As you undoubtedly know, Iran has been increasing its
attacks on international shipping in the Persian Gulf. These attacks can be categorized in one of
two ways:
In either case, the appropriate response, as allowed by
international law and treaty, is, at a minimum, destruction of the attacking
force.
Rather than taking legal, allowable, forceful action, the US
Navy has stood by and watched, doing nothing.
An article by two retired Navy admirals, and others, calls for other
countries to “accept greater responsibility”, whatever that useless phrase
means, as the way to address Iran’s increasing lawlessness.
Rather than calling for other countries to “accept greater
responsibility”, perhaps we should try leading.
If we would exert some force then other countries might be more willing
to contribute resources.
If we want others to follow us, we have to actually lead and
that means taking forceful, effective action.
No one is going to follow a trembling coward.
This mindset, as evidenced by these two admirals, demonstrates
the lack of courage endemic throughout the Navy today.
____________________________
- Acts of war against the victim’s home (flagged) country
- Acts of piracy
In order to convince Tehran to stop its illegal activities in some of the world’s most important sea lanes, determined American leadership is necessary to convince our partners to accept greater responsibility for protecting freedom of navigation.[1]So, rather than take forceful action, the authors would have the Navy beg other countries to do something. What that something might be is left unarticulated.
… the epicenter of US-led naval cooperation in the Middle East, Naval Forces Central Command (NAVCENT), recognizes the need to more effectively encourage and integrate regionwide cooperation, including by leading the Combined Maritime Forces (CMF). This 38-nation partnership includes five task forces addressing freedom of navigation, counterpiracy, counternarcotics, and, most recently, training for partner navies. However, amid this most recent bout of unchecked reprisals from Tehran, the United Arab Emirates suspended its voluntary contribution of maritime assets to CMF task forces.[1]The problem with begging other countries for help is that it sends the clear message that we, far and away the most powerful force in the region, are unable/unwilling to do anything. The result of that is that other countries will wonder why they should contribute resources when the US isn’t willing to take any forceful, productive action. As the authors note,
Despite these admirable efforts, they are apparently insufficient to convince our partners that the United States is fully committed to countering Iranian aggression and, thus, will also be inadequate to deter or deny further Iranian aggression.[1]We’re attempting to substitute group hugs, meetings, and wishful thinking for forceful, effective action. This is why no amount of forward presence can accomplish anything. We could have ten carriers in the Persian Gulf and it wouldn’t deter Iran in the slightest since we clearly won’t take any action. Iran is seizing ships and shooting at others and we merely watch.
[1]Breaking Defense website, “To counter Iran at sea, US
must sell partners on doing more”,Donegan, Miller, Ruhe and Cicurel,
12-Jul-2023,
https://breakingdefense.com/2023/07/to-counter-iran-at-sea-us-must-sell-partners-on-doing-more/
https://breakingdefense.com/2023/07/to-counter-iran-at-sea-us-must-sell-partners-on-doing-more/
We need to re-evaluate the situation from first principles instead of sleepwalking through guaranteeing the security of the Persian Gulf based on a few decades of inertia.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the relative importance of those particular sea lanes to the US and China, in peacetime and in wartime? If consideration shows they are more important to us then them, we need to quit taking half measures and police the place, interdicting and boarding or sinking Iranian ships when they get up to their characteristic shenanigans. If less important to us than them, we need to either immediately withdraw (and let our regional "partners", the two most prominent of which have both been cozying up to China recently, handle security), or to put forth the minimum amount of effort that keeps the locals from stepping up or inviting China to do so such that we can 'pull the rug' once the shooting starts in the Pacific.
Yes, yes, yes!!!! OMG, yes!
DeleteWhat is our strategic imperative for being in the Middle East?
Just as I constantly emphasize CONOPS, this is the equivalent on a strategic level. You can't build a useful ship/aircraft without a valid CONOPS and you can't build a valid geopolitical strategy without a clear understanding of your own strategic imperatives. This is closely related to the 'center of gravity' concept that was popular some years ago. You need to clearly understand your enemy's center(s) of gravity AND YOUR OWN.
