The Situation With Iran and the Strait of Hormuz

Ranger25

Active Member
Staff member
An all out invasion would indeed be messy. But what about a limited, primarily aerial and naval conflict, over the Hormuz shipping lanes? Because at the end of the day, that's what was on the line here with the arrest of tankers by both sides. Despite the attempts made by Iran to develop modern systems in both fighter jets and air defense, it's not exactly a great power in either area. They could and quite likely would disrupt shipping for a time, but how long of time is up for debate. The ultimate outcome I think is not. The only real ending here is a defeat for Iran, and a return of the shipping lanes to their pre-war status quo, with additional restrictions on Iranian oil exports.

I agree with Feanor, the Iranian Military is technologically way behind the US and Western militaries and would be quickly outgunned.

there would also be NO reason for any land warfare or invasion of Iran proper.

A limited Aerial campaign to reduce any threats to the Straights is all that would be required to secure the straights and send Iran a Firm message and lesson. Perhaps naval TLAMS to open an air corridor through the A2D2 network and then follow on air strikes using Standoff munitions such as the LRASM to clean up any remaining threats.

That said, US bases in the Gulf region would need to heighten all security and be prepared for Quds style Asymmetrical threats as well as IRGC MRBM strikes. Would need a layer of DDG-51(SM2/6) PAC 3s and THAAD prepared to intercept incoming rounds.
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
For clarity, the Millennium Challenge in 2002 was an invasion scenario — the staff college war game began with a forced-entry exercise that included the 82nd Airborne and the 1st Marine Division. Very different from our current discussion. From a US point of view, conducting some surgical strikes is the easy part. The difficult part is where does it stop, especially if Iranians want to give it a good go in the action-reaction cycle, for 12 to 18 months and keep dragging on the fight beyond November 2020 (till after the US elections).

Iranian proxies are not without capability to hurt US interests but they have no hope of ‘winning’ in the region (see: SIPRI pdf on Gulf Region’s Military Spending). In 2018 Saudi Arabia’s military spending amounted to an estimated US$67.6 billion. Saudi Arabia is improving its capability to defend against air and missile attacks. In 2014–18 it received 23 Patriot PAC-3 air and missile defence systems from the USA. In 2018 it ordered seven highly advanced THAAD missile defence systems from the Americans. Saudi Arabia’s land and naval forces have been and continue to be modernized and expanded. In the period 2014–18, a total of over 4,000 armoured vehicles were delivered from Austria, Canada, France, Georgia, South Africa and Turkey, and 338 tanks were delivered from the USA. Saudi Arabia ordered three large patrol boats from France in 2015, four frigates from the USA in 2017 and five frigates from Spain in 2018. In 2018, it was the third-largest military spender globally. But I do agree that the red force tactics used by General Van Riper in the Millennium Challenge (that included those used against the USS Cole in 2000), is dangerous to US navy ships patrolling the region.

On the plus side, John Bolton has resigned — oil prices went down on the news. While war is more remote now that this hawk is gone; it remains to be seen how the Trump Administration will negotiate with the Iranians going forward.
 
Last edited:

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Something interesting took place. The Houthis or "Houthis" have carried out a large scale strike against Saudi oil infrastructure. Allegedly it was carried out by UAVs and ballistic missiles, but there are suspicions of other assets (cruise missiles for example). The Saudis even claim that some of the strikes came from outside of Yemen. It's noteworthy that the strikes were precise, and highly damaging, indirectly supporting claims that this wasn't a regular strike by the Houthis.

The strike took out 5.7 mln barrel of oil per day in production. There was a predictable spike in oil prices. The Houthis warned foreign specialists to stay away from Saudi oil infrastructure, stating that those are potential targets for future strikes. And the Iranian Revolutionary Guard stated that US military bases and aircraft carriers are in striking distance.

