Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on April 20, 2015
US warship heads to Yemeni waters; could block Iran weapons
In a stepped-up response to Iranian backing of Shiite rebels in Yemen, the Navy aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt is steaming toward the waters off Yemen to beef up security and join other American ships that are prepared to intercept any Iranian vessels carrying weapons to the Houthi rebels.
The deployment comes after a U.N. Security Council resolution approved last week imposed an arms embargo on leaders of the Iranian-backed Shiite Houthi rebels. The resolution passed in a 14-0 vote with Russia abstaining.
Navy officials said Monday that the Roosevelt was moving through the Arabian Sea. A massive ship that carries F/A-18 fighter jets, the Roosevelt is seen more of a deterrent and show of force in the region.
The U.S. Navy has been beefing up its presence in the Gulf of Aden and the southern Arabian Sea in response to reports that a convoy of about eight Iranian ships is heading toward Yemen and possibly carrying arms for the Houthis. Navy officials said there are about nine U.S. warships in the region, including cruisers and destroyers carrying teams that can board and search other vessels.
The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the ship movement on the record.
Saudi Arabia and several of its allies, mainly Gulf Arab countries, have been trying to drive back the rebels, who seized the capital of Sanaa in September and have overrun many other northern provinces with the help of security forces loyal to former President Ali Abdullah Saleh. The U.S. supports the Saudi campaign.
Western governments and Sunni Arab countries say the Houthis get their arms from Iran. Tehran and the rebels deny that, although the Islamic Republic has provided political and humanitarian support to the Shiite group.
The U.S. has been providing logistical and intelligence support to the Saudi coalition launching airstrikes against the Houthis. That air campaign is now in its fourth week, and the U.S. has also begun refueling coalition aircraft involved in the conflict.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest would not comment specifically on any Navy movements in Yemeni waters, but said the U.S. has concerns about Iran’s “continued support for the Houthis.
“We have seen evidence that the Iranians are supplying weapons and other armed support to the Houthis in Yemen. That support will only contribute to greater violence in that country. These are exactly the kind of destabilizing activities that we have in mind when we raise concerns about Iran’s destabilizing activities in the Middle East.”
He said, “The Iranians are acutely aware of our concerns for their continued support of the Houthis by sending them large shipments of weapons.”
The expanded U.S. Navy activity in the region comes at a sensitive time, as the U.S. and six world powers have reached a framework deal with Iran to control its nuclear program. Since the preliminary deal with reached on April 2, Iran and the U.S. have been disputing the details of the deal. And on Monday, a lawyer for Tehran-based Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian said Tehran had charged Rezaian with espionage and three other crimes. The Obama administration dismisses the charges as “absurd.”
The U.S. Navy generally conducts consensual boardings of ships when needed, including to combat piracy around Africa and the region. So far, however, U.S. naval personnel have not boarded any Iranian vessels since the Yemen conflict began.
Officials said it’s too soon to speculate on what the Navy ships may do as the Iranian convoy approaches, including whether Iran would consent to a boarding request, and what actions the Navy would take if its request was refused.
Yemen, the Arab world’s poorest country, has been pushed to the brink of collapse by ground fighting and the Saudi-led airstrikes in support of current President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi, who was forced to flee to Saudi Arabia. Observers say the fighting in the strategic Mideast nation is taking on the appearance of a proxy war between Iran, the Shiite powerhouse backing the Houthis, and Sunni-dominated Saudi Arabia.
18 Comments on "US warship heads to Yemeni waters; could block Iran weapons"
Plantagenet on Mon, 20th Apr 2015 6:15 pm
Obama has the US backing Iran as they provide weapons to the Shia in Iraq, and opposing Iran as they provide weapons to the Shia in Yemen.
Could it all have something to do with the fact that there is a lot of oil in Iraq, and not much oil in Yemen?
JuanP on Mon, 20th Apr 2015 6:53 pm
Our tax dollars at work! I don’t lose hope that the US government might still do something useful with my tax dollars before I die, whether by mistake or by accident or whatever. We could have a third world rail system in the USA if we improved Amtrak a little. đ It would probably cost us less than a trillion, and that’s peanuts compared to what we waste abroad, and we’d have something to show for it after we spend it. But, NO, that would make sense, let’s go waste the taxpayers’ money in Yemen instead. What the fuck are we getting in return?
Makati1 on Mon, 20th Apr 2015 7:56 pm
juanP, if you own stock in the Military Industrial Complex, you are making big bucks. If you don’t own their stock, you are contributing (blood and money) to those that do.
I sit back and am amazed at how fucked up (suicidal) the US has become in a few short decades. It went from the “American Dream” to the “American Nightmare”. Only it’s long history of propaganda still props up the idea that it is a good place to live. Old habits are hard to break, no matter how damaging or deadly, but that is changing.
