In the aftermath of Tuesday's Iranian hijacking of a Danish (corrected) ship bearing the flag of the Marshall Islands in the Strait of Hormuz, Eli Lake and Josh Rogin report the Marshall Islands has a defense treaty with the United States that bars it from taking action on its own.
When asked if his country would request that the U.S. rescue the
cargo ship from Iran, Junior Aini, the charge d'affairs for the Marshall
Islands Embassy in Washington, told us he was still awaiting guidance
from his foreign ministry. But he also suggested that his country had no
other recourse than to hope the U.S. responds.
"The United States has the full security responsibility over the
islands and for the defense of the islands, this is what our treaty
says," he told us. Aini was referring to a 1986 accord between the U.S.
and the island nation that set the terms for independence. The Marshall
Islands has no standing army. News that Iran had boarded the Maersk
Tigris surprised Aini. He said he initially learned about the
incidentfrom watching Fox News.
Aini also said his nation is barred by the 1986 agreement from doing
anything that would challenge America's role in this regard. "We cannot
take any action that will impact the U.S. responsibility," he said.
Under a 1983 Compact of Free Association, the U.S. has “full authority
and responsibility for security and defense of the Marshall Islands,” according to a State Department fact sheet.
...
By taking a non-U.S. ship under questionable circumstances at a moment
of high tension in the region, Iran has again put Washington in a tough
spot. Given that the U.S. Senate is simultaneously debating its bill on
oversight of Obama's nuclear deal with Iran, the repercussions are going
to spread far beyond the Strait of Hormuz.
The Israel Project's Omri Ceren reports by email that the Obama administration is already trying to avoid taking action.
The first wave was about how the security arrangement between the U.S. and the Marshall Islands affects Washington: is the Obama administration now affirmatively bound to confront the Iranians over the capture? The short answer is that it's not clear. Some analysts have defended potential White House inaction by saying there’s a legal loophole, under which a vessel so flagged would not count as part of the Marshall Islands conducting its foreign affairs.
Ceren argues that trying to avoid taking action would be a disaster, further expanding on Lake's and Rogin's last paragraph above.
American inaction under this scenario would be a one-two punch to Washington's credibility: the Americans locked up the Marshall Islanders' freedom of action by promising to take care of defense for them, and then when the time came the Obama administration refused to act. It would be a nightmare scenario: the U.S. would be using security assurances not to shield allies from Iran but to shield Iran from allies.
Gulf leaders, who will be in Washington next month to discuss how the U.S. can protect them in the aftermath of a bad Iran deal, would not miss the signal. There’s already a healthy about of regional grumbling about the U.S. using its leverage over the Israelis and the Saudis – leverage that it has as a protector – to hold them back on Hezbollah and Yemen.
The State Department briefing this afternoon was inconclusive:
Reporter: What do you consider the Iranian act? Is it a -- an act of piracy, act of violence?
Rathke: Again, I'm -- this I think is underway. I'm not going to apply an adjective to it right now. We are following the situation very carefully, but I'm not going to...
Reporter: But do you condemn it?
Rathke: Well, again, we're gathering more information. I don't have further reaction at this point. Yes, Brad? (http://www.c-span.org/video/?325639-1/state-department-briefing at 13:57)
Keep in mind something else here: 40% of the World's oil supply passes through the Strait of Hormuz. Will the US allow Iran to choke that supply off? If it does, US credibility will be zero, but how exactly will other countries react?
While Kerry cuddles with Zarif, Iran goes to work in the Strait of Hormuz
US Secretary of State John Kerry and chief 'negotiator' Wendy Sherman became the first US officials to set foot on Iranian soil since 1979 on Monday, when they popped into the Iranian Ambassador to the UN's New York office for a meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif.
The Pentagon said at least five Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps
Navy patrol vessels approached the Marshall Islands-flagged Maersk
Tigris cargo ship at 4 a.m. eastern time as it was transiting the
Straight of Hormuz and directed the ship to proceed further into Iranian
waters.
When the ship’s master declined, the Iranian ship fired
shots across the bridge of the cargo vessel, Pentagon spokesman Col.
Steve Warren said. After shots were fired, the ship proceeded into
Iranian waters near the vicinity of Larak Island. It was boarded by
members of the Iranian coast guard and is now being held in Iranian
waters with about 30 people aboard.