Атаки на саудовские нефтяные объекты совершены иранским оружием и не из Йемена
Спутниковые снимки последствий ударов по объектам саудовской нефтяной промышленности
Хирургическая точность
Законная самозащита народа Йемена
Последствия ударов по объектам саудовской нефтяной промышленности
https://imp-navigator.livejournal.com/854248.html
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
The attacks on the Abqaiq refinery and the oil field of Khurais have lifted a curtain on the vulnerability of Saudi Arabia and its own ability to defend Aramco and its production facilities. And by extension, the attacks directly challenge the US commitment to defend the mobility and accessibility of global energy markets. This attack has been on Saudi Arabia, but it is really an attack on the United States and its leadership commitment in the Arabian Peninsula and beyond (see: Saudi oil facility attack challenges Washington's credibility - AEI). Former White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci said President Donald Trump's remarks that the United States is "locked and loaded" in response to an attack on Saudi Arabian oil fields are a "predictable level of irrationality from him." Trump used similar language in June when he announced he had called off an attack on Iran just as the US was "cocked & loaded" to strike because he decided it would cause too many deaths for a proportionate response to Tehran's downing of a US drone.

Recent cases illustrate the prevalent concern among many analysts and former policymakers that failures to take military action are the principle factors damaging U.S. credibility today. Former U.S. Defense Secretary and Director of Central Intelligence Leon Panetta who served in multiple Democratic administrations strongly criticized President Barack Obama’s failure to strike Syria after previously drawing a “red line” against the use of chemical weapons in 2013. He expressly said this failure to follow through on this threat was “damaging” to U.S. credibility and that “it was important for us to stand by our word and go in and do what a commander in chief should do.” Meanwhile, former French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius decried Obama’s failure to strike as a more consequential damaging “turning point, not only for the crisis in the Middle East, but also for Ukraine, Crimea, and the world” (see: American Credibility is Dangerously Low: Just Not For the Reasons You May Think - Foreign Policy Research Institute).

Similar critiques were levied against President Donald Trump’s last minute decision in June 2019 to call off US military strikes against Iran in apparent retaliation for the downing of an unmanned reconnaissance aircraft over the Strait of Hormuz. In fact, a former advisor to John McCain’s presidential campaign and well-regarded scholar Kori Schake excoriated President Trump’s decision as “much worse” than Obama’s while concluding that this record of making “empty threats that damage American credibility . . . will encourage other adversaries to challenge America in other theaters.”
Something interesting took place. The Houthis or "Houthis" have carried out a large scale strike against Saudi oil infrastructure. Allegedly it was carried out by UAVs and ballistic missiles, but there are suspicions of other assets (cruise missiles for example). The Saudis even claim that some of the strikes came from outside of Yemen.
Not sure if your information is correct. It may not be the Houthis as their claims of responsibility do not remotely tally with reported facts. IMO, the Houthies could not have performed this level of coordinated multiple attacks on 5 separate sites, simultaneously. Nor have they demonstrated this level of target selection for effects, or this consistent precision striking, nor over this range, or undetected on such a scale, nor with so many weapons in flight. The Houthis say they did it; the US insists that it was Iran; the Iranians deny any involvement. See this CSIS discussion on ‘The Attack on Saudi Arabia’.

According to other news reports, US officials said there were 19 points of impact on the Abqaiq refinery. Washington has blamed Tehran for the attacks, which cut five percent of world crude oil production. The attacks had come from a west-north-west direction - not Houthi-controlled territory in Yemen, which lies to the south-west of the Saudi oil facilities. The officials said that could suggest launch sites in the northern Gulf, Iran or Iraq (See: US says data shows Iran behind Saudi oil attacks). But Iraq denied that the attacks were launched from its territory. Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi said Mr Pompeo had assured him in a phone call on 16 Sept 2019 that the US backed Iraq's position.

FP: Evidence is growing that the attack was massive in scope and sophisticated enough to avoid Saudi missile defenses. What does this say about Tehran’s capabilities?

Vice Adm. John Miller: It’s too soon for us to really understand how the actual attack occurred, whether it was drones or cruise missiles. The facilities that were attacked are pretty vast, and so I’m guessing the Saudi Patriot [missile] defense system, it has limitations, of course, to it. It seems to me that the actual attack came from areas where their Patriot defense wasn’t complete. They kind of got in through the back door.​

It was a very sophisticated attack that couldn’t have been conducted, in my view, from the Houthis in Yemen or by some sort of rogue group in Iraq. It showed a sophisticated understanding of the missile defenses and how to strike in a way that the missile defenses were unable to respond.

