WarSclerotic

petroleumworld.

As word spreads of an upcoming Israeli attack on Tehran, the US Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) confirms that Iran can easily seal off the Strait of Hormuz in the event of war.

According to a September assessment, if the United States or Israel decide to bomb Tehran’s nuclear sites, Iran’s naval modernization and maritime capabilities have reached a point where it can shut down the Strait of Hormuz, through which nearly 40 percent of the world’s oil supplies pass.

“Given the importance of the Strait, disrupting traffic flow or even threatening to do so may be an effective tool for Iran,” said the intelligence report.

The assessment, which was revealed by Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin on Friday, was first posted on the website for the ONI, but abruptly removed after about a week.

It notes that while Iran’s ability to shut down the Strait of Hormuz may be transitory, the impact would undoubtedly have far-reaching consequences for the already-fragile world economy.

“[World economies would suffer] a serious economic impact from a sustain closure of the Strait of Hormuz due to greatly reduced supplies of crude oil, petroleum supplies and (liquefied natural gas),” ONI said.

On the same note, the report adds that not only has Tehran acquired “increasingly sophisticated systems” from China and Russia, but the “modernization” of the Iranian navy is to an extent that would help the government carry out such a closure if need be.

The report was referring to a series of domestic accomplishments by the Iranian navy in maritime capabilities and seafaring technology.

In recent months, Iran has added a new generation of domestic submarines, battleships, frigates, vessels, and high-speed missile boats to its fleet in a bid to protect its territorial waters from foreign threats.

According to the ONI report, Iran’s possession of high-speed missile torpedo capable of 250 knots has especially worried the US Navy as it would render foreign warships, aircraft carriers and other battle group ships vulnerable.

The report comes as Mark Fitzpatrick, a chief proliferation analyst with the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, said that the chances of a full-fledged Israeli military action against Iran are much higher now.

“I am sad to say that Iran’s announcement makes a military attack on the facilities more likely. If so, it will be a more target-rich environment,” Fitzpatrick said.

Israel routinely threatens to bomb Iran’s nuclear sites, arguing that the country’s enrichment activities are an existential threat to Tel Aviv, which ironically is reported to have the Middle East’s sole nuclear arsenal and 200 nuclear warheads at its disposal.

In response, Iran warns that if Israel steps out of line, it will close the strategic Strait of Hormuz to maritime traffic, including the 15 or so supertankers that daily sail through to deliver the world’s oil supplies.

Rear Admiral Haibollah Sayyari, the commander of Iran’s Navy, said in September that the Islamic Republic will stage a stronger presence on the high seas “in a bid to protect the country’s shipping lanes.”

Iranian Naval Forces “are constantly making efforts to have an active role in international waters, in addition to defending the interests of the Islamic Republic,” Sayyari told Fars News.

“Therefore, it has a duty to block routes used by the enemy, should the necessity arise. It is also tasked with clearing waterways” used by Iranian vessels, he added.

Iranian exercises reveal flaws in air defence system.

By Lauren Gelfand and Georg Mader

07 December 2009

Iran’s recent series of air and missile defence exercises have revealed serious flaws in the capabilities of the Islamic Republic to defend its nuclear installations from attack, international experts have told Jane’s .

The three-phase exercises that ran from 22-27 November were hailed as proof that it would be “impossible for enemy jets to enter [Iranian] territory” by their co-ordinator, Brigadier General Ahmad Mighani, commander of the air force.

This positive spin would seem to obscure some of the critical shortcomings of Iran’s ground-based air-defence systems, the age and technical deficiencies of which were clearly visible in photographs released by Iranian state media during and after the tests. Aside from the Russian-made Tor-M1 (SA-15) air-defence system, the entire assembly of Iranian equipment would prove no match for the sophisticated air fleets and electronic warfare systems operated by Israel or the United States, analysts have concluded.

A first-ever test in semi-combat conditions of two important, indigenously manufactured systems reportedly produced a marked operational failure, thereby allowing the attacking aircraft to penetrate the country’s defensive shield, according to analysts who spoke to Jane’s .

American Thinker Blog: Gaming Iran scenarios; a Kobayashi Maru test?.

Rick Moran
David Ignatius is one of the most respected Middle East hands in the press corps. He has  worked in many countries in the region and has, in my opinion, usually a realistic outlook on what American interests are.

Ignatius was allowed to observe an exercise at Harvard involving some former heavy hitters at state and the White House that gamed out various Iran scenarios that are likely to occur over the next few months and what he saw didn’t encourage him.

Writing in the Washington Post, Ignatius was trying to keep score:

My scorecard had Team Iran as the winner and Team America as the loser. The U.S. team — unable to stop the Iranian nuclear program and unwilling to go to war — concluded the game by embracing a strategy of containment and deterrence. The Iranian team wound up with Russia and China as its diplomatic protectors. And the Israeli team ended in a sharp break with Washington.Mind you, this was just an exercise. But it revealed some important real-life dynamics — and the inability of any diplomatic strategy, so far, to stop the Iranian nuclear push.

The simulation was organized by Graham Allison, the head of the Belfer Center at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. It was animated by the key players: Nicholas Burns, former undersecretary of state, as President Obama; and Dore Gold, Israel’s former ambassador to the United Nations, as Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. They agreed to let me use their names in this summary.

The gamers framed their strategies realistically: Obama’s America wants to avoid war, which means restraining Israel; Iran wants to continue its nuclear program, even as it dickers over a deal to enrich uranium outside its borders, such as the one floated in Geneva in October; Israel doesn’t trust America to stop Iran and is looking for help from the Gulf Arab countries and Europe.

Is this a “no win” scenario – the famous Star Trek test for cadets named the Kobayashi Maru test? In this case, we lose if Iran gets the bomb. The only victory I could imagine would be some kind of regime change but that is so much the pipe dream it shouldn’t be considered. We also lose if we have a public break with Israel or if we force Russia and China into even a cozier relationship with the mullahs than they have now. All of this is predicated on the notion that Obama will not attack and that he will do everything he can to try and prevent Israel from doing so.

No, Obama will not attack. The Iranians, Russians, and Chinese know this as do our allies. What I found fascinating in this exercise was the open break foreseen between Israel and the US – or, more specifically, Obama and Netanyahu. I have read several analysts who believe that if such a break were to occur, the chances for a general middle east war become better than 50-50. Israel’s enemies may seek to take advantage of our break with the Jewish state while the Israelis may not feel any constraints in trying to solve a few problems that have been confronting them with regard to Syria, Hezb’allah, and the Palestinians.

Ignatius was not optimistic:

What worried me most about this game is what worries me in real life: There is a “fog of diplomacy,” comparable to Clausewitz’s famous fog of war. Players aren’t always clear on what’s really happening; they misread or ignore signals sent by others; they take actions that have unintended and sometimes devastating consequences.The simulated world of December 2010 looks ragged and dangerous. If the real players truly mean to contain Iran and stop it from getting the bomb, they need to avoid the snares that were so evident in the Harvard game.

Sounds like August, 1914 to me but that is almost certainly an oversimplification. The point Ignatius is trying to make is that this scenario has the potential to spin out of control into a  very serious crisis.

And in charge, we have a naive, inexperienced president who is confused about American vital interests and hasn’t a clue what the ramifications of a break with Israel would mean.