UPDATED: Iran’s nuclear mullahs and the UN: closer to sanctions?/A look at the Strait of Hormuz
Saturday, May 6: Fox is reporting that Russia and China may support the US and UK resolution, as long as the UN continues to stress “diplomacy.” A Chapter 7 resolution allows for sanctions or war or both.
This recent South African update claims US patience is wearing thin. Meanwhile, Iran is rejecting EU criticism of its human rights record and is once again threatening to disrupt oil tanker traffic in the Strait of Hormuz. In the late 1980s Joe Balkosi and I designed a game titled :Light Division: The Strait of Hormuz.” The game examined several US, US coalition, Iranian andRussian military scenarios focusing on the Straits of Hormuz. (Here’s a link to an earlier post of mine on that game and on Iranian options from March 6, 2005.)
Hormuz is definitely a strategic choke point. Anti-ship mines and anti-ship missiles fired from camouflaged (and possibly hardened) firing points are Iran’s most useful weapons. The Iranians could also scuttle three or four large ships to create an obstacle– in other words, sink four of their own empty tankers and see how the US responds. This move creates a marine hazard, but is something of a “gray area” act of war, even if committed in the Strait (which is an international transit point). Farfetched? Possibly. But what’s farfetched for the mullahs?
While mines and anti-ship missiles are, in my opinion, the weapons of choice, Iran also has other military options, including aircraft attacking ships with bombs and missiles, attacks by surface ships, and attacks by submarines. Suicide attacks elivered by high-speed small boats are a real threat, though actually sinking an oil tanker with a suicide speedboat is heackuva task. A Very Large Crude Carrier (VLCC) might be able to survive a half-dozen hits above the waterline by some of the smaller anti-ship missiles. A hit from a naval cruise missile carrying a large warhead (like a Chinese-made Silkworm) is another matter. (The Silkworm is slow but packs a 500 kilogram conventional warhead. A French Exocet has a 165 kilogram HE warhead. That is still a wallop but VLCCs are huge. Crude oil may be easy to spill but it is also tough to set on fire. Iran has an Exocet-like antiship missile in its inventory, the “Kowsar.” The Kowsar may be an Iranian-made version of the Chinese C-801, which is an anti-ship missile very similar to the Exocet. This AP report (via Fox) from April 5 discusses the Kowsar.)
A large torpedo hit below the waterline is a big threat. The US Navy has devoted a lot of thought and training time to countering Iran’s diesel submarines, including submarines operating from “submarine bastions.” A US Navy reader might send me an “official definition” of a sub bastion, but here’s my on-the-fly description. A sub bastion is an undersea area surrounded by mines and sensors, usually located in coastal waters. The sub hides inside the “bastion” — waiting to take a shot (with torpedoes or anti-ship missiles) at ships approaching the bastion or attempting to sweep the mines. A bastion-builder like Iran could site anti- aircraft missiles on land to protect the bastion from anti-submarine warfare aircraft. Yes– a sub inside a bastion is operating in a restricted space, but the sub is “quiet and floating” –making it more difficult to detect. The bastion-builder might even have a few “decoy” subs in the bastion — electronic devices or even ballasted metal tanks that fake a submarine’s operating signatures. The odds are very good that US Navy or Royal Navy anti-submarine hunters will eventually find and kill the sub inside the bastion; but the bastion defense makes the hunt riskier and potentially expensive. Sinking a US Navy capital ship gives Iran a propaganda victory. A slick diesel sub commander operating in a coastal bastion will undoubtaly have several “paths of retreat” to a cove or harbor. The gambit here would be to frustrate coalition sub hunters as long as possible, draw them into the bastion’s minefields, draw surface craft into an anti-ship missile ambush (or aircraft into a SAM ambush) then pull out and live to fight another day.
Just threatening to close the Straits spikes oil prices and raises marine insurance rates — which are diplomatic victories of a sort for Tehran’s mullahs.
UPDATE: This map and background data from fas.org are very useful. This AFP report from April 4 has more on the Kowsar. And here is the link I was looking for earlier — fas.org on the Chinese C-801. It mentions the C-801’s similarity to the Exocet. Note it mentions that Iran is developing a C-801 knock-off. The fas.org article says the missile is named the “Karus.” The warhead is estimated to be 165 kilograms.
UPDATE 2: NewsMax ran this Hormuz piece in March.
Key quote:
The plans, which include the use of bottom-tethered mines potentially capable of destroying U.S. aircraft carriers, were designed to counter a U.S. land invasion and to close the Strait of Hormuz, the defector said in a phone interview from his home in Europe.