Sorry for the long rant, but the more I know about the Us, the more I am glad I do not reside there anymore. I see nothing but hell coming to the “Exceptional/Indispensable” empire. Asia is not perfect, but I see it as the preferred place to be to ride out the coming events.
Russia does not have nukes pointed at the Ps nor does China. If the Empire does not back down, I am sure they will fly, eventually. Both sides have changed their posture and are open to a first nuclear strike if events warrant it. Even if only 50% get through the US defenses, it will end America forever. Interesting times…
Tom on Mon, 20th Apr 2015 7:59 pm
This is just one more step in getting everyone in the Middle East to hate us for three generations. If the Iranians are neutered, who will contain the radical Sunni Islamists created and funded by Saudi Arabia? And once Iran is out of the way, will they then turn their focus on the Saudi princes and then Israel?
BobInget on Mon, 20th Apr 2015 9:03 pm
Notice, no-where in any reports is the word ‘oil’ ever mentioned. US in Yemen defending Saudi Arabia against the same country, Iran, doing most of the heavy lifting in Iraq against IS.
Iran has seven vessels on route. Who knows
what’s in these ships? Weapons or medicines
or both?
In the same waters are Saudi and Egyptian warships, seven US warships including one fast missile launching cruiser, America’s latest weapons systems and the 6,000 crewed
Roosevelt nuclear carrier. Carriers don’t travel
solo. Carriers travel in a ‘group’ which include missile launching submarines.
Altogether, not counting the carrier group we (the US) have over 10,000 sailors and marines.
Despite this armada, 10,000 sailors and Marines,
the single three letter word “oil” is never brought up. The us is in the region to protect Americans.
What could go wrong?
rockman on Mon, 20th Apr 2015 9:35 pm
“What could go wrong?”. Ever see the movie “The Bedford Incident”. That’s what could go wrong. Not nuke wrong but can still turn dead wrong. I have little doubt our forces will be give vague/confusing rules of engagement.
Makati1 on Mon, 20th Apr 2015 10:12 pm
Summer reading:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/marching-towards-disaster-whats-really-behind-the-u-s-push-in-the-asia-pacific/5424569
http://www.globalresearch.ca/chaos-and-propaganda-washingtons-reality-based-order/5443694
http://www.globalresearch.ca/eurasia-as-we-and-the-u-s-knew-it-is-dead/5443805
http://www.globalresearch.ca/russias-missile-wall-in-iran/5443848
http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-will-eventually-bomb-iran-as-it-bombed-others-foreign-policy-expert/5443818
And, at home…
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-pentagons-operation-jade-helm-15-the-floodgate-towards-martial-law-and-world-war-iii/5443856
http://www.globalresearch.ca/god-told-me-to-do-it-the-dangers-of-americas-lunatic-right/5443935
http://www.globalresearch.ca/police-body-cameras-and-police-surveillance-eviscerating-privacy-in-america/5444193
And the beat goes on…
Perk Earl on Tue, 21st Apr 2015 12:57 am
The trouble is blockades also stop the flow of food and other daily supplies. So it’s another situation in which the civilians suffer most while the power players make their military chess moves.
Plantagenet on Tue, 21st Apr 2015 1:21 am
Obama is extremely unlikely to do anything that will result in hostilities. Look for Obama to order to US forces to pull back as the much smaller Iranian naval force approaches Yemen.
Davy on Tue, 21st Apr 2015 1:53 am
These recent geopolitical games are building to a crescendo. Military men come in many shades and colors. Many are hesitant of a fight unless necessary. They want to be prepared. General McClellan was this way. Other generals like Tecumseh Sherman believe war is hell so get on with it and get it over with. Still other generals like Bobby Lee believe that a smaller and nimbler opponent can win tactically and if he wins tactically enough he can win the war. Generals like US Grant were focused and unwavering winning by attrition. Then there are the fanatics that live a warrior culture. They are the ideological driven mad man who think they are doing godâs will. They will destroy their land for a belief. We then have the politicians that donât know war and military matters or know enough to be dangerous. Politicians are the worst because they have abstract ideas of cost and benefit of war.
My friends what we have now is a screwed up world with lots of military ready for a fight with plenty of places to pick fights. The problem is eventually it will be one of those small fights that unexpectantly escalate beyond a proxy localized battle. We are getting ever closer to this condition on multiple fronts.
The US military with its insane foreign policy driven politicians are the worst but not by much anymore. It seems every country that can is getting into the race well supported by one of the global economies still thriving industries called MIC.
