sherpa

That could very well be true. Iran and Hezbollah, (who is Iran), if they are on concert with this scheme are probably watching the Israeli response, which is dramatic and probably not to their liking. If they concluded it was worth expanding into additional actions from Lebanon, the Israeli Air Force response would be massive, and it would include support, though not necessarily offensive missions, from the Ford task force. That capability is significant.

I think it is quite correct. There are all kinds of shared information and coordination on many thigs, but the Israelis, when they are going to do something that is really risky to their forces do not share, unless there is a specific reason to do so.

That is certainly concerning and a real possibility. If so, it points to a far more detailed and coordinated scheme.

Of course they can be. Something like a western hemisphere earthquake or similar. They are not going to get involved in humanitarian missions with the airwing embarked, and certainly not in any hostile environment. It simply makes no sense.

No. I think it has not progressed to where stuff like this gets discussed. I assure you that if Reagan sails for the IO, or anything spreads to where Syria or Iran get "kinetic," you'll see it discussed.

No. The situation is this: The US Air Force has bases in Incirlik Turkey, which is being bolstered this week, and more than one in Saudi Arabia. I have no idea if the Saudis would endorse operations against Iran from their soil. Having USS Ford in the eastern Med as reported would cover southern Lebanon, which is Hezbollah and if this spread, Syria. Be aware that Hezbollah has real missiles, and lots of them. Not the unguided trash that Hamas launches from Gaza. That eastern Med position is too far to reasonably strike Iran, as you'd have to tank in unfriendly airspace on the way in and out. The US Navy currently has no carrier task force in the Indian Ocean. That's why I suggested watching USS Reagan which in its' home port of Yokosuka, Japan. If they alter her schedule and send her to the Indian Ocean, that would be a clear indication of being on station if some anti Iran scenario unfolded. The problem is that doing that would take her away from the South China Sea, and significantly impact any defense of Taiwan. The other option, which would take a long time, would be to deploy another Pacific Fleet carrier to the South China Sea, so you would have one in the IO and one there. Either way, neither would be humanitarian. Carriers don't do that.

I'm hesitant to go down this rabbit hole but...... If a carrier strike force heads to the northern Indian Ocean, it absolutely isn't going there for humanitarian purposes. It is a war ship and that's what it is designed to do. The last time the Iranians decided to take one on, they nearly lost their entire Navy in one day. Things are different now. They have a bit more capability, but while inland targets would present a formidable challenge, their Navy would be demolished. Further, The US Navy has hospital ships for that purpose, and a carrier with it's airwing embarked has very little additional room for anything else. International protocols prevent hospital ships from being attacked. Not so for an obvious combatants.

One of the uncomfortable realities regarding the actions of countries that constantly claim support for the Palestinians is that they've been throwing them out of their own lands. It's happened many times over many years. They "support" them as long as they don't have to deal with them.

Israel has proven to be a responsible party regarding its nuclear capabilities for many years. While they don't talk about it, they've never signed non proliferation treaties, so its not like they lie about it. As trusted allies, we certainly influence them, but as I mentioned above, they are a bit different and will never compromise control of their sovereignty by being jawboned beyond what they think is reasonable. Not to move in a different direction, but what is really disturbing is that with their extremely strong history of sniffing this stuff out before it occurs, something has happened to diminish their intel capabilities in the occupied areas. They have always been very good at this, while the US has almost no HUMINT there and relies on technology which has not only been figured out how to deny, which isn't that tough.

If you "cut them off," the risk of a really bad outcome is multiplied. The US has been mostly comfortable with this long relationship, and has provided them significant support when they have been attacked, and that leverage has worked to end two wars when they had every opportunity to take over Damascus and Cairo. If Israel's existence is threatened, it is likely that they use their "Temple" weapons. They were about a day from getting into deployable situations during the Yom Kippur war. I can't imagine the danger involved in denying them support, especially against a group that not only wants to destroy the state of Israel but advocates ridding the entire earth of all Jews.

