For the past two weeks Iran has committed a sizable portion of its military to rehearsing how it would go about closing the Hormuz Strait. For the most part, strategic analysts yawned, and declared Iranian blustering to be an empty threat. Judging from the oil markets’ relatively muted reaction, it appears that most of the folks who bet big money on what happens in the Persian Gulf share this opinion. So what is this consensus based on? First and foremost, it relies on the belief that the Iranian leadership will make a number of rational calculations and decisions concerning their own and their country’s future. Personally, I am not sure of the wisdom of betting on the rationality of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and a few globally disconnected mullahs.
As the “Iran is bluffing” crowd sees it, Iran does not the possess the military wherewithal to close the strait: disrupt traffic, yes; close it, no. Everyone also assumes that Iran’s leaders understand that closing the strait would mean that Iran’s own oil shipments would cease. As Iran’s oil exports account for a almost a fifth of its GDP and fund 60 percent of its national budget, even a temporary closing of the strait would be an economic catastrophe. Moreover, as Iran still relies on imports for much of its refined fuel, any closure of the strait would rapidly shut down huge segments of its non-oil economy.
Advertisement
As the Wall Street Journal pointed out last week, however, these Iranian exercises closely coincide with “the U.S. and Europe at last mustering the gumption to target [with sanctions] Iran’s multibillion-dollar oil industry.” If sanctions do put a serious crimp in Iran’s oil and gas exports, the mullahs may decide there is little difference between the West’s closing off their access to export revenues and their doing it themselves — except that in the latter circumstance the rest of the world would share Iran’s pain. As the political and economic situation in Iran moves from dismal to catastrophic, one can easily envision internal scenarios where closing the Strait of Hormuz begins to appears as a rational option.
It may be true that, even if Iran wanted to close the strait, its military, when confronted by the U.S. Fifth Fleet, would be incapable of doing so. One should not, however, be sanguine about this being the case. Iran has hundreds of ballistic missiles, three Kilo-class submarines, and a host of fast attack boats (armed with anti-ship missiles). There is no end to the mischief a clever opponent can make with such an arsenal. For instance, in the 2002 Millennium Challenge war game, retired Marine lieutenant general Paul Van Riper, playing the Iranian side’s commander, caused so much damage to the U.S. and allied fleet that the game had to be stopped. Only after the fleet was resurrected from the bottom of the sea was the game able to continue.
Even this, however, misses the point. To create massive global economic dislocation, the Iranians do not have to keep the strait closed or even close it at all. All they have to do is make it difficult for ships to transit. On a daily basis approximately 15 supertankers make their way through the strait, carrying over 15 million barrels of oil — a sixth of the world’s supply. Any real threat to these shipments would see insurance rates skyrocket, assuming that shipping companies, captains, and crews even wanted to risk the trip.
Moreover, if the Iranians did try to close the strait, it is unlikely they would limit themselves to just that action. Rather, we could expect Iran to sow mines throughout the Persian Gulf, particularly just outside ports and within the shipping lanes. Saudi Arabia would probably have to endure a barrage of hundreds of missiles, most of them aimed at oil-shipment chokepoints, such as the stabilization plant at Abqaiq. These would be closely followed by as many air sorties as Iran’s 100-plus attack aircraft could launch before they were overwhelmed by U.S. airpower. All of this would be catastrophic to the global economy, and we have not even considered what damage Iran’s special forces or its sponsored terrorist groups might do. It is also worth noting that most of Saudi Arabia’s oil-rich areas are populated by Shias, who may have some sympathy for their co-religionists in Iran. Finally, we have not even considered the possibility that Iranian conventional forces, taking advantage of our withdrawal from Iraq, might move into Basra to interrupt Iraqi, and possibly Kuwaiti, oil shipments.
So, what happens if Iran does strike with its entire arsenal of options? For one thing, oil immediately spikes to $200 a barrel, and the price of gas tops $15 or $20 a gallon. This, in turn, will snuff out the nascent global economic recovery, and we can count on a sharp recession. How fast and decisively U.S. and other world leaders react will decide the deepness and length of this recession. A rapid release of the strategic petroleum reserves would soon bring down oil prices. Moreover, the world has enough oil in strategic reserves to make up expected losses from Iranian attacks for a little over a year. The United States, therefore, has that long to both demolish Iranian offensive capabilities and repair the damage. In short, if the world acts decisively, an Iranian attack would cause a severe, but short-lived, economic dislocation.