This was absolutely a coordinated attack, this was [Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps]. They are connected directly to the supreme leader—there are no mistakes here.​

In this case, the oil price saw its biggest one-day rise since the 1991 Gulf War, soaring 20% but falling back later. The international benchmark used by traders, Brent crude, jumped to US$71.95 (£57.53) a barrel at one point. Prices eased after President Trump authorised a possible release of US reserves. Japan said on 17 Sept 2019, that it would consider a coordinated release of oil reserves if necessary. US Energy Secretary Rick Perry told business channel CNBC that it was too early to tell if this would be necessary. However, Energy Intelligence reported that as much as 40% of that disrupted production (about 2.3 million barrels per day) was already restored one day after the attack. Russia’s UN ambassador, who currently chairs the UN Security Council, says the attacks on key Saudi oil installations were “unanimously and unequivocally condemned” by all 15 council members. Vassily Nebenzia said after a council meeting on Yemen on Monday that “it is inadmissible that civil objects and socio-economic infrastructure are being targeted.”
 
Last edited:

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
If Iran is behind this attack (i.e. the missiles originated from Iran), I wonder if Bolton's removal helped embolden Iran? Certainly Trump's on again off again retaliatory statements might have the same effect. First NK then Syria and now Iran. Russia and China are taking note!
 

KiwiRob

Well-Known Member
What’s also interesting is these attacks didn’t knock out production, it’s back up and running, the strikes were so precise they hit infrastructure which could be easily bypassed.

It’s like another Gulf of Tonkin incident.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Not sure if your information is correct. It may not be the Houthis as their claims of responsibility do not remotely tally with reported facts. IMO, the Houthies could not have performed this level of coordinated multiple attacks on 5 separate sites, simultaneously. Nor have they demonstrated this level of target selection for effects, or this consistent precision striking, nor over this range, or undetected on such a scale, nor with so many weapons in flight. The Houthis say they did it; the US insists that it was Iran; the Iranians deny any involvement.
Sorry, I wasn't being clear. When I said Houthis or "Houthis", the second one was meant to imply someone else did the strikes and the Houthis are merely claiming credit. I personally fully agree with the assessment that this appears to be far too much for them. Prior to this they had trouble hitting targets the size of an airport, now they're taking out individual pieces of an oil production facility in a mass strike with precision? I don't buy it.

The Saudis held a press conference where they showed off fragments of the missiles and UAVs that hit the targets.

Пресс-конференция с обломками БЛА и ракет использованными Йеменскими хуситами

Some versions of the potential route the inbound strike used,

Версия США маршрута полета крылатых ракет с территории Ирана с поражением целей на территории КСА

After sarcastic suggestions from Putin that the Saudis should buy the S-400, they've turned to South Korea for help strengthening their air defense.

Саудовская Аравия обратилась к Южной Корее за помощью в укреплении системы противовоздушной обороны
Путин, Рухани и Эрдоган когда речь зашла про удар по саудовской нефтянке

EDIT: The Abqaiq site was apparently protected by 3 sites of AAA (the 35mm Skyguard) and one Patriot battery. This raises questions about either the systems used for the strike or the competency of the operators on the Saudi site.

А это у нас те системы ПВО, что непосредственно прикрывали саудовский завод в Абкайке
 
Last edited:

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
It’s pretty clear that if a coalition against Iran is formed by the US, it’s a coalition of the unwilling — due to loss of standing of the Americans, under the Trump administration in the international stage. In American foreign policy, and policy on Iran in particular, chaos rules. There appears to be no interagency process to vet alternative approaches or include the talent from departments in deliberations on policy. Trump's approach to national security -- and his penchant for threatening other countries over Twitter -- has made any coalition plans to work with the Trump administration increasingly difficult to navigate.
It’s like another Gulf of Tonkin incident.
Really? What’s your reasoning? The pattern of escalation by Iran and it’s proxies seems to be consistent. To get more — or rather to conclusively end what Iranian leaders consider the unlawful embargo of their most important source of revenue — it shouldn’t be surprising that Tehran might be prepared to go for broke, with an exponentially more consequential attack that makes good on its eye-for-an-eye approach to regional oil exports. It is hard to sustain a conspiracy given the scale of attacks — at the start of the attacks on oil tankers, I was concerned about the remote possibility of false flag attacks that may seek to blame Iran but once Iran started shooting SAMs into the air corridor, there is no doubt it is the Iranians are testing for American resolve.

Saudi Arabia's military displayed pieces of missiles and drones saying the wreckage is proof that the recent attack that crippled Saudi oil production was "unquestionably" sponsored by Iran. At a news conference in Riyadh, the capital, a Saudi military spokesman, Col. Turki al-Malki, said Saturday's strike came from the north — not from Yemen, where Houthi rebels have claimed responsibility for the attack. Both Iran and Iraq are to the north of Saudi Arabia.

CNN reports that US President Trump has ordered new sanctions on Iran — but what can these new sanctions do (that is not already covered by existing sanctions to date)? Trump has not definitely stated that Iran was behind the Saudi oil attacks, but others in his administration have pinned blame on Tehran. We should also note that Trump’s first foreign trip as US President was to the Saudi capital city of Riyadh and his previous statements about the kingdom needing to pay more to get that level of protection from the US — going to war now will look so bad on Trump, as a mercenary. It should be noted that a cyber conflict between Iran and the US is now a constant — unnamed American officials have told the media that covert attacks on Iranian intelligence systems in June 2019 had such a devastating impact, that the country has yet to recover its capabilities. Those systems, the unnamed American officials say, were used to direct targeting against commercial vessels in the Gulf. And so Iran’s ability to mount further attacks has—for the time being—been seriously degraded.
 
Last edited:

cdxbow

Well-Known Member
Despite the Iraqi's denying it, this report EXCLUSIVE: Iranian drones launched from Iraq carried out attacks on Saudi oil plants suggests the attacks were committed by Hashd Al-Shabbi militants in Iraq, which is consistent with an attack from the North. There were reports of a drone flying over Kuwait.

This was a very well planned attack and I don't think it could have been put together in the time after after Bolton left ( in response to earlier post)
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Despite the Iraqi's denying it, this report EXCLUSIVE: Iranian drones launched from Iraq carried out attacks on Saudi oil plants suggests the attacks were committed by Hashd Al-Shabbi militants in Iraq, which is consistent with an attack from the North. There were reports of a drone flying over Kuwait.

This was a very well planned attack and I don't think it could have been put together in the time after after Bolton left ( in response to earlier post)
If that is indeed the case, then where did the LACM come from?
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Despite the Iraqi's denying it, this report EXCLUSIVE: Iranian drones launched from Iraq carried out attacks on Saudi oil plants suggests the attacks were committed by Hashd Al-Shabbi militants in Iraq, which is consistent with an attack from the North. There were reports of a drone flying over Kuwait.

This was a very well planned attack and I don't think it could have been put together in the time after after Bolton left ( in response to earlier post)
I would treat any claims made by that source with some caution, as there seems to be some question as to the source of financing for the site as well as some of the sources for material.
 

KiwiRob

Well-Known Member
It should be noted that a cyber conflict between Iran and the US is now a constant — unnamed American officials have told the media that covert attacks on Iranian intelligence systems in June 2019 had such a devastating impact, that the country has yet to recover its capabilities. Those systems, the unnamed American officials say, were used to direct targeting against commercial vessels in the Gulf. And so Iran’s ability to mount further attacks has—for the time being—been seriously degraded.
If this is the case then how did they manage to pull off this one?
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Problem is the Iranians, Saudis, Emiraties, Israelis and US are all somewhat economical with the truth at the best of times, and more so now because they all have a dog or ten in this war. The Houthis are claiming responsibility for this attack because:
  • They did do it (possible).
  • They're claiming it to look good and claim the credit.
  • They've been told by their masters to claim it.
The Russians will probably back the Iranians because it will be in their interest too and it sticks it to the US. I think the PRC will back the Iranians as well for the same reason, but I don't know how much oil they buy from the Saudis, so they may tread with some caution there.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
If this is the case then how did they manage to pull off this one?
By national technical means and its very OPSEC. But generally the Iranians were apparently spoofing GPS signals, so maybe the US has spoofed the spoofers from the sounds of it. Maybe they managed to locate and jam the spoofers signals at source. Purely a guess on my part.
 

