Middle East Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Will US attack Iran?

By Gulshan Luthra. Middle East, 05:00 PM IST

Russia has reported increased US military activity in and around the strategic Gulf for the first time in four years after the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) has declared that its territories are off limits to anyone for staging military or intelligence operations against Iran.

In a week of ominous developments, the most serious being the Iranian seizure of 15 British Navy personnel near the Shatt al Arab waterway that divides Iran and Iraq, a statement by UAE President Shaikh Khalifa bin Zayed al Nahyan that his country would not allow its territories for operations against Iran assumes high significance.

US U-2 spy planes and F-16 and other fighter jets have been based in the UAE ever since the 1990 Gulf crisis over Iraq's occupation of Kuwait. Due to its strategic locations and ports within the Gulf as well as in the Arabian Sea, the use of UAE land, air and waters would have been of immense value to any strike force.

Actually, the US has used bases in all the six Arab Gulf states for operations in Iraq and, to some extent, also to support its and coalition troops in Afghanistan.

Although, all the six states -- Oman, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait -- have expressed unwillingness in the past for a military engagement with their immediate Shia neighbour Iran, this is the first time that one of them, the UAE, has flatly denied its territories to the US for military and intelligence operations against Iran.

In a major policy statement on the eve of Arab summit in Riyadh, Shaikh Khalifa disclosed that the UAE had sent a written communication to Iran to assure that 'we shall never allow the use of our soil for any military, security or intelligence activities against them'.

'We have reiterated to our Iranian brothers, in a letter delivered recently by the Foreign Minister (Shaikh Abdullah), that we are not a party to the conflict between Iran and the US and that we shall never allow the use of our soil for any military, security or intelligence activities against them,' he was quoted as saying in an interview with the London-based Arabic daily Al Hayat, a report on which was made available through the state-run Emirates News Agency WAM.

It may be noted that the US and allied navy vessels primarily take their oil, food and other supplies from ports in the UAE as also from the five other Arab states in the strategic Gulf.

The UAE itself has a dispute with Iran, stemming from the occupation of three of its islands by the Shah of Iran on the eve of its independence from Britain Dec 2, 1971. All other Gulf countries, tied by the 1981 regional security and economic pact of Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), have extended UAE support. But Teheran insists that the islands are part of the Iranian territory.

The UAE has offered to settle the issue bilaterally or through international mediation, saying any outcome would be binding. Iran has refused.

Two of these islands are at the narrow Strait of Hormuz, the mouth of the strategic Gulf waterway, from which nearly half the world oil supplies pass through for international consumption.

On his part, the UAE president also explained that his country's method to regain control of its three islands of Greater Tunb, Lesser Tunb and Abu Musa 'is not subject to any regional or international political agenda. We shall never strengthen our position with any foreign stance to solve the issue of the occupied islands'.

But that the US is in a buildup mode is also evident from the entry of its aircraft carrier, USS John C Stennis (CVN 74), in the Gulf Tuesday.

In an official statement, Washington announced: 'While in the Gulf, the flagship of the USS John C Stennis Carrier Strike Group (JCSSG) and its air wing, Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 9, will conduct a dual-carrier exercise with the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group (IKE CSG). This marks the first time the Stennis and Eisenhower strike groups have operated together in a joint exercise while deployed to the US Fifth Fleet area of responsibility.

'This exercise demonstrates the importance of both strike groups' ability to plan and conduct dual task force operations as part of the US long-standing commitment to maintaining maritime security and stability in this region.

'Two air wings from the aircraft carriers will conduct air warfare exercises while the surface components will conduct exercises in three general disciplines: anti-submarine, anti-surface and mine warfare.'

The US never discloses the location of its nuclear capable submarines but some of them have routinely surfaced in the Gulf waters for a show of force or replenishment over the past 15 years. One, two, or more of them, should likely be in the vicinity.

Their main nearby base is Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, strengthened and enlarged during the 1980s by importing stones from the barren coastal hills in Oman and the UAE.

But will there be a war? Will Iran budge from its insistence on allegedly building nuclear capability and will it release the British personnel?

Former Iranian President Mohammed Khatami, who was in New Delhi last week, categorically restated his government's stand that Iran will never build nuclear weapons although no one could deny it the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

The heart of the problem lies in the fact that the Iranian programme is largely based on proliferated nuclear technology from Pakistan, and the US and other countries are not willing to give Teheran the allowance that it will not misuse this technology. Iran is also a signatory to non-proliferation, and bound by this treaty under international law.

But will there be a war?

Both in 1990-91 and March 2003, this writer was present in Abu Dhabi. Both times there were clear indications that war was imminent. There were hush-hush talks of an asylum for the late Iraqi president Saddam Hussein a month or so before the second US offensive on Iraq. One day before the operations were actually launched on a Wednesday-Thursday night, there were tell tale signals that the negotiations had failed and an attack was imminent.

There was actually a large US contingent at the International Defence Exhibition (IDEX) 2003. One day before the operations began, all the top US participants suddenly left for home, including a Boeing vice president with whom this writer had a scheduled appointment for a discussion on 'Networking and Technology in Future Wars'.

Back to the question of war, President George W. Bush is having a tough time with the Democratic majority Congress. But as the Supreme Commander of the US armed forces, he would continue a gradual build up and place his assets in the region. It's better if some nearby land bases are available. But the US forces can comfortably operate from ships, including commercial platforms, as well as Diego Garcia, at least for distant standoff bombing from aircraft and naval vessels.

The immediate stated target nonetheless should not be more than securing the Gulf waterway. And that's exactly where the problem lies.

The Iranian coast spans nearly all the 989-km length of the waterway, facing all the Arab Gulf states from Oman to Kuwait, and touching Iraq. At its narrowest point, the Strait of Hormuz, the waterway is only 56 km wide and, at many points, shallow.

Iran could block the waterway, simply by sinking a few ships or placing sea mines, as it demonstrated during the Iran-Iraq war.

The resulting energy crisis would cripple the world economy, and that's a nightmare even for the US. It may be noted that even after the crisis over the US hostages taken by Iranians during the 1979 Islamic revolution, the Iranian oil never went out of the international market and that the US companies continued to be among its buyers.

So while a limited engagement cannot be ruled out, particularly as incidents like the seizure of naval personnel provide instant triggers for skirmishes, an actual outbreak of war between Iran and the US and its allies seems unlikely.

For the time being at least.

(Gulshan Luthra has been associated with the Middle East region for nearly 25 years.)

Add to Google Add to My Yahoo! Subscribe with Live.com

Most Recent Comments

  • cuthean Thursday, March 29, 2007

    the world, especially the former america has an acute "jewish problem"....let's pray that if war os brought to iran, that isntreal is destroyed and a global pogrom ensues.

  • STEVE FROM TEXAS Thursday, March 29, 2007

    It's a great article, but the conclusion is way off-base. First, Israel will use nukes if necessary to prevent further technical gains by Iran. Iran suports that research through oil revenues. Stopping Iran means destroying not just its military capability, but its basic infrastructure. That doesn't happen with ground troops; it comes from the kind of shock and awe the Middle East has not yet seen. Whether the US leaves it to Israel, teams with Israel, or does it by itself, and whether only conventional weapons are used, those are the only remaining questions. Yes, there will be economic disaster; Iran is the 4th largest exporter of oil. That's just the cost of not being blackmailed by the insane radicals of the world. It is unfortunate that the actions of those radicals will ruin the future of the moderates in Iran, many of whom would otherwise be potential friends of the West.

  • Non Ignorant American Thursday, March 29, 2007

    Very informative and insightful article. It is nice to be able to read a new and'fresh perspective' then the US media. Let's all hope the US, UK and Iran can resolve this conflict peacefully as war will not be beneficial to any country at this time (not that war is ever desirable). Thanks for the article and keep up the good work.

  • Joshua Thursday, March 29, 2007

    yay war with Iran!!

    send me first! I want to be the one to "off" the new Hitler!

  • Jimmie Martin Thursday, March 29, 2007

    Freemen and women in the cluthes of evil.

    Go bring them home.

    Target the nuke plant in the first wave. Save the camels or you will piss off Peta. Nothing worse than an angry Peta.

  • Bobbie B Thursday, March 29, 2007

    I want a weather report from Tehran. 2000 degrees f and rising! Melt the bastards and the rest of those homicidal third world hell holes. The world ignored Mao and he killed 70 million. Europe ignored Hitler and he killed 60 million. How many of us will we allow the Arabs to kill before we fight back?

    We in the West are probing the outer reaches of the universe and the backward Middle East treats their women like animals and can't assemble a bicycle.

    The US needs to unleash the military we have paid for and melt Mecca, Tehran and the rest of the Islamists killers. The only thing they know is the hammer so let's give it to them.

    They don't know civility and never will.

  • Iranian-American Thursday, March 29, 2007

    If ONLY the United States actually still stood for freedom and accountability in this world. We Iranians would gladly want to see regime change. But the reality is that the United States and its leaders have no moral credibility, and can only bring chaos to the areas they occupy.

  • Dan Sr. Thursday, March 29, 2007

    Saudi Arabia should threaten to dramatically lower the price of oil, which would wreck Iran's economy and foment the ousture of the volatile Iranian president, Ahmadinejad. The mere threat by the Sunni oil sheiks will do more to secure the release of the British sailors from the Shiite clerics than waves of cruise missiles. Right now is an opportune time for the Saudi Royal Family to exercise their economic clout and to prove their friendship with the United Kingdom.

  • g h Thursday, March 29, 2007

    If Iran was truly interested in non aggresive nuclear tech. Then they would comply with the internationally governed iaea. Iran is flexing its ego. They will however only go so far.

  • Juniper Thursday, March 29, 2007

    Interesting video release of the captured spies for Great Britian, I see the female spy has already converted to radial Islam.

  • Middy Randerson Thursday, March 29, 2007

    Interesting report.

    Roy

  • Paul Thursday, March 29, 2007

    It's time. we need to strike Iran's military and pound it back into the 1970's. We should strike their nuclear facilities, navy, airforce, missiles and ground assault vehicles in a shock and awe more awesome than the operation at the beginning of the Iraq war. We need to make clear to the Iranian people that we are not going to occupy their land, but we are going to wipe their military off the face of the earth. They can accept or die.

  • Brian Vallotton Thursday, March 29, 2007

    Bob,

    You must be confused. The American People are not "supreme commanders". They are "voters" and they voted the "Commander in Chief" to be the One who decides ultimately about these kinds of things. You should be grateful that "The Supreme Commanders" are not in charge they would have sold the whole country already for a used car and free cable.

  • Kilroy Thursday, March 29, 2007

    Let's give them what they want. I say we start slow, working into a massive campaign of destruction that puts Iran back 200 years. Don't bother to sent in ground troops, they will get stuck there because DC has no idea of how to win wars.

  • Graham Killarney Thursday, March 29, 2007

    I believe it would be in order for the US to write to Iran stating that irrespective of any action taken against the UAE by Iran the USA would not come to UAE's defense.

  • EDWARD Thursday, March 29, 2007

    Hey Todd I read your post wrong and I apologize sincerely. Forgive me, Edward

  • EDWARD Thursday, March 29, 2007

    Hey todd your an idiot aren't you. Praying to god all day. You and your Iranian brothers are filth and yuo and your smelly Muslim will meet death dick brain

  • EDWARD Thursday, March 29, 2007

    Why right the story if in the last sentence it seems unlikely they will clash. Stupid? last time I read recommended stories? YES. Now go get your shine box!!

  • Patric Vanderbeck Thursday, March 29, 2007

    It is time to go postal on Iran not on the Persian people. Free Iran. We should have invaded Iran rather than Iraq. Those Mullahs are a bunch of pigs. They eat pigs blood.

  • Scott Jensen Wednesday, March 28, 2007

    You are not the only one to live and work in the Gulf. If you think Iran can block the Hormuz entrance with a "couple" of ships sunk there you are foolish. It will take more than Iran has to do the job. If Iran attacks American ships or seamen, the war is ON! We are NOT Brits! Try us! There will be MANY dead Iranians. Let's GO!

  • mike hardiman from US Wednesday, March 28, 2007

    Iran is forcing a confrontation because US/UK is militarily dispersed and politically divided. It is a perfect time for the Iranians to fight and win nuclear concessions and gain popular support among Muslims.

  • Mike Hardiman Wednesday, March 28, 2007

    Iran kidnapped the Brits because it is an excellent time for them to force a confrontation against the US/UK. US/UK military is dispersed and civilian leaders are politically in disarray.

  • Todd Tokarz Wednesday, March 28, 2007

    Western countries no longer want to play by the rules of insane dictators. To my Iranian brothers who choose to confront Western countries: Prepare to die. To those who wish for peace, freedom, and democracy throughout Iran: Your wish shall be granted.

  • Carl Barelli Wednesday, March 28, 2007

    Nice article. I must be used to US news. This report actually appeared to be the product of research and analysis.

    Anyways, back to reading up on Britney Spears and Anna Nicole Smith.

  • Ed Ronin Wednesday, March 28, 2007

    Iran is in the process of martyring itself. Let's go to war and be done with them.

  • Bob Wednesday, March 28, 2007

    The term is "Commander in Chief" not "Supreme Commander". The president reports to the American people who are the "Supreme Commanders".






India eNews Exclusive