And Meanwhile, In The Arabian Sea...

Tyler Durden's picture

There was a time, late in the winter, that not a day passed without some headline announcing Israel's preparedness to attack Iran, culminating with the grotesque - a show on Israel TV detailing the actual invasion plans. All these daily updates did was guarantee one thing - that absolutely no war could possibly break out for two simple reasons:

i) you never declare war when the opponent is expecting you, instead you habituate them to news about imminent invasions which never happens, and,

ii) Brent was over $120, which would guarantee no re-election for Obama as outright war would send the energy complex soaring, gas prices surging, and the world economy, but most importantly the Russell 2000, tumbling.

Over the past 2 months two things have happened: chatter of "imminent" war with Iran has died down to barely a whisper, and WTI is now trading 20% lower than 2012 highs. Which means there is far more capacity for a run higher. So putting all that together, does it mean that the prospect of war with Iran is now gone? Below we present the latest naval update map courtesy of Stratfor, and leave readers to make their own conclusions...

Comment viewing options

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

Bahrain is home, relax Durden.

Colombian Gringo's picture

No surprise here. Obama needs to get re elected and the timing is not quite right.

Tyler Durden's picture

So are Naples, Guam and Yokosuka.And?

Paul Atreides's picture

Don't forget Al Udeid, longest runway in the Gulf at 15,000 feet and at a cost of a billion dollars to the US taxpayer.

Tidewater's picture

Wait, where in the world is Sandiego Garcia?

DosZap's picture

Wait, where in the world is Sandiego Garcia?

Little island off coast of CA.

msamour's picture

The location is actually classified, or it used to be as far as i remember...

monad's picture

Its on Google Earth w/great pix

7 18'S 72 24'E

Buckaroo Banzai's picture

We won't attack Iran. You know why? We only attack secular Arab states--never fundamentalist ones. Only exception was Afghanistan...but we let the Taliban back in when people stopped paying attention.

I'm curious why no one else has noticed this. It's almost as if there is an agenda to actively promote fundamentalist Islam. Or something.

blunderdog's picture

   It's almost as if there is an agenda to actively promote fundamentalist Islam.

Hey, great observation.  The Reagan administration started that policy back in the '80s.

LULZBank's picture

It's almost as if there is an agenda to actively promote fundamentalist Islam.

Fundamentalist Islam is a Totalitarian state, just what fits the Globalists model but with a twist of Islam for the easy acceptance by the locals.

In US - Give up your freedoms, to protect the American "way of life."

In ME - Give up yoru freedoms, to protect Islam, Muslim "way of life."

smb12321's picture

Yeah, America and Iran are exactly alike.   Let's see.  In the US you can say whatever you want about your leaders (without worry), you can protest and march and worship (or not) as you please. You don't have to worry about censorship or the secret police.  In the US, rapists get prosecuted and everyone has their day in court.  Except for those things Iran is just like the US/

Harlequin001's picture

I neraly fell off my chair when I read this.

'...and everyone has their day in court.' - and Corzine's day is when?

Naive, or what?

SheepDog-One's picture

You mean the CIA started that policy...'administrations' are simply groups of puppets the sheeple concentrate on, while the real rulers operate behind the curtain.

blunderdog's picture

In this specific case, that's bullshit.  Fighting the commies in Afghanistan was a major Reagan administration objective.  It was not happening until specific decisions were made to start arming the mujahadeen.

Same as with the Central and South American neo-Nazis we were so friendly with at the time. 

If you really believe what you're suggesting, you can't hold the President and his crew responsible for ANYTHING.  I don't agree.

Harvey Lee Oswald's picture

Who is keeping the president and his crew responsible for anything in the first place? The media? The U.S. voter?

If it's the media then we're fucked. If its the U.S. voter then we are also fucked because what exactly can they do? Vote in a corporate party bozo from the "other" team?

blunderdog's picture

I didn't say you could prosecute the President.  He's above the law--this has been demonstrated many times over the past 30 years. 

You can hold him responsible for his policies and the actions of his administration.  It's a personal thing.

Obviously, some folks don't think he has responsibility for anything, so I guess it's just a difference of opinion.

Disenchanted's picture

blunderdog wrote:

"Fighting the commies in Afghanistan was a major Reagan administration objective.  It was not happening until specific decisions were made to start arming the mujahadeen."


Not that it matters a whit, but I'm fairly certain that started with the Zbig/Jimmy Carter bunch...Reagan and Charlie Wilson ramped it up considerably though.


Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?


Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.



blunderdog's picture

Interesting to hear, hard to find any confirmation.

Disenchanted's picture



What would you consider an unimpeachable source? There's plenty of varied sources that confirm this...Search Operation Cyclone, Soviet Union, Afghanistan.,%20S...


