Biggest Iranian Threat - Not Necessarily Nukes

5

Rate this Article: (4.6 Stars | 5 Votes)   Thanks for your rating!

The United States and Iran have been at odds over multiple issues since the fall of the Shah in 1979. The most recent of which is the nuclear program that the United States asserts is for weapons production purposes which the Iranian leadership emphatically denies.

Little has changed with the official U.S. position from the Bush to the Obama administrations on the subject. Secretary Clinton has been just as stern as her predecessor Condoleezza Rice was with issuing warnings to Tehran to cease and desist with its nuclear ambitions.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the clerical authorities that wield ultimate power in Iran have continually stated that the nation pursues nuclear technology for peaceful purposes and has a right to do so in order to produce energy for its population. Evidence to the contrary has surfaced including the discovery of hidden enrichment plants capable of producing weapons grade materials.

The true intention of the Persian leadership isn’t exactly clear. There is much debate on whether Iran wants nuclear weapons to increase its stature and become a true hegemon in the region, or if it wants to actually use them to wage war against its historical enemies, namely Israel. It is also important to note that the Persians and Arabs share a bitter past.

Only recently have certain extreme factions of these two ethnic groups begun to cooperate against a common enemy (Western Culture and the United States). Iran would likely also use a nuclear arsenal in an attempt to intimidate and coerce Saudi Arabia, as Iran sees itself and its Shia dominated populace as the true torch carriers of Islam. And further to exert influence over a weakened Iraq, which Tehran has always viewed as a threat to its quest for regional dominance.

However, as important as the Iranian nuclear issue is on the world stage, there is a bigger and more realistic threat that Iran poses. This is a threat that Iran can make good on immediately, unlike the nuclear sable rattling which will not come to fruition until years in the future if ever.

The Iranian coastline runs along the entire northern side of the strait of Hormuz. This coastline contains some of Iran’s premier military installations and missile sites. The straits are also one of the worlds most vital and vulnerable waterways. This is the only entry and exit point for the Arabian Gulf and it is a main vein for world petroleum transportation. Between sixteen and seventeen million barrels of crude oil or about forty percent of seaborne oil shipments pass through this narrow waterway daily.

It also happens to be the entry and exit point for the U.S. Navy into the Arabian Gulf, which the U.S. uses to strategically project power in the region through the use of its mighty carrier battle groups. These are a permanent fixture in the Arabian Gulf.

If tensions escalate or the U.S. takes aggressive action against Iran (to eliminate a nuclear threat), it is assumed that Iran will instantly attempt to shut down the straits. This course of action has been directly stated by the commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard in 2008. Many wonder how the Iranians could accomplish this given that the U.S. Navy maintains a constant presence in the area and has a military installation nearby in Bahrain.

It is very true that the Iranian Navy could never stand against the U.S. gun for gun, missile for missile in a blue water fight. But this would be a littoral fight and on the Iranian coast which changes the rules of the game. This fight would be difficult for the United States for the same reason an insurgent force has been able to wage a campaign against the U.S. Army in Afghanistan for over eight years. This would be a fight in difficult enemy territory, involving a style of warfare that the U.S. doesn’t traditionally train for, and would allow low tech options to inflict heavy damage to high value assets.

Specifically, the Iranians would likely attempt to use mine warfare to neutralize the American warships. Mines would keep U.S. high value assets like aircraft carriers far away and would keep new forces from entering and trap current ones in the Gulf. One mine that costs in the thousands of dollars to manufacture could potentially sink an asset that cost billions of dollars to build.

The Iranians would also likely use swarm tactics launched from multiple destinations on its coastline involving many small boats armed with RPG’s, heavy machine guns, and portable missiles to attack U.S. warships in the area and keep them at bay. U.S. warships were designed to detect and engage larger enemy ships or aircraft at long distances with missiles and large guns. They are at a disadvantage against numerous fast small boats at close range.

Effectively closing the straits to maritime traffic or the even more disastrous sinking of a major warship in the area would wreak havoc in many arenas. It would force the Pentagon to engage in a nasty littoral war in a confined area. But it would also rattle the world financial system as the price of oil and energy would likely skyrocket due to feared shortages and global markets would be sent into a panic. The Iranians know they could use this as leverage against the U.S.

The U.S. Navy keeps a fleet of four minesweepers in Bahrain on the ready in case this nightmare scenario unfolds. It also trains regularly with other minesweeping forces from nearby nations (Saudi Arabia among them) to keep skills sharp. Ships arriving to theater also conduct training with sailors on the best practices to fend off small boat attacks.

As most of the news and controversy involving Iran focuses intensely on the nuclear issue there is another clear threat that Iran poses.  And the threat of closing the straits of Hormuz seems much more plausible in the near term than an Iranian nuclear offensive.  The fallout from closing this waterway could also have far reaching and long lasting global impacts both militarily and economically.

Contributor:   Nick Younker

Nicholas E. Younker, originally from Kansas, is a graduate of the United States Naval Academy where he received a Bachelor of Science in Economics.  Following his time in Annapolis, he served six years as a Surface Warfare Officer in the United States Navy and has had assignments in Japan, Bahrain, and Italy.  During this time he worked extensively with foreign governments and NATO.  He participated in Operation Enduring Freedom in the North Arabian Gulf while serving aboard USS HARPERS FERRY (LSD 49) and at MCMDIV31.  He also served as a Tactical Action Officer aboard USS WASP (LHD 1) during the Israel-Lebanon conflict of 2006 and participated in the evacuation of American citizens and humanitarian effort in Beirut.  His warfare specialties include amphibious warfare, mine warfare, and joint task force (JTF) operations.  He now serves as Senior Editor of the Institute for Defense and Government Advancement.   

You Should Check Out:

The Next Nuclear Threat – Burma?

Can Turkey Defuse Iran's Nuclear Challenge?

Report Abuse   edoctor 02/10/2011 1:40:13 PM EST We says we need to go to war against Iran? We should do to them what they are doing to us, including supporting groups in Iran that are working to violently overthrow the regime. We should work to assassinate their leaders, destabilize their economy and infrastructure. Right now Iranian leaders suffers no direct consequences when their proxies kill Americans or anyone else. Only when the Iranian leadership are made to pay for their murderous nihilism will they let us live in peace. Replies (0) Post a reply Sign in or Sign up to post a comment

Report Abuse   callen3434 06/26/2010 6:12:55 PM EDT Just my opinion, but I think the US does not have the military bandwidth to take on Iran, nor should we. The US strategy has for many decades been to have the reserve to fight 1 and 1/2 wars and we are clearly already pushing that limit. In addition to the existing two wars in Afganistan and Iraq, we have threats in North Korea and Iran, and the possibly Burma, Somalia and Yemen. These third world semi-powers are a threat because they breed terrorists who can strike our homeland. Like it or not, we are practically in a world war against nations who will strike any other nation that enjoys food, energy and a democracy. Al-queda will not rest until they inflict suffering for who-knows-what reason. They simply like to inflict pain and they are financed to do so. What else can their people's armys do for a living? Our strategy must include their distruction in their homeland, not ours. Again, just my opinion. Replies (0) Post a reply Sign in or Sign up to post a comment

Report Abuse   edoctor 05/13/2010 12:38:52 PM EDT There is ample evidence that Iran is providing support for insurgents in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere in the world. What surprises me is that we're handling Iran with kid gloves while letting their proxies have it with both barrels. Despite the challenges of confronting an evil regime anywhere in the world, it doesn't seem like we're doing much to counter Iran's support for terrorism. Replies (0) Post a reply Sign in or Sign up to post a comment

Report Abuse   ioannis58@gmail.com 05/11/2010 3:22:06 PM EDT It is important to also note that the Iranian and Arab power struggle is not only regarding oil, money and regional power but about the hearts and souls of 1.2 plus billion Muslim worldwide. I believe that this is the main prize Replies (0) Post a reply Sign in or Sign up to post a comment

Report Abuse   jason9mm@hotmail.com 05/07/2010 10:12:46 AM EDT I think they could close the straits for a short period of time, butr against our power projection capabilities we could restore transit. But transit to what? Iran could damage and destroy oil facilities throughout the gulf which would take months to repair. Then we would have to buy alot of oil from our dear friend.....Putin Replies (0) Post a reply Sign in or Sign up to post a comment