Relations With Iran on High Seas 'Courteous, Professional'

ABOARD THE USS LAKE CHAMPLAIN, April 30, 2006 – Despite political tensions among Iran and other countries, exchanges between the Iranian navy and coalition forces in the northern Arabian Gulf are "fully courteous and professional," said U.S. Navy Capt. Christopher Noble, during an interview here. Noble, the commander of Coalition Task Group 58.1, is charged with protecting Iraq's oil terminals, located in Iraqi territorial waters.

However, exchanges with ships manned by Iranian Revolutionary Guardsmen are not as professional, and the Iranian ships test the coalition on occasion. "But it's still a crisp relationship, and they know why we're here," said Marine Brig. Gen. Carl B. Jensen, commander of Coalition Task Force 58. Jensen has responsibility for security and stability in the northern Arabian Gulf.

One of the oil terminals, the Khawr al Amaya, is just a few kilometers away from the border with Iran. U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Maui, one of four patrolling the area, was less than a kilometer away from Iranian waters.

U.S. Navy officials differentiate between the Iranian navy and the Revolutionary Guards. The navy has primary responsibility at the Straits or Hormuz and the Central Arabian Gulf. "They are very professional mariners; they are very courteous," U.S. Navy Rear Adm. Michael Miller, commander of Carrier Strike Group 7, said. "The radical nature of their government is not reflected in the behavior of their ships at sea."

Miller's command is centered on the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan and launches aircraft to support coalition forces in Iraq and maritime security operations in the gulf. He said his command interacts with the Iranian navy every day. "We're right off their coast, and the Arabian Gulf is not that wide," he said. "Out here, there is a solid core of professionals that we see every day, and it is not something that is inflammatory at all. In fact, it is transparent."

Iranian navy personnel understand the modus operandi of ships at sea, and the craft sailing in the central gulf and at the straits are larger decks staffed by professionals.

Those in the northern gulf are typically small boats manned by the more radical elements of Iranian society. They routinely shake down and beat Iraqi fishermen who stray into their waters, coalition officials said, and will test the boundary between Iran and Iraq. But "disruptions here are in no one's best interest," Jensen said. "And the Iranians realize this."

The longer-term issues between Iran and the United Nations are part of the ongoing political debate, officials said. But for the time being, relations on the high seas should continue to be courteous and professional.

It would be nice if that were the case.

Unfortunately, their nut case president has been conducting what amounts to a purge of the upper staff of the armed forces and replacing them with more "politically reliable" Revolutionary Guard Corps (RGC) officials. However, whether RGC or regular service, they are patriots and an attack on Iran is an attack. So they should be expected to respond and our plans should be made to deal with their capabilities when, not if, they do.

In the case of the Air Force and the Navy, this counteraction might be accomplished without great loss of life since their capabilities are tied to discrete quantities of things (ships and aircraft) that are fairly easy to find and destroy. Once those units are destroyed, the remaining personnel have little residual combat capability (except as poorly trained ground troops). Hopefully, Iranian Navy ships at sea will be given the opportunity to surrender and will choose to take it.

The ground combat units of the Army and the RGC are a different matter. There is quite a bit of each, they are relatively well trained and equipped, and they are capable of dispersion in small units. Their early destruction (preferably in bed) will be the only way to ensure that the RGC and Iranian Army do not launch major ground operations against US forces in the Middle East. The only way to preclude that is to attack them preemptively and massively. There still will be attacks but on the small unit level - not with regiments and divisions.

In addition, their defense command and control system, their defense logistics depots, and their industrial base will need to be taken down so that it cannot be reconstituted for a long time. Since these facilities have been deliberately salted among the civilian areas of the country, such an attack is likely to require quite a bit of ...let's not sugarcoat it...killing of innocent personnel. And at least some of it, IMHO, will need to be nuclear to obtain absolute assurance of destruction of hardened/deep buried targets.

The Israelis and their anxiety of Iranian intentions may the precipitating factor leading to preemptive military action. Israel probably has the military capability to attack the critical nuclear targets in Iran. Israel does not have the capability to address the entire Iranian target set. Only the US military does.

However, an Israeli attack will be immediately interpreted as an American attack in the Muslim world and America (whether or not we had any part in it) will be blamed and attacked. If the United States waits until Iranian attacks begin, its forces in the region (along with the independence of Iraq, Kuwait, the Gulf Emirates, and the Saudi Arabian peninsula) will be in serious danger. Consequently, I believe that if a preemptive attack on Iran is launched, it will be a joint Israeli-US operation.