Here's a quote from here:

Undergraduate Research Journal at UCCS
Volume 3.2, October 2010

Operation Cyclone: How the United States Defeated the Soviet Union
Robert D. Billard, Jr. University of Colorado at Colorado Springs


Now not only had the conflict begun, but almost instantly we see the roots of U.S. intervention into the war. It is important to note the array of responses to which Jimmy Carter was open. This is most evident in the Presidential Directive in which President Carter discussed the importance of local history in the region. In a retrospective interview conducted by the National Security Archive, former National Security Advisor Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski lauded the aggressive stance the Carter administration took in providing assistance to anti-Soviet forces in Afghanistan: “in my judgment I thought they would be going into Afghanistan … and I recommended to the President, that we shouldn?t be passive.”18 He added that not only were there repercussions as Carter had described in Presidential Directive NSC-63, but that Dr. Brzezinski himself, almost immediately after the invasion, traveled to Pakistan for the purpose of “coordinating a joint response.”19 In Red Flag Over Afghanistan, author Thomas Hammond confirmed Brzezinski?s claims. He wrote that the invasion was seen as an important, while divisive, turning point in Russian and American relations. Accordingly, President Carter wrote a personal letter directly to Brezhnev himself demanding withdrawal of Soviet forces from Afghanistan in the face of serious consequences.20 This apparently served as a unifying force within the U.S. government, since as Hammond described, “After the invasion, the differences between Brzezinski and the State Department about Afghanistan largely disappeared, since [Secretary of State, Cyrus] Vance and his associates were outraged by what the Soviets had done.”21 The United States was now ready to take the next step. Beyond sanctions against the U.S.S.R. and providing monetary aid to insurgents in Afghanistan, the United States was prepared to directly aid an insurgent force: the Mujahedeen.


btw Operation Cyclone was the CIA's baby...

blunderdog's picture

That's the same source, tho--this is Brzezinski talking about it years later. 

It's fine though, I'll accept it at face value that Carter actually started arming the Mujahedeen, it doesn't change much.  The Reagan administration made significant noise about aiding the various causes of "freedom" around the globe, and I was reading interviews with the fighters themselves at the time thanking Reagan for his committment to their cause.  (I was a big Soldier of Fortune fan back then.)

The Taliban was armed and trained by the Reagan administration for years during the Afghanistan occupation.  That's how they ended up in power.

Disenchanted's picture




"it doesn't change much. "


Exactly. (D) or (R) don't mean squat...except maybe for some insignificant cosmetic matters in view of the larger picture.


Zbig hung around after Carter sort of like SecDef Robert Gates did after Bush lite. The real fun in that area of the world started with what became known as Iran Contra which as far as I'm concerned we've yet to know the full story. Same ol shit, different day, continues in the present.


"aiding the various causes of "freedom" around the globe"


War is a profit center...with debt from financing war/arms sales(all sides) being the largest chunk of that profit. Guess who benefits the most from that.


'Fighting for Freedom' my ass...

blunderdog's picture comments are nonpartisan.  I do however believe that sometimes Presidents and their administrations actually DO STUFF. 

They *all* deserve to have their activities remembered.

Disenchanted's picture




that should of been interest on the debt from financing war...


"They *all* deserve to have their activities remembered."


I'll drink to that!

RiverRoad's picture

We're always fighting someone.  Can't shirk the target practice when the military is the only thing backing your currency.  Gotta always keep a potential enemy on a back burner.

BeetleBailey's picture

...and of course, this was slipped in, waaaaay back in 2009....

from the Arab in Chief...

H.R. 1388 was passed, behind our backs. You may want to read about it...

It wasn't mentioned on the news... Just went by on the ticker tape at the bottom of the CNN screen.

Obama funds $20M in tax payer dollars to immigrate Hamas Refugees to the USA . This is the news that did not, and will not, make the headlines.

By executive order, President Barack Obama has ordered the expenditure of $20..3 million in "migration assistance" to the Palestinian refugees and "conflict victims" in Gaza
The "presidential determination" (ain't that nice?) which allows hundreds of thousands of Palestinians with ties to Hamas to resettle in the United States , was signed and appears in the Federal Register.

Few on Capitol Hill, or in the media, took note that the order provides a free ticket replete with housing, transportation and food allowances to individuals who have displayed their overwhelming support to the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) in the parliamentary election of January 2006.

Now we learn that he is allowing thousands of Palestinian refuges to move to, and live in, the US at American taxpayer expense.

Disenchanted's picture



Wow! A whole 20 million, eh.


Meanwhile last week Israel comes to town to receive almost a Billion in new aid...over and above the 3 Billion a year(what's admitted) they already receive.


Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak is in Washington this week to accept a package of nearly $1 billion in aid from the United States for the development and building of missile defense systems in Israel. Included in the package is $680 million for developing and building Iron Dome systems and about $280 million for developing other defense systems. This new military aid package was authorized by the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee last week.




