More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Amb. Marc Ginsberg

GET UPDATES FROM Amb. Marc Ginsberg
 

Gunboat Diplomacy: A Maritime Field Guide to the Straits of Hormuz Crisis

Posted: 01/06/12 03:22 PM ET

You may be about to feel more pain at the pump courtesy of the atomic ayatollahs' latest gunboat diplomacy to counter the impact of the November 8 IAEA report revealing the extent of Iran's nuclear bomb making ambitions.

To guide you through the growing crisis, here is my Maritime Field Guide to all things "Hormuz."

Tehran is actually using one of its last trump cards to undertake the naval equivalent of a "Hail Mary Pass" to thwart tightening economic sanctions against it. Late December '11, Iran's Naval Commander Habibollah Sayyari issued yet another in a long line of Iranian threats to torpedo oil traffic through the strategic Straits of Hormuz if the European Union keeps to its plan to stop importing Iranian oil (Iran accounts for 8.5% of oil imported by the EU). To add more flair to the threat, for the past ten days Iran has been flaunting its military might in the Persian Gulf during Velyat 90 naval exercises which included a test fire of a new surface-to-surface anti-ship cruise missile termed the "Ghader" ("Capable" in Farsi) and a surface-to-air missile dubbed the "Mehrab" ("Altar" in Farsi) .

Just as Tehran hoped, the sabre-rattling accompanied by souped-up videos of the exercises spiked world oil prices to over $114 a barrel for a few days ("...easier than drinking water from a glass," proclaimed the boastful Habibollah). Then just to ratchet up the temperature higher Iran's official news agency blustered that its parliament would take up legislation to prevent American warships from traversing the Straits following a warning from Iran's Revolutionary Guards Commander that Iran would prevent the USS John C. Stennis -- one of the 5th Fleet's aircraft carriers, from returning to the Persian Gulf.

Is Iran bluffing? Hard to tell. No matter the cost to its own oil exports revenue, Tehran may be calculating that a limited shooting war in the Straits would wreak such economic havoc on world oil prices that the global impact would thwart designs by either the U.S. or Israel to attack its nuclear installations given the predicted outcry as prices skyrocket at the pump.

1. The Skinny on the Straits

Approximately 35% of world oil supplies pass through the 34 mile wide waterway each day (16.5 million barrels loaded on about 15 supertankers departing from Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Iran). Technically, ships must enter the waters near Iran and Oman to traverse the Straits lying between the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea. The passage has two north-south shipping lanes to separate northbound and southbound tanker traffic, even though there has been the occasional collision. The Straits derive their name from the Persian God Hormoz.

2. Tanker Wars & Ongoing Confrontations

During the Iran-Iraq War (1984-1988), each side attacked the other's oil installations and tanker traffic in the Persian Gulf, reducing oil exports through the Straits by 25%. Neutral oil tankers were also attacked by each of the combatants and the threat to global oil exports from the Gulf became acute, which threatened to bring in all of the other Gulf states into the conflict. The Iranians threatened to choke off the Straits of Hormuz to oil tankers, and even attacked a Saudi tanker in Saudi territorial waters which led to a dog fight between the Saudi and Iranian air forces (the Saudis got the better of the fight). In March, 1987, The U.S. Navy started escorting re-flagged Kuwaiti tankers, and in one engagement Iraq (not Iran) actually severely damaged the USS Stark on May 17, 1987 killing 37 sailors and wounding 21 more. In 1988, the U.S. Navy waged a one-day battle against Iranian naval forces in the Straits in retaliation for the mining of the USS Samuel B. Roberts.

When Iran threatened to block the Straits, the U.S. threatened to declare war against Iran if it dared to do so. The Tanker War resulted in damage to 546 commercial ships and killed 430 merchant marine men.

After the so-called Tanker War, the U.S. and Iran have had at it often in the Straits. In December, 2007 and January, 2008, a game of "chicken" between the 5th Fleet and Iranian naval speedboats broke out when Tehran began menacing U.S. ships in the Persian Gulf, although there were no hostilities as a result.

3. Does Iran Possess the Military Clout to Disrupt Shipping Through the Straits?

There is a big difference between Iran's ability to disrupt shipping temporarily and its ability to plug the Straits completely for extensive periods of time (nevertheless, the former would still have major economic impact on oil prices as well as shipping insurance costs).

Keeping the Straits open in the face of a concerted Iranian attack would be no cakewalk. Iran, with a coast line of 1,300 miles littoral to the Straits, has dramatically increased its naval assets around the Straits to counter the U.S. 5th Fleet. It has a major naval base and its key submarine base near the Straits. Iran also possesses thousands of sea mines, wake homing torpedoes, the aforementioned cruise missiles, and possibly more than a thousand small Zolfaqar speedboat Fast Attack Craft and Fast Inshore Attack Craft which can reach 80 mph, which already carries the Nasr anti-ship missile. Iran already possesses armed drones and mobile shore-based missile batteries ringing the area around the Straits. Iran's are also masters of the suicide naval and air mission. In other words, it has the means to make life miserable in the strategic waterway.

4. And That Price of Oil?

If Iran (which itself exports 2 million barrels a day through it and derives 85% of its hard currency) were to block the Straits, the price of world oil would likely rise $50 a barrel (to over $150 a barrel based on today's Brent crude baseline prices), pushing the price of a gallon of unleaded regular gas well over $4 in no time. This is so even though 85% of the oil and natural gas that flows through the Straits goes to China, Japan, India, and South Korea. Increased shipping insurance premiums would keep those elevated oil prices even higher. With Libyan crude exports beginning to reach the market and promised increased in Saudi oil exports to cushion the loss of Persian Gulf oil exports, prices may not reach the OMG level, but no one knows for sure. The EU will unveil its phased oil embargo on January 30... stay tuned.

5. What to Do?

a. Empty posturing or not, Iran's threat has to be taken seriously and Iran's unpredictability has to be taken seriously. Iran has no legal claim to the Straits (a recognized international waterway), and there is ample historical precedent for international action to preemptively prevent vital global waterways from arbitrary blockade (e.g, Straits of Tiran circa 1967). While the U.S. has unilateral resort to its 5th Fleet, Iran is itching to pick a fight with Washington to gain world sympathy and there is no good reason to oblige them. Better to form an international flotilla (NATO plus Persian Gulf states) which would be deployed in the Straits ASAP to counter any Iranian moves to block the passageway.

b. Embargo oil distillates to Iran to prevent Iran from refining its crude oil into refined gasoline. True, it is a punishment that will mainly hit its citizens, but no economic sanctions are going to take dinner off the ayatollahs and its time to get the population more riled up against Iran's leadership.

c. Keep the pressure on by tightening the noose around Tehran's central Merkazi Bank. This is the financial jugular vein for the regime.

d. Iran's limited options to prevent more sanctions makes it more likely that it will undertake some type of attack on a third party tanker as a literal "fire across the bow." The U.S. and its allies should declare publicly ASAP that any so-called "mistaken" attack on a commercial vessel in the region by any of Iran's forces will accord license for the international community to take preemptive action to station security forces in the Straits to counter any further threats to commercial shipping in the region.

In this game of high stakes international chicken with Tehran, the better diplomacy is to turn the chairs and force the ayatollahs to blink first.

 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 70
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
09:29 PM on 01/10/2012
Once you peel away from the constant drum beat of war, and think about it calmly, it is hard to figure out in what way Iran is such a serious threat to USA.

I do not mean to suggest they are nice guys, or that they are not a threat to our certain long-distance interests, but what kind of deadly and mortal threat are they to USA that we are willing to wage an all out war while Iran's neighbors and Europe, who have so much more at stake in this, sit on the sidelines.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Gracie fr
01:44 PM on 01/10/2012
Yes the Strait of Hormuz, is in the headlines and shaking energy markets as 2012 begins. Connecting the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean, it lacks imposing geographical features like the Rock of Gibraltar or the Golden Gate Bridge. In an energy-conscious world, however, it may possess greater strategic significance than any passageway on the planet. Every day, according to the U.S. Department of Energy, tankers carrying some 17 million barrels of oil — representing 20% of the world’s daily supply — pass through this vital artery. However, The Strait of Hormuz is, however, only one of several hot spots where energy, politics, and geography are likely to mix in dangerous ways in 2012 and beyond. Micheal Klare reports that we may be witnessing the first of a series of contested flashpoints in the global oil grab....
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/01/10/energy-wars-2012/
12:23 PM on 01/10/2012
Mr. ambassador where is the proof of Iranian military nuclear program? UN inspectors have a free reign in Iran and IAEA report is a joke since they included unverified reports of "foreign inteligence services" without specifying which services, where did they get the information etc.

In your list of clashes you forgot to mention the most terrible one. On July 3 1988 USS Vincennes (which was in Iranian territorial waters a the time) shot down Iranian Airbus A300B2 airliner Iran Air flight 655 killing all 290 passengers and crew (including 66 children) which was on established air corridor at criusing altitude and speed. Ashamed perhaps or deliberate ommision?
You also forgot to mention that US navy was de facto in prolonged war with Iran working as FAC and early warning for Iraqi airforce and attacked Iranian navy before Iraqi offensive on Faw peninsular (operation praying mantis). US was also vetoing all UNSC resolutions of condemnation of use of Chemical weapons against Kurds and Iranians... The real list is a bit longer than the one you presented.
Now who will pay for this war? Iraq war was largly financed by China with purchases of US tresury bonds i seriously doubt they will do it again (i doubt they will work against their own selfinterest). EU is on the brink of bancrupcy (thanks to the crisis originating from US) and Lybia was a French/UK project (preventing African monetary found and african development bank largly financed by Gadaffi).
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
Satirist1
All 4 d best in the best of all possible worlds
06:26 AM on 01/10/2012
The latest kerfuffle from the Iranian mullahs is more due to their rage at Brits banning Iranian access to British financial system, world's central financial hub, than the EU sanctions.
Along with freezing 1 billion euro in Iranian assets, UK is doing its job in to contain and marginalize the ayatollahs.
Now it's time for EU to act on their promise to embargo Iranian oil.
12:25 PM on 01/10/2012
China will be more than happy to buy all the oil EU will embargo.
Satirist1
All 4 d best in the best of all possible worlds
01:57 PM on 01/10/2012
Yeah, right. And that's is why Iranian rulers are going batsht over the sanctions.
Try thinking.
photo
tallen
panem et circenses
10:18 PM on 01/09/2012
As usual, a great analysis, Ambassador.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
The Mighty Cynic
03:43 PM on 01/09/2012
It's a mystery how this person was an ambassador and can not simply recognize that it is we who are in Iran's backyard and not vice-versa. Also, we shot down a CIVILIAN AIRLINER of Iran's.

Iran Air 655 -- Google this!

Imagine if the roles were reversed? I can't...
02:23 PM on 01/09/2012
Iran is most unlikely to try to close the Strait of Hormuz absent war. Meaning, an idiotic and illegal attack by Israel.

Iran offered to stop producing 20% enriched uranium, but the US failed to respond to the offer. Why? ISRAEL LOBBY.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard Pearce banned
Never let them tell you it can't be done.
12:34 PM on 01/09/2012
PS, I would like to congradulate the Ambassador for giving some good advice for once, even if he is doing it totally by accident. Once the initial kneejerk reaction in the markets has passed, and the corporations figure out how to get around these latest government regulations, the Iranian government will see that the situation is settling back to one where there are only minor effects on the Iranian economy (and the Iranian population) and decide that they don't have to respond with anything more than another round of diplomatic protests (unless the Iranian population has reached the point where they insist on action, at which point the dilemma for the US that I described in my other post will crop up)
11:45 AM on 01/09/2012
Why must we give a public forum to a person who was one of those that lied us into the disastrous war with Iraq.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Wisdo
semantics shamantics
12:07 PM on 01/09/2012
oh but the "intelligence" is a "slam dunk" this time... really.
12:27 PM on 01/09/2012
well said.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard Pearce banned
Never let them tell you it can't be done.
11:45 AM on 01/09/2012
I wonder what advice the spokesperson for the Radioactive Rabbis will have if the Iranians keep the channels open for the flow of oil, but declare a legal (the shipping channels pass through recognised Iranian waters on leaving the Straits, I doubt if even Marc would say the Iranians didn't have more than sufficient grounds to declare the US a hostile state, and the law of the sea allows nations to close their waters, even waters used as international shipping channels, to the warships of hostile states) blockade against the US (or more likely all NATO) warships?

Then it would be the US having to make the decision to accept a major defeat (the pro-democracy uprisings in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, etc would get an incredible boost from the powerlessness of the American military machine, and create the conditions where even if the regimes survived, the EU would be imposing oil sanctions on them) or start hostilities that would almost certainly see the Straits empty of tanker traffic for months (though I'm sure that Marc, the US government, and the media would spin it as Iran being the one to cause that, and the American public willingly accepting that spin)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JuanMitbol
12:22 AM on 01/10/2012
"radioactive rabbis'? LMAO!

There is no limit to the stupidity of the comments posted here. And the fantasy scenarios spun out of either "Banned"'s ignorance or what the mullaocracy and basij ordered him to write have little to do with reality. Because the reality is that Iran is surrounded by some 50 military installations or bases in every country close to, or bordering it, and if any attempt on the Straits or the use of nuclear weapons would render cities like Shiraz, Qum and Teheran and the corrupt theocrats who live in them just so many piles of hot charcoal briquets.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
The Mighty Cynic
06:50 AM on 01/10/2012
Ad hominem all the way through - you didn't make a single point.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Json
Cynical dreamer, sarcastic idealist...
01:03 PM on 01/10/2012
So if the Iranians impose a blockade against the US it would be legal despite the fact that we are not engaged in an armed conflict with them? And if we try to break that blockade it would be our fault for breaking the blockade?

"the pro-democr­acy uprisings in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, etc would get an incredible boost from the powerlessn­ess of the American military machine"

You are kidding right?? The regimes would get an incredible boost!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard Pearce banned
Never let them tell you it can't be done.
02:52 PM on 01/10/2012
American support for Jundallah and/or MKO serves as the toehold, the non-UN approved sanctions provides the leverage, and the US threats kick it over the top.

And the US has already taken the position that the people trying to break a blockade that is on even shakier legal grounds are the ones at fault for anything that happens when those enforcing the blockade act to prevent the running of it.
11:27 AM on 01/09/2012
Iran will close the straights as a last resort and when that happens is war. I don't understand why no one is advocating diplomacy right now. If they are feeling the pain why not try and do a grand bargain with Iran.
Oh that's right. Our Iran policy is not decided by the US president but the A I P A C president. So there will never be any negotiations only war.
02:03 PM on 01/09/2012
"Oh that's right. Our Iran policy is not decided by the US president but the A I P A C president. So there will never be any negotiatio­ns only war."

Wrong.

Our policy is decided by the best interests of our nation. An Iran with nuclear weapons will be able to threaten and manipulate the world's oil prices at will. It is already doing so, isn't it?

The US and Iran have a long history of conflict which has nothing to do with Israel. Iraq had major problems with Iran, as have the Saudis. Is their foreign policy regarding Iran driven by A I P A C as well?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
OneTop
Uh, is that a beer hall?
02:50 PM on 01/09/2012
You are in denial of reality, with respect to US foreign policy in the M/E. The OP is correct, whether you or I think it is right or wrong, is irrelevant.

Iran has not attacked any country in over 2 centuries?
While the US has over 50 military bases surrounding them, overthrew Irans democratically elected government and installed a dictator in 1953, and supported and supplied Iraq with WMD to use against the Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war. Murdered Iranian scientists, shot down a commercial Iranian air-liner etc. etc.

You don't seem to place much emphasis on facts or well researched evidence.

Have a great war!
photo
Boduognat
Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'entrate.
08:57 AM on 01/10/2012
"Our policy is decided by the best interests of our nation"

Would you say those 5000 dead American soldiers in Iraq, as well as the tens of thousands of injured, mutiliated or traumatized Iraq War veterans, were also "in the best intrests of the nation"?

And if so... in what nation's best intrests, exactly?
11:28 AM on 01/08/2012
A great article which changes my opinon of what Iran can/cannot do. Basically they want to be a nuisance which would jack-up the price of oil. If it drives the price of some blue chippers on the stock market down, great, buy some SLB,BHI,XOM.
02:50 PM on 01/07/2012
Hmmmm... no mention of Iran's nuclear facilities. Would military action in the straits influence consideration of an attack on nuclear targets Isn't this a factor for all parties?
02:09 PM on 01/09/2012
If a shooting war starts, I would bet the US and others would definitely take out Iran's nuke sites. I think they will also look at a regime change as well. Maybe this will give the Iranian protesters of a few years ago the opening to take their country back from the religious nutjobs that have hijacked it.
09:06 PM on 01/09/2012
whats the problem with "religious nutjobs" / freaks in iran? if the u.s. and israel can be hijacked, led and influenced by these people than why can't iran do it too? nukes for everyone!!!
photo
Boduognat
Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'entrate.
08:59 AM on 01/10/2012
"...a regime change as well. Maybe this will give the Iranian protesters of a few years ago the opening to take their country back ..."

You mean, like they had to take it back from the CIA installed stooge in 1979 after the US removed the democratic government of Iran in 1953?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Charles Queen
I am a disabled nam vet
01:40 PM on 01/07/2012
Well,I guess we will see if the Saudi's keep their word.They did say that they would increase production to offset any problems with Irans oil.They asked china to up their purchasing but China has juct recently cut by more than in half what they had been purchasing from them and i don't see china turning right back around and increasing purchses because of whats going on right now.They are also one of the members of the major powers saying that Iran cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons