The U.S. is reducing its naval presence in the Persian Gulf region to just one aircraft carrier to reduce costs, a military official confirms to the E-Ring.

“Money,” was the one-word answer from the official, when asked for the reason behind the Pentagon’s decision.

The U.S. had positioned two carriers within Central Command last April, during a period when Iran was threatening to mine the Straits of Hormuz as the U.S. was ramping up sanctions on Tehran. USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75) was due to shove off from Norfolk, Va., on Thursday, the official said, but the last-minute change means thousands of sailors, officers and personnel will now say stateside, indefintely. The Pentagon also cancelled the deployment of the USS Gettysburg (CG-64), a Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser.

It is the latest overt signal from the Obama administration that the budgetary uncertainty in Washington has already begun to affect military operations.

President Obama’s senior advisors met with defense industry executives at the White House on Wednesday, including Huntington Ingalls Industries, which builds aircraft carriers, according to press secretary Jay Carney.

In a Georgetown University speech on Wednesday morning, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta blasted Congress for a “lurching” budget drama he called the most concerning national security issue facing the country. Panetta said that if sequester happens next month, the Pentagon will have to curtail global naval operations, citing the pivot to Asia but not offering specifics.

“This is not a game. This is reality,” Panetta said.

The USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74) has been in the region since last fall. The USS Dwight D. Eisenhower was kept home for maintenance this winter, however, dropping the U.S. presence to one carrier in December.

The U.S. routinely sends carriers through the region at various times, so the actual number of carriers could increase quickly.

Pentagon press secretary George Little, in a statement, said "Facing budget uncertainty -- including a continuing resolution and the looming potential for across-the-board sequestration cuts -- the U.S. Navy made this request to the secretary and he approved. This prudent decision enables the U.S. Navy to maintain these ships to deploy on short notice in the event they are needed to respond to national security contingencies."

Chuck Hagel has built up a long and detailed record of his thinking on national security. In speeches and op-eds, Hagel, a Vietnam veteran, has presented a vision of American foreign policy that calls for building alliances, even with adversaries, and for recognizing the limitations of force and the patience required of diplomacy. Here are 10 quotes from President Obama’s nominee to succeed Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta that give us a better idea of what to expect from the former senator.

1.    “There will be no victory or defeat for the United States in Iraq.”

At the height of anti-Iraq War fever in November 2006, the Bush administration was facing a decision: double-down with a massive troop “surge” or pull out before the insurgency could do any more damage. As party lines ruled the day, Hagel published an op-ed in the Washington Post that broke ranks and said out loud that the U.S. was not winning the war. Hagel opposed the coming troop surge and advocated withdrawal. “We have misunderstood, misread, misplanned and mismanaged our honorable intentions in Iraq with an arrogant self-delusion reminiscent of Vietnam,” he wrote. By then, Hagel’s opposition was no secret, but the article stuck in Washington’s collective mind.

When Hagel retired in 2008, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) said this in his floor tribute speech: “Senator Hagel's opposition to the war carried very special impact. He is a conservative, a member of the president's own political party, and a military veteran. In fact, he still carries shrapnel in his chest and remnants of burns to his face from his service as an infantryman in Vietnam. Senator Hagel now calls Mr. Bush's war in Iraq ‘an absolute replay of Vietnam.’”

2.    “The worst thing we can do, the most dangerous thing we can do is continue to isolate nations, is to continue to not engage nations. Great powers engage.”

The foreign policy debate over engagement with antagonistic regimes like Iran and North Korea -- and even China and Russia -- continues to rage. Hagel, in a keynote speech to the Israel Policy Forum in New York in December 2008, put himself at odds with the large chunk of Washington -- and Congress -- that prefers sanctions and military threats to diplomacy in attempts mitigate threats abroad. But Hagel’s focus on alliances will fit nicely with the Pentagon’s desire for “relationship building” and “building partner capacity” with friendly foreign armies. In warning that the military can’t fix Iraq, Afghanistan or Iran, Hagel has called for the U.S. to work the region’s countries into “some alignment of common interests.”  

3.    "I told Obama he should pick Biden as his running mate."

In 2008, Barack Obama had a wide selection of Democrats from which to pick his vice presidential running mate. Obama, a young, one-term senator with a worldly personal background but little experience in governance, had already sought out foreign policy mentoring from his elders in Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), Sen. Dick Lugar (R-IN), Hagel, and Joe Biden, a longtime senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. When Biden’s own run for the presidency fizzled, Obama kept him in close counsel and made the white-haired elder his second, with Hagel’s blessing. Since occupying the White House, Obama has kept Hagel close. Now the president has Biden at his side, Kerry at the State Department, and Hagel in the Pentagon.

