Obama and The Strait of Hormuz: A Lesson Learned Too Late
The Obama Administration really doesn't want Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz. And this is their desperate effort to prevent the one thing that can cause it to happen:
Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs, will arrive in Israel next month for talks aimed at reassuring Israel that the US is serious about stopping Iran’s nuclear program...
Dempsey will arrive in mid- January in a trip that comes as the US escalates its rhetoric regarding US military preparations to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities.
In an interview with CNN last week, Dempsey said that preparations for a military option “are evolving to a point that they would be executable if necessary.”
Iran is not likely to risk a large-scale military confrontation by closing the Strait over the issue of sanctions. However, if Israel or the US launch military strikes on Iran's nuclear program sites, the calculus changes. Closing the Strait then becomes a last-ditch challenge meant to force President Obama to choose: launch what will end up having to be a full-scale assault on Iran (that is, destroying its navy and its coastal and air defenses to ensure it cannot threaten Gulf shipping at all), or appease Iran by declaring military strikes against its nuclear program to be off-limits.
Thus the US is acting frantically to head off a military strike by Israel on Iran's nuclear program. SecDef Leon Panetta told Scott Pelley of 60 Minutes that the US will not let Iran get a nuclear weapon:
Pelley: So are you saying that Iran can have a nuclear weapon in 2012?
Panetta: It would probably be about a year before they can do it. Perhaps a little less. But one proviso, Scott, is if they have a hidden facility somewhere in Iran that may be enriching fuel.
Pelley: So that they can develop a weapon even more quickly...
Panetta: On a faster track....
Pelley: Than we believe....
Panetta: That's correct.
Pelley: If the Israelis decide to launch a military strike to prevent that weapon from being built, what sort of complications does that raise for you?
Panetta: Well, we share the same common concern. The United States does not want Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. That's a red line for us and that's a red line, obviously, for the Israelis. If we have to do it we will deal with it.
Pelley: You just said if we have to do it we will come and do it. What is it?
Panetta: If they proceed and we get intelligence that they are proceeding with developing a nuclear weapon then we will take whatever steps necessary to stop it.
Pelley: Including military steps?
Panetta: There are no options off the table.
Pelley: A nuclear weapon in Iran is ...
Panetta: Unacceptable.
Unfortunately, at this juncture, the people that the Obama Administration need to convince of their seriousness are the Iranians, not the Israelis. Even if the Israelis promise to let America be the one to launch military strikes should the need arise, that promise will only hold until the need arises and the US demonstrates hesitation in striking. If that happens, Israel will step in and act in the interest of its own survival. So the only way to ensure that Iran's nuclear program isn't attacked is to apply sufficient deterrent pressure to get Iran to abandon that program.
However, if the the Obama Administration has learned this lesson, it's learned it far too late. The mere fact that Iran feels confident enough to threaten to close the Strait of Hormuz -- bluff or not -- indicates that they are not sufficiently intimidated to abandon their nuclear program yet. And if they do not abandon it within the coming nine months, Israel will judge that they have reached the verge of the "zone of immunity" in which it will be impossible to stop their development of a bomb.
Of course, on taking office, President Obama was sure that extending an olive branch to Iran would prevent things reaching this point. Besides, he had a higher priority with respect to the Middle East: instead of addressing the threat of an Iranian nuclear weapon to the world's oil supply, he focused on the much more important issue of Israel building houses in East Jerusalem.
At this point, it sure seems likely that there will in fact be a military strike against Iran's nuclear program, that Israel will initiate it because President Obama will be unable to take that decision, and that Iran will then close the Strait of Hormuz in hopes of making Obama back down. What happens at that point -- whether the US launches the full-scale assault necessary to eliminate Iran's threat to Gulf shipping once and for all or the Obama Administration offers Iran everything it wants, including immunity for its nuclear program and a muzzle on Israel's military, to get the Iranians to reopen the Strait -- is not at all certain at this point.
- Comment (13)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Dec '11
Re: Obama and The Strait of Hormuz: A Lesson Learned Too Late
George Bush pledged that he would never allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.
Then he kicked the can down the road.
Dec '10
Re: Obama and The Strait of Hormuz: A Lesson Learned Too Late
Nobody's Perfect: George Bush pledged that he would never allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.
Then he kicked the can down the road. · Dec 29 at 8:25pm
Didn't help that the CIA lied about Iran's nuclear program in the National Intelligence Estimate. The NIE stated that Iran's nuclear program was dead, and it would have been pretty hard for W to insist that the NIE was wrong.
On the other hand, I note that when W left office, Iran didn't have a nuclear weapon, so he kept his promise.
What has Obama done?
Dec '11
Re: Obama and The Strait of Hormuz: A Lesson Learned Too Late
The NIE stated that Iran's nuclear program was dead, and it would have been pretty hard for W to insist that the NIE was wrong.
He didn't even try.
Mar '11
Re: Obama and The Strait of Hormuz: A Lesson Learned Too Late
Ron Paul says they should have the Bomb and that we should just be more friendly to the mullahs. That's why I can't support Paul.
Mar '11
Re: Obama and The Strait of Hormuz: A Lesson Learned Too Late
A game of chess, not checkers.
Re: Obama and The Strait of Hormuz: A Lesson Learned Too Late
And as all connoisseurs of foreign-policy cliches know, Iran invented chess ...