...
The Maersk Tigris issued a distress call, prompting U.S. Naval Forces
Central Command to send the U.S. destroyer Farragut to the site as well
as aircraft to observe the interaction, Col. Warren said. The destroyer
is currently on the way, with no clear timetable of when it will arrive
on the scene.
The U.S. assets are being sent to “monitor the
situation,” Col. Warren said. Naval Forces Central Command have been
communicating with representatives from the shipping company, he said.
The
shipping route through the Strait of Hormuz is in Iranian territorial
waters, but ships typically pass through with no issues under rules of
innocent passage, which allow ships to pass through as long as they
follow international law.
There are no Americans aboard the cargo
ship and currently no injuries reported among the crew, Col. Warren
said. It is unclear what sort of cargo the ship is carrying.
It should be an interesting briefing at the State Department today.... What could go wrong?
The Iranians surprised the representatives of the six powers when
they presented their own alternative proposal, the diplomats said.
That proposal included, for the first time,
concessions regarding their stockpile of enriched uranium, as well as a
bid to cut the number of old-generation centrifuges by one third.
The Iranians proposed they keep 6,000 centrifuges
out of the 9,400 for the first 10 years of the agreement, and keep 500
kilograms of their low-enriched uranium, or, alternatively, to operate
6,500 centrifuges and only retain 300 kilograms of their low-enriched
uranium, the diplomats said. After 10 years, with only five years left
on the agreement, the Iranian proposal would gradually increase the
number of centrifuges to the number they have today, the diplomats
added.
But proponents of a deal should not be celebrating just yet.
However, among the unresolved issues is the Iranian demand that all
sanctions be lifted immediately upon signing the agreement, whereas the
United States and the other powers want the sanctions lifted gradually
if Iran is seen to be meeting its obligations.
Another stumbling block is Iran’s continuing
refusal of the world powers’ demand to fully open all aspects of its
military nuclear program to inspection by the International Atomic
Energy Commission.
The diplomats say that, considering the issues
still in dispute, it is difficult to imagine the parties coming to an
agreement by March 30. If such an agreement does emerge, because of an
Iranian and American need to show progress, it will be a general
document of principles only and will not include details on the
outstanding bones of contention.
Iran's Revolutionary Guard on Friday
announced it has test fired a "new strategic weapon" in the final day of
a large-scale naval and air defense drill, saying the system would play
a key role in any future battle against the United States.
The claim was a new show of force by Iran just weeks ahead of a
deadline for reaching a deal over its nuclear program with the U.S. and
other global powers.
Iran announced the test on the final day of military drills it is
calling "Great Prophet 9." The exercises are being held near the Strait
of Hormuz, a strategic waterway through which about a fifth of the
world's oil passes.
Iran often holds live-fire war games and frequently boasts of
advances in its weaponry that cannot be independently verified. The
latest drill, which included a simulated attack on an American aircraft
carrier, appears to be aimed at sending a message that Iran has no
intention of backing down to the U.S. in the nuclear talks.
Adm. Ali Fadavi, the Republican Guard's naval chief, said the new
weapon would be critical in any future naval war against the U.S.
Of course, strategic weapons aren't part of the P 5+1 negotiations.
I want to go back and address Barak Ravid's last line:
“The challenge is for those who oppose the agreement like Netanyahu.
They must present an alternative that will produce better results,” a
senior U.S. official said over the weekend.
Iran is considering the possibility of spilling oil in the Persian
Gulf in order to contaminate the waters of the strategically important
Strait of Hormuz, German weekly Der Spiegel
reported on Sunday. The spill would be a way of "punishing" the West
and forcing it to decrease the economic sanctions imposed against
Tehran.
Citing Western intelligence sources, Der Spiegel reported that the plan, codenamed "Murky Waters," is meant to block shipping routes in the Gulf to international oil tankers.
In addition to driving up oil prices, the resulting environmental
disaster would force Western countries to start a large-scale cleanup
operation in cooperation with Iran, which could reduce the sanctions
currently placed on the country.
The plan was developed by the
commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guard, Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari, and
Navy Commander Rear Admiral Ali Fadavi, according to the report.
Der Spiegel
reported that the decision on whether or not to implement the plan was
now in the hands of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameni.
