Iran and Related Geopolitical Defense Issues

[rip]

I read that they have a large number of high speed light craft (outboard motor type?) each capable of launching high speed modern missiles. I guess their tactic would be to hit the enemy with swarm or saturation attack in the absence of any large scale modern attack vessels. I guess it's hard to actually tell how effective this strategy would be and how easy it would be to defend against. I would imagine a few Apache's would be needed rather than anti-ship missiles?

What you are talking about is called small boat swarm tactics and has been tried before with little success. It was during one of these skirmishes that the USS Vincennes shot down a civilian Jet airliner by mistake because they thought it was an F-14 that was part of a combined air sea attack because the Vincennes was being attacked by several lightly armed small boats at the time and that led to the rush to judgment.

But it seems that both Iran and several other smaller countries are taking up these small boat tactics as a way of challenging modern Naval ships within coastal waters and they are trying to refining them. More boats acting at the same time, better coronation between them, better weapons, with shore based support, and new as yet untested tactics.

The very small fast and often fiberglass boats, are hard to see, harder to track with radar and other fire control sensors used by big guns and as a result hard to hit. Because of this we have seen major changes in blue water naval ships lately, with the addition of many more, small caliber guns and new small lightweight short range guided missiles to combat small fast boats. There has been far more development of focused use of naval helicopters as killing platforms against this new threat.

I have only seen some passing comments here and there and no a full scale detailed analyses of this new form of challenging the littoral combat space. If there is anyone out there that has a good reference in the form or a treatise or an article I would like to read it. But until this new form of costal defense is tested in real combat it will be mostly theoretical I think.

 

[rip]

Assume that Iran attacks without a formal declaration of war. That allows them near simultaneous attacks on a number of US Navy ships at close range without worrying about defensive fire because of the ROE. Sure, your comments will apply to any ships that they don’t hit in the first 10 minutes, but by then they may have sunk or crippled most the US ships in the Persian Gulf. Next they mine the Straits of Hormuz and set up some of mobile cruise missile launchers to cover it, plus a whole bunch of decoys to confuse the situation.

The rest of the US Navy shows up starting a couple days later to find the straits blocked and Iran threatening to keep them closed unless the US Navy agrees to stay out of the Gulf. Local protesters and demanding that the western world stay out of a war in the Persian Gulf (NO Blood For OIL), and the politicians waffle. Meanwhile Russia and China in the UN are demanding that everyone negotiates with Iran and blocking any resolution to do other than that. Meanwhile the world markets and economy are in freefall, so a quick solution is required. US carriers will probably still have command of the air, but with so many decoy missile launchers (and more every day) it is prevent them from determining if you have killed enough of the real launchers to force the passage quickly and resolve the situation, increasing the demands for a negotiated settlement.

Don’t’ think that they could try it? It is just a variation on what they have been threatening to do for years.

If the Iranians are so stupid as to try to block the strait of Hormone, the easiest thing to do would be to just to take Qushm Island remove all of the people to the mainland and then keep it. It is a big island but not that big. The situation would then become reversed. You could then control all of southern Iran without having to invade all of the highly populated parts that get so messy and strangle all of its commerce until their economy crashed or they gave up. Whoever has the Island with sufficient air power controls the strait.

 

[NICO]

Assume that Iran attacks without a formal declaration of war. That allows them near simultaneous attacks on a number of US Navy ships at close range without worrying about defensive fire because of the ROE. Sure, your comments will apply to any ships that they don’t hit in the first 10 minutes, but by then they may have sunk or crippled most the US ships in the Persian Gulf. Next they mine the Straits of Hormuz and set up some of mobile cruise missile launchers to cover it, plus a whole bunch of decoys to confuse the situation.

The rest of the US Navy shows up starting a couple days later to find the straits blocked and Iran threatening to keep them closed unless the US Navy agrees to stay out of the Gulf. Local protesters and demanding that the western world stay out of a war in the Persian Gulf (NO Blood For OIL), and the politicians waffle. Meanwhile Russia and China in the UN are demanding that everyone negotiates with Iran and blocking any resolution to do other than that. Meanwhile the world markets and economy are in freefall, so a quick solution is required. US carriers will probably still have command of the air, but with so many decoy missile launchers (and more every day) it is prevent them from determining if you have killed enough of the real launchers to force the passage quickly and resolve the situation, increasing the demands for a negotiated settlement.

