The Situation With Iran and the Strait of Hormuz

[buffy9]

Some U.S. Allies Balk at Blaming Iran for Tanker Attack

It appears a number of key American allies are hesitant to directly blame Iran. Norway and Japan are both reluctant to accuse Iran with the latter's targetted shipping company also going as far as to note that their vessel was struck by a flying object and not a limpet mine, as stated by the US.

The linked article notes that many countries (with the exception of the UK) may not wish to be seen as jumping too quickly to the US' side considering the high stakes of what is going on in the region and the relatively "loud" nature of US foreign policy in recent times.

It is a worrying concern to have the US seeking allied support. It could indicate a willingness to undertake strike operations to pre-emptively prevent Iranian strikes on international shipping as having more allies would reduce the damage to the US national/international image as a warmonger. It also could however be a means to possibly reduce Iranian aggression if escort/mine operations are to be taken, as having more allies would make any attack more risky (and ultimately costly) for Iran.

U.S. and Gulf allies face tough task protecting oil shipping lanes - Reuters

On a related note there appears to be an ongoing discussion on how to protect international shipping in the Gulf, notably in escorting said shipping as well as minesweeping. This would sure raise tensions in the Gulf, though it is arguable whether Iran will escalate if such a move is taken or whether the USN is willing to risk deploying MFU elements close to Iranian shores. Sounds like it might be a useful operational and tactical role for the LCS, provided they can protect themselves from swarm attacks or ASM strikes.

On a side note, this is combined with a surge in US (logistical) forces in Europe:

US to Send 1,000 More Troops to Poland

Russia says it will respond defensively to U.S. deployment in Poland - Reuters

And the presence of an Australian submarine in the S. Pacific, allegedly due to medical problems with two onboard personnel:

Australian submarine makes emergency stop in Solomon Islands

I see strategic steps on a wide access. However I'll avoid discussing the matter, as it is off topic and only a theory.

Distrusting Both Iran and U.S., Europe Urges ‘Maximum Restraint’

Finally, it appears the EU is for the most part apprehensive about supporting the US in the region without strong incentive or trust. As noted it is likely due to the US' "hawkish" actions, though also signals a policy of not getting too involved in the Middle East, particularly in a potential crisis/conflict with Iran. If the US does seek international backing in the Gulf, it will likely come with some cost and a great deal of trustbuilding. Those tariffs on key allies by the US don't seem like a good idea now.

 

[OPSSG]

It appears a number of key American allies are hesitant to directly blame Iran. Norway and Japan are both reluctant to accuse Iran with the latter's targetted shipping company also going as far as to note that their vessel was struck by a flying object and not a limpet mine, as stated by the US.

The linked article notes that many countries (with the exception of the UK) may not wish to be seen as jumping too quickly to the US' side considering the high stakes of what is going on in the region and the relatively "loud" nature of US foreign policy in recent times.

U.S. and Gulf allies face tough task protecting oil shipping lanes - Reuters

But the circumstances are very different” from the 1980s when during the Iran-Iraq war the US Navy escorted US re-flagged but foreign-owned tankers through the Gulf in Operation Ernest Will, and had a number of armed clashes with Iranian forces. In the 1980s, a substantial amount of US oil supply, during that period was from the Persian Gulf.

 

[Ranger25]

Will be interesting to see what the facts are on the iRCG shoot down of the USN Triton with vastly varying claims on its location when it was shot down. If it were truly in Iranian Airspace, they were well within their rights, if the US can prove it was in international airspace as claimed, the possibility of escalation just jumped dramatically in the Straights.

There are also unconfirmed reports of a cruise missile attack by Iran into Saudi Arabia against a power plant

US Navy drone shot down by Iranian missile over Strait of Hormuz in 'unprovoked attack,' central command says


http://www.rudaw.net/mobile/english/middleeast/iran/20062019

 

[Ranger25]

Sounds like it was a BAMSD (a triton demonstrator) recently flown in from Pax River NAS


Everything We Know About Iran's Claim That It Shot Down A U.S. RQ-4 Global Hawk Drone (Updated)

 

[Feanor]

Apparently it was an MQ-4C Triton that was shot down, and the Iranian claim it was violating their airspace.