Let me expand a bit on your call for a strategic evaluation. If we determine that the Middle East IS of strategic importance, the next question to ask is, 'why'? Presumably, the answer, in large measure, is oil. This leads to the question, 'why are we allowing some location other than the US itself to be strategically important' to us? That creates vulnerability.
Can we reduce the vulnerability by reducing the strategic importance of the Middle East? The answer is YES. We can - and under the previous administration did - achieve energy independence which renders (rendered) the Middle East unimportant and removed any political leverage the countries in the region had. We had energy independence and voluntarily and stupidly gave it up.
There are other aspects of the Middle East that might be of strategic importance, such as the Muslim religious movement, Muslim migration, terrorism concerns (both the birthing and exporting of terrorism), and trade flow of other countries. So the answer may not be as simple as oil although oil is likely the biggest strategic factor.
This is one of the best comments I've seen in quite awhile. Salute to you!
Perhaps you'd care to take the next step and attempt to answer the question you've posed? In your view, what is our strategic imperative in the region, if any?
I think protecting the Persian Gulf is going to stay in our strategic interest for some time. Energy independence is somewhat of a misnomer. The US has always been mostly independent in electricity production, coal, and natural gas because these products have high transportation costs.
DeleteOil has a very low transportation cost and the market is global. And while it is a commodity there are many different grades. While we might produce more oil than we consume, we don't have the right grades. So we export light oil and import heavy oil. And this is good for the economy since refining heavy oil is complex, high value added process that drives a lot of economic activity in the US. If you plug up the Strait of Hormuz then now everyone is competing to buy less oil and the price skyrockets. That will hit everyone's economy hard, and ours harder than most because we consume more oil per capita than about anywhere. You can't just shut down the borders without reconfiguring our infrastructure. And if you did then US producers would not be receiving the price signal to drill more and supply the global market.
I think there is a good chance that our oil demand will start decreasing at a decent clip later this decade because of electrification. In that case we will have the opportunity to shift where oil comes from at relatively low cost. The ideal way to do this is put sanctions on Persian Gulf producers when they inevitably do things we don't like. Then as demand declines you are taking out the Middle East oil first and rendering it a strategic backwater. It will be very difficult for them to maintain their production under sanctions without our technology while they are suffering from low prices. Even if we don't pull off a trick like this lower oil usage per capita will deaden the impact high oil prices might have and make the region less strategic.
I'm not an oil refining expert (which is what we're really referring to when we talk about grades of oil) so I can't assess the degree to which we need heavy oil versus our own capacity to produce it. I do, however, note that we seem to have ample sources of heavy oil in our own hemisphere, without needing to depend on the Middle East. For example, Canada supplies 61% of our oil imports (see, Oil Grades and Imports, for an excellent, brief explanation of oil grades/imports).
DeleteThe referenced article has an excellent graph showing the markedly decreasing trend in oil imports prior to the 2020 election and then the marked rise in imports due to the Biden policies, weakening our strategic vulnerability.
You appear to be promoting the status quo. Other than hoping (hope is generally a poor strategy!) for a decrease in usage, how would you address the issue of strategic vulnerability caused by a dependence on oil from an unstable and unfriendly source?
Your answer to this would also, presumably, apply to our dependence (hence, strategic vulnerability) on rare earths from China.
The imports thing is a blip because of the fall in oil prices due to the Coronavirus. It is back roaring if you look at more recent data.
Deletehttps://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mttntus2&f=m
Exactly, oil import/exports are important for us and the global economy. I don't think we will want to prevent oil from being shipped outside the Western Hemisphere and starve our East Asian allies in the event of a Persian Gulf crisis. We'd let prices rise and drill more here in the US. That would be painful and before we've chosen to try to prevent disruptions. Allowing China more control of those sea lanes just increases their power in East Asia where most of the countries are very reliant on Middle Eastern crude flows.
The market is already sending a very strong signal in favor of increased electric vehicle production because of lower operating costs and consumers like to drive them. The lower operating cost aspect is the main driver for trucks, delivery vans, etc. Then the government has added fuel to that fire with subsidies. Anymore policy changes would risk being very distortionary.