Don’t’ think that they could try it? It is just a variation on what they have been threatening to do for years.

I think Iran would be crazy to attack first. It would gain them a small tactical success even if you assume that Iran Navy could sink/disable a couple of USN ships but it would a disastrous long term strategic error. Western populations want nothing to do with Iran but no way in a presidential year will Obama let Iran dictate terms or block Strait of Hormuz. It would guarantee he would be a one term POTUS. Iran attacking first guarantees massive reprisals not just on Iran Navy but would be perfect justification to hit all military/nuclear targets across the country.

If USA or Israel would start something than I could see Russia or China side with Iran but if Iran attacks first with no declaration of war, it is hard for me to believe that Russia/China would take sides with Iran. They are friends with Iran but they aren't that "friendly". By the way, what exactly would there be to negotiate? No way would US president "negotiate" with Iran blocking the Straits, you would be agreeing to blackmail....you also would lose the Saudis/Kuwait,etc confidence and weaken their regimes, everybody in the ME would run for cover, no, only thing for POTUS or Western Powers (Brits/French...) would be massive retaliation...

I agree with gazzzwp that the sanctions are starting to bite, just look at skyrocketing 16% inflation in Iran, massive decline in rial, we also know not everyone is happy with the regime.....It seems to me that Iran is pushing the rhetoric volume higher but I don't think they want armed conflict, they just want to control the PR.....

 

[My2Cents]

They live in a dangerous neighbourhood - on their western flank they face a number of Arab sunni states that have aligned themselves with Uncle Sam and have been at odds with the Iranians for centuries, there is a nuclear armed Israel with receives unconditional U.S. support, there are western troops in Afghanistan which borders Iran, they have to watch out for the interests of their shiite brethren in Iraq, Iran's main ally, Syria, is facing huge problems - what choice do they have?

How about learn to play nice?

• Iran’s population outnumbers the rest of the Persian Gulf states together.
• There are not enough troops in Afghanistan to fight their way across Iran, and no way to supply them if enough are put there.

It remains to be seen if sanctions are really hurting Iran. Remember the U.S. led sanctions on Iraq? It had a devastating effect on normal Iraqis, with tragic consequences for thousands of kids, but had absolutely no effect on the leadership and Saddam's inner circle. Iran's importance to regional affairs, its oil and its strategic location, mean that countries, under the present circumstances, will never completely cut all business ties with it.

Correct to a point. Even the UN investigators concluded that Saddam stole the money and/or resold the supplies that would have ended that suffering, it was not the fault of the US sanctions. Unless of course you mean we should have bribed Saddam and his inner circle to let those supplies through.

 

[Sampanviking]

After reading the thread, I think I can respond to various points.

1) Iran is a Geopolitical boundary and it will not matter who fired first, the underlying imperatives will trump all other considerations.

2) Russia and China will support Iran in the event of conflict. Both nations want a Central Asia free of a NATO presence and see Iran as the doorway of the continent and will not be prepared to see it kicked open.

3) The risk of conflict is increased as NATO influence in Central Asia diminishes. All major US strategies for the region are coming to Nothing with Pipeline and development initiatives such as Nabucco and the New Silk Road being trumped by better thought out Russian and Chinese projects. Manas is back on the closure list and the regional screw slowly being tightened. An Attack on Iran may well be the last throw of the dice to ensure any continued presence for the US in the region.

4) Iran is a source for Energy Pipeline projects and Transit route for new Transcontinental communications in which Russia and China have already made substantial investments, they will not be prepared to lose these current and future assets.

5) With the exception of Turkmenistan, all the regional nations are existing or aspirational members of the Russian/Chinese Security Organisations - inc India.
Ambiguity may be the name of the new great game, but if push does come to shove, all of them have demonstrated a deep underlying understanding of where there true interests lie.

6) 100, 000 Nato troops would suddenly be cut off and isolated in Afghanistan and find themselves the front line of the one thing they have been told never to fight - a land war in Asia.

7) I read a lot of people dismissing the capabilities of the Iranians, but I recall when Hezbollah stopped the IDF in its tracks, the reason being given was that Hezbollah had been supplied and trained by the Iranians. So which is it? as you cannot have it both ways.