They would also be triggered if the United States or Israel launched a pre-emptive strike on Iran to knock out nuclear and missile facilities.
“The plan is to stop trade,” the source said.
Between 15 and 16.5 million barrels of oil transit the Strait of Hormuz each day, roughly 20 percent of the world’s daily oil production, according to the U.S. government’s Energy Information Administration.
Other relevant grafs:
The Iranian contingency plan is summarized in an “Order of Battle” map, which schematically lays out Iran’s military and strategic assets and how they will be used against U.S. military forces from the Strait of Hormuz up to Busheir.
The map identifies three major areas of operations, called “mass kill zones,” where Iranian strategists believe they can decimate a U.S.-led invasion force before it actually enters the Persian Gulf.
The kill zones run from the low-lying coast just to the east of Bandar Abbas, Iran’s main port that sits in the bottleneck of the Strait of Hormuz, to the ports of Jask and Shah Bahar on the Indian Ocean, beyond the Strait.
Behind the kill zones are strategic missile launchers labeled as “area of chemical operations,” “area of biological warfare operations,” and “area where nuclear operations start.”
Iran’s overall battle management will be handled through C4I and surveillance satellites. It is unclear in the documents shared with NewsMax whether this refers to commercial satellites or satellite intelligence obtained from allies, such as Russia or China. Iran has satellite cooperation programs with both nations.
The map is labeled “the current status of military forces in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, 1384.” 1384 is the Iranian year that ends on March 20, 2006.
Iran plans to begin offensive operations by launching successive waves of explosives-packed boats against U.S. warships in the Gulf, piloted by “Ashura” or suicide bombers.
UPDATE 3: See Comment 1 and my response.
On the other hand… the Persian/Arabian gulf is very shallow, and presents few places for any submarine to hide very well. I can envision a brief standoff against a sub cordoned off in a little “bastion” but I just don’t see the confrontation really lasting very long. It would be, for the submariners, just another martyrdom mission. And Subs, as compared to VBIEDs are somewhat more difficult to replace once spent. Just my $.02 DaveK ED NOTE: And a good two cents it is. A bastion like the one I described (ringed by mines and covered by shore fire) will in all topographic (oceanographic?) likelihood be in relatively shallow water. I don’t think the sub survives very long. In fact, the most useful ploy might be building a bastion and stocking it with decoys.
Comment by DaveK — 5/6/2006 @ 1:06 pm
Wouldn’t the Navy bypass the bastions and bomb the subs’ homebases and/or refueling ports and destroy the subs last if need be? The Iranians seem to have given themselves too many options which could backfire in a crunch — contradicting orders. ED NOTE: The USN can attack support facilities. The question is, how long can Iran’s diesels stay hidden and remain at sea. Like one of the other commenters noted, the subs are a threat. They may be most valuable remaining hidden and out of the fight. Until the USN and RN can prove the subs are sunk the subs remain a potential threat to merchant shipping– and that psychological-economic threat is a plus for the mullahs. I’ve heard several US Navy officers critique the bastion concept. They all say the same thing– we’ll get the subs, though it is a matter of time and risk. For the record, I would not want to be an Iranian submariner, unless my sub was docked in, say, Shanghai?
Comment by James Martin — 5/6/2006 @ 3:19 pm
In addition to shallow waters, the USN has developed various types of remotely-operated mini-subs (analogous to the armed drones used by land forces) and even autonomous mini-subs (analogous to cruise missles). These can scout, attack, and destroy diesel subs deployed or in bastions, or take out mines, relatively cheaply and with much less risk to life
Comment by Gordon Daugherty — 5/6/2006 @ 3:41 pm
The USN has remotely-operated and autonomous mini-subs which can scout and attack mines, enemy ships and subs. A sub sitting in a bastion would seem an easy target for these systems.
Comment by Gordon Daugherty — 5/6/2006 @ 3:45 pm
At one point, we had experimented with satellites looking for submarines. The question is whether a block of water in which a submarine is traveling is different from a block of water in which a submarine is not traveling, and can’ the difference be determined from orbit. Apparently it can, presuming the sub is actually moving. It pushes the water over its path upward slightly and radar can tell the difference. Question: Are there other distant sub detectors? What is the range of, say, an ASROC or its newer equivalent? Can we drop a homing torp in the water and let it stooge around looking for submarines, once a bastion has been discovered” And from what distance–thinking of SAMs and triple A. How big is a bastion and could, say, a pattern of 2000 bombs exploding well below the water have a good probability of killing a sub? Would we be using B2 bombers as subkillers? Subs might move, but bastions can’t.
