Iran and the Oil Weapon
An Iranian government spokesman warned of an oil crisis if the US and Europe push for UN sanctions because of Iran’s nuclear program. The Persian Journal website speculated that Iran was considering closing the Straits of Hormuz. The Straits of Hormuz connect the Persian Gulf to the Indian Ocean.
The Strait is a bottleneck for oil tankers. From 35% to 40% of the world’s crude oil shipments passes through Hormuz. In 1988 Joe Balkoski and I collaborated on a wargame titled “Light Division: The Straits of Hormuz.” 3W (World Wide Wargaming) published the game, and it is now out of print.
The game is still a useful tool for considering US, Western, and for that matter, Arab and Eastern (Japanese?) military options if Iran closes the Straits. Yes, you could see a Coalition of the Industrialized form quite quickly if Iran tries to close the Straits of Hormuz using mines, anti-ship missiles, artillery, or any suite of weapons.
I don’t think Iran will try it– such talk is huff and bluff.
But geography can be tantalizing and sometimes fanatics move from words to war. Perhaps a few of Tehran’s more belligerent mullahs believe the US is spread thin by Iraq and can’t handle closure of the Straits. These men are wrong. The US Navy isn’t tied down in Iraq. Supported by naval and air forces, a Marine brigade and an Army airborne brigade can take Hormuz.
Moreover, risk-taking Iranian mullahs fascinated by the Hormuz Option had better poll of their own military commanders and get an honest assessment of morale. Revolutionary Guards attacking US forces will have a very short life expectancy — and that will leave fewer thugs to oppress the populace in Tehran. The Iranian people know what’s going on in the world, and the big story (one even the NY Times now appreciates) is the freedom’s surge in the Middle East. Put US troops in Hormuz and presto, Free Iran has a toehold.
Threatening to choke the world’s oil pipeline is one thing– the threat begets headlines, spikes oil prices, expresses a certain degree of macho bravado, why, it might even appeal to that narrow spectrum of humanity that hates SUVs more than dictators. But actually carrying out this threat is foolish politics. For the Iranian mullahs it amounts to tying their own nooses. The Straits won’t choke– they will.
“….such talk is huff and bluff.” Hope you’re right. But these are the same people that did the diplomatically unimaginable by invading our embassy in Tehran in 1979. When you’re a fanatic you don’t care either about decorum nor care much how many nations are you getting riled up against you.
Comment by ex-FSO (R) — 3/6/2005 @ 5:11 pm
I remember that game. Typical for that time and a clean design. Some say that military action against Iran for any reason would only unite the Iranians against us. I have the strong suspician any military action on our part against an Iranian move would serve as a signal to the Iranian people to rise up against the mullahs. Iranian rebels with Coalition air support. Beyond the initial forces used to open up the Straits of Hormuz we may not require any American ground forces to liberate the country.
Comment by Alan Kellogg — 3/6/2005 @ 5:38 pm
I’m curious though, most of the fomenting is among the youth in the larger cities. What of the rural areas with no contact with the outside world outside of the news that is piped in via the Taliban and Al-Qaeda operatives of the Iranian Mulla Mob?
Comment by mdmhvonpa — 3/6/2005 @ 5:52 pm
For some reason my trackbacks to you are bouncing. I’ve included this post in my morning run-down (as well as Wretchard’s reactions). Ping!
Comment by Dave Schuler — 3/7/2005 @ 10:10 am
We’ve got links to some chilling video of various anti-American sentiments in Iran on The Daily Demarche now. Are these crowds for real, or are they simply afraid to not turn out and cheer? Don’t know, but I hope it is the latter.
Comment by Dr. Demarche — 3/7/2005 @ 10:22 am
Lots of Iranians are tied to the stsus quo powers, lots of people are tied to status quo powers in most cases. The ability of a regime to impose drastic oppression on the rest of the population is not uncommon. Indeed the belief among many who now hopefully look at the significant dissent was tat if Carter had not discouraged the shah from suppressing a populist uprising (the mullahs were simply one faction, that best organized to take power) that the revolution could have been prevented or delayed. So hoping for internal uprisings to subdue threatened fanatics with considerable powers is just hoping. Not the kind of thing to base policy on. Incidently the threat to the Straits is primarily mines. We have some sweepers, but not enough. certainly traffic can be mantained, but it could be significantly slowed, insurance costs would rise. The world economy could take a beating. The Iranians also have the capacity to cause considerable mischief in Iraq and Afghanistan. So the consequences could be very expensive. Southern Iraq is a million plus barrels a day and critical supply lines to the main forces. Underground cells in the Shia areas of Saudi Arabia (where much of the oil and infrastructure is) are possible. What events would actuall cause Iran to trigger their full aggressive capacity is uncertain. But like North Korea they may if they so chose be able to inflict significant havoc. We can’t write it off, we need to prepare for it. This downplaying of threats and potentially problems subverts us.
Comment by H Lee — 3/7/2005 @ 11:55 am
The mullahs trying to cut the Straits of Hormuz means also their own exports being stopped by the USN. What effect will that have on them, especially when they then lack the bucks to satisfy disgruntled factions in their own country? They will support deniable covert guerillas in Iraq but make an overt act of war against the US? I think not. They know Dubya is no Carter. As for overstretch, in WWII the US sent troops overseas and they stayed there for the duration or till they were casualties. We are fighting in Iraq using essentially a pseudopeace-time deployment rotation scheme. By extending the tours of the troops we could free up assets to deal with Iran. That’s unpleasant for the troops involved, but it could be done.
Comment by Michael Lonie — 3/7/2005 @ 10:30 pm
Much depends on if the mullahs are harking back to the “old days”. If, for some strange reason, they think Bush will react like Carter did during the hostage taking… they might try and pull it off. They’ll learn their mistake quickly. What I’m wondering is - how in touch with reality are the leaders of Iran? At the very least, the events in Iraq should make them stop and think just a bit.
Comment by Teresa — 3/8/2005 @ 9:42 am
While I don’t know what will happen, I want to caution those who think that the Iranians will act irrationally. These people are a lot of things, but, irrational is not one of them. I would expect many indirect provocations that are difficult to pin on them with certainty. A direct confrontation that they know that they would lose? I don’t think so.
Comment by noprisoners — 3/8/2005 @ 12:33 pm
It appears to me that many of you are still being bent over by this idea that the United States can go into a nation with air strikes and expect an uprising to ensue. Many of you don’t understand anything about Iranian Nationalism. They would never view that kind of action as one against the religious authorities. It would be seen as an attack on the sovereign nation of Iran and it’s people. I would have figured that all the militaristic Faux News junkies out there would’ve got this idea out of their head after it failed in Iraq. The sentiments of hatred towards America have been the same since the Islamic Revolution. They are sentiments that describe the people’s feelings towards the foreign policy that has made the US a notorious and unapologetic juggernaut in the international scene. You have to understand that this is a sentiment…a feeling…a belief in justness. If the people who took part in the revolution had the same ideals as the Taliban and Al-Qaeda they would have just killed the hostages…It’s just that simple. All this crap about trying to justify coercive measures makes me physically ill. It honestly frightens me that people in this country, the United States in which I am a citizen, can have so little regard for all their administrations misdoings abroad. As for mdmhvonpa’s comments earlier: “What of the rural areas with no contact with the outside world outside of the news that is piped in via the Taliban and Al-Qaeda operatives of the Iranian Mulla Mob?” I am sorry sir, but you have a terribly conflated image of the Middle East. If me, as an Iranian, telling you that is not enough then try looking back at all the claims the U.S. made about Iraq’s ties to Al-Qaeda…then call the religious authority a “talibani Mulla Mob” again and see how of your foot can really fit in your mouth. Lastly, please I repeat….PLEASE do not insult people’s intelligence by trying to say that by striking Iran by air we would be taking a step towards “spreading democracy in the Middle East”. This is the biggest load of hypocritical neo-conservative Republican crap I have ever heard. These people are sitting here in this country fighting to keep a strict interpretation of CHRISTIAN morality and values engrained in the American judicial system, but yet they denounce a theocratic government elsewhere. It doesn’t make any sense, and I hope that by reading this maybe somebody will realize that the public is being turned around and bent over on FAR TOO MANY of these critical issues.
Comment by Amir Esmaeili — 3/29/2005 @ 12:04 pm
adipex The freest form of government is only the least objectionable form. The rule of the many by the few we call tyranny: the rule of the few by the many is tyranny also; only of a less intense kind. by
Trackback by adipex — 3/30/2005 @ 12:14 pm
Listen guys…We all like random Emerson and Thoreau quotes, but the fact is that Americans live in a society that is different in it’s idea of moral law than the Islamic Republic. Whether you choose to realize it or not… America’s law is based on Judeo-Christian law… PERIOD. The liberalization of this country, much to the disdain of the conservatives crack-pots in this country, has come because America is a grounds for the convergence of many cultural/ethnic/racial groups. A strict interpretation of Christian law wouldn’t hold up today. Changes are going to happen over time, regardless of the reactionary forces. IRAN IS NO DIFFERENT. If you people really purport to support change in the Islamic Republic then you must wait for it. It has only been 26 years since the revolution. If some of people out there would actually sit down and look at the time it took before the American Revolution and when everybody actually reached some level of REAL liberty and freedom it was more than 180 years. You can’t just expect to snap your fingers and say, “Yeah, this isn’t working out. Your idea of government doesn’t really suit our interests all that well. We need to go in there and dismantle the regime.” It is going to take time… The FIRST reformist president just finished his last term in the country. That is a HUGE step for the country. If America tries anything against the country it is only going to start all over again. “Installing” governments doesn’t work Pinochet, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (Shah of Iran), Noriega…. DO THESE NAMES SOUND FAMILIAR?! These are all people the US help put into power. Iran has some of the most eminent physicists in the world. This is a country that is trying to provide clean energy for its people in a time when concerns about pollution in major metropolitan areas are becoming a great issue. To deny the nation of Iran its right to develop a viable clean energy program is only to further expose the hypocritical self-serving nature of this country’s international policy.
Comment by Amir Esmaeili — 4/1/2005 @ 1:48 pm
[…] production (both directly through production, and indirectly through it’s position on the Straights of Hormuz) This entry was posted on Thursday, Ja […]
Pingback by Murky View » Blog Archive » Assessing the Iranian Threat — 1/26/2006 @ 12:55 pm
26 years is a long time. They should have changed by now.
Comment by Leeza Chramfield — 5/9/2006 @ 10:34 pm