Of course, everything becomes harder if Iran possesses a nuclear weapon. On the other hand, everything becomes much easier if the West strikes first.
— Jim Lacey is the professor of strategic studies at the Marine Corps War College. He is the author of The First Clashand Keep from All Thoughtful Men. The opinions in this article are entirely his own and do not represent those of the Department of Defense or any of its members.
There is no doubt Iran could cause a whole range of unfortunate consequences, from the merely annoying to the truely catastrophic, if they decide to act on their threat to close the strait.
However, it seems far more likely any action they would take would be indirect, through their proxies (such as Hamas), scattered through out the region. Any direct military action, such as described in the article, would lead to the destruction of much of their military infrastructure, a major source of power for the Mullahs, perhaps fatally loosening their hold on control of the country.
Clinging to power is what regimes of this type do best (see Libya, Syria, etc.). Using their rather limited military forces in this manner would be seem to be their last resort, not their first.
you wrote "Clinging to power is what regimes of this type do best (see Libya, Syria, etc.)."
Uh, not always (see Taliban circa 2001, see Saddam Hussein and sons circa 2003)
Besides, you're arguing on the premise of a 'reasonable outlook' held by the mullahs of Iran - the shakiness of said premise which is the initial point of Jim's article.
Predicting rational behavior from irrational actors is a little irrational in and of itself.
Almost makes one yearn for the 'good ol' days' of the Cold War, eh? At least the adversaries then held a desire to continue their own mortal lives/life styles, and factored the continuation of same into their strategy).
I agree my analogy might not be exactly on point (although Sadam did manage to last more than a decade after the first Gulf War).
I do believe, however, that whatever action they take (or don't take) will be in furtherance of their continued rule over the people of Iran, since remaining in power is the only way for them to reach their goal of a new Caliphate.
Much better to be on offense than defense. A strategic concept that liberals embrace in internal politics but abhor in international politics.
Yes, war is horrible. But to not act to defend one's own self-interest is to be at the mercy of others acting in their own self interest.
Keeping others from acting in their own self interest must be the goal of the imagined Department of Peace, headed by Secretary of Peace Dennis Kucinich.
Of course, getting other countries to stop acting in their own self interest is as likely as stopping the seas from rising.
The last paragraph says it all. This Iranian sabre-rattling is most assuredly aimed at the loosening of sanctions. Just like their fellow Axis of Evil brothers in North Korea do every so often in exchange for food and fuel to get their leaders confortably through another winter. With Nukes, the Iranians wiould be in a much stronger position than the Koreans with their location and stated intentions. If I can see it, why can't Ron Paul?? Think about being beholden to Iran every time you want to get a tank of gas.
Who would we (the U.S.) be without our enemies, real and imagined? Who would Iran be without its enemies real and imagined?
Anyway I'm glad we can afford to go to war with Iran. With our forces rested and ready and plenty of money in our war treasury I just know we can knock these pesky people out in no time. PIECE OF CAKE. Right? And best of all, there will be no consequences for the future and we might even be able to get some oil out of it. That could be our reward as the forces of good (the U.S.) vs the demon-possessed agents of Satan in Iran. Right!!
The only way such a conflict works out for the West would require an overwhelming, sudden and sustained campaign against a whole, wide ranging, package of Iranian tragets. Unfortunately, I don't see the current US leadership capable of anything other than a a 'limted' message sending, slow, measured, 'esclation' effort. Stock in trade for the Ivy League Smart Set folks for many generations. So...any current, likely, US response will just make things worse, if that is possible.
Very awkward political (both diplomatic and military) questions need to be addressed in any direct military confrontation with the present administration of Persia:
1. Diplomatically are we prepared to help form and support an Iranian Government in Exile?
2. Is the present administration of Persia in material non-compliance with their obligations as a non-nuclear state under the NPT?
3. If the present administration of Persia is in material non-compliance with their obligations under the NPT have they forfeited any protection they enjoy(ed) as a non-nuclear power?
4. If the answer to both of the above questions is affirmative, should we consider a) publically saying that the present administration of Persia has forfeited the protections afforded a non –nuclear state under the NTP and b) make it clear that in the final analysis we will do whatever it take to prevail at a minimum cost in American blood and treasure in the event of a conflict?
Very awkward political (both diplomatic and military) questions need to be addressed in any direct military confrontation with the present administration of Persia:
1. Diplomatically are we prepared to help form and support an Iranian Government in Exile?
2. Is the present administration of Persia in material non-compliance with their obligations as a non-nuclear state under the NPT?
