Mar Arábigo

Algo huele feo en el Mar Arábigo estos días. Una inusual concentración de barcos del Imperio; ¿para qué? ¿Para disuadir a los yemenitas, un pueblo que a duras penas logra comer algo últimamente? Veamos primero un par de noticias aparecidas recientemente en Russia Today:

Título: Dos buques de EE.UU. se dirigen a aguas yemeníes

Texto: Dos buques de guerra de EE.UU., un portaaviones y un crucero con misiles guiados, se dirigen a aguas de Yemen, confirmó este lunes el Pentágono.

EE.UU. ha enviado dos buques de guerra, el portaaviones USS Theodore Roosevelt y el crucero USS Normandy, que lo escolta hacia aguas de Yemen, donde se unirán a otras naves estadounidenses, anunció el portavoz del Pentágono Steve Warren, citado por Reuters.

Horas antes la agencia AP informó que la Marina de EE.UU. había enviado al USS Theodore Roosevelt a la zona para interceptar cualquier buque iraní que transporte armas a los rebeldes hutíes. La información no fue confirmada por Pentágono.

La Marina estadounidense ha estado aumentando su presencia en el Golfo de Adén y el sur del Mar Arábigo, entre reportes de que un convoy de buques iraníes podría estar dirigiéndose hacia Yemen para armar a los hutíes.

Actualmente, en la región hay aproximadamente nueve buques estadounidenses, incluidos cruceros y destructores con equipos a bordo capaces de embarcarse y realizar una búsqueda en otras naves.

Las fuentes han hablado bajo condiciones de anonimato porque no estaban autorizadas a declarar oficialmente sobre el movimiento de buques.

EE.UU. ha enviado dos buques de guerra, el portaaviones USS Theodore Roosevelt y el crucero USS Normandy, que lo escolta hacia aguas de Yemen, donde se unirán a otras naves estadounidenses, anunció el portavoz del Pentágono Steve Warren, citado por Reuters.

Horas antes la agencia AP informó que la Marina de EE.UU. había enviado al USS Theodore Roosevelt a la zona para interceptar cualquier buque iraní que transporte armas a los rebeldes hutíes. La información no fue confirmada por Pentágono.

***

Segunda nota:

Título: Video: La Casa Blanca confirma haber enviado un portaaviones a las aguas yemeníes

Texto: Reforzar la presencia de la Marina estadounidenses en las aguas yemeníes ayudará a garantizar la libertad de navegación en esa región, ha anunciado Josh Earnestm, secretario de prensa de la Casa Blanca.

La Casa Blanca ha anunciado que un portaaviones fue enviado a las aguas yemeníes para unirse con otros buques de guerra estadounidenses con el fin de proteger "el libre flujo del comercio", según ha anunciado el secretario de prensa de la Casa Blanca, Josh Earnest, informa Washington Examiner.

"El objetivo principal de esta operación es mantener la libertad de navegación y el libre flujo del comercio en el Golfo de Adén y el Mar Rojo", ha declarado Earnest. "Evidentemente, es una región del mundo donde tiene lugar un significativo comercio", ha agregado.

Al mismo tiempo, el secretario de prensa no ha negado que esta operación, aparentemente, tenía el objetivo de prevenir el envío de armamento a los rebeldes hutíes por parte de Irán. "Seguimos preocupados sobre el apoyo iraní a los hutíes, incluido su abastecimiento con equipos militares y armas", ha declarado Earnest rehusando explicar la misión militar.

Portaaviones USS Theodore Roosevelt

A ver, hay tres problemas acá: (1) Ya nadie cree en las explicaciones de los voceros del Imperio;  (2) Arabia Saudita está destrozando eficientemente a un país muy pobre como lo es Yemen, destruyendo desde su infraestructura energética hasta sus mercados de distribución de comida, y (3) bien mirado, el Mar Arábigo está a la vuelta del Golfo Pérsico, lindante con… sipi, con Irán.

Vayamos entonces a este post del sitio web Moon of Alabama, coordinado por un analista militar de origen alemán (http://www.moonofalabama.org/2015/04/what-is-the-purpose-of-this-us-fleet-concentration-next-to-iran.html#comments):

Título: What Is The Purpose Of This U.S. Fleet Concentration Next To Iran?

Texto: The Obama regime claims that it wants to hold the Saudis back from further killing in Yemen:

“Top Obama administration officials have failed for several days to persuade Saudi Arabia’s government to limit the scope of its airstrikes on cities and towns in Yemen, a campaign that authorities said killed nearly 50 people Monday in Sana, the capital.

(...)

The White House would like Saudi Arabia and its Sunni Arab allies to curtail the airstrikes and narrow the objective to focus on protecting the Saudi border, according to a senior administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity in discussing internal deliberations.”

The problem with this story is the acknowledged fact that the U.S. is still heavily supporting the Saudi attacks:

“U.S. officials in Riyadh and Qatar are sharing intelligence from surveillance drones and spy satellites with officers from the Saudi-led coalition but are not approving individual targets, according to Pentagon officials.