It would likely be much better for the environment if the US were to destroy Iran's nuclear weapons program. Anyone think this might move Obama? Don't bet on it.
The deployments are part of a long-planned effort to bolster the American military presence in the gulf region, in part to reassure Israel that in dealing with Iran, as one senior administration official put it last week, “When the president says there are other options on the table beyond negotiations, he means it.”
But at a moment that the United States and its allies are beginning to enforce a much broader embargo on Iran’s oil exports, meant to force the country to take seriously the negotiations over sharply limiting its nuclear program, the buildup carries significant risks, including that Iran’s powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps could decide to lash out against the increased presence.
The most visible elements of this buildup are Navy ships designed to vastly enhance the ability to patrol the Strait of Hormuz — and to reopen the narrow waterway should Iran attempt to mine it to prevent Saudi Arabia and other oil exporters from sending their tankers through the vital passage.
The Navy has doubled the number of minesweepers assigned to the region, to eight vessels, in what military officers describe as a purely defensive move.
“The message to Iran is, ‘Don’t even think about it,’ ” one senior Defense Department official said. “Don’t even think about closing the strait. We’ll clear the mines. Don’t even think about sending your fast boats out to harass our vessels or commercial shipping. We’ll put them on the bottom of the gulf.” Like others interviewed, the official spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of the diplomatic and military situation.
In the meantime, Iran is considering legislation that would require its navy to stop oil shipments to countries that boycott Iranian oil.
Responding to the tightening of Western sanctions, Iran on Monday announced that it would consider proposed legislation to disrupt traffic in the Strait of Hormuz as well as missile tests, in a drill clearly intended as a warning to Israel and the United States.
The Iranian legislation calls for Iran’s military to block any oil tanker en route to countries no longer buying Iranian crude because of the embargo. It was unclear whether the legislation would pass or precisely how Iran would enforce it.
Senior Pentagon and military officials acknowledge that Iran has the capability to close the strait, at least temporarily, and the additional mine-clearing forces can be viewed as both concrete and spoken evidence of Washington’s commitment to make sure any closing is as brief as possible.
If anyone still needs proof of why Iran cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons, imagine Iran threatening any country that buys oil from another supplier instead of from Iran.
Last week, it was reported that President Obama sent a letter to Iranian leaders Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Ali Khameni warning them that closing the Strait of Hormuz would be a 'red line.' The Iranians have now released the content of that letter, and I'm sure you'll all be shocked to hear that America's 98-pound weakling is once again begging the Iranians to negotiate.
MP Ali Motahhari said on Wednesday, “In the letter, it has been stated that ‘closing the Strait of Hormuz is our red line’ and they have requested direct negotiations.”
“In the letter, Obama has announced readiness for negotiation and the resolution of mutual disagreements,” he added.
He went on to say that Obama uttered threats in the first part of the letter and talked about friendship and negotiation in the second part.
...
MP Hojjatoleslam Hossein Ebrahimi said on Wednesday, “Obama’s letter has several parts. Part of it is about this, (namely) that using international waterways is the right of all countries and all should benefit from them. And in this letter, he has described it as the United States’ red line.”
“In the letter, Obama has mentioned cooperation and negotiation based on the interests of the two countries,” Ebrahimi, who is the deputy chairman of the Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, told the Nasimonline news website.
“He has stated in the letter that they will not take any hostile action against the Islamic Republic of Iran,” he added.
Ebrahimi also said, “This is not the first time that Obama has sent a message and letter to the Islamic Republic of Iran. He has repeatedly spoken in a soft tone about the Islamic Republic of Iran, but, in practice, he has not acted accordingly.”
“Obama’s letter indicates that the United States has become afraid of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s might and has realized the point that an arrogant spirit is of no use, and therefore, he has softened his tone when speaking about the Islamic Republic of Iran,” he stated.
He added, “The important issue is that without the Islamic Republic of Iran’s permission, no country can benefit from the Persian Gulf.”
What could go wrong?
More here, including an appropriate quote from Neville Chamberlain.
Iran doesn’t have the military capability to close the strait. About three years after the 1988 battle with the Iranians, the US Navy aircraft carrier USS Nimitz, while patrolling the Arabian Gulf, launched F-14, F-18 and E-2 aircraft day and night.