In summary, there seems to be a consensus between Russia and China that China is able to tap into the energy resources of Central Asia to feed its demand while Russia is able to monopolise the supply of Asian energy to Europe.
The strategies of both countries require a stable central Asia, fully integrated into Sino-Russian economic and security organisations and sealed in a Geopolitical sense by Iran. Neither will be prepared to see those plans jeopardised, which means that ensuring the survival of the Iranian regime, is of critical importance to their; increasingly, highly coordinated defence and foreign policy strategies.

 

[Sea Toby]

This showdown with Iran or anyone else closing the Straits of Hormuz has been in the works for up to three decades, if not more. It is nothing new. The world is too dependent upon the free flow of oil and free sea trade lanes. And anyone who attempts to close down free sea trade lanes have known doing so would very likely start a conflict...

Its going to be the world vs Iran, not just the USA.

 

[Todjaeger]

After reading the thread, I think I can respond to various points.

1) Iran is a Geopolitical boundary and it will not matter who fired first, the underlying imperatives will trump all other considerations.

I have to disagree with the comment of firing first. Yes Iran is of regional geopolitical importance, that importance does not trump all other considerations though. Especially if Iran were to initiate disruption of the SLOC for international petroleum exports, and/or fire upon naval vessels of foreign powers. Russia and China IMO will continue to back Iran as long as it remains in their national interests to do so. For China, a closure of the Straits of Hormuz and the resulting impact of fuel prices and availability would not be something in the interests of China. Similarly, if Iran began launching attacks against shipping and vessels in the Persian Gulf that would escalate the tensions beyond what they are now, potentially into an actual shooting war. Again, not something good for fuel prices and availability from the Gulf. Further, if Iran did start shooting, how long before Russia and China could become targets?

2) Russia and China will support Iran in the event of conflict. Both nations want a Central Asia free of a NATO presence and see Iran as the doorway of the continent and will not be prepared to see it kicked open.

3) The risk of conflict is increased as NATO influence in Central Asia diminishes. All major US strategies for the region are coming to Nothing with Pipeline and development initiatives such as Nabucco and the New Silk Road being trumped by better thought out Russian and Chinese projects. Manas is back on the closure list and the regional screw slowly being tightened. An Attack on Iran may well be the last throw of the dice to ensure any continued presence for the US in the region.

For #2, again I disagree. Russia and China MIGHT support Iran in a conflict, it depends on what is in their respective national interests. Even on the international stage, the Who, What, Why and How still matter. If Iran gets caught dropping sea mines in the shipping lanes of the Persian Gulf or Straits of Hormuz again, would the economic, military and diplomatic gains from backing Iran outweigh the losses? Such calculations are not simple.

As for a diminishing NATO presence in the Central Asia, I have been under the impression that was an outcome which NATO, including the US was seeking, hence the troop drawn downs. The arguments being presented seem to be arguing that the US/NATO is attempting to instigate something with Iran to justify a continued presence in the region. Given that these views are diametrically opposed, someone has the wrong idea of what is going on.

4) Iran is a source for Energy Pipeline projects and Transit route for new Transcontinental communications in which Russia and China have already made substantial investments, they will not be prepared to lose these current and future assets.

5) With the exception of Turkmenistan, all the regional nations are existing or aspirational members of the Russian/Chinese Security Organisations - inc India.
Ambiguity may be the name of the new great game, but if push does come to shove, all of them have demonstrated a deep underlying understanding of where there true interests lie.

6) 100, 000 Nato troops would suddenly be cut off and isolated in Afghanistan and find themselves the front line of the one thing they have been told never to fight - a land war in Asia.

7) I read a lot of people dismissing the capabilities of the Iranians, but I recall when Hezbollah stopped the IDF in its tracks, the reason being given was that Hezbollah had been supplied and trained by the Iranians. So which is it? as you cannot have it both ways.

With respect to the capabilities of the Iranians and referencing the conflict between the IDF and Hezbollah, the comparison is akin to comparing apples to walnuts unless there were to be a ground invasion of Iran by the US/NATO. Yes, Hezbollah was able to inflict significant damage on IDF ground elements which moved into Lebanon. This was partially due to the weaponry Hezbollah had available to them, but it was mostly due to the conditions that the IDF and Hezbollah were operating in. Namely a significant urbanized battlespace defended by a dedicated guerilla force which was able to blend in with the local civilian population.