cdxbow

Well-Known Member
If that is indeed the case, then where did the LACM come from?
Can't see why the militias couldn't have obtained an Iranian missile, they are allies.
I would treat any claims made by that source with some caution, as there seems to be some question as to the source of financing for the site as well as some of the sources for material.
True, but it fits the facts better than the Houthis. The missiles are reported to have come from the north not the south. Hashd Al-Shabbi are an Iranian proxy and provide deniability for Iran.

From Saudi Arabia: "The attack was launched from the north and unquestionably sponsored by Iran. The evidence ... that you have seen in front of you, makes this undeniable," Defense Ministry spokesman Col. Turki al-Malki said. I think the wording here is crucial "unquestionably sponsored by Iran". Not launched by Iran or from Iran.

I think it's unlikely the Iranians would do this directly because of the consequences, but I am sure they would be willing to help any of their affiliated groups do it. Could be wrong, we will have to wait and see what comes out.
 
Last edited:

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
ngatimozart said:

If that is indeed the case, then where did the LACM come from?
Can't see why the militias couldn't have obtained an Iranian missile, they are allies.
Todjaeger said:

I would treat any claims made by that source with some caution, as there seems to be some question as to the source of financing for the site as well as some of the sources for material.
True, but it fits the facts better than the Houthis. The missiles are reported to have come from the north not the south. Hashd Al-Shabbi are an Iranian proxy and provide deniability for Iran.

From Saudi Arabia: "The attack was launched from the north and unquestionably sponsored by Iran. The evidence ... that you have seen in front of you, makes this undeniable," Defense Ministry spokesman Col. Turki al-Malki said. I think the wording here is crucial "unquestionably sponsored by Iran". Not launched by Iran or from Iran.

I think it's unlikely the Iranians would do this directly because of the consequences, but I am sure they would be willing to help any of their affiliated groups do it. Could be wrong, we will have to wait and see what comes out.
The one thing about this operation so far has been its good OPSEC and any long range LACM being given to the Houthis by the Iranians would've had a good chance of being picked up by US, Israeli and other intel services through overhead imagery, chatter, human int, elint, or other means. They aren't something you can easily hide in your back pocket.

It doesn't matter if the story fits the facts; have you stopped to think that the story written that way? Of curse the Saudis are going to say that the attack was sponsored by Iran. What do you expect them to say? If the news organisation has questions regarding its bias and the accuracy of its articles, then we always treat any of its articles with great caution. In this case it appears that this caution is warranted. The real issue with all of this is that there has been no independent verification of the attack vectors.
 

SSJArcher Krich

New Member
It depends on how you define winnable. Certainly we could decimate them. But what then? We could not expect to invade and get them subjugated. It would be another Vietnam or Iraq, on steroids. So, the real question is: what are our goals, and what is the plan to achieve them? I don’t think the current administration has a clue as to how to get there.

Art

Iran is far stronger than Iraq in its heydays or Vietnam.

In effect, Iran is stronger than North Korea for all intents and purposes. Did you see the USA invading North Korea after Kim Jong Un's ICBM and nuclear device tests?

Did you see Trump holding meetings with Kim in Singapore and Hanoi instead? And at the DMZ in Korea?
 

MickB

Well-Known Member
Iran is far stronger than Iraq in its heydays or Vietnam.

In effect, Iran is stronger than North Korea for all intents and purposes. Did you see the USA invading North Korea after Kim Jong Un's ICBM and nuclear device tests?

Did you see Trump holding meetings with Kim in Singapore and Hanoi instead? And at the DMZ in Korea?
There are ways to defeat a country other than storming the beaches.
Look at Germany's defeat in WW1, large standing army still in the field but surrendered due to economic breakdown at home.

Trump appears to prefer this path of economic warfare.
I would suggest that Iran lashing out is in response to the sanctions in place having major effect.
More of the same will only speed up the process.

It may be possible for the US to win (however you define winning) without a single soldier setting foot in Iran.
 
Top