The Nimitz was cruising at a speed of 2 knots (3.7 kilometers per hour). So, if the Nimitz can launch planes at this speed, this means it can cruise for three straight hours crossing the Strait of Hormuz six-mile navigation channel in perpendicular fashion and not worry about any maneuver. The Iranians knew about what the USS Nimitz can do. The Iranians later on decided to use a safer approach to defend the Iranian shores. They installed Silkworm Anti-Ship Missiles. But, later on they realized they can’t protect these missiles. They remembered what happened to the Syrians when they had their missiles in the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon without air superiority.
The Iranians don’t have the sophisticated torpedoes, sophisticated surface to air missiles and they don’t have any airborne radar (AWACS) capability. As for their outdated diesel submarine, the Iranians are not well trained for sophisticated under-water operations and their submarines have a very limited underwater capabilities. And the weakest Iranian military point is that they don’t have an air force. The F-14 (Tomcat) and F-4 (Phantom), the Iranian high-tech planes are very old and their radar system, like the F-14’s AWG9 radar is not working because of lack of maintenance, spare parts and age. Their pilots are always operating in the dark because they have no command and control. The only strength the Iranian have is the land forces. They could mass hundreds of thousands of soldiers. But, these forces will be useless for sea battles. And these land forces have no air support.
US aircraft carrier spotted in Iranian exercise area
You will recall that Iran is in the middle of a massive 10-day naval exercise in the area of the Strait of Hormuz. Now, Iran is claiming that a US aircraft carrier, the John Stennis, has been spotted in the exercise zone.
"A US aircraft carrier was spotted inside the maneuver zone... by a navy reconnaissance aircraft," Commodore Mahmoud Mousavi, the spokesman for the Iranian exercises, told the official IRNA news agency.
The Iranian aircraft took video and photos of the US vessel, he added.
The US aircraft carrier was believed to the USS John C. Stennis, one of the US navy's biggest warships.
US officials announced Wednesday that the ship and its accompanying battle group moved through the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow stretch at the entrance to the Gulf that is the world's most important choke point for oil shipments.
After warnings from the Iranian government and navy this week that Iran could close the strait if threatened by further Western sanctions, the US Defense Department warned Wednesday that such actions "will not be tolerated."
The United States maintains a navy presence in the Gulf in large part to ensure oil traffic there is unhindered.
The Strait of Hormuz is a key passageway through which 40% of the imported oil of the world passes.
Let's go to the videotape.
But closing down the Strait of Hormuz may hurt Iran more than anyone else.
US officials and outside experts concede that Iran could block the strait, at least temporarily. Testifying to Congress in March, Defense Intelligence Agency Director Army Lieutenant General Ronald Burgess said that Iran is expanding its Persian Gulf naval bases, allowing it to “attempt to block the Strait of Hormuz temporarily” during a crisis.
Were Iran to make such a move, it might be hurt more than its adversaries.
Iran’s economy is shaky, as is popular support for its clerical rulers, Nader said. The country is facing new Western efforts to halt its suspected nuclear weapons program, including US sanctions that are awaiting US President Barack Obama’s signature and a possible European Union ban on imports of Iranian oil.
According to the US Energy Information Administration, Iran’s net oil export revenues were approximately $73 billion in 2010; crude oil and its derivatives account for nearly 80 percent of Iran’s total exports; and oil exports provide half of the nation’s government revenue.
...
Moreover, according to the EIA, Iran’s best customer is China, which took about 22 percent of Tehran’s oil exports during the first half of this year and is a member of the United Nations Security Council and one of the few nations on friendly terms with the Islamic Republic.
China gets 11 percent of its crude oil imports from Iran, according to the EIA, while Turkey, a NATO member that shares both a border and antipathy toward Kurdish separatist groups with Iran, got 51 percent of its imported crude oil from the Islamic Republic from January to June of this year.
...
While closing the Strait of Hormuz, even briefly, would hurt Saudi Arabia, Iraq and other Gulf oil exporters, the Saudis also ship oil via the Red Sea. All of Iran’s exports and many of its imports of gasoline, food and consumer goods are shipped through the strait.
In other words, a long-term closure of the Strait would likely destroy Iran's economy, but could harm others' as well. Could the mullahs be that suicidal? I'd bet on it.
It's a pity that - as far as I can tell - no one ever followed up on this idea.
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