Personally I can't help but wonder what is going on. Iran has been careful not to engage the US and its allies directly, preferring to use proxies around the region. Between the bold US claims and the hesitancy of other countries to back this up, I'm not sure I buy the story. What would Iran have to gain from attacking the tankers or downing a US UAV in international air space? On the flip side, if the US is trying to build a case for invading Iran, scouting out Iranian airspace and air defense capabilities would make total sense. And it's not like this is the first time the US used a flimsy pretext to go to war...

On the other hand, Iran is not always predictable, and they've been rather successful in the region over the past decade. Perhaps they've gotten too bold for their own good, and think they can do this with impunity? Especially after attacks against the Saudi-led coalition by houthis and likely "houthis", targetting air ports and oil infrastructure... of course it's one thing to hit the Saudis who are a belligerent, and to do so from Yemen. It's another thing to hit tankers under neutral flags, and to do so from Iranian bases.

Иран сбил американский RQ-4 Global Hawk

 

[OPSSG]

Some stray thoughts on the reasons for the low likelihood for American escalation

Personally I can't help but wonder what is going on. Iran has been careful not to engage the US and its allies directly, preferring to use proxies around the region. Between the bold US claims and the hesitancy of other countries to back this up, I'm not sure I buy the story. What would Iran have to gain from attacking the tankers or downing a US UAV in international air space? On the flip side, if the US is trying to build a case for invading Iran, scouting out Iranian airspace and air defense capabilities would make total sense. And it's not like this is the first time the US used a flimsy pretext to go to war...

1. Yes, Iran was careful when adults were in charge. That all changed in December 2018, when the Trump Administration issued a surprise order to withdraw from Syria and abandoned the Syrian Democratic Forces, America’s local partners. Trump’s order prompted resignations from Secretary of Defense James Mattis and special envoy to the anti-ISIS coalition Brett McGurk, who were the administration’s two most credible officials on Middle East issues (which are always complex).

2. Compounding the problem of the administration’s credibility, no one understands what the US wants. If there is no end game in the two scenarios below (and with so much uncertainty on guilt and agendas), who wants to be seen supporting Trump?

(a) Is America after regime change, hoping the sanctions will collapse the government or spark a revolution? After Iraq and Syria, no one with a capable military wants regime change in Iran, with Trump's cut and run approach, to even a very small footprint. More importantly, the adults are no longer in the room in the Trump Administration.

or

(b) Is the U.S. aiming for freedom of the seas? This is directly opposite from the position of Secretary Pompeo and National Security Advisor John Bolton, who  have advocated regime change in Iran.​

3. Today, the bulk of Persian Gulf oil goes to five countries in Asia, namely, China, Japan, South Korea and India. And none of those five countries have shown any real desire to stop the Iranians from what they are doing. I suspect that under the Trump Administration, protection of Persian Gulf oil supply route is no longer a US responsibility.

On the other hand, Iran is not always predictable

...and think they can do this with impunity?

4. IMO, it is predictable for Iran to escalate and demonstrate the impotence of the American Neo-Con rhetoric. The issue is not the capability of the US military. The issue is with the lack of capability of the the American Neo-Cons in the Trump Administration to get support from allies. If the Americans escalate, they have to go it alone.

 

[Feanor]

Some stray thoughts on the reasons for the low likelihood for American escalation

1. Yes, Iran was careful when adults were in charge. That all changed in December 2018, when the Trump Administration issued a surprise order to withdraw from Syria and abandoned the Syrian Democratic Forces, America’s local partners. Trump’s order prompted resignations from Secretary of Defense James Mattis and special envoy to the anti-ISIS coalition Brett McGurk, who were the administration’s two most credible officials on Middle East issues (which are always complex).

The dramatic order to withdraw was followed by.... not withdrawing. And as for abandoning local allies once they're no longer useful... isn't this a tradition by now? Hell, the Kurds are getting it for the second time, or third time if you count Iraqi Kurdistan in 2017.

2. Compounding the problem of the administration’s credibility, no one understands what the US wants. If there is no end game in the two scenarios below (and with so much uncertainty on guilt and agendas), who wants to be seen supporting Trump?

(a) Is America after regime change, hoping the sanctions will collapse the government or spark a revolution? After Iraq and Syria, no one with a capable military wants regime change in Iran, with Trump's cut and run approach, to even a very small footprint. More importantly, the adults are no longer in the room in the Trump Administration.

or

(b) Is the U.S. aiming for freedom of the seas? This is directly opposite from the position of Secretary Pompeo and National Security Advisor John Bolton, who  have advocated regime change in Iran.​

I would argue that the US didn't have a great endgame in the Middle East since GW went into Iraq. At best some conflicting goals with unrealistic desired end states, at worst a mess with no real exit. Trump's approach to pull out would actually be an improvement, if it weren't for the fact that his own government isn't letting him pull out where he wants to, and his own self-contradictory stance vis-a-vis Iran.

3. Today, the bulk of Persian Gulf oil goes to five countries in Asia, namely, China, Japan, South Korea and India. And none of those five countries have shown any real desire to stop the Iranians from what they are doing. I suspect that under the Trump Administration, protection of Persian Gulf oil supply route is no longer a US responsibility.

You said 5 countries but listed 4, for my education who is the 5th?

4. IMO, it is predictable for Iran to escalate and demonstrate the impotence of the American Neo-Con rhetoric. The issue is not the capability of the US military. The issue is with the lack of capability of the the American Neo-Cons in the Trump Administration to get support from allies. If the Americans escalate, they have to go it alone.

It's not like the US can't kick Iran in the teeth by itself. It doesn't even require a long term plan, just a brief romp intended to cause damage to the Iranian military, and send a message regarding attacks on US assets. Meaning that if the US is telling the truth on the tanker attacks, and the drone downing, Iran is playing a very dangerous game.

 

[OPSSG]

You said 5 countries but listed 4, for my education who is the 5th?

I was thinking of Germany/Europe (sorry forgot to list and should be more careful in my post above).

In Asia, tied for 5th place, as one of the largest importers in Asia are Singapore, Thailand and Taiwan (depending on how you count the oil imports). Singapore in particular, re-exports the oil in different grades after blending and after the refinery treats them. IMHO, there is no incentive for Singapore to be hostile to Iran (if they do not target Singapore owned and flagged vessels with Singapore crew on board).

It's not like the US can't kick Iran in the teeth by itself. It doesn't even require a long term plan, just a brief romp intended to cause damage to the Iranian military, and send a message regarding attacks on US assets.

Agreed. CENTCOM can do so and has the drawer plans.

Meaning that if the US is telling the truth on the tanker attacks, and the drone downing, Iran is playing a very dangerous game.

Not sure what the truth is. But Iran wants to pick a limited fight for domestic politics reasons.

 

[Feanor]

Iran has published footage of the wrecked UAV pieces they pulled out of the straight. They claim the wrecked pieces were in their territorial waters, which is entirely possible, and doesn't necessarily prove an airspace violation.

В Иране показали обломки американского разведчика

EDIT: The US claims that the system used for the shoot down was the S-125 (NATO des. SA-3). This raises some questions, since the system has relatively limited range. (I've seen 35 and 32 kms cited) And obviously its effectiveness at maximum or close to maximum range isn't great. It's also a rather old system. We would need a fairly exact location where the US claims the downing took place, and ideally where the nearest S-125 batteries are located in Iran but I wouldn't be surprised if there simply wasn't one in the area.

Trump calls off planned U.S. Military strikes on Iranian targets in response to downed drone

EDIT2: FAS claims a range of 25kms for the S-125. Of course the upgraded variants offered by multiple countries (Russia, Poland, Ukraine) may have considerably better performance.

S-125 SA-3 GOA - Russia / Soviet Nuclear Forces

Also the US is limiting flights in the area for US civilian aircraft.

Федеральная авиационная администрация запретила полеты американских самолетов над Персидским заливом

 

[hauritz]

.
Trump calls off planned U.S. Military strikes on Iranian targets in response to downed drone

I wonder if any country would ever go to war over a shot down drone. If not we may well start to see drones being routinely engaged and shot down even if they aren't actually in your airspace. I know with unmanned sea vessels they are technically considered salvage regardless of where you find them.

Of course this becomes even more complicated if you start fitting these drones with weapons ... even if it is for self protection. Imagine if the had an armed AI drone shooting at a civilian plane or boat ... or even a military one for that matter ... because it felt they represented a threat.

 

[Stampede]

I wonder if any country would ever go to war over a shot down drone. If not we may well start to see drones being routinely engaged and shot down even if they aren't actually in your airspace. I know with unmanned sea vessels they are technically considered salvage regardless of where you find them.

Of course this becomes even more complicated if you start fitting these drones with weapons ... even if it is for self protection. Imagine if the had an armed AI drone shooting at a civilian plane or boat ... or even a military one for that matter ... because it felt they represented a threat.

A very interesting question
I guess the answer will evolve over time.
Do unmanned "things" increase of decrease the propensity for conflict?

Regards S

 

[John Fedup]

I would think that "unmanned things" carrying weapons are pretty much the same as manned things. Both are threats and enough repetition of these threats most likely lead to conflict.

 

[Blackshoe]

What would Iran have to gain from attacking the tankers or downing a US UAV in international air space?

Reminding the US of the damage it can inflict to the global oil supply system and to the US, all while staying below a level where the US feels compelled to react with force (eg they hit an unmanned drone after Pompeo mentioned "even one US casualties" as a redline. An objective I'd argue it's achieved spectacularly.

 

[Persian Gulf]

No international law prohibits the imposition of sanctions by one government on another; it may be a (recent) convention that it is only done with UN agreement and of course the UN Charter provides the positive authority to do so, but it does not imply the negative. It could even probably be argued that it’s an immoral thing to do, but it’s not “illegal”; which is, in any case, a concept which cannot easily be applied to the actions of nation states unless they are acting in breach of a treaty which the country concerned has ratified.

The EU and most of the world regards extraterritorial sanctions as illegal vis-a-vis international law.

Your last line is totally wrong. There are other sources of international law than treaties...

 

[Persian Gulf]

Trump tweeted today that other countries should "protect their own ships".


Iran has shown lots of debris of the wreckage of the downed RQ-4 it recovered from its territorial waters. The US said at the time they were sending ships to international waters where they allege the shooting took place to recover wreckage - when will they show the wreckage they found?

 

[Persian Gulf]

People still doubting Iran's radars?


Iran has latest modern anti-stealth radars of all types, including at least 4x anti-stealth OTHRs in operation already across Iran

@Persian Gulf Do you have a verifiable source for such a claim? It is a requirement of this forum that any claims in posts must be supported by sources.

Rule 14. You must post source of your information/articles ( link, website, book, magazine, etc.).
Rule 23. There is both an expectation and requirement that members will put some effort into what they post with research, providing facts and links where appropriate and associated posting behaviors, to maintain the quality and level of discussion on DefenceTalk.
​

I strongly suggest that you read the RULES.

Ngatimozart

 

[OPSSG]

@Persian Gulf, please have a look at the threads linked below. We welcome you but do take a day or two to read the linked thread and understand them (before going down this road of 'anti-stealth').

"Stealth" or more correctly LO platforms are a moving feast, a moving technological development where the capability evolves against the response. What was regarded as "Stealthy" even 25 years ago is now obsolete and replaced with new technology concepts. It's a mistake to look at Stealth as a single technology entity - it’s not, and that why when people state that bi-static radar, or OTHR or sympathetically merged commercial solutions such as mobile phone towers hooked into the sensor grid make it redundant, one then ignores the fact that the technology is not static. It ignores things such as the fact that sensor systems find it very hard to discriminate between nature and manufacture.

• A brief history of LO
• Air Power 101 for New Members

Failure to read these threads will not end well for you.