4.    “There is no glory in war, only suffering.”

At the ground-breaking for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial wall in 1982, a much younger Hagel uttered that bold phrase, reflecting the disdain of the nation at the war. Hagel and his brother, Tom, served together in Vietnam, earning Purple Hearts at a time when Americans did not support the troops like they do today. But the wounds have never healed. Hagel frequently invokes the “folly” of Vietnam and is viewed as a non-interventionist. That makes him an interesting pick to lead the military at this moment. In May 2011, once again at the wall, Hagel repeated the phrase in a speech. Keep that in mind as Hagel likely directs the end of the Afghanistan war and the beginning of the expensive post-war era for millions of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, some facing a lifetime of emotional and physical healing. “As we have painfully learned from the tragic misadventure of Vietnam, society must always separate the war from the warrior. We do not celebrate the Vietnam War. We commemorate and historically recognize it.”

5.    “I don't have to be President. I don't have to be a senator. I just have to live with myself.”

On the Senate floor in late 2008, tribute speeches poured in over Hagel’s reputation as an independent voice and respected leader on foreign policy and national security that ignored party lines. As a result, there is a record of praise for Hagel that would appear to make his confirmation far easier than has been portrayed recently. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said, “In two terms in the Senate, Chuck has earned the respect of his colleagues and risen to national prominence as a clear voice on foreign policy and national security.” Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) called Hagel “one of the bravest and most fiercely independent Members of this legislative body.” Reid said that quote, which he appeared to paraphrase on the Senate floor, was Hagel’s answer to those calling for him to run for the presidency or vice presidency. Byrd said: “The Senate needs strong, independent voices like Senator Hagel -- lawmakers who are willing to put the best interests of our country and American people over partisan politics.” Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) said, “In the Senate, Chuck embraced responsibility for U.S. national security as few Senators have in recent decades.”

6.    “The United States will remain committed to defending Israel. Our relationship with Israel is a special and historic one. But it need not and cannot be at the expense of our Arab and Muslim relationships. That is an irresponsible and dangerous false choice.”

Perhaps the loudest pre-nomination concern over Hagel has been his allegedly insufficient support for Israel. But in a 2006 speech on the Senate floor, Hagel said the U.S. should walk and chew gum at the same time in the Middle East. He said that Israel has the right to defend itself, he blasted Arab attacks, and he called for an international military force to deploy along the Lebanese border. But he also said: “The United States and Israel must understand that it is not in their long-term interests to allow themselves to become isolated in the Middle East and the world. Neither can allow themselves to drift into an ‘us against the world’ global optic or zero-sum game. That would marginalize America's global leadership, our trust and influence, further isolating Israel, and it would prove disastrous for both countries, as well as the region. It is in Israel's interest, as much as ours, that the United States be seen by all states in the Middle East as fair. This is the currency of trust.” That position may not mesh with some senators’ views. But how different is it from the White House’s?

7.    “We must avoid the traps of hubris and imperial temptation that comes with great power.”

With the United States more than a year into the global war on terrorism, Hagel invoked the anti-imperial warnings of Winston Churchill in delivering the Landon Lecture at Kansas State University. It was February 2003, and the Bush administration was on the verge of invading Iraq -- an action that would marry U.S. troops to that country for eight years. Hagel set the bar high for using American military force to solve foreign policy problems. Staring down the concern over Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, Hagel said, “American purpose requires more than the application of American power,” warning that the U.S. would have to stay in Iraq for post-war rebuilding. “War, if it is necessary, should be a means, and not an end, to achieve a plan of action to encourage conflict resolution and peaceful change in Iraq and throughout the Middle East.”

8.     “We forgot all the lessons of Vietnam and the preceding history.”

In 2009, Hagel challenged President Obama and the United States to get out of Afghanistan and Iraq sooner rather than later, arguing that neither war was America’s to win. “Win what?” he asked, explaining that changing minds and the quality of life in places like the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region would require “political accommodation and reconciliation.” That term was far more controversial three years ago, when Hagel inked it in the Washington Post.  And, again, Hagel pushed for long-term, multinational coalition building across regions that work with perceived adversaries to find common interests. “Does anyone believe we will get to a responsible resolution on Iran without Russia?” Good question, still.


9.    “It's never a good easy clean choice in foreign policy.”

In a 2007 interview at the Council on Foreign Relations, Hagel basically rejected the “with us or against us” approach of the Bush administration and took a sharp jab at the talking points heard on the presidential campaign trail. Hagel was basically telling the partisans in Washington to leave national security to the grown-ups. Look for him to show his appreciation for nuance in the massive Defense Department by resisting rhetorical spit-balling from Obama’s detractors on issues like the budget, China, Iran, Russia, and even Israel.

10.    “Time is the most critical commodity you have.  If you squander the time, if you squander the moment, if you squander the opportunity, if you squander the boldness, what price do you pay on that?” 

In that same CFR forum heading into the 2008 election cycle, Hagel criticized the Bush administration for not doing more to promote international alliances, spending too much time reacting to crises and not driving a long-term strategic vision. He later challenged President Obama to start thinking about how to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Currently, Pentagon workers describe 2012 as a year spent in waiting -- for a budget, for troop numbers in Afghanistan, and, frankly, for a new defense secretary. If past is prologue, don’t expect a Secretary Hagel to slow roll into the job. Could he convince the president to speed up an Afghanistan war ending sooner than 2014? It wouldn’t be out of character.

As you watch tonight’s presidential debate between President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney on foreign policy, remember this: there are few things Americans care less about than foreign policy. And, conveniently, there are fewer things Americans know less about than foreign policy.

But Americans have opinions, nonetheless. Since 2010, there have been more Americans saying they wanted to pull troops out of Afghanistan as soon as possible than those saying the United States should stabilize that country first. By a roughly 60-30 percent gap, Americans are more worried about China’s economic strength than its military power. More than 60 percent have no faith that sanctions will sway Iran to give up its nuclear program. And more than 65 percent of Americans think the administration is treating Israel just fine. As for Russia, only 2 percent of Americans think it’s the greatest threat to the United States.

National security is not run by referendum, however. But keep those statistics and these others released last Friday in mind when Obama and Romney try to strike a balance tonight between looking like a strong commander-in-chief, but not one who is wasteful or itching to get the U.S. too involved around the world. Americans want a tough president, but one who is ready to focus his attention back home, according to the Pew Research Center’s latest findings.

What does that mean for these five issue areas that have been announced for tonight’s debate?

“America’s Role in the World”

This topic goes to the heart of the U.S. military’s footprint around world and how the next president intends to use it -- and never mind the militarization of foreign policy, because that’s a phrase barely mentioned in the Pentagon. Obama has presented Congress a five-year plan that offers a robust global counterterrorism presence with a significant downsizing of the Army and Marine Corps, a plan strongly backed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and a pivot/rebalancing toward Asia. That means a leaner military. Defense spending could get aired out tonight here and it could be interesting. The brass are on record that they want to reset, refit, and retrain the force for the post-Iraq and Afghanistan world. Few are calling for what Romney is advocating: a significant increase in the troop presence in the Middle East and a 4 percent GDP-sized spending account for the Pentagon. More likely, the candidates will present their views in basest of terms: the open hand of Obama versus the “no apology” of Romney and American exceptionalism. But will they challenge each other?

“Our Longest War -- Afghanistan and Pakistan”

There is less daylight between Obama and Romney on any topic than Afghanistan. That’s mostly because Romney has not offered any different course other than promising to be more attentive to commanders on the ground, which allows him to imply Obama has not done so. In his Tampa acceptance speech, Romney didn’t mention Afghanistan. Republicans are divided over what to do there next. And even though Democrats by 98 percent think Obama’s pullout order too slow, the president gives Romney little room here. The U.S. and NATO are committed to the 2014 deadline -- whether you believe the U.S. will keep fighting that long or not. Unless moderator Bob Scheiffer draws something out of the candidates, those watching among the 67,000 troops in Afghanistan can expect little more than a rehashing of the justification for extending the war another two years.

“Red Lines -- Israel and Iran”

Romney has tried most to distinguish himself as a better friend to Israel than Obama. But as they speak, the United States and Israel are preparing to begin a massive war game that’s unofficially geared as a united defense against an Iranian missile threat -- the expected response from Tehran should anyone try to knock out their nuclear program.  “Who loves Israel more?” is now staple campaign fare. Look for Obama tonight to defend his love for Israel and press Romney to say what, exactly, he’d do differently than the current administration. Look for Romney to allege that Obama’s sanctions-loving, Israel-ostracizing public posture is only making the region less stable.