But that's ok, right?

Jack Burton's picture

Great point! What most Americans also have missed is that USA has taken sides in the Middle Eastern Muslim question. This is a long story, but in short. The USA backed Sunni against Shia in Iraq in order to bring the Sunni resistance to an ened. This was done by producing events which started a civil war between Shia and Sunni, Sunni were losing. The USA stepped up and offered money, arms, training and support to Sunnia Iraq [our former enemy]. It worked like a charm! Sunni waragainst USA ended double quick.

The US now uses the same tactic in other nations. USA back sunni terror groups attacking Iran. USA backs sunni terror groups attacking Syria. They also back conventional sunni resistance to Shia regimes, but they also work with the terrorists.

So YES, we worked with the Muslim terror groups to defeat Soviet Occupation In Afghanistan. We also use the same groups for regime change in the Mid East.

I also know from reading the Russian press that many Russians, including leaders, believe that the USA is supporting muslim terror attacks inside Russia and in the civil wars of the far south of Russia near the Caspian.

Look, terror is only terror when it is directed at you. Directed at opponents to the New World Order, terror is a very, very useful and productive tool. When I was a child, I remember hearing of terror attacks inside Cuba, these were funded and launched from US soil. To the Americans at that time, this was not terrorism, it was a way to fight cummunism. It is all relative.

Raymond Reason's picture

....and Sunni Albanians against Serbian Christians in Kosovo. 

Jack Burton's picture

Yes, thanks for the reminder. I always wonder at the US official support for Muslims against Christians. Read up on Kosovo, USA backed a gang of the worst criminals Europe has to offer. I've seen these Ablanian pricks in the UK, they immigrated there to start a crime wave. This is who America backs! How come?

RiverRoad's picture

Because Clinton needed a big, fat, diversion from his Lewinsky fiasco.  The day impeachment procedings began he began the bombing.  Presidents have always used wars to suit their agendas.

bahaar's picture

Because Saudi Arabia, our biggest oil supplier is Sunni-Wahabi.  That's why.  When non-Sunnis trample Sunnis (as in Syria), we support the underdog.  When Sunnis trample non-Sunnis (as in Bahrain), we support establishment.  Anyways, US is not the only one who changes it's tune to serve its interests.  Whole world is just as amoral.

blunderdog's picture

That's correct, but it's just a matter of luck.

No one cares about the Sunni/Shi'ia split except the religious folks themselves.  It's immaterial to policy objectives.  It's not like we had a problem with the Shi'ites during the Shah's rule in Iran, and we were generally friendly with the Saudis then, too, despite the occasional kerfluffle.

HarryM's picture

If we're at war with Iran before the election - Obama get's re-elected

No one would want a Govt change in the middle of a war

Perhaps Obama will save this as his ace in the hole in case the market tanks.


blunderdog's picture

That's not a safe assumption.  Wayyyy too many of Obama's voters had chosen him because they thought he was anti-war.

Unless a huge bunch of folks suddenly decide to support him after years of hating him, starting a new war could severely harm his re-election chance.

DosZap's picture

I'm curious why no one else has noticed this. It's almost as if there is an agenda to actively promote fundamentalist Islam. Or something.

I think your dead on, and your not the only one who has been watching this play out. People still do not get it, BLOOD, and FANATICAL RELIGION, are thicker, and far more important than LOYALTY to your supposed HOMELAND.

Both of which are INGRAINED in you know who.

The trend is your friend's picture

Sssshhhh.. After the election.  Then he won't care about re-election and he can pay back his draw he owes to the military industrial complex 

smb12321's picture

I remember reading on this site months ago that an attack was "emminent" or at most a few weeks away.  What happened?

Cyrano de Bivouac's picture

I don't know what the strategery is, an attack on Iran has been been said to be emminent for 3 years. It's like a hypnotist saying "we are going to attack Iran" to an audience over and over.

DosZap's picture

that an attack was "emminent" or at most a few weeks away.  What happened?

If you see a punch coming, you duck.Threats of a punch,keep you always wondering.............and semi ducking.

Surprise is always your friend in war(as long as you are the one that has the element of it)

Iran, has no clue when they will get hit,they will get hit..............just no idea when.

And if they are going to, the last one to know when  is  our so called leader.

HungrySeagull's picture

They will get hit and hard.

The Military likes to get em where it HURTS.

But I think we are not so stupid as to try and fight our way across Iran... just the mountain passes alone will be a murder hole.

RiverRoad's picture

Agendas change.  War is convenient.

Floordawg's picture

Enterprise now in position for false flag... hmm?

SilverRhino's picture

All those Carriers and LHDs in home port tell me they are preparing for a LOT of extended operations and running maintenance checks on the fleet before deploying.