And thankfully the rare earths mining and processing issue is fading because of increased mining in Australia and California. There are new processing plants online or coming online in Malaysia, California, and Texas.
https://mpmaterials.com/what-we-do/
https://thetexan.news/rare-earths-processing-plant-to-open-on-texas-gulf-coast-funded-entirely-by-department-of-defense/
https://lynasrareearths.com
We are lucky that China tries to use export bans for these materials it dominates before we are at war and then the free world redevelops its own resources. Germanium and gallium are the latest examples of this.
https://asiatimes.com/2023/07/how-chinas-gallium-and-germanium-bans-will-play-out/
I can't wait for the day the Middle East is irrelevant. It will come, but will take a few more years. There is historical precedent where Chile and Peru were the source of most of the world's fertilizer (which also was used in weapons manufacturing) and had massive strategic importance. Then the Germans invented the Haber-Bosch ammonia process and a few decades later Chile was irrelevant. We are in the early stages of a similar path.
DeleteI hadn't seen the rare earth processing plant news. Thanks for that link. I note that the California rare earth mine is the only such mine in the US. That presents a huge strategic vulnerability. If that facility were to shut down (sabotage, cyber attack, mechanical failure, regulatory restrictions, etc.) we'd have no domestic source to fall back on. We've seen what happens when a sole - or limited - source is shut down: baby formula shortage, antibiotic shortages, and so on.
DeleteThis is a step in the right direction but still woefully short of where we need to be.
"The imports thing is a blip"
I don't think that graph you linked to is showing what you think it is. It's unclear but I think the 'and petroleum products' refers to finished (refined products) and our exports of finished products makes it look like we're a net exporter of crude oil which appears not to be the case. For example, from an EIA article,
"The United States remained a net crude oil importer in 2022, importing about 6.28 million b/d of crude oil and exporting about 3.60 million b/d."
I could be interpreting this incorrectly since I don't follow the subject closely so feel free to correct me.
The larger point is that we should be ACTIVELY working to reduce our strategic vulnerabilities for all resources.
"The market is already sending a very strong signal in favor of increased electric vehicle production because of..."
DeleteThis is getting beyond the blog scope a bit, but Im going to have to strongly disagree here. Electrification of vehicles is being crammed down our throats by govt and the enviro-lobby. A survey just days old said that 70%+ of those polled have no interest in an EV. The buy-in to EVs is massively more expensive, and the long term economics of them is far from being proven as a positive. Recently a local municipality wanted to buy electric busses. Turns out they cost TWICE as much as a ICE bus, and had HALF the life span. Of course they did it anyway because *GlObAl WaRmInG*, plus it wasnt their money they spent. So yes, sadly the days of the ICE are numbered, but NOT because its feasible or what people want....
*Rant from lifelong classic car guy-over...
"rare earths"
DeleteFor a long time it was about the only rare earth mine in the entire world! Global production has grown a lot since then.
"imports"
If you look at only crude oil we still have net imports but the its the smallest amount its been for a long time. It briefly widened when oil prices fell but production has bounced back now. The only crude vs. products is confusing and people generally use the products numbers.
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_sum_snd_d_nus_mbblpd_m_cur-1.htm
"actively reducing strategic vulnerability"
Yes that would be better, but it is convenient that China is making the rest of the world remove it from some critical supply chains over time.
Jjabatie,
I don't agree with the mandates or subsidies but almost everyone I know that owns an electric car loves it whether they are environmentalists or not. As you point out there is a lot of variance in quality and value right now. A few companies are good at making electric vehicles and are still improving in cost and longevity but most are still struggling. They'll figure it out or go broke, probably.
On oil import and exports in US terms. Its also worth remembering aside grades and the relative locations of and types of refineries in the US - there is price point. A lot US production tends need prices for oil to at least $40 a barrel to be profitable (although $50 was rulel a while back). By comparison the house of Saud and some of the others Gulf states can money at lower prices. Dip in oil prices can drive the smaller US producers to fold up tent stakes.
Delete@Jjabatie
I do believe you off a bit there are a fair amount subsidies available for EV Busses. Operation and 'fuel' costs are lower. and even if you dismiss global warming one need only stand outside on a clear day in Clear LAke a stare at Houston and nice brown layer of air it sits in to see to benefit to you your heath to having cleaner air .