Even if the operation achieves all of its intended results, world opinion and governmental reaction to it will probably be massive. Among other negative outcomes, it will probably finish off the present version of the United Nations and perhaps spark military actions in other regions. It will probably also lead to massive terrorist attacks in the United States and strigent measures to prevent them.

Of course, this could all be avoided if sanity suddenly prevailed in Iran and they earnstly sought to solve the problem (given up the quest for nuclear weapons and getting fully out of the terroism business). Unfortunately, they seem to like the game of "rope-a-dope" they are currently playing with Europe and the UN on the nuclear issue and ending Iranian involvement in terrorism will require a true regime change.

All this points to the crisis coming to an unfortunate pass sooner rather than later.

First, excellent post. Thank you.

and perhaps spark military actions in other regions

I've often wondered if China providing cover for Iran diplomatically, which is generally thought to be about oil, isn't really about something else. After all, the longer Iran's nutbar is around, the closer he gets to being able to really start something, and we must assume he wants to.

Out there, I know. Maybe even a huge miscalculation given the USN Pacific capabilities. But if enough attention were diverted elsewhere, where many US forces needed everythign they could get, would a President and US Military need to pick and choose? Nukes aside, at this point.

Thanks again. Your post is probably the most concise and reasoned one I've read on this topic.

If your scenario of waiting until Iran attacks first comes to pass, and US forces and nations are whacked hard, would not that provide a perfect time for China to move on Taiwan, perhaps in conjunction with some mischief from North Korea?

The US does have residual capabilities. The normal ratio for forward deployment is three units are required to keep one forward at all times. The Marine Corps is at this limit now. Not sure about the Army, Navy and Air Force. Responding to a second regional conflict is possible and Taiwan and North Korea do come up on my list. Taiwan and South Korea have substantial military capabilities of their own, so our response would probably be tailored to assist those countries to frustrate a Chinese or North Korean attack. If successful, I would expect both the aggressor nations to have suffered major military losses and regional balance would shift substantially. Not likely we would get off cost free either.

Japan MIGHT play an interesting role since they have recently begun identifying China as a major regional threat to themselves. Hard to call though; such a crisis would require strong political will coupled with very rapid decision making and determined execution; qualities that the Japanese are not exactly famous for (at this point anyway).

What I find more interesting is Venezuela. Abidjamidab (or however his name is spelled) and Chavez have been cozying up to each other of late. The US gets very little oil from the Middle East. So a cutoff of Iranian oil would have little effect on the United States. It would, however, have a really big effect on Europe. On the other hand, Venezuela supplies a lot of oil to the United States. In the event of an attack on Iran, Venezuela might decide to cut off oil supplies to the United States.

The United States' response might be very, very interesting.

Bottom line: If it goes badly, a lot of rearranging for the pieces in the "Great Game."

When discussing this and any other potential geopolitical conflict, you must not forget the near-majority (or perhaps outright majority) of the American body politic aligns as Democrats with the enemies of the United States and effectively controls the media of the national debate. The American people inevitably quickly shall believe that our military would suffer a humiliating defeat in any conflict whatsoever. Despite the increasing despair of the terrorists, the American people now recognize overwhelmingly that the Army has suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the [actually vanquished] terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan. This triumph of [Howard Dean's] truth over [the American soldier's] reality almost certainly will empower the seditionist Democrats.

Any potential conflict with implications for fuel prices also shall lead to Democratic crackdowns against the vital petroleum industry. Because of the domestic political realities alone, military victory over the terrorists in Iran or elsewhere appears most unlikely.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

The Gulf You Are Looking For Does Not Exist. Try Persian Gulf.

TRUTH 404- Gulf Not Found
Fact Explorer

	The Gulf You Are Looking For Does Not Exist. Try Persian Gulf.
The gulf you are looking for is unavailable. No body of water by that name has ever existed. The correct name is Persian Gulf, which always has been, and will always remain, Persian.
Please try the following: Click the button, and never try again. If you typed Arabian Gulf, make sure you read some history books. Click Search to look for more information on the internet. TRUTH 404- Gulf Not Found Fact Explorer

The Gulf You Are Looking For Does Not Exist. Try Persian Gulf.

TRUTH 404- Gulf Not FoundFact Explorer

TRUTH 404- Gulf Not Found
Fact Explorer