Comment by Richard Aubrey — 5/6/2006 @ 3:46 pm
According to hazegray.org, the Iranian submarine force consists of 3 Russian-built Kilo-class boats. (http://www.hazegray.org/worldnav/mideast/iran.htm#2) As a rule, these are superb ships, especially in the Persian Gulf environs, but they report that they have “serious operational difficulties.” Nonetheless, their existence as “fleet-in-being” poses a threat that cannot be ignored. The smartest tactic might be to simply submerge them in port, hide them somehow from our surveillance tactics, and watch us go nuts trying to account for them. (See James Cobb’s “Sea Strike” for a fictional account of China doing just that with its ballistic-missile sub.) The scuttling hadn’t occurred to me, but that is another good move for them. It’s just short of a formal act of war, so it might appeal to the mullahs. I keep hoping sanity will, eventually, prevail. I just have my doubts. J.
Comment by Jay Tea — 5/6/2006 @ 4:10 pm
As you say, shallow water makes sub a sitting duck, especially from air strikes. Remeber the Iraqi GPS jammers and how well they worked? Iran will run out of refined petroleum long before the war ends. The new MLRS with guided rockets make an interesting addition to the mix. Long range and pinoint accuracy. Launched from Afghanistan and Iraq, keep the enemy at bay.
Comment by bill — 5/6/2006 @ 4:23 pm
An attempt with any success at all -sinking a sub or other US Navy vessel -would be a hell of a blow to our economy. In your opinion and on a scale of one to ten with one being today and ten being October 2008, where do you think we are today on that scale? ED NOTE: The question isn’t quite clear. Are you asking about the probability of a war with Iraq? If you are, that’s a tough call. We’re already engaged in an economic war, because the mullahs shenanigans help sustain higher prices (the fear preimum). I’m on record –for years– advocating support for Iranian opposition groups. That’s who the mullahs really fear– their own people.
Comment by jim cope — 5/6/2006 @ 4:43 pm
[…] olitics, Middle East/Terrorism at 2:56 pm by Terresa Monroe-Hamilton Courtesy of Austin Bay: Saturday, May 6: Fox is reporting that Russia and China may support the US and UK resolution, as l […]
Pingback by NoisyRoom.net » UPDATED: Iran’s nuclear mullahs and the UN: closer to sanctions?/A look at the Strait of Hormuz — 5/6/2006 @ 4:56 pm
Seems that once a bastion is “hookeed”, verified and labeled as ….some sort of a snapping turtles hole,the secret is up. What use is a bastion when passive sonar is placed like a picket fence in front of its hole. We wait for them to trip the baitand the alarm goes off.
Comment by Airedale — 5/6/2006 @ 5:11 pm
Give the mullahs enough rope and they will hang themselves if they seriously think the world will understand them closing the straits of Hormuz. I’m sure China will have words knowing their economy will be seriously impacted by such a futile last defiant act.. Don’t have to attack Iranian soil to push around and destroy Iranian “vital interests” in Lebanon
Comment by Airedale — 5/6/2006 @ 5:18 pm
Saturday in My Pajamas Media WHEN THAT ECO-DAZED NEIGHBOR GETS HIS ELECTRIC CAR your electric rates are going up. It’s simple small supply vs. bigger demand according to A Blog For All’s It’s Electrifying - It’s Stupifying. ACE FINDS HE CAN NO LONGER BREATHE in the vast clouds…
Trackback by AMERICAN DIGEST — 5/6/2006 @ 5:44 pm
There are things Iran could do short of war. For example, requiring payment for oil in Euros rather than dollars. This would cause the Euro to rise making European goods more expensive possibly resulting in damage to their manufacturing and increase unemployment. At the same time it would cause the value of the dollar to fall resulting in more expensive imports to the US. It other words, it has a negative economic impact to both the US and Europe with little impact on the rest of the world. Cutting the Strait would be a last resort option, in my opinion. I believe we have already witnessed the first resort in today’s news reports of a British helicopter being shot down in Basra. Iran can stir up trouble in Iraq with impunity. There seems to be nothing we can do about it. They are already reportedly shelling the Kurdish region. Iran has several terrorism options that might be difficult to trace directly back to them too. I believe their military people know that direct overt military action would pretty much spell the end of Iran’s armed forces as an effective fighting force. Blocking the Strait will anger more than just the US.
Comment by crosspatch — 5/6/2006 @ 7:37 pm
Iran’s Khuzistan Province (which produces all their oil) has a Shia Arab majority with several separatist leaders whose identity US Marine intelligence knows via Hicks and Associates. Iran’s Kurds would very much like to separate and join Iraq’s Kurds. Iran has already crossed Iraqi borders trying to suppress Kurdish separatists. Unless the US has reasons to limit its operations against Iran, the first things to do would be strip the Persian mullahs from Tehran of these two minority groups, which takes away all their oil, all their strategic depth, and with Shia Arabs also in many areas south of Khuzistan, their Persian Gulf coastline. If the 12th Imam is going to come through, it better be then, because otherwise the Persians will be no more consequential than Kurds have been in the past. This would turn the Long War into a Short War, since after we take those parts of Iran and grant them independence after a time under our tutelage, there’d be no more money for radical Islam. All the terrorists would have to find real jobs.
Comment by Mark White — 5/6/2006 @ 7:44 pm
[…] y. In today’s world, nary a day goes by without Iran making some threat or other to cut off oil supplies to the West. Plus ça change… We are struck by a couple of differences between that […]
Pingback by Dinocrat » Blog Archive » At dawn we slept — we’d like to anyway, if the Iranians would just shut up — 5/6/2006 @ 8:13 pm
Everyone keeps mentioning Irans reaction after sanctions or a strike on its nuclear facilities. I dont see either happening. An embargo would hurt Europeans entirely too much and Russians and the Chinese would bypass it by purchasing iranian oil over land. What no one is talking about is the real solution. The problem is not a nuclear armed Iran. The porblem is the Iranian leadership launching, threatening to launch or selling nukes to others. The solution is not to attack the facilities but the leadership. Wait until they are in some massive cabinet meeting and put 2-3 cruise missiles in the room. That would be enough to mobilize the oposition into taking over.
Comment by Rey — 5/6/2006 @ 8:55 pm
I can’t believe we haven’t sown the area with pieces of equipment that allow imaging of the entire Strait in seconds from above or just outside. If we haven’t, why the hell not? We have the tech. I can’t imagine we would have let that particular area to remain undisturbed by our intelligence efforts.
Comment by Bastiat — 5/7/2006 @ 1:13 am
I totally support the idea of supporting Iranian dissidents, but what does that mean in practice? Is there a Radio Free Iran/ Middle East? I don’t think so. How many offers for Iranian students to come to America are there? What is contact like? How about thru Iraq? … yet, part of me WANTS there to be a lot, but have none of it “above the radar”. So the mullahs don’t stop it. One thing that should be more discussed is “mistakes in Iraq — that won’t be repeated if Iran is invaded.” Such mistakes as not having early prelminary elections to have local rulers. Does Tehran have to be taken, fast, as was Baghdad? What happens if the ports on the coasts are taken, and the oil fields secured — with the oil continuing to be pumped and protected by the US? Can the US really protect shipping against an Iran in an active fight?
Comment by Tom Grey - Liberty Dad — 5/7/2006 @ 7:53 am
You’d better believe that we have the Straits under close surveillance! And we’re tracking those three Kilo-class subs as well. The crew can’t fart without us knowing it… …and Iran is a short hop from Diego Garcia. AND, let’s give the oilfields back to the Kurds and let the Mad MullahsTM pound sand! Just sayin’. Igor
Comment by Igor — 5/7/2006 @ 8:37 am
#16 has my vote. Though it is not likely to happen. Political environment and Intel capabilities seem to lead to solutions involving blunt military force. Intel: not sure it exists to pin point the leaders with confidence. Politics: After failed attempts to steer events with small precision strikes (Clinton: Sudan/Afganistan, Bush:Doha Farm), I’m not sure any politicians, US or other, would choose such a course.
Comment by phillip — 5/7/2006 @ 9:14 am
There is an interesting discussion of the tanker wars of the 1980’s in Tom Clancy and Carl Stiner’s Shadow Warriors, Inside the Special Forces. The SEAL teams protecting teh tankers operated off oil rig servicing barges, where they could launch and retrieve their high speed boats and choppers to chase the Iranian cargo vessels that were being used for laying mines. There is also an interesting discussion of a chopper attack on the Iran Ajr which as observed laying mines. It is an interesting book that covers much of Stiner’s career in some very interesting times.
Comment by Merv Benson — 5/7/2006 @ 9:15 am
I spent a considerable amount of time in the N. Arabian Sea, SoH, and Persian Gulf while in the US Navy aboard an Aegis Cruiser (Anti-sub warfare being one of its primary missions), one of those times being in the late-80’s when Iran was threatening ship traffic. Let me just say that any third-rate military that goes up against the USN’s ASW forces and submarine fleet has NO IDEA what they are getting into. It will be a short and decisive conflict that will amount to little more than a live-fire training exercise on our part. Personally, after years of boring drills and training, i’d love to see a conclusive demonstration of our naval power. It’s time for the carriers to stop getting all the credit…
Comment by mark nelson — 5/7/2006 @ 9:45 am
I keep hearing about the necessity of keeping Iran’s oil flowing. Why? Why not cut all flow by destroying their ability to export it, thereby impacting their economy in a very strong way? Just a few cruise missiles away… Dave
Comment by Dave — 5/7/2006 @ 10:32 am
The ‘payment in Euros vs US dollars’ thing is in fact inane and insane. So of course the Mullahs are already trying to do it. The truth is that they would actually be helping the US economy by doing so- because the too strong dollar has hurt our exports and actually encouraged excessive imports. Europe, in contrast, has been fighting to keep the Euro from rising precisely because they desperately want to encourage exports as a way of proping up their over socialized economy. By weakening the US dollar the Mullahs would be helping the US and hurting Europe.
Comment by Harold Fretheim — 5/7/2006 @ 10:35 am
The selling oil in Euros idea is one the the Mullahs already are trying. It is inane and insane, if they think it will hurt the US. The truth is that a too strong dollar has been one of the causes of our trade deficit- it depresses expeorts and makes imports too cheap. So ‘driving the dollar down’ is actually helping the US. What does upset me about this situation is that we have known about this vulnerability for years- yet have steadily allowed our Navy to decline. We could have kept the Spruance class destroyers around with minimal upgrading and upkeep, we could have built more minesweepers and amphibious vessels, and more carriers and destroyers as well. The Spruances alone are 3i hulls that we now desperately need in this confrontation. But it became too important to shrink the Navy as a way of fighting a war without having to use wartime manpower numbers- an act of utter foolishness that seriously brings into question the competence of the Pentagon and our civilian leadership.
Comment by Harold Fretheim — 5/7/2006 @ 10:45 am
Two points for your consideration: 1) Iran is a net oil exporter, but it is a net importer of refined petrolium products. If it blockades the Straits, America will reciprocate on Irans refined oil products. Iran will then get a taste of what it handed America in 1979 with compound interest. This will threaten the Mullah Regimes hold on power. 2) Iran’s irregular forces will be a bigger threat to the oil tanker traffic in the Straits and the deep draft sea channels of the Persian Gulf than its subs. It has hundreds of Revolutionary Guard speed boats than can carry 1-4 sea mines and an unknown but large number of Dhows that can carry more it can use to seed the deep sea channel with mines. It More importantly, it also has a number of North Korean mini-subs that can fill the same role. I view the “diesal Sub Bastions” concept as an Iranian decoy for its real threat to Persian Gulf oil tanker traffic. Given that the US Navy is again trying to gut its naval mine clearing forces to prevent a new naval “Union” from burrowing in to contest for budget with the the CVA “airdales,” Surface Ship and Submarine unions. It is the perfect “asymetrical warfare” strategy to face the American navy with. It is the naval warfare strategy equivalent of the Iraqi irregular IED war complete with a civlian naval traffic “population” to hide behind.
Comment by Trent Telenko — 5/7/2006 @ 11:15 am
Well, I’ll up my $.02 to $.04…. I suspect that the consequences of the Iranians closing the Straits of Hormuz would be a rather harsh lesson in real-world economics for the mullahs. Yes, the west would hurt economically from this, but the US has a very robust that can withstand a lot of hammering before we face anything like a true depression. And many of the other Western countries have reasonably robust economies as well. As much as the mullahs would like it, a disruption of crude oil supply for a few months would not destroy the West, and especially not the United States. And in spite of the huge windfall the middle eastern oil producers are receiving due to prices spiked by conflict uncertainties, many of them have rather fragile economies and probably haven’t managed to keep much of the windfall profits as a hedge against difficult times. So, what happens if the mullahs close the straits? Well, the price of oil goes way up. The USA starts producing out of its strategic reserves. The US Economy suffers because of very high fuel costs. The European economies suffer worse because of high fuel costs and because they don’t have the huge strategic reserves, and also because their economies really aren’t all that robust. Third world economies suffer badly because they absolutely cannot afford to purchase fuel at the prices that Americans and even some Europeans are willing and able to pay. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait suffer because for a while they cannot sell most of their oil. And Iran? Well, there’s the question. Just how long can the Iranian regieme last without the constant influx of Western hard currency for their oil? The Iranian economy, for all they spend on their Nuke Program, and for all the cash they are getting from oil sales, seems to be pretty fragile. And if the powerful few in the regieme are taking their opportunity to skim off the oil profits, there may be very little in the way of treasury reserves to help out when the oil taps are turned off. Bottom line… If it comes to conflict and shutting down the world’s oil supply (by closing the straits or by other means) Iran and the rest of the third world are going to be the very big loosers. Europe will suffer but get by somehow. Russia will do OK with Oil sales, but really won’t come out ahead because of depressed markets for other Russian goods. China might really be hammered by such a move, since they depend heavily on imported energy, and their economy may be a lot more fragile than it looks. And the good old US of A will suffer another recession, but bounce back stronger and more quickly than virtually any of the other world economies. If Iran wants to force an economic war, they will turn out to be the big loosers. Just another $.02 DaveK ED NOTE: I think the Iranians are fragile, too. As one commenter points out, Iran relies on imports. The commenter mentions refined products. But watch the “media buzz.” We’ll be bombarded and barraged with complaints about “Everest-level” energy prices. I also see a former Navy ASW jock wants to see a sub taken out. I’ve no doubt USN and RN ASW will take out deployed Iranian subs– it’s only a matter of time. I was being facetious about hiding a Kilo-class sub in Shanghai, but if you happen to be an Iranian submariner it’s not really a joke. Despite wargaming the Strait, and wargaming a US/ coalition air campaign on Iran, I’m still not convinced war is the end game.
Comment by DaveK — 5/7/2006 @ 11:32 am
Iran Nuclear Watch: War Games - But Why Worry About Iran? Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad delivers his speech during a gathering of commanders of Basij, a paramilitary volunteers group affiliated with the Revolutionary Guards, in Tehran, Iran, Sunday, May 7, 2006. The Iranian parliament threatened in a…
Trackback by FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog — 5/7/2006 @ 12:52 pm
A simple solution to a disruption in the Oil Supply is to go to 4-day weeks - 12 hour days - and for as many people as possible to work from home. Reduce all travel to necessities. Carpool. My wife and I carpool every day and it has cut our fuel bill in half. I can work from home most every day and this would cut our fuel bill by half again. We could also go purchase a 48 mpg small car and drive the fuel use down even further. I know that many others’ situation is the same. There is tremendous slack in the car-based fraction of the US Fuel Consumption.
Comment by red river — 5/7/2006 @ 4:05 pm
Iran is a big country - imagine California and Nevada combined. It has a very long, trafficable coastline and its interior is range and basin - ideal terrain for fast moving, mobile forces supported by air. The US Air Force, Navy, and Marines are not strategically engaged and have four years of combat behind them. Iran’s forces have not fought in 20 years and Iran lost its last war when Iraq changed from a static front to a manueverist strategy - which the US is very good at. Iran imports most of its POL, food, and consumer goods - and much of the spare parts its economy needs. While its true that Iran can strike Gulf and Overseas targets with both terrorists and its conventional missiles, the backlash in the USA against such a response would provide the political will to carry the battle into Iran’s major cities. In addition, the demonstrated intent of the US in Iraq - setting up a government and handing over the country to Iraqis - provides the credibility to provide the Iranian people a similar chance at controlling their own destiny. The greatest threat is not controlling the Straight of Hormuz - the threat is the use of conventional missiles to strike the Oil and LNG facilities in the Gulf - from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Qatar, etc. Iran used a lot of missiles in its war with Iraq and can do this again. A large salvo at Iraq’s and Saudi Arabia’s pumping stations could put them out of commission for some time. A similar strike at Doha Forward and the larger US Bases in Iraq can also be expected.
Comment by red river — 5/7/2006 @ 4:37 pm
1. Don’t make the mistake of thinking the Iranian regime cares about their own people or economy. Their peasents will suffer through as always and they have enough guns to control the rest. They can last as long as we can during the conflict. Remember, the dilatantes at the NYTimes (MSM/&etc.) will be loudly complaining about the lack of fresh caviar and other delicacies as evidence that a USA political upheaval is upon us - “reporting” which will probably turn out to be more annoying than the recession itself. 2. I, for one, would love to see a real oil shortage. That would frighten our over-coddled Representatives and Senators to finally cut loose on oil exploration (ANWR, Gulf Coast, Calif Coast!). It’s a huge scandal that our own government has created an artificial shortage of a plentiful commodity which drives up prices and funds our enemies. They then insult us with $100 rebates, CAFE’ proclamations and other nonsense. Not unlike the “war on drugs” which has accomplished nothing except making tin-pot S.American bandits rich. 3. I vote for the divide and conquer concept mentioned in an earlier post. Split off the Kurdish portion of Iran and dare the mullahs to take it back. Annex it to the Kurdish portion of Iraq and set up the whole region as its own country. Sort of a nice Thank You to the Turks who wouldn’t help out awhile ago… 4. Then take the oil region of Iran and annex it to the Shiites in Iraq. Let them rename their new country whatever they want. Fully arm them to defend against what’s left of Iran and the Sunni predators. 5. Let the Sunnis rename what’s left of Iraq as their own little country. Or let Bashar Assad take over and deal with them. Perhaps a merger of two destitute ideologies and states would improve them both. 6. Keep the mullahs busy in this fashion so they don’t have time to go nuclear. The best defense is a good offense, and I think we’ve been playing defense for way too long over there…30 years now? Partitioning Iran might release some pent-up reformist energy against the mullahs - who after all - would be responsible for “losing” Iran to the West.
Comment by LarryO — 5/7/2006 @ 5:18 pm
I was an Air Force photo interpreter, working at all levels from squadron to national, from 1965 through 1990. I know we know where every one of their missile sites are (I helped identify and plot quite a few of them), where every tank park is, every airfield, every place they’ve ever deployed those cumbersome “strategic” missiles of theirs, and just about where ever nickel’s worth of military hardware is, every minute of the day. Deploying a squadron of A-10s to Oman would put an end to most of the Iranian threat to the Straits of Hormuz - just declare that ANYTHING not being escorted by a coalition warship is a valid target, and let the birds fly. Convoy ships through the Straits, escorted by a pair of Aegis warships and aircraft, and destroy anything and everything that gets in their way. We’d lose a few ships at first - two or three a most. Then the whipsaw of warplanes against launch points, harbors, ports, and facilities would destroy anything remotely military in appearance, at little cost. The Iranians would soon find they have NO military capability, in the Straits of Hormuz or anywhere else. Bandar Abbas is a target-rich environment to begin working on. Let the ‘iron gulls’ fly!
Comment by Old Patriot — 5/7/2006 @ 7:20 pm
If Iranian oil stopped flowing, would the regime have any friends left? Would China have any reason to support Iran if there was no oil to be had? Would Russia support Iran if purchases of Russian arms and tech stopped? Would the Euros continue to run interference? If the interruption of Iranian supply was permanent enough, wouldn’t the whole calculus change?
Comment by Jim,MtnView,CA,USA — 5/7/2006 @ 11:39 pm
For those who are interested check out Operation Praying Mantis at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Mantis Operation Praying Mantis, this action occurred during April 18, 1988 as a response to the USS Samuel B. Roberts, which was supporting Operation Ernest Will, the re-flagging of Kuwaiti tankers hitting an Iranian mine. After you read the action report keep in mind that this was 18 years ago and the advances in our Navy and Air Forces offensive punch in both weapons and sensors is considerable. I the Iranians are foolish enough to take to sea and attempt to close the straits, they will not have any Navy or shore installations within a matter of hours.
Comment by Billmil — 5/8/2006 @ 3:05 am
What is happening is very similar to the situation in Iraq pre war. There are claims that Iran is ready overthrow the leadership in the same manner as the claims that Iraq will welcome the coalition with open arms. Did not happen in Iraq and will not happen in Iran. As someone who grew up in Iran I can tell you categorically that the Iranian people many whom do not love the leadership and many having a reasonable view of the US will not take kindly to being attacked or threatened and would fight much much harder than Iraq to stop it from happening. The approach needs to be a lot more carrot and a lot less stick, maybe just maybe we can get somewhere then.
Comment by JamesMerson — 5/8/2006 @ 7:43 am
let me tell u something, America is not bold enough to bomb Iran. there r many reasons y Bush cant imagine that kind of insanity because iran is not like iraq.the russians and the chinnese wont allow Bush to spill their milk. moreover every knows America is not as powerful as it was imagined. there r yet to win in Iraq and Afqanistan. ther r scared of North Korea and if America attacks iran then it will be the end of it an we will find it in history pages like the Romans
Comment by sir khalif — 5/8/2006 @ 10:58 am
america can never win a war with iran
Comment by sir khalif — 5/8/2006 @ 11:00 am
This is both interesting a worrysome:
That is the interesting part. Now for the worrysome part:
I am wondering what “good, trusted Muslims” got 30 BILLION euros.
Comment by crosspatch — 5/8/2006 @ 11:49 am
“The approach needs to be a lot more carrot and a lot less stick, maybe just maybe we can get somewhere then.” Current indications are that Iran might be on the verge of a serious financial crises. People are cashing in their bank deposits and buying gold. If there is any significant run on the banks, they could run out of cash. According to one report, the price of steel beams used in construction is up 50% in just the past week. Iran might just be in some serious fiscal trouble. That might do more to get the people on the rampage than anything we can do politically. When people’s life savings become worthless, they tend to get angry.
Comment by crosspatch — 5/8/2006 @ 2:21 pm
It seems to me that with all the sophistication of the underwater passive listening stuff we have in the deep oceans, covering the gulf would be a walk in the park. It would seem prudent to me to have the whole place lit up like a warehouse. If I were commanding a coalition warship in the gulf, I would want to know where every object large than a cuttlefish was. If I were commanding an Iranian warship in the gulf, I would be thinking about that Shanghai option Austin referred to.
Comment by Doug — 5/8/2006 @ 2:53 pm
Hormuz Newz: Why do we play these games? If Iran were to choke off a large fraction of the world’s oil, we should obviously shut down all Iranian ports. Offense is much easier and much more effective than playing their game of defendig our ships. With their ports closed, starvation would follow quickly. An act of war? That’s right. Now, how would they like them onions? Now let’s walk it through. Suppose the mad mullahs accept starvation, and even suppose their people don’t overthrow them. That’s ok. It sends the message to the rest of the world that we are serious about defending our vital interests. And that we won’t be deterred by suicidal maniacs. Do I think our leaders have the stomach for it? I doubt it. But once upon a time, we certainly did. Chcek out Truman’s speech following the fitrst A-bombing. In it he threatens to continue the devastation indefintely until Japan surrenders. Cruel? It got results. And Japan has been such a nice country since then.
Comment by Daniel Sanders — 5/8/2006 @ 3:15 pm
Interesting comments on closing the Straits, but can Iran handle their own front door for their own crude being shut? If anything hurts Iran , it is that. Let’s turn the situation around on Iran. Let’s,for arguments sake, think of the impact on Iran. Do they get their crude to market by pipeline or tanker? Do they have tanker and crude handling facilities on the Gulf of Oman/Arabian Sea portion of their country? Does China have naval assets in the Persian Gulf/Arabian Sea to help guard tankers that bring it oil?Do the Russsians purchase oil from Iran? If so is it delivered by pipeline? What about the positioning of our forces in the region?Afghanistan to the east Iraq on the west and our presence in the surrounding waterways? To me it seems all of this bluster by Iran is par for the course by a country that hasn’t won a war in modern times. Their Arab neighbors can’t even crush the tiny nation of Israel with all of them participating. The Persians may be rattling sabers and acquiring Chinese and Russian weaponry, but we have seen their training and tactics used by various adversaries that have not been very successful. Only when they drag out conflictss and use guerilla tactics do Sino-Russian(Soviet)tactics ever succeed. The goals on confronting Iran would not be to capture the entire country but to irreparably damage it’s oil business,destroy its major military capability(including its phony nuclear warhead construction program) and destroy its Islamic Republican government.This rogue state is only relevent in a circular manner. Its Islamic Government has power due to oil business which it uses to scare other world powers. Its power is derived from selling oil which allows them to build military power, which it uses to scare other powers and dissidents inside and outside the country. This props up its rogueish Islamic Republic.The United States Navy and Air Forces(also at Diego Garcia)have capabilities that would reduce Iran to a nonplayer very quickly. Would China boycott the United States for its actions against Iran?Would Russia pull out of our joint space program? Would Europe side with the Iranians and help them against the United States? If anything, banning Chinese products from the US market,ending cooperation with the Russians in space and pulling our military out of Europe completely, may get some attention from these nations that are collectively threatening our country’s strategic interests.
Comment by Arlie Ray — 5/8/2006 @ 11:07 pm
There are some thin if the legitimate work as a line there. Most are sites and marketing study for the site owner rich, not you. The only thing is true legitimacy Ebay, selling things you already own……..
onlineuniversalwork
Comment by ridwanzero — 12/26/2009 @ 4:29 am