"stand outside on a clear day"
DeleteElectric vehicles are not 'clean'. They just move the point of environmental impact. The battery production and disposal is far from a clean process. There's no such thing as a clean process for anything that's manufactured.
That said, we're not going to engage in environmental discussions. There are other blogs for that. Thank you for your cooperation.
"The market is already sending a very strong signal in favor of increased electric vehicle production"
DeleteThe electric vehicle market has fizzled. People don't want the vehicles. They're overpriced and underperforming. This past winter has demonstrated that batteries and electric power is substantially negatively affected by cold. The EV market has collapsed and manufacturers are hugely dialing back their production and publicly acknowledging that they greatly overestimated the demand.
Another reason to criticize current US foreign policy towards Russia: Russian support was critical in helping the US isolate Iran from foreign support, reducing the damage that rogue nation caused. Now? In treating Russia like another rogue nation, we made it so Russia has nothing to lose from supporting Iran, so Russia did just that.
ReplyDeleteSaudi Arabia? Another nation whose support was critical to our efforts to isolate Iran, is also one our current president swore to turn into a pariah. The result is Saudi Arabia normalized relations with Iran- a peace that China brokered, meaning the Chinese will benefit from improved relations with BOTH NATIONS- as the Saudis no longer believe close relations with the US will benefit them.
Our State Department is unbelievably dysfunctional. We're running out of friends and allies as a direct result.
While I agree that State is dysfunctional, how else should we treat Russia?? Theyve invaded a sovereign neighbor! Thats pretty rogue-ish... And whether Iran has their support or not, Iran could cease to be an international problem in a few hours if we had the backbone to lead in the region. The notion of conventional deterrence clearly fails in the Gulf (as well as anywhere else, until you place undeniably overwhelming force on someones coast and they believe, without doubt, youll use it).
DeleteOnce again, as we have many times since WWII, we find ourselves having to choose lesser evils. Saudi Arabia is no democratic pillar, but they're a regional stabilizer vs Iran, and its better that theyre our friend than the Chinese. Seems we've thrown that away though. So frankly, to return some stability, regain the trust of our friends in the region, and regain our credibility, its likely about time for "Preying Mantis II", but on a grander, more strategic, and more nationally crippling scale. Maybe the Israelis would like to coordinate, and do some landscaping at the Iranian nuclear sites as well...
America could have prevented the Ukraine war by settling things in the region in a less-threatening-to-Russia way (no regime change, neutrality status, borders that actually make sense, you name it).
DeleteRegardless of whether you think that'd be right, the current path has really cemented the Russia-China alliance, which will make dealing with China way harder.
There's no going back now, of course, but it didn't have to be this way.
Let's not drift too far into pure politics, please. Thank you.
DeleteApologies if I led it that way CNO... But long story short- I think now is the perfect time to read tomorrows headlines that allude to your "Gunboat Diplomacy" story having become reality...
Delete"I think now is the perfect time to read tomorrows headlines that allude to your "Gunboat Diplomacy" story having become reality..."
DeleteThe necessity for some type of action along those lines seems self-evident and yet the US chooses passive appeasement. We have lost out national aggressiveness which allowed us to form and grow this country and to resist threats to it. We have become feminized in a world that does not reward feminism as a survival trait.
..."God runs the Kingdom of Heaven. The kingdoms of Earth run on oil"...I just finished a book about Thomas Jefferson and the Tripoli pirates. Of all nations, the young US was the only one to face them down. With mistakes and disasters to be sure. The crowning moment was the march from Egypt to institute a regime change with a new pretender, a few hundred of his motley supporters and exactly eight United States Marines. It worked, and the young US prestige rose markedly among the other nations. Times have changed.
ReplyDeleteYesterday I saw that we're sending more forces to the Persian Gulf. https://news.usni.org/2023/07/20/u-s-sending-marines-more-warships-to-middle-east-over-iranian-threats
ReplyDeleteI really don't get the point of this. We've continually shown that there is pretty much nothing Iran can do on the water that will garner a military response. Sending more forces is inconsequential if there is no will to use them.
Furthermore, I fail to see why we'd need more forces in that region. The 5th Fleet has the smallest responsible area of any fleet. Sending more forces there seems to signal that we didn't have enough already. What is the point of headquartering the 5th Fleet in Bahrain if there aren't enough forces there to deal with the most likely problem, which is Iranian acts of piracy.
In addition, the forces sent (amphibious warships, marines) don't counter the threat. We know we're not going to invade Iran, and so does Iran. Sending forces designed for invasion does little more than create additional targets and waste money.
-Huskers1995
Off top, I apologise, does anyone know much about newly appointed Admiral Lisa Franchetti? Her Wiki cv looks impressive.
ReplyDeleteReally? I find it quite pedestrian. Her assignments seem to largely revolve around training and planning. 'Jumboization'??? Most of her experience seems to be 'make work' type of assignments with little combat-relevant experience (admittedly, a difficult thing to come by in today's Navy).
DeleteWorse, I don't believe she's qualified or has earned her positions. That's the dark side of preferences and quotas. It casts doubt on the accomplishments of all women. Did they earn their positions or simply get 'quota'ed' into them? Given the rampant preferential treatment accorded women in the Navy, it's hard to have faith that she earned anything.
I am pretty certain the the only selection consideration was that she was a woman, but she would be hard pressed to be worse than her immediate predecessors. I doubt she will be.
DeleteThanks for the reply, May be I misread, she appeared to have actually commanded a ship.
ReplyDeleteShe did - the Ross. I've been unable to find out what sea duty she had. We've seen more and more examples of officers having a ship command tour and never putting to sea! The rest of her bio seems awfully ordinary and non-combat.
DeleteMy larger is doubt is that whether she actually earned any of her career or whether she just got placed into positions to satisfy a desire for a woman, any woman, to hold a particular position. Consider her bio and the position of CNO. CNO should be the greatest, most combat-qualified officer in the entire Navy. That doesn't sound like her resume. It sounds like the Biden admin wanting a woman, any woman, to fill the CNO for political points. That's exactly how VP Harris was chosen for her position.
"CNO should be the greatest, most combat-qualified officer in the entire Navy."
DeleteDo you have a previous blog post about this? Combat-qualified, at first glance, does not seem to require actual combat experience. Can DOPMA hinder the formation of a combat-qualified officer? At the rate things are going, pretty much only the Special Warfare folks (e.g., SEALs) and maybe EODs have combat experience.
"pretty much only the Special Warfare folks (e.g., SEALs) and maybe EODs have combat experience."
DeleteSince we haven't had a naval shooting war in quite some time, there are no actual combat veterans among the surface warfare officers. However, there are officers who have had relevant combat-related assignments such as multiple combat ship commands, strategic/doctrinal/tactical planning, staff work involving combat operations and support, and so on. In contrast, Franchetti's resume seems heavy on logistics, naval academy work, training, 'jumboization' (whatever that is), and minor staff work.
There's nothing wrong with her resume but is 'nothing wrong' really the standard for the CNO? Is there truly no officer in the entire Navy with a better resume? One has to wonder if her gender is her main qualification.
"Franchetti's resume seems heavy on logistics,"
DeleteStruggling to find a silver lining here, could the focus on logistics possibly mean that she recognizes that logistics (which will be contested) is critical to success in any fight with China and that all that fuel and munitions won't just magically show up where needed near the first or second island chains?
"could the focus on logistics possibly mean that she recognizes that logistics (which will be contested) is critical to success"
DeleteIt might mean that if she sought out those assignments. However, it undoubtedly means she wasn't deemed worthy of 'better' assignments and was shuffled off to logistics, training, and jumboization. As you know, the Navy doesn't value logistics at all and such an assignment would be viewed as a second tier assignment, at best.
"In terms of Iranian actions."
DeleteThis is not a political blog. Thanks for your cooperation.
Thanks for the reply
ReplyDeleteTo correct the admirals' referenced comment, "In order to convince Tehran to stop its illegal activities in some of the world’s most important sea lanes, the US Navy needs to start blowing the Iranian units that engage in such activities out of the water."
ReplyDelete