“The Changing Middle East and the New Face of Terrorism”

Obama might use some of this time to explain just how extensively the Pentagon is preparing for or engaged in counterterrorism operations country-by-country across the Middle East and North Africa. U.S. officials are working the new post-Arab Awakening governments to secure relationships and military ties they’ll need to track and keep a thumb on al Qaeda and other extremists. Under Obama, security and stability still drives Middle East policy. Romney will likely continue to hit Obama on botching Benghazi, on not helping the Syrian rebels enough, and for allowing extremism to spread throughout the region. It could be the most interesting exchange of the night, especially if the president opts to highlight U.S. military activity in the region under his watch.

“The Rise of China and Tomorrow’s World”

For some national security watchers, this topic should be called “The Rise of China’s Military.” But it’s not, for a reason. Most Americans are far more concerned about China’s economic rise than they are about J-20 stealth fighter test runs. Romney has made trade with China a centerpiece of his campaign. Don’t expect a debate over strategic power here -- it’s probably the segment to step out and grab popcorn as the candidates discuss manufacturing jobs and currency manipulation. Or to flip over to what tens of millions of other Americans tonight will actually be paying close attention to: Monday Night Football.

What missile test? Pentagon officials tell the E-Ring they have no reason to believe that Iran conducted any missile tests in the Strait of Hormuz on Tuesday, rejecting a claim made by Iranian state television.
 
"We have seen the reports and cannot confirm any of the reporting that came out today in the Iranian Press TV but recommend you talk to the Iranians," said Lt. Col. Jack Miller, Defense Department spokesman for Middle East policy.
 
CNN and other outlets reported earlier in the day that Press TV, Iran's state-run news agency, reported firing four missiles into the Persian Gulf and successfully hit a ship-sized target. According to CNN's account of the original broadcast, the source of the information was Iranian Navy Cmdr. Rear Adm. Ali Fadavi.
 
If that were true, it would be a highly provocative act. The U.S. is in the middle of leading a major multinational countermine exercise in the Gulf with ships from dozens of nations crowding the seas.
 
Reporters earlier on Tuesday asked Pentagon press secretary George Little for his reaction to the initial news of the tests, and Little said, "Any provocative action undertaken by the Iranians is obviously of concern. ...I don't think that this particular event is ringing major alarm bells at this stage, but we take it seriously nonetheless. I would simply appeal to all parties in the region to not engage in provocative actions or actions that could be construed as provocative."
 
But within hours, the Pentagon said it had checked with all possible sources in the field and nobody in the U.S. military could confirm any test ever happened.
 
It's the second time this week, at least, that Iranian TV has broadcast bluster at the Pentagon. With a public spat between Israel and the U.S. over when and if to strike Iran's nuclear program, Iran's Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh said it would retaliate by hitting U.S. military bases in the region.
 
"Incendiary rhetoric is never helpful from the Iranians," Little said. "We view it as rhetoric at this stage. Obviously we stand ready to protect American personnel in the Gulf region."
 

For the second year in a row, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta will meet with representatives of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) in New York City alongside the United Nations General Assembly opening session.

Panetta will attend the Friday meeting, a U.S. defense official confirmed to the E-Ring late Monday, amid simmering questions over Syria's borders, which are pulsating from civil war; Egypt's expansion of counterterrorism operations on the Sinai; Iraq's quickening spiral into disarray; and whether -- or when -- the U.S. should use military strikes to halt Iran's nuclear progress.

The GCC is a partnership between the monarchial states of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Qatar, and Bahrain, all linked by their massive oil reserves.

The group has emerged recently as a bloc opponent to Iran's meddling in Syria's civil war. The Sunni-majority GCC states criticize the Shiite-dominated Iranian regime for opposing the Sunni rebels in Syria.

Any U.S., Israeli, or NATO strike on Iran certainly would cause enormous regional turmoil, and recent reports cited one Iranian official threatening to target U.S. military bases in the region in retaliation. But Panetta and top Pentagon officials like Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and Jim Miller, under secretary of defense for policy, have consistently maintained there is more time for sanctions and diplomacy to work on Tehran's leaders.

In his eighth visit to New York's grand week for diplomacy, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Monday deflected reporters' questions about the political dispute between Israel, which he referred to as "the Zionists," and the Obama administration over red lines. Ahmadinejad appeared to dismiss the issue as quickly as Panetta did two weeks ago.

Last year's GCC meeting with Panetta drew attention because of security questions surrounding the pro-democracy Arab uprisings stretching from Tunisia to Bahrain.

This year's meeting follows renewed protests, but this time by anti-Western demonstrators and extremists that have caused the Pentagon do deploy additional Marines and ships to the Middle East for backup embassy security duty.

Panetta said recently of the demonstrations that he felt that extremist elements were taking advantage of the security vacuum that was left behind by toppled dictatorships, but were as ineffective in swaying popular opinion as the KKK is in the U.S.