Dec '10
Re: Obama and The Strait of Hormuz: A Lesson Learned Too Late
Dear Fat Dave:
Are you willing to go on record that we should invade Iran if we think they have a nuclear weapon, just like their neighbor Israel to the east, and India and Pakistan to the west?
Sure. Perhaps in an ideal world it would be nice if they didn't feel they needed to have one. But we do not live in an ideal world. Pakistan is just as unstable as Iran. North Korea is-- arguably-- more unstable and psychotic. We didn't invade those countries. (Well, I guess we've sorta kinda attacked Pakistan)
For the record, I am willing to go on record saying we probably shouldn't spend another trillion dollars and thousands of American lives to-- let's face it-- avoid developing our own native energy capacity, and ensure the flow of cheap fossil fuels to China and India.
Mar '11
Re: Obama and The Strait of Hormuz: A Lesson Learned Too Late
And as all connoisseurs of foreign-policy cliches know, Iran invented chess ...
Of course!
My response there was partially tongue in cheek to highlight the way I think this issue gets discussed in our politics. Which is why I provided the citation of the serious work, in the midst of the cliche, that was undertaken by AEI recently.
The Executive Summary there, even if people don't have time to read the entire document, is well worth a quick glance. AEI has done some solid work dispelling the notion that containment/deterrence is somehow commensurable with defense and intelligence cuts/draw downs within the region, and has effectively demonstrated that many of the voices who have advocated such a strategy have not done the heavy lifting required to actually draft a viable way forward. This report begins to fill that gap by describing what a strategy like that would require.
Meanwhile, if you're so inclined, here's an article from the US Navy War College Review on the subject of maritime options IRT Iran--it is mostly directed at a lay audience (and I don't endorse all its conclusions or assumptions, but good reading nonetheless).
Mar '11
Re: Obama and The Strait of Hormuz: A Lesson Learned Too Late
Since when did invading Iran have anything to do with developing our native fuel resources? That's a non sequitur.
And yes, I'll go on record and say we should at least attack their nuclear capability. We would be fools not to. This nonsense of trying to be nice to Iran is ridiculous. After years of supporting the Shah, we tried to reconcile with the Revolution at the last minute, and we've been in a state of war ever since. I know Ron Paul doesn't want to believe it, but we can't win by playing nice with Iran. Furthermore, we could win allies amongst the Sunnis by removing the Persian nuclear threat. That one act would demonstrate the U.S.'s power and commitment to stabilizing the region. We could heal a lot of wounds caused by State Department vacillation. It just seems like a win-win to me.
As far as Israel and India are concerned, I'm happy that our allies have nukes. Pakistan and North Korea, not so much. But just because we let North Korea develop nukes doesn't mean we should make the same mistake with Iran.
Jun '10
Re: Obama and The Strait of Hormuz: A Lesson Learned Too Late
"
KarlUB
Dear Fat Dave:
Are you willing to go on record that we should invade Iran if we think they have a nuclear weapon, just like their neighbor Israel to the east, and India and Pakistan to the west?
Sure. Perhaps in an ideal world it would be nice if they didn't feel they needed to have one. But we do not live in an ideal world. Pakistan is just as unstable as Iran. North Korea is-- arguably-- more unstable and psychotic. We didn't invade those countries. (Well, I guess we've sorta kinda attacked Pakistan)
I am a long way from an expert, and in general I believe in minding my own business whenever possible. But I gotta ask, when you know your dealing with a nutcase outlier regime, doesn't it behoove everyone to keep the hummm on them (so to speak)? There are unstable people walking around our streets everywhere. But at some point they exhibit behavior that is dangerous and they cannot just be ignored. To just say c'est la vie to every crackpot with nuclear ambitions seems not very serious. I hate to say, almost immature.
Jun '10
Re: Obama and The Strait of Hormuz: A Lesson Learned Too Late
We seem to approach Iran as if we were in a vacuum, just them and us. Sometimes I wonder what would happen if we made friendly appeals to Iran by selling them missile technology that would allow them to loft a nuke to, say, Moscow or Paris. Take a page out of our allies playbook and sell them weapons that are a direct threat to their interests?
Seriously, I think the only way to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons is to directly intervene in robust manner, and, frankly, I don't think we have the moxie to do it.
Re: Obama and The Strait of Hormuz: A Lesson Learned Too Late
I hazard this prediction. Sometime reasonably close to 15 October 2012, Barack Obama will order the US military to wipe out the Iranian nuclear program, and he will soar in the polls. If this happens, it would not be the first time that an American politician did the right thing for all the wrong reasons.
Dec '10
Re: Obama and The Strait of Hormuz: A Lesson Learned Too Late
Judging by the example of Libya, I would guess that if Obama gave that order, he would give it in a way that would so hamstring the US military's strategy and tactics that the exercise would be a failure: that is, the strike would not in fact be broad and forceful enough to cow Iran into submission, the Iranians would counter the attack with missile barrages all across the Gulf region and into Israel, and the US would be forced into an all-out war without sufficient forces and materiel at hand in the Gulf.
Desert Storm was a resounding success because the US spent months building up the invasion force and attacked in strength. Obama is more a Desert One kind of guy.