What has been mentioned so far, is damaging or destroying the Iranian Navy and those ground forces which could launch attacks again shipping in the Persian Gulf and Straits of Hormuz. This sort of scenario is vastly different from having troops attempting to occupy Iran proper, which AFAIK no reasonable person is considering.

In summary, there seems to be a consensus between Russia and China that China is able to tap into the energy resources of Central Asia to feed its demand while Russia is able to monopolise the supply of Asian energy to Europe.
The strategies of both countries require a stable central Asia, fully integrated into Sino-Russian economic and security organisations and sealed in a Geopolitical sense by Iran. Neither will be prepared to see those plans jeopardised, which means that ensuring the survival of the Iranian regime, is of critical importance to their; increasingly, highly coordinated defence and foreign policy strategies.

Again I have to disagree with the conclusions here too re: the survival of the Iranian regime and the 'consensus' between Russia and China. Both countries are going to do what is in their respective national interests, naturally. However, those respective national interests are not the same, with the price of oil being one of the easiest examples to illustrate the difference. Russia being an energy exporter wants the highest price, while China being an energy importer wants the lowest price. Regarding the Iranian regime's continued survival... I would expect that both Russia and China want a regime which is stable and cooperative with their respective governments. At present it seems hard to determine just how cooperative Iran is with both nations, but calling the regime stable would be IMO a gross distortion of the truth.

Within Iran, it remains questionable just how long the current regime can hold in the face of 16% inflation, the hikes in domestic fuel prices and the tight control of the population, especially the young. A further question regarding the stability of the regime is whether or not Russia and China can trust the current regime. At present, the regime seems to be acting in its own interests to remain in power, which is not necessarily the same as acting in the national interests of Iran. As part of the effort to remain in power, Iran has been developing long-ranged weaponry which could enable Iran to threaten European nations which act counter to the wishes or Iran. AFAIK at present Western European nations remain out of range, but Moscow is...

 

[swerve]

2) Russia and China will support Iran in the event of conflict. Both nations want a Central Asia free of a NATO presence and see Iran as the doorway of the continent and will not be prepared to see it kicked open..

Nope.

China will strive very hard to prevent a conflict, & if there is one, to have it resolved as quickly as possible. China is very dependent on imported oil, and half its imports come from the Gulf. A high oil price will damage China's economy, & disruption of supplies from the Gulf will do double damage, through higher prices & reduced supplies.

Russia does not have these constraints, & will therefore have different aims.

China's best interests will be served by a diplomatic resolution of any problems, & as quickly as possible.

BTW, the USA & NATO are already in Central Asia.

 

[Sampanviking]

Nope.

China will strive very hard to prevent a conflict, & if there is one, to have it resolved as quickly as possible. China is very dependent on imported oil, and half its imports come from the Gulf. A high oil price will damage China's economy, & disruption of supplies from the Gulf will do double damage, through higher prices & reduced supplies.

Russia does not have these constraints, & will therefore have different aims.

China's best interests will be served by a diplomatic resolution of any problems, & as quickly as possible.

BTW, the USA & NATO are already in Central Asia.

Yes I agree, but that does not alter the logic of the positions I outlined earlier. Of course China does not seek a conflict and would seek to delay any actions and would strive to minimise the necessary amount of force it needed to use. That does not however mean that it would be prepared to sacrifice its interests. Add to that your correct assumption that they would seek a speedy resolution means it is likely that as soon as they assessed that combat was inevitable, that they hit as hard as they can.

Russia and China may well have different priorities but the degree of harmonisation between their foreign policies is very strong if not staggering, and it would be very foolish to assume anything other than that specific policies have been devised to meet such a clear and imminent danger to their respective interests.

NATO is indeed in Central Asia and facing significant pressure to fully withdraw within a few years. If NATO were to succeed in occupying Iran and create access through it, then this withdrawal would become increasingly unlikely.

 

[NICO]

Yes I agree, but that does not alter the logic of the positions I outlined earlier. Of course China does not seek a conflict and would seek to delay any actions and would strive to minimise the necessary amount of force it needed to use. That does not however mean that it would be prepared to sacrifice its interests. Add to that your correct assumption that they would seek a speedy resolution means it is likely that as soon as they assessed that combat was inevitable, that they hit as hard as they can.

Russia and China may well have different priorities but the degree of harmonisation between their foreign policies is very strong if not staggering, and it would be very foolish to assume anything other than that specific policies have been devised to meet such a clear and imminent danger to their respective interests.

NATO is indeed in Central Asia and facing significant pressure to fully withdraw within a few years. If NATO were to succeed in occupying Iran and create access through it, then this withdrawal would become increasingly unlikely.

I still think that whoever "fires" first is a huge deal. Just look at today, that video of an Iranian P3 flying over US carrier. Let's say as MY2CENTS proposed that Iran takes the first shot and fires off an antiship missile at that carrier. This would be Iran's best shot, defenses down, not a jet on deck, point blank range....Anybody believe the US would still negotiate after on the 6pm news, you have images of the carrier burning? Yeah, the media would just point out that the carrier was in international waters and just minding it's own business, wasn't even conducting operations....There's no way that US population would go for "negotiations" or show restraint because Russia or China says so. That's war, no other option for POTUS. It makes a HUGE difference who attacks first....

Also if Russia or China are so supportive of Iran, where are all the military deliveries? I haven't heard of squadrons of SU30s or J10s, anybody really believe that Russia delivered S300s or China HQ9? Again, just today US closed the deal on sale of F15s to Saudi Arabia, yeah, Sukoi doesn't need to or want to sale a couple hundred -27/30's to Iran? What's stopping them, just UN sanctions? I guess Sukoi doesn't need the extra cash....If Russia or China really supported Iran, they would find a way to sell them the "good" stuff....That would be real support, not: "don't worry Iran, we will go to the UN and stop the West...", I am sure the Iranians would be real happy about that level of support while their country's military is systematically taken apart....

On the financial front, China has been playing hard ball with Iran on current negotiations on pricing for oil/NG, apparently they want a discount. I believe that US has talked to China and doesn't have a problem with them "squeezing" Iran. China needs Iran oil/NG more than US, they don't want any disruptions...I think they are more likely to put pressure on Iran to cool off than anything else, China protects it's interests and if that means ditching Iran or it's regime for security of oil shipments, I don't think they would have any problems with that....

I think a lot of the increase in rhetoric/displays has a lot to do with sanctions starting to bite, with Bank of Iran pretty much threaten of being "sealed" off from the world, Iran gvt can't control inflation or the rapid fall in the rial, which is going to hurt the population and put pressure on Iran regime...

Last, there is no way that US or NATO would occupy Iran, that's nothing even a remote possibility....

 

[My2Cents]

Also If USN ships are attacked won't their advance CIWS take out most of the anti ship missiles, and the Iranian rockets are unreliable and quite frankly I don't think they can do much damage to big ships.

We are not talking about cruise missiles in the initial attack, but barrage rockets, probably a salvo of 6 to 8 140mm, fired simultaneously from 4 to 6 of those Iranian speedboats at a range of less than 1000m. Think of it as being hit by about 3 broadside from a WWII heavy cruiser. CIWS cannot begin to handle that many targets, it might even lock up if the software cannot handle the closely spaced missile stream. On the other hand it easily might get lucky and take out one of the boats launching the rockets. The ship will probably lose all its external sensors and communications. Internal damage depends on to many other factors, but is likely to be extensive. The only weapons left functional, if they and their crews survive, will probably be the 25mm manned mounts and the machine guns.

Then the surviving boats attempt to ram with suicide charges.

 

[gazzzwp]

Could it be possible that Russia perceives it will benefit from the conflict? China obviously does not since it is dependant on Middle Eastern oil. For Russia this is a different story.

Looking at the state media website today and measuring the sentiment it looks to me if they want this to happen. A double edged bonus; Russian oil selling at a premium and Nato forces bogged down yet again.

 

[Sampanviking]

I still think that whoever "fires" first is a huge deal. Just look at today, that video of an Iranian P3 flying over US carrier. Let's say as MY2CENTS proposed that Iran takes the first shot and fires off an antiship missile at that carrier. This would be Iran's best shot, defenses down, not a jet on deck, point blank range....Anybody believe the US would still negotiate after on the 6pm news, you have images of the carrier burning? Yeah, the media would just point out that the carrier was in international waters and just minding it's own business, wasn't even conducting operations....There's no way that US population would go for "negotiations" or show restraint because Russia or China says so. That's war, no other option for POTUS. It makes a HUGE difference who attacks first....

Also if Russia or China are so supportive of Iran, where are all the military deliveries? I haven't heard of squadrons of SU30s or J10s, anybody really believe that Russia delivered S300s or China HQ9? Again, just today US closed the deal on sale of F15s to Saudi Arabia, yeah, Sukoi doesn't need to or want to sale a couple hundred -27/30's to Iran? What's stopping them, just UN sanctions? I guess Sukoi doesn't need the extra cash....If Russia or China really supported Iran, they would find a way to sell them the "good" stuff....That would be real support, not: "don't worry Iran, we will go to the UN and stop the West...", I am sure the Iranians would be real happy about that level of support while their country's military is systematically taken apart....

On the financial front, China has been playing hard ball with Iran on current negotiations on pricing for oil/NG, apparently they want a discount. I believe that US has talked to China and doesn't have a problem with them "squeezing" Iran. China needs Iran oil/NG more than US, they don't want any disruptions...I think they are more likely to put pressure on Iran to cool off than anything else, China protects it's interests and if that means ditching Iran or it's regime for security of oil shipments, I don't think they would have any problems with that....

I think a lot of the increase in rhetoric/displays has a lot to do with sanctions starting to bite, with Bank of Iran pretty much threaten of being "sealed" off from the world, Iran gvt can't control inflation or the rapid fall in the rial, which is going to hurt the population and put pressure on Iran regime...

Last, there is no way that US or NATO would occupy Iran, that's nothing even a remote possibility....

The thread is predicated on the basis that conflict starts. With that in mind we have to dispense with how low the probability is and all the potential turns and checks that can prevent it. Something happens and we have a s**t/fan interface event.

The start of combat in a place like this is like crossing an event horizon, because the laws that govern on this side may be utterly alien to those that stood before. That means that how we got here becomes irrelevant and only how to get from here to where we want to be matters.

I think its also fair to say that the commencement event will be highly ambiguous or contentious in its own right. A new round of UN sanctions are highly unlikely, which means that any further sanctions will be unilateral ones and not be recognised in international law. This means that there will be no Iraq style countdown from the West. You can also discount a massive "pre-emptive strike" from Iran.
What would seem most likely is the US trying to enforce various unilateral sanctions on countries that do not recognise their legality. This may include the USN trying to interdict Oil and Gas Tankers in the Persian Gulfs International or even Iranian territorial waters.

So what comes first the provocation or the shot?

You can guarantee zero agreement between the powers on that one.

As for the tough negotiations on Oil deals - well guess what, Asians haggle and haggle hard. If we in the west got better at haggling ourselves, maybe we would not need to resort to our fists to settle an argument quite so often.

 

[swerve]

Yes I agree, but that does not alter the logic of the positions I outlined earlier. Of course China does not seek a conflict and would seek to delay any actions and would strive to minimise the necessary amount of force it needed to use. That does not however mean that it would be prepared to sacrifice its interests. Add to that your correct assumption that they would seek a speedy resolution means it is likely that as soon as they assessed that combat was inevitable, that they hit as hard as they can.

You are completely failing to understand what China's interests are. You are now suggesting that China would join in a war. Are you serious? War with the USA would be a catastrophe for China. No sane person can take seriously the idea that China would go to war with the USA over Iran. You're suggesting WW3.

Let us think about it a moment. What could China achieve? Could it rapidly defeat the US navy & USAF, seize US bases which threaten China's sea lanes, & either defeat or intimidate into neutrality US allies? Could it then prevent the USA from rebuilding & coming back for round two, either by diplomacy or force? That's what's required.

Now let us consider the immediate consequences of a war, regardless of its ultimate outcome. China wouldn't only lose most of its oil imports (its largest suppliers outside the Gulf are Angola & Sudan), it would lose its imports of food, raw materials, electronic components (a hell of a lot of those "Made in China" electronic goods are built around imported high-tech components from Japan, etc), & risk losing most of its foreign assets. Most of its dollar holdings would immediately be frozen. Its seaborne exports (i.e. almost all of them) would cease. The economy would implode. Tens of millions of workers would have no jobs, no incomes, & food would be getting short. The only bright spot would be that at least, with so many factories shut, electricity supplies shouldn't be a problem.

All of this is without taking into account any war losses. It's just from what the US could do to China's trade & payments if China started a war.

This isn't a board game. It's not about moving counters on a map.

China's interests are in not fighting a war. It doesn't have any sentimental attachment to Iran or its government. Iran is a source of energy (which China wants as cheaply & reliably as possible), & something which can be used as a goad to provoke the US occasionally, but it's certainly not something China would think worth fighting for.

The USA isn't going to occupy Iran, BTW. It combines the terrain of Afghanistan with the weaponry of Iraq, but has a lot more land & people than both of them put together, & greater technological sophistication. And the USA would have no internal allies. So what's the problem for China? There isn't going to be any increased US military presence in Central Asia from a Straits of Hormuz war, whatever the outcome.

China's interests are in there being no war, & if there is one, in it being as limited as possible, in duration, extent, & destructiveness. Joining in serves none of those interests. Helping Iran would only prolong the war. The best outcome is for everything to calm down, & the second best outcome is a quick defeat of any Iranian attempt to block the straits, & Iran backing down (probably while claiming that it has humbled the imperialists). China could then speak soothingly, & suggest to Iran that pipelines to China would benefit it enormously, but of course, China would expect long-term discounts to make the pipelines economically worthwhile.

 

[Sampanviking]

Hi Swerve

I seem to recall writers of the time making similar predictions regarding it not being in Britain's interest to declare war on Germany for the sake of the unpleasant military dictatorship that was the Polish Government of the 1930's.

Your argument is good one but sadly flawed.
By either direct invasion or support of internal dissent to effect regime change, Russia and China have seen three nations defeated by America and its allies and attention being brought heavily to bear on two others; Syria and Iran.

This is quite a march on its own right and one that both nations have signalled clearly that they intend to halt.

A pro western regime in Iran secures NATO in Central Asia and allows for further destabilisation and regime change throughout the energy producing stans in the region. This would have a two fold effect.
One: break the Russian energy supply monopoly for Europe which is key to Russia's strategic resurgence.
Two: Place the Central Asian energy reserves that China is using as a hedge against US control of ME energy assets also into US hands.
Put this together with Chinese perceptions of the US trying to interdict and restrict Chinese access to energy in the South China Seas, it fears a future dictated by a US hand on the spigott in all directions and being relegated to the slow lane of growth and development as controlled and permitted by Washington.
In addition both countries fear that a US zone of influence in their soft underbellies could lead to unravelling of their own sovereign territories.

It is then not so much that going to war over regime survival in Iran is a matter of Chinese/Russian interest, it is that allowing such a regime change and all that follows is even less to their interest and so war becomes the lesser of two evils.

The US incidentally perceives this very clearly and so the question in return is, Is it in the US interest to attack Iran and provoke confrontation with the other Regional Powers?

 

[T.C.P]

We are not talking about cruise missiles in the initial attack, but barrage rockets, probably a salvo of 6 to 8 140mm, fired simultaneously from 4 to 6 of those Iranian speedboats at a range of less than 1000m. Think of it as being hit by about 3 broadside from a WWII heavy cruiser. CIWS cannot begin to handle that many targets, it might even lock up if the software cannot handle the closely spaced missile stream. On the other hand it easily might get lucky and take out one of the boats launching the rockets. The ship will probably lose all its external sensors and communications. Internal damage depends on to many other factors, but is likely to be extensive. The only weapons left functional, if they and their crews survive, will probably be the 25mm manned mounts and the machine guns.

Then the surviving boats attempt to ram with suicide charges.

These being unguided rockets how reliable and accurate will they be, plus 1000m gives the USN ships somw time for evasive maneuvers right?

Also, wouldn't US satellites and air assets warn the USN of a bunch of armed hostile boats coming their way.

 

[swerve]

Hi Swerve

I seem to recall writers of the time making similar predictions regarding it not being in Britain's interest to declare war on Germany for the sake of the unpleasant military dictatorship that was the Polish Government of the 1930's.

But those arguments mostly came from political extremists, either friends of the Nazis, or friends of Hitler's new best mate Stalin.

