,
14 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
US sends an aircraft carrier to the Middle East to counter Iran: a thread. Lots of spin to counter here, which shouldn't be surprising because military posture is 50pc smoke and mirrors, something worth remembering.
USS Abraham Lincoln is in fact already on its way to the ME. It's no big deal - militarily. You might think from statement by John Bolton this was a rare event - in fact USS John C. Stennis was in the Gulf last month. (2) whitehouse.gov/briefings-stat…
However, I've also seen commentary that downplays the statement, saying that it's not a change in military strategy but just piggy-backing on a pre-ordained rotation. But that's also wrong imho - because the statement IS the change in strategy.
James Matts as defence secretary was hostile to aircraft carriers as projectors of power and insisted on a strategy of short-term, unpredictable local deployments, to show rapid reaction ability. (4)
Hence: the USS John C. Stennis as just mentioned was only in the Gulf for two weeks. Now in the Med. Also in keeping with Trump promise to stop US permanent presence in Mid East and its war.
But that was the smoke and mirrors. Trump may or may not have known this all along but "pulling out of the Middle East" is pie-in-the-sky for the US; at least so long as it cares about Israel and Iran. (6)
Idea that Trump and his base didn't care about Iran and/or Israel was clearly nonsense even in the 2016 election campaign. So strategy is really a question of how US deploys its military might and PR across the ME.
(... And its 11 aircraft carriers. If you've got 'em, where are you going to put them, if not the ME?) (8)
Mattis's "rapid reaction, keep 'em guessing" derived from Obama-era defensive policies of getting involved militarily when POTUS thought he had to. Trump White House all along has been contradictory in its military strategy (hence confusion over whether it is or isn't in Syria).
Remember: Trump's pledge of pulling out was a non-starter. In fact, the choice was more opportunistic engagement, or a fully-fledged strategy to aggressively take on US "enemies" (here, Iran). Guess which won out? (10)
Answer was obvious the minute John "I want to bomb" Bolton was appointed NSA. No more low-profile aircraft carrier tours of the Gulf. Tell everyone you're doing it and when, make the threat clear.
Is it a bluff, or is it a real threat? Like most military posturing, there isn't a clear answer, that's why it's dangerous. Bolton is hoping that Iran will either pull back, or make a mistake - and relying on fear of American determination to follow through if necessary (12)
As a Bush White House veteran, he assumes Iran will reckon it does have that determination. But... White House depends on occupant, which depends on elections. There's one coming up next year in US.
And that's when regimes that don't themselves have changes of administration tend to miscalculate. Because they don't know how determined the new administrations are (and nor do the new administrations, normally). End of thread.
