterrent. Iran has been moving forward without sufficient deterrence.
In regards to American/Israeli relations, it certainly appears as though O has found a way to work with Bibi in the later half of his first term. There have been far less embarrassments, leaked information and general disconnects between the two camps in the last year or so. Bibi even made a statement that his relationship with Romney is overstated OTR. This seems a little odd to me given that publicly there has been little movement from O's camp about a willingness to go to war with Iran (or any military action), which seems to be Bibi's national security priority. It seems to me that given the fact that those two variables do not add up, there is an additional large component going on in the American/Israeli relationship that is outside of the public purview. The article below strikes me as potentially an important clue as to what else is going on. That we are being adequately aggressive on a covert level from Netanyahu's point of view.
Just a thought.
Internet security firm Kaspersky calls 'Flame' bug the 'most sophisticated cyber-weapon yet unleashed,' hints it may have been created by makers of Stuxnet worm.
I have no picture of how this hacking warfare works. Is it completely passive once you write the program? Are there guys on either end with keyboards launching attacks and parries?
Actually it is not just a couple of weeks ago intelligence on Israeli military movements was "leaked" to her neighbors.
Most claim US "leaked".
Typically introduced into the victim's systems via thumb drive. The viruses themselves are certainly not passive.
Wow--so we have a guy on the inside, get him the drive, and he installs it without getting caught? Man that has to take some stones.
You don't need a guy on the inside - you just need a guy to drop a thumb-drive outside a government office. Someone will find it, pick it up thinking, "hey, free thumb-drive!" and invariably plug it into their work pc. Do this a couple of times to ensure success.
Yup. You'd be shocked at how easy it is.
They don't have to "install" anything. Simply insert the thumbdrive and an autorun file executes.
I'd read that it was possibly "left behind" by NATO or UN inspectors during an inspection. Who knows if they even knew that their drives were infected...
it helps to bait the drive by labeling it something like, "Burqa Babes #4" - but having it "dropped" by the NATO or UN inspectors was probably bait enough.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports