Nucs, Sanctions, and the Strait of Hormuz

As per usual, I’ll start by setting the stage before engaging in a critical analysis.  I’ve composed a timeline to highlight some recent interactions between Iran, the United States, and the rest of the world.  Of course there are hundreds of other factors at work, but for the sake of time, space, and my sanity I’ve tried to list only the most pertinent factors. 

1/29/02: In his State of the Union Address George W. Bush names Iran as a member of the axis of evil, stating, “Iran aggressively pursues these weapons [of mass destruction] and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom.” 

2010 & 2011: Iranian nuclear facilities at Natanz become infected with the Stuxnet computer virus, causing the destruction of centrifuges used to enrich uranium.  Iran’s nuclear program, once on the brink of producing enough enriched uranium for a nuclear reaction, is set back years.

Dec 11: The United States Congress approves sanctions against Iran targeting its economic and financial sectors.

12/27/11: Iranian Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi declares, "not a drop of oil will pass through the Strait of Hormuz" if Western countries followed through with threats of escalating sanctions.    

1/3/12: Iran warns that the USS Stennis shouldn’t reenter the Persian Gulf.  “We recommend to the American warship that passed through the Strait of Hormuz and went to Gulf of Oman not to return to the Persian Gulf,” said Maj. Gen. Ataollah Salehi, the commander in chief of the army, as reported by Iran’s official news agency, IRNA. “The Islamic Republic of Iran will not repeat its warning.”

1/4/12: In a written statement Pentagon Press Secretary George Little states, "The deployment of US military assets in the Persian Gulf region will continue as it has for decades."

1/6/12: The European Union agrees in principle to impose sanctions against Iranian oil, although a final decision will not be made before February.

1/6/12: The USS Stennis carrier battle group rescues 13 Iranian fishermen from Somali pirates in the Gulf of Oman.  The fishermen had been held captive for 40 days. 

1/7/12: Iran’s Foreign Minister thanks the US for saving the fishermen, while the Fars news agency described the rescue as a “Hollywood-style act of showmanship.”

1/9/12: The IAEA confirms that Iran opened a new nuclear enrichment facility called Fordo, located under a mountain in Northern Iran.  

1/10/12: A US Coast Guard cutter rescues six Iranians after their ship, the Dhow, took on water in the Persian Gulf.  They were transferred to the Iranian coast guard vessel Naji 7 after the sailors were given food, water, and blankets.  In the written account of the incident Naval Forces Central Command quotes Hakim Hamid-Awi, owner of the Dhow, as telling his rescuers, “Without your help, we were dead. Thank you for all that you did for us.”  This was the fifth time in 14 months US Naval forces have come to the aid of Iranians in distress. 

1/11/12: An Iranian nuclear scientist is killed in a drive-by bombing in Tehran.  The official response of the Iranian Government states they will not be dissuaded from their pursuit of peaceful nuclear energy.  However Hossein Shariatmadari, general director of the Kayhan newspaper (appointed to the position by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei), wrote an editorial emphasizing the need for Iran to retaliate against Israel, “These corrupted people are easily identifiable and readily within our reach.”

According to Tehran, this is the 4^th such killing in two years.  All of the assassinations have been blamed on Israel.  

1/14/12: The United States completes the deployment of 15,000 troops to Kuwait, mostly combat units.  Their stated mission is to provide security in the region.  According to 1st Lt. Kelly McManus, spokeswoman for 1st BCT, 1st Cavalry Division, “We will operate with our standard equipment and in doing so provide a force that is both immediately available and augments a joint team that stands as a strong deterrent against those who wish to harm the U.S. and/or its allies.” 

 

With this groundwork laid we can begin to analysis the situation and attempt to determine how these events will play out.  Despite my hopes of keeping this timeline more succinct I feel more detail would only further illuminate the situation. 

Israel: Given that Iran regularly threatens to wipe Israel off the map, the Israelis have every right to be apprehensive about a nuclear Iran.  While Iran has had missiles capable of reaching Israel for years, it hasn’t had the capacity to cause significant destruction.  However if Iran develops nuclear warheads this threat will no longer be empty words.  Given this it is little wonder, or secret, that Israel and the United States developed and deployed the Stuxnet virus to derail Iran’s nuclear development.  

Regarding the four Iranian nuclear scientists killed over the last two years, while it can’t be confirmed that Israel was responsible for their deaths, it is not a baseless assumption either.  Prior to the advent of the Stuxnet virus several members of Israel’s cabinet wanted to bomb Iranian uranium enrichment facilities.  Given this prior willingness to target the workplace of the scientists it isn’t much of a stretch to believe Israel would be willing to bomb the scientists themselves.  Assuming Israel is responsible for these assassinations, they would undoubtedly justify the killings by arguing killing four scientists and preventing Iran from possessing nuclear capabilities will save the lives of thousands of Israelis. 

Russia: In 2010 Russia supported the passage of four sets of UN sanctions against Iran.  This came after the United States reduced plans to build a missile defense system in Poland. The official purpose of the missile system was to protect Europe from the growing threat of an Iranian missile attack, though Russia perceived the system as targeting it.  Additionally Russia cancelled plans to sell ground-to-air missiles to Iran in 2010 and the new START treaty was signed by President Obama and ratified by Congress in February 2011.  Recently however Russia has called increasing sanctions against Iran as a violation of International law.  This change comes as talks between Washington and Moscow on missile defense have broken down.  

Looking forward both counties will hold Presidential elections this year.  If a Republican takes the Oval Office or Vladimir Putin returns to the Russian Presidency it is unlikely relations between the United States and Russia will improve.  This tension will limit the ability of the United States to appeal to the UN to legitimize further sanctions, or even military action, against Iran as Russia is a P5 member of the UNSC. 

United States: Iran’s threat to close the Strait of Hormuz shows the sanctions levied against it are working as they forced Iran to make a diplomatic error in threating to close the Strait of Hormuz.  Furthermore saving Iranian sailors in distress increases the United States’ persona as a benevolent humanitarian.  Despite Iran’s warning that the USS Stennis should not return to the Persian Gulf, the United States can easily make the case that the carrier group must patrol the region to protect commercial ships from pirates.  This argument is strengthened and justified by the fact that it was the USS Stennis carrier group which rescued 13 Iranian sailors a week ago. 

In essence the United States has done a masterful job of forcing Iran into a diplomatic corner, and in an effort to relieve some of the pressure Iran only dug itself into a hole.  Now the United States only has to stick to its guns and send the USS Stennis back into the Gulf.  The combination of this and continuing to rally more Nations to impose sanctions against Iran will force Tehran’s hand, resulting in one of three outcomes.  If Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz because the United States and its allies refuse to drop their sanctions, the US and its allies will be justified in using military force to ensure the international waters are safe and open for commerce.  The second possible outcome is while the USS Stennis carrier group returns to the Persian Gulf (with the official purpose of protecting all vessels from pirates) Iran attacks the group.  Again this would justify the United States in attacking Iran.  In both of these situations Iran is the military aggressor.  In addition both would undoubtedly result in destruction of Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities.  As was stated in the timeline, the United States recently deployed 15,000 soldiers to Kuwait.  The stated purpose of this subtle show of strength is for the troops to act as a deterrent against those who would harm the US and/or its allies.  Of course the third possibility is Iran neither closes the Strait nor harasses the USS Stennis.  In this case Iran will be viewed as a rogue nation unwilling to cooperate within the international system and unwilling/unable to follow through with its threats.  This will cause nations to not heed future threats made by Iran.

Iran: Iran is between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand having nuclear capabilities (whether for energy, healthcare, or military purposes) would establish Iran as a regional hegemon.  Conversely, the sanctions have crippled Iran’s economy and only the abandonment of its nuclear program will lift them. 

Fortunately for Iran whether it chooses to continue or abandon its nuclear program it will not be in uncharted diplomatic waters.  Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction prior to the Gulf War, after which they were forbidden from continuing the work.  In 2003 when the United States had ‘proof’ that Iraq was developing WMD’s again Iraq denied it.  Capturing these weapons became the pretense for the Iraq War, resulting in the execution of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.  The second example is North Korea, which has nuclear weapons and suffers from numerous sanctions.  For years North Korea has agreed to abandon its nuclear program in exchange for humanitarian aid.  Despite repeated military actions against South Korea, (see ‘Outstanding Leader’ and the Future of North Korea post) Pyongyang is able to avoid a full scale military response by the US, South Korea, and Japan because Seoul and Tokyo are within range of North Korea’s nuclear missiles.   

Hypothetically, as a leader with little regard for the welfare of my people I would opt to follow the example of North Korea as that is the option in which I remain in power.  However there is a big difference between Iran and North Korea, that being Iran doesn’t have nuclear weapons yet.  Because of this Nations opposing Iran have some pretense and justification to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities without the risk of a nuclear backlash against Tel Aviv.  To survive the next few years and develop nuclear capabilities Tehran needs to tread lightly and make every effort to minimize the effect, or visibility, of the sanctions.  However this strategy is no longer possible due to Iran’s threat to close the Strait of Hormuz and against the USS Stennis.  With these threats Nations not previously involved in the sanctions would suffer from the economic effects of preventing one fifth of the world’s oil from flowing freely. 

Will Iran actually close the Strait?  Despite my urge to argue no, Iran has already proven that it follows different logic than I do.  In addition to my remarks in the previous paragraph I also believe making such a hostile threat only shows how weak and desperate Iran is.  As Sun Tzu notes, ‘when you are strong make yourself appear weak, when you are weak appear strong.’ By this logic Iran should be doing everything possible to hide the effects the sanctions are having on its economy and casually act as though the sanctions are insignificant.  Instead Iran has threatened to close an international waterway.  If Iran fails to follow through on this it will further show how weak they are.  If Iran does close the strait or take action against the USS Stennis it will prompt the United States to follow through on its promise to take military action to keep the strait open or defend itself.  Either way Iran will not win.