4 ms·

Given that Iran can easily cripple the world economy by scuttling some ships and blocking the Straits of Hormuz, I don't think we'll see any such attack.

jafl5272 16y ago
Somebody would surely find a way to spin that into an act of war, clear out the scuttled ships, and invade Iran.
- MichaelSalib 16y ago
  I don't think Iran would do that unless there was already an invasion of Iran underway. And while it might be possible to clear the scuttled ships, it would be extremely difficult and take months, if not years. That would be months or years in which oil supply from not only Iran but Iraq, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia would be choked off. That would be crippling to the world economy.
  - jarek 16y ago
    Just wondering -- wouldn't a couple (or a couple dozen) of well-placed explosive charges disintegrate the ships into small enough pieces and clear the way? Can you expand on the difficulties? It doesn't seem to a layman like it'd be that challenging or take that long. (Then again, I realize little does.)
philwelch 16y ago
They'd have to be quick--it would take time for them to scuttle those ships, and they wouldn't go unnoticed since we almost always have a carrier battle group in the Gulf anyway (plus, who can really keep a secret anyway?). The US Navy continually operates to protect freedom of navigation--they'd prevent any scuttling operations there by any means necessary, considering the stakes.
- MichaelSalib 16y ago
  Um, Iranian supertankers transit the Strait every day. If one of them stopped and went boom, how exactly would the US Navy stop it? Does the Navy have a remote supertanker hull sealing technology that we don't know about? I mean, once the explosion happens and the boat begins to sink, what practical steps do you think the Navy can take at that point?
  - philwelch 16y ago
    Would one supertanker really do it? Because once the first one goes, you'd have a pretty rapid response before they can get others anywhere near.
    - MichaelSalib 16y ago
      Probably not, but I'd guess even one supertanker would be more effective than one might expect. We're talking about vessels that are nearly half a kilometer long. Note that the tankers transiting the Strait have very limited maneuverability; it is difficult to turn on a dime when you're carrying half a million tons of cargo. Moreover, tanker captains are a very conservative lot: they will be reluctant to make a transit even if there is room if there are not sufficient margins of error for fear of further jamming the channel.
hga 16y ago
The Strait is 33 miles / 54 kilometers wide at it's most narrow point, I'm hard pressed to imagine that the navigable part of it is narrow enough to close that way. I've always heard that Iran's plans would involve the usual tools like missiles, mines, small boats, etc., all of which have obvious counters. I'm not saying it would be a cakewalk, and not even considering how things would change when they go nuclear, but "easily" doesn't strike me as accurate. There's also the minor detail that they import over open water 1/2 of their petroleum distillates, a naval war in that area would bring their economy to a near halt. Drop a few bombs on their only refinery (I've read they have only one, but whatever the number, it's small enough for us and their neighbors to take out) and their country reverts to a pre-industrialized state with mass starvation. Iran is exquisitely vulnerable, which is certainly one of their reasons for pursuing the bomb (and one reason they might continue even after a regime change).
- MichaelSalib 16y ago
  The Strait is 33 miles / 54 kilometers wide at it's most narrow point, I'm hard pressed to imagine that the navigable part of it is narrow enough to close that way. True, but the actual channel through which supertankers navigate is only 6 miles wide (two miles for each direction of traffic with a two mile gutter to separate). The rest of the channel at that point is either within Iranian territorial waters or too shallow for supertankers to safely transit. I've always heard that Iran's plans would involve the usual tools like missiles, mines, small boats, etc., all of which have obvious counters. I'm not saying it would be a cakewalk, and not even considering how things would change when they go nuclear, but "easily" doesn't strike me as accurate. Oh, I very much agree with you. I'm sure Iran would follow through on all those options before they did something as difficult to undo as scuttling tankers to block the Strait. There's also the minor detail that they import over open water 1/2 of their petroleum distillates, a naval war in that area would bring their economy to a near halt. Drop a few bombs on their only refinery (I've read they have only one, but whatever the number, it's small enough for us and their neighbors to take out) and their country reverts to a pre-industrialized state with mass starvation. Yeah, that would be awful for them. But given the low elasticity for gasoline consumption, cutting off 40% of daily oil flow would be an economic disaster for us. Businesses would grind to a halt as tens of millions of people would no longer be able to afford to go to work. For starters. Iran is exquisitely vulnerable, which is certainly one of their reasons for pursuing the bomb (and one reason they might continue even after a regime change). Absolutely. But the entire industrialized world is also vulnerable. And if we start a conflict and do take out Iran's sole refinery while blockading them to prevent them from getting refined products, they will have every incentive to block the Strait. Right?

jafl5272 16y ago

Somebody would surely find a way to spin that into an act of war, clear out the scuttled ships, and invade Iran.

MichaelSalib 16y ago
I don't think Iran would do that unless there was already an invasion of Iran underway. And while it might be possible to clear the scuttled ships, it would be extremely difficult and take months, if not years. That would be months or years in which oil supply from not only Iran but Iraq, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia would be choked off. That would be crippling to the world economy.
- jarek 16y ago
  Just wondering -- wouldn't a couple (or a couple dozen) of well-placed explosive charges disintegrate the ships into small enough pieces and clear the way? Can you expand on the difficulties? It doesn't seem to a layman like it'd be that challenging or take that long. (Then again, I realize little does.)

philwelch 16y ago

They'd have to be quick--it would take time for them to scuttle those ships, and they wouldn't go unnoticed since we almost always have a carrier battle group in the Gulf anyway (plus, who can really keep a secret anyway?). The US Navy continually operates to protect freedom of navigation--they'd prevent any scuttling operations there by any means necessary, considering the stakes.

MichaelSalib 16y ago
Um, Iranian supertankers transit the Strait every day. If one of them stopped and went boom, how exactly would the US Navy stop it? Does the Navy have a remote supertanker hull sealing technology that we don't know about? I mean, once the explosion happens and the boat begins to sink, what practical steps do you think the Navy can take at that point?
- philwelch 16y ago
  Would one supertanker really do it? Because once the first one goes, you'd have a pretty rapid response before they can get others anywhere near.
  - MichaelSalib 16y ago
    Probably not, but I'd guess even one supertanker would be more effective than one might expect. We're talking about vessels that are nearly half a kilometer long. Note that the tankers transiting the Strait have very limited maneuverability; it is difficult to turn on a dime when you're carrying half a million tons of cargo. Moreover, tanker captains are a very conservative lot: they will be reluctant to make a transit even if there is room if there are not sufficient margins of error for fear of further jamming the channel.

hga 16y ago

The Strait is 33 miles / 54 kilometers wide at it's most narrow point, I'm hard pressed to imagine that the navigable part of it is narrow enough to close that way. I've always heard that Iran's plans would involve the usual tools like missiles, mines, small boats, etc., all of which have obvious counters. I'm not saying it would be a cakewalk, and not even considering how things would change when they go nuclear, but "easily" doesn't strike me as accurate. There's also the minor detail that they import over open water 1/2 of their petroleum distillates, a naval war in that area would bring their economy to a near halt. Drop a few bombs on their only refinery (I've read they have only one, but whatever the number, it's small enough for us and their neighbors to take out) and their country reverts to a pre-industrialized state with mass starvation. Iran is exquisitely vulnerable, which is certainly one of their reasons for pursuing the bomb (and one reason they might continue even after a regime change).

MichaelSalib 16y ago
The Strait is 33 miles / 54 kilometers wide at it's most narrow point, I'm hard pressed to imagine that the navigable part of it is narrow enough to close that way. True, but the actual channel through which supertankers navigate is only 6 miles wide (two miles for each direction of traffic with a two mile gutter to separate). The rest of the channel at that point is either within Iranian territorial waters or too shallow for supertankers to safely transit. I've always heard that Iran's plans would involve the usual tools like missiles, mines, small boats, etc., all of which have obvious counters. I'm not saying it would be a cakewalk, and not even considering how things would change when they go nuclear, but "easily" doesn't strike me as accurate. Oh, I very much agree with you. I'm sure Iran would follow through on all those options before they did something as difficult to undo as scuttling tankers to block the Strait. There's also the minor detail that they import over open water 1/2 of their petroleum distillates, a naval war in that area would bring their economy to a near halt. Drop a few bombs on their only refinery (I've read they have only one, but whatever the number, it's small enough for us and their neighbors to take out) and their country reverts to a pre-industrialized state with mass starvation. Yeah, that would be awful for them. But given the low elasticity for gasoline consumption, cutting off 40% of daily oil flow would be an economic disaster for us. Businesses would grind to a halt as tens of millions of people would no longer be able to afford to go to work. For starters. Iran is exquisitely vulnerable, which is certainly one of their reasons for pursuing the bomb (and one reason they might continue even after a regime change). Absolutely. But the entire industrialized world is also vulnerable. And if we start a conflict and do take out Iran's sole refinery while blockading them to prevent them from getting refined products, they will have every incentive to block the Strait. Right?