If we could put as much an effort into mitigation and adjustment as we put into armament and war gaming we could make significant headway on many fronts with our global problems. Yet, that just ainât modern human nature. The root of modern civilization is war making. Large populations have to be controlled by war making.
Our true nature as semi-nomadic hunter gatherers may have been occasionally war like but only when necessary. Like other species violence is not advantageous to species survival. So called civilized man is different. Not only is war making glorified it is necessary to enforce the control that is needed with large amounts of people with competing wants.
You just canât have world peace with civilized man. There are too many belief systems and competing wants. Once you get above the family, tribal, and small community man is a vicious creature that no other species can come close to. Large brains with unlimited abilities of fantasy are truly dangerous biological adaptations.
Newfie on Tue, 21st Apr 2015 6:55 am
Where do the weapons in Yemen come from ?
rockman on Tue, 21st Apr 2015 7:52 am
Davy – What timing to pass on a story most Americans (i.e. non-Texans) are not aware of. This is the anniversary of the Battle of San Jacinto when Sam Houston defeated Santa Ana in an 18 minute attack that won our freedom from Mexico and Texas became an independent country. BTW the Rockman lives 2 miles from the battlefield and sees the monument (which was intentionally built a wee bit taller than the Washington monument) twice a day when commuting. What most donât know is that wasnât the original plan to attack Santa Ana. After retreating from the Alamo and Goliad (yes: the original call to arms was âRemember the AlamoâŚremember Goliad!â) Houston halted his retreat at the Texas border with the US. On the US side Andrew Jackson had amassed a large force and was waiting for Houston to lead the Mexicans across the river into a trap in US territory. At that point Jackson could interpret the move as an attack on the US and thus justify moving against Mexico. Though thereâs no official documentation the theory is that he wanted an excuse to essentially take over Mexico. Certainly a possibility when you consider that when Santa Ana was captured by Houston he signed the agreement that gave Texas its independence. Apparently he was willing to anything to save his skin.
Now I would agree that itâs a bit of a stretch to think that our ships are being sent into a potential war zone to instigate the possibility of attacking Iran itself and at a minimum producing a regime change. OTOH the US just sent some advisors over to help train the S Viet army and certainly not to instigate a surrogate war with certain communist countries just to show them we had the will to do so.
I suspect we start seeing stories posted about how invincible our navy is and all the very high-tech defense systems we have. I mean itâs like expecting a tiny biplane armed with a very small torpedo dooming the mightiest warship that roamed the seas. Like the British plane that hit the German battleship Bismarck. The torpedo had zero possibility of breaching the thick steel hull of the vessel. But talk about one of the greatest military flukes of all times: the torpedo hit the rudder of the Bismarck and locked it into a position that forced into to sail in circles. That allowed the pursuing British fleet to catch up and sink her. Even if the Brits had caught up and had the rudder not been damaged itâs questionable if they would have succeeded. Consider the results of the Battle of the Denmark Straights where the HMS Hood and Prince of Wales attacked the Bismarck. Less than 10 minutes after the battle started the Hood was hit with a single shell from the Bismarck and sank within 3 minutes losing all but 3 of its 1,200+ man crew. And he Hood wasnât a pushover: For 20 years after her commissioning in 1918, Hood was the largest and heaviest warship in the world. Combining eight massive 15 inch naval guns with a top speed greater than any battleship on the sea.
Of course these days it doesnât take massive naval guns to sink a major ship of the lines. Just ask the Brits who went up against presumably second rate enemy in the Falklands. Everyone knows about that one big hit on a MHS Sheffield. But here are some more details on the Brit losses. All this occurred in just a 12 day period. As Hawkeye on M.A.S.H put it: âRule 1 – Young men die in war. Rule 2 â doctors canât change Rule 1.â And politicians sitting half way around the world canât change Rule 1 either. BTW imagine the Brit losses had the Argentinians not run out of their limited supply of relatively unsophisticated Exocet missiles:
HMS Alacrity – slightly damaged by bomb near misses
HMS Arrow – slightly damaged by cannon fire
HMS Glamorgan – slightly damaged by bomb near misses, all off Stanley by Daggers of FAA Grupo 6.
HMS SHEFFIELD – mortally damaged south east of Falklands by Exocet missile fired by Super Etendard of CANA 2 Esc. Burnt out and sank in tow on Monday 10th May.
HMS Glasgow – moderately damaged off Stanley by unexploded bomb dropped by A-4B Skyhawks of FAA Grupo 5. Bomb passed through hull but damage took some days to repair and she shortly returned to UK.
HMS Antrim – seriously damaged in Falkland Sound outside San Carlos Water by unexploded bomb dropped by Daggers of FAA Grupo 6. UXB removed but damage took some days to repair.