Nazi Germany was thought (probably rightly) to pose an existential threat to the UK & France. Poland was yet another breach of Hitler's promise that he had no more territorial claims. The USA does not pose an existential threat to China, & is not trying to annex anything. It has just withdrawn from Iraq, remember.

The UK was not threatened with an economic disaster as a result of declaring war in support of Poland. It was the one able to do the blockading, not Germany. It controlled sources of raw materials & food, & the sea lanes to them. Germany went hungry in WW1, but the UK did not, & there was no reason to believe it would be different in 1939. Nor was it: despite war deaths, British life expectancy went up during the war, & the economy grew until we started winding down weapons production in 1944.

The situation is not comparable.

 

[gazzzwp]

Hi Swerve

I seem to recall writers of the time making similar predictions regarding it not being in Britain's interest to declare war on Germany for the sake of the unpleasant military dictatorship that was the Polish Government of the 1930's.

Your argument is good one but sadly flawed.
By either direct invasion or support of internal dissent to effect regime change, Russia and China have seen three nations defeated by America and its allies and attention being brought heavily to bear on two others; Syria and Iran.

This is quite a march on its own right and one that both nations have signalled clearly that they intend to halt.

A pro western regime in Iran secures NATO in Central Asia and allows for further destabilisation and regime change throughout the energy producing stans in the region. This would have a two fold effect.
One: break the Russian energy supply monopoly for Europe which is key to Russia's strategic resurgence.
Two: Place the Central Asian energy reserves that China is using as a hedge against US control of ME energy assets also into US hands.
Put this together with Chinese perceptions of the US trying to interdict and restrict Chinese access to energy in the South China Seas, it fears a future dictated by a US hand on the spigott in all directions and being relegated to the slow lane of growth and development as controlled and permitted by Washington.
In addition both countries fear that a US zone of influence in their soft underbellies could lead to unravelling of their own sovereign territories.

It is then not so much that going to war over regime survival in Iran is a matter of Chinese/Russian interest, it is that allowing such a regime change and all that follows is even less to their interest and so war becomes the lesser of two evils.

The US incidentally perceives this very clearly and so the question in return is, Is it in the US interest to attack Iran and provoke confrontation with the other Regional Powers?

As I see it (and I have heard US officials say the same) invasion and subsequent regime change is not even being considered for Iran; partly because it is a more formidable prospect compared to either Afghanistan or Iraq due to it's size and also as you suggest Iran has 'big brothers'.

What is on the cards:

1) Compromise of it's military capabilities so that it poses no threat to the supply of oil in the region and also in preparation for:
2) Dismemberment of it's nuclear program.

Boots on the ground is not on the agenda and regime change whilst desirable to the West is not an option unless the result of the conflict brings about protest from below as we are currently witnessing with Syria.

 

[My2Cents]

These being unguided rockets how reliable and accurate will they be, plus 1000m gives the USN ships somw time for evasive maneuvers right?

1.5 to 2 seconds at that range for the first round to land, less than 10 seconds till the 8th round hits. A Burke class destroyer is big, so even assuming open sights and an elevation only mount (i.e. point the ship and fire) there will probably be more hits than misses head-on, and probably few misses from the side.

Also, wouldn't US satellites and air assets warn the USN of a bunch of armed hostile boats coming their way.

Last I heard the Iranian boats came out to harass US vessels several times a month, fake attack runs and all that, trying to get the US ships to fire on them and generate an incident for the Press and the international courts. It may be pretty hard to tell if it is just more harassment or an attack being launched, unless approaching all the vessels at the same time tips someone off, and even then the Navy will probably hesitate. The real problem for the Iranians will be coordinating all the attacks, they have only a couple minutes before it is open season on them by any survivors. :hul

 

[StingrayOZ]

I don't see a flat out war. I see the iranians hasselling shipping in the region and generally being PIA. This will achieve 90% of what they want without actually going to (full) war with anyone. Oil prices will go up and this will apply pressure on the sanctions against Iran which won't really have an affect on the leadership anyway.

Russia has more extensive ties with Iran, and would be generally supportive. Oil prices are going to go up and become unstable either way, plus China's energy needs may drop as the economy slows down.

This will be one for the Diplomats.

I don't see Iran being successful with swarm attacks. They won't have to.