3. If the present administration of Persia is in material non-compliance with their obligations under the NPT have they forfeited any protection they enjoy(ed) as a non-nuclear power?
4. If the answer to both of the above questions is affirmative, should we consider a) publically saying that the present administration of Persia has forfeited the protections afforded a non –nuclear state under the NTP and b) make it clear that in the final analysis we will do whatever it take to prevail at a minimum cost in American blood and treasure in the event of a conflict?
Closing the Straights is basically instituting a blockade on the rest of the world. A blockade is usually considered an act of war. They close the straights and they have declared war. I don't believe that they will do it until they have a nuke. I also don't believe that there will be any true sanctions against their oil.
Let's think about this. If we totally shut them down we take about 5% of the world's oil off the market. What will that do to the price? We are also at the start of winter. People might me able to modify their driving habits but heat is important for life.
What we need to tell the Iranian leadership is really simple. Get back in your kennels, join the rest of civilization or we will arm the Iranian people. Obama has done a pretty good job of arming the Mexican Narco-terrorists. He helped out the Libyan terrorists, why can't we arm the Iranian citizens? Oh, that's right. The terrorists in Iran run the government. We wouldn't want to cause them any pain.
Well put - it would be a "blockade on the rest of the world", and I don't think China would stand for that any more than we would. It could result in an interesting coalition of oil-consuming nations, determined to finally stop the madness in Tehran.
Iran declared war on the US in 1979 when they invaded our sovereign soil, our embassy in Tehran. Our failure to respond to that act appropriately as well as to the numerous other acts of war they have negaged in against us to include providing explosively formed projectile IEDs to groups in Iran to use against our troops has only encoouraged the Iranians to escalate.
The time for Iranian action to close the Strait of Hormuz was when Barack Hussien Obama was mouthing the oath of office. The political realities of an election year guarantee that the strait remain accessible. The question is if Iran acts now, what will the "world" (i.e. the United States) do in response? Will it be a hand slap or a decisive military action to cripple Iran's ability to bully the region?
The Strait of Hormuz is pretty narrow and tankers do not traverse it very quickly. Are we really sure that we could keep the straits open with only air and naval power? In order to ensure safe transit, I find it difficult to believe we would not require substantial ground forces to seize the surrounding land from which Iranian missile forces could attack.
Which would then require a maximum effort to unseat the Iranian regime as a simple take and hold strategy would lock us into an open-ended conflict unlikely to be politically supportable.
If attacked we would be within our rights to respond, but how long would China sit by while we sit astride its oil lifeline?
Bottom line is this is not likely to be as easy or cost-free as some would have us believe.
Of course, were Iran to possess nuclear weapons, the task would then become much more difficult. Which is why they are so hell-bent on acquiring them.
This administration didn't have brains or (the other part) enough to lay cruise missiles on top of the photo session the Iranians held of our captured drone. What makes anyone think they have (see above) enough to react powerfully if Iran closes the strait, let alone take pre-emptive action?
Remember our underwhelming response to Iran's plans to bomb a Saudi diplomat in a Washington DC restaurant? Be careful, Iran, or Obama will certainly taunt you a *second* time.
There are two extremes with regard to military action against Iran and both are wrong.
The "we'll prevail easily" crowd is wrong for the reasons Mr. Lacey stated and more. Iran also has an arsenal of conventionally armed missiles they can rain down on our bases in the region. They can also unleash many terrorist assets against us and Israel.
On the other hand, the "we must not do anything" crowd is also wrong. For all the dangers and uncertainties of military action, we should remember Gen Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson's dictum to "never take council of your fears." In other words, don't let the dangers and uncertainties paralyze your strategic thinking. Go into it with eyes wide open, but if you have to, do go in.
We do have the ability to shoot those conventional missiles down. We can sink their entire fleet the minute it leaves port and clear the skies of their planes relatively quickly AND blowup the launch sites and every radar they turn on.
AND there is the little matter of us having thousands of nuclear weapons.
The only issue is whether or not Obama would actually let us respond. THAT should be the only worry anyone has here.
What if Iran already has half a dozen deliverable nukes? What if they had them for 20 years (obtained from the Former Soviet Union), and Iran's current nuke efforts are merely about Iran developing the capability to build their own superpower-sized arsenal? The only answer will be to strike first, and make sure we hit the real targets.