 

[OPSSG]

The EU and most of the world regards extraterritorial sanctions as illegal vis-a-vis international law.

spoz is citing the concept of sovereign immunity — I certainly don’t see the validity of what you say. Under American law, the federal government and state governments enjoy immunity, from lawsuits. Sovereign immunity falls into two categories:

• Absolute immunity: When absolute immunity applies a government actor may not be sued for the allegedly wrongful act, even if that person acted maliciously or in bad faith; and
• Qualified immunity: When qualified immunity applies the government actor is shielded from liability only if specific conditions are met, as specified in statute or case law.

Absolute immunity applies to acts that, if subject to challenge, would significantly affect the operation of government, such as would occur if a legislator could be sued for core legislative acts, and is also typically extended to statements made on the floor of the legislature. Similar protections apply to American judges who are acting in a judicial capacity.

Your last line is totally wrong. There are other sources of international law than treaties...

Please be adult about your discussion. The onus is on you to explain why it is totally wrong; and applied to this case. At USNI, Dr. Kuehn has the good, bad and the ugly of the Global Hawk Shoot Down. Worth a read.

Trump tweeted today that other countries should "protect their own ships".

There is no doubt that under the Trump Administration, protection of Persian Gulf oil supply route is no longer a US responsibility. Trump's actual words:

"China gets 91% of its Oil from the Straight, Japan 62%, & many other countries likewise. So why are we protecting the shipping lanes for other countries (many years) for zero compensation. All of these countries should be protecting their own ships on what has always been....

....a dangerous journey. We don’t even need to be there in that the U.S. has just become (by far) the largest producer of Energy anywhere in the world! The U.S. request for Iran is very simple - No Nuclear Weapons and No Further Sponsoring of Terror!"

 

[Persian Gulf]

@Persian Gulf, please have a look at the threads linked below. We welcome you but do take a day or two to read the linked thread and understand them (before going down this road of 'anti-stealth').

"Stealth" or more correctly LO platforms are a moving feast, a moving technological development where the capability evolves against the response. What was regarded as "Stealthy" even 25 years ago is now obsolete and replaced with new technology concepts. It's a mistake to look at Stealth as a single technology entity - it’s not, and that why when people state that bi-static radar, or OTHR or sympathetically merged commercial solutions such as mobile phone towers hooked into the sensor grid make it redundant, one then ignores the fact that the technology is not static. It ignores things such as the fact that sensor systems find it very hard to discriminate between nature and manufacture.

• A brief history of LO
• Air Power 101 for New Members

Failure to read these threads will not end well for you.

"The Rezonans-NE very high frequency counter-stealth early warning phased-array radar is designed to effectively detect a wide range of current and future air targets, including low-observable cruise and ballistic missiles, hypersonic aerial vehicles, as well as stealthy ones, in severe electronic countermeasures (ECM) and clutter environment."

Stealth air target early warning radar Rezonans-NE | Catalog Rosoboronexport

You think if you make threats I will think you know what you're talking about?

 

[Persian Gulf]

spoz is citing the concept of sovereign immunity — I certainly don’t see the validity of what you say. Under American law, the federal government and state governments enjoy immunity, from lawsuits. Sovereign immunity falls into two categories:

• Absolute immunity: When absolute immunity applies a government actor may not be sued for the allegedly wrongful act, even if that person acted maliciously or in bad faith; and
• Qualified immunity: When qualified immunity applies the government actor is shielded from liability only if specific conditions are met, as specified in statute or case law.

Absolute immunity applies to acts that, if subject to challenge, would significantly affect the operation of government, such as would occur if a legislator could be sued for core legislative acts, and is also typically extended to statements made on the floor of the legislature. Similar protections apply to American judges who are acting in a judicial capacity.

Note that sovereign immunity relates to enforcement not to legality per se.

Note also that you confuse state responsibility with individual responsibility of government officials etc.

Please be adult about your discussion. The onus is on you to explain why it is totally wrong; and applied to this case.

I said why he is wrong in the next sentence (there are other sources of international law than just treaties - that is a sufficient counterexample to disprove his hypothesis).

There is no doubt that under the Trump Administration, protection of Persian Gulf oil supply route is no longer a US responsibility.

We agree on something