US Aircraft Carrier John Stennis Arrives By Iran

Tyler Durden's picture

Ten days ago, when we last tracked the progress of the third US aircraft carrier, CVN-74 Stennis, with destination Arabian Gulf, aka Iran, we reported that it was "within a week of reaching" its destination. Sure enough, as the latest Stratfor naval update confirms, CVN-74 has now reached its destination for which it was commissioned several months prematurely. But before you get your war hats out, note that that other aircraft carrier which is conducting its final voyage, the CVN-65 Enterprise, has decided to take a bit of a break and left the Arabian Gulf area for a scehduled R&R port visit in Naples, Italy. In a week or so, shore leave will be over and CVN will be back to join everyone else, at which point the US will finally have three aircraft carriers just off the Iranian coastline ready to rumble.

Source: Stratfor

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
slaughterer's picture

Obama polls need the last minute boost only an Iran conflict can provide. This is taken directly out of the 1984 playbook.

no taste's picture

Support the efforts of AE911Truth for an independent investigation into 9/11 before the next false flag is dumped on us.

knukles's picture

Through the canal for shore leave in Napoli?
It's a redeployment of re-steaming off Syria.

Wake up.....

tenpanhandle's picture

After shoreleave in Naples, I wonder how many crewmembers will be reboarding the Enterprise.  Kirk to Enterprise: "don't beam me up, Scotty".

Urban Redneck's picture

They might not even miss them, there are other US assets that can be conveniently onboarded while visiting Italy

icanhasbailout's picture

I wouldn't want to be on the USS Enterprise, or near it. Everything about this situation screams that it's being set up to be sunk in a false flag incident designed to create war with Iran.

infotechsailor's picture

I hope thats not the case... but either way I think the other commenters had it right. Once Enterprise comes back through the suez, its highly unlikely it will go back to the gulf. Its expensive, time consuming, and an all around pain for a carrier to get through the Suez. If they were only going to leave for a week they would have just hit Dubai.

nofluer's picture

Hummm... Enterprise going through the Suez? With the Muslim Brotherhood in charge of Egypt now... Seems sketchy to me.

And I didn't know the Big E would fit in the Suez!? Back in the day, CVA 66 wouldn't.)

Wile-E-Coyote's picture

No they won't sink it, one Kg of C4 above the waterline will be enough for the press.

dbTX's picture

Just in time for the election

Cortez the Killer's picture

Let's light those motherfuckers up.

Empty your missles on the mullahs boys

Peter Pan's picture

I can feel another peace prize coming on but I am not sure if it has Obama's name on it or Netanyahu's.

DosZap's picture

I can feel another peace prize coming on but I am not sure if it has Obama's name on it or Netanyahu's.


It's neither, it's Ackmajageenoff who gets the prize,and ties with Minsta FarraKHAN.

ElvisDog's picture

America, Fuck Yeah, coming to save the mother fucking day, yeah....

If you promise me you won't die, I'll make love to you right now

I promise I will never, ever die.

DaveyJones's picture

Was that you cheering in the wikileaks video? that part after they fired on the kids?

RobD's picture

Maybe things have changed since I was in the Navy but carries typically don't have "week or so" of shore leave in any one foreign port. Four or five days max.

SilverDOG's picture

Make 'em all happy, before they go false flag swimming.

azzhatter's picture

the italian hookers are pretty broke. It's economic stimulus

Savyindallas's picture

I don't feel sorry for the Italian hookers -cut back on their cocaine and squeeze their bankster clientele for a little more of their ill gotten gains, and they can do quite well in a depression.

Heyoka Bianco's picture

Che cazzo! Did Berlusconi file for bankruptcy or something?

Lore's picture

At least somebody around here is getting stimulated.

inevitablecollapse's picture

i was thinking the same thing - of course i joined in 2000 and got out in 2005, maybe the navy has gotten even softer since then

hunglow's picture

NEVER heard of a CV going through the ditch four times during one cruise.

hunglow's picture

NEVER heard of a CV going through the ditch four times during one cruise.

Pairadimes's picture

Almost time to wag the dog.

Jake88's picture

What Obama will do is kill some al qaeda in Lybia and claim revenge on the Benghazi murders. That should silence the critics and help at the polls. The fireworks won't begin until next year. I hope CNN covers it.

DaveyJones's picture

that terrorist porridge is just right

lolmao500's picture

If Obama continues to sink... kabooooooooom.

ZFiNX's picture

Iran won't wait until then, they're already turtling up. They tested with the water with talk about returning to negotiations about a week ago and got no response, that was their signal. Assad is falling in Syria, just watch the liveleak videos, if they're going to make a move, it's right now.

Jake88's picture

No way will Iran make a first strike. They will lose all support in the eyes of the world. China and Russia will not be able to make a case to the world for coming to their defence.

Randall Cabot's picture

But the Iranian rapture bunnies are crazy religious nuts who want to start Armageddon so the dude comes out of the well and sends the believers to heaven-hey that's sounds just like the christian rapture bunnies!

New_Meat's picture

no, Cabot is never kidding ;-)

DosZap's picture

Randall Cabot

But the Iranian rapture bunnies are crazy religious nuts who want to start Armageddon so the dude comes out of the well and sends the believers to heaven-hey that's sounds just like the christian rapture bunnies!


This statement is 100% evidence you are clueless about the catching away,and /or the time of Armageddon.(and NO Christian that knows scriptures wishes this on anyone),much less do they want to start it. 

Randall Cabot's picture

Tell that to Tim La Haye, John Hagee and Steve Quayle.

Savyindallas's picture

Don't be so sure  -Hezbollah-with Iranian backing  -just may be able to take Jerusalem. They have nothing to lose. IDF is soft. Hezbollah is tough as nails. Preemptive strike may be the only way they can overcome high tech.

AurorusBorealus's picture

Iran will use proxies to strike at the U.S., however, a Hezbollah offensive on Jerusalem is unlikely.  Hezbollah is, indeed, tough as nails, but fights best as a defensive force from entrenched and fixed positions, with flexible supply lines.  An assault on Jerusalem would be an offensive operation that would require a great deal of preparation and prepositioning of forces which Israel would certainly notice.  Furthermore, even if Hezbollah was able to launch a surprise offensive and take a good portion of Jerusalem, they would be unable to keep their forces supplied after the Israelis encircle their positions in Jersulem.  In short, Hezbollah would be destroyed, and Hezbollah is far too valuable an asset to be squandered with such a ploy.

Instead, I would look more toward Hezbollah goading Israel into an attack, coinciding with a Shiite rebellion in the Gulf States and the destruction of oil tankers in the Suez Canal and possible the Panama Canal.  If the United States takes the war to Iran, the U.S. would be the aggresser, and Iran could follow up with a blockade of the Straits of Hormuz that would send the price of oil into the stratosphere.  The game would be on then to see if the U.S. navy can clear the Straights and the Canals before the Strategic Petroleum Reserve runs dry, and the U.S. can declare "victory" before the U.S. economy collapses completely, the petrodollar collapses, and the U.S. population revolts.  Continued "malfunctions" at U.S. refineries would also help Iran's cause.  This is the most likely outcome.

Lore's picture

This is not some football game.

Do some digging into the biggest sponsor of state-sponsored terrorism.

AurorusBorealus's picture

Unfortunately, for the people who plan and conduct these operations, it is a football game.

ZFiNX's picture

Not Iran, Syria by proxy. This sticks the blame on a sinking ship and clears Iran's name in the meantime.

Bam_Man's picture

R&R for the Enterprise crew in Naples? Yikes - that place reminds me of a bad Italian neighborhood in Brooklyn. They should have dropped the boys and girls off on Capri or Ischia instead.

lolmao500's picture

Remember how they gave ice cream to the troops a few hours before parachuting over Normandy? Yeah.

nofluer's picture

"R&R for the Enterprise crew in Naples? Yikes -"

Makes perfect sense. Naples is the only place in the world where I saw "Flying Cock & Balls" necklaces! Wish I'd bought a few when I was there... ;-D


RobD's picture

Keep an eye on CVN-73 George Washington, if it moves into the Indian Ocean then it's on like Donkey Kong.

LongSoupLine's picture



When does the USS BarryO Nobel Prize arrive to light up that axis of evil?

BeaverFever's picture

Bath House Barry is rather preoccupied right now. He has some geographical north and south pole smoking decisions to make. The Shadow Government will provide all details for the sheeple to readily believe once the One reads his TelePrompTer.

lolmao500's picture

Israel’s New Cyber-Virus Attacks Computers from Iran to Lebanon

…According to a source close to the discussions, the action that participants currently see as most likely is a joint U.S.-Israeli surgical strike targeting Iranian enrichment facilities. The strike might take only “a couple of hours” in the best case and only would involve a “day or two” overall, the source said, and would be conducted by air, using primarily bombers and drone support. Advocates for this approach argue that not only is it likely to be more politically palatable in the United States but, were it to be successful — meaning knocking out enrichment facilities, setting the Iranian nuclear program back many years, and doing so without civilian casualties — it would have regionwide benefits. One advocate asserts it would have a “transformative outcome: saving Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, reanimating the peace process, securing the Gulf, sending an unequivocal message to Russia and China, and assuring American ascendancy in the region for a decade to come.”

New Scientific Study Predicts 85,000 Casualties, “Devastating Consequences” for Iran Attack

An attack on the Bushehr reactor would:

…Pose a grave environmental and economic threat to civilians in Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. It would not only devastate the important business centers and fishing communities of the Persian Gulf, but also contaminate desalination plants, port facilities and oil fields. To gain an approximate idea of the economic consequences of a strike on Bushehr, one should consider that the government of Belarus has estimated the economic cost of Chernobyl to exceed $200 billion

Should strikes result in a war, the Iran body count can certainly reach the levels in Iraq, with more than 100,000 dead and millions displaced. The economic costs could also exceed a trillion dollars, many times more than the cost of Iran’s nuclear program. Given that the number of American soldiers killed or injured in the Iraq and Afghan wars exceeds 50,000, one can expect the toll from an Iran war to be much higher—a price advocates of military strikes and solutions fail to recognize.

…Few…have considered the long-term strategic and political consequences of a military decision that is guaranteed to pull generations of American, Iranian, and Israeli youths into a cycle of war as destructive as the decade-long Arab-Israeli wars. At a time when millions across the Middle East, from Iran to Syria, Egypt to Yemen, are breaking out of decades of military rule, war can once again freeze civil society for decades to come.

…Our estimates of the costs and consequences of military strikes provide only a snapshot into what can become a larger, longer, and deadlier regional war with dangerous religious and apocalyptic overtones. The casualties and costs of such a clash of civilizations would have to be measured in terms of millions of people across entire provinces, regions, and continents. As with the shadow cast by the Iran-Iraq war, the Arab-Israeli wars, as well as the Iraq and Afghan conflicts, such a blood feud would feed what one prominent Middle East analyst has called a cycle of “crisis and carnage.” Strikes would act as a curse that would stain the memory, scar the face, and blacken the future of generations of civilians and soldiers throughout the Middle East and beyond.


And this is why the elite WANTS a war on Iran.

DoChenRollingBearing's picture

No land war with Iran.  No way, never going to happen.  It would cost us WAY too many casualties.  Fighting in rough terrain or cities against a much bigger country than Iraq while we already over-stretched?  No, it will not happen.

I cannot rule out other things though (Iran attacks, Israel attacks, we attack, false flag, cyber war, etc.).  Who can predict the future?  Not me.

New_Meat's picture

dcrb: "Politics is war conducted by other means."

- Ned