HMS Broadsword – slightly damaged outside San Carlos Water by cannon fire from Daggers of Grupo 6.
HMS Argonaut – slightly damaged outside San Carlos Water by rockets and cannon fire from Aermacchi MB.339A of CANA 1 Esc, and then seriously damaged by two unexploded bombs dropped by A-4B Skyhawks of FAA Grupo 5. Removing the UXB’s and carrying out repairs took a number of days and although declared operational, she soon sailed for the UK.
HMS Brilliant – slightly damaged outside San Carlos Water by cannon fire from Daggers of Grupo 6. (Different attack from “Broadsword”)
HMS ARDENT – badly damaged in Grantham Sound by bombs – hits and near misses – dropped by Daggers of Grupo 6, then mortally damaged by bombs from A-4Q Skyhawks of CANA 3 Esc off North West Island. Sank the following evening.
HMS ANTELOPE – damaged in San Carlos Water by two unexploded bombs dropped by A-4B Skyhawks of Grupo 5. One of the bombs exploded that evening while being defused and she caught fire and sank next day.
RFA Sir Galahad – damaged by unexploded bomb and out of action for some days.
RFA Sir Lancelot – damaged by unexploded bomb and not fully operational for almost three weeks.
RFA Sir Bedivere – slightly damaged by glancing bomb, all in San Carlos Water probably by A-4C Skyhawks of FAA Grupo 4.
HMS Broadsword – damaged north of Pebble Island by bomb from A-4B Skyhawk of Grupo 5 bouncing up through her stern and out again to land in the sea.
HMS COVENTRY – sunk north of Pebble Island in same attack by three bombs.
ATLANTIC CONVEYOR – mortally damaged north east of Falklands by Exocet missile fired by Super Etendard of CANA 2 Esc. Burnt out and later sank in tow.
British Wye – hit north of South Georgia by bomb dropped by C-130 Hercules of FAA Grupo 1 which bounced into the sea without exploding
HMS Plymouth – damaged in Falkland Sound off San Carlos Water by four unexploded bombs (10-13) from Daggers of FAA Grupo 6.
RFA SIR GALAHAD – mortally damaged off Fitzroy by bombs from A-4B Skyhawks of Grupo 5 and burnt out. Later in June towed out to sea and sunk as a war grave.
RFA Sir Tristram – badly damaged off Fitzroy in same attack and abandoned, but later returned to UK and repaired.
LCU F4, HMS Fearless – sunk in Choiseul Sound by bomb from A-4B Skyhawk of Grupo 5.
HMS Glamorgan – damaged off Stanley by land-based Exocet missile.
rockman on Tue, 21st Apr 2015 8:08 am
Newfie – “Where do the weapons in Yemen come from?” It seems to me that we need to lose the idea that many of these conflicts are between nations but rather between two branches of the Muslim religion: the Shia are being supported by Shia and the Sunni by Sunni. The nationalities (which were defined by a group of long dead Brits for the most part) are just a handy construct for the MSM. Which leads to the absurdity of the US and Iran cooperating against ISIS and are in a potential conflict over Yemen. Thatâs the problem with US foreign policy IMHO: we are both allies and enemies with the extremists of both Muslim sects. The names of the âcountriesâ may differ but not the basis for many of these regional conflicts.
BobInget on Tue, 21st Apr 2015 11:04 am
Those seven Iranian ships headed to Yemen
may not contain weapons but food and medicines. I smell a huge propaganda victory
for Iran if these ship are boarded and searched.
BBC World service has excellent coverage of
‘Yemen, the new Syrian proxy war’
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32381797
Plantagenet on Tue, 21st Apr 2015 11:18 am
@Newfie
The Houthis have US weapons.
The Houthis seized a huge stock of US weapons when obama pulled out US forces at the beginning of the conflict. The US had been backing and arming the government—when the government collapsed the Houthis seized those weapons.
Same thing happened in Iraq—when ISIS invaded and the Iraqi army fled, all the US weapons were seized by ISIS.
Dredd on Tue, 21st Apr 2015 11:51 am
Amen bother (Hypothesis: The Cultural Amygdala – 4).
Get thee to a gun store asap.
rockman on Tue, 21st Apr 2015 12:30 pm
An update: Iran already has one destroyer and possibly other war ships off Yemen. Saudi and Egyptian war sips plan to enforce the blockade. While it’s difficult to imagine the US ships initiating an armed conflict I have no problem imagining the Saudis, Egyptians or Iranians pulling the trigger.
Time for you big gmablers to put in those oil futures orders.
Dredd on Wed, 22nd Apr 2015 4:29 am
A hundred year old religious story (The Fleets & Terrorism Follow The Oil).
Religious war is the parent of oil addiction (The Universal Smedley – 2).