On the surface, the U.S. Navy's much-ballyhooed, multinational countermine exercise underway this week in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz might seem like a bit of overcompensation.

But, under the bluster, defense analysts believe the Iranian mine threat is incredibly real, lethal, and, to a degree, still murky.

What's known is that Iran has built up and hidden mine-laying capabilities across its military, commercial and fishing fleets. Less clear is how many mines it has -- from 5,000 to 20,000 depending on estimates. And these mines don't look like the giant metal-spiked balls from World War II movies. Today's mines are made of composite materials and Iran has been known to disguise them as floating tree branches and shipping boxes.

That's why it is believed Iran could lay enough mines to shut down the Strait of Hormuz before the U.S. knew it even happened, according to Christopher Harmer, senior naval analyst at the Institute of the Study of War and former deputy director of future operations for the U.S. Navy Fifth Fleet.

Maybe.

"I think it's extremely plausible," Harmer said, in an interview.

This week the U.S. is conducting the International Mine Countermeasures Exercise (IMCMEX), with more than 20 nations from around the globe. It is partly a show-of-force and partly a demonstration to make clear to Tehran that the U.S. can lead a multinational minesweeping exercise in right Iran's back yard pool.

But the Navy is only showing their after-the-fact capability. In reality, by the time the U.S. had to launch a real mine-sweeping operation, it could be too late. Either the strait would be littered with mines, floating, sunken, or tethered to the bottom or shore, or a ship -- likely an oil tanker -- would have found out the hard way when it struck a mine.

Undersea mine warfare, it turns out, has become incredibly complex in part thanks to Russian and Chinese investment and Iranian re-engineering. In response, the U.S. has built a significant countermine force of its own, but only relatively recently.

"U.S. minesweeping has always been at the bottom of the totem pole, in terms of funding," Harmer said, because American navy's had little need for them. There was no credible mine threat in American-fought wars. Not until the 1980s, when Iranian mines sunk oil tankers, did the U.S. begin to give the threat greater attention.

This year, the U.S. positioned eight minesweeper ships and eight helicopters stationed in Bahrain. The ships can stay on station for days, while the aircraft can sweep larger areas above the threat. But considering they face a stockpile upwards of 20,000 mines, minesweeping is the work of patient men.

"It is horrible, painfully excruciatingly detailed work," Harmer explained. "The guys who are good at it describe it as almost more art than science." Minesweepers watch what the water is doing, where the mines are drifting, and how they are camouflaged. The helicopters drop a sled out of the back, drag it from a long cable, and try to ping each mine and detonate them. One by one.

"It is like looking for a needle in a haystack," he said.

The Pentagon has begun buying up newer capabilities, though, and publicly has laid them out like a trade show exhibit booth. Last year, Central Command put in an urgent request to upgrade the countermine systems aboard minesweeper ships. The Navy started buying the SeaFox, dubbed a "kamikaze" underwater drone, that is already used by the British. It uses a camera to spot mines, then suicide-missions itself into them.  Check it out, here.

Online are pictures of a remote-controlled submarine-like toy called the M18 Mod 2 Kingfish. Lowered from inflatable skiff, it is an "unmanned underwater vehicle"(UUV) that has side-sonar to search for "object of interest." Newer models are less than 9-inches in diameter.

Then there is the SEABOTIX, a robotic underwater EOD specialist with a claw that places explosives next to suspect mines.

But they're up against formidable foes. It's unlikely Iran would close the strait using just free-floating mines, which Harmer said within a few weeks would dissipate to the shoreline or out of the gulf with currents.

Captor mines are a bigger worry -- essentially "a shell that sits on the bottom of the ocean. It waits until it senses a ship coming by and then it launches a projectile at that ship."

The devices can be programmed, or attached to someone actually listening in, for the known acoustic signature of American ships. Think of the Shazam application on your phone, Harmer said.

"If Shazam can listen to 5 seconds of a song and tell you what it is out of 10,000 songs -- every ship on earth has a distinct acoustic signature."

But that's not the worst. "The one that we're most afraid of is the EM52," he said. "That is a Chinese mine that is essentially a huge RPG that sits underwater, waits for a ship, and then shoots itself at that ships."

"We know that the Iranians absolutely bought that form the Chinese," Harmer said.

What's happening this week in the Gulf, he said, is eerily reminiscent of when the U.S. and Russian navies were constantly testing each other in 1980s. Maybe not the same level of firepower and global implications, but certainly with a familiar intensity.

"It is really a chess match out there."