According to some sources the USS Enterprise has either joined the USS Nimitz and USS Stennis, or will Join them in the next few days.

"The USS Enterprise CVN 65-Big E Strike Group, the US Navy’s largest air carrier, will join the USS Stennis and the USS Nimitz carriers, building up the largest sea, air, marine concentration the United States has ever deployed opposite Iran.

This goes towards making good on the assurances of four carriers US Vice President Dick Cheney offered the Gulf and Middle East nations during his May tour of the region. Washington is considering deploying the fourth US carrier for the region in the Red Sea opposite Saudi Arabian western coast to secure the three US carriers in the Gulf from the rear as well as the Gulf of Aqaba and Suez Canal." Freemarket news

That is three complete air groups. Below is a list of ships that are reported to be with the Battle Group (this is common info that is available to anyone who knows how to use an internet search engine, none of the following is
classified.)

ENTERPRISE-GROUP

USS ENTERPRISE (CVN 65)

General Characteristics Displacement: approx. 93,500 tons full load
Length: 1,123 ft (342.3 m)
Beam: 132.8 ft (40.5 m)
Draft: 39 ft (11.9 m)
Propulsion: 8 x A2W reactor, 4 x steam turbine, 4 shafts, 280,000 shp (210 MW) Speed: 30+ knots (56+ km/h, 34+ mph)
Range: Essentially unlimited
Complement: Ship's company: 3,000 (2,700 Sailors, 150 Chiefs, 150 Officers)
Air wing: 1,800 (250 Pilots, and 1,550 Support personnel)
Armament: 2 Sea Sparrow launchers,
2 × 20 mm Phalanx CIWS mounts,
2 RAM launchers Armor: 8 inch (20 cm) aluminum belt (equivalent to 4 inch rolled homogeneous steel armour)
Aircraft carried: approx. 66:
Forty three F/A-18 Hornets;
Four EA-6B Prowlers;
Four E-2C Hawkeyes;
Six S-3 Vikings;
Five SH-60 Seahawks)
Though can hold up to 90 aircraft

Arleigh Burke class of guided missile destroyers

USS ARLEIGH BURKE (DDG 51)
USS STOUT (DDG 55)
USS JAMES E WILLIAMS (DDG 95)
USS FORREST SHERMAN (DDG 98)

General Characteristics Displacement: 9,200 tons Length: 509 ft 6 in (155.3 m) Beam: 66 ft (20.1 m) Draft: 31 ft (9.4 m)
Propulsion: 4 × General Electric LM2500-30 gas turbines, 2 shafts, 100,000 shp (75 MW) Speed: 30+ knots (55+ km/h) Range: 4400 NM at 20 knots
(8,100 km at 37 km/h)
Complement: 32 officers and 348 enlisted
Armament:  1 × 32 cell, 1 × 64 cell Mk 41 vertical launch systems, 96 × RIM-67 SM-2, BGM-109 Tomahawk or RUM-139 VL-Asroc, missiles
1 × 5/62 in (127/62 mm), 2 × 25 mm, 4 × 12.7 mm guns
2 × 3 Mk 46 torpedo tubes
Aircraft: 2 × SH-60 Sea Hawk helicopters Motto: Lead from the Front

Ticonderoga-class cruiser guided-missile cruiser

USS GETTYSBURG (CG 64)

Displacement: approx. 9,600 tons full load Length: 567 feet (173 meters) Beam: 55 feet (17 meters) Draught: 33 feet (10 meters)
Propulsion: 4 × General Electric LM2500 gas turbines, 2 shafts, 80,000 shp Speed: 32.5 knots (60 km/h)
Complement: 33 officers & 327 enlisted
Sensors and processing systems: AN/SPY-1A/B multi-function radar
AN/SPS-49 air search radar
AN/SPG-62 fire control radar
AN/SPS-55 surface search radar
AN/SPQ-9 gun fire control radar
AN/SQQ-89(V)3 Sonar suite, conisiting of
AN/SQS-53C/D Active sonar
AN/SQR-19 TACTAS Passive sonar
AN/SQQ-28 Light airborne multi-purpose system
AN/SLQ-32 Electronic Warfare Suite
Armament: 2 × 61 cell Mk 41 vertical launch systems
122 × RIM-67 SM-2, BGM-109 Tomahawk, or RUM-139 VL-Asroc
8 × RGM-84 Harpoon missiles
2 × Mark 45 5 in / 54 cal lightweight gun
2 × 25 mm
2–4 × .50 cal (12.7 mm) gun
2 × Phalanx CIWS
2 × Mk 32 12.75 in (324 mm) triple torpedo tubes Aircraft carried: 2 x Sikorsky SH-60 Seahawk LAMPS III helicopters.

LOS ANGELES CLASS SUBMARINE

USS PHILADELPHIA (SSN 690)

General Characteristics Displacement: 5705 tons light, 6075 tons full, 370 tons dead Length: 110.3 m (362 ft)
Beam: 10 m (33 ft)
Draft: 9.7 m (32 ft)
Propulsion: one S6G reactor
Complement: 12 officers, 98 men
Armament:
4 x 21 in (533 mm) forward torpedo tubes
on SSNs 719-725 and 750-773, 12 Vertical Launch System tubes

NIMITZ-GROUP

Nimitz-class nuclear-powered supercarrier

USS Nimitz (CVN-68)

General Characteristics Displacement: 101,000 to 104,000 tons full load Length: Overall: 1,092 ft (333 m)
Waterline: 1,040 ft (317 m) Beam: Overall: 252 ft (76.8 m) Waterline: 134 ft (40.8 m)
Draft: Maximum navigational: 37 ft (11.3 m)
Limit: 41 ft (12.5 m)
Propulsion: 2 × Westinghouse A4W nuclear reactors
4 × steam turbines
4 × shafts
260,000 shp (194 MW) Speed: 30+ knots (56+ km/h)
Range: Essentially unlimited
Complement: Ship's company: 3,200
Air wing: 2,480 Sensors and processing systems: SPS-48E 3-D air search radar
SPS-49(V)5 2-D air search radar
Mk 23 target acquisition radar
2 × SPN-46 air traffic control radars
SPN-43B air traffic control radar
SPN-44 landing aid radars
3 × Mk 91 NSSM guidance systems
3 × Mk 95 radars Electronic warfare and decoys: SLQ-32A(V)4 Countermeasures suite
SLQ-25A Nixie torpedo countermeasures
Armament: 2 × 21 cell Sea RAM
2 × Mk 29 Sea Sparrow
Armour: Unknown
Aircraft carried: 90 fixed wing and helicopters
Fixed wing aircraft
F/A-18E/F Super Hornet
F/A-18 Hornet
EA-6B Prowler
E-2 Hawkeye
C-2 Greyhound

Ticonderoga-class cruiser guided-missile cruiser

USS Princeton (CG 59)

Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyers

USS John Paul Jones (DDG 53)
USS Higgins (DDG 76)
USS Chafee (DDG 90)
USS Pinckney (DDG 91)

STENNIS-GROUP

USS John C. Stennis (CVN-74)
Nimitz-class nuclear-powered supercarrier
As above

Ticonderoga-class cruiser guided-missile cruiser

USS Antietam (CG-54)

Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyers

USS O'Kane (DDG-77)
USS Howard (DDG-83)
USS Preble (DDG-88)
USS Halsey (DDG-97)

Oliver Hazard Perry-class guided-missile frigates

USS Jarrett (FFG-33)
USS Rentz (FFG-46)

General Characteristics Displacement: 4,100 tons (4,170 t) full load Length: 453 ft (138.1 m), overall Beam: 45 ft (13.7 m) Draught: 22 ft (6.7 m)
Propulsion: 2 × General Electric LM2500-30 gas turbines generating 41,000 shp (31 MW) through a single shaft and variable pitch propeller
Speed: 29+ knots (54+ km/h)
Range: 5,000 nm (9,300 km) at 18 knots (33 km/h)
Complement: 15 officers and 190 enlisted, plus SH-60 LAMPS detachment of roughly six officer pilots and 15 enlisted maintainers Sensors and processing systems: AN/SPS-49 air-search radar
AN/SPS-55 surface-search radar
CAS and STIR fire-control radar
AN/SQS-56 sonar. Electronic warfare and decoys: AN/SLQ-32 Armament: One OTO Melara Mk 75 76 mm/62 caliber naval gun
one Mk 13 Mod 4 single-arm launcher for |Harpoon anti-ship missiles and SM-1MR Standard anti-ship/air missiles (40 round magazine)
two Mk 32 triple-tube (324 mm) launchers for Mark 46 torpedoes
one Vulcan Phalanx CIWS; four .50-cal (12.7 mm) machine guns. Aircraft carried: 2 × SH-60 LAMPS III helicopters

That is an amazing amount of firepower. That is in reality about 300 planes and 1700 Tomahawk and Asroc missiles. To put that in perspective, during the first Gulf War the US used a total of 286 Tomahawks in that engagement. If joined by a fourth Carrier force those totals will jump to 400 planes and around 2200 Tomahawk and Asroc missiles.

For those of you who may not quite understand just how much power that is, that battle group is capable of causing more destruction than was caused in every war in the last century. Not just American wars,  but all of the worlds wars in the last century.

So why would the U.S. put so much Naval power in the region? I am not sure what our intentions are. You might say with Iran thumbing their nose at the U.S. and the U.N. there is the possibility of a naval blockade of Iran. There is a distinct possibility of a blockade. However, the two carrier groups in the region could do so with out a problem. Could it just be saber rattling to intimidate Iran? I believe anyone who knows the military potential of two carrier groups would know that two is intimidating enough, but three and, according to promises made by Dick Cheney and reported to the FreeMarket News, a fourth still to come.

That is not only overkill and a waist of taxpayer money and might but I say that is extremely dangerous. Putting the Enterprise and three Nimitz class carriers in one place when there are only 10 Nimitz class carriers in the U.S Navy is illogical unless..... You plan to use them.  Let’s say that the U.S. is all of the worlds oceans, this would be like putting four of eleven carriers in Rhodes Island. It would not make any sense unless you plan to invade Connecticut.

Also for those who don’t know that much about the Navy, The USS Enterprise and it’s predecessors have a long history of being where the action is and the Navy has a habit of using this type of hype for publicity reasons. Which in my opinion only goes to reinforce my belief that "The Big E" and her strike group are there for a reason.

Now let’s keep in mind the amount of power, the danger of that much of our naval power in one area and the Enterprise and the role that she and her namesakes have had in history and lets look at what else is going on in the U.S./Iran arena. Most recently on 6/26 the US's former Ambassador to the UN, Neo-Conservative John Bolton, told The Jerusalem Post:

"Sanctions and diplomacy have failed and it may be too late for internal opposition to oust the Islamist regime...the Bush administration does not recognize the urgency of the hour and that the options are now limited to only the possibility of regime change from within or (from) a last-resort military intervention."
So, what he in the past called "Simple air strikes " is no longer enough we must take action to change the regime. So that brings us back to nation building and we all know how well that has gone in the past. Although you do not have a significant  Sunni population in Iran, like you do in Iraq, you will have steadfast resistance to any government that the US tries to prop up.

The second problem I have with Bolton’s comments, is that "sanctions and diplomacy have failed". What diplomacy? There was no diplomacy until pressure mounted by StopIranWar.com and Generals Wes Clark, Paul Eaton and John Batiste became so overwhelming that the administration had to act. Even then the diplomacy was only a token gesture.  There was no real attempt by the administration to exit from this road to war that we currently travel.

Now I want to talk about #1 Neo-Con Dick Cheney. I want to look at several of his statements over the past few months and discuss them. First while on the USS Stennis on May 11, he said:

"The United States is prepared to use its naval power to keep Tehran from disrupting oil routes or gaining nuclear weapons and dominating this region."
Okay isn’t that really it, to keep Iran from blocking oil routes and dominating the region. It always comes back to the oil. The Neo-Cons which have proven on too many occasions that they are only interested in big business and these days the biggest business in the world is the oil business. As to the dominating the region, Cheney obviously feels that it is his job to dominate the middle east because, it is the home of the majority of the worlds oil supply.

With Cheney seemingly obsessed with a war with Iran, CBS and Political Animal reported the following on 6/1:

Political Animal) CHENEY AND IRAN....Remember that report from Steve Clemons last week about how Dick Cheney is hoping to get Israel to attack Iran in order to provoke a shooting war that will suck in the United States? Today in the New York Times, Helene Cooper confirms it:                                 

In interviews, people who have spoken with Mr. Cheney's staff have confirmed the broad outlines of the report, and said that some of the hawkish statements to outsiders were made by David Wurmser, a former Pentagon official who is now the principal deputy assistant to Mr. Cheney for national security affairs.

Good 'ol David Wurmser. A neocon's neocon. Co-author in 1996 of "A Clean Break," the infamous document that proposed giving up on peace in the Middle East in favor of armed attacks on Syria, Iran, Lebanon, and, while we're at it, Iraq too. A man who proposed attacking South America in retaliation for 9/11. The guy who keeps Cheney bucked up when things look bad.

Unsurprisingly, this news didn't go over well with non-crazy people During an interview with BBC Radio that was broadcast today, Mohamed ElBaradei, the director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said he did not want to see another war like the one still raging in Iraq five years after the American-led invasion there. "You do not want to give additional argument to new crazies who say, 'let's go and bomb Iran,'" Mr. ElBaradei said, in his strongest warning yet against the use of force in Iran.

....Several Western European officials also echoed his concern, and said privately that they are worried that Mr. Cheney's "red lines" — the point at which he believes that Iran is on the brink of acquiring a nuclear weapon and a military strike is necessary — may be coming up soon. "We fully believe that Foggy Bottom is committed to the diplomatic track," one European official said Wednesday. "But there's some concern about the Vice President's office." And the White House's response? An unnamed senior official didn't Political Animal) CHENEY AND IRAN....Remember that report from Steve Clemons last week about how Dick Cheney is hoping to get Israel to attack Iran in order to provoke a shooting war that will suck in the United States? Today in the New York Times, Helene Cooper confirms it: 
                               
Seeing this report along with the Bolton interview in The Jerusalem Post, it appears that John Bolton is being a good little Neo-Con and helping his leader (Cheney) with his plan of goading Israel into attacking Iran. That of course would allow them to come to the aid of their ally and enter the Israeli/Iranian conflict.

Everything these and other Neo-Cons seem to be interested in is starting yet another unnecessary war. It seems if they cannot accomplish it one way, they will simply employ an end run and find another way. That is why it is so important that we, as Americans,  take every possible step in preventing the Neo-Con/Big Business machine from starting a war that is only going to benefit them and not the common man in America.

So right now take the time to visit StopIranWar.com and sign the petition to the president but don’t stop there, go ahead and sign the petition to Congress. Do what ever you can do from printing the petitions and hitting the streets to getting signatures, or picking up the phone and calling your Congressman. We need as much support as possible so make sure to get your spouse, parents, adult children and friends to join you and visit StopIranWar.com and sign the petitions.

This is "Our America" make sure that it is clear to them which course we want it to take. That our interests should be their main concern, not the concerns of
big business.

Wes Clark - Daily Kos

Editorial Comment: Well, this looks like its going to go live against Iran as placing the Enterprise in the region is the US's way of telling us with a nounce of intelligence that its gonna happen.

This will be a bitter conflict, America emboldened by the swift collapse of Iraqi forces in their initial illegal invasion has added to their own view of inviincibility but its not as easy as that.

Iran is not Iraq, America does not see this, it is blindly and furiously ignoring this very very important factor.

Iran is a nation with a modern military capability, it has the ability now to track stealth aircraft, to shoot them down, it has the ability to bring down the B-52's but what America is also ignoring with a passion is the Russian derived SunBurn missile.

In that long list above, there is not one, not one ship that can defend against the SunBurn, all the Tomahawks on the carriers and cruisers, all the planes and radars and other technical gizmos a lá militaire are absolutely useless against the SunBurn...

Let me reiterate once again that the SunBurn is fully capable with conventional warheads to obliterate any one of those ships into small pieces, its true "set & forget", load it with a target or GPS coordinates and let it fly, it can evade at top speed and can fly a few feet over the ground making it extremely deadly.

And for America to bring enough airpower to strike at Iran, will mean America needs to bring their ships into range of the various Iranian tracking devices and of course the many SunBurns it bought from Russia.

America is in a position where it cannot "cherry pick" and strike surgically, to even get to an even rate of success it has to obliterate some 4-8000 individual targets and this is against S-300 and Tor systems, you can see why the nuclear option is becoming more pressing because it is unlikely that America can bring about a successful conventional attack.

America is painting itself into a corner here and cannot get out of any of this without capitulating, already I have stated elsewhere that if Iran is attacked oil from Iran and Venezuela will cease to flow to the US, that the Muslim regions will probably unite against the Americans cutting off more oil.

Iran will get pounded into the ground maybe but not before it has bloodied America's nose, not before America has lost probably many ships and aircraft nd thousands of personnel.   Iran will also likely pour missiles into US bases in Iraq and send a plethora of them to Israel as well.

Iran will prove hard to garrison also, Iraq serves up an excellent reason for the Iranians as one nation to unite and fight.

Iraq will likely as will Afghanistan rise up en masse against the "infidel", it is also likely, indeed very probable that Musharref will be ousted in Pakistan who does have a recognised nuclear capability which in the hands of sympathetic Muslim forces will make this scenario more drastic than people realise.

And by this time it will likely go "nuclear" if it doesn't lead off as "nuclear" in the first place.

This is where it starts to get very very dangerous.

In Syria, Russia has bases in such as Tartus, it has quite a large presence of personnel in that area, it is not going to take it lightly if Israel oppurtunes to attack Syria during this.

Nor is Russia likely to appreciate large amounts of nuclear fallout heading towards it either or the death through radiation poisoning of its military presence in Syria.

China has told America it will defend its oil imports, Iran is a very large exporter to China and not many media sources will tell you that there is a large Chinese fleet also in the gulf.

America is on collision course not to punish Iran but to start World War III and head into direct confrontation with China and Russia.

This is because of pure posturing, because a nation said no to America, because a nation defied America and Israel and refused to become a pawn of their hegemony, this is also about greed and arrogance, about emboldenment after the easy theft of Iraq and about how deep American control over other nations in the west really goes.

Britain will be complicit in this, Brown like Blair won't want to be left out of such an "adventure", Britain will supply logistical and military support and many British people could die because of American greed, arrogance and self styled Imperialism.

Hitler lost WWII because of oil, always remember that, he like Bush decided that he wanted oil for free and roused the Russians, thus sealing his doom, Bush's lust for oil will also do to America what WWII did to Germany but this time round there are nuclear weapons on the table and any British politician that agrees with that policy should not be in a position of trust, power or influence.

---