Has anyone considered that we may be bluffing in order to coerce Iran into ceasing it's interference in Iraq?
After taking out Iraq and Afghanistan, I think we have a lot of serious coercive ability that can be leveraged through a convincing bluffing display...
Of course, if my theory is right, then we won't make any overt statements or ultimatems. It will just be left for Iran to look at the "obviousness" of our preparations and movements.
Opportunities are often times disguised as problems.
Problem # 1- Afghanistan.
Problem # 2- Iraq.
On Iran's eastern border lies Afghanistan.
On Iran's western border lies Iraq.
And in between the two, I see opportunity.
To borrow a certain slogan from the Guiness beer commercial;
Brilliant!
If Iran changes its ways in Iraq and gives up in nuclear efforts then history will look back on this as a victorious bluff, if not, then it's war.
The moves are just too big.
Having two carrier groups operate in the region together and not part of a regular rotation for the first time since the Iraq war...
Forcing the Reagan to deploy earlier than planned to the Pacific to cover for the Stennis...
Patriot missile units deploying for the first time since the Iraq war...
AWACS aircraft being moved into Turkey for the first time since the Iraq war...
15th MEU being asked to stay in the region an extra 45 days with the Boxer instead of rotating as normal...
These and many more indicators are more than just signals to try and get Iran worried, this is real world positioning.