Having already recently warned the US (Jan 3), Iran is certainly not going to appreciate the addition of a third Carrier Battle Group around the Strait of Hormuz which was announced yesterday on Navaltoday.com. Generally a Battle Group makes for a bit of a procession. Although it varies depending on the mission, the structure of a Group generally consists of: the aircraft carrier itself, two offensive guided-missle cruisers to engage land targets, two destroyers for defensive maneuvers against submarines and aircraft, a frigate to protect from submarine attacks, two submarines also for defensive purposes, and a supply ship to provide support for the group.
This new group will join the USS Abraham Lincoln with her cruiser and two destroyers, all of which were escorted into the Gulf of Persia by a couple of British and French warships on the 22 of January. The two groups are further backed by the USS Carl Vinson on the other side of the Strait of Hormuz. Historically, the US Navy tends to use only two battle groups when conducting joint strikes although a third is often on hand.
It certainly seems as if the US Navy is expecting backlash from the most recent sanctions placed on Iran, and the obvious response is an attempted closure of the Strait. While crude futures have traded down slightly the past few days, oil is definitely something to have on your radar in the upcoming weeks.
Under normal circumstances three carrier battle groups would be a pre-cursor to war, the current U.S. administration does not have what it takes to attack Iran on any level. My best guess would be that they are literally ships passing in the night. President Obama will not defend the right to free passage on the high seas because, in my opinion, he sees the U.S. military as the biggest problem in the world.
Have you noticed that the governments in the middle east that have fallen recently have been the least antagonistic toward the U.S.? The so-called Arab Spring represents many things none of which include democracy.
I actually believe that President Obama is sympathetic to our enemies and he will allow Iran to get the nuclear weapons in order to re-establish the balance in the world that was lost at the end of the Cold War. Our President is the type of leftist that is profoundly anti-semitic and the type who believes that peace would break out all over the middle east if Isreal simply did not exist.
Why is this question on a business website?
Do you really believe a country who has “vowed to wipe Israel off the map” will be allowed nuclear power as a road to peace? While we try to entertain any perspective, I’m not sure I can find a way to agree with your thought process or rationale here..
As for how this question pertains to the economy, see “Iran, Nuclear Policy, and America: An Investment Opportunity in Disaster?” as it illustrates the relationship of the above post to the economy. The link is provided below.
http://wp.me/p1qHGC-1Xm