“The air component is providing the Saudis intel on potential targets that include … civilian casualty mitigation procedures,” Lt. Col. Kristi Beckman, Air Force spokeswoman for U.S. Central Command, said Monday.”

If the White House would really want to stop the Saudis it could simply stop supporting them. Without U.S. intelligence the Saudis would be blind. It could stop providing more bombs and the Saudis would eventually run out of ammunition.

The Obama regime is simply not serious about this. It does not care one bit about Yemenis or about the expansion of AlQaeda in the Arab Peninsula (which renamed itself into "Sons of Hadramout" to get more official Saudi support).

Meanwhile the U.S. is building up a fleet concentration in the Arab sea next to Yemen. Some 10 to 12 capital ships will soon be there. Several destroyers. Three helicopter carriers/landing ships with a battalion of Marines each, one air craft carrier and an unknown number of nuclear submarines. All this to prevent a non existing threat to international shipping lanes and to stop non-existing supply convoys from Iran to the Houthies. Claims by the White House that Iran supplies the Houthies are ludicrous propaganda. There is not much love between Houthis and Iran, Yemen is full of weapons anyway and there is no evidence that any supplies have ever been provided. Why then this propaganda and fleet concentration?

The administration has a problem. Sanction against Iran are coming to an end no matter how the nuclear talks with Iran will end. Iran has shown its willingness to resolve the issue. The U.S. is the party blocking it. If there is a pact signed in June sanctions will end. If there is no pact signed in June the U.S. will be blamed and the sanction regime will fall apart. The Russian decision to finally provide S-300 air defense to Iran was an explicit sign for that. The Chinese are currently heavily bribing Pakistan to get a land route to Iranian gas. The U.S. will soon no longer able to constrain Iran through an internationally supported "crippling sanctions" regime.

Before the U.S. attacked Iraq the sanction regime there was also falling apart. Without sanctions increased Iraqi oil production would have lowered the price of oil. The oil men, and the Bush administration had many of them, would have made much less money. The attack on Iraq prevented that oil dump.

Similar conditions apply to the Iran sanction regime. As soon as Iran can sell as much as it wants oil prices will go down even more. The major oil companies would suffer. The Saudis would lose market share. Is the Obama administration willing to go to war, or to at least create some "incident", to prevent that?

Why else is that fleet in the Arab sea? Pat Lang fears that some new Gulf of Tokin incident might unfold. Why would he think that?

***

El “Pat Lang” al que se hace referencia en la última frase del post anterior corresponde al analista homónimo, a la sazón agregado militar en Yemen un par de décadas atrás. El hombre, suponemos, sabe de qué está hablando. Veamos entonces su última intervención en su blog (Sic Semper Tyrannis, http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2015/04/another-gulf-of-tonkin-incident-coming.html):

Título: Another "Gulf of Tonkin Incident" coming?

Texto: "Evidence was still being sought on the night of August 4 when Johnson gave his address to the American public on the incident. Messages recorded that day indicate that neither President Johnson nor Secretary McNamara was certain of an attack.

“Various news sources, including Time, Life and Newsweek, ran articles throughout August on the Tonkin Gulf incident. Time reported: "Through the darkness, from the West and south...intruders boldly sped...at least six of them... they opened fire on the destroyers with automatic weapons, this time from as close as 2,000 yards." Time stated that there was "no doubt in Sharp's mind that the US would now have to answer this attack", and that there was no debate or confusion within the administration regarding the incident.

“The use of the set of incidents as a pretext for escalation of US involvement follows the issuance of public threats against North Vietnam, as well as calls from American politicians in favor of escalating the war. On May 4, 1964, William Bundy called for the US to "drive the communists out of South Vietnam", even if that meant attacking both North Vietnam and communist China. Even so, the Johnson administration in the second half of 1964 focused on convincing the American public that there was no chance of war between North Vietnam and the US."

(Wiki on Gulf of Tonkin Incident)

-----------------------

Yes, well, it was all BS, a combination of media hysteria, LBJ's innate deviousness and disrespect for the truth and an actual attack on USS Maddox by North Vietnamese gunboats.  That this attack was in response to MACVSOG infiltration of Vietnamese agents into NVN from the sea was not known to me until I wrote the last annual operations report of MACVSOG in 1973.

In 1964, Johnson used this fabrication and distortion to whip up public opinion in favor of the congressional "Gulf of Tonkin Resolution."  That resolution served much the same function for the wars in SE Asia as the current AUMF resolutions.  Having spent several years subsequent to 1964 engaged in SE Asia, I am still annoyed.

Now, we have the USS Roosevelt battle group underway deploying from the Gulf to the northern Arabian Sea to do - what?  Is it to ensure the freedom of the sea in the Bab al-Mandab Strait?  Who has threatened that freedom of passage?  Who?

Even CNN and its "flexible" consultants acknowledge the possibility of a clash at sea that could lead to the mishaps and "opportunities" that were provided by USS Maddox's brush with a few gunboats.

Whatever happens in this ongoing process, we, here, at SST should be wary. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Resolution

Crucero USS Normandy