WarSclerotic

Iranian threat to close oil lanes could backfire – Analysis, Opinion – Independent.ie.

Friday January 06 2012

THE last time Iran tried to close the Strait of Hormuz, the trade artery linking the oil-rich Gulf states to the outside world, the Revolutionary Guards had only a few rubber dinghies and primitive mines to achieve their goals. Next time, they will be far better prepared.

For the ayatollahs, the Strait of Hormuz, which lies between Iran and the tiny sheikdoms of the Gulf, has become a national obsession in their long-standing confrontation with the West.

They know that, for all their long-held nuclear ambitions, they will never be able to match America’s military supremacy.

Even if they were to develop the know-how to fit a nuclear warhead to a ballistic missile, the odds are that the weapon would be shot down the moment it left its launch pad by one of the hundreds of anti-missile batteries the US has deployed around the Gulf.

So far as the ayatollahs are concerned, a far more effective way of attacking the West would be to place a stranglehold on their economies.

The economies of many major developed powers would be thrown into chaos if the Iranians carried out their threat to close the Strait of Hormuz.

On average, 14 crude oil tankers pass through the Strait each day carrying an estimated 17 million barrels, more than a third of the world’s seaborne oil shipments.

In addition, it has become a vital conduit for tankers carrying liquefied natural gas from states such as Qatar, as the Western economies become ever more dependent on gas for their energy needs.

At a time when tensions over Iran’s nuclear programme are reaching crisis point, it was almost inevitable that Tehran should start making ominous noises about closing the Strait if the US and its European allies follow through on their threat to impose wide-ranging sanctions on Iran’s oil industry.

Oil revenues make up around 80pc of Iran’s foreign currency earnings. The rial, Iran’s currency, fell 12pc this week after it emerged the European Union had agreed to implement a complete ban on oil shipments from Iran.

The prospect of increased sanctions has prompted senior Iranian political and military figures to warn that the strait could be closed in retaliation.

This week, General Ataollah Salehi, the commander-in-chief of Iran’s armed forces, threatened to attack the US Navy if it attempted to move an aircraft carrier into the Gulf.

To many, this is nothing more than the Iranians indulging in yet another tiresome exercise in anti-Western sabre-rattling. With parliamentary elections due in March, the regime is keen to demonstrate its refusal to be intimidated over its nuclear programme.

But in view of the Iranian government’s inherent instability, it would be prudent for the West to be on its guard.

The Iranians’ military capabilities have come a long way since the mid-1980s, the last time they made any serious attempt to disrupt Gulf shipping.

But the ayatollahs vowed that, if ever the need arose again to blockade the Gulf, they would have the means to do so.

Consequently the Iranian military has spent much of the past two decades overhauling its capabilities, to the extent that if the order were given to close the Strait of Hormuz it could actually carry out the threat — albeit for only a few days.

IRAN would be able to deploy anti-ship cruise missiles, submarines, mines and thousands of small watercraft that could be used in “swarm” attacks against shipping if the ayatollahs decided to impose a blockade.

Such is the confidence of senior Iranian commanders in their firepower that Admiral Habibollah Sayari, the head of Iran’s navy, recently boasted that closing the strait would be “as easy as drinking a glass of water”.

But the Pentagon insists that it still would be no match for US firepower.

Iran would, therefore, be taking an enormous gamble and any hint of military confrontation could see oil prices soar by 50pc within days, with potentially catastrophic consequences for the world’s leading developed economies.

Iran, meanwhile, would react to any attack on its nuclear facilities by carrying out its long-standing promise to attack Israel.

It would not be long before a confrontation that began as a dispute over access to shipping lanes escalated into a major regional conflict.(© Daily Telegraph, London)

Explore posts in the same categories: Uncategorized

This entry was posted on January 6, 2012 at 9:24 AM and is filed under Uncategorized. You can subscribe via RSS 2.0 feed to this post's comments. You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.