From historical observation and a little knowledge of past aid including military to Israel, they are far more reluctant to agree to controls as precondition. They'll go a certain distance, but not nearly as far as other countries. Because of their history, they pretty much refuse to allow any other country to control their actions. They don't share intel beyond a very basic level, as they think the US is incapable of controlling leaks. See Operation Opera, the brilliant strike on the Baghdad nuclear plant, Operation Orchard, which was their undetected strike on a Syrian nuclear reactor, and Operation Thunderbolt, the Entebbe rescue mission which was probably the greatest rescue mission ever. The US knew nothing of these until completed. On a smaller scale, Operation Bayonet, which was the Mossad operation to assassinate all of the folks involved directly in the Munich Olympic killing of the Israeli team, and scores of other Mossad assassinations in the middle east and those targeting various Iranian nuclear program players. In addition, they not only modify specific weapons purchased from the US to suit their needs, they always resist any joint air to air exercises, which is the norm for the US and its other allies. The US has tried to engage in this, but they have never agreed, though they did send us gun camera film of their exploits. Anyway, they have a unique, singular attitude about agreeing to any restrictions.

I'll disregard the knee jerk response of the idiocy of this. I am merely pointing out that if we change carrier cruise schedules and put one in the norther Indian Ocean, it is something to pay attention to. Back to your usual incredible geopolitical and and military insights. Shocking to me, given your incredible brilliance, how you were on a cruise ship right there, mere months ago, and didn't see this coming.

Just an observation, but it's simply incredible how anything that happens in the world devolves into a Putin/Trump/Biden personal fight between the same combatants in this forum. Still, on the topic, deploying Ford and it's task force to the more eastern waters of the Med is an anti Hezbolla/Lebanon thing. If the US thinks this could get really nasty, watch for new of Reagan to leave it's home port in Yokosuka Japan and head through the Straits of Malacca to the norther Indian Ocean. If that happens, it's because of a consideration of an Iranian issue. Back to your normal Putin/Trump/Biden fray.

There is going to be a lot more payback before that happens. I heard the ex Israeli Ambassador to the US today, and it seems they are not content to simply end this. They want to terminate Hamas in Gaza with extreme prejudice. Nothing like a barbarous invasion of your territory, complete with going door to door and killing families to cause the Israelis to put their judicial reform issues aside. If a smoking gun can be tracked back to Iran, which seems increasingly likely, there might be interesting headlines in the next few months.

These are the kind of posts that point out the level of knowledge of individuals here. I know a great deal of the capability of the Israeli military, how their air defense is set up and their military capability, as well as their ability to conduct offensive operations. I am also informed of their advancements to US equipment sold them to suit their needs, at least until the past few years. Some weak ass attempt to insult me might suit you, but it doesn't impact me in the least.

Typical idiotic response. The man asked you to explain your claim that the he almost got the US into a war with Iran. You post a reply that claims he denied/prevented a military response after an aggressive act of war against a US asset, and assert that this somehow advocates for your claim that he almost got us into a war.

So, your answer to his question of how he nearly got us into a war with Iran is to point out how he avoided one? Makes sense to me.

I don't follow the "logic" of this post. That's another issue, but Iran has been supporting and funding this for decades, long before Trump.

I don't do homework here. You can find that out yourself.

Not sure. There is no reason to escort a cruise ship with a submarine. You can simply deny them port entry. End of story. Further, I'm not sure how a cruise ship gets to Jerusalem, but that's another issue. It would have to dock away from the city and have folks transported over land.

Plenty enough stability in Brazil or Argentina, and a host of other South American countries. Just not enough interest.

Not sure what this this means. Submarines accompanying cruise ships have no military significance. The reality is as it has always been. Iran funds Hamas. Hamas runs this to the 50 year anniversary of Yom Kippur. Nothing changes.

Rumack: Captain, how soon can you land? Captain Oveur: I can't tell. Rumack: You can tell me. I'm a doctor. Captain Oveur: No. I mean I'm just not sure. Rumack: Well, can't you take a guess? Captain Oveur: Well, not for another two hours. Rumack: You can't take a guess for another two hours?

I have flown, taught and certified captains and copilots on the NAT Track system for years, so I'm kind of familiar. I am also well aware of block times vs flight times. What I stated is that flight time from NY to LHR is nominally what I mentioned. I've seen it more and I've held the departure in order to avoid holding to comply with the LHR curfew. because of extremely strong tail winds in the winter. The reason the flight times are not that different is because the great circle route distance, which is what airliners fly, is not that significant.,

Don't take this the wrong way. It is merely meant to answer your question. It is usually about six and a half hours of flight time from New York to London. The geographic distance is 3451 miles. The answer to your question ls twofold. First, you can't add the distance from Buffalo to New York city on top that 3451. Buffalo to London is 3563 miles, only 110 miles more. The reason is that the earth is round. That's why you see the graphic depictions of those routes with big arcs in them instead of straight lines. Recognizing that, you realize that the mileage isn't that different, so the flight times reflect that.