Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Tactics and Strategy at the Strait of Hormuz | 55 comments (55 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)
Re: Tactics and Strategy at the Strait of Hormuz (none / 1)
There is a scenario five, which I personally rate as more probable: Limited NATO strikes against Iranian targets, which are met with only limited resistance. Because:

(a) The damage done by perfunctory air strikes of the sort deployed against Serbia in the Kosova conflict is economically and militarily insignificant.

(b) Iran does not wish to escalate the conflict. Escalating, such as by mounting a spirited defence of their airspace against aggressors, would risk turning a mostly meaningless dick-waving contest into a serious shooting war. Which Iran would lose.

(c) A shelled out apartment complex or two and a couple of downed enemy warplanes make great propaganda footage.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2012 at 07:23:03 AM EST
Re: Tactics and Strategy at the Strait of Hormuz (none / 0)
There are also precedents for your kind of scenario - like the one-off bombing of Libya by Reagan and various "no-fly" zones and the like.
by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2012 at 09:23:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Tactics and Strategy at the Strait of Hormuz (none / 0)
While I wouldn't say NATO wouldn't try something like this, such strategy wouldn't guarantee: a) that the Strait remains open, or at least free of disruption; b) that the Iranian Nuclear programme is halted. In my view this strategy would easily escalate into a full scale conflict.

luis_de_sousa@mastodon.social
by Luis de Sousa (luis[dot]de[dot]sousa[at]protonmail[dot]ch) on Wed Feb 15th, 2012 at 10:45:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Tactics and Strategy at the Strait of Hormuz (none / 1)
I think you're right that it's still a risky strategy, but the "serious people" seem to have put a lot of energy into the concept that "Iran is about to become a nuclear power and we have to do something about it..."

So some kind of action is, I suspect, quite a high likelihood.

But I think there's enough opposition (and memories of Iraq and Afghanistan) to keep it to something less than a full scale conflict - at least at first.

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2012 at 10:51:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Tactics and Strategy at the Strait of Hormuz (none / 1)
On further reflection, one can argue that the elites pretty much always use the template of "the most recent successful intervention" as the basis for their decisions.

Thus we should probably expect the CIA to try to stir up a resistance group in one region of Iran and unofficial action alongside a no-fly zone (a la Libya) to be the approach.

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2012 at 10:53:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Tactics and Strategy at the Strait of Hormuz (none / 1)
The problem with that is that the Iranian dissidents probably remember how the last American-sponsored regime change in Persia turned out.

I wouldn't place any expensive bets on them picking the CIA over the mullahs.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2012 at 11:10:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Tactics and Strategy at the Strait of Hormuz (none / 1)
They've been supporting various terrorist groups there for ages. As for a no-fly zone, can you get a UN resolution? If not, are you going to start shooting down Chinese and Russian planes?
by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Wed Feb 15th, 2012 at 11:27:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Tactics and Strategy at the Strait of Hormuz (none / 1)
While I wouldn't say NATO wouldn't try something like this, such strategy wouldn't guarantee: a) that the Strait remains open, or at least free of disruption; b) that the Iranian Nuclear programme is halted. In my view this strategy would easily escalate into a full scale conflict.

Oh, I completely agree on the possibility that such an attack might spiral out of control. Particularly if they hit a target that actually hurts, or if they misjudge the mood of the Iranians, or if the Iranian air defence gets a little too enthusiastic with causing mechanical failures on the Israeli jets. But I'm working under the assumption that the US and Israel (Israel in particular) is run by psychopaths who are perfectly prepared to risk such an escalation to get a good photo-op of a burning building for domestic dick-waving purposes.

It won't stop the nuclear programme, of course - you just can't do that with that sort of limited air war, as has been proven time and time again in theatres ranging from Germany to Kosova. But stopping the Iranian nuclear programme has never been the point, which is why it does not feature in my analysis at all.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2012 at 11:06:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Tactics and Strategy at the Strait of Hormuz (none / 0)
Interesting point, though I would be less strained in using the term psychopath.

One important detail converging with your view is that the sanctions where sort of imposed by the US Congress on Obama, I sometimes wonder if this isn't solely related to the elections there.

luis_de_sousa@mastodon.social

by Luis de Sousa (luis[dot]de[dot]sousa[at]protonmail[dot]ch) on Wed Feb 15th, 2012 at 04:10:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Tactics and Strategy at the Strait of Hormuz (none / 1)
On the other hand the internal political situation in Iran may make it imperative for Iran to have some similar response, such as sinking or seriously damaging  a NATO warship or a commercial vessel. Whether both sides could then agree to a truce would be the question. Both sides would then run the risk of being portrayed as weak by internal political opponents.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2012 at 11:26:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Tactics and Strategy at the Strait of Hormuz (none / 1)
Yes, that's the risk you always run when you use military action to wrap yourself in the flag for domestic consumption.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2012 at 11:32:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Tactics and Strategy at the Strait of Hormuz (none / 0)
I believe that Hezbollah firing rockets to Israel is more likely response than a direct strike against USA or Israel by Iran. Compared to USA Israel is less likely to feel it is compelled to start all out war against Iran if it attacked by proxies of Iran. I also think that the same reason increases likelyhood of Israel attacking Iran instead of USA.
by Jute on Thu Feb 16th, 2012 at 04:24:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Tactics and Strategy at the Strait of Hormuz (4.00 / 3)
But given Iran's defensive arsenal, Israel on its own may prove ineffective. If Iran's air force and AA defenses are any good operationally, that would be a strategic blunder for Israel. If their bombers were shot down without attaining any significant objectives, and without retaliation, the USA would have no excuse to intervene, and Iran's status would be considerably enhanced.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
by eurogreen on Thu Feb 16th, 2012 at 04:54:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Tactics and Strategy at the Strait of Hormuz | 55 comments (55 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: